On the day after Bill Thompson gives a major policy speech on education, the NY Post resumes its role as a Bloomberg campaign surrogate with the following headlined article-Bloomberg attacks Thompson on education. Instead of reporting on the comptroller's critique of the DOE's suspicious tests-test that even the Post was forced to guffaw at-the paper prints a chart (only in the print edition) that purports to compare the current school regime to the one that Thompson oversaw in the nineties.
So where did the chart come from? Why from the independent folks over at the DOE-helpful, aren't they? And what benchmark do they use to compare? It's called, "meeting state standards." Do they mean the sane state standards that have allowed 97% of all city schools-even some threatened with closure-to receive either an, "A" or a "B?"
Now we know that Dave Seifman is an excellent reporter, so we have to think he is being shackled by the editors riding around in the Bloomberg tank. Do they have any sense of decency? Doesn't Mike Bloomberg have enough shekels to get his jaundiced message across all by his lonesome? Come out of the Bloomberg amen chorus and do some real reporting.
As the NY Daily News is trying to do. And lookie see what it finds-a shrunken wizard behind the curtain in the DOE land of Oz: "Large numbers of city high school graduates aren't ready for college, a former City University dean charges in a report to be released on Thursday. Only 7.5% of grads take all the high school courses necessary for college preparation, he found. "Although New York City's public schools are graduating more students and more of them are going on to college, high rates of remedial course-taking and low graduation rates indicate a need to improve academic preparation," writes John Garvey, former Teacher Academy and Collaborative Programs dean."
So, message to the Post: Get off the Bloomberg caboose and let the readers in on a dirty secret. The success of the mayoral control regime is very much like Gertrude Stein's Oakland: "There's not much there there."
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
For Whom the School Bell Tolls
According to City Room it appears that Mike Bloomberg is looking forward to debating the educational issue with Bill Thompson-and you get the impression that he feels that his own accomplishments, especially in comparison to the old BOE, are self evident: "William C. Thompson Jr., the Democratic nominee for mayor, will deliver his first policy speech on Tuesday night, focusing on one of the crucial issues of the campaign: education. But Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg just can’t wait. By midday, Mr. Bloomberg had already weighed in, taking advantage of a reporter’s seemingly routine question — “Have you seen Bill Thompson’s education plan?” — to praise his own record and also bury his opponent’s."
Be careful what you wish for Mike-because with all of the fudging being done, and the acknowledged watered down testing benchmarks being used to promote mayoral success in education, Bloomberg is a lot more vulnerable on this issue than he understands; and a major reason, in our view, is the sycophantic bubble he has been living in. Given this residency issue, it would be hard for the mayor not to be convinced by his own campaign own BS.
What this does, it seems to us, is to give the Thompson campaign a wonderful opportunity to bell this cat. As Andy Wolf points out: "There is a growing consensus over New York State’s standardized test scores. They are so inflated that even the Daily News and New York Post aren’t buying in anymore. These are the mayor’s most unquestioning allies, usually loathe to present data that might undermine the case that Mr. Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein are the only ones capable of saving our schools. Yet even they are now skittish over the data upon which the mayor’s case is built."
Built, as it were, like a house of cards-and Thompson should be hammering home the point that we made yesterday: "The biggest hoax of this administration is its appropriation of the 02-03 federal test scores. The Legislature gave Bloomberg control in June 2002; he hired Klein in August, and Klein spent that fall meeting with consultants and deciding what to do. In January 2003 (Martin Luther King Jr day), Bloomberg gave a speech to announce the reform program that would be launched the following September 2003.
At that very time, students in the city and state were taking the 2003 test. Bloomberg-Klein had done nothing, had not reorganized the system or imposed any new programs. When the test scores were released by the state in May and October 2003, there were huge gains, double-digit in many schools and districts, particularly in poor neighborhoods. Klein's reaction, according to the stories in the Times on both dates, was "muted." He did not claim credit for the big gains, as he would have looked ridiculous."
Some of this high skepticism is confirmed by a just released Columbia University study that is reported on by the NY Daily News: "Mayor Bloomberg's claim that graduation rates are up at small schools he created after shuttering large dysfunctional ones is misleading, a new study asserts.The study, done at Columbia University's Teachers College, questions a key vehicle Bloomberg hopes to ride to a third term as mayor."
It appears that the so-called small school miracle is a product of triage-or a selective admission process that weans out lower achievers: "A closer look shows that in 2005, only 11% of ninth-graders entering Evander were reading at grade level, the study claims. At the same time, 30% of students entering the small replacement schools were proficient in reading, significantly higher than the boroughwide average. "We cannot make sense of large differences in the graduation rates at Evander and the small schools which replaced it without taking these differences in who entered the schools into account," said study co-author Aaron Pallas, a Teachers College professor."
And along with this sleight-of-hand, of course, comes the outlandish expenditures-an 80% increase in financial outlay by the city and state to achieve-at the very best-the most modest of results; or, if NAEP is the more reliable benchmark, no real progress at all. But Bloomberg feels that he can define what's real and what's Memorex.
Here's his take: "The issue for voters really is clear: If you think the schools are better today than they were under my opponent’s leadership then you should vote for me. And if you think that they were better when he ran the Board of Education then you should vote for him."
But what's problematic in this, is how much of the public dialogue has been spun in the direction of the "achievements" experienced under mayoral control. As we pointed out in July, when the NY Post critiqued Thompson's audit of the DOE: "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."
Now, to the credit of both papers, the outlandish school test results that were released recently, stimulated some genuine eyebrow raising in those normally ingenuous precincts. But the bigger challenge remains-and it remains to be seen whether the local papers are up to the task of really reporting on the DOE and its alleged achievements; and, at the same time, doing a cost/benefit analysis of the putative gains.
Now, if what we have pointed out is accurate about the years from 1999-2003, then the answer to the Howard Wolfson charge might not be exactly what he would wish: “Although Bill Thompson ran the Board of Education for five years he can’t say that the schools were better under his leadership then than they are under Mayor Bloomberg’s today,” he said in a statement, accompanying the transcript of Mr. Thompson’s remarks. “The fact is, Bill Thompson had a chance to improve our schools and he failed. Why would we want to give him that opportunity again?”
But in the NY Times this morning, Thompson hits back-in the Bloomberg/Wolfson pre-vetted speech he gave at Pace yesterday: "The failure of the administration to tell the truth over the last eight years has undermined our faith in their claims of progress, while putting the school system at serious risk,” said Mr. Thompson..." If the comptroller is successful at debunking all the mayoral hype, the entire Bloomberg miracle may be fully exposed as a jerry-built structure dependent more on hot air than real solid factual construction.
But by all means, let the pugilistic bell ring on this educational battle. And as long as the media refs aren't in the tank, the fight just might end-not on points-but in a Thompson knockout.
Be careful what you wish for Mike-because with all of the fudging being done, and the acknowledged watered down testing benchmarks being used to promote mayoral success in education, Bloomberg is a lot more vulnerable on this issue than he understands; and a major reason, in our view, is the sycophantic bubble he has been living in. Given this residency issue, it would be hard for the mayor not to be convinced by his own campaign own BS.
What this does, it seems to us, is to give the Thompson campaign a wonderful opportunity to bell this cat. As Andy Wolf points out: "There is a growing consensus over New York State’s standardized test scores. They are so inflated that even the Daily News and New York Post aren’t buying in anymore. These are the mayor’s most unquestioning allies, usually loathe to present data that might undermine the case that Mr. Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein are the only ones capable of saving our schools. Yet even they are now skittish over the data upon which the mayor’s case is built."
Built, as it were, like a house of cards-and Thompson should be hammering home the point that we made yesterday: "The biggest hoax of this administration is its appropriation of the 02-03 federal test scores. The Legislature gave Bloomberg control in June 2002; he hired Klein in August, and Klein spent that fall meeting with consultants and deciding what to do. In January 2003 (Martin Luther King Jr day), Bloomberg gave a speech to announce the reform program that would be launched the following September 2003.
At that very time, students in the city and state were taking the 2003 test. Bloomberg-Klein had done nothing, had not reorganized the system or imposed any new programs. When the test scores were released by the state in May and October 2003, there were huge gains, double-digit in many schools and districts, particularly in poor neighborhoods. Klein's reaction, according to the stories in the Times on both dates, was "muted." He did not claim credit for the big gains, as he would have looked ridiculous."
Some of this high skepticism is confirmed by a just released Columbia University study that is reported on by the NY Daily News: "Mayor Bloomberg's claim that graduation rates are up at small schools he created after shuttering large dysfunctional ones is misleading, a new study asserts.The study, done at Columbia University's Teachers College, questions a key vehicle Bloomberg hopes to ride to a third term as mayor."
It appears that the so-called small school miracle is a product of triage-or a selective admission process that weans out lower achievers: "A closer look shows that in 2005, only 11% of ninth-graders entering Evander were reading at grade level, the study claims. At the same time, 30% of students entering the small replacement schools were proficient in reading, significantly higher than the boroughwide average. "We cannot make sense of large differences in the graduation rates at Evander and the small schools which replaced it without taking these differences in who entered the schools into account," said study co-author Aaron Pallas, a Teachers College professor."
And along with this sleight-of-hand, of course, comes the outlandish expenditures-an 80% increase in financial outlay by the city and state to achieve-at the very best-the most modest of results; or, if NAEP is the more reliable benchmark, no real progress at all. But Bloomberg feels that he can define what's real and what's Memorex.
Here's his take: "The issue for voters really is clear: If you think the schools are better today than they were under my opponent’s leadership then you should vote for me. And if you think that they were better when he ran the Board of Education then you should vote for him."
But what's problematic in this, is how much of the public dialogue has been spun in the direction of the "achievements" experienced under mayoral control. As we pointed out in July, when the NY Post critiqued Thompson's audit of the DOE: "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."
Now, to the credit of both papers, the outlandish school test results that were released recently, stimulated some genuine eyebrow raising in those normally ingenuous precincts. But the bigger challenge remains-and it remains to be seen whether the local papers are up to the task of really reporting on the DOE and its alleged achievements; and, at the same time, doing a cost/benefit analysis of the putative gains.
Now, if what we have pointed out is accurate about the years from 1999-2003, then the answer to the Howard Wolfson charge might not be exactly what he would wish: “Although Bill Thompson ran the Board of Education for five years he can’t say that the schools were better under his leadership then than they are under Mayor Bloomberg’s today,” he said in a statement, accompanying the transcript of Mr. Thompson’s remarks. “The fact is, Bill Thompson had a chance to improve our schools and he failed. Why would we want to give him that opportunity again?”
But in the NY Times this morning, Thompson hits back-in the Bloomberg/Wolfson pre-vetted speech he gave at Pace yesterday: "The failure of the administration to tell the truth over the last eight years has undermined our faith in their claims of progress, while putting the school system at serious risk,” said Mr. Thompson..." If the comptroller is successful at debunking all the mayoral hype, the entire Bloomberg miracle may be fully exposed as a jerry-built structure dependent more on hot air than real solid factual construction.
But by all means, let the pugilistic bell ring on this educational battle. And as long as the media refs aren't in the tank, the fight just might end-not on points-but in a Thompson knockout.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Time to Re-Test and Review
More and more it looks as if the the mayor's blustering over the unprecedented success of his mayoral control regime is just that-pure bluster. But what's getting lost in the false claims and over reaching is a simple fact-one that acts as a powerful debunker of, well, all the mayor's bunk.
Here is in a nutshell-given to us by a source with a deep knowledge of the facts and the chronology:
The biggest hoax of this administration is its appropriation of the 02-03 federal test scores. The Legislature gave Bloomberg control in June 2002; he hired Klein in August, and Klein spent that fall meeting with consultants and deciding what to do. In January 2003 (Martin Luther King Jr day), Bloomberg gave a speech to announce the reform program that would be launched the following September 2003.
At that very time, students in the city and state were taking the 2003 test. Bloomberg-Klein had done nothing, had not reorganized the system or imposed any new programs. When the test scores were released by the state in May and October 2003, there were huge gains, double-digit in many schools and districts, particularly in poor neighborhoods. Klein's reaction, according to the stories in the Times on both dates, was "muted." He did not claim credit for the big gains, as he would have looked ridiculous.
However, about two years later, as his own gains were not impressive, the DOE quietly folded the big gains of 02-03 into their claims. They now routinely take credit for the gains registered in the year before their reforms started.
Is that clear to everyone? The largest gains in the the national tests came on the heels of the expiration of old system-the bad old BOE. From 2003-07, the city results on the national tests have been flatlining; which underscores the folly and deceit involved in the trumpeting of the recent state test results. But it's even worse than that, since the gains on the state tests were actually larger in the expiring years of the BOE:
In 4th grade ELA, the % of kids reaching levels 3 & 4 from 1999-2003 increased from 32.8% to 52.5%, a gain of 19.7 percentage points. In the same subject and grade, the increase from 2003-2007 (same number of years) went from 52.5% to 56.0%, a gain of only 3.5 percentage points. Since then, it has increased to 68.9% (2009); a gain from 2003-2009 of 16.5 percentage points (on dumbed-down tests). But even with the dumbed-down state tests and millions spent on test prep, the gain for Bloomberg-Klein in six years still does not match the gains from 1999-2003.
How about that NY Post and NY Daily News-and Elyssa Gootman of the NY Times as well? Didn't anyone in the press who was commenting on the battle over mayoral control do any real due diligence?
In math, the kids in fourth grade meeting standards from 1999-2003 went from 49.6% to 66.7%, a gain of 17.1 points.From 2003-2007, it went from 66.7% to 74.1%, a gain of only 7.4 points. From 2007-2009, the rate meeting standards shot up to 84.9%, which gave them a gain of 18.2 points, slightly larger in six years than the pre-mayoral control gains of four years.
And then there are the invidious comparisons between the state and national tests-stark differences when the middle school results are examined. Here's where the Enron style accounting becomes most suspicious:
IN EIGHTH GRADE, a different story (if you believe it, since it is inconsistent with NAEP).In ELA, 8th grade rate of meeting standards declined from 1999-2003, from 35.3 to 32.6%. From 2003-2007, it rose from 32.6 to 41.8%. From 2003-2009, it went from 32.6 to 57.0%. NAEP, however, says that there was no gain at all in 8th grade reading from 2003-2007; and that NYC was the only city tested where scores in this grade actually declined for black and Hispanic kids.
Frankly, the unbelievable gains in math on state scores are a reflection of lowered standards; I am willing to take bets that NAEP will not show comparable gains. Remember that on NAEP, the 8th grade showed no significant gains from 03-07.
So what we really see here is a fraud perpetrated on a gullible press and a spin doctored public-victims of a multi-million dollar ad campaign designed to obfuscate the truth: the Bloomberg miracle is a hoax, and needs to be exposed by, not only the Thompson campaign, but by a press corps that needs to recapture its lost watch dog status.
Here is in a nutshell-given to us by a source with a deep knowledge of the facts and the chronology:
The biggest hoax of this administration is its appropriation of the 02-03 federal test scores. The Legislature gave Bloomberg control in June 2002; he hired Klein in August, and Klein spent that fall meeting with consultants and deciding what to do. In January 2003 (Martin Luther King Jr day), Bloomberg gave a speech to announce the reform program that would be launched the following September 2003.
At that very time, students in the city and state were taking the 2003 test. Bloomberg-Klein had done nothing, had not reorganized the system or imposed any new programs. When the test scores were released by the state in May and October 2003, there were huge gains, double-digit in many schools and districts, particularly in poor neighborhoods. Klein's reaction, according to the stories in the Times on both dates, was "muted." He did not claim credit for the big gains, as he would have looked ridiculous.
However, about two years later, as his own gains were not impressive, the DOE quietly folded the big gains of 02-03 into their claims. They now routinely take credit for the gains registered in the year before their reforms started.
Is that clear to everyone? The largest gains in the the national tests came on the heels of the expiration of old system-the bad old BOE. From 2003-07, the city results on the national tests have been flatlining; which underscores the folly and deceit involved in the trumpeting of the recent state test results. But it's even worse than that, since the gains on the state tests were actually larger in the expiring years of the BOE:
In 4th grade ELA, the % of kids reaching levels 3 & 4 from 1999-2003 increased from 32.8% to 52.5%, a gain of 19.7 percentage points. In the same subject and grade, the increase from 2003-2007 (same number of years) went from 52.5% to 56.0%, a gain of only 3.5 percentage points. Since then, it has increased to 68.9% (2009); a gain from 2003-2009 of 16.5 percentage points (on dumbed-down tests). But even with the dumbed-down state tests and millions spent on test prep, the gain for Bloomberg-Klein in six years still does not match the gains from 1999-2003.
How about that NY Post and NY Daily News-and Elyssa Gootman of the NY Times as well? Didn't anyone in the press who was commenting on the battle over mayoral control do any real due diligence?
In math, the kids in fourth grade meeting standards from 1999-2003 went from 49.6% to 66.7%, a gain of 17.1 points.From 2003-2007, it went from 66.7% to 74.1%, a gain of only 7.4 points. From 2007-2009, the rate meeting standards shot up to 84.9%, which gave them a gain of 18.2 points, slightly larger in six years than the pre-mayoral control gains of four years.
And then there are the invidious comparisons between the state and national tests-stark differences when the middle school results are examined. Here's where the Enron style accounting becomes most suspicious:
IN EIGHTH GRADE, a different story (if you believe it, since it is inconsistent with NAEP).In ELA, 8th grade rate of meeting standards declined from 1999-2003, from 35.3 to 32.6%. From 2003-2007, it rose from 32.6 to 41.8%. From 2003-2009, it went from 32.6 to 57.0%. NAEP, however, says that there was no gain at all in 8th grade reading from 2003-2007; and that NYC was the only city tested where scores in this grade actually declined for black and Hispanic kids.
Frankly, the unbelievable gains in math on state scores are a reflection of lowered standards; I am willing to take bets that NAEP will not show comparable gains. Remember that on NAEP, the 8th grade showed no significant gains from 03-07.
So what we really see here is a fraud perpetrated on a gullible press and a spin doctored public-victims of a multi-million dollar ad campaign designed to obfuscate the truth: the Bloomberg miracle is a hoax, and needs to be exposed by, not only the Thompson campaign, but by a press corps that needs to recapture its lost watch dog status.
BJs Not Sitting Pretty in Brooklyn
Despite what most conventional wisdom thought, it appears that Joe Sitt may actually be going ahead with his quixotic plan to build a BJs off of the Belt Parkway in Bensonhurst. As Eliot Brown reports: "Joe Sitt, the landlord who battled with the Bloomberg administration at Coney Island, is coming back to city officials with a new request: He wants to put a big-box mall in South Brooklyn. Mr. Sitt’s Thor Equities is seeking to build a 214,000-square-foot mall highlighted by a BJ’s Wholesale Club, along with space for three other retail stores. The company has filed for a rezoning of the site, a peninsula off Shore Parkway in Bensonhurst. The current use: a bus parking lot."
This will not be a walk in the park for Mr. Sitt-not by any means. As we have already pointed out: "...Sitt has plans to build two BJs Warehouse Clubs on these locations-and the animosity between Sitt and the mayor's folks is nothing compared to the fight he'll have on his hands with the city council if he tries to site the box stores..."
That's because the UFCW's Local 1500 is poised to fight this tooth and nail; along with the RWDSU and local supermarket owners-particularly after the sleight-of-hand that allowed BJs to avoid ULURP at the Brooklyn Terminal Market. And we believe that Speaker Quinn will back up labor on this issue.
But what does the city's collusion over the promotion of box stores tell us about it's supermarket initiative? Are the two efforts in any way compatible. This question is particularly germane as the City Planning Commission is readying for a vote on the supermarket initiative on Wednesday. We anticipate considerable fireworks on both fronts when the controversies come before the city council.
This will not be a walk in the park for Mr. Sitt-not by any means. As we have already pointed out: "...Sitt has plans to build two BJs Warehouse Clubs on these locations-and the animosity between Sitt and the mayor's folks is nothing compared to the fight he'll have on his hands with the city council if he tries to site the box stores..."
That's because the UFCW's Local 1500 is poised to fight this tooth and nail; along with the RWDSU and local supermarket owners-particularly after the sleight-of-hand that allowed BJs to avoid ULURP at the Brooklyn Terminal Market. And we believe that Speaker Quinn will back up labor on this issue.
But what does the city's collusion over the promotion of box stores tell us about it's supermarket initiative? Are the two efforts in any way compatible. This question is particularly germane as the City Planning Commission is readying for a vote on the supermarket initiative on Wednesday. We anticipate considerable fireworks on both fronts when the controversies come before the city council.
Fordham Road Trip
David Gonzales did an absolutely brilliant evocative story in the City Room blog yesterday on the Fordham Road shopping strip; and contained within is a subtle appreciation of the importance of neighborhood commerce-and the concomitant threat to this vital communal resource posed by the building of chain store malls: "That winding, sloping commercial strip is actually closer to Yonkers than it is to Mott Haven. Yet in the minds of some bureaucrats, reporters and bankers, it became the upper limit of the Lower Bronx as abandonment and arson crept ever northward during the 1970s. The dubious designation probably said more about the prejudice of outsiders than the lives of locals, since the strip bustled with life even when the South Bronx had been written off."
Fordham Road, then, functioned as a kind of Maginot Line against the urban decay that almost destroyed the Bronx in the 1970s-a tribute to the robust qualities and resiliency that neighborhood businesses can provide to urban communities-unlike the sterility that characterizes so many malls: "These days, life and progress in the Bronx are often measured by the arrival of suburban-style big box stores. Witness this summer’s opening of the Gateway Mall near Yankee Stadium, built partly on what had been the Bronx House of Detention. In the shadow of this retail behemoth a few days ago, customers lugged home bags bulging with necessities and luxuries alike, with plenty of room to maneuver through the wide outdoor walkways. It was quiet. It was antiseptic. It felt like Mars."
And, as Gonzales points out, the people on the streets quality of neighborhood shopping can be a priceless community resource-not to mention the bigger economic boost that comes from local entrepreneurship: "Looking at some of the photographs I took of Fordham Road when I returned there after college in 1979, I am struck by something I have yet to witness at the new Bronx malls: people just hanging out. From the benches that lined Poe Park to the tiny triangular oases along Fordham Road, old men and women sat and chatted. Kids played in the dirt and scraggly grass. Conversations and chance encounters were the norm, not the coldly efficient consumer rituals of suburbanized city spaces. Who needed a mall when you had Fordham Road?"
Which underscores the real failure of the Bloomberg approach to economic development-one that combines high tax and onerous regulatory policies with a permissive malling. And while the local retailers get nothing but tsuris from the city. there are generous subsidies for the mall developers. This, as Gonzales reports, continues with the effort up at Kingsbridge: "Fordham Road was never the South Bronx, except in the sense that it was the line where activists vowed the blight would stop. They succeeded. Apartment buildings were saved and renovated, and the street still buzzes with vitality and commerce. Their reward? One subway stop north of Fordham Road, the city and developers are pushing to turn the cavernous Kingsbridge Armory into — what else? — a mall. Like the one in the South Bronx. Some fortunes are forever linked."
Mike Bloomberg is absolutely tone deaf when it comes to neighborhood quality of life-given his background and great wealth this is not surprising. He also posses none of the common man charm that Nelson Rockerfeller seemed to naturally exude. As a result, neighborhood life and commerce is eroding, almost in concert with the cacophonous and misleading messaging of the Bloomberg campaign's promotion of a fraudulent five borough economic development plan.
Fordham Road, then, functioned as a kind of Maginot Line against the urban decay that almost destroyed the Bronx in the 1970s-a tribute to the robust qualities and resiliency that neighborhood businesses can provide to urban communities-unlike the sterility that characterizes so many malls: "These days, life and progress in the Bronx are often measured by the arrival of suburban-style big box stores. Witness this summer’s opening of the Gateway Mall near Yankee Stadium, built partly on what had been the Bronx House of Detention. In the shadow of this retail behemoth a few days ago, customers lugged home bags bulging with necessities and luxuries alike, with plenty of room to maneuver through the wide outdoor walkways. It was quiet. It was antiseptic. It felt like Mars."
And, as Gonzales points out, the people on the streets quality of neighborhood shopping can be a priceless community resource-not to mention the bigger economic boost that comes from local entrepreneurship: "Looking at some of the photographs I took of Fordham Road when I returned there after college in 1979, I am struck by something I have yet to witness at the new Bronx malls: people just hanging out. From the benches that lined Poe Park to the tiny triangular oases along Fordham Road, old men and women sat and chatted. Kids played in the dirt and scraggly grass. Conversations and chance encounters were the norm, not the coldly efficient consumer rituals of suburbanized city spaces. Who needed a mall when you had Fordham Road?"
Which underscores the real failure of the Bloomberg approach to economic development-one that combines high tax and onerous regulatory policies with a permissive malling. And while the local retailers get nothing but tsuris from the city. there are generous subsidies for the mall developers. This, as Gonzales reports, continues with the effort up at Kingsbridge: "Fordham Road was never the South Bronx, except in the sense that it was the line where activists vowed the blight would stop. They succeeded. Apartment buildings were saved and renovated, and the street still buzzes with vitality and commerce. Their reward? One subway stop north of Fordham Road, the city and developers are pushing to turn the cavernous Kingsbridge Armory into — what else? — a mall. Like the one in the South Bronx. Some fortunes are forever linked."
Mike Bloomberg is absolutely tone deaf when it comes to neighborhood quality of life-given his background and great wealth this is not surprising. He also posses none of the common man charm that Nelson Rockerfeller seemed to naturally exude. As a result, neighborhood life and commerce is eroding, almost in concert with the cacophonous and misleading messaging of the Bloomberg campaign's promotion of a fraudulent five borough economic development plan.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Smoking Paterson
Now that it's apparently open season on David Paterson-with even the president hurling him under the bus-it seems to us that it is the right time to attempt to force the governor's hand on the non-enforcement of the sale of cigarettes by Indian retailers. The NY Daily News agrees: "New York's abject failure to enforce cigarette tax laws has cost the state and city billions in lost revenues and spawned criminal enterprises to rival the worst crack gangs. Thanks to the sufferance of Govs. Cuomo, Pataki, Spitzer and Paterson, the state's Indian reservations became enormous hubs for trafficking untaxed cigarettes. Four reservation stores supplied one of every seven packs sold in New York in 2007, according to The Associated Press."
AS we have commented so many times before, the failure to go after this uncollected revenue-in the worst fiscal crisis in the past thirty years, no less-is simple jaw dropping in its fecklessness: "Governors have shied from enforcement for fear of riling the tribes. In marked contrast, Mayor Bloomberg sued to force the Indians to comply with the laws. He appears to be making headway - no thanks to Morrison's enablers in Albany."
We are now looking for the state senate to take more forceful action-and device an enforcement methodology that will, once and for all, close this bogus loophole for good. With the lamest of ducks unable to even quack on this issue, it's high time for others to act in loco parentis on this shameful episode in state governance.
AS we have commented so many times before, the failure to go after this uncollected revenue-in the worst fiscal crisis in the past thirty years, no less-is simple jaw dropping in its fecklessness: "Governors have shied from enforcement for fear of riling the tribes. In marked contrast, Mayor Bloomberg sued to force the Indians to comply with the laws. He appears to be making headway - no thanks to Morrison's enablers in Albany."
We are now looking for the state senate to take more forceful action-and device an enforcement methodology that will, once and for all, close this bogus loophole for good. With the lamest of ducks unable to even quack on this issue, it's high time for others to act in loco parentis on this shameful episode in state governance.
Soda Jerks
As most of us are aware, the efforts of Governor Paterson to tax soda as part of his deficit reduction/health initiative, fell flat this past winter; but the groundswell of support for this idea is bubbling to the surface in the most likely of places-San Fransisco. As the SF Chronicle reports: "Calling soda the new tobacco, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom will introduce legislation this fall that would charge a fee to retailers that sell sugary beverages. Newsom would need voter approval to tax individual cans of soda and sugary juice, but only needs approval from the Board of Supervisors to levy a fee on retailers. His legislation would charge grocery stores like Safeway and big-box stores, but would not affect restaurants that serve sodas."
So, let's get this straight-just kidding. Mayor Newsome believes that soda is equivalent to a product that directly kills tens of thousands of people every year. Here's why: "Newsom said he was particularly motivated to move forward with the legislation by Thursday's release of a UCLA study showing a link between soda and obesity in California. Researchers found that adults who drink at least one soft drink a day are 27 percent more likely to be obese than those who don't - and that soda consumption is fueling the state's $41 billion annual obesity problem."
Ah, once again, we confront the erroneous conflation of correlation with causation-but did the study inquire whether those same obese folks ate fatty foods, or ice cream, or chocolate pudding, more than skinnier San Franciscans? Let's stipulate that fatter people eat, not only more food than their thinner counterparts, but less healthier eats as well. They are probably exercising less too. They could also be more economically challenged in today's tenuous job market-and therefore prone to seek emotional nurturance in the less healthier foods.
It is, as we can see, a complex concatenation of variables that go into making the obesity problem as severe as it is in America today-but that won't stop the nannies from looking for a scapegoat; and since soda isn't the only one, this is gonna prove to be a classic slippery slope. The nanny appetite is insatiable.
We do believe, since this is San Fransisco, that Twinkies will be next. Which will make that city no longer the home of the, "Twinkie defense," but the Twinkie offense. Reason captures this dangerous and confused thinking: "As with all soda-specific tax proposals, there is a weird underlying confusion between correlation and causation. Fat people drink more soda than skinny people. They also consume more calories overall and exercise less. But policymakers persist in acting as if calories in soda have magical properties that make us obese, unlike the identical calories in all the other food we eat. A food calorie is 4.2 kilojoules of energy, whether it comes from a bottle of orange juice, or an ice cold Coke."
And as far as the slippery slope goes, the SF Chamber of Commerce gets it: " Jim Lazarus, vice president of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, said the group opposes the soda tax."Does this mean there's a fee on candy bars, on ice cream, on potato chips?" he asked. "Where do you draw the line?"
The line should be drawn at the intersection between nudge and coercion-a line that is too often crossed, especially when the intersection is found during a budget crisis. But we shouldn't forget that there are a lot of folks who make a living manufacturing sweet soft drinks; and not all of them are Coke and Pepsi. Let's give people the information they need to make good choices-and refrain from force feeding them.
So, let's get this straight-just kidding. Mayor Newsome believes that soda is equivalent to a product that directly kills tens of thousands of people every year. Here's why: "Newsom said he was particularly motivated to move forward with the legislation by Thursday's release of a UCLA study showing a link between soda and obesity in California. Researchers found that adults who drink at least one soft drink a day are 27 percent more likely to be obese than those who don't - and that soda consumption is fueling the state's $41 billion annual obesity problem."
Ah, once again, we confront the erroneous conflation of correlation with causation-but did the study inquire whether those same obese folks ate fatty foods, or ice cream, or chocolate pudding, more than skinnier San Franciscans? Let's stipulate that fatter people eat, not only more food than their thinner counterparts, but less healthier eats as well. They are probably exercising less too. They could also be more economically challenged in today's tenuous job market-and therefore prone to seek emotional nurturance in the less healthier foods.
It is, as we can see, a complex concatenation of variables that go into making the obesity problem as severe as it is in America today-but that won't stop the nannies from looking for a scapegoat; and since soda isn't the only one, this is gonna prove to be a classic slippery slope. The nanny appetite is insatiable.
We do believe, since this is San Fransisco, that Twinkies will be next. Which will make that city no longer the home of the, "Twinkie defense," but the Twinkie offense. Reason captures this dangerous and confused thinking: "As with all soda-specific tax proposals, there is a weird underlying confusion between correlation and causation. Fat people drink more soda than skinny people. They also consume more calories overall and exercise less. But policymakers persist in acting as if calories in soda have magical properties that make us obese, unlike the identical calories in all the other food we eat. A food calorie is 4.2 kilojoules of energy, whether it comes from a bottle of orange juice, or an ice cold Coke."
And as far as the slippery slope goes, the SF Chamber of Commerce gets it: " Jim Lazarus, vice president of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, said the group opposes the soda tax."Does this mean there's a fee on candy bars, on ice cream, on potato chips?" he asked. "Where do you draw the line?"
The line should be drawn at the intersection between nudge and coercion-a line that is too often crossed, especially when the intersection is found during a budget crisis. But we shouldn't forget that there are a lot of folks who make a living manufacturing sweet soft drinks; and not all of them are Coke and Pepsi. Let's give people the information they need to make good choices-and refrain from force feeding them.
Hello, He Must Be Going-Or Maybe Not
Well, what do you know? President Obama has told David Paterson to go get his hat and coat and take his leave, and he shouldn't let the door hit him on the posterior on the way out. It's that bad; and, as the NY Post reports, this sanitizes the way for Andrew Cuomo to step up and assume the leadership of the party: "The move could allow many Democrats, including black elected officials and leaders who have been privately concerned about Paterson, to switch their support to Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Public polls all show Giuliani trouncing Paterson but losing to Cuomo."
Why the bum's rush-and from another African American at that? It's the Giuliani bogeyman that's prompted the move. As the NY Times points out: "The general election is more than a year away, but Mr. Obama and his political team are moving now in part because of signals from Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, that he may run for governor, according to Democrats who have spoken with White House officials. Many Democratic leaders believe that Mr. Giuliani’s presence at the top of the Republican ticket could spark enthusiasm among his party’s voters, who might otherwise have little desire to go to the polls."
But if Cuomo is the presumptive nominee, it's less likely that Rudy will take the plunge-and risk further tarnishing the Giuliani brand. Still, the intervention of the president in this is quite a shocker to us; and it allows Andrew to avoid a reprise of the stuff storm that occurred when he challenged another African-American, Carl McCall, in 2002. As the NY Daily News points out: "At the very least, by letting Paterson know he will not have the backing of the White House, and the world's most important black leader, Obama's easing pressure on Cuomo The attorney general has worked hard to recover from his failed 2002 Democratic gubernatorial primary against H. Carl McCall, who was seeking to become the first black governor."
Still, it takes a lot of work for NY's first black governor to get a pink slip from our first black president-and Paterson apparently worked hard for the honor, as the Times indicates: "In addition, the relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Paterson has been shaky, dating to the governor’s selection of a replacement for Hillary Rodham Clinton, who resigned from the Senate to become secretary of state. White House officials had received assurances from Mr. Paterson that he would not pick Kirsten E. Gillibrand, then a little-known Democratic congresswoman from a heavily Republican district outside of Albany, according to a prominent Democrat who discussed the matter with a senior White House official."
What this all does do, however, is to allow the Paterson Exodus Project to be expedited: "Now, Mr. Cuomo effectively has the blessing of the nation’s first black president to run against New York’s first black governor. That will probably neutralize any criticism he may face among the governor’s prominent black allies, including Representative Charles B. Rangel of Harlem, who warned this year that the party would become racially polarized if Mr. Cuomo took on Mr. Paterson."
And the exhaling that you are beginning to hear is from the collective sighs of relief from all of the Democratic state senators-particularly those from the most marginal of districts: "But Mr. Obama’s political team and other party leaders have grown increasingly worried that the governor’s unpopularity could drag down Democratic members of Congress in New York, as well as the Democratic-controlled Legislature, in next fall’s election."
The open question now is how does the governor get to make a graceful exit-and will the president help with a soft cushion for him to land on? Our view is that he will, and although Paterson's leadership abilities fall short of ideal, he is a decent public servant who deserves to have a way to leave office with his dignity in tact.
Update
Governor Paterson's apparently not getting the message. As the NY Daily News is now reporting: "A defiant Gov. Paterson Sunday said he still plans to run for a full four-year term next year despite a stunning White House request that the poll-challenged governor step aside. "I've said time and time again I am going to run for governor next year," Paterson said in Harlem. "My plans have not changed."
This is looking like a real clustershtup; and in our view, if Paterson won't go quietly, we believe that it will get real ugly quickly. Or as Sonny Liston once said about one of his bum of the month opponents, a guy named Albert Westphal: "Eastphal, Westphal, that boy's gonna fall."
Why the bum's rush-and from another African American at that? It's the Giuliani bogeyman that's prompted the move. As the NY Times points out: "The general election is more than a year away, but Mr. Obama and his political team are moving now in part because of signals from Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, that he may run for governor, according to Democrats who have spoken with White House officials. Many Democratic leaders believe that Mr. Giuliani’s presence at the top of the Republican ticket could spark enthusiasm among his party’s voters, who might otherwise have little desire to go to the polls."
But if Cuomo is the presumptive nominee, it's less likely that Rudy will take the plunge-and risk further tarnishing the Giuliani brand. Still, the intervention of the president in this is quite a shocker to us; and it allows Andrew to avoid a reprise of the stuff storm that occurred when he challenged another African-American, Carl McCall, in 2002. As the NY Daily News points out: "At the very least, by letting Paterson know he will not have the backing of the White House, and the world's most important black leader, Obama's easing pressure on Cuomo The attorney general has worked hard to recover from his failed 2002 Democratic gubernatorial primary against H. Carl McCall, who was seeking to become the first black governor."
Still, it takes a lot of work for NY's first black governor to get a pink slip from our first black president-and Paterson apparently worked hard for the honor, as the Times indicates: "In addition, the relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Paterson has been shaky, dating to the governor’s selection of a replacement for Hillary Rodham Clinton, who resigned from the Senate to become secretary of state. White House officials had received assurances from Mr. Paterson that he would not pick Kirsten E. Gillibrand, then a little-known Democratic congresswoman from a heavily Republican district outside of Albany, according to a prominent Democrat who discussed the matter with a senior White House official."
What this all does do, however, is to allow the Paterson Exodus Project to be expedited: "Now, Mr. Cuomo effectively has the blessing of the nation’s first black president to run against New York’s first black governor. That will probably neutralize any criticism he may face among the governor’s prominent black allies, including Representative Charles B. Rangel of Harlem, who warned this year that the party would become racially polarized if Mr. Cuomo took on Mr. Paterson."
And the exhaling that you are beginning to hear is from the collective sighs of relief from all of the Democratic state senators-particularly those from the most marginal of districts: "But Mr. Obama’s political team and other party leaders have grown increasingly worried that the governor’s unpopularity could drag down Democratic members of Congress in New York, as well as the Democratic-controlled Legislature, in next fall’s election."
The open question now is how does the governor get to make a graceful exit-and will the president help with a soft cushion for him to land on? Our view is that he will, and although Paterson's leadership abilities fall short of ideal, he is a decent public servant who deserves to have a way to leave office with his dignity in tact.
Update
Governor Paterson's apparently not getting the message. As the NY Daily News is now reporting: "A defiant Gov. Paterson Sunday said he still plans to run for a full four-year term next year despite a stunning White House request that the poll-challenged governor step aside. "I've said time and time again I am going to run for governor next year," Paterson said in Harlem. "My plans have not changed."
This is looking like a real clustershtup; and in our view, if Paterson won't go quietly, we believe that it will get real ugly quickly. Or as Sonny Liston once said about one of his bum of the month opponents, a guy named Albert Westphal: "Eastphal, Westphal, that boy's gonna fall."
Educational Malpractice
We have already snidely commented on another example of the managerial incompetence by those educrats down at Tweed-their inability, in this case, to plan properly to accommodate all of the students who actually need to have a classroom-and possibly even a desk and chair. More proof is now offered.
One ESL teacher's observations in the NY Daily News, underscores the bureaucratic follies on this topic: "The half-rooms were designed to alleviate overcrowding. After we created them, the Education Department sent us hundreds of extra kids. I've since been exiled to the trailers. Technically they're "transportables," but ours haven't gone anywhere since they arrived years ago. Our first trailers gave us four additional classrooms, designed to alleviate overcrowding. After we got the trailers, the department sent us hundreds of extra kids. Our second bunch gave us four more classrooms, and the department sent us hundreds more extra kids. Our last principal declined further trailers. In fact, he had an athletic field built around them, precluding further construction in the trailer park. The department sent us hundreds of extra kids anyway."
Now, we might understand just why the DOE had some difficulties in getting the kids to actually learn-after all, the agency's run by an anti-trust lawyer and not an educator. But given the number of MBAs that the DOE parachuted in over the years you'd think that it would at least be able to get the trains running on time-in the case of schools this would be having enough classroom space for all of the kiddies.
Not so, we're afraid-and the push back that the Bloomberg campaign is giving to Bill Thompson on educational issues can come right back to bite them on the butt. It's almost as if they have crafted a refrain that, through choral repetition during the debate over mayoral control, has become an unreflective mantra: "Four legs good, two legs bad."
In our view, though, the overcrowding issue is emblematic of the fact that this mayoral regime is less halcyonic than it has been portrayed. Teacher Goldstein nails this sentiment: "To us, the experts at Tweed are like doctors who diagnose a disease, then inject the patient with more toxins just to make certain they're right. No one can criticize their diagnostic skills. But if any one's due a malpractice suit, it's the Department of Education."
One ESL teacher's observations in the NY Daily News, underscores the bureaucratic follies on this topic: "The half-rooms were designed to alleviate overcrowding. After we created them, the Education Department sent us hundreds of extra kids. I've since been exiled to the trailers. Technically they're "transportables," but ours haven't gone anywhere since they arrived years ago. Our first trailers gave us four additional classrooms, designed to alleviate overcrowding. After we got the trailers, the department sent us hundreds of extra kids. Our second bunch gave us four more classrooms, and the department sent us hundreds more extra kids. Our last principal declined further trailers. In fact, he had an athletic field built around them, precluding further construction in the trailer park. The department sent us hundreds of extra kids anyway."
Now, we might understand just why the DOE had some difficulties in getting the kids to actually learn-after all, the agency's run by an anti-trust lawyer and not an educator. But given the number of MBAs that the DOE parachuted in over the years you'd think that it would at least be able to get the trains running on time-in the case of schools this would be having enough classroom space for all of the kiddies.
Not so, we're afraid-and the push back that the Bloomberg campaign is giving to Bill Thompson on educational issues can come right back to bite them on the butt. It's almost as if they have crafted a refrain that, through choral repetition during the debate over mayoral control, has become an unreflective mantra: "Four legs good, two legs bad."
In our view, though, the overcrowding issue is emblematic of the fact that this mayoral regime is less halcyonic than it has been portrayed. Teacher Goldstein nails this sentiment: "To us, the experts at Tweed are like doctors who diagnose a disease, then inject the patient with more toxins just to make certain they're right. No one can criticize their diagnostic skills. But if any one's due a malpractice suit, it's the Department of Education."
Posting Up Nanny Mike
One of the more compelling reasons to retire Mike Bloomberg is because of his propensity to hire the most meddlesome kinds of health commissioners-and the new Dr, Tom is, as have already pointed out, just as kooky as the old. Here's the NY Post's take on our new Dr. Nanny: "Will Mayor Bloomberg and his newest Dr. Buttinsky ever let New Yorkers live in peace? Don't bet on it. Indeed, Mike's new health commissioner, Tom Farley, seems determined to top the impressive imperial record of his predecessor, "King" Tom Frieden -- in dispensing increasingly intrusive, heavy-handed healthy-living "advice." Based, of course, on their definition of "healthy living."
You'd think that Mike Bloomberg would have better things to do than intervening in the life choices of the less enlightened-like remediating the epidemic of neighborhood store foreclosures; or fixing the watered down school test scores so we can get a really accurate measure of how well the schools are actually doing. But it appears that Mike really believes that the unwashed need to be out through the Bloomberg healthy rinse cycle-for their own good, of course.
As the Post points out: "Farley, meanwhile, is now pushing exercise regimens -- partly by introducing even more bike lanes in the city. What next -- banning cars? (Oops: Better not give them any ideas.) And don't think Nanny Mike and Dr. Tom the Second are done with their war on tobacco. Not by a long shot. Unable to accept the fact that cigarettes remain legal, they continue to search for ways to ban smoking piecemeal. They're now toying with the idea of making it verboten in public parks and beaches. Democracy? Fuhgeddaboutit. This is administrative dictatorship -- plain and simple."
It sure is-and the extent to which this becomes an impingement on basic democratic liberties will depend on the level of push back the public gives to the latest set of intrusions; and whether or not the health commissioner knows where to draw the line. Jacob Weisberg, writing in Slate, makes this case: "To exhort, nag, nudge, tax, and regulate people for the sake of diminishing purely self-destructive behavior is defensible. But to take choices away on the grounds that people should know better is infantilizing—and likely to hurt those who bear the cross of favoring more intrusive government. Liberals should show restraint, lest the right to be stupid go up in smoke."
The Post, however, really nails the Bloomberg mind set; and predicts, we believe, just the kind of over reach that Wiesberg warns us us about: "Mayor Mike is often accused of having a tin ear to public complaints. In truth, he hears perfectly well. He just doesn't care. And that should outrage all New Yorkers." And cause them to have some second thoughts about giving this guy a third term.
You'd think that Mike Bloomberg would have better things to do than intervening in the life choices of the less enlightened-like remediating the epidemic of neighborhood store foreclosures; or fixing the watered down school test scores so we can get a really accurate measure of how well the schools are actually doing. But it appears that Mike really believes that the unwashed need to be out through the Bloomberg healthy rinse cycle-for their own good, of course.
As the Post points out: "Farley, meanwhile, is now pushing exercise regimens -- partly by introducing even more bike lanes in the city. What next -- banning cars? (Oops: Better not give them any ideas.) And don't think Nanny Mike and Dr. Tom the Second are done with their war on tobacco. Not by a long shot. Unable to accept the fact that cigarettes remain legal, they continue to search for ways to ban smoking piecemeal. They're now toying with the idea of making it verboten in public parks and beaches. Democracy? Fuhgeddaboutit. This is administrative dictatorship -- plain and simple."
It sure is-and the extent to which this becomes an impingement on basic democratic liberties will depend on the level of push back the public gives to the latest set of intrusions; and whether or not the health commissioner knows where to draw the line. Jacob Weisberg, writing in Slate, makes this case: "To exhort, nag, nudge, tax, and regulate people for the sake of diminishing purely self-destructive behavior is defensible. But to take choices away on the grounds that people should know better is infantilizing—and likely to hurt those who bear the cross of favoring more intrusive government. Liberals should show restraint, lest the right to be stupid go up in smoke."
The Post, however, really nails the Bloomberg mind set; and predicts, we believe, just the kind of over reach that Wiesberg warns us us about: "Mayor Mike is often accused of having a tin ear to public complaints. In truth, he hears perfectly well. He just doesn't care. And that should outrage all New Yorkers." And cause them to have some second thoughts about giving this guy a third term.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Willets Point Shout Out to Ben Haber
In Thursday's Times Ledger, Ben Haber raises some of the questions we have already brought up about the curious actions of Claire Shulman and EDC: "As I understand it, Shulman’s local development corporation certificate of incorporation stated the LDC shall not attempt to influence legislation which is a reiteration of the applicable law. The certificate was signed by Shulman. The lobbying of Council members and, to make matters worse, use of city funds to do so was no oversight. Given the fact we are talking about the destruction of the majority of the 225 economically viable businesses in Willets Point and their thousands of employees and families, the purported violation is not a trivial matter. It warrants a full investigation by the office of state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and, if a violation is found to have occurred, the Council vote must be nullified."
Indeed so-and we should also point out that the actions of this cabal are similar to those of ACORN, where questionable legalities have been inappropriately swept under the rug because of the protected class status of those involved. And Haber is right to question the mayor's cavalier attitudes-and his motives as well: "Bloomberg’s attempts to slough off the actions of Shulman and claims that he doubts the law was broken and a “cheap shot” was being taken at Shulman is nonsense. He is making the cheap shots. As head of the LDC, Shulman was not acting as a purported dedicated public servant but as the well-paid head of that group. It may come as a surprise to Bloomberg and Shulman, but the last I heard the rule of law applies not just to ordinary citizens but to seasoned politicians as well."
This isn't the first time that citizen Haber has righteously pointed out Bloomberg's disingenuousness. In a July letter to the Queens Chronicle he observed: "Recently Mayor Michael Bloomberg met with the Queens Chronicle editorial staff and allowed 30 minutes for questions, hardly enough time to delve deeply into various issues affecting this city...Bloomberg was asked about the status of The Willets Point redevelopment project and did he expect to use eminent domain. the mayor’s answer was “No. The people will move.” Bloomberg did not follow up by indicating what he would do if the people will not move. The fact of the matter is that dozens of occupants will not voluntarily move. Bloomberg is well aware of this, and his answer was Madison Avenue nonsense calculated to make the public think there is no serious eminent domain issue."
We can't avoid hearing the Bloomberg campaign prattling incessantly about how the mayor is the champion of the middle class. The reality, however, is that Mike Bloomberg champions his real estate billionaire brethren-and the construction trades that feed off of this predatory activity. The middle class is bolstered by a vibrant small business sector-and the Willets Point firms, along with thousands of neighborhood store owners who are also sucking wind because of the Bloomberg regime, are its best exemplars.
Indeed so-and we should also point out that the actions of this cabal are similar to those of ACORN, where questionable legalities have been inappropriately swept under the rug because of the protected class status of those involved. And Haber is right to question the mayor's cavalier attitudes-and his motives as well: "Bloomberg’s attempts to slough off the actions of Shulman and claims that he doubts the law was broken and a “cheap shot” was being taken at Shulman is nonsense. He is making the cheap shots. As head of the LDC, Shulman was not acting as a purported dedicated public servant but as the well-paid head of that group. It may come as a surprise to Bloomberg and Shulman, but the last I heard the rule of law applies not just to ordinary citizens but to seasoned politicians as well."
This isn't the first time that citizen Haber has righteously pointed out Bloomberg's disingenuousness. In a July letter to the Queens Chronicle he observed: "Recently Mayor Michael Bloomberg met with the Queens Chronicle editorial staff and allowed 30 minutes for questions, hardly enough time to delve deeply into various issues affecting this city...Bloomberg was asked about the status of The Willets Point redevelopment project and did he expect to use eminent domain. the mayor’s answer was “No. The people will move.” Bloomberg did not follow up by indicating what he would do if the people will not move. The fact of the matter is that dozens of occupants will not voluntarily move. Bloomberg is well aware of this, and his answer was Madison Avenue nonsense calculated to make the public think there is no serious eminent domain issue."
We can't avoid hearing the Bloomberg campaign prattling incessantly about how the mayor is the champion of the middle class. The reality, however, is that Mike Bloomberg champions his real estate billionaire brethren-and the construction trades that feed off of this predatory activity. The middle class is bolstered by a vibrant small business sector-and the Willets Point firms, along with thousands of neighborhood store owners who are also sucking wind because of the Bloomberg regime, are its best exemplars.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Crowding Out the Truth?
We're getting a spate of reports about over crowding in NYC schools in the first few weeks of the year. As the NY Daily News tells us: "Thousands of classes citywide are packed to the gills in all grades as schools struggle to stretch every scarce dollar, the Daily News has learned. More than 7,200 classes are over the limit set in the teachers union contract, the union says."
If true, how can this be-in the eighth year of the Bloomberg miracle? And what does this say about the vaunted managerial expertise of this mayoral regime-one that has an additional $12 billion or so to try to make the education of our kids better? As one student relates: "In my science research class, there are some kids sitting behind the blackboard," said Renzo Meza, a freshman at Forest Hills High School, which has 384 classes with more than the 34-student limit for high schools."
Now the Klein regime feels that the situation is only temporary: "A DOE spokesman said it's impossible to get an accurate picture of class sizes after a week of school. "As they do every year, the number of classes exceeding the contractual limit will decline dramatically in the coming weeks as enrollment stabilizes and principals add new classrooms to accommodate all of their students," William Havemann said."
Might be true, but what if it isn't-and the situation drags on into the school year? We'll give a student the last word-but this is definitely something to keep an eye on if you're a state senate over sight committee or a candidate for mayor even: "Daniel Kounin, 16, an 11th-grader at Fort Hamilton High School in Brooklyn, where more than 200 classes are overcrowded, said he only got into an Advanced Placement class only after the teacher kicked out another student. "Teachers can't pay attention to all the students," Daniel said. "If someone in the class has a problem in one area, she can't stop to help him. She has to stay on the curriculum."
If true, how can this be-in the eighth year of the Bloomberg miracle? And what does this say about the vaunted managerial expertise of this mayoral regime-one that has an additional $12 billion or so to try to make the education of our kids better? As one student relates: "In my science research class, there are some kids sitting behind the blackboard," said Renzo Meza, a freshman at Forest Hills High School, which has 384 classes with more than the 34-student limit for high schools."
Now the Klein regime feels that the situation is only temporary: "A DOE spokesman said it's impossible to get an accurate picture of class sizes after a week of school. "As they do every year, the number of classes exceeding the contractual limit will decline dramatically in the coming weeks as enrollment stabilizes and principals add new classrooms to accommodate all of their students," William Havemann said."
Might be true, but what if it isn't-and the situation drags on into the school year? We'll give a student the last word-but this is definitely something to keep an eye on if you're a state senate over sight committee or a candidate for mayor even: "Daniel Kounin, 16, an 11th-grader at Fort Hamilton High School in Brooklyn, where more than 200 classes are overcrowded, said he only got into an Advanced Placement class only after the teacher kicked out another student. "Teachers can't pay attention to all the students," Daniel said. "If someone in the class has a problem in one area, she can't stop to help him. She has to stay on the curriculum."
Thompson Adding Up?
Bill Thompson's first campaign ad is up, and according to the NY Times, the focus is on an attempt to contrast the wealthy Blombergistas versus the regular folks that Thompson is looking to champion: "But in a barbed swipe intended to stir partisan passions, the commercial closes with an obvious dig at Mr. Bloomberg, as a narrator declares: “After eight years of everything going to the rich and powerful, we need a mayor who cares about us. Bill Thompson. The Democrat.”
Will it have any resonance? That is certainly the question, since the Bloomberg campaign continues to spend like a drunken stockbroker-further highlighting, however, the disparity of resources. Perhaps Thompson will be able to use this disparity to dramatize his "Rich man, Poor man" argument. As expected, Bloomberg took umbrage at the depiction.
In a response, the mayor said: “The beneficiaries of all of the work we’ve done in the last eight years is the middle class, not the rich,” he said after his endorsement by the Building and Construction Trades Council of New York on Thursday. “It’s the middle class that had better schools for their kids, it’s the middle class that had safer streets where they live, it’s the middle class that has parks they can go to and streets that are safe and clean. It’s the middle class whose jobs we have created and housing we have created.”
Guess he forgot-went off message it seems-that the reason why we so desperately need the $15 billion man is to lift us out of the current economic crisis. There's something just a bit discordant of preening about how much you have done for the middle class while unemployment hits record levels in the city' Maybe we should give everyone in New York a boost by simply stopping all the middle class helping?
But uphill it is, and one of the biggest questions that remain is whether Thompson will be able to galvanize Democrats enough to allow his message to really accelerate his campaign. Certainly Speaker Quinn appears to be unmoved. As the NY Daily News reports: "City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said on Thursday she's confident she'll be reelected to her post next year - despite grumbling from members upset that she hasn't endorsed Controller William Thompson for mayor. "Barely a day and a half after the primary, I haven't made any decision on what I'm doing in either of the runoffs or in the mayor's race," said Quinn, arguably the city's most powerful Democrat."
She needs more time to decide? As the titular head of the party in NYC? That should tell you all you need to know about where Quinnberg stands, no? If the mayor does squeak by in November, we are really going to need a resilient legislative check on his power-since it is likely that he will continue to remain tone deaf to the concerns of small business and neighborhoods.
What we don't need is a mirror image mimic running the council-and aping the mayor's views so slavishly. The unknown here-aside from the name of any likely challenger-is whether the council as a whole will uncover the moxie to make the leadership challenge. The Thompson campaign's success in resonating with the voters will determine at the same time what kind of challenge emerges in the council. That synergy, we believe, is necessary-but perhaps not sufficient-for the leadership battle to get traction.
What we do know, however, is that with likely more strident voices at Advocate and Comptroller, a supine Speaker Quinn will, if re-elected, be unable to claim the mantle of Democratic leadership in four years-particularly since she would have to go through a Democratic primary if she is to be successful at becoming the party's nominee. But it may be that she sees a corporate future, and not a political one. Mike Bloomberg is, after all, nothing if not grateful to his friends.
So the race is really on and, as Eddie Castel tells the Times: "This is not just a guy who spent $50-plus million,” Eduardo Castell, Mr. Thompson’s campaign manager, told reporters, referring to Mr. Bloomberg. “This is a guy who’s a two-term incumbent, who’s in the news every single day, and his money is, as I said, the worst investment you can have right now — $50 million to have your poll numbers not move, and to have a huge chunk of the electorate still undecided. Those undecided voters are waiting for the alternative. That’s what we’re presenting.”
The next few weeks will begin to tell the tale-and with it, the indecision of Quinn will have to dissolve one way or the other. Will the upcoming contest be, well,m contested, or will it be a redux of the effort of the hapless meanderer Ferrer? We will see soon.
Will it have any resonance? That is certainly the question, since the Bloomberg campaign continues to spend like a drunken stockbroker-further highlighting, however, the disparity of resources. Perhaps Thompson will be able to use this disparity to dramatize his "Rich man, Poor man" argument. As expected, Bloomberg took umbrage at the depiction.
In a response, the mayor said: “The beneficiaries of all of the work we’ve done in the last eight years is the middle class, not the rich,” he said after his endorsement by the Building and Construction Trades Council of New York on Thursday. “It’s the middle class that had better schools for their kids, it’s the middle class that had safer streets where they live, it’s the middle class that has parks they can go to and streets that are safe and clean. It’s the middle class whose jobs we have created and housing we have created.”
Guess he forgot-went off message it seems-that the reason why we so desperately need the $15 billion man is to lift us out of the current economic crisis. There's something just a bit discordant of preening about how much you have done for the middle class while unemployment hits record levels in the city' Maybe we should give everyone in New York a boost by simply stopping all the middle class helping?
But uphill it is, and one of the biggest questions that remain is whether Thompson will be able to galvanize Democrats enough to allow his message to really accelerate his campaign. Certainly Speaker Quinn appears to be unmoved. As the NY Daily News reports: "City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said on Thursday she's confident she'll be reelected to her post next year - despite grumbling from members upset that she hasn't endorsed Controller William Thompson for mayor. "Barely a day and a half after the primary, I haven't made any decision on what I'm doing in either of the runoffs or in the mayor's race," said Quinn, arguably the city's most powerful Democrat."
She needs more time to decide? As the titular head of the party in NYC? That should tell you all you need to know about where Quinnberg stands, no? If the mayor does squeak by in November, we are really going to need a resilient legislative check on his power-since it is likely that he will continue to remain tone deaf to the concerns of small business and neighborhoods.
What we don't need is a mirror image mimic running the council-and aping the mayor's views so slavishly. The unknown here-aside from the name of any likely challenger-is whether the council as a whole will uncover the moxie to make the leadership challenge. The Thompson campaign's success in resonating with the voters will determine at the same time what kind of challenge emerges in the council. That synergy, we believe, is necessary-but perhaps not sufficient-for the leadership battle to get traction.
What we do know, however, is that with likely more strident voices at Advocate and Comptroller, a supine Speaker Quinn will, if re-elected, be unable to claim the mantle of Democratic leadership in four years-particularly since she would have to go through a Democratic primary if she is to be successful at becoming the party's nominee. But it may be that she sees a corporate future, and not a political one. Mike Bloomberg is, after all, nothing if not grateful to his friends.
So the race is really on and, as Eddie Castel tells the Times: "This is not just a guy who spent $50-plus million,” Eduardo Castell, Mr. Thompson’s campaign manager, told reporters, referring to Mr. Bloomberg. “This is a guy who’s a two-term incumbent, who’s in the news every single day, and his money is, as I said, the worst investment you can have right now — $50 million to have your poll numbers not move, and to have a huge chunk of the electorate still undecided. Those undecided voters are waiting for the alternative. That’s what we’re presenting.”
The next few weeks will begin to tell the tale-and with it, the indecision of Quinn will have to dissolve one way or the other. Will the upcoming contest be, well,m contested, or will it be a redux of the effort of the hapless meanderer Ferrer? We will see soon.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Bloomberg's Five Borough Plan Kicks In
According to City Room, the city's unemployment rate has now gone over 10%-a rate higher than the national average: "New York City’s unemployment rate jumped to 10.3 percent in August as the number of city residents unable to find work rose to a record high of 415,800, state officials said on Thursday. The city’s unemployment rate, up from 9.5 percent in July, is higher than the national rate of 9.7 percent and much higher than the 8 percent reported for the rest of the state, the State Labor Department’s figures show. Gov. David A. Paterson and other state officials said that the new data emphasized how the financial crisis has devastated the financial services industry that was the main engine of the city’s growth in the last boom."
Which tells us that the Bloomberg five borough plan must have kicked into high gear. In our view, the mayor's high tax and onerous regulatory policies-combined with his malling of New York-are major contributors to the current job loss. That, combined with an over emphasis on the Wall, Street economy to fuel the aforementioned policies.
With Wall Street booming, no one-certainly not anyone in the media-saw just how deleterious these policies were to the small businesses that drive the economy; and do so almost as much as the financial sector. When the current down turn hit, and finance collapsed, we began to see just how devastated the city's main street economies were; and how much they had been both pilloried and neglected by the Blomberg administration.
All of which is underscored by the fact that, while nationally the recession has begun to ease, in the city we are still struggling-dragged down by the inordinate cost of doing business: "The recession may be over for the rest of the nation, as Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, has suggested, Mr. Paterson said, but New York is still caught in its throes."
It seems that, in the context of this severe downturn, the only thriving enterprise pumping money into the economy is the Bloomberg campaign-an effort that seeks to misdirect and avoid responsibility for the current plight of business in the city; while making the risible claim that Mike Bloomberg is somehow the linchpin of NYC's recovery. A definite Chico Marx moment.
Which tells us that the Bloomberg five borough plan must have kicked into high gear. In our view, the mayor's high tax and onerous regulatory policies-combined with his malling of New York-are major contributors to the current job loss. That, combined with an over emphasis on the Wall, Street economy to fuel the aforementioned policies.
With Wall Street booming, no one-certainly not anyone in the media-saw just how deleterious these policies were to the small businesses that drive the economy; and do so almost as much as the financial sector. When the current down turn hit, and finance collapsed, we began to see just how devastated the city's main street economies were; and how much they had been both pilloried and neglected by the Blomberg administration.
All of which is underscored by the fact that, while nationally the recession has begun to ease, in the city we are still struggling-dragged down by the inordinate cost of doing business: "The recession may be over for the rest of the nation, as Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, has suggested, Mr. Paterson said, but New York is still caught in its throes."
It seems that, in the context of this severe downturn, the only thriving enterprise pumping money into the economy is the Bloomberg campaign-an effort that seeks to misdirect and avoid responsibility for the current plight of business in the city; while making the risible claim that Mike Bloomberg is somehow the linchpin of NYC's recovery. A definite Chico Marx moment.
Believing Their Own Bull
It really could get interesting, this debate over the Bloomberg education miracle. As Daily Politics points out, the Bloombergistas are taking umbrage over the criticisms that Bill Thompsan has leveled at the mayor's school regime: "Mayor Bloomberg's campaign dropped this mailer, which slams Democrat Bill Thompson for "attacking" the mayor's education record, this week. It arrived this morning in the mailbox of a reader, who forwarded it on to me."
What did the Bloomberg folks say? "We’re proud of the fact that Mike cleaned out the bureaucracy, directed $350 million into the classroom, opened hundreds of new small schools, ended social promotion and attracted thousands of energetic new teachers - and we’re going to have a conversation with voters that compares the Mayor’s record of progress to Mr. Thompson’s record of failure as the president of the Board of Education."
Well, does this fusillade hold up to an independent review? We're not convinced that it does-and the extra 12 billion dollars aside-we don't think that the strides under mayoral control (if we examine the more reliable national tests) are any kind of improvement over what the old educational structure had accomplished. But stay tuned, and we will provide you with more data on this in the near future.
Our only warning here is, that if Bloomberg wants education to be the campaign's defining issue, he should be careful what he wishes for.
What did the Bloomberg folks say? "We’re proud of the fact that Mike cleaned out the bureaucracy, directed $350 million into the classroom, opened hundreds of new small schools, ended social promotion and attracted thousands of energetic new teachers - and we’re going to have a conversation with voters that compares the Mayor’s record of progress to Mr. Thompson’s record of failure as the president of the Board of Education."
Well, does this fusillade hold up to an independent review? We're not convinced that it does-and the extra 12 billion dollars aside-we don't think that the strides under mayoral control (if we examine the more reliable national tests) are any kind of improvement over what the old educational structure had accomplished. But stay tuned, and we will provide you with more data on this in the near future.
Our only warning here is, that if Bloomberg wants education to be the campaign's defining issue, he should be careful what he wishes for.
Firefighter's Quick Response Time
The mayor is touting the record level response times of the FDNY-but the quickest response came from the UFA, which yesterday wasted little time in jumping in to endorse Bill Thompson for mayor. As City Room reports, a great deal of the union animosity can be traced back to clueless Nicholas Scoppetta: "Stephen Cassidy, the president of the Uniformed Firefighters’ Association, which represents 8,900 firefighters, praised Mr. Thompson as “smart, tough and fair’’ and directed harsh criticism at Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta, who was appointed by Mr. Bloomberg. “The Fire Commissioner of the city of New York has always set accountability for firefighters but not for himself,” Mr. Cassidy said. “Eight years under Mike Bloomberg we’ve heard Nick Scoppetta say, ‘It’s not my fault.’”
The biggest point of contention, as Wayne Barrett (as well as ourselves) has pointed out, revolves around the Deutsche Bank fire: "Mr. Cassidy said he held Mr. Scoppetta accountable for the deaths of two firefighters two years ago at a fire at the Deutsche Bank Building in Lower Manhattan. A report by the Manhattan district attorney’s office said several city agencies had failed to properly monitor the building, where a basement standpipe meant to deliver water to firefighters had been disabled, apparently without the Fire Department’s knowledge.
In addition, the UFA takes issue with the planned spate of firehouse closings-and hits at the term limit over turn as well: "As rows of firefighters stood behind him, Mr. Cassidy criticized the mayor for his plan, a budget deal with the City Council, to close 16 firehouses. He also criticized Mr. Bloomberg for his push to persuade the City Council to change the term limits law so he could run for a third term."
The issue of the competency of Scoppetta is important because it strikes at the heart of the Bloomberg assertion that his superior managerial acumen in an economic down turn merits an additional-and bogarted-third term. The reality is that the fire commissioner is a two time loser whose record at ACS was, charitably, less than stellar. The UFA endorsement, then, is a real feather in Thompson's cap; and it might be another of those hopeful signs that Michael Goodwin evinced yesterday in the NY Post.
As Auntie Mame once said: "Get me my shawl, I feel the winds of change blowing."
The biggest point of contention, as Wayne Barrett (as well as ourselves) has pointed out, revolves around the Deutsche Bank fire: "Mr. Cassidy said he held Mr. Scoppetta accountable for the deaths of two firefighters two years ago at a fire at the Deutsche Bank Building in Lower Manhattan. A report by the Manhattan district attorney’s office said several city agencies had failed to properly monitor the building, where a basement standpipe meant to deliver water to firefighters had been disabled, apparently without the Fire Department’s knowledge.
In addition, the UFA takes issue with the planned spate of firehouse closings-and hits at the term limit over turn as well: "As rows of firefighters stood behind him, Mr. Cassidy criticized the mayor for his plan, a budget deal with the City Council, to close 16 firehouses. He also criticized Mr. Bloomberg for his push to persuade the City Council to change the term limits law so he could run for a third term."
The issue of the competency of Scoppetta is important because it strikes at the heart of the Bloomberg assertion that his superior managerial acumen in an economic down turn merits an additional-and bogarted-third term. The reality is that the fire commissioner is a two time loser whose record at ACS was, charitably, less than stellar. The UFA endorsement, then, is a real feather in Thompson's cap; and it might be another of those hopeful signs that Michael Goodwin evinced yesterday in the NY Post.
As Auntie Mame once said: "Get me my shawl, I feel the winds of change blowing."
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Smoking the Indians
There is some real question over whether or not the Indian cigarette dealers may have reached their own Little Big Horn-with the latest court decision on Long Island highlighting what could be the beginning of the end for this band of buttleggers. As David Caruso writes in the NY Post, the fate of one retailer-Rodney Morrison-may be the handwriting on the wall: "By 2007, one in every seven packs sold in New York state came from either Morrison's shop or three others on the reservation -- all four managed by people with a history of drug dealing, The Associated Press found in a review of court and business records. Those four stores sold 9.9 million cartons of cigarettes that year, or enough to supply every smoker in New York City with a pack a day for 3½ months. Now, it may all be going up in smoke for the cigarette kingpins of the Poospatuck reservation.
Here's why: "Dismayed by the lost tax revenue, New York City has waged a legal battle that could put shops like Morrison's out of business. This month, Poospatuck stores may have to begin collecting taxes because of a federal judge's ruling that untaxed sales to non-Indians are illegal."
And Morrison's criminal past seems to be endemic to the entire cohort of cigarette tax evaders: "Morrison, 42, is in deeper trouble. He could get up to 30 years in prison when he is sentenced Sept. 25 in a case in which federal prosecutors set out to blame him for a murder but wound up convicting him of illegally trafficking in cigarettes."
The other retailers on the reservation were also sterling characters: "Morrison wasn't the only person on the reservation with a checkered past. His estranged half-brother, Shawn, began managing The Golden Feather smoke shop after finishing a seven-year prison term in 2004 for drug dealing. The Smoking Arrow Smoke Shop was managed for a time by a former member of Morrison's drug crew. And Monique's Smoke Shop was run by a man who served six months for drug dealing in the 1990s."
So, is Poospatuck a precedent? And, if so, are the state's tax payers-not to mention beleaguered retailers losing sales to buttlegging-in for a deserved windfall? "The Poospatuck case is being watched closely. If the court decisions are applied to all reservation smoke shops statewide, they could doom a $6-billion-a-year business in Indian tobacco that now accounts for a third of New York's cigarette sales...Because the state doesn't collect sales taxes on Indian land, cigarettes bought there can cost less than half of what they do in New York City, which has the nation's highest tobacco taxes. In the city, a carton of Marlboros costs about $95, including $42.50 in state and local taxes."
And Caruso details the cowardice and nonfeasance of NY's governors-fearful to a man of enforcing the laws on the books that restrict Indians from selling tax free smokes to non-Indians: "But until now, the rule has never been enforced against the smoke shops themselves, despite the loss of more than $700 million a year in state and local tax revenue. Since the mid-1990s, New York governors fearful of stirring up tribal unrest have instructed state tax officials to leave the smoke shops alone."
The results have been sweet-at least until now-for Morrison, but not for the ripped off store owners: "And so, as state authorities looked the other way, Morrison's business boomed, grossing $172 million in one 4½-year period, according to bank records. He bought homes, land and businesses throughout the United States and Latin America, stashed $30 million in foreign banks and collected $1.7 million worth of luxury watches."
So, what's next? Caruso outlines the issue: "Since the trial, state courts have continued to send conflicting messages about the smoke shops' legal obligations. In July, a state appeals court threw out a case against a Cayuga Nation store in western New York, saying it could not be prosecuted for selling untaxed cigarettes. Things could come to a head in the next few weeks. In her Aug. 25 ruling in the city's lawsuit, US District Judge Carol Bagley Amon ordered the Poospatuck stores to start collecting taxes on sales to non-Indians in 30 days."
The confusion needs to be cleared up-and the legislature needs to find a way to hold the governor's shaking hands to the fire. There's simply too much money at stake-and not one new tax should be levied, or a single state program de-funded, if there's still hundreds of millions of tax dollars that are out there just waiting to be collected.
Here's why: "Dismayed by the lost tax revenue, New York City has waged a legal battle that could put shops like Morrison's out of business. This month, Poospatuck stores may have to begin collecting taxes because of a federal judge's ruling that untaxed sales to non-Indians are illegal."
And Morrison's criminal past seems to be endemic to the entire cohort of cigarette tax evaders: "Morrison, 42, is in deeper trouble. He could get up to 30 years in prison when he is sentenced Sept. 25 in a case in which federal prosecutors set out to blame him for a murder but wound up convicting him of illegally trafficking in cigarettes."
The other retailers on the reservation were also sterling characters: "Morrison wasn't the only person on the reservation with a checkered past. His estranged half-brother, Shawn, began managing The Golden Feather smoke shop after finishing a seven-year prison term in 2004 for drug dealing. The Smoking Arrow Smoke Shop was managed for a time by a former member of Morrison's drug crew. And Monique's Smoke Shop was run by a man who served six months for drug dealing in the 1990s."
So, is Poospatuck a precedent? And, if so, are the state's tax payers-not to mention beleaguered retailers losing sales to buttlegging-in for a deserved windfall? "The Poospatuck case is being watched closely. If the court decisions are applied to all reservation smoke shops statewide, they could doom a $6-billion-a-year business in Indian tobacco that now accounts for a third of New York's cigarette sales...Because the state doesn't collect sales taxes on Indian land, cigarettes bought there can cost less than half of what they do in New York City, which has the nation's highest tobacco taxes. In the city, a carton of Marlboros costs about $95, including $42.50 in state and local taxes."
And Caruso details the cowardice and nonfeasance of NY's governors-fearful to a man of enforcing the laws on the books that restrict Indians from selling tax free smokes to non-Indians: "But until now, the rule has never been enforced against the smoke shops themselves, despite the loss of more than $700 million a year in state and local tax revenue. Since the mid-1990s, New York governors fearful of stirring up tribal unrest have instructed state tax officials to leave the smoke shops alone."
The results have been sweet-at least until now-for Morrison, but not for the ripped off store owners: "And so, as state authorities looked the other way, Morrison's business boomed, grossing $172 million in one 4½-year period, according to bank records. He bought homes, land and businesses throughout the United States and Latin America, stashed $30 million in foreign banks and collected $1.7 million worth of luxury watches."
So, what's next? Caruso outlines the issue: "Since the trial, state courts have continued to send conflicting messages about the smoke shops' legal obligations. In July, a state appeals court threw out a case against a Cayuga Nation store in western New York, saying it could not be prosecuted for selling untaxed cigarettes. Things could come to a head in the next few weeks. In her Aug. 25 ruling in the city's lawsuit, US District Judge Carol Bagley Amon ordered the Poospatuck stores to start collecting taxes on sales to non-Indians in 30 days."
The confusion needs to be cleared up-and the legislature needs to find a way to hold the governor's shaking hands to the fire. There's simply too much money at stake-and not one new tax should be levied, or a single state program de-funded, if there's still hundreds of millions of tax dollars that are out there just waiting to be collected.
All to the Goodwin
Michael Goodwin makes his NY Post debut today, and lays out the case-as we have already done in less majestic fashion-for a possible Bill Thompson victory-and does so with none of the suspect motives that seem to animate Dan Gerstein's Op-ed yesterday: "I wouldn’t bet against Bloomy, but his re-election isn’t a slam dunk. Thompson can win. You read that right. Thompson can win. I’m not saying he will, just that he can. He won’t need a miracle either. Lightning, thunder and luck, yes, but Thompson would hardly be the first David to bring down a Goliath. One is in the White House, and there are days when Bloomberg looks as ripe for a fall as Hillary Clinton was."
Indeed so-and the reason why the mayor is vulnerable should be familiar to the readers of this blog: "Think about it,” one formerly firm Bloomy man told me. “He’s been mayor for eight years and he has to spend $100 million now to reintroduce his brand.” The complaints center on the soaring cost-of-living and binges in government spending, along with a sense the mayor feels entitled to a third term."
Is this the, "progress," that the mayor's prattling on about? And there's more: "I spy three reasons for shifting sentiment. First, elections are a referendum on the incumbent, and this is not a good year for incumbents. The recession pain for many here is acute as incomes fall and prices keep rising. Much of the pain is driven by City Hall, with spending under Bloomberg about 25 percent above inflation. Real-estate taxes are climbing even as market values fall, and virtually every levy and fee has gone up sharply since 2002, and still it’s not enough to satisfy the government beast. The businessman mayor, who promised to guard the buck, has been too quick to spend it."
Put simply, Mike Bloomberg has been profligate with the tax payers' money-and to beat him Thompson's gonna need to do a bit of creative triangulation that runs at the mayor from both the left and the right. And then there's the education success myth; as we have been hammering home: "The third factor is the schools. Compelling evidence shows many of the gains Bloomberg touts are suspect because tests and standards were dumbed down. He has doubled education spending to $22 billion a year, but with 74 percent of city grads who enroll at City University community colleges still needing remediation, the smell of a scam is in the air."
Add on term limits and you have a potential witch's brew of issues that could take Mike Bloomberg down. But Billy's going to have to take the fight to him-he's not gonna be able to take the mayor out on points: "The hitch for Thompson is that swing voters he needs don’t yet see him as a real alternative. While his team believes a black, liberal Democrat in a minority-majority city starts with a voter base of 45 percent, he can’t win without peeling away some of the mayor’s soft support. To do that, Thompson needs to show more fire in the belly and appeal to a beleaguered middle class that increasingly finds a sour taste in the Big Apple. That means cutting spending so the pressure won’t be there to increase revenues through excessive fines, fees and taxes."
Taking the fight to Bloomberg means to us that Thompson needs to "Townhall" the mayor-and really get in his face, throw him off his game-rattle his overly cool and contrived demeanor so that the real Mike Bloomberg can be properly revealed. If Bill can do this, we just might see a real barn burner-and, yes, NYC would be the real beneficiary of this kind of contest.
Indeed so-and the reason why the mayor is vulnerable should be familiar to the readers of this blog: "Think about it,” one formerly firm Bloomy man told me. “He’s been mayor for eight years and he has to spend $100 million now to reintroduce his brand.” The complaints center on the soaring cost-of-living and binges in government spending, along with a sense the mayor feels entitled to a third term."
Is this the, "progress," that the mayor's prattling on about? And there's more: "I spy three reasons for shifting sentiment. First, elections are a referendum on the incumbent, and this is not a good year for incumbents. The recession pain for many here is acute as incomes fall and prices keep rising. Much of the pain is driven by City Hall, with spending under Bloomberg about 25 percent above inflation. Real-estate taxes are climbing even as market values fall, and virtually every levy and fee has gone up sharply since 2002, and still it’s not enough to satisfy the government beast. The businessman mayor, who promised to guard the buck, has been too quick to spend it."
Put simply, Mike Bloomberg has been profligate with the tax payers' money-and to beat him Thompson's gonna need to do a bit of creative triangulation that runs at the mayor from both the left and the right. And then there's the education success myth; as we have been hammering home: "The third factor is the schools. Compelling evidence shows many of the gains Bloomberg touts are suspect because tests and standards were dumbed down. He has doubled education spending to $22 billion a year, but with 74 percent of city grads who enroll at City University community colleges still needing remediation, the smell of a scam is in the air."
Add on term limits and you have a potential witch's brew of issues that could take Mike Bloomberg down. But Billy's going to have to take the fight to him-he's not gonna be able to take the mayor out on points: "The hitch for Thompson is that swing voters he needs don’t yet see him as a real alternative. While his team believes a black, liberal Democrat in a minority-majority city starts with a voter base of 45 percent, he can’t win without peeling away some of the mayor’s soft support. To do that, Thompson needs to show more fire in the belly and appeal to a beleaguered middle class that increasingly finds a sour taste in the Big Apple. That means cutting spending so the pressure won’t be there to increase revenues through excessive fines, fees and taxes."
Taking the fight to Bloomberg means to us that Thompson needs to "Townhall" the mayor-and really get in his face, throw him off his game-rattle his overly cool and contrived demeanor so that the real Mike Bloomberg can be properly revealed. If Bill can do this, we just might see a real barn burner-and, yes, NYC would be the real beneficiary of this kind of contest.
Money Bet
So now we can get busy with the real mayoral race-or, can we? Bill Thompson has one the Democratic nomination a yawner that most party members avoided yesterday-and it will be a real challenge for the comptroller to take the fight to Mike Bloomberg, and beat him, But, as the NY Times reports, he is not without some advantages: "Here is the Michael R. Bloomberg that his Democratic rival wants you to see: a power-hungry politician who broke his promise not to seek a third term; an insensitive billionaire who raised taxes on the middle class; an overrated manager who failed to accomplish anything big in his second term."
The problem. however, lies with the lack of money Thompson has raised to get their message across, And, despite what Dan Gerstein tells us in yesterday's, NY Daily News, money does matter: "To rationalize this sorry situation, presumptive nominee Bill Thompson and his defenders have come up with about 36 million excuses. That is the amount of cash Bloomberg has spent (as of the last filing) to win a third term, a total that will likely double by November. That bankroll, we're told, gives the mayor such an unfair edge that no Democrat could effectively compete against him."
Not so, says the Democratic turned sycophant Gerstein: "This line may hold comfort for partisans, but it doesn't hold water. If you know anything about how campaigns work, Thompson's more money myth falls apart quicker than his campaign has. Start with the dubious assumption this argument is premised on - that money is the decisive factor in electoral campaigns. There is no doubt that money matters. But history is littered with candidates who massively outspent their opponents only to get outgunned at the polls."
Massive disadvantages elsewhere, doesn't do justice to the disparities operating in the NYC mayoral race-or to the fact that the Bloomberg presence has dried up the usual sources of campaign funds that are relied upon by Democrats in this city-since the giving cohort can be seen as charter members of the Bloomberg fan club. The rich, and those who normally look for aggrandizement from government, are all gonna sit out the Thompson's effort; and the outspending Bloomberg's cash will be overwhelming any Thompson media message.
That being said, Gerstein has a point about the Thompson opportunity: "That same poll showed the mayor with a commanding 50%-to-35% lead over Thompson. But it bears noting that Bloomberg's reelect number is 10 points lower than his job approval rating. This indicates that Hizzoner has serious liabilities, ripe to be exploited. Chief among them: a fairly broad sense among middle-class voters that he's arrogant and out of touch, which was reinforced by the damaging term limits fight. If Thompson were a skilled candidate and offered a compelling counternarrative and agenda, he could have seized on Bloomberg's vulnerabilities and made the race competitive."
And the incessant ads are in fact a turnoff: "In fact, the most recent Quinnipiac poll suggests Bloomberg's ad avalanche may be doing as much harm as good: 47% said they found all his efforts annoying, and 57% said they amounted to overkill."
But Thompson does need to capitalize on the Bloomberg vulnerabilities-weaknesses that acolyte Gershman can see clearly. As the Times tells us: "Wednesday is the first day of the general election campaign for mayor, but the outline of each side’s message is already emerging. And this much is clear: The race will be combative. It will be expensive. And it will be personal.
“The incumbent Republican mayor defends Wall Street executives, the rich and developers,” begins a new radio advertisement from Mr. Thompson’s campaign."
The Bloomberg retort: politics as usual-with the mayor droning from script at last night's gathering for the Bloombergistas. But nothing could be more politics as usual than the mayor's usurpation of the popular will with his term limits power grab. Nothing independent about that old school arrogance. And the effort by Bloomberg to respond to allegations of out of touchness ring hollow to our ears: "At every possible turn, Mr. Thompson will attack Mr. Bloomberg for what Mr. Castell described as “broken promises” and “for playing by a different set of rules.” He will critique his record on homelessness, his autocratic approach to the schools and his tax increases. “Life in this city has become more expensive, not less,” Mr. Castell said. He will deride Mr. Bloomberg as a Republican, even though the mayor is a registered independent, because he is running on the Republican ballot line."
The Bloomberg campaign will counter with an attack on the Thompson record-and Gerstein's observation will likely be a theme: "This might explain why, even though I follow the race more closely than the average voter, I can't name a single accomplishment of Thompson's seven years as controller or one good policy idea he has that speaks to Bloomberg's shortcomings." How many times has a comptroller, given the nature of the job, been able to point to his record? Alan Hevesi had the same problem eight years ago.
And then there is the schools issue. Here's the Times: "Mr. Bloomberg’s aides have already started to mock Mr. Thompson’s record as the president of the Board of Education, and as comptroller, suggesting he is a creature of the political machine." But here the mayor better tread softly-as more and more stuff emerges about how shallow the educational record Bloomberg is touting really is.
But what's missing from Gerstein's critique-and his admonition about Thompson's so far lack luster efforts is fair up to a point-is how the Bloomberg money machine has laundered cash throughout the political system for over seven years-suborning quite a few, while intimidating even more folks. Just look at the "independent" local newspaper endorsements for a small clue. Incumbency, combined with a cash avalanche employed in astro turf fashion, is a formidable opponent. The fact that the race is as close as it is, attests to the mayor's vulnerabilities.
So, we will see if Thompson can fire up and exploit these weaknesses. And Gerstein misses the boat when he tells us: "It's the city, though, that is the poorer for Thompson's poor excuse for a campaign, and I say that as someone who supports the mayor's reelection. Beyond being denied a serious debate about our future, New Yorkers are losing our last big bit of leverage to keep the mayor on his toes. That's something no amount of money can buy - and that my fellow Democrats should have thought of before picking their nominee."
If we have been denied a serious debate-and the jury is still out about that-it's because of the power of money to intimidate potential opposition-leaving Thompson standing alone just about. Not to mention a supine cohort of editorialists who are even more sycophantic than Jacob's ladder to fame and fortune.
The next few weeks will tell if Thompson can craft the kind of resonating narrative that will throw the Bloomberg campaign off its game and make this contest a real race. There is quite a lot to exploit, but the clock is running and Bloomberg's three corner offense is looking to stall things so time runs out before Thompson can really gear up.
The problem. however, lies with the lack of money Thompson has raised to get their message across, And, despite what Dan Gerstein tells us in yesterday's, NY Daily News, money does matter: "To rationalize this sorry situation, presumptive nominee Bill Thompson and his defenders have come up with about 36 million excuses. That is the amount of cash Bloomberg has spent (as of the last filing) to win a third term, a total that will likely double by November. That bankroll, we're told, gives the mayor such an unfair edge that no Democrat could effectively compete against him."
Not so, says the Democratic turned sycophant Gerstein: "This line may hold comfort for partisans, but it doesn't hold water. If you know anything about how campaigns work, Thompson's more money myth falls apart quicker than his campaign has. Start with the dubious assumption this argument is premised on - that money is the decisive factor in electoral campaigns. There is no doubt that money matters. But history is littered with candidates who massively outspent their opponents only to get outgunned at the polls."
Massive disadvantages elsewhere, doesn't do justice to the disparities operating in the NYC mayoral race-or to the fact that the Bloomberg presence has dried up the usual sources of campaign funds that are relied upon by Democrats in this city-since the giving cohort can be seen as charter members of the Bloomberg fan club. The rich, and those who normally look for aggrandizement from government, are all gonna sit out the Thompson's effort; and the outspending Bloomberg's cash will be overwhelming any Thompson media message.
That being said, Gerstein has a point about the Thompson opportunity: "That same poll showed the mayor with a commanding 50%-to-35% lead over Thompson. But it bears noting that Bloomberg's reelect number is 10 points lower than his job approval rating. This indicates that Hizzoner has serious liabilities, ripe to be exploited. Chief among them: a fairly broad sense among middle-class voters that he's arrogant and out of touch, which was reinforced by the damaging term limits fight. If Thompson were a skilled candidate and offered a compelling counternarrative and agenda, he could have seized on Bloomberg's vulnerabilities and made the race competitive."
And the incessant ads are in fact a turnoff: "In fact, the most recent Quinnipiac poll suggests Bloomberg's ad avalanche may be doing as much harm as good: 47% said they found all his efforts annoying, and 57% said they amounted to overkill."
But Thompson does need to capitalize on the Bloomberg vulnerabilities-weaknesses that acolyte Gershman can see clearly. As the Times tells us: "Wednesday is the first day of the general election campaign for mayor, but the outline of each side’s message is already emerging. And this much is clear: The race will be combative. It will be expensive. And it will be personal.
“The incumbent Republican mayor defends Wall Street executives, the rich and developers,” begins a new radio advertisement from Mr. Thompson’s campaign."
The Bloomberg retort: politics as usual-with the mayor droning from script at last night's gathering for the Bloombergistas. But nothing could be more politics as usual than the mayor's usurpation of the popular will with his term limits power grab. Nothing independent about that old school arrogance. And the effort by Bloomberg to respond to allegations of out of touchness ring hollow to our ears: "At every possible turn, Mr. Thompson will attack Mr. Bloomberg for what Mr. Castell described as “broken promises” and “for playing by a different set of rules.” He will critique his record on homelessness, his autocratic approach to the schools and his tax increases. “Life in this city has become more expensive, not less,” Mr. Castell said. He will deride Mr. Bloomberg as a Republican, even though the mayor is a registered independent, because he is running on the Republican ballot line."
The Bloomberg campaign will counter with an attack on the Thompson record-and Gerstein's observation will likely be a theme: "This might explain why, even though I follow the race more closely than the average voter, I can't name a single accomplishment of Thompson's seven years as controller or one good policy idea he has that speaks to Bloomberg's shortcomings." How many times has a comptroller, given the nature of the job, been able to point to his record? Alan Hevesi had the same problem eight years ago.
And then there is the schools issue. Here's the Times: "Mr. Bloomberg’s aides have already started to mock Mr. Thompson’s record as the president of the Board of Education, and as comptroller, suggesting he is a creature of the political machine." But here the mayor better tread softly-as more and more stuff emerges about how shallow the educational record Bloomberg is touting really is.
But what's missing from Gerstein's critique-and his admonition about Thompson's so far lack luster efforts is fair up to a point-is how the Bloomberg money machine has laundered cash throughout the political system for over seven years-suborning quite a few, while intimidating even more folks. Just look at the "independent" local newspaper endorsements for a small clue. Incumbency, combined with a cash avalanche employed in astro turf fashion, is a formidable opponent. The fact that the race is as close as it is, attests to the mayor's vulnerabilities.
So, we will see if Thompson can fire up and exploit these weaknesses. And Gerstein misses the boat when he tells us: "It's the city, though, that is the poorer for Thompson's poor excuse for a campaign, and I say that as someone who supports the mayor's reelection. Beyond being denied a serious debate about our future, New Yorkers are losing our last big bit of leverage to keep the mayor on his toes. That's something no amount of money can buy - and that my fellow Democrats should have thought of before picking their nominee."
If we have been denied a serious debate-and the jury is still out about that-it's because of the power of money to intimidate potential opposition-leaving Thompson standing alone just about. Not to mention a supine cohort of editorialists who are even more sycophantic than Jacob's ladder to fame and fortune.
The next few weeks will tell if Thompson can craft the kind of resonating narrative that will throw the Bloomberg campaign off its game and make this contest a real race. There is quite a lot to exploit, but the clock is running and Bloomberg's three corner offense is looking to stall things so time runs out before Thompson can really gear up.
Whapping Crain's
Alair Townsend, the former Crain's publisher, and now columnist-or calumnist, as it were-lashes out against (subscription only) the opponents of the Kingsbridge Armory development in the latest issue of the magazine; and manages to not only obfuscate the issue, but to also mislead her readers at the same time. Townsend feels that Bronx BP Diaz is, "grandstanding," by opposing the project-and doing so in the face of a 12.5% Bronx unemployment rate.
In her attack on Diaz-and the other opponents as well-Townsend manages to leave out what is the linchpin of the opposition's argument; the fact that the development will be pigging out on over $90 million of tax payer money. Leaving this out, desiccates any kernel of truth in the Townsend screed. The necessity of using our tax money is simply left unaddressed and unacknowledged.
Otherwise, the fact that the Armory will yield 1200 jobs (the developer's estimate that she repeats uncritically), and turn a "white elephant" into a, "beehive of activity," can be characterized-with a bit of tunnel vision, it's true-in a mostly positive light. The tax subsidies, in our view, is a game changer-and gives the opposition, not only the moral high ground, but the economic one as well.
Because, as we have said a number of times before, tax subsidies for retail development are problematic because of the way that they shift rather than create employment. If the Armory mall was the first of its kind in the Bronx, then we might agree that the "risk" entails an incentive-although the Gateway Mall giveaway goes way beyond any risk avoidance, and ends up in the sweetheart deal/sure thing category of investment.
Once, however, it has been demonstrated by the success of Gateway that retailers can flourish in the borough, the use of lavish tax subsidies for this development creates the kind of unlevel playing field that girds the opposition's arguments for some give backs-and the living wage is as righteous a request as any we've seen.
It's righteousness not only devolves from the use of the public money to grease the skids and line the pockets of the developer, but from the fact that the job creation that Townsend extols is a chimera-with the closing neighborhood stores as a punctuation of the failed policy of chain store retail subsidy. So, if mom and pop entrepreneurs are being helped out of business by the looting of their own tax dollars by this Bronx malling, couldn't we at least ask that the new jobs be a bit more than simply minimum wage retail?
Now the issue of a CBA and a living wage can be viewed as somewhat separate and distinct-after all, none of the other CBAs have a living wage component. But Townsend never addresses the substance of the living wage argument-and goes on to make this disingenuous observation about the ULURP process: "There is nothing in the city's land use law that gives the city council the right to pursue its demands. The law specifies that any environmental and traffic issues created by the projects must be mitigated, but it does not allow the council to set wages, mandate union membership or extract cash from developers for uses unrelated to the project at hand."
Which is true only in the narrowest possible interpretation. For you see, there is no other process for the Council to weigh in on the propriety of the use of tax payers money to subsidize the Bloomberg administration's favored developer-and Townsend's belief that, "The Related Companies was chosen by the city after a competitive process," is risible to those of us who know the history, as well as the intimacy, of the relationship.
For Townsend to see the demands being raised as, "just the latest example of zoning for sale," is to elide the patricianage that underlies the slavish aggrandizement of Related for going on eight years-something that the corporate toady hasn't anything to say about. And Townsend also, to our knowledge, never said one thing about how the Bronx Terminal Market was deeded over to Related through an incestuous no-bid arrangement.
And then there's the supermarket issue. Townsend's comments here underscore both her bias and her ignorance: "And they do not want the large supermarket, despite the fact that it could offer lower prices to a cash strapped population..." No mention of the fact that the RFP itself-and the developer responded in kind-proscribed the food use because of the fear that it would be a zero sum game, and would lead to the policy deficit of supermarket closings on contiguous neighborhood strips.
And that is the kind of supermarket initiative that will diminish, and not augment, access to healthier foods, something that the mayor claims he wants to achieve. Making a bad situation that much worse-is the use of our tax money to lower the rent for a large out of town chain food store so that it can compete unfairly against the local markets on the most unlevel of playing fields.
The past eight years have been hell on neighborhood retailers-a process aided and abetted by Bloomberg policies that have, not only raised the cost of doing business on the local shopping strips, but have also pulled customers away from these Main Streets by the over building of malls on the arterial perimeters. A process, we should add, that has elicited nary a peep from the CBA-fixated Townsend.
The fight over the Kingsbridge Armory is a fight for equity-fairness for both workers as well as local store owners. It is also a battle for the soul of the city-and whether we are going to allow the continuation of Bloomberg's policies of corporate welfare at the expense of those who don't frequent the private clubs where these kinds of deals go down.
So Townsend should save her corporate hucksterism for those who resonate to that kind of message: investment bankers and hedge fund managers seeking government bailouts. The Bloomberg five borough development strategy has been an unmitigated disaster for the city-but that reality simply evades the consciousness of those, like Townsend, who perspective is irreparably jaundiced by a big business bias.
In her attack on Diaz-and the other opponents as well-Townsend manages to leave out what is the linchpin of the opposition's argument; the fact that the development will be pigging out on over $90 million of tax payer money. Leaving this out, desiccates any kernel of truth in the Townsend screed. The necessity of using our tax money is simply left unaddressed and unacknowledged.
Otherwise, the fact that the Armory will yield 1200 jobs (the developer's estimate that she repeats uncritically), and turn a "white elephant" into a, "beehive of activity," can be characterized-with a bit of tunnel vision, it's true-in a mostly positive light. The tax subsidies, in our view, is a game changer-and gives the opposition, not only the moral high ground, but the economic one as well.
Because, as we have said a number of times before, tax subsidies for retail development are problematic because of the way that they shift rather than create employment. If the Armory mall was the first of its kind in the Bronx, then we might agree that the "risk" entails an incentive-although the Gateway Mall giveaway goes way beyond any risk avoidance, and ends up in the sweetheart deal/sure thing category of investment.
Once, however, it has been demonstrated by the success of Gateway that retailers can flourish in the borough, the use of lavish tax subsidies for this development creates the kind of unlevel playing field that girds the opposition's arguments for some give backs-and the living wage is as righteous a request as any we've seen.
It's righteousness not only devolves from the use of the public money to grease the skids and line the pockets of the developer, but from the fact that the job creation that Townsend extols is a chimera-with the closing neighborhood stores as a punctuation of the failed policy of chain store retail subsidy. So, if mom and pop entrepreneurs are being helped out of business by the looting of their own tax dollars by this Bronx malling, couldn't we at least ask that the new jobs be a bit more than simply minimum wage retail?
Now the issue of a CBA and a living wage can be viewed as somewhat separate and distinct-after all, none of the other CBAs have a living wage component. But Townsend never addresses the substance of the living wage argument-and goes on to make this disingenuous observation about the ULURP process: "There is nothing in the city's land use law that gives the city council the right to pursue its demands. The law specifies that any environmental and traffic issues created by the projects must be mitigated, but it does not allow the council to set wages, mandate union membership or extract cash from developers for uses unrelated to the project at hand."
Which is true only in the narrowest possible interpretation. For you see, there is no other process for the Council to weigh in on the propriety of the use of tax payers money to subsidize the Bloomberg administration's favored developer-and Townsend's belief that, "The Related Companies was chosen by the city after a competitive process," is risible to those of us who know the history, as well as the intimacy, of the relationship.
For Townsend to see the demands being raised as, "just the latest example of zoning for sale," is to elide the patricianage that underlies the slavish aggrandizement of Related for going on eight years-something that the corporate toady hasn't anything to say about. And Townsend also, to our knowledge, never said one thing about how the Bronx Terminal Market was deeded over to Related through an incestuous no-bid arrangement.
And then there's the supermarket issue. Townsend's comments here underscore both her bias and her ignorance: "And they do not want the large supermarket, despite the fact that it could offer lower prices to a cash strapped population..." No mention of the fact that the RFP itself-and the developer responded in kind-proscribed the food use because of the fear that it would be a zero sum game, and would lead to the policy deficit of supermarket closings on contiguous neighborhood strips.
And that is the kind of supermarket initiative that will diminish, and not augment, access to healthier foods, something that the mayor claims he wants to achieve. Making a bad situation that much worse-is the use of our tax money to lower the rent for a large out of town chain food store so that it can compete unfairly against the local markets on the most unlevel of playing fields.
The past eight years have been hell on neighborhood retailers-a process aided and abetted by Bloomberg policies that have, not only raised the cost of doing business on the local shopping strips, but have also pulled customers away from these Main Streets by the over building of malls on the arterial perimeters. A process, we should add, that has elicited nary a peep from the CBA-fixated Townsend.
The fight over the Kingsbridge Armory is a fight for equity-fairness for both workers as well as local store owners. It is also a battle for the soul of the city-and whether we are going to allow the continuation of Bloomberg's policies of corporate welfare at the expense of those who don't frequent the private clubs where these kinds of deals go down.
So Townsend should save her corporate hucksterism for those who resonate to that kind of message: investment bankers and hedge fund managers seeking government bailouts. The Bloomberg five borough development strategy has been an unmitigated disaster for the city-but that reality simply evades the consciousness of those, like Townsend, who perspective is irreparably jaundiced by a big business bias.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
