In politics, as most of us know, there is a phrase that's used called, "buyer's remorse." It's used to connote how disillusionment sets in with the voters after their candidate wins-and fails to live up to their often unrealistic lofty expectations. In NYC, however, we're afraid that the term is going to get, in the jargon of the philosopher Nietzsche, "transvaluated."
Because in this city it isn't the voters who have bought anything, it is the free spending Mike Bloomberg-who has now broken the land speed record in this category. As the NY Times reports: "Michael R. Bloomberg, the Wall Street mogul whose fortune catapulted him into New York’s City Hall, has set another staggering financial record: He has now spent more of his own money than any other individual in United States history in the pursuit of public office."
Bloomberg, being the buyer in this context, is the most likely one to be subject to the proverbial buyer's remorse-having bought the voters and gotten what he wished for, he must confront the daunting political problems he will inherit and, in our view, may well regret what he so freely spent to get. So, to mix metaphors, since he has broken all known election spending records, he will soon find himself subject to Pottery Barn rules: "you break it, you buy it"
Or, in Bloomberg's case, own it-since now he will be subject to a much higher standard; particularly since he proffered his own indispensability as the rationale for overturning the term limits law. As the Times points out:
"The spending has drawn howls of protest from good-government groups and advocates of campaign finance reform. In interviews, several said, angrily, that the mayor’s decisions to rewrite New York City’s term limits law and then spend wildly to secure re-election, have undermined democratic principles. “Whether Bloomberg wins or loses, the toxic combination of mega-spending and crass use of his office to bypass the voters on term limits will always be a stain on his mayoralty,” said Gene Russianoff, staff attorney for the New York Public Interest Research Group. “These twin assaults on municipal democracy will undermine his political clout in a third term and sadly fuel public skepticism about elections and elected officials,” Mr. Russianoff said."
Gee, we can't wait for the scathing Times editorial denouncing this profligacy as a stain on democracy-and its subsequent endorsement of challenger Thompson. Sorry for the reverie folks. But, back the Bloombucks bacchanal: "He has spent at least 14 times what his Democratic rival in the race, William C. Thompson Jr., has: $6 million. A Thompson campaign spokeswoman on Friday called the mayor’s spending “obscene.” Since late September, the pace of Mr. Bloomberg’s spending has drastically accelerated: He is now sending nearly $1 million a day into the city’s economy. The bulk of the money is devoted to advertising on television, radio and the Web, but much of it bankroll ls a first-class approach to parties, snacks and travel. The campaign has spent $322,521 on food, $293,953 on transportation, $176,066 on furniture and $39,858 on parking."
All seen as overkill, of course: "His lavish spending has confounded political consultants and campaign finance experts, who said that his popularity with New Yorkers, and his built-in advantages as a two-term incumbent, should be sufficient to win him re-election. “The main thing money does is allow you to get name recognition,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group in Washington. “But in this case, with Bloomberg, because he’s so well known, it’s more like, he can do it, so why not?”
So a Bloomberg third term is a potential combustible mix-and if things go south with the city's fiscal condition, as they appear to be going now, than Mike may really be in for it. Especially since, as Crain's Insider reported last week, he doesn't really have any clear third term goals: "In an appearance in which he otherwise seemed relaxed and well-prepared, Mayor Bloomberg's response to the final question at yesterday's Crain's Breakfast Forum suggests that a third term might lack the goal-driven agenda that has characterized his first two. When asked by Crain's editorial director Greg David what he would like to add to his legacy in a third term—beyond improving schools and lowering crime—the mayor did not have a clear answer."
The third term, then, may not be such a charm for our less than charming chief executive. Not that the tabloids would even notice-given their myopia over the Bloomberg campaign spending.
And this was made clear on Saturday when both the Post and the News buried the spending story-Liz, however, did her usual good job on her blog. And adding insult to injury, the Post's rather snarky lead political story is about a large fine that the Thompson campaign received for its posters!-from the Bloomberg sanitation department, no less: "It looks like Bill Thompson is going to easily win the write-in vote over Mayor Bloomberg -- unfortunately for him, the people doing the writing are city Sanitation agents. The Sanitation Department reported yesterday that Thompson's campaign is facing a hefty $125,775 bill for plastering city property with 1,677 illegal campaign posters."
You'd think that the Post would have the decency not to pile on-seeing that Bloomberg is doing such a good job all by himself at playing the schoolyard bully role in this election. And, in our opinion, given the spending disparities in this campaign, Thompson probably deserves a pass on this offense. In fact, he should be allowed, like Lady Godiva, to ride naked down Broadway just so he can attract a bit of attention amidst the electoral blizzard from Bloomberg ($30 million on TV ads alone!).
The city's political problems-along with those of the state as well-are going to present huge challenges. When he first came into office, Bloomberg broke his campaign pledges, and raised taxes to obscene levels-something that we're all still paying for today. With that gambit apparently foreclosed, he's left to emulating Mack the Knife-and with his dour unlovable personality we just might enjoy the spectacle, and the public distaste that it generates, once the cuts begin.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Après Batts Le Déluge
As the NY Times is reporting, Judge Deborah Batts has issued a court order mandating-without any hearing from the involved parties, that the deposit on water bottles will commence October, 31st-giving retailers scant time to comply; and leaving water distributors scrambling to devise redemption systems: " federal judge issued an order on Friday lifting an injunction on an expansion of the state’s bottle bill, meaning that nickel deposits will be imposed on bottled water starting Oct. 31. All containers of water under a gallon will have a 5-cent refundable deposit, as beer and soda containers have had for years."
Get ready for the water tax folks: "The Food Industry Alliance of New York State, a trade group representing groceries, has said the expansion will increase the cost of a 24-pack of water by $2." And it will-but first the upcoming chaos.
As we argued the other day-at a time when we had no idea that Judge Batts would, well, go batty: "What is clear, is that the water distributors better gear up-and fast-if they want to avoid a disruption in their distribution system. As we have advised some of the impacted companies: "The expansion of the New York State Returnable Container Act to water creates some unique challenges for the new players in the redemption system.. The reason lies with the fact that the water companies-from the largest on down-are nor geared up to do this redemption work, and will need considerable help in order to simply avoid the kind of chaos that could easily spill over into their distribution network, and hurt sales."
So now, with no system really in place, water bottlers and distributors need to figure out how best to comply with the new law-and do so on the run. But just remember, when you pay $1.50 for the bottle of water that used to cost only a buck, it's courtesy of the governor and the environmental advocates. But at least you all can sleep well, knowing that all of the unredeemed deposits are going to be earmarked for a good cause. As the Times reminds us: "Governor Paterson issued a statement on Friday saying that 80 percent of unclaimed deposits would go to the state as much-needed revenue."
Whew! We feel so much better now.
Get ready for the water tax folks: "The Food Industry Alliance of New York State, a trade group representing groceries, has said the expansion will increase the cost of a 24-pack of water by $2." And it will-but first the upcoming chaos.
As we argued the other day-at a time when we had no idea that Judge Batts would, well, go batty: "What is clear, is that the water distributors better gear up-and fast-if they want to avoid a disruption in their distribution system. As we have advised some of the impacted companies: "The expansion of the New York State Returnable Container Act to water creates some unique challenges for the new players in the redemption system.. The reason lies with the fact that the water companies-from the largest on down-are nor geared up to do this redemption work, and will need considerable help in order to simply avoid the kind of chaos that could easily spill over into their distribution network, and hurt sales."
So now, with no system really in place, water bottlers and distributors need to figure out how best to comply with the new law-and do so on the run. But just remember, when you pay $1.50 for the bottle of water that used to cost only a buck, it's courtesy of the governor and the environmental advocates. But at least you all can sleep well, knowing that all of the unredeemed deposits are going to be earmarked for a good cause. As the Times reminds us: "Governor Paterson issued a statement on Friday saying that 80 percent of unclaimed deposits would go to the state as much-needed revenue."
Whew! We feel so much better now.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Profitable Investigation Points in the Right Direction
It looks as if AG Cuomo is serious about his pledge to investigate the political activities of so called not-for-profits in New York. If you remember, we jump started some of this when we helped to point out the questionable activities of Claire Shulman and her papier-mâché LDC. Our actions-along with a letter to Cuomo's office, was reported on by the NY Times.
As the Times report said: "The attorney general’s office is reviewing the complaint. In recent months, the office has been looking into lobbying by local development corporations, and has identified a “small but not insignificant set” of groups that appear to be improperly lobbying, said a person briefed on the attorney general’s initial review."
Now the first phase of the AG's efforts is beginning to bear fruit-as the NY Post exclusive story reveals today: "As part of a probe into sleazy "pay-to-play" donations made by nonprofit groups, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has ordered dozens of charities to take back illegal contributions they've made to politicians -- or lose their tax-exempt status, The Post has learned. Cuomo has begun notifying individual charities by letter that he's on to their wrongdoing. His office has uncovered improper campaign donations to state and city lawmakers that have been made by dozens of nonprofits, despite laws that bar them from such political activity. "The issue of charities or not-for-profits giving political contributions is a matter we are currently investigating. It is not appropriate, and it is not legal, and we want to make sure it doesn't happen anymore," a spokesman for Cuomo told The Post."
This is, as we have pointed out, only the tip of the iceberg. And Shulman's political effort went way beyond simply writing a check. As the Queens Tribune laid out: "In the build-up and battle for the redevelopment of the Iron Triangle, the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corporation championed the proposed rezoning and rebuilding of the 62-acre plot of land. With former Borough President Claire Shulman, 83, at the helm, the corporation actively promoted Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s plan. It initially hired prominent lobbying firm the Parkside Group before advocating the plan to elected officials – and then taking over those duties itself, spending about $450,000 on lobbying efforts."
If pay for play is your target, than Shulman's group is the poster child here. But the focus takes on a different dimension when Mike Blooomberg is involves-since whenever he is, the money flows, but it does so downstream from his own rich mother load. And we're hopeful that Cuomo will expand the scope of his investigation and recognize the Shulman scheme for what it is-an improper use of not-for-profit staus to achieve a political goal.
The AG's office gets the larger picture-so we're relatively confident that it will rathchet up its probe; even if it hits close to his home base of Queens: "Federal and state laws bar non-profits from making donations to candidates or officeholders, as well as participating in their campaigns.
Charities that break the law risk losing their tax-exempt status."
As should Claire's bogus LDC. But if Cuomo does do this, and the LDC is chastised properly, will the entire effort to rezone Willets Point be legally tainted (as fruit of the poisonous tree)? Let's see how the Ag's investigation continues-but Willets Point United urges him to show no fear or favor when it comes to the breaking of the law in these matters.
As the Times report said: "The attorney general’s office is reviewing the complaint. In recent months, the office has been looking into lobbying by local development corporations, and has identified a “small but not insignificant set” of groups that appear to be improperly lobbying, said a person briefed on the attorney general’s initial review."
Now the first phase of the AG's efforts is beginning to bear fruit-as the NY Post exclusive story reveals today: "As part of a probe into sleazy "pay-to-play" donations made by nonprofit groups, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has ordered dozens of charities to take back illegal contributions they've made to politicians -- or lose their tax-exempt status, The Post has learned. Cuomo has begun notifying individual charities by letter that he's on to their wrongdoing. His office has uncovered improper campaign donations to state and city lawmakers that have been made by dozens of nonprofits, despite laws that bar them from such political activity. "The issue of charities or not-for-profits giving political contributions is a matter we are currently investigating. It is not appropriate, and it is not legal, and we want to make sure it doesn't happen anymore," a spokesman for Cuomo told The Post."
This is, as we have pointed out, only the tip of the iceberg. And Shulman's political effort went way beyond simply writing a check. As the Queens Tribune laid out: "In the build-up and battle for the redevelopment of the Iron Triangle, the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corporation championed the proposed rezoning and rebuilding of the 62-acre plot of land. With former Borough President Claire Shulman, 83, at the helm, the corporation actively promoted Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s plan. It initially hired prominent lobbying firm the Parkside Group before advocating the plan to elected officials – and then taking over those duties itself, spending about $450,000 on lobbying efforts."
If pay for play is your target, than Shulman's group is the poster child here. But the focus takes on a different dimension when Mike Blooomberg is involves-since whenever he is, the money flows, but it does so downstream from his own rich mother load. And we're hopeful that Cuomo will expand the scope of his investigation and recognize the Shulman scheme for what it is-an improper use of not-for-profit staus to achieve a political goal.
The AG's office gets the larger picture-so we're relatively confident that it will rathchet up its probe; even if it hits close to his home base of Queens: "Federal and state laws bar non-profits from making donations to candidates or officeholders, as well as participating in their campaigns.
Charities that break the law risk losing their tax-exempt status."
As should Claire's bogus LDC. But if Cuomo does do this, and the LDC is chastised properly, will the entire effort to rezone Willets Point be legally tainted (as fruit of the poisonous tree)? Let's see how the Ag's investigation continues-but Willets Point United urges him to show no fear or favor when it comes to the breaking of the law in these matters.
Not Everyone's a Fan
Yesterday we expressed our thanks to the Village Voice for its recognition of our work-and that of this blog-on behalf of small business, But not everyone is a fan, and the Atlantic Yards blog responded to the award with the following riposte: "WTF? Can't the Voice look beyond his SAT words--words the press should know--and consider the contradictions: NYC Lobbyist Search shows (click on graphic to enlarge) Lipsky working for Willets Point United and Tuck-It-Away, which are fighting eminent domain in Willets Point and West Harlem, respectively, while working for the Atlantic Yards Development Company and Forest City Ratner, which are hoping to gain from eminent domain in Prospect Heights."
Our good friend Norman Oder is upset because the Voice didn't go into a greater in-depth evaluation of our record? What the AY foes fail to realize, is that their fight over the Ratner project is not the sine qua non of deciding whether someone deserves either credit or opprobrium-and, if it's more in-depth analysis that they're looking for, well, there simply isn't enough room to detail all that we've done for small businesses over the past 28 years.
And we've done this work when no other lobbyists would even stoop so low-busy as they are with trading up. This is, however, no critique of my colleagues, since we have no problem taking on clients both large and small; it is simply a statement of fact, and an effort to set the record straight. So while the opponents of AY lawyer on, we can point to dozens of large scale developments that we have stymied over the three decade span of our work. Now that's an asterisk that couldn't be fit into the small Voice tribute.
And speaking of fans, our blog post on DOH hypocrisy that was reprinted in the NY Post last week generated some interesting reader responses. Here's T Cahill's: "I like Richard Lipsky's logic ("Healthy-Eating Hypocrites," PostOpin- ion, Oct. 15). It's true that the McDonald's coupon giveaway is only symptomatic. All it does is reinforce bad behavior. If you treat people like adults, there's the chance they will begin to respect themselves and start to act like adults. If you treat them like children, you are always going to get childlike behavior. Educate them, help them think for themselves, and everybody wins. Then you can start handing out broccoli coupons."
Other folks aren't as optimistic; and Brian Daniels disagrees with our assessment that you should treat people as adults-feeling it just won't work: "I agree that our current nanny-state approach is overbearing, but Lipsky's argument for educating people and treating them as functional adults is weak. Last Sunday, at the movies, a woman who was clean and well-dressed sat in my row. She was smart enough to come to the half-price show and was there on time. To use Lipsky's term, she appeared to be functional. However, she was 75 to 100 pounds overweight, and as soon as she sat down, she ate two hot dogs and a large soda. What kind of education does Lipsky think she needs? If she is a functional adult who can think and act for herself, why is she doing what she is doing? What will a broccoli lesson do for her behavior?"
The moral of all this? You can't worry about what some people might say-and the arm chair critics who haven't done anything but carp are legion-and you have to try to do what you think is right. Just don't emulate Anita Dunn and use Mao as a role model for individual conscience.
Our good friend Norman Oder is upset because the Voice didn't go into a greater in-depth evaluation of our record? What the AY foes fail to realize, is that their fight over the Ratner project is not the sine qua non of deciding whether someone deserves either credit or opprobrium-and, if it's more in-depth analysis that they're looking for, well, there simply isn't enough room to detail all that we've done for small businesses over the past 28 years.
And we've done this work when no other lobbyists would even stoop so low-busy as they are with trading up. This is, however, no critique of my colleagues, since we have no problem taking on clients both large and small; it is simply a statement of fact, and an effort to set the record straight. So while the opponents of AY lawyer on, we can point to dozens of large scale developments that we have stymied over the three decade span of our work. Now that's an asterisk that couldn't be fit into the small Voice tribute.
And speaking of fans, our blog post on DOH hypocrisy that was reprinted in the NY Post last week generated some interesting reader responses. Here's T Cahill's: "I like Richard Lipsky's logic ("Healthy-Eating Hypocrites," PostOpin- ion, Oct. 15). It's true that the McDonald's coupon giveaway is only symptomatic. All it does is reinforce bad behavior. If you treat people like adults, there's the chance they will begin to respect themselves and start to act like adults. If you treat them like children, you are always going to get childlike behavior. Educate them, help them think for themselves, and everybody wins. Then you can start handing out broccoli coupons."
Other folks aren't as optimistic; and Brian Daniels disagrees with our assessment that you should treat people as adults-feeling it just won't work: "I agree that our current nanny-state approach is overbearing, but Lipsky's argument for educating people and treating them as functional adults is weak. Last Sunday, at the movies, a woman who was clean and well-dressed sat in my row. She was smart enough to come to the half-price show and was there on time. To use Lipsky's term, she appeared to be functional. However, she was 75 to 100 pounds overweight, and as soon as she sat down, she ate two hot dogs and a large soda. What kind of education does Lipsky think she needs? If she is a functional adult who can think and act for herself, why is she doing what she is doing? What will a broccoli lesson do for her behavior?"
The moral of all this? You can't worry about what some people might say-and the arm chair critics who haven't done anything but carp are legion-and you have to try to do what you think is right. Just don't emulate Anita Dunn and use Mao as a role model for individual conscience.
The Buck Passes Here
You have to give Governor Paterson credit for one thing-innovation; no one has thought of a new way to not enforce the tax laws against Indian cigarette retailers until he came along and somehow decided that this was really a federal issue: "Gov. David Paterson is concerned that members of the stat’s Indian tribes may engage in “violence and civil unrest” if he attempts to tax cigarettes sold at reservation smoke shops.In a letter dated Sept. 23, Paterson asked three of the state’s top federal prosecutors to help him assess the possibility of violent demonstrations if the state begins collecting its $2.75 per-pack tax on cigarettes sold at tribal shops.Paterson also asked the Justice Department for an “operational commitment to help mitigate any disturbances that might occur.”
How pathetic! Come on, David, New York State has the wherewithal to solve this problem-and the resources needed to combat the threat, or the reality, of Indian violence. This is all classic buck passing-and with Paterson it's kinda like an Olympic sport; but the need to once and for all let violence-prone law breakers know who's in charge is long over due: "Gov. David Paterson is concerned that members of the state’s Indian tribes may engage in “violence and civil unrest” if he attempts to tax cigarettes sold at reservation smoke shops.In a letter dated Sept. 23, Paterson asked three of the state’s top federal prosecutors to help him assess the possibility of violent demonstrations if the state begins collecting its $2.75 per-pack tax on cigarettes sold at tribal shops.Paterson also asked the Justice Department for an “operational commitment to help mitigate any disturbances that might occur.”
He might as well have requested some help in just doing his job-since this tax avoidance could be as much as $700 million a year: "Since then, the reservation shops have become among the biggest cigarette dealers in the state, selling more than 300 million packs annually. Some reservations are now also home to cigarette factories churning out native brands sold throughout the U.S.But with the state desperate for new revenue, Paterson is signaling he is giving the issue new thought."
But listen to the timidity expressed: "In his Sept. 23 letter, the governor told the U.S. attorneys for Western New York, Northern New York and Long Island that while his intent was to continue negotiating with the tribes, he wished to assess the possibility “of a repeat of the violent demonstrations that occurred in 1997” if the state were to act without an agreement.“I would be grateful if you would please review this matter and provide me with your assessment as to the likelihood of violence and civil unrest,” he wrote."
Please! As one upstate opponent of this foot dragging points out, you don't refuse to enforce the law out of fear that some will violently oppose: "If violent reactions are expected, it makes sense to prepare a counterforce to deal with it – including being ready to call in the U.S. National Guard, said attorney David Vickers, president of the Upstate Citizens for Equality,But the taxes should be collected regardless of what reaction is anticipated, he said.“I think that if public policy is created and pursued or not based on whether a segment of the population may get violent or not, you have an extremely weak public policy maker on your hands,” Vickers said. “I am astounded that we have had four governors who are afraid to do their job.”
But don't expect any action soon from the dithering governor-he's shucking and ducking, as Tom Precious of the Buffalo News reports: "Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, said that it is “fair” for the public to ask, “How much money, if any, can be reasonably expected from the collection of those taxes? And is there a plan to move forward consistent with the law?” Paterson, in response, dismissed some of the “bloated projections” involving how much the state could reap if the taxes were brought in. Lawmakers have said $1 billion is lost each year by Albany to Indian sales of tax-free cigarettes. “No state has collected more than $75 million from Indians,” Paterson said...The issue of collecting taxes from the Indians is a law enforcement issue, and very much a federal issue,” Paterson said."
But no state is tax free central like our is: "Advocates of the tax-collection effort, though, have said New York is a major tax-free haven for Indian retailers, especially those on the Seneca Nation reservations, because of the state’s relatively high tobacco tax rate and large population base." And it is the state's tax payers and convenience store owners that are victimized by leaders without spines.
But we would caution, that the call for the federal cavalry is not the optimistic sign of imminent action that the NY Post envisioned in its editorial yesterday: "Gov. Paterson has asked the US Justice Department to back him up if any at tempt to finally collect unpaid cigarette taxes at Indian reservations is met -- as it has been before -- with "violence and civil unrest." That's welcome news on two fronts: It suggests that the governor is prepared to correct this outrageous flouting of state law, as we've long urged, and that he understands the violent resistance that could result."
Nah. It's simply a dilatory measure; and real action awaits another chief executive with the cojones to simply enforce the law. Paterson should just stop pretending-and if he wants too do something, just do it without asking permission from the grown ups.
How pathetic! Come on, David, New York State has the wherewithal to solve this problem-and the resources needed to combat the threat, or the reality, of Indian violence. This is all classic buck passing-and with Paterson it's kinda like an Olympic sport; but the need to once and for all let violence-prone law breakers know who's in charge is long over due: "Gov. David Paterson is concerned that members of the state’s Indian tribes may engage in “violence and civil unrest” if he attempts to tax cigarettes sold at reservation smoke shops.In a letter dated Sept. 23, Paterson asked three of the state’s top federal prosecutors to help him assess the possibility of violent demonstrations if the state begins collecting its $2.75 per-pack tax on cigarettes sold at tribal shops.Paterson also asked the Justice Department for an “operational commitment to help mitigate any disturbances that might occur.”
He might as well have requested some help in just doing his job-since this tax avoidance could be as much as $700 million a year: "Since then, the reservation shops have become among the biggest cigarette dealers in the state, selling more than 300 million packs annually. Some reservations are now also home to cigarette factories churning out native brands sold throughout the U.S.But with the state desperate for new revenue, Paterson is signaling he is giving the issue new thought."
But listen to the timidity expressed: "In his Sept. 23 letter, the governor told the U.S. attorneys for Western New York, Northern New York and Long Island that while his intent was to continue negotiating with the tribes, he wished to assess the possibility “of a repeat of the violent demonstrations that occurred in 1997” if the state were to act without an agreement.“I would be grateful if you would please review this matter and provide me with your assessment as to the likelihood of violence and civil unrest,” he wrote."
Please! As one upstate opponent of this foot dragging points out, you don't refuse to enforce the law out of fear that some will violently oppose: "If violent reactions are expected, it makes sense to prepare a counterforce to deal with it – including being ready to call in the U.S. National Guard, said attorney David Vickers, president of the Upstate Citizens for Equality,But the taxes should be collected regardless of what reaction is anticipated, he said.“I think that if public policy is created and pursued or not based on whether a segment of the population may get violent or not, you have an extremely weak public policy maker on your hands,” Vickers said. “I am astounded that we have had four governors who are afraid to do their job.”
But don't expect any action soon from the dithering governor-he's shucking and ducking, as Tom Precious of the Buffalo News reports: "Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, said that it is “fair” for the public to ask, “How much money, if any, can be reasonably expected from the collection of those taxes? And is there a plan to move forward consistent with the law?” Paterson, in response, dismissed some of the “bloated projections” involving how much the state could reap if the taxes were brought in. Lawmakers have said $1 billion is lost each year by Albany to Indian sales of tax-free cigarettes. “No state has collected more than $75 million from Indians,” Paterson said...The issue of collecting taxes from the Indians is a law enforcement issue, and very much a federal issue,” Paterson said."
But no state is tax free central like our is: "Advocates of the tax-collection effort, though, have said New York is a major tax-free haven for Indian retailers, especially those on the Seneca Nation reservations, because of the state’s relatively high tobacco tax rate and large population base." And it is the state's tax payers and convenience store owners that are victimized by leaders without spines.
But we would caution, that the call for the federal cavalry is not the optimistic sign of imminent action that the NY Post envisioned in its editorial yesterday: "Gov. Paterson has asked the US Justice Department to back him up if any at tempt to finally collect unpaid cigarette taxes at Indian reservations is met -- as it has been before -- with "violence and civil unrest." That's welcome news on two fronts: It suggests that the governor is prepared to correct this outrageous flouting of state law, as we've long urged, and that he understands the violent resistance that could result."
Nah. It's simply a dilatory measure; and real action awaits another chief executive with the cojones to simply enforce the law. Paterson should just stop pretending-and if he wants too do something, just do it without asking permission from the grown ups.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Kudos From the Village Voice
We need to thank the folks over at the Village Voice for recognizing our work on behalf of small business-and awarding Richard Lipsky as the, "Best Small Business Lobbyist." It should, however, be pointed out that there aren't too many lobbyists to choose from in the category, as the Voice realizes: "In a city where lobbyists get paid big bucks to whisper quietly to influential politicians, Richard Lipsky will have none of it. He barks, bellows, and bites. When handed the microphone at a rally, he's as good a rabble-rouser as an irate Bronx tenant. This is not how lobbyists are supposed to do business, but Lipsky has long gone his own way. Victims who can attest to the sharpness of his bite include the likes of Wal-Mart—defeated three times in its bid to find sites for giant local box stores."
And thanks for the recognition of our blog as well: "Another un-lobbyist-like tool is his nonstop blog—cloyingly dubbed "momandpopnyc.com"—which regularly takes journalists to task on subjects ranging from Israel to school testing. He may also be the only lobbyist now working City Hall to hold a Ph.D., which he sometimes can't help showing off: His blog posts often include words like "avidity"—which he knows the press corps will have to look up."
Still, the greatest recognition we can receive, comes from helping yet another little guy defeat the less than honorable intentions of the city-usually done on behalf of some fat cat developer. It's been a rewarding almost three decades, and we don't feel the need to slow down since there are so many good fights left to wage.
And thanks for the recognition of our blog as well: "Another un-lobbyist-like tool is his nonstop blog—cloyingly dubbed "momandpopnyc.com"—which regularly takes journalists to task on subjects ranging from Israel to school testing. He may also be the only lobbyist now working City Hall to hold a Ph.D., which he sometimes can't help showing off: His blog posts often include words like "avidity"—which he knows the press corps will have to look up."
Still, the greatest recognition we can receive, comes from helping yet another little guy defeat the less than honorable intentions of the city-usually done on behalf of some fat cat developer. It's been a rewarding almost three decades, and we don't feel the need to slow down since there are so many good fights left to wage.
Armory PlanTrashed
The Riverdale Press weighs in on the Kingsbridge Armory plan-and doesn't like what it sees so far: "The Kingsbridge Armory has taken another crucial step toward becoming a mall. What a relief. The City Planning Commission has voted 8 to 4 to allow the private development project, which will be completed with massive public help, to proceed. Soon more jobs flipping burgers for starvation wages will be available to people who will be unable to afford to take them. What more can the Bronx ask for?"
Apparently, a great deal more: "In fact, the people of Kingsbridge Heights, labor unions and many elected representatives have asked for considerably more. They’ve asked for money to help build schools. They’ve asked for the jobs that will be created inside the enormous near-centuryold structure to pay enough to become the first rung on a ladder out of poverty, rather than another endless plateau of poverty and disenfranchisement."
But, according to the RP-as it was with the BTM-so far Related's got the goldmine, and the community the shaft: "The company gets to buy a massive, historic structure of 600,000 cavernous square feet, under a roof that stretches to the sky, for $5 million. Not a bad deal considering the fact that a 2,000-square foot apartment on 3rd Avenue in Manhattan can go for about the same price. It’s true that the space isn’t doing much right now, and the city can certainly use this drop in the bucket during tight economic times. Still, it’s hard to buy the idea that the economic stimulus provided by yet another mall (have we already forgotten the brand-spanking new Gateway Center?) will really help the community turn much of a profit, let alone the city as a whole. Related is being given massive tax incentives as well as the sweetheart pricing as an added enticement to make a large profit in Kingsbridge Heights. That means that the city won’t get much back, at least directly, from the mall it (meaning us) will help to subsidize."
No it won't-and this epitomizes the Bloomberg economic development strategy; a cornucopia for the special interests (of which Related is more equal than others), and crumbs for the communities: "Related says that if it is forced to provide a better deal for Kingsbridge Heights, including a guarantee that people who work inside will get paid a fair wage, it will have to scrap its entire plan. If that’s a threat, it’s unclear whom it would hurt. It is now looking like the people of the Northwest Bronx — even those the mall will employ — will end up standing on the outside. They will be unable to buy many of the things they will sell as clerks or keep track of as stockroom employees. Who will be making patties one minute and buying a $20 candle the next?
Who needs another place to buy a $20 candle in the first place?"
And the local paper has some advice for the local council member: "Today is the day to ask Oliver Koppell to help persuade other members of the City Council to vote no on this development unless there are specific guarantees to the people of the borough. Guarantees that there will be something in it for them — for us — other than bad jobs and luxuries far too many are unable to afford."
We'll give Bronx BP Ruben Diaz the last word on this idea: " People are starting to realize that this is something that has to happen citywide. We need to shift the paradigm. We want development. We want corporate America to make their money -- but in partnership with the people."
Apparently, a great deal more: "In fact, the people of Kingsbridge Heights, labor unions and many elected representatives have asked for considerably more. They’ve asked for money to help build schools. They’ve asked for the jobs that will be created inside the enormous near-centuryold structure to pay enough to become the first rung on a ladder out of poverty, rather than another endless plateau of poverty and disenfranchisement."
But, according to the RP-as it was with the BTM-so far Related's got the goldmine, and the community the shaft: "The company gets to buy a massive, historic structure of 600,000 cavernous square feet, under a roof that stretches to the sky, for $5 million. Not a bad deal considering the fact that a 2,000-square foot apartment on 3rd Avenue in Manhattan can go for about the same price. It’s true that the space isn’t doing much right now, and the city can certainly use this drop in the bucket during tight economic times. Still, it’s hard to buy the idea that the economic stimulus provided by yet another mall (have we already forgotten the brand-spanking new Gateway Center?) will really help the community turn much of a profit, let alone the city as a whole. Related is being given massive tax incentives as well as the sweetheart pricing as an added enticement to make a large profit in Kingsbridge Heights. That means that the city won’t get much back, at least directly, from the mall it (meaning us) will help to subsidize."
No it won't-and this epitomizes the Bloomberg economic development strategy; a cornucopia for the special interests (of which Related is more equal than others), and crumbs for the communities: "Related says that if it is forced to provide a better deal for Kingsbridge Heights, including a guarantee that people who work inside will get paid a fair wage, it will have to scrap its entire plan. If that’s a threat, it’s unclear whom it would hurt. It is now looking like the people of the Northwest Bronx — even those the mall will employ — will end up standing on the outside. They will be unable to buy many of the things they will sell as clerks or keep track of as stockroom employees. Who will be making patties one minute and buying a $20 candle the next?
Who needs another place to buy a $20 candle in the first place?"
And the local paper has some advice for the local council member: "Today is the day to ask Oliver Koppell to help persuade other members of the City Council to vote no on this development unless there are specific guarantees to the people of the borough. Guarantees that there will be something in it for them — for us — other than bad jobs and luxuries far too many are unable to afford."
We'll give Bronx BP Ruben Diaz the last word on this idea: " People are starting to realize that this is something that has to happen citywide. We need to shift the paradigm. We want development. We want corporate America to make their money -- but in partnership with the people."
Bottle Bill Delayed Again
For those who thought that today's judicial hearing on the expansion of the state's bottle bill would end the current bottleneck, think again: "The potential start of the state's collection of 5-cent deposits on bottles of water was delayed Tuesday by a federal court judge. U.S. District Court Judge Deborah Batts delayed a Thursday hearing in Manhattan in which the state had hoped to get the go ahead to implement the program, which was approved in April."
There are, however, behind the scenes negotiations being conducted in order to end the stalemate-but the end, or, perhaps, the beginning, doesn't appear to be near: "Batts notified the parties that the hearing would be delayed because of an ongoing criminal trial she's overseeing. The sides are also working on a potential settlement that could end the court's involvement, officials said. Either way, the expectation that the new deposit on water could start Thursday has been washed away. There was no new hearing date set."
What is clear, is that the water distributors better gear up-and fast-if they want to avoid a disruption in their distribution system. As we have advised some of the impacted companies: "The expansion of the New York State Returnable Container Act to water creates some unique challenges for the new players in the redemption system.. The reason lies with the fact that the water companies-from the largest on down-are nor geared up to do this redemption work, and will need considerable help in order to simply avoid the kind of chaos that could easily spill over into their distribution network, and hurt sales."
And from where we're observing, it doesn't appear that these needed preparations have been made. Gearing up is complicated by the fact that the state's largest third party collector, Boro Recycling, is under an indictment cloud: "Five Long Island beverage dealers are among seven people who have been arrested as part of an elaborate scam to re-redeem bottle deposits at 7 cents a clip. The dealers, four operating in the town of Islip, made hundreds of thousands of dollars by redeeming beverage containers more than once. The scheme involves BORO Recycling NYC shipping bottles and cans they receive for recycling back to Long Island for re-redemption. Joseph Luzzi, owner of BORO Recycling, allegedly recruited beverage dealers to participate in the scheme, Suffolk County District Attorney Tom Spota said. It involved BORO employee Robert Grady scheduling deliveries and at times himself delivering truckloads of cans and bottles to the beverage dealers for re-redemption."
All of which underscores the need for the state to come up with a more sophisticated enforcement mechanism-particularly now since 80% of the unredeemed nickels are going to the public trough. In addition, in our view, this new reality opens up an opportunity for the state to set up rules that would encourage third part pick ups-and remove redemption from beer wholesalers and bottlers, freeing them up to concentrate on their core businesses.
There are, however, behind the scenes negotiations being conducted in order to end the stalemate-but the end, or, perhaps, the beginning, doesn't appear to be near: "Batts notified the parties that the hearing would be delayed because of an ongoing criminal trial she's overseeing. The sides are also working on a potential settlement that could end the court's involvement, officials said. Either way, the expectation that the new deposit on water could start Thursday has been washed away. There was no new hearing date set."
What is clear, is that the water distributors better gear up-and fast-if they want to avoid a disruption in their distribution system. As we have advised some of the impacted companies: "The expansion of the New York State Returnable Container Act to water creates some unique challenges for the new players in the redemption system.. The reason lies with the fact that the water companies-from the largest on down-are nor geared up to do this redemption work, and will need considerable help in order to simply avoid the kind of chaos that could easily spill over into their distribution network, and hurt sales."
And from where we're observing, it doesn't appear that these needed preparations have been made. Gearing up is complicated by the fact that the state's largest third party collector, Boro Recycling, is under an indictment cloud: "Five Long Island beverage dealers are among seven people who have been arrested as part of an elaborate scam to re-redeem bottle deposits at 7 cents a clip. The dealers, four operating in the town of Islip, made hundreds of thousands of dollars by redeeming beverage containers more than once. The scheme involves BORO Recycling NYC shipping bottles and cans they receive for recycling back to Long Island for re-redemption. Joseph Luzzi, owner of BORO Recycling, allegedly recruited beverage dealers to participate in the scheme, Suffolk County District Attorney Tom Spota said. It involved BORO employee Robert Grady scheduling deliveries and at times himself delivering truckloads of cans and bottles to the beverage dealers for re-redemption."
All of which underscores the need for the state to come up with a more sophisticated enforcement mechanism-particularly now since 80% of the unredeemed nickels are going to the public trough. In addition, in our view, this new reality opens up an opportunity for the state to set up rules that would encourage third part pick ups-and remove redemption from beer wholesalers and bottlers, freeing them up to concentrate on their core businesses.
Getting an Education
NYC voters are getting an education-a lesson in mendacity as the Bloomberg campaign, not simply satisfied with a 16-1 spending advantage, is now using some Bloombucks to tar Bill Thompson's record when he headed the old BOE. As the NY Times reports, however, the attack is mendacious. And the effort by the mayor's campaign is both mean spirited and smacks of desperation.
As the Times describes, Thompson, with little statutory power, played the skillful role of middleman between rival factions and a headstrong Mayor Giuliani:
"Mr. Thompson is running for mayor now, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg regularly excoriates his educational leadership. Mr. Thompson, the mayor has suggested, must answer for virtually every failure, from board infighting to low graduation rates, leaky roofs and test-grading scandals.
But Mr. Thompson’s role, interviews and a review of records show, was sometimes greater and often less than this critique suggests. The conciliatory Mr. Thompson rarely lost his footing, counted votes with a mathematician’s care and supported chancellors, including Mr. Levy, who broke the power of local school boards, took over failing schools and concentrated power in their hands. Test scores over all rose for four straight years as the reforms took hold."
Not only that, but Thompson's abilities were recognized and supported by one Rudy Giuliani: "In his book “Leadership,” Mr. Giuliani expressed something like affection for Mr. Thompson. The Brooklyn Democrat, the mayor explained, was in the pocket of the United Federation of Teachers and opposed to reform. And yet: “I often thought his reasons were wrong, but to his credit he didn’t try to finesse us; that’s why I always asked my two appointees to support Bill for board president.”
Let's remember, as the Times article helps us do, that the old BOE was so unmanageable that even a Giuliani often found himself helpless to control its direction: "Each borough president appointed a board member. The mayor appointed two, and controlled its budget. The board elected the president and hired the chancellor. A strong cup of coffee like Mr. Giuliani could influence but not control the board, and his feuds with chancellors made for antic political theater. (Four chancellors were chosen in Mr. Giuliani’s eight-year reign; all but the last left, figuratively, feet first.)"
In fact, if the Bloombergistas want to level attacks of this kind on Thompson-and any attacks that single out individuals out of context are basically dishonest-they might just as well demonize America's Mayor for haplessness in the face of Board chaos. But only the chancellor can really be seen as the face of education in NYC during the reign of the old BOE: “If you think back to any point in the history of the city’s schools, the chancellor is the name that comes to mind, not the board president,” said Diane Ravitch, an education historian at New York University. If the chancellor, structurally and often temperamentally, was the star of the opera, the board president was the stage manager. To the extent he tended to politics efficiently, he remained in the shadows. “Thompson had not a lot of power, a strong-willed chancellor and a very difficult mayor, and he wanted to walk the road least fraught with land mines,” said former Assemblyman Steven Sanders, the chairman of the powerful Education Committee for a decade. “To say that he ran the schools is kind of silly.”
And, of course, Bloomberg knows this very well-after all, his entire rationale for mayoral control rests on the assumption that the old system was dysfunctional; and that no one, not even a Giuliani, could rein it in. Which underscores the current Bloomberg dishonesty-a conscious effort to not only mislead, but to take the voters' attention away from the fraudulent testing benchmarks that are being used to to tout the city's current educational achievements.
But the political game is tough, and when you're putting politics over progress, a little mendacity is to be expected-as it is with the anti-Thompson comments of a leading Bloomberg toady: "His was a long tenure, and Mr. Bloomberg and his aides heap scorn on it. “A true warrior speaks out and fights for mayoral control,” said Christopher Cerf, a deputy schools chancellor now working for the Bloomberg campaign. “Bill Thompson did none of that.”
Of course, if honesty was to prevail here, it would behoove Cerf to recognize that as long as Rudy Giuliani was mayor, calling for mayoral control was as pointless as peeing up a rope. But then this kind of honesty would highlight just how divisive Bloomberg's predecessor and ally really was: "Legislators suggest this criticism is not apt; they were not going to hand over control of the schools until Mr. Giuliani exited. And Mr. Thompson’s epitaph lists accomplishments, including test scores that rose for four years."
All of which underscores just how disappointing this campaign for mayor has become. Imagine if Thompson had thirty or forty million to dramatize the fraudulent test scores-or to highlight how spending on education has leaped without any real concomitant rise in achievement? But that's not gonna happen, and Bloomberg will continue to use every monetary advantage in his effort to cling to power.
Piling on, or running up the score, is not a pretty sight-but just maybe, this mendacious effort at demonizing Thompson comes from the Bloomberg campaign's own polling showing that the mayor's support is really very soft. In any case, no matter what the explanation, this kind of strategy to maintain power could very well backfire-as an unloved chief executive buys his way into a questionable third term only to face a fiscal and political reality that will, in our view, unmask the Myth of Mike unlike any opponent could ever do.
As the Times describes, Thompson, with little statutory power, played the skillful role of middleman between rival factions and a headstrong Mayor Giuliani:
"Mr. Thompson is running for mayor now, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg regularly excoriates his educational leadership. Mr. Thompson, the mayor has suggested, must answer for virtually every failure, from board infighting to low graduation rates, leaky roofs and test-grading scandals.
But Mr. Thompson’s role, interviews and a review of records show, was sometimes greater and often less than this critique suggests. The conciliatory Mr. Thompson rarely lost his footing, counted votes with a mathematician’s care and supported chancellors, including Mr. Levy, who broke the power of local school boards, took over failing schools and concentrated power in their hands. Test scores over all rose for four straight years as the reforms took hold."
Not only that, but Thompson's abilities were recognized and supported by one Rudy Giuliani: "In his book “Leadership,” Mr. Giuliani expressed something like affection for Mr. Thompson. The Brooklyn Democrat, the mayor explained, was in the pocket of the United Federation of Teachers and opposed to reform. And yet: “I often thought his reasons were wrong, but to his credit he didn’t try to finesse us; that’s why I always asked my two appointees to support Bill for board president.”
Let's remember, as the Times article helps us do, that the old BOE was so unmanageable that even a Giuliani often found himself helpless to control its direction: "Each borough president appointed a board member. The mayor appointed two, and controlled its budget. The board elected the president and hired the chancellor. A strong cup of coffee like Mr. Giuliani could influence but not control the board, and his feuds with chancellors made for antic political theater. (Four chancellors were chosen in Mr. Giuliani’s eight-year reign; all but the last left, figuratively, feet first.)"
In fact, if the Bloombergistas want to level attacks of this kind on Thompson-and any attacks that single out individuals out of context are basically dishonest-they might just as well demonize America's Mayor for haplessness in the face of Board chaos. But only the chancellor can really be seen as the face of education in NYC during the reign of the old BOE: “If you think back to any point in the history of the city’s schools, the chancellor is the name that comes to mind, not the board president,” said Diane Ravitch, an education historian at New York University. If the chancellor, structurally and often temperamentally, was the star of the opera, the board president was the stage manager. To the extent he tended to politics efficiently, he remained in the shadows. “Thompson had not a lot of power, a strong-willed chancellor and a very difficult mayor, and he wanted to walk the road least fraught with land mines,” said former Assemblyman Steven Sanders, the chairman of the powerful Education Committee for a decade. “To say that he ran the schools is kind of silly.”
And, of course, Bloomberg knows this very well-after all, his entire rationale for mayoral control rests on the assumption that the old system was dysfunctional; and that no one, not even a Giuliani, could rein it in. Which underscores the current Bloomberg dishonesty-a conscious effort to not only mislead, but to take the voters' attention away from the fraudulent testing benchmarks that are being used to to tout the city's current educational achievements.
But the political game is tough, and when you're putting politics over progress, a little mendacity is to be expected-as it is with the anti-Thompson comments of a leading Bloomberg toady: "His was a long tenure, and Mr. Bloomberg and his aides heap scorn on it. “A true warrior speaks out and fights for mayoral control,” said Christopher Cerf, a deputy schools chancellor now working for the Bloomberg campaign. “Bill Thompson did none of that.”
Of course, if honesty was to prevail here, it would behoove Cerf to recognize that as long as Rudy Giuliani was mayor, calling for mayoral control was as pointless as peeing up a rope. But then this kind of honesty would highlight just how divisive Bloomberg's predecessor and ally really was: "Legislators suggest this criticism is not apt; they were not going to hand over control of the schools until Mr. Giuliani exited. And Mr. Thompson’s epitaph lists accomplishments, including test scores that rose for four years."
All of which underscores just how disappointing this campaign for mayor has become. Imagine if Thompson had thirty or forty million to dramatize the fraudulent test scores-or to highlight how spending on education has leaped without any real concomitant rise in achievement? But that's not gonna happen, and Bloomberg will continue to use every monetary advantage in his effort to cling to power.
Piling on, or running up the score, is not a pretty sight-but just maybe, this mendacious effort at demonizing Thompson comes from the Bloomberg campaign's own polling showing that the mayor's support is really very soft. In any case, no matter what the explanation, this kind of strategy to maintain power could very well backfire-as an unloved chief executive buys his way into a questionable third term only to face a fiscal and political reality that will, in our view, unmask the Myth of Mike unlike any opponent could ever do.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Bad, But Other Would Be Worse
If you read the NY Post editorial on the fiscal acumen of one Michael Bloomberg, you might be led to believe that the paper, deeply disillusioned with the mayor, was about to throw him under a city bus: "Truth is, he frittered away boom-year revenues from Wall Street on spending bumps that left the city in worse shape than necessary. Indeed, city spending grew nearly 50 percent on his watch. When revenues have gotten tight, he's too often resorted to tax hikes -- notably, an 18.5 percent property-tax hit in 2002 and a sales-tax increase this year. And he's handed out unjustifiably generous wage hikes to unions. Teachers, for instance, got a 43 percent jump under Mike. His other recent raises were the basis for outrageous, unaffordable 11 percent, three-year hikes for transit workers."
And is this the guy who is not beholden to any special interests, and who only makes apolitical decisions? Kinda devalues the entire concept when you examine his love affair with the municipal unions. But the Post, having ginned up the third term mania, is stuck with the defense of the indispensable-arguing that others would be worse: "It may be years before the final verdict is in, but one thing's already clear: Gotham's finances would be a lot worse if Michael Bloomberg hadn't been around...Then again, Hizzoner stands head and shoulders above most other New York pols largely because everybody else is, fiscally speaking, a midget."
Well, perhaps that's so-but has the vertically challenged mayor performed well enough on this front to deserve the kind of redeemer status that the Post has anointed him with? And the unanswered nature of this question leads the Post in this worried direction: "Still, Mike is surely less beholden to the unions and other special interests than most other pols. The key question: Which Bloomberg will dominate over the next four years if he's re-elected? Despite recent gains, Wall Street isn't likely ever again to spin off enough cash to support New York's profligacy. (Institutional market changes and vindictive Dems in Washington will see to that.) Mike the clear-eyed manager could put the city on a firm fiscal footing. Mike the big spender . . . ?"
On balance, however, the big spending Bloomberg has been the most dominant persona over the past eight years, and as the Siegels have pointed out: "Under Mayor Bloomberg, city expenditures grew 40% faster than the rate of inflation even as he imposed record property-tax increases and the city's coffers overflowed with revenues culled from the booming stock and real-estate markets. To keep the politically powerful public-sector happy, Mr. Bloomberg bestowed raises two to three times the rate of inflation on the city's unionized workers. To keep politically wired developers happy, Mr. Bloomberg showered subsidies on economically dubious megaprojects..."
And NYC is in worse shape-particularly its small businesses-because of Bloomberg's profligacy: "The result is that New York, even as it's losing the luster of Wall Street, taxes small businesses the way California taxes millionaires."
That the Bloomberg record is mixed for his acolytes, underscores just what a scam this entire third term sleight-of-hand really has been. There simply isn't any rationale for overturning the will of the voters for this pig-in-a-poke third term, one that the even NY Post has trepidations about. When the paper speculates about, "which Mike," will be there for the next four years, it knows that the Bloomberg voters will be letting the pot ride on the hopes of an inside straight.
As the paper worries: "Mike the big spender . . . ? Well, that's too scary to contemplate." Our feeling? We're all going to be in for a case of Post traumatic shock.
And is this the guy who is not beholden to any special interests, and who only makes apolitical decisions? Kinda devalues the entire concept when you examine his love affair with the municipal unions. But the Post, having ginned up the third term mania, is stuck with the defense of the indispensable-arguing that others would be worse: "It may be years before the final verdict is in, but one thing's already clear: Gotham's finances would be a lot worse if Michael Bloomberg hadn't been around...Then again, Hizzoner stands head and shoulders above most other New York pols largely because everybody else is, fiscally speaking, a midget."
Well, perhaps that's so-but has the vertically challenged mayor performed well enough on this front to deserve the kind of redeemer status that the Post has anointed him with? And the unanswered nature of this question leads the Post in this worried direction: "Still, Mike is surely less beholden to the unions and other special interests than most other pols. The key question: Which Bloomberg will dominate over the next four years if he's re-elected? Despite recent gains, Wall Street isn't likely ever again to spin off enough cash to support New York's profligacy. (Institutional market changes and vindictive Dems in Washington will see to that.) Mike the clear-eyed manager could put the city on a firm fiscal footing. Mike the big spender . . . ?"
On balance, however, the big spending Bloomberg has been the most dominant persona over the past eight years, and as the Siegels have pointed out: "Under Mayor Bloomberg, city expenditures grew 40% faster than the rate of inflation even as he imposed record property-tax increases and the city's coffers overflowed with revenues culled from the booming stock and real-estate markets. To keep the politically powerful public-sector happy, Mr. Bloomberg bestowed raises two to three times the rate of inflation on the city's unionized workers. To keep politically wired developers happy, Mr. Bloomberg showered subsidies on economically dubious megaprojects..."
And NYC is in worse shape-particularly its small businesses-because of Bloomberg's profligacy: "The result is that New York, even as it's losing the luster of Wall Street, taxes small businesses the way California taxes millionaires."
That the Bloomberg record is mixed for his acolytes, underscores just what a scam this entire third term sleight-of-hand really has been. There simply isn't any rationale for overturning the will of the voters for this pig-in-a-poke third term, one that the even NY Post has trepidations about. When the paper speculates about, "which Mike," will be there for the next four years, it knows that the Bloomberg voters will be letting the pot ride on the hopes of an inside straight.
As the paper worries: "Mike the big spender . . . ? Well, that's too scary to contemplate." Our feeling? We're all going to be in for a case of Post traumatic shock.
Paterson in Fat City?
As his poll numbers continue to slip slide away, Governor Paterson has returned to an idea that was not only defeated last year, but had been previously set aside by the governor himself-the proposed fat tax on soda. As the NY Post reports: "That didn't take long! Less than week after calling on lawmakers to address New York's budget crisis without raising taxes, Gov. Paterson fizzled out and suggested he would take another pop at passing a state soda tax. "I promise I will put (the soda tax) back in my budget address and give the Legislature another chance to do it," Paterson said during an interview on WNYC. "But you can’t keep voting down the ways to create revenues and then saying you don’t want to make cuts."
But this statement belies the fact that Paterson himself has any number of ways to unilaterally cut the fat from the state budget-but wants to enlist the legislature so as to share the responsibility. But a fat tax is definitely not needed at a time when the economy is reeling-and it is basically simply a dishonest way to raise revenues by pretending you're doing something else: addressing an obesity epidemic.
And this is the kind of tax that falls disproportionately o New York's poorest citizens-the ones most likely to consume soda and other sugary products. But, just like other so-called "sin taxes," a tax on soda can be cloaked in righteousness-and that is a tempting proposition for a politician-even more so than the slug of a Pepsi on a hot summer's day.
But this statement belies the fact that Paterson himself has any number of ways to unilaterally cut the fat from the state budget-but wants to enlist the legislature so as to share the responsibility. But a fat tax is definitely not needed at a time when the economy is reeling-and it is basically simply a dishonest way to raise revenues by pretending you're doing something else: addressing an obesity epidemic.
And this is the kind of tax that falls disproportionately o New York's poorest citizens-the ones most likely to consume soda and other sugary products. But, just like other so-called "sin taxes," a tax on soda can be cloaked in righteousness-and that is a tempting proposition for a politician-even more so than the slug of a Pepsi on a hot summer's day.
A Kingsbridge Too Far?
The NY Daily News has also weighed in on Monday's CPC vote on the application to develop the Kingsbridge Armory: "Opponents of the developer's plans for the Kingsbridge Armory are bringing out the big guns for the final battle as the proposal moves to the City Council.
In a rare split vote that suggests growing opposition, the City Planning Commission approved on Monday a proposal by The Related Companies to turn the vast armory into a shopping mall. It voted 8 to 4 with one abstention. Commissioners representing the borough presidents of the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan, as well as the public advocate's representative, all voted against the project."
So, with the issue of a supermarket and a living wage still unresolved, the measure now goes to the City Council's Zoning and Franchises Committee: "The project's first stop in the Council will be the Zoning and Franchise subcommittee chaired by Councilman Tony Avella (D-Queens), who said yesterday the split commission vote signals significant opposition to the current proposal. "There are a lot of issues to be resolved," Avella said."
There are nine votes on the subcommittee, and if the application fails to get a five vote majority, it could be defeated at that point-exactly as the Related effort to put a BJs on Brush Avenue was four years ago. At that time, Related withdrew its proposal when it determined that there wasn't enough support for the store at the council.
Which very well could happen again if the growing labor opposition is any indication: "A letter from union leaders to all Council members, urges them to demand Related accept a community benefits agreement drawn up by Diaz that requires a living wage. The letter was signed by the heads of Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ, SEIU Local 1199, the United Federation of Teachers, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees DC 37, and the Hotel & Motel Trades Council. Collectively, these unions represent 750,000 workers in the city. In a separate letter, Gary LaBarbera, president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, also wrote to Council members advocating a living wage requirement. LaBarbera's group represents 100,000 members."
Still, much work needs to be done-and the council's eventually position remains unclear since there is so much uncertainty in the body as a result of attrition and the influx of considerable new blood: "The Council can vote to reject the proposal, approve it as is, or approve it with certain conditions attached, such as a living wage requirement or mandatory community benefits agreement. Opponents may have to wrangle a super-majority of Council votes to block the project, since Mayor Bloomberg - who has expressed support for the plan - can overturn a rejection by a simple majority. The Council would need a two-thirds vote to override the mayor's veto."
However, if there is enough support garnered for excluding a supermarket and including a living wage provision, than the formal need for a super majority is just that-a formality, Because the legislature, once it makes a decision, will insure that the decision is upheld-and leadership will be loathe to to allow the mayor to overrode its wishes at a time when the speaker's position will soon be decided for another four years.
But opponents have much work to do before they even reach that point-and in this business, nothing is written in stone, Still, the goals are within reach, and the next 50 days will tell the tale.
Update
As Crain's Insider is reporting: " The Central Labor Council has passed a resolution asking City Council members to demand living-wage jobs at a redeveloped Kingsbridge Armory, joining more than half a dozen other labor organizations that have made similar calls." This puts even more heat on the council, which will probably have its first hearing the second week in November.
In a rare split vote that suggests growing opposition, the City Planning Commission approved on Monday a proposal by The Related Companies to turn the vast armory into a shopping mall. It voted 8 to 4 with one abstention. Commissioners representing the borough presidents of the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan, as well as the public advocate's representative, all voted against the project."
So, with the issue of a supermarket and a living wage still unresolved, the measure now goes to the City Council's Zoning and Franchises Committee: "The project's first stop in the Council will be the Zoning and Franchise subcommittee chaired by Councilman Tony Avella (D-Queens), who said yesterday the split commission vote signals significant opposition to the current proposal. "There are a lot of issues to be resolved," Avella said."
There are nine votes on the subcommittee, and if the application fails to get a five vote majority, it could be defeated at that point-exactly as the Related effort to put a BJs on Brush Avenue was four years ago. At that time, Related withdrew its proposal when it determined that there wasn't enough support for the store at the council.
Which very well could happen again if the growing labor opposition is any indication: "A letter from union leaders to all Council members, urges them to demand Related accept a community benefits agreement drawn up by Diaz that requires a living wage. The letter was signed by the heads of Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ, SEIU Local 1199, the United Federation of Teachers, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees DC 37, and the Hotel & Motel Trades Council. Collectively, these unions represent 750,000 workers in the city. In a separate letter, Gary LaBarbera, president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, also wrote to Council members advocating a living wage requirement. LaBarbera's group represents 100,000 members."
Still, much work needs to be done-and the council's eventually position remains unclear since there is so much uncertainty in the body as a result of attrition and the influx of considerable new blood: "The Council can vote to reject the proposal, approve it as is, or approve it with certain conditions attached, such as a living wage requirement or mandatory community benefits agreement. Opponents may have to wrangle a super-majority of Council votes to block the project, since Mayor Bloomberg - who has expressed support for the plan - can overturn a rejection by a simple majority. The Council would need a two-thirds vote to override the mayor's veto."
However, if there is enough support garnered for excluding a supermarket and including a living wage provision, than the formal need for a super majority is just that-a formality, Because the legislature, once it makes a decision, will insure that the decision is upheld-and leadership will be loathe to to allow the mayor to overrode its wishes at a time when the speaker's position will soon be decided for another four years.
But opponents have much work to do before they even reach that point-and in this business, nothing is written in stone, Still, the goals are within reach, and the next 50 days will tell the tale.
Update
As Crain's Insider is reporting: " The Central Labor Council has passed a resolution asking City Council members to demand living-wage jobs at a redeveloped Kingsbridge Armory, joining more than half a dozen other labor organizations that have made similar calls." This puts even more heat on the council, which will probably have its first hearing the second week in November.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mayoral Myopia-Well-Armored for Job Growth?
In response to Bronx BP Ruben Diaz's critique of the Kingsbridge Armory development plan, the Bloomberg administration rebutted with the following: "In a statement, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg praised the commission vote, calling the project “an enormous opportunity to revitalize it as a hub of activity and jobs in the West Bronx.” NY1 had an even more robust quote: "The mayor's office fired back Monday, saying the $310 million rehab of the armory will create 1,200 permanent jobs and more than 1,000 construction jobs at a time when people need them the most -- a claim Diaz, Jr. said he is not buying. "He wants his millionaire friends to get the IDA funding, and these low interest rate loans. He wants his millionaire friends to reap all of the benefits," Diaz Jr. said."
This is all pretty typical of the mayor's vision of economic development-all collateral benefits, no collateral damages. Put simply, his development schemes all come at great expense; to both local businesses, and to the communities that they support. But little effort is made to examine the extent to which any development plan will actually diminish the local economy-something that is made even more compelling as our local economic fortunes flag.
So, there's no analysis as to just what kind of impact a large, suburban-style 60,000 sq. ft. supermarket will have on the existing complement of neighborhood markets. But without this evaluation we will only be proffered the, "job gain." but not the concomitant losses-no matter how steep they may be.
And also keep in mind the fact that revenue and job loss in the neighborhood economy is only poorly replaced by the retail chain store economy that the Bloombergistas seem to favor. Not only does the money circulate at a lesser rate when the chain store replaces the locally-owned shop-but the replacement so often leads to a proliferation of minimum unlivable wage jobs.
But with Bloomberg it's all about the presentation-and the appearance of job growth is more important than really nurturing the small businesses that truly keep the city's economy humming-especially now that Wall Street is just about moribund compared to its heyday. We have, however, seen how this class-based myopia has led to an assault on small businesses that transcends anything we've seen over the past thirty years.
None of this is likely to change in a third Bloomberg term. And if you only read Chris Smith's brilliant Bloomberg portrait in NY Magazine for one observation, it should be this one: "Bloomberg talks to a wide range of other leaders, and has genuine respect for many—among them Dick Beattie, the Simpson Thacher senior partner who launched the New Visions charter-school program; Nat Leventhal, the old Ed Koch hand and recently retired president of Lincoln Center; and Chuck Schumer, the U.S. Senate dynamo. But who can tell the mayor that he’s wrong, that he has a bad idea or is making a big mistake, and be taken seriously? “No one,” a Bloomberg intimate says. “He doesn’t really listen to anyone.”
So everyone should be forewarned. When all the fiscal stuff hits the fan next year-and Mike emerges from his carefully constructed champion of the middle class persona, New Yorkers will experience buyer's remorse. But is may be the real purchase agent-the mayor himself-who will experience the remorse of being dethroned, like Aristophanes' Socrates in The Clouds, from the insulated perch he has constructed high above the mass of unenlightened citizens. Now that's the kind of development we will support unreservedly.
This is all pretty typical of the mayor's vision of economic development-all collateral benefits, no collateral damages. Put simply, his development schemes all come at great expense; to both local businesses, and to the communities that they support. But little effort is made to examine the extent to which any development plan will actually diminish the local economy-something that is made even more compelling as our local economic fortunes flag.
So, there's no analysis as to just what kind of impact a large, suburban-style 60,000 sq. ft. supermarket will have on the existing complement of neighborhood markets. But without this evaluation we will only be proffered the, "job gain." but not the concomitant losses-no matter how steep they may be.
And also keep in mind the fact that revenue and job loss in the neighborhood economy is only poorly replaced by the retail chain store economy that the Bloombergistas seem to favor. Not only does the money circulate at a lesser rate when the chain store replaces the locally-owned shop-but the replacement so often leads to a proliferation of minimum unlivable wage jobs.
But with Bloomberg it's all about the presentation-and the appearance of job growth is more important than really nurturing the small businesses that truly keep the city's economy humming-especially now that Wall Street is just about moribund compared to its heyday. We have, however, seen how this class-based myopia has led to an assault on small businesses that transcends anything we've seen over the past thirty years.
None of this is likely to change in a third Bloomberg term. And if you only read Chris Smith's brilliant Bloomberg portrait in NY Magazine for one observation, it should be this one: "Bloomberg talks to a wide range of other leaders, and has genuine respect for many—among them Dick Beattie, the Simpson Thacher senior partner who launched the New Visions charter-school program; Nat Leventhal, the old Ed Koch hand and recently retired president of Lincoln Center; and Chuck Schumer, the U.S. Senate dynamo. But who can tell the mayor that he’s wrong, that he has a bad idea or is making a big mistake, and be taken seriously? “No one,” a Bloomberg intimate says. “He doesn’t really listen to anyone.”
So everyone should be forewarned. When all the fiscal stuff hits the fan next year-and Mike emerges from his carefully constructed champion of the middle class persona, New Yorkers will experience buyer's remorse. But is may be the real purchase agent-the mayor himself-who will experience the remorse of being dethroned, like Aristophanes' Socrates in The Clouds, from the insulated perch he has constructed high above the mass of unenlightened citizens. Now that's the kind of development we will support unreservedly.
Sins of Commission
As the NY Times reports this morning the City Planning Commission, continuing its long standing record of kneeling slavishly at the feet of the mayor, has voted 8-4 to approve the land use application for the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory. At this juncture we're not sure whether or not Commission chair Burden was able to alter the project by adding at least two or three extra trees to the outside facade.
Still, the four No votes are noteworthy-an indication perhaps that the support for the development isn't rack solid; and going over to the city council, the eventual fate of the plan is up in the air. As the Times indicates, the opposition is gearing up: "But the development has many detractors, among them Borough President Rubén Díaz Jr. and a coalition of labor, religious and local groups. They argue Related should promise employees a “living” wage, allow workers to form a union and provide community space on the site, among other demands. The vote was 8 to 4, with one member of the commission, Maria M. Del Toro, having recused herself from the vote. Dozens of protesters holding placards — “Say no way to poverty pay” — packed the room."
Burden, for her part, continues to give evidence of fuzzyheadedness-transforming herself from an informed and skeptical critic at last month's hearing into a loyal cheerleader explaining why she is now following her marching orders: "The armory project “represents the most significant private investment in the northwest Bronx in generations,” Amanda Burden, a planning commissioner, said before she voted in favor of the development."
But, of course, it is the nature of the public side of the investment in the Armory that has roiled the opponents-from the supermarket owners peeved at the use of close to hundred million tax dollars to put their investments at risk; to the living wage proponents who believe that when this kind of public investment is made, people need to be provided with decent wage jobs: "Related has been offered extensive subsidies and tax incentives for the project, including more than $40 million in federal and state historic tax credits. The city also spent $30 million to replace the roof. Under the terms of the proposed deal, Related will pay $5 million for the property, which is a landmark."
How Burden is able to elide this elephant in her Reade Street room is a subject for her analyst. But, the living wage issue will soon become front and center-and its presence in the debate will throw into some relief the question of just how much good the Bloomberg investment and development strategy really is. As NY1 reports: ""I am not kidding around. There are too many young people and families suffering in the Bronx," said Heidi Hynes of the Northwest Bronx Community Coalition. "This plan they are putting forward is not good for the Bronx. We demand good jobs for the Bronx." "The fact still remains these jobs are not allowing for Bronx families to get themselves out of poverty, to support their families, to pay for their kids to go to college, to pay for a mortgage," Diaz Jr. said."
And the controversy will not be easily resolved-as Councilman Oliver Koppell reminds NY1: "There has to be some serious negotiation on issues raised by the community and the labor movement before I am ready to vote," said City Councilman G. Oliver Koppell." And we still haven't even discussed the fate of the proposed supermarket-an inclusion in the project that has garnered the opposition of all Bronx council members.
Clearly, the entire Armory project has raised serious concerns-ones that will be complicated by the leadership struggle that will certainly take place as the speaker attempts to engineer a second term at the head of the council. And the growing opposition of labor may prove to be the key here. As the Times tells us: "On the other side, presidents of five of the city’s largest labor unions recently sent letters to City Council members urging them to demand a living-wage pledge, while Richard Trumka, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., visited the armory last month to offer his support."
The battle lines are drawn-ladies and gentlemen, start your engines. This is going to heat up pretty soon.
Still, the four No votes are noteworthy-an indication perhaps that the support for the development isn't rack solid; and going over to the city council, the eventual fate of the plan is up in the air. As the Times indicates, the opposition is gearing up: "But the development has many detractors, among them Borough President Rubén Díaz Jr. and a coalition of labor, religious and local groups. They argue Related should promise employees a “living” wage, allow workers to form a union and provide community space on the site, among other demands. The vote was 8 to 4, with one member of the commission, Maria M. Del Toro, having recused herself from the vote. Dozens of protesters holding placards — “Say no way to poverty pay” — packed the room."
Burden, for her part, continues to give evidence of fuzzyheadedness-transforming herself from an informed and skeptical critic at last month's hearing into a loyal cheerleader explaining why she is now following her marching orders: "The armory project “represents the most significant private investment in the northwest Bronx in generations,” Amanda Burden, a planning commissioner, said before she voted in favor of the development."
But, of course, it is the nature of the public side of the investment in the Armory that has roiled the opponents-from the supermarket owners peeved at the use of close to hundred million tax dollars to put their investments at risk; to the living wage proponents who believe that when this kind of public investment is made, people need to be provided with decent wage jobs: "Related has been offered extensive subsidies and tax incentives for the project, including more than $40 million in federal and state historic tax credits. The city also spent $30 million to replace the roof. Under the terms of the proposed deal, Related will pay $5 million for the property, which is a landmark."
How Burden is able to elide this elephant in her Reade Street room is a subject for her analyst. But, the living wage issue will soon become front and center-and its presence in the debate will throw into some relief the question of just how much good the Bloomberg investment and development strategy really is. As NY1 reports: ""I am not kidding around. There are too many young people and families suffering in the Bronx," said Heidi Hynes of the Northwest Bronx Community Coalition. "This plan they are putting forward is not good for the Bronx. We demand good jobs for the Bronx." "The fact still remains these jobs are not allowing for Bronx families to get themselves out of poverty, to support their families, to pay for their kids to go to college, to pay for a mortgage," Diaz Jr. said."
And the controversy will not be easily resolved-as Councilman Oliver Koppell reminds NY1: "There has to be some serious negotiation on issues raised by the community and the labor movement before I am ready to vote," said City Councilman G. Oliver Koppell." And we still haven't even discussed the fate of the proposed supermarket-an inclusion in the project that has garnered the opposition of all Bronx council members.
Clearly, the entire Armory project has raised serious concerns-ones that will be complicated by the leadership struggle that will certainly take place as the speaker attempts to engineer a second term at the head of the council. And the growing opposition of labor may prove to be the key here. As the Times tells us: "On the other side, presidents of five of the city’s largest labor unions recently sent letters to City Council members urging them to demand a living-wage pledge, while Richard Trumka, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., visited the armory last month to offer his support."
The battle lines are drawn-ladies and gentlemen, start your engines. This is going to heat up pretty soon.
Queens Chamber of Horrors
Jack Friedman is at it again-selling off stuff that he doesn't own, and betraying the interests that his organization was founded to defend. As the NY Daily News reports, Friedman is busy shilling for the NY Islanders to relocate to Willets Point: "Pouncing proactively, the Queens Chamber of Commerce is planning a news conference this week to publicly court the Islanders - coveting jobs and tourists the team could bring to the borough."
Just one minor inconvenience; neither the Queens Chamber or the city currently own title to the property that Friedman wants for a hockey arena-and this isn't just any minor impediment, since the course ahead for the city is neither predictable nor an easy one to navigate. That doesn't seem to bother Jack the Grifter, however. And he's willing to violate his own charter and mission statement in order to promote something that, charitably, isn't much as far as economic development is concerned.
Here's Friedman's letter to prospective members of the QCC: "For 98 years, the Queens Chamber of Commerce has supported Queens businesses and the Queens economy. We have faced tough times before. Crisis after crisis, the Chamber has delivered for its members. Now more than ever, the Chamber is ready, willing and able to help you through this recession. Through discounts, networking and promotional opportunities, and a full calendar of educational and training programs, the Chamber will help increase your customer base and save you money."
Quite an offer; except if your a Queens business that's still doing business at Willets Point. But the Chamber isn't a Johnny-come-lately when it comes to betrayal. Back when the Willets Point plan was unveiled, the Chamber jumped right on board. As the Queens Courier reported: "The Queens Chamber of Commerce is delighted with the Master Plan that Mayor Bloomberg and Borough President Marshall unveiled today for the Willets Point peninsula in Northern Queens,” the Chamber of Commerce wrote."
So it should be clear to all Queens businesses, the Chamber of Commerce in your borough will stand four square behind you-at least until a bigger and better use for your property can be discovered; then you're on your own fellas and gals. In our view, this stand by the QCC's Friedman should be grounds for his dismissal, because in essence he is representing the interests of non-Queens businesses over those of existing borough firms.
The real question to us is: Cui bono? What's in it for QCC and Mr. Friedman-and what has this booty capitalist been promised for his perfidy? In our experience, when a local business group advocates against the interests of local businesses, it's time to look hard for the smoking gun of corrupt practices. Can it really be simply a love for Lord Stanley that motivating Jack? "This is the time to aggressively go after this," said Jack Friedman, the chamber's executive vice president. "It's time to bring Lord Stanley back to Long Island, and Queens is on Long Island."
And we're disappointed in the statements of Comptroller-elect John Liu on this issue: "I'm of the strong opinion that Queens has and will always be an attractive and viable option for the Islanders," said Liu, who won the Democratic runoff for city controller last month." Liu needs to examine the fiscal implications of his position-and refer his staff to the writings of Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist-knowing writers who are skeptical about the cost/benefit equation when it comes to arenas.
The economics of a third Bloomberg term have been discussed in the NY Times-and the need to be more frugal is patently obvious; a need that calls into question, not only a hockey arena, but the entire grandiose Willets Point vision. So everyone-but especially Jack Friedman-needs to cool off-and if the Grifter isn't careful WPU will find a true public use for the property that Friedman's house sits on-perhaps a homeless shelter would have symbolic value?
Just one minor inconvenience; neither the Queens Chamber or the city currently own title to the property that Friedman wants for a hockey arena-and this isn't just any minor impediment, since the course ahead for the city is neither predictable nor an easy one to navigate. That doesn't seem to bother Jack the Grifter, however. And he's willing to violate his own charter and mission statement in order to promote something that, charitably, isn't much as far as economic development is concerned.
Here's Friedman's letter to prospective members of the QCC: "For 98 years, the Queens Chamber of Commerce has supported Queens businesses and the Queens economy. We have faced tough times before. Crisis after crisis, the Chamber has delivered for its members. Now more than ever, the Chamber is ready, willing and able to help you through this recession. Through discounts, networking and promotional opportunities, and a full calendar of educational and training programs, the Chamber will help increase your customer base and save you money."
Quite an offer; except if your a Queens business that's still doing business at Willets Point. But the Chamber isn't a Johnny-come-lately when it comes to betrayal. Back when the Willets Point plan was unveiled, the Chamber jumped right on board. As the Queens Courier reported: "The Queens Chamber of Commerce is delighted with the Master Plan that Mayor Bloomberg and Borough President Marshall unveiled today for the Willets Point peninsula in Northern Queens,” the Chamber of Commerce wrote."
So it should be clear to all Queens businesses, the Chamber of Commerce in your borough will stand four square behind you-at least until a bigger and better use for your property can be discovered; then you're on your own fellas and gals. In our view, this stand by the QCC's Friedman should be grounds for his dismissal, because in essence he is representing the interests of non-Queens businesses over those of existing borough firms.
The real question to us is: Cui bono? What's in it for QCC and Mr. Friedman-and what has this booty capitalist been promised for his perfidy? In our experience, when a local business group advocates against the interests of local businesses, it's time to look hard for the smoking gun of corrupt practices. Can it really be simply a love for Lord Stanley that motivating Jack? "This is the time to aggressively go after this," said Jack Friedman, the chamber's executive vice president. "It's time to bring Lord Stanley back to Long Island, and Queens is on Long Island."
And we're disappointed in the statements of Comptroller-elect John Liu on this issue: "I'm of the strong opinion that Queens has and will always be an attractive and viable option for the Islanders," said Liu, who won the Democratic runoff for city controller last month." Liu needs to examine the fiscal implications of his position-and refer his staff to the writings of Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist-knowing writers who are skeptical about the cost/benefit equation when it comes to arenas.
The economics of a third Bloomberg term have been discussed in the NY Times-and the need to be more frugal is patently obvious; a need that calls into question, not only a hockey arena, but the entire grandiose Willets Point vision. So everyone-but especially Jack Friedman-needs to cool off-and if the Grifter isn't careful WPU will find a true public use for the property that Friedman's house sits on-perhaps a homeless shelter would have symbolic value?
Monday, October 19, 2009
NYC Small Business Exposé
In the current issue of the City Journal, Steve Malanga provides us with a withering critique of the plight of NYC small businesses-and, at the same time, gives us an incisive indictment of how the Bloomberg "five borough economic plan" is truly a fraud perpetrated against the small firms of this city. And he does so by leading with the comments of our own Morty Sloan.
Here are Sloan's lead off remarks: "Morton Sloan feels besieged. Over the last several years, the Bronx-based entrepreneur has watched the property taxes on the ten Morton Williams supermarkets he runs in the city swell by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Increasingly aggressive city inspectors now linger in those stores for hours, writing costly citations for items that clerks accidentally mislabel. Some of Sloan’s suppliers say they’ll no longer deliver to New York City because of the Department of Transportation’s frequent parking-ticket blitzes. It gets worse: a new Bloomberg-administration program that encourages fruit and vegetable vendors to set up on street corners has left him scrambling to match prices with competitors who don’t have to pay rent, utilities, payroll taxes, and various other expenses."
So, how does the city address Sloan's concerns? By using tax dollars to try to put the guy out of business entirely: "And now the city wants to plunk a 60,000-square-foot supermarket into a heavily subsidized new development just blocks from two of his stores. “I’ve never received a subsidy or asked anything of the city in 35 years, except to be left alone to do business,” Sloan says. “But everywhere I look these days, it seems like the city is trying to make life tough for me.”
But Sloan's plight is just the tip of the iceberg-and Malanga provides a litany of abuses and complaints. According to Malanga's well-researched piece, taxes and regulations are strangling the city's small business sector: "Doing business in Gotham has rarely been easy for the nearly 200,000 small firms that form the backbone of the city’s local economy. Virtually everyone who runs a business in New York has long had to deal with uncompromising inspectors, unsympathetic city bureaucracies, and complex regulations, to say nothing of profit-crushing taxes. But over the past few years, small businesses’ woes have worsened significantly, say many entrepreneurs and business groups."
All city agencies are playing their revenue enhancing role, as our friend Ramon Murphy tells Malanga: “In 25 years, this is the worst I’ve seen things,” claims Ramon Murphy, owner of two bodegas and president of the city-based Bodega Association of the United States." And he's not alone-but the Bloomberg campaign response ignores the tax and regulatory elephant in the room: "But while this (rare) attention to their problems is welcome, business owners say, what the city really needs is lower taxes, far fewer regulations, more manageable fines, and a more responsive bureaucracy. At stake is the health not just of a few small firms but of the city’s wider economy. Government-imposed barriers to doing business raise prices, narrow choices, and inhibit job growth for all New Yorkers."
All of which goes to the heart of our critique of the Bloomberg regime-and the hollowness of the idea that the current fiscal mess necessitates a third Bloomberg term. More of the same high tax and enhanced enforcement? Malanga's narrative should give us pause: "Far harder for Gotham businesses to survive, however, are steep recent tax hikes, especially the mayor’s $1.9 billion property-tax increase in 2003—the largest single increase in the city’s history, which fell disproportionately on businesses. Combined with aggressive reassessments of the value of buildings over the last eight years, the new levies have virtually doubled the real-estate tax bite in the city, from $8.6 billion in 2002 to $16.1 billion this year—a rate of growth nearly three times the rate of inflation."
And these real estate taxes have meant higher rents and an increased cost of doing business: "Property taxes have created a huge problem for landlords and for small-business owners who rent,” says Bradley Silverbush, a real-estate lawyer at Rosenberg & Estis in Manhattan. “Most landlords now insert clauses into leases saying tenants must pay any increase in real-estate taxes because landlords have been burned by the big increases, but tenants, especially small businesses, can’t bear these new taxes either. Their revenues just don’t change that much from year to year.”
Here are Sloan's lead off remarks: "Morton Sloan feels besieged. Over the last several years, the Bronx-based entrepreneur has watched the property taxes on the ten Morton Williams supermarkets he runs in the city swell by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Increasingly aggressive city inspectors now linger in those stores for hours, writing costly citations for items that clerks accidentally mislabel. Some of Sloan’s suppliers say they’ll no longer deliver to New York City because of the Department of Transportation’s frequent parking-ticket blitzes. It gets worse: a new Bloomberg-administration program that encourages fruit and vegetable vendors to set up on street corners has left him scrambling to match prices with competitors who don’t have to pay rent, utilities, payroll taxes, and various other expenses."
So, how does the city address Sloan's concerns? By using tax dollars to try to put the guy out of business entirely: "And now the city wants to plunk a 60,000-square-foot supermarket into a heavily subsidized new development just blocks from two of his stores. “I’ve never received a subsidy or asked anything of the city in 35 years, except to be left alone to do business,” Sloan says. “But everywhere I look these days, it seems like the city is trying to make life tough for me.”
But Sloan's plight is just the tip of the iceberg-and Malanga provides a litany of abuses and complaints. According to Malanga's well-researched piece, taxes and regulations are strangling the city's small business sector: "Doing business in Gotham has rarely been easy for the nearly 200,000 small firms that form the backbone of the city’s local economy. Virtually everyone who runs a business in New York has long had to deal with uncompromising inspectors, unsympathetic city bureaucracies, and complex regulations, to say nothing of profit-crushing taxes. But over the past few years, small businesses’ woes have worsened significantly, say many entrepreneurs and business groups."
All city agencies are playing their revenue enhancing role, as our friend Ramon Murphy tells Malanga: “In 25 years, this is the worst I’ve seen things,” claims Ramon Murphy, owner of two bodegas and president of the city-based Bodega Association of the United States." And he's not alone-but the Bloomberg campaign response ignores the tax and regulatory elephant in the room: "But while this (rare) attention to their problems is welcome, business owners say, what the city really needs is lower taxes, far fewer regulations, more manageable fines, and a more responsive bureaucracy. At stake is the health not just of a few small firms but of the city’s wider economy. Government-imposed barriers to doing business raise prices, narrow choices, and inhibit job growth for all New Yorkers."
All of which goes to the heart of our critique of the Bloomberg regime-and the hollowness of the idea that the current fiscal mess necessitates a third Bloomberg term. More of the same high tax and enhanced enforcement? Malanga's narrative should give us pause: "Far harder for Gotham businesses to survive, however, are steep recent tax hikes, especially the mayor’s $1.9 billion property-tax increase in 2003—the largest single increase in the city’s history, which fell disproportionately on businesses. Combined with aggressive reassessments of the value of buildings over the last eight years, the new levies have virtually doubled the real-estate tax bite in the city, from $8.6 billion in 2002 to $16.1 billion this year—a rate of growth nearly three times the rate of inflation."
And these real estate taxes have meant higher rents and an increased cost of doing business: "Property taxes have created a huge problem for landlords and for small-business owners who rent,” says Bradley Silverbush, a real-estate lawyer at Rosenberg & Estis in Manhattan. “Most landlords now insert clauses into leases saying tenants must pay any increase in real-estate taxes because landlords have been burned by the big increases, but tenants, especially small businesses, can’t bear these new taxes either. Their revenues just don’t change that much from year to year.”
Small firms with narrow profit margins have come to view Mayor Bloomberg as unsympathetic to their plight: "The mayor defended his 2003 tax hike by calling the city a “luxury product” that businesses were willing to pay a premium for. While that might have been true of the financial industry from which Bloomberg himself came, far more common are businesses, such as supermarkets, that typically earn only 1 to 2 percent of sales. “You can’t raise the price of a can of peas that much to pay for higher taxes and fines,” says Nelson Eusebio, who ran a supermarket in Brooklyn for nearly 20 years before closing up shop recently. Eusebio now heads a local association of struggling, mostly Latino, supermarket operators. He estimates that 300 supermarkets have gone out of business in the city since 2000..."
But while the tax burden certainly hurts, it is the regulatory onslaught that drives small business into a frenzy: "One big generator is the Department of Health, which projects 27 percent more revenues from fines this year. Owners say that they’ve already seen the result in a blitz of tickets. Rob Bookman, a Manhattan lawyer who represents restaurants and bars, says that inspectors are spending hours at each premise—and that “nobody walks out with zero violations.” James McBratney, owner of Jimmy Max on Staten Island and president of the local restaurant association, says that he was recently soaking his silverware in a way recommended by the manufacturer when he received a summons for having standing water in his restaurant. “I explained it to the judge, and even brought the manufacturer’s instructions with me, and I was told, ‘Do you expect the manufacturer’s instructions to supersede the laws of the city?”
This is so typical of the city's mindset-and underscores why the businessman Bloomberg has been such a big disappointment. He had an opportunity, as the guy who wasn't beholden to the special interests, to do some creative re-invention of government in order to make NYC a better place to do business. But it wasn't in his mindset at all-to wit, his witless "luxury city" remark.
But the unwillingness of the mayor to reform this anti-business climate, devolves more from his infatuation with big government-and the need to fuel its municipal work force-regulatory fines and fees will do just fine, thank you: "Businesses have understandably looked with alarm on the city’s latest budget, which projects collecting nearly $900 million in fines and fees this year—a whopping $110 million increase over 2008. The city says that much of the gain will come from an increased number of parking tickets and traffic violations, thanks to a new program of cameras set up at intersections. But that’s hardly consolation to businesses: many of them, especially package-delivery firms, wholesalers, and others that must negotiate the city’s streets every day, have borne the brunt of previous ticketing sprees."
And when it's not the fines themselves, it's the arrogant stupidity of the bureaucrats that drive smaller firms batty: "Lawyer Steven Barrison recently represented a small businessman and property owner who had pulled down a building on his land but kept getting water bills for it—and threats from the city for not paying them. “The city swore that they were reading a meter on the property,” says Barrison. “It took me two years to get an inspector to come to the site so I could show him there was nothing there, and another two years to get the city to stop sending bills. Meanwhile, this guy is paying me to represent him.”
And, as Malanga details, even when the mayor has tried to address some of the problems-as with the efflux of supermarkets-he manges to exacerbate rather than ameliorate the problem: "After the city’s own study backed up reports of a growing supermarket shortage, the administration offered virtually nothing to help struggling stores stay in business, instead debuting a package of tax incentives to lure new stores to New York and licensing new cart vendors to sell fruits and vegetables in underserved areas. The effect has been to worsen the plight of existing supermarkets. The cart vendors are already setting up shop near supermarkets, owners grumble. “The city sees people in line at these new vendor carts and declares the program a success,” says Morton Sloan. “What about the business I’m losing?”
Malanga really leaves no stone unturned-and turns to the use of eminent domain at Willets Point to drive home just how bad the Bloombergistas have been to the little guys: "He has supported everything from the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn to a massive new development in Willets Point, Queens, which would uproot hundreds of firms. Whatever the merits of these individual initiatives (and government’s record of picking winners in business is erratic at best), eminent-domain law as practiced in New York is a virtual death sentence to most small firms. “If government wants to displace a small business in New York and the business doesn’t own its own property, its chances of survival are slim because government pays virtually nothing to these businesses,” says Michael Rikon, an attorney at Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb in Manhattan, a firm that specializes in eminent-domain cases. “They come to me to represent them, and I often refer them directly to a bankruptcy lawyer.”
So, as the next two weeks lead us inexorably to the mayor's third term. Malanga's report on the plight of small business underscores just how mendacious the Bloomberg campaign-right from its opening phony justification for the over turning of term limits-has really been. Mike Bloomberg's legacy-if he continues along the same path that he has been leading the city up till now-will be that of the most anti-small business chief executive the city has ever seen. And nothing else he has done will ameliorate the shame of this epitaph.
CPC's Rubber Stamp: Press Conference at City Hall
The City Planning Commission is doing what it has always done for the past eight years-rubber stamping the mayor's wishes-and today it will ignore the entreaties of supermarket owners and elected officials and approve, without significant reservation, the zoning application for the Kingsbridge Armory. In the process, the Bloomberg personal promise to store owners, made in a meeting at Cafe Rubio in Corona, that there will be no supermarket in the Armory, will be left to the city council to fulfill.
But the council will have a more serious issue to tackle-one that goes beyond whether a supermarket will be sited in the new development. And this issue revolves around the question of whether the stores that are slated to go into the new development will be required to pay their employees a living wage. If left unresolved, a growing coalition of opponents of the development could well defeat the entire plan.
As Crain's highlights: "The heads of six of the city's most powerful unions sent letters in the past week to City Council members urging them to demand that the Related Cos. commit to permanent “living-wage” retail jobs for its redevelopment of the empty Kingsbridge Armory site. Leaders of two major locals of the Service Employees International Union, the United Federation of Teachers, the Hotel Trades Council, the Building & Construction Trades Council and the municipal workers union want the 1,200 permanent jobs predicted to arise from the redevelopment of the 92-year old West Bronx landmark to pay at least $10 an hour and come with health and retirement benefits. “It is time for New York City to move beyond a failed economic development model that promotes low-wage work,” wrote five of the leaders in one letter. In a separate letter, Gary LaBarbera, president of the building trades council, made a similar appeal."
Of course, the political thrust here is being spearheaded by Bronx BP Ruben Diaz, and RWDSU president Stuart Appelbaum: "The union leaders' calls follow ones made by Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr., Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union President Stuart Appelbaum and the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance calling for a wide-ranging community benefits agreement that includes the higher wages, local hiring, the exclusion of a supermarket and a promise to not hinder labor organizing, among other demands."
Crain's foreboding on this issue is merited: "The unions' missives landed at City Hall the week before the city's Planning Commission is expected to approve the project at a meeting Monday. The proposal will then move on to the council, where it faces an uncertain future. The local councilwoman, Maria Baez, says she supports the call for “good jobs,” but she's a lame duck, having been narrowly defeated by the Rev. Fernando Cabrera in September's primary. So, it's not clear if she'll hold any sway over her colleagues in a process where the local representative's position is typically echoed by the rest of the Council. It's possible, however, that the Council could line up behind organized labor, several other members of the Bronx delegation and Mr. Diaz, who have supported the move for living wages."
Which leaves the council leadership in a bind, because it has rarely vetoed a Bloomberg zoning initiative-although Crain's misstates the level of the council's obsequiousness: "Thus far, none of the Bloomberg administration's 99 rezonings have failed in the Council, but with the community alliance digging in and the administration and Related seemingly unwilling to budge, Mr. Bloomberg's unblemished redevelopment record could soon be put to the test."
The reality is that Related has already suffered a defeat at the council-in 2005 its plans to build a BJs at Brush Avenue in the Bronx was defeated in a land use sub committee; and the application was subsequently withdrawn when defeat was inevitable. It looks as if history may be repeating itself in the Bronx.
At 2:00 PM today all of the Armory stakeholders will gather at City Hall to advocate for the community benefits agreement-no supermarket and a living wage-or no to the entire project. It will be a very interesting battle, one whose resolution is far from clear.
MEDIA ADVISORY
Date: October 15, 2009
Contacts: Ava Farkas - 646-533-5454 Michael Yellin -- 917-434-6130
Living Wage Fight At Kingsbridge Armory Moves to City Council for Final Decision Coalition to Demand Council Reject Related’s Development Plans If They Do Not Include Enforceable Community Benefits Agreement
What: The Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance (KARA) will demand the City Council reject the Related Company’s application for the rezoning and sale of the Kingsbridge Armory until the developer signs a binding Community Benefits Agreement for High Road Development that includes: permanent living wage jobs, first source local hiring, protection of the right of retail workers to join a union without fear or intimidation, community and recreation space, and the exclusion of a supermarket and other stores that would be detrimental to local businesses.
Who: Ruben Diaz, Bronx Borough President; Desiree Pilgrim-Hunter, KARA leader and Executive Board member, Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition; Father Joseph Girone, St. Nicholas of Tolentine Church; Jeff Eichler, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union; Nelson Eusebio, National Supermarket Association; other members of the KARA coalition representing the Northwest Bronx community, clergy, small business and labor.
When: Monday, October 19, 2:00 pm, following the City Planning Commission vote
Where: New York City Hall steps
But the council will have a more serious issue to tackle-one that goes beyond whether a supermarket will be sited in the new development. And this issue revolves around the question of whether the stores that are slated to go into the new development will be required to pay their employees a living wage. If left unresolved, a growing coalition of opponents of the development could well defeat the entire plan.
As Crain's highlights: "The heads of six of the city's most powerful unions sent letters in the past week to City Council members urging them to demand that the Related Cos. commit to permanent “living-wage” retail jobs for its redevelopment of the empty Kingsbridge Armory site. Leaders of two major locals of the Service Employees International Union, the United Federation of Teachers, the Hotel Trades Council, the Building & Construction Trades Council and the municipal workers union want the 1,200 permanent jobs predicted to arise from the redevelopment of the 92-year old West Bronx landmark to pay at least $10 an hour and come with health and retirement benefits. “It is time for New York City to move beyond a failed economic development model that promotes low-wage work,” wrote five of the leaders in one letter. In a separate letter, Gary LaBarbera, president of the building trades council, made a similar appeal."
Of course, the political thrust here is being spearheaded by Bronx BP Ruben Diaz, and RWDSU president Stuart Appelbaum: "The union leaders' calls follow ones made by Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr., Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union President Stuart Appelbaum and the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance calling for a wide-ranging community benefits agreement that includes the higher wages, local hiring, the exclusion of a supermarket and a promise to not hinder labor organizing, among other demands."
Crain's foreboding on this issue is merited: "The unions' missives landed at City Hall the week before the city's Planning Commission is expected to approve the project at a meeting Monday. The proposal will then move on to the council, where it faces an uncertain future. The local councilwoman, Maria Baez, says she supports the call for “good jobs,” but she's a lame duck, having been narrowly defeated by the Rev. Fernando Cabrera in September's primary. So, it's not clear if she'll hold any sway over her colleagues in a process where the local representative's position is typically echoed by the rest of the Council. It's possible, however, that the Council could line up behind organized labor, several other members of the Bronx delegation and Mr. Diaz, who have supported the move for living wages."
Which leaves the council leadership in a bind, because it has rarely vetoed a Bloomberg zoning initiative-although Crain's misstates the level of the council's obsequiousness: "Thus far, none of the Bloomberg administration's 99 rezonings have failed in the Council, but with the community alliance digging in and the administration and Related seemingly unwilling to budge, Mr. Bloomberg's unblemished redevelopment record could soon be put to the test."
The reality is that Related has already suffered a defeat at the council-in 2005 its plans to build a BJs at Brush Avenue in the Bronx was defeated in a land use sub committee; and the application was subsequently withdrawn when defeat was inevitable. It looks as if history may be repeating itself in the Bronx.
At 2:00 PM today all of the Armory stakeholders will gather at City Hall to advocate for the community benefits agreement-no supermarket and a living wage-or no to the entire project. It will be a very interesting battle, one whose resolution is far from clear.
MEDIA ADVISORY
Date: October 15, 2009
Contacts: Ava Farkas - 646-533-5454 Michael Yellin -- 917-434-6130
Living Wage Fight At Kingsbridge Armory Moves to City Council for Final Decision Coalition to Demand Council Reject Related’s Development Plans If They Do Not Include Enforceable Community Benefits Agreement
What: The Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance (KARA) will demand the City Council reject the Related Company’s application for the rezoning and sale of the Kingsbridge Armory until the developer signs a binding Community Benefits Agreement for High Road Development that includes: permanent living wage jobs, first source local hiring, protection of the right of retail workers to join a union without fear or intimidation, community and recreation space, and the exclusion of a supermarket and other stores that would be detrimental to local businesses.
Who: Ruben Diaz, Bronx Borough President; Desiree Pilgrim-Hunter, KARA leader and Executive Board member, Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition; Father Joseph Girone, St. Nicholas of Tolentine Church; Jeff Eichler, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union; Nelson Eusebio, National Supermarket Association; other members of the KARA coalition representing the Northwest Bronx community, clergy, small business and labor.
When: Monday, October 19, 2:00 pm, following the City Planning Commission vote
Where: New York City Hall steps
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
