Just when we were getting a slight glimmer of hope that State Ed Commissioner David Steiner was going to review Cathie Black's qualifications to be NYC schools chancellor with a modicum of unbiased oversight, comes word of those individuals the commissioner has chosen to sit in judgment of the waiver required to allow her to serve. Put charitably, this group of overseers are as capable of serving justice about as much as an all white jury, impaneled at the turn of the last century, is able to determine the guilt of a Klansman in the murder of a Black man in the Deep South.
Let's look at this collection of homers-as the NY Times reports: "New York State’s top education official on Friday named an advisory panel of eight experts, at least half of them with strong connections to the Bloomberg administration, to help him decide whether to approve Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s controversial choice to run the city’s school system. Three panelists selected by David M. Steiner, the state education commissioner, worked as senior officials at the city’s Department of Education. One of those three now works at a foundation that was, for many years, the vehicle for Mr. Bloomberg’s personal charitable donations. A fourth panelist is the head of a museum that has received almost half a million dollars from Mr. Bloomberg in donations since he took office."
Oh, good grief; we might as well stop all of the bantering about this poorly qualified elitist choice for chancellor right now-because the fix is clearly in. Not a single critic of the mayoral miracle in the bunch-which indicates that Steiner doesn't even feel compelled to pretend that his panel is anything, with apologies to the city council, more than a rubber stamp.
We continue to marvel at Bloomberg's power-not even distant oversight officials have the courage to challenge his class biased judgment: "But critics of Ms. Black’s selection, including many opposed to mayoral control in the first place, say that her appointment, which was a closely guarded secret until just minutes before the announcement on Nov. 9, demonstrates that Mr. Bloomberg is tone-deaf to the voices of parents and teachers who want an educator in the top spot."
Tough luck guys. It is now conclusive-as critics had argued-that mayoral control means the absence of any checks and balances except when a chief executive faces the voters (and when it comes to Bloomberg, we see just how much that bounced check is worth). Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries is right on target here-but it looks as if the UFT is tanking: "Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, a Brooklyn Democrat who has long been critical of Mr. Bloomberg’s education policies, questioned the panel’s makeup, saying, “It appears that the deck has been stacked in favor of granting the waiver in a manner that will further undermine public confidence in the appointment of Ms. Black.” But Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers, the city teachers’ union, said, “All of these people have heavy-duty backgrounds and success in education, so obviously David Steiner is clearly looking at this from the educational side, as he should be.”
So much for the union's vaunted power. But some folks are trying to push back against the mayoral juggernaut-as the NY Daily News reports: "The selections set off their own controversy. "I don't think it's appropriate to appoint three individuals who previously worked for the Bloomberg administration," said Panel for Educational Policy member Patrick Sullivan. "We need more independence than that."
Not much chance of that Patrick. NYC governance has been usurped by a monied elite that feels that it knows best what is good for the unwashed masses. The silence from the legislatures in both the city and the state-along with the UFT's complicity-is understandable; they stood down last year when they had their chance to devise a more accountable system. They didn't do it, and Cathie Black is their legacy.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Minimum Intelligence
The NY Post is now waging war against a living wage in NYC wielding non sequitors as weapons. In Saturday's paper, the Post unearthed an economist to deconstruct arguments for increasing the minimum wage-and somehow this academic exercise got conflated with the living wage proposal: "There is broad agreement among economists that raising the minimum wage forces businesses to cut jobs and roll back the hours of their low-skilled workforce. Only a handful of studies suggest otherwise -- but politicians and activists who support a "living wage" mandate in New York City are sure to promote such research as the final word in the debate."
Help us out here. We know that academics have often been accused of having their heads up their asses, but for the life of us, we can't figure out what Michael Saltsman-or the Post for that matter-is talking about. Whatever one feels about the utility of the raising of the minimum wage, in our view, the arguments pro and con on the subject are irrelevant to the underlying rationale for a living wage for retail workers in projects that have been heavily subsidized by tax dollars.
Saltsman goes on to refute some new research that claims to bolster advocates of raising the minimum wage-but what this has to do with the Post's headline, "The Living Wage Lie," is any one's guess. Maybe the editors thought that no one would actually read the piece and they could get by disinforming with a header. If the Post wanted to instruct us on this subject, it should have provided a better introductory headline.
But there is another important point that needs to be re-emphasized from an earlier post we did. In the absence of a truly independent economic impact study of EDC's lavishly tax supported mega-development deals, it is impossible for the agency, the mayor, and all of his real estate classmates to say that paying workers a living wage in these projects will hurt economic development. They can't because they are currently unable to show that their efforts are actually generated new jobs, and not simply cannibalizing existing jobs and damaging local entrepreneurism.
Until EDC and the mayor agree to create a methodology that analyzes their economic development projects in an objective manner, all of their attacks on living wage have no real basis in reality-or any reality that transcends their solipsistic, one lies, and the other swears to it, world.
Help us out here. We know that academics have often been accused of having their heads up their asses, but for the life of us, we can't figure out what Michael Saltsman-or the Post for that matter-is talking about. Whatever one feels about the utility of the raising of the minimum wage, in our view, the arguments pro and con on the subject are irrelevant to the underlying rationale for a living wage for retail workers in projects that have been heavily subsidized by tax dollars.
Saltsman goes on to refute some new research that claims to bolster advocates of raising the minimum wage-but what this has to do with the Post's headline, "The Living Wage Lie," is any one's guess. Maybe the editors thought that no one would actually read the piece and they could get by disinforming with a header. If the Post wanted to instruct us on this subject, it should have provided a better introductory headline.
But there is another important point that needs to be re-emphasized from an earlier post we did. In the absence of a truly independent economic impact study of EDC's lavishly tax supported mega-development deals, it is impossible for the agency, the mayor, and all of his real estate classmates to say that paying workers a living wage in these projects will hurt economic development. They can't because they are currently unable to show that their efforts are actually generated new jobs, and not simply cannibalizing existing jobs and damaging local entrepreneurism.
Until EDC and the mayor agree to create a methodology that analyzes their economic development projects in an objective manner, all of their attacks on living wage have no real basis in reality-or any reality that transcends their solipsistic, one lies, and the other swears to it, world.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Stop "Brain Drain" in the DOE Swamp
When your one of the two richest men in NYC, there's one thing you are not in short supply of: Chutzpah. Now Mike Bloomberg is making the argument that Cathie Black is essential to prevent a brain drain over at the DOE: "I want to make sure the people Joel [Klein] hired stick around... I don’t want them to leave,” Bloomberg said on his radio show with WOR's John Gambling after gushing about the magazine guru with zero schools experience. He said managing the massive school system is “one of the toughest jobs in the world” and believes long-serving Chancellor Klein jumped to the private sector because, “I think maybe he just gets a little burnt out.” He denied there was virtually no search for Klein’s replacement, saying “Joel and I worked very hard on this,” but said nothing was public because he didn’t want to jeopardize any candidate’s current job."
Bloomberg's worrying about a hypothetical brain drain, but he's making our head hurt from all of the rhetorical gymnastics-really now, Mike's making it up as he goes along. He's trying to devise elaborate cover stories in order to disguise what was a simple act of arrogance: "You have to have someone who will build a staff. I’m very concerned. I want to make sure all the people that Joel put together stick around... Other people around the country are coming after our people because they are the best and I don’t want them to leave. You have to have somebody that they look up to and respect.”
Sure he is. And then there's the mayor's concern about the putative dangers of doing a public search: "He denied there was virtually no search for Klein’s replacement, saying “Joel and I worked very hard on this,” but said nothing was public because he didn’t want to jeopardize any candidate’s current job. “You don’t do searches in public...Nobody does a search that way,” he said..."
This, of course, is simply arrant nonsense-and the mayor is doubtlessly conflating private sector methodologies with those of the public. There are good reasons why it is not only proper, but necessary, to conduct a public search process; but those reasons-involving as they do consensus building and generating greater support for the institution-have never been prominent for a mayor who really could care less what broader publics, let alone actual stakeholders, think.
As if the underscore this point-and to, at the same time dramatize how out of touch the man is-Bloomberg actually counsels people to read this morning's NY Times profile: "...he said, then urged listeners to read the New York Times profile on Black in today’s edition.
“And this is not a newspaper, at least on the news side, that has been sympathetic to her appointment. Even they showed she’s an incredibly accomplished woman,” he said."
Well, we know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but to believe that the Times profile was altogether flattering of Cathie Black is to demonstrate just what kind of class bubble Bloomberg lives in-as we pointed out previously, citing the same Times story: "There is simply nothing in Cathie Black's background that suggests even a passing acquaintance with public policy-any public policy: "But while Ms. Black, 66, has been a highly visible and celebrated corporate executive, she has rarely spoken out on the big issues of the day. Her civic engagement and philanthropic activity are scant beyond donating money to politicians and charities and inviting political figures like Mr. Bloomberg, former President Bill Clinton and Cindy McCain to speak at Hearst functions."
But what Bloomberg is most guilty of here, is promoting the assumption that the past eight years under Joel Klein has generating nothing short of an educational miracle-and any one gainsaying the Black appointment is retrograde in their thinking. But why shouldn't he believe it, all of his publicists in the local tabloids have reinforced this myth and have egged him on in his unbridled-and often delusional-egotism.
Here's the NY Post this morning: "And while Klein antagonized a lot of people over the past eight years, most of them needed to be antagonized -- and the resulting record of reform was so strong that Bloomberg has earned a lot of credibility in this debate."
Of course, we would dispute the Post's conflation of bought with earned-and the Klein/Bloomberg hagiography short changes the public-not to mention the truth. But what is missing from the unremitting propaganda, is the simple observation of the little boy in the fable who cried out, "But the king isn't wearing any clothes!"
Bloomberg's worrying about a hypothetical brain drain, but he's making our head hurt from all of the rhetorical gymnastics-really now, Mike's making it up as he goes along. He's trying to devise elaborate cover stories in order to disguise what was a simple act of arrogance: "You have to have someone who will build a staff. I’m very concerned. I want to make sure all the people that Joel put together stick around... Other people around the country are coming after our people because they are the best and I don’t want them to leave. You have to have somebody that they look up to and respect.”
Sure he is. And then there's the mayor's concern about the putative dangers of doing a public search: "He denied there was virtually no search for Klein’s replacement, saying “Joel and I worked very hard on this,” but said nothing was public because he didn’t want to jeopardize any candidate’s current job. “You don’t do searches in public...Nobody does a search that way,” he said..."
This, of course, is simply arrant nonsense-and the mayor is doubtlessly conflating private sector methodologies with those of the public. There are good reasons why it is not only proper, but necessary, to conduct a public search process; but those reasons-involving as they do consensus building and generating greater support for the institution-have never been prominent for a mayor who really could care less what broader publics, let alone actual stakeholders, think.
As if the underscore this point-and to, at the same time dramatize how out of touch the man is-Bloomberg actually counsels people to read this morning's NY Times profile: "...he said, then urged listeners to read the New York Times profile on Black in today’s edition.
“And this is not a newspaper, at least on the news side, that has been sympathetic to her appointment. Even they showed she’s an incredibly accomplished woman,” he said."
Well, we know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but to believe that the Times profile was altogether flattering of Cathie Black is to demonstrate just what kind of class bubble Bloomberg lives in-as we pointed out previously, citing the same Times story: "There is simply nothing in Cathie Black's background that suggests even a passing acquaintance with public policy-any public policy: "But while Ms. Black, 66, has been a highly visible and celebrated corporate executive, she has rarely spoken out on the big issues of the day. Her civic engagement and philanthropic activity are scant beyond donating money to politicians and charities and inviting political figures like Mr. Bloomberg, former President Bill Clinton and Cindy McCain to speak at Hearst functions."
But what Bloomberg is most guilty of here, is promoting the assumption that the past eight years under Joel Klein has generating nothing short of an educational miracle-and any one gainsaying the Black appointment is retrograde in their thinking. But why shouldn't he believe it, all of his publicists in the local tabloids have reinforced this myth and have egged him on in his unbridled-and often delusional-egotism.
Here's the NY Post this morning: "And while Klein antagonized a lot of people over the past eight years, most of them needed to be antagonized -- and the resulting record of reform was so strong that Bloomberg has earned a lot of credibility in this debate."
Of course, we would dispute the Post's conflation of bought with earned-and the Klein/Bloomberg hagiography short changes the public-not to mention the truth. But what is missing from the unremitting propaganda, is the simple observation of the little boy in the fable who cried out, "But the king isn't wearing any clothes!"
Black Ops
The well orchestrated, concerted campaign effort, to get Cathie Black her waiver from State Ed is, in our view, inexorable-but we'd love to be proven wrong. Why it is unlikely, devolves from the massive resources that the mayor has at his disposal-and the folks who will sit up and beg when he whistles. The NY Daily News has this side of the story:
"Mayor Bloomberg's pick for new schools chancellor got the heavy-weight endorsement of Oprah Winfrey last night - the same day he asked the state to approve his pick.The talk show host's support is a sign of how hard City Hall is pushing back against Cathie Black's critics...After a week-long muted response, the Bloomberg administration yesterday tried to take control, rolling out a litany of backers - including former Mayors Rudy Giuliani, David Dinkins and Ed Koch, state Senate President Pro Tempore Malcolm Smith (D-Queens) and City Council Majority Leader Joel Rivera (D-Bronx). The administration circulated a letter among business leaders and late in the day 91 of them endorsed Black.City Council members reported getting phone calls from deputy mayors, top aides and even from Black herself."
Does any one really think that David Steiner and his appointed panel of merry men and woman will withstand Bloomberg's onslaught? And it's not as if there is no precedent for a waiver denial-as Wayne Barrett has reported: "Richard Mills, the same state education commissioner who gave Joel Klein a waiver to become chancellor in 2002, denied another waiver application in 2003. The reasons cited in that 9-page denial letter will no doubt impact the decision now facing Mills' successor, David Steiner, who will soon decide whether Hearst heavyweight Cathie Black has the qualifications to lead the city school system.."
All of those cogent reasons for denying Ernest Hart his waiver to run the Yonkers schools are, as the say in mama loshon, "gornisht mit gornisht" when it comes to Cathie Black's Bloomberg exceptionalism-hey, the NY Post even uses the current budget crisis to argue for Black's waiver. So all of the big guns are being brought out, and it is hard to believe that Steiner will have the cojones to stand up against the elitist onslaught.
Even Bloomberg critic, State Senator Carl Kruger, is supporting the waiver-as Liz reports: "Sen. Carl Kruger, a critic of both mayoral control of the NYC public school system and Mayor Bloomberg, has joined the ranks of Cathie Black boosters, urging state Education Commissioner David Steiner to approve a waiver so she can succeed outgoing Chancellor Joel Klein."
Kruger's position is, however, a nuanced one: "The Legislature has given the mayor virtual and unbridled control of the system. With that control comes the responsibility for its management,” Kruger wrote in a letter to Steiner..." Kruger, who voted against the unchecked and unvarnished mayoral control re-authorization bill, is really chiding his colleagues for their lack of responsibility in insuring that there would be at least a modicum of oversight over the mayor's school rule. Now Kruger is saying, in the spirit of the late Johnny Most announcing another successful Sam Jones bank shot, "Too late!"
While we respect Kruger's position, we still believe that the Bloomberg appointment of Black-even more so then was with Klein-is an example of hubris that should be resisted, no matter how uphill a battle this might be. Barrett makes a solid point in this regard: "Beyond Klein's connections as a teacher and a student to public education, there is another reason his selection made better sense than Black's does now. Bloomberg had just been elected, a new mayoral control system has just passed the legislature, and Klein could look forward, at the age of 55, to a potential eight years of mastering and managing the system. Black, at 66, is making a wholesale career change with only three Bloomberg years to find her footing and leave a mark. It may not be possible for Steiner's panel to consider this very real difference in their statutory deliberations, but Mike Bloomberg should have."
And Black's profile in the NY Times this morning, does little to disabuse us of our sense that she is a poor choice: "She grew up sheltered and privileged, in a middle-class Irish enclave of Chicago at midcentury, attending Catholic schools and riding horses at a country club where blacks and Jews were not allowed." And the world of publishing-where she did no public service or government work-will not prepare her for what lies ahead in a scant three years (with the first year being an extensive and intensive learning curve).
There is simply nothing in Cathie Black's background that suggests even a passing acquaintance with public policy-any public policy: "But while Ms. Black, 66, has been a highly visible and celebrated corporate executive, she has rarely spoken out on the big issues of the day. Her civic engagement and philanthropic activity are scant beyond donating money to politicians and charities and inviting political figures like Mr. Bloomberg, former President Bill Clinton and Cindy McCain to speak at Hearst functions."
But one can excuse Bloomberg for his sanguininity about Black, since he came into the mayoralty similarly ignorant of policy and unprepared for the challenge-an unpreparedness that has cost NYC in a number of ways we have commented on. And his tapping of her fits right into the mode of the patricianage that has characterized some of his high level appointments-particularly in the economic development area where a run of tone deaf Wall Streeters has ill-served the city's economic growth in the small business sector
All of which will, it seems to us, matter little once the Bloomberg juggernaut goes full throttle-as the Times highlights in another Black story: "Ms. Black’s outreach is part of a growing public-relations offensive from City Hall, which is determined to regain control of the intensifying debate over her surprise selection last week. Those close to Mr. Bloomberg asked three of his predecessors — Rudolph W. Giuliani, David N. Dinkins and Mr. Koch — to sign a letter backing her. Mayoral aides are also encouraging high-powered academic leaders from universities around the country to express their support for her. And they are pushing reliable allies in the business world to publicly embrace her nomination. A powerful group of chief executives in the city has begun circulating copies of a letter that calls on the state education commissioner to grant Ms. Black a waiver from the state law requiring that those who run school districts have certain education credentials and experience."
In eight years, Mike Bloomberg has pretty much done exactly what he wanted to do (with the exception of the Kingsbridge Armory defeat)-with very little blow back from any quarter. After all, getting the city council to over-turn term limits and still ride to victory in his third term bid, are the kinds of experiences suggestive of, if not omnipotence, at least something close to it.
So, while we certainly hope that the tide may have finally turned against mayoral hubris, we recall our father's sage advice; "Son, the race doesn't always go to the swift, but that's the way to bet."
"Mayor Bloomberg's pick for new schools chancellor got the heavy-weight endorsement of Oprah Winfrey last night - the same day he asked the state to approve his pick.The talk show host's support is a sign of how hard City Hall is pushing back against Cathie Black's critics...After a week-long muted response, the Bloomberg administration yesterday tried to take control, rolling out a litany of backers - including former Mayors Rudy Giuliani, David Dinkins and Ed Koch, state Senate President Pro Tempore Malcolm Smith (D-Queens) and City Council Majority Leader Joel Rivera (D-Bronx). The administration circulated a letter among business leaders and late in the day 91 of them endorsed Black.City Council members reported getting phone calls from deputy mayors, top aides and even from Black herself."
Does any one really think that David Steiner and his appointed panel of merry men and woman will withstand Bloomberg's onslaught? And it's not as if there is no precedent for a waiver denial-as Wayne Barrett has reported: "Richard Mills, the same state education commissioner who gave Joel Klein a waiver to become chancellor in 2002, denied another waiver application in 2003. The reasons cited in that 9-page denial letter will no doubt impact the decision now facing Mills' successor, David Steiner, who will soon decide whether Hearst heavyweight Cathie Black has the qualifications to lead the city school system.."
All of those cogent reasons for denying Ernest Hart his waiver to run the Yonkers schools are, as the say in mama loshon, "gornisht mit gornisht" when it comes to Cathie Black's Bloomberg exceptionalism-hey, the NY Post even uses the current budget crisis to argue for Black's waiver. So all of the big guns are being brought out, and it is hard to believe that Steiner will have the cojones to stand up against the elitist onslaught.
Even Bloomberg critic, State Senator Carl Kruger, is supporting the waiver-as Liz reports: "Sen. Carl Kruger, a critic of both mayoral control of the NYC public school system and Mayor Bloomberg, has joined the ranks of Cathie Black boosters, urging state Education Commissioner David Steiner to approve a waiver so she can succeed outgoing Chancellor Joel Klein."
Kruger's position is, however, a nuanced one: "The Legislature has given the mayor virtual and unbridled control of the system. With that control comes the responsibility for its management,” Kruger wrote in a letter to Steiner..." Kruger, who voted against the unchecked and unvarnished mayoral control re-authorization bill, is really chiding his colleagues for their lack of responsibility in insuring that there would be at least a modicum of oversight over the mayor's school rule. Now Kruger is saying, in the spirit of the late Johnny Most announcing another successful Sam Jones bank shot, "Too late!"
While we respect Kruger's position, we still believe that the Bloomberg appointment of Black-even more so then was with Klein-is an example of hubris that should be resisted, no matter how uphill a battle this might be. Barrett makes a solid point in this regard: "Beyond Klein's connections as a teacher and a student to public education, there is another reason his selection made better sense than Black's does now. Bloomberg had just been elected, a new mayoral control system has just passed the legislature, and Klein could look forward, at the age of 55, to a potential eight years of mastering and managing the system. Black, at 66, is making a wholesale career change with only three Bloomberg years to find her footing and leave a mark. It may not be possible for Steiner's panel to consider this very real difference in their statutory deliberations, but Mike Bloomberg should have."
And Black's profile in the NY Times this morning, does little to disabuse us of our sense that she is a poor choice: "She grew up sheltered and privileged, in a middle-class Irish enclave of Chicago at midcentury, attending Catholic schools and riding horses at a country club where blacks and Jews were not allowed." And the world of publishing-where she did no public service or government work-will not prepare her for what lies ahead in a scant three years (with the first year being an extensive and intensive learning curve).
There is simply nothing in Cathie Black's background that suggests even a passing acquaintance with public policy-any public policy: "But while Ms. Black, 66, has been a highly visible and celebrated corporate executive, she has rarely spoken out on the big issues of the day. Her civic engagement and philanthropic activity are scant beyond donating money to politicians and charities and inviting political figures like Mr. Bloomberg, former President Bill Clinton and Cindy McCain to speak at Hearst functions."
But one can excuse Bloomberg for his sanguininity about Black, since he came into the mayoralty similarly ignorant of policy and unprepared for the challenge-an unpreparedness that has cost NYC in a number of ways we have commented on. And his tapping of her fits right into the mode of the patricianage that has characterized some of his high level appointments-particularly in the economic development area where a run of tone deaf Wall Streeters has ill-served the city's economic growth in the small business sector
All of which will, it seems to us, matter little once the Bloomberg juggernaut goes full throttle-as the Times highlights in another Black story: "Ms. Black’s outreach is part of a growing public-relations offensive from City Hall, which is determined to regain control of the intensifying debate over her surprise selection last week. Those close to Mr. Bloomberg asked three of his predecessors — Rudolph W. Giuliani, David N. Dinkins and Mr. Koch — to sign a letter backing her. Mayoral aides are also encouraging high-powered academic leaders from universities around the country to express their support for her. And they are pushing reliable allies in the business world to publicly embrace her nomination. A powerful group of chief executives in the city has begun circulating copies of a letter that calls on the state education commissioner to grant Ms. Black a waiver from the state law requiring that those who run school districts have certain education credentials and experience."
In eight years, Mike Bloomberg has pretty much done exactly what he wanted to do (with the exception of the Kingsbridge Armory defeat)-with very little blow back from any quarter. After all, getting the city council to over-turn term limits and still ride to victory in his third term bid, are the kinds of experiences suggestive of, if not omnipotence, at least something close to it.
So, while we certainly hope that the tide may have finally turned against mayoral hubris, we recall our father's sage advice; "Son, the race doesn't always go to the swift, but that's the way to bet."
Lay Off-Willets Point
With the mayor proposing massive layoffs, isn't it time for all of those folks who are concerned about the loss of certain vital city services to join with the businesses of Willets Point United? But first, here's the bad news: "Mayor Bloomberg is outlining stark plans for thousands of city layoffs to close looming budget gaps, and unions are already pushing back. “We’ve kept the City’s financial house in order through these difficult times by planning ahead and never shying away from making the hard decisions, and our current budget remains balanced because of that sound approach,” said Bloomberg. In short, City Hall says, reducing the city’s budget deficit for next year means getting rid of 2,102 employees in the current fiscal year, 2011, and 8,264 in Fiscal Year 2012. That includes 889 layoffs in Fiscal Year 2011 and 5,312 layoffs in Fiscal Year 2012."
In other words, the city is not in good fiscal shape-and needs to drastically cut back: "But we face a significant challenge for next year, as Federal stimulus dollars run dry and the city still suffers from the impacts of the national economic downturn. We began working to attack next year’s deficit immediately after passing this year’s balanced budget, and there is still more work to do. More spending reductions are going to be necessary, and we have to continue to reduce the number of employees we have by not filling positions - we simply cannot afford the size of our current workforce.”
Municipal labor isn't happy with this: "And DC 37 Executive Director Lillian Roberts said, "We have not yet had an opportunity to analyze the Mayor’s budget proposals in depth. However, I have written the Mayor and suggested he focus on enhancing the city’s revenue before slashing services, laying off workers and placing the burden of balancing the budget on public employees and millions of New Yorkers. Layoffs of any city worker will end up costing the city money. Layoffs in the city’s Department of Finance are particularly self-defeating. These are revenue-generating positions. The millions in tax revenue that goes uncollected because the Dept. of Finance is understaffed amount to tax breaks for the wealthy. Everyone should be asked to pay their fair share. The city’s workers should not be asked to bear the burden of this financial crisis."
Philosophical arguments aside, it's clear that the city's revenues are in the dumpster-and Bloomberg's response is to lay off workers; while Lillian Roberts proposes increasing taxes on an already overburdened citizenry. But there are other ways to skinning the budget cat-and pulling back on Bloomberg's massive boondoggle of a legacy project at Willets Point is as good a place as any-and there are billions in proposed infrastructure and buy-out funds that could be put to much better use.
As we pointed out last April, just the cost of acquiring all of the property could run higher than $2 billion-and the NY Daily News estimated that the total cost of the redevelopment could go "north of $3 billion." As the paper pointed out in 2007: "The envisioned transformation of Willets Point from a scruffy haven for scrap yards and auto shops into a residential, retail and convention mega development will cost "north of $3 billion," a city official said yesterday. The estimate was given by Robert Lieber, president of the city's Economic Development Corp., which is gearing up to submit the Willets Point development plan to the governmental approval procedure known as ULURP - uniform land use review process. "It will be a lot," Lieber said when asked about the costs during the City Council's first public hearing on the mammoth redevelopment plan announced May 1 by Mayor Bloomberg."
A year later Deputy Mayor Lieber raised this estimate to $6 billion-and the costs are still rising. But the massive investment is far from a sure thing-as the problems of leasing the condos at the new-nearby to Wilets Point-Muss development underscore. The Daily News has the story: "About 75% of the retail space at Sky View Parc - the 3.3 million-square-foot complex of condos and stores at College Point Blvd. and Roosevelt Ave. - has been leased to big-name retailers such as Target, Old Navy and Marshalls. But project officials said there have been only eight closings at the development's three residential towers, and sales have not increased since spring."
That's eight out of 448 units-and the Willets Point plan calls for 5,500 new residential units in, what EDC has described as a new neighborhood on the order of Battery Park City. Given the economic downturn, this could all turn out to be-like New London-a very bad deal-as we pointed out in the Daily News last year.
But while Bloomberg speculates in the futures market, he is aggressively cutting back in the present. Given the current austerity climate-and the plan to cut loose 2500 workers (effecting around 10,000 people in total)-is it sensible-let alone conscionable-to set aside billions for the mayor's signature legacy project.
The city council approved the Willets Point project before the full impact of thee Great Recession was understood. Now that the recession's impact has been fully felt, can the city council still sit back and allow the Bloombergistas to siphon off all of this cash for a project that, as we said in the News, raises numerous, "empty lots of questions?" Or will it intervene to prevent the full scale lay of of city workers by doing the right thing: Laying off Willets Point?
In other words, the city is not in good fiscal shape-and needs to drastically cut back: "But we face a significant challenge for next year, as Federal stimulus dollars run dry and the city still suffers from the impacts of the national economic downturn. We began working to attack next year’s deficit immediately after passing this year’s balanced budget, and there is still more work to do. More spending reductions are going to be necessary, and we have to continue to reduce the number of employees we have by not filling positions - we simply cannot afford the size of our current workforce.”
Municipal labor isn't happy with this: "And DC 37 Executive Director Lillian Roberts said, "We have not yet had an opportunity to analyze the Mayor’s budget proposals in depth. However, I have written the Mayor and suggested he focus on enhancing the city’s revenue before slashing services, laying off workers and placing the burden of balancing the budget on public employees and millions of New Yorkers. Layoffs of any city worker will end up costing the city money. Layoffs in the city’s Department of Finance are particularly self-defeating. These are revenue-generating positions. The millions in tax revenue that goes uncollected because the Dept. of Finance is understaffed amount to tax breaks for the wealthy. Everyone should be asked to pay their fair share. The city’s workers should not be asked to bear the burden of this financial crisis."
Philosophical arguments aside, it's clear that the city's revenues are in the dumpster-and Bloomberg's response is to lay off workers; while Lillian Roberts proposes increasing taxes on an already overburdened citizenry. But there are other ways to skinning the budget cat-and pulling back on Bloomberg's massive boondoggle of a legacy project at Willets Point is as good a place as any-and there are billions in proposed infrastructure and buy-out funds that could be put to much better use.
As we pointed out last April, just the cost of acquiring all of the property could run higher than $2 billion-and the NY Daily News estimated that the total cost of the redevelopment could go "north of $3 billion." As the paper pointed out in 2007: "The envisioned transformation of Willets Point from a scruffy haven for scrap yards and auto shops into a residential, retail and convention mega development will cost "north of $3 billion," a city official said yesterday. The estimate was given by Robert Lieber, president of the city's Economic Development Corp., which is gearing up to submit the Willets Point development plan to the governmental approval procedure known as ULURP - uniform land use review process. "It will be a lot," Lieber said when asked about the costs during the City Council's first public hearing on the mammoth redevelopment plan announced May 1 by Mayor Bloomberg."
A year later Deputy Mayor Lieber raised this estimate to $6 billion-and the costs are still rising. But the massive investment is far from a sure thing-as the problems of leasing the condos at the new-nearby to Wilets Point-Muss development underscore. The Daily News has the story: "About 75% of the retail space at Sky View Parc - the 3.3 million-square-foot complex of condos and stores at College Point Blvd. and Roosevelt Ave. - has been leased to big-name retailers such as Target, Old Navy and Marshalls. But project officials said there have been only eight closings at the development's three residential towers, and sales have not increased since spring."
That's eight out of 448 units-and the Willets Point plan calls for 5,500 new residential units in, what EDC has described as a new neighborhood on the order of Battery Park City. Given the economic downturn, this could all turn out to be-like New London-a very bad deal-as we pointed out in the Daily News last year.
But while Bloomberg speculates in the futures market, he is aggressively cutting back in the present. Given the current austerity climate-and the plan to cut loose 2500 workers (effecting around 10,000 people in total)-is it sensible-let alone conscionable-to set aside billions for the mayor's signature legacy project.
The city council approved the Willets Point project before the full impact of thee Great Recession was understood. Now that the recession's impact has been fully felt, can the city council still sit back and allow the Bloombergistas to siphon off all of this cash for a project that, as we said in the News, raises numerous, "empty lots of questions?" Or will it intervene to prevent the full scale lay of of city workers by doing the right thing: Laying off Willets Point?
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Smart Growth, Stupid Agencies
In late August, Governor Paterson signed into law the, "Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (A8011B/S5560B), a bill that requires the state to make wiser, more sustainable infrastructure investments based on smart growth principles." As Smart Growth Online reports: "The law requires state agencies to use smart growth and sustainability criteria when deciding how to spend infrastructure dollars for roads, sewers, water lines and utilities."
So, what does this law mean for the approval of ramps off of the Van Wyck Expressway in order to advance an example of supremely stupid growth at Willets Point? WPU's attorney, Michaeal Gerrard believes that it requires NYS DOT to disapprove these ramps. In his letter to Commissioner Gee he writes that the state must issue a written "smart growth impact statement that the project, to the extent practicable, meets the relevant criteria set forth" in law.
Gerrard goes on to point out, "The ramps are inconsistent with the statutory criteria. In particular criteria "a" calls for projects leading to 'improvement of existing infrastructure.' The new ramps would seriously degrade the quality of traffic service on the Van Wyck and nearby roads." In addition, "Criterion 'f'' calls for projects that provide mobility through transportation choices including improved public transportation and reduced automobile dependency."
If anything, the Willets Point development-and the attendant ramps-exacerbate the transportation choices by, simultaneously, gridlocking the roads, and offloading tens of thousands of daily trips to a mass transit infrastructure unable to accommodate them. As the Empire State Future website comments on the law, "With the stroke of his pen, Governor David Paterson codified a new law that directs New York State agencies, authorities and public corporations to screen their infrastructure programs and investments to ensure that they are not funding inefficient, redundant, and costly development..."
The website goes on to say: "This law is a significant step for New York's efforts to revitalize its cities and villages, and to revitalize and preserve its suburban and rural communities. For decades across New York, land has been developed at many times the rate of population growth, causing an array of economic, ecological, and social consequences. Especially severe in this "sprawl" pattern has been the excessive burden on governments and taxpayers stemming from the need to maintain the excess "built environment." Limited public infrastructure dollars must go to build the kinds of sustainable places, spaces, and communities we need now and in the future."
Given what we have found out about the deficiencies of the Willets Point ramps-and the manner in which the entire development violates any sensible sustainable development criteria-the new law poses an immense challenge to the Bloombergistas. In essence, their spouting of "sustainable growth" platitudes will never stand up to any independent evaluation of the costs and impacts of the Willets Point mega-development.
Finally, WPU's Gerrard goes on to demand that NYS DOT comply with the new law, and refrain from doing anything on the ramps-and certainly approving the EDC application qualifies here-until it prepares a, "smart growth impact statement," and allows WPU and others in the community to comment on it. It is Gerrard's view, however, that the smart growth criteria embodied in the new law militates against any approval of the ramp application-and we agree.
So, what does this law mean for the approval of ramps off of the Van Wyck Expressway in order to advance an example of supremely stupid growth at Willets Point? WPU's attorney, Michaeal Gerrard believes that it requires NYS DOT to disapprove these ramps. In his letter to Commissioner Gee he writes that the state must issue a written "smart growth impact statement that the project, to the extent practicable, meets the relevant criteria set forth" in law.
Gerrard goes on to point out, "The ramps are inconsistent with the statutory criteria. In particular criteria "a" calls for projects leading to 'improvement of existing infrastructure.' The new ramps would seriously degrade the quality of traffic service on the Van Wyck and nearby roads." In addition, "Criterion 'f'' calls for projects that provide mobility through transportation choices including improved public transportation and reduced automobile dependency."
If anything, the Willets Point development-and the attendant ramps-exacerbate the transportation choices by, simultaneously, gridlocking the roads, and offloading tens of thousands of daily trips to a mass transit infrastructure unable to accommodate them. As the Empire State Future website comments on the law, "With the stroke of his pen, Governor David Paterson codified a new law that directs New York State agencies, authorities and public corporations to screen their infrastructure programs and investments to ensure that they are not funding inefficient, redundant, and costly development..."
The website goes on to say: "This law is a significant step for New York's efforts to revitalize its cities and villages, and to revitalize and preserve its suburban and rural communities. For decades across New York, land has been developed at many times the rate of population growth, causing an array of economic, ecological, and social consequences. Especially severe in this "sprawl" pattern has been the excessive burden on governments and taxpayers stemming from the need to maintain the excess "built environment." Limited public infrastructure dollars must go to build the kinds of sustainable places, spaces, and communities we need now and in the future."
Given what we have found out about the deficiencies of the Willets Point ramps-and the manner in which the entire development violates any sensible sustainable development criteria-the new law poses an immense challenge to the Bloombergistas. In essence, their spouting of "sustainable growth" platitudes will never stand up to any independent evaluation of the costs and impacts of the Willets Point mega-development.
Finally, WPU's Gerrard goes on to demand that NYS DOT comply with the new law, and refrain from doing anything on the ramps-and certainly approving the EDC application qualifies here-until it prepares a, "smart growth impact statement," and allows WPU and others in the community to comment on it. It is Gerrard's view, however, that the smart growth criteria embodied in the new law militates against any approval of the ramp application-and we agree.
EDC Caught in a Draft
Crain's Insider-in response to our rebuttal of its original post on the long delayed Willets Point/Van Wyck ramp report-now comes forth, courtesy of the serial prevaricators at EDC, with the following explanation for the egregious failure of the agency to follow the Freedom of Information Law: "Willets Point opponents, whose repeated Freedom of Information Law requests for the city's assessment of traffic impacts have been denied and called premature, were shocked to read in the Insider that the assessment is under review by state and federal agencies. A city spokesman says it is just a draft and therefore not public yet."
Hold on for just one minute. The purpose of WPU filing a FOIL request for the revised AMR was precisely so it could review the document before it was publicly released-as it did with the original flawed, and possibly fraudulent, ramp report. It was as a result of that successful FOIL request that we were able to flag the phony data submissions from the EDC consultants that led to the report's rightful demise.
Having lost its appeal of the original AMR FOIL, EDC and NYSDOT simply have no legal right to withhold the revision-and they know it. So, we are left with the simple explanation that there are ample reasons-none that comport with good public policy or the public interest-for the stonewalling. Chief among them is the fear of premature exposure of the agency's continual malfeasance in regard to this matter. What EDC wants to do is to truncate the review process and bum rush another flawed AMR through the state and federal oversight authorities without giving critics-and the impacted communities-adequate time to evaluate the revised ramp report.
All of which dramatizes the need for NYS DOT to initiate an independent evaluation of the feasibility of building Willets Point ramps-as NRDC, the Sierra Club, and eight community groups have asked for. It is our view, bolstered by the work of ace traffic consultant Brian Ketcham, that there is simply no way for these two proposed ramps to accommodate the 80,000 daily car and truck trips that the Willets Point project will generate-not to mention the millions of more feet of development going on in and around the Willets Point area.
EDC's secrecy, delay, and conscious withholding of data in violation of the law, makes abundantly clear that our suspicions are correct-and that this review process needs to be forcefully wrested from EDC's cold dead hands.
Hold on for just one minute. The purpose of WPU filing a FOIL request for the revised AMR was precisely so it could review the document before it was publicly released-as it did with the original flawed, and possibly fraudulent, ramp report. It was as a result of that successful FOIL request that we were able to flag the phony data submissions from the EDC consultants that led to the report's rightful demise.
Having lost its appeal of the original AMR FOIL, EDC and NYSDOT simply have no legal right to withhold the revision-and they know it. So, we are left with the simple explanation that there are ample reasons-none that comport with good public policy or the public interest-for the stonewalling. Chief among them is the fear of premature exposure of the agency's continual malfeasance in regard to this matter. What EDC wants to do is to truncate the review process and bum rush another flawed AMR through the state and federal oversight authorities without giving critics-and the impacted communities-adequate time to evaluate the revised ramp report.
All of which dramatizes the need for NYS DOT to initiate an independent evaluation of the feasibility of building Willets Point ramps-as NRDC, the Sierra Club, and eight community groups have asked for. It is our view, bolstered by the work of ace traffic consultant Brian Ketcham, that there is simply no way for these two proposed ramps to accommodate the 80,000 daily car and truck trips that the Willets Point project will generate-not to mention the millions of more feet of development going on in and around the Willets Point area.
EDC's secrecy, delay, and conscious withholding of data in violation of the law, makes abundantly clear that our suspicions are correct-and that this review process needs to be forcefully wrested from EDC's cold dead hands.
Back to the Future in Harlem
An interesting coincidence. Yesterday we had a conversation with a local East Harlem Council elected official, who expressed concerns that Wal-Mart may be targeted the neighborhood. Soon after that conversation, we read the following from Crain's: "The city is tired of waiting for gourmet grocer Citarella to move out of its Harlem store, so it has invited others to submit proposals on what they would do with the real estate. A court ruling last year found that Citarella, which bought a collection of six buildings on West 125th Street and West 126th Street from the city for a song—$850,000—violated the terms of its 1999 purchase agreement with the city. "
Could this be a great site for one of Wal-Mart's so called, "neighborhood markets?" We can see it-and maybe EDC does as well: "The opportunity to redevelop the former Taystee Bakery Complex represents a chance to bring economic activity and new jobs to West Harlem,” said Seth Pinsky, president of the city’s Economic Development Corp., in a prepared statement. “We look forward to reviewing the responses and moving as quickly as possible to reactivate this important site.”
It certainly would be big enough-it is a three acre site of 134,000 square feet. But the local community board is being vigilant while the DCP rezones the area: "The Department of City Planning is currently conducting a rezoning study of the West Harlem neighborhood, which could result in a rezoning of the Taystee Bakery Complex to allow for some of the buildings to be converted to residential units. In a statement, Community Board Nine Chair Larry English said the board “considers the Citarella properties to be one of the most viable and important development opportunities in West Harlem. CB9 will be working with the EDC to make sure any new development comports with the vision of the community.”
Vision is, however, very much in the eye of the beholder-and with EDC it is often tunnel vision. But all of this brings us back to the nineties and the fight over the building of a Pathmark store on 125th Street. With Wal-Mart looking to build 15 stores in NYC-according to public speculation-the opponents of Big Wally need to be prepared to fight the retail giant on any number of fronts.
An oversight occured in East New York when the city council approved the expansion of Gateway Estates Mall with no restrictions on a future Wal-Mart-leading to the current furor. Suffice it to say that this is one mistake that won't be repeated-and every available real estate site will be scrutinized carefully. As we used to say on the street back in the day: "Once burnt, twice learnt."
Could this be a great site for one of Wal-Mart's so called, "neighborhood markets?" We can see it-and maybe EDC does as well: "The opportunity to redevelop the former Taystee Bakery Complex represents a chance to bring economic activity and new jobs to West Harlem,” said Seth Pinsky, president of the city’s Economic Development Corp., in a prepared statement. “We look forward to reviewing the responses and moving as quickly as possible to reactivate this important site.”
It certainly would be big enough-it is a three acre site of 134,000 square feet. But the local community board is being vigilant while the DCP rezones the area: "The Department of City Planning is currently conducting a rezoning study of the West Harlem neighborhood, which could result in a rezoning of the Taystee Bakery Complex to allow for some of the buildings to be converted to residential units. In a statement, Community Board Nine Chair Larry English said the board “considers the Citarella properties to be one of the most viable and important development opportunities in West Harlem. CB9 will be working with the EDC to make sure any new development comports with the vision of the community.”
Vision is, however, very much in the eye of the beholder-and with EDC it is often tunnel vision. But all of this brings us back to the nineties and the fight over the building of a Pathmark store on 125th Street. With Wal-Mart looking to build 15 stores in NYC-according to public speculation-the opponents of Big Wally need to be prepared to fight the retail giant on any number of fronts.
An oversight occured in East New York when the city council approved the expansion of Gateway Estates Mall with no restrictions on a future Wal-Mart-leading to the current furor. Suffice it to say that this is one mistake that won't be repeated-and every available real estate site will be scrutinized carefully. As we used to say on the street back in the day: "Once burnt, twice learnt."
A Tale of Two Cities
The folks are taking sides in the battle over the mayor's choice of a new schools chancellor-and it is beginning to look like a tale of two cities, with the mayor side representing NY"s business and cultural elites. City Room tells the tale: "Hoping to fend off skepticism about his choice for schools chancellor, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has turned to a familiar and reliable ally: the business community.
Encouraged by City Hall aides, the Partnership for New York City, a coalition of the city’s top 200 chief executives, has asked its members to rally behind Cathleen P. Black, the chairwoman of Hearst Magazines, to be the next schools chief."
It would be extremely interesting-as well as instructive-to see how many of the Partnership's signees actually have kids in the public schools. The Bloomberg lobbying effort is taking on the characteristics of a remake of, "The Usual Suspects." And, unsurprisingly, the group enthusiastically promotes the mayor's business model: "The group asked its members on Tuesday to sign a letter (below) calling on the state education commissioner, David M. Steiner, to grant Ms. Black an exemption from rules requiring the chancellor to hold education credentials. A copy of the letter was obtained by The New York Times. “The skills she has developed are ones that are essential to running any large organization, whether in the private, public, or nonprofit sector,” the letter reads. “You would be hard-pressed to find a more qualified and more capable candidate than Cathie Black.”
When it comes to the Partnership and Mike Bloomberg, it is "home on the range time." We're still waiting for just a small peep of a discouraging word. And the Partnership's Kathy Wylde adds a homey female perspective to the debate: "Kathryn S. Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, said 75 business leaders had signed the letter as of Wednesday afternoon. She said Ms. Black would bring a “woman’s touch” to the chancellorship."
This is, of course, both bizarre and counter intuitive-everything that we have read about Cathie Black speaks to her tough mindedness; and we don't expect that she will be bringing brownies to the state ed commissioner, despite Wylde's verbal sleight of hand. The WSJ underscores this in its discussion of Black's decision to close down Tina Brown's Talk Magazine: "The 2007 book describes Ms. Black's 40-year trajectory from ad-sales assistant at a magazine to leading Hearst Magazines, where she was responsible for a stable of popular publications including Cosmopolitan, Esquire and Good Housekeeping. In between, she ran USA Today. At the time of the Talk shutdown, the staff was halfway through the next issue, and "weeping staff members" asked if they could finish it. "It was very tough, but I had to say no," Ms. Black wrote. "Two more weeks of work meant two more weeks of costs." She asked: "Did the staff hate me that day? …Probably….But, unfortunately, life as an executive is about making tough decisions, not about being popular."
Some, "woman's touch!" Which brings us to the other side of the debate here, what we would call the second city-made up of the lower orders who can't seem to grasp the majesty of the mayor's world view.These are people who just can't see the incredible transformation that has been wrought by the Bloomberg/Klein regime.
The mayor characterizes these short sighted naysayers quite adroitly: "The people who are objecting would object to anybody that the mayor picked. They never liked mayoral control. They are never willing to admit that the school system is immeasurably better. They can't abide by the fact that Obama and his secretary, Arne Duncan, think we're the role model for what you should do with a public school system. We're setting the agenda for the country, and what we've got to do is seamlessly continue on."
This comes from a post at the Daily Politics titled, "Black has Proven Herself in the Real World." Which is apropos of the solipsistic way that the mayor sees reality. Clearly, someone who had years of experience in the world of education wouldn't, under this definition of reality, be a qualified candidate. This is brought home by the way in which Bloomberg waxes eloquent about Black's sterling resume: "She has an advanced degree that I don't know if very many people have ever had. You take a look at her resume. She's created an awful lot of jobs. One of the reasons we're here today is jobs, jobs, jobs. And she's managed an enormous budget, she's managed in a very difficult industry. This is a woman that has all of the credentials for this job."
All, that is, except for those that are required by statute. But let's hear from the peons. As Daily Politics tells us: "Thirteen City Councilmembers - mostly from Council’s “progressive caucus” -- lent their names to a resolution calling on state Education Commissioner David Steiner to veto Mayor Bloomberg’s choice for schools chancellor.
“Whereas, While the New York City school system is complicated to manage, it cannot be run solely as a business, and we cannot forget that education should be about the children, their families and communities;” read the resolution introduced at today’s stated Council meeting.
“Whereas, The people of New York City want a Chancellor with experience, character and qualifications that are well suited for the education of children and not merely the management of a corporation; now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Council of the City of New York calls on the New York State Education Commissioner to deny Cathleen P. Black a waiver to become the next Chancellor of the New York City public school system.”
We particularly liked the characterization of the Black appointment as, "social promotion for the elite." It fits right in with our concept of patriciange. The speaker, for her part, had a clever riposte to the challengers: "Quinn added that the appointment “is an example of how mayoral control works. The mayor gets to make the choice of who the schools Chancellor is and that is how the process works. You know, when we were talking renewal of Mayoral Control many of us thought it would have been - should have been - better as municipal control. That would not have taken away the mayor’s right to then appoint a commissioner but it would have put the Council in a lot more aggressive oversight position in the Department of Education but this is how Mayoral Control works. They mayor gets to pick the Chancellor.”
Yes, "municipal control," would have been a much better idea because it would have created a system of checks and balances-a new concept of governance that the mayor is discomfited by. But Quinn, in our view, is only partially correct since there is one check on the mayor's absolute and unfettered control over the choosing of a chancellor-and that happens when the candidate lacks the statutory requirements and must receive a waiver from the commissioner of education.
Since that review process is in place, we're wondering why the speaker doesn't speak to it-and suggest to David Steiner whether Cathie Black is the right person to lead the city's 1.1 million school kids. She is being too clever by half with her besides the point history of the failure to achieve municipal control-and uses it as a dodge from actually having to take a stand against Hizzoner.
Well, others are less reticent-and we'll give CM Lew Fidler the last word: "Who is going to explain to her what goes on in a public school room between 9-3," asked Fidler. "She didn't go herself. She didn't send her kids. Her only experience is with charter schools and that is minimal. The arrogance of the appointment is unbelievable." Added Fidler, "I served on the board of a Catholic high school for two years. That doesn't qualify me to be the Pope."
Encouraged by City Hall aides, the Partnership for New York City, a coalition of the city’s top 200 chief executives, has asked its members to rally behind Cathleen P. Black, the chairwoman of Hearst Magazines, to be the next schools chief."
It would be extremely interesting-as well as instructive-to see how many of the Partnership's signees actually have kids in the public schools. The Bloomberg lobbying effort is taking on the characteristics of a remake of, "The Usual Suspects." And, unsurprisingly, the group enthusiastically promotes the mayor's business model: "The group asked its members on Tuesday to sign a letter (below) calling on the state education commissioner, David M. Steiner, to grant Ms. Black an exemption from rules requiring the chancellor to hold education credentials. A copy of the letter was obtained by The New York Times. “The skills she has developed are ones that are essential to running any large organization, whether in the private, public, or nonprofit sector,” the letter reads. “You would be hard-pressed to find a more qualified and more capable candidate than Cathie Black.”
When it comes to the Partnership and Mike Bloomberg, it is "home on the range time." We're still waiting for just a small peep of a discouraging word. And the Partnership's Kathy Wylde adds a homey female perspective to the debate: "Kathryn S. Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, said 75 business leaders had signed the letter as of Wednesday afternoon. She said Ms. Black would bring a “woman’s touch” to the chancellorship."
This is, of course, both bizarre and counter intuitive-everything that we have read about Cathie Black speaks to her tough mindedness; and we don't expect that she will be bringing brownies to the state ed commissioner, despite Wylde's verbal sleight of hand. The WSJ underscores this in its discussion of Black's decision to close down Tina Brown's Talk Magazine: "The 2007 book describes Ms. Black's 40-year trajectory from ad-sales assistant at a magazine to leading Hearst Magazines, where she was responsible for a stable of popular publications including Cosmopolitan, Esquire and Good Housekeeping. In between, she ran USA Today. At the time of the Talk shutdown, the staff was halfway through the next issue, and "weeping staff members" asked if they could finish it. "It was very tough, but I had to say no," Ms. Black wrote. "Two more weeks of work meant two more weeks of costs." She asked: "Did the staff hate me that day? …Probably….But, unfortunately, life as an executive is about making tough decisions, not about being popular."
Some, "woman's touch!" Which brings us to the other side of the debate here, what we would call the second city-made up of the lower orders who can't seem to grasp the majesty of the mayor's world view.These are people who just can't see the incredible transformation that has been wrought by the Bloomberg/Klein regime.
The mayor characterizes these short sighted naysayers quite adroitly: "The people who are objecting would object to anybody that the mayor picked. They never liked mayoral control. They are never willing to admit that the school system is immeasurably better. They can't abide by the fact that Obama and his secretary, Arne Duncan, think we're the role model for what you should do with a public school system. We're setting the agenda for the country, and what we've got to do is seamlessly continue on."
This comes from a post at the Daily Politics titled, "Black has Proven Herself in the Real World." Which is apropos of the solipsistic way that the mayor sees reality. Clearly, someone who had years of experience in the world of education wouldn't, under this definition of reality, be a qualified candidate. This is brought home by the way in which Bloomberg waxes eloquent about Black's sterling resume: "She has an advanced degree that I don't know if very many people have ever had. You take a look at her resume. She's created an awful lot of jobs. One of the reasons we're here today is jobs, jobs, jobs. And she's managed an enormous budget, she's managed in a very difficult industry. This is a woman that has all of the credentials for this job."
All, that is, except for those that are required by statute. But let's hear from the peons. As Daily Politics tells us: "Thirteen City Councilmembers - mostly from Council’s “progressive caucus” -- lent their names to a resolution calling on state Education Commissioner David Steiner to veto Mayor Bloomberg’s choice for schools chancellor.
“Whereas, While the New York City school system is complicated to manage, it cannot be run solely as a business, and we cannot forget that education should be about the children, their families and communities;” read the resolution introduced at today’s stated Council meeting.
“Whereas, The people of New York City want a Chancellor with experience, character and qualifications that are well suited for the education of children and not merely the management of a corporation; now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Council of the City of New York calls on the New York State Education Commissioner to deny Cathleen P. Black a waiver to become the next Chancellor of the New York City public school system.”
We particularly liked the characterization of the Black appointment as, "social promotion for the elite." It fits right in with our concept of patriciange. The speaker, for her part, had a clever riposte to the challengers: "Quinn added that the appointment “is an example of how mayoral control works. The mayor gets to make the choice of who the schools Chancellor is and that is how the process works. You know, when we were talking renewal of Mayoral Control many of us thought it would have been - should have been - better as municipal control. That would not have taken away the mayor’s right to then appoint a commissioner but it would have put the Council in a lot more aggressive oversight position in the Department of Education but this is how Mayoral Control works. They mayor gets to pick the Chancellor.”
Yes, "municipal control," would have been a much better idea because it would have created a system of checks and balances-a new concept of governance that the mayor is discomfited by. But Quinn, in our view, is only partially correct since there is one check on the mayor's absolute and unfettered control over the choosing of a chancellor-and that happens when the candidate lacks the statutory requirements and must receive a waiver from the commissioner of education.
Since that review process is in place, we're wondering why the speaker doesn't speak to it-and suggest to David Steiner whether Cathie Black is the right person to lead the city's 1.1 million school kids. She is being too clever by half with her besides the point history of the failure to achieve municipal control-and uses it as a dodge from actually having to take a stand against Hizzoner.
Well, others are less reticent-and we'll give CM Lew Fidler the last word: "Who is going to explain to her what goes on in a public school room between 9-3," asked Fidler. "She didn't go herself. She didn't send her kids. Her only experience is with charter schools and that is minimal. The arrogance of the appointment is unbelievable." Added Fidler, "I served on the board of a Catholic high school for two years. That doesn't qualify me to be the Pope."
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Black's Coke Fiends Divert Us
Talk about being cross pressured. That's what we are by the news that Cathie Black has served for years on the board of the Coca Cola Company-and the NY Times has reported on this because of the contradiction between her service there and the mayor's anti-soft drink stance: "By her own account, Cathleen P. Black, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s choice to be the next New York City schools chancellor, has had almost no experience with the public education system. But for nearly 20 years, she played an influential role in a company that did: Coca-Cola. As America awoke to a national obesity epidemic and schools tried to rid their hallways of sugary drinks, Coca-Cola emerged as the biggest and most aggressive opponent of the scientists, lawmakers and educators who tried to sound the alarm."
Which leads to the fact that the mayor has been leading the crusade against soda in schools: "In New York, where Ms. Black is the chancellor in waiting, her likely new boss, Mr. Bloomberg went well beyond school grounds, trying to curtail soda consumption with a new statewide tax on sugary drinks. Coca-Cola and Pepsi bottlers, joined by the American Beverage Association, a trade group, spent heavily on an elaborate television campaign featuring hard-up mothers and children stocking the family refrigerator with beverages. The proposal was defeated."
Well, if the Times was looking to find something to change our mind about Ms. Black, they might have actually done it-nah, just kidding. But really, all this shows that when it comes to singular policy issues, Bloomberg's support is often a mile long but only an inch deep. If he were a Texan, we'd say that he's all hat, no cattle.
On the other hand, if consistency is the hobgoblin of mediocre minds, than the mayor is a stone genius-just look at his posturing on reducing the city's carbon footprint (he's actually come out for a carbon tax) while promoting car dependent-particulate spewing-malls all over the city; not to mention his enthusiasm for the ultimate auto dependent retailer: Wal-Mart.
So the mayor's inconsistency-better phrased in the corporate term of compartmentalization-isn't really surprising. In our view, Black's work for Team Coke doesn't make her more or less fit for a job that she has no training or background for-and her Coke critics do little but endear her to us, particularly since one of them is the loathsome Michael Jacobson from the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
As the Times points out: "Normally, I would think that somebody who served for 18 years on the board of this junk-food producer is tainted,” said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “If you’re judged by the people with whom you hang out, it’s not a good sign,” said Dr. Jacobson, whom Mr. Bloomberg recently nominated for a national health “hero award” and who received it last month. “But I wouldn’t say it’s disqualifying. I don’t know what role she played on the board. It could be she was pushing them to cut the sugar or sell fruits and vegetables. It’s hard to know.”
Oh, good grief! Jacobson's attack-egged on by the Times' pointless scrutiny of her Coke board service-is a classic non sequitor here-and it only serves to dramatize CSPI's anti-capitalist rantings. But if it does, however, it serves the mayor right in a classic poetic justice kind of way.
It was, after all, CSPI's calorie posting/menu labeling attack on fast food that was the progenitor of Bloomberg's foolish policy replication of the idea in NYC-so Mike owns this sucker! (lying down with dogs and getting fleas, you know). All of which gives the Times the opportunity to go off on an anti-soda/Coke tangent: "The company unleashed a flurry of lobbyists, donations and advertising to fight the efforts, prompting local officials to describe it as “bullying” and “unconscionable.” Even as other large food manufacturers embraced the public-health measures, Coca-Cola dug in its heels, rewarding schools that kept selling its products and threatening those that would not, officials said."
Right along with Jacobson's, "junk food producer," snark: "During Ms. Black’s tenure, pressure intensified on soda companies to limit sales in schools after Dr. David Satcher, the surgeon general, in 2001 declared obesity a national crisis with “tragic results.” He urged local communities to lead the fight. And much to the beverage industry’s chagrin, they did. In 2003, California and New York City banned the sale of soft drinks in elementary and middle schools. At the same time, a coalition of lawyers who had successfully sued tobacco companies began developing strategies for taking on food companies, threatening a barrage of lawsuits. By 2006, when Connecticut tried for the second year in a row to join the wave of local governments barring sugary drinks at schools, Coke and other companies pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into a bare-knuckle battle to stop the legislation."
Of course, the role that Cathie Black played in all of this isn't clear-as even Jacobson admits: "I don’t want to be naive, because I don’t know what she pushed for, if anything — or was it easy money?” Doesn't stop the Times-and the NY Daily News' Juan Gonzales-from using her appointment as a Coca Cola battering ram.
All of this is, in our view, a distraction, and takes away from the argument over Black's limited education resume. Sol Stern brings us back to the central issue of the weakness of her appointment: "As the news circulated around New York City last week that Joel Klein was resigning as schools chancellor and would be replaced by Hearst Magazines executive Cathleen Black, I was deluged with e-mails from friends and colleagues. All expressed surprise at Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s pick of the unknown Black: “Cathie who?” “Is Bloomberg serious?” The public reaction was best summarized by a New York Daily News front-page headline the morning after Bloomberg’s announcement: the single word HUH? in large type, followed by a subhead alluding to Black’s lack of education experience. By the end of the week, even New York Times reporters were poking fun at Bloomberg’s claim that his selection of Black was the result of a careful search for the best available candidate.":
But Stern underscores something deeper and, we believe, more meaningful: the weaknesses in the underlying pedagogical philosophy of the Bloomberg/Klein approach to school reform-something that Black will inevitably replicate: "To give the mayor his due, this description of qualifications for the chancellor’s job is consistent with everything he has said since taking over the schools in 2002. Bloomberg always insisted that the managerial and entrepreneurial skills needed to run a successful private-sector company were perfectly applicable to the task of improving the schools. And that renders moot the question of whether Black needs to know anything about education and instruction. The national adulation that Bloomberg has received (some of it self-generated) for his “breakthrough” school reforms has obviously confirmed him in this fundamental belief."
Well, with Bloomberg's money it isn't hard to find people swearing to check laden proclamations. The issue, however, goes deeper: "Though significant doubts have now surfaced about the extent of academic gains made by the city’s students during the Bloomberg era, there is little question that Gotham has become the nation’s most visible example of what I have previously called the “incentivist” approach to education reform. For education incentivists, what matters most is efficient management, backed by a series of internal market interventions to maximize the productivity of the workforce (that is, teachers and principals), which will produce better results (higher test scores)."
There is another model, however, that has greater resonance for us-and for most educators as well: "In sharp contrast to Bloomberg’s New York, Massachusetts has been the nation’s leading exemplar of what I have called the “instructionist” approach to education reform. Starting in the mid-1990s, a coalition of reformers pushed the state’s board of education to mandate rigorous curricula for all grades and created demanding tests linked to those curriculum standards. In its English Language Arts curriculum framework, the board even dared to say that reading instruction in the early grades should include systematic and explicit phonics. Guess which school system has produced greater and more meaningful academic achievement gains on the unimpeachable national NAEP tests?"
Mike, no doubt with both hands covering his ears, has no use for this approach-or any capacity to appreciate it: "Since Bloomberg clearly remains convinced that Klein, a chancellor without a background in education, oversaw eight years of achievement gains simply by creating the proper incentives, there’s no reason for him to believe that Black ought to know, say, the difference between phonics and whole language."
All of this serious debate is lost in the current furor over Black's qualifications-and, as Stern points out, her critics have only themselves to blame: "In truth, there’s no reason for anyone to be surprised by anything the mayor does on education policy, certainly not those influential New Yorkers who pressed the state legislature last year to reauthorize mayoral control of the schools entirely on Bloomberg’s terms...Those who urged exempting the mayor from any checks and balances last year can hardly object to the way he exercised his powers this year. Nor should anyone be shocked that Bloomberg believes he has the complete authority to appoint a new schools chancellor, even if—as in Black’s case—that decision was based not on a thorough search but on a seeming whim."
All of these issues should, as we argued last year, been the subject of serious scrutiny and debate over legislative reauthorization of mayoral control. It didn't happen-and the reason it didn't is starkly revealed in a Bloomberg money talks article in the NY Post this morning: "Mayor Bloomberg contributed an eye-bulging $420 million to his charitable foundation last year, catapulting it to the 17th largest in the United States, with assets of more than $2.2 billion, according to IRS filings released yesterday."
When you cede local political control to a wealthy parvenu, don't act surprised when he exercises droit du seigneur. All of which makes the Coke slurpping of the NY Times a diversion from recognizing the sad supplanting of democratic politics by wealthy elitism in this country's supposed liberal bastion
Which leads to the fact that the mayor has been leading the crusade against soda in schools: "In New York, where Ms. Black is the chancellor in waiting, her likely new boss, Mr. Bloomberg went well beyond school grounds, trying to curtail soda consumption with a new statewide tax on sugary drinks. Coca-Cola and Pepsi bottlers, joined by the American Beverage Association, a trade group, spent heavily on an elaborate television campaign featuring hard-up mothers and children stocking the family refrigerator with beverages. The proposal was defeated."
Well, if the Times was looking to find something to change our mind about Ms. Black, they might have actually done it-nah, just kidding. But really, all this shows that when it comes to singular policy issues, Bloomberg's support is often a mile long but only an inch deep. If he were a Texan, we'd say that he's all hat, no cattle.
On the other hand, if consistency is the hobgoblin of mediocre minds, than the mayor is a stone genius-just look at his posturing on reducing the city's carbon footprint (he's actually come out for a carbon tax) while promoting car dependent-particulate spewing-malls all over the city; not to mention his enthusiasm for the ultimate auto dependent retailer: Wal-Mart.
So the mayor's inconsistency-better phrased in the corporate term of compartmentalization-isn't really surprising. In our view, Black's work for Team Coke doesn't make her more or less fit for a job that she has no training or background for-and her Coke critics do little but endear her to us, particularly since one of them is the loathsome Michael Jacobson from the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
As the Times points out: "Normally, I would think that somebody who served for 18 years on the board of this junk-food producer is tainted,” said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “If you’re judged by the people with whom you hang out, it’s not a good sign,” said Dr. Jacobson, whom Mr. Bloomberg recently nominated for a national health “hero award” and who received it last month. “But I wouldn’t say it’s disqualifying. I don’t know what role she played on the board. It could be she was pushing them to cut the sugar or sell fruits and vegetables. It’s hard to know.”
Oh, good grief! Jacobson's attack-egged on by the Times' pointless scrutiny of her Coke board service-is a classic non sequitor here-and it only serves to dramatize CSPI's anti-capitalist rantings. But if it does, however, it serves the mayor right in a classic poetic justice kind of way.
It was, after all, CSPI's calorie posting/menu labeling attack on fast food that was the progenitor of Bloomberg's foolish policy replication of the idea in NYC-so Mike owns this sucker! (lying down with dogs and getting fleas, you know). All of which gives the Times the opportunity to go off on an anti-soda/Coke tangent: "The company unleashed a flurry of lobbyists, donations and advertising to fight the efforts, prompting local officials to describe it as “bullying” and “unconscionable.” Even as other large food manufacturers embraced the public-health measures, Coca-Cola dug in its heels, rewarding schools that kept selling its products and threatening those that would not, officials said."
Right along with Jacobson's, "junk food producer," snark: "During Ms. Black’s tenure, pressure intensified on soda companies to limit sales in schools after Dr. David Satcher, the surgeon general, in 2001 declared obesity a national crisis with “tragic results.” He urged local communities to lead the fight. And much to the beverage industry’s chagrin, they did. In 2003, California and New York City banned the sale of soft drinks in elementary and middle schools. At the same time, a coalition of lawyers who had successfully sued tobacco companies began developing strategies for taking on food companies, threatening a barrage of lawsuits. By 2006, when Connecticut tried for the second year in a row to join the wave of local governments barring sugary drinks at schools, Coke and other companies pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into a bare-knuckle battle to stop the legislation."
Of course, the role that Cathie Black played in all of this isn't clear-as even Jacobson admits: "I don’t want to be naive, because I don’t know what she pushed for, if anything — or was it easy money?” Doesn't stop the Times-and the NY Daily News' Juan Gonzales-from using her appointment as a Coca Cola battering ram.
All of this is, in our view, a distraction, and takes away from the argument over Black's limited education resume. Sol Stern brings us back to the central issue of the weakness of her appointment: "As the news circulated around New York City last week that Joel Klein was resigning as schools chancellor and would be replaced by Hearst Magazines executive Cathleen Black, I was deluged with e-mails from friends and colleagues. All expressed surprise at Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s pick of the unknown Black: “Cathie who?” “Is Bloomberg serious?” The public reaction was best summarized by a New York Daily News front-page headline the morning after Bloomberg’s announcement: the single word HUH? in large type, followed by a subhead alluding to Black’s lack of education experience. By the end of the week, even New York Times reporters were poking fun at Bloomberg’s claim that his selection of Black was the result of a careful search for the best available candidate.":
But Stern underscores something deeper and, we believe, more meaningful: the weaknesses in the underlying pedagogical philosophy of the Bloomberg/Klein approach to school reform-something that Black will inevitably replicate: "To give the mayor his due, this description of qualifications for the chancellor’s job is consistent with everything he has said since taking over the schools in 2002. Bloomberg always insisted that the managerial and entrepreneurial skills needed to run a successful private-sector company were perfectly applicable to the task of improving the schools. And that renders moot the question of whether Black needs to know anything about education and instruction. The national adulation that Bloomberg has received (some of it self-generated) for his “breakthrough” school reforms has obviously confirmed him in this fundamental belief."
Well, with Bloomberg's money it isn't hard to find people swearing to check laden proclamations. The issue, however, goes deeper: "Though significant doubts have now surfaced about the extent of academic gains made by the city’s students during the Bloomberg era, there is little question that Gotham has become the nation’s most visible example of what I have previously called the “incentivist” approach to education reform. For education incentivists, what matters most is efficient management, backed by a series of internal market interventions to maximize the productivity of the workforce (that is, teachers and principals), which will produce better results (higher test scores)."
There is another model, however, that has greater resonance for us-and for most educators as well: "In sharp contrast to Bloomberg’s New York, Massachusetts has been the nation’s leading exemplar of what I have called the “instructionist” approach to education reform. Starting in the mid-1990s, a coalition of reformers pushed the state’s board of education to mandate rigorous curricula for all grades and created demanding tests linked to those curriculum standards. In its English Language Arts curriculum framework, the board even dared to say that reading instruction in the early grades should include systematic and explicit phonics. Guess which school system has produced greater and more meaningful academic achievement gains on the unimpeachable national NAEP tests?"
Mike, no doubt with both hands covering his ears, has no use for this approach-or any capacity to appreciate it: "Since Bloomberg clearly remains convinced that Klein, a chancellor without a background in education, oversaw eight years of achievement gains simply by creating the proper incentives, there’s no reason for him to believe that Black ought to know, say, the difference between phonics and whole language."
All of this serious debate is lost in the current furor over Black's qualifications-and, as Stern points out, her critics have only themselves to blame: "In truth, there’s no reason for anyone to be surprised by anything the mayor does on education policy, certainly not those influential New Yorkers who pressed the state legislature last year to reauthorize mayoral control of the schools entirely on Bloomberg’s terms...Those who urged exempting the mayor from any checks and balances last year can hardly object to the way he exercised his powers this year. Nor should anyone be shocked that Bloomberg believes he has the complete authority to appoint a new schools chancellor, even if—as in Black’s case—that decision was based not on a thorough search but on a seeming whim."
All of these issues should, as we argued last year, been the subject of serious scrutiny and debate over legislative reauthorization of mayoral control. It didn't happen-and the reason it didn't is starkly revealed in a Bloomberg money talks article in the NY Post this morning: "Mayor Bloomberg contributed an eye-bulging $420 million to his charitable foundation last year, catapulting it to the 17th largest in the United States, with assets of more than $2.2 billion, according to IRS filings released yesterday."
When you cede local political control to a wealthy parvenu, don't act surprised when he exercises droit du seigneur. All of which makes the Coke slurpping of the NY Times a diversion from recognizing the sad supplanting of democratic politics by wealthy elitism in this country's supposed liberal bastion
Wal-Mart Slumping: Desperate for NYC
As the NY Times reported yesterday, Wal-Mart stores is going through a rough patch: "The tepid economic recovery does not seem to be extending to Wal-Mart’s customers in the United States. The giant retailer reported Tuesday that sales in its American stores open at least a year, a key measure of retail health, had declined for the sixth consecutive quarter."
Que lástima! It couldn't happen to a nicer company-but Wal-Mart's tsuris becomes NYC's problem as well. That's because, declining same store sales compels the corporate predator to seek greener-and virgin-pastures-as News Channel 4 has reported: "Walmart is gearing up for another fight, as they continue to eye possible locations to open its first New York City store. High on the list- for the hot-button discount retailer is the 630,000-square-foot Gateway II shopping center off Jamaica Bay in Brooklyn."
But, if the Walmonster is going through bad times, why should NYC invite them in on a corporate guest worker program? Here's more bad news from the Times: "Still, visits to Wal-Mart’s American stores declined from a year ago, as did the average price paid at checkout, Wal-Mart executives said. “They’re focused on necessities and being practical with how they spend their money,” the company’s chief financial officer, Thomas M. Schoewe, said in a call with reporters. “We still see what we call the paycheck cycle, where you see the spikes in comps the day or two after a payroll check,” or from food-stamp programs, he said. “It’s every bit as pronounced as we’ve seen it.”
Pretty soon we will be gathering a large and diverse coalition out in East New York to rally against Big Wally. The message we will be sending is simple. If you're having problems, don't come here and visit them on New York. Wal-Mart is bad for NYC on a wide range of fronts-and the battle for NY is just beginning.
Que lástima! It couldn't happen to a nicer company-but Wal-Mart's tsuris becomes NYC's problem as well. That's because, declining same store sales compels the corporate predator to seek greener-and virgin-pastures-as News Channel 4 has reported: "Walmart is gearing up for another fight, as they continue to eye possible locations to open its first New York City store. High on the list- for the hot-button discount retailer is the 630,000-square-foot Gateway II shopping center off Jamaica Bay in Brooklyn."
But, if the Walmonster is going through bad times, why should NYC invite them in on a corporate guest worker program? Here's more bad news from the Times: "Still, visits to Wal-Mart’s American stores declined from a year ago, as did the average price paid at checkout, Wal-Mart executives said. “They’re focused on necessities and being practical with how they spend their money,” the company’s chief financial officer, Thomas M. Schoewe, said in a call with reporters. “We still see what we call the paycheck cycle, where you see the spikes in comps the day or two after a payroll check,” or from food-stamp programs, he said. “It’s every bit as pronounced as we’ve seen it.”
Pretty soon we will be gathering a large and diverse coalition out in East New York to rally against Big Wally. The message we will be sending is simple. If you're having problems, don't come here and visit them on New York. Wal-Mart is bad for NYC on a wide range of fronts-and the battle for NY is just beginning.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Willets Point Subterfuge
Crain's Insider is reporting that EDC has completed the revised ramp report-contradicting the post we did yesterday: "Lobbyist Richard Lipsky, battling the Willets Point redevelopment, blogs that it has been nearly a year since the city promised to submit within “weeks” a revised analysis of the impact of two highway ramps on Queens traffic—the centerpiece of opponents' legal case. In fact, the revision was completed long ago and is being reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration and the understaffed state Department of Transportation. A public comment period and hearing will follow, perhaps by the end of the year."
So, EDC is claiming that they have a completed ramp report-and it's in the hands of NYSDOT-yet both agencies have illegally been denying WPU's FOIL requests; while simultaneously claiming that these report materials are not available. It now appears, then, that the city and state are in collusion to avoid legally required disclosure in order to foist a poorly vetted report on the communities of Queens-particularly Corona and Flushing.
By failing to forward documents that are required to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, EDC/NYSDOT appear to be attempting to avoid giving opponents the needed time for analyzing the ramp report revisions that EDC's consultants have come up with-after these very same consultants had submitted a deficient, and possibly fraudulent first draft last year.
WPU has been meeting with area elected officials, and we believe that it is incumbent on the people who represent the impacted communities to weigh in on this attempt to craft a report in secret-one that will likely significantly underplay the kind of traffic impacts that the Willets Point project will generate on a daily basis. We are beginning to see just how mendacious the Bloombergistas can be, but if they are not resisted, it will be the ciitizens of Queens who will reap the whirlwind that is Willets Point.
Update
WPU's FOIL adviser remids us of the following-and we will forward this to the new Attorney General-elect: "Start naming names: If, as Crain's claims, the revised ramp report ("AMR") was completed "long ago", then EDC's Records Access Officer, Cristina Baldor, has much explaining to do regarding why she has withheld that revised report from Willets Point United Inc., when that revised report consists wholly or substantially of statistical or factual tabulations or data (objective information), which cannot be withheld pursuant to the sole disclosure exemption cited by Ms. Baldor within her denial of access to records, and which instead is required to be disclosed. NYCEDC has acknowledged that AMR materials are of the type that must be disclosed, because NYCEDC finally did disclose the Draft AMR a year ago, in response to WPU's appeal at that time which informed NYCEDC that the materials could not legitimately be withheld."
And there are consequences for this kind of behavior: "If NYCEDC has had the revised AMR, and has known that it must be disclosed in whole or in part, but has withheld it from WPU anyway, that would appear to be a violation that can subject the perpetrator to penalties:
"Any person who, with intent to prevent public inspection of a record pursuant to FOIL, willfully conceals or destroys any such record shall be guilty of a violation of §240.65 of the New York State Penal Law, and may serve up to fifteen days in jail and/or be fined up to $250.00 per such violation."
Let the investigations begin!
So, EDC is claiming that they have a completed ramp report-and it's in the hands of NYSDOT-yet both agencies have illegally been denying WPU's FOIL requests; while simultaneously claiming that these report materials are not available. It now appears, then, that the city and state are in collusion to avoid legally required disclosure in order to foist a poorly vetted report on the communities of Queens-particularly Corona and Flushing.
By failing to forward documents that are required to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, EDC/NYSDOT appear to be attempting to avoid giving opponents the needed time for analyzing the ramp report revisions that EDC's consultants have come up with-after these very same consultants had submitted a deficient, and possibly fraudulent first draft last year.
WPU has been meeting with area elected officials, and we believe that it is incumbent on the people who represent the impacted communities to weigh in on this attempt to craft a report in secret-one that will likely significantly underplay the kind of traffic impacts that the Willets Point project will generate on a daily basis. We are beginning to see just how mendacious the Bloombergistas can be, but if they are not resisted, it will be the ciitizens of Queens who will reap the whirlwind that is Willets Point.
Update
WPU's FOIL adviser remids us of the following-and we will forward this to the new Attorney General-elect: "Start naming names: If, as Crain's claims, the revised ramp report ("AMR") was completed "long ago", then EDC's Records Access Officer, Cristina Baldor, has much explaining to do regarding why she has withheld that revised report from Willets Point United Inc., when that revised report consists wholly or substantially of statistical or factual tabulations or data (objective information), which cannot be withheld pursuant to the sole disclosure exemption cited by Ms. Baldor within her denial of access to records, and which instead is required to be disclosed. NYCEDC has acknowledged that AMR materials are of the type that must be disclosed, because NYCEDC finally did disclose the Draft AMR a year ago, in response to WPU's appeal at that time which informed NYCEDC that the materials could not legitimately be withheld."
And there are consequences for this kind of behavior: "If NYCEDC has had the revised AMR, and has known that it must be disclosed in whole or in part, but has withheld it from WPU anyway, that would appear to be a violation that can subject the perpetrator to penalties:
"Any person who, with intent to prevent public inspection of a record pursuant to FOIL, willfully conceals or destroys any such record shall be guilty of a violation of §240.65 of the New York State Penal Law, and may serve up to fifteen days in jail and/or be fined up to $250.00 per such violation."
Let the investigations begin!
A Policy of Pique
Kappy has an interesting supposition in today's NY Daily News-he thinks that certain decisions being made for the Bronx are being motivated by the mayor's personal pique against Bronx BP Ruben Diaz:, the man who played a key role in the killing of the Kingsbridge Armory project "Gov.-elect Andrew Cuomo sort of stuck his thumb in Mayor Bloomberg's eye last week by naming Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. to his transition team on economic development.This after Ruben killed Mike's plan to develop the Kingsbridge Armory into a retail mall, and then became a leader in the growing movement to give workers a living wage at projects heavily subsidized with taxpayer bucks. If anyone has been off the planet, it now looks as if Mike is so frosted over Ruben's mall-killing move, he's looking for revenge."
And here's how: "Bloomy is putting the kibosh on a plan to move a National Guard unit quartered next to the armory into a vacant Army Reserve Center in Wakefield. The move would open the way to build much-needed schools next to the armory, which would also act as anchors for future development. Instead, the administration insists on opening a homeless shelter at the reserve center. This despite a ton of homeless shelters already there or planned for Wakefield. There's a city hearing Thursday on a proposal to open a shelter just across the street from the reserve center."
How nice! Screw the citizens of the Bronx because of personal animosity towards the BP-but doesn't that overlook the fact that it was the city council-and not the sidelined Diaz-that overwhelmingly put the kibosh on the ill conceived Armory plan? And how reminiscent is all of this?
Remember back in 2005 when then Speaker Gifford Miller was busting old Bloomy's chops on the city's SWMP? When the dust settled on that dust up, Bloomberg shoved a solid waste transfer station right up Miller's caboose on 91st Street-damning all of the public housing residents at Stanley Isaacs and John Holmes Towers to be exposed to the stench that would be right across the street if and when the MTS is built.
This kind of mayoral arrogance is what has gone unchecked for nine years-and is precisely why the mayor felt that he could foist an under qualified Cathie Black on the school children and parents of NYC. He may, however, finally gone too far-and the blow back is certainly building towards a comeuppance.
And here's how: "Bloomy is putting the kibosh on a plan to move a National Guard unit quartered next to the armory into a vacant Army Reserve Center in Wakefield. The move would open the way to build much-needed schools next to the armory, which would also act as anchors for future development. Instead, the administration insists on opening a homeless shelter at the reserve center. This despite a ton of homeless shelters already there or planned for Wakefield. There's a city hearing Thursday on a proposal to open a shelter just across the street from the reserve center."
How nice! Screw the citizens of the Bronx because of personal animosity towards the BP-but doesn't that overlook the fact that it was the city council-and not the sidelined Diaz-that overwhelmingly put the kibosh on the ill conceived Armory plan? And how reminiscent is all of this?
Remember back in 2005 when then Speaker Gifford Miller was busting old Bloomy's chops on the city's SWMP? When the dust settled on that dust up, Bloomberg shoved a solid waste transfer station right up Miller's caboose on 91st Street-damning all of the public housing residents at Stanley Isaacs and John Holmes Towers to be exposed to the stench that would be right across the street if and when the MTS is built.
This kind of mayoral arrogance is what has gone unchecked for nine years-and is precisely why the mayor felt that he could foist an under qualified Cathie Black on the school children and parents of NYC. He may, however, finally gone too far-and the blow back is certainly building towards a comeuppance.
"Searchin', Searchin,' Everywhere..."
Just like in the old Lieber and Stoller lyric, Mike Bloomberg searched all over-"just like a Northwest Mountie"-and found the perfect candidate for schools chancellor; someone with absolutely none of the required statutory credentials. But the search charade itself may prove to be too great a barrier to entry for Cathie Black to overcome-and Norm Siegel may be just the lawyer to throw a monkey wrench into the mayor's monkey business.
NY1 has the story: "Parents, educators and civil rights advocates held a demonstration on the steps of Manhattan's Tweed Courthouse on Sunday against Cathie Black becoming the mayor's replacement for schools chancellor, saying that the publishing executive lacks proper experience in the educational field. Speaking out at the headquarters of the Department of Education, the protesters said Black was only chosen because she is a businesswoman who is friends with Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The state education commissioner would need to issue a waiver to allow Black to be the chancellor, because she is venturing for the first time into the educational field. "Ms. Black appears to lack the educational credentials and qualifications for the appointment to New York City's schools chancellor. Second, there appears to have been no public search, contrary to what Mayor Bloomberg said on Friday," said civil rights attorney Norman Siegel."
But without any search process, wouldn't the Black selection run afoul of the equal opportunity law? Siegel and civil liberties attorney Michael Myers believe so, and have drafted a letter that is doubling as an online petition. Here's the relevant equal opportunity passagee: "The fact that Mayor Bloomberg did not undertake a public search in accordance with equal employment opportunity principles in itself raises significant public policy issues, as well as the specter of cronyism. How can it be that the position of leader of one of the nation’s largest school systems can be filled in such a cavalier manner—without any kind of notice or recruitment period for the consideration of capable and talented individuals—persons who are educators, who have the statutory qualifications and certification, and the requisite experience and skills to understand the best practices of pedagogy? The school superintendent for the New York City School District should have knowledge of curriculum and instruction and assessment, as well as extensive teaching experience."
And the protest is building into a crescendo-with City Council Education Committee Chair Robert Jackson joining the outcry: "The head of the City Council’s education committee and a vocal critic of mayoral control is now speaking out against the mayor’s choice of Cathleen P. Black to oversee New York City schools. “Cathie Black meets none of the professional experience requirements, apparently satisfying only the undergraduate graduation standard,” the committee chairman, Councilman Robert Jackson, wrote in a letter to David M. Steiner, the state education commissioner."
The NY Daily News-also focusing on the selection process-is reporting that the meticulous manner in which Mayor Bloomberg applied for the Joel Klein waiver may come back to bite him on the derriere: "The first time he picked a schools chancellor, Mayor Bloomberg set up a search committee and put an ad in the paper. "It's standard procedure when you are looking for a top-level executive," a spokesman explained, as dozens of candidates were vetted. Eight years later, Bloomberg announced his second schools chancellor without even asking his top aides for advice."
Can it be that after eight years of buying electoral support, Mike Bloomberg no longer feels constrained by any rules? "More than anything else in the past year, the mayor's secret process to name Cathie Black as New York's new chancellor shows how Bloomberg's approach has hardened since he took office. The first-term Bloomberg was relentlessly curious about how the city worked, grilling everyone around him for ideas to make it run better. The third-term Bloomberg thinks he knows the answers."
In addition, Bloomberg is so arrogant-in a l'état, c'est moi fashion-that he doesn't even bother to feign honesty: "I did have a public search," he insisted last week without a shred of evidence. "In the end, it is the mayor that picks the chancellor."
But secrecy and hubris could be Bloomberg Achilles heal here: "Now, though, Bloomberg seems to believe there's no point asking parents or teachers - or civic leaders or education experts - who they'd want as Klein's replacement. The way he ignored them, he might as well have poked them in the eye. Even Bloomberg's top aides, who could have counseled him on how not to hurt his own interests, were kept in the dark until the Klein-Black change was presented as a done deal. "Where was at least the outreach that builds a grudging acceptance of what you've done?" asked one top first-term official. "In his first term there were more people around him who challenged him and gave him reality checks," added another Bloomberg veteran. "He is more controlling of his agenda of what he does now."
When the NY Times is resorting to satire-questioning whether Black's private school sojourns qualify her for the chancellor's job-than we might be seeing a turning of the tide. And even a reliable cheer leader like Henry Stern is speaking out critically: "To select a chancellor with no background in education is a daring leap of faith,” said Henry J. Stern, a civic advocate and former city parks commissioner. “It’s very difficult to make an argument on the merits, unless you take the position that what you need is an executive."
The outcry may be reaching critical mass-as the Times reports: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has been frank about why he took pains to keep his search for a new schools chancellor secret, saying he wanted to avoid a public spectacle. But a spectacle is exactly what Mr. Bloomberg has unleashed, and one week after announcing his choice of Cathleen P. Black, a publishing executive, to succeed Joel I. Klein at the helm of the country’s largest school system, the mayor’s aides are trying to fend off mounting skepticism about her selection."
But, how do you defend the indefensible? "City Council members are asking the state to deny Ms. Black the waiver she would need to fill the post. Lawmakers and parents active in the schools are calling for public hearings. Even some of the mayor’s supporters are questioning his decision. The leader of the city’s teachers’ union said the furor underscored how poorly he believed Mr. Bloomberg had handled Ms. Black’s selection. “This woman is under complete attack,” said Michael Mulgrew, the president of the United Federation of Teachers. “You should manage the process so you don’t leave the candidate open for attack right from the beginning.”
Meanwhile, mayoral aides are scrambling in full damage control-after having been completely left in the dark over the selection: "In the meantime, Mr. Bloomberg has dispatched his top deputies to help prepare Ms. Black for her debut. On Monday, two deputy mayors and a legislative aide were seen outside her offices at Hearst Tower in Midtown. Ms. Black has been immersing herself in the issues of education, including budgets and reading curriculum, the individual close the process said."
Where this all leads is any one's guess. But, as Auntie Mame once remarked, "Get me my shawl, I feel the winds of change blowing" The mayor may have finally overstepped his boundaries, and his arrogant disregard for proper procedures-as well as the feelings of the myriad public school stakeholders-may have begun to dissolve the good will that he has worked so hard to create over the past nine years.
Once lost, however, it may be very hard to regenerate. Never underestimate Mike Bloomberg's resources-and be prepared for the-well compensated-defenders to come out of the woodwork (Calling Al Sharpton). But the Cathie Black selection may well become the mayor's Waterloo-or the precipitating event that lead to it.
NY1 has the story: "Parents, educators and civil rights advocates held a demonstration on the steps of Manhattan's Tweed Courthouse on Sunday against Cathie Black becoming the mayor's replacement for schools chancellor, saying that the publishing executive lacks proper experience in the educational field. Speaking out at the headquarters of the Department of Education, the protesters said Black was only chosen because she is a businesswoman who is friends with Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The state education commissioner would need to issue a waiver to allow Black to be the chancellor, because she is venturing for the first time into the educational field. "Ms. Black appears to lack the educational credentials and qualifications for the appointment to New York City's schools chancellor. Second, there appears to have been no public search, contrary to what Mayor Bloomberg said on Friday," said civil rights attorney Norman Siegel."
But without any search process, wouldn't the Black selection run afoul of the equal opportunity law? Siegel and civil liberties attorney Michael Myers believe so, and have drafted a letter that is doubling as an online petition. Here's the relevant equal opportunity passagee: "The fact that Mayor Bloomberg did not undertake a public search in accordance with equal employment opportunity principles in itself raises significant public policy issues, as well as the specter of cronyism. How can it be that the position of leader of one of the nation’s largest school systems can be filled in such a cavalier manner—without any kind of notice or recruitment period for the consideration of capable and talented individuals—persons who are educators, who have the statutory qualifications and certification, and the requisite experience and skills to understand the best practices of pedagogy? The school superintendent for the New York City School District should have knowledge of curriculum and instruction and assessment, as well as extensive teaching experience."
And the protest is building into a crescendo-with City Council Education Committee Chair Robert Jackson joining the outcry: "The head of the City Council’s education committee and a vocal critic of mayoral control is now speaking out against the mayor’s choice of Cathleen P. Black to oversee New York City schools. “Cathie Black meets none of the professional experience requirements, apparently satisfying only the undergraduate graduation standard,” the committee chairman, Councilman Robert Jackson, wrote in a letter to David M. Steiner, the state education commissioner."
The NY Daily News-also focusing on the selection process-is reporting that the meticulous manner in which Mayor Bloomberg applied for the Joel Klein waiver may come back to bite him on the derriere: "The first time he picked a schools chancellor, Mayor Bloomberg set up a search committee and put an ad in the paper. "It's standard procedure when you are looking for a top-level executive," a spokesman explained, as dozens of candidates were vetted. Eight years later, Bloomberg announced his second schools chancellor without even asking his top aides for advice."
Can it be that after eight years of buying electoral support, Mike Bloomberg no longer feels constrained by any rules? "More than anything else in the past year, the mayor's secret process to name Cathie Black as New York's new chancellor shows how Bloomberg's approach has hardened since he took office. The first-term Bloomberg was relentlessly curious about how the city worked, grilling everyone around him for ideas to make it run better. The third-term Bloomberg thinks he knows the answers."
In addition, Bloomberg is so arrogant-in a l'état, c'est moi fashion-that he doesn't even bother to feign honesty: "I did have a public search," he insisted last week without a shred of evidence. "In the end, it is the mayor that picks the chancellor."
But secrecy and hubris could be Bloomberg Achilles heal here: "Now, though, Bloomberg seems to believe there's no point asking parents or teachers - or civic leaders or education experts - who they'd want as Klein's replacement. The way he ignored them, he might as well have poked them in the eye. Even Bloomberg's top aides, who could have counseled him on how not to hurt his own interests, were kept in the dark until the Klein-Black change was presented as a done deal. "Where was at least the outreach that builds a grudging acceptance of what you've done?" asked one top first-term official. "In his first term there were more people around him who challenged him and gave him reality checks," added another Bloomberg veteran. "He is more controlling of his agenda of what he does now."
When the NY Times is resorting to satire-questioning whether Black's private school sojourns qualify her for the chancellor's job-than we might be seeing a turning of the tide. And even a reliable cheer leader like Henry Stern is speaking out critically: "To select a chancellor with no background in education is a daring leap of faith,” said Henry J. Stern, a civic advocate and former city parks commissioner. “It’s very difficult to make an argument on the merits, unless you take the position that what you need is an executive."
The outcry may be reaching critical mass-as the Times reports: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has been frank about why he took pains to keep his search for a new schools chancellor secret, saying he wanted to avoid a public spectacle. But a spectacle is exactly what Mr. Bloomberg has unleashed, and one week after announcing his choice of Cathleen P. Black, a publishing executive, to succeed Joel I. Klein at the helm of the country’s largest school system, the mayor’s aides are trying to fend off mounting skepticism about her selection."
But, how do you defend the indefensible? "City Council members are asking the state to deny Ms. Black the waiver she would need to fill the post. Lawmakers and parents active in the schools are calling for public hearings. Even some of the mayor’s supporters are questioning his decision. The leader of the city’s teachers’ union said the furor underscored how poorly he believed Mr. Bloomberg had handled Ms. Black’s selection. “This woman is under complete attack,” said Michael Mulgrew, the president of the United Federation of Teachers. “You should manage the process so you don’t leave the candidate open for attack right from the beginning.”
Meanwhile, mayoral aides are scrambling in full damage control-after having been completely left in the dark over the selection: "In the meantime, Mr. Bloomberg has dispatched his top deputies to help prepare Ms. Black for her debut. On Monday, two deputy mayors and a legislative aide were seen outside her offices at Hearst Tower in Midtown. Ms. Black has been immersing herself in the issues of education, including budgets and reading curriculum, the individual close the process said."
Where this all leads is any one's guess. But, as Auntie Mame once remarked, "Get me my shawl, I feel the winds of change blowing" The mayor may have finally overstepped his boundaries, and his arrogant disregard for proper procedures-as well as the feelings of the myriad public school stakeholders-may have begun to dissolve the good will that he has worked so hard to create over the past nine years.
Once lost, however, it may be very hard to regenerate. Never underestimate Mike Bloomberg's resources-and be prepared for the-well compensated-defenders to come out of the woodwork (Calling Al Sharpton). But the Cathie Black selection may well become the mayor's Waterloo-or the precipitating event that lead to it.
Death Panels, Nationalized Health Care, and the Nanny State
We have been making the point that, once you accede to nationalized control over health care decisions-and the feds control the purse strings-be prepared for a sharp delimitation of your liberty. In our case, we were concerned with the Bloomberg proposal to restrict the use of food stamps for the purchase of sugared soda: "In our view, however, it's more than just about the poor-and in some senses, the poor are simply the canary in the mine shaft when it comes to the issue of control over the lives of ordinary Americans. That is because, as we have pointed out, the food stamp effort can be seen as an opening salvo of a more generalized war for control over the behavior and lifestyles of all Americans. With the looming likelihood that more and more health care expenditures will be subject to federal mandates, we are rapidly approaching the point where the old maxim, "He who pays the piper calls the tune," will become fully operational."
Now, however, our foreboding gains both credibility and traction from an unlikely source-the NY Times' Paul Krugman. The Nobel Prize winner has admitted that Sarah Palin was right about the so-called death panels: "...health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care."
"Not really death panels? But whatever you call them, their necessity-at least in Krugman's worldview-devolves from the overarching control that is given to the federal health regulators. And make no mistake about it, if nationalized health care decision making can necessitate depriving old folks of, "extreme care," than the mandating of what you eat, and when you exercise, amounts to minor facets of a larger looming control infrastructure.
Which is why we have been so vehemently opposing the Bloomberg policy mindset-and his targeting of food stamp users' freedom of choice. As Pastor Martin Niemöller once said-and, of course we paraphrase, "First they came for the food stamp recipients..."
Now, however, our foreboding gains both credibility and traction from an unlikely source-the NY Times' Paul Krugman. The Nobel Prize winner has admitted that Sarah Palin was right about the so-called death panels: "...health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care."
"Not really death panels? But whatever you call them, their necessity-at least in Krugman's worldview-devolves from the overarching control that is given to the federal health regulators. And make no mistake about it, if nationalized health care decision making can necessitate depriving old folks of, "extreme care," than the mandating of what you eat, and when you exercise, amounts to minor facets of a larger looming control infrastructure.
Which is why we have been so vehemently opposing the Bloomberg policy mindset-and his targeting of food stamp users' freedom of choice. As Pastor Martin Niemöller once said-and, of course we paraphrase, "First they came for the food stamp recipients..."
Monday, November 15, 2010
NY Post Fronts for Wal-Mart
It's becoming quite clear that the NY Post is totally in the tank for Wal-Mart-almost like it was for mayoral control of NYC schools. We noticed the similarities when examining the last "article" that the paper put out on the Walmonster-when it simply replicated the real estate giant's press release, just as it did with those coming out of the mayor's office and the DOE on school governance.
Here's Wal-Mart's view of the retail landscape-courtesy of the NY Post's own Paladin Carl Campanile (for those of you too young to remember Richard Boone in "Have Gun Will Travel"): "City shoppers are voting with their wallets. Big Apple residents spent $165 million last year to buy low-cost products at Walmart's suburban stores because there aren't any outlets in the five boroughs, according to an analysis obtained by The Post. The massive money drain costs the city millions of dollars in tax revenues and hundreds of jobs."
Let's take a step back from all of this flackery. In the first place, folks are leaving the city in droves because it is simply a very expensive place to shop-groceries, clothes, whatever. This has been going on forever-or at least since NYC decided that constantly raising the sales tax was a good business decision. We remember what the late Lou Powsner of the Kings County Boards of Trade used to say: "Every time the city raises the sales tax a quarter of a point, they build another new mall in Bergen County."
When Rudy Giuliani proposed his small business-killing mega store plan, we argued successfully that building scores of giant stores in the city wouldn't stem the efflux of shoppers, but would only cannibalize the existing small business base-something that the Post apparently couldn't give a rat's ass about. And what about the alleged, "massive" money drain?
Matt Chabon over at the Observer put pencil to paper: "The Post acquired (was given?) an analysis that says New York City residents spent $165 million last year shopping at Walmart's handful of stores bordering the five boroughs.The tab argues that that money could be better spent here in the city, where it would provide tax revenue. And the stores could potentially provide other benefits, too. Maybe.Yet it is just as possible that Walmart could undermine other city retailers who pay better wages, which gives people more money to spend at other stores, which also helps drive the economy. Less disposable income, less taxes, a greater housing burden, more welfare and so on."
Ah, gee Matt, don't expect the flacks to actually report on this-as Chabon has the effrontery to do: "Also, the Post only gives that one data point, that $165 million has purportedly been spent. But by whom? This could just be people on the border of Queens and the Bronx for whom this might simply be the closest store. Considering so few New Yorkers drive, picturing people taking mass transit from Manhattan, or even Brooklyn, seems like a stretch. and don't forget many billions of dollars are spent on comparable retail in the city already, so these apparent losses could be meager and habitual."
And in a follow up post, Chabon deconstructs the "massive" Wall-Mart benefits: "While working on our Walmart post earlier today, The Observer wondered just how much that impressive sounding $165 million was actually draining from the city's tax coffers. We did a little poking around but to no avail. Enter our heroes at the Drum Major Institute. They point out that the city's total taxable retail expenditures in New York City from 2008 to 2009 was $31.3 billion. Walmart's share of that would come out to less than one-half of 1 percent."
Chabon goes on to question whether alleged benefits ignore commensurate cost: "At the same time, if you crunch the numbers, at the current 8.875 percent sale tax, Walmart would make the city and state $14,643,750 per year. That's money that could be desperately put to good use. This neglects the fact that unions and politicians are fighting Walmart so hard because they believe the store will put competing retailers and their better-paid employees out of business. So once again, while it seems like Walmart could be a boon for the city, the costs still appear to be much higher than the rewards.
Which is precisely why there is a dire need to deconstruct this entire Wal-Mart is Good for New York narrative-it lacks a grounding in the economic realities of this city and its over two hundred diverse neighborhood shopping strips. And furthermore, the NY Post adopted narrative ignores how Wal-Mart will be more destructive of job grwoth-particularly good job growth and entrepreneurism: "Walmart is still not welcome," said Stuart Appelbaum, of the national Retail and Wholesale Workers union. "They provide a model for others to follow. Their model is a destructive force. The jobs they create keep people in poverty." But Walmart backers -- citing the shaky economy and high unemployment rate -- said New Yorkers are craving job opportunities and affordable goods that Walmart provides in other labor-friendly cities, including Philadelphia, LA, Atlanta and Chicago."
Let's put all of this to the test-as we have requested in a previous commentary on the supposed benefits of the Walmonster. Will the company have a net positive job impact? Or will it, as we believe, inflict much more collateral damage on the city than any possible benefits it would confer? That's why the city council should create an economic impact barrier to entry that, independently from the fraudsters at EDC, would gauge the costs and benefits of allowing a 180,000 foot Wal-Mart superstore into New York.
One thing's being a doubt, both EDC and the mayor would never allow an unbiased and independent review of their class-based worldviews. Which is precisely why the city's legislature needs to forcefully stand up on this and deliver for the small businesses, workers and diverse neighborhoods of NY.
Here's Wal-Mart's view of the retail landscape-courtesy of the NY Post's own Paladin Carl Campanile (for those of you too young to remember Richard Boone in "Have Gun Will Travel"): "City shoppers are voting with their wallets. Big Apple residents spent $165 million last year to buy low-cost products at Walmart's suburban stores because there aren't any outlets in the five boroughs, according to an analysis obtained by The Post. The massive money drain costs the city millions of dollars in tax revenues and hundreds of jobs."
Let's take a step back from all of this flackery. In the first place, folks are leaving the city in droves because it is simply a very expensive place to shop-groceries, clothes, whatever. This has been going on forever-or at least since NYC decided that constantly raising the sales tax was a good business decision. We remember what the late Lou Powsner of the Kings County Boards of Trade used to say: "Every time the city raises the sales tax a quarter of a point, they build another new mall in Bergen County."
When Rudy Giuliani proposed his small business-killing mega store plan, we argued successfully that building scores of giant stores in the city wouldn't stem the efflux of shoppers, but would only cannibalize the existing small business base-something that the Post apparently couldn't give a rat's ass about. And what about the alleged, "massive" money drain?
Matt Chabon over at the Observer put pencil to paper: "The Post acquired (was given?) an analysis that says New York City residents spent $165 million last year shopping at Walmart's handful of stores bordering the five boroughs.The tab argues that that money could be better spent here in the city, where it would provide tax revenue. And the stores could potentially provide other benefits, too. Maybe.Yet it is just as possible that Walmart could undermine other city retailers who pay better wages, which gives people more money to spend at other stores, which also helps drive the economy. Less disposable income, less taxes, a greater housing burden, more welfare and so on."
Ah, gee Matt, don't expect the flacks to actually report on this-as Chabon has the effrontery to do: "Also, the Post only gives that one data point, that $165 million has purportedly been spent. But by whom? This could just be people on the border of Queens and the Bronx for whom this might simply be the closest store. Considering so few New Yorkers drive, picturing people taking mass transit from Manhattan, or even Brooklyn, seems like a stretch. and don't forget many billions of dollars are spent on comparable retail in the city already, so these apparent losses could be meager and habitual."
And in a follow up post, Chabon deconstructs the "massive" Wall-Mart benefits: "While working on our Walmart post earlier today, The Observer wondered just how much that impressive sounding $165 million was actually draining from the city's tax coffers. We did a little poking around but to no avail. Enter our heroes at the Drum Major Institute. They point out that the city's total taxable retail expenditures in New York City from 2008 to 2009 was $31.3 billion. Walmart's share of that would come out to less than one-half of 1 percent."
Chabon goes on to question whether alleged benefits ignore commensurate cost: "At the same time, if you crunch the numbers, at the current 8.875 percent sale tax, Walmart would make the city and state $14,643,750 per year. That's money that could be desperately put to good use. This neglects the fact that unions and politicians are fighting Walmart so hard because they believe the store will put competing retailers and their better-paid employees out of business. So once again, while it seems like Walmart could be a boon for the city, the costs still appear to be much higher than the rewards.
Which is precisely why there is a dire need to deconstruct this entire Wal-Mart is Good for New York narrative-it lacks a grounding in the economic realities of this city and its over two hundred diverse neighborhood shopping strips. And furthermore, the NY Post adopted narrative ignores how Wal-Mart will be more destructive of job grwoth-particularly good job growth and entrepreneurism: "Walmart is still not welcome," said Stuart Appelbaum, of the national Retail and Wholesale Workers union. "They provide a model for others to follow. Their model is a destructive force. The jobs they create keep people in poverty." But Walmart backers -- citing the shaky economy and high unemployment rate -- said New Yorkers are craving job opportunities and affordable goods that Walmart provides in other labor-friendly cities, including Philadelphia, LA, Atlanta and Chicago."
Let's put all of this to the test-as we have requested in a previous commentary on the supposed benefits of the Walmonster. Will the company have a net positive job impact? Or will it, as we believe, inflict much more collateral damage on the city than any possible benefits it would confer? That's why the city council should create an economic impact barrier to entry that, independently from the fraudsters at EDC, would gauge the costs and benefits of allowing a 180,000 foot Wal-Mart superstore into New York.
One thing's being a doubt, both EDC and the mayor would never allow an unbiased and independent review of their class-based worldviews. Which is precisely why the city's legislature needs to forcefully stand up on this and deliver for the small businesses, workers and diverse neighborhoods of NY.
Fade to Black
Just when we were thinking that the Bloomberg appointment of Cathie Black-after a long and exhaustive search of the mayor's old stack of business cards-was a done deal, comes the news that the State ED commissioner, David Steiner, was convening a committee to review Ms. Black's non-qualifications. To get the idea of just how far the Earth's tectonic plates may have shifted, read Henry Stern''s volte face on the appointment: "The prospect for the granting of a waiver to Cathie Black so she can serve as New York City's school chancellor may have dimmed a bit in the last two days. For one thing, the New York Times reported today, in an article by Winnie Hu, that the man who will decide whether to grant the waiver, State Education Commissioner David M. Steiner, "will convene a screening panel consisting of representatives of the State Education Department and educational organizations to make a recommendation to Dr. Steiner." The commissioner's spokesman "would not speculate on how long that would take."
So much for Mike Bloomberg's desire to do it his own secretive way in order to expedite this, "in the middle of the school year." But we do really get a kick out of the fact that Bloomberg feels that the critics of his choice don't understand what this job is all about: "Bloomberg also dismissed critics who have called on the state education commissioner to deny a waiver to Cathie Black, the media executive he tapped to replace Chancellor Joel Klein on Tuesday. Black, currently the chairwoman of Hearst Magazines, needs a waiver because state law requires the city’s chancellor have education credentials and experience in schools; Black has neither. “It just goes to show they have no understanding of what the job is,” Bloomberg said of the critics calling for the waiver to be denied. The mayor said the school’s chief needs to be an expert manager."
Well, if that's the case Mike, why don't you petition the legislature to remove the statutory requirements because they obviously-at least in the mind of someone who never stepped into a NYC public school before 2001-have no correlation to what the job needs in the way of credentials and experience. As one NY Daily News letter writer said: "Congratulations to Cathie Black on her appointment as chancellor of the city schools ("Just who is Cathie Black?" Nov. 10). Now where can I get a $250,000-a-year job for which I don't meet any of the qualifications?"
But the Black momentum-in spite of all of the Morticia/Murdoch efforts-may be grinding to a halt, Stern's observations here are prescient: "For another, two of Chancellor Joel Klein's deputies have announced their resignations, and others are expected to leave as well. One reason cited in favor of Ms. Black was that the Klein management team would be available to assist her as she familiarized herself with the educational universe. No truly independent screening panel of educators is likely to conclude that no experience whatsoever in their professional field is adequate preparation for the most difficult and complex job in local public education. If they felt that way, they would be expressing the view that their own professional qualifications had little value, and that any corporate executive could fill the positions they now hold."
And this doesn't account for the growing political chorus of disbelievers-folks who can't believe how ersatz this so-called search was: "Mayor Bloomberg didn't formally interview any candidates to head the largest school system in the country before he tapped accomplished business leader Cathie Black for the position, sources told The Post. Bloomberg said this week that he had conducted a "public search" to replace outgoing Schools Chancellor Joel Klein -- but sources close to City Hall said that process did not include bringing in candidates for questioning. "The word that I'm getting is there never were interviews, there never was a search," said one veteran education administrator. "This was Bloomberg's plan. He offered it to her, and she accepted."
The WSJ reports on the growing disbelief: "State Senator-elect Tony Avella, a former councilman from Queens who has been a longtime critic of the current schools chancellor, called the selection process a “disgrace.” Avella sent the state education commissioner a letter earlier this week requesting Black be denied a waiver. “You have to bring the public along with you, and you do that by reaching out to them and involving them in the process,” Avella said. “Clearly Mike Bloomberg didn’t do this.” Doug Muzzio, a professor of public affairs at Baruch College, questioned the scope of the mayor’s chancellor search. “Where did Bloomberg do his search? His Rolodex/Outlook,” Muzzio said in a email. “His hubris is breathtaking.”
Even longtime Bloomberg admirer-and biographer-Joyce Purnick, expresses doubts about the wisdom of the mayor's choice: "His unorthodoxy has worked for him, and he is at it again. Now, he's taking one of his gambles not with his own money but with the city’s fortunes and the future of its school children. Gambles sometimes pay off. Sometimes they do not. This time, the odds are daunting. Running a public school system, dealing with the teachers union and the custodians union and the principals union, with legislators in the union’s pocket, with teachers themselves and a dizzyingly diverse student population, is in no conceivable way like running Cosmopolitan or USA Today."
And in choosing Black, Mike Bloomberg didn't step one foot out of his upper class comfort zone: "Cathie Black’s most persuasive credentials for the schools job seem to be a friendship with the mayor’s girlfriend, Diana Taylor, and membership in the same Upper East Side social orbit as Ms. Taylor and Bloomberg. Black’s husband,Thomas E. Harvey, is a significant contributor to Republican causes, including Senator John McCain’s 2008 presidential race and the Republican National Committee. The couple has, like Ms. Taylor and the mayor, spent leisurely days at the Allen & Company’s annual gathering in Sun Valley, Idaho, the summer retreat for the super-rich that few regular folk know much about because the media are banned. “He didn’t go outside when he chose Cathie Black, he went inside,’’ said a Bloomberg friend and supporter, unhappy with the new schools chief. “It’s him and Diana, Cathie and Tom.”
As Purnick goes on to point out, the choice of Cathie Black meant overlooking real quality appointees that were free and available-like the well-respected Michelle Rhee: "Because the selection was swathed in secrecy, coming as a surprise even to most of the mayor’s confidants, his rationale is a matter of speculation. One theory: he picked her for her reputation as an effective manager. (At magazines?) Another is that he didn’t go for any of the country’s established educators, like Michelle Rhee, the former chancellor of the Washington, D.C. schools, because they would come with baggage. That they would. They also would have experience."
Now the only real question remaining is whether the mayor has finally rolled craps-and will be forced to eat crow because someone like Steiner has the stones to stand up to his autocratic hauteur. We'll give Purnick the last word: "Going the traditional route would have been too easy for Mike Bloomberg. In his view, his political inexperience served him and New York well, so he’s figuring that Ms. Black’s inexperience will serve the city’s million-plus school children well. Now that is one high-risk bet. New Yorkers might prefer better odds."
So much for Mike Bloomberg's desire to do it his own secretive way in order to expedite this, "in the middle of the school year." But we do really get a kick out of the fact that Bloomberg feels that the critics of his choice don't understand what this job is all about: "Bloomberg also dismissed critics who have called on the state education commissioner to deny a waiver to Cathie Black, the media executive he tapped to replace Chancellor Joel Klein on Tuesday. Black, currently the chairwoman of Hearst Magazines, needs a waiver because state law requires the city’s chancellor have education credentials and experience in schools; Black has neither. “It just goes to show they have no understanding of what the job is,” Bloomberg said of the critics calling for the waiver to be denied. The mayor said the school’s chief needs to be an expert manager."
Well, if that's the case Mike, why don't you petition the legislature to remove the statutory requirements because they obviously-at least in the mind of someone who never stepped into a NYC public school before 2001-have no correlation to what the job needs in the way of credentials and experience. As one NY Daily News letter writer said: "Congratulations to Cathie Black on her appointment as chancellor of the city schools ("Just who is Cathie Black?" Nov. 10). Now where can I get a $250,000-a-year job for which I don't meet any of the qualifications?"
But the Black momentum-in spite of all of the Morticia/Murdoch efforts-may be grinding to a halt, Stern's observations here are prescient: "For another, two of Chancellor Joel Klein's deputies have announced their resignations, and others are expected to leave as well. One reason cited in favor of Ms. Black was that the Klein management team would be available to assist her as she familiarized herself with the educational universe. No truly independent screening panel of educators is likely to conclude that no experience whatsoever in their professional field is adequate preparation for the most difficult and complex job in local public education. If they felt that way, they would be expressing the view that their own professional qualifications had little value, and that any corporate executive could fill the positions they now hold."
And this doesn't account for the growing political chorus of disbelievers-folks who can't believe how ersatz this so-called search was: "Mayor Bloomberg didn't formally interview any candidates to head the largest school system in the country before he tapped accomplished business leader Cathie Black for the position, sources told The Post. Bloomberg said this week that he had conducted a "public search" to replace outgoing Schools Chancellor Joel Klein -- but sources close to City Hall said that process did not include bringing in candidates for questioning. "The word that I'm getting is there never were interviews, there never was a search," said one veteran education administrator. "This was Bloomberg's plan. He offered it to her, and she accepted."
The WSJ reports on the growing disbelief: "State Senator-elect Tony Avella, a former councilman from Queens who has been a longtime critic of the current schools chancellor, called the selection process a “disgrace.” Avella sent the state education commissioner a letter earlier this week requesting Black be denied a waiver. “You have to bring the public along with you, and you do that by reaching out to them and involving them in the process,” Avella said. “Clearly Mike Bloomberg didn’t do this.” Doug Muzzio, a professor of public affairs at Baruch College, questioned the scope of the mayor’s chancellor search. “Where did Bloomberg do his search? His Rolodex/Outlook,” Muzzio said in a email. “His hubris is breathtaking.”
Even longtime Bloomberg admirer-and biographer-Joyce Purnick, expresses doubts about the wisdom of the mayor's choice: "His unorthodoxy has worked for him, and he is at it again. Now, he's taking one of his gambles not with his own money but with the city’s fortunes and the future of its school children. Gambles sometimes pay off. Sometimes they do not. This time, the odds are daunting. Running a public school system, dealing with the teachers union and the custodians union and the principals union, with legislators in the union’s pocket, with teachers themselves and a dizzyingly diverse student population, is in no conceivable way like running Cosmopolitan or USA Today."
And in choosing Black, Mike Bloomberg didn't step one foot out of his upper class comfort zone: "Cathie Black’s most persuasive credentials for the schools job seem to be a friendship with the mayor’s girlfriend, Diana Taylor, and membership in the same Upper East Side social orbit as Ms. Taylor and Bloomberg. Black’s husband,Thomas E. Harvey, is a significant contributor to Republican causes, including Senator John McCain’s 2008 presidential race and the Republican National Committee. The couple has, like Ms. Taylor and the mayor, spent leisurely days at the Allen & Company’s annual gathering in Sun Valley, Idaho, the summer retreat for the super-rich that few regular folk know much about because the media are banned. “He didn’t go outside when he chose Cathie Black, he went inside,’’ said a Bloomberg friend and supporter, unhappy with the new schools chief. “It’s him and Diana, Cathie and Tom.”
As Purnick goes on to point out, the choice of Cathie Black meant overlooking real quality appointees that were free and available-like the well-respected Michelle Rhee: "Because the selection was swathed in secrecy, coming as a surprise even to most of the mayor’s confidants, his rationale is a matter of speculation. One theory: he picked her for her reputation as an effective manager. (At magazines?) Another is that he didn’t go for any of the country’s established educators, like Michelle Rhee, the former chancellor of the Washington, D.C. schools, because they would come with baggage. That they would. They also would have experience."
Now the only real question remaining is whether the mayor has finally rolled craps-and will be forced to eat crow because someone like Steiner has the stones to stand up to his autocratic hauteur. We'll give Purnick the last word: "Going the traditional route would have been too easy for Mike Bloomberg. In his view, his political inexperience served him and New York well, so he’s figuring that Ms. Black’s inexperience will serve the city’s million-plus school children well. Now that is one high-risk bet. New Yorkers might prefer better odds."
EDC Illegally Stonewalls Disclosure on Van Wyck Ramps
It is now approaching a year since Willets Point United and its traffic maven Brian Ketcham blew the whistle on a fraud that was about to be committed by EDC over the application to build ramps off of the Van Wyck Expressway to accommodate. We covered this fraudulent attempt to submit inaccurate traffic data, and as we said at the time, citing a report in Crain's: "The original environmental impact statement, or EIS, showed the massive Willets Point project would generate heavy traffic, but a recent report on the proposed ramps showed a much sunnier picture. The ramp study—an “access modification report,” or AMR, which is technical documentation to support federal and state decisions on whether to approve the ramps—is being redone after Mr. Ketcham used traffic data from the environmental impact statement to demonstrate that the ramps would make a bad situation worse. The entire redevelopment, with 9 million buildable square feet, is projected to generate 80,000 vehicle trips daily."
The exposure of EDC's traffic consultant double dipping, forced NYS DOT-the immediate arbiter of the ramp application-to insist that EDC revise its phony AMR: "In the Crain's article what really stands out is the following statement from our BFF Dave Lombino: "We will be submitting a revised draft in the upcoming weeks that is responsive to the comments and issues raised by state DOT and the Federal Highway Administration, as well as those from Willets Point opponents,” said David Lombino, a spokesman for the Bloomberg administration’s Economic Development Corp., the lead agency on Willets Point."
Words to live by-or to die for. Now we know that, "upcoming weeks," is a rather amorphous term, but we pretty certain that forty weeks stretches the concept of upcoming beyond all recognition. What the heck is going on here-and is the delay owed to the fact that there is simply no good way to figure out how to truncate the original traffic data so that the ramps can actually be made to work?
What has transpired since last February is nothing less than a vaudeville act. The DOT, after promising transparency and cooperation with whistle blower Ketcham, circled its wagons and has refused any direct information exchange with the expert who prevented the agency from looking like a compliant horse's ass. The actions of EDC, however, are even more egregious-it has refused to give up any information on the work product that has gone into the AMR's revision-and this is after DOT promised WPU that it would have a revised AMR by no later than October 1st.
Can any one concerned with accurate and open government defend the actions of these two agencies? As WPU pointed out in its communication with both DOT and EDC:
"For many months, NYCEDC and its consultants purportedly have been engaged in the process of preparing a revised Access Modification Report ("AMR") that pertains to the proposed Van Wyck ramp project, which is an essential enabling element of the proposed Willets Point development plan. In general, an AMR consists in whole or in part of the sort of factual data and objective information that cannot be withheld pursuant to the inter-agency / intra-agency disclosure exemption, and which must be disclosed. As the AMR will later be submitted to NYSDOT for its approval, it is conceivable that NYCEDC is sharing draft AMR content with NYSDOT to obtain NYSDOT's feedback. In response to a previous records access request, NYSDOT had informed WPU that it "reasonably expects to be in a position to provide you with a 'FINAL' version of the AMR in electronic format on or about October 1, 2010". Therefore, draft materials would have to exist prior to that date, and such materials are subject to rights of access conferred by FOIL."
But WPU has got ungatz from either DOT or the NYC EDC-a stonewalling that further compels that this entire process should be opened up for an independent and public review process. But review aside, EDC is breaking the open government law-refusing to hand over documents that it is required to do under the Freedom of Information Act; a refusal that is instructive about the way this quasi-public agency goes about its business.
One incident can serve to underscore the arrogance of EDC's constructive refusal to obey the law-here's the background:
On March 10, 2010, representatives of NYCEDC, its outside consultants, NYSDOT and FHWA met with WPU, its traffic engineer Brian Ketcham and its attorney Michael Gerrard, among others, at the law office of Arnold & Porter LLP. The purpose of the meeting was for WPU to convey its findings concerning the non-viability and severe adverse traffic impacts of NYCEDC's proposed Van Wyck ramp project. The meeting served to notify NYCEDC that WPU intends to challenge any approval of, or attempt by NYCEDC to implement, the proposed Van Wyck ramp project. A recent records access request made pursuant to FOIL revealed that on March 11, 2010, the day after the meeting with WPU at Arnold & Porter, NYCEDC, NYSDOT and FHWA convened another meeting, but without WPU.
WPU then requested all of the relevant information about this follow up meeting; and in response to EDC's unresponsiveness, WPU has written the following to the agency:
"As stated within WPU's Appeal: "In view of the potential importance of this meeting to the progress of the multi-billion dollar proposed Willets Point development and project X770.44 in particular (both of which are promulgated by NYCEDC), it is simply not credible that "no documents" or records of any type that pertain to this significant meeting of key persons are kept by, or for, NYCEDC. ... [I]f NYCEDC's Denial Letter is accurate then NYCEDC possesses absolutely: No material that was presented, shared, or distributed during the meeting, including no PowerPoint slides and no hand-outs; no notes taken by anyone during the meeting; no minutes of the meeting; no record of the results of the meeting or decisions reached during it; no post-meeting communications that pertain to the meeting; no attendance sheet from the meeting. It is difficult to envision a meeting between representatives of NYCEDC, NTSDOT and FHWA, relating to aspects of a multi-billion dollar proposed project which is promulgated by NYCEDC, that would not result in any record being generated and thereafter kept by, or for, NYCEDC. Incredibly, however, that is what NYCEDC's Denial Letter would have us believe."
Secret government operating in its own interests, and desperately trying to cover up its malfeasance. And then there is the apparent forced disappearance of Michael Bergman, DOT's last honest man. Here's the background on Mr. Bergmann:
"As a result of reviewing records disclosed by NYSDOT in response to previous FOIL requests, we know that Michael Bergmann is a NYSDOT employee who persistently questioned the viability of NYCEDC's proposed Van Wyck ramp project during late 2009. Bergmann's skepticism, high standards and insistence that NYCEDC still had not addressed significant issues may have influenced NYSDOT's decision to divert from NYCEDC's schedule, by not approving the proposed Van Wyck ramp project prior to the end of 2009. Although Bergmann's contributions to NYSDOT's evaluation of the proposed Van Wyck ramp project were noteworthy and he appears to have done a remarkable job, Bergmann is altogether missing from all records that WPU has obtained that have been generated since January 1, 2010 relating to the proposed van Wyck ramp project. It is as if Bergmann has been relieved of his responsibilities concerning the proposed Van Wyck ramp project, and re-assigned by the powers-that-be to other projects. To find out what has happened to Bergmann, and why he is apparently no longer involved with evaluating the proposed Van Wyck ramp project, WPU made a records access request of NYSDOT for various records of assignments given by NYSDOT to Bergmann and projects on which Bergmann has been directed to work."
NYS DOT's reply? It promised further notification by September 9, 2010, but provided none, contrary to FOIL. Therefore, NYSDOT-joining fraternal hands with EDC-has constructively denied the request. WPU has appealed the denial of access and is awaiting NYSDOT's response.
The Willets Point development is a massive use of tax payer funds that, while forcibly removing property owners, will have a huge impact on, not only the immediate Willets Point?corona/Flushing neighborhoods, but the entire region. The proposed Van Wyck ramps are the linchpin of this development, and their ability to accommodate and mitigate thousands of daily car and truck trips is essential for the ability of this development to function smoothly-and NYC has admitted this in court papers.
Put simply, if the ramps either aren't built, or can't perform the tasks assigned to them, the entire Willets Point development becomes a collapsing house of cards. Therefore, the review of these ramps is a crucial variable in evaluating the feasibility of the entire Willets Point project.
If, however, the process is suborned by agency collusion-aided and abetted by an administration used to getting its way in spite of any perceived contradictory facts-a disaster awaits Queens County and its road and mass transit infrastructure. EDC is in dire need of an intervention-the people of Queens and the rest of NYC, including the embattled Willets Point property owners deserve no less.
The exposure of EDC's traffic consultant double dipping, forced NYS DOT-the immediate arbiter of the ramp application-to insist that EDC revise its phony AMR: "In the Crain's article what really stands out is the following statement from our BFF Dave Lombino: "We will be submitting a revised draft in the upcoming weeks that is responsive to the comments and issues raised by state DOT and the Federal Highway Administration, as well as those from Willets Point opponents,” said David Lombino, a spokesman for the Bloomberg administration’s Economic Development Corp., the lead agency on Willets Point."
Words to live by-or to die for. Now we know that, "upcoming weeks," is a rather amorphous term, but we pretty certain that forty weeks stretches the concept of upcoming beyond all recognition. What the heck is going on here-and is the delay owed to the fact that there is simply no good way to figure out how to truncate the original traffic data so that the ramps can actually be made to work?
What has transpired since last February is nothing less than a vaudeville act. The DOT, after promising transparency and cooperation with whistle blower Ketcham, circled its wagons and has refused any direct information exchange with the expert who prevented the agency from looking like a compliant horse's ass. The actions of EDC, however, are even more egregious-it has refused to give up any information on the work product that has gone into the AMR's revision-and this is after DOT promised WPU that it would have a revised AMR by no later than October 1st.
Can any one concerned with accurate and open government defend the actions of these two agencies? As WPU pointed out in its communication with both DOT and EDC:
"For many months, NYCEDC and its consultants purportedly have been engaged in the process of preparing a revised Access Modification Report ("AMR") that pertains to the proposed Van Wyck ramp project, which is an essential enabling element of the proposed Willets Point development plan. In general, an AMR consists in whole or in part of the sort of factual data and objective information that cannot be withheld pursuant to the inter-agency / intra-agency disclosure exemption, and which must be disclosed. As the AMR will later be submitted to NYSDOT for its approval, it is conceivable that NYCEDC is sharing draft AMR content with NYSDOT to obtain NYSDOT's feedback. In response to a previous records access request, NYSDOT had informed WPU that it "reasonably expects to be in a position to provide you with a 'FINAL' version of the AMR in electronic format on or about October 1, 2010". Therefore, draft materials would have to exist prior to that date, and such materials are subject to rights of access conferred by FOIL."
But WPU has got ungatz from either DOT or the NYC EDC-a stonewalling that further compels that this entire process should be opened up for an independent and public review process. But review aside, EDC is breaking the open government law-refusing to hand over documents that it is required to do under the Freedom of Information Act; a refusal that is instructive about the way this quasi-public agency goes about its business.
One incident can serve to underscore the arrogance of EDC's constructive refusal to obey the law-here's the background:
On March 10, 2010, representatives of NYCEDC, its outside consultants, NYSDOT and FHWA met with WPU, its traffic engineer Brian Ketcham and its attorney Michael Gerrard, among others, at the law office of Arnold & Porter LLP. The purpose of the meeting was for WPU to convey its findings concerning the non-viability and severe adverse traffic impacts of NYCEDC's proposed Van Wyck ramp project. The meeting served to notify NYCEDC that WPU intends to challenge any approval of, or attempt by NYCEDC to implement, the proposed Van Wyck ramp project. A recent records access request made pursuant to FOIL revealed that on March 11, 2010, the day after the meeting with WPU at Arnold & Porter, NYCEDC, NYSDOT and FHWA convened another meeting, but without WPU.
WPU then requested all of the relevant information about this follow up meeting; and in response to EDC's unresponsiveness, WPU has written the following to the agency:
"As stated within WPU's Appeal: "In view of the potential importance of this meeting to the progress of the multi-billion dollar proposed Willets Point development and project X770.44 in particular (both of which are promulgated by NYCEDC), it is simply not credible that "no documents" or records of any type that pertain to this significant meeting of key persons are kept by, or for, NYCEDC. ... [I]f NYCEDC's Denial Letter is accurate then NYCEDC possesses absolutely: No material that was presented, shared, or distributed during the meeting, including no PowerPoint slides and no hand-outs; no notes taken by anyone during the meeting; no minutes of the meeting; no record of the results of the meeting or decisions reached during it; no post-meeting communications that pertain to the meeting; no attendance sheet from the meeting. It is difficult to envision a meeting between representatives of NYCEDC, NTSDOT and FHWA, relating to aspects of a multi-billion dollar proposed project which is promulgated by NYCEDC, that would not result in any record being generated and thereafter kept by, or for, NYCEDC. Incredibly, however, that is what NYCEDC's Denial Letter would have us believe."
Secret government operating in its own interests, and desperately trying to cover up its malfeasance. And then there is the apparent forced disappearance of Michael Bergman, DOT's last honest man. Here's the background on Mr. Bergmann:
"As a result of reviewing records disclosed by NYSDOT in response to previous FOIL requests, we know that Michael Bergmann is a NYSDOT employee who persistently questioned the viability of NYCEDC's proposed Van Wyck ramp project during late 2009. Bergmann's skepticism, high standards and insistence that NYCEDC still had not addressed significant issues may have influenced NYSDOT's decision to divert from NYCEDC's schedule, by not approving the proposed Van Wyck ramp project prior to the end of 2009. Although Bergmann's contributions to NYSDOT's evaluation of the proposed Van Wyck ramp project were noteworthy and he appears to have done a remarkable job, Bergmann is altogether missing from all records that WPU has obtained that have been generated since January 1, 2010 relating to the proposed van Wyck ramp project. It is as if Bergmann has been relieved of his responsibilities concerning the proposed Van Wyck ramp project, and re-assigned by the powers-that-be to other projects. To find out what has happened to Bergmann, and why he is apparently no longer involved with evaluating the proposed Van Wyck ramp project, WPU made a records access request of NYSDOT for various records of assignments given by NYSDOT to Bergmann and projects on which Bergmann has been directed to work."
NYS DOT's reply? It promised further notification by September 9, 2010, but provided none, contrary to FOIL. Therefore, NYSDOT-joining fraternal hands with EDC-has constructively denied the request. WPU has appealed the denial of access and is awaiting NYSDOT's response.
The Willets Point development is a massive use of tax payer funds that, while forcibly removing property owners, will have a huge impact on, not only the immediate Willets Point?corona/Flushing neighborhoods, but the entire region. The proposed Van Wyck ramps are the linchpin of this development, and their ability to accommodate and mitigate thousands of daily car and truck trips is essential for the ability of this development to function smoothly-and NYC has admitted this in court papers.
Put simply, if the ramps either aren't built, or can't perform the tasks assigned to them, the entire Willets Point development becomes a collapsing house of cards. Therefore, the review of these ramps is a crucial variable in evaluating the feasibility of the entire Willets Point project.
If, however, the process is suborned by agency collusion-aided and abetted by an administration used to getting its way in spite of any perceived contradictory facts-a disaster awaits Queens County and its road and mass transit infrastructure. EDC is in dire need of an intervention-the people of Queens and the rest of NYC, including the embattled Willets Point property owners deserve no less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
