The pollos are coming home to roost for the past-his-sell-date congressman, the "Honorable" Charlie Rangel. As the NY Post is reporting: "A House investigative committee on Thursday charged New York Rep. Charles Rangel with multiple ethics violations, a blow to the former Ways and Means chairman and an election-year headache for Democrats."
And now comes the sure to be entertaining show trial: "The committee did not immediately specify the charges against the Democrat, who has served in the House for some 40 years and is fourth in House seniority. The announcement by a four-member panel of the House ethics committee sends the case to a House trial, where a separate eight-member panel of Republicans and Democrats will decide whether the violations can be proved by clear and convincing evidence."
The NY Times follows up with the news that the violations will be both multiple and severe: "The investigative subcommitee did not disclose any details about the nature of the violations that it found evidence, but one House official who has been briefed on the findings said that they included some of the most serious allegations that had been examined. “All I know is that it was a majority of them,” the House official said, asking not to be identified as the ruling is supposed to remain confidential for one week."
Just what Democrats needed as they strive mightily to preserve their congressional majority: "The timing of the announcement ensures that it will stretch into the fall campaign, and Republicans are certain to make it an issue as they try to capture majority control of the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had once promised to “drain the swamp” of ethical misdeeds by lawmakers in arguing that Democrats should be in charge." Yikes, the run up to November will now include an endless parade of Rangle Dominican beach snooze photos.
For his part, the congressman has issued the following statement-via Daily Politics-that's hard to read with a straight face: "I was notified today, two years after I requested an investigation, that the Ethics Committee will refer the allegations reviewed by an Investigations Subcommittee to a Subcommittee that will review the facts. I am pleased that, at long last, sunshine will pierce the cloud of serious allegations that have been raised against me in the media. I will be glad to respond to the allegations at such time as the Ethics Committee makes them public."
Quite droll, wouldn't you say? Rangel tries to make it seems that a public ethics trial is exactly what he's been fighting for over the past two years-to clear his name, of course. But whether he does or not, this is going to be one great public spectacle-and will dramatize the extent to which the Dems under Madam Pelosi have actually, "drained the swamp;" or whether they have simple added to its fetidness.
Given the seriousness of all of Rangle's ethical breaches, however, we are awaiting the statement from the NY State Democratic Party calling for the congressman to be removed from the party. After all, we wouldn't want to allow the hint of a double standard to tarnish the party's good name.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Koch, Silver and Sampson
Here's a knee slapper from Daily Politics: "Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and State Senate Leader John Sampson have been declared enemies of the state by former Mayor Ed Koch. Koch placed the two Democrats and a host of other state lawmakers on his enemies list for not signing reform pledges circulated by his new group, New York Uprising."
Meade Esposito and Donald Manes must be rolling in their graves. As we said last April-and we'll give ourselves the last word: "Well, good for Ed. But our own memory is still acute-and we can't help but recall that Easy Ed's third term was, how can we put this, riddled with political corruption-a major reason why he was sent packing by the lovable Dave Dinkins. But it is nice to see Koch reach back to his Tammany Hall fighting days; although we're not sure that nonpartisan redistricting is this year's signature issue. You know what we mean?"
Meade Esposito and Donald Manes must be rolling in their graves. As we said last April-and we'll give ourselves the last word: "Well, good for Ed. But our own memory is still acute-and we can't help but recall that Easy Ed's third term was, how can we put this, riddled with political corruption-a major reason why he was sent packing by the lovable Dave Dinkins. But it is nice to see Koch reach back to his Tammany Hall fighting days; although we're not sure that nonpartisan redistricting is this year's signature issue. You know what we mean?"
No Pal of Bloomberg's
Long shot gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino has an idea to use eminent domain to take away the property that's slated to be used for a mosque near Ground Zero . As Daily Politics reports: "If elected governor, WNY's Carl Paladino vows in a new radio ad that he'd use the eminent domain laws to stop the construction of a controversial Islamic center/mosque near Ground Zero. (I'm not sure he could actually do that, by the way, but I'm looking into it.) Paladino says sure he can, and instead of a mosque, the site should be a war memorial."
Well, in our view, he certainly could do just that but there's one major obstacle in his way-he's gotta get elected first. But a while ago, we suggested that the city-or the state-should use eminent domain if Larry Silverstein continued to act as an obstructionist around the Ground Zero rebuilding effort. As we said last year: "It's time for the city and the state to give both the Port and Silverstein the heave ho-they have dithered enough; and the mayor, along with all of the former governors, have been as nonfeasant as any elected officials could be. This is, after all, supposed to be sacred space-and for seven and a half years Mike Bloomberg hasn't said much of anything about the lack of action on the site."
Certainly, the taking of the mosque property to build a war memorial, or something similar, is much more of a public interest use than taking away Nick Sprayregen's land and handing it over to Columbia University-or giving Jake Bono's Willets Point property to a developer to be named later. As we commented: "The fact that we still have a hole in the ground while the mayor has had eight years of lockjaw on the matter is to his everlasting shame. That he hesitates to use eminent domain to kick his fellow billionaire out of the site is certainly, as the socialists say, no accident. It's only the little guys who become the targets of government taking-especially when class acts like Mike Bloomberg are running things."
Bloomberg, for his part, is playing Mr. Tolerant-which, as we have said, may not be the real issue here. As Daily Politics points out: "Carl Paladino may think his idea to block a Ground Zero mosque via eminent domain is pretty smart, but Mayor Bloomberg doesn't -- and says it's a moot point, because the Republican gubernatorial hopeful's not getting anywhere near the second floor of the State Capitol. Asked about Paladino's proposal, Bloomberg replied: "Huh? He's not going to get elected, so let's go on to the other topic. This city is built on openness and tolerance. We are not walking away from that, no matter who is governor."
But why does such tolerance preclude a due diligence about the source of the $100 million being ponied up to build the mosque? It's not as if mosques have never been used as fronts for nefarious. As the NY Times reported seven years ago: "Al Farooq Mosque in Brooklyn, a six-story converted factory trimmed in orange and gold, has been many things to many people during its life: a mystery, a noisy neighbor, a source of suspicion, and, for thousands of Muslims who live or work along Atlantic Avenue, the main street of Arab Brooklyn, a place of worship. Last week, the mosque became, not for the first time, a symbol of terror. A federal affidavit unsealed on Tuesday describes links between the mosque, several Brooklyn businessmen and a cleric in Yemen who, prosecutors say, claims to have funneled more than $20 million to Al Qaeda. ''They did their fund-raising right here in our own backyard,'' Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said."
This isn't about tolerance at all, it's about being careful as well as respectful around a site that, after all, was the scene of an awful event stimulated by a group of Islamists who believed that their religion sanctioned-and sanctified-their horrific actions. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
Well, in our view, he certainly could do just that but there's one major obstacle in his way-he's gotta get elected first. But a while ago, we suggested that the city-or the state-should use eminent domain if Larry Silverstein continued to act as an obstructionist around the Ground Zero rebuilding effort. As we said last year: "It's time for the city and the state to give both the Port and Silverstein the heave ho-they have dithered enough; and the mayor, along with all of the former governors, have been as nonfeasant as any elected officials could be. This is, after all, supposed to be sacred space-and for seven and a half years Mike Bloomberg hasn't said much of anything about the lack of action on the site."
Certainly, the taking of the mosque property to build a war memorial, or something similar, is much more of a public interest use than taking away Nick Sprayregen's land and handing it over to Columbia University-or giving Jake Bono's Willets Point property to a developer to be named later. As we commented: "The fact that we still have a hole in the ground while the mayor has had eight years of lockjaw on the matter is to his everlasting shame. That he hesitates to use eminent domain to kick his fellow billionaire out of the site is certainly, as the socialists say, no accident. It's only the little guys who become the targets of government taking-especially when class acts like Mike Bloomberg are running things."
Bloomberg, for his part, is playing Mr. Tolerant-which, as we have said, may not be the real issue here. As Daily Politics points out: "Carl Paladino may think his idea to block a Ground Zero mosque via eminent domain is pretty smart, but Mayor Bloomberg doesn't -- and says it's a moot point, because the Republican gubernatorial hopeful's not getting anywhere near the second floor of the State Capitol. Asked about Paladino's proposal, Bloomberg replied: "Huh? He's not going to get elected, so let's go on to the other topic. This city is built on openness and tolerance. We are not walking away from that, no matter who is governor."
But why does such tolerance preclude a due diligence about the source of the $100 million being ponied up to build the mosque? It's not as if mosques have never been used as fronts for nefarious. As the NY Times reported seven years ago: "Al Farooq Mosque in Brooklyn, a six-story converted factory trimmed in orange and gold, has been many things to many people during its life: a mystery, a noisy neighbor, a source of suspicion, and, for thousands of Muslims who live or work along Atlantic Avenue, the main street of Arab Brooklyn, a place of worship. Last week, the mosque became, not for the first time, a symbol of terror. A federal affidavit unsealed on Tuesday describes links between the mosque, several Brooklyn businessmen and a cleric in Yemen who, prosecutors say, claims to have funneled more than $20 million to Al Qaeda. ''They did their fund-raising right here in our own backyard,'' Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said."
This isn't about tolerance at all, it's about being careful as well as respectful around a site that, after all, was the scene of an awful event stimulated by a group of Islamists who believed that their religion sanctioned-and sanctified-their horrific actions. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
Straight Flush
The machinations behind the EDC-driven deal to build Flushing Commons are bizarre even by that agency's relatively high bar in that area. First it had an agreement with then council member John Liu that was abrogated and then EDC went ahead in lightening speed to reconfigure the size and scope of the development, certify it for ULURP, and quickly entice the newly elected-and clueless-local council member (who serendipitously is also best friends of the developer) to get out the pom poms and baton for this overly large intrusion into downtown Flushing.
As we have said before, it is one of our greatest disappointments to have waited thirty years for a legitimate small business owner to be elected to the city council, only to have that member be someone who was ready and eager to sell out the interests of his own entrepreneur cohort. Life's full of ironies, but this one is a bitter pill indeed. Peter Koo, who has disdained meeting with the opposition, proceeded at last Thursday's hearing to walk out of the hall before the opposition panel had a chance to lay out its case-and promptly went on vacation this week, precluding any possible meeting before the council vote.
That being said, the project is heading down to the wire with a number of unresolved issues-as the Queens Courier reports: "Next week a City Council committee is expected to vote on Flushing Commons – a major development located at the site of Municipal Lot 1 in downtown Flushing – but in the meantime, the city and developers are continuing a dialogue with members of the City Council trying to address any concerns. At a Land Use Committee hearing on Thursday, July 15, supporters and opponents of the project gave testimony while Council members questioned the developers about issues ranging from parking concerns to construction mitigation."
Land Use Chair Comrie has been trying to negotiate some changes to the plan-with a focus on the parking concerns of the local businesses: "Queens City Council member Leroy Comrie, who chairs the Land Use Committee, said the Council is still speaking with developers about finding more on-street parking and using the existing YMCA space for additional parking. In addition, he mentioned making sure there were adequate plans in place to ensure existing businesses were not decimated by the construction of the project."
On behalf of the Flushing Coalition we reiterated the concern with the project's density-and continue to press the council for a delay so that there will be more time to attempt to resolve some of the outstanding issues: "We’re continuing to press all of the issues,” said Richard Lipsky, a spokesperson for the group opposing Flushing Commons. “We think the project is too large.”
The issue of the impact of the project-parking and competition-remains a sticking point, with the EDC economic impact report eliding any of the substantive issues or concerns of the locals. As the Queens Tribune points out, small business owners are frightened: "Soon Ok Ko runs a garment alteration business on Union Street near Municipal Lot 1, the site where the project would be built. Macedonia Plaza, an affordable-housing complex to be voted on along with Flushing Commons that would be built on an adjacent lot owned by the Macedonia AME Church, has few if any vocal opponents. Ko said she has been unable to sleep as a result of her concerns about the negative impact Flushing Commons will have on neighboring businesses during its construction. “If this project goes through, I believe I will have almost no customers,” she said through an interpreter, summing up the concerns of a slew of local merchants who have voraciously opposed the project throughout the months-long public review process."
Ko's fears are apparently falling on deaf ears as far as the local council member is concerned, and it will be up to others to try to reduce the project's size and potential impact-and in this regard Queens BP Marshall made the following point: "Marshall mentioned several specific concerns she had, including compliance with guidelines regarding minority and women businesses and compensation for area merchants who will be affected by the construction. “As part of the business interruption plan, the city should explore various means to help downtown Flushing small businesses, including aggressive marketing strategies, tax relief programs and closer alternative parking spaces, or perhaps jitney shuttle service to and from the identified interim parking areas to help them during the construction period,” she said."
But, if such a plan is concocted as part of a negotiated settlement here, than the oversight authority needs to have some independent status apart from an EDC-through its actions and its impact study-that is hostile to the Flushing businesses (and to small businesses everywhere). A separate entity needs to be formed that is both representative and indigenous to the neighborhood-and to bring in worthless consultants like Cornerstone will do more harm than good; as well as eat up the funds that could best be devoted to the merchants.
The Flushing Coalition for Responsible Development has done a good job in a relatively short time frame in critiquing the development and raising the consciousness of the council members-particularly to the fatal flaws of an environmental review that is intellectually embarrassing as well as fraudulent. What the Coalition has demonstrated by doing so, is that the EIS is an anachronism, and EDC's consultants and their developer patrons know this only too well.
As a result of this knowledge, they churn out boilerplate cheese whiz-and proceed to laugh all the way to the bank.If the city council, after listening-and agreeing-to our economic and traffic critiques, could allow the Flushing Commons to get a green light to go forward, it is the strongest evidence possible that the entire expensive EIS exercise is a colossal waste of time and money. We will comment more on this at a later date-but it will be interesting to see how this all is worked out, and if we live long enough, how the 7 Line will absorb all of the Willets Point and Flushing Commons overflow.
As we have said before, it is one of our greatest disappointments to have waited thirty years for a legitimate small business owner to be elected to the city council, only to have that member be someone who was ready and eager to sell out the interests of his own entrepreneur cohort. Life's full of ironies, but this one is a bitter pill indeed. Peter Koo, who has disdained meeting with the opposition, proceeded at last Thursday's hearing to walk out of the hall before the opposition panel had a chance to lay out its case-and promptly went on vacation this week, precluding any possible meeting before the council vote.
That being said, the project is heading down to the wire with a number of unresolved issues-as the Queens Courier reports: "Next week a City Council committee is expected to vote on Flushing Commons – a major development located at the site of Municipal Lot 1 in downtown Flushing – but in the meantime, the city and developers are continuing a dialogue with members of the City Council trying to address any concerns. At a Land Use Committee hearing on Thursday, July 15, supporters and opponents of the project gave testimony while Council members questioned the developers about issues ranging from parking concerns to construction mitigation."
Land Use Chair Comrie has been trying to negotiate some changes to the plan-with a focus on the parking concerns of the local businesses: "Queens City Council member Leroy Comrie, who chairs the Land Use Committee, said the Council is still speaking with developers about finding more on-street parking and using the existing YMCA space for additional parking. In addition, he mentioned making sure there were adequate plans in place to ensure existing businesses were not decimated by the construction of the project."
On behalf of the Flushing Coalition we reiterated the concern with the project's density-and continue to press the council for a delay so that there will be more time to attempt to resolve some of the outstanding issues: "We’re continuing to press all of the issues,” said Richard Lipsky, a spokesperson for the group opposing Flushing Commons. “We think the project is too large.”
The issue of the impact of the project-parking and competition-remains a sticking point, with the EDC economic impact report eliding any of the substantive issues or concerns of the locals. As the Queens Tribune points out, small business owners are frightened: "Soon Ok Ko runs a garment alteration business on Union Street near Municipal Lot 1, the site where the project would be built. Macedonia Plaza, an affordable-housing complex to be voted on along with Flushing Commons that would be built on an adjacent lot owned by the Macedonia AME Church, has few if any vocal opponents. Ko said she has been unable to sleep as a result of her concerns about the negative impact Flushing Commons will have on neighboring businesses during its construction. “If this project goes through, I believe I will have almost no customers,” she said through an interpreter, summing up the concerns of a slew of local merchants who have voraciously opposed the project throughout the months-long public review process."
Ko's fears are apparently falling on deaf ears as far as the local council member is concerned, and it will be up to others to try to reduce the project's size and potential impact-and in this regard Queens BP Marshall made the following point: "Marshall mentioned several specific concerns she had, including compliance with guidelines regarding minority and women businesses and compensation for area merchants who will be affected by the construction. “As part of the business interruption plan, the city should explore various means to help downtown Flushing small businesses, including aggressive marketing strategies, tax relief programs and closer alternative parking spaces, or perhaps jitney shuttle service to and from the identified interim parking areas to help them during the construction period,” she said."
But, if such a plan is concocted as part of a negotiated settlement here, than the oversight authority needs to have some independent status apart from an EDC-through its actions and its impact study-that is hostile to the Flushing businesses (and to small businesses everywhere). A separate entity needs to be formed that is both representative and indigenous to the neighborhood-and to bring in worthless consultants like Cornerstone will do more harm than good; as well as eat up the funds that could best be devoted to the merchants.
The Flushing Coalition for Responsible Development has done a good job in a relatively short time frame in critiquing the development and raising the consciousness of the council members-particularly to the fatal flaws of an environmental review that is intellectually embarrassing as well as fraudulent. What the Coalition has demonstrated by doing so, is that the EIS is an anachronism, and EDC's consultants and their developer patrons know this only too well.
As a result of this knowledge, they churn out boilerplate cheese whiz-and proceed to laugh all the way to the bank.If the city council, after listening-and agreeing-to our economic and traffic critiques, could allow the Flushing Commons to get a green light to go forward, it is the strongest evidence possible that the entire expensive EIS exercise is a colossal waste of time and money. We will comment more on this at a later date-but it will be interesting to see how this all is worked out, and if we live long enough, how the 7 Line will absorb all of the Willets Point and Flushing Commons overflow.
Not Hedging Her Bets
As the NY Post is reporting today, Connecticut governor Jodi Rell is putting on a full court press to attract hedge fund mangers to relocate in her state: "Nutmeg State officials are dramatically stepping up their efforts to poach New York businesses -- wooing hedge-fund honchos to relocate by promising an "intimate" meeting with Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell at a swanky steakhouse in Darien, according to a letter obtained by The Post. Rell wrote to Timothy Selby, president of the New York Hedge Fund Roundtable, last Friday warning him that a proposed $50 million tax on certain hedge-fund managers is still alive in Albany -- and that's a great reason to move their businesses and jobs to her side of the border."
With NY State way up there in the not so great places to do business pantheon, the latest tax the wealthy move is just another step in the wrong direction-further stimulating the out migration that has sent hundreds of thousands of former New Yorkers to greener-and cheaper-pastures. It's another reason why the current front runner to replace the accidental NY governor has made lowering taxes and cutting government waste-along with political corruption-the main subject of his election platform.
Paterson, for his part, hasn't ruled out the hedge fund tax, saying: "he supported the out-of-state tax only "because we couldn't get the Legislature to do the other revenue raises we thought were more constructive." Sure, like other business crippling levies that are forwarded instead of the more challenging effort to streamline the huge state government bureaucracy.
But to be fair, perhaps Paterson was more preoccupied by the ongoing scandal involving his Body Man Johnson-as the NY Daily News helpfully explains: "The woman at the center of the scandal that crippled Gov. Paterson's administration is breaking her silence - and demanding prosecutors charge one of his former top aides. Sherr-una Booker, who dropped her first abuse complaint against boyfriend David Johnson after a talk with Paterson, said she is following through now because she wants the truth to be told. "It's the right thing to do," Booker said in her first interview, at times close to tears. "I don't want any woman to go through what I went through."
And Paterson, quick to jump on his bully pulpit to attack Hiram Monseratte, was right in the middle of this-looking a lot like an obstructer of justice: "When Booker sought an order of protection against Johnson days later, she told a court official the state police were pressuring her to drop her case against him. She held firm - until a short phone call with the governor, whom she knew socially, on Feb. 7. The next day, she skipped a court date to finalize the order of protection. "It is very vivid in my mind," Booker said. "The truth will come out." Paterson also reached out to two female state employees to speak with Booker about what had happened, sources said."
So, Andrew Cuomo has his hands full should he succeed this clueless knave-cleaning up the ethics mess while, at the same time trying to undo years of high tax and anti-business legislative actions that make New York such an inhospitable place to live and work. Be careful what you wish for Andrew.
With NY State way up there in the not so great places to do business pantheon, the latest tax the wealthy move is just another step in the wrong direction-further stimulating the out migration that has sent hundreds of thousands of former New Yorkers to greener-and cheaper-pastures. It's another reason why the current front runner to replace the accidental NY governor has made lowering taxes and cutting government waste-along with political corruption-the main subject of his election platform.
Paterson, for his part, hasn't ruled out the hedge fund tax, saying: "he supported the out-of-state tax only "because we couldn't get the Legislature to do the other revenue raises we thought were more constructive." Sure, like other business crippling levies that are forwarded instead of the more challenging effort to streamline the huge state government bureaucracy.
But to be fair, perhaps Paterson was more preoccupied by the ongoing scandal involving his Body Man Johnson-as the NY Daily News helpfully explains: "The woman at the center of the scandal that crippled Gov. Paterson's administration is breaking her silence - and demanding prosecutors charge one of his former top aides. Sherr-una Booker, who dropped her first abuse complaint against boyfriend David Johnson after a talk with Paterson, said she is following through now because she wants the truth to be told. "It's the right thing to do," Booker said in her first interview, at times close to tears. "I don't want any woman to go through what I went through."
And Paterson, quick to jump on his bully pulpit to attack Hiram Monseratte, was right in the middle of this-looking a lot like an obstructer of justice: "When Booker sought an order of protection against Johnson days later, she told a court official the state police were pressuring her to drop her case against him. She held firm - until a short phone call with the governor, whom she knew socially, on Feb. 7. The next day, she skipped a court date to finalize the order of protection. "It is very vivid in my mind," Booker said. "The truth will come out." Paterson also reached out to two female state employees to speak with Booker about what had happened, sources said."
So, Andrew Cuomo has his hands full should he succeed this clueless knave-cleaning up the ethics mess while, at the same time trying to undo years of high tax and anti-business legislative actions that make New York such an inhospitable place to live and work. Be careful what you wish for Andrew.
Good as Goldsmith
We attended the Crain's breakfast that hosted Steve Goldsmith, the new deputy mayor of operations-and while we didn't agree with everything he said, we were impressed with his flair for innovation and re-inventing government. In this regard, the NY Post's take on the man yesterday-labeling him a hatchet man-was off base: "City government is going to get a lot smarter and leaner to cope with crushing financial challenges next year -- so FDNY company closings are again on the table, and fees for residential sanitation pickups can't be ruled out, Deputy Mayor Stephen Goldsmith said yesterday. In his first major speech since taking office last month, Goldsmith told business executives at a Crain's New York breakfast that he's rushing to re-engineer as much of government operations as practically and politically possible to prepare for the fiscal 2012 budget year, when the city faces a $3.3 billion deficit and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal stimulus funds."
In our view, Goldsmith's arrival is eight years overdue-and his interest in reforming urban governance arrives too late in the Bloomberg-extended-term; but better late...What struck us most was his belief in government intrapreneurism-generating competition so that government services are delivered more efficiently and with less cost. He discussed the concept of privatizing garbage collection, and related how in Indianapolis he used the threat of such a move to improve the productivity of the municipal labor force. He also stated his distaste for monopolistic situations-both private as well as public.
Clearly, as the Insider reported yesterday (subsc.), Goldsmith is ready to streamline government and try to make it more efficient: "The Bloomberg administration is systematically examining city expenses as it prepares to close next year's $3 billion budget deficit without the benefit of leftover surpluses. “You name an expense item, we've got a working group attached to it,” Deputy Mayor Stephen Goldsmith said during yesterday's Crain's Breakfast Forum. “I'm reasonably confident that they'll result in significant savings.”
In addition, the new deputy talked about developing public-private partnerships-relating how, in data collection the city has roughly 50 different centers devoted to its collection and dissemination; with a poor handle on efficient out put. He also told the Crain's audience that there are 33 HR specialists for every city worker-implying that there is great redundancy that could be streamlined.
On the controversial issue of congestion pricing, however, Goldsmith lost us saying that he feels that it is a good idea to use, "pricing signals to change behavior." In our view, that's simply a fancy phrase to label what is in reality nothing more than a tax-and taxes are always efficient at changing behavior-as the sales tax effectively sends NYC shoppers out to the burbs in the pursuit of cheaper goods. Goldsmith didn't get into this dicey area.
But, if his mindset is allowed to take hold here in New York, we can see him taking the lead on reducing the unnecessary regulations that cripple small businesses and reduce their productivity. There was little from the new deputy on the role of business in general, understandably so since his portfolio is operations.
All in all, Goldsmith was a breathe of fresh air-and an answer to our call for an innovative approach to city governance, something that's been missing over the past eight years. We look forward to seeing how he will seek to implement some of his reforms-and will closely monitor how his theories of innovation clash with the hidebound NYC realities. Given our ongoing lamentations about the current administration, we hope that our shout out to Goldsmith doesn't cause him any grief on the left side of City Hall.
In our view, Goldsmith's arrival is eight years overdue-and his interest in reforming urban governance arrives too late in the Bloomberg-extended-term; but better late...What struck us most was his belief in government intrapreneurism-generating competition so that government services are delivered more efficiently and with less cost. He discussed the concept of privatizing garbage collection, and related how in Indianapolis he used the threat of such a move to improve the productivity of the municipal labor force. He also stated his distaste for monopolistic situations-both private as well as public.
Clearly, as the Insider reported yesterday (subsc.), Goldsmith is ready to streamline government and try to make it more efficient: "The Bloomberg administration is systematically examining city expenses as it prepares to close next year's $3 billion budget deficit without the benefit of leftover surpluses. “You name an expense item, we've got a working group attached to it,” Deputy Mayor Stephen Goldsmith said during yesterday's Crain's Breakfast Forum. “I'm reasonably confident that they'll result in significant savings.”
In addition, the new deputy talked about developing public-private partnerships-relating how, in data collection the city has roughly 50 different centers devoted to its collection and dissemination; with a poor handle on efficient out put. He also told the Crain's audience that there are 33 HR specialists for every city worker-implying that there is great redundancy that could be streamlined.
On the controversial issue of congestion pricing, however, Goldsmith lost us saying that he feels that it is a good idea to use, "pricing signals to change behavior." In our view, that's simply a fancy phrase to label what is in reality nothing more than a tax-and taxes are always efficient at changing behavior-as the sales tax effectively sends NYC shoppers out to the burbs in the pursuit of cheaper goods. Goldsmith didn't get into this dicey area.
But, if his mindset is allowed to take hold here in New York, we can see him taking the lead on reducing the unnecessary regulations that cripple small businesses and reduce their productivity. There was little from the new deputy on the role of business in general, understandably so since his portfolio is operations.
All in all, Goldsmith was a breathe of fresh air-and an answer to our call for an innovative approach to city governance, something that's been missing over the past eight years. We look forward to seeing how he will seek to implement some of his reforms-and will closely monitor how his theories of innovation clash with the hidebound NYC realities. Given our ongoing lamentations about the current administration, we hope that our shout out to Goldsmith doesn't cause him any grief on the left side of City Hall.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Supporting Bill Perkins
Liz has a link this morning to the fact that the RWDSU's Stu Appelbaum-along with Freddy Ferrer, Bill Thompson and Robert Jackson-have all endorsed the re-election bid of State Senator Bill Perkins. Good for them! Perkins is one Harlem pol that doesn't believe in top feeding-as one former mayor certainly does when it comes to Columbia University.
Perkins is a champion of the underdog when it comes to protecting the property rights of all New Yorkers-and was the one elected official in the Harlem community that wouldn't lay down before the Columbia juggernaut. At a time when too many minority politicians are acting as booty capitalists, Perkins stands for something-which is why we are likely to see the Bloomberg popular front media endorse his opponent. Let them!
The folks in the 30th senatorial district know that Bill will always be ready to fight for them-and while we might disagree with his stand on charters, it doesn't take away from the larger point that he is a fighter for the people on issues that other pols shy away from Go get 'em Bill!
Perkins is a champion of the underdog when it comes to protecting the property rights of all New Yorkers-and was the one elected official in the Harlem community that wouldn't lay down before the Columbia juggernaut. At a time when too many minority politicians are acting as booty capitalists, Perkins stands for something-which is why we are likely to see the Bloomberg popular front media endorse his opponent. Let them!
The folks in the 30th senatorial district know that Bill will always be ready to fight for them-and while we might disagree with his stand on charters, it doesn't take away from the larger point that he is a fighter for the people on issues that other pols shy away from Go get 'em Bill!
Re-Test: Educating the Educators
The NYS Department of Education, acknowledging its failure to provide righteous testing modalities for New York's school kids, has promised reform-but, as Fred Smith opines in the NY Post today, the reforms don't go far enough to clean up the mess from the old testing regime: "Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch and Education Commissioner David Steiner have admitted that the state has badly bungled its testing of New York's schoolchildren. They are promising to do better -- but want to close the book on what went wrong. Sorry: Assurances of more honest days ahead aren't enough -- we need to resolve accountability for the dishonest days of the recent past. After all, Tisch and Steiner are implicitly acknowledging that the critics have been right, and the state Education Department wrong, for years -- since 2006, at least."
Now, this isn't news to us-and we have commented on the testing scam on any number of occasions; but the real expose has come from Sol Stern's City Journal writing. In April, he pointed out: "Unfortunately, when NCLB became law, it left the door wide open to massive test inflation by stipulating that all American students “will be proficient” by the year 2014—and imposing a series of increasingly onerous sanctions on districts and schools not moving toward that goal—yet allowing each state to develop its own tests and set its own standard for “proficiency.” Since men are not angels, it was inevitable that some state education authorities would lower the proficiency bar to make themselves look good to the feds."
But Stern went on: "Stern goes on to detail how NYS DOE colluded with this fraudulent lying to the school children and their parents, resisting efforts to insure that the tests had integrity. The result, says Stern is that we were provided with a feel good false positive that camouflaged the grim reality of insufficient progress: "In many districts, the number of students in all grades scoring above the proficiency bar was nearly 100 percent. In City Journal and the New York Daily News, I’ve called results like this the Lake Wobegon Effect, after Garrison Keillor’s tales about a town where “all the children are above average.”
But Smith believes that there is a need to clean this stable of corruption with a good deal more thoroughness than what the chancellor is planning to do now-and he is horrified that the same crew who was responsible for the mess is being tasked to clean it up: "Tisch and Steiner want us to believe we're entering an era of testing integrity, which will be signaled in a few days when the 2010 results crash down on the inflated scores of the last four years. Nothing will change, however, unless those who produced the disastrous testing program are held to account for the harm they've caused. The same officials and technical advisers have been retained to deliver the new package. No one should buy it. Truth about the past must precede trust in the future."
And, on its editorial page, the NY Post is in agreement: "State education officials released a study this week that shows just why they're raising the bar on state tests -- and they got the Board of Regents to back the idea. That's great. But as we said last week -- when The Post reported the plan -- they've got a long way to go before New Yorkers can have confidence in state test scores, grades and other such benchmarks."
And what's with state and city officials when it comes to fraudulent tests and reports? As we pointed out yesterday, NYSDOT is continuing to rely on EDC's consultants in the preparation of a report on ramps for the Van Wyck, proposed top mitigate the gigantic Willets Point development-even after it was demonstrated by critics that those same consultants had produced contradictory, and apparently purposefully deceptive original traffic estimates. Talk about foxes in chicken coops-both the state regents and the DOT need to have their feathers plucked.
But, at the same time, what's with the Post? In its entire editorial on the test scam, caustic sarcasm reigns supreme:"No wonder nearly 80 percent of the state's students were deemed proficient in English last year, as compared to 62 percent in 2006. No wonder nearly 90 percent earned that distinction in math, as compared to 66 percent in 2006. And no wonder there was such widespread distrust of the tests. Now there's solid proof that such skepticism was on target. "It is very likely that some of the state's progress was illusory," the lead researcher, Daniel Koretz, said."
Yet nowhere in the opinion piece is there a single mention of how these fraudulent tests were put to good use by the city's mayor and school chancellor-and/or how teachers and administrators scammed millions as a result of phony jacked up scores. So half a kudo for the Post for its editorial that, when read carefully, is an example of the dog that didn't bark.
Now, this isn't news to us-and we have commented on the testing scam on any number of occasions; but the real expose has come from Sol Stern's City Journal writing. In April, he pointed out: "Unfortunately, when NCLB became law, it left the door wide open to massive test inflation by stipulating that all American students “will be proficient” by the year 2014—and imposing a series of increasingly onerous sanctions on districts and schools not moving toward that goal—yet allowing each state to develop its own tests and set its own standard for “proficiency.” Since men are not angels, it was inevitable that some state education authorities would lower the proficiency bar to make themselves look good to the feds."
But Stern went on: "Stern goes on to detail how NYS DOE colluded with this fraudulent lying to the school children and their parents, resisting efforts to insure that the tests had integrity. The result, says Stern is that we were provided with a feel good false positive that camouflaged the grim reality of insufficient progress: "In many districts, the number of students in all grades scoring above the proficiency bar was nearly 100 percent. In City Journal and the New York Daily News, I’ve called results like this the Lake Wobegon Effect, after Garrison Keillor’s tales about a town where “all the children are above average.”
But Smith believes that there is a need to clean this stable of corruption with a good deal more thoroughness than what the chancellor is planning to do now-and he is horrified that the same crew who was responsible for the mess is being tasked to clean it up: "Tisch and Steiner want us to believe we're entering an era of testing integrity, which will be signaled in a few days when the 2010 results crash down on the inflated scores of the last four years. Nothing will change, however, unless those who produced the disastrous testing program are held to account for the harm they've caused. The same officials and technical advisers have been retained to deliver the new package. No one should buy it. Truth about the past must precede trust in the future."
And, on its editorial page, the NY Post is in agreement: "State education officials released a study this week that shows just why they're raising the bar on state tests -- and they got the Board of Regents to back the idea. That's great. But as we said last week -- when The Post reported the plan -- they've got a long way to go before New Yorkers can have confidence in state test scores, grades and other such benchmarks."
And what's with state and city officials when it comes to fraudulent tests and reports? As we pointed out yesterday, NYSDOT is continuing to rely on EDC's consultants in the preparation of a report on ramps for the Van Wyck, proposed top mitigate the gigantic Willets Point development-even after it was demonstrated by critics that those same consultants had produced contradictory, and apparently purposefully deceptive original traffic estimates. Talk about foxes in chicken coops-both the state regents and the DOT need to have their feathers plucked.
But, at the same time, what's with the Post? In its entire editorial on the test scam, caustic sarcasm reigns supreme:"No wonder nearly 80 percent of the state's students were deemed proficient in English last year, as compared to 62 percent in 2006. No wonder nearly 90 percent earned that distinction in math, as compared to 66 percent in 2006. And no wonder there was such widespread distrust of the tests. Now there's solid proof that such skepticism was on target. "It is very likely that some of the state's progress was illusory," the lead researcher, Daniel Koretz, said."
Yet nowhere in the opinion piece is there a single mention of how these fraudulent tests were put to good use by the city's mayor and school chancellor-and/or how teachers and administrators scammed millions as a result of phony jacked up scores. So half a kudo for the Post for its editorial that, when read carefully, is an example of the dog that didn't bark.
Patricianage
In a previous story, the NY Times exposed the fact that the Bloomberg administration has a whiter shade of pale-even when compared to the Sharpton-excoriated Giuliani administration. The Bloombergistas idea of diversity is to hire someone from Goldman Sachs if there's no one from Lehman Brothers readily available. But now, on top of this incredible whiteness of being, we are told by the Times that we can add rank nepotism to the hiring practices of the current mayoralty-right down to its summer interns.
As the paper points out: "They are the offspring of boldface names, like Lloyd C. Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs; Peter G. Peterson, co-founder of the Blackstone Group; and Laurence A. Tisch, who was a hotel mogul and chief executive of CBS. They enjoyed a comfortable childhood and, as it turns out, a coveted summer job: They all landed internships at New York’s City Hall under Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, according to a list obtained by The New York Times through the Freedom of Information Act."
What, you mean the Bloombergistas weren't proud to just give the list up to the Times? We can't see why not, after all, everyone who has followed this gang of class clowns knows that they front for their own kind-that is why we have, via the supple mind of Dan Janison, labeled the practice, "patricianage;" the rewarding of the well connected class mates of Mike Bloomberg and company.
The Times hones in on this diversity travesty: "But the records offer a glimpse inside the social and power circles of the Bloomberg administration, which has accommodated dozens of young people with connections to the mayor’s friends, business associates and government appointees for the prestigious, if unpaid, slots. Take Jacob Doctoroff, whose father, Daniel L. Doctoroff, was deputy mayor and is now the president of Bloomberg L.P. He had an internship in 2002. He was in the eighth grade."
Of course, the Son of Dan should be rewarded since his father was the most skilled practitioner of patricianage-rewarding Steve Ross and the Related Company a wide range of real estate opportunities-and some of the most lucrative didn't even have the fig leaf of a bidding process. But the nepotism reveals the fact that this administration is a firm believer in nobless oblige-and sees the talented elite as the obligers in question.
What this ugly reality masks, however, is the extent to which these internships are a real career builder for anyone-and every slot that was taken up by some son of a CEO, deprived a less privileged striver of real opportunity: "Career counselors view the appointments, which are primarily summer stints, as plum résumé enhancers, partly because of Mr. Bloomberg’s stature. In a 2002 opinion that allowed Ms. Bloomberg’s daughter, Emma, to work as an unpaid adviser, the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board declared that “although Ms. Bloomberg will not be compensated by the city for her work, the opportunity to work in City Hall confers prestige as well as experience that is not widely available and that many would regard as valuable.”
So, the more we see the isolated and privileged reality of this administration, the more we can appreciate just how removed it is from the realities of neighborhood life in NYC-and the real reason why Bloomberg remains out of touch with average folks, something that his mega-development policy making highlights. Just as all of his friends are billionaires, so it is with the coveted internships-here, as with all things Bloomberg, the government choir sings with a distinctively upper class accent.
As the paper points out: "They are the offspring of boldface names, like Lloyd C. Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs; Peter G. Peterson, co-founder of the Blackstone Group; and Laurence A. Tisch, who was a hotel mogul and chief executive of CBS. They enjoyed a comfortable childhood and, as it turns out, a coveted summer job: They all landed internships at New York’s City Hall under Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, according to a list obtained by The New York Times through the Freedom of Information Act."
What, you mean the Bloombergistas weren't proud to just give the list up to the Times? We can't see why not, after all, everyone who has followed this gang of class clowns knows that they front for their own kind-that is why we have, via the supple mind of Dan Janison, labeled the practice, "patricianage;" the rewarding of the well connected class mates of Mike Bloomberg and company.
The Times hones in on this diversity travesty: "But the records offer a glimpse inside the social and power circles of the Bloomberg administration, which has accommodated dozens of young people with connections to the mayor’s friends, business associates and government appointees for the prestigious, if unpaid, slots. Take Jacob Doctoroff, whose father, Daniel L. Doctoroff, was deputy mayor and is now the president of Bloomberg L.P. He had an internship in 2002. He was in the eighth grade."
Of course, the Son of Dan should be rewarded since his father was the most skilled practitioner of patricianage-rewarding Steve Ross and the Related Company a wide range of real estate opportunities-and some of the most lucrative didn't even have the fig leaf of a bidding process. But the nepotism reveals the fact that this administration is a firm believer in nobless oblige-and sees the talented elite as the obligers in question.
What this ugly reality masks, however, is the extent to which these internships are a real career builder for anyone-and every slot that was taken up by some son of a CEO, deprived a less privileged striver of real opportunity: "Career counselors view the appointments, which are primarily summer stints, as plum résumé enhancers, partly because of Mr. Bloomberg’s stature. In a 2002 opinion that allowed Ms. Bloomberg’s daughter, Emma, to work as an unpaid adviser, the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board declared that “although Ms. Bloomberg will not be compensated by the city for her work, the opportunity to work in City Hall confers prestige as well as experience that is not widely available and that many would regard as valuable.”
So, the more we see the isolated and privileged reality of this administration, the more we can appreciate just how removed it is from the realities of neighborhood life in NYC-and the real reason why Bloomberg remains out of touch with average folks, something that his mega-development policy making highlights. Just as all of his friends are billionaires, so it is with the coveted internships-here, as with all things Bloomberg, the government choir sings with a distinctively upper class accent.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
NYSDOT Stonewalls
The chronicles of the Willets Point ramps continue, with the state transportation agency apparently operating in bad faith-and against the interest of independent and transparent review. As we have commented previously, NYSDOT has replied negatively to the letter from the Natural Resources Defense Council requesting that the agency conduct an independent review of the data pertaining to the feasibility of the aforementioned ramps.
The genesis of the request devolved from NRDC's concern that the lead agency, in this case EDC, simply couldn't be trusted to provide accurate and reliable traffic information-a supposition that itself devolved from EDC's two separate and contradictory traffic reports pertaining to Willets Point traffic generation. As we have said before: "But the blatant contradictions in the two discrepant Willets Point traffic studies had caught the attention of the Natural Resources Defense Council-arguably New York's leading environmental group. In March, NRDC wrote to both NYSDOT and the FHWA calling for an independent review of the traffic going from Willets Point to the Van Wyck: "NRDC is not taking a position on advancing the Willets Point project or on constructing the ramps. But based on our preliminary review, we are concerned over the discrepancies in the study results, and also by the prospect that a project could impair regional mobility..."
NYSDOT's indefensible response came a few months later: "That was last March-fast forward to July, and NYSDOT has finally responded to the NRDC request in a letter dated July, 2, 2010-but is claiming that there is no need for an independent review: "The NEPA documents that are being developed are an Environmental Assessment and a revised Access Modification Report....We understand the request for an independent review but believe that working closely with NYCEDC, we can assure that the data will be based on sound data."
But, at the same time that NYSDOT is doing the macarena with EDC, it is stonewalling Willets Point United's effort to get access to the data being submitted-as well as the cozy conversations between the state and EDC. As WPU's Jerry Antonacci writes in his FOIA letter to the state agency: "You indicated during our telephone conversation that a revised version of the AMR is expected to be submitted by NYCEDC to NYSDOT on or about October 1, 2010. However, the present process of revising the AMR necessarily generates revised draft AMR content and materials which are all records that are responsive to the above-referenced FOIL Request, and which NYSDOT is either obligated to disclose, or entitled to exercise its discretion to disclose, consistent with the promises of an open, transparent and cooperative process that were made by NYSDOT at the two meetings held during February and March, 2010. Finally, we point out that NYSDOT and NYCEDC each fully disclosed the entire August, 2009 Draft AMR, with no redaction whatsoever, in response to previous Records Access Requests made months ago." (emphasis added)
So, let's get this straight. The revision of this original-and fraudulent-AMR only came about because of the intervention of WPU and its traffic consultant Brian Ketcham, who flagged the contradictions in the two studies done by EDC and forced NYSDOT's hand in all this. At the time, as we highlight above, all concerned promised that Ketcham would be included in the discussion and WPU would be privy to the ongoing data collection and analysis. However, instead of following through on its promise of cooperation and transparency, NYSDOT has gone the opposite route-stonewalling the data requests and shutting the only righteous analyst out of the revision process.
NYSDOT has, in effect, embraced the fraudsters saying that (we), "believe that working closely with NYCEDC, we can assure that the data will be based on sound data." Can there be any clearer demonstration of the agency's collusion than this breathtaking assertion made to the state's lead environmental group?
So, the two agencies have decided to partner together without the benefit of any independent review-and without, at least as far as we know, any planned public review process. WPU has gathered the support of a dozen local community groups and civics that have all requested NYSDOT to provide an independent review. All these groups believe, as Council member Dan Halloran expressed at last week's council land use hearing, that they don't believe a word that EDC says.
NYSDOT is walking on thin ice here-and the agency better be prepared to answer the questions that will be peppered at it by legislators at the upcoming state senate hearing on the ramps. Like Lucy, NYSDOT has a lot of "splaining to do." The open question that remains is, will the FHWA buy into this tainted review process?
The genesis of the request devolved from NRDC's concern that the lead agency, in this case EDC, simply couldn't be trusted to provide accurate and reliable traffic information-a supposition that itself devolved from EDC's two separate and contradictory traffic reports pertaining to Willets Point traffic generation. As we have said before: "But the blatant contradictions in the two discrepant Willets Point traffic studies had caught the attention of the Natural Resources Defense Council-arguably New York's leading environmental group. In March, NRDC wrote to both NYSDOT and the FHWA calling for an independent review of the traffic going from Willets Point to the Van Wyck: "NRDC is not taking a position on advancing the Willets Point project or on constructing the ramps. But based on our preliminary review, we are concerned over the discrepancies in the study results, and also by the prospect that a project could impair regional mobility..."
NYSDOT's indefensible response came a few months later: "That was last March-fast forward to July, and NYSDOT has finally responded to the NRDC request in a letter dated July, 2, 2010-but is claiming that there is no need for an independent review: "The NEPA documents that are being developed are an Environmental Assessment and a revised Access Modification Report....We understand the request for an independent review but believe that working closely with NYCEDC, we can assure that the data will be based on sound data."
But, at the same time that NYSDOT is doing the macarena with EDC, it is stonewalling Willets Point United's effort to get access to the data being submitted-as well as the cozy conversations between the state and EDC. As WPU's Jerry Antonacci writes in his FOIA letter to the state agency: "You indicated during our telephone conversation that a revised version of the AMR is expected to be submitted by NYCEDC to NYSDOT on or about October 1, 2010. However, the present process of revising the AMR necessarily generates revised draft AMR content and materials which are all records that are responsive to the above-referenced FOIL Request, and which NYSDOT is either obligated to disclose, or entitled to exercise its discretion to disclose, consistent with the promises of an open, transparent and cooperative process that were made by NYSDOT at the two meetings held during February and March, 2010. Finally, we point out that NYSDOT and NYCEDC each fully disclosed the entire August, 2009 Draft AMR, with no redaction whatsoever, in response to previous Records Access Requests made months ago." (emphasis added)
So, let's get this straight. The revision of this original-and fraudulent-AMR only came about because of the intervention of WPU and its traffic consultant Brian Ketcham, who flagged the contradictions in the two studies done by EDC and forced NYSDOT's hand in all this. At the time, as we highlight above, all concerned promised that Ketcham would be included in the discussion and WPU would be privy to the ongoing data collection and analysis. However, instead of following through on its promise of cooperation and transparency, NYSDOT has gone the opposite route-stonewalling the data requests and shutting the only righteous analyst out of the revision process.
NYSDOT has, in effect, embraced the fraudsters saying that (we), "believe that working closely with NYCEDC, we can assure that the data will be based on sound data." Can there be any clearer demonstration of the agency's collusion than this breathtaking assertion made to the state's lead environmental group?
So, the two agencies have decided to partner together without the benefit of any independent review-and without, at least as far as we know, any planned public review process. WPU has gathered the support of a dozen local community groups and civics that have all requested NYSDOT to provide an independent review. All these groups believe, as Council member Dan Halloran expressed at last week's council land use hearing, that they don't believe a word that EDC says.
NYSDOT is walking on thin ice here-and the agency better be prepared to answer the questions that will be peppered at it by legislators at the upcoming state senate hearing on the ramps. Like Lucy, NYSDOT has a lot of "splaining to do." The open question that remains is, will the FHWA buy into this tainted review process?
Buried Benefits
As the NY Daily News continues to report, the site for the proposed Flushing Commons development may well sit atop an old cemetery-and the controversy could well delay a scheduled vote on the project: "A prominent Queens councilman has urged the city to fulfill its "obligation" by investigating Daily News reports that 19th century graves may still exist on a site slated for a controversial Flushing project. Leroy Comrie, chairman of the City Council's powerful land use committee, called on the city to ensure "gentle" treatment of any tombs at the plot set for Flushing Commons, a mix of housing and retail space. The proposal is expected to be voted on by the land use committee on July 28 and then by the full Council. But Comrie said too many question marks remain."
If so, that would be good news-particularly to the Union Street merchants who, if the project goes forward as is-would have their businesses buried when the three year construction period commences for this over developed project. But we did get a kick out of the Queens BP's statement about the possibility: "Later, Queens Borough President Helen Marshall echoed Comrie's calls for a careful check. "There should be reasonable measures to ensure there are not human remains on the construction site," Marshall read from prepared testimony. She lifted her head and continued off the cuff: "We treasure our people, both while they're alive and after they pass away."
You'll perhaps pardon the Flushing shop owners for feeling that the concerns are greater for those passed than they are for the living and breathing; although EDC couldn't really be bothered with either: "At Thursday's hearing, Comrie (D-Jamaica) pressed Seth Pinsky, president of the city Economic Development Corp., for details about new excavation plans. "No one has said to date what will be done," Comrie said. Pinsky defended the 1953 excavation as an "extensive investigation." But when Comrie asked how far down the hand-diggers went in 1953, Pinsky admitted, "I don't have that exact figure." The News asked the city last month for records of the excavation to determine its scope, but the city has not yet produced any. A spokeswoman for the city Law Department, which officially declared the cemetery nonexistent in 1954, said the agency is "still looking" for the report."
Meanwhile, back with the living, the Flushing Coalition for Responsible development is planning a town hall meeting and rally against the project scheduled for this weekend-with all of the area's elected officials-including the evanescent council member Peter Koo-slated to be invited. The Coalition hopes to breathe life into the opposition, and thus help to get the city council to scale down the over-sized development so it doesn't destroy the already shaky small business community of this unique neighborhood.
If so, that would be good news-particularly to the Union Street merchants who, if the project goes forward as is-would have their businesses buried when the three year construction period commences for this over developed project. But we did get a kick out of the Queens BP's statement about the possibility: "Later, Queens Borough President Helen Marshall echoed Comrie's calls for a careful check. "There should be reasonable measures to ensure there are not human remains on the construction site," Marshall read from prepared testimony. She lifted her head and continued off the cuff: "We treasure our people, both while they're alive and after they pass away."
You'll perhaps pardon the Flushing shop owners for feeling that the concerns are greater for those passed than they are for the living and breathing; although EDC couldn't really be bothered with either: "At Thursday's hearing, Comrie (D-Jamaica) pressed Seth Pinsky, president of the city Economic Development Corp., for details about new excavation plans. "No one has said to date what will be done," Comrie said. Pinsky defended the 1953 excavation as an "extensive investigation." But when Comrie asked how far down the hand-diggers went in 1953, Pinsky admitted, "I don't have that exact figure." The News asked the city last month for records of the excavation to determine its scope, but the city has not yet produced any. A spokeswoman for the city Law Department, which officially declared the cemetery nonexistent in 1954, said the agency is "still looking" for the report."
Meanwhile, back with the living, the Flushing Coalition for Responsible development is planning a town hall meeting and rally against the project scheduled for this weekend-with all of the area's elected officials-including the evanescent council member Peter Koo-slated to be invited. The Coalition hopes to breathe life into the opposition, and thus help to get the city council to scale down the over-sized development so it doesn't destroy the already shaky small business community of this unique neighborhood.
Bloomberg Unfeasible
As Crain's is reporting, the Bloomberg administration is at its old raising fees tricks-this time its the Hunts Point Market, an economic engine for not only the Bronx, but for the entire city as well In addition, the city's other wholesale food markets would also be subject to higher fees: "The city's six wholesale food markets are raising a stink about a little known city commission made up of law enforcement officials who regulate them, claiming that the agency is overstepping its authority. The Business Integrity Commission, formed in 2001 to root out organized crime in the wholesale food markets and the carting industry, held a hearing late last month to discuss new proposed rules, including dramatically higher fees for business registration and employee identification cards."
Now we were in on all of this organized crime overkill when Rudy Giuliani first introduced it in the middle of the last decade-and we successfully debunked the typical Rudy over reach so that the scope of market oversight was more limited. It is all, in our view, not only a colossal waste of time, it is an unnecessary burden on the businesses-as well as on the retailers that rely on the market for their meat and produce: "The food merchants, however, say BIC is hurting their businesses by cracking down on small infractions and being overzealous. “BIC has a detrimental affect on us,” says Matthew D'Arrigo, co-owner of D'Arrigo Brothers Co. of New York, one of the produce vendors at the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center in the Bronx."
Just another example of how the Bloombergistas have expanded the regulatory regime at the expense of small business-as Kyle Smith documents so well in Sunday's NY Post (a redux of Steve Malanga's more comprehensive evaluation in the City Journal). This is the "fiscal conservative: that Reuters saw as being a legitimate independent candidate for president? As we have said ad nauseum, Mike only carries water for his Wall Street buddies when it comes to taxes and regulations-everyone else needs to pony up in Bloomberg's world.
That this is all being done in the current economic downturn is a further indication of how tone deaf the mayor is to any concerns from the little guys: ":There is no disputing the fee increases. By September, merchants could be paying $4,000 to renew their licenses to operate in the markets—which they are required to do every two or three years—up from $250. Alan Buxbaum, owner of A. Stein Meat Products in the Brooklyn Wholesale Meat Market at Sunset Park, said the fee increases are coming at a time when the company's already slim profit margins are squeezed by the weak economy. “It's another financial burden,” he said."
But the demands of the Bloomberg administrative state supersede all other concerns-as the clueless and callous commissioner underscores: "The fee increases, however, do not even cover the full cost of BIC's investigations, said Mr. Mansfield. “Our core mission is to keep organized crime out of these businesses, so that they have a safe environment,” he said. The commissioner believes the businesses can absorb the extra costs. The average net sales of a merchant at the Hunts Point Meat market, he said, are $52 million a year. “The fees have gone up and the change appears significant, but the rules did not change,” said Mr. Mansfield, a former Executive Assistant District Attorney for Operations at the Queens District Attorney's Office. “This is no more significant than changing a sign on a business when there is a change of hands.”
Mansfield should feel right at home with this mayor who, when questioned about how the cigarette tax was costing bodegas over $250 million a year in lost sales, responded that it was, "a minor economic issue." For Mansfield it is as if he was cloned-and his comments are reminiscent of the old Vietnam observation that, "we had to destroy the village in order to save it."
But what the city is doing-as it always has done under this mayor-is to raise the cost of doing business; an expense that will be passed on down the food distribution chain to, ultimately, be borne by the citizens who shop at the local supermarkets and eat out in the city's restaurants. Just another example of fiscal conservatism in operation.
Now we were in on all of this organized crime overkill when Rudy Giuliani first introduced it in the middle of the last decade-and we successfully debunked the typical Rudy over reach so that the scope of market oversight was more limited. It is all, in our view, not only a colossal waste of time, it is an unnecessary burden on the businesses-as well as on the retailers that rely on the market for their meat and produce: "The food merchants, however, say BIC is hurting their businesses by cracking down on small infractions and being overzealous. “BIC has a detrimental affect on us,” says Matthew D'Arrigo, co-owner of D'Arrigo Brothers Co. of New York, one of the produce vendors at the Hunts Point Food Distribution Center in the Bronx."
Just another example of how the Bloombergistas have expanded the regulatory regime at the expense of small business-as Kyle Smith documents so well in Sunday's NY Post (a redux of Steve Malanga's more comprehensive evaluation in the City Journal). This is the "fiscal conservative: that Reuters saw as being a legitimate independent candidate for president? As we have said ad nauseum, Mike only carries water for his Wall Street buddies when it comes to taxes and regulations-everyone else needs to pony up in Bloomberg's world.
That this is all being done in the current economic downturn is a further indication of how tone deaf the mayor is to any concerns from the little guys: ":There is no disputing the fee increases. By September, merchants could be paying $4,000 to renew their licenses to operate in the markets—which they are required to do every two or three years—up from $250. Alan Buxbaum, owner of A. Stein Meat Products in the Brooklyn Wholesale Meat Market at Sunset Park, said the fee increases are coming at a time when the company's already slim profit margins are squeezed by the weak economy. “It's another financial burden,” he said."
But the demands of the Bloomberg administrative state supersede all other concerns-as the clueless and callous commissioner underscores: "The fee increases, however, do not even cover the full cost of BIC's investigations, said Mr. Mansfield. “Our core mission is to keep organized crime out of these businesses, so that they have a safe environment,” he said. The commissioner believes the businesses can absorb the extra costs. The average net sales of a merchant at the Hunts Point Meat market, he said, are $52 million a year. “The fees have gone up and the change appears significant, but the rules did not change,” said Mr. Mansfield, a former Executive Assistant District Attorney for Operations at the Queens District Attorney's Office. “This is no more significant than changing a sign on a business when there is a change of hands.”
Mansfield should feel right at home with this mayor who, when questioned about how the cigarette tax was costing bodegas over $250 million a year in lost sales, responded that it was, "a minor economic issue." For Mansfield it is as if he was cloned-and his comments are reminiscent of the old Vietnam observation that, "we had to destroy the village in order to save it."
But what the city is doing-as it always has done under this mayor-is to raise the cost of doing business; an expense that will be passed on down the food distribution chain to, ultimately, be borne by the citizens who shop at the local supermarkets and eat out in the city's restaurants. Just another example of fiscal conservatism in operation.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Going to the End of the Line
As the post's title suggests-shamelessly cribbing from the Traveling Willburys-there is a looming problem for the data dumping EDC, an organization that has been known to play fast and loose with the truth. As we have pointed out-and as Brian Ketcham is studying-EDC has been having its crack consultant team dump automobile users from its auto-dependent Queens mall projects onto the mass transit system that is already both over crowded as well as scheduled for some serious service cutbacks.
The purpose? To low ball the road and street impacts of the thousands of additional cars and trucks that the developments will likely generate. By changing their assumptions on both car usage and ownership we get-voilà!-thousands of folks seemingly diverted off of the roads. Nowhere, however, do the EDC marionettes examine the capacity of the trains and buses to handle this excess ridership-especially when the cutbacks, on the 7 Line in particular, have already been outlined.
The NY Times has the report: "The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is preparing additional service changes for the fall and winter, including trims to rush-hour service on several popular buses and the No. 7 train, even as New Yorkers are bracing for the loss of two subway lines and dozens of bus routes in less than a week. The proposed changes, which must be approved on Wednesday by the authority’s board, would be far less severe than the cuts scheduled to take effect on Sunday. But they would reduce service on dozens of bus routes and increase commuting time for riders on the No. 7 line."
Yet, if Ketcham is correct, and he's the only one who has bothered to run the numbers, the Flushing Commons project-and the Willets Point development-will add thousands of additional riders on the 7 Line. How will they ever be accommodated? This is all a three card monte game by EDC, and before Flushing Commons is approved, it is incumbent on the city council to ask the MTA if it can handle the excess passenger load when train service is being cut back.
In the end, we believe that the EDC data is less than reliable, and that more of these folks will drive. But enough will be diverted into mass transit that can't sustain the excess load. Unsustainable and dishonest-a perfect epitaph for any of these EDC developments.
The purpose? To low ball the road and street impacts of the thousands of additional cars and trucks that the developments will likely generate. By changing their assumptions on both car usage and ownership we get-voilà!-thousands of folks seemingly diverted off of the roads. Nowhere, however, do the EDC marionettes examine the capacity of the trains and buses to handle this excess ridership-especially when the cutbacks, on the 7 Line in particular, have already been outlined.
The NY Times has the report: "The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is preparing additional service changes for the fall and winter, including trims to rush-hour service on several popular buses and the No. 7 train, even as New Yorkers are bracing for the loss of two subway lines and dozens of bus routes in less than a week. The proposed changes, which must be approved on Wednesday by the authority’s board, would be far less severe than the cuts scheduled to take effect on Sunday. But they would reduce service on dozens of bus routes and increase commuting time for riders on the No. 7 line."
Yet, if Ketcham is correct, and he's the only one who has bothered to run the numbers, the Flushing Commons project-and the Willets Point development-will add thousands of additional riders on the 7 Line. How will they ever be accommodated? This is all a three card monte game by EDC, and before Flushing Commons is approved, it is incumbent on the city council to ask the MTA if it can handle the excess passenger load when train service is being cut back.
In the end, we believe that the EDC data is less than reliable, and that more of these folks will drive. But enough will be diverted into mass transit that can't sustain the excess load. Unsustainable and dishonest-a perfect epitaph for any of these EDC developments.
More Retail Politics: Living Wage Edition
This week's Crain's focuses in on the living wage work of RWDSU's president Stu Appelbaum (subsc.): "He doesn't boast the money, members or political might of some of New York's heaviest hitters in labor, but these days retail union President Stuart Appelbaum is creating a ruckus that belies his organization's size. In December, he engineered the defeat of the Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment by demanding that all the retail jobs created by the project pay at least $10 an hour, plus benefits—the only time a City Council land-use vote has gone against Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Mr. Appelbaum wasted little time after that in pushing a citywide living-wage bill that ticked off administration officials, developers and even some unions, which contend that it would be a job killer. Last week, the bill got a boost when the powerful building workers union, 32BJ SEIU, threw its weight behind it."
What Appelbaum has done is to focus a laser like attention on the Bloomberg economic development policies-and the gap between the mayor's ballyhoo and the poverty wage reality:
"Indeed, Mr. Appelbaum has succeeded in creating a public policy firestorm around living-wage mandates on publicly subsidized projects, upending an uneasy truce that had existed between developers, unions and activist groups in which they typically negotiated deals on a project-by-project basis. The mayor has repeatedly said that living-wage mandates for retail jobs would make projects economically unfeasible and stifle development. The ensuing commotion prompted the city to commission a $1 million study on the feasibility of tying a living wage to public projects. Mr. Appelbaum's stand against “institutionalizing poverty” in the city was born out of a sense of justice, he says, that developed early in his life. His father was a postal clerk and his mother a file clerk. Neither was politically active, but Mr. Appelbaum developed a political consciousness by reading his father's union newspaper and attending synagogue. In his east midtown office, he displays his father's American Postal Workers Union card and a poster featuring a line from Deuteronomy: “Justice, justice shalt thou pursue.” He holds up the framed print and says, “It's the moral imperative for what I do.”
But the pursuit of justice doesn't sit well with some of Appelbaum's labor colleagues-the ones for whom justice is, "just-us." These are the folks for whom building, no matter the quality or the impact, is the be all and end all-as long as their own members are doing the building, they care not a fig about who might not be benefiting; be they underpaid retail workers, or small businesses cannibalized by national chains. Nothing throws this mentality into better sharp relief than the current debate over Flushing Commons.
As we have highlighted in a previous post, the retail component of the project has the potential to grind both traffic and mom and pop shops to a halt in Flushing-exacerbated by the fact that national retail chains are proliferating in and around the project area. Yet, there is no attempt by the developer or EDC to insure that, at least, the retail jobs will be better than those, "poverty wage jobs," that Appelbaum speaks about. If you are going to cause such dislocation-and we haven't even mentioned the untenable strain imposed on the mass transit infrastructure-than, it seems to us, that the city could be working to insure that the retail workers at the new mall will be adequately compensated. You'd think.
But the EDC would rather spend millions, "studying," the issue-and we just know what these choochems will find, since we have seen how righteous such studies have been. So, when the city does its benefit analysis of these mega-projects-and, oh yes, Flushing Commons is IDA eligible, and you can bet the tax subsidies aren't far behind-they never do the cost analysis. We have outlined such costs previously, but the additional cost with Flushing Commons will be poorly paid workers, and richly rewarded developers.
What Appelbaum has done is to focus a laser like attention on the Bloomberg economic development policies-and the gap between the mayor's ballyhoo and the poverty wage reality:
"Indeed, Mr. Appelbaum has succeeded in creating a public policy firestorm around living-wage mandates on publicly subsidized projects, upending an uneasy truce that had existed between developers, unions and activist groups in which they typically negotiated deals on a project-by-project basis. The mayor has repeatedly said that living-wage mandates for retail jobs would make projects economically unfeasible and stifle development. The ensuing commotion prompted the city to commission a $1 million study on the feasibility of tying a living wage to public projects. Mr. Appelbaum's stand against “institutionalizing poverty” in the city was born out of a sense of justice, he says, that developed early in his life. His father was a postal clerk and his mother a file clerk. Neither was politically active, but Mr. Appelbaum developed a political consciousness by reading his father's union newspaper and attending synagogue. In his east midtown office, he displays his father's American Postal Workers Union card and a poster featuring a line from Deuteronomy: “Justice, justice shalt thou pursue.” He holds up the framed print and says, “It's the moral imperative for what I do.”
But the pursuit of justice doesn't sit well with some of Appelbaum's labor colleagues-the ones for whom justice is, "just-us." These are the folks for whom building, no matter the quality or the impact, is the be all and end all-as long as their own members are doing the building, they care not a fig about who might not be benefiting; be they underpaid retail workers, or small businesses cannibalized by national chains. Nothing throws this mentality into better sharp relief than the current debate over Flushing Commons.
As we have highlighted in a previous post, the retail component of the project has the potential to grind both traffic and mom and pop shops to a halt in Flushing-exacerbated by the fact that national retail chains are proliferating in and around the project area. Yet, there is no attempt by the developer or EDC to insure that, at least, the retail jobs will be better than those, "poverty wage jobs," that Appelbaum speaks about. If you are going to cause such dislocation-and we haven't even mentioned the untenable strain imposed on the mass transit infrastructure-than, it seems to us, that the city could be working to insure that the retail workers at the new mall will be adequately compensated. You'd think.
But the EDC would rather spend millions, "studying," the issue-and we just know what these choochems will find, since we have seen how righteous such studies have been. So, when the city does its benefit analysis of these mega-projects-and, oh yes, Flushing Commons is IDA eligible, and you can bet the tax subsidies aren't far behind-they never do the cost analysis. We have outlined such costs previously, but the additional cost with Flushing Commons will be poorly paid workers, and richly rewarded developers.
Presidential Bloomlet
We read an extremely funny Reuters' story (via Liz) about the possibility that Mike Bloomberg was a serious candidate for president in 2012. The rationales of the so-called experts, however, sounded just a mite off-key: "But analysts say however much he may protest, conditions may be gelling for Bloomberg, who came close to standing for the White House in 2008, to run in 2012 as an independent. Voter distaste for both the Democratic and Republican parties and perceptions of government incompetence on big issues, from the Iraq war to the Gulf oil spill, could herald a new chance for the three-term mayor. "He's got the right climate and he's got the money. Resources are always an issue for third-party candidates, but Bloomberg has got that covered," said Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling in Raleigh, North Carolina. Bloomberg, 68, is a fiscal conservative with liberal social views who is formally an independent. He combines proven political skills with business acumen and has drawn high ratings for his job running New York City."
This, "analysis," and with Mike you never know what is freely offered or purchased, fails to understand both the current political climate, as well as the reality of the mayor's philosophy and actual policy record. Voters today are disenchanted with both parties to the extent that the Democrats and the Republicans are similarly responsible for the ballooning national debt that has accompanied the vast increase in the administrative state that's out to regulate more and more features of our daily lives.
In this context, the Tea Party movement is an equal opportunity opponent of all establishment politicians-witness the fate of Utah Senator Bennett. But how does a Mike Bloomberg, the very guy who has recklessly expanded NYC government, find any kind of niche in this political climate? How does the trans fat ban and menu labeling act as a political calling card for the disaffected? And then there are his huge tax increases-and don't forget the regulatory regime that even targets guys just sitting on a milk crate in the neighborhood.
The latter phenomenon is captured by Kyle Smith in Sunday's NY Post-and the city's small businesses are right in the cross hairs of the uncaring mayor: "Justice comes swiftly to true miscreants. Just ask public enemy Pam Nelson, owner of the Butter Lane cupcakery on East 7th Street. She placed two tables outside her shop, discovered she had thereby created an “illegal sidewalk café” and was promptly shut down by the police. Warned? Told to move the tables? No, shut down. This directly cost her several days of lost revenue and maybe an even worse loss of business reputation. If you see an official notice announcing an eatery has been shut down, your mind swims with visions of rat poo, and you never go back."
This will certainly go over well with folks concerned about the impact of ObamaCare-as will the typical Mike Bloomberg reaction: "A capricious law, overzealous enforcement, disproportionate punishment — it’s almost like these are political issues, no? So our mayor quickly stepped in, and by stepped in, I mean, “Did nothing.” “Two thousand dollars is a pretty hefty fine, and I don’t know what law was broken,” Mike Bloomberg said, as though talking about the strange customs of someone else’s civilization. He showed no sign of taking any further interest."
And the idea that Bloomberg is a fiscal conservative sounds like the beginning of a Comedy Central bit. This is the guy who, while he didn't create the city's pension crisis, surely exacerbated it by larding New York's public payroll-and then proceeded to grant municipal workers generous, and unaffordable, raises. Oh, and we forgot that Mike Bloomberg observation about NYC being a luxury item-in response to a complaint about the high cost of living here. Tell us again, just where is the Bloomberg constituency?
The reality is that Mike Bloomberg is way out of touch with the anti-elitist political mood of the country-in fact he is its symbol. The one universal target of disdain in America-an area that sees agreement on both the Left and the Right-is Wall Street; and Mike Bloomberg has constantly gone out of his way to defend the financial sector with a zealotry that bakery owner Pam Nelson will never see from the patrician mayor. Mike's sanguine about regulating and taxing the tar out of any and all small shop keepers-and let's not forget his soda tax advocacy-but don't dare to raise a penny stock transfer tax with this guy-he'll bit your head off in a NY minute.
So, as much as we would welcome the hilarity of the charisma challenged and philosophically off key Bloomberg making an ass of himself all over the country-and the possibility of him perhaps resigning to do it is sure tantalizing-we don't think we will ever see it happen. One can dream though.
This, "analysis," and with Mike you never know what is freely offered or purchased, fails to understand both the current political climate, as well as the reality of the mayor's philosophy and actual policy record. Voters today are disenchanted with both parties to the extent that the Democrats and the Republicans are similarly responsible for the ballooning national debt that has accompanied the vast increase in the administrative state that's out to regulate more and more features of our daily lives.
In this context, the Tea Party movement is an equal opportunity opponent of all establishment politicians-witness the fate of Utah Senator Bennett. But how does a Mike Bloomberg, the very guy who has recklessly expanded NYC government, find any kind of niche in this political climate? How does the trans fat ban and menu labeling act as a political calling card for the disaffected? And then there are his huge tax increases-and don't forget the regulatory regime that even targets guys just sitting on a milk crate in the neighborhood.
The latter phenomenon is captured by Kyle Smith in Sunday's NY Post-and the city's small businesses are right in the cross hairs of the uncaring mayor: "Justice comes swiftly to true miscreants. Just ask public enemy Pam Nelson, owner of the Butter Lane cupcakery on East 7th Street. She placed two tables outside her shop, discovered she had thereby created an “illegal sidewalk café” and was promptly shut down by the police. Warned? Told to move the tables? No, shut down. This directly cost her several days of lost revenue and maybe an even worse loss of business reputation. If you see an official notice announcing an eatery has been shut down, your mind swims with visions of rat poo, and you never go back."
This will certainly go over well with folks concerned about the impact of ObamaCare-as will the typical Mike Bloomberg reaction: "A capricious law, overzealous enforcement, disproportionate punishment — it’s almost like these are political issues, no? So our mayor quickly stepped in, and by stepped in, I mean, “Did nothing.” “Two thousand dollars is a pretty hefty fine, and I don’t know what law was broken,” Mike Bloomberg said, as though talking about the strange customs of someone else’s civilization. He showed no sign of taking any further interest."
And the idea that Bloomberg is a fiscal conservative sounds like the beginning of a Comedy Central bit. This is the guy who, while he didn't create the city's pension crisis, surely exacerbated it by larding New York's public payroll-and then proceeded to grant municipal workers generous, and unaffordable, raises. Oh, and we forgot that Mike Bloomberg observation about NYC being a luxury item-in response to a complaint about the high cost of living here. Tell us again, just where is the Bloomberg constituency?
The reality is that Mike Bloomberg is way out of touch with the anti-elitist political mood of the country-in fact he is its symbol. The one universal target of disdain in America-an area that sees agreement on both the Left and the Right-is Wall Street; and Mike Bloomberg has constantly gone out of his way to defend the financial sector with a zealotry that bakery owner Pam Nelson will never see from the patrician mayor. Mike's sanguine about regulating and taxing the tar out of any and all small shop keepers-and let's not forget his soda tax advocacy-but don't dare to raise a penny stock transfer tax with this guy-he'll bit your head off in a NY minute.
So, as much as we would welcome the hilarity of the charisma challenged and philosophically off key Bloomberg making an ass of himself all over the country-and the possibility of him perhaps resigning to do it is sure tantalizing-we don't think we will ever see it happen. One can dream though.
Retail Politics
We have commented on the productive nature of the exchange that opponents of the Flushing Commons had with council members last week at the Zoning and Franchises hearing. One exchange in particular got us to thinking. Land Use Chair Comrie remarked that he didn't feel that the small businesses of Flushing-over 2100 strong-had anything to fear from the retail competition at the proposed mall. He also made the point that his daughter is always looking for stuff at some of the national chain stores-indicating that she might be better able to do so if these chain stores were allowed to tenant the Flushing Commons mall.
On the first point, we believe that Comrie is missing a couple of very strong arguments that the Flushing Coalition has made in its opposition to the retail component of the development. We have emphasized the competion issue precisely because the EDC-generated, "analysis" of the socio-economic impacts is so thoroughly dishonest. Although Chair Comrie may feel that there is nothing to fear from the competition, apparently EDC does-because it goes to such great lengths (or rather its tied at the hip consultants do) to minimize this very issue by arguing in the socio economic impact section of the EIS that, since there will be mostly , "national chain destination retailers," at the mall, local retailers have little to complain, or worry, about.
The study done by Hunter College, however, thoroughly rebuts the EIS assertion-which is fairly easy to do since there is actually no supporting documentation that bolsters the claim. What the Hunter report demonstrates, is that there will be 450 local businesses in direct competition with mall retailers. Now you can, as Comrie does, feel that this isn't-or shouldn't be-of any great concern-and people can certainly agree to disagree about this point. But what should concern the chair of the land use committee is the manner in which the city's lead economic development agency has so little regard for the truth-or, perhaps, little regard for any serious analysis of economic impact.
In our view, and the view is underscored by the fact that EDC makes a counter argument on what retailers will tenant the mall in its traffic chapter, in essence, speaking out of both sides of its mouth-it is time for the city council to take a stand against slipshod-and at times fraudulent environmental review work. If the EIS can clearly be shown to be bereft of any sustainable evidence to its claims-and what could be clearer than two contradictory assertions about retail competition?-than the application should be labeled as deficient, and sent back to its prevaricators-no matter how any individual council member feels about the competition issue.
But, leaving this issue of fraud aside, let's get to the Comrie point about retail choices for his young daughter-and having had a teenage girl in the house, we understand his concern. Perhaps this story from last week's WSJ can put the issue into some perspective: "In the business district of Flushing, one of the densest areas in New York City, Sky View Center, an 800,000-square-foot shopping mall, has started to open its doors...Even though the new mall will increase congestion in an area already packed with pedestrians and cars, there are residents are looking forward to having more national retailers locally. The only regional mall in Queens currently is Queens Center in Elmhurst. "People are happy to have them because we [often] have to go to Long Island, Manhattan or New Jersey to buy something," said Fred Fu, president of Flushing Development Center, a nonprofit that hosts cultural events in Flushing."
The new mall is about three or four blocks from the proposed Flushing Commons-and, let's not forget that Sky View Parc will have hundreds of free parking spaces for its customers. Choices galore-and that doesn't include the newly renovated Caldors site, or the 500,000 sq. ft. of national chain retailers at 20th Avenue-plenty of choices for young Ms. Comrie. Why the compelling need to locate an additional 250,00 sq. ft. of space right in the middle of downtown Flushing-"an area already packed with pedestrians and cars..."
And we don't know Mr. Fu, but his comments about how the big new mall will help the mom and pop stores is about as counter intuitive an observation as you will ever hear: "Though it is too early to tell whether the area's many small, mostly Asian, businesses will be affected, Mr. Fu suggests that the new mall will benefit existing business owners. "The new stores will generate more customers for the small businesses. People from Long Island City, Jamaica, and Bayside will come here to buy," he says."
This is, of course, nonsense. No mall with its own parking capability has ever benefited smaller businesses in the area surrounding it. Mall customers are captives of their destination. But let's not lose sight of the Comrie issue. There are plenty of retail choices for those looking to buy at national chain stores without locating an additional cluster in the heart of Flushing's unique business district. In the end, it is a question of the city council exercising its judgment about the choices being made, and the spurious reports being issued, by the agency that is supposed to be concerned for of NYC's businesses-not just the large retail mall developers.
So, in our view, why jeopardize the existing small businesses of Flushing when there are ample outlets for those wishing to shop at a city mall? Indeed, why do so when we know that the area in question is, "already packed with pedestrians and cars?" Flushing needs a mall in its downtown about as much as a bull needs...Well, you all get the drift, don't you?
On the first point, we believe that Comrie is missing a couple of very strong arguments that the Flushing Coalition has made in its opposition to the retail component of the development. We have emphasized the competion issue precisely because the EDC-generated, "analysis" of the socio-economic impacts is so thoroughly dishonest. Although Chair Comrie may feel that there is nothing to fear from the competition, apparently EDC does-because it goes to such great lengths (or rather its tied at the hip consultants do) to minimize this very issue by arguing in the socio economic impact section of the EIS that, since there will be mostly , "national chain destination retailers," at the mall, local retailers have little to complain, or worry, about.
The study done by Hunter College, however, thoroughly rebuts the EIS assertion-which is fairly easy to do since there is actually no supporting documentation that bolsters the claim. What the Hunter report demonstrates, is that there will be 450 local businesses in direct competition with mall retailers. Now you can, as Comrie does, feel that this isn't-or shouldn't be-of any great concern-and people can certainly agree to disagree about this point. But what should concern the chair of the land use committee is the manner in which the city's lead economic development agency has so little regard for the truth-or, perhaps, little regard for any serious analysis of economic impact.
In our view, and the view is underscored by the fact that EDC makes a counter argument on what retailers will tenant the mall in its traffic chapter, in essence, speaking out of both sides of its mouth-it is time for the city council to take a stand against slipshod-and at times fraudulent environmental review work. If the EIS can clearly be shown to be bereft of any sustainable evidence to its claims-and what could be clearer than two contradictory assertions about retail competition?-than the application should be labeled as deficient, and sent back to its prevaricators-no matter how any individual council member feels about the competition issue.
But, leaving this issue of fraud aside, let's get to the Comrie point about retail choices for his young daughter-and having had a teenage girl in the house, we understand his concern. Perhaps this story from last week's WSJ can put the issue into some perspective: "In the business district of Flushing, one of the densest areas in New York City, Sky View Center, an 800,000-square-foot shopping mall, has started to open its doors...Even though the new mall will increase congestion in an area already packed with pedestrians and cars, there are residents are looking forward to having more national retailers locally. The only regional mall in Queens currently is Queens Center in Elmhurst. "People are happy to have them because we [often] have to go to Long Island, Manhattan or New Jersey to buy something," said Fred Fu, president of Flushing Development Center, a nonprofit that hosts cultural events in Flushing."
The new mall is about three or four blocks from the proposed Flushing Commons-and, let's not forget that Sky View Parc will have hundreds of free parking spaces for its customers. Choices galore-and that doesn't include the newly renovated Caldors site, or the 500,000 sq. ft. of national chain retailers at 20th Avenue-plenty of choices for young Ms. Comrie. Why the compelling need to locate an additional 250,00 sq. ft. of space right in the middle of downtown Flushing-"an area already packed with pedestrians and cars..."
And we don't know Mr. Fu, but his comments about how the big new mall will help the mom and pop stores is about as counter intuitive an observation as you will ever hear: "Though it is too early to tell whether the area's many small, mostly Asian, businesses will be affected, Mr. Fu suggests that the new mall will benefit existing business owners. "The new stores will generate more customers for the small businesses. People from Long Island City, Jamaica, and Bayside will come here to buy," he says."
This is, of course, nonsense. No mall with its own parking capability has ever benefited smaller businesses in the area surrounding it. Mall customers are captives of their destination. But let's not lose sight of the Comrie issue. There are plenty of retail choices for those looking to buy at national chain stores without locating an additional cluster in the heart of Flushing's unique business district. In the end, it is a question of the city council exercising its judgment about the choices being made, and the spurious reports being issued, by the agency that is supposed to be concerned for of NYC's businesses-not just the large retail mall developers.
So, in our view, why jeopardize the existing small businesses of Flushing when there are ample outlets for those wishing to shop at a city mall? Indeed, why do so when we know that the area in question is, "already packed with pedestrians and cars?" Flushing needs a mall in its downtown about as much as a bull needs...Well, you all get the drift, don't you?
Friday, July 16, 2010
Final Total of Bloomberg’s 09 Campaign: $109M
We are now starting the clock on the Times editorial page-frantic over the Supreme Court's overturn of McCain-Feingold, and keepers of the campaign finance reform flame. As the NY Post-but not the Times-reports: "Mayor Bloomberg spent $109.2 million on his winning bid for a third term. That’s more than 11 times his Democratic opponent, who only lost by fewer than five points. The billionaire mayor’s campaign filed its final spending report Thursday with the state Board of Elections...Bloomberg’s opponent, William Thompson Jr., spent $9.4 million on his entire campaign."
Here's what the Times once opined about the mayor's campaign excess: "Like Mr. Thompson, who has made the mayor’s wealth a major issue, most New Yorkers are concerned about Mr. Bloomberg’s spending $85 million — so far — to win re-election. In his first campaign in 2001, he argued that he was spending so much to introduce himself. Now a nationally recognized figure, he argues that as a candidate running on Republican and Independent Party lines, he needs to fight for votes in a city that is so predominantly Democratic. We think Mr. Bloomberg exaggerates his vulnerability. New York City’s campaign finance system is one of the best in the country. He does everyone a disservice by not complying with the system’s limits on spending."
This modest chiding was right after the paper's enthusiastic endorsement of the mayor's re-election-which followed Pinch's suck-up to the Bloomberg money machine in his endorsement of the referendum overturn for the absolutely crucial third Bloomberg term. Which itself followed the paper's earlier admonition against changing the law for a third Bloomberg term: "As good a mayor as Mr. Bloomberg has been, we are wary of changing the rules just to suit the ambition of a particular politician — in this country or any other. Mr. Bloomberg, should he want to continue his public service, would make an excellent prospect for other important offices."
Yet, in its endorsement of the mayor there is no mention of this prior view, and the paper waxed eloquent over the mayor's budgetary acumen: "What makes the mayor stand out is not his political skill, although he has come a long way since his first clumsy days in office. He has run the $60 billion government with a keen attention to accountability and efficiency."
Yeah, right. Not a mention from the best and the brightest about the mayor's tax and regulatory burden-necessitated by his obscene padding of the public payroll; a consequence of which we are just beginning to fully understand, as the pension bill comes due. And the Times' description of the city's campaign system as, "one of the best in the country," beggars credulity. But, of course, the fact that this system handcuffs businesses while giving free rein to labor, is a plus in the eyes of the anti-business Times.
But the saddest aspect of all of this, is how the liberal Times-so good at ferreting out malfeasance in every conservative nook and cranny-is unable to even get a sniff of the level of corruption that the Bloomberg money generates in the city's political system; an indication that for all of Pinch's progressive posturing, he opts to support his own class interests when things get closer to home. Neither the paper's editorial page, nor its excellent team of city hall reporters, have been able to expose the money trail that leads directly from Bloomberg right to the dog that didn't bark-the Rev. Al Slim Shady Sharpton.
So, while the clock is running, we don't expect the Times to say another word about the Bloomberg spending spree-it will be too busy excoriating the money that will be spent on behalf of Republicans in the next election cycle by all those nasty special interests. It's too bad that the mayor isn't more conservative. If he were, it would have enabled the Times to be philosophically consistent. But the elitists on the paper's editorial board are probably glad he isn't, since-as Ralph Waldo Emerson once said-consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
Here's what the Times once opined about the mayor's campaign excess: "Like Mr. Thompson, who has made the mayor’s wealth a major issue, most New Yorkers are concerned about Mr. Bloomberg’s spending $85 million — so far — to win re-election. In his first campaign in 2001, he argued that he was spending so much to introduce himself. Now a nationally recognized figure, he argues that as a candidate running on Republican and Independent Party lines, he needs to fight for votes in a city that is so predominantly Democratic. We think Mr. Bloomberg exaggerates his vulnerability. New York City’s campaign finance system is one of the best in the country. He does everyone a disservice by not complying with the system’s limits on spending."
This modest chiding was right after the paper's enthusiastic endorsement of the mayor's re-election-which followed Pinch's suck-up to the Bloomberg money machine in his endorsement of the referendum overturn for the absolutely crucial third Bloomberg term. Which itself followed the paper's earlier admonition against changing the law for a third Bloomberg term: "As good a mayor as Mr. Bloomberg has been, we are wary of changing the rules just to suit the ambition of a particular politician — in this country or any other. Mr. Bloomberg, should he want to continue his public service, would make an excellent prospect for other important offices."
Yet, in its endorsement of the mayor there is no mention of this prior view, and the paper waxed eloquent over the mayor's budgetary acumen: "What makes the mayor stand out is not his political skill, although he has come a long way since his first clumsy days in office. He has run the $60 billion government with a keen attention to accountability and efficiency."
Yeah, right. Not a mention from the best and the brightest about the mayor's tax and regulatory burden-necessitated by his obscene padding of the public payroll; a consequence of which we are just beginning to fully understand, as the pension bill comes due. And the Times' description of the city's campaign system as, "one of the best in the country," beggars credulity. But, of course, the fact that this system handcuffs businesses while giving free rein to labor, is a plus in the eyes of the anti-business Times.
But the saddest aspect of all of this, is how the liberal Times-so good at ferreting out malfeasance in every conservative nook and cranny-is unable to even get a sniff of the level of corruption that the Bloomberg money generates in the city's political system; an indication that for all of Pinch's progressive posturing, he opts to support his own class interests when things get closer to home. Neither the paper's editorial page, nor its excellent team of city hall reporters, have been able to expose the money trail that leads directly from Bloomberg right to the dog that didn't bark-the Rev. Al Slim Shady Sharpton.
So, while the clock is running, we don't expect the Times to say another word about the Bloomberg spending spree-it will be too busy excoriating the money that will be spent on behalf of Republicans in the next election cycle by all those nasty special interests. It's too bad that the mayor isn't more conservative. If he were, it would have enabled the Times to be philosophically consistent. But the elitists on the paper's editorial board are probably glad he isn't, since-as Ralph Waldo Emerson once said-consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
Flushing Commons Off-Track
As we commented yesterday, the Flushing Commons development has some serious flaws that were fully examined by the City Council's Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee at the body's first hearing on the subject. But one of those flaws deserves some greater scrutiny-as we suggested in our previous post: "It was a point that was raised by Brian Ketcham about the manner in which the EDC consultants purposefully underestimate the car and truck trips, They do so by arguing that car ownership is greatly lower than the standard estimates have already determined-70% rather than over 90%. Once they have done so-and they do this for Willets Point as well-they go on to say that the residents and shoppers not in their cars will be using the mass transit infrastructure-both buses and the 7 Line.
It is Brian's strong opinion-and we will be mining the data on this-that there is not enough current capacity to handle all of this putative off-loading onto mass transit alternatives-particularly since the MTA is planning on further cuts to existing service that is already over capacity. If our assumptions are true, it will mean that Flushing will not only end up gridlocked, it will also be train and bus locked-a great legacy for the mayor's greening of NYC."
The point gains additional poignancy, because it has been suggested by New York's Burden-planning commissioner Amanda-that Flushing Commons is a prime example of Mayor Bloomberg's promotion of sustainability because of its location right next to a major transit hub. Now, in our view, Atlantic Yards, located at Fulton and Atlantic Avenue, has a greater claim to this distinction because of the 18 or so interconnecting rail links in and around the site; but the claim that downtown Flushing offers a similar venue for the use of mass transit over looks the fact that the 7 Line (the only train servicing the area) is already stuffed to the gills-and the buses that run out of Main Street are filled to capacity at peak travel hours.
As Ketcham's testimony yesterday underscores, however, if the EDC assumption that a great percentage of the newcomers spawned by Flushing Commons will not drive is true-and that assumption is also made for the even larger complex being planned next door in Willets Point-we're going to need a significant expansion of the 7 Line to accommodate this new ridership. And the billions spent to expand the line to the Far West Side is not exactly what we have in mind here.
As Ketcham told the city council committee yesterday:
"Transit is another problem. By assuming that more than half of project trips are by transit, Flushing Commons places a great burden on both the Number 7 line and the many bus routes currently serving the area and already over capacity. But this is not just a problem with Flushing Commons. More than 20 million square feet of new development is on the books for sites near Flushing—Willets Point, Sky View Parc, the College Point Police Academy and Flushing Commons—are just the big guys. There are also 90 other sites identified totaling nearly 10 million square feet of additional development. If you believe the assumptions in the documentation for these projects—that is, more than half the trips by public transit—you will find they would generate 100,000 more daily subway trips and 70,000 more daily bus trips, more than doubling current demand in the downtown Flushing area."
As the old saying goes, there will be no room at the inn-particularly because, while the Bloombergistas are adding capacity and supposedly funneling it to the transit system, the MTA is cutting service back-as Clyde Haberman writes in this morning's NY Times. Commenting on the Authority's hearings, Haberman points out: "Whether or not one likes the transportation authority — and for many New Yorkers, it is Darth Vader — there is no reason to believe that its leadership derives pleasure from any of this. Nothing was said about elected officials and their slow, steady starvation of mass transit. All the same, the pain for riders is real, and it keeps coming in ways large and small...Bit by bit, riders are learning what death by a thousand cuts feels like. At least with a guillotine, you were sliced only once."
And Crain's Insider (subsc.) reiterates our point about the need for the local council member to listen to the project's critics-it's not only the professional thing to do, it is something that might help him address some of the project's flaws. As the Insider points out: "Councilman Peter Koo, R-Flushing, testified in favor of the proposed Flushing Commons mega-development before the City Council Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee yesterday, and then left before opponents testified. Richard Lipsky, the lobbyist for upset merchants in Flushing's Koreatown section, says he has been unable to schedule a meeting with Koo. “He's been shucking and ducking us,” says Lipsky, who adds that Koo should hear out his clients even if he has no intention of changing his mind."
Because, as the MTA cuts service and the Bloombergistas develop more of Queens to increase transit service demands, some thing's got to give-and, as far as Flushing Commons is concerned, the demand being created is unsustainable and evidence that these EDC sponsored environmental impact studies aren't worth the paper they're printed on (which is a lot of paper indeed). As we have said before, the city council has its work cut out for itself if it's going to be able to mitigate the assumptions being made for this Queens project. As it stands now, there are tens of thousand of additional folks being generated by the overly dense Flushing Commons development-and neither the roads, nor the transit system cam accommodate all of them.
It is Brian's strong opinion-and we will be mining the data on this-that there is not enough current capacity to handle all of this putative off-loading onto mass transit alternatives-particularly since the MTA is planning on further cuts to existing service that is already over capacity. If our assumptions are true, it will mean that Flushing will not only end up gridlocked, it will also be train and bus locked-a great legacy for the mayor's greening of NYC."
The point gains additional poignancy, because it has been suggested by New York's Burden-planning commissioner Amanda-that Flushing Commons is a prime example of Mayor Bloomberg's promotion of sustainability because of its location right next to a major transit hub. Now, in our view, Atlantic Yards, located at Fulton and Atlantic Avenue, has a greater claim to this distinction because of the 18 or so interconnecting rail links in and around the site; but the claim that downtown Flushing offers a similar venue for the use of mass transit over looks the fact that the 7 Line (the only train servicing the area) is already stuffed to the gills-and the buses that run out of Main Street are filled to capacity at peak travel hours.
As Ketcham's testimony yesterday underscores, however, if the EDC assumption that a great percentage of the newcomers spawned by Flushing Commons will not drive is true-and that assumption is also made for the even larger complex being planned next door in Willets Point-we're going to need a significant expansion of the 7 Line to accommodate this new ridership. And the billions spent to expand the line to the Far West Side is not exactly what we have in mind here.
As Ketcham told the city council committee yesterday:
"Transit is another problem. By assuming that more than half of project trips are by transit, Flushing Commons places a great burden on both the Number 7 line and the many bus routes currently serving the area and already over capacity. But this is not just a problem with Flushing Commons. More than 20 million square feet of new development is on the books for sites near Flushing—Willets Point, Sky View Parc, the College Point Police Academy and Flushing Commons—are just the big guys. There are also 90 other sites identified totaling nearly 10 million square feet of additional development. If you believe the assumptions in the documentation for these projects—that is, more than half the trips by public transit—you will find they would generate 100,000 more daily subway trips and 70,000 more daily bus trips, more than doubling current demand in the downtown Flushing area."
As the old saying goes, there will be no room at the inn-particularly because, while the Bloombergistas are adding capacity and supposedly funneling it to the transit system, the MTA is cutting service back-as Clyde Haberman writes in this morning's NY Times. Commenting on the Authority's hearings, Haberman points out: "Whether or not one likes the transportation authority — and for many New Yorkers, it is Darth Vader — there is no reason to believe that its leadership derives pleasure from any of this. Nothing was said about elected officials and their slow, steady starvation of mass transit. All the same, the pain for riders is real, and it keeps coming in ways large and small...Bit by bit, riders are learning what death by a thousand cuts feels like. At least with a guillotine, you were sliced only once."
And Crain's Insider (subsc.) reiterates our point about the need for the local council member to listen to the project's critics-it's not only the professional thing to do, it is something that might help him address some of the project's flaws. As the Insider points out: "Councilman Peter Koo, R-Flushing, testified in favor of the proposed Flushing Commons mega-development before the City Council Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee yesterday, and then left before opponents testified. Richard Lipsky, the lobbyist for upset merchants in Flushing's Koreatown section, says he has been unable to schedule a meeting with Koo. “He's been shucking and ducking us,” says Lipsky, who adds that Koo should hear out his clients even if he has no intention of changing his mind."
Because, as the MTA cuts service and the Bloombergistas develop more of Queens to increase transit service demands, some thing's got to give-and, as far as Flushing Commons is concerned, the demand being created is unsustainable and evidence that these EDC sponsored environmental impact studies aren't worth the paper they're printed on (which is a lot of paper indeed). As we have said before, the city council has its work cut out for itself if it's going to be able to mitigate the assumptions being made for this Queens project. As it stands now, there are tens of thousand of additional folks being generated by the overly dense Flushing Commons development-and neither the roads, nor the transit system cam accommodate all of them.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Flushing Commons Hearing
In today's land use hearing on the proposed Fleshing Commons project, the supporters and opponents of the development were given the opportunity to state their case-although the supporters did get the lion's share of the time, taking up over two hours before an opponent panel was brought in to voice objections to the mega-development. But, that being said, hats off to subcommittee chair Mark Weprin and the other members for their affording the lead panel of opponents a gracious amount of time to be heard on this controversial issue.
A keynote of the opposition viewpoint, were the two rebuttal studies that were commissioned by the Flushing Coalition for Responsible Development-one on traffic by Brian Ketcham; the other an economic impact study done by Hunter College's Brian Paul-that laid out a harsh critique of the EDC-sponsored work done by the usual suspect, AKRF. In the first instance, Ketcham lays out in full detail how the economic development agency low balls traffic estimates and makes different-and contradictory-assertions (as we have highlighted), depending on the audience anticipated.
In the case of the Hunter College report-something we have already touched on-Brian Paul demonstrates how EDC fails to accurately count the number of businesses, while misleading the folks about the nature-and competitive nature-of the proposed businesses at the development. This report is featured in this week's issue of the Jamaica Times:
"That report came out earlier this month and some of its findings are fueling a new round of concerns about the gigantic project, which is slated to be built over the current site of Municipal Lot 1 and accompanied by the Macedonia Plaza affordable housing building...Jim Gerson, co-president of the Flushing Coalition for Responsible Development, said the Hunter College study should be taken into consideration and that the project should not move forward as planned because the study shows that Flushing Commons will cause many lost jobs, put local merchants out of business and more.“The study shows that there’s more than twice as many businesses as the [Environmental Impact Study] had counted. Contrary to what the EIS says, the businesses that go into Flushing Commons will be highly competitive, according to the study, and there will be a loss of as many as 2,000 existing jobs,” Gerson said. “My personal opinion is that it’ll be higher. That’s the number they use. The reason I think it will be higher is because no one has looked at the impact of the loss of parking and the increase in parking rates and gridlock that will be created by Flushing Commons.”
But even before our all star panel of Lipsky, Gerson, Barrison and Graziano got to testify, the council members did a good job of questioning EDC and the developer. We will single out, Chair Weprin, CM Seabrook, CM Reyna, CM Chin, and especially CM Halloran who has absorbed all of the material-both pro and con. Reyna and Chin in particular, focused on the small business issues that are reflected in the Hunter College report.
We should also point out that Leroy Comrie, the chair of the full land use committee, who appears to be less worried about the economic impact issue, nevertheless raised-and did so quite forcefully-the nettlesome question of the adequacy of the proposed parking; and the sufficiency of the EDC slush fund that has been proposed to help small business in the construction phase and beyond-a point that Reyna was extremely concerned with in her capacity as chair of the council's small business committee. Comrie told EDC that there were unresolved issues that needed to be addressed before the council votes later this month.
Which brings us to a peeve of ours-the certification of land use items so that their final resolution will occur during the summer months. This inevitably leads to a truncated review process that is most unfair to opponents who lack the resources of EDC. Here's the Jamaica Times on the schedule: "The City Planning Commission voted to approve the project June 23 and the Council Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises is holding a public hearing on the plan this Thursday. The subcommittee plans to vote on the proposal July 27, after which it will go on to the Land Use Committee July 28 and finally be either approved or denied by the Council July 29, according to current planned timelines."
If the CPC passed this application June, 23rd, there is at least three additional weeks for the council to deliberate on this project before having to finally vote-and given the contentious issues of parking, traffic, economic impact and MWBE-that additional time seems warranted. If a full land use and council vote can't be scheduled for August, that can only mean that it is difficult for the legislature to insure that its members will all be present in the latter days of summer. If true, this is unfortunate-but if not, the council should consider adding some time for the negotiations on this development to take place.
But, as attentive and considerate as the aforementioned council members were, it really is upsetting that the area's local representative, CM Peter Koo, left the hearing before the opposition had a chance to be heard. Given the fact, that Koo has been shucking and ducking on setting up a meeting with the Coalition, it certainly was inconsiderate of him give a group that represents so many so many Flushing residents and business owners-with a petition of 15,000 signatures-the brush off. The absence of adjacent council member Julissa Ferreras (Weprin and Halloran flank Flushing and were present) was also a disappointment-her voice was truly missed.
There was one issue that we will be pursuing (are you taking notes Lombino?) as the end game closes in. It was a point that was raised by Brian Ketcham about the manner in which the EDC consultants purposefully underestimate the car and truck trips, They do so by arguing that car ownership is greatly lower than the standard estimates have already determined-70% rather than over 90%. Once they have done so-and they do this for Willets Point as well-they go on to say that the residents and shoppers not in their cars will be using the mass transit infrastructure-both buses and the 7 Line.
It is Brian's strong opinion-and we will be mining the data on this-that there is not enough current capacity to handle all of this putative off-loading onto mass transit alternatives-particularly since the MTA is planning on further cuts to existing service that is already over capacity. If our assumptions are true, it will mean that Flushing will not only end up gridlocked, it will also be train and bus locked-a great legacy for the mayor's greening of NYC.
All of which leaves the opposition with a great deal to do in a short period of time. We have been given the opportunity to point out the egregious flaws in the EDC proposal-and hats off to Halloran for his public skepticism of anything the agency puts forward-and it is now up to the council to act as the honest broker to address the concerns of the businesses and residents. Our advice-as unself-serving as always-is that the Flushing Commons project should be significantly downscaled so that the community isn't swamped by this massive case of over development.
A keynote of the opposition viewpoint, were the two rebuttal studies that were commissioned by the Flushing Coalition for Responsible Development-one on traffic by Brian Ketcham; the other an economic impact study done by Hunter College's Brian Paul-that laid out a harsh critique of the EDC-sponsored work done by the usual suspect, AKRF. In the first instance, Ketcham lays out in full detail how the economic development agency low balls traffic estimates and makes different-and contradictory-assertions (as we have highlighted), depending on the audience anticipated.
In the case of the Hunter College report-something we have already touched on-Brian Paul demonstrates how EDC fails to accurately count the number of businesses, while misleading the folks about the nature-and competitive nature-of the proposed businesses at the development. This report is featured in this week's issue of the Jamaica Times:
"That report came out earlier this month and some of its findings are fueling a new round of concerns about the gigantic project, which is slated to be built over the current site of Municipal Lot 1 and accompanied by the Macedonia Plaza affordable housing building...Jim Gerson, co-president of the Flushing Coalition for Responsible Development, said the Hunter College study should be taken into consideration and that the project should not move forward as planned because the study shows that Flushing Commons will cause many lost jobs, put local merchants out of business and more.“The study shows that there’s more than twice as many businesses as the [Environmental Impact Study] had counted. Contrary to what the EIS says, the businesses that go into Flushing Commons will be highly competitive, according to the study, and there will be a loss of as many as 2,000 existing jobs,” Gerson said. “My personal opinion is that it’ll be higher. That’s the number they use. The reason I think it will be higher is because no one has looked at the impact of the loss of parking and the increase in parking rates and gridlock that will be created by Flushing Commons.”
But even before our all star panel of Lipsky, Gerson, Barrison and Graziano got to testify, the council members did a good job of questioning EDC and the developer. We will single out, Chair Weprin, CM Seabrook, CM Reyna, CM Chin, and especially CM Halloran who has absorbed all of the material-both pro and con. Reyna and Chin in particular, focused on the small business issues that are reflected in the Hunter College report.
We should also point out that Leroy Comrie, the chair of the full land use committee, who appears to be less worried about the economic impact issue, nevertheless raised-and did so quite forcefully-the nettlesome question of the adequacy of the proposed parking; and the sufficiency of the EDC slush fund that has been proposed to help small business in the construction phase and beyond-a point that Reyna was extremely concerned with in her capacity as chair of the council's small business committee. Comrie told EDC that there were unresolved issues that needed to be addressed before the council votes later this month.
Which brings us to a peeve of ours-the certification of land use items so that their final resolution will occur during the summer months. This inevitably leads to a truncated review process that is most unfair to opponents who lack the resources of EDC. Here's the Jamaica Times on the schedule: "The City Planning Commission voted to approve the project June 23 and the Council Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises is holding a public hearing on the plan this Thursday. The subcommittee plans to vote on the proposal July 27, after which it will go on to the Land Use Committee July 28 and finally be either approved or denied by the Council July 29, according to current planned timelines."
If the CPC passed this application June, 23rd, there is at least three additional weeks for the council to deliberate on this project before having to finally vote-and given the contentious issues of parking, traffic, economic impact and MWBE-that additional time seems warranted. If a full land use and council vote can't be scheduled for August, that can only mean that it is difficult for the legislature to insure that its members will all be present in the latter days of summer. If true, this is unfortunate-but if not, the council should consider adding some time for the negotiations on this development to take place.
But, as attentive and considerate as the aforementioned council members were, it really is upsetting that the area's local representative, CM Peter Koo, left the hearing before the opposition had a chance to be heard. Given the fact, that Koo has been shucking and ducking on setting up a meeting with the Coalition, it certainly was inconsiderate of him give a group that represents so many so many Flushing residents and business owners-with a petition of 15,000 signatures-the brush off. The absence of adjacent council member Julissa Ferreras (Weprin and Halloran flank Flushing and were present) was also a disappointment-her voice was truly missed.
There was one issue that we will be pursuing (are you taking notes Lombino?) as the end game closes in. It was a point that was raised by Brian Ketcham about the manner in which the EDC consultants purposefully underestimate the car and truck trips, They do so by arguing that car ownership is greatly lower than the standard estimates have already determined-70% rather than over 90%. Once they have done so-and they do this for Willets Point as well-they go on to say that the residents and shoppers not in their cars will be using the mass transit infrastructure-both buses and the 7 Line.
It is Brian's strong opinion-and we will be mining the data on this-that there is not enough current capacity to handle all of this putative off-loading onto mass transit alternatives-particularly since the MTA is planning on further cuts to existing service that is already over capacity. If our assumptions are true, it will mean that Flushing will not only end up gridlocked, it will also be train and bus locked-a great legacy for the mayor's greening of NYC.
All of which leaves the opposition with a great deal to do in a short period of time. We have been given the opportunity to point out the egregious flaws in the EDC proposal-and hats off to Halloran for his public skepticism of anything the agency puts forward-and it is now up to the council to act as the honest broker to address the concerns of the businesses and residents. Our advice-as unself-serving as always-is that the Flushing Commons project should be significantly downscaled so that the community isn't swamped by this massive case of over development.
Sharpton's Off Key Barrett-Tone
Once again, Wayne Barret humbles us in his devastating portrayal of the bravura performance of Al Sharpton in the re-make of The Silence of the Lambs. Barret's commentary focuses in on the reverend's loudmouth critique of Rush Limbaugh-and contrasts this with his lock jawed status over all things Bloomberg and Cuomo: "Thank God for Rush Limbaugh. So long as he's calling George Steinbrenner a "cracker" who "made a lot of African-Americans millionaires," there's still a white guy with power in America that Al Sharpton is free to attack. So yesterday, "Silent Al" found his voice and called Rush "repugnant."
But, following up on our critique of Silent Al, Barrett hones in on the money trail: "The mouth that once roared is now compromised by a complex intertwine of alliances, as well as legions of benefactors who dump their largess into the National Apathy Network (NAN) and other Sharpton troughs, subsidizing an opulent Midtown-hotel lifestyle that the Rev. now believes is his own civil right. Remember when the New York Times recently devoted its front page to the race record of the Bloomberg administration, pointing out that Mayor Mike's top team is actually whiter than the hated Rudy's? Remember what New York's civil rights giant said? Try nada."
Hey Al, "Check's got your tongue?" But it gets worse: "A couple of months ago, Bloomberg spoke at NAN's annual event and called Sharpton "a partner," which might have been a reference to some undisclosed relationship with Bloomberg L.P. What else could explain Sharpton's Ralph Ellison-like portrayal of "The Invisible Man" on everything Bloomberg?"
But Bloomberg has certainly got his money's worth: "I called Rachel Noerdlinger, the spokeswoman for Silent Al who's also learned to say less and less. I asked if Bloomberg had found a way, through Sharpton's nonprofit alliance with Chancellor Joel Klein or any other mechanism, to subsidize such slumber. I asked what King actually does for NAN, and what Gilly does for Al besides pay King. I have no answers."
And let's remember that Charlie King has been moonlighting as a well paid lobbyist for the richest beer wholesaler in the state. Can, "No forty ounce, no peace," be far behind? The entire network of interrelationships that has NAN as its nexus needs to be explored and exposed by the rest of the media that is currently fully occupied by all things Pedro. The danger to the public interest is all too real when you have a preacher for sale to the highest political bidders.
But, following up on our critique of Silent Al, Barrett hones in on the money trail: "The mouth that once roared is now compromised by a complex intertwine of alliances, as well as legions of benefactors who dump their largess into the National Apathy Network (NAN) and other Sharpton troughs, subsidizing an opulent Midtown-hotel lifestyle that the Rev. now believes is his own civil right. Remember when the New York Times recently devoted its front page to the race record of the Bloomberg administration, pointing out that Mayor Mike's top team is actually whiter than the hated Rudy's? Remember what New York's civil rights giant said? Try nada."
Hey Al, "Check's got your tongue?" But it gets worse: "A couple of months ago, Bloomberg spoke at NAN's annual event and called Sharpton "a partner," which might have been a reference to some undisclosed relationship with Bloomberg L.P. What else could explain Sharpton's Ralph Ellison-like portrayal of "The Invisible Man" on everything Bloomberg?"
But Bloomberg has certainly got his money's worth: "I called Rachel Noerdlinger, the spokeswoman for Silent Al who's also learned to say less and less. I asked if Bloomberg had found a way, through Sharpton's nonprofit alliance with Chancellor Joel Klein or any other mechanism, to subsidize such slumber. I asked what King actually does for NAN, and what Gilly does for Al besides pay King. I have no answers."
And let's remember that Charlie King has been moonlighting as a well paid lobbyist for the richest beer wholesaler in the state. Can, "No forty ounce, no peace," be far behind? The entire network of interrelationships that has NAN as its nexus needs to be explored and exposed by the rest of the media that is currently fully occupied by all things Pedro. The danger to the public interest is all too real when you have a preacher for sale to the highest political bidders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
