Eliot Brown has an interesting little story in the Observer about the unusual display of obsequiousness exhibited by Mike Bloomberg when it comes to the Related Companies: "For the second day in a row, Mayor Bloomberg is headed to the West Side for a late morning press conference. And, once again, the mayor will be hailing progress on a development project by the Related Companies, the active real estate firm that was last week denied by the City Council in its bid to turn a Bronx armory into a mall."
Can you say favored nation, anyone? Brown can: "The giant firm is probably the city's busiest developer, and has long been considered to be close to the Bloomberg administration, particularly during the reign of Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff, who was an old friend of Related Chairman Stephen Ross. That close relationship has attracted criticism at times, particularly in the run-up to the Olympic bid in 2005, but generally the firm is quite effective at executing on projects (the Time Warner Center site, for instance, stagnated for more than 12 years before Related was selected to build on it)."
Yes, the Bagli story was a good one, but we did the full monty on the incestuous Ross/Doctoroff affair; and the city's love affair with Related seems to have survived Deputy Dan's departure-as the famous Bloomberg phone call on behalf of Jeff Blau dramatizes quite well. Courtesy of the Observer: "The Observer's Max Abelson reports that Michael Bloomberg personally called the head of the co-op board at 820 Fifth Avenue in an attempt to get him to approve the application of his friend Jeff Blau. The board did not budge...Blau is the president of Related, a major real estate firm in the city."
What's compelling about a living wage, especially when it might ruin a great friendship between masters of the universe? Someone should take a hard look at all of the favoritism going the way of Related over the past eight years-and it didn't even have to contribute to the Bloomberg campaign. Some things are more important than money, right?
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Armory Press Wrap, Living Wage-Lives!
Here's some more coverage that we missed in our all Armory, all the time commentary, that's about to get a deserved rest. Eliot Brown at the Observer weighs in on the mayor's hurt feelings: "On this subject, the mayor made clear his feelings. "It's a great tragedy," he said, listing benefits the $320 million project would have bestowed on the community, regardless of the minimum wages its retailers paid. "Now they have nothing, and we have a building that's been vacant for 30 years, it's costing the taxpayers something like half a million a year to maintain, and we're going to have to continue to pay that without anything to the community."
Addition by subtraction it seems to us-but not to the minority contractor who opines with ghostly eloquence this morning in the NY Daily News (no link) about his own lost opportunities; while talking with borrowed erudition about "lost shoppers to Yonkers." And he should take heart, because Speaker Quinn talks about the aberration that is Kingsbridge in the Observer: "We're not agreeing on Kingsbridge, the only economic development project in the four years of the mayor and I working together where we haven't been able to come to an agreement," she said. "We will never let one disagreement force us into a place where we can't find other points of commonality."
And check out City Limits for another shout out to KARA-and the mag provides this link to local reactions: "It is Bronx residents who will cope with the consequences of Monday’s vote, for better or worse. Joel Allen, a 44-year old Sedgwick Avenue super, applauded the vote.“What the City Council did makes sense,” Allen said. “Times are hard. Low wage jobs don’t benefit anyone. One of my tenants was just evicted. If you make enough for bus fare but can’t pay the rent, what’s the point of going to work?”
And the Bronx Times reporter points out that the supermarket issue was also salient: "Not so, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and Morton Williams Supermarkets, a chain with a store kitty-corner to the armory, argued prior to the City Council vote. They and KARA persuaded Diaz Jr. to demand that Related exclude a new supermarket from the armory.A new supermarket would have knocked scores of Morton Williams and bodega employees out of work, they warned."
So Speaker Quinn may be speaking with a bit of false bravado, as the battle for living wage continues to provide a glimpse into the ghost of Christmas future. As the Village Voice points out, the battle has shifted: "As shoppers scurried to snatch up last minute gifts inside the Queens Center Mall, local elected officials and community organizations painted the shopping destination's landlord,Macerich, as the latest Grinch in the ongoing fight for living wages -- just days after the city council rejected a Kingsbridge Armory plan that had no living wage requirement. Most of the 3,100 retail workers in the sprawling urban mall earn $7.25 an hour."
That must be the, "great tragedy," that Mayor Mike was referring to in his eulogy for the Armory. So the living wage coalition is gearing up to despoil the mayor's new term: "This is the second front of the battle for living wage jobs and community benefits," said Jeff Eichler, a coordinator with the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which helped staunch the Bronx development that would have created over 1,200 retail jobs and joined in the new Queens fight."
And the RWDSU has done a report that ought to make the Bloomberg economic team blush with shame: "According to the report, released by the RWDSU and Queens community group Make the Road, the massive mall has received $48 million in tax breaks over the past five years with another $50 million more to come. However, most of the 3,100 jobs at the mall pay at or slightly more than the $7.25 federal minimum wage and do not include health benefits. As a result, the Mall has helped create an entire community that is struggling under the weight of poverty-wage jobs, the report concludes."
And the coalition appears ready to really grow citywide in the New Year: "Standing on a snowy corner of Queens Boulevard, Santa symbolically held gift-wrapped boxes marked "living wages." A menacing green Dr. Seuss character represented the mall owner. Activists from Make the Road New York, a citywide organization focusing on economic justice, demanded that the landlord place a living wage clause in its leases -- which would require stores to pay $10/hour with benefits, or $11.50 without."
And so it grows: "The group and the officials plan to continue their campaign against Macerich with street demonstrations and letters. "Just like the story of Scrooge, where the ghost visited him on many occasions," said Councilman-elect Daniel Dromm, "we're going to come back, and we're going to visit this mall on many occasions until we get what the community needs."
The next step is the legislative push for living wage and labor peace-but the council needs to also focus more on the misused public monies for retail, and how these economic "benefits" are puny for the workers but robust for the real estate development community. In the process, local neighborhood businesses get the privilege of trying to compete with other retailers who have Mike Bloomberg as their less than silent partner.
It should be a provactive New Year.
Addition by subtraction it seems to us-but not to the minority contractor who opines with ghostly eloquence this morning in the NY Daily News (no link) about his own lost opportunities; while talking with borrowed erudition about "lost shoppers to Yonkers." And he should take heart, because Speaker Quinn talks about the aberration that is Kingsbridge in the Observer: "We're not agreeing on Kingsbridge, the only economic development project in the four years of the mayor and I working together where we haven't been able to come to an agreement," she said. "We will never let one disagreement force us into a place where we can't find other points of commonality."
And check out City Limits for another shout out to KARA-and the mag provides this link to local reactions: "It is Bronx residents who will cope with the consequences of Monday’s vote, for better or worse. Joel Allen, a 44-year old Sedgwick Avenue super, applauded the vote.“What the City Council did makes sense,” Allen said. “Times are hard. Low wage jobs don’t benefit anyone. One of my tenants was just evicted. If you make enough for bus fare but can’t pay the rent, what’s the point of going to work?”
And the Bronx Times reporter points out that the supermarket issue was also salient: "Not so, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and Morton Williams Supermarkets, a chain with a store kitty-corner to the armory, argued prior to the City Council vote. They and KARA persuaded Diaz Jr. to demand that Related exclude a new supermarket from the armory.A new supermarket would have knocked scores of Morton Williams and bodega employees out of work, they warned."
So Speaker Quinn may be speaking with a bit of false bravado, as the battle for living wage continues to provide a glimpse into the ghost of Christmas future. As the Village Voice points out, the battle has shifted: "As shoppers scurried to snatch up last minute gifts inside the Queens Center Mall, local elected officials and community organizations painted the shopping destination's landlord,Macerich, as the latest Grinch in the ongoing fight for living wages -- just days after the city council rejected a Kingsbridge Armory plan that had no living wage requirement. Most of the 3,100 retail workers in the sprawling urban mall earn $7.25 an hour."
That must be the, "great tragedy," that Mayor Mike was referring to in his eulogy for the Armory. So the living wage coalition is gearing up to despoil the mayor's new term: "This is the second front of the battle for living wage jobs and community benefits," said Jeff Eichler, a coordinator with the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which helped staunch the Bronx development that would have created over 1,200 retail jobs and joined in the new Queens fight."
And the RWDSU has done a report that ought to make the Bloomberg economic team blush with shame: "According to the report, released by the RWDSU and Queens community group Make the Road, the massive mall has received $48 million in tax breaks over the past five years with another $50 million more to come. However, most of the 3,100 jobs at the mall pay at or slightly more than the $7.25 federal minimum wage and do not include health benefits. As a result, the Mall has helped create an entire community that is struggling under the weight of poverty-wage jobs, the report concludes."
And the coalition appears ready to really grow citywide in the New Year: "Standing on a snowy corner of Queens Boulevard, Santa symbolically held gift-wrapped boxes marked "living wages." A menacing green Dr. Seuss character represented the mall owner. Activists from Make the Road New York, a citywide organization focusing on economic justice, demanded that the landlord place a living wage clause in its leases -- which would require stores to pay $10/hour with benefits, or $11.50 without."
And so it grows: "The group and the officials plan to continue their campaign against Macerich with street demonstrations and letters. "Just like the story of Scrooge, where the ghost visited him on many occasions," said Councilman-elect Daniel Dromm, "we're going to come back, and we're going to visit this mall on many occasions until we get what the community needs."
The next step is the legislative push for living wage and labor peace-but the council needs to also focus more on the misused public monies for retail, and how these economic "benefits" are puny for the workers but robust for the real estate development community. In the process, local neighborhood businesses get the privilege of trying to compete with other retailers who have Mike Bloomberg as their less than silent partner.
It should be a provactive New Year.
The Last Word on the Armory-For This Year
As we have already commented, the city council dramatically overrode the, mayor's veto of the Kingsbridge Armory project, capping a magnificent campaign by the Alliance and the KARA coalition-girded by the essential backing of the RWDSU. The success of the effort represents a classic example to others as to how to mount a major opposition to unbridled retail development.
As the NY Times reports: "The City Council dealt a final blow on Monday to a developer’s plans to build a mall inside the Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx, a significant defeat for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on a key project. The Council voted 48 to 1, with one abstention, to override Mr. Bloomberg’s veto of its decision last week to defeat the plan, signaling the resentment the mayor faces on the eve of his third term."
The mayor, for his part, downplays the precedence-as does the speaker. According to the NY Daily News: "Bloomberg insisted that his usually smooth relations with the Council under Quinn's leadership have not altered since his narrower-than-expected reelection and the election of 13 new members to the 51-member legislative body. It takes a minimum of 34 votes to override a veto. "I assume everything's done on the merits, number one, and number two, this isn't about any one individual," he said. "This was a group of [Council members] - you'll have to ask them why they voted that way."
And the speaker concurred that this was not necessarily a harbinger: "Quinn - who is expected to be renamed speaker by her members early next year - said "people would be foolish" to speculate that she and the newly elected Council intend to be more confrontational with the mayor in the coming four years. She stressed that the Council has approved all of the mayor's prior economic development projects, making the Kingsbridge rejection "an exception, not at all the rule."
This does all remain to be seen, but the tenor of the override does indicate that the road ahead may be a bit bumpier than the two leaders are now portraying it. As the Times points out: "The armory vote highlighted the political difficulties Mr. Bloomberg is likely to face after narrowly winning a third term last month. To the applause of his colleagues in the Council chambers, Councilman G. Oliver Koppell of the Bronx said that although he regretted that the armory would stay vacant, “there is only one administration and one mayor to blame.”
And Koppell was one member who supported the mayor's re-election. Our view, is that the next four years will inevitably be more contentious than the past Quinn tenure-given the potential aggressiveness of the council's new members, and the lame duck status of so many of the holdovers. And it is the issue of living wage-and that of labor peace-that we believe will roil the body, given the mayor's hardline stand on these policies.
As for the Armory's future, who knows? "It still stands vacant-and Bronx BP Diaz has his own ideas about how to fill it. As the News tells us: "Okay, enough with all the cheering and jeering over living wages vs. lost jobs with the defeat of the Kingsbridge Armory plan. Moving on, we hear Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. is doing some thinking outside the box over what kind of development he'd now like to see there. And it could jell quite well with his mantra for making the Bronx a "green" manufacturing hub, an agenda he pushed at his recent economic summit. Some folks now say the armory would work better as a manufacturing base for solar panels, hybrid engines or whatever other products in the new "green" evolution. There'd be plenty of room for community space, maybe an entertainment complex, and no loss of retail business to the nearby Fordham Road shopping district."
But we're sure that the mayor has different ideas-and is still smarting from his slap down. The NY Post reports that, "The mayor said he was disappointed with the end result." So, until this is all resolved, the vacant edifice stands now as a monument to what an energized labor, community, and business coalition can accomplish when it organizes and generates the kind of political support that we saw this past year in the Bronx.
As the NY Times reports: "The City Council dealt a final blow on Monday to a developer’s plans to build a mall inside the Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx, a significant defeat for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on a key project. The Council voted 48 to 1, with one abstention, to override Mr. Bloomberg’s veto of its decision last week to defeat the plan, signaling the resentment the mayor faces on the eve of his third term."
The mayor, for his part, downplays the precedence-as does the speaker. According to the NY Daily News: "Bloomberg insisted that his usually smooth relations with the Council under Quinn's leadership have not altered since his narrower-than-expected reelection and the election of 13 new members to the 51-member legislative body. It takes a minimum of 34 votes to override a veto. "I assume everything's done on the merits, number one, and number two, this isn't about any one individual," he said. "This was a group of [Council members] - you'll have to ask them why they voted that way."
And the speaker concurred that this was not necessarily a harbinger: "Quinn - who is expected to be renamed speaker by her members early next year - said "people would be foolish" to speculate that she and the newly elected Council intend to be more confrontational with the mayor in the coming four years. She stressed that the Council has approved all of the mayor's prior economic development projects, making the Kingsbridge rejection "an exception, not at all the rule."
This does all remain to be seen, but the tenor of the override does indicate that the road ahead may be a bit bumpier than the two leaders are now portraying it. As the Times points out: "The armory vote highlighted the political difficulties Mr. Bloomberg is likely to face after narrowly winning a third term last month. To the applause of his colleagues in the Council chambers, Councilman G. Oliver Koppell of the Bronx said that although he regretted that the armory would stay vacant, “there is only one administration and one mayor to blame.”
And Koppell was one member who supported the mayor's re-election. Our view, is that the next four years will inevitably be more contentious than the past Quinn tenure-given the potential aggressiveness of the council's new members, and the lame duck status of so many of the holdovers. And it is the issue of living wage-and that of labor peace-that we believe will roil the body, given the mayor's hardline stand on these policies.
As for the Armory's future, who knows? "It still stands vacant-and Bronx BP Diaz has his own ideas about how to fill it. As the News tells us: "Okay, enough with all the cheering and jeering over living wages vs. lost jobs with the defeat of the Kingsbridge Armory plan. Moving on, we hear Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. is doing some thinking outside the box over what kind of development he'd now like to see there. And it could jell quite well with his mantra for making the Bronx a "green" manufacturing hub, an agenda he pushed at his recent economic summit. Some folks now say the armory would work better as a manufacturing base for solar panels, hybrid engines or whatever other products in the new "green" evolution. There'd be plenty of room for community space, maybe an entertainment complex, and no loss of retail business to the nearby Fordham Road shopping district."
But we're sure that the mayor has different ideas-and is still smarting from his slap down. The NY Post reports that, "The mayor said he was disappointed with the end result." So, until this is all resolved, the vacant edifice stands now as a monument to what an energized labor, community, and business coalition can accomplish when it organizes and generates the kind of political support that we saw this past year in the Bronx.
Columbia's Tarnished Gem
As Liz is reporting, there is more subterfuge related to the Columbia University expansion effort-this time it's their lobbyist Bill Lynch in the eye of the storm: "For the first time, the Commission on Public Integrity is requiring a lobbying firm to hire an outside monitor - at its own expense - to ensure it adequately complies with the law going forward. The firm in question is Bill Lynch Associates, which has agreed to pay a $10,000 fine for failing to file an amended report to indicate that its client, Columbia University, had increased its compensation by almost $400,000 (from $180,000 to $570,000) in 2007. While in negotiations with the PIC over this infraction, Lynch, who is not only a prominent lobbyist but also an outside adviser to Gov. David Paterson, revealed other discrepancies of which the commission had not previously been aware.
This, in turn, led the PIC to mandate that Lynch hire an outside monitor."
Can there possibly be any more untoward behavior by this esteemed Ivy League institution? First, CU gets involved with manufacturing its own blight, then it hires an expert in the pay of the city and the state to do its environmental report, while the same expert is also doing the state's blight evaluation. Now we have Lynch-and aside from the violations here, can we wonder what the firm actually did to deserve these kinds of payments?
But Columbia has certainly done the opponents of ED a big favor by its shenanigans-and State Senator Bill Perkins is mobilizing for a change in NY State law: "As far as Bill Perkins is concerned, the issue of eminent domain has got legs. "It's really a corruption of our notion of democracy," said Perkins, a Democratic state senator who represents Harlem. He was speaking Saturday at a Pentecostal church on 125th Street. The room was one-third filled by people who are concerned about the issue and active in fighting its application around the city..."
And, as Perkins himself says in a letter to the NY Times in response to the paper's ludicrous editiorial: "Re “Eminent Domain in New York” (editorial, Dec. 14): New York’s eminent domain laws are in need of reform. The Empire State Development Corporation’s attempted taking of private property on behalf of Columbia University illustrates how the current process lacks accountability, transparency or meaningful public participation. The corporation cited “blight” to justify property condemnation. But the current definition of “blight” is vague. Absurd criteria, like the cracked sidewalks and loose awnings cited in Columbia’s decision, could be used to identify any neighborhood as blighted."
And reform, heretofore stalled, may be ripe for greater legislative concern now that the abuses are beginning to come out: "The cause is related to Perkins' last legislative accomplishment: stricter oversight of public authorities (many of which have and use eminent domain powers). He said there was no partner in the Assembly, but Richard Brodsky has in the past called for an eminent domain commission and other reforms. None have passed."
And Governor Paterson's response to the Perkins call for a moratorium on the use of eminent domain? Simply fallacious: "We thought that the process was in compliance with land use principles and did not violate eminent domain," Paterson said. "When I was a state senator in 2005 and I saw the original plan, I was virulently opposed to it, but we thought that ESDC and Columbia University had adjusted that plan to be in compliance with the law."
We thought? Did he look at the plan and see that it really hadn't changed one iota from when he first "viewed" it? Another example, in our view, of the lack of real leadership in the state. But maybe the governor's failing memory has something to do with the omnipresent Lynch-a Harlem feature? (This answers, we guess, our deserving Lynch question that we posed above)
But who is gonna oversee the Lynch compliance? No, it won't be AKRF-that's not funny. None other than Greenberg Traurig-an irony that Liz missed (she doesn't miss many): "A reader picked up an irony here that I missed, writing: "(Lynch) represents Columbia, gets into trouble and now has a monitor. Mark Glaser (a registered lobbyist) works at Greenberg Traurig, and they represent....Columbia!"
So, we guess, that this is a further indication of how insider trading is done when it comes to real estate development in NYC-and the old French expression says it all: "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
This, in turn, led the PIC to mandate that Lynch hire an outside monitor."
Can there possibly be any more untoward behavior by this esteemed Ivy League institution? First, CU gets involved with manufacturing its own blight, then it hires an expert in the pay of the city and the state to do its environmental report, while the same expert is also doing the state's blight evaluation. Now we have Lynch-and aside from the violations here, can we wonder what the firm actually did to deserve these kinds of payments?
But Columbia has certainly done the opponents of ED a big favor by its shenanigans-and State Senator Bill Perkins is mobilizing for a change in NY State law: "As far as Bill Perkins is concerned, the issue of eminent domain has got legs. "It's really a corruption of our notion of democracy," said Perkins, a Democratic state senator who represents Harlem. He was speaking Saturday at a Pentecostal church on 125th Street. The room was one-third filled by people who are concerned about the issue and active in fighting its application around the city..."
And, as Perkins himself says in a letter to the NY Times in response to the paper's ludicrous editiorial: "Re “Eminent Domain in New York” (editorial, Dec. 14): New York’s eminent domain laws are in need of reform. The Empire State Development Corporation’s attempted taking of private property on behalf of Columbia University illustrates how the current process lacks accountability, transparency or meaningful public participation. The corporation cited “blight” to justify property condemnation. But the current definition of “blight” is vague. Absurd criteria, like the cracked sidewalks and loose awnings cited in Columbia’s decision, could be used to identify any neighborhood as blighted."
And reform, heretofore stalled, may be ripe for greater legislative concern now that the abuses are beginning to come out: "The cause is related to Perkins' last legislative accomplishment: stricter oversight of public authorities (many of which have and use eminent domain powers). He said there was no partner in the Assembly, but Richard Brodsky has in the past called for an eminent domain commission and other reforms. None have passed."
And Governor Paterson's response to the Perkins call for a moratorium on the use of eminent domain? Simply fallacious: "We thought that the process was in compliance with land use principles and did not violate eminent domain," Paterson said. "When I was a state senator in 2005 and I saw the original plan, I was virulently opposed to it, but we thought that ESDC and Columbia University had adjusted that plan to be in compliance with the law."
We thought? Did he look at the plan and see that it really hadn't changed one iota from when he first "viewed" it? Another example, in our view, of the lack of real leadership in the state. But maybe the governor's failing memory has something to do with the omnipresent Lynch-a Harlem feature? (This answers, we guess, our deserving Lynch question that we posed above)
But who is gonna oversee the Lynch compliance? No, it won't be AKRF-that's not funny. None other than Greenberg Traurig-an irony that Liz missed (she doesn't miss many): "A reader picked up an irony here that I missed, writing: "(Lynch) represents Columbia, gets into trouble and now has a monitor. Mark Glaser (a registered lobbyist) works at Greenberg Traurig, and they represent....Columbia!"
So, we guess, that this is a further indication of how insider trading is done when it comes to real estate development in NYC-and the old French expression says it all: "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
Monday, December 21, 2009
Good Over-Riddance
As expected, the City Council Land Use Committee moved-15-1-to over ride the mayor's Kingsbridge Armory veto. As Liz reports: "As expected, the City Council's Land Use Committee this morning overrode Mayor Bloomberg's vetoes of the Kingsbridge Armory project in a 16-1 vote, the DN's Frank Lombardi reports. Just as last week when the Councilvoted 45-1 to reject the zoning and other changes that would have facilitated the Bronx project; the lone "no" came from outgoing Queens Councilwoman Helen Sears."
But even with all of the mayor's huffing and puffing, there was no move to sustain his futile veto gesture: "Councilman Joel Rivera, who has been deeply involved in negotiating Kingsbridge with the administration, told Lombardi there were no efforts made by Mayor Bloomberg & Co. to re-start talks after the Council's first votes. Bloomberg himself admitted the Kingsbridge deal was all but dead. But he went ahead with the vetoes anyway to demonstrate just how much he disagreed with this vote, which was widely seen as an example of the Council flexing some newfound muscles against a third-term mayor who won re-election in a closer-than-expected election."
But, as Liz points out, the living wage issue is alive and well: "The issue of living wage is far from over, Lombardi notes. Councilman Oliver Koppell and Councilwoman Anabel Palma had introduced a bill that would give the Council the power to impose living wage requirements on all publicly-financed projects. Also, Bronx BP Ruben Diaz Jr. and RWDSU President Stuart Appelbaum have pledged to keep the living wage pressure on at the state level through proposed IDA reform."
As far as the Armory itself, it looks as if it is back to the drawing board-with any legal challenge seen as suicidal for the omnipresent developer: "As for Kingsbridge, Related Companies has at least two alternatives - neither of which seems likely at this point. Related could start a court action arguing the Council abused its powers in killing Kingsbridge. Alternatively, it could go back through the time-consuming and onerous ULURP process. Part of the reason why Related is likely disinclined to go back to the mat on Kingsbridge: The West Side Rail Yards, which is a much larger project and is on tap for final approval today."
But if the city is serious about another development concept, our suggestion is leave the Related folks out of it. The company's arrogance and bully mentality has no place where there is any active community involvement; and we really wonder how that Far West Side project will go if that community mobilizes.
In any case, it is a matter of some curiosity that, with all of the developers in the City of New York, Related manages to emerge triumphant in all of the various RFPs that are issued-just wondering. After all, in a city where the mayor is above the special interests, all of these things are done on the merits, right?
Anyhow, the KARA folks deserve their shout out today-in their, "Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead," moment. It just might be turning out to be a good new year after all-and we might be re-evaluating our own chagrin about the mayor's re-election, if there are more Kingsbridge Armory battles coming down the pike.
But even with all of the mayor's huffing and puffing, there was no move to sustain his futile veto gesture: "Councilman Joel Rivera, who has been deeply involved in negotiating Kingsbridge with the administration, told Lombardi there were no efforts made by Mayor Bloomberg & Co. to re-start talks after the Council's first votes. Bloomberg himself admitted the Kingsbridge deal was all but dead. But he went ahead with the vetoes anyway to demonstrate just how much he disagreed with this vote, which was widely seen as an example of the Council flexing some newfound muscles against a third-term mayor who won re-election in a closer-than-expected election."
But, as Liz points out, the living wage issue is alive and well: "The issue of living wage is far from over, Lombardi notes. Councilman Oliver Koppell and Councilwoman Anabel Palma had introduced a bill that would give the Council the power to impose living wage requirements on all publicly-financed projects. Also, Bronx BP Ruben Diaz Jr. and RWDSU President Stuart Appelbaum have pledged to keep the living wage pressure on at the state level through proposed IDA reform."
As far as the Armory itself, it looks as if it is back to the drawing board-with any legal challenge seen as suicidal for the omnipresent developer: "As for Kingsbridge, Related Companies has at least two alternatives - neither of which seems likely at this point. Related could start a court action arguing the Council abused its powers in killing Kingsbridge. Alternatively, it could go back through the time-consuming and onerous ULURP process. Part of the reason why Related is likely disinclined to go back to the mat on Kingsbridge: The West Side Rail Yards, which is a much larger project and is on tap for final approval today."
But if the city is serious about another development concept, our suggestion is leave the Related folks out of it. The company's arrogance and bully mentality has no place where there is any active community involvement; and we really wonder how that Far West Side project will go if that community mobilizes.
In any case, it is a matter of some curiosity that, with all of the developers in the City of New York, Related manages to emerge triumphant in all of the various RFPs that are issued-just wondering. After all, in a city where the mayor is above the special interests, all of these things are done on the merits, right?
Anyhow, the KARA folks deserve their shout out today-in their, "Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead," moment. It just might be turning out to be a good new year after all-and we might be re-evaluating our own chagrin about the mayor's re-election, if there are more Kingsbridge Armory battles coming down the pike.
Clogging in the Streets
The Post's Steve Cuozzo has finally found something that we can agree with him on-the actions of Transportation Commissioner Sadik-Khan are illegal and need to be reined in: "MAYOR Bloomberg will soon decide whether to make permanent or scratch the "experimental" redesign that's turned Times Square into what David Letterman called a tourists' "petting zoo." Or maybe he won't. The Department of Transportation, which dreamed up the mad makeover, is supposed to give the mayor its "findings" on the scheme by Dec. 31. But there's no telling how long Bloomberg might take to make up his mind -- so the mess could remain indefinitely."
And there's no doubt that the experiment has been a traffic nightmare-but overlooked is the fact that the entire effort should have been subject to ULURP-but wasn't because it was described as only a pilot program:
"An environmental-impact study is required for practically every minor variance, but not for the Times Square upheaval -- even though the wholesale rerouting of Broadway auto, bus and truck traffic to Ninth Avenue clearly cries out for such evaluation. City Hall claims "no EIS is required because the project uses basic DOT tools," and likens it to making a two-way street one-way -- which should surprise Ninth Avenue residents and businesses trapped in gridlock...Obviously, the streets are city-owned and the plazas constitute "streetscape elements." But City Hall claims a loophole: The Design Commission only gets involved over permanent installations. Apparently none of the DOT's plazas in any part of town are considered permanent yet -- even though some seem destined to stand as they are forever."
To us-and to Cuozzo-this all devolves from the mayor's failed congestion pricing scheme: "Might Bloomberg reverse Sadik-Khan? Well, he's stood by as she imposed little-used bicycle lanes and "plazas" all over town, not to mention her unsightly parking strips in the middle of streets. It was a Plan-B strategy to try thinning traffic after Bloomberg's congestion-pricing proposal was shot down in Albany."
And this was the reason why Shelly Silver mordantly reminded us about how the mayor's policies have contributed more to congestion than any increase in vehicular traffic could ever do. And don't think that Bloomber has given up on that harebrained idea. As the Observer told us last week: "Michael Bloomberg thinks law makers should reconsider the congestion pricing plan they failed to enact last year, but cautioned against labeling it the "Bloomberg congestion pricing" plan, as radio host John Gambling did this morning."
But that label won't change-and the dishonor will forever be the mayor's. But the wrecking crew over at DOT needs to be reined in completely before Times Square looks like a ghost town. As Cuozzo points out, the companies are fleeing the area:
"This used to be Midtown's most dynamic commercial nexus. But Times Square office leasing has fallen on hard times, with fewer deals being made and lots of space soon to be vacant. Companies come and go for many reasons, but it's clear Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan's brainstorm isn't helping. "You might as well be at a mall in Paramus," an accomplished Midtown real-estate executive told me. At risk is the continued appeal of Times Square to companies such as Morgan Stanley, Conde Nast, Skadden Arps, Viacom, NASDAQ, Thomson Reuters, Pillsbury Winthrop, ABC and Ernst & Young. The tax-generating corporate presences are not mere backdrops to the bowtie's show-business and shopping attractions, but the stabilizing economic anchor that makes all the bright lights possible."
What needs to be done now is for the city council to assert its oversight role on all of this-and demand that the entire Sadik-Khan experiment be subjected to a full environmental review- with ultimate approval from the legislature. The carbon footprint posturing of Mike Bloomberg has begun to do real harm, and zealots like Sadik-Khan need to be returned to the consulting world of ivory tower theorizing before too much more damage to the city is done in the name of the environment.
And there's no doubt that the experiment has been a traffic nightmare-but overlooked is the fact that the entire effort should have been subject to ULURP-but wasn't because it was described as only a pilot program:
"An environmental-impact study is required for practically every minor variance, but not for the Times Square upheaval -- even though the wholesale rerouting of Broadway auto, bus and truck traffic to Ninth Avenue clearly cries out for such evaluation. City Hall claims "no EIS is required because the project uses basic DOT tools," and likens it to making a two-way street one-way -- which should surprise Ninth Avenue residents and businesses trapped in gridlock...Obviously, the streets are city-owned and the plazas constitute "streetscape elements." But City Hall claims a loophole: The Design Commission only gets involved over permanent installations. Apparently none of the DOT's plazas in any part of town are considered permanent yet -- even though some seem destined to stand as they are forever."
To us-and to Cuozzo-this all devolves from the mayor's failed congestion pricing scheme: "Might Bloomberg reverse Sadik-Khan? Well, he's stood by as she imposed little-used bicycle lanes and "plazas" all over town, not to mention her unsightly parking strips in the middle of streets. It was a Plan-B strategy to try thinning traffic after Bloomberg's congestion-pricing proposal was shot down in Albany."
And this was the reason why Shelly Silver mordantly reminded us about how the mayor's policies have contributed more to congestion than any increase in vehicular traffic could ever do. And don't think that Bloomber has given up on that harebrained idea. As the Observer told us last week: "Michael Bloomberg thinks law makers should reconsider the congestion pricing plan they failed to enact last year, but cautioned against labeling it the "Bloomberg congestion pricing" plan, as radio host John Gambling did this morning."
But that label won't change-and the dishonor will forever be the mayor's. But the wrecking crew over at DOT needs to be reined in completely before Times Square looks like a ghost town. As Cuozzo points out, the companies are fleeing the area:
"This used to be Midtown's most dynamic commercial nexus. But Times Square office leasing has fallen on hard times, with fewer deals being made and lots of space soon to be vacant. Companies come and go for many reasons, but it's clear Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan's brainstorm isn't helping. "You might as well be at a mall in Paramus," an accomplished Midtown real-estate executive told me. At risk is the continued appeal of Times Square to companies such as Morgan Stanley, Conde Nast, Skadden Arps, Viacom, NASDAQ, Thomson Reuters, Pillsbury Winthrop, ABC and Ernst & Young. The tax-generating corporate presences are not mere backdrops to the bowtie's show-business and shopping attractions, but the stabilizing economic anchor that makes all the bright lights possible."
What needs to be done now is for the city council to assert its oversight role on all of this-and demand that the entire Sadik-Khan experiment be subjected to a full environmental review- with ultimate approval from the legislature. The carbon footprint posturing of Mike Bloomberg has begun to do real harm, and zealots like Sadik-Khan need to be returned to the consulting world of ivory tower theorizing before too much more damage to the city is done in the name of the environment.
The Wages of Sin
Lost in all of the lachrymose hand wringing by the exploited class of down in their luck real estate developers, is the hard to deny fact that-don't fall down now-there are workers in NY who are actually doing worse than Steve Ross of Related and Steve Roth of Vornado. Leave it to that good old sleuth Errol Louis to ferret out this difficult to discover fact.
As he writes in yesterday's NY Daily News: "Figuring out how to create and retain decent-paying jobs is the single most pressing economic issue facing New York City, and a fight that can't be put off any longer. On one side are developers, retailers and the Bloomberg administration, content to continue traditional schemes that throw millions of public dollars at commercial projects in exchange for jobs - often, with little or no concern about the quality or wage levels of the employment. On the other side are families trying desperately to make miserably small paychecks cover food, shelter, transportation, clothing, education and other necessities. In too many cases, it just can't be done."
And while the NY Post is busy finding people who are so desperate in this city that they will work for even a minimum wage, the question remains: Why is it that they have to if the tax payers are ponying up million in public funds to aid the development? Let's face it, this is a zero sum game-either poverty jobs, or no jobs-that has been created by the real estate lobby and their reliable media brayers.
What Louis points out, is that this is a situation that can be changed-and should be: "If an employer chooses to pay legally low wages, that's between them and their workers (who in many cases would be well-advised to form or join a union).
When public money is used to subsidize lousy wages, the city as a whole needs to rise up and say: not so fast. That is what the Kingsbridge Armory fight was all about. A combination of local residents, labor unions and community groups all demanded that the Related Companies, the proposed developer seeking zoning changes and upward of $40 million in public subsidies - put language in its leases requiring retail tenants to pay at least $10 an hour with benefits or $11.50 without."
It's another example of how out of touch Mike Bloomberg really is: "Related and the Bloomberg administration - backed by a howling chorus of scornful critics - acted as if people's demand for decent wages were an outbreak of insanity. "It is the right project for the Bronx," announced the billionaire mayor, saying the Council voted down the plan for "parochial reasons." The nonparochial big picture, presumably, is that people should simply thank the corporations and City Hall for the opportunity to work long hours, without benefits, for a few hundred dollars a month in perpetuity - and the rest of us should subsidize this from the public treasury."
And Louis points to the fight now being waged at the Queens Center Mall, beneficiary of over $48 million in property tax breaks, as another example of Bloomberg's tax subsidies for dummies policy-with NY's tax payers wearing the dunce caps: "Most of the 3,100 jobs at the mall pay at or only slightly more than the $7.25-an-hour minimum wage, according to a report being released today by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and Make the Road New York, a community organization...Juan Cucalon, a 28-year-old cashier at Victoria's Secret in Queens Center Mall, told researchers he got $8.25 an hour - $600 a month, after taxes. After paying $400 a month for his rented room, Cucalon had $200 a month for food and other necessities. Another ex-worker, Saa'datu Sani, worked at JCPenney from 1999 to 2007. Her pay after eight years was $8.47 an hour, with no benefits. "The mall has helped create an entire community that is struggling under the weight of poverty-wage jobs," the report concludes."
Talk about lunacy! What sense does it make to subsidize employers just so the employees can continue to be forced to rely on public subsidies of their own because their jobs are so meager? "The pay is so low, in fact, that many retail workers make ends meet by turning to public welfare like food stamps, Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Not gonna be happening if the city council understands what its 2010 mandate needs to be. And Louis deserves the last word: "In this case, the Bronx and Queens activists have drawn a principled line in the sand, announcing that developers, retailers and city government need to factor living wages into their financial models and subsidy requests if they want public largess. My guess is that a majority of New Yorkers support the idea. The question is when City Hall will join the fight on the side of the people."
As he writes in yesterday's NY Daily News: "Figuring out how to create and retain decent-paying jobs is the single most pressing economic issue facing New York City, and a fight that can't be put off any longer. On one side are developers, retailers and the Bloomberg administration, content to continue traditional schemes that throw millions of public dollars at commercial projects in exchange for jobs - often, with little or no concern about the quality or wage levels of the employment. On the other side are families trying desperately to make miserably small paychecks cover food, shelter, transportation, clothing, education and other necessities. In too many cases, it just can't be done."
And while the NY Post is busy finding people who are so desperate in this city that they will work for even a minimum wage, the question remains: Why is it that they have to if the tax payers are ponying up million in public funds to aid the development? Let's face it, this is a zero sum game-either poverty jobs, or no jobs-that has been created by the real estate lobby and their reliable media brayers.
What Louis points out, is that this is a situation that can be changed-and should be: "If an employer chooses to pay legally low wages, that's between them and their workers (who in many cases would be well-advised to form or join a union).
When public money is used to subsidize lousy wages, the city as a whole needs to rise up and say: not so fast. That is what the Kingsbridge Armory fight was all about. A combination of local residents, labor unions and community groups all demanded that the Related Companies, the proposed developer seeking zoning changes and upward of $40 million in public subsidies - put language in its leases requiring retail tenants to pay at least $10 an hour with benefits or $11.50 without."
It's another example of how out of touch Mike Bloomberg really is: "Related and the Bloomberg administration - backed by a howling chorus of scornful critics - acted as if people's demand for decent wages were an outbreak of insanity. "It is the right project for the Bronx," announced the billionaire mayor, saying the Council voted down the plan for "parochial reasons." The nonparochial big picture, presumably, is that people should simply thank the corporations and City Hall for the opportunity to work long hours, without benefits, for a few hundred dollars a month in perpetuity - and the rest of us should subsidize this from the public treasury."
And Louis points to the fight now being waged at the Queens Center Mall, beneficiary of over $48 million in property tax breaks, as another example of Bloomberg's tax subsidies for dummies policy-with NY's tax payers wearing the dunce caps: "Most of the 3,100 jobs at the mall pay at or only slightly more than the $7.25-an-hour minimum wage, according to a report being released today by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and Make the Road New York, a community organization...Juan Cucalon, a 28-year-old cashier at Victoria's Secret in Queens Center Mall, told researchers he got $8.25 an hour - $600 a month, after taxes. After paying $400 a month for his rented room, Cucalon had $200 a month for food and other necessities. Another ex-worker, Saa'datu Sani, worked at JCPenney from 1999 to 2007. Her pay after eight years was $8.47 an hour, with no benefits. "The mall has helped create an entire community that is struggling under the weight of poverty-wage jobs," the report concludes."
Talk about lunacy! What sense does it make to subsidize employers just so the employees can continue to be forced to rely on public subsidies of their own because their jobs are so meager? "The pay is so low, in fact, that many retail workers make ends meet by turning to public welfare like food stamps, Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Not gonna be happening if the city council understands what its 2010 mandate needs to be. And Louis deserves the last word: "In this case, the Bronx and Queens activists have drawn a principled line in the sand, announcing that developers, retailers and city government need to factor living wages into their financial models and subsidy requests if they want public largess. My guess is that a majority of New Yorkers support the idea. The question is when City Hall will join the fight on the side of the people."
Malling the Truth
The NY Post continues with its bending of the truth curve when it comes to reporting on the defeat of Related's adventures in sweetheart developing up in the Bronx. On Sunday, the paper manages to find no one who actually believes that the defeat of the mall at the Armory was a good idea-and quotes the one dissenting vote in its misguided lead: "The lone dissenter in the City Council's vote to kill the Kingsbridge Armory mall says the city's poorest borough, The Bronx, is getting burned again. "We shouldn't cut down the economic engine that creates the jobs we need," said Councilwoman Helen Sears, a Queens Democrat who was the only "yes" in the 45-1 vote Monday that quashed the Bronx plan. "You don't throw out the baby with the bath water," she added. "The fact is that it would create new jobs, and the money that would have poured into the city and into The Bronx would have been huge."
Of course Sears, who is leaving the council this month at the wishes of a majority of her own constituents, leaves out the fact that these subsidized jobs would have hurt 17 area supermarkets who would have been forced to compete with a mega competitor in the neighborhood-and the market right across the street employees the workers of Local 338 of the RWDSU, a main labor supporter of Sears. Talk about throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water!
And the Post, not in the interest of fairness, continues its diatribe thinly described as reporting: "Insiders said the Bronx delegation put pressure on the lawmakers. "If you don't vote for what they want, they won't vote for what you want," one insider said. "They screwed over their constituents." Ah, what would we do without unidentified "insiders?"
Of course, this is sheer nonsense, and caricatures how the legislative process is conducted. The Bronx delegation didn't threaten any of its colleagues-but, as per usual in the logrolling process, the other council members figure that the project is in the Bronx, so that the borough's representatives should be given some deference. And the role of the speaker-something the Post avoids discussing-is left to the imagination. Was she a helpless bystander to these "threats?" No, she also was deferent to the wishes of her Bronx colleagues.
But the Post saves this delicacy for last: "A council source said: "This happens all the time. It's just bribery. If you want something done in The Bronx, they ask, 'What are you going to do for me?' It happens here more than anywhere else." So, form unnamed insiders we go to unattributed council sources, and in the process what we fail to get is any reporting that is within a hundred miles of even minimal veracity.
In what way is the demand for a living wage to be considered a "bribe?" How is BP Diaz getting his vig by the workers getting a living wage? Now, if we examine the actions of Diaz's predecessor, then we get closer to the realm of the strong arm tactic. And the accusation elides the fact that all of these demands emerged directly from the grass roots organizing of the KARA coalition-so that in all fairness, Diaz can be accused of "knuckling under" to the wishes of his own community's sentiments. In some instances, and the Post would tell us that one of those instances can be seen in the Tea Party movement, that is called democracy in action.
Of course Sears, who is leaving the council this month at the wishes of a majority of her own constituents, leaves out the fact that these subsidized jobs would have hurt 17 area supermarkets who would have been forced to compete with a mega competitor in the neighborhood-and the market right across the street employees the workers of Local 338 of the RWDSU, a main labor supporter of Sears. Talk about throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water!
And the Post, not in the interest of fairness, continues its diatribe thinly described as reporting: "Insiders said the Bronx delegation put pressure on the lawmakers. "If you don't vote for what they want, they won't vote for what you want," one insider said. "They screwed over their constituents." Ah, what would we do without unidentified "insiders?"
Of course, this is sheer nonsense, and caricatures how the legislative process is conducted. The Bronx delegation didn't threaten any of its colleagues-but, as per usual in the logrolling process, the other council members figure that the project is in the Bronx, so that the borough's representatives should be given some deference. And the role of the speaker-something the Post avoids discussing-is left to the imagination. Was she a helpless bystander to these "threats?" No, she also was deferent to the wishes of her Bronx colleagues.
But the Post saves this delicacy for last: "A council source said: "This happens all the time. It's just bribery. If you want something done in The Bronx, they ask, 'What are you going to do for me?' It happens here more than anywhere else." So, form unnamed insiders we go to unattributed council sources, and in the process what we fail to get is any reporting that is within a hundred miles of even minimal veracity.
In what way is the demand for a living wage to be considered a "bribe?" How is BP Diaz getting his vig by the workers getting a living wage? Now, if we examine the actions of Diaz's predecessor, then we get closer to the realm of the strong arm tactic. And the accusation elides the fact that all of these demands emerged directly from the grass roots organizing of the KARA coalition-so that in all fairness, Diaz can be accused of "knuckling under" to the wishes of his own community's sentiments. In some instances, and the Post would tell us that one of those instances can be seen in the Tea Party movement, that is called democracy in action.
And, as the RW's Stuart Appelbaum points out in a letter to the Post, the opposition was willing to negotiate but was rebuffed in its efforts-and his letter undermines the bribery contention: "We insisted that workers should not have to accept poverty-wage jobs, that they should be able to freely exercise their right to join a union and that the community should have real benefits from the project.
The Bloomberg administration and Related had an opportunity to do things differently, and they chose not to. We view the City Council vote to reject with regret, but we view it as necessary to stop a project that would bring more harm than good to The Bronx."
But the actions of the council has caused consternation among the bien pensants of the real estate community-and a counter offensive is apparently being planned. According to the Post's Dave Seifman-who actually does reporting: "It's pushback time for the real-estate industry on the Kingsbridge Armory. Steve Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York, said the industry intends to inform residents of the harm done when the City Council rejected a deal to transform the long-vacant Bronx armory into a $310 million mall. "We will clearly be reminding people what's been lost as a result of this decision," Spinola said, mentioning a billboard campaign as a possibility. "Every couple of months, we'll be calculating how many people don't have work, how much it's costing the city to keep the armory from deteriorating, how much is being lost in taxes."
All of which has BP Diaz, seeing the opportunity for a Dirty Harry, "make my day" moment, quaking in his boots: "Diaz all but dared Spinola to come after him. "If people who've done well in the real-estate community feel a need to attack me, that's an attack I'm willing to take," he said." As he should. The real estate moguls have done well politically by keeping a low profile by operating basically behind the scenes. If they come out to make this a public fight, they will find themselves at a distinct disadvantage-with headlines like, "landlords attacking Diaz and the Bronx," generating the exact political opposite of what they hope to achieve.
All of which has BP Diaz, seeing the opportunity for a Dirty Harry, "make my day" moment, quaking in his boots: "Diaz all but dared Spinola to come after him. "If people who've done well in the real-estate community feel a need to attack me, that's an attack I'm willing to take," he said." As he should. The real estate moguls have done well politically by keeping a low profile by operating basically behind the scenes. If they come out to make this a public fight, they will find themselves at a distinct disadvantage-with headlines like, "landlords attacking Diaz and the Bronx," generating the exact political opposite of what they hope to achieve.
And now the Post also tells us that the building trades are also ready to join with their partners: "The latest fallout from the City Council's evaporation of 2,200 jobs and $300 million in investment at the crumbling Kingsbridge Armory in The Bronx? A labor-union civil war.
Bring it on, we say; New Yorkers can only benefit. Hardhats at the Building and Construction Trades Council are reportedly livid at retail-union honcho Stuart Appelbaum for his role in killing the project."
Bring it on, we say; New Yorkers can only benefit. Hardhats at the Building and Construction Trades Council are reportedly livid at retail-union honcho Stuart Appelbaum for his role in killing the project."
But, as we have said before, this isn't the kind of battle that it makes sense for the trades to engage in-given the demographic and political changes at the city council, and in the city as a whole. Nor will the classic partnership between the trades and the real estate community bear the same fruit that it has so often in the past.
No, what the Spinola's of the city need to do-along with their building trade acolytes- is to find a way to achieve some common ground with the paradigm that Diaz and the RWDSU have begun to forge. If they don't, the battle for the Kingsbridge Armory will be seen as the real estate's Waterloo.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Sinner, Repent-Not!
It certainly is funny to us that the folks in the building trades are issuing woof tickets to the RWDSU's Stuart Appelbaum for his "job killing" effort on the Kingsbridge Armory. As Liz Benjamin reports, Appelbaum remains, "unrepentent" for his success at thwarting the poverty wage project: "RWDSU President Stuart Appelbaum doesn't think he needs to apologize to his labor brothers and sisters for his role in killing the Kingsbridge Armory project. In fact, he doesn't think he's at fault at all.
"I don’t think we’re responsible for Kingsbridge going down," said Appelbaum, pictured here at his union's holiday party Wednesday night with his ally in the living wage fight, Bronx BP Ruben Diaz Jr., as well as Comptroller Bill Thompson and former Bronx BP Freddy Ferrer.
"We were ready to negotiate throughout the process. The administration refused to talk with us. Related refused to negotiate with us. We stood ready. They were the ones who wouldn’t negotiate."
But to imply repentance is to presuppose sinning-and to transpose Appelbaum's success into a sin is an unreflected adoption of the building trades' narrative. Stuart has nothing to apologize for in successfully resisting the efforts of the mayor, Related, and their building trade allies, to push through a bad deal for the Bronx. In fact, the reaction of the trades amounts to what the shrinks call displacement-externalizing their own guilt at being unable to effectively mobilize to pass the project onto a convenient scapegoat in Appelbaum.
Over the past thirty years or so we have been involved in scores of land use projects, and in every single case-no matter how vehement the community's opposition to the development may be-the trades have been out in force; basically saying we don't care what the project's impact might be as long as our members are doing the work. Real civic minded, don't you think?
In this, their power is similar to the shining of the moon-a light that owes its radiance to the reflective power of another; and in this case it's the city's real estate community that is the power source. And with the council's composition changing, along with that of the city, the trades are in need of new allies if they want to continue to prosper.
Which is something that the RW has understood better than most-and its coalition building, first with Make the Road New York, and now with KARA, has established a new political and development paradigm that the trades need to be cognizant of before they start huffing and puffing against our friend Appelbaum. The reality is that the trade locals wouldn't get out of bed for the wages that the KARA coalition were advocating for-underscoring the stark disparity between the retail workers in this city and those laborers, carpenters and electricians who are doing much better than the rest of the city's working class.
Which is why Appelbaum and the KARA folks deserve praise for their efforts to raise NYC's wage standards. As the Norwood News pointed out: "Because Related was receiving an estimated $50 million in city and state tax breaks, as well as a highly discounted purchase price of $5 million (it cost $30 million just to replace the roof), KARA members and many elected officials said that Related had a special responsibility to make sure that retailers paid wages that could support workers and their families. In Los Angeles, Related has complied with a local law requiring the living wage."
And BP Diaz-representing the new political wave-states the new paradigm quite well: "Diaz, whose firm stance on the living wage issue was a sharp break from his pro-developer predecessor, Adolfo Carrion, Jr., said private companies can pay what they want, but not when they’re receiving taxpayer money. “If you want to create a mall on your own dime, [then go ahead and pay what you want],” he said. “If you want a subsidy, then the community deserves a subsidy as well.”
In our view, this should be seen by the trades as the handwriting on the wall-and an impetus to their vigorous support of a living wage bill in the city council in order to avoid this kind of impasse in the future. As KARA's Pilgrim-Hunter tells it: “This is not just about the Kingsbridge Armory,” said Desiree Pilgrim-Hunter, a Fordham Hill resident and a leader in the Coalition and KARA. “It’s about every development in every borough in New York City."
So, while Appelbaum is now taking unwarranted heat for his remarkable success, he should take heart. Because before too long he will be marching in the lead, with those behind him finally recognizing the visionary nature of what he has started in this incredible successful effort to defeat the attempts by the city's richest man to impose his will on the poor folks in the Bronx.
"I don’t think we’re responsible for Kingsbridge going down," said Appelbaum, pictured here at his union's holiday party Wednesday night with his ally in the living wage fight, Bronx BP Ruben Diaz Jr., as well as Comptroller Bill Thompson and former Bronx BP Freddy Ferrer.
"We were ready to negotiate throughout the process. The administration refused to talk with us. Related refused to negotiate with us. We stood ready. They were the ones who wouldn’t negotiate."
But to imply repentance is to presuppose sinning-and to transpose Appelbaum's success into a sin is an unreflected adoption of the building trades' narrative. Stuart has nothing to apologize for in successfully resisting the efforts of the mayor, Related, and their building trade allies, to push through a bad deal for the Bronx. In fact, the reaction of the trades amounts to what the shrinks call displacement-externalizing their own guilt at being unable to effectively mobilize to pass the project onto a convenient scapegoat in Appelbaum.
Over the past thirty years or so we have been involved in scores of land use projects, and in every single case-no matter how vehement the community's opposition to the development may be-the trades have been out in force; basically saying we don't care what the project's impact might be as long as our members are doing the work. Real civic minded, don't you think?
In this, their power is similar to the shining of the moon-a light that owes its radiance to the reflective power of another; and in this case it's the city's real estate community that is the power source. And with the council's composition changing, along with that of the city, the trades are in need of new allies if they want to continue to prosper.
Which is something that the RW has understood better than most-and its coalition building, first with Make the Road New York, and now with KARA, has established a new political and development paradigm that the trades need to be cognizant of before they start huffing and puffing against our friend Appelbaum. The reality is that the trade locals wouldn't get out of bed for the wages that the KARA coalition were advocating for-underscoring the stark disparity between the retail workers in this city and those laborers, carpenters and electricians who are doing much better than the rest of the city's working class.
Which is why Appelbaum and the KARA folks deserve praise for their efforts to raise NYC's wage standards. As the Norwood News pointed out: "Because Related was receiving an estimated $50 million in city and state tax breaks, as well as a highly discounted purchase price of $5 million (it cost $30 million just to replace the roof), KARA members and many elected officials said that Related had a special responsibility to make sure that retailers paid wages that could support workers and their families. In Los Angeles, Related has complied with a local law requiring the living wage."
And BP Diaz-representing the new political wave-states the new paradigm quite well: "Diaz, whose firm stance on the living wage issue was a sharp break from his pro-developer predecessor, Adolfo Carrion, Jr., said private companies can pay what they want, but not when they’re receiving taxpayer money. “If you want to create a mall on your own dime, [then go ahead and pay what you want],” he said. “If you want a subsidy, then the community deserves a subsidy as well.”
In our view, this should be seen by the trades as the handwriting on the wall-and an impetus to their vigorous support of a living wage bill in the city council in order to avoid this kind of impasse in the future. As KARA's Pilgrim-Hunter tells it: “This is not just about the Kingsbridge Armory,” said Desiree Pilgrim-Hunter, a Fordham Hill resident and a leader in the Coalition and KARA. “It’s about every development in every borough in New York City."
So, while Appelbaum is now taking unwarranted heat for his remarkable success, he should take heart. Because before too long he will be marching in the lead, with those behind him finally recognizing the visionary nature of what he has started in this incredible successful effort to defeat the attempts by the city's richest man to impose his will on the poor folks in the Bronx.
Bloomy and Clyde
The NY Times' Clyde Haberman nails Mayor Mike to the wall for his hypocritical veto of the city council's decision to vote down the proposed Kingsbridge mall-focusing specifically on his absurd statement that the government can't dictate rules to the private sector: "News item: The City Council killed plans for a shopping mall inside the unused Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx because it wanted the developer to guarantee that workers would be paid more than the bare minimum. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg promised a veto. Public officials shouldn’t be dictating to private industry in this manner, he said."
But, as Haberman observes, this all depends on what you're asking the sacrosanct private sector to do: "Do we have this right? The Bloomberg administration considers it overly intrusive when government tells some businesses to pay their employees a living wage but not overly intrusive when government tells other businesses, like restaurants, what kinds of cooking oils they may use. Got it."
Or what they must put on their menu boards, as another example. If the mayor is going to become the champion of an untrammeled capitalism, let him at least be consistent and cease and desist with all of his nanny hectoring of restaurants and fast food outlets. Hey Mike, if we can tell restaurants what to put in their deserts, we can also tell employers what to put in their workers' pay checks. And, unlike the calorie posting, we know that the extra cash will be put to good use.
But, as Haberman observes, this all depends on what you're asking the sacrosanct private sector to do: "Do we have this right? The Bloomberg administration considers it overly intrusive when government tells some businesses to pay their employees a living wage but not overly intrusive when government tells other businesses, like restaurants, what kinds of cooking oils they may use. Got it."
Or what they must put on their menu boards, as another example. If the mayor is going to become the champion of an untrammeled capitalism, let him at least be consistent and cease and desist with all of his nanny hectoring of restaurants and fast food outlets. Hey Mike, if we can tell restaurants what to put in their deserts, we can also tell employers what to put in their workers' pay checks. And, unlike the calorie posting, we know that the extra cash will be put to good use.
Selective Outrage
The NY Post was predictably outraged by the city council's decision to vote down the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment plan-and says so while commenting on the mayor's veto of the vote: "Mayor Mike yesterday vetoed that City Council measure killing a proposal to develop the Kingsbridge Armory in The Bronx. The council is poised to override the veto, so it's unlikely to have any practical effect -- but symbols count, so good for the mayor for sticking up for jobs in the city's poorest borough."
And in the process, the paper unleashed its wrath on Bronx BP Ruben Diaz-and his community benefits "shakedown." "Diaz, along with his union allies, was most immediately incensed that developer Related Cos. refused to require retailers to pay workers well-above-market wages -- a demand Related said would scare away all potential tenants. But it turns out that's just a wee bit of the command-and-control economy envisioned by the beep. Indeed, Diaz's proposed "community-benefits agreement" -- that's code for the City Council-sanctioned shakedowns typically imposed on businesses with the temerity to invest in New York's future -- was breathtakingly arrogant."
Well, we didn't see the Post say one word about how Deputy Mayor Doctoroff simply handed over the Bronx Terminal Market to his long time friend and business partner Steve Ross, who happens to be the CEO of the same Related Companies that was "awarded" the Armory in what is alleged to be a competitive bidding process. That's right-handed over without any money exchanging hands in the absence of a public bidding process. The Post was silent while all of the other city papers wrote long exposes on the tawdriness of this giveaway.
Related was allowed to come in and take over an existing lease from a corrupt landlord-who was immediately made Related's partner in the ongoing development of what is now the Gateway Mall. And to this day, Related is advancing rent payments to the city that are less than those paid five years ago by the twenty food wholesalers who the city evicted in this Bronx heist.
So the Post's message is that sweetheart deals for billion dollar real estate firms are okay, but demanding living wages for retail workers is armed robbery: "All that was missing, frankly, was a mask and a gun. Clearly, if one seeks to do business in The Bronx, one plays by Diaz's rules." Clearly, the paper prefers the supine leadership of former BP Adolfo Carrion who also crafted a community benefits agreement with the piblic spirited aid of Jesse Masyr, Related's hired gun.
And Doctoroff did all of this with the blessing of the city's conflicts of interest board who ruled, contrary to all evidence and common sense, that the Docotoroff/Ross friendship predated the entry of Deputy Dan into government-overlooking the Olympic Committee loan that Ross took over from Dan and the fact that he also took over leadership of the effort to bring the games to New York, the major policy thrust of the first Bloomberg term.
So in our view, the Post should save its breathe and stop the selective outrage. Until the paper is willing to shine an honest light on the "patricianage" of the Bloombergistas-and the special relationship between the city and Related, it should have the decency to just keep silent; otherwise we will be led to believe that without double standards, the paper wouldn't have any standards at all.
And in the process, the paper unleashed its wrath on Bronx BP Ruben Diaz-and his community benefits "shakedown." "Diaz, along with his union allies, was most immediately incensed that developer Related Cos. refused to require retailers to pay workers well-above-market wages -- a demand Related said would scare away all potential tenants. But it turns out that's just a wee bit of the command-and-control economy envisioned by the beep. Indeed, Diaz's proposed "community-benefits agreement" -- that's code for the City Council-sanctioned shakedowns typically imposed on businesses with the temerity to invest in New York's future -- was breathtakingly arrogant."
Well, we didn't see the Post say one word about how Deputy Mayor Doctoroff simply handed over the Bronx Terminal Market to his long time friend and business partner Steve Ross, who happens to be the CEO of the same Related Companies that was "awarded" the Armory in what is alleged to be a competitive bidding process. That's right-handed over without any money exchanging hands in the absence of a public bidding process. The Post was silent while all of the other city papers wrote long exposes on the tawdriness of this giveaway.
Related was allowed to come in and take over an existing lease from a corrupt landlord-who was immediately made Related's partner in the ongoing development of what is now the Gateway Mall. And to this day, Related is advancing rent payments to the city that are less than those paid five years ago by the twenty food wholesalers who the city evicted in this Bronx heist.
So the Post's message is that sweetheart deals for billion dollar real estate firms are okay, but demanding living wages for retail workers is armed robbery: "All that was missing, frankly, was a mask and a gun. Clearly, if one seeks to do business in The Bronx, one plays by Diaz's rules." Clearly, the paper prefers the supine leadership of former BP Adolfo Carrion who also crafted a community benefits agreement with the piblic spirited aid of Jesse Masyr, Related's hired gun.
And Doctoroff did all of this with the blessing of the city's conflicts of interest board who ruled, contrary to all evidence and common sense, that the Docotoroff/Ross friendship predated the entry of Deputy Dan into government-overlooking the Olympic Committee loan that Ross took over from Dan and the fact that he also took over leadership of the effort to bring the games to New York, the major policy thrust of the first Bloomberg term.
So in our view, the Post should save its breathe and stop the selective outrage. Until the paper is willing to shine an honest light on the "patricianage" of the Bloombergistas-and the special relationship between the city and Related, it should have the decency to just keep silent; otherwise we will be led to believe that without double standards, the paper wouldn't have any standards at all.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Veto!
According to Daily Politics, the mayor is a man of his word-and has vetoed the Kingsbridge Armory rejection, saying: "In disapproving the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment project, the council unraveled more than three years of collaborative planning with community leaders and negated an opportunity to generate more than $300 million in private investment, and2,200 jobs in the Bronx..."
Alas, the "more than three years of planning" was itself fatally flawed by the selection of the least community friendly developer in the city to spearhead the redevelopment project-and Related lived up to its reputation by ignoring and/or humoring the community coalition throughout the land use process.
The mayor goes on to argue that the nexus of the planning process was the creation of the Kingsbridge Armory Task Force: "Working together, the members of this group gave careful consideration to the needs and preferences of the Bronx communities surrounding the long vacant armory site." Really?
If so, we wonder how the Related plan could have emerged as it did-so disconnected from those "needs and interests" that the mayor alludes to? But the mayor goes on to say that the RFP eventually issued by the city reflected this hard work; but, if so, it was promptly ignored by the city's designee.
And what would a statement of this kind by without the usual, "the customers are all leaving" argument. As the mayor alleges: "The proposal would also create a much needed economic engine for the Bronx, where residents disproportionately travel elsewhere to shop. Each year the Bronx loses more than 40% of potential retail sales to locations outside the borough, which translates to $2.8 billion in spending..."
And you didn't know there was that much money in the Bronx? But seriously, this is part of the typical kind of immaculate deception that the EDC crowd always try to pull-assuming that the building of local malls will stem the exodus, but will have no net effect on existing retail businesses. This isn't economic analysis, it's a simple scam in support of those looking to translate tax dollars into a lucrative mall deal for themselves.
And can we at least mention the fact that the city itself is a co-conspirator in the exodus? After all, it continues to not only pursue and maintain NYC's high tax, onerous regulatory environment, but at the same time raises the sales tax in the middle of the worst recession in over 60 years. And the consumers naturally vote with their feet.
The reality is that the tax subsidized malling will cannibalize existing neighborhood stores that are on life supports as it is-reducing employment and destroying the dreams of countless numbers of struggling entrepreneurs. But why should Mike Bloomberg care about these folks, none of whom will ever be caught hobnobbing with the mayor at one of the city's private clubs that he frequents?
And given the callous disregard shown for small retailers, the mayor's referencing of the recession is particularly bad form: "Given the continued negative economic impacts of the national recession, including high unemployment and a scaling back of job creating development, the Kingsbridge Armory plan came at a particularly important moment...Disapproval of the plan serves as a particularly untimely setback to the fulfillment of these goals."
But give Mayor Mike credit-doubling down on his bad economic bet by continuing with an economic development plan that has devastated neighborhood businesses all over the city, while at the same time enriching a few real estate favored sons. He remains tone deaf to these local interests; Why else would he eliminate all of the street parking along the length of Fordham Road, one of the city's most vibrant retail corridors?
Mike does end with a flourish though-castigating the council for failure to address land use criteria in its rejection of the shopping center: "The public review of the proposal conducted under the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure did not identify any land use impacts or implications that warranted Council disapproval...There was thus no land use or environmental justification for the Council action."
This statement requires true chutzpah on the mayor's part. The "review" he refers to, involves the hiring of an in-their-pocket consultant whose "findings" never raise any serious environmental questions-that's why they are hired in the first place. And the city for its part, simply turns its head the other way, does no independent review of the data generated, and rubber stamps the self interested conclusions as if they were unassailable. The entire process is a joke-and the fix is in from the beginning-just see what we've said about the Willets Point traffic hide and sneak.
So we go back to the Council on Monday for the hoped for override. But the debate about the meaning of all of this will continue long after the current council heads out for its well deserved Christmas vacation.
Alas, the "more than three years of planning" was itself fatally flawed by the selection of the least community friendly developer in the city to spearhead the redevelopment project-and Related lived up to its reputation by ignoring and/or humoring the community coalition throughout the land use process.
The mayor goes on to argue that the nexus of the planning process was the creation of the Kingsbridge Armory Task Force: "Working together, the members of this group gave careful consideration to the needs and preferences of the Bronx communities surrounding the long vacant armory site." Really?
If so, we wonder how the Related plan could have emerged as it did-so disconnected from those "needs and interests" that the mayor alludes to? But the mayor goes on to say that the RFP eventually issued by the city reflected this hard work; but, if so, it was promptly ignored by the city's designee.
And what would a statement of this kind by without the usual, "the customers are all leaving" argument. As the mayor alleges: "The proposal would also create a much needed economic engine for the Bronx, where residents disproportionately travel elsewhere to shop. Each year the Bronx loses more than 40% of potential retail sales to locations outside the borough, which translates to $2.8 billion in spending..."
And you didn't know there was that much money in the Bronx? But seriously, this is part of the typical kind of immaculate deception that the EDC crowd always try to pull-assuming that the building of local malls will stem the exodus, but will have no net effect on existing retail businesses. This isn't economic analysis, it's a simple scam in support of those looking to translate tax dollars into a lucrative mall deal for themselves.
And can we at least mention the fact that the city itself is a co-conspirator in the exodus? After all, it continues to not only pursue and maintain NYC's high tax, onerous regulatory environment, but at the same time raises the sales tax in the middle of the worst recession in over 60 years. And the consumers naturally vote with their feet.
The reality is that the tax subsidized malling will cannibalize existing neighborhood stores that are on life supports as it is-reducing employment and destroying the dreams of countless numbers of struggling entrepreneurs. But why should Mike Bloomberg care about these folks, none of whom will ever be caught hobnobbing with the mayor at one of the city's private clubs that he frequents?
And given the callous disregard shown for small retailers, the mayor's referencing of the recession is particularly bad form: "Given the continued negative economic impacts of the national recession, including high unemployment and a scaling back of job creating development, the Kingsbridge Armory plan came at a particularly important moment...Disapproval of the plan serves as a particularly untimely setback to the fulfillment of these goals."
But give Mayor Mike credit-doubling down on his bad economic bet by continuing with an economic development plan that has devastated neighborhood businesses all over the city, while at the same time enriching a few real estate favored sons. He remains tone deaf to these local interests; Why else would he eliminate all of the street parking along the length of Fordham Road, one of the city's most vibrant retail corridors?
Mike does end with a flourish though-castigating the council for failure to address land use criteria in its rejection of the shopping center: "The public review of the proposal conducted under the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure did not identify any land use impacts or implications that warranted Council disapproval...There was thus no land use or environmental justification for the Council action."
This statement requires true chutzpah on the mayor's part. The "review" he refers to, involves the hiring of an in-their-pocket consultant whose "findings" never raise any serious environmental questions-that's why they are hired in the first place. And the city for its part, simply turns its head the other way, does no independent review of the data generated, and rubber stamps the self interested conclusions as if they were unassailable. The entire process is a joke-and the fix is in from the beginning-just see what we've said about the Willets Point traffic hide and sneak.
So we go back to the Council on Monday for the hoped for override. But the debate about the meaning of all of this will continue long after the current council heads out for its well deserved Christmas vacation.
Lunacy in the Eye of the Beholder
We continue to be amazed by the vitriolic misdirection of some of the chattering classes over the defeat of the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory. As we have already said, but given the continued misrepresentations, we need to reiterate-this was a bad deal from the jump; and the failure to craft a deal over wages was the final nail in the bad deal's coffin.
But along comes the NY Post's Steve Cuozzo to add his 1 1/2 cents to the discussion-crying out that, "the lunatics," are in charge: "With its vote to kill the Kingsbridge Armory deal, the City Council has put everyone on notice: Don't bother trying to make New York a better town unless you're willing to pay a truly massive bribe. The council's members claim they scuttled the scheme to build a shopping mall in the long-vacant Bronx property over the developer's refusal to require tenants to pay workers a so-called "living" wage. But the vote was actually on a land-use question -- the politicians just added on an impossible demand as a side condition. With the lunatic fringe now at the throttle, anything's possible."
We wonder where Cuozzo was when Bloomberg's deputy mayor Doctoroff evicted the tenants from the Bronx Terminal Market and handed the property over-no fee, no bid-to his friend Steve Ross at Related? Or when the city allowed Related to acquire property adjacent to its mall in Brooklyn-once again without any bidding process. Or when, after being on the verge of defaulting in its successful bid for the Bradhusrst development site, Doctoroff rescued the company by sending it the extra $5 million that the Giuliani folks had refused to do because of the company's non-compliance?
This, in Cuozzo's world isn't lunacy, it's business as usual where favoritism and sweetheart no bid contracts are de riguer. And in the sane planet that people like Cuozzo live on it's all right to take tax money and subsidize national chains to put the local shops at risk-even when these local stores have never been given a dime of city money after years of diligently paying their tithe to an over spending city government.
So the council said no to the same old, same old, rich get richer land use policy-and the swells are screaming; indicating that the legislature is doing something right. What the council vote indicates, is that people are waking up to the fact that Mike Bloomberg and his deputies-all refugees from (some failed) Wall Street enterprises-haven't a clue about the kind of suffering their policies have inflicted on the citizens of boroughs like the Bronx.
And if the city's gonna use its tax dollars for economic development than the money should be directed to aiding the small businesses that are crying out for help to the deaf ears at city hall. Now we are not uncritical fans of the Small Business Protection Act that the mayor can not tolerate, but its advancement and support in the city council is an indication of just how bad things have gotten for neighborhood shops under the eight year Bloomberg watch. But this is hardship that only the lunatics can apparently see clearly.
But let's be clear, the Armory deal was a bad one-and, as we have argued, there are ample environmental reasons for saying so. But ULURP shouldn't be seen narrowly because these land development deals are never determined by their environmental impacts-and perhaps the statute should be changed to reflect that. Does any one think that the land use effort leading to the use of eminent domain and the eviction of businesses from Willets Point was decided on its environmental impact? If any one had really examined this flawed, trumped up EIS they would have discovered a traffic nightmare that is simply unmitigatible. But so what! Only a lunatic would be concerned about that!
It's the role of the city council to pass judgment on the economic decisions of the mayor-and ULURP is the only methodology in place. And the opposition understood this and provided the scrupulous traffic and socio-economic impact data that the city and the developer-as per usual-failed to provide with any degree of righteousness.
So Cuozzo's observation here is off the mark: "The council wasn't empowered to adopt a far-left socioeconomic agenda promoted by Bronx demagogues who claim to speak for the "community." The City Charter (sections 197C and D, which cover ULURP) gives the council latitude involving "use, development or improvement" of property. But not even the most liberal interpretation of "use" covers such extraneous matters as how much employees at a location are to be paid. Yes, some council members and their far-left enablers are shamelessly crowing that they killed Kingsbridge over wages. That neatly skips past the indisputable fact that they acted in defiance of the charter's clear intent -- and did so to stop a long-empty landmark from filling up with stores, life and commerce."
What this battle symbolized is a change of perspective that will hold Mike Bloomberg's limited world view to a higher standard. As the NY Times' Jim Dwyer pointed out yesterday: "The shining city of New York opened for business Tuesday morning, one day after the normally very obedient and housebroken City Council rose up against the mayor and voted down a heavily subsidized shopping mall development at the Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx...In any case, there were more primal forces at work than a debate over the economics of the living wage. It turns out that even the docile Council has decided that it’s safe to stick a finger in Michael R. Bloomberg’s eye. This may turn out be a long four years for him..."
No longer will the legislature go on maneuvers for political battle with both hands in the air in preparation for surrendering. If the mayor is going to unwisely use tax dollars to subsidize some of the city's richest corporations, than in the parlance of the Bronx: "Not for nothing." And if that's lunacy, than call us crazy!
But along comes the NY Post's Steve Cuozzo to add his 1 1/2 cents to the discussion-crying out that, "the lunatics," are in charge: "With its vote to kill the Kingsbridge Armory deal, the City Council has put everyone on notice: Don't bother trying to make New York a better town unless you're willing to pay a truly massive bribe. The council's members claim they scuttled the scheme to build a shopping mall in the long-vacant Bronx property over the developer's refusal to require tenants to pay workers a so-called "living" wage. But the vote was actually on a land-use question -- the politicians just added on an impossible demand as a side condition. With the lunatic fringe now at the throttle, anything's possible."
We wonder where Cuozzo was when Bloomberg's deputy mayor Doctoroff evicted the tenants from the Bronx Terminal Market and handed the property over-no fee, no bid-to his friend Steve Ross at Related? Or when the city allowed Related to acquire property adjacent to its mall in Brooklyn-once again without any bidding process. Or when, after being on the verge of defaulting in its successful bid for the Bradhusrst development site, Doctoroff rescued the company by sending it the extra $5 million that the Giuliani folks had refused to do because of the company's non-compliance?
This, in Cuozzo's world isn't lunacy, it's business as usual where favoritism and sweetheart no bid contracts are de riguer. And in the sane planet that people like Cuozzo live on it's all right to take tax money and subsidize national chains to put the local shops at risk-even when these local stores have never been given a dime of city money after years of diligently paying their tithe to an over spending city government.
So the council said no to the same old, same old, rich get richer land use policy-and the swells are screaming; indicating that the legislature is doing something right. What the council vote indicates, is that people are waking up to the fact that Mike Bloomberg and his deputies-all refugees from (some failed) Wall Street enterprises-haven't a clue about the kind of suffering their policies have inflicted on the citizens of boroughs like the Bronx.
And if the city's gonna use its tax dollars for economic development than the money should be directed to aiding the small businesses that are crying out for help to the deaf ears at city hall. Now we are not uncritical fans of the Small Business Protection Act that the mayor can not tolerate, but its advancement and support in the city council is an indication of just how bad things have gotten for neighborhood shops under the eight year Bloomberg watch. But this is hardship that only the lunatics can apparently see clearly.
But let's be clear, the Armory deal was a bad one-and, as we have argued, there are ample environmental reasons for saying so. But ULURP shouldn't be seen narrowly because these land development deals are never determined by their environmental impacts-and perhaps the statute should be changed to reflect that. Does any one think that the land use effort leading to the use of eminent domain and the eviction of businesses from Willets Point was decided on its environmental impact? If any one had really examined this flawed, trumped up EIS they would have discovered a traffic nightmare that is simply unmitigatible. But so what! Only a lunatic would be concerned about that!
It's the role of the city council to pass judgment on the economic decisions of the mayor-and ULURP is the only methodology in place. And the opposition understood this and provided the scrupulous traffic and socio-economic impact data that the city and the developer-as per usual-failed to provide with any degree of righteousness.
So Cuozzo's observation here is off the mark: "The council wasn't empowered to adopt a far-left socioeconomic agenda promoted by Bronx demagogues who claim to speak for the "community." The City Charter (sections 197C and D, which cover ULURP) gives the council latitude involving "use, development or improvement" of property. But not even the most liberal interpretation of "use" covers such extraneous matters as how much employees at a location are to be paid. Yes, some council members and their far-left enablers are shamelessly crowing that they killed Kingsbridge over wages. That neatly skips past the indisputable fact that they acted in defiance of the charter's clear intent -- and did so to stop a long-empty landmark from filling up with stores, life and commerce."
What this battle symbolized is a change of perspective that will hold Mike Bloomberg's limited world view to a higher standard. As the NY Times' Jim Dwyer pointed out yesterday: "The shining city of New York opened for business Tuesday morning, one day after the normally very obedient and housebroken City Council rose up against the mayor and voted down a heavily subsidized shopping mall development at the Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx...In any case, there were more primal forces at work than a debate over the economics of the living wage. It turns out that even the docile Council has decided that it’s safe to stick a finger in Michael R. Bloomberg’s eye. This may turn out be a long four years for him..."
No longer will the legislature go on maneuvers for political battle with both hands in the air in preparation for surrendering. If the mayor is going to unwisely use tax dollars to subsidize some of the city's richest corporations, than in the parlance of the Bronx: "Not for nothing." And if that's lunacy, than call us crazy!
Jobbing and Slandering
The NY Post is unhappy over the defeat of the Kingsbridge Armory plan-and resorts to low invective in the slandering of the opponents of the scheme: "Successful extortionists everywhere know enough to make an example of someone from time to time -- just to show they mean business. That accounts for the fatal mugging Monday of a promising proposal in The Bronx that would have meant 2,200 new jobs and $300 million in investment for the borough. It was a hit, pure and simple -- and the implications for the city could scarcely be more ominous."
The paper goes on to say that the demands of the KARA coalition were a variant of the "community benefits scam" that has been seen lately in various city developments: "But much more important, it also represented the maturation of the so-called "community benefits agreement" shakedown process -- whereby reputable business leaders must roll around in the mud with local politicians in order to be allowed to invest in the city and its people."
Let's take a deep breathe here-as well as a step back. The idea that the Related Companies was being forced to "roll in the mud" by accepting tens of millions of tax dollars is actually quite comical; and the advancement of the living wage was a recognition that developers who get rich off of sweetheart deals and tax payer subsidies have to be required to give a little back to under paid retail workers in exchange for the city's generosity.
But the Post misses something here that even more essential. It goes on to focus on the lost jobs-a theme that the mayor is certain to emphasize when he vetoes the council rejection: "Quinn's council, in a nutshell, decided that no jobs at all would be better than "poverty jobs." For the politicians, maybe. Actual Bronx residents, one suspects, would appreciate any economic opportunity they can get. The Bronx's unemployment rate stands at a whopping 13.4 percent -- the highest in the state."
But this truism-akin to the realization that New Yorkers will buy stuff off of the back of the truck if it's available-misses the essential political calculus in the tax money for living wage equation, especially when it comes to retail jobs. What's missing also is the fact that these particular retail jobs that the tax payers are paying for, will compete with the non subsidized jobs across the street and down the block from the armory.
It overlooks the inherent inequity of subsidizing certain retailers to create an unlevel playing field; one that will lead to the loss of neighborhood employment-a fact that the mayor and his amen chorus fails to mention. And when the store vacancy rate reaches record levels in the city, this unfairness is magnified considerably.
And in our view, if the city is going to use tax dollars to subsidize employers, it should be for those employers whose jobs are unique-as were the positions lost over at the Stell D'Oro factory. In that case, the mayor and the Post were overcome by lockjaw; and the factory closed for good without the city lifting a finger to help. Is that what Mike Bloomberg means when he tells the city that we can't dictate to the private sector?
And another thing that the mayor doesn't want to address-the externality costs of the armory development. These come from congestion loses (Hey, Mike, you remember these?), air pollution, traffic accidents, pavement and vehicle wear and tear, etc. In the estimate of the KARA traffic consultant, this cost will run the Kingsbridge Heights community over $7,000,000 a year, and will see the dumping of over 850,000 pounds of CO2 into the air-costs that are borne, not by the developer, but by the citizens who live in the neighborhood.
So, in our view, given these social costs and lost neighborhood jobs and business, the living wage demands should be seen as de minimis.-a view that is shared by the Riverdale Press: "Asking for $10 per hour with benefits or $11.50 without seems modest enough, and it’s questionable how livable the living wage actually is."
And if it can be done in Boston, why not in New York? "In Boston, where Mayor Michael Bloomberg was born, there is a city law that mandates a living wage for all development projects that take any city money. The law has been in place since 1998, and this year that wage is $12.79 per hour. Boston is not a cheap place to live, but it’s cheaper than New York. Here’s a little more of what the Boston law has to say: “The living wage is subject to an increase each July 1. “Since the ordinance was implemented, the City has awarded one 1,909 contracts that are covered. These contracts cover 21,134 employees.” It doesn’t sound like a enforcing a living wage has stopped development dead in Boston."
And Bettina Damiani of Good Jobs NY says it well in her letter to the NY Daily News: "There would not have been so much opposition to the development of the historic Kingsbridge Armory if the mayor had included residents in its planning and leveraged the millions of dollars in promised subsidies to create good jobs. Yes, the Bronx has "astronomical" unemployment, but by failing to guarantee that residents have access to jobs at other massively subsidized projects in the area - Yankee Stadium, Croton water filtration plant and Gateway Mall - the administration hasn't done its part to help alleviate the problem. Make no mistake. Greed killed this project, not the efforts of Bronx residents to actively engage in the borough's development."
All of which underscores what is needed as we head into the new year-and why the Post's animadversions are just plain wrong: "Looking ahead to future projects, the only way to guarantee a living wage to workers is for a law like the one in Boston to be passed. Proposals are already sitting around the City Council. Pass one and, Mayor Bloomberg, sign it."
The paper goes on to say that the demands of the KARA coalition were a variant of the "community benefits scam" that has been seen lately in various city developments: "But much more important, it also represented the maturation of the so-called "community benefits agreement" shakedown process -- whereby reputable business leaders must roll around in the mud with local politicians in order to be allowed to invest in the city and its people."
Let's take a deep breathe here-as well as a step back. The idea that the Related Companies was being forced to "roll in the mud" by accepting tens of millions of tax dollars is actually quite comical; and the advancement of the living wage was a recognition that developers who get rich off of sweetheart deals and tax payer subsidies have to be required to give a little back to under paid retail workers in exchange for the city's generosity.
But the Post misses something here that even more essential. It goes on to focus on the lost jobs-a theme that the mayor is certain to emphasize when he vetoes the council rejection: "Quinn's council, in a nutshell, decided that no jobs at all would be better than "poverty jobs." For the politicians, maybe. Actual Bronx residents, one suspects, would appreciate any economic opportunity they can get. The Bronx's unemployment rate stands at a whopping 13.4 percent -- the highest in the state."
But this truism-akin to the realization that New Yorkers will buy stuff off of the back of the truck if it's available-misses the essential political calculus in the tax money for living wage equation, especially when it comes to retail jobs. What's missing also is the fact that these particular retail jobs that the tax payers are paying for, will compete with the non subsidized jobs across the street and down the block from the armory.
It overlooks the inherent inequity of subsidizing certain retailers to create an unlevel playing field; one that will lead to the loss of neighborhood employment-a fact that the mayor and his amen chorus fails to mention. And when the store vacancy rate reaches record levels in the city, this unfairness is magnified considerably.
And in our view, if the city is going to use tax dollars to subsidize employers, it should be for those employers whose jobs are unique-as were the positions lost over at the Stell D'Oro factory. In that case, the mayor and the Post were overcome by lockjaw; and the factory closed for good without the city lifting a finger to help. Is that what Mike Bloomberg means when he tells the city that we can't dictate to the private sector?
And another thing that the mayor doesn't want to address-the externality costs of the armory development. These come from congestion loses (Hey, Mike, you remember these?), air pollution, traffic accidents, pavement and vehicle wear and tear, etc. In the estimate of the KARA traffic consultant, this cost will run the Kingsbridge Heights community over $7,000,000 a year, and will see the dumping of over 850,000 pounds of CO2 into the air-costs that are borne, not by the developer, but by the citizens who live in the neighborhood.
So, in our view, given these social costs and lost neighborhood jobs and business, the living wage demands should be seen as de minimis.-a view that is shared by the Riverdale Press: "Asking for $10 per hour with benefits or $11.50 without seems modest enough, and it’s questionable how livable the living wage actually is."
And if it can be done in Boston, why not in New York? "In Boston, where Mayor Michael Bloomberg was born, there is a city law that mandates a living wage for all development projects that take any city money. The law has been in place since 1998, and this year that wage is $12.79 per hour. Boston is not a cheap place to live, but it’s cheaper than New York. Here’s a little more of what the Boston law has to say: “The living wage is subject to an increase each July 1. “Since the ordinance was implemented, the City has awarded one 1,909 contracts that are covered. These contracts cover 21,134 employees.” It doesn’t sound like a enforcing a living wage has stopped development dead in Boston."
And Bettina Damiani of Good Jobs NY says it well in her letter to the NY Daily News: "There would not have been so much opposition to the development of the historic Kingsbridge Armory if the mayor had included residents in its planning and leveraged the millions of dollars in promised subsidies to create good jobs. Yes, the Bronx has "astronomical" unemployment, but by failing to guarantee that residents have access to jobs at other massively subsidized projects in the area - Yankee Stadium, Croton water filtration plant and Gateway Mall - the administration hasn't done its part to help alleviate the problem. Make no mistake. Greed killed this project, not the efforts of Bronx residents to actively engage in the borough's development."
All of which underscores what is needed as we head into the new year-and why the Post's animadversions are just plain wrong: "Looking ahead to future projects, the only way to guarantee a living wage to workers is for a law like the one in Boston to be passed. Proposals are already sitting around the City Council. Pass one and, Mayor Bloomberg, sign it."
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Copenhagen Reverie: "The King is in the All together"
It is without a doubt heavily ironic that Mike Bloomberg not only went to Copenhagen for this climate conference to save the planet, but that he also apparently had an epiphany while attending. As we have already pointed out-and as Liz has cited-the mayor really got into the Copenhagen spirit with a redux of his ill-fated congestion pricing scheme: "I don't think congestion pricing, or those kind of things, are dead."
Now the irony here is that it was in Copenhagen that the late great Hans Christian Andersen penned his famous fable, "The Emperor's New Suit." And we all remember how that story of a naked leader ended: “But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last. “Good heavens! listen to the voice of an innocent child,” said the father, and one whispered to the other what the child had said. “But he has nothing on at all,” cried at last the whole people. That made a deep impression upon the emperor, for it seemed to him that they were right; but he thought to himself, “Now I must bear up to the end.” And the chamberlains walked with still greater dignity, as if they carried the train which did not exist."
And so it goes with our own fabled chief executive who, on the issue of environmental purity, is fully unclothed. And while he prattles on about the need for another tax on cars going in to Manhattan, he is supporting the dumping of 70,000 tons of CO2 from the proposed Willets Point development. While at the same time we may add, he is bemoaning the defeat of the Kingsbridge Armory project that will also threaten the health and safety of the residents of that local Bronx neighborhood by dramatically increasing the vehicular traffic in a community already overwhelmed by too many cars and trucks.
But there's more-and it takes the wisdom of Speaker Silver to point out further hypocrisies in the mayor's effort to green the city. As the Observer points out: "On NY1 last night, Silver said, "[T]he mayor has added congestion by narrowing streets, by putting benches in the middle of the city—and this was the same mayor who talked about congestion when he was going to build a football stadium in the middle of the most congested part of the city. They've now put park benches in the middle of Times Square, reduced Broadway traffic up and downtown from four lanes down to one or two, and lower Broadway down to one lane. So, he's created congestion just in these traffic patterns that have taken place."
Ah, the sheer nakedness is truly embarrassing. As Burl Ives once sang-and we'll give him the last word:
"Look at the King! Look at the the King! Look at the King, the King, the King!
The King is in the all together. But all together the all together.
He's all together as naked as the day that he was born.
The King is in the all together. But all together the all together.
It's all together the very least the King has ever worn."
Now the irony here is that it was in Copenhagen that the late great Hans Christian Andersen penned his famous fable, "The Emperor's New Suit." And we all remember how that story of a naked leader ended: “But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last. “Good heavens! listen to the voice of an innocent child,” said the father, and one whispered to the other what the child had said. “But he has nothing on at all,” cried at last the whole people. That made a deep impression upon the emperor, for it seemed to him that they were right; but he thought to himself, “Now I must bear up to the end.” And the chamberlains walked with still greater dignity, as if they carried the train which did not exist."
And so it goes with our own fabled chief executive who, on the issue of environmental purity, is fully unclothed. And while he prattles on about the need for another tax on cars going in to Manhattan, he is supporting the dumping of 70,000 tons of CO2 from the proposed Willets Point development. While at the same time we may add, he is bemoaning the defeat of the Kingsbridge Armory project that will also threaten the health and safety of the residents of that local Bronx neighborhood by dramatically increasing the vehicular traffic in a community already overwhelmed by too many cars and trucks.
But there's more-and it takes the wisdom of Speaker Silver to point out further hypocrisies in the mayor's effort to green the city. As the Observer points out: "On NY1 last night, Silver said, "[T]he mayor has added congestion by narrowing streets, by putting benches in the middle of the city—and this was the same mayor who talked about congestion when he was going to build a football stadium in the middle of the most congested part of the city. They've now put park benches in the middle of Times Square, reduced Broadway traffic up and downtown from four lanes down to one or two, and lower Broadway down to one lane. So, he's created congestion just in these traffic patterns that have taken place."
Ah, the sheer nakedness is truly embarrassing. As Burl Ives once sang-and we'll give him the last word:
"Look at the King! Look at the the King! Look at the King, the King, the King!
The King is in the all together. But all together the all together.
He's all together as naked as the day that he was born.
The King is in the all together. But all together the all together.
It's all together the very least the King has ever worn."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
