As many of you might recall, the Alliance and the folks at Transportation Alternatives, don't always see eye to eye-particularly when it came to the mayor's proposal on congestion pricing. But when it comes to over development, we're all on the same page-as the following commentary from Dr. Ronald Schiffman on the TA web site, Streetsblog, underscores:
"When Michael Bloomberg was first elected eight years ago, I and many others thought such a wealthy mayor might assert his independence from developers who choose to serve their own self-interest at the expense of the city's long term needs. Six years later, the release of PlaNYC 2030 finally gave hope to that desire. The mayor put forth a vision that, despite some shortcomings, promised a framework for sustainable, equitable growth. For all the city's progress toward advancing those goals, however, it has taken several steps backward by continuing to build real estate projects that erode the walkable city."
What Schiffman is recognizing is the fact that Mike Bloomberg, for all of his vaunted independence, still acts as a handmaiden of the city's real estate interests-and the results, at least as far as reducing the city's carbon footprint, and advancing sustainability, speak for themselves. This is true for Willets Point, as well as for other large, auto-dependent, real estate developments that the city has done:
"In these developments, the street is nothing more than square footage added to permit greater building heights and densities. Streets in these developments divide rather than integrate neighborhoods. Traffic lights are recalibrated, for instance, to facilitate the flow of traffic and hinder pedestrian movement by reducing crossing times. Perversely, these measures are dubbed “mitigation” in the environmental review process. Without them, the development would not be allowed to proceed. This is because the developments include more space for car parking than needed -- far above the norm in New York City -- creating more traffic and necessitating such "mitigations."
Schiffman throws down the gauntlet to the mayor-saying he has four years left to rectify all that he has wrought:
"To build a sustainable city, we need to think and plan on a small scale, not just the mega-project scale. We need to engage more New Yorkers in the process of building neighborhoods, not just the politically connected or wealthy. The place where everything comes together, where we all meet and interact, and where sustainable planning must begin, is the street. The mayor has the intellect and the openness to understand this. He now has four years to reinforce what his administration has done well so far. Four years to change direction from past mistakes. Four years to focus on what has been ignored until now."
While we never want to discourage folks from appealing to Mike Bloomberg's better nature, it is our view that the sustainability platform has been grafted on to the mayor-and has never been part of his very essence. That essence is nurtured by a particular class-based word view, and is intertwined with the interests of the very forces that Dr. Schiffman feels are harming the city.
If it comes down to a choice of which direction to go-as it did when Costco was proposed for 59th Street and 11th Avenue-Mike Bloomberg instinctively goes for what he feels in his gut; and carbon foot prints and sustainability concerns will always to a back seat to the mayor's support for the goals and objectives of NYC's permanent government.
If the direction of the city is to change in regards to the issues that Schiffman and TA hold dear, than it will only happen when other forces are arrayed against what the mayor will inevitably be promoting in the next four years. And when it comes to Willets Point, with its 80,000 car trips and 2500 truck trips a day, we look forward to working with the transportation and environmental advocates to, paraphrasing the words of Rousseau, force Mike to be free.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Evan Handed
You have to hand it to our friend Evan Stavisky when it comes to unbiased political observations. Here's his take-via the Crain's Insider-on the possible Giuliani-Gillerbrand senate match up in 2010 that we commented on yesterday: "“New York's fundamentally a Democratic state, the Conservative Party's already attacking him, [running] would affect his business, and he still doesn't have the temperament to handle an inquisitive press corps,” says Democratic consultant Evan Stavisky. He likens the idea of Giuliani for Senate to Kevin Costner in Water World: “Marquee star, sounds like a good idea in the pitch meeting, but in reality, it's a flop.”
According to Evan, Rudy is this vulnerable ingenue, as likely to collapse like one of his favorite opera divas once the heat gets too intense. This is, of course all very silly-and tendentious we might add. One could observe that the fact that Giuliani is now ahead by 14 points in the latest Marist Poll, while somewhat a function of the former mayor's name recognition, is at the same time a recognition of the fact that the appointed senator has failed to make much of a dent in the public consciousness-aside from her consistent ability to alter her appearance at (Schumer's) will.
And campaign's do have two sides. So while Rudy has his weaknesses to exploit-and Stavisky is certainly right about New York's Democratic bona fides-Gillibrand's extreme makeover and her Paterson paternity can be exploited as well. No? And let's not forget the trouble that John Corzine faced over in the (mostly) Democratic state of New Jersey.
2010 might not be the best time for a newly minted senator-someone who has undergone a complete change from her original, more conservative Blue Dog positions. Chuck Schumer likes to say that Gillibrand has evolved, but to us it looks more like a mutation.
According to Evan, Rudy is this vulnerable ingenue, as likely to collapse like one of his favorite opera divas once the heat gets too intense. This is, of course all very silly-and tendentious we might add. One could observe that the fact that Giuliani is now ahead by 14 points in the latest Marist Poll, while somewhat a function of the former mayor's name recognition, is at the same time a recognition of the fact that the appointed senator has failed to make much of a dent in the public consciousness-aside from her consistent ability to alter her appearance at (Schumer's) will.
And campaign's do have two sides. So while Rudy has his weaknesses to exploit-and Stavisky is certainly right about New York's Democratic bona fides-Gillibrand's extreme makeover and her Paterson paternity can be exploited as well. No? And let's not forget the trouble that John Corzine faced over in the (mostly) Democratic state of New Jersey.
2010 might not be the best time for a newly minted senator-someone who has undergone a complete change from her original, more conservative Blue Dog positions. Chuck Schumer likes to say that Gillibrand has evolved, but to us it looks more like a mutation.
In Need of an Upgrade
The DOE is still at it-handing out good grades with little rhyme or reason. In fact, we wonder just how much money is spent simply devising and implementing this grading system-money that could be better used for teachers and other truly educational uses. As the NY Daily News reported this week: "Only one school got hit with the dreaded F this year on this year's high school report cards - and some students say the place is so bad they want out. "I've been making complaints to my mom and my father," said Shameeka Bromfield, a 10th-grader at Peace and Diversity Academy in the Bronx, which fell to the flunking grade from last year's B. "I want to transfer."
And the number of schools getting either an A or a B fell from 82% to 75%-still very high considering the low skill sets that students are taking with them as they head off to college; or, we should say community college, since these schools are being inundated with all of the students who, because of poor preparation, can't make the grade at the city's senior colleges. So what we really have are skills with good grades and students with-whatever-grades floundering once they leave the system.
As the News tells us: "Overall, about 75% of high schools earned an A or a B, down from 82% last year. An increase in graduation rates - which would have nudged overall grades higher - was offset by the Education Department's decision to raise passing scores. "Despite setting rising standards and requirements, our schools are generally moving forward," Schools Chancellor Joel Klein said ."
All pretty obfuscating to us-obscuring the real conditions and the actual learning being done in exchange for a letter grade that reveals little. Except for the fact that these grades can mean big money for teacher bonuses-at least someone is getting the benefit of grade inflation. As the NY Times reports today: "Teachers at W.H. Maxwell Career and Technical Education High School in Brooklyn were among those at 23 high schools citywide awarded a total of $3.5 million in performance bonuses on Thursday, even though the school received a D on its progress report earlier this week. The Jane Addams High School for Academic Careers in the Bronx and three other schools earned C’s on their report cards, and their teachers will be getting bonuses, too."
Kind of like crackpot rationality to us. Now don't get us wrong, it's nice to see hard working educators score a little extra cash in these tough economic times-but let's not kid ourselves and think that that outlays have any correlation to any real measure of academic success-much as the school grades are often completely baffling.
As the Times indicates: "The reason for the discrepancy between the two measures of progress, school officials said, is that the teacher bonuses — awarded by the Department of Education — are determined by individual targets set for each school, and the bonus-eligible schools serve students starting from a very low threshold. It may also be rewarding improvement within each letter grade. “Maybe a school didn’t go from a D to a C, or stayed at a C, but it’s still making progress,” said Ann Forte, a department spokeswoman, defending both the report cards and the awards program."
Everyone following so far? It reminds us of Tom Lehrer's old song, "The New Math." The first few verses give you an idea, although you really need to hear his rapid fire delivery to get the real flavor of Lehrer's insanity:
"Now remember how we used to do that. Three from two is nine; carry the one, and if you're under 35 or went to a private school you say seven from three is six, but if you're over 35 and went to a public school you say eight from four is six; carry the one so we have 169, but in the new approach, as you know, the important thing is to understand what you're doing rather than to get the right answer.
Here's how they do it now. You can't take three from two, Two is less than three, So you look at the four in the tens place. Now that's really four tens, So you make it three tens, Regroup, and you change a ten to ten ones, And you add them to the two and get twelve, And you take away three, that's nine. Is that clear?"
And Lehrer's closing line was: "It's so simple, So very simple, That only a child can do it!" But in the case of the DOE's grading and bonus system, not even a child can comprehend how its computed. As UFT president Mulgrew tells the Times: "Michael Mulgrew, the head of the teachers’ union, the United Federation of Teachers, disagreed, saying that the difference underscored that the report cards are a flawed measurement. “The D.O.E. tools really don’t capture a lot of the challenges that the teachers and students face. There are teachers in the A schools doing a great job, and teachers in the D schools doing a great job,” he said."
Indeed. What we need is to pay teachers and administrators properly-across the board-and stop trying to introduce a form of merit pay that is always going to be corrupted by the sheer difficulty of coming up with accurate measure. If this silly system continues, we may well reach the point where the educational operation is deemed a success, but the school children patient dies.
Update
We missed the NY Post story on this subject-but can't someone re-do their web site, and the Daily News' one as well-they are simply too difficult to access information from.
But the Post did get a great deal of good info: "That means teachers at more than half the 40 struggling schools participating in the two-year pilot program took in an average of $3,000 each in bonus pay this year. An additional $1.6 million was paid to principals and other administrators under a separate bonus program that's based on annual performance reviews. Both pay plans are at least partially tied to the Department of Education's report-card grades released this week, which saw 75 percent of high schools rated with an A or B."
But what this really shows, is how difficult it is to devise a common sense merit pay scheme: "Supporters of paying teachers based on performance hailed the program as the first step toward merit pay. But the union has maintained that its structure -- which rewards teachers based on their school's collective performance rather than on individual class room achievement -- shuts the door on merit pay."
And especially when the crackheads are apparently doing the grading at DOE: "The uproar arose in part because the bonus bump stemmed from the city's elevated results on annual math and reading tests -- exams that the state has since acknowledged should have been more rigorous. "Somebody has to be complicit in this robbery -- it cannot be that DOE can simply appropriate public money as it sees fit," said Paola de Kock, whose son graduated in June from Stuyvesant HS in Manhattan."
And the NY Daily News has Diane Ravitch weigh in on this farce: "Staffers at Brooklyn's W. H. Maxwell High School, tarred with a D on its report card this week, still reaped more than $180,000 Thursday in bonuses for a job well done. The award to the East New York vocational school - one of 80 high schools that received bonuses from the city Thursday - left education officials defending themselves and critics scratching their heads. "Either the school is doing better than its grade, or the bonuses were miscalculated," said education historian Diane Ravitch. "When you get this sort of counterintuitive result - bonuses at an allegedly low-performing school - it suggests that the accountability system is seriously amiss."
This is all beginning to look like a game of pin the bonus tail on the teacher: "Other bonuses also raised eyebrows, including more than $100,000 to the staff at Bronx Coalition Community High School, which is being closed for poor performance. Principals and teachers at four C schools also scored more than $1 million."
Would some one please go back to all of Mike Bloomberg's campaign ads on the subject of education. If that is done, there would be no head scratching over anyone awarding the mendacious mayor an F for honesty.
And the number of schools getting either an A or a B fell from 82% to 75%-still very high considering the low skill sets that students are taking with them as they head off to college; or, we should say community college, since these schools are being inundated with all of the students who, because of poor preparation, can't make the grade at the city's senior colleges. So what we really have are skills with good grades and students with-whatever-grades floundering once they leave the system.
As the News tells us: "Overall, about 75% of high schools earned an A or a B, down from 82% last year. An increase in graduation rates - which would have nudged overall grades higher - was offset by the Education Department's decision to raise passing scores. "Despite setting rising standards and requirements, our schools are generally moving forward," Schools Chancellor Joel Klein said ."
All pretty obfuscating to us-obscuring the real conditions and the actual learning being done in exchange for a letter grade that reveals little. Except for the fact that these grades can mean big money for teacher bonuses-at least someone is getting the benefit of grade inflation. As the NY Times reports today: "Teachers at W.H. Maxwell Career and Technical Education High School in Brooklyn were among those at 23 high schools citywide awarded a total of $3.5 million in performance bonuses on Thursday, even though the school received a D on its progress report earlier this week. The Jane Addams High School for Academic Careers in the Bronx and three other schools earned C’s on their report cards, and their teachers will be getting bonuses, too."
Kind of like crackpot rationality to us. Now don't get us wrong, it's nice to see hard working educators score a little extra cash in these tough economic times-but let's not kid ourselves and think that that outlays have any correlation to any real measure of academic success-much as the school grades are often completely baffling.
As the Times indicates: "The reason for the discrepancy between the two measures of progress, school officials said, is that the teacher bonuses — awarded by the Department of Education — are determined by individual targets set for each school, and the bonus-eligible schools serve students starting from a very low threshold. It may also be rewarding improvement within each letter grade. “Maybe a school didn’t go from a D to a C, or stayed at a C, but it’s still making progress,” said Ann Forte, a department spokeswoman, defending both the report cards and the awards program."
Everyone following so far? It reminds us of Tom Lehrer's old song, "The New Math." The first few verses give you an idea, although you really need to hear his rapid fire delivery to get the real flavor of Lehrer's insanity:
"Now remember how we used to do that. Three from two is nine; carry the one, and if you're under 35 or went to a private school you say seven from three is six, but if you're over 35 and went to a public school you say eight from four is six; carry the one so we have 169, but in the new approach, as you know, the important thing is to understand what you're doing rather than to get the right answer.
Here's how they do it now. You can't take three from two, Two is less than three, So you look at the four in the tens place. Now that's really four tens, So you make it three tens, Regroup, and you change a ten to ten ones, And you add them to the two and get twelve, And you take away three, that's nine. Is that clear?"
And Lehrer's closing line was: "It's so simple, So very simple, That only a child can do it!" But in the case of the DOE's grading and bonus system, not even a child can comprehend how its computed. As UFT president Mulgrew tells the Times: "Michael Mulgrew, the head of the teachers’ union, the United Federation of Teachers, disagreed, saying that the difference underscored that the report cards are a flawed measurement. “The D.O.E. tools really don’t capture a lot of the challenges that the teachers and students face. There are teachers in the A schools doing a great job, and teachers in the D schools doing a great job,” he said."
Indeed. What we need is to pay teachers and administrators properly-across the board-and stop trying to introduce a form of merit pay that is always going to be corrupted by the sheer difficulty of coming up with accurate measure. If this silly system continues, we may well reach the point where the educational operation is deemed a success, but the school children patient dies.
Update
We missed the NY Post story on this subject-but can't someone re-do their web site, and the Daily News' one as well-they are simply too difficult to access information from.
But the Post did get a great deal of good info: "That means teachers at more than half the 40 struggling schools participating in the two-year pilot program took in an average of $3,000 each in bonus pay this year. An additional $1.6 million was paid to principals and other administrators under a separate bonus program that's based on annual performance reviews. Both pay plans are at least partially tied to the Department of Education's report-card grades released this week, which saw 75 percent of high schools rated with an A or B."
But what this really shows, is how difficult it is to devise a common sense merit pay scheme: "Supporters of paying teachers based on performance hailed the program as the first step toward merit pay. But the union has maintained that its structure -- which rewards teachers based on their school's collective performance rather than on individual class room achievement -- shuts the door on merit pay."
And especially when the crackheads are apparently doing the grading at DOE: "The uproar arose in part because the bonus bump stemmed from the city's elevated results on annual math and reading tests -- exams that the state has since acknowledged should have been more rigorous. "Somebody has to be complicit in this robbery -- it cannot be that DOE can simply appropriate public money as it sees fit," said Paola de Kock, whose son graduated in June from Stuyvesant HS in Manhattan."
And the NY Daily News has Diane Ravitch weigh in on this farce: "Staffers at Brooklyn's W. H. Maxwell High School, tarred with a D on its report card this week, still reaped more than $180,000 Thursday in bonuses for a job well done. The award to the East New York vocational school - one of 80 high schools that received bonuses from the city Thursday - left education officials defending themselves and critics scratching their heads. "Either the school is doing better than its grade, or the bonuses were miscalculated," said education historian Diane Ravitch. "When you get this sort of counterintuitive result - bonuses at an allegedly low-performing school - it suggests that the accountability system is seriously amiss."
This is all beginning to look like a game of pin the bonus tail on the teacher: "Other bonuses also raised eyebrows, including more than $100,000 to the staff at Bronx Coalition Community High School, which is being closed for poor performance. Principals and teachers at four C schools also scored more than $1 million."
Would some one please go back to all of Mike Bloomberg's campaign ads on the subject of education. If that is done, there would be no head scratching over anyone awarding the mendacious mayor an F for honesty.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Giuliani for Senate?
According to the NY Times-and almost everyone else-Rudy Giuliani will not run for governor in the upcoming year: "Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has decided not to run for governor of New York next year after months of mulling a candidacy, according to people who have been told of the decision."
The prospect of going mano-a-mano with Andrew Cuomo was apparently enough to dissuade the former NYC mayor: "It was not clear what prompted the decision, but the prospect of potentially facing Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, who is quietly planning his own run for governor on the Democratic ticket, may not have appealed to Mr. Giuliani, who suffered a bruising defeat in the 2008 Republican presidential primary. While many political analysts believe Mr. Giuliani would have comfortably beaten Gov. David A. Paterson, he would likely have faced an uphill battle against Mr. Cuomo, one of the most popular politicians in the state."
Still, it does leave open the possibility of a senate run against novice Gillibrand. As Liz points out: "A source close to new state GOP Chairman Ed Cox, who had been pushing Giuliani to run for the US Senate and not for governor, said allies of the former mayor have "made it clear" he isn't going to make a bid for the executive mansion...According to this source, a potential challenge by Giuliani to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is still on the table."
In our view, this would be a good thing because it would generate a competitive senate race against someone who has only demonstrated an ability to be the ultimate chameleon-and there are too many important issues extant to allow both NY senate races to become cake walks. As far as the current junior senator is concerned, her flipping and flopping around has gotten us dizzy-and has lead us to believe that she simply has no core beliefs.
With a Giuliani in the race, health care, stimulus, taxes, cap and trade and KSM will really be part of a vigorous public debate. It would be a good thing for New York-and not only because it would drive Al Sharpton absolutely nuts.
Update
Marist Poll should have Gillibrand hearing foot steps: "Giuliani leads U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, the Democrat appointed by Governor David Paterson to fill the vacant seat left by Hillary Clinton. 54% of registered voters statewide would vote for Giuliani compared with 40% who would support Gillibrand. Even one-third of Democrats report they would back the Republican challenger, and Giuliani runs competitively against Gillibrand in overwhelmingly Democratic New York City."
The prospect of going mano-a-mano with Andrew Cuomo was apparently enough to dissuade the former NYC mayor: "It was not clear what prompted the decision, but the prospect of potentially facing Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, who is quietly planning his own run for governor on the Democratic ticket, may not have appealed to Mr. Giuliani, who suffered a bruising defeat in the 2008 Republican presidential primary. While many political analysts believe Mr. Giuliani would have comfortably beaten Gov. David A. Paterson, he would likely have faced an uphill battle against Mr. Cuomo, one of the most popular politicians in the state."
Still, it does leave open the possibility of a senate run against novice Gillibrand. As Liz points out: "A source close to new state GOP Chairman Ed Cox, who had been pushing Giuliani to run for the US Senate and not for governor, said allies of the former mayor have "made it clear" he isn't going to make a bid for the executive mansion...According to this source, a potential challenge by Giuliani to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is still on the table."
In our view, this would be a good thing because it would generate a competitive senate race against someone who has only demonstrated an ability to be the ultimate chameleon-and there are too many important issues extant to allow both NY senate races to become cake walks. As far as the current junior senator is concerned, her flipping and flopping around has gotten us dizzy-and has lead us to believe that she simply has no core beliefs.
With a Giuliani in the race, health care, stimulus, taxes, cap and trade and KSM will really be part of a vigorous public debate. It would be a good thing for New York-and not only because it would drive Al Sharpton absolutely nuts.
Update
Marist Poll should have Gillibrand hearing foot steps: "Giuliani leads U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, the Democrat appointed by Governor David Paterson to fill the vacant seat left by Hillary Clinton. 54% of registered voters statewide would vote for Giuliani compared with 40% who would support Gillibrand. Even one-third of Democrats report they would back the Republican challenger, and Giuliani runs competitively against Gillibrand in overwhelmingly Democratic New York City."
Further Thoughts on Kingsbridge and Willets Point
Earlier we pointed out that the city-eager to cut a deal and get city council approval-had agreed last year to provide living wage jobs at the proposed Willets Point development. This precedent totally undercuts the Deputy Mayor Lieber's current position on the Armory-the same deputy mayor, by the way, that crafted the labor settlement last year.
But what really struck us was the mayor's comments quoted in the Errol Louis column: "The city is not in the business of guaranteeing people's wages, and in private development, we shouldn't be," said Bloomberg." Ah, the sanctity of the private sector is discovered by the mayor-kind of like some lost ancient relic. Because, as we have seen so dramatically in Willets Point, Mike Bloomberg is willing to remove 225 of such private businesses in order to make way for Bloomburgh.
And pay all the workers a living wage on top of it! It goes to demonstrate just how class divided the mayor's administration really is. You see, Mike will stand up four square for private business-but only it appears if it is the right kind. The business owners at the Iron Triangle don't have the same cachet as Related's president Jeff Blau (despite the fact that he can't get into a Fifth Avenue Co-op even with the mayor personally calling the co-op board).
Which brings us to the Willets Point situation-and a fascinating story in Realclearpolitics this morning on New London. It seems that the Fort Trumball neighborhood that was the subject of the eminent domain fiasco up there, was also the home of auto body shops-just like at the Point: "New London had wanted to replace the area's weathered cottages and auto-body shops with a cityscape more amenable to the corporate types at the new Pfizer research park. The city bought some of the properties and seized those whose owners refused to sell."
And the end result? "New London remains blessed by fine old architecture, a waterfront setting and a choice location between New York and Boston. It will reinvent itself. In the meantime, it must live with this huge irony: Two years hence, the auto-body shops banished from Fort Trumbull would have been employing more people in New London than the pharmaceuticals giant they were sacrificed for."
The key phrase here is,"would have been," because, of course, they are no more-and the owners at Willets Point do not want to be in the same position that the home owners and auto body shop operators of New London are today: totally right, but posthumously-with the City of New York, much like New London, stuck with a huge bill for nothing
Workers and small businesses need better political leadership than they have gotten over the past eight years. The fight over Kingsbridge-and the continuing fight over the development of Willets Point-symbolize the blowing winds of political change. Mike Bloomberg is part of the old mindset-and Bronx BP Ruben Diaz represents the new outlook. Which leads us to close with this question for the mayor: "Brother, can you paradigm?"
But what really struck us was the mayor's comments quoted in the Errol Louis column: "The city is not in the business of guaranteeing people's wages, and in private development, we shouldn't be," said Bloomberg." Ah, the sanctity of the private sector is discovered by the mayor-kind of like some lost ancient relic. Because, as we have seen so dramatically in Willets Point, Mike Bloomberg is willing to remove 225 of such private businesses in order to make way for Bloomburgh.
And pay all the workers a living wage on top of it! It goes to demonstrate just how class divided the mayor's administration really is. You see, Mike will stand up four square for private business-but only it appears if it is the right kind. The business owners at the Iron Triangle don't have the same cachet as Related's president Jeff Blau (despite the fact that he can't get into a Fifth Avenue Co-op even with the mayor personally calling the co-op board).
Which brings us to the Willets Point situation-and a fascinating story in Realclearpolitics this morning on New London. It seems that the Fort Trumball neighborhood that was the subject of the eminent domain fiasco up there, was also the home of auto body shops-just like at the Point: "New London had wanted to replace the area's weathered cottages and auto-body shops with a cityscape more amenable to the corporate types at the new Pfizer research park. The city bought some of the properties and seized those whose owners refused to sell."
And the end result? "New London remains blessed by fine old architecture, a waterfront setting and a choice location between New York and Boston. It will reinvent itself. In the meantime, it must live with this huge irony: Two years hence, the auto-body shops banished from Fort Trumbull would have been employing more people in New London than the pharmaceuticals giant they were sacrificed for."
The key phrase here is,"would have been," because, of course, they are no more-and the owners at Willets Point do not want to be in the same position that the home owners and auto body shop operators of New London are today: totally right, but posthumously-with the City of New York, much like New London, stuck with a huge bill for nothing
Workers and small businesses need better political leadership than they have gotten over the past eight years. The fight over Kingsbridge-and the continuing fight over the development of Willets Point-symbolize the blowing winds of political change. Mike Bloomberg is part of the old mindset-and Bronx BP Ruben Diaz represents the new outlook. Which leads us to close with this question for the mayor: "Brother, can you paradigm?"
Stop Jobbing NYC
Errol Louis, following up on his previous work on the proliferation of poverty wages in New York, weighs in today in the NY Daily News on the need to hold Related Company's hands to the fire on the living wage provision in the Kingsbridge Armory development: "The pitched battle over how, when and whether to develop the Kingsbridge armory in the Bronx brings New York City to a crossroads. Either we commit to fighting for jobs that pay a decent, living wage, or we watch an ever-larger section of our populace take a slow tumble into a life of working full-time for poverty pay."
And Louis ridicules the idea-put forward by the mayor-that somehow this demand is an infringement on "private" development on the city: "Related - backed by high-ranking city officials up to and including Mayor Bloomberg - says asking possible tenants to pay employees at least $400 a week for full-time work is a deal-breaker because companies won't agree to rent space if they have to pay $10 an hour. "The city is not in the business of guaranteeing people's wages, and in private development, we shouldn't be," said Bloomberg. But this deal stopped being "private development" when the city committed $42 million in repairs and incentives. And it does guarantee people's wages - in the worst possible way."
But the city's own refusal to budge on this issue as far as the Armory is concerned lacks any semblance of consistency. Last year when it looked as if the Willets Point redevelopment project would go by the wayside, the city-and this includes Mike Bloomberg, who personally lobbied for the plan-struck a very broad living wage deal with local unions: "Some of New York's biggest union leaders lined up on the steps of City Hall Thursday to cheer Mayor Bloomberg's new megadevelopment plan - the $3 billion Willets Point project in Queens. One after another, they gave glowing praise to one more giveaway to real estate developers - one that had been opposed by a majority of the City Council. The labor leaders touted the "historic" concessions on future jobs at Willets Point they claim to have secured from City Hall in return for backing the project."
And the deal on the Point was a lot more controversial than the one being promoted by KARA at the Armory-involving as it did the proposed eviction of 225 local businesses and 2500 workers. So desperate was the city to compromise-and avoid embarrassing Mike Bloomberg-that it had no problem caving on the wage agreement at the Iron Triangle. That was then.
Now at the Armory we have another example of the city giving away millions-tens of millions-to a favored developer, while offering precious little to the future employees at the site. As Louis says, enough of this shafting:
"Giving tens of millions in assistance to Related without demanding a reasonable base wage would guarantee that many of the resulting jobs would pay less than many New Yorkers need to afford living in this city. Some jobs would be at the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. That's $290 a week for full-time work. Before taxes. Enough. Time and again, residents around the city are supposed to look the other way while bureaucrats and businessmen swap public money for crummy jobs that leave full-time workers using food stamps, soup kitchens and other welfare to survive. The lawyers and paper-pushers who cut these deals hold grip-and-grin press conferences, congratulating one another on how "creative" they had to be to strike the final bargain. As if underpaying security guards and stockroom clerks were akin to composing a symphony on a bar napkin."
And Louis agrees with Bronx BP Ruben Diaz that this should be the beginning of the development of a new paradigm for development in NYC: "New Yorkers have wised up to this immoral foolishness. The Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance, a coalition of community groups and unions, is calling Related's bluff, indicating they would rather have no deal than a guarantee of misery."The Bronx has the highest poverty rate of any urban county in the United States," Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr., said in testimony to the Council this week. "It is time to demand that developers do better."Damn straight. Let the "creative" geniuses figure out a new business model - one that doesn't depend on making sure working poor households stay poor."
In all of the city-and Related's-hand wringing you'd have thought that this was something so radical that it had never been tried any where else-even aside from the city's own Willets Point bow to living wage. But, as Drum Major Institute tells us in its blog post:
"Related Companies was selected by the city to redevelop the historic Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx into a retail mall. To assist with the redevelopment, Related will receive city tax subsidies equal to $17.8 million, plus $50 million in tax credits from the state and federal government. But as part of the deal, local residents demand that future retail tenants at the mall pay their employees a living wage. Related Companies insists that if it forces future retail tenants to pay a living wage, the mall will ultimately fail. But this statement must be confusing to those that live in Santa Fe, New Mexico. They have lots of big-box retailers like Target, Home Depot, Bed Bath and Beyond, The Gap, and Banana Republic. But they also have a living wage law that covers every single employee in the city: $9.85 an hour. The residents of San Francisco must be equally confused. The city has many national retailers and also has a city-wide minimum wage of $9.79 an hour. Plus, San Francisco workers get paid sick time and mandated employer contributions to health care. And somehow Barnes and Noble can still manage to get by."
So enough of this belly aching from the city and its development handmaiden-it's time to put up or shut up. What was good for Willets Point, San Fransisco and Santa Fe should be good enough for the people of the Bronx as well. We'll give Errol the last word here: "Let all the hand-wringing over the possibility of businesses leaving New York be matched by more concern about 150,000 people who move out of the city each year. Let us talk about why so many of the record 39,000 people living in city homeless shelters actually hold full-time jobs. Not only should Bloomberg and the Council support the community alliance, they should put living wage requirements in all city projects that receive significant public benefits, the way cities like San Francisco and Santa Fe, N.M., have already done. That would be real creativity of the kind our city needs."
And Louis ridicules the idea-put forward by the mayor-that somehow this demand is an infringement on "private" development on the city: "Related - backed by high-ranking city officials up to and including Mayor Bloomberg - says asking possible tenants to pay employees at least $400 a week for full-time work is a deal-breaker because companies won't agree to rent space if they have to pay $10 an hour. "The city is not in the business of guaranteeing people's wages, and in private development, we shouldn't be," said Bloomberg. But this deal stopped being "private development" when the city committed $42 million in repairs and incentives. And it does guarantee people's wages - in the worst possible way."
But the city's own refusal to budge on this issue as far as the Armory is concerned lacks any semblance of consistency. Last year when it looked as if the Willets Point redevelopment project would go by the wayside, the city-and this includes Mike Bloomberg, who personally lobbied for the plan-struck a very broad living wage deal with local unions: "Some of New York's biggest union leaders lined up on the steps of City Hall Thursday to cheer Mayor Bloomberg's new megadevelopment plan - the $3 billion Willets Point project in Queens. One after another, they gave glowing praise to one more giveaway to real estate developers - one that had been opposed by a majority of the City Council. The labor leaders touted the "historic" concessions on future jobs at Willets Point they claim to have secured from City Hall in return for backing the project."
And the deal on the Point was a lot more controversial than the one being promoted by KARA at the Armory-involving as it did the proposed eviction of 225 local businesses and 2500 workers. So desperate was the city to compromise-and avoid embarrassing Mike Bloomberg-that it had no problem caving on the wage agreement at the Iron Triangle. That was then.
Now at the Armory we have another example of the city giving away millions-tens of millions-to a favored developer, while offering precious little to the future employees at the site. As Louis says, enough of this shafting:
"Giving tens of millions in assistance to Related without demanding a reasonable base wage would guarantee that many of the resulting jobs would pay less than many New Yorkers need to afford living in this city. Some jobs would be at the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. That's $290 a week for full-time work. Before taxes. Enough. Time and again, residents around the city are supposed to look the other way while bureaucrats and businessmen swap public money for crummy jobs that leave full-time workers using food stamps, soup kitchens and other welfare to survive. The lawyers and paper-pushers who cut these deals hold grip-and-grin press conferences, congratulating one another on how "creative" they had to be to strike the final bargain. As if underpaying security guards and stockroom clerks were akin to composing a symphony on a bar napkin."
And Louis agrees with Bronx BP Ruben Diaz that this should be the beginning of the development of a new paradigm for development in NYC: "New Yorkers have wised up to this immoral foolishness. The Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance, a coalition of community groups and unions, is calling Related's bluff, indicating they would rather have no deal than a guarantee of misery."The Bronx has the highest poverty rate of any urban county in the United States," Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr., said in testimony to the Council this week. "It is time to demand that developers do better."Damn straight. Let the "creative" geniuses figure out a new business model - one that doesn't depend on making sure working poor households stay poor."
In all of the city-and Related's-hand wringing you'd have thought that this was something so radical that it had never been tried any where else-even aside from the city's own Willets Point bow to living wage. But, as Drum Major Institute tells us in its blog post:
"Related Companies was selected by the city to redevelop the historic Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx into a retail mall. To assist with the redevelopment, Related will receive city tax subsidies equal to $17.8 million, plus $50 million in tax credits from the state and federal government. But as part of the deal, local residents demand that future retail tenants at the mall pay their employees a living wage. Related Companies insists that if it forces future retail tenants to pay a living wage, the mall will ultimately fail. But this statement must be confusing to those that live in Santa Fe, New Mexico. They have lots of big-box retailers like Target, Home Depot, Bed Bath and Beyond, The Gap, and Banana Republic. But they also have a living wage law that covers every single employee in the city: $9.85 an hour. The residents of San Francisco must be equally confused. The city has many national retailers and also has a city-wide minimum wage of $9.79 an hour. Plus, San Francisco workers get paid sick time and mandated employer contributions to health care. And somehow Barnes and Noble can still manage to get by."
So enough of this belly aching from the city and its development handmaiden-it's time to put up or shut up. What was good for Willets Point, San Fransisco and Santa Fe should be good enough for the people of the Bronx as well. We'll give Errol the last word here: "Let all the hand-wringing over the possibility of businesses leaving New York be matched by more concern about 150,000 people who move out of the city each year. Let us talk about why so many of the record 39,000 people living in city homeless shelters actually hold full-time jobs. Not only should Bloomberg and the Council support the community alliance, they should put living wage requirements in all city projects that receive significant public benefits, the way cities like San Francisco and Santa Fe, N.M., have already done. That would be real creativity of the kind our city needs."
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Prevailing Winds
The NY Times has an interesting story this morning about the new wind blowing through the state on the issue of prevailing wage-particularly when it comes to tax breaks gained through IDA: "In a bid to shore up his relations with labor unions, Gov. David A. Paterson is readying legislation that would require developers to pay prevailing wages on many construction projects that receive public financing, meaning that construction workers would have to be paid significantly more than minimum wage."
So the idea that projects that get significant public support should be required to pay workers at a higher than what has been normal rate is gaining traction-we call it a prevailing wind, and its implications should be clear for the city council in its deliberations on the fate of the Kingsbridge Armory. As the Times points out: "The issues at stake in the legislation are already being played out in the Bronx, where a $310 million development project would bring a new shopping mall to the Kingsbridge Armory. A coalition of community leaders has pushed for requirements that jobs at the mall pay a wage of $11.50 an hour, or $10 with benefits, as opposed to the $7.25 minimum wage. The governor is proposing a far higher wage rate. The developer of the Bronx project, the Related Companies, has said that it would give up the project if it faced such requirements."
And, just as he is in the city debate, it is the RWDSU's Stuart Appelbaum who is front and center in the state fight as well: "Why — in the middle of the worst crisis since the Great Depression — would the governor want to kill an economic development program that has created over 200,000 new jobs?” said Kenneth Adams, the president of the Business Council of New York State. “It’s a proposal that destroys hope for economic recovery in New York.” But Stuart Appelbaum, president of the national Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, said, “If public resources are being used to finance development of any kind, there should be a notion that the community gets something back in return, and that notion is that we are creating good jobs.”
The handwriting on the wall is quite legible if you are Related. If you take the money, be prepared to pony up for the workers-and as Daily Politics points out, this issue is really taking hold with New York's elected officials: "The bill would require prevailing wages on construction projects that receive public financing through IDAs throughout the state. Needless to say, members of the business community - particularly those in the construction business - are not big fans of this idea. IDA reform has been the cause célèbre of several big players in the labor community: 32 BJ, RWDSU and the building trades. Of that trio, 32BJ has been lobbying the hardest, even going so far as to launch a print and radio ad campaign."
So, as far as Related and the Armory is concerned, the open question is whether or not the price of entry here is too steep. If it is, the developer just might pull the plug on the entire effort-but that point certainly hasn't been reached quite yet. The progress of negotiations will determine if Related will employ the time honored strategy of quitting in order to be able to fight another day.
So the idea that projects that get significant public support should be required to pay workers at a higher than what has been normal rate is gaining traction-we call it a prevailing wind, and its implications should be clear for the city council in its deliberations on the fate of the Kingsbridge Armory. As the Times points out: "The issues at stake in the legislation are already being played out in the Bronx, where a $310 million development project would bring a new shopping mall to the Kingsbridge Armory. A coalition of community leaders has pushed for requirements that jobs at the mall pay a wage of $11.50 an hour, or $10 with benefits, as opposed to the $7.25 minimum wage. The governor is proposing a far higher wage rate. The developer of the Bronx project, the Related Companies, has said that it would give up the project if it faced such requirements."
And, just as he is in the city debate, it is the RWDSU's Stuart Appelbaum who is front and center in the state fight as well: "Why — in the middle of the worst crisis since the Great Depression — would the governor want to kill an economic development program that has created over 200,000 new jobs?” said Kenneth Adams, the president of the Business Council of New York State. “It’s a proposal that destroys hope for economic recovery in New York.” But Stuart Appelbaum, president of the national Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, said, “If public resources are being used to finance development of any kind, there should be a notion that the community gets something back in return, and that notion is that we are creating good jobs.”
The handwriting on the wall is quite legible if you are Related. If you take the money, be prepared to pony up for the workers-and as Daily Politics points out, this issue is really taking hold with New York's elected officials: "The bill would require prevailing wages on construction projects that receive public financing through IDAs throughout the state. Needless to say, members of the business community - particularly those in the construction business - are not big fans of this idea. IDA reform has been the cause célèbre of several big players in the labor community: 32 BJ, RWDSU and the building trades. Of that trio, 32BJ has been lobbying the hardest, even going so far as to launch a print and radio ad campaign."
So, as far as Related and the Armory is concerned, the open question is whether or not the price of entry here is too steep. If it is, the developer just might pull the plug on the entire effort-but that point certainly hasn't been reached quite yet. The progress of negotiations will determine if Related will employ the time honored strategy of quitting in order to be able to fight another day.
Waging on the Armory
In some additional coverage of the Armory battle, the Observer's Eliot Brown hones in on the living wage controversy-and the renewed vigor of council members: "A repetitive refrain filled City Hall’s council chambers on Tuesday morning. For a good hour at a zoning committee hearing on the contentious plan to redevelop the Bronx’s Kingsbridge Armory into a mall, council member after council member battered the Bloomberg administration and the developer, the Related Companies, with a similar line of questioning: Given that city subsidies are to be used in the $323 million project, why isn’t there a guarantee that all the future mall’s jobs will pay a “living wage?”
And, as the NY Daily News reports, some of the comments were derisive of the mayor; underscoring our previous observation that his status may have been somewhat diminished by this month's close election: "Councilman Robert Jackson (D-Manhattan) scoffed at threats that the armory - which has been largely unused for more than a decade - would remain abandoned for decades if Related pulls out. "If Mayor Bloomberg wanted to finance this project, he could do it himself," Jackson said, drawing laughs. "There's other billionaires in this city, and this state that can do it also."
With an impasse having been reached, and the votes not there for the passage of the application, Related will need to come to the council with some ideas-and jettison others, such as a mega-supermarket, that are sticking points for the legislators: "Despite the hard public posturing of the two sides, veteran Council members said that private negotiations are continuing. Related's veteran lawyer-lobbyist Jesse Masyr said he was "willing to discuss anything that doesn't compromise the economic viability of the project."
What kind of an agreement could get the both sides to agree? Right now, that's difficult to predict-but Related and the city are going to have to show something that indicates that they understand the upset here over the developer getting the gold mine and the community the shaft. As the Observer tells us: "You’re basically saying that the city is going to subsidize a project that basically is going to have jobs that are not even committed to paying the minimum poverty level,” said Councilman Robert Jackson, one of at least seven consecutive members to bring up the wage issue. This all came as very welcome, if not unexpected, news to Stuart Appelbaum, the politically connected president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, who has been relentlessly pushing the Council on the living-wage issue. “I was pleased with every single one of the members of the committee who were there today,” he said. “The city is putting so many resources into the armory that I think we have the right to ask for something specific in return.”
And NY1 weighs in as well on the newly discovered council feistiness-and unwillingness to buy administration arguments that a liviing wage requirement would kill the development: "City Council members who attended the meeting, however, weren't buying it. "In 200 cities there are living wages requirements for publicly supported projects. Now if that is true there must be many retailers who are able to function in that kind of environment," said Councilman Oliver Koppell. "I don't think providing living wages is going to destroy any project," said Councilman Larry Seabrook. The City Council is scheduled to vote on the Kingsbridge Armory plan by December 17th, but it appears members will vote against the proposal if it doesn't change.
And it is our feeling, that the workers and the KARA coalition will be able to get a significant concession from an administration that is not in a position to play hard ball-and a speaker who appears unwilling to provide mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to a teetering project as a new council term is about to begin. Negotiations will continue, but their tenor and tone are likely to be different than they have ever been-with results that reflect what BP Diaz has called, "a new paradigm."
And, as the NY Daily News reports, some of the comments were derisive of the mayor; underscoring our previous observation that his status may have been somewhat diminished by this month's close election: "Councilman Robert Jackson (D-Manhattan) scoffed at threats that the armory - which has been largely unused for more than a decade - would remain abandoned for decades if Related pulls out. "If Mayor Bloomberg wanted to finance this project, he could do it himself," Jackson said, drawing laughs. "There's other billionaires in this city, and this state that can do it also."
With an impasse having been reached, and the votes not there for the passage of the application, Related will need to come to the council with some ideas-and jettison others, such as a mega-supermarket, that are sticking points for the legislators: "Despite the hard public posturing of the two sides, veteran Council members said that private negotiations are continuing. Related's veteran lawyer-lobbyist Jesse Masyr said he was "willing to discuss anything that doesn't compromise the economic viability of the project."
What kind of an agreement could get the both sides to agree? Right now, that's difficult to predict-but Related and the city are going to have to show something that indicates that they understand the upset here over the developer getting the gold mine and the community the shaft. As the Observer tells us: "You’re basically saying that the city is going to subsidize a project that basically is going to have jobs that are not even committed to paying the minimum poverty level,” said Councilman Robert Jackson, one of at least seven consecutive members to bring up the wage issue. This all came as very welcome, if not unexpected, news to Stuart Appelbaum, the politically connected president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, who has been relentlessly pushing the Council on the living-wage issue. “I was pleased with every single one of the members of the committee who were there today,” he said. “The city is putting so many resources into the armory that I think we have the right to ask for something specific in return.”
And NY1 weighs in as well on the newly discovered council feistiness-and unwillingness to buy administration arguments that a liviing wage requirement would kill the development: "City Council members who attended the meeting, however, weren't buying it. "In 200 cities there are living wages requirements for publicly supported projects. Now if that is true there must be many retailers who are able to function in that kind of environment," said Councilman Oliver Koppell. "I don't think providing living wages is going to destroy any project," said Councilman Larry Seabrook. The City Council is scheduled to vote on the Kingsbridge Armory plan by December 17th, but it appears members will vote against the proposal if it doesn't change.
And it is our feeling, that the workers and the KARA coalition will be able to get a significant concession from an administration that is not in a position to play hard ball-and a speaker who appears unwilling to provide mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to a teetering project as a new council term is about to begin. Negotiations will continue, but their tenor and tone are likely to be different than they have ever been-with results that reflect what BP Diaz has called, "a new paradigm."
Related: Hard of Hearing
Yesterday's land use hearing on the Kingsbridge Armory was remarkable because of the sheer level of opposition the project has generated. We have yet to see this kind of opposition in the eight years of the Bloomberg tenure. And in over twenty five years of lobbying on land use items before the city council, we have never seen a project move forward to the final stage with so many critics looking to scuttle the development-and in this case, to do so if it doesn't include a living wage.
At this juncture, we believe there is not a single council member on the Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee who would vote for the project as is-it seems as if there is something in the plan to alienate everyone for one reason or another. Still, the level of vitriol was unprecedented; and the diminished respect for Mayor Bloomberg and his administration was palpable among the council members at the hearing.
What struck us about the testimony of Related and Deputy Mayor Lieber was a level of disingenuousness that was, however, quickly dismissed by the council inquisitors. On the one hand, Related's Jesse James Masyr, claimed that the project couldn't be tenanted if a living wage was a requirement for the retailers at the proposed mall. On the other hand, he was quick to tell the council that Related's Gateway Mall was, "wildly successful," suggesting that retailers should be salivating to grab a piece of the Bronx market.
This is a point we have made elsewhere. If this were the first Bronx mall, than a degree of caution could be expected. But it isn't, and as the NY Times reported yesterday, giving credence to our position-one that was reinforced by the powerful testimony of RWDSU president Stuart Appelbaum: "Nearly 200 cities already require developers using public money to pay more than the minimum wage, though the salaries vary from project to project, said Peter Dreier, a professor at Occidental College in Los Angeles who has studied wage issues. He said businesses generally do not suffer as a result. “In every city in the country with living-wage laws, developers claim that this will kill their project, but they’re just crying wolf,” Professor Dreier said. “There’s no evidence at all that living-wage laws have a negative impact on specific businesses or the larger business climate.”
But those real world results make little impression on certain knee jerk, pro-development advocates. Over at Crain's, the paper inveighs against the living wage component as a deal killer (subsc.):
"The facts are simple. The armory has been vacant for more than a decade. After many fits and starts, the Bloomberg administration crafted a plan to redevelop it for retail use, allocating about $70 million in government incentives to make the project feasible. The Related Companies won a competition for the $310 million project. The local community board supports it. The logic is clear: The Bronx needs all the help it can get.Unfortunately, politics in the Bronx don't work that way. The new borough president and a group of clergy are demanding that Related guarantee something called living-wage jobs—at a legislated, not market-rate, salary, and with health benefits.This provision would kill the project, because no national retailers will agree to it. Why should they, when the other boroughs and the surrounding suburban communities embrace their jobs without restrictions? If turned away by the Bronx, they will follow Costco's example and position their stores to lure Bronx residents without putting any jobs in the borough."
Not content to editorialize just on the wage issue, Crain's goes on to take the Alliance to task for its advocacy on behalf of local supermarkets: "Further muddying the waters is a group called the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, which is mobilizing to stop the project as well. Missing from most coverage of its efforts is the fact that the alliance's spokesman is being paid for his efforts by local supermarkets seeking to stifle a new rival. Surely, residents of the Bronx, who have fewer shopping opportunities than people who live in any other borough, need more retail competition, not less."
Now we appreciate the shout out from Crain's inimitable editor, Greg David, we should point out that the Alliance's spokesman, your truly, is recognized by one and all as the lobbyist for local supermarkets-and is registered as such. Now maybe we should announce this every time we post, but we think that our readers are savvy enough to follow the arguments and avoid the ad hominen.
It should also be mentioned, that these local supermarkets have never received anything like the $70 million+ that Related's getting to possibly out a competitor in their path. And we would invite David to visit the are to see the 17 supermarkets that do business within a quarter mile of the Armory. That we be more productive than regurgitating administration talking points.
But we digress. Back to the hearing-and on the point that Crain's raises about supermarkets-Deputy Mayor Lieber was a font of misinformation, and disinformation, on this topic. He, like Masyr, repeated the fact that the local community board had supported the project with a supermarket, while eliding the fact that the board was looking for an "organic market," and not necessarily a full service one. In addition, the board subsequently signed on to the Bronx BP's no supermarket CBA proposal-a fact not alluded to by Lieber or Masyr.
Be that as it may, Lieber went on to discuss the city's "Fresh Initiative," a policy designed to encourage new supermarkets in so-called underserved areas-of which Kingsbridge Heights is one. Lieber, perhaps unaware of the details of the city's proposal, avoids mentioning the fact that the Initiative restricts supermarkets to be no larger than 30,000 sq. ft.-half the size of Related's proposed market. He also fails to point out-and to do so might diminish the credibility of the City Planning report that underlies the Fresh concept-that the two mile trade radius has over twenty five local markets; hardly the retail desert that city planners portray.
As we said, cited in the KARA press release: "Concern was also expressed about the effects on neighborhood businesses if national retailers open up stores in the publicly subsidized mall. "A 60,000 sq. ft. tax subsidized supermarket at the Kingsbridge Armory, in violation of the city's own request for proposal, would lead to the disappearance of at least four and possibly as many as six neighborhood supermarkets-as has been the case of other mega market projects on New York City," said Richard Lipsky, spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance. "This kind of impact runs counter to the city's expressed goal of preserving neighborhoods markets, and would lead to less access to the very fresh fruits and vegetables that the city feels is vital for the health of low income New Yorkers. The Armory project then is bad for local business and makes little public policy sense."
The subject of the supermarket was also brought up by Council member Felder who was upset by the fact that it seemed to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the city's own RFP-an issue we have discussed. But what got our interest here, was that the RFP also urged the successful bidder to seek to have its tenants pay a living wage-a goal that both the city and Related have abandoned.
What is very clear now, however, is that KARA, the RWDSU and the local supermarket owners have out-lobbied EDC and Related-at least up until this point! It is certainly not time for opponents to get complacent, but with the votes not there for approval, it will be up to the supporters of the project to figure out how to negotiate terms that can be accepted by the KARA coalition, and the council itself. The end game, while near, isn't in the cross hairs just yet. But if we hear the Fat Lady gargling, we'll let you know.
At this juncture, we believe there is not a single council member on the Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee who would vote for the project as is-it seems as if there is something in the plan to alienate everyone for one reason or another. Still, the level of vitriol was unprecedented; and the diminished respect for Mayor Bloomberg and his administration was palpable among the council members at the hearing.
What struck us about the testimony of Related and Deputy Mayor Lieber was a level of disingenuousness that was, however, quickly dismissed by the council inquisitors. On the one hand, Related's Jesse James Masyr, claimed that the project couldn't be tenanted if a living wage was a requirement for the retailers at the proposed mall. On the other hand, he was quick to tell the council that Related's Gateway Mall was, "wildly successful," suggesting that retailers should be salivating to grab a piece of the Bronx market.
This is a point we have made elsewhere. If this were the first Bronx mall, than a degree of caution could be expected. But it isn't, and as the NY Times reported yesterday, giving credence to our position-one that was reinforced by the powerful testimony of RWDSU president Stuart Appelbaum: "Nearly 200 cities already require developers using public money to pay more than the minimum wage, though the salaries vary from project to project, said Peter Dreier, a professor at Occidental College in Los Angeles who has studied wage issues. He said businesses generally do not suffer as a result. “In every city in the country with living-wage laws, developers claim that this will kill their project, but they’re just crying wolf,” Professor Dreier said. “There’s no evidence at all that living-wage laws have a negative impact on specific businesses or the larger business climate.”
But those real world results make little impression on certain knee jerk, pro-development advocates. Over at Crain's, the paper inveighs against the living wage component as a deal killer (subsc.):
"The facts are simple. The armory has been vacant for more than a decade. After many fits and starts, the Bloomberg administration crafted a plan to redevelop it for retail use, allocating about $70 million in government incentives to make the project feasible. The Related Companies won a competition for the $310 million project. The local community board supports it. The logic is clear: The Bronx needs all the help it can get.Unfortunately, politics in the Bronx don't work that way. The new borough president and a group of clergy are demanding that Related guarantee something called living-wage jobs—at a legislated, not market-rate, salary, and with health benefits.This provision would kill the project, because no national retailers will agree to it. Why should they, when the other boroughs and the surrounding suburban communities embrace their jobs without restrictions? If turned away by the Bronx, they will follow Costco's example and position their stores to lure Bronx residents without putting any jobs in the borough."
Not content to editorialize just on the wage issue, Crain's goes on to take the Alliance to task for its advocacy on behalf of local supermarkets: "Further muddying the waters is a group called the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, which is mobilizing to stop the project as well. Missing from most coverage of its efforts is the fact that the alliance's spokesman is being paid for his efforts by local supermarkets seeking to stifle a new rival. Surely, residents of the Bronx, who have fewer shopping opportunities than people who live in any other borough, need more retail competition, not less."
Now we appreciate the shout out from Crain's inimitable editor, Greg David, we should point out that the Alliance's spokesman, your truly, is recognized by one and all as the lobbyist for local supermarkets-and is registered as such. Now maybe we should announce this every time we post, but we think that our readers are savvy enough to follow the arguments and avoid the ad hominen.
It should also be mentioned, that these local supermarkets have never received anything like the $70 million+ that Related's getting to possibly out a competitor in their path. And we would invite David to visit the are to see the 17 supermarkets that do business within a quarter mile of the Armory. That we be more productive than regurgitating administration talking points.
But we digress. Back to the hearing-and on the point that Crain's raises about supermarkets-Deputy Mayor Lieber was a font of misinformation, and disinformation, on this topic. He, like Masyr, repeated the fact that the local community board had supported the project with a supermarket, while eliding the fact that the board was looking for an "organic market," and not necessarily a full service one. In addition, the board subsequently signed on to the Bronx BP's no supermarket CBA proposal-a fact not alluded to by Lieber or Masyr.
Be that as it may, Lieber went on to discuss the city's "Fresh Initiative," a policy designed to encourage new supermarkets in so-called underserved areas-of which Kingsbridge Heights is one. Lieber, perhaps unaware of the details of the city's proposal, avoids mentioning the fact that the Initiative restricts supermarkets to be no larger than 30,000 sq. ft.-half the size of Related's proposed market. He also fails to point out-and to do so might diminish the credibility of the City Planning report that underlies the Fresh concept-that the two mile trade radius has over twenty five local markets; hardly the retail desert that city planners portray.
As we said, cited in the KARA press release: "Concern was also expressed about the effects on neighborhood businesses if national retailers open up stores in the publicly subsidized mall. "A 60,000 sq. ft. tax subsidized supermarket at the Kingsbridge Armory, in violation of the city's own request for proposal, would lead to the disappearance of at least four and possibly as many as six neighborhood supermarkets-as has been the case of other mega market projects on New York City," said Richard Lipsky, spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance. "This kind of impact runs counter to the city's expressed goal of preserving neighborhoods markets, and would lead to less access to the very fresh fruits and vegetables that the city feels is vital for the health of low income New Yorkers. The Armory project then is bad for local business and makes little public policy sense."
The subject of the supermarket was also brought up by Council member Felder who was upset by the fact that it seemed to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the city's own RFP-an issue we have discussed. But what got our interest here, was that the RFP also urged the successful bidder to seek to have its tenants pay a living wage-a goal that both the city and Related have abandoned.
What is very clear now, however, is that KARA, the RWDSU and the local supermarket owners have out-lobbied EDC and Related-at least up until this point! It is certainly not time for opponents to get complacent, but with the votes not there for approval, it will be up to the supporters of the project to figure out how to negotiate terms that can be accepted by the KARA coalition, and the council itself. The end game, while near, isn't in the cross hairs just yet. But if we hear the Fat Lady gargling, we'll let you know.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Adding Cant to Can't
It is simply amazing to us how conventional wisdom, devoid of any data that would suggest its veracity, begins to permeate in certain quarters. So it is with the issue of Indian cigarette retail tax avoidance. When we last left the discussion, Senator Carl Kruger was presenting a demand note to the governor to begin enforcing the law forthwith. In making his demand he posited the figure of $135 million per month as a receivable that the state could begin to collect immediately.
Soon after Kruger had made the demand, the conventional wisdom hyenas-in the media as well as in government-let loose on the Brooklyn lawmaker, accusing him of vastly inflating these uncollected funds. As the NY Times reports this morning: "Not to be outdone in the effort to sway public opinion on the matter, the governor’s primary antagonist throughout the budget process, Senator Carl Kruger of Brooklyn, held a news conference demanding that Mr. Paterson order the state treasury to begin collecting taxes on cigarettes sold on Indian reservations. “We have to ask everybody to share both the benefits and the burdens of being a New Yorker,” Mr. Kruger said. “Part of being a New Yorker is paying the taxes that are assessed upon you. Today is the day that we draw a line in the sand. And I say we should collect before we cut.”
And the response: “The idea that New York State could reap anywhere close to $135 million in tax revenue within the next several weeks is preposterous,” the governor’s spokesman, Peter Kauffmann, said. “You can’t balance the state’s budget with gimmicks and imaginary revenue.”
No, what is preposterous is the fact that this governor simply refuses to enforce the current law-and consistently underestimates the tobacco revenue precisely because it would add to the embarrassment of having a chief executive who is simply afraid to hold the Indians to the same law abiding standards as everyone else must be held to. But what is even more embarrassing is a slothful press corps that seems to accept a government pronouncement without a smidgen of skepticism.
Some of this can be gleaned in this Observer story on the, "obstacle," Kruger: "Mr. Kruger had just delivered a letter to David Paterson demanding that the governor start collecting taxes on cigarettes sold on tribal reservations. It's one of those perennial proposals that politicians dust off when they need an alternative to something governmentally responsible but politically unpalatable. Mr. Kruger's projection of how much revenue it would yield is all but universally dismissed as absurd; its size unprecedented."
"Universally dismissed?" Is there a scorecard we can refer to on this? In fact, if the press would go about doing its own research it would find that the Kruger numbers parallel those that have been proffered by state tax department officials. In 2005, Deputy Commissioner William Comiskey of the State Department of Taxation and Finance, testified that the Indian retail outlets bought 47 million cartons of untaxed cigarettes in that year alone.
If you do the simple math here, and multiply the number of untaxed Indian retail cigarette cartons by the state excise tax ($27.50) and the average sales tax ($4.75)-for a total of $32.50-you reach the numbers that the senator has laid out in his letter. But that doesn't stop the real obstructionists from substituting derision and opprobrium for clearheaded analysis: "Carl Kruger's a liar, his letter is a lie, he owes the governor an apology and this is not helping the process of getting a deficit reduction package," Larry Schwartz, Mr. Paterson's top aide, told the Daily News. "I'd rather hear what Freddy Krueger thinks to be honest with you," Mr. Paterson told the Associated Press. "For them to even say it is irresponsible bordering on malevolence."
And-to fight fire with fire, perhaps-there may be many New Yorkers who would rather be governed by Freddy Kruger than the current occupant of the executive mansion. But all of this, smoke and mirrors really, is an effort to avoid the simple task of providing the senate, the media and the public with the accurate accounting that only the state tax officials can provide.
And the press should be demanding this as well-piercing the veil of fear that has apparently gotten in the way of the ability to do simple math and give an honest accounting. The Times Union is closer to the truth on all of this: "Citing earlier disruptions, Paterson fears a tax effort could spark violence, especially in the Seneca Nation of western New York where many of the disputed cigarettes are sold. "A police problem could quickly elevate to a military one," said Peter Kiernan, the governor's counsel, of the idea at a hearing last month. In 1997, the last time the government tried to collect such taxes, American Indian protesters shut down the Thruway and clashed with State Police."
And the TU credits Kruger for courage in the face of a pusillanimous governor: "But Kruger compared backing down on tax collections to saying the government wouldn't enforce property tax collections for fear angry homeowners might blockade the Long Island Expressway." Might not the cat calling from the Second Floor be a diversion from this unpalatable public timidity?
But instead we get the following from the NY Daily News' Bill Hammond: "Ditto for Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn, who made a big show yesterday of demanding that Paterson immediately start enforcing cigarette tax laws on Indian reservations. It's true that Albany has tolerated rampant tax evasion that hurts law-abiding merchants and costs state and local government big bucks. But for Kruger to claim that enforcement could reap $1.6 billion a year is reckless. "If people smoked that much there would be a big black cloud over the state blocking out the sun," one budget official quipped. Throwing around numbers like that suggests that Kruger is exploiting the issue as an excuse not to grapple with the politically dicey work of finding cuts."
We have a suggestion for Hammond-follow I. F. Stone's dictum and do some reporting-don't accept any official statistics without some verification. And for that matter, why don't you query the Bloomberg administration that puts the uncollected funds at around $1 billion. It is easy to dismiss inconvenient truths, especially when they get in the way of a good narrative.
Here's the bottom line: around fifty percent of all cigarettes consumed in NY State are untaxed. So, unless our state's consumption has drastically veered from those of all of the other 49 states, New Yorkers will smoke 90-96 million cartons and will collect the tax on only around 46 million.
The numbers are staggering, but the cloud that some nonfeasant state official claims surrounds Senator Kruger's figures, really applies to the exhaust fumes emitted from a mendacious state government that lacks the fortitude to apply the law equally to all of the residents of New York State.
Soon after Kruger had made the demand, the conventional wisdom hyenas-in the media as well as in government-let loose on the Brooklyn lawmaker, accusing him of vastly inflating these uncollected funds. As the NY Times reports this morning: "Not to be outdone in the effort to sway public opinion on the matter, the governor’s primary antagonist throughout the budget process, Senator Carl Kruger of Brooklyn, held a news conference demanding that Mr. Paterson order the state treasury to begin collecting taxes on cigarettes sold on Indian reservations. “We have to ask everybody to share both the benefits and the burdens of being a New Yorker,” Mr. Kruger said. “Part of being a New Yorker is paying the taxes that are assessed upon you. Today is the day that we draw a line in the sand. And I say we should collect before we cut.”
And the response: “The idea that New York State could reap anywhere close to $135 million in tax revenue within the next several weeks is preposterous,” the governor’s spokesman, Peter Kauffmann, said. “You can’t balance the state’s budget with gimmicks and imaginary revenue.”
No, what is preposterous is the fact that this governor simply refuses to enforce the current law-and consistently underestimates the tobacco revenue precisely because it would add to the embarrassment of having a chief executive who is simply afraid to hold the Indians to the same law abiding standards as everyone else must be held to. But what is even more embarrassing is a slothful press corps that seems to accept a government pronouncement without a smidgen of skepticism.
Some of this can be gleaned in this Observer story on the, "obstacle," Kruger: "Mr. Kruger had just delivered a letter to David Paterson demanding that the governor start collecting taxes on cigarettes sold on tribal reservations. It's one of those perennial proposals that politicians dust off when they need an alternative to something governmentally responsible but politically unpalatable. Mr. Kruger's projection of how much revenue it would yield is all but universally dismissed as absurd; its size unprecedented."
"Universally dismissed?" Is there a scorecard we can refer to on this? In fact, if the press would go about doing its own research it would find that the Kruger numbers parallel those that have been proffered by state tax department officials. In 2005, Deputy Commissioner William Comiskey of the State Department of Taxation and Finance, testified that the Indian retail outlets bought 47 million cartons of untaxed cigarettes in that year alone.
If you do the simple math here, and multiply the number of untaxed Indian retail cigarette cartons by the state excise tax ($27.50) and the average sales tax ($4.75)-for a total of $32.50-you reach the numbers that the senator has laid out in his letter. But that doesn't stop the real obstructionists from substituting derision and opprobrium for clearheaded analysis: "Carl Kruger's a liar, his letter is a lie, he owes the governor an apology and this is not helping the process of getting a deficit reduction package," Larry Schwartz, Mr. Paterson's top aide, told the Daily News. "I'd rather hear what Freddy Krueger thinks to be honest with you," Mr. Paterson told the Associated Press. "For them to even say it is irresponsible bordering on malevolence."
And-to fight fire with fire, perhaps-there may be many New Yorkers who would rather be governed by Freddy Kruger than the current occupant of the executive mansion. But all of this, smoke and mirrors really, is an effort to avoid the simple task of providing the senate, the media and the public with the accurate accounting that only the state tax officials can provide.
And the press should be demanding this as well-piercing the veil of fear that has apparently gotten in the way of the ability to do simple math and give an honest accounting. The Times Union is closer to the truth on all of this: "Citing earlier disruptions, Paterson fears a tax effort could spark violence, especially in the Seneca Nation of western New York where many of the disputed cigarettes are sold. "A police problem could quickly elevate to a military one," said Peter Kiernan, the governor's counsel, of the idea at a hearing last month. In 1997, the last time the government tried to collect such taxes, American Indian protesters shut down the Thruway and clashed with State Police."
And the TU credits Kruger for courage in the face of a pusillanimous governor: "But Kruger compared backing down on tax collections to saying the government wouldn't enforce property tax collections for fear angry homeowners might blockade the Long Island Expressway." Might not the cat calling from the Second Floor be a diversion from this unpalatable public timidity?
But instead we get the following from the NY Daily News' Bill Hammond: "Ditto for Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn, who made a big show yesterday of demanding that Paterson immediately start enforcing cigarette tax laws on Indian reservations. It's true that Albany has tolerated rampant tax evasion that hurts law-abiding merchants and costs state and local government big bucks. But for Kruger to claim that enforcement could reap $1.6 billion a year is reckless. "If people smoked that much there would be a big black cloud over the state blocking out the sun," one budget official quipped. Throwing around numbers like that suggests that Kruger is exploiting the issue as an excuse not to grapple with the politically dicey work of finding cuts."
We have a suggestion for Hammond-follow I. F. Stone's dictum and do some reporting-don't accept any official statistics without some verification. And for that matter, why don't you query the Bloomberg administration that puts the uncollected funds at around $1 billion. It is easy to dismiss inconvenient truths, especially when they get in the way of a good narrative.
Here's the bottom line: around fifty percent of all cigarettes consumed in NY State are untaxed. So, unless our state's consumption has drastically veered from those of all of the other 49 states, New Yorkers will smoke 90-96 million cartons and will collect the tax on only around 46 million.
The numbers are staggering, but the cloud that some nonfeasant state official claims surrounds Senator Kruger's figures, really applies to the exhaust fumes emitted from a mendacious state government that lacks the fortitude to apply the law equally to all of the residents of New York State.
Bloomberg to Living Wage: Drop Dead!
Bob Kappstatter's column headline really nails it this morning in the NY Daily News: "Mayor Bloomberg on living wage: Drop dead" It appears that the mayor feels that the injection of a living wage into the Kingsbridge Arnory plan would harm development all over the city. As Kappy tells it: "Mayor Bloomberg has definitely stepped in to shoot down that living wage proposal for retail workers at the Kingsbridge Armory.Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Bob Lieber is reportedly set to oppose it today at a Council committee hearing, saying the Bloomberg camp fears a $10 an hour/and benefits wage deal would harm retail development citywide."
Given the impact of Bloomberg's economic policies on neighborhoods and small businesses, we can only say, "We hope so." And if our meeting with Herr Lieber was any indication, it is quite clear to us that this is one guy who simply has no clue when it comes to the local economy. Thorsten Veblen had the right term for this Wall Street trained functionary-"trained incapacity."
As the RWDSU's Stuart Appelbaum told the NY Times: "We don’t want them to bring in employers who are going to pay wages that keep people in poverty,” said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the national Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, and a member of the coalition. “When the government invests the city’s funds into the project, we have the right to expect something in return.”
What the Bloombergistas fail to understand-so distant are they from neighborhood reality-is that their policies of high taxes, over-regulation and over development, have crippled NYC's local economies. The record level of store vacancies and small business foreclosures should allow the city council to say proudly at today's hearing: "No mas!"
And when we look at the supermarket issue, if the mayor thinks that trading one 60,000 sq. ft. megastore for the four or five neighborhood supermarkets that will be lost, than he's doing about as well in math as our city's school children are. It flies in the face of the entire purpose of the city's "Fresh Initiative."
So, let's get it on, and have a debate that exposes the mayor's own policy limitations-ones that have led to the Bronx suffering through record levels of unemployment. It's time that Big Real Estate learned that it's not all about their own profits. As one man coming out of the cleaner's was overheard explaining to his young son about the need for accountability: "Son, if the money's good enough to go into their pockets, the pants gotta be good enough to go on my ass."
Given the impact of Bloomberg's economic policies on neighborhoods and small businesses, we can only say, "We hope so." And if our meeting with Herr Lieber was any indication, it is quite clear to us that this is one guy who simply has no clue when it comes to the local economy. Thorsten Veblen had the right term for this Wall Street trained functionary-"trained incapacity."
As the RWDSU's Stuart Appelbaum told the NY Times: "We don’t want them to bring in employers who are going to pay wages that keep people in poverty,” said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the national Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, and a member of the coalition. “When the government invests the city’s funds into the project, we have the right to expect something in return.”
What the Bloombergistas fail to understand-so distant are they from neighborhood reality-is that their policies of high taxes, over-regulation and over development, have crippled NYC's local economies. The record level of store vacancies and small business foreclosures should allow the city council to say proudly at today's hearing: "No mas!"
And when we look at the supermarket issue, if the mayor thinks that trading one 60,000 sq. ft. megastore for the four or five neighborhood supermarkets that will be lost, than he's doing about as well in math as our city's school children are. It flies in the face of the entire purpose of the city's "Fresh Initiative."
So, let's get it on, and have a debate that exposes the mayor's own policy limitations-ones that have led to the Bronx suffering through record levels of unemployment. It's time that Big Real Estate learned that it's not all about their own profits. As one man coming out of the cleaner's was overheard explaining to his young son about the need for accountability: "Son, if the money's good enough to go into their pockets, the pants gotta be good enough to go on my ass."
Kingsbridge's Last Stand?
The first city council hearing on the controversial Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment plan will take place today-with a press conference scheduled at 1:00 PM on the steps of city hall-and there doesn't seem to be much movement yet towards a settlement. As the NY Daily News reports, the project has generated more opposition than any other such land use application that has come before the council in the past eight years: "The Council's subcommittee on zoning and franchises will hear testimony on a project which the subcommittee chairman, Tony Avella, said has generated a surprising wave of opposition. "There is more opposition to this project than any I've seen come to the committee since I've been the chair," said Avella, who has headed the committee for eight years. "And the opposition is at a higher level than I've seen before."
And, as the NY Times tells us, the line in the sand is over the question of whether the retailers in the project will pay their workers a living wage: "The dispute has escalated as the plan has moved forward, with the commission’s 8-to-4 vote leading to a public hearing before the City Council’s Land Use Committee set for Tuesday. But if the armory battle has become a high-stakes stare-down over wages at the mall, neither side is showing any sign of blinking. A coalition of political, religious, labor and local leaders has demanded that every new job at the Armory offer a “living wage” — $11.50 an hour, or $10 with benefits, compared with the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. They argue that since the developer, Related Companies, will receive millions in tax breaks and incentives for the project, some of those benefits should be passed on to the community."
And while Related claims that this is a deal killer, the Times suggests otherwise: "Nearly 200 cities already require developers using public money to pay more than the minimum wage, though the salaries vary from project to project, said Peter Dreier, a professor at Occidental College in Los Angeles who has studied wage issues. He said businesses generally do not suffer as a result. “In every city in the country with living-wage laws, developers claim that this will kill their project, but they’re just crying wolf,” Professor Dreier said. “There’s no evidence at all that living-wage laws have a negative impact on specific businesses or the larger business climate.”
Everyone's initial attention is focused on Avella's Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee, whose nine members hold the fate of the project in their hands. Four years ago, the committee's reluctance to approve a BJs that the Alliance opposed led to Related withdrawing its application to avoid a humiliating defeat. At this juncture, it doesn't appear that Related has enough votes to get its approval as the united Bronx delegation has been lobbying furiously for its living wage concept.
As delegation head Annabel Palma tells us, the delegation has never been as united as it is today-and she believes that Speaker Quinn will support the Bronx. Still, while the living wage is the bone of contention it is traffic that will be the focus of the land use application. And the traffic will be a nightmare-particularly if the plans for a mega supermarket aren't excluded from the plan.
As the Daily News points out: "Another controversial aspect is traffic congestion, which the developer's own study admits cannot be avoided at several surrounding intersections. A traffic study commissioned by project opponents suggests that the resulting delays would increase vehicle emissions by 93% over current conditions in a neighborhood that is already plagued with high asthma rates...Critics also say the plan offers just 400 parking spaces for a 600,000- square-foot mall, compared with the 3,300 spaces Related built for its newly opened million-square-foot Gateway Plaza a few miles to the south. The concern is that the area's narrow streets will be snarled with cars double-parking and cruising for metered spaces."
The Armory fight is the maiden city wide political voyage for Bronx BP Ruben Diaz, Jr,, and he is making the most of it. As the Times says: "Bronx Borough President Rubén DÃaz Jr. stood before a raucous crowd and vowed to continue fighting a “new revolution.” “You cannot mess with us anymore,” he yelled. “You want to do business, we can do business, but business has to be good for everybody.” Mr. DÃaz wound up his speech, at the annual meeting of the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition, to cheering that drowned out his words. He spoke just days after the City Planning Commission voted last month to approve the very development plan he hoped to change."
Diaz is a breathe of fresh air when contrasted with his predecessor, and the deals that were cut on Yankee Stadium and the Related Gateway Mall project: "The struggle is colored by residual anger over community benefits agreements signed in connection with the new Yankee Stadium and the nearby Gateway Mall, also built by Related, that critics called weak and overly accommodating to the developers. Those deals were negotiated during the tenure of Mr. DÃaz’s predecessor, Adolfo Carrión Jr."
Clearly, a new day-and a new paradigm for development-is dawning in the Bronx; and it may well be sweeping down into city hall as well. Right now the opponents are in a strong position-and it does appear that the supermarket inclusion may be totally off the table-but the final decision is still not yet made since the push back from the mayor hasn't been seen in its full fury. Still, the mayor may be the 500 pound gorilla, but his close election may have diminished his full force at the council-witness the parking meter vote yesterday.
We'll see how this plays out over the next few weeks. But one thing is for certain, in eight years Related has never experienced the kind of intense and organized opposition that KARA, the RWDSU, and the local supermarket owners have generated on this development. In our view, things will never be quite the same.
And, as the NY Times tells us, the line in the sand is over the question of whether the retailers in the project will pay their workers a living wage: "The dispute has escalated as the plan has moved forward, with the commission’s 8-to-4 vote leading to a public hearing before the City Council’s Land Use Committee set for Tuesday. But if the armory battle has become a high-stakes stare-down over wages at the mall, neither side is showing any sign of blinking. A coalition of political, religious, labor and local leaders has demanded that every new job at the Armory offer a “living wage” — $11.50 an hour, or $10 with benefits, compared with the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. They argue that since the developer, Related Companies, will receive millions in tax breaks and incentives for the project, some of those benefits should be passed on to the community."
And while Related claims that this is a deal killer, the Times suggests otherwise: "Nearly 200 cities already require developers using public money to pay more than the minimum wage, though the salaries vary from project to project, said Peter Dreier, a professor at Occidental College in Los Angeles who has studied wage issues. He said businesses generally do not suffer as a result. “In every city in the country with living-wage laws, developers claim that this will kill their project, but they’re just crying wolf,” Professor Dreier said. “There’s no evidence at all that living-wage laws have a negative impact on specific businesses or the larger business climate.”
Everyone's initial attention is focused on Avella's Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee, whose nine members hold the fate of the project in their hands. Four years ago, the committee's reluctance to approve a BJs that the Alliance opposed led to Related withdrawing its application to avoid a humiliating defeat. At this juncture, it doesn't appear that Related has enough votes to get its approval as the united Bronx delegation has been lobbying furiously for its living wage concept.
As delegation head Annabel Palma tells us, the delegation has never been as united as it is today-and she believes that Speaker Quinn will support the Bronx. Still, while the living wage is the bone of contention it is traffic that will be the focus of the land use application. And the traffic will be a nightmare-particularly if the plans for a mega supermarket aren't excluded from the plan.
As the Daily News points out: "Another controversial aspect is traffic congestion, which the developer's own study admits cannot be avoided at several surrounding intersections. A traffic study commissioned by project opponents suggests that the resulting delays would increase vehicle emissions by 93% over current conditions in a neighborhood that is already plagued with high asthma rates...Critics also say the plan offers just 400 parking spaces for a 600,000- square-foot mall, compared with the 3,300 spaces Related built for its newly opened million-square-foot Gateway Plaza a few miles to the south. The concern is that the area's narrow streets will be snarled with cars double-parking and cruising for metered spaces."
The Armory fight is the maiden city wide political voyage for Bronx BP Ruben Diaz, Jr,, and he is making the most of it. As the Times says: "Bronx Borough President Rubén DÃaz Jr. stood before a raucous crowd and vowed to continue fighting a “new revolution.” “You cannot mess with us anymore,” he yelled. “You want to do business, we can do business, but business has to be good for everybody.” Mr. DÃaz wound up his speech, at the annual meeting of the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition, to cheering that drowned out his words. He spoke just days after the City Planning Commission voted last month to approve the very development plan he hoped to change."
Diaz is a breathe of fresh air when contrasted with his predecessor, and the deals that were cut on Yankee Stadium and the Related Gateway Mall project: "The struggle is colored by residual anger over community benefits agreements signed in connection with the new Yankee Stadium and the nearby Gateway Mall, also built by Related, that critics called weak and overly accommodating to the developers. Those deals were negotiated during the tenure of Mr. DÃaz’s predecessor, Adolfo Carrión Jr."
Clearly, a new day-and a new paradigm for development-is dawning in the Bronx; and it may well be sweeping down into city hall as well. Right now the opponents are in a strong position-and it does appear that the supermarket inclusion may be totally off the table-but the final decision is still not yet made since the push back from the mayor hasn't been seen in its full fury. Still, the mayor may be the 500 pound gorilla, but his close election may have diminished his full force at the council-witness the parking meter vote yesterday.
We'll see how this plays out over the next few weeks. But one thing is for certain, in eight years Related has never experienced the kind of intense and organized opposition that KARA, the RWDSU, and the local supermarket owners have generated on this development. In our view, things will never be quite the same.
Park and Deride
As expected, Mayor Bloomberg announced that he would veto the city council's so-called parking meter grace period bill. As City Room reports: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on Monday vowed to veto a popular City Council bill that would give ticket-fatigued drivers a five-minute grace period at thousands of parking meters, saying it would lead to “chaos.” Parking meter revenue has become a sizable contributor to the city’s coffers."
This, in our view, confirms the expectation that the closeness of the last election will yield little in the way of policy epiphanies for Mike Bloomberg: "But even as the Council moved ahead on the legislation, Mr. Bloomberg voiced his opposition. “I will veto that,” he said. “I think it’s a very misguided piece of legislation.”...The mayor’s dismissive remarks on Monday suggested that little had changed since his narrow re-election two weeks ago. During the campaign, his Democratic opponent, William C. Thompson Jr., mocked the city’s aggressive enforcement of parking rules, which has infuriated drivers, and cost them dearly: Most parking tickets start at more than $100."
The real question that needs to be asked of the mayor-and its relevancy is quite obvious to us-is: "When was the last time you used a parking meter, Mr. Mayor?" People are laboring in NYC under a mountain of taxes and fees, and all of this is well below the Bloomberg private jet radar: "Some predicted that the mayor would seek to appeal to those aggrieved drivers after the election. But he appeared unsympathetic at a Bronx food distribution center on Monday."
Of course, he did, and this is just the beginning of the end of the extended honeymoon. As the Observer points out, the mayor is asking for billions of budget cuts in both the near and longer term: "Michael Bloomberg wants to cut more than a billion dollars from next year's budget, and $550 million from this current budget, according to a letter to the heads of city agencies (and reporters) this afternoon. For the current year, Bloomberg is seeking to cut 1.5 percent from the Department of Education, 2 percent from "uniformed forces" and 4 percent from all other agencies."
Once Mike the Knife gets started on his great budget cutting adventure-and adds a few tax hike accessories-the hue and cry will resound across the five boroughs. And in the process, Bloomberg's reputation will suffer from the same kind of diminution that the governor is experiencing. Only for Mike, the fall will be that much greater
This, in our view, confirms the expectation that the closeness of the last election will yield little in the way of policy epiphanies for Mike Bloomberg: "But even as the Council moved ahead on the legislation, Mr. Bloomberg voiced his opposition. “I will veto that,” he said. “I think it’s a very misguided piece of legislation.”...The mayor’s dismissive remarks on Monday suggested that little had changed since his narrow re-election two weeks ago. During the campaign, his Democratic opponent, William C. Thompson Jr., mocked the city’s aggressive enforcement of parking rules, which has infuriated drivers, and cost them dearly: Most parking tickets start at more than $100."
The real question that needs to be asked of the mayor-and its relevancy is quite obvious to us-is: "When was the last time you used a parking meter, Mr. Mayor?" People are laboring in NYC under a mountain of taxes and fees, and all of this is well below the Bloomberg private jet radar: "Some predicted that the mayor would seek to appeal to those aggrieved drivers after the election. But he appeared unsympathetic at a Bronx food distribution center on Monday."
Of course, he did, and this is just the beginning of the end of the extended honeymoon. As the Observer points out, the mayor is asking for billions of budget cuts in both the near and longer term: "Michael Bloomberg wants to cut more than a billion dollars from next year's budget, and $550 million from this current budget, according to a letter to the heads of city agencies (and reporters) this afternoon. For the current year, Bloomberg is seeking to cut 1.5 percent from the Department of Education, 2 percent from "uniformed forces" and 4 percent from all other agencies."
Once Mike the Knife gets started on his great budget cutting adventure-and adds a few tax hike accessories-the hue and cry will resound across the five boroughs. And in the process, Bloomberg's reputation will suffer from the same kind of diminution that the governor is experiencing. Only for Mike, the fall will be that much greater
Monday, November 16, 2009
Kruger's, "Make My Day," Moment
Right according to schedule, Senator Carl Kruger went over to the Second floor at the Capitol in order to present his demand note to the governor on the Indian cigarette tax avoidance. As Daily Politics reports, Kruger drew a line in the sand: "We have to ask everybody to share both the benefits and the burdens of being a New Yorker," said Kruger at a press conference following his staged letter delivery. Part of being a New Yorker is paying taxes that are assessed upon you," the senator continued. Today is the day that we draw the line in the sand, and I say that we should collect before we cut. We should collect the taxes due before we cut the services. While we negotiate we should be collecting. Anything short of that is denying the rule of law."
As would be expected, the governor's office shot back with the following: "The Observer's Jimmy Vielkind read Kruger a statement from a Budget Division spokesman who challenged the senator's numbers, calling them "preposterous," and adding: "If people smoked that much there would be a big black cloud over the state blocking out the sun."
Which, of course, is patently silly, since the numbers in question are extrapolated from the actual number of taxed cartons sold in the state in 2002; when apparently there was an indisputable cloud over the state that has suddenly, and miraculously, dissipated. But Kruger's response was spot on: "Kruger retorted that his estimates are based on information from "industry sources" and "the revenue agents themselves." He accused the Paterson administration of creating a black cloud of its own by refusing to share revenue details with the Finance Committee."
All of this could be resolved in a NY minute if the State Department of Taxation and Finance released the numbers that only they have. Anything short of full disclosure only serves to make the executive look rather foolish; not to say mendacious about the real reason for its reluctance to enforce the law-fear of Indian violence.
And Kruger went right after the governor on this issue: "Asked if he was concerned about possible violence, Kruger replied rather blithely that when the Post's Fred Dicker has to pay his property tax, "he doesn't have a State Trooper at his door." Kruger said Dicker "grudgingly" or "gleefully" writes the check and drops it in the mail - Dicker helpfully added "painfully" to that list. "The rule of law says that the taxes are due," Kruger said. "It’s the same law that applies to every property owner in the State of New York, and they grudgingly pay their tax without fear of violence. So, all I can say is that collect the tax and those that choose to break the law should suffer the consequences of their actions."
We have a governor who gets approval from barely 1/5th of all New Yorkers, demonstrating once again why the public lacks confidence in his leadership abilities-his inability to act with forthrightness and courage. When it comes to the Indians and their refusal to obey the law, David Paterson is simply hiding under his desk.
As would be expected, the governor's office shot back with the following: "The Observer's Jimmy Vielkind read Kruger a statement from a Budget Division spokesman who challenged the senator's numbers, calling them "preposterous," and adding: "If people smoked that much there would be a big black cloud over the state blocking out the sun."
Which, of course, is patently silly, since the numbers in question are extrapolated from the actual number of taxed cartons sold in the state in 2002; when apparently there was an indisputable cloud over the state that has suddenly, and miraculously, dissipated. But Kruger's response was spot on: "Kruger retorted that his estimates are based on information from "industry sources" and "the revenue agents themselves." He accused the Paterson administration of creating a black cloud of its own by refusing to share revenue details with the Finance Committee."
All of this could be resolved in a NY minute if the State Department of Taxation and Finance released the numbers that only they have. Anything short of full disclosure only serves to make the executive look rather foolish; not to say mendacious about the real reason for its reluctance to enforce the law-fear of Indian violence.
And Kruger went right after the governor on this issue: "Asked if he was concerned about possible violence, Kruger replied rather blithely that when the Post's Fred Dicker has to pay his property tax, "he doesn't have a State Trooper at his door." Kruger said Dicker "grudgingly" or "gleefully" writes the check and drops it in the mail - Dicker helpfully added "painfully" to that list. "The rule of law says that the taxes are due," Kruger said. "It’s the same law that applies to every property owner in the State of New York, and they grudgingly pay their tax without fear of violence. So, all I can say is that collect the tax and those that choose to break the law should suffer the consequences of their actions."
We have a governor who gets approval from barely 1/5th of all New Yorkers, demonstrating once again why the public lacks confidence in his leadership abilities-his inability to act with forthrightness and courage. When it comes to the Indians and their refusal to obey the law, David Paterson is simply hiding under his desk.
Vos Iz Neias (What's News)
The NY Times is reporting that the most reliable Bloomberg constituency, New York's Hasidim, deserted him in droves this past election-and the reasons should be familiar to our readers: "Without question, Mr. Bloomberg was eager to woo the city’s Hasidic Jewish voters. He met behind closed doors with influential rabbis, courted their congregations, and gave an eight-page interview to an Orthodox magazine, describing the challenge of growing up Jewish in an Irish and Italian neighborhood. Still, his share of the vote fell sharply in Brooklyn’s largest Hasidic enclaves on Nov. 3, and the decline was one of the sharpest among any group of voters. “We didn’t vote as Hasidim. We voted as New Yorkers,” said Mendy Hecht, 36, a Lubavitcher in Crown Heights, who pulled the lever for the mayor’s Democratic opponent, Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. “My vote was a vote of protest against Bloomberg.”
Another sharp reminder to the mayor that there is a growing disenchantment with his anti-neighborhood policies: "Higher property taxes, an increase in water rates and other fees, a perceived parking-ticket blitz and a nagging feeling that money can truly buy anything, including a third term, made many Hasidic voters angry at Mr. Bloomberg."
All of this should be-but really we would be surprised if it did-a warning to Bloomberg that a course correction is in order. Unfortunately-and the stark fact that Mike stood alone on stage at his election victory symbolizes the problem-Bloomberg is who he is, and has no one in particular who can strongly advise him to alter his policies.
Change, if it is to come, will only do so when the people's anger at his callous disregard for their welfare becomes too much to bear. That time may soon be upon us-and the ticket blitzing is just the tip of the outrage that's coming.
Another sharp reminder to the mayor that there is a growing disenchantment with his anti-neighborhood policies: "Higher property taxes, an increase in water rates and other fees, a perceived parking-ticket blitz and a nagging feeling that money can truly buy anything, including a third term, made many Hasidic voters angry at Mr. Bloomberg."
All of this should be-but really we would be surprised if it did-a warning to Bloomberg that a course correction is in order. Unfortunately-and the stark fact that Mike stood alone on stage at his election victory symbolizes the problem-Bloomberg is who he is, and has no one in particular who can strongly advise him to alter his policies.
Change, if it is to come, will only do so when the people's anger at his callous disregard for their welfare becomes too much to bear. That time may soon be upon us-and the ticket blitzing is just the tip of the outrage that's coming.
Kruger Issues Paterson an Ultimatum on Indian Tax Avoidance
Senator Carl Kruger, who has mysteriously-and mistakenly-been identified as a stalking horse for organized labor by the NY Times, and as a budget cutting ditherer as well for his refusal to go along with the governor's proposed cuts to education and health care, is about to turn the tables on the state's chief executive. He will do so by presenting Paterson with a letter demanding that he rescind the so-called letter of forbearance that had been issued on behalf of New York's Indian cigarette retailers in 2006 by then state tax commissioner Andrew Eristoff.
The ultimatum, part of an emerging challenge to the governor that's focused on all aspects of the state's budget, will throw the gauntlet down to the governor claiming that by this singular act, Paterson can begin to collect around $135,000,000 per month from the tax avoiding Indians. As Kruger's press release says:
"The letter of forbearance, issued by State Tax Commissioner AndrewEristoff in 2006, “is a direct affront to the rule of law,” the Finance Chair said. Sen. Kruger is requesting that the state issue coupons to the Indian tobacco retailers that will enable them to legitimately obtain a rebate for any cigarettes that are sold directly to Indians. These coupons will not apply to sales to those non-Indians who are currently purchasing cigarettes without the requisite tax. Simultaneously, Sen. Kruger is asking the Governor to authorize all of the licensed tobacco tax agents to begin to immediately stamp all cigarettes that are sold in the state. “When New Yorkers are suffering through the worst economic recession over 80 years, and are struggling to pay their own taxes, we simply can’t allow one group to flout the law and refuse to pay the state the taxes that it is owed,” Sen. Kruger said."
As the NY Daily News reports: "The budget battle between Gov. Paterson and Senate Democrats is about to take a nastier turn. Sen. Carl Kruger, a Brooklyn Democrat who leads the Senate Finance Committee, is poised to subpoena the books of state agencies. Kruger also said he is considering asking a judge to force Paterson to collect the $135 million a month he says the state is owed in taxes from the sales of cigarettes on Indian reservations. "Whatever I have to do to protect the interests of the people of this state," Kruger told the Daily News yesterday."
Kruger's stance prompted an uncharacteristically nasty response from the governor's office: "Larry Schwartz, Paterson's top aide, called Kruger a flat-out liar who wants to block the proposed cuts to raise campaign cash from special interests. "Carl Kruger's a liar, his letter is a lie, he owes the governor an apology and this is not helping the process of getting a deficit reduction package," Schwartz said."
For his part, Kruger is planning to include this uncollected tax revenue in his deficit reduction plan. And in our view, for far too long, New Yorkers have watched one group openly flout the laws of the state-with threats of violence underlying this open refusal. While convenience stores bodegas and newsstand operators have watched as their legitimate sales have literally gone up in smoke, our last three governors have prevaricated about what this issue really means-babbling on about treaty rights and the fear of violence when the essence of this fight is simply the rule of law.
But now, with revenues plummeting and taxes on the rise once again, it is simple unconscionable to allow tax cheats to operate illegally in plain sight. Make no mistake about it, we are going to need to really tighten our belts in this state in order to get through this current economic crisis. But sacrifice needs to be shared, and no one group can avoid its responsibilities as taxpaying citizens-especially while it avails itself of our public schools, hospitals and roads.
So if the Times wants to label Kruger an obstructionist, it needs to focus more attention on the real obstacle to a more equitable budget balancing act-the timidity of the accidental governor and his inept minions. Not one dollar of educational money or health care expenditures should even be contemplated until the state insures that all of its citizens pay what they owe.
Update
Welcome Daily Politics readers. Thanks for the link Liz
The ultimatum, part of an emerging challenge to the governor that's focused on all aspects of the state's budget, will throw the gauntlet down to the governor claiming that by this singular act, Paterson can begin to collect around $135,000,000 per month from the tax avoiding Indians. As Kruger's press release says:
"The letter of forbearance, issued by State Tax Commissioner AndrewEristoff in 2006, “is a direct affront to the rule of law,” the Finance Chair said. Sen. Kruger is requesting that the state issue coupons to the Indian tobacco retailers that will enable them to legitimately obtain a rebate for any cigarettes that are sold directly to Indians. These coupons will not apply to sales to those non-Indians who are currently purchasing cigarettes without the requisite tax. Simultaneously, Sen. Kruger is asking the Governor to authorize all of the licensed tobacco tax agents to begin to immediately stamp all cigarettes that are sold in the state. “When New Yorkers are suffering through the worst economic recession over 80 years, and are struggling to pay their own taxes, we simply can’t allow one group to flout the law and refuse to pay the state the taxes that it is owed,” Sen. Kruger said."
As the NY Daily News reports: "The budget battle between Gov. Paterson and Senate Democrats is about to take a nastier turn. Sen. Carl Kruger, a Brooklyn Democrat who leads the Senate Finance Committee, is poised to subpoena the books of state agencies. Kruger also said he is considering asking a judge to force Paterson to collect the $135 million a month he says the state is owed in taxes from the sales of cigarettes on Indian reservations. "Whatever I have to do to protect the interests of the people of this state," Kruger told the Daily News yesterday."
Kruger's stance prompted an uncharacteristically nasty response from the governor's office: "Larry Schwartz, Paterson's top aide, called Kruger a flat-out liar who wants to block the proposed cuts to raise campaign cash from special interests. "Carl Kruger's a liar, his letter is a lie, he owes the governor an apology and this is not helping the process of getting a deficit reduction package," Schwartz said."
For his part, Kruger is planning to include this uncollected tax revenue in his deficit reduction plan. And in our view, for far too long, New Yorkers have watched one group openly flout the laws of the state-with threats of violence underlying this open refusal. While convenience stores bodegas and newsstand operators have watched as their legitimate sales have literally gone up in smoke, our last three governors have prevaricated about what this issue really means-babbling on about treaty rights and the fear of violence when the essence of this fight is simply the rule of law.
But now, with revenues plummeting and taxes on the rise once again, it is simple unconscionable to allow tax cheats to operate illegally in plain sight. Make no mistake about it, we are going to need to really tighten our belts in this state in order to get through this current economic crisis. But sacrifice needs to be shared, and no one group can avoid its responsibilities as taxpaying citizens-especially while it avails itself of our public schools, hospitals and roads.
So if the Times wants to label Kruger an obstructionist, it needs to focus more attention on the real obstacle to a more equitable budget balancing act-the timidity of the accidental governor and his inept minions. Not one dollar of educational money or health care expenditures should even be contemplated until the state insures that all of its citizens pay what they owe.
Update
Welcome Daily Politics readers. Thanks for the link Liz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
