The Queens Chamber of Commerce is still looking to inveigle the Islanders to come to Queens-and Willets Point is once again in the spotlight. As the Queens Courier reports: "Jeff Wilpon officially broke the ice in talks to potentially bring another professional sports team to Queens. Reports have surfaced that the Mets’ chief operating officer recently met with Charles Wang, owner of the New York Islanders, to discuss relocation options for the embattled hockey franchise, as reported by Newsday on Wednesday, May 12. The meeting, confirmed by Wilpon himself, is also said to have included talks about the possible sale of Long Island’s only professional sports team to the Mets’ owners."
This is a good idea, because? Probably because the Mets are doing so well in their new stadium-losing fans at the highest rate in the major leagues. Still, credit Jack Friedman of the Chamber for both perseverance and creativity: "Jack Friedman, executive vice-president of the Queens Chamber of Commerce, said that bringing the Islanders to Queens is something that the Chamber has been interested in for years. “The Lighthouse Project has gone nowhere for seven years,” said Friedman. “The master plan for that project and the master plan for Willets Point are almost identical. The only difference is Willets Point is a lot further along in terms of the politics and the zoning.” Plans for Willets Point include a convention center that could potentially be used as home ice for the Islanders, whose lease at the Coliseum expires in 2015."
Earth to Jack! There are no plans-and a convention center is one of any number of ideas that have been floated-but we particularly liked the transportation rationale for the hockey team: "Most agree that bringing the Islanders to Queens would expand the fan base simply by providing mass transit options to get to and from the games. Also, Friedman believes that moving the team to Queens would give its Long Island followers the best chance to remain supportive."
Oh, good grief! Willets Point was sold as an economic development plan-and even a successful franchise is a money losing proposition. So, how is evicting productive businesses-using hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars-in exchange for a white elephant hockey team a sensible idea? And Friedman's belief that Willets Pint is, "further along," than the Long Island Lighthouse development is certainly questionable.
But we say, by all means, put the Islander relocation in the center of the Willets Point scheme-and watch the support for the development melt like rink ice on a summer day. We thought that the entire scheme was pie in the sky before, but with the Islanders in the mix, the Bloombergistas are playing defense against a power play while two men short.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Gracie Point Truck Nightmare
We have been commenting on the unnecessary construction of a marine transfer station on the residential east side. The Bloomberg plan was meant to skewer than council speaker Gifford Miller-and it did exactly that; in fact, that was the only thing that this symbolic, "fair share," initiative actually accomplished was to give the impression that the mayor was Mr. Environmental Justice. But the reality-with the failure of his SWMP-is less appealing.
Which brings us to a, "back to the drawing board," moment-but the one thing we know for certain is that the activation of an MTS at 91st Street would be a public health menace to both East Harlem and the East Side. It's a menace that is generated by the hundreds of garbage truck trips a day that the facility will generate; not to mention the stench of the transfer station, or the exhaust emitted from the queuing up of the trucks.
Here are some of the conditions in the provisional permit: "The operating permit sets maximum peak day limit for the facility at 1,860 tons per day, with an “upset’ limit of 4,290 tons and an emergency limit of 5,280 tons. Among the special conditions in the draft permit is are a prohibition of truck queuing on public streets (except under upset and emergency conditions), a limit of 17 trucks queued on the ramp, a requirement that a staff person be at the foot of the ramp when trucks are delivering waste, a requirement that video cameras accessible to NYSDEC on a real time basis be installed to monitor queuing compliance, a requirement that all waste be containerized within 24 hours of delivery and all containers removed within 48 hours, and limit for DSNY trucks of 0.1 grams of diesel particulate for pre-2007 trucks and 0.01 grams for trucks purchased in 2007 and after."
At a limit of 1,860 tons per day the neighborhood would be looking at between 155 and 266 trucks (times two for entering and leaving trips) or 186 trucks if 10 tons per truck. But all of this is clearly hypothetical, and the absence of an EIS is disturbing, since such an analysis would enable a better understanding of not only the level of queuing during peak hours from 10-2; but also of the worst case scenario when capacity is doubled during emergencies.
One thing is for certain, the surrounding neighborhoods are going to be inundated by trucks and odor; and while there's a bit of poetic justice in the East Side getting to experience what the South Bronx and North Brooklyn are being forced to go through, wouldn't it make more sense to alleviate the burden on those communities rather than simply burdening another? That is why we are calling for a solid waste mulligan-or, back to the drawing board for you non-golfers.
The Bloomberg waste reduction strategy is in absolute disarray-and some of the city council proposals are simply-to put it kindly-flights of fancy. It's time to undertake a comprehensive food waste reduction plan, one that will-through the removal of wet waste contaminants with the use of disposers-allow for the enhancement of recycling in both the residential and commercial sector. The big remaining question: Who has the vision and the will to implement this essential change in strategic direction?
Which brings us to a, "back to the drawing board," moment-but the one thing we know for certain is that the activation of an MTS at 91st Street would be a public health menace to both East Harlem and the East Side. It's a menace that is generated by the hundreds of garbage truck trips a day that the facility will generate; not to mention the stench of the transfer station, or the exhaust emitted from the queuing up of the trucks.
Here are some of the conditions in the provisional permit: "The operating permit sets maximum peak day limit for the facility at 1,860 tons per day, with an “upset’ limit of 4,290 tons and an emergency limit of 5,280 tons. Among the special conditions in the draft permit is are a prohibition of truck queuing on public streets (except under upset and emergency conditions), a limit of 17 trucks queued on the ramp, a requirement that a staff person be at the foot of the ramp when trucks are delivering waste, a requirement that video cameras accessible to NYSDEC on a real time basis be installed to monitor queuing compliance, a requirement that all waste be containerized within 24 hours of delivery and all containers removed within 48 hours, and limit for DSNY trucks of 0.1 grams of diesel particulate for pre-2007 trucks and 0.01 grams for trucks purchased in 2007 and after."
At a limit of 1,860 tons per day the neighborhood would be looking at between 155 and 266 trucks (times two for entering and leaving trips) or 186 trucks if 10 tons per truck. But all of this is clearly hypothetical, and the absence of an EIS is disturbing, since such an analysis would enable a better understanding of not only the level of queuing during peak hours from 10-2; but also of the worst case scenario when capacity is doubled during emergencies.
One thing is for certain, the surrounding neighborhoods are going to be inundated by trucks and odor; and while there's a bit of poetic justice in the East Side getting to experience what the South Bronx and North Brooklyn are being forced to go through, wouldn't it make more sense to alleviate the burden on those communities rather than simply burdening another? That is why we are calling for a solid waste mulligan-or, back to the drawing board for you non-golfers.
The Bloomberg waste reduction strategy is in absolute disarray-and some of the city council proposals are simply-to put it kindly-flights of fancy. It's time to undertake a comprehensive food waste reduction plan, one that will-through the removal of wet waste contaminants with the use of disposers-allow for the enhancement of recycling in both the residential and commercial sector. The big remaining question: Who has the vision and the will to implement this essential change in strategic direction?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Boosting the Wilpons?
You gotta hand it to the NY Daily News, when it comes to using the power of government to take away peoples' property, the paper has a great imagination. This time it's bringing the NY Islander hockey team to Willets Point: "Mets owner Fred Wilpon has been talking to Islanders owner Charles Wang about moving the hockey team from the dilapidated Nassau Coliseum to an arena that would rise near Citi Field. This would be a win-win-win-win. Win No. 1: The Isles, a storied but money-losing franchise, would get a showcase location with a broader fan base."
Has the News forgotten the most salient fact in this fantasy discussion? You know, the point about how the land in question still belongs to its rightful owners. And one other important point-the bringing in of a sports franchise, and the building of an arena would necessitate an entirely new land use review-and call into question all of the economic rationales for evicting the property owners in the first place.
The reason why? It has to do with the economics of sports franchises. As one expert has pointed out: "Local political and community leaders and the owners of professional sports teams frequently claim that professional sports facilities and franchises are important engines of economic development in urban areas. These structures and teams allegedly contribute millions of dollars of net new spending annually and create hundreds of new jobs, and provide justification for hundreds of millions of dollars of public subsidies for the construction of many new professional sports facilities in the United Sates over the past decade. Despite these claims, economists have found no evidence of positive economic impact of professional sports teams and facilities on urban economies."
So, by all means, offer a spot in Willets Point to a dying hockey franchise-it makes as much sense as NYC spending billions to evict existing business owners and their thousands of employees in order to house the largest car dependent shopping mall in NYC. And as far as Atlantic Yards is concerned, where thousands of units of housing give the development a greater economic rationale, that might actually make some sense. The arena is gonna get built and the Islanders would be value added to the arena.
But a hockey team for Willets Point? As Brooklynites would say, "Fuhgettaboutit!"
Has the News forgotten the most salient fact in this fantasy discussion? You know, the point about how the land in question still belongs to its rightful owners. And one other important point-the bringing in of a sports franchise, and the building of an arena would necessitate an entirely new land use review-and call into question all of the economic rationales for evicting the property owners in the first place.
The reason why? It has to do with the economics of sports franchises. As one expert has pointed out: "Local political and community leaders and the owners of professional sports teams frequently claim that professional sports facilities and franchises are important engines of economic development in urban areas. These structures and teams allegedly contribute millions of dollars of net new spending annually and create hundreds of new jobs, and provide justification for hundreds of millions of dollars of public subsidies for the construction of many new professional sports facilities in the United Sates over the past decade. Despite these claims, economists have found no evidence of positive economic impact of professional sports teams and facilities on urban economies."
So, by all means, offer a spot in Willets Point to a dying hockey franchise-it makes as much sense as NYC spending billions to evict existing business owners and their thousands of employees in order to house the largest car dependent shopping mall in NYC. And as far as Atlantic Yards is concerned, where thousands of units of housing give the development a greater economic rationale, that might actually make some sense. The arena is gonna get built and the Islanders would be value added to the arena.
But a hockey team for Willets Point? As Brooklynites would say, "Fuhgettaboutit!"
Behind the Times
Greg David has a thoughtful critique of the NY Times' call for higher taxes on the wealthy to balance NY State's budget: "The editorial page of The New York Times is a strong and steadfast voice for the kind of structural reforms that might make state government more responsive. When it comes to budget and economic issues, it isn't as consistent, which was demonstrated Saturday when the Times called for a tax increase on the rich. Here's the offending paragraph:
"To spread the pain fairly, (Assembly Speaker) Silver should be promoting luxury taxes, sales of wine in grocery stores and a fat tax on sodas. Ideally, New York's income taxes should be made fairer. But this is not a state government that has the time or will to do the hard overhaul. Even a small short-term income tax surcharge on the rich would help."
But David points out that the Times suffers from amnesia: "The most obvious problem is that the Times appears to have forgotten that such a tax increase was passed last year! Under the so-called "millionaire's'' tax, families with incomes starting at $300,000 saw their state income tax rate increased to 7.85%. City residents in that category now pay a combined tax rate of 10.5%. (The higher rate affects individuals at $200,000.)"
And last year's tax brought a less than spectacular return-disappointing those who expected a bigger haul. And, as the WSJ pointed out last year, we already have the highest taxes in the country. And Speaker Silver's defense of the concept-that it didn't hurt New Jersey-rings kind of hollow today: "Mr. Silver thinks he can squeeze more from these folks without any economic harm, arguing that recent income tax hikes didn't hurt New Jersey. (Yes, the pols in New York actually hold up New Jersey, whose economy and budget are also in shambles, as their role model.)"
But it actually has: "The better comparison is how New Jersey compared to the rest of the nation. According to the study's own data, over the same period the U.S. saw an increase of 76% in half-millionaire households. E.J. McMahon, a budget expert at the Manhattan Institute, calculates that New Jersey lost more than 4,000 high-income taxpayers after the tax increase."
And McMahon makes the larger point about how counterproductive this all is: "Economists and tax-policy analysts have long recognized a link between taxpayer behavior and changes in marginal rates, especially in higher income brackets, where taxpayers have more control over the timing and nature of their incomes. When rates rise sharply, taxpayers respond by working and earning less, by shifting their “domicile” (or main residence for tax purposes) to lower-tax jurisdictions, and by using legal strategies to shift or shelter income in tax-exempt investments. Conversely, when marginal rates fall, upper-bracket taxpayers have less incentive to hide or shift income."
And, as David tells us, the expected expiration of the Bush tax cuts is not a good deal for New York: "•When the Bush taxes cuts expire at the end of this year, the combined federal, state and local tax on such people in New York City will be at least 52% and more than 60% when social security and Medicare taxes are factored in...Temporary tax hikes will merely worsen the problem in future years. The millionaire's tax was originally enacted for three years. How long with the next increase be for? And does the Times really think the economic rebound will be so great as to restore revenues by then? (Actually, they have previously made it clear they know the answer is no)."
All around the country the movement is growing to reduce the size and scope of government-and the taxes that are needed to support the edifice. NY, in trying to buck this trend, will hasten its own California fool's gold rush; and the wallet we lighten will be our own state treasury's.
"To spread the pain fairly, (Assembly Speaker) Silver should be promoting luxury taxes, sales of wine in grocery stores and a fat tax on sodas. Ideally, New York's income taxes should be made fairer. But this is not a state government that has the time or will to do the hard overhaul. Even a small short-term income tax surcharge on the rich would help."
But David points out that the Times suffers from amnesia: "The most obvious problem is that the Times appears to have forgotten that such a tax increase was passed last year! Under the so-called "millionaire's'' tax, families with incomes starting at $300,000 saw their state income tax rate increased to 7.85%. City residents in that category now pay a combined tax rate of 10.5%. (The higher rate affects individuals at $200,000.)"
And last year's tax brought a less than spectacular return-disappointing those who expected a bigger haul. And, as the WSJ pointed out last year, we already have the highest taxes in the country. And Speaker Silver's defense of the concept-that it didn't hurt New Jersey-rings kind of hollow today: "Mr. Silver thinks he can squeeze more from these folks without any economic harm, arguing that recent income tax hikes didn't hurt New Jersey. (Yes, the pols in New York actually hold up New Jersey, whose economy and budget are also in shambles, as their role model.)"
But it actually has: "The better comparison is how New Jersey compared to the rest of the nation. According to the study's own data, over the same period the U.S. saw an increase of 76% in half-millionaire households. E.J. McMahon, a budget expert at the Manhattan Institute, calculates that New Jersey lost more than 4,000 high-income taxpayers after the tax increase."
And McMahon makes the larger point about how counterproductive this all is: "Economists and tax-policy analysts have long recognized a link between taxpayer behavior and changes in marginal rates, especially in higher income brackets, where taxpayers have more control over the timing and nature of their incomes. When rates rise sharply, taxpayers respond by working and earning less, by shifting their “domicile” (or main residence for tax purposes) to lower-tax jurisdictions, and by using legal strategies to shift or shelter income in tax-exempt investments. Conversely, when marginal rates fall, upper-bracket taxpayers have less incentive to hide or shift income."
And, as David tells us, the expected expiration of the Bush tax cuts is not a good deal for New York: "•When the Bush taxes cuts expire at the end of this year, the combined federal, state and local tax on such people in New York City will be at least 52% and more than 60% when social security and Medicare taxes are factored in...Temporary tax hikes will merely worsen the problem in future years. The millionaire's tax was originally enacted for three years. How long with the next increase be for? And does the Times really think the economic rebound will be so great as to restore revenues by then? (Actually, they have previously made it clear they know the answer is no)."
All around the country the movement is growing to reduce the size and scope of government-and the taxes that are needed to support the edifice. NY, in trying to buck this trend, will hasten its own California fool's gold rush; and the wallet we lighten will be our own state treasury's.
Espada: The More the Merrier?
State Senator Pedro Espada has been experiencing a run of bad luck lately, but that may all be changing. Sensing-in our view mistakingly-that the senator is vulnerable because of all the legal issues he faces, a whole host of characters are looking to topple the formidable Espada. As City Room reports: "Yet another challenger with more ambition than political experience has entered the race to topple the embattled State Senator Pedro Espada Jr. from his northwest Bronx district seat. Fernando P. Tirado, the district manager for the local community board, scheduled a news conference Monday afternoon to announce his campaign formally. Mr. Tirado joins an already crowded field that includes at least three others vying to take down Mr. Espada, who has been beset by a string of scandals that some believe have left him vulnerable."
But the presence of so many challengers is in reality a blessing for the senator-since we believe that he will continue to attract a strong core of support, while the challengers split the anti-Espada vote: "Many voters in the district, the 33rd, have said that they have grown tired of Mr. Espada and his legal troubles, but the growing list of insurgent campaigns may end up splitting the anti-Espada vote, perhaps delivering a victory to the incumbent, whose name recognition far outweighs that of any of his rivals."
Espada may be facing a serious legal challenge-or not; but the electoral challenge is of a lower order it appears. Tirado becomes the fourth wannabe in the race to unseat the incumbent-and not one of the challengers has enough traction to rise above the field in order to make it a two person race-a prerequisite for any successful electoral upset.
But the presence of so many challengers is in reality a blessing for the senator-since we believe that he will continue to attract a strong core of support, while the challengers split the anti-Espada vote: "Many voters in the district, the 33rd, have said that they have grown tired of Mr. Espada and his legal troubles, but the growing list of insurgent campaigns may end up splitting the anti-Espada vote, perhaps delivering a victory to the incumbent, whose name recognition far outweighs that of any of his rivals."
Espada may be facing a serious legal challenge-or not; but the electoral challenge is of a lower order it appears. Tirado becomes the fourth wannabe in the race to unseat the incumbent-and not one of the challengers has enough traction to rise above the field in order to make it a two person race-a prerequisite for any successful electoral upset.
Monday, May 17, 2010
The Chart Before the Horse
Is it just us, or are there others who see a bit of incongruity in the fact that Mike Bloomberg is pushing charter schools with such vigor? As the NY Daily News reports: "The city needs more charter schools to improve its public schools, Mayor Bloomberg argued Sunday.
"When I came into office in 2002, I said the most important thing is public schools, because that's the future of our city," he said. "We have to make sure our public schools get better and better." Bloomberg said President Obama is ready to pump money into the city through the Race to the Top program, but insisted the state Legislature has gotten in the way. "There are 40,000 kids trying to get into 10,000 places in our charter schools and the Legislature won't let us add more charter schools," Bloomberg said, encouraging residents to use 311 to relay complaints to lawmakers."
Now if we were running a school system that saw 40,000 kids-like the doomed in a gas chamber-scratching and clawing to get the hell out before it was too late, we would not be out there cheering the kiddies and their parents on. We would be hiding our faces to avoid the embarrassment of having to admit the the exodus was an indictment of our own over publicized effort to reform the current edifice-voting with their feet, as it were.
But Bloomberg, for his part, continues to speak with forked tongue-and touts achievements that are evanescent at best: "The mayor made his charter school push yesterday while visiting the Christian Cultural Center in Starrett City, Brooklyn. He spoke briefly to a congregation of about 80 during the Sunday morning services. Graduation rates in New York City's public schools have risen 27% during the past 5 years, Bloomberg said during his speech. The high school graduation rate for city students was at 59% in 2009, up from 56.4% in 2008, state officials announced in March.
This is the Bloomberg version of, "The operation was a success, but the patient died." The grad rate increase is accompanied by a barely minimal increased knowledge level-as the city's community colleges will attest. The kids are getting out with greater alacrity, but with skills that have yet to reach any level of marketability-let alone that would allow for success at college.
So, we are all in favor of charting a different and more diverse educational course-one that allows for a greater degree of choice for the city's families. But we support this in recognition of the fact that, after eight years and billions of extra dollars, the Bloomberg miracle will become the companion of that great Dukakis "Massachusetts miracle." And we know how that story ended. ("Was he any good as governor? In his first term, he inherited a big budget deficit and high unemployment, and things were a bit better by the time he was booted from office, but not enough better to impress voters. In his second stint, the state's economy brightened enough to be called "the Massachusetts miracle", but it was already fading by the time Dukakis received the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988.)"
Bloomberg's education miracle has been abetted by lavish spending and an incredible suspension of disbelief on the part of an all too credulous media. But, as per Dukakis' economic mirage, it is "already fading" and will be exposed as a fraud in not too short an order (as soon as the state tests are reconfigured, the whole house of cards-Humpty Dumpty-like-will tumble ).
"When I came into office in 2002, I said the most important thing is public schools, because that's the future of our city," he said. "We have to make sure our public schools get better and better." Bloomberg said President Obama is ready to pump money into the city through the Race to the Top program, but insisted the state Legislature has gotten in the way. "There are 40,000 kids trying to get into 10,000 places in our charter schools and the Legislature won't let us add more charter schools," Bloomberg said, encouraging residents to use 311 to relay complaints to lawmakers."
Now if we were running a school system that saw 40,000 kids-like the doomed in a gas chamber-scratching and clawing to get the hell out before it was too late, we would not be out there cheering the kiddies and their parents on. We would be hiding our faces to avoid the embarrassment of having to admit the the exodus was an indictment of our own over publicized effort to reform the current edifice-voting with their feet, as it were.
But Bloomberg, for his part, continues to speak with forked tongue-and touts achievements that are evanescent at best: "The mayor made his charter school push yesterday while visiting the Christian Cultural Center in Starrett City, Brooklyn. He spoke briefly to a congregation of about 80 during the Sunday morning services. Graduation rates in New York City's public schools have risen 27% during the past 5 years, Bloomberg said during his speech. The high school graduation rate for city students was at 59% in 2009, up from 56.4% in 2008, state officials announced in March.
This is the Bloomberg version of, "The operation was a success, but the patient died." The grad rate increase is accompanied by a barely minimal increased knowledge level-as the city's community colleges will attest. The kids are getting out with greater alacrity, but with skills that have yet to reach any level of marketability-let alone that would allow for success at college.
So, we are all in favor of charting a different and more diverse educational course-one that allows for a greater degree of choice for the city's families. But we support this in recognition of the fact that, after eight years and billions of extra dollars, the Bloomberg miracle will become the companion of that great Dukakis "Massachusetts miracle." And we know how that story ended. ("Was he any good as governor? In his first term, he inherited a big budget deficit and high unemployment, and things were a bit better by the time he was booted from office, but not enough better to impress voters. In his second stint, the state's economy brightened enough to be called "the Massachusetts miracle", but it was already fading by the time Dukakis received the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988.)"
Bloomberg's education miracle has been abetted by lavish spending and an incredible suspension of disbelief on the part of an all too credulous media. But, as per Dukakis' economic mirage, it is "already fading" and will be exposed as a fraud in not too short an order (as soon as the state tests are reconfigured, the whole house of cards-Humpty Dumpty-like-will tumble ).
Government's Eating Disorder
Kyle Smith has an incisive look at the growing government intrusion into how we live and eat in yesterday's NY Post-and it seems that the epidemic of gorging on our tax money is gonna continue unabated: "Not a single expert that we’ve consulted has said that having the federal government tell people what to do is the way to solve" the obesity problem, Michelle Obama told reporters on Tuesday — the same day she thinkingly delivered a 124-page White House Task Force report which gloats that "Twelve Federal agencies participated actively," cites "recommendations . . for federal action" and promises that "leaders in the public and private sectors. . . are ready and waiting to put this plan into action." The catchall is this: "The Federal government . . . should provide clear, actionable guidance to states, providers and families on how to increase physical activity, improve nutrition, and reduce screen time." How is that not telling people what to do?
Can't we just get these busybodies out of our lives-and our wallets? All of these efforts to improve our health end up expanding the government's waist line instead: "Obesity generates big fat headlines, which the state, the city and Washington love. It’s a crisis, and it won’t go to waste. The political class is hungrily loading its plates with more government employees, whose salaries and pensions you’ll be paying forever, engorging itself on your taxes and nibbling away at business and its ability to sell legal products. What the Fatty Poppins crew isn’t doing is much of anything that is likely to trim America’s waistline."
And given the way these government programs are designed to work, the road to serfdom is paved with discarded Big Mac wrappers: "Plans to beef up the Nanny Squad — more professional hectoring. Breast-feeding your child, for instance, seems to give him a better shot at not being obese. So let’s have more federal spending on breast-feeding peer-counseling groups and on home visits to encourage mothers to breast-feed. This after a 20-year nationwide push to get more women to breast-feed has simply been ignored by lots of women, either because they can’t or they find it incredibly irritating."
What happened to the feminist call for liberation in, "Our Bodies, Ourselves?" Next we'll have the federal government unbuttoning women's blouses to insure compliance with bureaucratic health directives-and are we the only ones who feel that monitoring the BMI of all the nation's school kids is kind of creepy?-not to mention nosing around the scales of expectant mothers: "We know obesity is a problem, but just to be sure we need to spend more resources to study it. We must "prioritize routine surveillance" of, for example, the weight of mothers before and just after they give birth. (How the government, or any other force on earth, is going to talk such women into letting them look over their shoulders as they step on the scale is not revealed.) Right on cue, a Wisconsin congressman introduced a bill requiring states to report to Washington the body-mass index of all children aged two to 18."
It is abundantly clear to us, that the progressive impulse to guide those deemed of inferior abilities and outlook, is a slippery slope indeed-one that leads to an expanded system of command and control over the most intimate aspects of our everyday lives. And, as a commonplace corollary of this mindset, more taxes designed to supposedly enforce healthier choices: "Of course, the paper all but promises a fat tax: "A tax strategy to discourage consumption of foods and beverages that have minimal nutritional value . . . could generate considerable revenue to fund obesity-fighting programs." That’s true. Such a tax could indeed generate considerable cash to hire more functionaries tasked with telling us we’re too fat, to weigh us, to text us and to publish more press releases about the effects of exercise, TV and fast food. But would such taxes make us thinner?"
Hardly: "A 2005 study led by Hayley Chouinard of Washington State University concluded, "A fat tax may be an effective means to raise revenue, but will not result in a significant reduction in fat consumption . . . These fat taxes are regressive in nature, as the elderly and poor suffer greater welfare losses."
But there is one thing that is will make you thinner. It is without question that there is an absolute correlation between income and weight: "Even better: since people tend to eat less fat as they climb the socioeconomic ladder, the study says, "perhaps a more effective strategy for reducing the consumption of fat from meat would be to pursue policies that increased income." (One proven way to increase income: cut taxes instead of raising them.)"
That is why Harlemites tend to be fatter than their East Side neighbors-but the expansion of a government, dependent for its weight gain on thinning your bank account, is a retardant of strong economic growth and income boosting. The more folks are made to be wards of the state, the more they will tend to be slackers who are less concerned with their bulging waists (unless forced to exercise because of a string tied to a government check; something sure to be forthcoming with more government controlled health care).
So, on any number of levels, the expanded government concern with our health is an unhealthy development-one that will intrude on our freedom to make choices while, concomitantly, expanding the size and scope of government intrusion that will lead to mandates that override individual decision making. It is the kind of world that Obama expert Cass Sunstein, head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, longs to see.
It's a world that values the expert over the individual-and reminds us of Marx's admonition against Plato: "Who will educate the educator?" But the Sunsteins of the world, smugly situated in their theoretical bubble, want to "nudge" us for our own good. But Professor Rizzo of NYU has an admonition of his own against this mindset: "Rizzo told me about an academic study of gift-giving that found that most people would value cash more highly than the gifts they get for holidays; if even your friends and family can’t figure out what you want, he asked, how can a distant bureaucrat? “Sunstein is very taken with the need for experts,” Rizzo says. “But it turns out experts are subject to these cognitive quirks, too.”
In or view, we need to tells these folks to take their quirks and shove it! The idea that politicians and unelected experts have a better understanding than we do of what's good for us, is a recipe for tyranny. And the progressive impulse to impose healthier living is a smokescreen for their ultimate objective of controlling our lives at the expense of liberty.
Can't we just get these busybodies out of our lives-and our wallets? All of these efforts to improve our health end up expanding the government's waist line instead: "Obesity generates big fat headlines, which the state, the city and Washington love. It’s a crisis, and it won’t go to waste. The political class is hungrily loading its plates with more government employees, whose salaries and pensions you’ll be paying forever, engorging itself on your taxes and nibbling away at business and its ability to sell legal products. What the Fatty Poppins crew isn’t doing is much of anything that is likely to trim America’s waistline."
And given the way these government programs are designed to work, the road to serfdom is paved with discarded Big Mac wrappers: "Plans to beef up the Nanny Squad — more professional hectoring. Breast-feeding your child, for instance, seems to give him a better shot at not being obese. So let’s have more federal spending on breast-feeding peer-counseling groups and on home visits to encourage mothers to breast-feed. This after a 20-year nationwide push to get more women to breast-feed has simply been ignored by lots of women, either because they can’t or they find it incredibly irritating."
What happened to the feminist call for liberation in, "Our Bodies, Ourselves?" Next we'll have the federal government unbuttoning women's blouses to insure compliance with bureaucratic health directives-and are we the only ones who feel that monitoring the BMI of all the nation's school kids is kind of creepy?-not to mention nosing around the scales of expectant mothers: "We know obesity is a problem, but just to be sure we need to spend more resources to study it. We must "prioritize routine surveillance" of, for example, the weight of mothers before and just after they give birth. (How the government, or any other force on earth, is going to talk such women into letting them look over their shoulders as they step on the scale is not revealed.) Right on cue, a Wisconsin congressman introduced a bill requiring states to report to Washington the body-mass index of all children aged two to 18."
It is abundantly clear to us, that the progressive impulse to guide those deemed of inferior abilities and outlook, is a slippery slope indeed-one that leads to an expanded system of command and control over the most intimate aspects of our everyday lives. And, as a commonplace corollary of this mindset, more taxes designed to supposedly enforce healthier choices: "Of course, the paper all but promises a fat tax: "A tax strategy to discourage consumption of foods and beverages that have minimal nutritional value . . . could generate considerable revenue to fund obesity-fighting programs." That’s true. Such a tax could indeed generate considerable cash to hire more functionaries tasked with telling us we’re too fat, to weigh us, to text us and to publish more press releases about the effects of exercise, TV and fast food. But would such taxes make us thinner?"
Hardly: "A 2005 study led by Hayley Chouinard of Washington State University concluded, "A fat tax may be an effective means to raise revenue, but will not result in a significant reduction in fat consumption . . . These fat taxes are regressive in nature, as the elderly and poor suffer greater welfare losses."
But there is one thing that is will make you thinner. It is without question that there is an absolute correlation between income and weight: "Even better: since people tend to eat less fat as they climb the socioeconomic ladder, the study says, "perhaps a more effective strategy for reducing the consumption of fat from meat would be to pursue policies that increased income." (One proven way to increase income: cut taxes instead of raising them.)"
That is why Harlemites tend to be fatter than their East Side neighbors-but the expansion of a government, dependent for its weight gain on thinning your bank account, is a retardant of strong economic growth and income boosting. The more folks are made to be wards of the state, the more they will tend to be slackers who are less concerned with their bulging waists (unless forced to exercise because of a string tied to a government check; something sure to be forthcoming with more government controlled health care).
So, on any number of levels, the expanded government concern with our health is an unhealthy development-one that will intrude on our freedom to make choices while, concomitantly, expanding the size and scope of government intrusion that will lead to mandates that override individual decision making. It is the kind of world that Obama expert Cass Sunstein, head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, longs to see.
It's a world that values the expert over the individual-and reminds us of Marx's admonition against Plato: "Who will educate the educator?" But the Sunsteins of the world, smugly situated in their theoretical bubble, want to "nudge" us for our own good. But Professor Rizzo of NYU has an admonition of his own against this mindset: "Rizzo told me about an academic study of gift-giving that found that most people would value cash more highly than the gifts they get for holidays; if even your friends and family can’t figure out what you want, he asked, how can a distant bureaucrat? “Sunstein is very taken with the need for experts,” Rizzo says. “But it turns out experts are subject to these cognitive quirks, too.”
In or view, we need to tells these folks to take their quirks and shove it! The idea that politicians and unelected experts have a better understanding than we do of what's good for us, is a recipe for tyranny. And the progressive impulse to impose healthier living is a smokescreen for their ultimate objective of controlling our lives at the expense of liberty.
Paterson Obstructs
We're not the biggest fans of the public employees, but you got to say one thing about our government workers, they have sent the right message to the governor over his cockamamie plan to furlough them in order to reduce the state's deficit-as the Voice's Wayne Barret makes abundantly clear: "The only way the state can alter a binding deal is to negotiate a new one, and get the unions to agree to furloughs or a wage freeze. And the only way to get them to agree to that is to threaten them with worse -- namely, the layoffs of thousands of their members. That's what happened in the early 90s, when the Dinkins administration, suffering through a recession, convinced DC 37 to accept furloughs. But David Paterson can't threaten layoffs with any credibility because he executed a deal with the unions last June guaranteeing job security in exchange for their support of a new pension tier. It was as foolish, and self-serving, a deal as a governor has ever entered into with state labor."
And we loved the, "Furlough Paterson," signs-our feelings exactly. Which brings us to an issue that we have been fighting for the past decade-Indian buttlegging. Not only is Paterson issuing illegal furlough orders as a substitute for sound budgeting, he is totally dragging his feet on the Indian cigarette tax collection. The NY Post nails this malfeasance: "Looks like the Indian tribes facilitating New York's massive criminal butt legging enterprises owe Gov. Pater son another big wet kiss. To wit: His abject (though unsurprising) failure to enforce state laws requiring taxes on reservation smokes has now swamped nearly everyone else's attempts to bring the smuggling under control, too. The state's top court on Tuesday threw out a criminal case brought by Cayuga and Seneca county authorities against two Indian-owned upstate convenience stores for selling untaxed cigarettes -- ruling that the state's unwillingness to issue enforcement regulations means the stores have no obligation to pay."
And our view on this is that until he gets off his butt-leg, there should be no deficit reduction deal. No social service should be cut until the revenue that is out there to be collected actually is. We have talked at length to Senator Kruger on this, and he agrees-and has said he will make this a bottom line issue in the stalled budget negotiations. And the governor's foot dragging means that the Indians can get the courts to prevent the enforcement actions that are based on the strong federal statutes that was recently passed.
The Post captures this-and highlights NYC's frustration with the situation: "Elsewhere, New York City had won some halting success against smugglers on the Poospatuck reservation on Long Island who were flooding Gotham with their product and enriching criminal gangs -- but that, too, has largely unraveled thanks to state inaction. Armed with a federal anti-trafficking statute, the city won injunctions last year against the biggest retailers on the reservation, where buttlegging volume topped 50 million packs last year. Problem is, the feds can only get involved where the state prohibits the trade -- and, per the Court of Appeals ruling, the lack of proper state enforcement could effectively mean that New York doesn't ban it. In any case, city lawyers admit they haven't sought further relief against the new Poospatuck shops that have sprung up to replace the old -- apparently because of the legal uncertainty."
Paterson claims he wants to enforce the law, but simple can't walk the walk-as the Post points out: "Paterson, of course, says he wants to enforce the law (though how could he not say so, with hundreds of millions of lost state tax dollars on the line?). And, sure enough, a new enforcement scheme he dreamed up last year is currently under "review" at the Tax Department. Too little, too late.
It appears that it will take the senate Dems to draw the proverbial line in the sand. Let's hope so, tens of thousands of NY retailers are waiting-not to mention millions of the state's poor tax payers.
And we loved the, "Furlough Paterson," signs-our feelings exactly. Which brings us to an issue that we have been fighting for the past decade-Indian buttlegging. Not only is Paterson issuing illegal furlough orders as a substitute for sound budgeting, he is totally dragging his feet on the Indian cigarette tax collection. The NY Post nails this malfeasance: "Looks like the Indian tribes facilitating New York's massive criminal butt legging enterprises owe Gov. Pater son another big wet kiss. To wit: His abject (though unsurprising) failure to enforce state laws requiring taxes on reservation smokes has now swamped nearly everyone else's attempts to bring the smuggling under control, too. The state's top court on Tuesday threw out a criminal case brought by Cayuga and Seneca county authorities against two Indian-owned upstate convenience stores for selling untaxed cigarettes -- ruling that the state's unwillingness to issue enforcement regulations means the stores have no obligation to pay."
And our view on this is that until he gets off his butt-leg, there should be no deficit reduction deal. No social service should be cut until the revenue that is out there to be collected actually is. We have talked at length to Senator Kruger on this, and he agrees-and has said he will make this a bottom line issue in the stalled budget negotiations. And the governor's foot dragging means that the Indians can get the courts to prevent the enforcement actions that are based on the strong federal statutes that was recently passed.
The Post captures this-and highlights NYC's frustration with the situation: "Elsewhere, New York City had won some halting success against smugglers on the Poospatuck reservation on Long Island who were flooding Gotham with their product and enriching criminal gangs -- but that, too, has largely unraveled thanks to state inaction. Armed with a federal anti-trafficking statute, the city won injunctions last year against the biggest retailers on the reservation, where buttlegging volume topped 50 million packs last year. Problem is, the feds can only get involved where the state prohibits the trade -- and, per the Court of Appeals ruling, the lack of proper state enforcement could effectively mean that New York doesn't ban it. In any case, city lawyers admit they haven't sought further relief against the new Poospatuck shops that have sprung up to replace the old -- apparently because of the legal uncertainty."
Paterson claims he wants to enforce the law, but simple can't walk the walk-as the Post points out: "Paterson, of course, says he wants to enforce the law (though how could he not say so, with hundreds of millions of lost state tax dollars on the line?). And, sure enough, a new enforcement scheme he dreamed up last year is currently under "review" at the Tax Department. Too little, too late.
It appears that it will take the senate Dems to draw the proverbial line in the sand. Let's hope so, tens of thousands of NY retailers are waiting-not to mention millions of the state's poor tax payers.
Bloomberg's Trickle Downer Policies
Adam Lisberg has an interesting look at something that we have been commenting on-the questionable, an unexamined, economic development spending being done by the Bloomberg administration: "Mayor Bloomberg has a trickle-down theory of New York's economy: Spend money to make money, and make sure the people at the top have money to spend. He believes in generating jobs through big projects like rebuilding Coney Island and Willets Point - subsidizing them with tax breaks and public money if necessary."
But some folks-and Comptroller Liu and the CBC are in this category-don't think that we're using money in the best way we could: "Call it the trickle-up theory. "If nobody can show that trickle-down theory works," said Controller John Liu, "we should get rid of it." The conservative Citizens Budget Commission slammed Bloomberg's $2 billion third-term economic development plan, saying there's no evidence it generates new business."
Lisberg, however, glides over the public expenditure issue; and as far as Willets Point is concerned, that is a gap that needs to be further explained. Because as far as that development is concerned, not only is the city looking to lay out over $billion in public money in order to evict businesses and build ramps to nowhere, it is at the same time wiping out a productive engine of economic activity-as Professor Angotti has made abundantly clear.
Writing in the Gotham Gazette, Angotti made this key point: "Here come the marshals again! After evicting 23 businesses in the Bronx Terminal Market to make way for a development deal with the Related Company, City Hall now wants to get rid of ten times that number in a Queens district. The city plans to use its power of eminent domain to foster what it calls economic development in the area around Willets Point. But it could instead mean economic disaster to the long-established business community that would be broken up and scattered. And while it proposes a multi-billion dollar project that would make Willets Point a “regional destination,” possibly with a hotel, convention center and retail space, the city’s planners appear to have little appreciation for businesses that already draw customers from all over the region."
What are we talking about? Angotti again: "While the Economic Development Corporation claims there are 80 businesses in this 48-acre area, a recent survey I conducted through the Hunter College Center for Community Planning & Development instead found 225 businesses that provide an estimated 1,300 jobs."
Of course, EDC isn't interested in job preservation when it can reach for glam-and Willets Point is nothing, if it isn't déclassé: "One Saturday last fall, along with a class of Hunter College students, I walked every block of Willets Point with Joe Ardezzone, a member of the Willets Point Business Association and life-long resident of the area (in fact, the only resident). We saw a thriving though sometimes chaotic and noisy business district...What we saw on the ground was the kind of bustling business district that economic development experts across the country keep trying to re-create in giant development schemes, often with little success. The many specialized auto repair shops in Willets Point both compete and cooperate with one another, and the links between them make for a cooperative business community offering a wide array of services."
So, just as it did at the BTM, EDC is on a crusade to destroy scruffier minority and immigrant businesses-in order to replace them with those higher and better uses that can employ the current immigrant Latino shop owner as a busboy or a door man. All in the name of trickle down.
And, as Jim Dwyer pointed out in the NY Times yesterday, EDC is not only using scarce funds to try to eject small property owners, it is also using public dollars to keep a lot of firms in the city that would probably stay even absent the government vigorish-as we pointed out about the IDA funding for Manhattan Beer's warehouse in the Bronx (the company is only the richest beer distributor in the country).
What we need to understand here is that the Bloombergistas have little feel for job development that doesn't involve massive public outlays and tax breaks for the well-connected. That the administration, in the midst of the current recession could be looking to spend $400 million on buying out property owners who not only employ 1300 workers, but want to stay where they are, says all you need to know about mayoral priorities.
But that doesn't mean that we agree with the critique from the left: "Councilman Brad Lander (D-Brooklyn) said Bloomberg doesn't seem to worry about why so few New Yorkers are at the top of the tax bracket and so many are at the bottom. If Bloomberg really wants to grow jobs, Lander said, he would reverse one of his proposed budget cuts: Saving $4 million by eliminating 737 low-wage Parks Department training jobs for people on welfare just entering the workforce. "It seems to me that's one of the areas where you'd want to expand instead of cutting back," Lander said. "I'd rather see us use more of our economic development resources in projects that more directly create jobs."
Lander is right to chide the mayor-and we agree that we should use resources in a way that, "more directly creates jobs." But using tax money to create a public sector job, in our view, is the wrong approach. Tax cuts for small business-along with the regulatory reform that Lander has championed-will be a job generator. And those parks department jobs will have a source of funding from the increased economic activity that the tax cuts foster. But, even better, some of those park workers might find their way into the private sector, working in jobs that promise advancement and, perhaps even, a store or business of their own somewhere down the road.
Now that's the kind of trickle up policy that we could all get behind. It is certainly no time for those expensive grand schemes that only serve to promote the image of the leader; while, at the same time, crushing the entrepreneurial little guys under the weight of the government's boot.
But some folks-and Comptroller Liu and the CBC are in this category-don't think that we're using money in the best way we could: "Call it the trickle-up theory. "If nobody can show that trickle-down theory works," said Controller John Liu, "we should get rid of it." The conservative Citizens Budget Commission slammed Bloomberg's $2 billion third-term economic development plan, saying there's no evidence it generates new business."
Lisberg, however, glides over the public expenditure issue; and as far as Willets Point is concerned, that is a gap that needs to be further explained. Because as far as that development is concerned, not only is the city looking to lay out over $billion in public money in order to evict businesses and build ramps to nowhere, it is at the same time wiping out a productive engine of economic activity-as Professor Angotti has made abundantly clear.
Writing in the Gotham Gazette, Angotti made this key point: "Here come the marshals again! After evicting 23 businesses in the Bronx Terminal Market to make way for a development deal with the Related Company, City Hall now wants to get rid of ten times that number in a Queens district. The city plans to use its power of eminent domain to foster what it calls economic development in the area around Willets Point. But it could instead mean economic disaster to the long-established business community that would be broken up and scattered. And while it proposes a multi-billion dollar project that would make Willets Point a “regional destination,” possibly with a hotel, convention center and retail space, the city’s planners appear to have little appreciation for businesses that already draw customers from all over the region."
What are we talking about? Angotti again: "While the Economic Development Corporation claims there are 80 businesses in this 48-acre area, a recent survey I conducted through the Hunter College Center for Community Planning & Development instead found 225 businesses that provide an estimated 1,300 jobs."
Of course, EDC isn't interested in job preservation when it can reach for glam-and Willets Point is nothing, if it isn't déclassé: "One Saturday last fall, along with a class of Hunter College students, I walked every block of Willets Point with Joe Ardezzone, a member of the Willets Point Business Association and life-long resident of the area (in fact, the only resident). We saw a thriving though sometimes chaotic and noisy business district...What we saw on the ground was the kind of bustling business district that economic development experts across the country keep trying to re-create in giant development schemes, often with little success. The many specialized auto repair shops in Willets Point both compete and cooperate with one another, and the links between them make for a cooperative business community offering a wide array of services."
So, just as it did at the BTM, EDC is on a crusade to destroy scruffier minority and immigrant businesses-in order to replace them with those higher and better uses that can employ the current immigrant Latino shop owner as a busboy or a door man. All in the name of trickle down.
And, as Jim Dwyer pointed out in the NY Times yesterday, EDC is not only using scarce funds to try to eject small property owners, it is also using public dollars to keep a lot of firms in the city that would probably stay even absent the government vigorish-as we pointed out about the IDA funding for Manhattan Beer's warehouse in the Bronx (the company is only the richest beer distributor in the country).
What we need to understand here is that the Bloombergistas have little feel for job development that doesn't involve massive public outlays and tax breaks for the well-connected. That the administration, in the midst of the current recession could be looking to spend $400 million on buying out property owners who not only employ 1300 workers, but want to stay where they are, says all you need to know about mayoral priorities.
But that doesn't mean that we agree with the critique from the left: "Councilman Brad Lander (D-Brooklyn) said Bloomberg doesn't seem to worry about why so few New Yorkers are at the top of the tax bracket and so many are at the bottom. If Bloomberg really wants to grow jobs, Lander said, he would reverse one of his proposed budget cuts: Saving $4 million by eliminating 737 low-wage Parks Department training jobs for people on welfare just entering the workforce. "It seems to me that's one of the areas where you'd want to expand instead of cutting back," Lander said. "I'd rather see us use more of our economic development resources in projects that more directly create jobs."
Lander is right to chide the mayor-and we agree that we should use resources in a way that, "more directly creates jobs." But using tax money to create a public sector job, in our view, is the wrong approach. Tax cuts for small business-along with the regulatory reform that Lander has championed-will be a job generator. And those parks department jobs will have a source of funding from the increased economic activity that the tax cuts foster. But, even better, some of those park workers might find their way into the private sector, working in jobs that promise advancement and, perhaps even, a store or business of their own somewhere down the road.
Now that's the kind of trickle up policy that we could all get behind. It is certainly no time for those expensive grand schemes that only serve to promote the image of the leader; while, at the same time, crushing the entrepreneurial little guys under the weight of the government's boot.
Friday, May 14, 2010
More Ramped Stupidity
We are always amazed that some folks are so congenitally ignorant-freely opining on issues that they haven't the slightest clue about. Enter the Queens Courier, local paper that is editorializing in confused fashion in favor of building the Van Wyck ramps: "The Willets Point redevelopment project, which calls for the remediation of a roughly 62-acre site adjacent to Citi Field, may have hit a roadblock, at least this is the hope of attorney Michael B. Gerrard, a senior counsel at Arnold & Porter, who has mounted a legal challenge against the project on behalf of a group of small landowners in the area who joined forces and pooled their money to fight City Hall. The ramps, which would connect Willets Point to the Van Wyck Expressway, seemed like a minor detail. But, as it turns out, they are critical to the project’s survival."
Who writes this stuff-can it all be blamed on English as a second language? But the Courier-owned by Vickie Schneps, Claire Shulman's best friend-is determined to flaunt its stupidity for all the world to witness. For instance, it acknowledges that, "The $3 billion project could generate 80,000 vehicle trips a day, and the ramps are meant to help move cars in and out of the area. The city cannot use eminent domain unless the ramps are approved by the federal Highway Administration and the state’s Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)."
But then goes on to ignore the sheer magnitude of the traffic generation-and the charge that the ramps fail to mitigate it-to proclaim: "Willets Point will be the "Crown Jewel" of Queens and destination point for visitors and tourists alike. We call on the federal Highway Administration and the state NYSDOT to approve all the ramps necessary and allow the project to move forward."
C'mon Courier! At least address the issues and actually try to deconstruct the opponents' position. Instead we get mindless cheer leading that may warm the heart of her good friend, but is cold comfort to the Queens residents that the Courier alleges it speaks on behalf of.
Who writes this stuff-can it all be blamed on English as a second language? But the Courier-owned by Vickie Schneps, Claire Shulman's best friend-is determined to flaunt its stupidity for all the world to witness. For instance, it acknowledges that, "The $3 billion project could generate 80,000 vehicle trips a day, and the ramps are meant to help move cars in and out of the area. The city cannot use eminent domain unless the ramps are approved by the federal Highway Administration and the state’s Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)."
But then goes on to ignore the sheer magnitude of the traffic generation-and the charge that the ramps fail to mitigate it-to proclaim: "Willets Point will be the "Crown Jewel" of Queens and destination point for visitors and tourists alike. We call on the federal Highway Administration and the state NYSDOT to approve all the ramps necessary and allow the project to move forward."
C'mon Courier! At least address the issues and actually try to deconstruct the opponents' position. Instead we get mindless cheer leading that may warm the heart of her good friend, but is cold comfort to the Queens residents that the Courier alleges it speaks on behalf of.
Goodnight Gracie: Trying to Undo Garbage Plan Failure
In one of the stupidest environmental decisions from an administration rife with them, the Bloomgergistas-in a fit of pique against then council speaker Miller-decided to shaft the Gracie Point community on the East Side by sticking a transfer station right in the middle of their neighborhood. It was all about supposed, "fair share," where Manhattanites would be forced to process their own garbage instead of shipping it to, let's say, the Bronx for disposal.
Gotham Gazette gives us the basics on this grand scheme-and makes salient observations about its inadequacy. The Bloomberg plan to get all boroughs to share in the disposal responsibilities founders on the nettlesome issue of commercial waste. As GG points out: "In the mid-1980s, the city raised the price of using these piers, and private companies built their own smaller truck transfer stations in places like the South Bronx and Northern Brooklyn. Trucks carting commercial waste transferred garbage to others headed out of state at dozens of these facilities."
And it is precisely this commercial waste-with its heavily noxious organic component- that roils communities of color: "Private companies built these facilities based on their own business decisions, and the burden fell disproportionately on several neighborhoods. In a recent report (in pdf format), Environmental Defense, a national environmental group, found that 80 percent of the waste handled by private waste transfer stations goes to four of the city's 59 community board districts. "You have right now these stations located in neighborhoods where probably the land value was lower and the zoning was different. When [private companies] looked to set up those stations, [they] looked for those things," said Ramon Cruz of Environmental Defense. "Is that fair? No, but it's a function of the market."
One of the major components of the mayor's plan-one could say its linchpin, once we get passed the fair share concept-was waste reduction: "The city's recycling will also be shipped via barge. The city will reopen a station at Gansevoort Street in Manhattan's meatpacking district, from which the recyclables will sail to a facility being constructed by scrap-metal company Hugo Neu in Brooklyn. The city also hopes to increase the proportion of its waste that gets recycled, to 25 percent of residential garbage by 2007 and then to 70 percent of both residential and commercial garbage by 2015."
How's that working out? As we have commented already, the grand scheme of 2005 has fallen on hard times; with the Gotham Gazette once again weighing in to find that the SWMP of that year is more or less moribund: "Gotham Gazette does a good job in analyzing the Bloomberg garbage disposal plan-and finds that it has been rotting in the sun: "The Bloomberg administration's garbage plan has been sitting on a shelf awaiting full implementation for four years, and some critics think it's on the verge of spoiling. After extensive political wrangling, the administration and the City Council in 2006 agreed on a solid waste management plan, which shuffled the location of solid waste stations and relied on trains and barges for moving trash instead of diesel-spewing trucks. Though it was hailed as a major step forward for environmental justice at the time, four years later many of the plan's fundamental proposals have been held up due to permitting delays and lawsuits."
And recycling? Well, 70% is simply a psychotic break from NYC reality. So, what the Bloomberg folks have failed to do is to reduce the waste transfer and disposal burdens that poorer communities are forced to suffer-and the $125 million slated for constructing a marine transfer station on East 91st Street (up from the low balled $85 mil) in order to make East Siders similarly suffer, is stalled in court.
But the real problem for low income neighborhoods-as we have alluded to previously-is commercial waste; and the psychic satisfaction that certain minority pols may get from the idea of garbage disposal on the East Side is poor compensation for their pain and suffering. What they really need is relief-something that could be achieved with a rapid roll out of commercial food waste disposers in order to dramatically lower the amount of wet waste pestilence that pollutes these communities.
As the original Gazette piece reported: "Unlike most New Yorkers, Carl Van Putten and Lilian Garcia pay attention to garbage after it is thrown away. They have little choice: their neighborhood, Hunts Point, is home to many of the city's "waste transfer stations" - sheds where garbage trucks dump trash so that larger trucks can pick it up and carry it out of state. "The minute I came to Hunts Point my son developed chronic asthma," said Garcia. On any given morning, as many as ten garbage trucks stand idling within a block of Van Putten's home on Hunts Point Avenue, where the breeze sends the smell directly towards him. "I don't have polite words for it," he said. "You can call it a fragrance, aroma, or odor, but it's still a stink. It's heavy."
Make no mistake about it, this is one fragrance that can be dissipated-and done so with little cost to the city. It is an absolute environmental and public health necessity for the city to move swiftly to implement an aggressive pilot program for food waste disposers. What we pointed out five years ago, is even more compelling today. And the following public health benefits would flow from the implementation of a food waste disposer plan:
1) Cleaned up neighborhood stores and the associated public health benefits
2) Reduced truck traffic as number of pick-ups is concomitantly reduced
3) Reduced export dependency, a process whose costs are escalating
4) Reduced transfer station activity and the elimination of putrescibles that make the activity so noxious.
So, in our view, there is no need to waste $125 million (or more likely, once the city gets done, $300 million) on a garbage intrusion in the residential Gracie Point neighborhood. There's a more cost effective and sensible garbage disposal alternative-one that will simultaneously reduce the burdens on low income neighborhoods. Flights of fancy over composting should be relegated to the aging Hippie cohort; and the mayor and city council should get really busy on a workable waste reduction plan that will lower everyone's burdens-no matter what neighborhood they live in.
We'll give the beleaguered Gracie Point Community Council the last word: "The GPCC maintains that any densely populated residential neighborhood is the wrong place to build and operate a Marine Transfer Station. The Gracie Point community is a densely populated residential neighborhood with public parks, historic landmarks, private and public housing, schools, religious institutions, shops, and, of course, Asphalt Green, a city park used by thousands of children, the disabled and others who come from all parts of the city, including East Harlem. The entrance road to the proposed MTS directly bisects Asphalt Green, running alongside open playing fields on the south side and the main entrance and a children’s playground on the north side. Hundreds of garbage trucks rumbling through the streets of Gracie Point, then queuing along York Ave. and this ramp would have serious negative impacts on what is an already overcrowded community. The MTS itself, designed to accept thousands of tons of garbage each and every day, garbage that would then be lowered into river barges, would create additional catastrophic impacts."
Gotham Gazette gives us the basics on this grand scheme-and makes salient observations about its inadequacy. The Bloomberg plan to get all boroughs to share in the disposal responsibilities founders on the nettlesome issue of commercial waste. As GG points out: "In the mid-1980s, the city raised the price of using these piers, and private companies built their own smaller truck transfer stations in places like the South Bronx and Northern Brooklyn. Trucks carting commercial waste transferred garbage to others headed out of state at dozens of these facilities."
And it is precisely this commercial waste-with its heavily noxious organic component- that roils communities of color: "Private companies built these facilities based on their own business decisions, and the burden fell disproportionately on several neighborhoods. In a recent report (in pdf format), Environmental Defense, a national environmental group, found that 80 percent of the waste handled by private waste transfer stations goes to four of the city's 59 community board districts. "You have right now these stations located in neighborhoods where probably the land value was lower and the zoning was different. When [private companies] looked to set up those stations, [they] looked for those things," said Ramon Cruz of Environmental Defense. "Is that fair? No, but it's a function of the market."
One of the major components of the mayor's plan-one could say its linchpin, once we get passed the fair share concept-was waste reduction: "The city's recycling will also be shipped via barge. The city will reopen a station at Gansevoort Street in Manhattan's meatpacking district, from which the recyclables will sail to a facility being constructed by scrap-metal company Hugo Neu in Brooklyn. The city also hopes to increase the proportion of its waste that gets recycled, to 25 percent of residential garbage by 2007 and then to 70 percent of both residential and commercial garbage by 2015."
How's that working out? As we have commented already, the grand scheme of 2005 has fallen on hard times; with the Gotham Gazette once again weighing in to find that the SWMP of that year is more or less moribund: "Gotham Gazette does a good job in analyzing the Bloomberg garbage disposal plan-and finds that it has been rotting in the sun: "The Bloomberg administration's garbage plan has been sitting on a shelf awaiting full implementation for four years, and some critics think it's on the verge of spoiling. After extensive political wrangling, the administration and the City Council in 2006 agreed on a solid waste management plan, which shuffled the location of solid waste stations and relied on trains and barges for moving trash instead of diesel-spewing trucks. Though it was hailed as a major step forward for environmental justice at the time, four years later many of the plan's fundamental proposals have been held up due to permitting delays and lawsuits."
And recycling? Well, 70% is simply a psychotic break from NYC reality. So, what the Bloomberg folks have failed to do is to reduce the waste transfer and disposal burdens that poorer communities are forced to suffer-and the $125 million slated for constructing a marine transfer station on East 91st Street (up from the low balled $85 mil) in order to make East Siders similarly suffer, is stalled in court.
But the real problem for low income neighborhoods-as we have alluded to previously-is commercial waste; and the psychic satisfaction that certain minority pols may get from the idea of garbage disposal on the East Side is poor compensation for their pain and suffering. What they really need is relief-something that could be achieved with a rapid roll out of commercial food waste disposers in order to dramatically lower the amount of wet waste pestilence that pollutes these communities.
As the original Gazette piece reported: "Unlike most New Yorkers, Carl Van Putten and Lilian Garcia pay attention to garbage after it is thrown away. They have little choice: their neighborhood, Hunts Point, is home to many of the city's "waste transfer stations" - sheds where garbage trucks dump trash so that larger trucks can pick it up and carry it out of state. "The minute I came to Hunts Point my son developed chronic asthma," said Garcia. On any given morning, as many as ten garbage trucks stand idling within a block of Van Putten's home on Hunts Point Avenue, where the breeze sends the smell directly towards him. "I don't have polite words for it," he said. "You can call it a fragrance, aroma, or odor, but it's still a stink. It's heavy."
Make no mistake about it, this is one fragrance that can be dissipated-and done so with little cost to the city. It is an absolute environmental and public health necessity for the city to move swiftly to implement an aggressive pilot program for food waste disposers. What we pointed out five years ago, is even more compelling today. And the following public health benefits would flow from the implementation of a food waste disposer plan:
1) Cleaned up neighborhood stores and the associated public health benefits
2) Reduced truck traffic as number of pick-ups is concomitantly reduced
3) Reduced export dependency, a process whose costs are escalating
4) Reduced transfer station activity and the elimination of putrescibles that make the activity so noxious.
So, in our view, there is no need to waste $125 million (or more likely, once the city gets done, $300 million) on a garbage intrusion in the residential Gracie Point neighborhood. There's a more cost effective and sensible garbage disposal alternative-one that will simultaneously reduce the burdens on low income neighborhoods. Flights of fancy over composting should be relegated to the aging Hippie cohort; and the mayor and city council should get really busy on a workable waste reduction plan that will lower everyone's burdens-no matter what neighborhood they live in.
We'll give the beleaguered Gracie Point Community Council the last word: "The GPCC maintains that any densely populated residential neighborhood is the wrong place to build and operate a Marine Transfer Station. The Gracie Point community is a densely populated residential neighborhood with public parks, historic landmarks, private and public housing, schools, religious institutions, shops, and, of course, Asphalt Green, a city park used by thousands of children, the disabled and others who come from all parts of the city, including East Harlem. The entrance road to the proposed MTS directly bisects Asphalt Green, running alongside open playing fields on the south side and the main entrance and a children’s playground on the north side. Hundreds of garbage trucks rumbling through the streets of Gracie Point, then queuing along York Ave. and this ramp would have serious negative impacts on what is an already overcrowded community. The MTS itself, designed to accept thousands of tons of garbage each and every day, garbage that would then be lowered into river barges, would create additional catastrophic impacts."
Over Budget and Overrated
The Wall Street Journal's Michael Saul has an incisive look at the cost over runs in the office of Mayor Mike Bloomberg-and in our view the extra funds expended remind us of the Dire Straits rendition of, "Money for Nothing." As Saul reports: "City spending most directly under New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's control is forecast to exceed its budget by 18% this year despite his calls for austerity in city government. The budget for the mayoralty for the fiscal year ending June 30 is $83.3 million, as approved by the City Council and signed into law by Mr. Bloomberg. But city budget records show it is forecast to spend $98.5 million, 8% more than the previous year."
But as far as over spending is concerned, Mike is no Johnny-come-lately: "In recent years, the mayor's office has expanded its scope, contributing to the rise in spending. Between 2004 and 2010 the mayoralty's spending rose 42% as the number of full-time employees increased 16%. Most notably, in April 2007, the mayor released PlanNYC, a comprehensive, and expensive, plan to reduce the city's greenhouse-gas footprint while preparing for a population growth of one million."
Is Bloomberg serious? Do you mean that this monstrous fraud of a sustainability plan-one that has never been properly vetted by city planning or the city council-is a major culprit of this assault on the tax payer's wallet? As we have said before: "So isn't it time to cry out about how naked our emperor really is-particularly on the issue of climate change and sustainability nonsense. Bloomberg wants to have it both ways. He wants to poster on the world stage as a climate change maven, while doing his damnedest to aggrandize his real estate friends with developments that will stymie all of his efforts to reduce CO2 emissions in NYC."
But, aside from the hypocritical environmental posturing, the overspending has given us very little but a way too costly environment to do business in-along with tax increases that the Bloombergistas use to conceal their profligate ways. And when all other governments are cutting costs-and salaries-Bloomberg is treating city hall as an adjunct to Bloomberg LLP: "The mayor's office attributed the higher spending this fiscal year, in part, to Mr. Bloomberg's decision to award an 8% raise to managers and nonunion employees. The salary hikes covered virtually all of Mr. Bloomberg's staffers at City Hall. First Deputy Mayor Patty Harris's salary rose, for example, to $245,760 from $227,219. The raises, though, did not affect the mayor's salary, which is set by law at $225,000. Mr. Bloomberg, a multibillionaire, accepts $1 a year."
So, in our view, this is one overrated politician-raising taxes and fees along with salaries, and getting little real bang for the bucks spent. Just take a look at the vaunted Bloomberg educational miracle-an expensive failure built on fraud and deception. So, while Governor Paterson is fair game for his stumbling and bumbling, isn't it time for the sharp NYC media to take a long look behind the curtain in order to see just how little wizardly ability actually resides there?
But as far as over spending is concerned, Mike is no Johnny-come-lately: "In recent years, the mayor's office has expanded its scope, contributing to the rise in spending. Between 2004 and 2010 the mayoralty's spending rose 42% as the number of full-time employees increased 16%. Most notably, in April 2007, the mayor released PlanNYC, a comprehensive, and expensive, plan to reduce the city's greenhouse-gas footprint while preparing for a population growth of one million."
Is Bloomberg serious? Do you mean that this monstrous fraud of a sustainability plan-one that has never been properly vetted by city planning or the city council-is a major culprit of this assault on the tax payer's wallet? As we have said before: "So isn't it time to cry out about how naked our emperor really is-particularly on the issue of climate change and sustainability nonsense. Bloomberg wants to have it both ways. He wants to poster on the world stage as a climate change maven, while doing his damnedest to aggrandize his real estate friends with developments that will stymie all of his efforts to reduce CO2 emissions in NYC."
But, aside from the hypocritical environmental posturing, the overspending has given us very little but a way too costly environment to do business in-along with tax increases that the Bloombergistas use to conceal their profligate ways. And when all other governments are cutting costs-and salaries-Bloomberg is treating city hall as an adjunct to Bloomberg LLP: "The mayor's office attributed the higher spending this fiscal year, in part, to Mr. Bloomberg's decision to award an 8% raise to managers and nonunion employees. The salary hikes covered virtually all of Mr. Bloomberg's staffers at City Hall. First Deputy Mayor Patty Harris's salary rose, for example, to $245,760 from $227,219. The raises, though, did not affect the mayor's salary, which is set by law at $225,000. Mr. Bloomberg, a multibillionaire, accepts $1 a year."
So, in our view, this is one overrated politician-raising taxes and fees along with salaries, and getting little real bang for the bucks spent. Just take a look at the vaunted Bloomberg educational miracle-an expensive failure built on fraud and deception. So, while Governor Paterson is fair game for his stumbling and bumbling, isn't it time for the sharp NYC media to take a long look behind the curtain in order to see just how little wizardly ability actually resides there?
Grass Rooting Against Willets Point and Flushing Commons
The Times Newsweekly highlights what has been a three month campaign to focus grass roots attention on the boondoggle-and injustice-that is the Willets Point development. And the primary focus, besides the flawed ramp/traffic report, has been the issue of eminent domain: "Representatives of a group looking to stop city plans for Willets Point came to the Juniper Park Civic Association’s (JPCA) Apr. 29 meeting at Our Lady of Hope to ask for their help. Making his way around the city to garner support was Neighborhood Retail Alliance (NRA) lobbyist Richard Lipsky. The group has joined Willets Point businesses and other advocacy groups to create Willets Point United, which is fighting the city’s move to take over the triangular stretch of land east of Citi Field via eminent do- for new development. “Eminent domain will never be used to take someone’s house on East 79th Street,” charged Lipsky, “Eminent domain will never be used to take property from a richer person and give it to a poorer person.” He added that eminent domain is being used not for city services such as schools or hospitals, but “for someone else to make money off their property against their will.”
Juniper Civic, just as Comet, John Bowne, Mitchell-Linden, Bay Terrace and numerous other local civic organizations, have all signed on to the Willets Point petition for an independent study of the Van Wyck ramps; and to the need to restructure the NY State eminent domain laws that deprive property owners of due process. As the Flushing Times reported last month-about our Bay Terrace presentation: "A group of Willets Point small business owners, with the assistance of powerhouse lobbyist Richard Lipsky, is taking its case against the $3 billion redevelopment plan the city has for the 62-acre neglected region to area residents.Citing the negative traffic impacts of bringing the massive project to the heart of Queens, Willets Point United is aggressively working to block plans to relocate the business owners’ auto shops, factories and other industrial shops to make way for an elaborate mixed-use development project."
And on Monday WPU hopes to get the entire Queens Civic Congress to support the ramp review and eminent domain reform. In addition, we expect that the campaign against the Flushing Commons development will coalesce with the Willets Point coalition since the issue of traffic-and overdevelopment-unite the two groups against projects that would, if built, be a side by side travesty against the quality of life in the communities that are in and around the project areas.
QCC has already taken a position against the Flushing Commons plan-decrying the lack of genuine community input: "Rather than formally consult with Community Board 7, local residents, businesses and institutions, TDC/Rockefeller has opted to take its project directly into the public review process. Instead of establishing formal lines of communication with the Flushing community, the developer has chosen to present Flushing with an all or nothing proposal.
The Queens Civic Congress stands by the core principle of public review of major land use projects. Surely a mammoth project like Flushing Commons that would have enormous impacts on regional transportation, the local economy, environment, infrastructure, traffic, parking, housing requires the same level of community input as developers and city planners afforded Manhattan Community Board 6 and local residents in the matter of the east side ConEd site."
So, as we await a final date for a hearing from the state senate on the Van Wyck ramp controversy-and another potential hearing on overall Willets Point issues from the city council-we will continue to apprise local groups on just how little regard the EDC has for the quality of life in Queens neighborhoods. The agency, along with the Bloombergistas that nurture it, are a top-down kind of crowd who need to hear the genuine voice of grass roots communities-and not the phony astro-turf chorus from groups, like Claire Shulman's LDC, that are funded straight out of city hall.
Juniper Civic, just as Comet, John Bowne, Mitchell-Linden, Bay Terrace and numerous other local civic organizations, have all signed on to the Willets Point petition for an independent study of the Van Wyck ramps; and to the need to restructure the NY State eminent domain laws that deprive property owners of due process. As the Flushing Times reported last month-about our Bay Terrace presentation: "A group of Willets Point small business owners, with the assistance of powerhouse lobbyist Richard Lipsky, is taking its case against the $3 billion redevelopment plan the city has for the 62-acre neglected region to area residents.Citing the negative traffic impacts of bringing the massive project to the heart of Queens, Willets Point United is aggressively working to block plans to relocate the business owners’ auto shops, factories and other industrial shops to make way for an elaborate mixed-use development project."
And on Monday WPU hopes to get the entire Queens Civic Congress to support the ramp review and eminent domain reform. In addition, we expect that the campaign against the Flushing Commons development will coalesce with the Willets Point coalition since the issue of traffic-and overdevelopment-unite the two groups against projects that would, if built, be a side by side travesty against the quality of life in the communities that are in and around the project areas.
QCC has already taken a position against the Flushing Commons plan-decrying the lack of genuine community input: "Rather than formally consult with Community Board 7, local residents, businesses and institutions, TDC/Rockefeller has opted to take its project directly into the public review process. Instead of establishing formal lines of communication with the Flushing community, the developer has chosen to present Flushing with an all or nothing proposal.
The Queens Civic Congress stands by the core principle of public review of major land use projects. Surely a mammoth project like Flushing Commons that would have enormous impacts on regional transportation, the local economy, environment, infrastructure, traffic, parking, housing requires the same level of community input as developers and city planners afforded Manhattan Community Board 6 and local residents in the matter of the east side ConEd site."
So, as we await a final date for a hearing from the state senate on the Van Wyck ramp controversy-and another potential hearing on overall Willets Point issues from the city council-we will continue to apprise local groups on just how little regard the EDC has for the quality of life in Queens neighborhoods. The agency, along with the Bloombergistas that nurture it, are a top-down kind of crowd who need to hear the genuine voice of grass roots communities-and not the phony astro-turf chorus from groups, like Claire Shulman's LDC, that are funded straight out of city hall.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The Lord Giveth and....
This week the city council passed a much needed relief bill for small business. As Crain's reports: "Today was a better day to do business in New York City than yesterday.This afternoon, the City Council unanimously voted in favor of creating a business owner’s bill of rights that would advise companies in writing of their rights during a city inspection. The bill was introduced March 25 and sped through the City Council with the support of both City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Mayor Michael Bloomberg."
The bill gives a bit more due process protection to retailers in the face of the city's onerous regulatory regime: "At the same time, however, two other more nefarious bills were wending their way through the council-and they could really put a big bite on the city's small stores: "The ease with which the business-friendly bill passed contrasted to the opposition two controversial bills faced yesterday. Tuesday morning, the City Council heard testimony on a prevailing wage bill then met again to consider a law requiring businesses to provide paid sick days to employees. The strong opposition by business was countered by an equally large show of support from workers and their advocates."
The sick leave bill, in particular, could lead to business loss and a reduction in the number of employees that small firms could afford-as a NY Post editorial underscored the other day: "New Yorkers expect their pols to try to raise taxes and kill jobs -- but does the City Council have to be so . . . tacky about it? At a time when one in every 10 city residents is looking for work, a council committee yesterday took up a bill that would force businesses to give employees up to two more weeks a year of paid leave -- and, sure as night follows day, to raise prices, lay off workers or both. Specifically, the bill would mandate nine days of paid "sick" leave for all employees of companies with a total workforce of at least 20 people. Smaller businesses would have to give five days."
With unemployment at 10% in the city, isn't it an inopportune time to increase business costs? After all, a job without paid sick leave is still gainful employment, and many smaller companies can't afford to treat workers as if they worked for the Greek government: "According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics study cited by the sick-leave bill's proponents, such benefits typically cost around 23 cents per worker-hour -- a tough margin for businesses already struggling in Gotham's stifling climate. So while the measure's supporters tug heartstrings with tales of workers getting fired because they're sick, the bill they want would actually mean more layoffs -- and fewer workers hired in the first place."
So, while it is great to seek to reduce regulatory red tape, it is the mandates and tax burden that really sends small firms reeling-right out of town. And where is the economic impact study for the sick leave bill? We'll give the Post the last word on this: "Again, the city's unemployment rate stands at exactly 10 percent -- higher than even the national rate of 9.9 percent. New York simply can't afford to lose more jobs."
The bill gives a bit more due process protection to retailers in the face of the city's onerous regulatory regime: "At the same time, however, two other more nefarious bills were wending their way through the council-and they could really put a big bite on the city's small stores: "The ease with which the business-friendly bill passed contrasted to the opposition two controversial bills faced yesterday. Tuesday morning, the City Council heard testimony on a prevailing wage bill then met again to consider a law requiring businesses to provide paid sick days to employees. The strong opposition by business was countered by an equally large show of support from workers and their advocates."
The sick leave bill, in particular, could lead to business loss and a reduction in the number of employees that small firms could afford-as a NY Post editorial underscored the other day: "New Yorkers expect their pols to try to raise taxes and kill jobs -- but does the City Council have to be so . . . tacky about it? At a time when one in every 10 city residents is looking for work, a council committee yesterday took up a bill that would force businesses to give employees up to two more weeks a year of paid leave -- and, sure as night follows day, to raise prices, lay off workers or both. Specifically, the bill would mandate nine days of paid "sick" leave for all employees of companies with a total workforce of at least 20 people. Smaller businesses would have to give five days."
With unemployment at 10% in the city, isn't it an inopportune time to increase business costs? After all, a job without paid sick leave is still gainful employment, and many smaller companies can't afford to treat workers as if they worked for the Greek government: "According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics study cited by the sick-leave bill's proponents, such benefits typically cost around 23 cents per worker-hour -- a tough margin for businesses already struggling in Gotham's stifling climate. So while the measure's supporters tug heartstrings with tales of workers getting fired because they're sick, the bill they want would actually mean more layoffs -- and fewer workers hired in the first place."
So, while it is great to seek to reduce regulatory red tape, it is the mandates and tax burden that really sends small firms reeling-right out of town. And where is the economic impact study for the sick leave bill? We'll give the Post the last word on this: "Again, the city's unemployment rate stands at exactly 10 percent -- higher than even the national rate of 9.9 percent. New York simply can't afford to lose more jobs."
Outpouring Against Flushing Commons
A strong showing of opposition came out yesterday at the City Planning Commission to protest the development proposed at Flushing Commons. Brandishing signs that read, "Don't Choke Flushing," and "Give Me Parking, or Give Me Death," around eighty small business owners and community residents jammed the hearing room at 22 Reade Street to tell the planning commissioners why Flushing Commons is such a bad deal.
As we told the Commission in a lively exchange: "The plan to build well over a million square feet of commercial and residential development on top of the Municipal Lot 1 in downtown Flushing makes little planning or economic development sense; and if the plan does go forward it will severely exacerbate the already intolerable traffic conditions-not only in downtown Flushing but in the surrounding communities as well. In addition, the current plan will serious dislocate and destabilize the Flushing small business community-causing job losses that will not be made up by any benefits predicted for the Flushing Commons project."
Also testifying on behalf of the locals was planner Paul Graziano, who made a strong case that EDC-employing a bait and switch tactic-had allowed the developer to dramatically alter the original plan that had been endorsed by then council member, and now city comptroller, John Liu. Graziano's group, REDO, is joining with the Flushing Coalition for Responsible Development to continue the mobilizing effort in the community against the project.
Clearly, however, traffic parking issues are a major concern of the local civic and business groups-something that StreetsBlog has addressed: "What's particularly striking about EDC's math is that it's completely isolated from all other considerations. The strain on Flushing's streets, which are already clogged with congestion, wasn't a factor. The PlaNYC goal of reducing transportation emissions by 44 percent by 2030 wasn't a factor. Officials apparently never stopped to think about the potential housing, retail or community uses that could have been built instead of some of the 500,000 square feet given to vehicle storage. Even the project's financial feasibility, which we noted yesterday was threatened by such a large parking mandate, wasn't a factor."
But the blog's worry about too much parking is diametrically opposed by the locals who are crying out for more. What everyone seems to agree on, is that the development will overwhelm the local road network-with or without more parking. This is expressed by Flushing BID head Jim Gerson: ""Something doesn’t add up,” said Flushing BID Chairman James Gerson, “and I guess the biggest issue that concerns us is that these negotiations and this change to the plan took place without any community input whatsoever." Gerson proposed a resolution that calls for the original 2,000 public parking spots and permanently capped parking rates that were agreed upon while now-comptroller John Liu was still representing the district in the City Council. He said the Flushing BID is working with a consultant to determine the breadth of the economic impact that the project will have on local merchants."
And all of the businesses are fearful of the economic damage that the development could cause: "According to Gerson, there is a letter from the deputy mayor that says there will be $2 million in “business assistance” for affected businesses, but there’s no plan on how that money will be distributed nor any analysis of whether that amount is even sufficient. The resolution also demands a contingency plan at a time when many projects around the city and around the country are being stalled as a result of the uncertain economic climate. “The only thing worse than a dead project is a hole in the ground,” said Gerson. “It’s not unreasonable to expect that the city provide some contingency plan so that we don’t get stuck with a hole in the ground and so far the issue has not been addressed at all."
For her part, Queens BP Helen Marshall-who gave her approval for the plan a few weeks ago-also sees the need to assist local business. As the Queens Tribune reports: "Marshall plans to co-chair a Downtown Flushing Task Force with Councilman Peter Koo (R-Flushing). The group will meet with city agencies and local organizations to brainstorm ways to mitigate the economic impact of Flushing Commons’ construction on existing businesses. Those same businesses are eying a possible helping hand from Assemblywoman Grace Meng (D-Flushing), who is currently exploring tax abatement options to help businesses affected by the project. The plan would offer tax relief to business owners able to prove a noticeable change in their bottom line as a result of the project’s construction."
Marshal is also concerned about traffic and parking, but her ideas about proper mitigation are, in our view, de minimis: "Borough President Helen Marshall approved the $800 million mixed-use development with several stipulations addressing concerns raised during the borough board’s public hearing April 20. The stipulations notably tackle Flushing Commons’ most contentious issue: parking. Marshall requested long-term parking rates be capped closer to the current municipal parking fee for longer than the currently-planned five years. “Public parking must be affordable to sustain and support the existing local small businesses which have invested heavily in their trust of the future economic health of Downtown Flushing,” she said. The Beep also requested traffic enforcement agents be posted at the intersection of Roosevelt Avenue and Main Street during the intersection’s busiest hours."
With the project EIS predicting gridlock conditions with multi-minute waits at certain intersections, more traffic agents is no real solution. As traffic expert Brian Ketcham's testimony to the Commission pointed out: "The developer has already reported that congestion levels with the project will be severe in Downtown Flushing and that most of the traffic problems caused by the project cannot be mitigated. The DEIS reports huge impacts at Downtown Flushing intersections such as at Northern Blvd. and Main Street where northbound left turn vehicle delay is increased from 7 minutes to 14 minutes or at Roosevelt Avenue and Union Street where the southbound right turn delay increases from 6 minutes to 18 minutes—I emphasize minutes of delay not seconds meaning severe gridlocked conditions."
More traffic agents? We don't think so. Ultimately, however, it is the duplicity of the agency that gets everyone riled up-dramatizing just how unreliable it is to trust any deal made with EDC. We'll give Comptroller Liu the last word on why he no longer supports this project: "Liu made some of his strongest remarks so far about recent developments in the saga of the $800 million Flushing Commons mixed-use project that Community Board 7 recently approved for the site on Municipal Lot 1 in downtown Flushing. He was the councilman for the neighborhood and supported the project when initial plans were drawn up between the city and the project’s developer in 2005. The plans called for the project to include at least 2,000 parking spaces, a youth center and capped parking rates. Less than a year later, the plans had been amended to eliminate such provisions and Liu withdrew his support. “An agreement with the community is an agreement with the community, and if you’re not going to accommodate that, you have to go back to the drawing board,” he said."
As we told the Commission in a lively exchange: "The plan to build well over a million square feet of commercial and residential development on top of the Municipal Lot 1 in downtown Flushing makes little planning or economic development sense; and if the plan does go forward it will severely exacerbate the already intolerable traffic conditions-not only in downtown Flushing but in the surrounding communities as well. In addition, the current plan will serious dislocate and destabilize the Flushing small business community-causing job losses that will not be made up by any benefits predicted for the Flushing Commons project."
Also testifying on behalf of the locals was planner Paul Graziano, who made a strong case that EDC-employing a bait and switch tactic-had allowed the developer to dramatically alter the original plan that had been endorsed by then council member, and now city comptroller, John Liu. Graziano's group, REDO, is joining with the Flushing Coalition for Responsible Development to continue the mobilizing effort in the community against the project.
Clearly, however, traffic parking issues are a major concern of the local civic and business groups-something that StreetsBlog has addressed: "What's particularly striking about EDC's math is that it's completely isolated from all other considerations. The strain on Flushing's streets, which are already clogged with congestion, wasn't a factor. The PlaNYC goal of reducing transportation emissions by 44 percent by 2030 wasn't a factor. Officials apparently never stopped to think about the potential housing, retail or community uses that could have been built instead of some of the 500,000 square feet given to vehicle storage. Even the project's financial feasibility, which we noted yesterday was threatened by such a large parking mandate, wasn't a factor."
But the blog's worry about too much parking is diametrically opposed by the locals who are crying out for more. What everyone seems to agree on, is that the development will overwhelm the local road network-with or without more parking. This is expressed by Flushing BID head Jim Gerson: ""Something doesn’t add up,” said Flushing BID Chairman James Gerson, “and I guess the biggest issue that concerns us is that these negotiations and this change to the plan took place without any community input whatsoever." Gerson proposed a resolution that calls for the original 2,000 public parking spots and permanently capped parking rates that were agreed upon while now-comptroller John Liu was still representing the district in the City Council. He said the Flushing BID is working with a consultant to determine the breadth of the economic impact that the project will have on local merchants."
And all of the businesses are fearful of the economic damage that the development could cause: "According to Gerson, there is a letter from the deputy mayor that says there will be $2 million in “business assistance” for affected businesses, but there’s no plan on how that money will be distributed nor any analysis of whether that amount is even sufficient. The resolution also demands a contingency plan at a time when many projects around the city and around the country are being stalled as a result of the uncertain economic climate. “The only thing worse than a dead project is a hole in the ground,” said Gerson. “It’s not unreasonable to expect that the city provide some contingency plan so that we don’t get stuck with a hole in the ground and so far the issue has not been addressed at all."
For her part, Queens BP Helen Marshall-who gave her approval for the plan a few weeks ago-also sees the need to assist local business. As the Queens Tribune reports: "Marshall plans to co-chair a Downtown Flushing Task Force with Councilman Peter Koo (R-Flushing). The group will meet with city agencies and local organizations to brainstorm ways to mitigate the economic impact of Flushing Commons’ construction on existing businesses. Those same businesses are eying a possible helping hand from Assemblywoman Grace Meng (D-Flushing), who is currently exploring tax abatement options to help businesses affected by the project. The plan would offer tax relief to business owners able to prove a noticeable change in their bottom line as a result of the project’s construction."
Marshal is also concerned about traffic and parking, but her ideas about proper mitigation are, in our view, de minimis: "Borough President Helen Marshall approved the $800 million mixed-use development with several stipulations addressing concerns raised during the borough board’s public hearing April 20. The stipulations notably tackle Flushing Commons’ most contentious issue: parking. Marshall requested long-term parking rates be capped closer to the current municipal parking fee for longer than the currently-planned five years. “Public parking must be affordable to sustain and support the existing local small businesses which have invested heavily in their trust of the future economic health of Downtown Flushing,” she said. The Beep also requested traffic enforcement agents be posted at the intersection of Roosevelt Avenue and Main Street during the intersection’s busiest hours."
With the project EIS predicting gridlock conditions with multi-minute waits at certain intersections, more traffic agents is no real solution. As traffic expert Brian Ketcham's testimony to the Commission pointed out: "The developer has already reported that congestion levels with the project will be severe in Downtown Flushing and that most of the traffic problems caused by the project cannot be mitigated. The DEIS reports huge impacts at Downtown Flushing intersections such as at Northern Blvd. and Main Street where northbound left turn vehicle delay is increased from 7 minutes to 14 minutes or at Roosevelt Avenue and Union Street where the southbound right turn delay increases from 6 minutes to 18 minutes—I emphasize minutes of delay not seconds meaning severe gridlocked conditions."
More traffic agents? We don't think so. Ultimately, however, it is the duplicity of the agency that gets everyone riled up-dramatizing just how unreliable it is to trust any deal made with EDC. We'll give Comptroller Liu the last word on why he no longer supports this project: "Liu made some of his strongest remarks so far about recent developments in the saga of the $800 million Flushing Commons mixed-use project that Community Board 7 recently approved for the site on Municipal Lot 1 in downtown Flushing. He was the councilman for the neighborhood and supported the project when initial plans were drawn up between the city and the project’s developer in 2005. The plans called for the project to include at least 2,000 parking spaces, a youth center and capped parking rates. Less than a year later, the plans had been amended to eliminate such provisions and Liu withdrew his support. “An agreement with the community is an agreement with the community, and if you’re not going to accommodate that, you have to go back to the drawing board,” he said."
Where There's a Wilpon...There's No Way
The Wilpons have been floating the idea that they would like to bring the NY Islander hockey team to Willets Point. As the NY Times reports: "Jeff Wilpon, the Mets’ chief operating officer, said he talked to the Islanders’ owner, Charles Wang, about building an arena near Citi Field and possibly buying the money-losing Islanders. “We’ve had discussions with the Islanders — in addition to those we’ve had with Major League Soccer — about building a sports/entertainment facility near Citi Field,” the Mets said in a statement."
Well in our view the idea is totally nuts-and would likely necessitate an entirely new environmental review-that is, if the city even is able to use eminent domain to evict the 60 or so businesses that are resisting selling their property. Or get state and federal approval for the needed Van Wyck ramps-all of which isn't even alluded to min the Times article.
The mayor doesn't bother with any of those sticky details-as long as he can throw little guys off of their own land he is one happy billionaire. As he told NY1: "Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he has not talked to the Mets' owners about the idea but said he is in favor of the move. "I don't know whether it's just the owner of the team negotiating, using us as a negotiating ploy out on Long Island. I'd love to have more teams move here," said the mayor."
And the mayor's not real concerned that the economics of sports teams militates against this kind of sleight of hand-as we have already pointed out: "But has anyone examined the economic benefits of throwing out productive businesses from Willets Point in exchange for a hockey team? Sports teams are generally poor generators of economic development, and in Brooklyn-where nothing quite like the economic activity characteristic of WP exists-a stand alone basketball team couldn't get support for a substantial commitment of public dollars."
Still, all of the speculation underscores just why the contemplation of using, "speculative condemnation," at Willets Point is such a bad idea-because the eventual use could turn out to be anything. As the Times points out: "Building an arena — or a soccer stadium — would mean eliminating parking spaces and erecting garages. Such a facility is not part of the city’s plan to redevelop the nearby 62-acre Willets Point industrial property."
So, without a developer or a plan, the city council unwisely approved the Willets Point rezoning-a classic pig in a poke. But the hypothetical nature of the eventual final plan, makes the approval process for the Van Wyck ramps a kind of surreal exercise. After all, without any tangible plan, EDC is using the city's hypothetical plan to estimate traffic flow. What could be nuttier than that? And how does NYSDOT approve ramps based on numbers that are no more than blind man's darts?
The really funny thing here, is that the EDC ramp report based on hypothetical numbers doesn't even work. EDC can't even do a work of fiction that allows the reader to suspend disbelief. So good luck on this hockey team stuff, Mr. Wilpon. You'll have a better chance of enjoying your scotch on ice than the Islanders in Willets Point..
We'll give Willets Point United's Jerry Antonacci the last word: "They're taking my home. They're taking my business. They're taking everything I worked for," said Plainview resident Jerry Antonacci, who owns waste management company Crown Container. "If they want to bring the Islanders here, or anything else, they better schedule it for 2020 or 2025, because we're going to fight it. We're not going easy."
Well in our view the idea is totally nuts-and would likely necessitate an entirely new environmental review-that is, if the city even is able to use eminent domain to evict the 60 or so businesses that are resisting selling their property. Or get state and federal approval for the needed Van Wyck ramps-all of which isn't even alluded to min the Times article.
The mayor doesn't bother with any of those sticky details-as long as he can throw little guys off of their own land he is one happy billionaire. As he told NY1: "Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he has not talked to the Mets' owners about the idea but said he is in favor of the move. "I don't know whether it's just the owner of the team negotiating, using us as a negotiating ploy out on Long Island. I'd love to have more teams move here," said the mayor."
And the mayor's not real concerned that the economics of sports teams militates against this kind of sleight of hand-as we have already pointed out: "But has anyone examined the economic benefits of throwing out productive businesses from Willets Point in exchange for a hockey team? Sports teams are generally poor generators of economic development, and in Brooklyn-where nothing quite like the economic activity characteristic of WP exists-a stand alone basketball team couldn't get support for a substantial commitment of public dollars."
Still, all of the speculation underscores just why the contemplation of using, "speculative condemnation," at Willets Point is such a bad idea-because the eventual use could turn out to be anything. As the Times points out: "Building an arena — or a soccer stadium — would mean eliminating parking spaces and erecting garages. Such a facility is not part of the city’s plan to redevelop the nearby 62-acre Willets Point industrial property."
So, without a developer or a plan, the city council unwisely approved the Willets Point rezoning-a classic pig in a poke. But the hypothetical nature of the eventual final plan, makes the approval process for the Van Wyck ramps a kind of surreal exercise. After all, without any tangible plan, EDC is using the city's hypothetical plan to estimate traffic flow. What could be nuttier than that? And how does NYSDOT approve ramps based on numbers that are no more than blind man's darts?
The really funny thing here, is that the EDC ramp report based on hypothetical numbers doesn't even work. EDC can't even do a work of fiction that allows the reader to suspend disbelief. So good luck on this hockey team stuff, Mr. Wilpon. You'll have a better chance of enjoying your scotch on ice than the Islanders in Willets Point..
We'll give Willets Point United's Jerry Antonacci the last word: "They're taking my home. They're taking my business. They're taking everything I worked for," said Plainview resident Jerry Antonacci, who owns waste management company Crown Container. "If they want to bring the Islanders here, or anything else, they better schedule it for 2020 or 2025, because we're going to fight it. We're not going easy."
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Ramped Stupidity
Well it looks as if Willets Point isn't the only area that is being vexed with poorly planned ramps. As the NY Post reports, Dyker Heights in Brooklyn stands aghast at the stupidity of the transportation planners: "A long-overdue city plan to fix the disastrous Fort Hamilton Parkway exit from the Gowanus Expressway is heading back to the drawing board after residents gave it a thumbs down this week. City officials have promised that they would remedy a congestion and safety problem they created when they redesigned the exit last summer, but when they finally presented the blueprints for the intersection of Fort Hamilton Parkway, Seventh Avenue and 78th Street on Monday night, Dyker Heights residents were disgusted."
\
Pretty much what most Queens residents have seen with those Van Wyck ramps-anyone who knows the area sees the stupidity of the concept right off the bat. And the experts are anything but: "The anger mostly boiled over at the agency’s plan to allow traffic exiting the expressway to go in any direction, while restricting local traffic by barring left turns onto 78th Street from Fort Hamilton. ”You’re telling me that people from Staten Island can go anywhere and I live in the neighborhood and I can’t,” complained Joe de la Cruz, one of dozens of residents who flocked to McKinley JHS to hear a briefing about how the city would correct the extended traffic backups and aggressive driving behavior that resulted from last year’s construction."
But the Van Wyck situation is even worse because of the sheer volume of traffic-making the ramp configuration a moot point. Still, the lack of real appreciation for what goes on in the neighborhood is the tie that binds Dyker Heights and Willets Point-father, err the planners, really don't know what's best.
We'll give the Post-and council member Gentile the last word "Residents did cheer the increased crossing time, the relocated crosswalk and the added lane of car traffic to prevent backups. But most were still concerned. “People are going to drive backwards down that street even more,” said Christine Kennedy, who had complained at an earlier meeting that congestion was sending cars backwards down 78th Street. “You’re fixing one little problem at a time and it’s dominoing into another problem.” In the end, Councilman Vincent Gentile (D-Bay Ridge) told agency officials to go back to the drafting table and come up with something better. “Don’t do anything until you consider what you have heard here tonight,” he said."
\
Pretty much what most Queens residents have seen with those Van Wyck ramps-anyone who knows the area sees the stupidity of the concept right off the bat. And the experts are anything but: "The anger mostly boiled over at the agency’s plan to allow traffic exiting the expressway to go in any direction, while restricting local traffic by barring left turns onto 78th Street from Fort Hamilton. ”You’re telling me that people from Staten Island can go anywhere and I live in the neighborhood and I can’t,” complained Joe de la Cruz, one of dozens of residents who flocked to McKinley JHS to hear a briefing about how the city would correct the extended traffic backups and aggressive driving behavior that resulted from last year’s construction."
But the Van Wyck situation is even worse because of the sheer volume of traffic-making the ramp configuration a moot point. Still, the lack of real appreciation for what goes on in the neighborhood is the tie that binds Dyker Heights and Willets Point-father, err the planners, really don't know what's best.
We'll give the Post-and council member Gentile the last word "Residents did cheer the increased crossing time, the relocated crosswalk and the added lane of car traffic to prevent backups. But most were still concerned. “People are going to drive backwards down that street even more,” said Christine Kennedy, who had complained at an earlier meeting that congestion was sending cars backwards down 78th Street. “You’re fixing one little problem at a time and it’s dominoing into another problem.” In the end, Councilman Vincent Gentile (D-Bay Ridge) told agency officials to go back to the drafting table and come up with something better. “Don’t do anything until you consider what you have heard here tonight,” he said."
Heavy Breathing
The NY Times is reporting on a city council pilot program to combat asthma by making residential buildings more environmentally friendly: "For decades, public health experts have tried — and mostly failed — to contain an asthma epidemic that afflicts many New Yorkers living in the city’s poorest neighborhoods. But now, the City Council hopes to significantly curtail the spread of the lung disease by forcing landlords at some of the most badly maintained buildings to clean up their premises."
So, let's get this straight. The city council is finally seeing the wisdom of a pilot program to control asthma-by adding mandates to the private sector-when it sandbagged in 2005, an even more environmentally friendly food waste disposer pilot that would have removed organic waste from neighborhood stores and restaurants. As the council now recognizes, the asthma epidemic has been closely linked to the vector problem-and eliminating the food supply for the rodents and insects is the best way to do this.
Council Speaker Quinn has become ferocious on this public health menace-and that's an abrupt change from her acquiescence to the DEP's intransigence on seeing if we can make entire neighborhoods cleaner with the elimination of food waste: "The City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, said swift action was needed to stop the public health crisis caused by asthma, which affects more than 400,000 New Yorkers, many of them children. “It is in no way shape or form getting better, and it is something we need to get addressed,” Ms. Quinn said in an interview. “Not every landlord is a good landlord in the city of New York. We need to have stricter laws to deal with those bad apples.”
And it is in low income neighborhoods where the asthma problem is particularly severe: "If the bill passes, the city will probably focus on buildings in high-poverty areas, where asthma cases are most prevalent. For residents in those areas, the sights are familiar: walls and ceilings overtaken by mold, hallways strewn with trash, rats and mice nipping at everything in sight."
As we said over three years ago-citing an article in the now defunct NY Sun: "In today's NY Sun the paper's Grace Rauh, new on the city council beat, writes on the issue of food waste disposers and raises the question of why this potent garbage disposal methodology isn't being used to help food stores and restaurants cope with the persistent rat infestation that has caused such a stir over the past two weeks." And we went on to relay the comments of Louis Nunez of the Latino Restaurant Association: "It is left to Luis Nunez of the Latino Restaurant Association to make sense of this "emperor's new clothes" situation: "We have tons and tons of solid, wet garbage...Garbage in restaurants is the no. 1 prime reason why you begin to have a rodent or roach infestation." In the case of this city, however, the concern for flora and fauna in the estuaries trumps the real seriousness of the health impacts of vermin infestation all over New York's neighborhoods."
And the NY Daily News' Errol Louis underscored the food waste/asthma connection over four years ago-in his excoriation of the city's lackluster asthma prevention effort: "In calling for an ambitious assault on asthma Errol focuses on the issue that the Alliance has been harping on for the past three years: the control of food waste. He approvingly cites the Alliance's efforts to get DEP permission to install commercial food waste disposers (FWDs) in the city's supermarkets, restaurants and bodegas; "an alternative to our current practice of storing garbage in dumpsters, where rats and roaches feast on it." In doing so Louis endorses Intro 133, a bill that seeks to establish a pilot program for FWDs. As he says, "We should let the store owners try a three-year pilot program with the grinders and see how many garbage-filled trucks they can get off the streets."
So now we have the confluence of two related policy issues-disposal of organic waste and combating the asthma epidemic. And it is only with food waste disposers that we can comprehensively tackle the twin problems. Composting food waste and regulating landlords is at best a piece meal approach to the problem-it's time to bring back the pilot program for food waste disposers; it's the healthy thing to do.
So, let's get this straight. The city council is finally seeing the wisdom of a pilot program to control asthma-by adding mandates to the private sector-when it sandbagged in 2005, an even more environmentally friendly food waste disposer pilot that would have removed organic waste from neighborhood stores and restaurants. As the council now recognizes, the asthma epidemic has been closely linked to the vector problem-and eliminating the food supply for the rodents and insects is the best way to do this.
Council Speaker Quinn has become ferocious on this public health menace-and that's an abrupt change from her acquiescence to the DEP's intransigence on seeing if we can make entire neighborhoods cleaner with the elimination of food waste: "The City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, said swift action was needed to stop the public health crisis caused by asthma, which affects more than 400,000 New Yorkers, many of them children. “It is in no way shape or form getting better, and it is something we need to get addressed,” Ms. Quinn said in an interview. “Not every landlord is a good landlord in the city of New York. We need to have stricter laws to deal with those bad apples.”
And it is in low income neighborhoods where the asthma problem is particularly severe: "If the bill passes, the city will probably focus on buildings in high-poverty areas, where asthma cases are most prevalent. For residents in those areas, the sights are familiar: walls and ceilings overtaken by mold, hallways strewn with trash, rats and mice nipping at everything in sight."
As we said over three years ago-citing an article in the now defunct NY Sun: "In today's NY Sun the paper's Grace Rauh, new on the city council beat, writes on the issue of food waste disposers and raises the question of why this potent garbage disposal methodology isn't being used to help food stores and restaurants cope with the persistent rat infestation that has caused such a stir over the past two weeks." And we went on to relay the comments of Louis Nunez of the Latino Restaurant Association: "It is left to Luis Nunez of the Latino Restaurant Association to make sense of this "emperor's new clothes" situation: "We have tons and tons of solid, wet garbage...Garbage in restaurants is the no. 1 prime reason why you begin to have a rodent or roach infestation." In the case of this city, however, the concern for flora and fauna in the estuaries trumps the real seriousness of the health impacts of vermin infestation all over New York's neighborhoods."
And the NY Daily News' Errol Louis underscored the food waste/asthma connection over four years ago-in his excoriation of the city's lackluster asthma prevention effort: "In calling for an ambitious assault on asthma Errol focuses on the issue that the Alliance has been harping on for the past three years: the control of food waste. He approvingly cites the Alliance's efforts to get DEP permission to install commercial food waste disposers (FWDs) in the city's supermarkets, restaurants and bodegas; "an alternative to our current practice of storing garbage in dumpsters, where rats and roaches feast on it." In doing so Louis endorses Intro 133, a bill that seeks to establish a pilot program for FWDs. As he says, "We should let the store owners try a three-year pilot program with the grinders and see how many garbage-filled trucks they can get off the streets."
So now we have the confluence of two related policy issues-disposal of organic waste and combating the asthma epidemic. And it is only with food waste disposers that we can comprehensively tackle the twin problems. Composting food waste and regulating landlords is at best a piece meal approach to the problem-it's time to bring back the pilot program for food waste disposers; it's the healthy thing to do.
From Legacy Admissions to Merit
We all understand the concept of legacy admissions-and Wikepedia has a nice synopsis. But while some defend the practice as a necessity for the culture of elite institutions, critics make a telling point: "Opponents accuse these programs of perpetuating an oligarchy and plutocracy as they lower the weight of academic merit in admissions process in exchange of financial one. Another criticism is that the wealthy are given an insurmountable advantage which hinders economic mobility within the society."
Well, Mike Bloomberg has his own legacy program of mega development, and the Observer's Eliot Brown raises some points that could be seen to parallel the critique of the university program cited above-particularly in the perpetuation of a plutocracy. This is especially true in a time of scarcity and retrenchment.
As Brown highlighted: "Mayor Bloomberg's presentation of his budget last week was not an uplifting one. Standing before a room packed full of reporters in the West Wing of City Hall, he clicked through a PowerPoint presentation that made it very clear how bad the city's fiscal problems are. Under Mr. Bloomberg's proposed budget, the city would need to reduce its workforce by more than 10,000 jobs; teachers would be fired; firehouses would be shuttered-the kind of things people really don't like, and the kinds of things that draw noisy protests to the steps of City Hall. Mayor Bloomberg's presentation of his budget last week was not an uplifting one. Standing before a room packed full of reporters in the West Wing of City Hall, he clicked through a PowerPoint presentation that made it very clear how bad the city's fiscal problems are. Under Mr. Bloomberg's proposed budget, the city would need to reduce its workforce by more than 10,000 jobs; teachers would be fired; firehouses would be shuttered-the kind of things people really don't like, and the kinds of things that draw noisy protests to the steps of City Hall."
Firefighters and school teachers don't make it over the legacy bar-and Willets Point/Coney Island stand out in regard to the disregard of merit that is a feature of all legacy decisions: "There's a pattern here. Last year, even as the capital budget underwent a major cut of about 15 percent, the Bloomberg administration pushed ahead on many of the larger (and more expensive) plans already on the drawing board. Indeed, the city's economic development funds saw less of a reduction than other areas, such as housing, according to figures from the Office of Management and Budget. And the top two projects, Coney Island and Willets Point, which, respectively have $130 million and $380 million listed in the budget, noticeably were not cut at all."
Now let's keep in mind that the money allocated for Willets Point is not for any kind of capital improvement at all-and the use of proceeds,as it were, is redolent with the elite pretension and favoritism that has an Ivy League flavor to it: "But with the city, it's significant that for the largest projects-Coney Island and Willets Point-much of the money currently budgeted is for acquisitions, buying up property that the city doesn't even own. Given that the money goes into the pockets of a few landlords and businesses, it's not stimulating much immediate economic activity. Instead, the city is relying on the hope that the projects will be carried out, eventually."
This is hope that is a questionable economic strategy when "draconian" cuts are on the table-as the Citizens Budget Commission has pointed out: "But with the city, it's significant that for the largest projects-Coney Island and Willets Point-much of the money currently budgeted is for acquisitions, buying up property that the city doesn't even own. Given that the money goes into the pockets of a few landlords and businesses, it's not stimulating much immediate economic activity. Instead, the city is relying on the hope that the projects will be carried out, eventually."
Ah, in the long run-but, as for the absence of documentation that the payoff for the city will ever come to fruition, all EDC needs to do is to ask AKRF to do a study and, voilà! the justification will appear like magic. But it's not only that the capital money is taking away from allocations that could go to essential services; it's that the actual capital needs of the city are being neglected. As the CBC's Carol Kellerman points out-linking the poor policy decisions directly to Willets Point: "He's got Willets Point, and he wants to have a big vision and he wants to have a legacy of changing the face of New York, which is understandable, and a good thing to do if you have a lot of resources," Carol Kellerman, president of CBC, said of Mr. Bloomberg. "But if resources are scarce, which everyone concedes they are, you have to be more parsimonious. "You've got to let state of good repair be the highest priority."
The Bloombergistas, for their toady part, of course demur: "In response, the Bloomberg administration says that now is not the time to be backing off on big, transformative projects, which, so often in New York's history, have been derailed by recessions and budget cuts. (See: Moynihan Station.) "One of the reasons major, long-term projects so often stall is they occur over multiple economic cycles, and it's easiest for officials to postpone the projects that won't be completed until long after their term is up," Andrew Brent, a spokesman for the mayor, said in a statement. "This Administration is committed to making the long-term investments that will help accommodate the City's future economic and physical growth, while maintaining a record-high capital budget that is creating thousands of jobs for New Yorkers right now."
Of course, there's an argument that the current plans for Willets Point doesn't so much as, "accommodate the city's future economic and physical growth," but actually impedes and/or exacerbates it. It is time for more judicious elected officials to step forward and call for a moratorium on Willets Point and other developments that aren't affordable at this time and, frankly, make no sense at any time. It's time, therefore to replace legacy with merit.
Well, Mike Bloomberg has his own legacy program of mega development, and the Observer's Eliot Brown raises some points that could be seen to parallel the critique of the university program cited above-particularly in the perpetuation of a plutocracy. This is especially true in a time of scarcity and retrenchment.
As Brown highlighted: "Mayor Bloomberg's presentation of his budget last week was not an uplifting one. Standing before a room packed full of reporters in the West Wing of City Hall, he clicked through a PowerPoint presentation that made it very clear how bad the city's fiscal problems are. Under Mr. Bloomberg's proposed budget, the city would need to reduce its workforce by more than 10,000 jobs; teachers would be fired; firehouses would be shuttered-the kind of things people really don't like, and the kinds of things that draw noisy protests to the steps of City Hall. Mayor Bloomberg's presentation of his budget last week was not an uplifting one. Standing before a room packed full of reporters in the West Wing of City Hall, he clicked through a PowerPoint presentation that made it very clear how bad the city's fiscal problems are. Under Mr. Bloomberg's proposed budget, the city would need to reduce its workforce by more than 10,000 jobs; teachers would be fired; firehouses would be shuttered-the kind of things people really don't like, and the kinds of things that draw noisy protests to the steps of City Hall."
Firefighters and school teachers don't make it over the legacy bar-and Willets Point/Coney Island stand out in regard to the disregard of merit that is a feature of all legacy decisions: "There's a pattern here. Last year, even as the capital budget underwent a major cut of about 15 percent, the Bloomberg administration pushed ahead on many of the larger (and more expensive) plans already on the drawing board. Indeed, the city's economic development funds saw less of a reduction than other areas, such as housing, according to figures from the Office of Management and Budget. And the top two projects, Coney Island and Willets Point, which, respectively have $130 million and $380 million listed in the budget, noticeably were not cut at all."
Now let's keep in mind that the money allocated for Willets Point is not for any kind of capital improvement at all-and the use of proceeds,as it were, is redolent with the elite pretension and favoritism that has an Ivy League flavor to it: "But with the city, it's significant that for the largest projects-Coney Island and Willets Point-much of the money currently budgeted is for acquisitions, buying up property that the city doesn't even own. Given that the money goes into the pockets of a few landlords and businesses, it's not stimulating much immediate economic activity. Instead, the city is relying on the hope that the projects will be carried out, eventually."
This is hope that is a questionable economic strategy when "draconian" cuts are on the table-as the Citizens Budget Commission has pointed out: "But with the city, it's significant that for the largest projects-Coney Island and Willets Point-much of the money currently budgeted is for acquisitions, buying up property that the city doesn't even own. Given that the money goes into the pockets of a few landlords and businesses, it's not stimulating much immediate economic activity. Instead, the city is relying on the hope that the projects will be carried out, eventually."
Ah, in the long run-but, as for the absence of documentation that the payoff for the city will ever come to fruition, all EDC needs to do is to ask AKRF to do a study and, voilà! the justification will appear like magic. But it's not only that the capital money is taking away from allocations that could go to essential services; it's that the actual capital needs of the city are being neglected. As the CBC's Carol Kellerman points out-linking the poor policy decisions directly to Willets Point: "He's got Willets Point, and he wants to have a big vision and he wants to have a legacy of changing the face of New York, which is understandable, and a good thing to do if you have a lot of resources," Carol Kellerman, president of CBC, said of Mr. Bloomberg. "But if resources are scarce, which everyone concedes they are, you have to be more parsimonious. "You've got to let state of good repair be the highest priority."
The Bloombergistas, for their toady part, of course demur: "In response, the Bloomberg administration says that now is not the time to be backing off on big, transformative projects, which, so often in New York's history, have been derailed by recessions and budget cuts. (See: Moynihan Station.) "One of the reasons major, long-term projects so often stall is they occur over multiple economic cycles, and it's easiest for officials to postpone the projects that won't be completed until long after their term is up," Andrew Brent, a spokesman for the mayor, said in a statement. "This Administration is committed to making the long-term investments that will help accommodate the City's future economic and physical growth, while maintaining a record-high capital budget that is creating thousands of jobs for New Yorkers right now."
Of course, there's an argument that the current plans for Willets Point doesn't so much as, "accommodate the city's future economic and physical growth," but actually impedes and/or exacerbates it. It is time for more judicious elected officials to step forward and call for a moratorium on Willets Point and other developments that aren't affordable at this time and, frankly, make no sense at any time. It's time, therefore to replace legacy with merit.
Flushing Gridlock Protest at City Planning
Nothing could be more representative of the way that Mike Bloomberg's sustainable development rhetoric contradicts the kind of development he actually promotes, than the severe gridlock-causing Flushing Commons-a land use application that will be heard today at the City Planning Commission. If the plan is approved as it exists today, Flushing and surrounding communities will be in for a real hard time trying to drive in and around their already over congested neighborhoods. That is why scores of Flushing residents and small business owners will be down at City Planning today to voice their objections to the ill conceived plan.
Additionally, the Flushing Commons plan also underscores just how fallacious the city's environmental impacts studies are-using false and out-dated traffic data that underestimates existing car and truck flow, while totally ignoring surrounding projects currently built or on the planning drawing board-something that our traffic expert Brian Ketcham slices and dices for today's so-called hearing. We say so-called, because this is a project that has emerged-kind of like Alien-from the bowels of EDC, without any real impact from the city planners who are supposed to provide proper due diligence.
Is it any wonder, that there is a revolving door between the Bloomberg administration and big real estate? In fact, as the Observer has reported the lates defection is over to the Myss Organization, builders of the BJ anchored Sky Parc project that has exacerbated traffic conditions nin Flushing and beyond, but whose impact goes unexamined in the Flushing Commons DEIS: "Jeff Kay, the Bloomberg administration's well-regarded director of operations, is headed to the real estate industry. He will head to Queens-based real estate giant Muss Development, the developer announced Tuesday afternoon, taking a job as its COO."
The Observer notes the pattern: "Mr. Kay's move goes to show the pipeline between the Bloomberg administration and real estate is still flowing (although there used to be more who left the city). In addition to Muss, firms including Extell, the Durst Organization, Related, Vornado, Brookfield and Tishman Construction have all hired away Bloomberg aides in the past few years."
This revolving door underscores the mobilization of bias in the Bloomberg administration where the watch what we do, not what we say policy making threatens to inundate Queens neighborhoods; at the same time that the loopy transportation planners are trying to make Manhattan car free-a clearing action for the limousines driven for the mayor's rich friends. The "car-tiac arrest" conditions in and around the proposed Flushing Commons should mandate a moratorium on any new development; that is, if the little man behind the curtain down at city hall actually walked the walk on sustainable development.
Still this FC development is a real disaster-with so many traffic issues that it is tough to know where to begin highlighting just how bad traffic will become if this monstrosity is ever built. We'll simply attach parts of the Ketcham testimony for review-and comment further sometime this afternoon after the rubber stamp hearing is finished down at Reade Street this morning.
Hon. Amanda M. Burden, FAICP, Chair
New York City Planning Commission
22 Reade Street
New York, New York 10007-1216
RE: DEIS for the Flushing Commons, Queens, NY, CEQR #06DME010Q
Dear Chairperson Burden:
The following are comments about the traffic and transit impacts reported in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Flushing Commons, Downtown Flushing, Queens, New York, CEQR #06DME010Q.
The Flushing Commons totals nearly 2 million square feet and includes 620 dwelling units and more than a million square feet of retail, restaurant, office, and hotel and community space including 1,600 off-street parking spaces. The project will generate as much as a thousand car and truck trips an hour, much of this from destination retail activity.
I will show that the assumptions used to arrive at the figures provided in the DEIS are wrong; that the DEIS for the Flushing Commons site drastically under reports the project’s auto trip making; that the DEIS fails entirely to account for all No Build traffic—in particular, the Willets Point Development Plan; and that the DEIS must consequently be revised accordingly.
Before getting into the details I want to compare current travel behavior in Queens with the assumptions in the DEIS. The DEIS reports that approximately 70% of residents in the Flushing Commons site will own a car whereas 94% of all residents in Queens own a car. According to origin-destination data provided by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (see table, attached), 53% of all travel in Queens is by auto, 9.8% by bus and 12.8% by subway and commuter rail versus 29.5% by auto, 10.1% by bus and 27.6% by subway and commuter rail reported in Table 14-6 in the DEIS.
Trip generation and temporal characteristics used in the DEIS are from the CEQR Technical Manual or other sources that have been used for decades. They derive from limited data collected generations ago during a very different time in New York City. Plus, the data was collected in Manhattan where just 20% of households owned a car. For virtually every EIS that I have prepared we collected trip generation data from nearby sites of similar land use. There are plenty of large scale developments in Queens that would be appropriate for surveys of the various land use categories included in this project. It is a disgrace that New York City continues to allow the use of ancient travel data to permit developers to low ball project impacts especially for an $850 million project such as Flushing Commons. It is a practice that must be changed.
Even with the low balling of traffic volumes the DEIS reports huge traffic impacts. These impacts are on top of equally great traffic impacts resulting from so-called No Build development that imposes gridlock conditions in and around downtown Flushing today...."
Moratorium Needed
The Ketcham analysis dramatizes why we need a stoppage of these developments in and around down town Flushing in order to properly gauge the cumulative impacts. This needs to be done outside of the purview of an EDC that has both tunnel vision and incompetent leadership. If Mayor Bloomberg wants to salvage a smidgen of his legacy for green development, he needs to put a stop to what's going on in Queens-take a deep breathe-and really plan for an environmentally friendly future. At the current rate of unsustainable development, Queens County will be one larger parking lot in the next decade.
Additionally, the Flushing Commons plan also underscores just how fallacious the city's environmental impacts studies are-using false and out-dated traffic data that underestimates existing car and truck flow, while totally ignoring surrounding projects currently built or on the planning drawing board-something that our traffic expert Brian Ketcham slices and dices for today's so-called hearing. We say so-called, because this is a project that has emerged-kind of like Alien-from the bowels of EDC, without any real impact from the city planners who are supposed to provide proper due diligence.
Is it any wonder, that there is a revolving door between the Bloomberg administration and big real estate? In fact, as the Observer has reported the lates defection is over to the Myss Organization, builders of the BJ anchored Sky Parc project that has exacerbated traffic conditions nin Flushing and beyond, but whose impact goes unexamined in the Flushing Commons DEIS: "Jeff Kay, the Bloomberg administration's well-regarded director of operations, is headed to the real estate industry. He will head to Queens-based real estate giant Muss Development, the developer announced Tuesday afternoon, taking a job as its COO."
The Observer notes the pattern: "Mr. Kay's move goes to show the pipeline between the Bloomberg administration and real estate is still flowing (although there used to be more who left the city). In addition to Muss, firms including Extell, the Durst Organization, Related, Vornado, Brookfield and Tishman Construction have all hired away Bloomberg aides in the past few years."
This revolving door underscores the mobilization of bias in the Bloomberg administration where the watch what we do, not what we say policy making threatens to inundate Queens neighborhoods; at the same time that the loopy transportation planners are trying to make Manhattan car free-a clearing action for the limousines driven for the mayor's rich friends. The "car-tiac arrest" conditions in and around the proposed Flushing Commons should mandate a moratorium on any new development; that is, if the little man behind the curtain down at city hall actually walked the walk on sustainable development.
Still this FC development is a real disaster-with so many traffic issues that it is tough to know where to begin highlighting just how bad traffic will become if this monstrosity is ever built. We'll simply attach parts of the Ketcham testimony for review-and comment further sometime this afternoon after the rubber stamp hearing is finished down at Reade Street this morning.
Hon. Amanda M. Burden, FAICP, Chair
New York City Planning Commission
22 Reade Street
New York, New York 10007-1216
RE: DEIS for the Flushing Commons, Queens, NY, CEQR #06DME010Q
Dear Chairperson Burden:
The following are comments about the traffic and transit impacts reported in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Flushing Commons, Downtown Flushing, Queens, New York, CEQR #06DME010Q.
The Flushing Commons totals nearly 2 million square feet and includes 620 dwelling units and more than a million square feet of retail, restaurant, office, and hotel and community space including 1,600 off-street parking spaces. The project will generate as much as a thousand car and truck trips an hour, much of this from destination retail activity.
I will show that the assumptions used to arrive at the figures provided in the DEIS are wrong; that the DEIS for the Flushing Commons site drastically under reports the project’s auto trip making; that the DEIS fails entirely to account for all No Build traffic—in particular, the Willets Point Development Plan; and that the DEIS must consequently be revised accordingly.
Before getting into the details I want to compare current travel behavior in Queens with the assumptions in the DEIS. The DEIS reports that approximately 70% of residents in the Flushing Commons site will own a car whereas 94% of all residents in Queens own a car. According to origin-destination data provided by the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (see table, attached), 53% of all travel in Queens is by auto, 9.8% by bus and 12.8% by subway and commuter rail versus 29.5% by auto, 10.1% by bus and 27.6% by subway and commuter rail reported in Table 14-6 in the DEIS.
Trip generation and temporal characteristics used in the DEIS are from the CEQR Technical Manual or other sources that have been used for decades. They derive from limited data collected generations ago during a very different time in New York City. Plus, the data was collected in Manhattan where just 20% of households owned a car. For virtually every EIS that I have prepared we collected trip generation data from nearby sites of similar land use. There are plenty of large scale developments in Queens that would be appropriate for surveys of the various land use categories included in this project. It is a disgrace that New York City continues to allow the use of ancient travel data to permit developers to low ball project impacts especially for an $850 million project such as Flushing Commons. It is a practice that must be changed.
Even with the low balling of traffic volumes the DEIS reports huge traffic impacts. These impacts are on top of equally great traffic impacts resulting from so-called No Build development that imposes gridlock conditions in and around downtown Flushing today...."
Moratorium Needed
The Ketcham analysis dramatizes why we need a stoppage of these developments in and around down town Flushing in order to properly gauge the cumulative impacts. This needs to be done outside of the purview of an EDC that has both tunnel vision and incompetent leadership. If Mayor Bloomberg wants to salvage a smidgen of his legacy for green development, he needs to put a stop to what's going on in Queens-take a deep breathe-and really plan for an environmentally friendly future. At the current rate of unsustainable development, Queens County will be one larger parking lot in the next decade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
