Yesterday we were given an opportunity by Lou Young of WCBS TV to comment on the president's health care plan; and our position remains, that the plan will severely damage the already reeling small business sector because, as we said, there is no cost containment that will insulate small firms from additional-and expensive-mandates. The current plans simply make matters worse.
With record job losses piling up every month, and with no clear idea on just how the 40 million or more folks who are currently uninsured are going to get covered-and who will be forced to pay for their coverage-it is not the best time for the federal government to be engaged in a complex overhaul of 17% of the American economy. And, as we pointed out to Lou Young, we're currently experiencing record bankruptcies and foreclosures in the NYC small business sector, and any additional burdens-no matter how well intentioned-will further cripple an already hobbled economic sector.
This basic point was brought home by Lloyd Williams of the Greater Harlem Chamber of Commerce. Appearing with Domenic Carter on The Road to City hall on NY1, Mr. Williams described a bleak small business landscape above 96th Street-with a 37% store vacancy rate in some neighborhood shopping strips. This was brought home by another NY1's story: "One shuttered store after another along 125th Street means only one thing: Harlem is being hit hard by the recession. Many businesses have packed up for good, others moved to more viable locations. While there are stores still open for business, those merchants say things are very slow."
So clearly, this isn't the time to increase the burdens on small store owners. And when the president says, as he did in his press conference last night, that 14,000 people lose their health insurance every day, what he failed to mention was that these are predominately people who have lost their jobs-and the health benefits went away with it. The current health plan will lead to even further job loss, making the country's economic recovery that much more problematic-and small business owners will be especially hard hit.
The fact that the country's health care system needs to be reformed, doesn't mean that we should be forced to endorse plans that may make a bad situation worse. The current ones being bandied about in Washington are bad for small business, bad for the overall economy; but, worst of all, exacerbate the systemic problems of health care delivery in this country. In this case, doing nothing is actually preferable.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
NY Post and Daily News Awediting
It's one thing to chide Bill Thompson's auditing of the DOE for its politicized aroma-as the NY Post and the NY Daily News both do. It's quite another thing to hang like school girls on every pronouncement that is emitted from the educational bureaucracy; a form of slavishness that is unbecoming for seasoned journalists.
Here's the Post's critique-and we're not bemused by the paper's blatant partisan failure to even cover the comptroller's audit in its news section: "Tuesday, he tried to cast doubt on city claims that graduation rates have risen; yesterday, he bashed testing methods. The city, Thompson says, "created an environment that both encourages cheating and allows the mayor to claim achievements that cannot be verified." Yet none of the attacks is backed up."
Unlike the mayor's official announcements and endless Big Lie propaganda campaign that the Post editors fawn over; this jaundiced narrative takes on the form of Papal infallibility for the Postmortems. Which is why we have suggested that the entire regime be put under the scrutiny of an Inspector General who could do what the Post-and we'll get to the News in just a bit-chooses not to do. Nothing must get in the way of its canonization of Mike Bloomberg.
Which brings us to the News-and at least this paper actually had the menschlichkeit to cover the story. The News awards Thompson its coveted Knucklehead prize for his audit of the DOE: "For being dumb enough to believe he could bamboozle New Yorkers with the most cynically fabricated accusations in many a political season ...For being foolish enough to think he could inject life into his dying-quail mayoral campaign by writing fictional press releases ...For being so out of touch as to assume no one would notice gross factual misrepresentations by the city's chief fiscal officer ..."
When we started to read this proclamation we first thought that it was the opening salvo of an incisive self criticism-because the words could be more aptly applied to the News' missives on behalf of mayoral control; especially the, "For being dumb enough to believe he could bamboozle New Yorkers..."
From the very start of the paper's vigorous promotion of mayoral control-starting about the same time the Morticia colluded with his richer colleague on overturning the popular will-the paper has eschewed analysis for flackery. In fact, given the P. T. Barnum nature of the faux coverage of the issue we are awarding the News the Alliance's first Muñeco Award-given to the person or business that most exemplifies sycophancy-and raises the behavior to its highest art form.
The reality here is that there is a great deal of smoke and mirrors in the Klein school regime-and the need for an independent audit is a compelling one; particularly when sycophants and toadies are breeding like rabbits in the city's news rooms. So, before we enshrine Mike Bloomberg as our Educator-in-Chief, let's get an informed second opinion; something we're as likely to get from the Post and the News as a critique of Kim Jong-il in a North Korean daily.
Here's the Post's critique-and we're not bemused by the paper's blatant partisan failure to even cover the comptroller's audit in its news section: "Tuesday, he tried to cast doubt on city claims that graduation rates have risen; yesterday, he bashed testing methods. The city, Thompson says, "created an environment that both encourages cheating and allows the mayor to claim achievements that cannot be verified." Yet none of the attacks is backed up."
Unlike the mayor's official announcements and endless Big Lie propaganda campaign that the Post editors fawn over; this jaundiced narrative takes on the form of Papal infallibility for the Postmortems. Which is why we have suggested that the entire regime be put under the scrutiny of an Inspector General who could do what the Post-and we'll get to the News in just a bit-chooses not to do. Nothing must get in the way of its canonization of Mike Bloomberg.
Which brings us to the News-and at least this paper actually had the menschlichkeit to cover the story. The News awards Thompson its coveted Knucklehead prize for his audit of the DOE: "For being dumb enough to believe he could bamboozle New Yorkers with the most cynically fabricated accusations in many a political season ...For being foolish enough to think he could inject life into his dying-quail mayoral campaign by writing fictional press releases ...For being so out of touch as to assume no one would notice gross factual misrepresentations by the city's chief fiscal officer ..."
When we started to read this proclamation we first thought that it was the opening salvo of an incisive self criticism-because the words could be more aptly applied to the News' missives on behalf of mayoral control; especially the, "For being dumb enough to believe he could bamboozle New Yorkers..."
From the very start of the paper's vigorous promotion of mayoral control-starting about the same time the Morticia colluded with his richer colleague on overturning the popular will-the paper has eschewed analysis for flackery. In fact, given the P. T. Barnum nature of the faux coverage of the issue we are awarding the News the Alliance's first Muñeco Award-given to the person or business that most exemplifies sycophancy-and raises the behavior to its highest art form.
The reality here is that there is a great deal of smoke and mirrors in the Klein school regime-and the need for an independent audit is a compelling one; particularly when sycophants and toadies are breeding like rabbits in the city's news rooms. So, before we enshrine Mike Bloomberg as our Educator-in-Chief, let's get an informed second opinion; something we're as likely to get from the Post and the News as a critique of Kim Jong-il in a North Korean daily.
Blight Makes Right?
So, here's the question. When is a blighted Willets Point business not blighted? Answer: When it is moved to College Point. As the NY Daily News points out: "City Councilman Tony Avella is ramping up his opposition to the city's plan to move five Willets Point businesses to the College Point Corporate Park...The Bloomberg administration's proposal would relocate an auto salvage yard, an ironworks, a plumbing supply company, a towing firm and a business that sells nonferrous metals. "The mayor called these businesses blighted and a detriment to the neighborhood - but then he can move them to another neighborhood?" said Avella (D-Bayside). "It's a disgrace."
But what's really funny to us, is the explanation of the EDC: "City Economic Development Corp. officials defended the relocation of the five businesses. They are "all family-owned, multigenerational industrial businesses that have long been an integral part of the Queens community," agency spokeswoman Janel Patterson said. "They will strengthen the corporate park."
And, in our view, Patterson is right-but the same goes true for the scores of other "all family-owned, multigenerational industrial businesses," that are still over at Willets Point fighting the city's effort to use eminent domain to remove them. The only reason that they're blighted? Because of the theft of services practiced by NYC for the better part of seven decades.
So, we want to thank Mr. Patterson and the EDC for dramatizing the inequity of the city's effort at Willets Point. The mayor's band of merry men and women should have come up with a redevelopment plan that would preserve the, "family-owned, multigenerational industrial businesses," at Willets Point. Instead, as is his want, the plan devised is an anti-small business land grad that will displace folks who have operated under duress for decades-another example of how the Bloomberg "five borough" economic plan is a dagger in the heart of the city's entrepreneurs.
And what's up with the illegal restriction that the city granted to the community board? "The board granted its advisory opinion, members said, after an EDC official pledged in writing that no Willets Point businesses would be relocated to the Flushing Airport, a defunct airfield included in the corporate park." Well, if these businesses-and the many others left behind-are, "an integral part of the Queens community," then why restrict others from making the move to a corporate park that, after all, is close by and would allow the other businesses to stay in close proximity to their customers?
All of this demonstrates how arbitrary and ad hoc the city's policy decisions are. Only in New York, couuld an administration devise an elaborate plan-in the middle of a recession, no less-that would threaten the survival of 250 firms and 2500 workers. But these businesses lack the right glamour-and a class bias is never far behind most of the big economic moves made by Mike Bloomberg. Whether its the wholesalers in the Bronx Terminal Market, a storage company in West Harlem, or auto supply businesses in Willets Point, all must make way for the bigger guys with political clout. Man of the people Bloomberg? We think not.
But what's really funny to us, is the explanation of the EDC: "City Economic Development Corp. officials defended the relocation of the five businesses. They are "all family-owned, multigenerational industrial businesses that have long been an integral part of the Queens community," agency spokeswoman Janel Patterson said. "They will strengthen the corporate park."
And, in our view, Patterson is right-but the same goes true for the scores of other "all family-owned, multigenerational industrial businesses," that are still over at Willets Point fighting the city's effort to use eminent domain to remove them. The only reason that they're blighted? Because of the theft of services practiced by NYC for the better part of seven decades.
So, we want to thank Mr. Patterson and the EDC for dramatizing the inequity of the city's effort at Willets Point. The mayor's band of merry men and women should have come up with a redevelopment plan that would preserve the, "family-owned, multigenerational industrial businesses," at Willets Point. Instead, as is his want, the plan devised is an anti-small business land grad that will displace folks who have operated under duress for decades-another example of how the Bloomberg "five borough" economic plan is a dagger in the heart of the city's entrepreneurs.
And what's up with the illegal restriction that the city granted to the community board? "The board granted its advisory opinion, members said, after an EDC official pledged in writing that no Willets Point businesses would be relocated to the Flushing Airport, a defunct airfield included in the corporate park." Well, if these businesses-and the many others left behind-are, "an integral part of the Queens community," then why restrict others from making the move to a corporate park that, after all, is close by and would allow the other businesses to stay in close proximity to their customers?
All of this demonstrates how arbitrary and ad hoc the city's policy decisions are. Only in New York, couuld an administration devise an elaborate plan-in the middle of a recession, no less-that would threaten the survival of 250 firms and 2500 workers. But these businesses lack the right glamour-and a class bias is never far behind most of the big economic moves made by Mike Bloomberg. Whether its the wholesalers in the Bronx Terminal Market, a storage company in West Harlem, or auto supply businesses in Willets Point, all must make way for the bigger guys with political clout. Man of the people Bloomberg? We think not.
On a Graduated Scale
Well, it seems as if it's not only Bill Thompson who has suspicions about the DOE's graduation claims. According to Anne Michaud at Newsday, some LI educators have weighed in on the controversy-and skepticism is the dominant mood: "A report out yesterday from City Comptroller Bill Thompson charges that the Bloomberg administration is inflating graduation rates for city schools. Leaving aside for the moment the incendiary politics of this report -- that Thompson is running for mayor, that Mayor Michael Bloomberg's bid to renew his control over city schools failed last week -- Long Island educators say they, too, have questions about claims of steadily improving graduation rates in city schools."
As they should; and their most cogent suggestion is to call for an independent audit of the data: "I'd like to see audits on how the city schools data is compiled," said Ronald Friedman, the recently retired superintendent of Great Neck schools and immediate past president of the Nassau Council of School Superintendents. "When you focus on an issue like [the graduation rate], the numbers should go up. I would certainly like to see corroborating data that I could feel more comfortable with." Friedman added that he would choose someone other than the city comptroller to make an independent assessment."
So would we-and the senators who are going to be gathering tomorrow over at city hall for a presser should focus on this key proposal; and do so almost to the exclusion of everything else. The reason is that everything that wrong with the current school regime comes from its total lack of transparency-and having an Inspector General for the DOE to monitor and audit the contracting, the school test scores, and the reality of the graduation rates is essential to the monitoring of the entire system.
All we have been given so far has been the preening and posturing of the chancellor and the mayor-with the Bloomberg Big Lie going out incessantly over the air waves. And along with the paid propaganda has come an absolutely shameful amen chorus from the tabloids-papers that have thoroughly abdicated any pretense of either impartiality or acumen on the school governance issue.
But isn't it nice that Bill Thompson has finally stood up to the mayor and little Joel? Calling for the head of Klein is fine; but the comptroller should offer to step aside for an independent IG. As Michaud affirms-and we'll give her the last word: "Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein have been insisting for years that their efforts are improving city schools, and they say the numbers tell the story. If that's true, maybe they would not decline to open their books to a third-party audit. For now, Thompson's audit is strengthening suspicions that something is amiss."
As they should; and their most cogent suggestion is to call for an independent audit of the data: "I'd like to see audits on how the city schools data is compiled," said Ronald Friedman, the recently retired superintendent of Great Neck schools and immediate past president of the Nassau Council of School Superintendents. "When you focus on an issue like [the graduation rate], the numbers should go up. I would certainly like to see corroborating data that I could feel more comfortable with." Friedman added that he would choose someone other than the city comptroller to make an independent assessment."
So would we-and the senators who are going to be gathering tomorrow over at city hall for a presser should focus on this key proposal; and do so almost to the exclusion of everything else. The reason is that everything that wrong with the current school regime comes from its total lack of transparency-and having an Inspector General for the DOE to monitor and audit the contracting, the school test scores, and the reality of the graduation rates is essential to the monitoring of the entire system.
All we have been given so far has been the preening and posturing of the chancellor and the mayor-with the Bloomberg Big Lie going out incessantly over the air waves. And along with the paid propaganda has come an absolutely shameful amen chorus from the tabloids-papers that have thoroughly abdicated any pretense of either impartiality or acumen on the school governance issue.
But isn't it nice that Bill Thompson has finally stood up to the mayor and little Joel? Calling for the head of Klein is fine; but the comptroller should offer to step aside for an independent IG. As Michaud affirms-and we'll give her the last word: "Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein have been insisting for years that their efforts are improving city schools, and they say the numbers tell the story. If that's true, maybe they would not decline to open their books to a third-party audit. For now, Thompson's audit is strengthening suspicions that something is amiss."
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Schooling the Naked Emperor
In this morning's NY Daily News, Michael Goodwin makes what we think is a valuable point-the name calling between Mike Bloomberg and the state senators only benefits the mayor; and, in our view, also takes away from the real substantive issues that undermine the inflated claims Bloomberg makes about school achievement:
"File this one under "The rich get richer." Mayor Bloomberg is set to reap a windfall from the chaos in Albany. Not a cash windfall - that's the last thing he needs - but a political one. His need there, while hardly desperate, is still real, with one poll showing a majority of New Yorkers think it's time for a new mayor. Against that backdrop, the buffoonery in Albany is tailor-made for an incumbent looking for a hot issue to ride. Legislators are giving Bloomy that and more. Besides serving him a big chance to convince voters he deserves four more years, the clowns are making themselves his punching bag."
Exactly so; and especially because the mayor has a bloodless, green eye shade kind of image that imparts a less than real persona: "One day he warned the Albany clowns might spark riots in the streets, linked them to the Soviet Union on another day and then to British appeaser Neville Chamberlain. He outdid himself Saturday, calling on Gov. Paterson to send troopers after state senators who gave themselves the summer off. "The governor can call back the state Legislature every single day in Albany, and he can send the state troopers to drag them back" Bloomberg said on his WOR radio show. "Enough, we're not going to take it anymore." And now he has launched TV and radio campaign ads tied to the battle, a sure sign his internal polls tell him the chaos is his friend."
Which is why our four amigos need to cease and desist that cathartic-like outbursts; and substitute a withering critique of the mayor's false claims for the pointless feel good bombast. And there's a lot to criticize in the deconstruction of the mayor's overblown "triumphs." In fact, there's an entire laundry list that goes like this:
(1) Watered down tests that give the false impression that learning has increased significantly;
(2) Flatlining on the national tests (NAEP) that are counter indicative to any real progress;
(3) A huge increase in the school bidget-from $13 billion to $21 billion-an increase that, given the flatlined national test scores indicate very lttle benefit to all of the increased costs;
(4) Misleading graduation rates that, even now, the comptroller is questioning for veracity: "The New York City comptroller, William C. Thompson Jr., released a report on Tuesday suggesting that the city’s graduation rate was inflated, saying he had found instances where it appeared schools had wrongly changed student grades and improperly awarded credit." But even if the cooking of the books isn't as bad as Thompson says, the fact that the grads themselves can't do college work and must undergo intensive remediation in the community colleges, is indictment enough of the Bloomberg puffery;
(5) An outrageous $20,000/pupil expenditure that has bloated the school bureaucracy and added millions to the city's already bloated pension obligation;
(6) No bid contracting that Juan Gonzales has been tracking-that underscores just how little accountability exists in the current governance regime;
(7) The as yet undetermined financial windfall and giveaway that the UFT received for backing away from its opposition to the assembly mayoral control bill.
So, there's a lot to focus attention on that doesn't involve the kind of incoherent personal invective that is coming from the faux outraged Bloomberg. In fact, we think that the mayor-always guided by polling since, otherwise, he is totally tone deaf politically-is consciously picking this fight to focus attention away from the substantive issues.
Bloomberg needs to be thoroughly debunked on substance; this will demonstrate just how dishonest his claims are, and, at the same time, discredit his multi-million dollar ad campaign. If the amigos-and the rest of the senate dissenters-do this, the name calling mayor will look desperate and out of place-and, hopefully, out of office as well.
"File this one under "The rich get richer." Mayor Bloomberg is set to reap a windfall from the chaos in Albany. Not a cash windfall - that's the last thing he needs - but a political one. His need there, while hardly desperate, is still real, with one poll showing a majority of New Yorkers think it's time for a new mayor. Against that backdrop, the buffoonery in Albany is tailor-made for an incumbent looking for a hot issue to ride. Legislators are giving Bloomy that and more. Besides serving him a big chance to convince voters he deserves four more years, the clowns are making themselves his punching bag."
Exactly so; and especially because the mayor has a bloodless, green eye shade kind of image that imparts a less than real persona: "One day he warned the Albany clowns might spark riots in the streets, linked them to the Soviet Union on another day and then to British appeaser Neville Chamberlain. He outdid himself Saturday, calling on Gov. Paterson to send troopers after state senators who gave themselves the summer off. "The governor can call back the state Legislature every single day in Albany, and he can send the state troopers to drag them back" Bloomberg said on his WOR radio show. "Enough, we're not going to take it anymore." And now he has launched TV and radio campaign ads tied to the battle, a sure sign his internal polls tell him the chaos is his friend."
Which is why our four amigos need to cease and desist that cathartic-like outbursts; and substitute a withering critique of the mayor's false claims for the pointless feel good bombast. And there's a lot to criticize in the deconstruction of the mayor's overblown "triumphs." In fact, there's an entire laundry list that goes like this:
(1) Watered down tests that give the false impression that learning has increased significantly;
(2) Flatlining on the national tests (NAEP) that are counter indicative to any real progress;
(3) A huge increase in the school bidget-from $13 billion to $21 billion-an increase that, given the flatlined national test scores indicate very lttle benefit to all of the increased costs;
(4) Misleading graduation rates that, even now, the comptroller is questioning for veracity: "The New York City comptroller, William C. Thompson Jr., released a report on Tuesday suggesting that the city’s graduation rate was inflated, saying he had found instances where it appeared schools had wrongly changed student grades and improperly awarded credit." But even if the cooking of the books isn't as bad as Thompson says, the fact that the grads themselves can't do college work and must undergo intensive remediation in the community colleges, is indictment enough of the Bloomberg puffery;
(5) An outrageous $20,000/pupil expenditure that has bloated the school bureaucracy and added millions to the city's already bloated pension obligation;
(6) No bid contracting that Juan Gonzales has been tracking-that underscores just how little accountability exists in the current governance regime;
(7) The as yet undetermined financial windfall and giveaway that the UFT received for backing away from its opposition to the assembly mayoral control bill.
So, there's a lot to focus attention on that doesn't involve the kind of incoherent personal invective that is coming from the faux outraged Bloomberg. In fact, we think that the mayor-always guided by polling since, otherwise, he is totally tone deaf politically-is consciously picking this fight to focus attention away from the substantive issues.
Bloomberg needs to be thoroughly debunked on substance; this will demonstrate just how dishonest his claims are, and, at the same time, discredit his multi-million dollar ad campaign. If the amigos-and the rest of the senate dissenters-do this, the name calling mayor will look desperate and out of place-and, hopefully, out of office as well.
Kingsbridge Malling
In this week's Village Voice, Tom Robbins critiques the city's plan to mall the Kingsbridge community without any provision for living wage jobs-and finds another example of why, in spite of Mike Bloomberg's obscene spending spree, many New Yorkers are not enamored with his continued rule:
"Michael Bloomberg remains an overwhelming favorite for re-election, even as polls keep finding that most New Yorkers would just as soon someone else took over at City Hall. It's the riddle of Campaign 2009. Chalk it up to uninspiring opponents, the advantages of incumbency, and the results of $36 million worth of electoral carpet-bombing by an incumbent taking no chances. Whatever the reasons, despite all that costly self-promotion, scratch any surface and you'll find voters who are less than thrilled with Mayor Mike's performance, but who don't see the obvious alternative. Take, for example, those involved in the nasty development battle now being waged in the Kingsbridge Heights section of the Bronx.
And last week the opposition to the malling of the Kingsbridge Armory took to the streets-and was joined by mayoral hopeful Bill Thompson who, while he took some time to get revved up, finally found his voice: "Last Wednesday night, Bloomberg's top Democratic challenger, Bill Thompson, stood in front of a standing-room-only crowd of more than 400 local residents and union members gathered at Our Lady of Refuge on East 196th Street. Thompson got only polite applause when he was introduced by Desiree Pilgrim-Hunter, leader of a coalition of community and labor organizations calling itself Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance. But the city comptroller pulled a deafening roar as soon as he said that he wouldn't vote for Bloomberg's proposal for a new city-subsidized shopping mall at the huge old armory on West Kingsbridge Road, unless the developer agrees that new jobs there will pay decent wages."
And the comptroller is right; but left out another important reason for why the mall is a bad idea. As we pointed out yesterday, we are experiencing an incredible assault on the viability of all neighborhood businesses-with store vacancy rates approaching 15% in the outer boroughs. Much of this can be attributed to, not only the national recession, but to Mike Bloomberg's tax and regulatory policies that are epitomized by his willingness to raise the sales tax in the middle of this neighborhood retail disaster.
Another reason, is that the mayor, always ready and willing to promote large retail development, has successfully advocated a permissive policy of mall development that has sucked the life out of those neighborhood stores that are the lifeblood of a community. Here's why the advocates-as well as the comptroller-are dead on when it comes to their living wage battle. If you're going to continue to promote mall development-with its concomitant chain store proliferation-than minimally, these stores must provide the kind of living wages that families can live on. Otherwise, we have simply replaced the locally owned neighborhood business-ones that circulate dollars through the community-with a chain that removes revenue, and whose dollars fail to circulate in as healthy a manner.
Which gets us to the plan for the inclusion of a supermarket at the armory-and the bait and switch that the developer has attempted to pull off:
"This time around, City Hall's new request for developer proposals included language aimed at discouraging big-box stores...When Bloomberg's team finally settled on a developer it liked for the project, lo and behold, it was an administration favorite: Steve Ross and his Related Companies. The builder counts both Bloomberg and former deputy mayor Dan Doctoroff (now running the mayor's mighty corporation, Bloomberg LP) among his close pals and has been chosen to handle several other development projects by Bloomberg's administration, including the redevelopment of the old Bronx Terminal Market, for which he didn't even have to compete against anyone else.Still, Related is a union contractor, and it would have been fine with everyone if not for another bait and switch. After initially describing the components of what it quaintly dubbed "The Shops at the Armory," the developer quietly let it be known that it would seek a 50,000-square-foot supermarket for the site. Such a mega-market, enjoying its share of the project's $18 million in city tax breaks, would have a strong, competitive edge over a pair of long-standing nearby family-owned supermarkets that have contracts with the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union covering some 150 workers."
So the mall, which originally was encouraged to provide living wage and non-competing box stores, is now proposing the opposite; and, as regards to the supermarket, Bloomberg is actually threatening to worsen the plight of access to fresh food in low income neighborhoods by allowing for the inclusion of a mega food store that will drain the local dollars and lead to to loss of four or five of the local supermarkets.
This, at a time when New York's junior senator has reported that the Bronx is the most obese of all the boroughs-and one major reason is the dearth of supermarket access: "Andrew G. Rundle, an epidemiologist at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health and an authority on obesity, said that at the neighborhood level, socioeconomic and demographic factors were the strongest predictors of obesity rates...Dr. Rundle, who has written several papers on neighborhood environments and obesity, has found that even when adjusting for poverty and race, at least three factors are associated with lowering obesity: proximity to supermarkets and groceries where fresh produce is sold; proximity to parks; and access to public transportation, which reduces reliance on cars."
So who's being a fathead here? The mayor has stated policy goals of promoting healthy eating, yet has oversaw the loss of more than 300 neighborhood supermarkets because his economic policies run counter to the his professed health goals. And by the way, getting people to eat healthier doesn't only mean that they need to have decent supermarket access; they also need to be able to earn enough money to be able to afford to eat well-hence the living wage arguments.
So the fight over the Kingsbridge Armory is an important symbol of what's wrong with the Bloomberg reign. He has failed to promote and protect local stores-particularly the vital supermarket/fresh produce nexus-and has even exacerbated the problem by making it more difficult to do business in the city's neighborhoods. A policy of higher taxes and more regulations, when combined with the continued malling of the city, has generated a severe economic crisis-one that the nimble chief executive now argues needs his expertise-and his alone-to solve.
In out view, the best thing Bloomberg can do is to step aside, since his re-election would be a classic example of a Pyrrhic victory. As General Pyrrhus said, after beating the Romans in a particularly bloody battle: "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined." And, in similar fashion, so will NYC-and neighborhood retailers- be ruined should Bloomberg prevail on this third term quest.
"Michael Bloomberg remains an overwhelming favorite for re-election, even as polls keep finding that most New Yorkers would just as soon someone else took over at City Hall. It's the riddle of Campaign 2009. Chalk it up to uninspiring opponents, the advantages of incumbency, and the results of $36 million worth of electoral carpet-bombing by an incumbent taking no chances. Whatever the reasons, despite all that costly self-promotion, scratch any surface and you'll find voters who are less than thrilled with Mayor Mike's performance, but who don't see the obvious alternative. Take, for example, those involved in the nasty development battle now being waged in the Kingsbridge Heights section of the Bronx.
And last week the opposition to the malling of the Kingsbridge Armory took to the streets-and was joined by mayoral hopeful Bill Thompson who, while he took some time to get revved up, finally found his voice: "Last Wednesday night, Bloomberg's top Democratic challenger, Bill Thompson, stood in front of a standing-room-only crowd of more than 400 local residents and union members gathered at Our Lady of Refuge on East 196th Street. Thompson got only polite applause when he was introduced by Desiree Pilgrim-Hunter, leader of a coalition of community and labor organizations calling itself Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance. But the city comptroller pulled a deafening roar as soon as he said that he wouldn't vote for Bloomberg's proposal for a new city-subsidized shopping mall at the huge old armory on West Kingsbridge Road, unless the developer agrees that new jobs there will pay decent wages."
And the comptroller is right; but left out another important reason for why the mall is a bad idea. As we pointed out yesterday, we are experiencing an incredible assault on the viability of all neighborhood businesses-with store vacancy rates approaching 15% in the outer boroughs. Much of this can be attributed to, not only the national recession, but to Mike Bloomberg's tax and regulatory policies that are epitomized by his willingness to raise the sales tax in the middle of this neighborhood retail disaster.
Another reason, is that the mayor, always ready and willing to promote large retail development, has successfully advocated a permissive policy of mall development that has sucked the life out of those neighborhood stores that are the lifeblood of a community. Here's why the advocates-as well as the comptroller-are dead on when it comes to their living wage battle. If you're going to continue to promote mall development-with its concomitant chain store proliferation-than minimally, these stores must provide the kind of living wages that families can live on. Otherwise, we have simply replaced the locally owned neighborhood business-ones that circulate dollars through the community-with a chain that removes revenue, and whose dollars fail to circulate in as healthy a manner.
Which gets us to the plan for the inclusion of a supermarket at the armory-and the bait and switch that the developer has attempted to pull off:
"This time around, City Hall's new request for developer proposals included language aimed at discouraging big-box stores...When Bloomberg's team finally settled on a developer it liked for the project, lo and behold, it was an administration favorite: Steve Ross and his Related Companies. The builder counts both Bloomberg and former deputy mayor Dan Doctoroff (now running the mayor's mighty corporation, Bloomberg LP) among his close pals and has been chosen to handle several other development projects by Bloomberg's administration, including the redevelopment of the old Bronx Terminal Market, for which he didn't even have to compete against anyone else.Still, Related is a union contractor, and it would have been fine with everyone if not for another bait and switch. After initially describing the components of what it quaintly dubbed "The Shops at the Armory," the developer quietly let it be known that it would seek a 50,000-square-foot supermarket for the site. Such a mega-market, enjoying its share of the project's $18 million in city tax breaks, would have a strong, competitive edge over a pair of long-standing nearby family-owned supermarkets that have contracts with the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union covering some 150 workers."
So the mall, which originally was encouraged to provide living wage and non-competing box stores, is now proposing the opposite; and, as regards to the supermarket, Bloomberg is actually threatening to worsen the plight of access to fresh food in low income neighborhoods by allowing for the inclusion of a mega food store that will drain the local dollars and lead to to loss of four or five of the local supermarkets.
This, at a time when New York's junior senator has reported that the Bronx is the most obese of all the boroughs-and one major reason is the dearth of supermarket access: "Andrew G. Rundle, an epidemiologist at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health and an authority on obesity, said that at the neighborhood level, socioeconomic and demographic factors were the strongest predictors of obesity rates...Dr. Rundle, who has written several papers on neighborhood environments and obesity, has found that even when adjusting for poverty and race, at least three factors are associated with lowering obesity: proximity to supermarkets and groceries where fresh produce is sold; proximity to parks; and access to public transportation, which reduces reliance on cars."
So who's being a fathead here? The mayor has stated policy goals of promoting healthy eating, yet has oversaw the loss of more than 300 neighborhood supermarkets because his economic policies run counter to the his professed health goals. And by the way, getting people to eat healthier doesn't only mean that they need to have decent supermarket access; they also need to be able to earn enough money to be able to afford to eat well-hence the living wage arguments.
So the fight over the Kingsbridge Armory is an important symbol of what's wrong with the Bloomberg reign. He has failed to promote and protect local stores-particularly the vital supermarket/fresh produce nexus-and has even exacerbated the problem by making it more difficult to do business in the city's neighborhoods. A policy of higher taxes and more regulations, when combined with the continued malling of the city, has generated a severe economic crisis-one that the nimble chief executive now argues needs his expertise-and his alone-to solve.
In out view, the best thing Bloomberg can do is to step aside, since his re-election would be a classic example of a Pyrrhic victory. As General Pyrrhus said, after beating the Romans in a particularly bloody battle: "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined." And, in similar fashion, so will NYC-and neighborhood retailers- be ruined should Bloomberg prevail on this third term quest.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Mikey Oakely-Not!
So Mike Bloomberg's against the Thune amendment that would allow licensed gun owners from one state to carry their concealed weapons across state lines. As Daily Politics reports: "Mayor Bloomberg did not mince words today in bashing the US Senate for being poised to vote on an amendment that would make it easier to take concealed weapons across state lines. The measure, known as the "Thune Amendment" because it was proposed by South Dakota Republican John Thune, has been attached to a Defense Authorization bill that would provide funding for troops overseas and thus be difficult for senators to vote down. In a conference call this afternoon with fellow members of his Mayors Against Illegal Guns group, Bloomberg called the amendment "anti-police" and "pro-gun trafficker".
Now this doesn't make a lot of sense to us-but perhaps we're just confused on this gun issue. But isn't the amendment directed at legally licensed owners? So what's this riff by Mikey on gun traffickers? Nothing in the amendment, it seems to us, makes it easier for these malefactors to transport illegal weapons anywhere. And, as one commenter to the post suggests: "Bloomberg's group is "Mayors Against Illegal Guns." Go figure ... now they are against legal guns, too. I should have figured this wasn't about illegal guns, after all, but about their desire to ban ALL guns."
And this is from a man who undoubtedly has an armed contingent of protectors to insure the safety of Mike Bloomberg. Once again, one standard for Mike Bloomberg-and a different one altogether for the shlubs. Kind of like the Global Warming thing and the Bloomberg effort to appear to be Kermit the Mayor.
With the CO2 emissions deal, you know, the congestion pricing idea and the carbon footprint phoniness, we have the mayor looking to reduce the abilty of middle class drivers and delivery folks to get to work; while at the same time occupying all by his lonesome a carbon footprint that would put Yeti to shame.
Please, enough of the elitist social engineering. Imagine, taking life lessons and health prescriptions from someone who is really just another politician with an out sized ego; with an over eagerness to remake the world in his own image as well.
Now this doesn't make a lot of sense to us-but perhaps we're just confused on this gun issue. But isn't the amendment directed at legally licensed owners? So what's this riff by Mikey on gun traffickers? Nothing in the amendment, it seems to us, makes it easier for these malefactors to transport illegal weapons anywhere. And, as one commenter to the post suggests: "Bloomberg's group is "Mayors Against Illegal Guns." Go figure ... now they are against legal guns, too. I should have figured this wasn't about illegal guns, after all, but about their desire to ban ALL guns."
And this is from a man who undoubtedly has an armed contingent of protectors to insure the safety of Mike Bloomberg. Once again, one standard for Mike Bloomberg-and a different one altogether for the shlubs. Kind of like the Global Warming thing and the Bloomberg effort to appear to be Kermit the Mayor.
With the CO2 emissions deal, you know, the congestion pricing idea and the carbon footprint phoniness, we have the mayor looking to reduce the abilty of middle class drivers and delivery folks to get to work; while at the same time occupying all by his lonesome a carbon footprint that would put Yeti to shame.
Please, enough of the elitist social engineering. Imagine, taking life lessons and health prescriptions from someone who is really just another politician with an out sized ego; with an over eagerness to remake the world in his own image as well.
Making the Eminent Domain Point
Yesterday, the Willets Point United folks stepped up at city hall to express concern over the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court-and urge that the judge moderate her views on the use and abuse of eminent domain: " Willets Point community group is denouncing Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s record on eminent domain. About 20 representatives from Willets Point United gathered in front of City Hall Monday to voice the detriments of misusing eminent domain.“The city’s trying to take our land and give it to a rich developer,” said Alfredo Franza, 39, who owns a small business that manufactures security gates in Willets Point. Franza said he came to “fight for our land.”
The WPU group is fighting the city's effort to evict them on two fronts. In the first place, they're arguing that the environmental review that led to the rezoning of the Willets Point area was seriously flawed-and is totally dependent on the building of an off ramp off the Van Wyck that may never happen. If it doesn't, however, then there is simply no way for the city to mitigate the traffic that the development it plans for the vacated site would cause. Put simply, it would be the kind of traffic nightmare that happens when a couple of lanes are closed on the Whitestone Bridge.
Secondly, WPU is fighting the eminent domain abuse that the city is planning in order to remove the 250 businesses from the Willets Point site. In order to do so, the city has to demonstrate that the area is "blighted." Given the fact that the so-called blight is directly related to the city's conscious neglect for the better part of seven decades, well, you can see where this is going.
All of which out the way in which eminent domain-as contentious an issue as you can find-is made worse by the cavalier methods employed by municipalities all over. In the case of Willets Point, where neglect has been legendary, the idea that the city could use blight as an excuse is, well, mindboggling.
And that is why WPU was out in force yesterday at City Hall-as this video clip from NY1 highlights. Those gathered know that the Supreme Court is often the final destination for all ED cases-and the folks from the Iron Triangle are hoping that once Judge Stomayor is confirmed, she will become more sensitive to the issue.
As we told Epoch Times: "Currently, when a property is condemned, only the value of the property is compensated at rates designated by the developer while costs of unemployment, loss of business revenue, and inconvenience for long-time customers are not accounted for, said Richard Lipsky, Willets Point United spokesperson. “[Sotomayor’s] decision (about eminent domain) made us very nervous,” said Lipsky. The group hopes that Sotomayor realizes that the small property owners that are here today are exactly the kind of people—the underprivileged—she has fought to protect in her early career."
And we're also hoping that NYS joins the 46 other states that have reformed their eminent domain laws-making them more equitable for property owners, and more protective of the basic constitutional right to avoid seizure of one's home and business for things that aren't truly public purposes. We hope Sonya Sotomayor and the state legislatutre got the message.
The WPU group is fighting the city's effort to evict them on two fronts. In the first place, they're arguing that the environmental review that led to the rezoning of the Willets Point area was seriously flawed-and is totally dependent on the building of an off ramp off the Van Wyck that may never happen. If it doesn't, however, then there is simply no way for the city to mitigate the traffic that the development it plans for the vacated site would cause. Put simply, it would be the kind of traffic nightmare that happens when a couple of lanes are closed on the Whitestone Bridge.
Secondly, WPU is fighting the eminent domain abuse that the city is planning in order to remove the 250 businesses from the Willets Point site. In order to do so, the city has to demonstrate that the area is "blighted." Given the fact that the so-called blight is directly related to the city's conscious neglect for the better part of seven decades, well, you can see where this is going.
All of which out the way in which eminent domain-as contentious an issue as you can find-is made worse by the cavalier methods employed by municipalities all over. In the case of Willets Point, where neglect has been legendary, the idea that the city could use blight as an excuse is, well, mindboggling.
And that is why WPU was out in force yesterday at City Hall-as this video clip from NY1 highlights. Those gathered know that the Supreme Court is often the final destination for all ED cases-and the folks from the Iron Triangle are hoping that once Judge Stomayor is confirmed, she will become more sensitive to the issue.
As we told Epoch Times: "Currently, when a property is condemned, only the value of the property is compensated at rates designated by the developer while costs of unemployment, loss of business revenue, and inconvenience for long-time customers are not accounted for, said Richard Lipsky, Willets Point United spokesperson. “[Sotomayor’s] decision (about eminent domain) made us very nervous,” said Lipsky. The group hopes that Sotomayor realizes that the small property owners that are here today are exactly the kind of people—the underprivileged—she has fought to protect in her early career."
And we're also hoping that NYS joins the 46 other states that have reformed their eminent domain laws-making them more equitable for property owners, and more protective of the basic constitutional right to avoid seizure of one's home and business for things that aren't truly public purposes. We hope Sonya Sotomayor and the state legislatutre got the message.
Bloomberg Plans, and New Yorkers Laugh
Just how good is that Bloomberg five borough economic plan working? Well, if you read the NY Times this morning, not so good. According to the Times, the mayor's plan-one that he has now unveiled for the third time since 2001-isn't making a dent in the closing of retail stores all over the city: "But as New Yorkers have drastically cut back, the shops that line the streets, from chain outlets to family-run shops, have started to disappear. The storefront vacancy rate in Manhattan is now at its highest point since the early 1990s — an estimated 6.5 percent — and is expected to exceed 10 percent by the middle of next year, according to data gathered by Marcus & Millichap Research Services, a national real estate investment brokerage based in Encino, Calif."
Even the most expensive shopping streets have been hard hit: "And those numbers do not capture the full story. Some of the more desirable shopping districts are littered with empty storefronts. For example, Fifth Avenue between 42nd Street and 49th Street, the stretch just south of Saks Fifth Avenue, has a vacancy rate of 15.3 percent, according to the brokerage Cushman & Wakefield."
The recession, of course, has been the underlying cause of the current vacancy surge, but missing from the Times' analysis-which focuses on high, unaffordable rents-are the factors that have accelerated the NY trend: high taxes and an onerous regulatory regime. And the retail vacancies aren't limited to Manhattan: "The outlook is even worse in other boroughs. Hessam Nadji, managing director of research services at Marcus & Millichap, estimates that vacancy rates in Brooklyn and Queens, currently at 7 to 10 percent, will rise to 12 to 15 percent by year’s end. He said some neighborhoods have been ravaged by vacancy rates of 25 to 40 percent."
The retail crisis has hit newer Hispanic-owned businesses particularly hard-prompting the call for some form of government intervention: "But as jobs disappear and neighborhoods suffer, the tide of opinion is growing that the government may need to step in. While data on the challenges of small business owners is limited, a survey of 937 Hispanic small business owners conducted by the U.S.A. Latin Chamber of Commerce between November 2008 and January 2009 found that most of them said they would not stay in the city because their rents had become so high."
Which is why a coalition of local groups have been advancing a rent arbitration measure sponsored by Councilman Robert Jackson: "The City Council is weighing in, too, considering a Small Business Survival Act that would require businesses to have the option of 10-year leases, renewals and the right to mediation if they cannot reach an agreement."
The Bloomberg administration, however, is sticking to its own formula: "The legislation does not have the support of the Bloomberg administration, which argues that tracking lease negotiations would be too costly because of expenses like hiring staff, and that the need for such a law has “greatly dissipated” because rents have declined."
And perhaps they're right-but their own solutions beg the question: "The problem is so bad that the city has become involved. It has offered grants for worker training, and it held a session last Wednesday on how to negotiate leases." But this is all simply a non sequitor; and the high tax environment-exacerbated once again by the mayor's promotion of another sales tax hike-remains the variable that is sacrosanct. We hear absolutely nothing-either in the mayor's campaign blurbs, or in his policy statements-that address the need to lower taxes on neighborhood businesses. The "T" word has become worse than the "N" word for Bloomberg.
All of which undermines, in our view, any effort to promote Mike Bloomberg as a fiscal maven; a leader whose expertise is invaluable and must be retained for a third term if we are going to be led out of the current recession. It is under the mayor's watch that the store vacancies and small business closures have reached epidemic proportions-a fact that we have been tracking for some time.
In the midst of a severe retail meltdown, when neighborhood shopping strips are being ravaged by a store closing epidemic, only Mike Bloomberg-along with his claque of council clowns-could successfully propose raising the sales tax; and then come up with a cockamamie "worker training" plan to address the horrendous results of his eight year reign of small business error.
In order to reverse the current downword spiral, we need a municipal leader who understands that it is the cost of doing business in the city-a cost that has been escalated under the mayor's misguided stewardship-that needs to be lowered; along with the concomitant high cost of government that has been pumped up on steroids by Big Government Mike. Another four years of the same policies is, as the mayor might say, simply meshuga.
Even the most expensive shopping streets have been hard hit: "And those numbers do not capture the full story. Some of the more desirable shopping districts are littered with empty storefronts. For example, Fifth Avenue between 42nd Street and 49th Street, the stretch just south of Saks Fifth Avenue, has a vacancy rate of 15.3 percent, according to the brokerage Cushman & Wakefield."
The recession, of course, has been the underlying cause of the current vacancy surge, but missing from the Times' analysis-which focuses on high, unaffordable rents-are the factors that have accelerated the NY trend: high taxes and an onerous regulatory regime. And the retail vacancies aren't limited to Manhattan: "The outlook is even worse in other boroughs. Hessam Nadji, managing director of research services at Marcus & Millichap, estimates that vacancy rates in Brooklyn and Queens, currently at 7 to 10 percent, will rise to 12 to 15 percent by year’s end. He said some neighborhoods have been ravaged by vacancy rates of 25 to 40 percent."
The retail crisis has hit newer Hispanic-owned businesses particularly hard-prompting the call for some form of government intervention: "But as jobs disappear and neighborhoods suffer, the tide of opinion is growing that the government may need to step in. While data on the challenges of small business owners is limited, a survey of 937 Hispanic small business owners conducted by the U.S.A. Latin Chamber of Commerce between November 2008 and January 2009 found that most of them said they would not stay in the city because their rents had become so high."
Which is why a coalition of local groups have been advancing a rent arbitration measure sponsored by Councilman Robert Jackson: "The City Council is weighing in, too, considering a Small Business Survival Act that would require businesses to have the option of 10-year leases, renewals and the right to mediation if they cannot reach an agreement."
The Bloomberg administration, however, is sticking to its own formula: "The legislation does not have the support of the Bloomberg administration, which argues that tracking lease negotiations would be too costly because of expenses like hiring staff, and that the need for such a law has “greatly dissipated” because rents have declined."
And perhaps they're right-but their own solutions beg the question: "The problem is so bad that the city has become involved. It has offered grants for worker training, and it held a session last Wednesday on how to negotiate leases." But this is all simply a non sequitor; and the high tax environment-exacerbated once again by the mayor's promotion of another sales tax hike-remains the variable that is sacrosanct. We hear absolutely nothing-either in the mayor's campaign blurbs, or in his policy statements-that address the need to lower taxes on neighborhood businesses. The "T" word has become worse than the "N" word for Bloomberg.
All of which undermines, in our view, any effort to promote Mike Bloomberg as a fiscal maven; a leader whose expertise is invaluable and must be retained for a third term if we are going to be led out of the current recession. It is under the mayor's watch that the store vacancies and small business closures have reached epidemic proportions-a fact that we have been tracking for some time.
In the midst of a severe retail meltdown, when neighborhood shopping strips are being ravaged by a store closing epidemic, only Mike Bloomberg-along with his claque of council clowns-could successfully propose raising the sales tax; and then come up with a cockamamie "worker training" plan to address the horrendous results of his eight year reign of small business error.
In order to reverse the current downword spiral, we need a municipal leader who understands that it is the cost of doing business in the city-a cost that has been escalated under the mayor's misguided stewardship-that needs to be lowered; along with the concomitant high cost of government that has been pumped up on steroids by Big Government Mike. Another four years of the same policies is, as the mayor might say, simply meshuga.
"Money Can't Buy Me Love"
Mike Bloomberg thinks that the ballot lines he has secured is all a result of his good looks and charm. How else to explain this demurral from Mr. Charming in an exchange with the NY Daily News' Adam Lisberg: "Mayor Bloomberg today rejected the notion that the $500,000 he dropped on the city Independence Party and five GOP county committees was in any way connected to their decision to endorse him - yet again - for re-election...Here's the mayor's exchange this afternoon with the DN's Adam Lisberg:
Q: "What would you say to people who say that you essentially bought..."
Bloomberg: "I don't have to say. Nobody's said that to me, so I don't have to answer that. Whatever the numbers are, the numbers are. I mean, you know, you create these hypothetical things. We're not going to play the game."
Q: "Not hypothetical, then. Didn't the money help you get their support?"
Bloomberg: "I don't think so. I don't think so. I mean, I, you know, by that argument, you're telling me you believe that everybody that ever gives money expects support? I don't, not sure you're not wrong in many cases, but don't be ridiculous."
Here's a guy who has constantly alleged that he is above the tawdry pay to play of traditional politics because he doesn't need to take anyone's cash to make a decision on what's supposedly best for the people. This insulation from influence peddling-and its more malevolent manifestation in outright bribery-while a good thing, elides the extent to which Bloomberg, because of his mad money, is able to invert the tawdry cash nexus.
In the mayor's enviable situation, the cash is used to insure political party support-or in the case of all of the NGOs, policy backing to create the impression that certain of the mayor's policies are really in the public interest. In the process-follow the $235 million money trail-the mayor corrupts the true nature of democratic debate as surely as bribery offering lobbyists do when looking for favors.
And what about the disingenuousness of Bloomberg saying that, "you're telling me you believe that everybody that ever gives money expects support? I don't, not sure you're not wrong in many cases, but don't be ridiculous." Clearly, the mayor is unequivocally a hypocrite; since he knows full well what he has bought-and the price of the transaction that, if he didn't negotiate it directly himself, must have surely signed off on.
Mike Bloomberg comes directly from the world of quid pro quo-and he has the kind of quid that attracts all sorts of strange bedfellows. The Bloomberg menagerie includes the likes of Spinner Wolfson, Laura Fulani, Andrea Batista Schlesinger, Esther Fuchs, Mitch Moss, and the entire Republican Party; a party that would be hard pressed to name more than one of two Bloomberg initiatives that they could tolerate, let alone endorse with any enthusiasm.
And speaking of political trade offs, what about the NYC equivalent of the Louisiana Purchase-the suborning of the city council to extend term limits? As Liz dramatizes, the quid keeps on giving here; as term limits flip flopper Sara Gonzales can attest: "It's good to have friends in high places - especially if those friends have extra cash on hand and are suggestible as to whose campaign account they might drop it in. Martin Geller, an Upper East Side resident, has maxed out to Councilwoman Sara Gonzalez's campaign, contributing $2,750 to the Brooklyn Democrat on June 15, according to state Board of Elections records." Of course, Geller has a longstanding involvement with the affairs of Sunset Park.
So here stands Mike Bloomberg, The Uniter! There are Bloomberg preachers, Bloomberg not-for-profits, Bloomberg Democrats, Bloomberg editorialists, and even Bloomberg anti-Semites. In fact, in respect to his protean collecting ability, Mike Bloomberg is the single most powerful unifying force in the City of New York. All that is missing is the mayor's outright display of an acknowledged pride of ownership.
Q: "What would you say to people who say that you essentially bought..."
Bloomberg: "I don't have to say. Nobody's said that to me, so I don't have to answer that. Whatever the numbers are, the numbers are. I mean, you know, you create these hypothetical things. We're not going to play the game."
Q: "Not hypothetical, then. Didn't the money help you get their support?"
Bloomberg: "I don't think so. I don't think so. I mean, I, you know, by that argument, you're telling me you believe that everybody that ever gives money expects support? I don't, not sure you're not wrong in many cases, but don't be ridiculous."
Here's a guy who has constantly alleged that he is above the tawdry pay to play of traditional politics because he doesn't need to take anyone's cash to make a decision on what's supposedly best for the people. This insulation from influence peddling-and its more malevolent manifestation in outright bribery-while a good thing, elides the extent to which Bloomberg, because of his mad money, is able to invert the tawdry cash nexus.
In the mayor's enviable situation, the cash is used to insure political party support-or in the case of all of the NGOs, policy backing to create the impression that certain of the mayor's policies are really in the public interest. In the process-follow the $235 million money trail-the mayor corrupts the true nature of democratic debate as surely as bribery offering lobbyists do when looking for favors.
And what about the disingenuousness of Bloomberg saying that, "you're telling me you believe that everybody that ever gives money expects support? I don't, not sure you're not wrong in many cases, but don't be ridiculous." Clearly, the mayor is unequivocally a hypocrite; since he knows full well what he has bought-and the price of the transaction that, if he didn't negotiate it directly himself, must have surely signed off on.
Mike Bloomberg comes directly from the world of quid pro quo-and he has the kind of quid that attracts all sorts of strange bedfellows. The Bloomberg menagerie includes the likes of Spinner Wolfson, Laura Fulani, Andrea Batista Schlesinger, Esther Fuchs, Mitch Moss, and the entire Republican Party; a party that would be hard pressed to name more than one of two Bloomberg initiatives that they could tolerate, let alone endorse with any enthusiasm.
And speaking of political trade offs, what about the NYC equivalent of the Louisiana Purchase-the suborning of the city council to extend term limits? As Liz dramatizes, the quid keeps on giving here; as term limits flip flopper Sara Gonzales can attest: "It's good to have friends in high places - especially if those friends have extra cash on hand and are suggestible as to whose campaign account they might drop it in. Martin Geller, an Upper East Side resident, has maxed out to Councilwoman Sara Gonzalez's campaign, contributing $2,750 to the Brooklyn Democrat on June 15, according to state Board of Elections records." Of course, Geller has a longstanding involvement with the affairs of Sunset Park.
So here stands Mike Bloomberg, The Uniter! There are Bloomberg preachers, Bloomberg not-for-profits, Bloomberg Democrats, Bloomberg editorialists, and even Bloomberg anti-Semites. In fact, in respect to his protean collecting ability, Mike Bloomberg is the single most powerful unifying force in the City of New York. All that is missing is the mayor's outright display of an acknowledged pride of ownership.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Trust me!
We did get a kick out of one independent observer of the mayoral control kerfuffle-the always fair minded and unbiased Bill Cunningham. Billy the Kid said this about the balking state senators: "The irony of calls for civility from senators like Parker, who is under indictment for striking a news photographer, and Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens), who allegedly slashed his girlfriend's face with broken glass, had some Bloomberg loyalists rolling their eyes. "This group calling for civility is like Bernie Madoff calling for better accounting standards," said Bill Cunningham, a longtime Bloomberg adviser."
Unlike asking the disingenuous Cunningham to be a straight shooter when it comes to his once and future patron. There's an old saying that the way to say, "screw you," in a certain vernacular is, "Trust me!" Cunnigham fits right into there; and his analysis is, well, totally Horn and Hardart-or, to explain for those too young to remember: self serving.
Unlike asking the disingenuous Cunningham to be a straight shooter when it comes to his once and future patron. There's an old saying that the way to say, "screw you," in a certain vernacular is, "Trust me!" Cunnigham fits right into there; and his analysis is, well, totally Horn and Hardart-or, to explain for those too young to remember: self serving.
Mayoral Control Freakout
The impasse over school governance took a turn for the hyperbolic last Friday when Mike Bloomberg-that acknowledged master of Yiddishkeit-let loose on some state senators who won't join with his well paid laundry list of loyal retainers in support of total mayoral control over the city's schools: "Using some of his strongest language to date, Mayor Bloomberg gave the Senate Democrats a tongue-lashing this morning - even calling some of them out by name - for failing yet again to pass a bill reauthorizing his control over the public school system. During his weekly WOR radio show, Bloomberg told host John Gambling Gov. David Paterson should force the Senate to return to Albany "every single day" for the rest of the summer until they pass a mayoral control bill, even employing the State Police to "drag them back" if necessary. "This is what he should do," Bloomberg said of Paterson, noting that he has been "defending" the governor throughout the Senate stalemate. "Giving them the summer off is as we say in Gallic, ‘Meshugenah'".
Bloomberg, unsatisfied with this simple brief outburst, then went even further in his castigation. As the NY Post reported on Saturday: "Bloomberg went after five senators by name for voting in favor of an alternate bill that would have gutted mayoral control -- a measure that failed but was widely seen as a public rebuke of the mayor -- and called it "bull." Bloomberg said he wouldn't appease them the way Neville Chamberlain caved in to Hitler."
So, we guess, Mike Bloomberg is right up there in the pantheon of heroic anti-Nazi freedom fighters-placing the issue of mayoral control on the same level with ridding the world of a genocidal maniac. Talk about megalomania!
But yesterday the senators themselves took the fight right to city hall. As the NY Times reports: "In the increasingly acrimonious battle over mayoral control of New York City’s public schools, 10 senators, all of them Democrats, held an hourlong news conference, ostensibly to demand that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg make some concessions before they consider extending his control. All of the senators spoke, and they proclaimed the issue too important to be sidetracked by political rhetoric. Then some proceeded to vilify the mayor, calling him everything from a dictator to a yenta to a plantation owner."
What we now have, it seems, is a staged battle between two sides-both of whom feel that the escalating rhetoric serves their political purpose. Lost in this rhetorical miasma, however, is the fact that the schools haven't been rescued from damnation since Bloomberg ascended to the role of Philosopher King; and that the out of control spending increases-both the public's and his own-along with watered down tests and media collusion, have allowed Mike to paint a misleading picture of the current public school reality.
In fact, listening to Mike Bloomberg on schools is like listening to the Reverend Ike talk about salvation and the Kingdom of the Lord. So what we need now, is for the political critics of the mayor to chill out a bit-and come back with an incisive critique of the current educational situation. Nothing will deconstruct the mayor's mythos more than a sober evaluation of Bloomberg's blatant misrepresentation of school accomplishments under his lavish stewardship.
Bloomberg, unsatisfied with this simple brief outburst, then went even further in his castigation. As the NY Post reported on Saturday: "Bloomberg went after five senators by name for voting in favor of an alternate bill that would have gutted mayoral control -- a measure that failed but was widely seen as a public rebuke of the mayor -- and called it "bull." Bloomberg said he wouldn't appease them the way Neville Chamberlain caved in to Hitler."
So, we guess, Mike Bloomberg is right up there in the pantheon of heroic anti-Nazi freedom fighters-placing the issue of mayoral control on the same level with ridding the world of a genocidal maniac. Talk about megalomania!
But yesterday the senators themselves took the fight right to city hall. As the NY Times reports: "In the increasingly acrimonious battle over mayoral control of New York City’s public schools, 10 senators, all of them Democrats, held an hourlong news conference, ostensibly to demand that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg make some concessions before they consider extending his control. All of the senators spoke, and they proclaimed the issue too important to be sidetracked by political rhetoric. Then some proceeded to vilify the mayor, calling him everything from a dictator to a yenta to a plantation owner."
What we now have, it seems, is a staged battle between two sides-both of whom feel that the escalating rhetoric serves their political purpose. Lost in this rhetorical miasma, however, is the fact that the schools haven't been rescued from damnation since Bloomberg ascended to the role of Philosopher King; and that the out of control spending increases-both the public's and his own-along with watered down tests and media collusion, have allowed Mike to paint a misleading picture of the current public school reality.
In fact, listening to Mike Bloomberg on schools is like listening to the Reverend Ike talk about salvation and the Kingdom of the Lord. So what we need now, is for the political critics of the mayor to chill out a bit-and come back with an incisive critique of the current educational situation. Nothing will deconstruct the mayor's mythos more than a sober evaluation of Bloomberg's blatant misrepresentation of school accomplishments under his lavish stewardship.
In Sickness and in Health!
As the NY Times is reporting, there are growing concerns that the Charlie Rangel-sponsored House health care bill would not only fail to curb the growth of the sector's costs-it would likely increase them-but would also cripple the country's small business: "The director of the Congressional Budget Office warned Thursday that the legislative proposals so far would not slow the growth of health spending, a crucial goal for Mr. Obama as he also tries to extend insurance to more than 45 million Americans who lack it."
Of course, when this was breaking news on Friday, the Times-unlike the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal-buried the shocker, while the other papers headlined it on the front page: "It's says quite a bit that the editors at the two other largest and most influential papers in the country found the story to be front page news but the editors at the Times did not." And the Times elides the real bad news in their more accurate follow up analysis the next day, by simply saying that the CBO director pointed out that the health plans will not, "slow the growth," of health spending, when he really warned that they would increase it.
And the NY Post gets right to the essence of the tax payer rip off with all of this reform: "Because the long-term effects of what the president is trying to ram through Congress without adequate scrutiny will be disastrous. As CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf warned: "We do not see the sort of fundamental changes [to reduce spending] that would be necessary to offset the direct increase in health costs that would result. "On the contrary," he said, "the legislation significantly expands the federal [financial] responsibility for health-care costs."
But the Times does point out that the disastrous small business impact has a number of more moderate Democrats very worried: "Representative Jared Polis, a freshman Democrat from Colorado who voted against the bill approved Friday in the Education and Labor Committee, said he worried that the new taxes “could cost jobs in a recession.” To help finance coverage of the uninsured, the House bill would impose a surtax on high-income people and a payroll tax — as much as 8 percent of wages — on employers who do not provide health insurance to workers. Mr. Polis said these taxes, combined with the scheduled increase in tax rates resulting from the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts, would have a perverse effect. “Some successful family-owned businesses would be taxed at higher rates than multinational corporations,” he said."
Speaker Pelosi-always on the look out it appears for measures that will retard the economy-made the following observation in last week's NY Post: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the new taxes on the rich as Democrats' way of ensuring "that middle-income people in our country are not touched" by levies to finance health-care reform." As if hurting the job generators in the country wouldn't hurt these middle class folks that the Speaker claims to want to protect. There's simply no concept of economic cause and effect from those people who seem driven to grow the size of government at all cost.
But another major hurdle that the Times points out, is the lack of any bipartisan support for the health care overhaul; and while some feel that bipartisanship shouldn't override the search for a "good: bill, other Democrats in swing districts worry that a purely partisan measure that raises taxes will allow their Republican opponents to bell the Democratic cat as an irresponsible big spender:
"In a letter to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Polis and 20 other freshman Democrats said they were “extremely concerned that the proposed method of paying for health care reform will negatively impact small businesses, the backbone of the American economy.”
And in the latest sign of lawmakers’ chafing at Mr. Obama’s ambitious timetable, a bipartisan group of six senators, including two members of the Finance Committee, sent a letter to Senate leaders pleading with them to allow more time. “While we are committed to providing relief for American families as quickly as possible,” they wrote, “we believe taking additional time to achieve a bipartisan result is critical for legislation that affects 17 percent of our economy and every individual in the United States.”
The Times does manage to finally get to the most salient cost aspects of all of this-but once again at the tail end of the news analysis: "But the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas W. Elmendorf, testified on Thursday that doing so would come at a steep cost and that the proposals would not curb the rise in health spending by the federal government, which he called “unsustainable.” A budget office analysis released Friday said the House bill would “result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion” over 10 years, partly because of an increase in Medicare spending to avert sharp cuts in payments to doctors."
A little bit more serious than simply, "slowing the growth," of health spending, no? So, with cap and trade liable to tax all Americans for simply turning on their light bulbs, and health care "reforms" being proposed that will give us tax rates that the Europeans are wisely shunning in their effort to return to economic competitiveness, the Obama administration is driving the US economy right off the rails-or, as Joe Biden hilariously told us : "Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”
Where; Jay Leno, John Stewart and David Letterman when you really need them. Oh, right, they're busy mocking Sarah Palin for her stupidity-while the country spends itself into oblivion courtesy of all the best and brightest folks currently at the helm in the nation's capitol. Guess the real joke's on us.
Of course, when this was breaking news on Friday, the Times-unlike the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal-buried the shocker, while the other papers headlined it on the front page: "It's says quite a bit that the editors at the two other largest and most influential papers in the country found the story to be front page news but the editors at the Times did not." And the Times elides the real bad news in their more accurate follow up analysis the next day, by simply saying that the CBO director pointed out that the health plans will not, "slow the growth," of health spending, when he really warned that they would increase it.
And the NY Post gets right to the essence of the tax payer rip off with all of this reform: "Because the long-term effects of what the president is trying to ram through Congress without adequate scrutiny will be disastrous. As CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf warned: "We do not see the sort of fundamental changes [to reduce spending] that would be necessary to offset the direct increase in health costs that would result. "On the contrary," he said, "the legislation significantly expands the federal [financial] responsibility for health-care costs."
But the Times does point out that the disastrous small business impact has a number of more moderate Democrats very worried: "Representative Jared Polis, a freshman Democrat from Colorado who voted against the bill approved Friday in the Education and Labor Committee, said he worried that the new taxes “could cost jobs in a recession.” To help finance coverage of the uninsured, the House bill would impose a surtax on high-income people and a payroll tax — as much as 8 percent of wages — on employers who do not provide health insurance to workers. Mr. Polis said these taxes, combined with the scheduled increase in tax rates resulting from the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts, would have a perverse effect. “Some successful family-owned businesses would be taxed at higher rates than multinational corporations,” he said."
Speaker Pelosi-always on the look out it appears for measures that will retard the economy-made the following observation in last week's NY Post: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the new taxes on the rich as Democrats' way of ensuring "that middle-income people in our country are not touched" by levies to finance health-care reform." As if hurting the job generators in the country wouldn't hurt these middle class folks that the Speaker claims to want to protect. There's simply no concept of economic cause and effect from those people who seem driven to grow the size of government at all cost.
But another major hurdle that the Times points out, is the lack of any bipartisan support for the health care overhaul; and while some feel that bipartisanship shouldn't override the search for a "good: bill, other Democrats in swing districts worry that a purely partisan measure that raises taxes will allow their Republican opponents to bell the Democratic cat as an irresponsible big spender:
"In a letter to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Polis and 20 other freshman Democrats said they were “extremely concerned that the proposed method of paying for health care reform will negatively impact small businesses, the backbone of the American economy.”
And in the latest sign of lawmakers’ chafing at Mr. Obama’s ambitious timetable, a bipartisan group of six senators, including two members of the Finance Committee, sent a letter to Senate leaders pleading with them to allow more time. “While we are committed to providing relief for American families as quickly as possible,” they wrote, “we believe taking additional time to achieve a bipartisan result is critical for legislation that affects 17 percent of our economy and every individual in the United States.”
The Times does manage to finally get to the most salient cost aspects of all of this-but once again at the tail end of the news analysis: "But the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas W. Elmendorf, testified on Thursday that doing so would come at a steep cost and that the proposals would not curb the rise in health spending by the federal government, which he called “unsustainable.” A budget office analysis released Friday said the House bill would “result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion” over 10 years, partly because of an increase in Medicare spending to avert sharp cuts in payments to doctors."
A little bit more serious than simply, "slowing the growth," of health spending, no? So, with cap and trade liable to tax all Americans for simply turning on their light bulbs, and health care "reforms" being proposed that will give us tax rates that the Europeans are wisely shunning in their effort to return to economic competitiveness, the Obama administration is driving the US economy right off the rails-or, as Joe Biden hilariously told us : "Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”
Where; Jay Leno, John Stewart and David Letterman when you really need them. Oh, right, they're busy mocking Sarah Palin for her stupidity-while the country spends itself into oblivion courtesy of all the best and brightest folks currently at the helm in the nation's capitol. Guess the real joke's on us.
Eminent Domain and Judge Sotomayor
On the steps of City Hall at 1:00 PM today, the business owners and workers of Willets Point will be joined by Councilman Tony Avella, Public Advocate candidate Norman Siegal, and a host of other local community activists, in a press conference that will express concern over Judge Sotomayor's views of eminent domain; and the future of property rights at the Supreme Court.
Across the country states and municipalities have begun to recognize the dangers in the widespread abuse of eminent domain laws-and have begun to take steps to change them In New York, however, laws that give almost unrestrained power to the state to seize property remain on the books; and allow for the permissive, and some would say promiscuous taking of private property for just about any reason.
In variably, property is being seized-or proposed to be seized-from small home owners or small businesses, and transferred to larger economic entities; with the underlying rationale that the new use would be, "more productive." This is the kind of rationale that can justify almost any government taking of property-and renders the entire notion of private property, and its constitutional protection, almost obsolete.
Such is the case with the Willets Point businesses and the city. For decades, the city has neglected the so-called Iron Triangle; failing to provide the area with basic services such as paved roads and functioning sewers. In spite of this negligence, the area has thrived as an economic engine for a wide range of small businesses-but particularly for immigrant workers and small business owners. Estimates suggest that there are over 250 local businesses employing approximately 2500 workers.
The classic definition of blight, no? But if the area is blighted-and Willets Point wouldn't be anyone's definition of upscale-it is the city that has created the blight through its conscious neglect. The situation reminds of of the apocryphal story of the two Germans who were passing by the Jewish ghetto during the Nazi regime. One of the Germans turned to his companion and said, "Don't these Jews smell." His companion replied, "That's not the Jews who smell, it's Nazism."
So we acknowledge that Willets Point could use a face lift; but the extreme makeover planned by the Bloombergistas is an unnecessary assault on small business, something that has become a hallmark of the current administration. Which brings us to the larger eminent domain issue, and the role that Judge Sotomayor will play when she does become the new SC justice.
Up until now, Sotomayor has been tone deaf on the fundamental property rights issue inherent in eminent domain cases. What she seems to lack-at least until now-is a sense that the protection of property is a bedrock constitutional issue. After all, as Myron Magnet has astutely pointed out: "It’s worth recalling that when the Founding Fathers led the American colonists in revolt against British oppression, they weren’t rebelling against torture on the rack or being chained in galleys or having to let aristocrats deflower their daughters. They were rebelling against taxes. To them, having to pay duties they hadn’t voted for themselves was a tyrannical taking of property—theft—and, in true Lockean fashion, they concluded that since government exists to protect life, liberty, and property, a regime that does the opposite renders itself illegitimate."
In the Didden v. Port Chester case, Sotomayor simply punted on the ED issue and, as Ilya Somin has opined, it is, “perhaps the worst federal court property rights decision in recent memory.” This decision, as well as Sotomayor’s equivocal responses to the questions on eminent domain posed in her hearing last week, is what is causing real concerns among the local New York groups; and the reason why they will be out in force on Monday.
So the Willets Point United group will be out in force to ask Judge Sotomayor, now that she will be taking on a new judicial role-and is back in NYC to visit, to take a fresh look the eminent domain question-and to look at how the abuse of eminent domain has really hurt the little guys that she has fought her whole life to protect. We'll give Jerry Antonacci of WPU the last word here:
“Property rights used to be sacred, but local governments, with the collusion of the Supreme Court in the Kelo case, have eroded this right-and it needs to be restored to its honored constitutional status. If they can take our businesses away than no one’s home is safe in this country from the reach of greedy developers and corrupt local elected officials. Our fight is the kind of fight that Sonya Sotomayor would have led when she worked for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund a few decades ago. We are calling on her to remember her roots and treat our rights with the respect they deserve.”
Across the country states and municipalities have begun to recognize the dangers in the widespread abuse of eminent domain laws-and have begun to take steps to change them In New York, however, laws that give almost unrestrained power to the state to seize property remain on the books; and allow for the permissive, and some would say promiscuous taking of private property for just about any reason.
In variably, property is being seized-or proposed to be seized-from small home owners or small businesses, and transferred to larger economic entities; with the underlying rationale that the new use would be, "more productive." This is the kind of rationale that can justify almost any government taking of property-and renders the entire notion of private property, and its constitutional protection, almost obsolete.
Such is the case with the Willets Point businesses and the city. For decades, the city has neglected the so-called Iron Triangle; failing to provide the area with basic services such as paved roads and functioning sewers. In spite of this negligence, the area has thrived as an economic engine for a wide range of small businesses-but particularly for immigrant workers and small business owners. Estimates suggest that there are over 250 local businesses employing approximately 2500 workers.
The classic definition of blight, no? But if the area is blighted-and Willets Point wouldn't be anyone's definition of upscale-it is the city that has created the blight through its conscious neglect. The situation reminds of of the apocryphal story of the two Germans who were passing by the Jewish ghetto during the Nazi regime. One of the Germans turned to his companion and said, "Don't these Jews smell." His companion replied, "That's not the Jews who smell, it's Nazism."
So we acknowledge that Willets Point could use a face lift; but the extreme makeover planned by the Bloombergistas is an unnecessary assault on small business, something that has become a hallmark of the current administration. Which brings us to the larger eminent domain issue, and the role that Judge Sotomayor will play when she does become the new SC justice.
Up until now, Sotomayor has been tone deaf on the fundamental property rights issue inherent in eminent domain cases. What she seems to lack-at least until now-is a sense that the protection of property is a bedrock constitutional issue. After all, as Myron Magnet has astutely pointed out: "It’s worth recalling that when the Founding Fathers led the American colonists in revolt against British oppression, they weren’t rebelling against torture on the rack or being chained in galleys or having to let aristocrats deflower their daughters. They were rebelling against taxes. To them, having to pay duties they hadn’t voted for themselves was a tyrannical taking of property—theft—and, in true Lockean fashion, they concluded that since government exists to protect life, liberty, and property, a regime that does the opposite renders itself illegitimate."
In the Didden v. Port Chester case, Sotomayor simply punted on the ED issue and, as Ilya Somin has opined, it is, “perhaps the worst federal court property rights decision in recent memory.” This decision, as well as Sotomayor’s equivocal responses to the questions on eminent domain posed in her hearing last week, is what is causing real concerns among the local New York groups; and the reason why they will be out in force on Monday.
So the Willets Point United group will be out in force to ask Judge Sotomayor, now that she will be taking on a new judicial role-and is back in NYC to visit, to take a fresh look the eminent domain question-and to look at how the abuse of eminent domain has really hurt the little guys that she has fought her whole life to protect. We'll give Jerry Antonacci of WPU the last word here:
“Property rights used to be sacred, but local governments, with the collusion of the Supreme Court in the Kelo case, have eroded this right-and it needs to be restored to its honored constitutional status. If they can take our businesses away than no one’s home is safe in this country from the reach of greedy developers and corrupt local elected officials. Our fight is the kind of fight that Sonya Sotomayor would have led when she worked for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund a few decades ago. We are calling on her to remember her roots and treat our rights with the respect they deserve.”
Friday, July 17, 2009
Speak Up Mike!
Earlier, we commented on the relative silence of the mayor on the proposed federal health care overhaul. To be fair, Bloomberg did comment to the NY Post this morning-and he did manage to avoid sounding too strident: "Mayor Bloomberg demurred when asked about how to pay for the plan, which is aimed at providing health coverage for people who can't afford it. "Throwing more money every time at the problem is not necessarily the right solution. And where that money comes from, that's something that will take a long time to be worked out between the House and the Senate," the billionaire mayor told CNN. "
How about a simple, "This plan sucks for NYC-as well as for the rest of the country." After all, the fact the Bloomberg has $100 million to lay out for his own campaign and doesn't need to be beholden to the special interests, should free him up for a little cold water tossing when a hair brained scheme to have the government micromanage health care is cooked up by the redistributors in Washington. Right?
And, while we're at it, how about the mayor taking the esteemed chair of the House Ways and Means to task for his cavalier foisting of even greater tax burdens on already over taxed New Yorkers? Here's Choo Choo Charlie's policy acumen on display: "The bill's top sponsor, Harlem Rep. Charles Rangel, asked whether the tax hike would squeeze New York's wealthy, replied, "New York [also] has a lot of poor people."
But the impoverished congressman isn't one of them-and, of course, insures his owm exemption from some of the plan's more cockamamie ideas that Betsy McCaughey outlines in the Post: "President Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests."
But it gets worse: "Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time."
But not Charlie; he and his colleagues, utilizing their exemption from the bill's mandates, will be able to continue to choose the Gold Plate Special. But Rangel should lead by example, as his colleague Congressman Fleming suggests: "As a physician, I am amazed at the number of my colleagues in Congress who are quick to claim a government-run health-care plan is the reform this country needs. So I've offered a bill, HR 615, to give them a chance to put their "health" where their mouth is: My resolution urges members of Congress who vote for this legislation to lead by example and enroll themselves in the public plan that their bill would create."
Charlie's queuing up as we speak. Right? And Rangel's allusion to New York's poor is patently offensive-as he continues to occupy multiple housing designed for moderate income folks. What about the city's tax base, Charlie? The workers in Paul Fernandez's supermarkets who may get laid off if your plan goes through certainly don't look forward to all of your misguided government "help."
Now, as many of you know, we've been beating up on the NY Post for quite a while on the mayoral control issue. But on health care, the paper has stepped up-something that the NY Times and the NY Daily News have not done. In fact the News buried the health care story yesterday in the middle of the paper and didn't mention the small business impacts-and neither did the Times, for that matter.
The NY Post, however, gets it right in their lead editorial today: "New clues emerged yesterday showing just how much damage the Democrats' health-care plans will do to America's economy. (Warning: This subject may make you, uh, sick -- and good luck finding a doctor if the plans pass.) Start with comments from Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office: The Senate's plan "significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs" -- even though President Obama and his fellow Dems claim to want to reduce costs. The CBO puts its price tag at some $600 billion over the next 10 years. The House scheme could run to $1.5 trillion."
Now, if only the Post-and the other local papers as well-would ratchet up the pressure on our elected officials to put the kibosh on this anti-New York City, anti-small business scheme. And the best place to start is with "Above Politics" Mike. If he is going to claim the mantle of leadership in these tough economic times, then he also must speak truth to the powers in the nation's capitol. Hey Mike, a little hint, this just may be a more important issue than continuing mayoral control of the schools.
How about a simple, "This plan sucks for NYC-as well as for the rest of the country." After all, the fact the Bloomberg has $100 million to lay out for his own campaign and doesn't need to be beholden to the special interests, should free him up for a little cold water tossing when a hair brained scheme to have the government micromanage health care is cooked up by the redistributors in Washington. Right?
And, while we're at it, how about the mayor taking the esteemed chair of the House Ways and Means to task for his cavalier foisting of even greater tax burdens on already over taxed New Yorkers? Here's Choo Choo Charlie's policy acumen on display: "The bill's top sponsor, Harlem Rep. Charles Rangel, asked whether the tax hike would squeeze New York's wealthy, replied, "New York [also] has a lot of poor people."
But the impoverished congressman isn't one of them-and, of course, insures his owm exemption from some of the plan's more cockamamie ideas that Betsy McCaughey outlines in the Post: "President Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests."
But it gets worse: "Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time."
But not Charlie; he and his colleagues, utilizing their exemption from the bill's mandates, will be able to continue to choose the Gold Plate Special. But Rangel should lead by example, as his colleague Congressman Fleming suggests: "As a physician, I am amazed at the number of my colleagues in Congress who are quick to claim a government-run health-care plan is the reform this country needs. So I've offered a bill, HR 615, to give them a chance to put their "health" where their mouth is: My resolution urges members of Congress who vote for this legislation to lead by example and enroll themselves in the public plan that their bill would create."
Charlie's queuing up as we speak. Right? And Rangel's allusion to New York's poor is patently offensive-as he continues to occupy multiple housing designed for moderate income folks. What about the city's tax base, Charlie? The workers in Paul Fernandez's supermarkets who may get laid off if your plan goes through certainly don't look forward to all of your misguided government "help."
Now, as many of you know, we've been beating up on the NY Post for quite a while on the mayoral control issue. But on health care, the paper has stepped up-something that the NY Times and the NY Daily News have not done. In fact the News buried the health care story yesterday in the middle of the paper and didn't mention the small business impacts-and neither did the Times, for that matter.
The NY Post, however, gets it right in their lead editorial today: "New clues emerged yesterday showing just how much damage the Democrats' health-care plans will do to America's economy. (Warning: This subject may make you, uh, sick -- and good luck finding a doctor if the plans pass.) Start with comments from Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office: The Senate's plan "significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs" -- even though President Obama and his fellow Dems claim to want to reduce costs. The CBO puts its price tag at some $600 billion over the next 10 years. The House scheme could run to $1.5 trillion."
Now, if only the Post-and the other local papers as well-would ratchet up the pressure on our elected officials to put the kibosh on this anti-New York City, anti-small business scheme. And the best place to start is with "Above Politics" Mike. If he is going to claim the mantle of leadership in these tough economic times, then he also must speak truth to the powers in the nation's capitol. Hey Mike, a little hint, this just may be a more important issue than continuing mayoral control of the schools.
Unhealthy Supermarket Plan
By now we all know that NYC is hemorrhaging supermarkets-having lost around 300 stores over the past eight years; and the Bloomberg administration, in office during the period of this mass exodus, is now looking for ways to attract news stores. But, as we have said over and over, the administration lacks any policy ideas that will stem the loss of the existing markets.
Why is this loss so important? Well, it speaks to the "food desert" concept that sees the dearth of supermarkets as a public health crisis because of the lack of access to fresh produce that people have in neighborhoods where supermarkets and green grocers are few and far between. The linkage here, of course, is between the city's obesity epidemic and this lack of access.
And in this context, along comes ObamaCare-a plan to enable, we suppose, Americans to have greater access to health care; an access to care that looks to insure healthier outcomes for all, but does so by taxing the life out of small businesses. But the road to Hell, well, you know the rest; because if the effort to insure greater access also accelerates the loss of small supermarkets and other neighborhood food stores, than we'll have what looks like great health coverage but, at the same time, even more expansive food deserts-along with a concomitant loss of neighborhood jobs. Salud!
Much of this analysis can be seen highlighted in this morning's NY Post, as the paper focuses in on the impact that the ObamaCare plan would have on the supermarkets of our good friend Paul Fernandez: "For grocer Paul Fernandez, a congressional plan to pay for health care by raising taxes will cost him so much bread he's not sure he'd be able to stay in business. "As it is, we're struggling to keep up with the cost of doing business, especially in the city of New York. This just simply adds to the cost, especially with rising rents and the commercial rent tax," said Fernandez."
Fernadez hits the nail on the head here, because it is the already high cost of doing business in NYC that lies directly behind the supermarket exodus in the first place-and why we have called the Bloomberg supermarket promotion plan, at best, a good answer to the wrong question. But the federal plan here-really an additional taxing of small business-will exacerbate our local problem of supermarket loss: "If they get their legislation through, Fernandez said lawmakers will create a new problem by forcing small firms to shut down or lay off workers. "The reality is that they are looking for a way to finance this, which I think is needed," Fernandez said of the push for health-care reform. "But to do something that will put a lot of businesses out of business is a very dangerous way to do it."
Which is why Mike Bloomberg needs to come out from under his desk on this health plan scheme. After all, he is so quick to proclaim the attributes of Judge Sotomayor. But will he have the menschlicheit to oppose ObamaCare? We'd be surprised since-post election 2008-the mayor has been acting as if he was the president's most enthusiastic supporter. But if he has any integrity, he needs to tell Charlie Rangel that his soak the small business health scheme is a disaster for New York.
And Bloomberg needs to state loud and clear that, if legislators like Rangel think a mandatory public health plan is the way to go, than the plan must also make it mandatory for all the members of Congress to enroll-something that Representative Fleming suggests in this morning's Post. Otherwise, Rangel and his band of merry bandits needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a health care proposal that leaves the city's small businesses alone and by doing so, follows the Hippocratic Oath: "Above all, do no harm"
Why is this loss so important? Well, it speaks to the "food desert" concept that sees the dearth of supermarkets as a public health crisis because of the lack of access to fresh produce that people have in neighborhoods where supermarkets and green grocers are few and far between. The linkage here, of course, is between the city's obesity epidemic and this lack of access.
And in this context, along comes ObamaCare-a plan to enable, we suppose, Americans to have greater access to health care; an access to care that looks to insure healthier outcomes for all, but does so by taxing the life out of small businesses. But the road to Hell, well, you know the rest; because if the effort to insure greater access also accelerates the loss of small supermarkets and other neighborhood food stores, than we'll have what looks like great health coverage but, at the same time, even more expansive food deserts-along with a concomitant loss of neighborhood jobs. Salud!
Much of this analysis can be seen highlighted in this morning's NY Post, as the paper focuses in on the impact that the ObamaCare plan would have on the supermarkets of our good friend Paul Fernandez: "For grocer Paul Fernandez, a congressional plan to pay for health care by raising taxes will cost him so much bread he's not sure he'd be able to stay in business. "As it is, we're struggling to keep up with the cost of doing business, especially in the city of New York. This just simply adds to the cost, especially with rising rents and the commercial rent tax," said Fernandez."
Fernadez hits the nail on the head here, because it is the already high cost of doing business in NYC that lies directly behind the supermarket exodus in the first place-and why we have called the Bloomberg supermarket promotion plan, at best, a good answer to the wrong question. But the federal plan here-really an additional taxing of small business-will exacerbate our local problem of supermarket loss: "If they get their legislation through, Fernandez said lawmakers will create a new problem by forcing small firms to shut down or lay off workers. "The reality is that they are looking for a way to finance this, which I think is needed," Fernandez said of the push for health-care reform. "But to do something that will put a lot of businesses out of business is a very dangerous way to do it."
Which is why Mike Bloomberg needs to come out from under his desk on this health plan scheme. After all, he is so quick to proclaim the attributes of Judge Sotomayor. But will he have the menschlicheit to oppose ObamaCare? We'd be surprised since-post election 2008-the mayor has been acting as if he was the president's most enthusiastic supporter. But if he has any integrity, he needs to tell Charlie Rangel that his soak the small business health scheme is a disaster for New York.
And Bloomberg needs to state loud and clear that, if legislators like Rangel think a mandatory public health plan is the way to go, than the plan must also make it mandatory for all the members of Congress to enroll-something that Representative Fleming suggests in this morning's Post. Otherwise, Rangel and his band of merry bandits needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a health care proposal that leaves the city's small businesses alone and by doing so, follows the Hippocratic Oath: "Above all, do no harm"
Fruitless Reporting
The Gotham Gazette has a post on what it describes as, the "drought" in the outer boroughs in regards to the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables: "Fruit stands are Manhattan's new hot dog vendor, minus the mustard and ketchup. Their street corner takeover has sparked some New Yorkers, like Upper East Sider Jamie Kayam, to carp that their neighborhood is oversaturated with apples, bananas and overly ripe white cherries. "In NYC, buying fruits and vegetables has never been easier!" Kayam wrote in an e-mail to Gotham Gazette and The Huffington Post. "When recently discussing life in the city with some friends, a key complaint that came up was that there are too many fruit stands in Manhattan!"
So, given the saturation of such vendors in Manhattan, did the GG think it might be wise to examine how these low overhead scavengers are: (1) Causing extreme congestion and overrunning certain neighborhoods; and, (2) Having a deleterious impact on the stores whose taxes keep the city budget balanced?
Apparently not, since the objective here is to, once again, hammer home the fact that, outside of Manhattan, veggie peddlers are scarce-as are the produce carrying supermarkets and other such food stores: "But out of Manhattan, greens get elusive. In the South Bronx, residents have about half of that supermarket space. In Brooklyn's Bedford Stuyvesant, 82 percent of retailers are unlikely to sell fresh fruits and vegetables, and in some areas of Upper Manhattan that number increases to 90 percent, according to city planning."
In the outer boroughs, over relying on stats from the Department of City Planning, the GG finds a, "produce desert." So, what's the underlying reason for this phenomenon? The authors of the post don't bother to explore any of the reasons for the neighborhood disparity. But, how about letting us do it for them?
Number one, is the question of demand. Where demand is high, peddlers flood an area in pursuit of the paying customers-and check out this confirmation from a recent NY Times story. And, in the process, they cannibalize business from stores that are paying exorbitant rents and confiscatory taxes. In addition, the level of health awareness in the produce deserts is lower-along with the incomes necessary to support a greater number of retail outlets.
Number two, is the income levels themselves. It's quite silly to compare supermarket density of low income and high income areas-and anyway, we are losing many of those markets from Manhattan as the cost of doing business-courtesy of the "luxury product" Bloomberg-continues to rise.
So, let's be clear here. Both the abundance, as well as the dearth of peddlers in certain nabes, has policy implications. But to see the issue solely through the lens of health, and not from a larger macro perspective, only will lead to silly initiatives like the Green Carts legislation. More care needs to be given to nurturing the health of the city's small business; or else we will end up-something accelerated by ObamaCare-with a fully health insured out of work populace.
So, given the saturation of such vendors in Manhattan, did the GG think it might be wise to examine how these low overhead scavengers are: (1) Causing extreme congestion and overrunning certain neighborhoods; and, (2) Having a deleterious impact on the stores whose taxes keep the city budget balanced?
Apparently not, since the objective here is to, once again, hammer home the fact that, outside of Manhattan, veggie peddlers are scarce-as are the produce carrying supermarkets and other such food stores: "But out of Manhattan, greens get elusive. In the South Bronx, residents have about half of that supermarket space. In Brooklyn's Bedford Stuyvesant, 82 percent of retailers are unlikely to sell fresh fruits and vegetables, and in some areas of Upper Manhattan that number increases to 90 percent, according to city planning."
In the outer boroughs, over relying on stats from the Department of City Planning, the GG finds a, "produce desert." So, what's the underlying reason for this phenomenon? The authors of the post don't bother to explore any of the reasons for the neighborhood disparity. But, how about letting us do it for them?
Number one, is the question of demand. Where demand is high, peddlers flood an area in pursuit of the paying customers-and check out this confirmation from a recent NY Times story. And, in the process, they cannibalize business from stores that are paying exorbitant rents and confiscatory taxes. In addition, the level of health awareness in the produce deserts is lower-along with the incomes necessary to support a greater number of retail outlets.
Number two, is the income levels themselves. It's quite silly to compare supermarket density of low income and high income areas-and anyway, we are losing many of those markets from Manhattan as the cost of doing business-courtesy of the "luxury product" Bloomberg-continues to rise.
So, let's be clear here. Both the abundance, as well as the dearth of peddlers in certain nabes, has policy implications. But to see the issue solely through the lens of health, and not from a larger macro perspective, only will lead to silly initiatives like the Green Carts legislation. More care needs to be given to nurturing the health of the city's small business; or else we will end up-something accelerated by ObamaCare-with a fully health insured out of work populace.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Linares Redux?
Well, well, right on the heels of Michael Jackson's demise-with all of the replaying of the great " "Thriller" video-comes the news that our old nemesis Guillermo Linaris is being resurrected from his political graveyard. Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat captures the ghoulishness of the disinterment: "Peace treaty or no, the assemblyman couldn't help himself from taking a few backhanded swipes and his old foe. "To recycle and go back is not the thing to do," Espaillat said during a telephone interview this afternoon...." Espaillat continued. "He served with distinction. I just think this is step backward for him. You left; you should continue to move forward instead of going backward."
And being Miguel Marinez's replacement part isn't a step forward in our view-and does the substitution choice count as an endorsement from the soon to be disgraced pol? But it gets worse when we read that Linaris himself isn't returning to elective politics with clean hands. As the NY Daily News reports: "The handpicked successor to disgraced City Councilman Miguel Martinez has ties to another scandal, the Daily News has learned. As Martinez prepares to plead guilty to corruption charges today, former Councilman Guillermo Linares plans to run for his Washington Heights seat with his blessing. Linares quit his job Wednesday as a top aide to Mayor Bloomberg to run. Earlier this year, a nonprofit group Linares organized to help immigrants, the Community Association of Progressive Dominicans, was found to have given a no-show job to a crony of Bronx state Sen. Efrain Gonzalez, records show."
And who was the director of the tarnished group? None other than Linares' own daughter: "The crony, Miguel Castanos, was on the payroll from 2004 through April 2006. He pleaded guilty to fraud charges this past April; Gonzalez followed suit in May. During the time Castanos was on the payroll, Linares' daughter Mayra was on the group's board of directors, 2005 tax forms show. She has since become the board's chairwoman. An employee of the Community Association of Progressive Dominicans said Wednesday the group had no comment."
When you have nothing good to say...well, you get what we're pointing out. But our real problem lies with Linares' history of betrayal. Back in 1995, Linares lead the opposition on behalf of dozens of Dominican-owned supermarkets to a tax subsidized Pathmark in East Harlem. Juan Gonzales captured this betrayal at the time: "In the middle of a sleepless night early Thursday morning, Guillermo Linares, the city councilman from Washington Heights, made the toughest decision of his life to become a politician. A few hours later, he walked into a meeting of the Manhattan Borough Board and shocked his closest supporters, the Dominican business community, by switching sides and casting the deciding vote for a $12 million Pathmark supermarket in East Harlem."
Benedicto Arnold: "Linares says he got concessions from Pathmark, including a fund of $150,000 over four years to assist East Harlem small businessmen. This made it worthwhile for him to switch sides. Killing it might have sparked boycotts against Dominican stores on the scale of the anti-Korean protests a few years back. To prevent further division, Linares claimed, he made a last-minute switch. To some, he is a hero. To others, he is just another lying politician."
The vote, of course, wasn't the main issue-it was the complete lack of honesty on the part of the first Dominican elected official in the United States; and the selling out of his own folks after pledging loyalty to small business owners who had revived the economies of East and Central Harlem. His return-under a cloud, no less-is no service to the good people of Washington Heights.
And being Miguel Marinez's replacement part isn't a step forward in our view-and does the substitution choice count as an endorsement from the soon to be disgraced pol? But it gets worse when we read that Linaris himself isn't returning to elective politics with clean hands. As the NY Daily News reports: "The handpicked successor to disgraced City Councilman Miguel Martinez has ties to another scandal, the Daily News has learned. As Martinez prepares to plead guilty to corruption charges today, former Councilman Guillermo Linares plans to run for his Washington Heights seat with his blessing. Linares quit his job Wednesday as a top aide to Mayor Bloomberg to run. Earlier this year, a nonprofit group Linares organized to help immigrants, the Community Association of Progressive Dominicans, was found to have given a no-show job to a crony of Bronx state Sen. Efrain Gonzalez, records show."
And who was the director of the tarnished group? None other than Linares' own daughter: "The crony, Miguel Castanos, was on the payroll from 2004 through April 2006. He pleaded guilty to fraud charges this past April; Gonzalez followed suit in May. During the time Castanos was on the payroll, Linares' daughter Mayra was on the group's board of directors, 2005 tax forms show. She has since become the board's chairwoman. An employee of the Community Association of Progressive Dominicans said Wednesday the group had no comment."
When you have nothing good to say...well, you get what we're pointing out. But our real problem lies with Linares' history of betrayal. Back in 1995, Linares lead the opposition on behalf of dozens of Dominican-owned supermarkets to a tax subsidized Pathmark in East Harlem. Juan Gonzales captured this betrayal at the time: "In the middle of a sleepless night early Thursday morning, Guillermo Linares, the city councilman from Washington Heights, made the toughest decision of his life to become a politician. A few hours later, he walked into a meeting of the Manhattan Borough Board and shocked his closest supporters, the Dominican business community, by switching sides and casting the deciding vote for a $12 million Pathmark supermarket in East Harlem."
Benedicto Arnold: "Linares says he got concessions from Pathmark, including a fund of $150,000 over four years to assist East Harlem small businessmen. This made it worthwhile for him to switch sides. Killing it might have sparked boycotts against Dominican stores on the scale of the anti-Korean protests a few years back. To prevent further division, Linares claimed, he made a last-minute switch. To some, he is a hero. To others, he is just another lying politician."
The vote, of course, wasn't the main issue-it was the complete lack of honesty on the part of the first Dominican elected official in the United States; and the selling out of his own folks after pledging loyalty to small business owners who had revived the economies of East and Central Harlem. His return-under a cloud, no less-is no service to the good people of Washington Heights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
