Did she jump, or was she pushed? This is the big question this morning surrounding the decision by Caroline Kennedy to withdraw herself from the running for the vacant US Senate seat. The NY Times is pushing the voluntary withdrawal theme: "Caroline Kennedy announced early Thursday that she was withdrawing from consideration for the vacant Senate seat in New York, startling the state’s political world after weeks in which she was considered a top contender for the post. Ms. Kennedy on Wednesday called Gov. David A. Paterson, who will choose a successor to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, to inform him that she was no longer interested."
On the other hand, the NY Post sees her withdrawal as a face saving measure-coming after the governor privately let it be known that he wasn't going to be selecting the Princess of Camelot: "While she cited "personal reasons," which some said was about the Massachusetts senator, others said she made her move after it became clear Paterson likely wasn't going to pick her. Several sources said the governor, who has sole power to replace Clinton, was unimpressed with how the daughter of John F. Kennedy handled media interviews and private sessions with various officials. Three sources said Paterson had conveyed to Kennedy on Tuesday that she wasn't likely to get picked."
Whatever the reason, and the speculation will continue for a good long time, her leaving is welcome in this corner. Rarely has someone so unqualified for an office been hyped with such undeserved encomiums; and the fact that Kennedy was being pushed from behind the scenes by that great populist Michael Bloomberg, only added to the egregiousness of the entire effort. The NY Daily News underscores this: "An intensely private person with no experience in public office, Kennedy shocked New York political circles when she first threw her name into the ring about six weeks ago with the backing of Mayor Bloomberg and his political deputy, Kevin Sheekey. But she endured a rough public rollout, including an ill-received upstate swing and a round of heavily criticized media interviews."
All of this last minute scrambling serves to further paint the governor in an unflattering light-bumbling along with no clear direction. As the Times points out: "The Paterson administration scrambled to respond to the news, providing contradictory answers to reporters’ questions. Just before 7 p.m. Wednesday, Errol Cockfield, Mr. Paterson’s press secretary, said the governor had dismissed reports that Ms. Kennedy was withdrawing as “just the rumor of the day.” More than an hour later, Mr. Cockfield asked that that statement not be published, and suggested that more information would be provided by the governor’s office. But neither he nor the governor’s communications director, Risa B. Heller, would respond to further questions about Ms. Kennedy."
Let's hope that this is all misdirection-and that the withdrawal was purely a face saving for the Kennedys; because, it is our belief that both New York and its governor are better off this morning-and by all means let's take Michael Daley's advice and appoint Kennedy New York's "special envoy," whatever that means. Daley feels that we need to have someone who can help our state get into the good graces of the new president: "Maybe our mayor can now make her a kind of special city envoy to Washington in these difficult times ahead. She will still have a deep connection with our new President, one of whose daughters now sleeps in Caroline's old room at the White House. Obama has repeatedly spoken of his deep connection with Caroline, his admiration not just for her family but also for her as a writer and an advocate and a mother. His feelings for New York are not so glowing, unless they have brightened considerably since he lived here."
Oh, why not? She really belongs in the world of special-$1 dollar a year-ambassadors; and can we now stop hearing the following phony obeisance to the royal princess? "Now that he has been elected, she shows him a different New York, one of wealth with responsibility, of those who seek to bridge the divides of class and race. On her part, she recognized in Obama her father's spirit. She ventured from a life of carefully tended privacy with the hope of joining this Newest Frontier. Her father's inaugural address told us to ask what we can do for our country."
Is Daley writing this himself? New York, like all of the states of the union, needs the help of the federal government-and has good representatives who have been elected to go get that for us. On the other hand, we also need a healthy dose of self reliance; and we need leaders to make the tough choices that will lead to fiscal solvency and a stronger state government.
If David Paterson himself pulled the plug on the Princess Diaries, it is indicative of an independence of will that may very well stand New York in good stead in the challenges ahead. Leadership is about making tough choices, and the decision to jettison Caroline-if that is what in fact it was, is a sign of strong leadership.
Paterson should clarify this when he announces his choice this Saturday. New Yorkers will respond to someone who resists the toffs and the swells, and makes his choice based, not on connections and celebrity, but on experience and proven ability.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
NYPIRG: Enemy of New York's Store Owners
We have watched the NY Public Interest Research Group in action for close to thirty years; and in that time have never seen the group advocate any public policy that would benefit business. Apparently business and the public interest are mutually exclusive-which tells us a lot about the group's world view. The world view in question is highlighted by NYPIRG's zealous advocacy of the expansion of the bottle bill-and its equally zealous opposition to any proposal to take the containers out of the retail outlets.
Of course, the group's mindset is not only hostile to local businesses, it is at the same time ignorant of basic economics that could better inform their policy positions-making them less subject to ridicule. Here's NYPIRG refuting an industry "myth: "
"MYTH: The Bigger Better Bottle Bill will increase beverage costs by 15 cents a bottle.
FACT: The beverage companies are exaggerating the costs of the bottle bill. The beverage companies are threatening to increase the cost of beverages by 15 cents per bottle if the Bigger Better Bottle Bill is passed. Five cents of this is a completely refundable deposit – an upfront cost that consumers can get back when they return their empty container. Of the other 10 cents, a few pennies are for the handling fee (1.5 cents additional handling fee for beer and soda, 3.5 cents new handling fee for non-carbonated beverages); the remaining 6.5-8.5 cents are “mystery costs” that the beverage companies have so far not explained or accounted for. Prices for bottled water and other beverages are already quite elastic; there is no basis for the industry’s claims that a small increase in the cost will impact sales."
To start off, if beverage companies are saying that an expansion of the bottle bill will increase prices by 15 cents per container, that supposition has nothing to do with the deposit; costs come from elsewhere and they remain a "mystery" only to NYPIRG. Unlike beer and soda, added containers under expansion come from product that is not store door delivered-water and juices are delivered with other groceries from food distribution warehouses. Empty containers can't be simply loaded onto delivery trucks for back haul. And, by the by, this extra handling-along with back room processing for recycling, is not cost free.
And for those of us who were present at the creation, so to speak, we can remember how beer and soda prices skyrocketed after the bottle bill first passed in 1981. All of this is certainly a mystery to NYPIRG. And all this is without the escheating of the unredeemed deposits-money that is currently being used to defray redemption costs. It is telling that bottle bill expanders never give a thought to using the unredeemed deposits-if they were escheated and could actually be found-to help defray retailer costs. No, they simply want to abscond with the funds for their own pet uses, and the customer be damned.
But NYPIRG is also strangely silent about how the expansion would escalate the cost of doing business at retail; apparently, this isn't one of the "myths" propagated by greedy business owners. But the group does have a strange view of the provision in the legislation that would reduce the redemption requirements for store owners located in NYC near redemption centers, saying that the provision: "Reduces the number of bottles and cans that retailers in New York City must redeem if there is a redemption center nearby. This provides a powerful incentive for NYC retailers to assist in the establishment of new redemption centers. Lowers the takeback requirements for bodegas and other small stores. Allows all other retailers in NYC to accommodate high-volume returns during the window of time that is most convenient for them."
This is kind of like a community benefit agreement for a project that has no community benefit. And, even supposing that a retailer was willing to expend the resources, "to assist in the establishment of new redemption centers," what would that do to the cost of beverages-and the profitability of inner city supermarkets that are rapidly disappearing?
And what about the reduced selling space for markets that are already cramped? NYPIRG remains silent here as well, unconcerned as it is about the fate of local food stores. Which leads us full circle. NYPIRG represents a view of the public interest that relegates business to a kind of ignominious nether world. In the group's view, advocating for those interests that create jobs and generate tax revenues, is part of a selfishness that should be eschewed; in favor of policies that will make stores and other businesses less productive as economic engines and job creators.
Of course, the group's mindset is not only hostile to local businesses, it is at the same time ignorant of basic economics that could better inform their policy positions-making them less subject to ridicule. Here's NYPIRG refuting an industry "myth: "
"MYTH: The Bigger Better Bottle Bill will increase beverage costs by 15 cents a bottle.
FACT: The beverage companies are exaggerating the costs of the bottle bill. The beverage companies are threatening to increase the cost of beverages by 15 cents per bottle if the Bigger Better Bottle Bill is passed. Five cents of this is a completely refundable deposit – an upfront cost that consumers can get back when they return their empty container. Of the other 10 cents, a few pennies are for the handling fee (1.5 cents additional handling fee for beer and soda, 3.5 cents new handling fee for non-carbonated beverages); the remaining 6.5-8.5 cents are “mystery costs” that the beverage companies have so far not explained or accounted for. Prices for bottled water and other beverages are already quite elastic; there is no basis for the industry’s claims that a small increase in the cost will impact sales."
To start off, if beverage companies are saying that an expansion of the bottle bill will increase prices by 15 cents per container, that supposition has nothing to do with the deposit; costs come from elsewhere and they remain a "mystery" only to NYPIRG. Unlike beer and soda, added containers under expansion come from product that is not store door delivered-water and juices are delivered with other groceries from food distribution warehouses. Empty containers can't be simply loaded onto delivery trucks for back haul. And, by the by, this extra handling-along with back room processing for recycling, is not cost free.
And for those of us who were present at the creation, so to speak, we can remember how beer and soda prices skyrocketed after the bottle bill first passed in 1981. All of this is certainly a mystery to NYPIRG. And all this is without the escheating of the unredeemed deposits-money that is currently being used to defray redemption costs. It is telling that bottle bill expanders never give a thought to using the unredeemed deposits-if they were escheated and could actually be found-to help defray retailer costs. No, they simply want to abscond with the funds for their own pet uses, and the customer be damned.
But NYPIRG is also strangely silent about how the expansion would escalate the cost of doing business at retail; apparently, this isn't one of the "myths" propagated by greedy business owners. But the group does have a strange view of the provision in the legislation that would reduce the redemption requirements for store owners located in NYC near redemption centers, saying that the provision: "Reduces the number of bottles and cans that retailers in New York City must redeem if there is a redemption center nearby. This provides a powerful incentive for NYC retailers to assist in the establishment of new redemption centers. Lowers the takeback requirements for bodegas and other small stores. Allows all other retailers in NYC to accommodate high-volume returns during the window of time that is most convenient for them."
This is kind of like a community benefit agreement for a project that has no community benefit. And, even supposing that a retailer was willing to expend the resources, "to assist in the establishment of new redemption centers," what would that do to the cost of beverages-and the profitability of inner city supermarkets that are rapidly disappearing?
And what about the reduced selling space for markets that are already cramped? NYPIRG remains silent here as well, unconcerned as it is about the fate of local food stores. Which leads us full circle. NYPIRG represents a view of the public interest that relegates business to a kind of ignominious nether world. In the group's view, advocating for those interests that create jobs and generate tax revenues, is part of a selfishness that should be eschewed; in favor of policies that will make stores and other businesses less productive as economic engines and job creators.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Bloomberg's Amour Propre
Leave it to Mike Bloomberg to make an MLK celebration all about something even more important-himself. As the NY Daily News reports: "At a breakfast honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. on the eve of the inauguration of the nation's first black President, Mayor Bloomberg lavished his grandest praise on himself. "We still have a long ways to go, but I'm happy to say I think the clouds are starting to part since the state Legislature granted us control of the school system in 2002," the mayor said, invoking the "clouds of inferiority" that King worried were discouraging black children."
Nothing has ever apparently clouded the perspective of NY's mayor-our own ray of sunshine who expects us all to bask in the light of his considerable self importance. That being said, the mayoral accomplishments in our local schools is not an area that should at any point evoke images of Dr. King-especially from an elected official whose rhetoric has never brought the great civil rights leader to mind.
We will, however, give Mike Bloomberg some credit for the attempt; while having to point out that the results are a bit less than stellar. The mayor told his Harlem audience: "For too many years, those clouds hung over our public education system, which failed to serve generations of children. ... We just don't accept failure anymore, and we aren't giving up on a single child." This is, of course, rhetorical flatulence.
The city school system is simply another policy arena where the gap between the mayor's pronouncements and the achievements of our students looms quite cavernous. And those folks in the know will unavoidably find the mayor's self promotion jarring: "It's really unfair to kids of color in the city who, when you look at the facts behind the spin, you don't necessarily see these gains," said Patrick Sullivan, who represents Manhattan on the city's education policy board. "I think it's sad that he's running for reelection and has to spin the facts."
So it appears that the upcoming city election cycle will be a battle between the two Bloomberg's-the one who's a legend in his own mind; and the actual mayor who hasn't done nearly enough for the prohibition on three terms to have been so unceremoniously lifted. Or, in other words, "will the real Mike Bloomberg please stand up!"
Nothing has ever apparently clouded the perspective of NY's mayor-our own ray of sunshine who expects us all to bask in the light of his considerable self importance. That being said, the mayoral accomplishments in our local schools is not an area that should at any point evoke images of Dr. King-especially from an elected official whose rhetoric has never brought the great civil rights leader to mind.
We will, however, give Mike Bloomberg some credit for the attempt; while having to point out that the results are a bit less than stellar. The mayor told his Harlem audience: "For too many years, those clouds hung over our public education system, which failed to serve generations of children. ... We just don't accept failure anymore, and we aren't giving up on a single child." This is, of course, rhetorical flatulence.
The city school system is simply another policy arena where the gap between the mayor's pronouncements and the achievements of our students looms quite cavernous. And those folks in the know will unavoidably find the mayor's self promotion jarring: "It's really unfair to kids of color in the city who, when you look at the facts behind the spin, you don't necessarily see these gains," said Patrick Sullivan, who represents Manhattan on the city's education policy board. "I think it's sad that he's running for reelection and has to spin the facts."
So it appears that the upcoming city election cycle will be a battle between the two Bloomberg's-the one who's a legend in his own mind; and the actual mayor who hasn't done nearly enough for the prohibition on three terms to have been so unceremoniously lifted. Or, in other words, "will the real Mike Bloomberg please stand up!"
DEP: What a Waste!
It appears that the vaunted DEP study of the impact of commercial food waste disposers has been completed-although the agency has been quite reticent at trumpeting the results. Luckily, we have gotten some advanced news on the study's details. They are, as we predicted, almost three years ago, totally unremarkable in their self serving dishonesty. The $1million study "found" that fwds would have a "cataclysmic" impact on the sewer system; even though it did survey ten other cities were the technology is permitted, and no such dire impacts have ever been found.
Not much of a surprise; as we said in August, 2006:
"Given the DEP's publicly expressed hostility to the use of the device it makes no sense for the council to give the agency carte blanche. After all, in a letter to the sponsors of Intro 133 Commissioner Lloyd, obviously vying for a Noble Prize in Science, claimed that she had a more "scientific" method to study fwds than an empirically grounded pilot program. How will the agency sponsored study go beyond this expressed bias? Keep in mind that the Council mandated commercial waste study not only never bothered to include an evaluation if fwds, it also concluded that the clustering of transfer stations in certain neighborhoods had no negative impact on those communities. The study was ignored by all in the adoption of the SWMP."
So the Bloombergistas gave a take home exam on food waste disposers and, not content with the advantage, had their own biased folks mark the test. What's funny here is that the DEP study determined that, if only 5,000 food establishments installed disposers, it would cost the city/DEP $5 billion-or $1,000,000 per disposer. Three years ago, the agency claimed it would cost only $3 billion to adapt to commercial food waste disposers. Even adjusting for inflation, one senses that the DEP is simply pulling figures out of its tuchis. How credible is this sort of analysis?
As believable as your last month's water bill. Remember, this is the same DEP that has so much arrearage that even a collection agency is stymied. As the NY Times has reported: “We are working very hard to address that and hopefully, over time, improved collections will have a moderating effect on rate increases, but the needs of the system still dictate an increase of this magnitude,” said Anne Canty, deputy commissioner of the city’s Department of Environmental Protection, which runs the water system. “That’s not to say that we are not pursuing outstanding accounts receivable. We are.” Ms. Canty said that overdue accounts had dropped to $580 million from $610 million, and that significant progress had been made in collecting long-overdue bills."
The Times has been spot on with its exposure of the agency's malfeasance. As it pointed out: "After The New York Times reported in December 2006 that the city had failed to collect millions of dollars in overdue water bills, in large part because of poor bookkeeping, the city hired a consultant to find ways to get tough with deadbeat property owners. City water officials have made some progress in reforming the collection process. Mr. Thompson said that he was concerned that many other city agencies were also delinquent in their water bills, and that he had called on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to conduct a citywide review."
One reason the DEP has trouble collecting, is that it can't easily defend the rationale behind many of its bills. Without the ability to defend the bills' veracity there is no way that a collection process could survive a court challenge. For a number of years we represented the Water Group, a consulting firm that used its superior expertise to help businesses challenge erroneous water bills. It helped Columbia Presbyterian, for instance, resolve a multi-million arrearage that neither the hospital's finance director nor the DEP could justify."
As we remarked in April of 2007:
What all of this makes clear, is that the DEP is structurally incapable of being fiscally responsible. This means that all of its fiscal projections need to be taken lightly and we would suggest that the city put the agency into a form of receivership so that it can be restructured(along with the installation of competent management). Its keystone kops approach to billing would indicate that that agency should be run by Harold Lloyd and not Emily Lloyd.
The DEP study also apparently failed to address the potential benefits that the use of disposers could have for local supermarkets-something that a pilot program would have been certainly able to do with clarity. As we pointed out last May:
In all of our discussions about the disappearance of so many of our local supermarkets, the one major point we have emphasized is the high cost of doing business in NYC-from real estate taxes and burdensome regulations, to high rents and attendant operating costs. One of these high costs is the disposal of supermarket waste.Since the rules on garbage disposal were changed in 2003, the private carters are able to charge higher fees for "wet waste," the produce and vegetable matter that weighs more to truck away and dispose of in landfills. That the city wants us all to consume more of this produce-adding to the market costs-only adds to the irony of the situation.There is, however, a realistic alternative to this disposal problem: the use of food waste disposers.
Nor does the DEP address the benefits to neighborhood ecology-in a city where rats roam with apparent impunity. City Room's Sewall Chan has done the reporting on this: "In an 11-page research paper [pdf] financed by the pest-control industry, the two men looked at 32 large American cities and concluded that New York is the city most at risk of rodent infestations. (Some reports have described this as a “rat attack.”
Disposers would dramatically reduce the extant food waste that attracts these vermin-yet it appears that the DEP has elided any substantive discussion of this benefit. Instead, the agency has wasted time and money in a self serving effort to prevent the implementation of a promising technology, one that could help supermarkets and green grocers to become more profitable while enabling neighborhoods to become more environmentally friendly.
With supermarkets disappearing, and the city intent on providing neighborhoods with better access to fruits and vegetables, it is time to alleviate the DEP of any deep thinking on this important question-and move swiftly towards the implementation of a disposer pilot. The reality is that there is nothing that comes out of this agency that can be believed, and until it is overhauled more responsible folks should be put in charge of this crucial waste disposal question.
Not much of a surprise; as we said in August, 2006:
"Given the DEP's publicly expressed hostility to the use of the device it makes no sense for the council to give the agency carte blanche. After all, in a letter to the sponsors of Intro 133 Commissioner Lloyd, obviously vying for a Noble Prize in Science, claimed that she had a more "scientific" method to study fwds than an empirically grounded pilot program. How will the agency sponsored study go beyond this expressed bias? Keep in mind that the Council mandated commercial waste study not only never bothered to include an evaluation if fwds, it also concluded that the clustering of transfer stations in certain neighborhoods had no negative impact on those communities. The study was ignored by all in the adoption of the SWMP."
So the Bloombergistas gave a take home exam on food waste disposers and, not content with the advantage, had their own biased folks mark the test. What's funny here is that the DEP study determined that, if only 5,000 food establishments installed disposers, it would cost the city/DEP $5 billion-or $1,000,000 per disposer. Three years ago, the agency claimed it would cost only $3 billion to adapt to commercial food waste disposers. Even adjusting for inflation, one senses that the DEP is simply pulling figures out of its tuchis. How credible is this sort of analysis?
As believable as your last month's water bill. Remember, this is the same DEP that has so much arrearage that even a collection agency is stymied. As the NY Times has reported: “We are working very hard to address that and hopefully, over time, improved collections will have a moderating effect on rate increases, but the needs of the system still dictate an increase of this magnitude,” said Anne Canty, deputy commissioner of the city’s Department of Environmental Protection, which runs the water system. “That’s not to say that we are not pursuing outstanding accounts receivable. We are.” Ms. Canty said that overdue accounts had dropped to $580 million from $610 million, and that significant progress had been made in collecting long-overdue bills."
The Times has been spot on with its exposure of the agency's malfeasance. As it pointed out: "After The New York Times reported in December 2006 that the city had failed to collect millions of dollars in overdue water bills, in large part because of poor bookkeeping, the city hired a consultant to find ways to get tough with deadbeat property owners. City water officials have made some progress in reforming the collection process. Mr. Thompson said that he was concerned that many other city agencies were also delinquent in their water bills, and that he had called on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to conduct a citywide review."
One reason the DEP has trouble collecting, is that it can't easily defend the rationale behind many of its bills. Without the ability to defend the bills' veracity there is no way that a collection process could survive a court challenge. For a number of years we represented the Water Group, a consulting firm that used its superior expertise to help businesses challenge erroneous water bills. It helped Columbia Presbyterian, for instance, resolve a multi-million arrearage that neither the hospital's finance director nor the DEP could justify."
As we remarked in April of 2007:
What all of this makes clear, is that the DEP is structurally incapable of being fiscally responsible. This means that all of its fiscal projections need to be taken lightly and we would suggest that the city put the agency into a form of receivership so that it can be restructured(along with the installation of competent management). Its keystone kops approach to billing would indicate that that agency should be run by Harold Lloyd and not Emily Lloyd.
The DEP study also apparently failed to address the potential benefits that the use of disposers could have for local supermarkets-something that a pilot program would have been certainly able to do with clarity. As we pointed out last May:
In all of our discussions about the disappearance of so many of our local supermarkets, the one major point we have emphasized is the high cost of doing business in NYC-from real estate taxes and burdensome regulations, to high rents and attendant operating costs. One of these high costs is the disposal of supermarket waste.Since the rules on garbage disposal were changed in 2003, the private carters are able to charge higher fees for "wet waste," the produce and vegetable matter that weighs more to truck away and dispose of in landfills. That the city wants us all to consume more of this produce-adding to the market costs-only adds to the irony of the situation.There is, however, a realistic alternative to this disposal problem: the use of food waste disposers.
Nor does the DEP address the benefits to neighborhood ecology-in a city where rats roam with apparent impunity. City Room's Sewall Chan has done the reporting on this: "In an 11-page research paper [pdf] financed by the pest-control industry, the two men looked at 32 large American cities and concluded that New York is the city most at risk of rodent infestations. (Some reports have described this as a “rat attack.”
Disposers would dramatically reduce the extant food waste that attracts these vermin-yet it appears that the DEP has elided any substantive discussion of this benefit. Instead, the agency has wasted time and money in a self serving effort to prevent the implementation of a promising technology, one that could help supermarkets and green grocers to become more profitable while enabling neighborhoods to become more environmentally friendly.
With supermarkets disappearing, and the city intent on providing neighborhoods with better access to fruits and vegetables, it is time to alleviate the DEP of any deep thinking on this important question-and move swiftly towards the implementation of a disposer pilot. The reality is that there is nothing that comes out of this agency that can be believed, and until it is overhauled more responsible folks should be put in charge of this crucial waste disposal question.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Paterson Plank Road
If Fred Dicker is right in the NY Post today, NY State might have to extend a certain road in New Jersey-Paterson Plank Road-the one near Rt. 3, right up through Rockland County and all the way up into Albany. Because if what Fred says is true, and Caroline Kennedy is a "lock" to be designated for the Clinton Senate seat, than we believe it will be David Paterson who will be walking the plank in November.
As one Democratic insider told Dicker: "Meanwhile, several Democrats pointed to Paterson's already-declining public-opinion poll numbers to warn that selecting Kennedy could worsen his chances to be elected next year. "The polls show Kennedy is not who the public wants, and every upstate newspaper has come out against her," noted a longtime Democratic operative. "Picking Caroline could turn into a disaster for Paterson," he continued."
A pick of Princess Caroline will also demonstrate that Paterson can be rolled by powerful monied forces-not a good sign for someone whose poll numbers are starting to soften: "A little-noticed Marist College poll last week showed Paterson, who became governor last March after Eliot Spitzer resigned amid a hooker scandal, with a rapidly declining job-approval rating."
Meanwhile, the process itself has become agonizing. As Liz Benjamin points out this morning in the NY Daily News: "My BlackBerry is emitting smoke from people e-mailing me the latest rumor. This whole thing has taken on a life of its own. There may be a method to this madness, but it's madness," one Democratic elected official said."
Thankfully, this whole drawn out drama will soon reach its thankful end; and its culmination will leave us with a better insight into the unelected governor-and how he perceives his upcoming election battle. Let's hope he chooses wisely.
As one Democratic insider told Dicker: "Meanwhile, several Democrats pointed to Paterson's already-declining public-opinion poll numbers to warn that selecting Kennedy could worsen his chances to be elected next year. "The polls show Kennedy is not who the public wants, and every upstate newspaper has come out against her," noted a longtime Democratic operative. "Picking Caroline could turn into a disaster for Paterson," he continued."
A pick of Princess Caroline will also demonstrate that Paterson can be rolled by powerful monied forces-not a good sign for someone whose poll numbers are starting to soften: "A little-noticed Marist College poll last week showed Paterson, who became governor last March after Eliot Spitzer resigned amid a hooker scandal, with a rapidly declining job-approval rating."
Meanwhile, the process itself has become agonizing. As Liz Benjamin points out this morning in the NY Daily News: "My BlackBerry is emitting smoke from people e-mailing me the latest rumor. This whole thing has taken on a life of its own. There may be a method to this madness, but it's madness," one Democratic elected official said."
Thankfully, this whole drawn out drama will soon reach its thankful end; and its culmination will leave us with a better insight into the unelected governor-and how he perceives his upcoming election battle. Let's hope he chooses wisely.
Bloomberg's Edifice Complex and Hubrisity
Mike Lupica sliced and diced the city's pathetic defense of the Yankee Stadium boondoggle in yesterday's NY Daily News: "For the last time, the Yankees aren't building a new Yankee Stadium for the Bronx because it is the poorest Congressional district in the country. And they aren't building it for you anymore than the Mets are with Citi Field. This isn't about a grand slam home run for the city's economy. It is a grand slam for these baseball teams."
Lupica really exposes, as we have also highlighted, the incredible arrogance of Yankee team president Randy Levine: "Yankees president Randy Levine - whom Hal Steinbrenner has somehow allowed to become the angry face and threatening voice of his organization - likes to scream about lies and distortions. He ought to know. You can start here: That the Yankees moved across the street as some sort of public service. They didn't. New ballparks and new arenas are never public services and never help the taxpayers, not in the Bronx, not in Queens, not in the Meadowlands. Not anywhere."
Listening to Levine, you'd swear that the Yankees were dropping twenties over the South Bronx from a helicopter: "People had a right to ask questions about the Yankee deal in particular and the way it has been written and rewritten. Assemblyman Richard Brodsky had a right to do it without being attacked as a grandstander and fraud by Levine, who comes from the Giuliani school of politics: I'm right, you're a liar."
This is, as Lupica points out, all about Bloomberg's edifice complex: "You are not supposed to say no to this mayor. You are not supposed to say no to the Yankees when they want an additional $370 million in these tax-free bonds (on top of the nearly $1 billion in tax-free bonds they've received originally). All you are supposed to do is this: When told this is a sweetheart deal for the city instead of for the Yankees, you are supposed to nod your head and act grateful. These aren't stadium deals between Bloomberg and the baseball teams. They are mergers. And Bloomberg needs them as much as the Yankees and Mets do. Because without them, New Yorkers would start asking this mayor who promised big, huge growth projects where those projects are."
Now, the real task of the upcoming election cycle, is to expose this deal for what it is: an indefensible squandering of tax payer dollars in the middle of the city's worst fiscal crisis in three decades. And even if there is some legitimate defense of the use of this tax money-that some jobs may actually be created here-the real issue becomes whether the tax revenues diverted to the nation's richest sports franchise could have been allocated to a more productive use. Put simply: What is the cost-benefit here?
As Richard Brodsky has underscored: "You may want a new Yankee Stadium, or you may not. But whatever side you come down on, remember that it's your money that's going to build it. The Yankees are alone in insisting that it's Yankee money. Even NYC officials now admit the truth of what we've been saying, that taxpayer dollars are tearing down The House That Ruth Built, and replacing it with The House That You Built."
How does the three card monte scam work? As Brodsky tells us: "Here's how they do it. The city sends the Yankees a property tax bill like everyone else gets. The Yankees write a check (about $70 million a year) to the city for that amount, just like everyone else. But next, unlike you or I, the city winks and sends that check to the Yankees' bankers to pay off the $1.4 billion mortgage, plus the $1.4 billion in interest on the new Stadium. You or I can't get that deal, but the Yankees did. And they got a lot more. The got an additional $575 million directly to build parking garages and sewers and other stuff for the new Stadium. They don't have to pay sales tax and mortgage recording taxes that every other taxpayer pays, and they get interest rate subsidies. That's an additional taxpayer subsidy of about $350 million."
This is breathtaking in its scope-as if the deal was crafted by Bernie Madooff himself; but it's the Yankees who have madoff with our money-and are doing so, in RICO fashion, with the active collusion of Mike Bloomberg: "And there are some, if limited, economic benefits to the city and the Bronx, which needs all the economic activity it can get. There won't be a lot of new jobs in exchange for our $4 billion. At most, 57 new permanent new jobs will be created (more likely only 22 as the Yankee official application says). But the Yankees also say they will create more than 1,000 part-time jobs. That's good, even if most of those folks will work only 80-90 days a year, and many will be minimum wage jobs. And there are more than 5,000 temporary but well-paying construction jobs. "Maybe a new, taxpayer funded Stadium is a good thing. Maybe the old Stadium wasn't good enough. But in the face of our current economic and social pain, shouldn't the city at least ask the Yankees to put up additional Yankee money and reduce the taxpayer burden? Is it unreasonable to ask one of the richest private corporations in the world to recognize the pain that New Yorkers are now undergoing?"
Good questions that need to be asked in the fall; since Brodsky apparently is the only elected official aside from Billy Thompson, with the cojones to call out the mayor for being the Yankees' toady. In all, the stadium deal is a monument to Bloomberg's edifice complex and his monumental ego.
Lupica really exposes, as we have also highlighted, the incredible arrogance of Yankee team president Randy Levine: "Yankees president Randy Levine - whom Hal Steinbrenner has somehow allowed to become the angry face and threatening voice of his organization - likes to scream about lies and distortions. He ought to know. You can start here: That the Yankees moved across the street as some sort of public service. They didn't. New ballparks and new arenas are never public services and never help the taxpayers, not in the Bronx, not in Queens, not in the Meadowlands. Not anywhere."
Listening to Levine, you'd swear that the Yankees were dropping twenties over the South Bronx from a helicopter: "People had a right to ask questions about the Yankee deal in particular and the way it has been written and rewritten. Assemblyman Richard Brodsky had a right to do it without being attacked as a grandstander and fraud by Levine, who comes from the Giuliani school of politics: I'm right, you're a liar."
This is, as Lupica points out, all about Bloomberg's edifice complex: "You are not supposed to say no to this mayor. You are not supposed to say no to the Yankees when they want an additional $370 million in these tax-free bonds (on top of the nearly $1 billion in tax-free bonds they've received originally). All you are supposed to do is this: When told this is a sweetheart deal for the city instead of for the Yankees, you are supposed to nod your head and act grateful. These aren't stadium deals between Bloomberg and the baseball teams. They are mergers. And Bloomberg needs them as much as the Yankees and Mets do. Because without them, New Yorkers would start asking this mayor who promised big, huge growth projects where those projects are."
Now, the real task of the upcoming election cycle, is to expose this deal for what it is: an indefensible squandering of tax payer dollars in the middle of the city's worst fiscal crisis in three decades. And even if there is some legitimate defense of the use of this tax money-that some jobs may actually be created here-the real issue becomes whether the tax revenues diverted to the nation's richest sports franchise could have been allocated to a more productive use. Put simply: What is the cost-benefit here?
As Richard Brodsky has underscored: "You may want a new Yankee Stadium, or you may not. But whatever side you come down on, remember that it's your money that's going to build it. The Yankees are alone in insisting that it's Yankee money. Even NYC officials now admit the truth of what we've been saying, that taxpayer dollars are tearing down The House That Ruth Built, and replacing it with The House That You Built."
How does the three card monte scam work? As Brodsky tells us: "Here's how they do it. The city sends the Yankees a property tax bill like everyone else gets. The Yankees write a check (about $70 million a year) to the city for that amount, just like everyone else. But next, unlike you or I, the city winks and sends that check to the Yankees' bankers to pay off the $1.4 billion mortgage, plus the $1.4 billion in interest on the new Stadium. You or I can't get that deal, but the Yankees did. And they got a lot more. The got an additional $575 million directly to build parking garages and sewers and other stuff for the new Stadium. They don't have to pay sales tax and mortgage recording taxes that every other taxpayer pays, and they get interest rate subsidies. That's an additional taxpayer subsidy of about $350 million."
This is breathtaking in its scope-as if the deal was crafted by Bernie Madooff himself; but it's the Yankees who have madoff with our money-and are doing so, in RICO fashion, with the active collusion of Mike Bloomberg: "And there are some, if limited, economic benefits to the city and the Bronx, which needs all the economic activity it can get. There won't be a lot of new jobs in exchange for our $4 billion. At most, 57 new permanent new jobs will be created (more likely only 22 as the Yankee official application says). But the Yankees also say they will create more than 1,000 part-time jobs. That's good, even if most of those folks will work only 80-90 days a year, and many will be minimum wage jobs. And there are more than 5,000 temporary but well-paying construction jobs. "Maybe a new, taxpayer funded Stadium is a good thing. Maybe the old Stadium wasn't good enough. But in the face of our current economic and social pain, shouldn't the city at least ask the Yankees to put up additional Yankee money and reduce the taxpayer burden? Is it unreasonable to ask one of the richest private corporations in the world to recognize the pain that New Yorkers are now undergoing?"
Good questions that need to be asked in the fall; since Brodsky apparently is the only elected official aside from Billy Thompson, with the cojones to call out the mayor for being the Yankees' toady. In all, the stadium deal is a monument to Bloomberg's edifice complex and his monumental ego.
John Catsimatidis Weighs Mayoral Run
Let us say right off the bat that John Catsimatidis is our client, and a friend for over twenty five years-so anything that we might say will be taken with a grain of salt as self serving. That being said, John brings a lot of really good qualities to the upcoming mayoral race; that is, if he decides to run this time around. Some of these qualities are raised in last week's City Room profile.
As City Room points out: "In a race dominated by money — Mr. Bloomberg is expected to spend at least $80 million — Mr. Catsimatidis is likely to be the only other candidate with pockets deep enough to match the mayor’s spending dollar for dollar. Mr. Catsimatidis said that if he decided to run for mayor this fall, he would challenge Mr. Bloomberg in the Republican primary. Mr. Bloomberg has not officially said which party line he will seek, but it is widely believed he will run as a Republican or an Independent, or perhaps both.
But it's not only the money that makes Catsimatidis attractive; you see, John is the ultimate New York City success story-an immigrant's son who opened up one store and turned it into a multi-billion dollar empire. What separates him starkly from Mike Bloomberg, is John's affinity for the city's neighborhoods and people. He knows what every small business owner knows; high taxes and over regulation is the greatest threat to New York's economic vitality-and the success of the city long term resides in the innovation and vitality of our neighborhoods.
Catsimatidis is also someone who hasn't really ever left his immigrant roots-and is as comfortable in a local coffee shop as he is at the Regency for a power breakfast. He won't be someone looking to build costly monuments at the expense of local communities. As one blog commenter pointed out: "Wait a minute, Alyssa. Catsimatidis has been in NY his entire life and worked his way up literally from the bottom. He and Bloomberg are 2 TOTALLY different people if you read their bios. This guy doesn’t seem to care that much about $…. you think just maybe it’s somebody who just cares about NY…."
The city needs a real innovator-and nothing in the past seven years gives us any indication that Mike Bloomberg either gets it, or that his skill set elevates him into the atmosphere of Papal Infallibility. For the city to revive, it needs a leader who understands, both the larger fiscal issues, as well as the reality that real economic growth will only occur when the size and scope of government is reduced-something that Mike Bloomberg has never grasped.
Which brings us to the Republican Party challenge. Will the party, left in the lurch by Bloomberg's opportunistic labeling in 2001, be so desperate that it will accede to the mayor's millions again in 2009? In yesterday's NY Daily News, Liz Benjamin raises this issue: "Mayor Bloomberg appears to have his own Gang of Three problem. Much like new state Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith's leadership post was held hostage for two months by three renegade lawmakers who refused to back him, Bloomberg's bid to land the Republican line for his re-election bid could be blocked by a trio of obstinate GOP county chairs. Since the Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent mayor ditched the GOP in June 2007 to prepare for a never-realized run for President, he now needs permission from three of the city's five GOP party chairs to run on the ballot line he had for his 2001 and 2005 campaigns."
Will he get it? Or will the party anoint Catsimatidis as the more natural heir to the party's core principles? As Liz tells us: "The three Republican chairmen would love nothing more than to support John Catsimatidis for mayor," a highly-placed GOP source said. "If we could all agree on a Democratic candidate, we might even back him." Catsimatidis, a Democrat-turned-Republican supermarket mogul, recently met with all five GOP county chairs and said he will continue to explore a possible mayoral run. Since he switched parties, Catsimatidis won't need permission to run as a Republican."
This won't be easy, since the the mayor's money is beguiling, to say the least. But perhaps this time the part is actually looking for something to stand for-and we don't mean Mike Bloomberg's monumental ego: "Brooklyn GOP Chairman Craig Eaton wouldn't rule out the possibility of endorsing a Democrat, although he said that's "unlikely." Eaton confirmed the three Republican chairs are "united" in their desire to back a candidate who will "grow the party" and help win back seats in Albany before the next round of legislative redistricting."
If true, Catsimatidis is the more attractive candidate. In our view, the backing of Bloomberg will simply hasten the Republican Party's slide into political oblivion.
As City Room points out: "In a race dominated by money — Mr. Bloomberg is expected to spend at least $80 million — Mr. Catsimatidis is likely to be the only other candidate with pockets deep enough to match the mayor’s spending dollar for dollar. Mr. Catsimatidis said that if he decided to run for mayor this fall, he would challenge Mr. Bloomberg in the Republican primary. Mr. Bloomberg has not officially said which party line he will seek, but it is widely believed he will run as a Republican or an Independent, or perhaps both.
But it's not only the money that makes Catsimatidis attractive; you see, John is the ultimate New York City success story-an immigrant's son who opened up one store and turned it into a multi-billion dollar empire. What separates him starkly from Mike Bloomberg, is John's affinity for the city's neighborhoods and people. He knows what every small business owner knows; high taxes and over regulation is the greatest threat to New York's economic vitality-and the success of the city long term resides in the innovation and vitality of our neighborhoods.
Catsimatidis is also someone who hasn't really ever left his immigrant roots-and is as comfortable in a local coffee shop as he is at the Regency for a power breakfast. He won't be someone looking to build costly monuments at the expense of local communities. As one blog commenter pointed out: "Wait a minute, Alyssa. Catsimatidis has been in NY his entire life and worked his way up literally from the bottom. He and Bloomberg are 2 TOTALLY different people if you read their bios. This guy doesn’t seem to care that much about $…. you think just maybe it’s somebody who just cares about NY…."
The city needs a real innovator-and nothing in the past seven years gives us any indication that Mike Bloomberg either gets it, or that his skill set elevates him into the atmosphere of Papal Infallibility. For the city to revive, it needs a leader who understands, both the larger fiscal issues, as well as the reality that real economic growth will only occur when the size and scope of government is reduced-something that Mike Bloomberg has never grasped.
Which brings us to the Republican Party challenge. Will the party, left in the lurch by Bloomberg's opportunistic labeling in 2001, be so desperate that it will accede to the mayor's millions again in 2009? In yesterday's NY Daily News, Liz Benjamin raises this issue: "Mayor Bloomberg appears to have his own Gang of Three problem. Much like new state Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith's leadership post was held hostage for two months by three renegade lawmakers who refused to back him, Bloomberg's bid to land the Republican line for his re-election bid could be blocked by a trio of obstinate GOP county chairs. Since the Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent mayor ditched the GOP in June 2007 to prepare for a never-realized run for President, he now needs permission from three of the city's five GOP party chairs to run on the ballot line he had for his 2001 and 2005 campaigns."
Will he get it? Or will the party anoint Catsimatidis as the more natural heir to the party's core principles? As Liz tells us: "The three Republican chairmen would love nothing more than to support John Catsimatidis for mayor," a highly-placed GOP source said. "If we could all agree on a Democratic candidate, we might even back him." Catsimatidis, a Democrat-turned-Republican supermarket mogul, recently met with all five GOP county chairs and said he will continue to explore a possible mayoral run. Since he switched parties, Catsimatidis won't need permission to run as a Republican."
This won't be easy, since the the mayor's money is beguiling, to say the least. But perhaps this time the part is actually looking for something to stand for-and we don't mean Mike Bloomberg's monumental ego: "Brooklyn GOP Chairman Craig Eaton wouldn't rule out the possibility of endorsing a Democrat, although he said that's "unlikely." Eaton confirmed the three Republican chairs are "united" in their desire to back a candidate who will "grow the party" and help win back seats in Albany before the next round of legislative redistricting."
If true, Catsimatidis is the more attractive candidate. In our view, the backing of Bloomberg will simply hasten the Republican Party's slide into political oblivion.
A Job for Mike Bloomberg
Well, if this third term thing doesn't work out for Mike Bloomberg, there's a cooll jod waiting for him down in Washington. How about the Czar of the soon to be established Federal Health Board. What will this Board do? Watch out: "This is the mechanism that Tom Daschle and Barack Obama intend to set up, as Daschle's book spells out in excruciating detail. Such a board would decide what kind of medical treatment will be provided in this nation. What kind of medical treatment you and I will get."
Pretty scary stuff; and as the blogger here asks: "How can a few, a board of hack central planners, know what kind of medical benefits your children need when they're rationing who gets what? They can't. You're about to turn these decisions over to a handful of bureaucrats, who will be called "experts." A board of bureaucrats -- not you -- will decide the healthcare fate of your children. You won't. They will."
This is where all of the Bloomberg nannyisms are headed-and the question here is where are all of those prochoicers who tell the government to lay off of their bodies? Is privacy only a right for women who are concerned about their pregnancy rights? This Fascist health board fight is where the real issue of what kind of government Obama will preside over will be decided.
Pretty scary stuff; and as the blogger here asks: "How can a few, a board of hack central planners, know what kind of medical benefits your children need when they're rationing who gets what? They can't. You're about to turn these decisions over to a handful of bureaucrats, who will be called "experts." A board of bureaucrats -- not you -- will decide the healthcare fate of your children. You won't. They will."
This is where all of the Bloomberg nannyisms are headed-and the question here is where are all of those prochoicers who tell the government to lay off of their bodies? Is privacy only a right for women who are concerned about their pregnancy rights? This Fascist health board fight is where the real issue of what kind of government Obama will preside over will be decided.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Feckless Leadership
We have already commented on Mike Bloomberg's phony disposition on politics and ideology in his state of the city speech; but what's really a pip, is his spinelessness in not tackling the city's greatest problem: the size of government and the existence of a bloated municipal workforce.
Leave it to Nicole Gelinas to call him out on this fecklessness.
Gelinas points out in her NY Post column, that it is vital for the city to upgrade its infrastructure-particularly so we can see the commute times for New Yorkers properly reduced; which is something that the mayor now promises to do: "How important are commutes to New Yorkers? Well, the night before Bloomberg's speech, nearly 700 regular people came out for a marathon seven-hour hearing at a Manhattan hotel to voice their fears over proposed subway and bus-service cuts. Why didn't the city use its boom-era dollars as leverage to insist on these upgrades to our most important assets (at a time when emerging cities around the world were investing heavily in their infrastructure)?"
The reason lies at the heart of the Bloomberg failure: "And the main reason those vast boom-year tax revenues couldn't go toward better infrastructure is that they went toward supporting ever-higher salaries and benefits for public-sector workers instead. As the Citizens Budget Commission pointed out last week, the average city worker costs more than $100,000 a year once you include their generous benefits, including mostly free health care. These same benefits costs for public workers, of course, are what imperils the rest of what the mayor talked about yesterday, too."
So did the mayor, who disdains politics and ideology, take this opportunity to call for the serious trimming of public worker benefits? Not on your life; that would take real political courage: "So, it's good that the mayor said yesterday, "It's become painfully clear that the time has come to bring our municipal pension system in line with reality. . . People are living longer and longer, yet we're still offering full retirement benefits after only 20 years of service. It's costing taxpayers a fortune." But it's too bad that the very same mayor lavished the municipal workforce with huge raises into 2011 just a few months ago - because that generosity removed a huge incentive for that workforce to support any reform."
This being an unexpected election year, the mayor was out at Brooklyn College bobbing and weaving-or shucking and jiving might be a better way of describing his failure to call for real reform: "Plus, the reforms the mayor has proposed are not only a day late but also a dollar short. While Bloomberg has supported some (very) modest changes from Albany to future pension benefits, he's said very little about expecting workers to pay a little something for their own health benefits - which could save hundreds of millions a year, every year, almost immediately."
Again, why not? Well, because this would upset the very same workers who Bloomberg is counting on to support his re-election. For a man with all that money, Mike Bloomberg demonstrates an astounding deficit of political courage. Instead of actually taking a hard political stand-something that the Bloombucks could then be employed to defend in front of the larger electorate-he elects to pander: "The mayor would've been better off using his time yesterday to announce one new initiative for the year. He should have pledged to use his political capital to explain to the public clearly why the state, the city and all-important public authorities like the MTA must work relentlessly to cut public employees' benefits to a competitive level, starting with those health benefits."
Without this kind of political courage, there's no good reason to give Mike Bloomberg another term in office. These are, after all, dire and challenging times. If all we're going to get in the charm of a third term is sucking up to municipal labor, we might as well elect one of his impoverished challengers. Gelinas has the last word on this: "The mayor and the governor have to set the bar here - nobody else will. And the public should understand the true cost of the mayor so far not having done that job."
Leave it to Nicole Gelinas to call him out on this fecklessness.
Gelinas points out in her NY Post column, that it is vital for the city to upgrade its infrastructure-particularly so we can see the commute times for New Yorkers properly reduced; which is something that the mayor now promises to do: "How important are commutes to New Yorkers? Well, the night before Bloomberg's speech, nearly 700 regular people came out for a marathon seven-hour hearing at a Manhattan hotel to voice their fears over proposed subway and bus-service cuts. Why didn't the city use its boom-era dollars as leverage to insist on these upgrades to our most important assets (at a time when emerging cities around the world were investing heavily in their infrastructure)?"
The reason lies at the heart of the Bloomberg failure: "And the main reason those vast boom-year tax revenues couldn't go toward better infrastructure is that they went toward supporting ever-higher salaries and benefits for public-sector workers instead. As the Citizens Budget Commission pointed out last week, the average city worker costs more than $100,000 a year once you include their generous benefits, including mostly free health care. These same benefits costs for public workers, of course, are what imperils the rest of what the mayor talked about yesterday, too."
So did the mayor, who disdains politics and ideology, take this opportunity to call for the serious trimming of public worker benefits? Not on your life; that would take real political courage: "So, it's good that the mayor said yesterday, "It's become painfully clear that the time has come to bring our municipal pension system in line with reality. . . People are living longer and longer, yet we're still offering full retirement benefits after only 20 years of service. It's costing taxpayers a fortune." But it's too bad that the very same mayor lavished the municipal workforce with huge raises into 2011 just a few months ago - because that generosity removed a huge incentive for that workforce to support any reform."
This being an unexpected election year, the mayor was out at Brooklyn College bobbing and weaving-or shucking and jiving might be a better way of describing his failure to call for real reform: "Plus, the reforms the mayor has proposed are not only a day late but also a dollar short. While Bloomberg has supported some (very) modest changes from Albany to future pension benefits, he's said very little about expecting workers to pay a little something for their own health benefits - which could save hundreds of millions a year, every year, almost immediately."
Again, why not? Well, because this would upset the very same workers who Bloomberg is counting on to support his re-election. For a man with all that money, Mike Bloomberg demonstrates an astounding deficit of political courage. Instead of actually taking a hard political stand-something that the Bloombucks could then be employed to defend in front of the larger electorate-he elects to pander: "The mayor would've been better off using his time yesterday to announce one new initiative for the year. He should have pledged to use his political capital to explain to the public clearly why the state, the city and all-important public authorities like the MTA must work relentlessly to cut public employees' benefits to a competitive level, starting with those health benefits."
Without this kind of political courage, there's no good reason to give Mike Bloomberg another term in office. These are, after all, dire and challenging times. If all we're going to get in the charm of a third term is sucking up to municipal labor, we might as well elect one of his impoverished challengers. Gelinas has the last word on this: "The mayor and the governor have to set the bar here - nobody else will. And the public should understand the true cost of the mayor so far not having done that job."
State of the City: Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall
Hans Christian Bloomberg gave his State of the City fable, and it was a real knee slapper-especially the part where the mayor pledged to create 400,000 new jobs. As City Room reports: "But the speech focused mainly on his nine-point plan, which he broke into three main parts: Spurring job growth; strengthening the quality of life to prevent the deterioration that consumed parts of the city in the 1970s; and a hodgepodge of austerity and efficiency measures...With roughly 3.5 million full- and part-time jobs in New York, the mayor’s plan, if achieved, would amount to more than a 10 percent increase in the city’s work force."
We just knew that the headline was to good to be true; Mike Bloomberg initiating a policy to, at least we first thought, to create 400,000 private sector jobs. Not so, however, since it appears that all of the new jobs are government generated-predominately in environmentally friendly areas. The man simply hasn't got a clue about the best ways to insure economic growth.
That is clearly seen in his perverse focus on what he termed "neighborhood quality of life." As NY1 reports, the mayor told his audience: "In fact the best thing we can do for Wall Street-and for every corner store in the city-is the second leg of our economic recovery strategy: continue ti improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods..."
This is pretty much ass backwards-it is the health of our stores that drive neighborhood quality of life-by creating a vibrant retail climate that attracts customers and enhances neighborhood safety. The begged question here is: How does this retail environment prosper? And the answer-nowhere to be found in the Bloomberg panegyric-lies with a reduction in the cost of doing business; a concept that is apparently absent from the Bloomberg policy repertoire.
There was, however, one tax cutting initiative that the Times reports the mayor is proposing: "Another item that would have to be approved by legislators in Albany was the mayor’s proposal to eliminate or reduce the Unincorporated Business Tax. The tax, which is up to 4 percent of gross revenues, discourages freelance work because workers also have to pay personal taxes.
The mayor said that New Yorkers who recently lost their jobs would be discouraged from starting to do freelance work or starting their own business because of the tax. Getting rid of the tax would save each of them up to $3,400, he said. “Let’s give their bottom lines a boost when they need it most,” the mayor said."
Well, if it makes sense to boost the bottom line for freelancers, what about neighborhood store owners? The reality is that, through increased taxes and burdensome regulations, the bottom line for stores has taken a severe beating over the past seven years-and nothing the mayor said yesterday promises any change for the tens of thousands of Mom and Pop retailers all over New York City who have been suffering under one of the most restrictive economic climate in the country.
Bloomberg the fabulist out did himself, though, with the following side splitter: “We will get New York City through these hard times that with the same approach that has always worked for us,” the mayor said. “Independent leadership based on facts and pragmatism – not politics and ideology. Innovative thinking that embraces new solutions to old problems – and an insistence on accountability, always.”
The only real innovation we've been able to discern, are the new and innovative ways the mayor has found to describe the alleged achievements of his administration-from the expensive school system stagnation heralded as a major accomplishment; to economic development boondoggles like Yankee Stadium that are described as, "great deals," by a mayor who has little evidenced concern for city tax payers.
Or, as Clyde Haberman views the phony politics/ideology disparagement: “Politics” is Bloomberg-speak for what everybody running for office does — except for him. “Ideology” is an adherence to certain fundamentals of democracy that he finds inconvenient. Of late, he has applied that word to those who believed that, since New Yorkers had voted twice in the 1990s to impose a two-term limit on most elected officials, the voters should have been asked once more if they had perhaps changed their minds."
Yesterday's speech reminds us of the old Ronnie Milsap song. "A Legend in My Time: "
"If heartaches brought fame
In love's crazy game
I'd be a legend in my time
If they gave gold statuettes
For tears and regrets
I'd be a legend in my time"
So, into what should have been Mike Bloomberg's swan song, we have another campaign speech; and the mayor is out to convince us that his great accomplishments obviate our distaste for his trumping of the popular will on term limits. Unlike Milsap, however, Bloomberg actually believes that his legendary status is built on a solid foundation of accomplishment. After all, who are you gonna believe, Mike Bloomberg and his billions of dollars worth of political propaganda, or your own lying eyes?
We just knew that the headline was to good to be true; Mike Bloomberg initiating a policy to, at least we first thought, to create 400,000 private sector jobs. Not so, however, since it appears that all of the new jobs are government generated-predominately in environmentally friendly areas. The man simply hasn't got a clue about the best ways to insure economic growth.
That is clearly seen in his perverse focus on what he termed "neighborhood quality of life." As NY1 reports, the mayor told his audience: "In fact the best thing we can do for Wall Street-and for every corner store in the city-is the second leg of our economic recovery strategy: continue ti improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods..."
This is pretty much ass backwards-it is the health of our stores that drive neighborhood quality of life-by creating a vibrant retail climate that attracts customers and enhances neighborhood safety. The begged question here is: How does this retail environment prosper? And the answer-nowhere to be found in the Bloomberg panegyric-lies with a reduction in the cost of doing business; a concept that is apparently absent from the Bloomberg policy repertoire.
There was, however, one tax cutting initiative that the Times reports the mayor is proposing: "Another item that would have to be approved by legislators in Albany was the mayor’s proposal to eliminate or reduce the Unincorporated Business Tax. The tax, which is up to 4 percent of gross revenues, discourages freelance work because workers also have to pay personal taxes.
The mayor said that New Yorkers who recently lost their jobs would be discouraged from starting to do freelance work or starting their own business because of the tax. Getting rid of the tax would save each of them up to $3,400, he said. “Let’s give their bottom lines a boost when they need it most,” the mayor said."
Well, if it makes sense to boost the bottom line for freelancers, what about neighborhood store owners? The reality is that, through increased taxes and burdensome regulations, the bottom line for stores has taken a severe beating over the past seven years-and nothing the mayor said yesterday promises any change for the tens of thousands of Mom and Pop retailers all over New York City who have been suffering under one of the most restrictive economic climate in the country.
Bloomberg the fabulist out did himself, though, with the following side splitter: “We will get New York City through these hard times that with the same approach that has always worked for us,” the mayor said. “Independent leadership based on facts and pragmatism – not politics and ideology. Innovative thinking that embraces new solutions to old problems – and an insistence on accountability, always.”
The only real innovation we've been able to discern, are the new and innovative ways the mayor has found to describe the alleged achievements of his administration-from the expensive school system stagnation heralded as a major accomplishment; to economic development boondoggles like Yankee Stadium that are described as, "great deals," by a mayor who has little evidenced concern for city tax payers.
Or, as Clyde Haberman views the phony politics/ideology disparagement: “Politics” is Bloomberg-speak for what everybody running for office does — except for him. “Ideology” is an adherence to certain fundamentals of democracy that he finds inconvenient. Of late, he has applied that word to those who believed that, since New Yorkers had voted twice in the 1990s to impose a two-term limit on most elected officials, the voters should have been asked once more if they had perhaps changed their minds."
Yesterday's speech reminds us of the old Ronnie Milsap song. "A Legend in My Time: "
"If heartaches brought fame
In love's crazy game
I'd be a legend in my time
If they gave gold statuettes
For tears and regrets
I'd be a legend in my time"
So, into what should have been Mike Bloomberg's swan song, we have another campaign speech; and the mayor is out to convince us that his great accomplishments obviate our distaste for his trumping of the popular will on term limits. Unlike Milsap, however, Bloomberg actually believes that his legendary status is built on a solid foundation of accomplishment. After all, who are you gonna believe, Mike Bloomberg and his billions of dollars worth of political propaganda, or your own lying eyes?
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Randy Rhetoric
Co-opting the sports axiom that, "the best defense is a good offense," the Yankees' Randy Levine took off on Assemblyman Richard Brodsky yesterday, claiming that he belonged in the "Grandstanding Hall of Fame." As the NY Times reports: "Mr. Brodsky, as I said in my testimony before Congress a few months ago, your behavior in this entire matter is worthy of the Grandstanding Hall of Fame,” said Mr. Levine, who then criticized the assemblyman’s support of tax incentives to Monticello Raceway and campaign contributions from entities “involved” with the track. “The tone of hostility,” Mr. Brodsky said, “is not appropriate, or the accusations.”
Here's how the NY Post lays out the Levine offensive; what it calls a "bean ball" war: "The battle over the new Yankee Stadium produced more drama yesterday than a walk-off home run in the bottom of the ninth. Club President Randy Levine, speaking at a state Assembly hearing in Manhattan, called the project's main critic "disgraceful." And the city's economic-development chief, Seth Pinsky, accused the critic, Westchester Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, of "deliberately misrepresenting the facts."
Of course, this kind of political theater serves to distract attention away from just how bad this stadium deal is. The Times captures this in this morning's editorial: "Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the development agency should renegotiate this latest round of what has always been an incredibly generous deal for one of the richest teams in the country. At a very minimum, they should insist that the Yankees pick up more of the city’s share of the project, which now amounts to $362 million."
Will Mike Bloomberg listen-and admit error in this boondoggle? Not a chance! And will the NY Times hold this-and other examples of expensive patricianage-against Bloomberg when he runs this fall? Again, not a chance. Just as the paper swallowed its principles on campaign finance to endorse the mayor in 2005-after he broke the pledge not to spend as lavishly as he did to get elected the first time.
But the stadium deal is what passes for economic development with the Bloombergistas-big deals for the big guys; and bubkas for the rest of us. Juan Gonzales captured this in his column last week, and he deserves the last word on this outrage: "Less than three years after they got $942 million in tax-free bonds for a new Bronx stadium, the Yankees are at the public trough again. With our city facing the worst financial crisis since the Depression, and more than 200,000 people expected to lose their jobs by the end of the year, baseball's richest team wants another $260 million in tax-free bonds to help cover a stadium cost overrun of $370 million."
Here's how the NY Post lays out the Levine offensive; what it calls a "bean ball" war: "The battle over the new Yankee Stadium produced more drama yesterday than a walk-off home run in the bottom of the ninth. Club President Randy Levine, speaking at a state Assembly hearing in Manhattan, called the project's main critic "disgraceful." And the city's economic-development chief, Seth Pinsky, accused the critic, Westchester Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, of "deliberately misrepresenting the facts."
Of course, this kind of political theater serves to distract attention away from just how bad this stadium deal is. The Times captures this in this morning's editorial: "Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the development agency should renegotiate this latest round of what has always been an incredibly generous deal for one of the richest teams in the country. At a very minimum, they should insist that the Yankees pick up more of the city’s share of the project, which now amounts to $362 million."
Will Mike Bloomberg listen-and admit error in this boondoggle? Not a chance! And will the NY Times hold this-and other examples of expensive patricianage-against Bloomberg when he runs this fall? Again, not a chance. Just as the paper swallowed its principles on campaign finance to endorse the mayor in 2005-after he broke the pledge not to spend as lavishly as he did to get elected the first time.
But the stadium deal is what passes for economic development with the Bloombergistas-big deals for the big guys; and bubkas for the rest of us. Juan Gonzales captured this in his column last week, and he deserves the last word on this outrage: "Less than three years after they got $942 million in tax-free bonds for a new Bronx stadium, the Yankees are at the public trough again. With our city facing the worst financial crisis since the Depression, and more than 200,000 people expected to lose their jobs by the end of the year, baseball's richest team wants another $260 million in tax-free bonds to help cover a stadium cost overrun of $370 million."
Paterson's "Make My Day" Moment
The Seneca Indians-much as The Mouse That Roared of movie fame-is taking on NY State government in a challenge to the effort by the governor to insure that the tribe collects taxes on all cigarettes it sells to non-Indians. The challenge is to set up their own toll booths on the NYS Thruway. Here's how the NY Post describes this outrage: "Now this is clever: The Seneca Indians, smarting over Gov. Paterson's latest attempt to collect taxes on their booming illicit cigarette trade, this week announced they'd retaliate by slapping their own tax . . . on the New York State Thruway. It's an "illegal business," too - or so the tribe would have it."
What a great opportunity for Paterson to demonstrate that he has the capacity to lead-and to forcefully insure the rule of law. The tribe simply has no legal leg to stand on: "But while the tribe may couch its behavior in high-sounding terms like "sovereignty" and "treaty rights," all they're really showing is a breathtaking contempt for the rule of law. The US Supreme Court ruled 15 years ago that states have every right to collect taxes on reservation cigarettes sold to non-Indians - the vast majority of the Seneca trade. And their Thruway nonsense runs afoul of a 1954 agreement - upheld by a federal court - in which the state paid for the right of way."
But what the Seneca are planning is open insurrection: "Indeed, to hear Seneca leaders talk, you'd think they were already in open rebellion: "Our concern as nation leaders justifies taking any and all prudent actions to protect and defend the nation's economy and the way of life of the Seneca people," declared the tribal president, Barry Snyder - himself a big-time cigarette retailer. And "prudent actions," for the Senecas, are sure to include organized violence. After all, the last time the state tried to enforce the tax, in 1997, bands of Senecas set fire to tires piled on the Thruway and brawled with state troopers who came to clear them away."
Make no mistake about it; this is a declaration of war-and it needs to be met with the appropriate forceful response. In fact, as the governor gets his troops ready, he should propose to the legislature an even more fool proof piece of legislation than the one recently passed that addresses the Seneca (and other tribes) tax evasion practices. The new bill would require that the cigarette manufacturers remit all taxes on their products before their products are even delivered to local wholesalers. Collection simple; case closed.
As far as the Seneca threat, Paterson should be clearing out enough prison cells to accommodate the entire lot of them. As the Post righteously states: "Back in '97, of course, then-Gov. George Pataki responded to the violence by caving in - setting off another dozen years of tax evasion that enriched criminals, starved state revenues and put the squeeze to law-abiding retailers. Paterson can't afford to make the same mistake."
What a great opportunity for Paterson to demonstrate that he has the capacity to lead-and to forcefully insure the rule of law. The tribe simply has no legal leg to stand on: "But while the tribe may couch its behavior in high-sounding terms like "sovereignty" and "treaty rights," all they're really showing is a breathtaking contempt for the rule of law. The US Supreme Court ruled 15 years ago that states have every right to collect taxes on reservation cigarettes sold to non-Indians - the vast majority of the Seneca trade. And their Thruway nonsense runs afoul of a 1954 agreement - upheld by a federal court - in which the state paid for the right of way."
But what the Seneca are planning is open insurrection: "Indeed, to hear Seneca leaders talk, you'd think they were already in open rebellion: "Our concern as nation leaders justifies taking any and all prudent actions to protect and defend the nation's economy and the way of life of the Seneca people," declared the tribal president, Barry Snyder - himself a big-time cigarette retailer. And "prudent actions," for the Senecas, are sure to include organized violence. After all, the last time the state tried to enforce the tax, in 1997, bands of Senecas set fire to tires piled on the Thruway and brawled with state troopers who came to clear them away."
Make no mistake about it; this is a declaration of war-and it needs to be met with the appropriate forceful response. In fact, as the governor gets his troops ready, he should propose to the legislature an even more fool proof piece of legislation than the one recently passed that addresses the Seneca (and other tribes) tax evasion practices. The new bill would require that the cigarette manufacturers remit all taxes on their products before their products are even delivered to local wholesalers. Collection simple; case closed.
As far as the Seneca threat, Paterson should be clearing out enough prison cells to accommodate the entire lot of them. As the Post righteously states: "Back in '97, of course, then-Gov. George Pataki responded to the violence by caving in - setting off another dozen years of tax evasion that enriched criminals, starved state revenues and put the squeeze to law-abiding retailers. Paterson can't afford to make the same mistake."
Have a NYCHA Day
Errol Louis writes this morning about a protest being conducted by residents of public housing-and provides another example of the less than stellar management acumen of Mike Bloomberg: "At 10 o'clock this morning, a few hours before Mayor Bloomberg delivers his annual State of the City address, a group of demonstrators will be marching outside the headquarters of the New York City Housing Authority, delivering, in protest form, a State of the Projects report.
The march will be led by the council of tenant association presidents, leaders elected by the 400,000-plus NYCHA residents...They want a role in picking a new chairman for the troubled agency, and they are demanding a credible plan to end the chronic funding shortfalls that leave the agency $200 million in the hole each year."
The shortfalls have led to a number of well documented tragedies-which doesn't begin to tell the story of the level of mismanagement and disregard at NYCHA: "That's true. Public housing - intended as stable, safe, affordable living space for working families - charges tenants 30% of their income, using public subsidy to bridge the gap between the rent rolls and the cost of fuel, sanitation, security and basic upkeep. The gap has grown vast in recent years, leading to life-and- death problems chronicled with depressing regularity in the Daily News and elsewhere. The elevator problems get the most attention, like the tragedy at Brooklyn's Taylor-Wythe Houses in which 5-year-old Jacob Neuman died while trying to escape one of the perennially stalled lifts."
The NYCHA tenants have had enough-and are calling for a role in choosing the new chairman of the authority; the well-meaning but bumbling former chairman, Tino Hernandez, has left: "An audit by Controller William Thompson found that it takes NYCHA three years on average, and sometimes as long as five years, to fix a crumbling apartment. And the audit found "no formal coordination of the removal of apartments from the rent roll and relocation of tenants with the estimated time budgets for the rehabilitation projects." Today's protests are residents' way of saying no more. They are demanding input into the selection process as Bloomberg searches for a permanent replacement for Tino Hernandez, who recently resigned as NYCHA chairman."
If this is a no mas moment, than it should be directed at the mayor; since this is simply another area where Mike Bloomberg has fallen flat-another indication why a third term is an affront to New Yorkers. Instead of looking for a Hernandez replacement, NYCHA residents should concentrate on one for the hapless Mike Bloomberg.
The march will be led by the council of tenant association presidents, leaders elected by the 400,000-plus NYCHA residents...They want a role in picking a new chairman for the troubled agency, and they are demanding a credible plan to end the chronic funding shortfalls that leave the agency $200 million in the hole each year."
The shortfalls have led to a number of well documented tragedies-which doesn't begin to tell the story of the level of mismanagement and disregard at NYCHA: "That's true. Public housing - intended as stable, safe, affordable living space for working families - charges tenants 30% of their income, using public subsidy to bridge the gap between the rent rolls and the cost of fuel, sanitation, security and basic upkeep. The gap has grown vast in recent years, leading to life-and- death problems chronicled with depressing regularity in the Daily News and elsewhere. The elevator problems get the most attention, like the tragedy at Brooklyn's Taylor-Wythe Houses in which 5-year-old Jacob Neuman died while trying to escape one of the perennially stalled lifts."
The NYCHA tenants have had enough-and are calling for a role in choosing the new chairman of the authority; the well-meaning but bumbling former chairman, Tino Hernandez, has left: "An audit by Controller William Thompson found that it takes NYCHA three years on average, and sometimes as long as five years, to fix a crumbling apartment. And the audit found "no formal coordination of the removal of apartments from the rent roll and relocation of tenants with the estimated time budgets for the rehabilitation projects." Today's protests are residents' way of saying no more. They are demanding input into the selection process as Bloomberg searches for a permanent replacement for Tino Hernandez, who recently resigned as NYCHA chairman."
If this is a no mas moment, than it should be directed at the mayor; since this is simply another area where Mike Bloomberg has fallen flat-another indication why a third term is an affront to New Yorkers. Instead of looking for a Hernandez replacement, NYCHA residents should concentrate on one for the hapless Mike Bloomberg.
Sweet Carolyin'
Wayne Barrett continues to expose Mike Bloomberg's elitist subornation of the US Senate replacement process for the departing Hillary Clinton. In this deconstruction, Barret reveals the extent to which Kennedy is, in reality, simply a cats paw for the mayor's ambition: "When I see Caroline Kennedy, I think Mike Bloomberg. In the contest for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat, Kennedy is to Bloomberg what the City Council was to the mayor in his term limits battle—a partner in the spoils, yes, but, ultimately, little more than a pawn in his power grab."
How so, you may ask? According to Barrett, the Kennedy ploy is designed to outflank his potential Democratic opponents in the fall: "A Kennedy selection, should it happen, would become the prelude to a more formal alliance, or at least a non-aggression pact, between Bloomberg and Paterson that will carry through the 2009 mayoral election and the 2010 gubernatorial and senatorial races. Since Paterson, like most governors, is the leader of his state party, such a coalition would undercut any serious challenge this year to Bloomberg, a registered Independent."
Let's not forget that Paterson stood by-no doubt greatly relieved-while Bloomberg hijacked the term limits restriction and obviated any potential gubernatorial challenge in 2010; and thereby probably also deprived Bill Thompson of a legitimate shot at the mayoralty: "No wonder Paterson told reporters that he would "love to have the mayor around" for four more years, though he was officially neutral on the Council bill."
What the Kennedy elevation does for Mike "I'm Above the Special Interests" Bloomberg, is to wash away the stank of his love affair with all things Republican: "Bloomberg's strategy: to box Paterson in again, just as he did on term limits, by offering up an irresistible choice. Kennedy's selection would subsequently link the mayor to the ultimate Democratic family just as Bloomberg was launching his own re-election effort...With a Democratic high tide, nationally and in New York, Bloomberg is suddenly doing all he can to cement his ties to the party. But if that awkward arrangement is going to work, the mayor has to hope that his new friends, like Paterson and Kennedy, don't look too carefully at the last eight years."
Barrett now evinces a different Bloomberg, a more cynical fellow than the one that, in his view, exhibited a refreshing candor in his first term: "As candid as Bloomberg was early in his public life, he is now just another player, moving from evasion to spin to falsehood." We're sure, however, that the original article was no different than the current self serving pol; it's just become more obvious to some of the previously gullible.
The Voice piece does a real service in the manner in which it exposes the blatant political uses of the city's Department of Education-an argument that Barrett advances to question the wisdom of perpetuating mayoral control of the city schools. Chancellor Klein is seen as the Muneco-in-Chief in all of this.
As he points out: "Klein made a national appearance on CBS for Kennedy and even penned an op-ed for CNN.com that championed her candidacy, which was reprinted in a newsletter published by the Department of Education. Because Kennedy's 22-month stint between 2002 and 2004 as Klein's chief executive of the newly created Office of Strategic Partnerships is the only job she's ever held—a (very) part-time, $1-a-year position—the chancellor is literally the only employer she can turn to for a recommendation letter. His gushing has been so embarrassing that even Kennedy has tried to play it down. According to the Times, Klein "credited her with bringing in a $51 million gift from the Gates Foundation," the largest donation in school system history. But Tom Vander Ark, a nationally renowned educator who ran the Gates program and made the grant, told the Voice that "she didn't have anything to do with it." Asked what her role was in another $50 million in smaller grants that Gates gave the city between 2003 and 2005, Vander Ark, who is hardly a Klein enemy and praised him for his innovation, said: " 'None' would be an overstatement."
Only among the toffs could such an obvious disregard for qualifications be advanced with a straight face. When we examine the Kennedy resume we find...well, absolutely nothing. In contrast, Bloomberg should have been supporting Sarah Palin for a Nobel Prize: "When the Times subsequently got an extended interview with Kennedy, the reporters asked about Klein's original claim that "she brought the Gates grant in," wondering: "Do you feel like maybe the people who are fans of yours have been trying to bolster you perhaps a little too much, and maybe giving you too much credit for the fundraising?" Her answer, which the Times published in a transcript but did not cite in its story, was: "I think it was important to Bill Gates that I was there" at the announcement (Vander Ark says he believes it was the first time they ever met). Kennedy still claimed that she should get "some of the credit" for the grant, contending that she only participated "right at the end" because "it coincided with the time I came into the department." In fact, the grant was made in September 2003, a year after she started and more than halfway through her brief tenure."
So it appears that in the only "job" Kennedy has held in her adult life, she was basically a no-show: "One of Kennedy's principal assignments when she worked at DOE was to oversee the Fund, yet its 990 forms, which are filed by law with the IRS, indicate that she only worked an hour a week in 2003, and two hours since, a calculation that Holliday dismissed as merely "a reporting procedure." The same forms, however, require the Fund to estimate the worth of Kennedy's "donated service," and, though the Fund typically listed hundreds of thousands in that broad category of non-cash donations, Holliday concedes they never claimed a cent for Kennedy."
All of this apparently doesn't phase Al Sharpton-someone who's opinions are apparently for sale. On Inside City Hall last night the reverend claimed that Kennedy was only being opposed because she had had the audacity to support Barack Obama in the just past election cycle. Sharpton then went on the extol Caroline's "impressive" resume-"writing" seven books and, "working" in education. He also pointed out, ignoring the fact that this is an appointment process, that there were many sitting senators who lacked these stellar Kennedy credentials before entering the Senate; eliding the fact that the majority of those folks had placed their fate in the hands of the voters.
Barrett deserves the last word on this outrageous charade: "The campaign that she and Bloomberg have conducted for this appointment is a campaign of prevarication. Its assumption is that David Paterson, who was first installed in the Senate two decades ago by a Harlem-based Democratic county committee when the incumbent died, and who rose to governor when another incumbent quit in disgrace, is too weak and uneasy about the challenge that awaits him in 2010 to do anything but knuckle under to their cabal. They believe Paterson will see Bloomberg and Kennedy's political marriage as a lucrative source of potential contributions for his own campaign, though Kennedy has given almost as little to New York Democrats as she has to its public school children, and Bloomberg has only bankrolled Republicans."
How so, you may ask? According to Barrett, the Kennedy ploy is designed to outflank his potential Democratic opponents in the fall: "A Kennedy selection, should it happen, would become the prelude to a more formal alliance, or at least a non-aggression pact, between Bloomberg and Paterson that will carry through the 2009 mayoral election and the 2010 gubernatorial and senatorial races. Since Paterson, like most governors, is the leader of his state party, such a coalition would undercut any serious challenge this year to Bloomberg, a registered Independent."
Let's not forget that Paterson stood by-no doubt greatly relieved-while Bloomberg hijacked the term limits restriction and obviated any potential gubernatorial challenge in 2010; and thereby probably also deprived Bill Thompson of a legitimate shot at the mayoralty: "No wonder Paterson told reporters that he would "love to have the mayor around" for four more years, though he was officially neutral on the Council bill."
What the Kennedy elevation does for Mike "I'm Above the Special Interests" Bloomberg, is to wash away the stank of his love affair with all things Republican: "Bloomberg's strategy: to box Paterson in again, just as he did on term limits, by offering up an irresistible choice. Kennedy's selection would subsequently link the mayor to the ultimate Democratic family just as Bloomberg was launching his own re-election effort...With a Democratic high tide, nationally and in New York, Bloomberg is suddenly doing all he can to cement his ties to the party. But if that awkward arrangement is going to work, the mayor has to hope that his new friends, like Paterson and Kennedy, don't look too carefully at the last eight years."
Barrett now evinces a different Bloomberg, a more cynical fellow than the one that, in his view, exhibited a refreshing candor in his first term: "As candid as Bloomberg was early in his public life, he is now just another player, moving from evasion to spin to falsehood." We're sure, however, that the original article was no different than the current self serving pol; it's just become more obvious to some of the previously gullible.
The Voice piece does a real service in the manner in which it exposes the blatant political uses of the city's Department of Education-an argument that Barrett advances to question the wisdom of perpetuating mayoral control of the city schools. Chancellor Klein is seen as the Muneco-in-Chief in all of this.
As he points out: "Klein made a national appearance on CBS for Kennedy and even penned an op-ed for CNN.com that championed her candidacy, which was reprinted in a newsletter published by the Department of Education. Because Kennedy's 22-month stint between 2002 and 2004 as Klein's chief executive of the newly created Office of Strategic Partnerships is the only job she's ever held—a (very) part-time, $1-a-year position—the chancellor is literally the only employer she can turn to for a recommendation letter. His gushing has been so embarrassing that even Kennedy has tried to play it down. According to the Times, Klein "credited her with bringing in a $51 million gift from the Gates Foundation," the largest donation in school system history. But Tom Vander Ark, a nationally renowned educator who ran the Gates program and made the grant, told the Voice that "she didn't have anything to do with it." Asked what her role was in another $50 million in smaller grants that Gates gave the city between 2003 and 2005, Vander Ark, who is hardly a Klein enemy and praised him for his innovation, said: " 'None' would be an overstatement."
Only among the toffs could such an obvious disregard for qualifications be advanced with a straight face. When we examine the Kennedy resume we find...well, absolutely nothing. In contrast, Bloomberg should have been supporting Sarah Palin for a Nobel Prize: "When the Times subsequently got an extended interview with Kennedy, the reporters asked about Klein's original claim that "she brought the Gates grant in," wondering: "Do you feel like maybe the people who are fans of yours have been trying to bolster you perhaps a little too much, and maybe giving you too much credit for the fundraising?" Her answer, which the Times published in a transcript but did not cite in its story, was: "I think it was important to Bill Gates that I was there" at the announcement (Vander Ark says he believes it was the first time they ever met). Kennedy still claimed that she should get "some of the credit" for the grant, contending that she only participated "right at the end" because "it coincided with the time I came into the department." In fact, the grant was made in September 2003, a year after she started and more than halfway through her brief tenure."
So it appears that in the only "job" Kennedy has held in her adult life, she was basically a no-show: "One of Kennedy's principal assignments when she worked at DOE was to oversee the Fund, yet its 990 forms, which are filed by law with the IRS, indicate that she only worked an hour a week in 2003, and two hours since, a calculation that Holliday dismissed as merely "a reporting procedure." The same forms, however, require the Fund to estimate the worth of Kennedy's "donated service," and, though the Fund typically listed hundreds of thousands in that broad category of non-cash donations, Holliday concedes they never claimed a cent for Kennedy."
All of this apparently doesn't phase Al Sharpton-someone who's opinions are apparently for sale. On Inside City Hall last night the reverend claimed that Kennedy was only being opposed because she had had the audacity to support Barack Obama in the just past election cycle. Sharpton then went on the extol Caroline's "impressive" resume-"writing" seven books and, "working" in education. He also pointed out, ignoring the fact that this is an appointment process, that there were many sitting senators who lacked these stellar Kennedy credentials before entering the Senate; eliding the fact that the majority of those folks had placed their fate in the hands of the voters.
Barrett deserves the last word on this outrageous charade: "The campaign that she and Bloomberg have conducted for this appointment is a campaign of prevarication. Its assumption is that David Paterson, who was first installed in the Senate two decades ago by a Harlem-based Democratic county committee when the incumbent died, and who rose to governor when another incumbent quit in disgrace, is too weak and uneasy about the challenge that awaits him in 2010 to do anything but knuckle under to their cabal. They believe Paterson will see Bloomberg and Kennedy's political marriage as a lucrative source of potential contributions for his own campaign, though Kennedy has given almost as little to New York Democrats as she has to its public school children, and Bloomberg has only bankrolled Republicans."
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Yankee Stadium and the Special Interests
We have long argued that it was a fundamental error to say that Mike Bloomberg, owing to his great fortune, was therefore above the special interests that so often prove nettlesome to the well functioning of politics for the general good. In our view, Bloomberg, rather than being above these sometimes tawdry interests, actually embodies them. Nothing could more clearly underscore this point of view than Jim Dwyer's column on the controversy over the building of a new Yankee Stadium.
As Dwyer demonstrates: "Suppose you are Mr. Bloomberg, your hopes of becoming president or vice president all but vanished. You have to step down as mayor in 2009 because a law that you unequivocally supported says you only get two terms. How handy, then, to have powerful allies, like the developer, Jerry I. Speyer and the lobbyist, Howard Rubenstein, to convince other influential people that term limits will deprive the city of an essential leader during an era of financial crisis. Mr. Speyer is building Yankee Stadium. Mr. Rubenstein represents the Yankees. Their stated case for Mr. Bloomberg never rested on the mayor’s support for the stadium, but on his qualities as a manager and their view that he would be the most capable steward of the city during hard economic times."
Of course, these are the kinds of quid pro quos that don't find their way into poorly reasoned legal decisions about term limits-apparently even judges are beguiled and beffuddled by all of the mayor's money. And the sweetheart nature of this deal is being whitewashed by the folks at EDC: "The Yankees are paying for the entire construction of the new stadium — the plasma television screens and all,” David Lombino, a spokesman for the city’s Economic Development Corporation, wrote in an e-mail message that took exception to a column I wrote last week about the deals. “The more expensive stadium they build, the more debt they take on and the more money they must pay back.” The Yankees are indeed paying off the tax-exempt bonds that will finance the bulk of the stadium construction, but they are doing so instead of paying property taxes."
And then there are all of the ancillary costs-those that the tax payers will be on the hook for: "Moreover, the claims that the Yankees are paying for the entire construction — trumpeted throughout the process — rests on an illusion achieved through precision language.
There is far more to building a stadium than simply its construction. To replace the 22 acres of parkland the city turned over to the Yankees, to build sewers and roads that will support the stadium, the city will spend $325 million — money that will be borrowed by the taxpayers, leaving that much less for other public projects."
And Dwyer put the lead pencil to the job creation chimera: "The city is proud of the deal, officials say, because it will create “1,000 permanent new jobs.” If you scratch into the official filings, it turns out that there are actually only 22 new full-time jobs expected. The rest are seasonal positions — valuable, certainly, but only if they really exist. And what if the team doesn’t create 1,000 new jobs? Does the city have any mechanism to hold the team accountable, to get back some of its investment? Asked about this on Tuesday, Mr. Lombino, the spokesman for development corporation, said there is none. It seems only prudent — honest, even — to move the promise of 1,000 new jobs onto the balance sheet of the invisible."
So what we have is another example of the "independent" mayor carrying water for the real estate and big business folks-arguing all along that this is really in the overall public interest. And while Bloomberg continues to do this-and let's not forget his shilling for the Wall Sreeters-the local economy, made up of thousands of small and neighborhood firms, is left to flounder in this economic climate; buried by, not only the exigent times, but by a mayor who has imposed tax and regulatory burdens that have stifled growth and caused further hardship that could have been mitigated by more sensible-and sensitive-economic development policies.
As Dwyer demonstrates: "Suppose you are Mr. Bloomberg, your hopes of becoming president or vice president all but vanished. You have to step down as mayor in 2009 because a law that you unequivocally supported says you only get two terms. How handy, then, to have powerful allies, like the developer, Jerry I. Speyer and the lobbyist, Howard Rubenstein, to convince other influential people that term limits will deprive the city of an essential leader during an era of financial crisis. Mr. Speyer is building Yankee Stadium. Mr. Rubenstein represents the Yankees. Their stated case for Mr. Bloomberg never rested on the mayor’s support for the stadium, but on his qualities as a manager and their view that he would be the most capable steward of the city during hard economic times."
Of course, these are the kinds of quid pro quos that don't find their way into poorly reasoned legal decisions about term limits-apparently even judges are beguiled and beffuddled by all of the mayor's money. And the sweetheart nature of this deal is being whitewashed by the folks at EDC: "The Yankees are paying for the entire construction of the new stadium — the plasma television screens and all,” David Lombino, a spokesman for the city’s Economic Development Corporation, wrote in an e-mail message that took exception to a column I wrote last week about the deals. “The more expensive stadium they build, the more debt they take on and the more money they must pay back.” The Yankees are indeed paying off the tax-exempt bonds that will finance the bulk of the stadium construction, but they are doing so instead of paying property taxes."
And then there are all of the ancillary costs-those that the tax payers will be on the hook for: "Moreover, the claims that the Yankees are paying for the entire construction — trumpeted throughout the process — rests on an illusion achieved through precision language.
There is far more to building a stadium than simply its construction. To replace the 22 acres of parkland the city turned over to the Yankees, to build sewers and roads that will support the stadium, the city will spend $325 million — money that will be borrowed by the taxpayers, leaving that much less for other public projects."
And Dwyer put the lead pencil to the job creation chimera: "The city is proud of the deal, officials say, because it will create “1,000 permanent new jobs.” If you scratch into the official filings, it turns out that there are actually only 22 new full-time jobs expected. The rest are seasonal positions — valuable, certainly, but only if they really exist. And what if the team doesn’t create 1,000 new jobs? Does the city have any mechanism to hold the team accountable, to get back some of its investment? Asked about this on Tuesday, Mr. Lombino, the spokesman for development corporation, said there is none. It seems only prudent — honest, even — to move the promise of 1,000 new jobs onto the balance sheet of the invisible."
So what we have is another example of the "independent" mayor carrying water for the real estate and big business folks-arguing all along that this is really in the overall public interest. And while Bloomberg continues to do this-and let's not forget his shilling for the Wall Sreeters-the local economy, made up of thousands of small and neighborhood firms, is left to flounder in this economic climate; buried by, not only the exigent times, but by a mayor who has imposed tax and regulatory burdens that have stifled growth and caused further hardship that could have been mitigated by more sensible-and sensitive-economic development policies.
YanKeys to the City
Bill Thompson has joined with his erstwhile Democratic opponent, Anthony Weiner, in lambasting the city's sweetheart deal with the NY Yankees. As Liz tells us: "Thompson, who says he intends to fight with Weiner for the right to challenge Bloomberg on the Democratic line in November, accused the mayor and the city IDA of "financial incompetence" and "incredible mismanagement" during negotiations on paying for the the new Yankee Stadium. Since the IDA initially approved stadium deals for both the Yankees and the Mets in 2006, city's capital contribution to the Yankees project has ballooned from $129.2 million to $325 million, Thompson said, adding: "While our financial review cannot determine intent, this incredible mismanagement begs the question: Was this plain old incompetence or a blatant attempt to mislead the public? Either way, New Yorkers now have a box-seat view of fiscal mismanagement."
Hear here, and all praise Richard Brodsky who has subpoenaed Randy Levine and EDC's Seth Pinsky: " New York Assembly committee investigating the use of millions of dollars in public funding to build the new Yankee Stadium has subpoenaed the team's president. Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, a Democrat from Westchester County, said Tuesday that his committee subpoenaed Yankees president Randy Levine as well as city Industrial Development Agency Chairman Seth Pinsky. Brodsky said the subpoenas compel the officials to appear for questioning at a hearing Wednesday, and to provide documents the committee wants for its investigation into whether public money should be used for the new stadium in the Bronx."
This doesn't sit well with the mayor's folks who, against all evidence and good sense responded to Brodsky's request: "Brodsky's move was criticized by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office. "I guess it makes for good political theater because it's the Yankees, but when it comes to valuable taxpayer dollars, decisions should be made on return not rhetoric," said Bloomberg spokesman Andrew Brent. "The deal leverages a federal program and will result in New York City getting back more tax revenue than it will cost and the South Bronx getting thousands of new jobs and more than $1 billion in private investment."
Talk about a real Phyrric victory for the South Bronx! It seems that the use of the South Bronx appellation here is a refuge for the scoundrels who are stealing tax dollars for the nation's richest sports franchise-as if those "thousands of new jobs" and $1 billion investment will actually be some real boon to the surrounding neighborhood that has seen its one real attraction, its lush local parkland, destroyed for the construction of the new ballpark.
Apparently, however, both Comptroller Thompson and Assemblyman Brodsky simply are blinded to all of the obvious stadium benefits: "The city comptroller William C. Thompson Jr., on Tuesday accused Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the New York City Industrial Development Agency of bungling the negotiations over the new Yankee Stadium, saying the project’s direct cost to the city has skyrocketed to $325 million from $129.2 million as a result of a series of oversights and mistakes."
Thompson went on to outline the "litany" of mistakes: "Even so, Mr. Thompson’s report amounted to a stinging rebuke of the Bloomberg administration over what the comptroller called a litany of lapses. The cost of demolishing the old Yankee Stadium was underestimated by more than 50 percent, he said, while officials failed to conduct environmental reviews that might have uncovered the problem of waterfront oil tanks at the site of the new stadium. Furthermore, Mr. Thompson said, officials underestimated the cost for a rooftop park and retaining wall; the projected costs have risen by 30 percent, to $44.5 million."
And Thompson goes on to underscore the lack of real oversight by the Bloombergistas-another example of the class mindset and lack of fiscal acumen that has come to characterize this overrated group: "Mr. Thompson’s review also identified several instances in which the city gave up potential sources of revenue. It agreed to surrender use of 250 parking spots to the Yankees as part of its negotiations for a luxury suite, resulting in a loss of $500,000 in revenue per year, and continuing discussions will probably result, Mr. Thompson said, in an additional loss of $750,000 in annual revenue from three billboards, on which the Yankees want the rights to advertise."
So, as we anticipate another election cycle where Mike Bloomberg will once again break all spending records, dramatically injecting his own version of an economic stimulus into the local economy primarily for his own benefit, we will be able to add the Yankee Stadium development to a long list of mega projects launched by a mayor who has lost sight of the needs of average New Yorkers in the pursuit of monuments to his own ego.
The question remaining is, will this have political resonance? As the NY Times points out this morning: "Voters may recall a similar controversy: four years ago, Mr. Bloomberg’s push for a West Side stadium gave his Democratic opponent what seemed like a huge campaign issue — until the stadium project was killed by state legislative leaders, and the issue quickly evaporated. What could give the stadium issue traction this year, however, is the city’s dire financial condition — presenting a stark contrast between struggling, insecure New Yorkers who don’t earn major league salaries, and the hundreds of millions of dollars the new stadium complex is costing them. “Bloomberg is the businessman mayor, that’s been his big claim to competence, and here they’re whacking him where he is the strongest,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute."
Add to the jarring nature of the excess, is the jock sniffing and sophomoric attempt by the EDC lackeys to grab a choice luxury box for their use: "Mr. Bloomberg is already distancing himself from the more controversial parts of the deal with the Yankees. After embarrassing e-mail messages surfaced that showed his aides zealously pursuing a luxury suite in the new stadium, his administration announced that it would give the luxury box back to the Yankees in exchange for payments of at least $100,000 a year."
We'll give the pollster Carroll the last word here: "My guess is this won’t be the end of it by a long shot,” he added. “These are tough economic times, people are being told we’ve got to economize, we’ve got to tighten our belts, and the Yankees are blowing money by the carload for players.”
Hear here, and all praise Richard Brodsky who has subpoenaed Randy Levine and EDC's Seth Pinsky: " New York Assembly committee investigating the use of millions of dollars in public funding to build the new Yankee Stadium has subpoenaed the team's president. Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, a Democrat from Westchester County, said Tuesday that his committee subpoenaed Yankees president Randy Levine as well as city Industrial Development Agency Chairman Seth Pinsky. Brodsky said the subpoenas compel the officials to appear for questioning at a hearing Wednesday, and to provide documents the committee wants for its investigation into whether public money should be used for the new stadium in the Bronx."
This doesn't sit well with the mayor's folks who, against all evidence and good sense responded to Brodsky's request: "Brodsky's move was criticized by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office. "I guess it makes for good political theater because it's the Yankees, but when it comes to valuable taxpayer dollars, decisions should be made on return not rhetoric," said Bloomberg spokesman Andrew Brent. "The deal leverages a federal program and will result in New York City getting back more tax revenue than it will cost and the South Bronx getting thousands of new jobs and more than $1 billion in private investment."
Talk about a real Phyrric victory for the South Bronx! It seems that the use of the South Bronx appellation here is a refuge for the scoundrels who are stealing tax dollars for the nation's richest sports franchise-as if those "thousands of new jobs" and $1 billion investment will actually be some real boon to the surrounding neighborhood that has seen its one real attraction, its lush local parkland, destroyed for the construction of the new ballpark.
Apparently, however, both Comptroller Thompson and Assemblyman Brodsky simply are blinded to all of the obvious stadium benefits: "The city comptroller William C. Thompson Jr., on Tuesday accused Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the New York City Industrial Development Agency of bungling the negotiations over the new Yankee Stadium, saying the project’s direct cost to the city has skyrocketed to $325 million from $129.2 million as a result of a series of oversights and mistakes."
Thompson went on to outline the "litany" of mistakes: "Even so, Mr. Thompson’s report amounted to a stinging rebuke of the Bloomberg administration over what the comptroller called a litany of lapses. The cost of demolishing the old Yankee Stadium was underestimated by more than 50 percent, he said, while officials failed to conduct environmental reviews that might have uncovered the problem of waterfront oil tanks at the site of the new stadium. Furthermore, Mr. Thompson said, officials underestimated the cost for a rooftop park and retaining wall; the projected costs have risen by 30 percent, to $44.5 million."
And Thompson goes on to underscore the lack of real oversight by the Bloombergistas-another example of the class mindset and lack of fiscal acumen that has come to characterize this overrated group: "Mr. Thompson’s review also identified several instances in which the city gave up potential sources of revenue. It agreed to surrender use of 250 parking spots to the Yankees as part of its negotiations for a luxury suite, resulting in a loss of $500,000 in revenue per year, and continuing discussions will probably result, Mr. Thompson said, in an additional loss of $750,000 in annual revenue from three billboards, on which the Yankees want the rights to advertise."
So, as we anticipate another election cycle where Mike Bloomberg will once again break all spending records, dramatically injecting his own version of an economic stimulus into the local economy primarily for his own benefit, we will be able to add the Yankee Stadium development to a long list of mega projects launched by a mayor who has lost sight of the needs of average New Yorkers in the pursuit of monuments to his own ego.
The question remaining is, will this have political resonance? As the NY Times points out this morning: "Voters may recall a similar controversy: four years ago, Mr. Bloomberg’s push for a West Side stadium gave his Democratic opponent what seemed like a huge campaign issue — until the stadium project was killed by state legislative leaders, and the issue quickly evaporated. What could give the stadium issue traction this year, however, is the city’s dire financial condition — presenting a stark contrast between struggling, insecure New Yorkers who don’t earn major league salaries, and the hundreds of millions of dollars the new stadium complex is costing them. “Bloomberg is the businessman mayor, that’s been his big claim to competence, and here they’re whacking him where he is the strongest,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute."
Add to the jarring nature of the excess, is the jock sniffing and sophomoric attempt by the EDC lackeys to grab a choice luxury box for their use: "Mr. Bloomberg is already distancing himself from the more controversial parts of the deal with the Yankees. After embarrassing e-mail messages surfaced that showed his aides zealously pursuing a luxury suite in the new stadium, his administration announced that it would give the luxury box back to the Yankees in exchange for payments of at least $100,000 a year."
We'll give the pollster Carroll the last word here: "My guess is this won’t be the end of it by a long shot,” he added. “These are tough economic times, people are being told we’ve got to economize, we’ve got to tighten our belts, and the Yankees are blowing money by the carload for players.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
