The following is a guest post by Morton Sloan and Avi Kaner, president and vice president of Morton Williams Supermarkets.
Morton Williams Supermarkets Defends Itself – A David vs. Goliath Story
The Village Voice recently ran a story based on a lobbying proposal that was written to Morton Williams Supermarkets. This unexecuted private proposal outlined the kind of grass roots lobbying and community organizing strategy needed to protect Morton Williams Supermarkets from an unfair attack by the Related Company, a multi-billion dollar developer subsidized by City and State government.
The story here is how the Related Company is using its favored nation status with the current administration, as well as financial subsidies, to destroy local tax-paying businesses like ours that have been loyal to the Bronx. Related’s plans for such a retail use would violate the terms of the city’s RFP which stated “proposed commercial and retail uses must expand and enhance the current mix of retail offerings in the area, and endeavor to not duplicate or directly compete with the existing retail uses.”
Suddenly, Related announced its intention to disregard this RFP requirement. Instead Related plans a mammoth 60,000 square foot supermarket in the armory that would have a catastrophic impact on Morton Williams Supermarkets and our company-wide hiring office across the street. Morton Williams is a good union employer that has been headquartered in the Kingsbridge community for over fifty years, employing over 450 Kingsbridge area residents with full-time union jobs, health care, and other benefits. Morton Williams Supermarkets and its workers have every right to defend ourselves against a billionaire developer that has been afforded special treatment in the form of rich subsidies because of his ties to people in power.
According to Morton Sloan, President of Morton Williams Supermarkets, “The Related Company has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists; lawyers, and consultants to advance its multi-billion dollar real estate portfolio. We are trying to fight back in the little way we can. This is a David vs. Goliath story.” Regarding the tens of millions of dollars of government subsidies and tax breaks to the Related Company, Morton Sloan states, “to destroy our business with government subsidies is simply an outrage. The fact that taxes paid by businesses like Morton Williams will be used to subsidize a giant retail competitor magnifies the unfairness.”
Avi Kaner, VP of Morton Williams Supermarkets, explains that, “given our history, investment and commitment no one should be surprised that we are opposed to the use of the Kingsbridge armory for supermarket/warehouse club use.” He continues, “it would, without a doubt, represent a lethal blow to our two Bronx stores which would positively close as a result. It will also be a lethal blow against the neighborhood with the eventual elimination of many hundreds of Morton Williams union jobs as our hiring and corporate office will be forced to move to a location outside of the Bronx.”
Morton Williams, as well as its many competitors, have hired new immigrants and neighborhood residents for decades – all without a penny of subsidies and tax incentives. We welcome fair competition, but will fight unfair massive government-subsidized competition to the best of our abilities. To this date, The Mayor’s office has not responded to a letter expressing our concerns.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Not Even a Rubber Stamp
Henry Stern once remarked-in reference to the lack of political meaning embodied in the old city council: "...that the New York City Council was less than a rubber stamp because a rubber stamp at least leaves an impression." And now there is the Panel for Educational Policy; as City Room explains: "If there was ever any question over the sway wielded by the Panel for Educational Policy — an enigmatic group of 13 charged with overseeing city education matters and often ridiculed as a rubber stamp — Friday morning appeared to clear things up. The Department of Education, it seems, forgot to get the state-mandated blessing of the panel before it submitted its $22.3 billion budget to the City Council."
But, as the blog points out, this panel has been the sticking point surrounding whether or not to renew the mayoral control regime over the NYC schools: "The meeting came as the panel’s exact duties, and to what extent it should serve as a hedge against the mayor’s authority over city education policy, have become a focal point of the debate in Albany over mayoral control of city schools."
And, as it turned out, the meeting was pro forma-with one exception: "At 10:30 a.m., the full flock of panelists shuffled inside the majestic Tweed Courthouse — a rare feat for a board that boasts an average 75 percent attendance rate for its mayoral appointees. The members emerged 40 minutes later, having given the budget an 11-1 voice of support. But that did not preclude the verbal fisticuffs. “The folks and parents of Manhattan do not expect me to be a rubber stamp,” Mr. Sullivan, the lone dissenter, told the schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, who serves as the panel’s chairman. “The borough president didn’t send me here to be a potted plant.”
But clearly the panel was never briefed, and simply had no clue-which of course didn't prevent them from following instructions like the good pupils most of them are: "Another parent member, Dmytro Fedkowskyj of Queens, called for the creation of a budget subcommittee, saying panel members had not mastered enough of the ins and outs to give an informed vote.
“In the ninth inning, it’s very difficult,” Mr. Fedkowskyj said to the nods of other members. “A lot could have been dealt with before, so we’re not all looking like deer in the headlights.”
All of which underscores the fact that there is no credible parental oversight built into the current governance system-the one that is on life support and may expire on June 30th. And maybe that's a good thing.
But, as the blog points out, this panel has been the sticking point surrounding whether or not to renew the mayoral control regime over the NYC schools: "The meeting came as the panel’s exact duties, and to what extent it should serve as a hedge against the mayor’s authority over city education policy, have become a focal point of the debate in Albany over mayoral control of city schools."
And, as it turned out, the meeting was pro forma-with one exception: "At 10:30 a.m., the full flock of panelists shuffled inside the majestic Tweed Courthouse — a rare feat for a board that boasts an average 75 percent attendance rate for its mayoral appointees. The members emerged 40 minutes later, having given the budget an 11-1 voice of support. But that did not preclude the verbal fisticuffs. “The folks and parents of Manhattan do not expect me to be a rubber stamp,” Mr. Sullivan, the lone dissenter, told the schools chancellor, Joel I. Klein, who serves as the panel’s chairman. “The borough president didn’t send me here to be a potted plant.”
But clearly the panel was never briefed, and simply had no clue-which of course didn't prevent them from following instructions like the good pupils most of them are: "Another parent member, Dmytro Fedkowskyj of Queens, called for the creation of a budget subcommittee, saying panel members had not mastered enough of the ins and outs to give an informed vote.
“In the ninth inning, it’s very difficult,” Mr. Fedkowskyj said to the nods of other members. “A lot could have been dealt with before, so we’re not all looking like deer in the headlights.”
All of which underscores the fact that there is no credible parental oversight built into the current governance system-the one that is on life support and may expire on June 30th. And maybe that's a good thing.
A Hundred Bottles of Beer on the Wall
It looks like more hurry up and wait when it comes to resolving the state's expanded bottle bill. As the Politicker reports: "Lawyers representing both the state and an association of bottlers appeared today in Federal Court in Manhattan to reargue a decision which suspended the state's expanded bottle law until next year, but the case was adjourned for two weeks."
With the state senate in hibernation, and the legislative session about to end, it makes us wonder how this issue-or any issue that remains unresolved-will be addressed any time soon. And now, the legislators are starting to really fight among themselves.
As the NY Daily News reports: "State senators made a bold move Thursday to end their paralyzing stalemate: They packed up and went home. After yet another fruitless negotiating session - which almost came to blows - the battling pols got out of Dodge to enjoy their long weekend."
What happens next is any one's guess. But clearly the state senate has taken dysfunction to a new level. Can things get any worse?
With the state senate in hibernation, and the legislative session about to end, it makes us wonder how this issue-or any issue that remains unresolved-will be addressed any time soon. And now, the legislators are starting to really fight among themselves.
As the NY Daily News reports: "State senators made a bold move Thursday to end their paralyzing stalemate: They packed up and went home. After yet another fruitless negotiating session - which almost came to blows - the battling pols got out of Dodge to enjoy their long weekend."
What happens next is any one's guess. But clearly the state senate has taken dysfunction to a new level. Can things get any worse?
Small First Step
We have been extremely critical of the mayor's, "five borough economic plan," because of the absence of any real effort to help small business-especially in the face of an economic crisis that has a disparate impact on the smallest entrepreneurs. Which is why we are somewhat buoyed by the efforts of Speaker Quinn-along with the mayor-to attempt to address some of the city's regulatory burdens, burdens that contribute to the bad city business climate.
As Crain's reports: "City Council Speaker Christine Quinn unveiled an agreement with the Bloomberg administration Thursday morning on a trifecta of measures geared toward making it easier for small businesses in the city to launch and prosper. Legislation will be introduced later this month to create a three-month penalty-forgiveness period for businesses and individuals with outstanding fines owed to the Environmental Control Board—the city tribunal that hears cases on quality-of-life violations issued by agencies like the Department of Buildings, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Sanitation and the Fire Department."
In addition, the proposal looks to modify some fines, if and when the underlying problem is cured-a measure we've advocated for years: "Starting this fall, the city will waive interest and late fees for businesses that can prove they’ve corrected the underlying problems. Officials hope the measure will help small businesses weighed down by the debts and simultaneously boost revenue for the city, which has struggled to collect nearly $200 million in outstanding fines."
But, as our friend and small business advocate/lawyer tells us, the city could do a lot more; The fine forgiveness, by itself, he says, is nonsense. Why interest and penalty only? How about forgiving the fine if the issue has been corrected, he asks. Isn't that the public policy reason for a summons to force a violation to be corrected?
And he's right; but let's give credit where credit is due-as the NY Daily News does today in its editorial: "The city's small businesses loom large on payday, and that's why three measures aimed at nurturing and encouraging these vital enterprises are very welcome...Council Speaker Christine Quinn is aiming to ease the load. With Mayor Bloomberg's agreement, she'll back legislation for a three-month penalty-forgiveness period on quality-of-life summonses. Interest and fees will be waived when businesses correct the complaint and pay up."
The most significant proposal-at least if it's taken to its logical conclusion-is the review panel to examine the city's regulatory code. As Crain's points out: "Finally, Ms. Quinn formally announced the formation of a regulatory review panel charged with examining agency rules and regulations that affect small business, with the aim of stripping away those that are outdated or unnecessarily interfere with business operations. Council members, including David Yassky, D-Brooklyn, and James Oddo, R-Staten Island, will sit on the panel, along with representatives of the mayor’s office and heads of city agencies. They’ll issue a report to the mayor and council speaker by the end of the year. Mr. Yassky has said for the panel to be effective, members need to go one-by-one through rules and regulations and eliminate those that do not serve a legitimate public interest."
Another idea that we have been pushing for years, since the municipal code is larded with unnecessary-but revenue producing nonetheless-regulations. And, finally, there is a suggestion for a small business review panel: "Ms. Quinn suggested the panel examine the possibility of requiring a small-business impact statement before any new enforcement regulations are instituted. An estimated 70,000 small businesses spanning 55 categories are licensed by the city's Department of Consumer Affairs alone. And untold numbers of regulations affecting companies small and large are enforced by other agencies, ranging from the health department to the buildings department."
In all of this, however, we should realize that the elephant in the room-as the NY Post highlights in its editorial today-is the city's tax burden; one that is exacerbated by the sales tax hike in the latest budget: "Big mistake: At 8.375 percent, the tax already drives shoppers to stores in Jersey and elsewhere, costing the city business. Another bump surely won't help. Likewise, there's little in the plan to significantly reduce Gotham's other off-the-chart, broad-based levies -- which have long hurt employers and taxpayers and slowed the economy."
So, with stores going bankrupt in record numbers, the city is doing something-however mild-to try to help. Now if it could only reduce its tax addiction-and bring down the out of control costs of government-then the business climate would improve and more retailers, large and small, would thrive.
As Crain's reports: "City Council Speaker Christine Quinn unveiled an agreement with the Bloomberg administration Thursday morning on a trifecta of measures geared toward making it easier for small businesses in the city to launch and prosper. Legislation will be introduced later this month to create a three-month penalty-forgiveness period for businesses and individuals with outstanding fines owed to the Environmental Control Board—the city tribunal that hears cases on quality-of-life violations issued by agencies like the Department of Buildings, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Sanitation and the Fire Department."
In addition, the proposal looks to modify some fines, if and when the underlying problem is cured-a measure we've advocated for years: "Starting this fall, the city will waive interest and late fees for businesses that can prove they’ve corrected the underlying problems. Officials hope the measure will help small businesses weighed down by the debts and simultaneously boost revenue for the city, which has struggled to collect nearly $200 million in outstanding fines."
But, as our friend and small business advocate/lawyer tells us, the city could do a lot more; The fine forgiveness, by itself, he says, is nonsense. Why interest and penalty only? How about forgiving the fine if the issue has been corrected, he asks. Isn't that the public policy reason for a summons to force a violation to be corrected?
And he's right; but let's give credit where credit is due-as the NY Daily News does today in its editorial: "The city's small businesses loom large on payday, and that's why three measures aimed at nurturing and encouraging these vital enterprises are very welcome...Council Speaker Christine Quinn is aiming to ease the load. With Mayor Bloomberg's agreement, she'll back legislation for a three-month penalty-forgiveness period on quality-of-life summonses. Interest and fees will be waived when businesses correct the complaint and pay up."
The most significant proposal-at least if it's taken to its logical conclusion-is the review panel to examine the city's regulatory code. As Crain's points out: "Finally, Ms. Quinn formally announced the formation of a regulatory review panel charged with examining agency rules and regulations that affect small business, with the aim of stripping away those that are outdated or unnecessarily interfere with business operations. Council members, including David Yassky, D-Brooklyn, and James Oddo, R-Staten Island, will sit on the panel, along with representatives of the mayor’s office and heads of city agencies. They’ll issue a report to the mayor and council speaker by the end of the year. Mr. Yassky has said for the panel to be effective, members need to go one-by-one through rules and regulations and eliminate those that do not serve a legitimate public interest."
Another idea that we have been pushing for years, since the municipal code is larded with unnecessary-but revenue producing nonetheless-regulations. And, finally, there is a suggestion for a small business review panel: "Ms. Quinn suggested the panel examine the possibility of requiring a small-business impact statement before any new enforcement regulations are instituted. An estimated 70,000 small businesses spanning 55 categories are licensed by the city's Department of Consumer Affairs alone. And untold numbers of regulations affecting companies small and large are enforced by other agencies, ranging from the health department to the buildings department."
In all of this, however, we should realize that the elephant in the room-as the NY Post highlights in its editorial today-is the city's tax burden; one that is exacerbated by the sales tax hike in the latest budget: "Big mistake: At 8.375 percent, the tax already drives shoppers to stores in Jersey and elsewhere, costing the city business. Another bump surely won't help. Likewise, there's little in the plan to significantly reduce Gotham's other off-the-chart, broad-based levies -- which have long hurt employers and taxpayers and slowed the economy."
So, with stores going bankrupt in record numbers, the city is doing something-however mild-to try to help. Now if it could only reduce its tax addiction-and bring down the out of control costs of government-then the business climate would improve and more retailers, large and small, would thrive.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Kingsbridge Armory: Test Case fo CBAs
Lost somewhat in the supermarket controversy in the land use application for the re-development of the Kingsbridge Armory, is the fact that the current land use struggle here poses a test case for crafting a legitimate community benefits agreement. The debacles surrounding the Gateway Mall and Yankee Stadium CBAs have given KARA, the community based coalition fighting for real empowerment in this project, a great deal of ammunition in its fight for genuine community empowerment.
This is underscored by the Bronx News Network; and the news outlet points out that the local community board and KARA are in accord over this issue: "The Board and the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance (KARA) are both pushing for a binding CBA/PLA that will include living wage jobs, local hiring preferences, more community space for local programming, environmental protection and affordable recreation space (i.e. not a 24-Hour Fitness Club)."
This policy position is dramatized by the fact that the developer is relying on millions of dollars in tax subsidies; much more than the $13 million we had originally cited. As the Norwood News has reported: "Last Wednesday, the city approved a proposal that could lead to $17.8 million in tax breaks for the Related Companies, the developer that plans to transform the massive landmarked Kingsbridge Armory into a shopping center."
Related, for its part, is dragging its feet; it's simply not use to any genuine kind of community agreement since it has been able,relying on the guile of Jesse James Masyr, to use its political clout to craft developer-friendly pacts that are passed off as CBAs. As the Norwood News points out: "KARA and the Board say they still hope to get these benefits in an agreement, but Masyr told them "no" on the living wage job front on April 24. (They're upset with the Norwood News' headline saying "Living Wage Hopes for Armory Dashed" and maintain their hopes are not dashed by a long shot.)Masyr and Related have not committed to sitting down and negotiating either a CBA or PLA with KARA or the Board."
The key thing to watch out for next week, is how the community board treats the entire issue. It took a lot of heat for writing a letter of support for Related in its quest for IDA funding: "Despite Thompson’s concerns and KARA’s protests, EDC Chairman and IDA board member Seth Pinsky pointed to Community Board 7’s approval of the project as proof that local residents support the tax breaks, even though the board never voted on whether to support them. CB7 Chair Greg Faulkner admitted there had not been a vote, but said he sent a letter to the IDA in support of the project on behalf of the board’s Executive Committee, which is made up of six of the board’s 32 members. [Usually, before a community board takes an action such as writing a letter of support, a quorum must be present and then a majority of members must vote in support of an action. Faulkner said that he now needed to get support for the project on the record.]"
We ran into this same kind of confusion over whether or not the board supported a supermarket in the Armory. Masyr told Crain's that Related only included the idea when it was encouraged to do so by the community board: "Both Community Board 7 and the mayor's office have requested that a supermarket be part of the project, to give consumers better access to fresh produce—a problem in many parts of the Bronx."
Yet board chair Faulkner never had a vote on this subject either; and he claims that his board supports the KARA agenda-which includes no supermarket at the armory: "Faulkner said the board agreed in principle on almost all of KARA’s demands and will continue to fight for community benefits. Faulkner hopes to create a negotiating committee that includes members of the community board, City Council, borough president’s office, and KARA."
But all of the area elected officials are supporting KARA's efforts; a fact that was made manifest at the IDA hearing: "Several elected officials came to voice support for KARA, including Council Majority Leader Joel Rivera, Councilman Oliver Koppell and Thompson. During the hearing, representatives of Congressman Jose Serrano and State Senator Pedro Espada urged the board to postpone its decision until Related met with KARA."
So now the real battle for community empowerment begins; and the KARA coalition, bolstered by the workers at MortonWilliams, are ready to do battle. The stage is set for next Wednesday's community board hearing.
This is underscored by the Bronx News Network; and the news outlet points out that the local community board and KARA are in accord over this issue: "The Board and the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance (KARA) are both pushing for a binding CBA/PLA that will include living wage jobs, local hiring preferences, more community space for local programming, environmental protection and affordable recreation space (i.e. not a 24-Hour Fitness Club)."
This policy position is dramatized by the fact that the developer is relying on millions of dollars in tax subsidies; much more than the $13 million we had originally cited. As the Norwood News has reported: "Last Wednesday, the city approved a proposal that could lead to $17.8 million in tax breaks for the Related Companies, the developer that plans to transform the massive landmarked Kingsbridge Armory into a shopping center."
Related, for its part, is dragging its feet; it's simply not use to any genuine kind of community agreement since it has been able,relying on the guile of Jesse James Masyr, to use its political clout to craft developer-friendly pacts that are passed off as CBAs. As the Norwood News points out: "KARA and the Board say they still hope to get these benefits in an agreement, but Masyr told them "no" on the living wage job front on April 24. (They're upset with the Norwood News' headline saying "Living Wage Hopes for Armory Dashed" and maintain their hopes are not dashed by a long shot.)Masyr and Related have not committed to sitting down and negotiating either a CBA or PLA with KARA or the Board."
The key thing to watch out for next week, is how the community board treats the entire issue. It took a lot of heat for writing a letter of support for Related in its quest for IDA funding: "Despite Thompson’s concerns and KARA’s protests, EDC Chairman and IDA board member Seth Pinsky pointed to Community Board 7’s approval of the project as proof that local residents support the tax breaks, even though the board never voted on whether to support them. CB7 Chair Greg Faulkner admitted there had not been a vote, but said he sent a letter to the IDA in support of the project on behalf of the board’s Executive Committee, which is made up of six of the board’s 32 members. [Usually, before a community board takes an action such as writing a letter of support, a quorum must be present and then a majority of members must vote in support of an action. Faulkner said that he now needed to get support for the project on the record.]"
We ran into this same kind of confusion over whether or not the board supported a supermarket in the Armory. Masyr told Crain's that Related only included the idea when it was encouraged to do so by the community board: "Both Community Board 7 and the mayor's office have requested that a supermarket be part of the project, to give consumers better access to fresh produce—a problem in many parts of the Bronx."
Yet board chair Faulkner never had a vote on this subject either; and he claims that his board supports the KARA agenda-which includes no supermarket at the armory: "Faulkner said the board agreed in principle on almost all of KARA’s demands and will continue to fight for community benefits. Faulkner hopes to create a negotiating committee that includes members of the community board, City Council, borough president’s office, and KARA."
But all of the area elected officials are supporting KARA's efforts; a fact that was made manifest at the IDA hearing: "Several elected officials came to voice support for KARA, including Council Majority Leader Joel Rivera, Councilman Oliver Koppell and Thompson. During the hearing, representatives of Congressman Jose Serrano and State Senator Pedro Espada urged the board to postpone its decision until Related met with KARA."
So now the real battle for community empowerment begins; and the KARA coalition, bolstered by the workers at MortonWilliams, are ready to do battle. The stage is set for next Wednesday's community board hearing.
Baez Supports MortonWilliams: More Needs to be Done
Crain's is reporting (subsc.) that local Bronx council member Maria Baez has come out in support of MortonWilliams Associated supermarket-the store directly across from the proposed Kingsbridge Armory development: "The Related Companies, which needs City Council approval for its city-subsidized Kingsbridge Armory project, says it added a supermarket to its proposal at Community Board 7’s request. But the board has yet to vote, and local Councilwoman Maria Baez says a new store would undercut an Associated across the street. The board will hold a public hearing Wednesday."
That's good news for the store and its workers, but a great deal more is needed, since the goals of the RWDSU-led KARA coalition include important things such as good jobs with living wages. The concept underlying this effort is that, where the city subsidizes development, it needs to insure that the end result produces the kinds of jobs that can really support families-and not the minimum wage level jobs that so many retailers are trying to get away with lately.
If you're gonna take the dough, then you need to provide decent employment for the folks in the neighborhoods that are impacted. It does little good to pump $13 million into an Armory project only to jeopardize existing union jobs; awhile at the same time attracting retail tenants who won't pay their workers at the proper wage levels for NYC. This is a very poor public policy, and shouldn't be part of any "five borough economic plan."
That's good news for the store and its workers, but a great deal more is needed, since the goals of the RWDSU-led KARA coalition include important things such as good jobs with living wages. The concept underlying this effort is that, where the city subsidizes development, it needs to insure that the end result produces the kinds of jobs that can really support families-and not the minimum wage level jobs that so many retailers are trying to get away with lately.
If you're gonna take the dough, then you need to provide decent employment for the folks in the neighborhoods that are impacted. It does little good to pump $13 million into an Armory project only to jeopardize existing union jobs; awhile at the same time attracting retail tenants who won't pay their workers at the proper wage levels for NYC. This is a very poor public policy, and shouldn't be part of any "five borough economic plan."
Coming Up Short
It's not only the state senate that's coming up short; the state also has its own shortfall when it comes to the revenue projected for balancing New York's out of whack budget. As City Room points out: "State tax revenue plunged 36 percent in May from the same period last year, according to a report Wednesday from the state comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, providing little indication of a hoped-for turnaround in the state’s economy...“The General Fund is at historically low levels,” Mr. DiNapoli said in a statement. “The state needs to watch revenues and spending closely.”
What this means is that new revenues are going to be needed in order to insure that the budget stays balanced. As the NY Post reports: "The April and May shortfalls are from revenue projections made by Gov. Paterson's Budget Division in late March as the state adopted its new, record-high, $132 billion budget. DiNapoli said tax collections for June would be crucial, since substantial amounts of income and business taxes are normally paid at the end of the state's first budget quarter this month. Paterson warned last month that the new budget could already be out of balance by as much as $3 billion."
All of which means that the current government stalemate becomes even more crucial-the senate gridlock has real world consequences: "But amid all the absurdity, it can be easy to forget that real business does go on in Albany, and that the votes lawmakers take every day can mean the difference of tens of millions of dollars for local governments across the state."
And the smaller counties around the state really need the sales tax revenues that first must be authorized by the legislature: "The Assembly has passed dozens of bills in recent weeks that would allow counties to charge additional sales tax. But those bills have been bottled up in the Senate, which has not taken action on a single piece of legislation since June 8. “That’s the thing that I think is being missed by most people,” said Joanne M. Mahoney, county executive for Onondaga County, which includes Syracuse. “I don’t know if they realize this has very real consequences for us on the local level. This pays for our schools, our public safety. It’s $40 million for our budget.”
What this dramatizes is that the Abbot and Costello nature of the senate stalemate drama is no laughing matter for local folks who need to provide services-and even if the senate does figure out how to share power, additional funds must be found. Which means that little things like the unredeemed deposits that have been held up because of Judge Griesa's ruling; and the potential $140 million in wine license fees suddenly have even greater significance.
But first, we're going to need to solve the stalemate; and it's unlikely that the suggestion of Senator Espada that he's legally entitled to vote twice will prevail: "The stalemate has spawned some creative suggestions and legal theories. Senator Pedro Espada Jr., the other Democrat who sided with Republicans and was elected as the new Senate president in last week’s overthrow, said on Wednesday that the State Constitution allowed him to cast two votes in the case of a tie: one as senator, and one as acting lieutenant governor, who is empowered by the Constitution to cast a vote in the event of a tie. (Because the lieutenant governor’s office is vacant, that office’s powers fall to the Senate president.) The constitutional language in question is vague, and any such move would probably lead to litigation by Democrats. Mr. Espada also said that should the Democrats not return to the chamber on Thursday, his two votes, added to 30 votes from Republican senators, would be sufficient to provide the legal equivalent of a quorum. “We’re maintaining that if there are 31 members present, and ready to vote, those 31 members can ask for a tie-breaking vote to be cast,” Mr. Espada said."
Well, good luck with that. More likely a scenario is some kind of jerry-built temporary solution that gets the senate through the next few weeks-long enough to take care of the most important pending legislation. After that, a real compromise is needed as the state goes dialing for the dollars that it will need to remain solvent as revenues plummet.
What this means is that new revenues are going to be needed in order to insure that the budget stays balanced. As the NY Post reports: "The April and May shortfalls are from revenue projections made by Gov. Paterson's Budget Division in late March as the state adopted its new, record-high, $132 billion budget. DiNapoli said tax collections for June would be crucial, since substantial amounts of income and business taxes are normally paid at the end of the state's first budget quarter this month. Paterson warned last month that the new budget could already be out of balance by as much as $3 billion."
All of which means that the current government stalemate becomes even more crucial-the senate gridlock has real world consequences: "But amid all the absurdity, it can be easy to forget that real business does go on in Albany, and that the votes lawmakers take every day can mean the difference of tens of millions of dollars for local governments across the state."
And the smaller counties around the state really need the sales tax revenues that first must be authorized by the legislature: "The Assembly has passed dozens of bills in recent weeks that would allow counties to charge additional sales tax. But those bills have been bottled up in the Senate, which has not taken action on a single piece of legislation since June 8. “That’s the thing that I think is being missed by most people,” said Joanne M. Mahoney, county executive for Onondaga County, which includes Syracuse. “I don’t know if they realize this has very real consequences for us on the local level. This pays for our schools, our public safety. It’s $40 million for our budget.”
What this dramatizes is that the Abbot and Costello nature of the senate stalemate drama is no laughing matter for local folks who need to provide services-and even if the senate does figure out how to share power, additional funds must be found. Which means that little things like the unredeemed deposits that have been held up because of Judge Griesa's ruling; and the potential $140 million in wine license fees suddenly have even greater significance.
But first, we're going to need to solve the stalemate; and it's unlikely that the suggestion of Senator Espada that he's legally entitled to vote twice will prevail: "The stalemate has spawned some creative suggestions and legal theories. Senator Pedro Espada Jr., the other Democrat who sided with Republicans and was elected as the new Senate president in last week’s overthrow, said on Wednesday that the State Constitution allowed him to cast two votes in the case of a tie: one as senator, and one as acting lieutenant governor, who is empowered by the Constitution to cast a vote in the event of a tie. (Because the lieutenant governor’s office is vacant, that office’s powers fall to the Senate president.) The constitutional language in question is vague, and any such move would probably lead to litigation by Democrats. Mr. Espada also said that should the Democrats not return to the chamber on Thursday, his two votes, added to 30 votes from Republican senators, would be sufficient to provide the legal equivalent of a quorum. “We’re maintaining that if there are 31 members present, and ready to vote, those 31 members can ask for a tie-breaking vote to be cast,” Mr. Espada said."
Well, good luck with that. More likely a scenario is some kind of jerry-built temporary solution that gets the senate through the next few weeks-long enough to take care of the most important pending legislation. After that, a real compromise is needed as the state goes dialing for the dollars that it will need to remain solvent as revenues plummet.
Courting Redemption
Today's the day for the court review of Judge Griesa's decision to halt implementation of the amended-bigger and better?-deposit law. In our view, the court could limit the scope of the original ruling, but we're not sure what the rationale would be for doing that-the fact that the state needs the money?
But the Schenectady Daily Gazette feels differently: "It wasn’t quite what state Sen. Hiram Monserrate is alleged to have done to his girlfriend with a broken bottle, but U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa’s decision last month stopping implementation of the newly adopted Bigger, Better Bottle Bill until next year was a serious blow to the state’s environment and treasury. We are glad to see that a judge other than Griesa (who is on vacation) has agreed to rehear the case Thursday. There’s a good argument to be made that Griesa went too far in his decision, causing real hardship for the state."
Closed fire houses? Homeless on the streets? But the paper feels that the court wasn't fair: "After the beverage companies raised a fuss, the governor and legislative leaders made clear that they were willing to delay implementation, and perhaps even eliminate the state-specific bar code provision. But Griesa’s decision took it out of their hands, delaying implementation until next April. And that’s not all — he went beyond implementation and labeling to issues the beverage companies weren’t even contesting, like the handling fee for grocery stores and recycling centers and the state’s taking 80 percent of unclaimed water bottle deposits."
The governor and legislative leaders, "made it clear," that they were willing to amend the bill? Oh, please! Nothing was made clear-and Senator Kruger drafted a bill that would have done just what the Daily Gazette has asked; yet no movement on the legislation was seen. How clear is that?
The facts contradict, however inconveniently. Nestle's filed its lawsuit, and Griesa ruled precisely because there was no evidence that the state would take any action before the June 1st deadline. And now we reap the whirlwind-and the Daily Gazette avoids the due process issues that were also raised in the suit; an indication, perhaps, that the bill's defects were crippling.
So we don't believe that the judicial review of the bottle deposit law will be successful. Knowing what we do about the uncertainty of the court system, however, we suppose that any thing's possible.
But the Schenectady Daily Gazette feels differently: "It wasn’t quite what state Sen. Hiram Monserrate is alleged to have done to his girlfriend with a broken bottle, but U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa’s decision last month stopping implementation of the newly adopted Bigger, Better Bottle Bill until next year was a serious blow to the state’s environment and treasury. We are glad to see that a judge other than Griesa (who is on vacation) has agreed to rehear the case Thursday. There’s a good argument to be made that Griesa went too far in his decision, causing real hardship for the state."
Closed fire houses? Homeless on the streets? But the paper feels that the court wasn't fair: "After the beverage companies raised a fuss, the governor and legislative leaders made clear that they were willing to delay implementation, and perhaps even eliminate the state-specific bar code provision. But Griesa’s decision took it out of their hands, delaying implementation until next April. And that’s not all — he went beyond implementation and labeling to issues the beverage companies weren’t even contesting, like the handling fee for grocery stores and recycling centers and the state’s taking 80 percent of unclaimed water bottle deposits."
The governor and legislative leaders, "made it clear," that they were willing to amend the bill? Oh, please! Nothing was made clear-and Senator Kruger drafted a bill that would have done just what the Daily Gazette has asked; yet no movement on the legislation was seen. How clear is that?
The facts contradict, however inconveniently. Nestle's filed its lawsuit, and Griesa ruled precisely because there was no evidence that the state would take any action before the June 1st deadline. And now we reap the whirlwind-and the Daily Gazette avoids the due process issues that were also raised in the suit; an indication, perhaps, that the bill's defects were crippling.
So we don't believe that the judicial review of the bottle deposit law will be successful. Knowing what we do about the uncertainty of the court system, however, we suppose that any thing's possible.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
End the Beer Monoploy!
For over twenty years the major brewers and their wholesaler lackeys have acted in concert to create and maintain a beer monopoly in New York State. This consolidation of market power has not only been a death blow to competition and to small business; but it has also been the beer consumers' worst enemy-as beer prices have skyrocketed in tandem with the disappearance of true competition. There has been, however, a legislative effort to alter this sad state of affairs.
As Crain's Insider reports (subscr): "While most of Albany remains focused on the state Senate circus, a drama unfolded in the Assembly this week in a battle over beer. The fight concerned the brewer’s sales practice. Big beer makers have a contracted distributor for each region of the state, which non contracted distributors say is anti-competitive. Unable to buy beer at the same price or in the same quantities, independents are steadily disappearing."
The slow consolidation of beer distribution was initiated in the 1980s when Anheuser-Busch promulgated its so-called equity contracts that carved out exclusive marketing areas for its anointed contracted wholesalers. This practice, soon replicated by the other brewers, slowly but surely closed off any hope that the New York beer market would remain price competitive.
But the consolidation and monopolization process had dire consequences for the state's independent beer wholesalers. These small distributors, holding the very same "C" license as the contracted wholesalers, had historically provided true competition and lower prices for New Yorkers through their ability to purchase beer-at the cheapest price-from all over the state.
This price competitiveness ended with the equity contracts; with disastrous results for the non-contracted independents: "About 130 have stopped operating in the past decade, but another 360 independents are struggling along. If they had equal access to brewers’ products, they say, beer would be less expensive for consumers. When Bob Abrams was attorney general two decades ago, he went to court trying to end territorial control. He failed, and the Legislature has remained more receptive to the beer lobby than to reform."
And let's not forget that the independents are truly representative of the healthy ethnic diversity of New York. Unlike the contracted wholesalers, who look like a gathering at the Augusta Country Club, independents are woman and minority-owned; and they reflect the low income neighborhoods of NYC where they have historically flourished. In effect, the equity agreement-led process of monopolization has been an ethnic cleansing operation; since over half of the independents who have been forced out in the city are minority owned businesses.
This assault on minority business has developed in spite of efforts, started over two decades ago, to pressure Anheuser-Busch to award at least one of its NYC franchises to a Hispanic operator; especially since a huge percentage of the Budweiser that is consumed in NY is purchased by Hispanics-often from Hispanic run grocery stores.
The NY Times highlighted this fight over a decade ago; when Carlos Nazario led the attack on the budding monopoly: "The local economy may be a mess, crime a constant threat and living costs still ruinous, but one of New York City's consolations has been some of the nation's kinder prices for beer. Now, the nation's largest beer producer is pitted against the city's independent beer distributors in a battle whose outcome, the distributors and city officials say, could create a wholesaling monopoly and raise prices by a dollar or more a case."
And the handwriting was on the wall back then: "Carlos D. Nazario, owner of Metro Beer and Soda Distributors in the South Bronx, sees a more sinister plan, to kill off entrepreneurs who built Budweiser's popularity. Mr. Nazario, president of the 325-member Empire State Beer Distributors Association, said businesses like his ventured into neighborhoods where major brewers had scant distribution. When his father, a Puerto Rican immigrant, founded Metro Beer 22 years ago, Budweiser was a minor presence, Mr. Nazario said. Now, it is so popular in the city's Hispanic neighborhoods that it accounts for 58 percent of his business, he said. From the warehouse and store he bought just last year, his view now includes the Major Deegan Expressway and a dark future. "I don't think I can survive," he said."
And Carlos didn't; he and the other 130 independents went by the wayside as the contracted wholesalers, aided and abetted by their brewer puppet masters, embarked on a discriminatory pricing scheme that eroded the ability of the independent wholesalers to service the retailers that they had been servicing since the end of prohibition.
And New York officials knew what was happening then: "The independent distributors do what anyone trying to keep down the costs of a beer blast would do: they comparison shop. Often, they buy beer from upstate wholesalers willing to undercut the wholesalers closer to the city.
Leslie Gersing, a spokeswoman for Robert Abrams, the state Attorney General, said Mr. Abrams has long fought Anheuser-Busch's practices in court. "It's just another example of their anti-competitive behavior," she said. Mark Green, the city's Consumer Affairs Commissioner, said he would urge the Justice Department to start an antitrust investigation of Anheuser-Busch. "It's a case of monopoly muscle," he said."
Making the situation worse in NYC is the fact that 80% of all the Budweiser distributed isn't even being sold by an independent wholesaler-not since the brewer itself bough three of the five local wholesalers and made them wholly owned subsidiaries of the parent-a parent that is now not even an American company; and, in fact, there isn't a major US brewer left-with Miller and Coors owned by South African Brewing. So we have a situation, where foreign beer monopolists are using their muscle to put local distributors out of business.
Which is why, as Crain's highlights, we have tried to introduce the kind of legislation that would maintain a degree of competitiveness in an other wise non competitive environment: "The independents made another bid this year. Assemblyman Vito Lopez, D-Brooklyn, introduced a bill, and a matching one had bipartisan support in the Senate. But Assemblyman Robin Schimminger, chair of the Committee on Economic Development, Job Creation, Commerce and Industry, objected. Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver’s staff watered down the bill substantially. With no other options, supporters of the original bill accepted the changes, and Schimminger voted for the revised measure."
So, what happened? "But his committee rejected it—a rare occurrence in Albany, especially when a measure is drafted by central staff and backed by the chairman. “That’s a first for me,” says Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist on the losing side. “It was thwarted by the concerted power of brewers and franchise wholesalers. They were burning up the phone lines. They were out in force.” The message, he concludes, is, “There can be no threat to territorial monopoly."
But the folks at the Empire Beer Distributors Association aren't going away so soon. With the number of brewers shrinking, and the number of their contracted wholesalers down to 24 from a high of around 85 less than 15 years ago, the beer market is rapidly becoming a threat to the health of not only independent wholesalers, but to the beer drinkers of New York.
Let's not forget the the recently passed bottle law, the one that took away the hundreds of millions of unclaimed deposits that these contracted wholesalers have been swigging for over the passed two decades, prompted these chazas to protest and threaten huge price increases: "Here's the franchised beer position: "But D. Bertoline & Sons in Peekskill, the distributor of Budweiser beer products in Westchester and Putnam, uses unredeemed deposits to pay the costs of shipping recycled products to Connecticut, Vice President of Administration John Bertoline said. That lost revenue, plus higher handling fees and a higher beer excise tax imposed by the law, will lead to price increases that get passed along to consumers, he said. That would depress sales, which in turn could reduce employment, he added."
Oh, really? But, as we have pointed out: "We were right there when the bottle bill first passed and went into effect in 1981; and the beer wholesalers wasted no time in raising the price of beer by at least $3.00 a case-all for the increased costs associated with implementing the collection and redemption of the empty containers. So now what?Well, now these very same wholesalers-insulated from real competition by territorial monopolies-want to once again meet the cost of redemption by jacking up the price of a case of beer by another $2! What about the millions of unredeemed deposits that these folks squirreled away over the past twenty seven years? If beer prices are raised, there should be an intervention and investigation by the AG's office into the anti-trust implications of the wholesalers' actions. Additional costs indeed!"
So, once the deposit law is finally implemented, and the nickels revert to the state, watch as the monopolists do what they can do because of the uncompetitive distribution system that NYS has allowed to grow and fester for far too long. The independent distributors need relief; but so too do the state's beleaguered beer consumers-victimized by a system run by folks, drunk with their own power, who have grown wealthy because they have been insulated from true market forces.
As Crain's Insider reports (subscr): "While most of Albany remains focused on the state Senate circus, a drama unfolded in the Assembly this week in a battle over beer. The fight concerned the brewer’s sales practice. Big beer makers have a contracted distributor for each region of the state, which non contracted distributors say is anti-competitive. Unable to buy beer at the same price or in the same quantities, independents are steadily disappearing."
The slow consolidation of beer distribution was initiated in the 1980s when Anheuser-Busch promulgated its so-called equity contracts that carved out exclusive marketing areas for its anointed contracted wholesalers. This practice, soon replicated by the other brewers, slowly but surely closed off any hope that the New York beer market would remain price competitive.
But the consolidation and monopolization process had dire consequences for the state's independent beer wholesalers. These small distributors, holding the very same "C" license as the contracted wholesalers, had historically provided true competition and lower prices for New Yorkers through their ability to purchase beer-at the cheapest price-from all over the state.
This price competitiveness ended with the equity contracts; with disastrous results for the non-contracted independents: "About 130 have stopped operating in the past decade, but another 360 independents are struggling along. If they had equal access to brewers’ products, they say, beer would be less expensive for consumers. When Bob Abrams was attorney general two decades ago, he went to court trying to end territorial control. He failed, and the Legislature has remained more receptive to the beer lobby than to reform."
And let's not forget that the independents are truly representative of the healthy ethnic diversity of New York. Unlike the contracted wholesalers, who look like a gathering at the Augusta Country Club, independents are woman and minority-owned; and they reflect the low income neighborhoods of NYC where they have historically flourished. In effect, the equity agreement-led process of monopolization has been an ethnic cleansing operation; since over half of the independents who have been forced out in the city are minority owned businesses.
This assault on minority business has developed in spite of efforts, started over two decades ago, to pressure Anheuser-Busch to award at least one of its NYC franchises to a Hispanic operator; especially since a huge percentage of the Budweiser that is consumed in NY is purchased by Hispanics-often from Hispanic run grocery stores.
The NY Times highlighted this fight over a decade ago; when Carlos Nazario led the attack on the budding monopoly: "The local economy may be a mess, crime a constant threat and living costs still ruinous, but one of New York City's consolations has been some of the nation's kinder prices for beer. Now, the nation's largest beer producer is pitted against the city's independent beer distributors in a battle whose outcome, the distributors and city officials say, could create a wholesaling monopoly and raise prices by a dollar or more a case."
And the handwriting was on the wall back then: "Carlos D. Nazario, owner of Metro Beer and Soda Distributors in the South Bronx, sees a more sinister plan, to kill off entrepreneurs who built Budweiser's popularity. Mr. Nazario, president of the 325-member Empire State Beer Distributors Association, said businesses like his ventured into neighborhoods where major brewers had scant distribution. When his father, a Puerto Rican immigrant, founded Metro Beer 22 years ago, Budweiser was a minor presence, Mr. Nazario said. Now, it is so popular in the city's Hispanic neighborhoods that it accounts for 58 percent of his business, he said. From the warehouse and store he bought just last year, his view now includes the Major Deegan Expressway and a dark future. "I don't think I can survive," he said."
And Carlos didn't; he and the other 130 independents went by the wayside as the contracted wholesalers, aided and abetted by their brewer puppet masters, embarked on a discriminatory pricing scheme that eroded the ability of the independent wholesalers to service the retailers that they had been servicing since the end of prohibition.
And New York officials knew what was happening then: "The independent distributors do what anyone trying to keep down the costs of a beer blast would do: they comparison shop. Often, they buy beer from upstate wholesalers willing to undercut the wholesalers closer to the city.
Leslie Gersing, a spokeswoman for Robert Abrams, the state Attorney General, said Mr. Abrams has long fought Anheuser-Busch's practices in court. "It's just another example of their anti-competitive behavior," she said. Mark Green, the city's Consumer Affairs Commissioner, said he would urge the Justice Department to start an antitrust investigation of Anheuser-Busch. "It's a case of monopoly muscle," he said."
Making the situation worse in NYC is the fact that 80% of all the Budweiser distributed isn't even being sold by an independent wholesaler-not since the brewer itself bough three of the five local wholesalers and made them wholly owned subsidiaries of the parent-a parent that is now not even an American company; and, in fact, there isn't a major US brewer left-with Miller and Coors owned by South African Brewing. So we have a situation, where foreign beer monopolists are using their muscle to put local distributors out of business.
Which is why, as Crain's highlights, we have tried to introduce the kind of legislation that would maintain a degree of competitiveness in an other wise non competitive environment: "The independents made another bid this year. Assemblyman Vito Lopez, D-Brooklyn, introduced a bill, and a matching one had bipartisan support in the Senate. But Assemblyman Robin Schimminger, chair of the Committee on Economic Development, Job Creation, Commerce and Industry, objected. Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver’s staff watered down the bill substantially. With no other options, supporters of the original bill accepted the changes, and Schimminger voted for the revised measure."
So, what happened? "But his committee rejected it—a rare occurrence in Albany, especially when a measure is drafted by central staff and backed by the chairman. “That’s a first for me,” says Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist on the losing side. “It was thwarted by the concerted power of brewers and franchise wholesalers. They were burning up the phone lines. They were out in force.” The message, he concludes, is, “There can be no threat to territorial monopoly."
But the folks at the Empire Beer Distributors Association aren't going away so soon. With the number of brewers shrinking, and the number of their contracted wholesalers down to 24 from a high of around 85 less than 15 years ago, the beer market is rapidly becoming a threat to the health of not only independent wholesalers, but to the beer drinkers of New York.
Let's not forget the the recently passed bottle law, the one that took away the hundreds of millions of unclaimed deposits that these contracted wholesalers have been swigging for over the passed two decades, prompted these chazas to protest and threaten huge price increases: "Here's the franchised beer position: "But D. Bertoline & Sons in Peekskill, the distributor of Budweiser beer products in Westchester and Putnam, uses unredeemed deposits to pay the costs of shipping recycled products to Connecticut, Vice President of Administration John Bertoline said. That lost revenue, plus higher handling fees and a higher beer excise tax imposed by the law, will lead to price increases that get passed along to consumers, he said. That would depress sales, which in turn could reduce employment, he added."
Oh, really? But, as we have pointed out: "We were right there when the bottle bill first passed and went into effect in 1981; and the beer wholesalers wasted no time in raising the price of beer by at least $3.00 a case-all for the increased costs associated with implementing the collection and redemption of the empty containers. So now what?Well, now these very same wholesalers-insulated from real competition by territorial monopolies-want to once again meet the cost of redemption by jacking up the price of a case of beer by another $2! What about the millions of unredeemed deposits that these folks squirreled away over the past twenty seven years? If beer prices are raised, there should be an intervention and investigation by the AG's office into the anti-trust implications of the wholesalers' actions. Additional costs indeed!"
So, once the deposit law is finally implemented, and the nickels revert to the state, watch as the monopolists do what they can do because of the uncompetitive distribution system that NYS has allowed to grow and fester for far too long. The independent distributors need relief; but so too do the state's beleaguered beer consumers-victimized by a system run by folks, drunk with their own power, who have grown wealthy because they have been insulated from true market forces.
Albany and Costello
The two week old comedy act that has characterized the stalemate in the state senate shows no further evidence of resolution yesterday, as a federal court judge opted to avoid any entanglement in the legislative miasma-citing constitutionally mandated separation of powers: “A judicially imposed resolution would be an improvident intrusion into the internal workings of a co-equal branch of government,” Justice McNamara said in his ruling. “The question calls for a solution by the members of the State Senate, utilizing the art of negotiation and compromise. The failure of the Senate to resolve this issue in an appropriate manner will make them answerable to the electorate.”
So now, with the equal split in place, and no arbiter to break it, we're left with the need to devise some kind of power sharing arrangement;something that the Democrats have offered but the Republicans have rebuffed: "Late Tuesday, Democrats floated a power-sharing agreement of their own that would allow business in the Senate to continue through next Monday, the final scheduled day of session for the year. But it appeared to make little impression on Republicans, who said it was a nonstarter."
For their part, Republicans have floated the idea that Senator Espada could himself break the tie because, as the president pro tem, he has two votes: "Renegade Democratic Sen. Pedro Espada claimed yesterday he and his Republican allies are forging an explosive new plan to give him an unprecedented two votes to break the newly emerged deadlock in the state Senate. "I can have two votes," Espada boldly told The Post. "We're going to maintain that, as the president pro tempore of the Senate, I am also the acting lieutenant governor, and the lieutenant governor can vote when there's a tie."
This, no doubt, had the Democrats muttering that this new radical approach said more about their former colleagues split personality than it does about the state constitution. Regardless, it doesn't appear that this will fly any time soon-leaving the deadlock in place until, and if, a power sharing can be arranged; something that the NY Daily News advocates: "Now, we deserve an end. As McNamara so obviously put it, "The question calls for a solution by the members of the state Senate, utilizing the art of negotiation and compromise." That means 31 Democrats striking a deal with 30 Republicans plus one renegade Democrat (Espada) to share power. Today."
If this doesn't happen, a number of key legislative issues germane to the ability of local governance will be left unresolved: "The new city budget agreement, the one negotiated in professional comity by Mayor Bloomberg and Council Speaker Christine Quinn? Gone, and here come big layoffs. The rickety financial plan crafted by Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi? Gone, and here come big layoffs. Mayoral control of the schools? Gone, and who the hell knows what happens after that."
So our suggestion is that the Senate Dems let the mayor know that he should begin to schedule school board elections for soon after July 1st-and see if Mayor Mike can use his considerable influence on the object of his major charitable donation. After all, no one gave more to the Republican campaign than Mike. Now's the time to really find out whether the mayor got his money's worth.
So now, with the equal split in place, and no arbiter to break it, we're left with the need to devise some kind of power sharing arrangement;something that the Democrats have offered but the Republicans have rebuffed: "Late Tuesday, Democrats floated a power-sharing agreement of their own that would allow business in the Senate to continue through next Monday, the final scheduled day of session for the year. But it appeared to make little impression on Republicans, who said it was a nonstarter."
For their part, Republicans have floated the idea that Senator Espada could himself break the tie because, as the president pro tem, he has two votes: "Renegade Democratic Sen. Pedro Espada claimed yesterday he and his Republican allies are forging an explosive new plan to give him an unprecedented two votes to break the newly emerged deadlock in the state Senate. "I can have two votes," Espada boldly told The Post. "We're going to maintain that, as the president pro tempore of the Senate, I am also the acting lieutenant governor, and the lieutenant governor can vote when there's a tie."
This, no doubt, had the Democrats muttering that this new radical approach said more about their former colleagues split personality than it does about the state constitution. Regardless, it doesn't appear that this will fly any time soon-leaving the deadlock in place until, and if, a power sharing can be arranged; something that the NY Daily News advocates: "Now, we deserve an end. As McNamara so obviously put it, "The question calls for a solution by the members of the state Senate, utilizing the art of negotiation and compromise." That means 31 Democrats striking a deal with 30 Republicans plus one renegade Democrat (Espada) to share power. Today."
If this doesn't happen, a number of key legislative issues germane to the ability of local governance will be left unresolved: "The new city budget agreement, the one negotiated in professional comity by Mayor Bloomberg and Council Speaker Christine Quinn? Gone, and here come big layoffs. The rickety financial plan crafted by Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi? Gone, and here come big layoffs. Mayoral control of the schools? Gone, and who the hell knows what happens after that."
So our suggestion is that the Senate Dems let the mayor know that he should begin to schedule school board elections for soon after July 1st-and see if Mayor Mike can use his considerable influence on the object of his major charitable donation. After all, no one gave more to the Republican campaign than Mike. Now's the time to really find out whether the mayor got his money's worth.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Who's On First?
Just when you thought things really couldn't get any worse, we have reached complete gridlock-with Republicans in the state senate stubbornly claiming the mantle of leadership; but with the 31-31 split in the chamber making the leadership ascension purely nominal (and rather meaningless). This peculiar situation was a result of Hiram's homecoming, as the NY Times explains: "A week after Republicans wrested power in the State Senate away from Democrats, their thin majority collapsed on Monday, leaving the chamber in a 31-31 tie with its leadership picture more confused than ever. The move came when Senator Hiram Monserrate, one of two Democrats who had sided with Republicans to give them a 32-to-30 majority, said he was switching his allegiance again and reaffirmed himself as a member of the Democratic caucus."
All of this has left New York State as a laughing stock-and the poster child of legislative dysfunction; as Clyde Haberman observes from a perch on Normandy Beach, maybe it's time for all of us to examine ourselves for culpability: "New Yorkers are running out of ways to describe Albany as a political version of clown school. Perhaps it is time, then, that they examine what the state of the state says about them. If one believes that people in a democracy get the government they deserve, then we in New York should be unable to look in the mirror without cringing."
But where can we go from here? Bill Hammond suggests power sharing; but those prospects, given the cuckoldery omnipresent in the senate, are as likely to happen-and function smoothly-as they are in an acrimonious divorce where the judge counsels cooperation for, "the sake of the children." But something needs to be done, since absent an agreement it's hard to see how any court can force cooperation.
All of which means that NYC may want to start scheduling school board elections, since come June 30th, the mayoral control scheme comes to an ignominious end if nothing gets done. And the new Democratic "leader" is no fan of Mike Bloomberg's stewardship. So as we head up to Albany today, we are suffused with a sense of the futile nature of the journey; with the Abbot and Costello refrain, "Who's on First?" echoing in our ears.
All of this has left New York State as a laughing stock-and the poster child of legislative dysfunction; as Clyde Haberman observes from a perch on Normandy Beach, maybe it's time for all of us to examine ourselves for culpability: "New Yorkers are running out of ways to describe Albany as a political version of clown school. Perhaps it is time, then, that they examine what the state of the state says about them. If one believes that people in a democracy get the government they deserve, then we in New York should be unable to look in the mirror without cringing."
But where can we go from here? Bill Hammond suggests power sharing; but those prospects, given the cuckoldery omnipresent in the senate, are as likely to happen-and function smoothly-as they are in an acrimonious divorce where the judge counsels cooperation for, "the sake of the children." But something needs to be done, since absent an agreement it's hard to see how any court can force cooperation.
All of which means that NYC may want to start scheduling school board elections, since come June 30th, the mayoral control scheme comes to an ignominious end if nothing gets done. And the new Democratic "leader" is no fan of Mike Bloomberg's stewardship. So as we head up to Albany today, we are suffused with a sense of the futile nature of the journey; with the Abbot and Costello refrain, "Who's on First?" echoing in our ears.
Monday, June 15, 2009
A Tale of Two Carts
The NY Post discovers another example of how the vaunted Bloomberg managerial expertise is, well. more myth than reality. This time it's the fact that permits for food carts are being auctioned off for big bucks: "The hot dog you just bought from a food cart may have been sold by a dead man. The city is investigating a racket where scammers pretend to be vendors who have died or left the country. The crooks pay $200 renewal fees for the lucrative permits -- which should have been returned to the city -- in the name of the vendors. And then they either operate the carts themselves or lease the permits for thousands of dollars."
Now we were under the impression that food carts were subject to strict regulation-courtesy of the mob crackdown during the Giuliani era. Now, under the uber-manager Bloomberg, however, corruption runs freely; undeterred by any oversight: "The hot dog you just bought from a food cart may have been sold by a dead man. The city is investigating a racket where scammers pretend to be vendors who have died or left the country. The crooks pay $200 renewal fees for the lucrative permits -- which should have been returned to the city -- in the name of the vendors. And then they either operate the carts themselves or lease the permits for thousands of dollars."
And make no mistake, this scam means big bucks: "In Long Island City, Queens, a man who gave his name as Mario and described himself as a broker was selling a brand-new food cart -- with attached permit -- for $26,000, "cash only." The permit, Mario said, could be renewed every two years for $10,000. But the papers would remain under the name of the original holder, whom he declined to identify. At a West Side garage, a four-year-old gyro cart with a permit was going for $46,000. A "broker," who declined to give his name, said: "Everything is in cash. Paid in full." His fee to renew the permit was also $10,000."
What this all underscores-aside from managerial cluelessness-is that when a genuine supply and demand equation exists, there is real competition for getting a cart permit-unlike the silly situation where the city is trying to promote green carts in poor neighborhoods. What's the clamor in that case? Well, the city is struggling to find enough veggie vendors to fill the 1,000 permit quota that the city council had set when it passed the misguided enabling legislation.
Where actual demand for a product exists, retailers move in quickly to fill the void. The central planners always feel that they can accomplish the allocation of goods better than the market. And they are always wrong.
Now we were under the impression that food carts were subject to strict regulation-courtesy of the mob crackdown during the Giuliani era. Now, under the uber-manager Bloomberg, however, corruption runs freely; undeterred by any oversight: "The hot dog you just bought from a food cart may have been sold by a dead man. The city is investigating a racket where scammers pretend to be vendors who have died or left the country. The crooks pay $200 renewal fees for the lucrative permits -- which should have been returned to the city -- in the name of the vendors. And then they either operate the carts themselves or lease the permits for thousands of dollars."
And make no mistake, this scam means big bucks: "In Long Island City, Queens, a man who gave his name as Mario and described himself as a broker was selling a brand-new food cart -- with attached permit -- for $26,000, "cash only." The permit, Mario said, could be renewed every two years for $10,000. But the papers would remain under the name of the original holder, whom he declined to identify. At a West Side garage, a four-year-old gyro cart with a permit was going for $46,000. A "broker," who declined to give his name, said: "Everything is in cash. Paid in full." His fee to renew the permit was also $10,000."
What this all underscores-aside from managerial cluelessness-is that when a genuine supply and demand equation exists, there is real competition for getting a cart permit-unlike the silly situation where the city is trying to promote green carts in poor neighborhoods. What's the clamor in that case? Well, the city is struggling to find enough veggie vendors to fill the 1,000 permit quota that the city council had set when it passed the misguided enabling legislation.
Where actual demand for a product exists, retailers move in quickly to fill the void. The central planners always feel that they can accomplish the allocation of goods better than the market. And they are always wrong.
Fit To Be Tied
Morning has broken, and it now appears as if State Senator Hiram Monserrate has spun back into the Democratic orbit. As Juan Gonzales of the NY Daily News reports: "Sen. Hiram Monserrate has switched sides - again. "I'm coming home," the Queens Democrat told the Daily News in an exclusive interview on Sunday.Monserrate stunned the state's political establishment and paralyzed the Legislature a week ago when he rebelled against his own party and voted with fellow Democrat Sen. Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx to hand control of the Senate to the Republican minority."
We have been saying all along that Monserrate would most likely return to the Democratic column because he, unlike Senator Espada, is much more attached to a constellation of constituencies and interests that rely on the Democrats to promote their agenda: "Monserrate also must realize that by throwing state politics into a convulsion and switching sides twice in the same week, he is committing political suicide. But according to those close to him, the immense pressure he received in the past few days from his closest supporters in organized labor and among tenant advocates has taken a toll on him."
Which brings us to the potential for the dreaded 31-31 stalemate that have commented on earlier. As Gonzales also points out: "His decision creates an astonishing 31-31 deadlock in the Senate and further muddles the question of which party controls that body."
The NY Daily News further underscores the kind of mess that still potentially awaits: "Sen. Hiram Monserrate's stunning return to the Democratic fold creates almost as much chaos as when he left. Monserrate's flip back to the Democrats means the 32-to-30 split the Republicans thought they had gained during last week's coup would be reduced to 31 to 31. It takes at least 32 votes to get anything done - and 32 lawmakers must be in the chamber to even hold a session. "This state is facing a historic constitutional standoff," a top Senate aide said. "[At 31-31] we can't function."
And then there's Speaker Silver's threat to adjourn the Assembly, since the senate gridlock makes it nonproductive for his members to stick around: "Shelly's mad as hell, and he isn't gonna take it anymore. Stepping into the power vacuum left by a weak governor, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver told The Post yesterday that he and the rest of the Assembly will get out of Dodge next week unless the feuding clowns in the Senate get their act together. "At this point, there doesn't seem to be any reason to stay," said Silver (D-Manhattan)."
So we enter the new week with overtones of Laurel and Hardy threatening to seep into the Albany scene-giving new meaning and resonance to that duo's most famous phrase: "What a fine mess you got us into."
We have been saying all along that Monserrate would most likely return to the Democratic column because he, unlike Senator Espada, is much more attached to a constellation of constituencies and interests that rely on the Democrats to promote their agenda: "Monserrate also must realize that by throwing state politics into a convulsion and switching sides twice in the same week, he is committing political suicide. But according to those close to him, the immense pressure he received in the past few days from his closest supporters in organized labor and among tenant advocates has taken a toll on him."
Which brings us to the potential for the dreaded 31-31 stalemate that have commented on earlier. As Gonzales also points out: "His decision creates an astonishing 31-31 deadlock in the Senate and further muddles the question of which party controls that body."
The NY Daily News further underscores the kind of mess that still potentially awaits: "Sen. Hiram Monserrate's stunning return to the Democratic fold creates almost as much chaos as when he left. Monserrate's flip back to the Democrats means the 32-to-30 split the Republicans thought they had gained during last week's coup would be reduced to 31 to 31. It takes at least 32 votes to get anything done - and 32 lawmakers must be in the chamber to even hold a session. "This state is facing a historic constitutional standoff," a top Senate aide said. "[At 31-31] we can't function."
And then there's Speaker Silver's threat to adjourn the Assembly, since the senate gridlock makes it nonproductive for his members to stick around: "Shelly's mad as hell, and he isn't gonna take it anymore. Stepping into the power vacuum left by a weak governor, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver told The Post yesterday that he and the rest of the Assembly will get out of Dodge next week unless the feuding clowns in the Senate get their act together. "At this point, there doesn't seem to be any reason to stay," said Silver (D-Manhattan)."
So we enter the new week with overtones of Laurel and Hardy threatening to seep into the Albany scene-giving new meaning and resonance to that duo's most famous phrase: "What a fine mess you got us into."
Bottle Busting
According to Daily Politics, NYS is challenging Judge Griesa's ruling on the bottle bill: "The state has obtained an emergency hearing next Thursday at 11:30 a.m. on its request to modify the preliminary injunction preventing the Bigger, Better Bottle Bill from being enacted until April 2010. Not only has the attorney general's office, (which is handling the case for the state), asked the court to allow the law, which was supposed to go into effect June 1, to be immediately implemented, but it has also asked for the plaintiff's security bond to be increased from $10,000 to $115 million."
The issue, of course, is the state's loss of revenue from the unredeemed deposits: "That just so happens to be the amount of revenue that expanding the 5-cent deposit to apply to bottled water was expected to generate for state coffers. (According to the state, the tab is $235,000 a day)." So what the AG is arguing here, is that the lawsuit was inappropriately expanded by the judge beyond the scope that Nestle's had asked for-so show us the money.
If the AG can extricate things, then the water issue and the UPC provision would be tabled, but the escheats regulation on the beer and soda would be reinstated. As Cuomo's spokesperson said: "The State's request for an increased bond, which is required by the law, is designed to approximate the revenues that will be lost to the State if it is ultimately found that the Court's injunction was granted in error. Indeed, it appears that the Court granted an injunction far broader than actually sought by Nestle."
So we await the court hearing on Thursday-and can this issue be any more confusing? With the senate in turmoil, and the governor's popularity waning, this becomes another testament to Albany's dysfunction. Can we stand many more of these?
The issue, of course, is the state's loss of revenue from the unredeemed deposits: "That just so happens to be the amount of revenue that expanding the 5-cent deposit to apply to bottled water was expected to generate for state coffers. (According to the state, the tab is $235,000 a day)." So what the AG is arguing here, is that the lawsuit was inappropriately expanded by the judge beyond the scope that Nestle's had asked for-so show us the money.
If the AG can extricate things, then the water issue and the UPC provision would be tabled, but the escheats regulation on the beer and soda would be reinstated. As Cuomo's spokesperson said: "The State's request for an increased bond, which is required by the law, is designed to approximate the revenues that will be lost to the State if it is ultimately found that the Court's injunction was granted in error. Indeed, it appears that the Court granted an injunction far broader than actually sought by Nestle."
So we await the court hearing on Thursday-and can this issue be any more confusing? With the senate in turmoil, and the governor's popularity waning, this becomes another testament to Albany's dysfunction. Can we stand many more of these?
Sunday, June 14, 2009
"Which Way Will He Go, Which Way Will He Go?
Since the senate coup status increasingly resembles that of a cartoon, we thought that the title of this post would most appropriately reflect the current uncertainty over the direction that Hiram Monserrate will take when the sun rises tomorrow. But Monserrate, for his part, sees the situation more in terms of psychodrama: "As the man at the center of the chaotic storm in Albany, who is being fought over by Republicans and Democrats, Monserrate is walking a fine line. In the relatively brief phone call, he offered words of support for a Republican-dominated coalition majority in the Senate, while at the same time suggesting that he might return to the Democratic conference."
But who really knows what the mercurial Monserrate will do-even if he himself knows how he will move forward as we await the court's decision in the morning; although he did appear to be relatively sanguine about the expected ascension of John Sampson as the news Democratic leader: "“At this point, nothing has changed,” said Monserrate, who joined fellow Senate Democratic dissident Pedro Espada Jr. to overturn the Democratic majority in the chamber last week. “There will be a resolution very soon.”He seemed to be laying the groundwork to rejoin the Democrats, characterizing the turmoil he helped orchestrate as a catalyst for change among Democrats. “The Democrats today in the New York State Senate are more unified than they ever have been,” he said.
In the meantime, though, there is a feeling in the capitol that more chaos will reign before order is eventually restored. As the NY Times reports, there appears to be no political center that can hold so that further unraveling is more than likely: "Last week’s coup may signal the final breakdown of New York’s long-declining political order, in which governors and senators were once feared and powerful county leaders provided a check on ethnic feuds or individual ambition. Even veterans of New York’s rough-and-tumble political scene seemed shocked at the revolt, which left the balance of state power in the hands of two freshman senators, Pedro Espada Jr. and Hiram Monserrate, and a rogue billionaire, Tom Golisano, who helped organize their defection."
Which means that any tidy resolution of the leadership battle-let alone resolution for some important political issues-may not be imminent: "The Democratic Party is dominant here, but it lacks a strong central figure with the stature, authority or will to impose discipline. The Republican Party is cohesive, but shrinking. The result, some say, is a virtual free-for-all of opportunism and self-dealing. “It’s like feudal Japan,” said Blair Horner, legislative director of the New York Public Interest Research Group. “There’s a weak emperor and strong warlords.”
Which is precisely the kind of chaos that the Buffalo News' Tom Precious sees coming down the pike (via Liz): "If you thought the past week at the state Capitol was insane, buckle up. A nightmare scenario is developing in which the Senate could find itself in a 31-31 split between warring partisan factions with—thanks to Eliot Spitzer’s sexual liaisons—no lieutenant governor in office to break the tie. With one of two Democrats involved in this week’s GOP-led coup wavering under pressure to rejoin the Democratic conference, the sides are already quietly discussing among themselves how the business of government might get done if a deadlock is created."
As if it wasn't hard enough to get issues resolved in the previous 32-30 regime: "One veteran Senate staffer said there is no chance the sides could agree to a formal, long-term power sharing deal. “These guys would have knives out for each other at every turn,” the source said. “Everything would be on the short-term, emergency kind of power sharing. And the only way to make it work is to get two or four people in a room and agree to do x, y and z bills just for these coming weeks,” the source added."
But all that depends on what kind of decision Hiram Monserrate makes tomorrow. Imagine that; the fate of the state-as well as his own-is in Hiram's hands. Stay tuned.
But who really knows what the mercurial Monserrate will do-even if he himself knows how he will move forward as we await the court's decision in the morning; although he did appear to be relatively sanguine about the expected ascension of John Sampson as the news Democratic leader: "“At this point, nothing has changed,” said Monserrate, who joined fellow Senate Democratic dissident Pedro Espada Jr. to overturn the Democratic majority in the chamber last week. “There will be a resolution very soon.”He seemed to be laying the groundwork to rejoin the Democrats, characterizing the turmoil he helped orchestrate as a catalyst for change among Democrats. “The Democrats today in the New York State Senate are more unified than they ever have been,” he said.
In the meantime, though, there is a feeling in the capitol that more chaos will reign before order is eventually restored. As the NY Times reports, there appears to be no political center that can hold so that further unraveling is more than likely: "Last week’s coup may signal the final breakdown of New York’s long-declining political order, in which governors and senators were once feared and powerful county leaders provided a check on ethnic feuds or individual ambition. Even veterans of New York’s rough-and-tumble political scene seemed shocked at the revolt, which left the balance of state power in the hands of two freshman senators, Pedro Espada Jr. and Hiram Monserrate, and a rogue billionaire, Tom Golisano, who helped organize their defection."
Which means that any tidy resolution of the leadership battle-let alone resolution for some important political issues-may not be imminent: "The Democratic Party is dominant here, but it lacks a strong central figure with the stature, authority or will to impose discipline. The Republican Party is cohesive, but shrinking. The result, some say, is a virtual free-for-all of opportunism and self-dealing. “It’s like feudal Japan,” said Blair Horner, legislative director of the New York Public Interest Research Group. “There’s a weak emperor and strong warlords.”
Which is precisely the kind of chaos that the Buffalo News' Tom Precious sees coming down the pike (via Liz): "If you thought the past week at the state Capitol was insane, buckle up. A nightmare scenario is developing in which the Senate could find itself in a 31-31 split between warring partisan factions with—thanks to Eliot Spitzer’s sexual liaisons—no lieutenant governor in office to break the tie. With one of two Democrats involved in this week’s GOP-led coup wavering under pressure to rejoin the Democratic conference, the sides are already quietly discussing among themselves how the business of government might get done if a deadlock is created."
As if it wasn't hard enough to get issues resolved in the previous 32-30 regime: "One veteran Senate staffer said there is no chance the sides could agree to a formal, long-term power sharing deal. “These guys would have knives out for each other at every turn,” the source said. “Everything would be on the short-term, emergency kind of power sharing. And the only way to make it work is to get two or four people in a room and agree to do x, y and z bills just for these coming weeks,” the source added."
But all that depends on what kind of decision Hiram Monserrate makes tomorrow. Imagine that; the fate of the state-as well as his own-is in Hiram's hands. Stay tuned.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Come Hell or Hiram-Water
The full focus of public attention is now squarely on our good friend Hiram Monserrate-with a NY Times feature on the tough, but mercurial state senator: "For much of this week, he has been a silent sidekick to Pedro Espada Jr., the Bronx Democrat who assumed the post of Senate president in a power-sharing deal with Republicans that seemed to give them a 32-to-30 voting advantage. Senators Espada and Monserrate bolted the Democratic caucus on Monday. But twice since then, the fragile new coalition government’s efforts to restart the legislative session have been thwarted by Mr. Monserrate, who says he wants more time to lure more Democrats."
But what's most interesting is how the Times captures the paradoxical nature of the public perceptions of Hiram-with the mainstream media excoriating him and convicting him before trial; but, at the same time, the Latino community lionizes him: "Yet through it all, State Senator Hiram Monserrate, a Queens Democrat, has maintained a durable popularity in the Corona and Elmhurst neighborhoods he represents, in part because of his attention to issues like immigration and tenants’ rights and in part because he retains an image as an independent outsider."
That's because Hiram has established a track record as a fighter-taking on the mayor in the "Pay to Pray" controversy that successfully forced the city to back down. And when no one would, Monserrate defended the beleaguered Bronx Terminal Market while other pols fed at the developer's trough. As the Times points out: "Mr. Monserrate was also, by many accounts, an effective Council member. In 2003, for example, he secured a compromise from Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to maintain a longstanding policy prohibiting city employees from reporting illegal immigrants to the federal authorities. “Hiram has always been an absolute bulldog and champion of the underdog,” said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist who has had Mr. Monserrate’s help in battling the mayor and Council on several issues."
Now, it's not surprising that Hiram finds himself in the eye of yet another storm. But his challenge is not to get caught in a political cul-de-sac; with his longstanding friends and allies left at the altar of an unexamined leap. Which is why we believe that Monserrate will try to find a way back home-and back to a place where his political brand can be re-established.
Perhaps the replacement of Malcolm Smith will offer the senator an opportunity to find a way back. But the road ahead is filled with more uncertainties; and the potential 31-31 gridlock could grind the wheels of government to a total halt. Which is why the Times editorializes today in favor of some kind of power sharing: "Other states, faced with a tie vote and the instability that goes with it, have created power-sharing agreements that are designed to stay in place until the next election. Legislatures in Michigan, Virginia, Washington State, Maine, Oklahoma, Montana, New Jersey and Florida have each come up with methods like co-leaders or shared control of committees. The idea is that people of good faith should be able to agree to govern."
Whatever happens, it is likely that Hiram Monserrate will find himself in the middle of-un lio; chaos does attract those who take little pleasure in the niceties of the status quo. He does, however, need to find his political loadstar from out of this chaos. We'll see if he manges to do so as the current controversy unfolds.
But what's most interesting is how the Times captures the paradoxical nature of the public perceptions of Hiram-with the mainstream media excoriating him and convicting him before trial; but, at the same time, the Latino community lionizes him: "Yet through it all, State Senator Hiram Monserrate, a Queens Democrat, has maintained a durable popularity in the Corona and Elmhurst neighborhoods he represents, in part because of his attention to issues like immigration and tenants’ rights and in part because he retains an image as an independent outsider."
That's because Hiram has established a track record as a fighter-taking on the mayor in the "Pay to Pray" controversy that successfully forced the city to back down. And when no one would, Monserrate defended the beleaguered Bronx Terminal Market while other pols fed at the developer's trough. As the Times points out: "Mr. Monserrate was also, by many accounts, an effective Council member. In 2003, for example, he secured a compromise from Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to maintain a longstanding policy prohibiting city employees from reporting illegal immigrants to the federal authorities. “Hiram has always been an absolute bulldog and champion of the underdog,” said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist who has had Mr. Monserrate’s help in battling the mayor and Council on several issues."
Now, it's not surprising that Hiram finds himself in the eye of yet another storm. But his challenge is not to get caught in a political cul-de-sac; with his longstanding friends and allies left at the altar of an unexamined leap. Which is why we believe that Monserrate will try to find a way back home-and back to a place where his political brand can be re-established.
Perhaps the replacement of Malcolm Smith will offer the senator an opportunity to find a way back. But the road ahead is filled with more uncertainties; and the potential 31-31 gridlock could grind the wheels of government to a total halt. Which is why the Times editorializes today in favor of some kind of power sharing: "Other states, faced with a tie vote and the instability that goes with it, have created power-sharing agreements that are designed to stay in place until the next election. Legislatures in Michigan, Virginia, Washington State, Maine, Oklahoma, Montana, New Jersey and Florida have each come up with methods like co-leaders or shared control of committees. The idea is that people of good faith should be able to agree to govern."
Whatever happens, it is likely that Hiram Monserrate will find himself in the middle of-un lio; chaos does attract those who take little pleasure in the niceties of the status quo. He does, however, need to find his political loadstar from out of this chaos. We'll see if he manges to do so as the current controversy unfolds.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Bloomberg Gets a Pass!
Wayne Barrett deserves a great deal of credit for the following observation concerning the culpability of one Michael Bloomberg in the current state government meltdown: "Does anyone remember that the Democrats came within 500 votes last year of having a 33 to 29 majority in the New York State Senate, a margin that would have averted the current chaos and maybe even led to passage of the gay marriage bill?"
And then Barrett hones in on the deus ex machina in that race-Mike Bloomberg: "It took three months for the Board of Elections to certify that State Senator Frank Padavan, a Queens Republican, had actually defeated Democrat Jim Gennaro in the closest election in the state. Gennaro, who is currently running for re-election to the city council, refused to talk to the Voice about his "previous campaign," said his spokesman, and is focused instead on "the future." But his campaign spokesman in 2008, Shams Tarek, who now works for the Democrats in the senate, had no difficulty figuring out who played the decisive role in Gennaro's loss, giving the Democrats a perilous 32-30 majority: Mike Bloomberg, Padavan's biggest booster."
But it's a lot simpler-and less threatening-to place all of the opprobrium on the two Latinos: "If Gennaro were in the senate, renegade Democrats Hiram Monserrate and Pedro Espada would be one vote shy of shifting control of the senate to Republicans, as they tried to do on Monday."
And, as Barret points out, the mayor's support of Padavan made it possible for at least one anti marriage equality senator to beat back his opposition: "Bloomberg gave $1.2 million to the New York State Independence Party's housekeeping account last year -- a donation that wasn't reported until a 2009 filing by the party. Housekeeping accounts are supposed to pay for staff salaries, voter registration and party building. But Newsday reported that "the bulk" of Bloomberg's unprecedented donation "went to radio and television ads and direct mailings" for Republican and Independence Party candidates in four key senate races, including Padavan's."
Yet he is now able to posture as the biggest booster of gay marriage-throwing his earlier opposition to the measure down into the memory hole-with the collusion of the supine press here: "The remarkable media honeymoon for Bloomberg rarely holds him accountable for the political choices he's made, allowing him to position himself in the re-election campaign as a major champion of the gay marriage bill, even appearing at a pro-marriage rally. In fact, when he last ran in 2005, he announced his support for gay marriage at the same moment that he decided to appeal a ruling by a Manhattan Supreme Court judge that would have permitted it. Bloomberg's appeal blocked any marriages from going forward. The city's brief cited "this country's history and tradition" as the basis for overturning the lower court ruling, contending there was "a rational basis for the present statutory scheme's limitation of marriage to one male and one female."
Yet Morticia and Rupee have lockjaw on the mayor's culpability in all of these shenanigans. We await the News' bestowing to the mayor of the coveted Knucklehead Award; but we can't hold our breath for that length of time. Perhaps, as Johnny Mathis used to sing, "Until the twelfth of never and that's a long, long time."
And then Barrett hones in on the deus ex machina in that race-Mike Bloomberg: "It took three months for the Board of Elections to certify that State Senator Frank Padavan, a Queens Republican, had actually defeated Democrat Jim Gennaro in the closest election in the state. Gennaro, who is currently running for re-election to the city council, refused to talk to the Voice about his "previous campaign," said his spokesman, and is focused instead on "the future." But his campaign spokesman in 2008, Shams Tarek, who now works for the Democrats in the senate, had no difficulty figuring out who played the decisive role in Gennaro's loss, giving the Democrats a perilous 32-30 majority: Mike Bloomberg, Padavan's biggest booster."
But it's a lot simpler-and less threatening-to place all of the opprobrium on the two Latinos: "If Gennaro were in the senate, renegade Democrats Hiram Monserrate and Pedro Espada would be one vote shy of shifting control of the senate to Republicans, as they tried to do on Monday."
And, as Barret points out, the mayor's support of Padavan made it possible for at least one anti marriage equality senator to beat back his opposition: "Bloomberg gave $1.2 million to the New York State Independence Party's housekeeping account last year -- a donation that wasn't reported until a 2009 filing by the party. Housekeeping accounts are supposed to pay for staff salaries, voter registration and party building. But Newsday reported that "the bulk" of Bloomberg's unprecedented donation "went to radio and television ads and direct mailings" for Republican and Independence Party candidates in four key senate races, including Padavan's."
Yet he is now able to posture as the biggest booster of gay marriage-throwing his earlier opposition to the measure down into the memory hole-with the collusion of the supine press here: "The remarkable media honeymoon for Bloomberg rarely holds him accountable for the political choices he's made, allowing him to position himself in the re-election campaign as a major champion of the gay marriage bill, even appearing at a pro-marriage rally. In fact, when he last ran in 2005, he announced his support for gay marriage at the same moment that he decided to appeal a ruling by a Manhattan Supreme Court judge that would have permitted it. Bloomberg's appeal blocked any marriages from going forward. The city's brief cited "this country's history and tradition" as the basis for overturning the lower court ruling, contending there was "a rational basis for the present statutory scheme's limitation of marriage to one male and one female."
Yet Morticia and Rupee have lockjaw on the mayor's culpability in all of these shenanigans. We await the News' bestowing to the mayor of the coveted Knucklehead Award; but we can't hold our breath for that length of time. Perhaps, as Johnny Mathis used to sing, "Until the twelfth of never and that's a long, long time."
Home, Home on the Mange
It looks as if we're finally getting into the endgame on the senate leadership fight-at least in regards to our friend Hiram. As the senate Dems caucus down at 250 Broadway, the likely result will be the gracious abdication of Malcolm Smith. As the Observer reports: "State Senate Democrats will be a meeting at 250 Broadway this afternoon, where they will attempt to consummate a deal that will bring defector Hiram Monserrate back across the aisle in support of a new conference leader. Whatever arrangement has been agreed upon so far is being described as "very fluid," Democratic sources kept repeating. This would bring about a 31-31 partisan split in the chamber, which has been crippled by a leadership struggle since Monday."
And then what happens? Well, it might be up to the courts, as Liz tells us: "It seems all-but inevitable at this point that Smith will be asked to step aside, despite the fact that he continues to fight in court to retain his hold on the leadership. The leading candidate to replace him as head of the Democratic conference is Sen. John Sampson. Keep in mind: Even if the Democrats dump Smith and get Monserrate back, the Senate will still be deadlocked, and the question about the legality of Monday's vote that restored Sen. Dean Skelos to the majority leader's post and made Sen. Pedro Espada Jr. temporary president of the Senate still stands."
Oy vey! But there are probably at least 20-30 different plausible scenarios that can be envisioned here-with some form of power sharing not out of the question: "Unless, of course, there's no majority. Maybe a power-sharing deal should be considered? Heck, it has worked in the past for Maine, the US Senate, Washington State, Virginia, Michigan and Florida, why not New York?"
So, while the clock ticks toward the end of Malcolm's rein, we are about to head into the abyss; and while will all fall down into the unknown we can at least be amused by the sideshow of the governor and Senator Espada calling out each other as purveyors of untruths. Can the clown car be far behind?
And then what happens? Well, it might be up to the courts, as Liz tells us: "It seems all-but inevitable at this point that Smith will be asked to step aside, despite the fact that he continues to fight in court to retain his hold on the leadership. The leading candidate to replace him as head of the Democratic conference is Sen. John Sampson. Keep in mind: Even if the Democrats dump Smith and get Monserrate back, the Senate will still be deadlocked, and the question about the legality of Monday's vote that restored Sen. Dean Skelos to the majority leader's post and made Sen. Pedro Espada Jr. temporary president of the Senate still stands."
Oy vey! But there are probably at least 20-30 different plausible scenarios that can be envisioned here-with some form of power sharing not out of the question: "Unless, of course, there's no majority. Maybe a power-sharing deal should be considered? Heck, it has worked in the past for Maine, the US Senate, Washington State, Virginia, Michigan and Florida, why not New York?"
So, while the clock ticks toward the end of Malcolm's rein, we are about to head into the abyss; and while will all fall down into the unknown we can at least be amused by the sideshow of the governor and Senator Espada calling out each other as purveyors of untruths. Can the clown car be far behind?
Bloomberg: Man Up!
The vaunted managerial expertise of the Bloomberg administration was on display recently when a jailed inmate was able to hold a Bar Mitzvah for his son-in jail! As the NY Times reports: "The city’s Department of Investigation has opened an inquiry into how a well-connected inmate was able to schedule, cater and host a bar mitzvah for his son — with 60 invited guests and live music — inside a jail in Lower Manhattan."
How about that-catering in the Tombs; an example of incarceration chic that is sure to catch on with all of the glitterati. But, as they say in New York, "Not for nothing" "Guests of the extraordinary jailhouse bar mitzvah, which featured a band and Yaakov Shwekey, a popular Orthodox singer, were allowed to bring their cellphones into the secure complex, and food was served on china with metal forks and knives — all violations of rules prohibiting communication devices and sharp objects that could be used by violent inmates. The New York Post reported details of the jailhouse party on Thursday. Several city officials on Thursday privately expressed near disbelief that any inmate, regardless of wealth or connections, would be allowed to turn a jail complex into a rollicking banquet hall for six hours."
Now, we know that Mayor Mike has been merchandising the city to the extent that we're sure to have the monikers of all of our famous landmarks turned into marketing devices, but we bet that even Mike hadn't thought about renting out the Tombs for Bar Mitzvahs and engagement parties.
But the NY Post, which broke the story this week, has the goods on the mayor's remake of Jailhouse Rock: "Move over, Goodfellas. The lower Manhattan lockup known as the Tombs was like a "private club" for a group of Orthodox Jewish jailbirds, whose politically connected prison-chaplain rabbi regularly treated them to feasts of roast beef, salmon and chicken with all the trimmings."
This is all way beyond mere outrage-and, "above special interests," Mike needs to act forcefully here since it appears that it's not only Albany where the inmates are running the asylum. Remember when Bloomberg, in a fit of pique, fired some lame-o employee for playing solitaire on an office computer? As the NY Post editorializes: "The jail's warden, George Okada, and two department chiefs, Peter Curcio -- who reportedly overrode the deputy warden's objections -- and Frank Squillante, also were in on the deal. So what did outgoing Corrections Commissioner Martin Horn do about it? Well, as The Post reports today, DOC Chief of Department Carolyn Thomas, who conducted an internal probe, recommended that Glanz be fired and that the others all be demoted or suspended. But Horn handed out a wrist-slap: Glanz got suspended for two weeks. The other four lost two weeks of vacation."
For real? Mike better do better: "Mayor Bloomberg wasn't saying much yesterday, other than that the parties "should [not] have taken place." Ya think? He's ordered a DOI investigation. That probe had better result in a smaller Corrections Department payroll." Corrections are certainly in order.
How about that-catering in the Tombs; an example of incarceration chic that is sure to catch on with all of the glitterati. But, as they say in New York, "Not for nothing" "Guests of the extraordinary jailhouse bar mitzvah, which featured a band and Yaakov Shwekey, a popular Orthodox singer, were allowed to bring their cellphones into the secure complex, and food was served on china with metal forks and knives — all violations of rules prohibiting communication devices and sharp objects that could be used by violent inmates. The New York Post reported details of the jailhouse party on Thursday. Several city officials on Thursday privately expressed near disbelief that any inmate, regardless of wealth or connections, would be allowed to turn a jail complex into a rollicking banquet hall for six hours."
Now, we know that Mayor Mike has been merchandising the city to the extent that we're sure to have the monikers of all of our famous landmarks turned into marketing devices, but we bet that even Mike hadn't thought about renting out the Tombs for Bar Mitzvahs and engagement parties.
But the NY Post, which broke the story this week, has the goods on the mayor's remake of Jailhouse Rock: "Move over, Goodfellas. The lower Manhattan lockup known as the Tombs was like a "private club" for a group of Orthodox Jewish jailbirds, whose politically connected prison-chaplain rabbi regularly treated them to feasts of roast beef, salmon and chicken with all the trimmings."
This is all way beyond mere outrage-and, "above special interests," Mike needs to act forcefully here since it appears that it's not only Albany where the inmates are running the asylum. Remember when Bloomberg, in a fit of pique, fired some lame-o employee for playing solitaire on an office computer? As the NY Post editorializes: "The jail's warden, George Okada, and two department chiefs, Peter Curcio -- who reportedly overrode the deputy warden's objections -- and Frank Squillante, also were in on the deal. So what did outgoing Corrections Commissioner Martin Horn do about it? Well, as The Post reports today, DOC Chief of Department Carolyn Thomas, who conducted an internal probe, recommended that Glanz be fired and that the others all be demoted or suspended. But Horn handed out a wrist-slap: Glanz got suspended for two weeks. The other four lost two weeks of vacation."
For real? Mike better do better: "Mayor Bloomberg wasn't saying much yesterday, other than that the parties "should [not] have taken place." Ya think? He's ordered a DOI investigation. That probe had better result in a smaller Corrections Department payroll." Corrections are certainly in order.
Yes, We Have No Bananas
In today's MY Daily News, the paper editorializes on the state senate stalemate-and compares the chaos to Woody Allen's film, Bananas: "They promised to be bipartisan. They delivered bipolar. Control of the state Senate now hangs on the veering whims of a violence-prone guy from Queens who doesn't know whether he's coming or going. We refer to Hiram Monserrate, a Democrat who backed the botched Republican coup but now says he will vote against everything - everything, even if he favors particular bills - until more Dems join his lonely ranks."
In fact, Hiram does hold the balance of power, and is clearly having some second thoughts about the power shift-particularly since he has yet to be joined by any other Democrats aside from his partner in coup, Pedro Espada. But the News' characterization of Montserrate, part of a long series of denigrations that have basically convicted the senator before trial, is totally unfair; and the senator's record of standing up for the underdog is ignored for the paper's facile thug narrative.
It leaves unanswered, for instance, as to why Hiram is esteemed in the Latino community at the same time he is gleefully being excoriated on the editorial pages of the tabloids. It ignores his lonely, but stout, defense of the evicted merchants up at the Bronx Terminal Market. While others, particularly the front running upperdog scions at the News, were fronting for Related and Deputy Dog Doctoroff in their scheme to transfer city property-without any bidding-for just beads and trinkets, Montserrate was aggressively defending the beleaguered wholesalers, many of whom who were Hispanic and had operated out of the market for decades.
Similarly, when the Willets Point eminent domain controversy raised its head, Hiram jumped right in; and while a deal was finally struck that we feel fell short of perfection, it was one that was infinitely better than what it would have been if the then councilman had simply gone with those who have no regard for private property. As usual, the News was shilling for the removal of the small and the powerless, so that a mega deal could be crafted.
Why? Because that's what Morticia does. He champions the powerful, and lampoons any one who defends the rights of the less well-heeled. So Montserrate needs to be denigrated and derided; while the billionaire mayor gets to be feted for overturning the will of the people; and featured as if he were ad copy for the next great cereal.
Hiram's dilemma? His problem is that he came to power by championing people and causes; and now these very same folks are feeling disillusioned by his actions-something that Juan Gonzales points out in his attempt to provide the News with fair and balanced coverage: "Monserrate, on the other hand, has always had a liberal voting record. People forget he was the first cop ever to sit on the board of the New York Civil Liberties Union. He is also the main sponsor of the bill to end vacancy decontrol."
So clearly this is a crisis of conscience for the senator-one that is also derided by the fair minded caricaturers over at the NY Post, where the two renegade senators are described as, "turncoats." Funny, but we have never seen all those good loyal Democrats who have followed the Bloomberg money described in anything like this fashion-are you reading this Ed Koch?
But the Post goes on to paint a shakedown narrative that fits their own jaundiced world view much better than it does Hiram's: "Monserrate's surprise move puts him in the catbird seat to cut the best deal for himself -- from either Republicans or Democrats. Insiders speculated that the Queens lawmaker could be seeking the highest bidder for pork projects, office space, staff, campaign cash -- and even money to pay for lawyers to help with his legal troubles."
So, now it looks as if its Hiram-and not Malcolm-in the middle. As the NY Times reports: "By day’s end, it was clear that the balance of power in the state’s upper house — and the very gears of state government — continued to rest in the hands of Mr. Monserrate, who was indicted in March on charges of slashing his female companion with a broken glass. As he was leaving the Senate chamber, a Republican staff member dashed after him, pleading, “Senator, we need you back in there.” But Mr. Monserrate said he was committed to recruiting more Democrats to join the coalition and would be holding meetings all day in hopes of doing so, even as those Democrats were simultaneously trying to woo him back to their side."
And if Hiram returns, what does a 31-31 vote stalemate mean for governance? We are headed straight for uncharted waters; the Bermuda Triangle of political navigation. With court battles still ahead, and the weekend for machination, this entire episode is far from finished. But the bleating from the tabloids drowns out any rational analysis of Monserrate's underlying motivations. And, while his decisions here can be criticized, the continual character assassination is unfair yet, at the same time, representative of the mindset of the prejudiced and the privileged that Morticia represents so well.
In fact, Hiram does hold the balance of power, and is clearly having some second thoughts about the power shift-particularly since he has yet to be joined by any other Democrats aside from his partner in coup, Pedro Espada. But the News' characterization of Montserrate, part of a long series of denigrations that have basically convicted the senator before trial, is totally unfair; and the senator's record of standing up for the underdog is ignored for the paper's facile thug narrative.
It leaves unanswered, for instance, as to why Hiram is esteemed in the Latino community at the same time he is gleefully being excoriated on the editorial pages of the tabloids. It ignores his lonely, but stout, defense of the evicted merchants up at the Bronx Terminal Market. While others, particularly the front running upperdog scions at the News, were fronting for Related and Deputy Dog Doctoroff in their scheme to transfer city property-without any bidding-for just beads and trinkets, Montserrate was aggressively defending the beleaguered wholesalers, many of whom who were Hispanic and had operated out of the market for decades.
Similarly, when the Willets Point eminent domain controversy raised its head, Hiram jumped right in; and while a deal was finally struck that we feel fell short of perfection, it was one that was infinitely better than what it would have been if the then councilman had simply gone with those who have no regard for private property. As usual, the News was shilling for the removal of the small and the powerless, so that a mega deal could be crafted.
Why? Because that's what Morticia does. He champions the powerful, and lampoons any one who defends the rights of the less well-heeled. So Montserrate needs to be denigrated and derided; while the billionaire mayor gets to be feted for overturning the will of the people; and featured as if he were ad copy for the next great cereal.
Hiram's dilemma? His problem is that he came to power by championing people and causes; and now these very same folks are feeling disillusioned by his actions-something that Juan Gonzales points out in his attempt to provide the News with fair and balanced coverage: "Monserrate, on the other hand, has always had a liberal voting record. People forget he was the first cop ever to sit on the board of the New York Civil Liberties Union. He is also the main sponsor of the bill to end vacancy decontrol."
So clearly this is a crisis of conscience for the senator-one that is also derided by the fair minded caricaturers over at the NY Post, where the two renegade senators are described as, "turncoats." Funny, but we have never seen all those good loyal Democrats who have followed the Bloomberg money described in anything like this fashion-are you reading this Ed Koch?
But the Post goes on to paint a shakedown narrative that fits their own jaundiced world view much better than it does Hiram's: "Monserrate's surprise move puts him in the catbird seat to cut the best deal for himself -- from either Republicans or Democrats. Insiders speculated that the Queens lawmaker could be seeking the highest bidder for pork projects, office space, staff, campaign cash -- and even money to pay for lawyers to help with his legal troubles."
So, now it looks as if its Hiram-and not Malcolm-in the middle. As the NY Times reports: "By day’s end, it was clear that the balance of power in the state’s upper house — and the very gears of state government — continued to rest in the hands of Mr. Monserrate, who was indicted in March on charges of slashing his female companion with a broken glass. As he was leaving the Senate chamber, a Republican staff member dashed after him, pleading, “Senator, we need you back in there.” But Mr. Monserrate said he was committed to recruiting more Democrats to join the coalition and would be holding meetings all day in hopes of doing so, even as those Democrats were simultaneously trying to woo him back to their side."
And if Hiram returns, what does a 31-31 vote stalemate mean for governance? We are headed straight for uncharted waters; the Bermuda Triangle of political navigation. With court battles still ahead, and the weekend for machination, this entire episode is far from finished. But the bleating from the tabloids drowns out any rational analysis of Monserrate's underlying motivations. And, while his decisions here can be criticized, the continual character assassination is unfair yet, at the same time, representative of the mindset of the prejudiced and the privileged that Morticia represents so well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
