Capitol News has an article on the efforts by Senator Kruger to smoke the governor out on Indian cigarette taxes-and some of the statements from the governor's people indicates to us that they may be suffering from shell shock: "Trying to avoid stoking racial and cultural fires, the Paterson administration has delicately proposed taxing cigarettes sold on Native American reservations to help close the $7 billion deficit. Though the collection process would take at least six months to begin implementing, no revenue from the proposed tax was included in the executive budget. That has led some legislators in favor of the tax to say that the governor is simply blowing smoke when it comes to serious commitment to going through with collection."
Which is precisely the position of General Carl Kruger: "“We do not need to wait months,” fumed State Sen. Carl Kruger at a recent press conference in lower Manhattan. “The budget is void of one dollar of revenue that could be collected from those taxes. And we have a gaping hole.”Kruger was joined by Senate Majority Leader Pedro Espada, as well as State Sens. Joe Addabbo, Jeff Klein and Assembly Members Richard Brodsky and José Rivera."
Not everyone agrees, however, and the statements of the governor's counsel are perplexing to us: "As recently as last October, administration officials were casting doubts over efforts to collect taxes on cigarette sales on Indian reservations. “The governor has been advised the costs of law enforcement would offset whatever gains might be achieved by tax collection,” said Peter Kiernan, Paterson’s chief counsel, in testimony to the Senate last October. “And that is without trying to assess the cost of physical injury or the loss of life or possible property damage.”
But who's giving the advice here? And then there's the following gibberish which underscores the reason why Kruger believes that Paterson is simply playing rope-a-dope: "Administration officials say they are more interested in achieving “price equality” in cigarette prices, which they hope will help nearby non-Indian stores while also encouraging smoking cessation programs. Under such a plan, cigarettes sold by Indians would be set at prices Kiernan said would be “roughly equivalent” to those charged by non-Indian sellers by forcing a minimum price for sales made on reservations. The difference between the actual price and this price floor would then be turned into a revenue stream to fund local economic development project run by the state—though this would not officially be called a tax. Store owners have long complained that customers often choose to buy cigarettes from Indian reservation retailers, where prices are much lower."
Can you imagine Paterson negotiating that kind of deal? It would make the Aqueduct racino look like a kindergarten recess-and Kruger's not buying it for one second: "Kruger argues that enforcing the tax would not require tax collectors to set foot on tribal land since fees would be collected from the stamping agent at the wholesalers before the cigarettes are even shipped to Indian land. Wholesalers who do not affix the stamp to those products would be prosecuted, Kruger vowed.“We will hunt them down, we will find them, we will close them down, and we will arrest them,” he thundered."
And as for the governor's office claiming that the "cost of enforcement" would eat up any tax revenue-“I would definitely call Senator Kruger’s position on this issue overly simplistic,” said Morgan Hook, upstate press secretary for Paterson. “There’s nothing to indicate that the state would collect even a fifth of that amount of money.”-our only response is: "Open up all of your books and records." That would demonstrate for all to see that Paterson is just succumbing to a rioter's veto-and is afraid to enforce the law.
In the end, Paterson's stalling and obfuscation will be revealed as simply one more example of gubernatorial non-feasance.; and the Indian robber barons will have to find other ways to make the easy money. Fleecing the tax payers will have been relegated to alternative venues-of which there are all too many.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Traffic Jamming Without Oversight
Andrea Peyser is painting a frightening picture of the mayor's traffic plans for the city in his usurped third term: "Hold your breath, New Yorkers. Imagine a city choc kablock with pedestrian plazas fit for smokers and tourists. A place where driving is a memory, shopping is agony, and fresh air nonexistent. That's what the Bloomberg administration has in mind, as it travels, full-steam ahead, with plans to turn outer-borough streets into tobacco-friendly parking lots. There is no escape."
But, having failed in his original experiment-along with cooking the books to put lipstick on Momma Bloomberg's pig-he wants to wreck even more havoc: "So did Bloomberg rip down the barriers by hand? Not so fast. He trashed his own bean counters and went with slightly better statistics gathered by taxi GPS systems. These devices determined that east-west traffic actually improved, but not by the big numbers Bloomberg had hoped. This prompted one city critic to tell me he "is just picking and choosing and making stuff up." So what's a mayor to do? The only rational thing -- expand the plazas!"
And under what authority is he proceeding? Clearly, if there's a master plan to remake the city in Mike Bloomberg's farkakt far∙kakt' image than why hasn't the plan been announced and a full and thorough land use review been commenced? Here's how Peyser sees the mayor's Times Square experiment:
"Last May, the city inflicted the no-car treatment on its iconic Times and Herald squares, throwing a bunch of tables and chairs into plazas that became an overnight hit with wide-bodied tourists, Gauloise-sucking posers and men who carry their worldly possessions in plastic bags. But these zones are almost unvisited by real New Yorkers. By any objective measure, the bonehead experiment to turn Midtown into a cow town was a failure. Rather than turning this city into a laid-back, European-style capital, the walkways have, by some measures, turned the city into hell on wheels."
But to where? Well, the city is one big bright canvas for the mayor to do his finger painting on: "Pedestrian plazas are set to grow into the outer boroughs, where leaving your car home -- the mayor's unstated goal -- is often not an option. Bloomberg, who has not yet said what areas he's targeting, wants desperately to put his stamp on his legacy, turning this city into a suburban shopping mall. Bike-riding advocates, hand-in-glove with the administration in support of walkways, tell me we are likely to have plazas erected permanently in areas where, last summer, temporary zones were put in place on Sundays: Bedford Avenue in Williamsburg, Brooklyn; 78th Street in Jackson Heights, Queens; and Montague Street in Brooklyn Heights are the three most frequently mentioned."
And, as for small neighborhood business-Bloomberg to retailers, "Drop dead! "Don't mention the plazas to Joseph Aceto, owner of Montague Street Bagels. Last summer's walkways made his business -- already struggling with nausea-provoking anti-smoking posters he's forced to put up -- fall 20 percent. "People drive by for a bagel and a cup. When they can't do that, they move on," he said. The merchants take talk of walkways personally. Joyce, a manager at Key Food, said old folks who drop by via Access-a-Ride van would not get their groceries. "It would be terrible." Said Aceto of the mayor, "He's got his billions already. What does he care?"
And the same holds true for Fordham Road where merchants on one of the city's most successful local shopping corridors are sucking wind as parking meters are ripped out to make way for express bus lanes-all without the benefit of any public review. But not everyone is upset, least of all the Luddites over at Transportation Alternatives, where cars and middle class motorists are considered on the order of Typhoid Mary.
Here's TA's view: "Bike-riding groups are positively giddy."It gives you room to breathe," said Wiley Norvell, spokesman for Transportation Alternatives. "We're a walking city. Not all streets have to be all cars, all the time."
And this from the group that wouldn't join with us in opposition to the development at Willets Point that will generate 80,000 car trips a day-but when Bloomberg is shoving bikes up our derrieres to the accompaniment of TA chortling, one can understand the group's reluctance-and why they don't need any of the mayor's money just to cheer their lungs out for all of this.
Still, even for Bloomberg this is a bit much-and the excess needs to be challenged by the city council. The entire grand scheme needs to be put to the test; and a full public airing of all of the schemes should be forced into view so that they can be vetted properly. If there is a grand scheme that links all of this mishagos , then an EIS must be done and a full ULURP conducted. We do, after all, still have a representative government, don't we?
Incongestable
As if making Times Square into a pedestrian Mall, eliminating all of the parking spaces along the length of Fordham Road, and turning-it seems-over half the city into one big bicycle lane wasn't enough. No, traffic hasn't been screwed up bad enough for the Drum Major Institute's John Petro, he now wants to add the coup de grâce for the city's beleaguered motorists and delivery drivers-congestion pricing!
Here's his argument-proffered as a solution for the MTA's debt problem: "We need a long-term solution that minimizes fare hikes and service cuts and creates a permanent, steady source of revenue. I am referring to the one and only congestion pricing. It died a premature political death in 2007, but Mayor Bloomberg and transit advocates have lately been calling for its resurrection. That's because it's a responsible, equitable and sustainable solution. It deserves a fresh look."
Now we have already made the arguments as to why this is a really dumb idea-but the DMI never gives up on schemes to further burden the city's outer borough commuters; as well as the small businesses that supply and service the stores and customers of Manhattan: "An $8 daily charge on cars entering or leaving Manhattan below 86th St. between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, would generate $400 million or more a year in revenue to keep fares reasonable and support vital maintenance, repair and expansion of subways and buses."
Sure, and why not toll the bridges as well so that only Mike's limo-or his idling SUV-can have the unencumbered streets to itself. Petro should know that the congestion tax failed because it lacked political support, and the legislature is surely not gonna enact a new tax in an election year. But, be that as it may, why would anyone want to throw more money down the MTA blackhole before a thorough revamping of the agency is accomplished?
And Petro continues to allege that the congestion tax would benefit the middle class that DMI's overall philosophy-if enacted-would be a death knell for: "Contrary to the claims of opponents, congestion pricing would be a net benefit for the city's middle-class residents - most of whom never drive into the congestion zone below 86th St. Regular working New Yorkers overwhelmingly rely on mass transit to travel to and from their jobs. People who do drive to work - just 5% of working New Yorkers commute by car into the city's central business district - can afford to pay a little more. A 2007 analysis by the city's Independent Budget Office revealed that the median annual income of these drivers is 30% higher than the income of other commuters."
Sounds an awful lot like our president, doesn't it? The chilling phrase, "can afford to pay a little more," is the clarion call of the advance army of those who would, if they had their policy wishes, turn the entire country into California. And isn't it usually true, that those who can afford to pay a little more always turn out to be an expanding target rich environment for those scheming to steal more of our hard earned money?
Now we know that the MTA is bleeding ink-but the further bleeding of hapless city motorists in order to fund this dying monster is compounding the problem. What we really need is to political bomb the MTA back into the Stone Age-and not pony up a dime more to this dysfunctional mess; whether it's a congestion tax or a bridge toll.
That the idea has coming from the DMI-a group that has never seen a tax that it doesn't like, and whose former director went breathlessly into the arms of the plutocrat mayor-is all you reall need to know about just how stupid the congestion pricing idea really is. And to advance the concept in the middle of a horrid recession, well, there is simply no stopping the scheming of the pro-tax chatterers.
Here's his argument-proffered as a solution for the MTA's debt problem: "We need a long-term solution that minimizes fare hikes and service cuts and creates a permanent, steady source of revenue. I am referring to the one and only congestion pricing. It died a premature political death in 2007, but Mayor Bloomberg and transit advocates have lately been calling for its resurrection. That's because it's a responsible, equitable and sustainable solution. It deserves a fresh look."
Now we have already made the arguments as to why this is a really dumb idea-but the DMI never gives up on schemes to further burden the city's outer borough commuters; as well as the small businesses that supply and service the stores and customers of Manhattan: "An $8 daily charge on cars entering or leaving Manhattan below 86th St. between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, would generate $400 million or more a year in revenue to keep fares reasonable and support vital maintenance, repair and expansion of subways and buses."
Sure, and why not toll the bridges as well so that only Mike's limo-or his idling SUV-can have the unencumbered streets to itself. Petro should know that the congestion tax failed because it lacked political support, and the legislature is surely not gonna enact a new tax in an election year. But, be that as it may, why would anyone want to throw more money down the MTA blackhole before a thorough revamping of the agency is accomplished?
And Petro continues to allege that the congestion tax would benefit the middle class that DMI's overall philosophy-if enacted-would be a death knell for: "Contrary to the claims of opponents, congestion pricing would be a net benefit for the city's middle-class residents - most of whom never drive into the congestion zone below 86th St. Regular working New Yorkers overwhelmingly rely on mass transit to travel to and from their jobs. People who do drive to work - just 5% of working New Yorkers commute by car into the city's central business district - can afford to pay a little more. A 2007 analysis by the city's Independent Budget Office revealed that the median annual income of these drivers is 30% higher than the income of other commuters."
Sounds an awful lot like our president, doesn't it? The chilling phrase, "can afford to pay a little more," is the clarion call of the advance army of those who would, if they had their policy wishes, turn the entire country into California. And isn't it usually true, that those who can afford to pay a little more always turn out to be an expanding target rich environment for those scheming to steal more of our hard earned money?
Now we know that the MTA is bleeding ink-but the further bleeding of hapless city motorists in order to fund this dying monster is compounding the problem. What we really need is to political bomb the MTA back into the Stone Age-and not pony up a dime more to this dysfunctional mess; whether it's a congestion tax or a bridge toll.
That the idea has coming from the DMI-a group that has never seen a tax that it doesn't like, and whose former director went breathlessly into the arms of the plutocrat mayor-is all you reall need to know about just how stupid the congestion pricing idea really is. And to advance the concept in the middle of a horrid recession, well, there is simply no stopping the scheming of the pro-tax chatterers.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Fatuous Thinking on Obesity
In today's NY Daily News, an East Harlem social worker named Diane Pagan critique's first lady Michelle Obama's campaign against obesity for one salient omission-cost: "Launching a worthy campaign last week to reduce childhood obesity, Michelle Obama identified many culprits, including aggressive marketing of fatty and sugary foods, a lack of physical activity and parental ignorance. What never crossed her lips: The pocketbook problem. The fact is, lots of low-income families simply don't have the money to buy better groceries - especially in this economy."
Which is, of course, one of the most prominent reasons why there are less supermarkets per square foot in East Harlem than there are, let say, on the Upper West Side-the lack of comparable disposable income, and the concomitant lack of money to purchase many of the higher margin grocery items that are, not only healthier to eat, but healthier to the store's bottom line as well.
Pagan sees the solution in greater government aid: "Yet Obama did not call for an increase in the per person food stamp allotment - which is the biggest and best tool the federal government has for encouraging healthy eating. The current amount breaks down to about $15 per day max for a family of three. Yes, school-age children in these families get free school lunches - but they still get too little in food stamps."
What Pagan doesn't realize is that the continual expansion of food stamps and other government programs increases the public debt, forces taxes even higher, and slows the ability of our economy to create more jobs-the real source of an enhanced ability to purchase healthier foods. But Pagan does make an important point.
To try to tackle the obesity problem without understanding its roots in poverty and diminished economic opportunity is to inevitable devise solutions that are at best non sequitors; but at worst, create more problems than they purport to solve. Limiting the number of fast food outlets can be seen as one example of this.
People eat fast food because it is cheap, yes, but also because of its comfort. Living in challenging economic circumstances, means being constantly anxious, and often depressed as well. The bottle of Pepsi, the Big Mac, or the Hostess Snowballs, are not only fairly cheap and readily available-they also allay some of the distress of the folks who are struggling in low income neighborhoods.
Which gets us to the so-called fat tax. Given the fact that sweet soda may be consumed, not only for pure enjoyment, but for psycho-social reasons, the tax idea becomes a further punishment for low income folks. On top of that, it attacks a viable food distribution network that employs many neighborhood residents; and by raising costs, decreases the viability of the network and the employment levels that go with it.
As so many studies have shown, higher income people tend to be thinner and healthier. By increasing tax mandates and piling on more regulations, the health fascists are to some extent killing the goose that is-or could be-laying the golden egg. And that goose is economic development that can lead to the jobs that will, in our view, be the real source of reducing the obesity problem that does plague us.
And Pagan nails the weaknesses of some of the educational efforts-weaknesses that led people like Mother Tom Frieden to cry out that education doesn't work: "Instead, the First Lady seems focused on "nutrition education" - based on the belief that we simply need to increase awareness, and that will magically change eating habits. Nutrition education has kept nonprofits flush and "health educators" employed, but it will only go so far as long as child poverty remains about 20%. Kids will still eat cheap junk because their parents have no money. In East Harlem, where I do social work, it is uncommon to see a child with a carton of real juice or a piece of fresh fruit in hand. Instead, kids eat from the dollar menu in the waiting room."
And she also questions supermarket initiatives that, well, put the store carts before the consumption horse: "Instead, we have a government that's committed to spending $400 million a year for a Healthy Food Financing Initiative to lure supermarkets to low-income neighborhoods. This gets the economics exactly backward. If you increased the purchasing power of low-income families by upping the food stamp allotment, families would naturally create a market demand for more grocery stores."
Pagan has a point-and we do believe that in the short run more food stamps can make a difference for many folks. But in the long run, we need to find better ways to grow neighborhood economies-and Frieden's understandable frustration with educational efforts doesn't mean that more regulations and higher taxes are a good solution to getting people to eat better.
But both Pagan and Frieden miss the larger economic and social issues that can only be addressed by a more vibrant economy and more jobs for the folks. When real unemployment is topping off at over 17%, we don't need more taxes that try to force consumers to be healthy. A robust and vibrant economy is the healthiest response to the obesity problem facing this country.
Which is, of course, one of the most prominent reasons why there are less supermarkets per square foot in East Harlem than there are, let say, on the Upper West Side-the lack of comparable disposable income, and the concomitant lack of money to purchase many of the higher margin grocery items that are, not only healthier to eat, but healthier to the store's bottom line as well.
Pagan sees the solution in greater government aid: "Yet Obama did not call for an increase in the per person food stamp allotment - which is the biggest and best tool the federal government has for encouraging healthy eating. The current amount breaks down to about $15 per day max for a family of three. Yes, school-age children in these families get free school lunches - but they still get too little in food stamps."
What Pagan doesn't realize is that the continual expansion of food stamps and other government programs increases the public debt, forces taxes even higher, and slows the ability of our economy to create more jobs-the real source of an enhanced ability to purchase healthier foods. But Pagan does make an important point.
To try to tackle the obesity problem without understanding its roots in poverty and diminished economic opportunity is to inevitable devise solutions that are at best non sequitors; but at worst, create more problems than they purport to solve. Limiting the number of fast food outlets can be seen as one example of this.
People eat fast food because it is cheap, yes, but also because of its comfort. Living in challenging economic circumstances, means being constantly anxious, and often depressed as well. The bottle of Pepsi, the Big Mac, or the Hostess Snowballs, are not only fairly cheap and readily available-they also allay some of the distress of the folks who are struggling in low income neighborhoods.
Which gets us to the so-called fat tax. Given the fact that sweet soda may be consumed, not only for pure enjoyment, but for psycho-social reasons, the tax idea becomes a further punishment for low income folks. On top of that, it attacks a viable food distribution network that employs many neighborhood residents; and by raising costs, decreases the viability of the network and the employment levels that go with it.
As so many studies have shown, higher income people tend to be thinner and healthier. By increasing tax mandates and piling on more regulations, the health fascists are to some extent killing the goose that is-or could be-laying the golden egg. And that goose is economic development that can lead to the jobs that will, in our view, be the real source of reducing the obesity problem that does plague us.
And Pagan nails the weaknesses of some of the educational efforts-weaknesses that led people like Mother Tom Frieden to cry out that education doesn't work: "Instead, the First Lady seems focused on "nutrition education" - based on the belief that we simply need to increase awareness, and that will magically change eating habits. Nutrition education has kept nonprofits flush and "health educators" employed, but it will only go so far as long as child poverty remains about 20%. Kids will still eat cheap junk because their parents have no money. In East Harlem, where I do social work, it is uncommon to see a child with a carton of real juice or a piece of fresh fruit in hand. Instead, kids eat from the dollar menu in the waiting room."
And she also questions supermarket initiatives that, well, put the store carts before the consumption horse: "Instead, we have a government that's committed to spending $400 million a year for a Healthy Food Financing Initiative to lure supermarkets to low-income neighborhoods. This gets the economics exactly backward. If you increased the purchasing power of low-income families by upping the food stamp allotment, families would naturally create a market demand for more grocery stores."
Pagan has a point-and we do believe that in the short run more food stamps can make a difference for many folks. But in the long run, we need to find better ways to grow neighborhood economies-and Frieden's understandable frustration with educational efforts doesn't mean that more regulations and higher taxes are a good solution to getting people to eat better.
But both Pagan and Frieden miss the larger economic and social issues that can only be addressed by a more vibrant economy and more jobs for the folks. When real unemployment is topping off at over 17%, we don't need more taxes that try to force consumers to be healthy. A robust and vibrant economy is the healthiest response to the obesity problem facing this country.
Who's Bleeding Whom?
Daily Politics had a funny post yesterday of the tag team of the mayor and speaker donating blood-it was funny to us because, given the city's high tax environment, both of the blood donors could more easily be viewed as bloodletters; since it is the city's tax payers who are being bled because of the big government philosophy practiced by Bloomberg and Quinn.
Liz Benjamin, for her part, was aware of the potential for humor: "I was going to make this into a caption contest, but was a little fearful of what that might bring. Of course, I can't stop you from doing whatever it is you feel like in the comments section..."
Consider it done, Liz: Mayor and Speaker in Role Reversal.
Liz Benjamin, for her part, was aware of the potential for humor: "I was going to make this into a caption contest, but was a little fearful of what that might bring. Of course, I can't stop you from doing whatever it is you feel like in the comments section..."
Consider it done, Liz: Mayor and Speaker in Role Reversal.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Sweet and Lowdown
The effort to stigmatize soda continues apace, with the NY Times unsurprising playing the role of the Amen Chorus. Last week the Times, busy burying the whole ClimateGate fiasco, played the phony Big soda=Big tobacco meme out in the Sunday Week in Review: "Is soda the new tobacco? In their critics’ eyes, producers of sugar-sweetened drinks are acting a lot like the tobacco industry of old: marketing heavily to children, claiming their products are healthy or at worst benign, and lobbying to prevent change. The industry says there are critical differences: in moderate quantities soda isn’t harmful, nor is it addictive."
This is, of course, advocacy journalism at its most tendentious-and the attempts to justify the linkage between deadly tobacco smoke and soda (see this fraudulent chart) reveals the extent to which the health advocates-liberal fascists looking to control what we eat and how we live-will go to enforce their life style views on the rest of us.
And, as for Mark Bittman, the advocate/reporter who penned this piece: "Bittman has previously expounded on the dubious joys of vegetarianism and wanted meat downgraded as a lifestyle choice in a 2008 Week in Review article: "If those trends continue, meat may become a treat rather than a routine. It won't be uncommon, but just as surely as the S.U.V. will yield to the hybrid, the half-pound-a-day meat era will end.”
So, what do we really have in this attempt at comparison? Well, there are certainly no epidemiological studies that demonstrates any causal relationship between obesity and soda consumption. Yes, there is a likelihood that obese folks drink a lot of soda-and other sugared drinks; and fatty deserts; and salty snacks-well, you get the picture.
But there are millions of Americans in labor intensive work-construction workers of all shapes and sizes come to mind-that consume large quantities of soda as they work. It isn't anywhere near deadly to do so; and the effort to conflate soda with tobacco consumption is simply an attempt by health bureaucrats to continue to aggrandize their own power at the expense of our freedom of choice.
Nothing is more representative of this than our own former NYC health commissioner-Mother Tom Frieden: "The model, clearly, is tobacco. Dr. Frieden, who promoted a soda tax when he was a health commissioner, sees further parallels between soda and tobacco: “There are aspects of the food industry that are reminiscent of tobacco — the sowing of doubt where there’s no reasonable doubt, funding of front groups, use of so-called experts, claims that new products which are safer for consumers are available, and the claim that they are not marketing to children.”
This, my friends, is a true bunko artist. Straw men make for flimsy arguments-and the industry attempts to fend off job killing taxes doesn't mean that its product is comparable to tobacco-even if Frieden's arguments had any merit. The fact that certain lobbying tactics might be somehow similar only would mean that, well, there are certain lobbying techniques that are standard operating procedures.
But, in addition, if in fact the correlation between the two products is bogus, than the same tactics that were used by a duplicitous purveyor of a truly dangerous product could be used by others without any degree of invidiousness. The crucial issue lies in the righteousness of the original comparison-and what slick Tom does is deflect attention away from the scientific validity of the comparison in order to create the false impression that there is a far greater degree of similarity than actually exists. Otherwise known as the Big Lie.
And in all of this, we return to the need for the Friedens of the world to usurp our choices while they accumulate personal power. Trying to educate the folks doesn't really do it for Tom: "The problem, says Dr. Frieden, is that, “Obesity is a major health problem that’s getting worse, and it’s clear that exhorting individuals to eat less and exercise more is not going to turn things around.”
And Bittman obligingly concludes his advocacy with: "It may be time to try something a little more forceful." This is the kind of quintessential health fascism that bodes ill for the survival of not only our economy, but the very liberty of our citizens.
This is, of course, advocacy journalism at its most tendentious-and the attempts to justify the linkage between deadly tobacco smoke and soda (see this fraudulent chart) reveals the extent to which the health advocates-liberal fascists looking to control what we eat and how we live-will go to enforce their life style views on the rest of us.
And, as for Mark Bittman, the advocate/reporter who penned this piece: "Bittman has previously expounded on the dubious joys of vegetarianism and wanted meat downgraded as a lifestyle choice in a 2008 Week in Review article: "If those trends continue, meat may become a treat rather than a routine. It won't be uncommon, but just as surely as the S.U.V. will yield to the hybrid, the half-pound-a-day meat era will end.”
So, what do we really have in this attempt at comparison? Well, there are certainly no epidemiological studies that demonstrates any causal relationship between obesity and soda consumption. Yes, there is a likelihood that obese folks drink a lot of soda-and other sugared drinks; and fatty deserts; and salty snacks-well, you get the picture.
But there are millions of Americans in labor intensive work-construction workers of all shapes and sizes come to mind-that consume large quantities of soda as they work. It isn't anywhere near deadly to do so; and the effort to conflate soda with tobacco consumption is simply an attempt by health bureaucrats to continue to aggrandize their own power at the expense of our freedom of choice.
Nothing is more representative of this than our own former NYC health commissioner-Mother Tom Frieden: "The model, clearly, is tobacco. Dr. Frieden, who promoted a soda tax when he was a health commissioner, sees further parallels between soda and tobacco: “There are aspects of the food industry that are reminiscent of tobacco — the sowing of doubt where there’s no reasonable doubt, funding of front groups, use of so-called experts, claims that new products which are safer for consumers are available, and the claim that they are not marketing to children.”
This, my friends, is a true bunko artist. Straw men make for flimsy arguments-and the industry attempts to fend off job killing taxes doesn't mean that its product is comparable to tobacco-even if Frieden's arguments had any merit. The fact that certain lobbying tactics might be somehow similar only would mean that, well, there are certain lobbying techniques that are standard operating procedures.
But, in addition, if in fact the correlation between the two products is bogus, than the same tactics that were used by a duplicitous purveyor of a truly dangerous product could be used by others without any degree of invidiousness. The crucial issue lies in the righteousness of the original comparison-and what slick Tom does is deflect attention away from the scientific validity of the comparison in order to create the false impression that there is a far greater degree of similarity than actually exists. Otherwise known as the Big Lie.
And in all of this, we return to the need for the Friedens of the world to usurp our choices while they accumulate personal power. Trying to educate the folks doesn't really do it for Tom: "The problem, says Dr. Frieden, is that, “Obesity is a major health problem that’s getting worse, and it’s clear that exhorting individuals to eat less and exercise more is not going to turn things around.”
And Bittman obligingly concludes his advocacy with: "It may be time to try something a little more forceful." This is the kind of quintessential health fascism that bodes ill for the survival of not only our economy, but the very liberty of our citizens.
Flakes of Booty Capitalism
Floyd Flake takes to the pages of the NY Post today to tout the "community benefits" of the awarding of the Aqueduct deal to the AEG group: "Large-scale development efforts usually do not benefit the communities where they are planned because of haphazard planning, lack of imagination, surface-level community engagement, unqualified participants or limited subject-matter expertise among its leaders. The selected Aqueduct project and associated development will benefit Queens because it possesses these indispensable elements at an unrivaled level."
What a dump! Reminds us of when the cable contracts were first being bid and Herman Badillo and the late Ramon Velez formed a group to "partner" with Cablevision for the rights to wire the Bronx. Herman gathered all of the Bronx Puerto Rican elected officials in the hospital room of Velez and proceeded to give a great speech on Puerto Rican pride. When he finished, Assemblyman Louie Nine turned to him and said; "You know, Herman, every time you wave the Puerto Rican flag, I hold on tightly to my wallet."
And so it goes with Floyd Flake, community benefactor-a man for who justice is "just us." He is the ultimate booty capitalist, glommimg on to developers in order to scrape up as many of the crumbs as possible from any local development deal. This was the same guy who, along with Congressman Greg Meeks (already crying racism about the criticism of the AEG deal), tried to make a deal to promote Wal-Mart in Southeast Queens five years ago.
So when the Bloomberg lackey Flake talks about the community, everyone-but especially the state's tax payers-should hold on to their wallets. And let's be very clear. The Aqueduct deal is not about who can bestow booty on any local community, but about the best deal for the state coffers. All of Flake's sanctimonious puffery here is simply misdirection-deflecting attention from another of the Reverend's empire building, personal aggrandizement, efforts.
What a dump! Reminds us of when the cable contracts were first being bid and Herman Badillo and the late Ramon Velez formed a group to "partner" with Cablevision for the rights to wire the Bronx. Herman gathered all of the Bronx Puerto Rican elected officials in the hospital room of Velez and proceeded to give a great speech on Puerto Rican pride. When he finished, Assemblyman Louie Nine turned to him and said; "You know, Herman, every time you wave the Puerto Rican flag, I hold on tightly to my wallet."
And so it goes with Floyd Flake, community benefactor-a man for who justice is "just us." He is the ultimate booty capitalist, glommimg on to developers in order to scrape up as many of the crumbs as possible from any local development deal. This was the same guy who, along with Congressman Greg Meeks (already crying racism about the criticism of the AEG deal), tried to make a deal to promote Wal-Mart in Southeast Queens five years ago.
So when the Bloomberg lackey Flake talks about the community, everyone-but especially the state's tax payers-should hold on to their wallets. And let's be very clear. The Aqueduct deal is not about who can bestow booty on any local community, but about the best deal for the state coffers. All of Flake's sanctimonious puffery here is simply misdirection-deflecting attention from another of the Reverend's empire building, personal aggrandizement, efforts.
HuffPo Focuses on Willets Point
In a lengthy piece on the Huffington Post, David Vines examines the proposed project, and some of the key issues that continue to vex the progress of the development:
"Willets Point sprawls across sixty-two acres between the Flushing River and the New York Mets' Citi Field in Queens. It is filled almost exclusively with small auto repair shops and junkyards--although it would be excusable for one to mistake the entire area for a junkyard. Almost all of the shops in Willets Point are family owned. There is not an AutoZone in sight...In May of 2007, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a plan for urban renewal in Willets Point. Two years later, the New York City Economic Development Corporation announced that it would invest $100 million into infrastructure projects in Queens, including development in Willets Point. The NYCEDC aims to create more than 5,300 permanent jobs and 18,000 construction jobs with this project."
Vines goes on to cite our critique of the process: ""Any time you have eminent domain on the table, you're really negotiating with a gun to your head," says Richard Lipsky. Lipsky is a lobbyist for Willets Point United and the spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, where he fights for small businesses and against large-scale developments in New York. "The Willets Point businesses don't deserve to be thrown out on their behinds in a process that has been corrupted by political favoritism and the type of shenanigans that we've seen," Lipsky claims."
We were, of course, referring to the situation involving the phony Claire Shulman-led not-for-profit-and just where does that Cuomo investigation into the shenannigans stand today? Shulman, for her part, continues to lobby illegally while the AG drags his feet (while movinbg full speed ahead it seems in the case of Pedro Espada). As we told Vines: "The "shenanigans" of which he speaks involve the Flushing-Willets Point-Corona LDC (Local Development Corporation) whose acting President and CEO, Claire Shulman, registered her corporation with the IRS as one prohibited from lobbying. After Willets Point business owners complained, she was fined a record $59,000 last July for failing to register as a lobbyist."
The political weight behind this project may be weighing heavily on the AG's mind-and our dealings with the NYSDOT underscores this since the agency has been getting real skittish about meeting with us to discuss the inadequacy of the EDC-sponsored traffic study for ramps that are proposed off of ther Van Wyck (ramps that are, according to the original EIS, essential for the project to go forward). DOT has been trying to whittle down who should attend our meeting for Friday-after it was cancelled last week because the agency didn't want reps from various state senate offices to attend.
In our view, this means that the folks at EDC are throwing their weight around-trying to dictate who can, or cannot, come to a meeting. Which is truly curious since the meeting was requested by Willets Point United and it was DOT that decided to bring EDC into the picture. The cancellation of last week's meeting was based it appears on the fact that DOT was concerned that it was becoming too political! As if the presence of EDC represented only good government and the public interest.
But Vines highlights just how important the environmental issues on Willets Point are to certain planners:
"If everything goes according to plan, there are enticing economic and business benefits in Mayor Bloomberg's development proposal. Julia Vitullo-Martin, the director of the Center for Urban Innovation at the Tri-State Area's Regional Plan Association, doesn't like the idea of evicting the current Willets Point business owners and thinks that Bloomberg's proposal has "a ton of question marks attached to it." However, she believes that the environmental benefits are reason enough to support redevelopment in Willets Point. "There are very serious environmental issues at Willets Point--laughably so, as a matter of fact. People have been dumping all sorts of bad stuff on the street for decades and this stuff goes right into the bay," says Martin. Although she thinks that a perfect plan has yet to be proposed, she insists, "It's pretty clear that the one thing that cannot happen is a continuance of the current situation."
But, as we have been pointing out, the EDC proposed development would create new environmental hazards-like 80,000 new vehicle trips a day in and out of the new development. Vitullo Martin, a shill for development who castigated the defeat of the Kingsbridge Armory deal, scoffs at the suggestion: "When asked about Lipsky's concern that developing the area would create 80,000 new vehicle trips in Flushing every weekday, therefore clogging traffic and increasing the city's carbon footprint, Martin chuckles. "I don't believe that's worthy of a response," she says."
Ah, if only we could reach a status so as to be worthy of a response from a pro-development shill hiding behind an urban planning veneer. The reality is that the 80,000 car trips have been revealed, not by yours truly, but by the original EIS done on behalf of EDC (a document that no one-certainly not Vitullo Martin-apparently read). So much for cleaning up the environment.
But this still leaves the question of the project's viability in these troubled economic times: "But Lipsky's concerns do not end with the welfare of the area's small business owners. He worries that because of the troubling economic times, this project could end in a disaster for everybody. "The question that the city needs to ask is 'Okay, given the economic climate, how are we going to pay for all of this work and will there be a developer at the end of the process that will have the money to complete this work, or are we just going to be left with some kind of empty lot like they have in New London?'" he said, referring to the controversial 2005 Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London."
And Vines also quotes State Senator Bill Perkins, a staunch opponent of the use of eminent domain, who scoffs at Vitullo-Martin's claims that the environmental clean up of Willets Point can only come after all of the businesses are evicted: "Regarding Willets Point, Senator Perkins believes the city made its own bed and now has to lie in it. "We in government are partially to blame for the condition of that area. We did not live up to our responsibilities to provide them with the appropriate infrastructure and environmentally-friendly waste-management systems." While he is adamant that the polluting of the Flushing Bay needs to be stopped, he believes that the city does have the capability to improve this blighted area without kicking the current business owners off their property."
So we continue to battle the Bloombergistas notion of economic development-the usurpation of small viable businesses to benefit mega-developers who frequent the same social circles as the mayor. That the mayor is advancing this particular development under an environmental rubric is, to paraphrase JVM, the developer's paramour,"...not worthy of a response."
"Willets Point sprawls across sixty-two acres between the Flushing River and the New York Mets' Citi Field in Queens. It is filled almost exclusively with small auto repair shops and junkyards--although it would be excusable for one to mistake the entire area for a junkyard. Almost all of the shops in Willets Point are family owned. There is not an AutoZone in sight...In May of 2007, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a plan for urban renewal in Willets Point. Two years later, the New York City Economic Development Corporation announced that it would invest $100 million into infrastructure projects in Queens, including development in Willets Point. The NYCEDC aims to create more than 5,300 permanent jobs and 18,000 construction jobs with this project."
Vines goes on to cite our critique of the process: ""Any time you have eminent domain on the table, you're really negotiating with a gun to your head," says Richard Lipsky. Lipsky is a lobbyist for Willets Point United and the spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, where he fights for small businesses and against large-scale developments in New York. "The Willets Point businesses don't deserve to be thrown out on their behinds in a process that has been corrupted by political favoritism and the type of shenanigans that we've seen," Lipsky claims."
We were, of course, referring to the situation involving the phony Claire Shulman-led not-for-profit-and just where does that Cuomo investigation into the shenannigans stand today? Shulman, for her part, continues to lobby illegally while the AG drags his feet (while movinbg full speed ahead it seems in the case of Pedro Espada). As we told Vines: "The "shenanigans" of which he speaks involve the Flushing-Willets Point-Corona LDC (Local Development Corporation) whose acting President and CEO, Claire Shulman, registered her corporation with the IRS as one prohibited from lobbying. After Willets Point business owners complained, she was fined a record $59,000 last July for failing to register as a lobbyist."
The political weight behind this project may be weighing heavily on the AG's mind-and our dealings with the NYSDOT underscores this since the agency has been getting real skittish about meeting with us to discuss the inadequacy of the EDC-sponsored traffic study for ramps that are proposed off of ther Van Wyck (ramps that are, according to the original EIS, essential for the project to go forward). DOT has been trying to whittle down who should attend our meeting for Friday-after it was cancelled last week because the agency didn't want reps from various state senate offices to attend.
In our view, this means that the folks at EDC are throwing their weight around-trying to dictate who can, or cannot, come to a meeting. Which is truly curious since the meeting was requested by Willets Point United and it was DOT that decided to bring EDC into the picture. The cancellation of last week's meeting was based it appears on the fact that DOT was concerned that it was becoming too political! As if the presence of EDC represented only good government and the public interest.
But Vines highlights just how important the environmental issues on Willets Point are to certain planners:
"If everything goes according to plan, there are enticing economic and business benefits in Mayor Bloomberg's development proposal. Julia Vitullo-Martin, the director of the Center for Urban Innovation at the Tri-State Area's Regional Plan Association, doesn't like the idea of evicting the current Willets Point business owners and thinks that Bloomberg's proposal has "a ton of question marks attached to it." However, she believes that the environmental benefits are reason enough to support redevelopment in Willets Point. "There are very serious environmental issues at Willets Point--laughably so, as a matter of fact. People have been dumping all sorts of bad stuff on the street for decades and this stuff goes right into the bay," says Martin. Although she thinks that a perfect plan has yet to be proposed, she insists, "It's pretty clear that the one thing that cannot happen is a continuance of the current situation."
But, as we have been pointing out, the EDC proposed development would create new environmental hazards-like 80,000 new vehicle trips a day in and out of the new development. Vitullo Martin, a shill for development who castigated the defeat of the Kingsbridge Armory deal, scoffs at the suggestion: "When asked about Lipsky's concern that developing the area would create 80,000 new vehicle trips in Flushing every weekday, therefore clogging traffic and increasing the city's carbon footprint, Martin chuckles. "I don't believe that's worthy of a response," she says."
Ah, if only we could reach a status so as to be worthy of a response from a pro-development shill hiding behind an urban planning veneer. The reality is that the 80,000 car trips have been revealed, not by yours truly, but by the original EIS done on behalf of EDC (a document that no one-certainly not Vitullo Martin-apparently read). So much for cleaning up the environment.
But this still leaves the question of the project's viability in these troubled economic times: "But Lipsky's concerns do not end with the welfare of the area's small business owners. He worries that because of the troubling economic times, this project could end in a disaster for everybody. "The question that the city needs to ask is 'Okay, given the economic climate, how are we going to pay for all of this work and will there be a developer at the end of the process that will have the money to complete this work, or are we just going to be left with some kind of empty lot like they have in New London?'" he said, referring to the controversial 2005 Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London."
And Vines also quotes State Senator Bill Perkins, a staunch opponent of the use of eminent domain, who scoffs at Vitullo-Martin's claims that the environmental clean up of Willets Point can only come after all of the businesses are evicted: "Regarding Willets Point, Senator Perkins believes the city made its own bed and now has to lie in it. "We in government are partially to blame for the condition of that area. We did not live up to our responsibilities to provide them with the appropriate infrastructure and environmentally-friendly waste-management systems." While he is adamant that the polluting of the Flushing Bay needs to be stopped, he believes that the city does have the capability to improve this blighted area without kicking the current business owners off their property."
So we continue to battle the Bloombergistas notion of economic development-the usurpation of small viable businesses to benefit mega-developers who frequent the same social circles as the mayor. That the mayor is advancing this particular development under an environmental rubric is, to paraphrase JVM, the developer's paramour,"...not worthy of a response."
Adam Clayton Monserrate?
City Room posted yesterday on the case of Adam Clayton Powell-and speculated about the precedent that it might have set in regards to one Hiram Monserrate: "As legal scholars and state legislators debate the constitutionality of expelling Hiram Monserrate from the State Senate last week, there is a similar case worth noting, both for the legal precedent it established and the political lessons it holds."
What makes the case both legally and politically interesting-and relevant to Monserrate-is that it marked a rare time when the courts have interceded against another branch of government in a matter that pertained to how the legislature governed itself: "The case, which made its way to the United States Supreme Court, was decided in Mr. Powell’s favor in 1969, allowing him to return. The court ruled that the House of Representatives did not have the authority to exclude Mr. Powell in part because, as his lawyers had argued in court, the congressman met the qualifications for holding office spelled out in the Constitution."
All of which will goes to dramatize the significance of Thursday's court hearing for the expelled state senator. Does the expulsion action of the state senate rise to the same constitutional levels that led SCOTUS to tell Congress to let ACP back in? We'll find out soon enough.
What makes the case both legally and politically interesting-and relevant to Monserrate-is that it marked a rare time when the courts have interceded against another branch of government in a matter that pertained to how the legislature governed itself: "The case, which made its way to the United States Supreme Court, was decided in Mr. Powell’s favor in 1969, allowing him to return. The court ruled that the House of Representatives did not have the authority to exclude Mr. Powell in part because, as his lawyers had argued in court, the congressman met the qualifications for holding office spelled out in the Constitution."
All of which will goes to dramatize the significance of Thursday's court hearing for the expelled state senator. Does the expulsion action of the state senate rise to the same constitutional levels that led SCOTUS to tell Congress to let ACP back in? We'll find out soon enough.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Enabling Nonsense
The NY Post goes after the entire member item/slush fund serial fiascos on both the local and state levels-seeing Larry Seabrook as emblematic: "Embezzling $1.2 million in taxpayer cash -- as Bronx Councilman Larry Seabrook allegedly did -- violates even the ludicrously lax standards of the New York City Council. According to federal prosecutors, Seabrook funneled the money to himself, his family members and a girlfriend by setting up a series of sham nonprofit corporations, which he then larded up with council pork. But count on this: Seabrook never would've gotten away with it for so long if a lot of his council colleagues weren't neck-deep in much of the same muck. All members get hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to slather all over their districts. It's a time-honored legislative tradition in New York."
So far, so good. But one thing is missing here-the role of the current mayor in playing three blind mice with the council speaker: "Sure, most of them may not be lining their own pockets (as far as is known). At least some of the nonprofits they fund may even do valuable work. Nonetheless, it's still profoundly corrupting -- with the bulk of the cash going straight to folks the pols know will be useful come election season."
Just as Speaker Quinn has been useful to the mayor-so why is it that the Bloombergistas didn't go postal on the council when the scandals first burst forth? Politics isn't being played on only one side of city hall, and it would be nice if the Post and the News recognized this fact and commented on it in an even handed manner.
And then there's Pedro Espada, the tabloids favorite whipping boy: "The sleaze is just as bad, if not worse, in Albany:
* Slush-fund scandals recently sent Queens Assemblyman Brian McLaughlin and Bronx Sen. Efrain Gonzalez Jr. to jail and may yet trip up Senate President Malcolm Smith.
* Influence-peddling on behalf of private clients sunk Queens Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio and former Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno -- and should raise serious questions about Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's relationship with tort-law firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
* In a class by himself is Senate Majority Leader Pedro Espada, whose Medicaid-funded Soundview Health Clinic in The Bronx serves as an Espada family mint."
Really? Comparing thirty years of delivering health care services in the South Bronx to jailbirds like McLaughlin and Seminerio? It really does matter what public money is actually being used for; and keep in mind that Soundview was created by Espada long before he was elected to public office. As far as we know, however, Espada hasn't given any money to victims of Hurricane Katrina; but maybe the Post can investigate the criminality in that!
The council slush funds have never been properly investigated-and we agree with the Post's observation about the role of the speaker (but also the mayor, folks): "Council Speaker Christine Quinn is especially culpable: She says she's instituted "reforms," but pork remains her No. 1 tool for enforcing discipline. She was even caught budgeting cash for made-up groups in order to quietly dispense it to allies later."
The fact that there hasn't been a more thorough review of these practices relates back to the care and feeding of the person of one Michael Bloomberg-someone who claims to be above tawdry politics, but who has absorbed and now practices, the old pol Sam Rayburn's maxim: "If you want to get along, go along.”
Mortifying
Well, it looks as if the tabloid wars have entered into a unique, but probably temporary ceasefire with the NY Post's almost endorsement of a possible senatorial run by Daily News publisher Mort Zuckerman: "The emergence of real-estate magnate -- and Daily News Publisher -- Mortimer Zuckerman as a potential candidate for the United States Senate is an event all New Yorkers of good will can welcome.This isn't an endorsement of Zuckerman's candidacy. Indeed, it's not at all clear that he'll even make the run. But here's hoping he does."
In issuing its call for Mort to run, the Post picks up on what we said yesterday-absent the mordant observations about Morticia's obsequiousness to Mayor Mike: "The Senate seat in question is now held by David Paterson protégé -- and Chuck Schumer hand puppet -- Kirsten Gillibrand. She's an upstate cipher whose sole qualification for the job is that Paterson appointed her to it when Hillary Rodham Clinton gave it up to join the Obama administration."
But, since the Post brought up the hand puppet issue, how do we benefit with having a senator who is so clearly enthralled with all things Bloomberg that he in all likelihood moonlights as the mayor's food taster. Consider the pedestrian malling of Broadway-something that the Post rightly critiques, saying: "City Hall says the tourists are pleased as punch with the new arrangements. This seems hard to believe, given that the erstwhile Crossroads of the World was already a prime tourist attraction. Now the area is one vast, boring pedestrian mall -- and guess what? It's going to get worse."
Morty, on the other hand-reprising his long running Broadway hit, "Mini Me Mike," sees it, well, just like the mayor; even going so far as to parrot the mayoral propaganda: "The grand experiment that closed Times and Herald squares to traffic and opened them to umbrella tables and chairs has been declared by Mayor Bloomberg a success worth weaving permanently into the fabric of life. On balance, in a call closer than anticipated, the mayor is correct."
In Zuckerman speak, this means that the idea sucks, but, gee, isn't Mike a smart guy? And he discovers-or at least he apes the party line-that, "Voilà!" Times Square is actually safer. But as the Post points out: "Meanwhile, drops of 35 percent in pedestrian injuries and 63 percent of driver injuries were statistically meaningless, because the absolute numbers were so small. And cyclist injuries were unchanged."
So, while we agree that getting real comp for Gillibrand is a must, we don't see how Morticia resonates with the real yearning of the folks for genuine grass roots representation. Zuckerman, as the classic elite mogul, is not the kind of challenger that meshes with the needs of our time. That he's a notch up from Gillibrand is a low bar indeed.
In issuing its call for Mort to run, the Post picks up on what we said yesterday-absent the mordant observations about Morticia's obsequiousness to Mayor Mike: "The Senate seat in question is now held by David Paterson protégé -- and Chuck Schumer hand puppet -- Kirsten Gillibrand. She's an upstate cipher whose sole qualification for the job is that Paterson appointed her to it when Hillary Rodham Clinton gave it up to join the Obama administration."
But, since the Post brought up the hand puppet issue, how do we benefit with having a senator who is so clearly enthralled with all things Bloomberg that he in all likelihood moonlights as the mayor's food taster. Consider the pedestrian malling of Broadway-something that the Post rightly critiques, saying: "City Hall says the tourists are pleased as punch with the new arrangements. This seems hard to believe, given that the erstwhile Crossroads of the World was already a prime tourist attraction. Now the area is one vast, boring pedestrian mall -- and guess what? It's going to get worse."
Morty, on the other hand-reprising his long running Broadway hit, "Mini Me Mike," sees it, well, just like the mayor; even going so far as to parrot the mayoral propaganda: "The grand experiment that closed Times and Herald squares to traffic and opened them to umbrella tables and chairs has been declared by Mayor Bloomberg a success worth weaving permanently into the fabric of life. On balance, in a call closer than anticipated, the mayor is correct."
In Zuckerman speak, this means that the idea sucks, but, gee, isn't Mike a smart guy? And he discovers-or at least he apes the party line-that, "Voilà!" Times Square is actually safer. But as the Post points out: "Meanwhile, drops of 35 percent in pedestrian injuries and 63 percent of driver injuries were statistically meaningless, because the absolute numbers were so small. And cyclist injuries were unchanged."
So, while we agree that getting real comp for Gillibrand is a must, we don't see how Morticia resonates with the real yearning of the folks for genuine grass roots representation. Zuckerman, as the classic elite mogul, is not the kind of challenger that meshes with the needs of our time. That he's a notch up from Gillibrand is a low bar indeed.
Quid Pro Lauder?
According to the GothamGazette-citing the Staten Island Advance-Ron Lauder may be named chairman of the mayor's Charter Revision Commission: "Add another name to the list of those rumored to lead the mayor’s promised charter revision commission — and this one promises to be the most controversial yet. Judy Randall of the Staten Island Advance reports that the mayor will appoint his fellow billionaire, businessman Ron Lauder to the post. The source, who Randall did not name but described as someone who “has the administration’s ear,” explained why: “He was the architect for limiting terms but raised no objection when the mayor wanted to do away with them.”
Indeed, Lauder was Mr. Term Limits, but mysteriously got laryngitis apparently just when his term limits advocacy might have done some good: "To refresh your memory, Lauder, the person most responsible for the city having term limits, originally seemed on track to oppose Bloomberg’s bid to extend them and seek a third term. But as Adam Lisberg reported back then, “After meeting with Bloomberg in Gracie Mansion last week, [Lauder] caved. He cut a deal and agreed not to bankroll a campaign against it in exchange for a seat on a Charter commission that will turn the matter over to the voters in 2010.”
Which means to us that Mr. Lauder was improperly induced by the offering of something of value. As we remarked last month--shamelessly borrowing from the reporting of Tom Robbins: "Then there's the tawdry deal with Ron Lauder, a naif who was duped into removing his objections to the power grab with an illegal offer of a job: "But after what Purnick says was heavy lobbying by the pro-Bloomberg business crowd, Lauder bowed to a one-time change in the law in exchange for a small concession: that the mayor agree to name him to a new Charter Review commission panel in 2010—one that would recommend reinstituting term limits."
Which is, of course, an illegal quid pro quo-the offering of something substantial in exchange for political support for Bloomberg's ability to continue in office. And there was even a "Ron Lauder" clause inserted into the bill. As the NY Daily News reported: "Call it a cosmetic change. A last-minute clause has been inserted into a controversial bill to extend term limits to quiet the concerns of billionaire Ronald Lauder. The mayor's proposed law, introduced Tuesday, was amended to say that if the majority of voters in a 2010 referendum prefer it, the law will automatically revert to two terms, according to a revised bill obtained by the Daily News."
The entire charter revision effort is, in fact a charade; and demonstrates the contempt that Mike Bloomberg has for the voters-as well as his hubris. Ron Lauder, who swallowed his whistle when he had a chance to really make a difference on this issue, should not be allowed anywhere near a charter commission that will no doubt take up the term limits issue. That Bloomberg wants to possibly appoint him to head the commission, is proof positive that the man has no respect for the voters of this city.
Indeed, Lauder was Mr. Term Limits, but mysteriously got laryngitis apparently just when his term limits advocacy might have done some good: "To refresh your memory, Lauder, the person most responsible for the city having term limits, originally seemed on track to oppose Bloomberg’s bid to extend them and seek a third term. But as Adam Lisberg reported back then, “After meeting with Bloomberg in Gracie Mansion last week, [Lauder] caved. He cut a deal and agreed not to bankroll a campaign against it in exchange for a seat on a Charter commission that will turn the matter over to the voters in 2010.”
Which means to us that Mr. Lauder was improperly induced by the offering of something of value. As we remarked last month--shamelessly borrowing from the reporting of Tom Robbins: "Then there's the tawdry deal with Ron Lauder, a naif who was duped into removing his objections to the power grab with an illegal offer of a job: "But after what Purnick says was heavy lobbying by the pro-Bloomberg business crowd, Lauder bowed to a one-time change in the law in exchange for a small concession: that the mayor agree to name him to a new Charter Review commission panel in 2010—one that would recommend reinstituting term limits."
Which is, of course, an illegal quid pro quo-the offering of something substantial in exchange for political support for Bloomberg's ability to continue in office. And there was even a "Ron Lauder" clause inserted into the bill. As the NY Daily News reported: "Call it a cosmetic change. A last-minute clause has been inserted into a controversial bill to extend term limits to quiet the concerns of billionaire Ronald Lauder. The mayor's proposed law, introduced Tuesday, was amended to say that if the majority of voters in a 2010 referendum prefer it, the law will automatically revert to two terms, according to a revised bill obtained by the Daily News."
The entire charter revision effort is, in fact a charade; and demonstrates the contempt that Mike Bloomberg has for the voters-as well as his hubris. Ron Lauder, who swallowed his whistle when he had a chance to really make a difference on this issue, should not be allowed anywhere near a charter commission that will no doubt take up the term limits issue. That Bloomberg wants to possibly appoint him to head the commission, is proof positive that the man has no respect for the voters of this city.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Morticia to Run?
If this were April, we night have thought that it was some kind of an April Fool's joke-the idea just floated that the Daily News publisher Mort Zuckerman was contemplating a run for the NY Senate seat held by Kirsten Gillibrand. But, hey the NY Times only reports that he is, "weighing," a challenge, so all of this might just be vanity leaking.
This to us, is the classic case of mixed feelings-you know, like watching your mother-in-law go off a cliff in your brand new Mercedes. Zuckerman is one of the prime sponsors of the over turn term limits campaign on behalf of fellow billionaire Mike Bloomberg. In the process-and continuing to this day-Morticia shamelessly shills for the mayor whenever possible.
And his campaign for mayoral control of the schools, Bloomberg's signature issue, was a picked clean out of the Goebbels's playbook-uncritically repeating the mayor's campaign talking points, while ignoring dissonant federal test data that pointed to, well, the fraudulent nature of the mayor's claims of educational progress.
Here's how the Times reports the possibility of a Morticia candidacy: "Mr. Zuckerman regards Ms. Gillibrand as vulnerable to a challenge and is hoping that, at a time of economic tumult and political unrest, his background as an outsider to government, and his record as a business executive, will appeal to the state’s electorate, these people said."
Earth to Mort: the folks are not only upset with government. They are also peeved about media mendacity and the lack of concern for average folks. That's what the grass roots Tea Party movement is all about. Having a billionaire publisher candidate for the US Senate whose editorial shilling for the over turning of the term limits voter referendum led to the lavishly successful Bloomberg campaign for a third term, is not going to resonate, we believe, with the angry mood of the voters.
In addition, the Daily News is so thoroughly anti-labor that the Zuckerman candidacy is likely to unleash a tsunami of working families style activism that would propel a Gillibrand campaign like nothing that the junior senator could possibly do for herself. Unlike Scott Brown, who projected a average guy persona, we don't see Mort motoring around the state in a pick up truck in an effort to mitigate his editorial union bashing.
And then there's the Daily News' efforts to tar baby what seems to us like any minority politician that they can find-from Rangel to Espada, to Monseratte, to Smith, to Meeks. When seen in contrast with his silence on Bloomberg-we're still waiting for the editorial on the mayor's mysterious $1.2 million last minute campaign allocation that seems to have paid for the house of a thoroughly disreputable Bloomberg ally (a story that the DN's Adam Lisberg broke today)-the invidiousness seems obvious, and will be exploited if Mort runs.
But all of this gets us to the case of the hapless Gillibrand-and why this is a classic case of mixed feelings. There is simply no justification for the re-election of the junior senator, a candidate hand picked by a detested sitting governor who is also simply a muñeca of Chuck
Schumer. Gillibrand, as we have stated many, many times before, has absolutely no moral core principles and is in many ways a perfect caricature of the shiftless politician.
And make no mistake about it, Zuckerman's big bucks investment would be a serious challenge to Gillibrand-even with all of the flaws we have laid out. But what's really intriguing, is the potential impact that Mort's challenge would have on Democrats.
Jonathan Tobin lays this out (even while consistently misspelling the junior senator's name): " So Schumer has used his considerable fund-raising power to not only help build Gillibrand’s campaign account, but to also help intimidate possible foes such as Manhattan Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney from pursuing the race. But the problem with this scheme is that Gillibrand has made such a poor impression in the Senate that despite Schumer’s best efforts, some Democrats still think that not only can they do better but also that she is potentially vulnerable in November. Gillibrand’s weakness is accentuated by the possibility that the mid-term election this fall will feature a Republican tide sweeping the country."
Zuckerman's entry into this race may well force the Dems into remedial action: "When the only Republicans considering a run for the Senate were unknowns with little chances of victory in November, Gillibrand’s cipher-like profile wasn’t an obstacle to a Democratic victory. But against a candidate like Zuckerman, whose vast fortune would make her considerable war chest look like a pittance, a safe Democratic seat might become a tossup."
And, as Tobin concludes: "But with a billionaire GOP candidate looming in the wings, you’d have to expect that some Democrats who are reluctantly backing Gillibrand would re-examine their options." So, in this vein-and perhaps in this vein only-we welcome Morticia's run. It will likely shake things up in both parties, bloody the patrician Zuckerman in the process-and create chaos; a circumstance that we always root for.
This to us, is the classic case of mixed feelings-you know, like watching your mother-in-law go off a cliff in your brand new Mercedes. Zuckerman is one of the prime sponsors of the over turn term limits campaign on behalf of fellow billionaire Mike Bloomberg. In the process-and continuing to this day-Morticia shamelessly shills for the mayor whenever possible.
And his campaign for mayoral control of the schools, Bloomberg's signature issue, was a picked clean out of the Goebbels's playbook-uncritically repeating the mayor's campaign talking points, while ignoring dissonant federal test data that pointed to, well, the fraudulent nature of the mayor's claims of educational progress.
Here's how the Times reports the possibility of a Morticia candidacy: "Mr. Zuckerman regards Ms. Gillibrand as vulnerable to a challenge and is hoping that, at a time of economic tumult and political unrest, his background as an outsider to government, and his record as a business executive, will appeal to the state’s electorate, these people said."
Earth to Mort: the folks are not only upset with government. They are also peeved about media mendacity and the lack of concern for average folks. That's what the grass roots Tea Party movement is all about. Having a billionaire publisher candidate for the US Senate whose editorial shilling for the over turning of the term limits voter referendum led to the lavishly successful Bloomberg campaign for a third term, is not going to resonate, we believe, with the angry mood of the voters.
In addition, the Daily News is so thoroughly anti-labor that the Zuckerman candidacy is likely to unleash a tsunami of working families style activism that would propel a Gillibrand campaign like nothing that the junior senator could possibly do for herself. Unlike Scott Brown, who projected a average guy persona, we don't see Mort motoring around the state in a pick up truck in an effort to mitigate his editorial union bashing.
And then there's the Daily News' efforts to tar baby what seems to us like any minority politician that they can find-from Rangel to Espada, to Monseratte, to Smith, to Meeks. When seen in contrast with his silence on Bloomberg-we're still waiting for the editorial on the mayor's mysterious $1.2 million last minute campaign allocation that seems to have paid for the house of a thoroughly disreputable Bloomberg ally (a story that the DN's Adam Lisberg broke today)-the invidiousness seems obvious, and will be exploited if Mort runs.
But all of this gets us to the case of the hapless Gillibrand-and why this is a classic case of mixed feelings. There is simply no justification for the re-election of the junior senator, a candidate hand picked by a detested sitting governor who is also simply a muñeca of Chuck
Schumer. Gillibrand, as we have stated many, many times before, has absolutely no moral core principles and is in many ways a perfect caricature of the shiftless politician.
And make no mistake about it, Zuckerman's big bucks investment would be a serious challenge to Gillibrand-even with all of the flaws we have laid out. But what's really intriguing, is the potential impact that Mort's challenge would have on Democrats.
Jonathan Tobin lays this out (even while consistently misspelling the junior senator's name): " So Schumer has used his considerable fund-raising power to not only help build Gillibrand’s campaign account, but to also help intimidate possible foes such as Manhattan Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney from pursuing the race. But the problem with this scheme is that Gillibrand has made such a poor impression in the Senate that despite Schumer’s best efforts, some Democrats still think that not only can they do better but also that she is potentially vulnerable in November. Gillibrand’s weakness is accentuated by the possibility that the mid-term election this fall will feature a Republican tide sweeping the country."
Zuckerman's entry into this race may well force the Dems into remedial action: "When the only Republicans considering a run for the Senate were unknowns with little chances of victory in November, Gillibrand’s cipher-like profile wasn’t an obstacle to a Democratic victory. But against a candidate like Zuckerman, whose vast fortune would make her considerable war chest look like a pittance, a safe Democratic seat might become a tossup."
And, as Tobin concludes: "But with a billionaire GOP candidate looming in the wings, you’d have to expect that some Democrats who are reluctantly backing Gillibrand would re-examine their options." So, in this vein-and perhaps in this vein only-we welcome Morticia's run. It will likely shake things up in both parties, bloody the patrician Zuckerman in the process-and create chaos; a circumstance that we always root for.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Judge Not, Lest Ye...
Of all the people who should not chime in on the case of Senator Hiram Monseratte, David Paterson is at the top of the list. But, as Daily Politics reports, that doesn't stop the governor from pontificating: "Gov. David Paterson voiced strong support for the Senate's decision to expel Hiram Monserrate and suggested additional felony charges could have been brought against the (for now) ex-senator had the Queens DA "gone further" in his investigation."
So, what we have is an accidental-waiting to happen-governor who admits to serial matrimonial and drug abuse indiscretions weighing in on the fitness of Monseratte:
"I think that’s what his colleagues in the Senate have told him, that right now they don’t believe that he is fit to serve as a senator,” said the governor, adding that Monserrate should not "play games" by suggesting it was inappropriate to expel him because his assault of his girlfriend took place before he took his seat.
"He was a senator at the time of his conviction,” Paterson said. "I hope that the people of his area will elect someone who will serve with dignity and distinction."
That the words dignity, fitness and distinction can even form in the governor's mouth for open expression is, well, mind boggling-and it demonstrates such a complete lack of self awareness that we're not surprised that he continues in his quixotic quest to prove all of the current polls wrong. Now what happens if the NY Times actually does have the kind of story that we've heard they have?
The governor, using his law degree in ways that question what Hofstra was doing back in the day, goes on the allege that the Queens DA could have gone even further: "He clearly was quite familiar with the report, noting it had revealed Monserrate's staffers closely monitored his girlfriend, Karla Giraldo, taking her back and forth to court every day, and also were involved in the creation of her statement about the incident.
"I think that if the district attorney had gone further and had actually investigated the tampering of witnesses and evidence after the initial incident, that there may have been an additional felony charged that he might have faced,” the governor said."
Just goes to show how it's possible for a prosecutorial brief-the investigation conducted by the senate-can metastasize in the absence of real due process-i.e., the participation of Monseratte in the preparation of the report. In fact, we know on good authority that the governor's allegation that the senator's aides were, "engaged in the creation of..." Karla Giraldo's statement is an absolute canard-and that from the very day she was admitted to the hospital she was telling the same story, without prompting, that she continues to tell to this day.
And as for dignity and distinction, we too can't wait for the people of New York State to elect a chief executive that embodies those valued character traits-because they sure don't have someone in the office who does so now.
So, what we have is an accidental-waiting to happen-governor who admits to serial matrimonial and drug abuse indiscretions weighing in on the fitness of Monseratte:
"I think that’s what his colleagues in the Senate have told him, that right now they don’t believe that he is fit to serve as a senator,” said the governor, adding that Monserrate should not "play games" by suggesting it was inappropriate to expel him because his assault of his girlfriend took place before he took his seat.
"He was a senator at the time of his conviction,” Paterson said. "I hope that the people of his area will elect someone who will serve with dignity and distinction."
That the words dignity, fitness and distinction can even form in the governor's mouth for open expression is, well, mind boggling-and it demonstrates such a complete lack of self awareness that we're not surprised that he continues in his quixotic quest to prove all of the current polls wrong. Now what happens if the NY Times actually does have the kind of story that we've heard they have?
The governor, using his law degree in ways that question what Hofstra was doing back in the day, goes on the allege that the Queens DA could have gone even further: "He clearly was quite familiar with the report, noting it had revealed Monserrate's staffers closely monitored his girlfriend, Karla Giraldo, taking her back and forth to court every day, and also were involved in the creation of her statement about the incident.
"I think that if the district attorney had gone further and had actually investigated the tampering of witnesses and evidence after the initial incident, that there may have been an additional felony charged that he might have faced,” the governor said."
Just goes to show how it's possible for a prosecutorial brief-the investigation conducted by the senate-can metastasize in the absence of real due process-i.e., the participation of Monseratte in the preparation of the report. In fact, we know on good authority that the governor's allegation that the senator's aides were, "engaged in the creation of..." Karla Giraldo's statement is an absolute canard-and that from the very day she was admitted to the hospital she was telling the same story, without prompting, that she continues to tell to this day.
And as for dignity and distinction, we too can't wait for the people of New York State to elect a chief executive that embodies those valued character traits-because they sure don't have someone in the office who does so now.
Bloomberg Be Jammin'
Mike Bloomberg has decided that nothing succeeds, well, like failure-and he has given the green light to the Times Square gridlock mess that was the brainchild of his brainless Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Kahn. As the NY Times reports, in an understated lede: "New York’s ambitious experiment that closed parts of Broadway to vehicles last spring will become permanent, city officials said on Thursday, even though it fell short of achieving its chief objective: improving traffic flow."
Even with the the Bloombergistas keeping their own score, this effort of the mayor to posture as some kind of climate change guru fails to pass the smell test: "But traffic speeds slowed on many crosstown streets, as well as on Eighth and Ninth Avenues, according to data from more than 5,700 test runs conducted by the Department of Transportation. There were some improvements, but they mostly missed the city’s targets. Traffic along Seventh Avenue, for example, moved 4 percent faster, but the city had hoped for a gain of up to 17 percent."
But with a furor already manifested over the fudged city crime stats, can we really accept these numbers? As Senator Liz Krueger told the Times: "“I find it disturbing that nobody outside of the mayor’s office got to take a look at the data or the report before the decision was made,” said State Senator Liz Krueger, who represents the Times Square area. “It leaves one with the suspicion that they didn’t want the public to have time to take a serious look.”
What boggles our mind, however, is the fact that all of this has been done without the benefit of any environmental review-and we don't consider the books' cooking of DOT as any sort of due diligence. For a bistro to get even one additional outdoor table, a traffic study and environmental assessment is needed-and that's as a prelude to a ULURP application. But for the mayor the turn the city's main thoroughfare into a pedestrian mall we get environmental squat!
And listen to Bloomberg's failure=success rationale: "Mr. Bloomberg, however, declared the project a success, emphasizing the improvements to pedestrian safety and foot traffic, along with the aesthetic enhancement to an area once associated with exhaust and gridlock." Is he kidding, or has he been sucking too long on an exhaust pipe?
This is all part of the mayor's congestion pricing scheme-and remember that he wanted to implement that grandiose F-U to motorists also without the benefit of an EIS. The NY Post's Steve Cuozzo captures the Bloomberg hubris: "Some day, maybe by Mayor Bloomberg’s seventh term, City Hall might find the money and smarts to landscape and accessorize Times Square’s repellent asphalt plazas so they don’t look quite so much like prison yards. Until then, 8 million of us are likely to be stuck with the ghastly public "amenities" thrust without public review upon the Crossroads of the World. Bloomberg appears inclined to keep the butt-ugly loitering grounds, even though, as the Times reported last week, the traffic-busting scheme that was the main reason for installing them appears to have flopped."
But do you think that the naked emperor cares one wit? Not when he is surrounded by so many lackeys and sycophants: "Voices quick to howl over the least perceived blemish on the urban fabric have gone mute. Where’s the outrage from esthetically attuned City Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden? Or the Municipal Art Society? The normally energetic Times Square Alliance rolled over for the DOT blitzkrieg. So have Times Square real estate kingpins, hotel operators, retailers and restaurateurs who publicly say they find the plazas just dandy, but say the opposite privately. They lie for good reason: most have business before city agencies and are loath to alienate Bloomberg’s enforcers."
This is the kind of democratic process you get when you allow the city's richest man to buy, bribe and threaten his way into a third term-Rudy Giuliani could have only have wished that he had Bloomberg's ability to parlay great wealth into an unaccountable political power. And with the city council busy thinning the herd of its thieves, we think that it's unlikely that they will have the time or energy to give this proper oversight-even if the speaker was so inclined.
But our new public advocate is raising his voice-and perhaps the comptroller who knows a thing or two about traffic will also decide to weigh in on this. As the Times points out: "Several city officials — including the comptroller, the public advocate and the chairman of the City Council’s Transportation Committee — all said on Thursday they would review the city’s findings. “Too often we have seen this administration decide for the people, instead of engaging them in the process of making our city better,” Bill de Blasio, the public advocate, wrote in an e-mail message. “I believe that while this project has some benefits, we cannot make such a fundamental change to Times Square without first giving the community a greater say in the process.”
"Giving the community a greater say." What a unique concept; and after eight years of community non involvement on so many different policy fronts, why should we expect a change? Who will step up and finally state the obvious: "the King is in the altogether, But all together the all together, He's all together as naked as the day that he was born..."
Even with the the Bloombergistas keeping their own score, this effort of the mayor to posture as some kind of climate change guru fails to pass the smell test: "But traffic speeds slowed on many crosstown streets, as well as on Eighth and Ninth Avenues, according to data from more than 5,700 test runs conducted by the Department of Transportation. There were some improvements, but they mostly missed the city’s targets. Traffic along Seventh Avenue, for example, moved 4 percent faster, but the city had hoped for a gain of up to 17 percent."
But with a furor already manifested over the fudged city crime stats, can we really accept these numbers? As Senator Liz Krueger told the Times: "“I find it disturbing that nobody outside of the mayor’s office got to take a look at the data or the report before the decision was made,” said State Senator Liz Krueger, who represents the Times Square area. “It leaves one with the suspicion that they didn’t want the public to have time to take a serious look.”
What boggles our mind, however, is the fact that all of this has been done without the benefit of any environmental review-and we don't consider the books' cooking of DOT as any sort of due diligence. For a bistro to get even one additional outdoor table, a traffic study and environmental assessment is needed-and that's as a prelude to a ULURP application. But for the mayor the turn the city's main thoroughfare into a pedestrian mall we get environmental squat!
And listen to Bloomberg's failure=success rationale: "Mr. Bloomberg, however, declared the project a success, emphasizing the improvements to pedestrian safety and foot traffic, along with the aesthetic enhancement to an area once associated with exhaust and gridlock." Is he kidding, or has he been sucking too long on an exhaust pipe?
This is all part of the mayor's congestion pricing scheme-and remember that he wanted to implement that grandiose F-U to motorists also without the benefit of an EIS. The NY Post's Steve Cuozzo captures the Bloomberg hubris: "Some day, maybe by Mayor Bloomberg’s seventh term, City Hall might find the money and smarts to landscape and accessorize Times Square’s repellent asphalt plazas so they don’t look quite so much like prison yards. Until then, 8 million of us are likely to be stuck with the ghastly public "amenities" thrust without public review upon the Crossroads of the World. Bloomberg appears inclined to keep the butt-ugly loitering grounds, even though, as the Times reported last week, the traffic-busting scheme that was the main reason for installing them appears to have flopped."
But do you think that the naked emperor cares one wit? Not when he is surrounded by so many lackeys and sycophants: "Voices quick to howl over the least perceived blemish on the urban fabric have gone mute. Where’s the outrage from esthetically attuned City Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden? Or the Municipal Art Society? The normally energetic Times Square Alliance rolled over for the DOT blitzkrieg. So have Times Square real estate kingpins, hotel operators, retailers and restaurateurs who publicly say they find the plazas just dandy, but say the opposite privately. They lie for good reason: most have business before city agencies and are loath to alienate Bloomberg’s enforcers."
This is the kind of democratic process you get when you allow the city's richest man to buy, bribe and threaten his way into a third term-Rudy Giuliani could have only have wished that he had Bloomberg's ability to parlay great wealth into an unaccountable political power. And with the city council busy thinning the herd of its thieves, we think that it's unlikely that they will have the time or energy to give this proper oversight-even if the speaker was so inclined.
But our new public advocate is raising his voice-and perhaps the comptroller who knows a thing or two about traffic will also decide to weigh in on this. As the Times points out: "Several city officials — including the comptroller, the public advocate and the chairman of the City Council’s Transportation Committee — all said on Thursday they would review the city’s findings. “Too often we have seen this administration decide for the people, instead of engaging them in the process of making our city better,” Bill de Blasio, the public advocate, wrote in an e-mail message. “I believe that while this project has some benefits, we cannot make such a fundamental change to Times Square without first giving the community a greater say in the process.”
"Giving the community a greater say." What a unique concept; and after eight years of community non involvement on so many different policy fronts, why should we expect a change? Who will step up and finally state the obvious: "the King is in the altogether, But all together the all together, He's all together as naked as the day that he was born..."
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Who Benefits?
Comptroller John Liu is proposing to develop standards for the promulgation of community benefits agreements. As the Observer reports: "For the second time in as many days, Comptroller John Liu has announced plans to revamp a process related to real estate development. On Tuesday, he called for general changes to the way subsidies are awarded
Wednesday belonged to community benefit agreements, the un-regulated deals often struck between eager developers and community groups concerned about their projects, usually after concessions and money have changed hands."
This is a welcome policy initiative, but one that needs to be approached with care because of the many substantive and procedural difficulties that will undoubtedly present themselves in any reform effort. As the Observer points out: "There's much criticism to go around about CBAs in New York: Just who sits at the table to negotiate with the developer (i.e. who represents the "community") is always subject to debate, and the same elected officials who are approving the project are often negotiating the CBAs as well. The CBAs, which usually have nothing to do with zoning, have become a prerequisite nonetheless for a necessary zoning approval, a common complaint from developers."
On a procedural level, negotiating a CBA is complicated by the fact that any discussions need to take place alongside of the mandated ULURP process-a procedure with a clear cut time frame that can't be modified once it commences. So, creating clear cut parameters may have to be done simultaneously with amending the ULURP process itself-something we have recommended but that is subject to mayoral approval.
Still, Liu is doing the right thing becasue of all of the chaos that has been associated with CBAs in NYC-and the way in which some of these benefit agreements have benefited only the elected officials who have crafted them (Gateway Mall and Yankee Stadium in particular).
So some standards here are a good thing, as the comptroller's statement makes clear: "
Community Benefit Agreements have become commonplace whenever private developers seek public assistance, ranging in form from tax subsidies and no-bid contracting to zoning changes and invocation of eminent domain. In the absence of standards, however, these agreements will become more problematic and ultimately irrelevant.
From Atlantic Yards to Yankee Stadium to the Columbia University expansion, the public has seen a string of broken promises to communities and questionable involvement by some government officials. Furthermore, an additional layer of unpredictability confronts developers when they engage in private negotiations over benefits associated with their projects. In fact, studies have singled out New York City's community benefit agreements as examples of what not to do."
But, as always, the devil is in the details-and crafting standards and a procedural protocol in the context of ULURP is a daunting task indeed. The Alliance has been involved in all of the aforementioned CBA negotiations, and on both sides of the equation, so we know how complex and contentious this all is. Nothing is more emblematic of this than the recently failed Kingsbridge Armory project. The RWDSU and KARA, key players in the Armory dust up, need to be point persons in any discussions on this issue.
Ultimately, if CBAs are going to be given an official policy status, then they will need to be made an integral part of ULURP. In our view, however, the need to reform the ULURP process may be an even more compelling policy goal than developing CBA standards-although we can easily see how the two can be seen in tandem. Comptroller Liu is undertaking a worthwhile effort; here's hoping that he is able to navigate this minefield with the same skill he has demonstrated on other issues.
Wednesday belonged to community benefit agreements, the un-regulated deals often struck between eager developers and community groups concerned about their projects, usually after concessions and money have changed hands."
This is a welcome policy initiative, but one that needs to be approached with care because of the many substantive and procedural difficulties that will undoubtedly present themselves in any reform effort. As the Observer points out: "There's much criticism to go around about CBAs in New York: Just who sits at the table to negotiate with the developer (i.e. who represents the "community") is always subject to debate, and the same elected officials who are approving the project are often negotiating the CBAs as well. The CBAs, which usually have nothing to do with zoning, have become a prerequisite nonetheless for a necessary zoning approval, a common complaint from developers."
On a procedural level, negotiating a CBA is complicated by the fact that any discussions need to take place alongside of the mandated ULURP process-a procedure with a clear cut time frame that can't be modified once it commences. So, creating clear cut parameters may have to be done simultaneously with amending the ULURP process itself-something we have recommended but that is subject to mayoral approval.
Still, Liu is doing the right thing becasue of all of the chaos that has been associated with CBAs in NYC-and the way in which some of these benefit agreements have benefited only the elected officials who have crafted them (Gateway Mall and Yankee Stadium in particular).
So some standards here are a good thing, as the comptroller's statement makes clear: "
Community Benefit Agreements have become commonplace whenever private developers seek public assistance, ranging in form from tax subsidies and no-bid contracting to zoning changes and invocation of eminent domain. In the absence of standards, however, these agreements will become more problematic and ultimately irrelevant.
From Atlantic Yards to Yankee Stadium to the Columbia University expansion, the public has seen a string of broken promises to communities and questionable involvement by some government officials. Furthermore, an additional layer of unpredictability confronts developers when they engage in private negotiations over benefits associated with their projects. In fact, studies have singled out New York City's community benefit agreements as examples of what not to do."
But, as always, the devil is in the details-and crafting standards and a procedural protocol in the context of ULURP is a daunting task indeed. The Alliance has been involved in all of the aforementioned CBA negotiations, and on both sides of the equation, so we know how complex and contentious this all is. Nothing is more emblematic of this than the recently failed Kingsbridge Armory project. The RWDSU and KARA, key players in the Armory dust up, need to be point persons in any discussions on this issue.
Ultimately, if CBAs are going to be given an official policy status, then they will need to be made an integral part of ULURP. In our view, however, the need to reform the ULURP process may be an even more compelling policy goal than developing CBA standards-although we can easily see how the two can be seen in tandem. Comptroller Liu is undertaking a worthwhile effort; here's hoping that he is able to navigate this minefield with the same skill he has demonstrated on other issues.
Ritual Murder
In keeping with our view that Hiram Monseratte was a sacrificial lamb when the state senate expelled him the other day, Jim Dwyer observes: "On Tuesday night, the Senate decided he deserved a distinction rare in the history of a body that has had its share of scoundrels: expulsion from the Senate without benefit of a felony conviction...“There was one, sole conviction on reckless assault misdemeanor, which is under appeal,” Mr. Monserrate said. “This is not about the underlying incident.” What, then, was shaping the debate about throwing him out? He spoke in a low voice: “There’s a lot of politics driving this.”
To which Dwyer-referencing last year's coup-avers: "The point was inarguable. Mr. Monserrate had committed multiple political felonies, and Tuesday was as much the day of reckoning for them as it was for the crime he was convicted of."
As we have pointed out, the issue wasn't really about the underlying charge of domestic violence: "The senators could talk all day about their deep concern for domestic violence, but it’s hard to know if their high-minded gas would have solidified into a vote for expulsion for a senator who had not been so nakedly treacherous as Mr. Monserrate. It is one thing to cut a woman’s face with a broken glass, drag her through a hallway and then drive her, bleeding profusely, past several hospitals to an emergency room far enough away from home where no one would be likely to recognize him. It is quite another thing for a politician to be bought and paid for, and then not to stay bought."
In his effort to convince his colleagues that his actions weren't grounds for expulsion, Monseratte took to the floor and talked about due process-at one point indicating that some of his colleagues were more passionate in defense of the due process rights of accused Al Qaeda, than they were for one Hiram Monseratte. All to no avail.
The bloodletting could simply not be stopped-because it had a profound ritual purpose that trumped the self interest of senators who, because of the compulsion to exorcise the Monseratte demon, may soon find themselves out of power. The irony, though, is that the effort may in fact be overturned, and if it is-with an accompanying judicial rebuke-the legislators who left their civil liberties credentials at the senate door may end up being embarrassed, and in the uncomfortable position of having empowered their colleague in ways that they couldn't have previously imagined.
To which Dwyer-referencing last year's coup-avers: "The point was inarguable. Mr. Monserrate had committed multiple political felonies, and Tuesday was as much the day of reckoning for them as it was for the crime he was convicted of."
As we have pointed out, the issue wasn't really about the underlying charge of domestic violence: "The senators could talk all day about their deep concern for domestic violence, but it’s hard to know if their high-minded gas would have solidified into a vote for expulsion for a senator who had not been so nakedly treacherous as Mr. Monserrate. It is one thing to cut a woman’s face with a broken glass, drag her through a hallway and then drive her, bleeding profusely, past several hospitals to an emergency room far enough away from home where no one would be likely to recognize him. It is quite another thing for a politician to be bought and paid for, and then not to stay bought."
In his effort to convince his colleagues that his actions weren't grounds for expulsion, Monseratte took to the floor and talked about due process-at one point indicating that some of his colleagues were more passionate in defense of the due process rights of accused Al Qaeda, than they were for one Hiram Monseratte. All to no avail.
The bloodletting could simply not be stopped-because it had a profound ritual purpose that trumped the self interest of senators who, because of the compulsion to exorcise the Monseratte demon, may soon find themselves out of power. The irony, though, is that the effort may in fact be overturned, and if it is-with an accompanying judicial rebuke-the legislators who left their civil liberties credentials at the senate door may end up being embarrassed, and in the uncomfortable position of having empowered their colleague in ways that they couldn't have previously imagined.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Hiram Monseratte: Victimage and Redemption?
The NY State Senate voted last night to do something that it hadn't done in over eighty years-expel a member from the body. As the NY Daily News reports: "Embattled state Sen. Hiram Monserrate was ousted from his seat Tuesday night by colleagues who say his conviction for misdemeanor assault against his girlfriend brought shame on the chamber. Disgusted Democrats and Republicans joined together 53-8 to make Monserrate the fourth sitting state lawmaker ever expelled - and the first since 1861."
What remains uncertain, however, is whether the body has the legal right to expel-as Juan Gonzales points out this morning: "The state Senate, however, can't simply claim some dubious legal authority to expel him, as it voted to do last night. New York law mandates the ouster of a public official only for a felony conviction. The state Constitution removed the Legislature's explicit power to kick out members back in 1821."
All of this will now head to court-with senate Democrats apparently in disarray: "That's why Norman Siegel, the veteran civil rights lawyer and a life-long opponent of violence against women, has come to Monserrate's defense. Siegel expects to go into federal court today seeking a restraining order against any removal of his client."
In the meantime the Democratic conference, having disregarded and discarded its leadership-and now lacking enough votes to pass anything-is literally upstream without a paddle. As the DN tells us: "The decision to kick out Monserrate will have political implications for the already-chaotic Senate. Without Monserrate, Democrats maintain a slim 31-30 majority, but now lack the 32 votes to pass anything without Republican help.The ordeal has further splintered a fractured Democratic conference that fought bitterly over Monserrate's fate. Monserrate supporters expressed concern about the precedent of making him the first senator ever booted because of a misdemeanor conviction."
So, why did they go out on this political limb with a saw? In our view, the issue can't be understood without a deeper understanding of the intersection of the political with the psycho-social. On the political side we have last year's coup that saw Monseratte bolt from his Democratic colleagues, throwing the senate into chaos. He immediately became a transgressor; and why he did this with the assault charges pending is hard for us to fathom.
But, being transgressive, puts him in the position to become the perfect sacrificial lamb-in a legislature that has been demeaned-whether fairly or not-as being both corrupt and dysfunctional. The following from the NY Post underscores this point: "Sen. Neil Breslin (D-Albany) agreed: "It's a very positive step forward to cleaning up the New York state Senate."
Many years ago, the political scientist Harold Lasswell described politics as, "the process of displacing private emotions onto public objects." In the Monseratte case, Hiram becomes the the object for the displaced anger of his fellow Dems for last year's betrayal; while at the same time serving-through the public ritual of his expulsion and humiliation-as a classic scapegoat whose demise is expiation for the sins of the group.
This doesn't mean, however, that the scapegoat is blameless. In fact, the very real Hiram blemishes are themselves functional for the ritual sacrificial cleansing-as Senator Breslin's remarks suggest (see Hugh Duncan's Communication and Social Order for a better understanding of how this process works).
Which leaves us, however, with the very real political aftermath of this bloodletting. The Democratic conference is rendered asunder at just the moment when being united is essential for it's survival-at a time when the political wind is at the backs of the Republicans. It seems that Humpty Dumpty would have a better shot than the warring senate Democrats at putting all of the broken pieces together
What remains uncertain, however, is whether the body has the legal right to expel-as Juan Gonzales points out this morning: "The state Senate, however, can't simply claim some dubious legal authority to expel him, as it voted to do last night. New York law mandates the ouster of a public official only for a felony conviction. The state Constitution removed the Legislature's explicit power to kick out members back in 1821."
All of this will now head to court-with senate Democrats apparently in disarray: "That's why Norman Siegel, the veteran civil rights lawyer and a life-long opponent of violence against women, has come to Monserrate's defense. Siegel expects to go into federal court today seeking a restraining order against any removal of his client."
In the meantime the Democratic conference, having disregarded and discarded its leadership-and now lacking enough votes to pass anything-is literally upstream without a paddle. As the DN tells us: "The decision to kick out Monserrate will have political implications for the already-chaotic Senate. Without Monserrate, Democrats maintain a slim 31-30 majority, but now lack the 32 votes to pass anything without Republican help.The ordeal has further splintered a fractured Democratic conference that fought bitterly over Monserrate's fate. Monserrate supporters expressed concern about the precedent of making him the first senator ever booted because of a misdemeanor conviction."
So, why did they go out on this political limb with a saw? In our view, the issue can't be understood without a deeper understanding of the intersection of the political with the psycho-social. On the political side we have last year's coup that saw Monseratte bolt from his Democratic colleagues, throwing the senate into chaos. He immediately became a transgressor; and why he did this with the assault charges pending is hard for us to fathom.
But, being transgressive, puts him in the position to become the perfect sacrificial lamb-in a legislature that has been demeaned-whether fairly or not-as being both corrupt and dysfunctional. The following from the NY Post underscores this point: "Sen. Neil Breslin (D-Albany) agreed: "It's a very positive step forward to cleaning up the New York state Senate."
Many years ago, the political scientist Harold Lasswell described politics as, "the process of displacing private emotions onto public objects." In the Monseratte case, Hiram becomes the the object for the displaced anger of his fellow Dems for last year's betrayal; while at the same time serving-through the public ritual of his expulsion and humiliation-as a classic scapegoat whose demise is expiation for the sins of the group.
This doesn't mean, however, that the scapegoat is blameless. In fact, the very real Hiram blemishes are themselves functional for the ritual sacrificial cleansing-as Senator Breslin's remarks suggest (see Hugh Duncan's Communication and Social Order for a better understanding of how this process works).
Which leaves us, however, with the very real political aftermath of this bloodletting. The Democratic conference is rendered asunder at just the moment when being united is essential for it's survival-at a time when the political wind is at the backs of the Republicans. It seems that Humpty Dumpty would have a better shot than the warring senate Democrats at putting all of the broken pieces together
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
