Truckulent Response to Food Vendors

There's a war waging against mobile food truck vendors on the East Side-with the local community fed up with the invasion of lawless food purveyors clogging their streets and sidewalks. DNAinfo has the story: "They have thousands of followers on Twitter and a legion of devoted bloggers tracking their every move. But the appeal of food trucks apparently doesn't extend to the Upper East Side, where residents and food truck owners alike claim they aren't welcome. One taco truck was exiled from the neighborhood after a month-long ticketing blitz, culminating in an arrest and confiscation of the truck. Alberto Loera, 27, whose mother Patricia Monroy owns Paty's Tacos truck, spent two and a half years serving up cemitas, tortas and tacos de lengua on the truck at Lexington Avenue between East 86th and 87th streets before he was hauled out of his truck by police on Nov. 30."

What this war is about is the failure of the Bloomberg administration to enforce the vending laws that are on the books-and its demonstrative lack of concern for both brick and mortar business and the communities that feel over run by these truck stops: "They are lawless," Community Board 8 member Teri Slater said of food trucks. She called 311 to complain last week about a different vendor, Eddie's Pizza Truck, which was parked in front of a Gristedes on Third Avenue between 77th and 78th Streets. It's illegal to keep feeding the meter, "which they do with impunity." "They compete with the local brick-and-mortar stores, which are struggling, and they don't pay the same taxes," Slater continued. She emphasized that she was all for entrepreneurship, but Slater said she would rather see the truck owners take over empty storefronts."

But stores cost much more money to operate-and they actually pay taxes and high rents on the East Side. These freeloaders erode local commerce-not to mention the tax base that the city is struggling to maintain. But this Taco belligerent is way over the top-and he actually has email address for deliveries and a flyer to alert customers about the services that this truck stop offers.

This is a phenomenon happening all over the city-and our friends from the East Harlem Chamber of Commerce tell us that there is a Taco truck parked on 116th Street right in front of a local Taco Bell outlet. That's how brazen these scavengers are-and how clearly the enforcement regime has collapsed for all types of vending; another indication of how little the Bloombergistas care about neighborhood businesses and the communities they serve.

The proliferation of vendors-both mobile and hostile-is also a public safety issue. DNAinfo has this in a follow up story: "It’s a public safety issue," said Elaine Walsh, president of the East 86th Street Residents/Merchants Association, who was walking by when the cops issued the ticket. The trucks don't "permit people to feel comfortable walking in the area." Paty's was parked near the busy 86th Street subway station on a mixed-use block, she noted. Her group, as well as others concerned about sidewalk overcrowding and competition with stores, have long been fighting the trucks around Lexington and 86th Street, which have included a Halal truck, a Mister Softee (for the last 23 summers), a dumpling truck and a cupcake truck."

It is that-and much more. As we have pointed out continuously the fruit and veggie peddlers set up shop directly in front of existing green grocers and supermarket. One store owner told us that in one week when the local produce peddler was mysteriously absent, his sales went up $6,000! These are proceeds that help pay the taxes and the salaries of this store's unionized workers. On the other hand, cart owners often have multiple employees who are compensated in undocumented ways, and have none of the protections that the unionized supermarket workers have.

There is no doubt, however, that the vendors are putting a hurting on the legitimate tax paying small businesses. DNAinfo underscores this-and we'll give them the last word: "Many customers were glad to see the truck back. "I understand it’s congested on the sidewalks but we love the tacos and he has a right to be here," said Kimberly Everette, 36, an office manager at a nearby medical office, who nixed plans for soup at Hot & Crusty when she saw the truck had returned."




More vendor chaos and clutter

 

No regard for vendor laws



Eminently Legal Destruction

In yesterday's NY Post, the paper had an article about the fact that property owners in NY State have absolutely no protection from the depredations of those elected officials who want to take away their property. Reiterating a point we mad last year, the Post reports the following about NY's eminent domain law: "In a little-noticed ruling that could pack a punch for property owners, a judge has blasted the city for abusing eminent domain in its bid to seize buildings in East Harlem -- yet says there's nothing he can do about it. In a searing statement, Justice James Catterson of the state Appellate Division accused the city of falsely claiming "blight" as a ploy to transfer private property to developers. But New York's lower courts are powerless to stop it, said Catterson, thanks to prior rulings from the state Court of Appeals on eminent-domain cases related to Brooklyn's Atlantic Yards development and Columbia University's West Harlem expansion."

Of course, Judge Catterson's opinion was well known to readers of this blog-and it was the judge's ruling on the Columbia v. Sprayregen case, that was the preamble to yesterday's Post story. Catterson words, however, bear repeating: "In my view, the record amply demonstrates that the [East Harlem] neighborhood in question is not blighted . . . and that the justification of under-utilization is nothing but a canard to aid in the transfer of private property to a developer," Catterson said of the city's argument that it can grab two blocks between 125th and 127th streets along Third Avenue because the area is economically depressed. "Unfortunately for the rights of the citizens affected by the proposed condemnation, recent rulings . . . have made plain there is no longer any judicial oversight of eminent-domain proceedings," the justice wrote."

And in our view, the Court of Appeals in this state is an ass-but it is the legislature's failure to remedy the state of eminent domain law in New York that is the real scandal. With the state's highest court taking the, "see no evil," approach, justice for landowners here is truly blind, and will remain so unless the legislature acts-as it has in so many other states in the post-Kelo era.

We'll give one of the aggrieved East Harlem property owners the last word on this legal travesty-with the added understanding that it is always the little guys who are at risk; East 79th Street from Fifth to Madison will never be the subject of an eminent domain proceeding:  "What this means is that no small business in this city is safe -- if you think you are, you're fooling yourself," fumed Evan Blum, owner of local business Demolition Depot."

Hot Time in the City

The Bloomberg administration's CityTime scandal just keeps getting better-and now, according to the NYC Comptroller, it looks as if the current $700 million working model doesn't come with an owner's manual. Juan Gonzales has the story: "Will taxpayers be held hostage to the CityTime money pit for years to come? Defense giant SAIC, the main contractor on the scandal-plagued $700 million timekeeping and payroll project, failed to provide city officials with so much vital information about the system's design that no one else
can operate or maintain it. That's the astonishing conclusion of a new study of CityTime by accounting firm KPMG."

This is simply ridiculous-and as the WSJ reports, it may mean that the new way to tell city time is in perpetuity: "The KPMG report is troubling, Mr. Liu said, because it suggests the city will need SAIC "in perpetuity." "The CityTime product as it currently stands may allow the vendor to maintain an indefinite monopoly on the development and maintenance of New York City's timekeeping system," Mr. Liu said. "The emerging product holds the client—the City of New York—hostage to one company, the project's developer."

So now the City of New York, after giving SAIC hundreds of millions of dollars, has been reduced to a mendicant-as Gonzales points out: "As part of the September deal, Bloomberg also agreed to issue a new request for proposals to allow other companies to compete for maintenance and operation of the payroll system after July 1. But the KPMG report could now delay that time line for months. It concludes that "existing documentation is not currently sufficient" for the city or another private vendor to take over operation of the project. Vital system information and records were so poorly maintained, KPMG found, that before the city can look for a new vendor, it must address a half-dozen "high-priority" problems in its own information about the system. Officials are now faced with pressuring SAIC to turn over all the missing documentation. (emphasis added)

Which brings us back to the mayor's State of the City address-the one where the mayor played his little Emily Litella bit and acted as if CityTime and the snowfu never happened. But, as Clyde Haberman highlights, the mayor is trying to feign empathy-with his road show out to Staten Island supposed to signify that he isn't Manhattan-centric: "How can New Yorkers living in the “outer boroughs” — a terrible phrase sorely in need of reinvention — not feel the love emanating from Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg? He has delivered 10 State of the City addresses, and all but one of them were in locations outside Manhattan."

But the snowstorm-and the mayor's Bermuda sojourn-has convinced most New Yorkers that this act is pure zirconium: "The problem for the mayor is that New Yorkers in those four boroughs would like to feel that they are on his mind more than one day in January every year. In fact, he can point to accomplishments in their behalf. He made sure to do so on Wednesday in the baroque setting of the restored St. George Theater, near the ferry terminal on Staten Island. But reputations have a way of hardening. Mr. Bloomberg’s critics have pegged him as someone thoroughly uninterested in anything that takes place beyond his ZIP code, unless perhaps it is in District of Columbia 20500, which encompasses public housing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."

The reality is that Mike Bloomberg spends more time in Bermuda and, God knows where else most weekends, than he has ever spent in Queens, Brooklyn or the Bronx. It's getting so bad that Bloomberg may soon be able to avoid paying the city income tax. Haberman, however, feels that the criticism of the mayor's absence is becoming a bit extreme: "A few of them criticized Mr. Bloomberg for ignoring the snowstorm in his speech on Wednesday instead of flagellating himself and his minions one more time. That the storm caused misery and perhaps even tragedy is indisputable. But the assaults on the administration have begun to look like piling on."

Really? Bloomberg has been able to avoid criticism for the better part of nine years-and sneak off on weekends with nary a reporter or editor seeing this as any kind of a problem. So to us, it is only appears to be piling on because of how minimal the criticism he has been subject to for so many years. And the mayor's failures that were revealed so dramatically in December, erode his well crafted imagine of competence-an image that has been shattered not only be the reality of his under performance, but his absence from the scene as well.

Which brings us back to CityTime, a computer project that dramatizes the inattention of the mayor to the mundane tasks of governance-and in an area where his private sector success was cultivated, which makes the failure even more grievous. We'll give Juan Gonzales the last word here, but it won't be the last word on the CityTime debacle: "Now we learn that for $700 million, the city got a system it can't operate itself. Bloomberg would never allow an outside vendor to exercise such unprecedented control over the computer systems of his own company. So why does he accept it for the payroll system of New York City workers?"

DOT Bike Blarney

As the NY Post is reporting, there is a widening controversy over NYC DOT's evaluation of the Prospect Park bike lanes: "A battle over a Brooklyn bike lane is in high gear, with a group of well-organized residents accusing the Department of Transportation yesterday of fudging the numbers of bicycles using the lane to support the city's drive to make the pathway permanent. Norman Steisel -- a former sanitation commissioner and deputy mayor under David Dinkins -- slammed the DOT for releasing what he called misleading data overstating how many cyclists ride along the Prospect Park West path, and refuting city claims of improved safety since the lane was created last summer."

Now, we don't have any specific opinion of our own about the Brooklyn bike lane-although we have an already widely known opinion about the highhandedness of the DOT commissioner-but we do have a strong view over the way the city uses, or in this case, misuses statistics, in order to make fraudulent cases for its various ventures. Most famously this has been true over at Willets Point-so much so that it is now over a year since the traffic study for Van Wyck ramps was forced into revision when Willets Point United sliced and diced the phony data submitted by EDC's consultants. This statistical sleight-of-hand is yet to be resolved.

In the Willets Point case, city DOT did not have an active role in the fudging of the traffic data, but Commissioner Sadik-Khan did interpose herself into the controversy in an attempt to bogart NYS DOT into rubber stamping revised traffic figures that are all too likely reminiscent of the original fraudulent submission. As we said last month-when more emails were uncovered regarding the ramp delay:

"So, the SDOT, in doing its proper due diligence and questioning the data submitted by NYC EDC, is under a threat from Ms. Tricycle-someone who appears to be comfortable with the fraudulent fudged data that the EDC consultants have submitted-and has caused all of the delays in the approval process for the Willets Point/Van Wyck ramps. Unable to argue from the facts on the ground, the commissioner is issuing woof tickets.

What this all means to us, is that there is a compelling need to open up this entire review process to public scrutiny-and take it out of the unclean hands of EDC. When legitimate questions are being raised and responses are given that threaten the honest broker, you just know that the locals are trying to rig the entire game. Its past time for a little sunlight, no? The Bloomberg Bunko Squad needs to be exposed."

So Sadik-Khan is no stranger to licking the old fudgicle-and Norman Steisel calls her similar effort out in Brooklyn: "The community asked for all the underlying data, in its raw form, and instead DOT intends to present a rosy summary," Steisel said. "We are getting only what DOT wants us to see. We have a right to more."

This, we're afraid, is all too typical. Whenever EDC or one of its chosen developers does an EIS for a project, all you are able to review in the traffic sections are the summaries that the consultants present.The underlying data, and the models used to generate it are excluded, making a proper due diligence by critics nigh impossible.

In the case of the Brooklyn bike lanes, however, Steisel and the other opponents did their own field work-as did WPU's Brian Ketcham for Willets Point: "Among other things, he disputed the agency's contention that weekday cycling increased along Prospect Park West between Third and Fifth streets from an average of 349 riders in June 2009 to 1,131 in August 2010 -- shortly after the lane was installed. Steisel said his group took its own videos of bike usage for a two-week period, 12 hours each day, at Carroll Street, and "discovered bike usage was one-third to one-half of the volume the agency reported counting."

The problem here is not just one that impacts Park Slope. You have Commissioner Tricycle unilaterally installing bike lanes costing untold millions of dollars all over the city. But most communities don't have the same resources that Park Slope does, Exacerbating the problem is the fact that DOT gets to mark its own exam: "An angry audience member called out, "We disagree with your numbers and we want to know where you got your data." When asked if the lanes were permanent, Russo said, "We plan on making changes as we get feedback."

But when a review process lacks transparency, feedback is a relative thing. And let's not forget that the cost of de-installing the lanes is three times that of installation itself-a marvelous example of the Robert Moses principle in these tough economic times.

The reality is that Mike Bloomberg has elevated a cycling zealot who believes in promoting bike lanes at all costs-and without regard to impact on the city's motorists and businesses. After all, Sadik-Khan-left in charge during the Christmas blizzard failed at her basic task of calling for a snow emergency, but she did, however, make sure that all of the Manhattan bike lanes were cleared-hand shovelled while the rest of the city took it on the chin.

Replace David Steiner

It was bad enough that State Ed Commissioner David Steiner swallowed his whistle on the Bloomberg appointment of Cathie Black to be NYC schools chancellor. But as bad as that acquiescence was-and the more we hear from Black the worse Bloomberg's choice appears-it pales in comparison to his failure to radically overhaul the state's testing regime as promised.

Testing analyst Fred Smith comments on this failure in yesterday's NY Post: "Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch and state Education Commissioner David Steiner have soberly pledged that New York testing will get more rigorous, with higher standards and honest information. They failed to meet those objectives with last year's exams. Yes, they raised the "cut scores" on the math and English tests so that 25 percent fewer kids were deemed proficient in 2010. But the tests themselves weren't intrinsically harder than before. The exams -- still designed by test vendor CTB/McGraw-Hill -- remain very soft."

What this means to us is that we still are lacking a reliable arbiter of how well NYC school kids are performing-and the fraudulent results that buoyed the DOE and the mayor in the past have yet to be overcome. In essence, there is simply no good way to determine how successful the mayoral control effort has been in the city-and that's without even factoring in the mayor's extreme ratcheting up of educational outlays.

So, in our view, David Steiner needs to be replaced. For nine years we have been bamboozled on school testing by a combination of mayoral braggadocio, bureaucratic bluster, and editorial flackerry-all because of inflated test scores that gave the Bloomberg toadies all of the false positives to exploit. The fact that the state tests still don't provide a proper measuring stick for school achievement is inexcusable. It is nothing less than a firing offense.

Walmart: Where the Goose is Cooked, and Fat is Fried

Just as Walmart-courtesy of the fronting of FOTUS-is posturing how it will be the repository of all that is healthy and good for you to eat, comes news that the retail giant may not be the best Pied Piper for healthy eating. As NPR is reporting: "If your New Years resolution is to lose weight, you better hope a Walmart Supercenter doesn’t open up around the corner. A recent study found that the more Walmart Supercenters the company opens, the heavier the people living nearby become. Researchers at the University of North Carolina and Rhodes College say the reasons for this are two-fold: the low cost of food at Walmart and the quality of the food sold there."

Oops! So, let's get this straight. Walmart has been operating in and around low income neighborhoods for years without having any beneficial effect on the eating habits of its customers-and may in fact have the opposite impact-but now it wants to join with the First Lady in pretending that it will morph into a low cost version of Whole Foods? Can anyone who's not a major stockholder of the company believe this tripe?

Apparently, according to the Politicker, one person can-and you couldn't get a better example of crony capitalism if you tried: "Michelle Obama has made combating childhood obesity a signature part of her agenda while at the White House. She's planted a vegetable garden, taken on soda pop, and now she has teamed up with that most red-state of retailers, Walmart, as the big bad big box launches a new program of carrying healthier food. "When 140 million people a week are shopping at Walmart, then day by day and meal by meal all these small changes can start to make a big difference for our children's health..."

Sure, and the Walmonster is going to raise the price of all the junk food as well in order to make the good stuff more attractive? We don't think so-and the company's track record really suggests the opposite, as the North Carolina study underscores: "Here’s what researcher Charles Courtemanche, an assistant professor of economics at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, had to say on the findings:

“I think the most obvious story is that Walmart lowers the price of foods and a lot of the foods it has big price advantages on are the processed, inner-aisle types of food that aren’t that good for you.”

Women, low-income families and people living in less densely populated areas are those most at risk of weight gain after a Walmart Supercenter moves into the neighborhood..."

And those most at risk for loss are the small businesses in the neighborhoods that Walmart invades-as a press release from Walmart FreeNYC points out: "New York’s green grocers said they’re working hard to provide high quality fruits and vegetables in every corner of the city, but they don’t stand a chance against Walmart.  Studies have shown that Walmart pushes out small businesses and the workers they employ when it opens new stores. “More than 1,200 green grocers offer fresh, affordable produce to New York’s low-income communities,” said Sung Soo Kim, President of the Korean-American Small Business Service Center of New York. “If Walmart moves in, they’ll all be squeezed out.”

So Walmart-as well as some of the large drug chains as well-knows a good scam when it sees one. And if food deserts can be exploited to push its way into urban markets, why not use the convenient cover? But the First Lady should know better-and concentrate her efforts on educating poorer Americans to eat in a healthier manner. No single retailer should be given the White House's Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval-especially one that is so damaging to the country's workers and small businesses.

Walmart's Healthy Trojan Horse

First it was a green initiative, and now it's fresh produce and healthier eating. Walmart is constructing a healthy growth strategy that it hopes will reduce the intense opposition that it store expansion plans have generate all over the country-but particularly in New York City. The NY Times has the story: " Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest retailer, will announce a five-year plan on Thursday to make thousands of its packaged foods lower in unhealthy salts, fats and sugars, and to drop prices on fruits and vegetables. The initiative came out of discussions the company has been having with Michelle Obama, the first lady, who will attend the announcement in Washington and has made healthy eating and reducing childhood obesity the centerpiece of her agenda. Aides say it is the first time Mrs. Obama has thrown her support behind the work of a single company."

Talk about an unhealthy alliance-big government and a corporate predator partnering to screw the country's small businesses and its retail food workers. But wait, it's not only a partnership, it's an Unholy Trinity: "A number of companies have said they are going to make voluntary reductions in sodium over the next several years, and numerous companies have said they are going to try to get trans fat out of their food,” said Michael Jacobson, executive director of Center for Science in the Public Interest. “But Wal-Mart is in a position almost like the Food and Drug Administration. I think it really pushes the food industry in the right direction.”

There you have it, the largest retailer in the world and the most noxious anti-business, "consumer," group collaborating to alter American eating patterns-with the government as a midwife. Make no mistake about it, at the end of the day eating patterns will not change and obesity will not be reduced, but Walmart's bottom line will be engorged-and FOTUS should be ashamed of her role-with an an announcement scheduled in the Anocostia section of DC where the Walmonster has its own small business reducing plan in the works: ".

This is all nothing but a healthy Trojan Horse-a true devil's bargain: "The world's largest retail store plans to open its first stores in Washington in 2012, according to the chain's website. It's all part of Wal-Mart's urban initiative to supply low priced goods to the District, while providing plenty of jobs. The retailer's website says more than 1,200 jobs can be expected to come to the area as a result.
The four sites include Georgia Avenue NW; New York Avenue and Bladensburg Road NE; New Jersey Avenue NW; and at East Capitol and 58th streets SE. The four stores, will range from 80,000 to 120,000 square feet."

Well, at least the folks looking for some transparency in government can find it now-because there is no more transparent motive than what Big wally is trying to do, and that they have suborned Michelle Obama in their corporate expansion efforts is truly sad: "The first lady’s appearance with Mr. Dach and other Wal-Mart executives when they make the announcement at a community center in Washington’s Anacostia neighborhood on Thursday morning is out of the ordinary and a prominent effort by the administration to spur further moves toward healthier food."

Talk about corporate tool: "Over the last year, Mr. Kass and other aides to the first lady have spent countless hours in meetings with company officials; both Mr. Kass and Mr. Dach said Mrs. Obama pushed the company to hold itself accountable by issuing public progress reports. The Partnership for a Healthier America, a nonprofit organization that works with the first lady on her Let’s Move initiative to reduce childhood obesity, will monitor the company’s progress."

And you thought that the bank bailout was obscene? But the Walmart fresh initiative should not fool New Yorkers-since the retail giant's expansion here will not expand but reduce access to fresh fruits and veggies: "The company says it will also address the problem of “food deserts” — a dearth of grocery stores selling fresh produce in rural and underserved urban areas like Anacostia — by building more stores. And it will increase charitable contributions for nutrition programs."

As we have pointed out: "But, as we have clearly shown, this is fools gold at its worst-with one Walmonster replacing four or five existing smaller supermarkets in a Devil's bargain for NYC." Not to mention the pioneering Korean green grocers who are also on the Walmart chopping block.

The biggest irony here is that the company can cut its own profits for a massive public relations campaign, but can't pay its own workers the wages they deserve: "Mr. Dach said the lower prices and food reformulations were motivated by the demands of Wal-Mart’s own customers. He said the company believed that, if it was successful, the price reductions would save Americans who shop at Wal-Mart approximately $1 billion a year on fresh fruits and vegetables alone."

What we have here folks, is a massive bait and switch-with fresh fruit and veggies as the bait to get millions of customers to switch from shopping at their local stores. And the so-called food deserts that the lachrymose Walmonster is crying about will be nothing compared to the retail small business deserts that will follow in the wake of the Walmart expansion strategy.

This result then will be nothing less than rotten fruit for urban neighborhoods-and the First Lady should drop her Helen of Troy role as the amorata for Big Wally. It's not a healthy part for her to play.

State of Confusion

Talk about a snow job! In over an hour the mayor-who was supposedly going out of his way to demonstrate his concerns for the city's outer boroughs-never once mentioned last months snowfu. Nothing to see here, we guess. City Room has the instant analysis: "Mr. Bloomberg seemed to go out of his way to deflect criticism that he was not attuned to the concerns of New Yorkers outside Manhattan, citing numerous programs and projects designed to improve conditions in neighborhoods across the city. One plan would make it legal to hail livery cabs outside Manhattan."

Public Advocate Bill de Blasio nails this further example of haughty tone deafness: "Obviously there was no point in this where there was any acknowledgement of past mistakes. I think this would have been an occasion to say look we had a bad few weeks, we made some real mistakes here in the city we are not going to let that happen again. I think it would have helped if he had said that there really squarely. He had an opportunity to really re-set the tone and he chose not to do that," de Blasio said."

In our view, his best remedy for the other than Manhattan parts of the city is for the mayor to simply cease and desist. The city's vaunted economic upturn is purely Manhattan-centric, with Wall Street and tourism driving the stabilization. We would like to see what the city's job numbers would look like if we took away those two aforementioned factors.

Living Wage Coalition spokesman Dan Morris makes the salient points: "Working poor New Yorkers are still waiting for the economic recovery the mayor referenced in his speech. His unmatched ability to turn the economy around was how his campaign framed the rationale for a third term but many struggling communities have yet to gain access to decent jobs and would not agree that we are headed in the right direction. The mayor failed to acknowledge that the shared costs of poverty to the city are actually rising as a record number of working poor New Yorkers turn to government for food stamps and other assistance, and contribute less to the tax base and economy. Many of these workers hold jobs in sectors like retail, where some companies are receiving millions in taxpayer subsidies and yet allowed to create low-wage jobs with impunity."

As Morris goes on to point out-underscoring a theme of ours: " The city simply cannot afford to give companies millions in subsidies and remain silent as corporate leaders laugh all the way to the bank while creating low-wage jobs that weaken our economy and keep working people mired in poverty. The public is paying too high a price for so-called economic development."

We were especially amused by the mayor's support for comprehensive immigration reform-something that Comptroller Liu hailed: "Great to hear of the Mayor's continuous commitment to comprehensive immigration reform.  It is badly needed for this country and would be an economic boon for the people of New York City."

To us-as we have said before-this is pure posturing on the mayor's part, His record shows an absolute contempt for the immigrant entrepreneurs-the backbone of those communities that he theoretically hails. From throwing immigrant and minority wholesalers out of the Bronx Terminal Market to make way for a mall deeded over without bidding to a good friend of Deputy Dan Doctoroff, to his shoving a cannibalizing mall down the throats of Flushing thriving Korean and Chines retailers, Bloomberg has made life hard for these intrepid newcomers.

And let's take another example: the mayor's failure to control street vendors who are setting up their "Green Carts" right in front of Korean green grocers-effectively putting them out of business. And then, of course, there's Walmart that will put the nail in the coffin to the city's vibrant cohort of immigrant super market owners.

All of which makes the mayor's following two-faced posturing, cited in City Room, laughable: "Mr. Bloomberg seems most passionate when he speaks about one of his trademark causes: immigration reform. He calls the current system “the most ruinous economy policy you could ever conceive of.” He pledges to tackle the issue at a national level, and he says the city will create a program to help immigrant entrepreneurs start small businesses."

How about simply stopping all of the economic development destruction? What about a Hippocratic Oath of, "Do no harm," before announcing programs to help entrepreneurs who would like Bloomberg to stop fining and taxing them. We noticed that the mayor didn't mention that in the past six years the DCA fines collected have tripled-along with a concomitant rise in restaurant fines from the DOH. Who does he think is bearing the disproportionate burden of this regulatory assault, if not those very same immigrants Bloomberg lauds?

But, as City Room reminds us, being a billionaire means never having to say you're sorry-or even acknowledge that you are less than flawless: "In his 45 minutes at the lectern, Mr. Bloomberg stayed focused on his bread-and-butter issues: the economy and creating jobs. He did not acknowledge his critics, but instead swirled through a range of proposals including constructing family centers at Riker’s Island and reforming the juvenile justice system. His words were received warmly, even if there were few flashy initiatives or grandiose pledges. But for those looking for another apology for snow clean-up or a reflection on missteps, this was not the speech."

If not now, when? Of course, where the mayor did his most egregious shucking and ducking was on the city's budget: "Mr. Bloomberg emphasizes that the city must do more with less. He blames the situation on ballooning pension costs and unfunded mandates. “There’s no magic wand to make them disappear,” Mr. Bloomberg says. “There is no rabbit left to pull out of the hat, and there is no windfall coming from Albany or Washington this year. There is only us.”

In nine years, Mike Bloomberg has swollen the city's budget, hiring tens of thousands of new employees whose pensions he now decides need to be reined in? Wow, what chutzpah! Not to mention the crippling debt the city has taken on. All we can say about this State of the City charade is that, thank God, we only a two more examples of this self serving drivel left before Mike flies away to warmer climes.

In the Public Interest

The whole question of what is in the public interest is an intriguing one-and Theodore Lowi's classic book, The End of Liberalism, seeks to address this intrigue. Lowi feels that the interplay of interests in what he describes quite appropriately as, "interest group liberalism," falls far short of achieving what he feels to be the over all public good-a concept that he believes to both tangible and knowable.

In our view, without getting into a deep philosophical discussion of Plato and his belief that such a Good could be understood and imparted as part of a program to reform society, Lowi's belief is at best a utopian one; or at worst a dystopian idea that can lead to the violent wrenching of societal institutions in the service of political reconstruction animated by such "ideals."

In reality, we not only believe that the public interest is achieved through the rough and tumble of competing interests in a democratic market place of ideas and interests, we also don't think that there is any transcendent Good that can or should be imposed on a society-and the concept always falls on the question of just who can be relied on to devise the notion of the Good. Or, more pointedly, who's got the chops for being so far above and better than all of the rest of us, that we can cede to this special someone the role of Arbiter.

This is, by the way, a fairly long digression into a discussion of the news this morning that NYPIRG-better known as the New York Public Interest Group-has taken umbrage at the way in which the Save New York coalition has organized itself: "The group is organized as a not for profit, which under the rules, does not have to disclose donors. As long as it's not actively endorsing specific legislation, it also does not have to register as a lobbying entity with the state ethics panel. But government reform groups questioned that status. Blair Horner, with the New York Public Interest Research Group, says the committee, is raising and spending millions of dollars, with the intent of promoting the specifics of the governor's agenda, it's website provides a link to e-mail state legislators, and it's even hired a lobbyist. "If you walk like a duck and you quack like a duck, it's a duck," said Horner."

Let's clear the air on this. The idea that NYPIRG should arrogate to itself the mantle of reform is as credible as the group's claim-embedded in the organization's name-to be speaking in the public interest. In reality, the groups has a distinctively liberal and anti-business agenda that serves some interests but abjures others-and in our thirty years of observing these folks we have never, that's never as in nunca, advocated on behalf of business-any business.

Now, we are not saying-as the oft and wrongly quoted Charles Wilson of GM once said-that was is good for GM is naturally also good for America. But we also believe that somewhere embedded in the concept of  public interest, is the idea that business prosperity is at the very least a contributing factor to its achievement. So, NYPIRG's haughty expropriation of the term, given its hostility to commerce of any kind, is an affront-and the media should be wary of categorizing the group as anything but a liberal interest organization.

The NY Post captures this in its editorial today-and hits at NYPIRG"s hypocrisy in attacking the SNY committee as well: "So the committee's enemies -- backed by an ostensible voice of reform, the New York Public Interest Research Group, and other so-called good-government groups -- are muttering about a supposed unholy secret alliance between the new governor and the business community. "It appears that they are coordinating with the governor and they are doing this to help the governor and maybe even at the request of the governor," complained NYPIRG's Blair Horner. "We don't know who's involved in this." Actually, much more is known about who's involved in the Committee to Save New York than about who funds NYPIRG -- which isn't required to disclose its funding sources, and doesn't."

And we have a glimmer of an idea that NYPIRG's sticklishness over SNY's disclosures can actually be traced to the "reform" group's hostility to both SNY's and the governor's agenda. As the Post points out: "But the larger issue isn't who's financing efforts to aid Cuomo in his bid to bring New York's runaway spending and taxes under control -- it's who's already busy organizing to fight him. Polls suggest the public strongly supports the governor's efforts. But the special interests spend millions every year fighting responsible state government; this year will be no different. Which is why Cuomo needs -- and deserves -- all the help he can get."

In our view-and it reflects the views of most New Yorkers-the public interest would be served if NY State did a 180 on its current path to bankruptcy. Instead of hectoring SNY, Mr. Horner should tell us all where NYPIRG stands on the governor's reform agenda-and at the same time, tell us where its own funding comes from, and how it decides what issues it feels are in the public interest.

Put simply, NYPIRG has no right to camouflage its particular special interests under a good government and public interest cloak. Once it discloses its own agenda, funding and biases, than the group can wax eloquent on transparency in government. Until it does, however, silence would be appreciated-and, in the interim, little Blair Horner should sit in a corner.

Retail Politics, Wholesale Questions

City Hall newspaper has an article on the inner workings of the political debate over Walmart: "For all the City Council's complaints and protests about Wal- Mart's plans to open a store within the five boroughs, Wal-Mart could break ground tomorrow as long as it finds a site that is properly zoned—hardly a problem in retail-friendly New York."

Not exactly, unless you want to include a whole host of Little Wallies into the equation. After all, an as-of-right site for a 180,000 square foot supercenter is not easy to find-and developers, aside from perhaps Related, are loath to enter into this no man's land where they could become persona non grata.

As Stuart Appelbaum points out, however, Related is taking a risk: "RWDSU president Stuart Appelbaum said that he was particularly concerned by Related. The developer has said it is exploring opportunities with Wal-Mart, though Appelbaum insists that Council Member Charles Barron was promised that Wal-Mart would not be a tenant at the Gateway II mall—one possible site that the retail giant is exploring—when Barron's East New York district was rezoned for the development in 2009. "I think that people generally don't trust people who have lied to them," Appelbaum said. "And for anyone who facilitates bad players coming into New York City, we'll be sure to notify the general public."

And the anti-Walmart coalition is looking for ways to throw a monkey wrench into Walmart's expansion plans: "With the many technicalities written into city land use law, Council members could make life increasingly difficult for targeted developers. Those within the anti-Wal-Mart campaign say that they would ask more people to look at the example of Council Member Gale Brewer, who has often used the rules to stop or slow development she opposes from coming into her Upper West Side district."

But the biggest obstacle for Big Wally is Speaker Quinn: "Christine Quinn has been a clear and vocal opponent of the chain's entry to New York City. Even Council members facing intense pro-Wal-Mart pressure in their districts would likely steer clear of support, for fear of crossing the speaker."

Assuming, of course, that there is this intense local pressure for the retail giant-something we remain, shall we say, quite skeptical of. Than there is another rather risible angle that Walmart is playing: "People involved in the pro-Wal-Mart effort acknowledge that overcoming this factor may prove the biggest challenge, and one tactic that is already being employed is pushing the idea that the locally-grown produce sold at the stores would fit perfectly with Quinn's new food policy push."

Oh, please! Walmart's entry into NYC would-as we have pointed out-reduce the availability of fresh produce in so-called undeserved areas. We can't wait for the opportunity to rebut this nonsense if the Walmart toadies have the nerve to advance it.

One argument that has intrigued us, is the comparison of Walmart with other box store retailers. On balance, we take the position that the proliferation of these stores is not a net benefit to the city-for the very same reasons that we oppose the Walmonster. City Hall captures this in its discussion of an East Harlem project: "Community groups that opposed the project now say it has ruined the character of the neighborhood, killing small businesses and increasing traffic. Promises by the big-box stores to give 60 percent of all jobs to local residents in the first year have also not been met, according to Marina Ortiz, head of East Harlem Preservation."

That being said, the idea is to preserve balance-and not everything that benefits small business alone is necessarily good for the city. It is, however, the danger of proliferation and over saturation that we should all be concerned with-and the Walmonster's plan would mean just that. If they come, they will come with their legions and, like the Mongols of old, will leave a scorched earth with the carcasses of the city's neighborhood retailers. This is why we fight as hard as we do.

Tracking Mike Bloomberg

CM Peter Vallone has followed through on his threat to tag the mayor's whereabouts whenever he leaves town. As CBS 2 reports: "Now, City Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. is introducing a bill to demand that the mayor notify people whenever he leaves the city. The bill would also designate a deputy and require the individual to remain in the city in the mayor’s absence. “I think it’s important that we know who’s in charge at all times,” Vallone told Kramer. Vallone said he was especially concerned about a terrorist attack and alluded to problematic lines of communication during 9/11. “We can’t spend one second trying to figure out who’s in charge,” Vallone said.

When pressed further, Bloomberg insisted that he was the man in charge at all times."

Sure, except during snowstorms in December, we guess. But it's time that all of Bloomberg's shucking and ducking was stopped cold: "Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Saturday schedule said “no public events,” and on Sunday he had a pre-taped radio address. But where was the mayor this weekend and who was in charge during his absence? Bloomberg deflected that question posed by CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer on Monday during a news conference. “I was in charge of the city and in terms of public events, I will give you the phone number of Stu Loeser. He has the public schedule. He’ll be happy to tell you what’s on it,” Bloomberg said."

This is no longer tolerable behavior after we have seen first hand what happens when the city is rudderless in a crisis-and let's credit El Diario's Gerson Borrerro for first pointing out the terrorist concerns (subsequently cribbed by the Daily News' Michael Daley). And the following exchange between the mayor and Marcia Kramer should seal the Vallone deal-and the mayor should be forced to wear a GPS ankle monitor given his arrogant attitude:

"Kramer: Don’t you think that the public has a right to know whether you’re in charge. Who’s in charge?

Bloomberg: I told you miss that I’m in charge.

Kramer: Peter Vallone says…

Bloomberg: I don’t know what Peter Vallone says, you should talk to Peter Vallone.

Kramer: In times of a terrorist attack…when cell phones go down and when electronics go down, they have the right to know someone who’s in charge.

Bloomberg: The mayor was in charge all the time."

All of which throws the ball into the council speaker's court. We'll give CBS the last word: "Now the question may be whether the mayor is able to prevent the Vallone bill from ever coming up for a vote."

Fraudulent Calorie Posturing

We have been inveighing against menu labeling ever since the execrable NYC health commissioner, Tom Frieden introduced the cockamamie scheme. And as the evidence continues to pile in, we find that there is even less reason to like the idea-mainly because it doesn't work! CNN has the latest on this: "Posting calories on menus has little effect on what customers buy, according to a recent study. Customers at TacoTime (a western Washington chain)  who read how many calories are in their chimichangas, burritos and tacos on the restaurant's menu were just as likely to order them as people who don’t have that information. For 13 months, researchers recorded food purchases at seven suburban TacoTimes and seven inside Seattle, Washington. Seattle passed a law requiring that all fast food chains post their calories, fat and sodium content to the menus in 2009."

Not even a little bit of an effect: "Once the law went into effect, public health researchers in Seattle  and researchers from Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School compared what people were buying at TacoTimes inside and outside the city. Contrary to their hypothesis, “We found no difference,” said lead author Eric Finkelstein.  “We looked at the variables – the transactions, total calories per transaction, food, dessert, entrees. We weren’t able to find any effect whatsoever.”

As the CNN report goes on to point out, this result isn't a shock-because, as have said many times, the current obesity epidemic is coterminous with the inception of nutritional labeling on packaged food: "This may not be totally surprising. After all, obesity rates have continued to soar after pre-packaged foods were required to carry nutritional content, said Finkelstein, an associate professor of health services at Duke-National University of Singapore. Similar studies about calorie counts in menus have found either small, marginal effects or no difference at all."

Does this deter the nanny bureaucrat? Not at all-and the failure of the experiment will not stop this silly notion from becoming part of ObamaCare: "Regardless, nationwide changes are coming. The health care reform bill, passed last year,  requires fast food chains to post their nutritional information on menus.  The FDA’s rules on for this are due in March."

So there you have it-just as we predicted when Frieden and the NYC Board of Health foisted this on fast food operators. Like so many expansions of government, failure doesn't act as a deterrent-and the negative impact on businesses are simply sloughed off because the idea seems to be so good. And what it means on the local level, is not skinnier fast food customers, but fatter bureaucrats-gorging themselves on minute violations of the menu labelling law in order to further engorge the government Leviathan.

Supporting Cuomo

The NY Times has an interesting story on the Save NY Coalition-and it's putative ties to the governor: "When television advertisements criticizing state government began to appear across New York last week, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo seemed anything but displeased. After all, the group paying for the advertisements, known as the Committee to Save New York, shared many of the governor’s broad goals, like reining in runaway spending and capping local property taxes, and its Web site even included a link to video of his recent State of the State address."

The group even has the governor's blessing-unsurprising since their aims appear to be meshing: "I encourage people to join that group,” Mr. Cuomo said Thursday, after speaking to an audience in Jamestown, N.Y., about his plans for the year. “I encourage people today to speak up.” But he has more than a passing familiarity with the committee. It was organized at his urging, after a series of meetings last spring and summer at which the then-candidate pressed business leaders to take a more aggressive role in Albany."

At the same time, there still remains an inherent weakness in this collaboration-and in some ways, the governor's close ties to the group can be both a strength and a weakness. It obviously helps to have the governor's back-especially one who is currently cruising with a 70% approval rating. At the same time, it creates a degree of incestuousness that can-if not remedied-dilute the SNY coalition's effectiveness.

The reason that the ties to Cuomo can be a drawback, lies with the perception that there is a lack of true civic spirit and independence-and gives opponents the opportunity to attack the coalition, made up initially by well heeled real estate interests, as the apotheosis of the special interests. In turn, the ability of the opposition to do this, hurts the governor as well.

And right on cue, the opposition comes out firing: "Those skeptical of Mr. Cuomo’s agenda, however, chafe at the implication that they — and not the governor’s well-financed allies — should be branded “special interests.”  “When did the real estate industry and Wall Street become the people who are going to save New York?” said Billy Easton, executive director of the Alliance for Quality Education, which supports higher spending on schools. “I don’t think that anybody who’s a voter in New York is going to buy into the idea that these guys are going to spend $10 million because they’re worried about what’s going to happen to average New Yorkers.”

The problem here lies with branding-and the need to educate New Yorkers that in the case of Albany, the special interests are those forces that have been the foundation for the growth of an uncontrolled expansion of government; with a concomitant rise in taxes and restrictive regulations. But not only that-it also needs to be forcefully dramatized that this government expansion has been at the expense of economic growth in NY State.

For this effort to gain traction, SNY needs to expand its own base and scope of action-and its board should be more reflective of a wider range of business and community interests. If this happens, than SNY can become transcendent-and truly reflective of the real working families of New York.

According to the Times, SNY's head Kathy Wylde has been trying to create an effective state wide business lobbying force-and this is a long over due phenomenon: "We have been working with economic development and business groups across the state for the past three years to try and forge a statewide strategy for economic growth,” said Ms. Wylde, the president of the Partnership for New York City, a coalition of financial, real estate and other senior business leaders in the city."

We applaud the effort and hope that it can be an effective counterbalance to the public sector unions on tax and spending issues. That being said, absent the grass roots diversity we talked about above, SNY will be in danger of being stigmatized by the WFP and its allies as simply a class-based special interest-unless it can attract a diverse small business constituency that is poised to join with it, and the governor, to return a degree of sanity, and smaller government, to Albany.

It would also be important if the coalition can reach out to the various tax payer and homeowner groups across the state to give its message a true grass roots resonance. There is no question, as Bill Hammond points out this morning in the NY Daily News, that the governor has the power to force the legislature to comply with his agenda-but it is the ability of SNY to organize at the grass roots level that will allow the governor to accomplish this without being eaten by the usual pirhana suspects.

We'll give the Post editorialists and the governor himself the last word: "Cuomo is making clear that he can succeed only with strong public support. "My voice only resonates when I have you behind me," he said in a follow-up speech at a college auditorium in Watertown. "You want the Legislature to change? You tell the Legislature."

Walmart and the Theater of the Absurd

Andrea Peyser had another laudatory look at the Walmonster in yesterday's NY Post-and claims that fears of the retail giant's impact are, "absurd."  Peyser's starting point is the speculation that there may be a site for Big Wally on Flatbush Avenue: "It's a rumble in Brooklyn. Word spread rapidly through the borough last week, like rats scampering through a subway car. The place was to be invaded. Were interlopers spreading violence? Or had slumming celebrities trained their sights on our shores? Not quite. This incursion was by forces far more sinister. Walmart."

Jeepers! Conflating a rumor in the Brooklyn Paper into an international incident: "On Monday, The Brooklyn Papers reported that the giant purveyor of discount orange juice and underwear six-packs was to open a massive store in a new development on the fringes of Flatbush Avenue near Kings Plaza, spreading jobs, bargains and -- if you believe carping critics -- pain. By Tuesday, word spread like a cancer to blogs and the mainstream media."

Except for the fact that, well, she hasn't got a handle on the facts-or on the purported high decibel level of fear that she somehow senses where none exists: "Tuesday night, an emergency meeting was scheduled so local officials might run Walmart out of town. "I don't know what the idea is," said Dorothy Turano, district manager of Community Board 18. "We could wake up one morning and find a Walmart there." The hearing was pushed back, due to snow. The next day, a spokesman for Forest City Ratner denied his company met with Walmart about opening a store in its planned Four Sparrows Retail Center."

So, let's set the record straight. The meeting that Peyser is hyperventilating about-as we said last week-was little more than a scoping session for the development, and no one believes that a Walmart will be able to navigate through this development process without getting thoroughly bitch slapped by the local board and the city council. But to her credit-and to that of her extrasensory perception-Peyser sees hysteria where none can be found.

But what of Peyser's sensing of a lunacy afoot in NYC? Here's what she tells us: "Is Walmart coming? From the hysterical reaction, you'd think the Evil Empire was about to swallow the city whole. Yet the chain has not announced a single project within the five boroughs. And still, official opposition to the retailer, already in the danger zone, has risen to lunatic levels."

This, "there's nothing to see here," attitude elides the fact that the Walmonster has been spending millions of propaganda dollars on advertising its supposed benefits to NYC-and has hired a team of consultants ands neighborhood booty capitalists. And, let's not forget, that Walmart's corporate spokespeople have already put the bull's eye on this town for the company's next great expansion effort.

In our view, it is a form of grotesque pandering for Peyser to troll East New York looking for out of work folks-and then ask them about their view of the store: "In a park in East New York, a long Town Car drive from Manhattan, I met a dad who watched his kids. Last year, he was out of work 12 months. Now it's going on 24. To him, Walmart is not just a store. It's the chance for a new life. "We need jobs," said Malik Johnson, a laid-off laborer. "I'd work at Walmart in a heartbeat."

It's heartbreaking to hear about anyone who has been out of work and struggling in this economy-but asking them about how they would feel about a potential job opening, is what we would call a self fulfilling prophecy. Better to ask Louis Hernandez's workers at the Pioneer Supermarket on Pennsylvania Avenue, or the workers at Shopper's World on Pitkin Avenue.

But Peyser can't quite see the threat-and pooh poohs the Chicago study done that demonstrated that the Walmonster takes more jobs a way than it provides: "Why the hostility? Public Advocate Bill de Blasio last week released studies that he said showed -- aha! -- that for every two jobs Walmart brings into a community, three are lost. But if you look at the numbers, you'll see the conclusion is a crock. One much-cited 2007 report by professors, led by David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, is "full of a ton of caveats," said a source sympathetic to Walmart.

Gee, and she didn't ask us what we felt about the study-a report that has much more credibility than the Walmart push poll that Peyser's employer shamelessly has shilled. But Peyser believes that Walmart will-contrary to the documented experience all over the country-bring more stores into an area: "Translate that mouthful into English, and the same study that "proves" Walmart's a job killer suggests the opposite may be true. You see, when a Walmart opens, it draws new stores into the area. The result is that people get jobs. Perhaps in other industries, such as construction and hospitality. But don't ask me. Ask the dang study."

Better yet, ask the professors when they come to testify at the city council hearing next month But let's be real, Walmart has been littering the roadsides of America with the carcasses of local business for the past three decades-and, as far as other stores being enticed in when Walmart comes to town, they are more of the chain stores that are sucking the life out of independent businesses that really make the most positive contribution to a local economy.

In the end, it isn't absurd to be afraid of Walmart-on Flatbush Avenue, or anywhere else in NYC. The fact that Peyser can quote a Walmart booty capitalist and sycophant from Chicago with a straight face about this issue, says it all about her perspective-and why oversight and independent studies are so desperately needed: "Or ask Chicago Alderman Emma Mitts. "If I could have another store today, I'd get me another store today," she said on a video posted online. "Because people need jobs. "You have a big-box retail, and other, smaller stores are gonna come around and give you an economic engine, " Mitts said."

Walmart as an economic engine for small business? Only in Chicago could this nonsense be passed off as received wisdom-or on the fair and balanced pages of the NY Post.

Playing "Knuckles" With the Daily News

For those of who who have ever played "knuckles" you know it can be really painful at times-but not as painful, in our view, as reading the "Knucklehead Awards" from the NY Daily News. The paper's latest effort at buffoonery is directed at CM Eric Ulich who had the effrontery to suggest that it was time that the city cracked down on out of control, cyclists.

The News calls this suggestion, "silly," and goes on to say: "We're sorry to report that forcing bicyclists, as we said in 2004, "to get licenses for a legal activity, and, of course, pay a nice fee for the privilege, and, of course, build a bureaucracy to keep track of the paperwork" is just dumb. It is also part and parcel with a feeling, epidemic among lawmakers, that the Council can legislate away every inconvenience."

Of course, a little context here would be helpful-and the News, providing none, misses the rising anger out in the nabes over the uncontrolled bicycle phenomenon. As Ulrich told the NY Post: "Ulrich says that many of his constituents are seniors and that "people on bicycles scare the hell out of them. Sometimes they can be an intimidating presence on the city streets."

The larger context, however, is the effort by the city's ditsy DOT commissioner, Sadik-Khan, to shove bicycle lanes down every neighborhoods throat in order to replicate the ambiance of, let's say, Copenhagen. The Post has more on this stupidity: "Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan said creating a more bike-friendly city means fewer cars on the road, safer streets and more New Yorkers engaged in healthy activity. But some residents said they feel their streets have been invaded. “What has been created is nothing less than a nightmare,” said Brooklyn resident Lois Carswell, who lives on a main thoroughfare in Brooklyn where a two-way bike lane has drawn heated debate since its recent installation."

So, in our view, this is a serious policy issue-and the true knucklehead is Sadik-Khan, along with her boss, who wants to change the way the city commutes without the benefit of either legislation or environmental oversight, And the commissioner is a flat out hypocrite at the same time. When Willets Point United demonstrated that the traffic studies for that development severely underestimated the number of car and truck trips a day-and NYS DOT responded appropriately with some caution-the Sadik fired off threatening messages to the state for slowing down the one project that will generate massive auto and truck trips on the city's local roads and highways.

In this two-faced attitude, she joins with Knucklehead Bloomberg who is foisting auto-dependent malls on neighborhoods all over the city-and is now fronting for Walmart as well, the ultimate auto-dependent retailer. Put simply, Bloomberg's malling of the city has done more to undermine the notion of sustainability that any crack pot bicycle lane scheme can hope to remedy. And CM Ulrich is a knucklehead? Try the News editorialists and the mayor their covering up for-they are the ones that deserve a hard rap on the knuckles.

Black Humor

It would be hard to imagine that Mike Bloomberg, in selecting a schools chancellor, could find someone more out of touch with the folks than even he himself is-but in Cathie Black he may just have found that special someone.

As the NY Daily News reports, the chancellor's improv comedy isn't going over well wiith the commoners: "Schools Chancellor Cathie Black joked that there's a simple solution to overcrowding in lower Manhattan - birth control. "Could we just have some birth control for a while?" Black said Thursday night. "It would really help us." Black earned chuckles for the joke at an overcrowding task force meeting, but downtown parents say the growing population of youngsters is no laughing matter. "I always cringe when I hear that (joke)," said Public School 234 parent Tricia Joyce. "I understand the temptation to joke about it. But our situation isn't funny any more."

Yes indeed, that's what we need-jokes about eugenics that remind us of some of the racist underpinnings of the work of Margaret Sanger. As one commentator points out: "Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood, the leading organization advocating abortion in the United States today. Darwinism had a profound influence on her thinking, including her conversion to, and active support of, eugenics. She was specifically concerned with reducing the population of the ‘less fit’, including ‘inferior races’ such as ‘Negroes.'"

The NY Post also weighs in on the controversy: "Now that's Black humor. Less than two weeks into her new gig, Schools Chancellor Cathie Black has riled parents and public officials by jokingly suggesting that "birth control" was the solution to school overcrowding. The off-color quip came in response to concerns by public-school dad Eric Greenleaf, who said at a meeting of parents and officials at state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's downtown office that there will be "huge shortages" of classroom space in lower Manhattan in coming years. "Could we just have some birth control for a while?" Black cracked. "It could really help us all out a lot."

Black went on to compound her foot in mouth disease: "Joyce was also upset that Black compared weighing the needs of different schools to the movie "Sophie's Choice." "As we all know, one child dies (in the movie). This isn't optional," Joyce added. "We have a right to a public school seat."

Of course, as a number of elected officials and community leaders have pointed out, the problem of school overcrowding may not devolve from the fecundity of the lower orders. As the Post tells us:"Some who were at the meeting said Black's levity was especially inappropriate given that she was addressing a community whose complaints about the scarcity of public-school seats has for years seemed to fall on deaf ears. They said they came to hear solutions, not stand-up comedy. "Those kinds of comments show a lack of understanding of what parents are going through," said Julie Menin, chair of Community Board 1. "The parents I spoke with after the meeting were very concerned about the comments she made because we're grappling with real issues."

And what may those, "real issues," be? Well, for starters, the failure of the current school governance regime to adequately address the overcrowding issue-allowing developers to build more housing with no provision for schools. You might remember that the underlying community issue in the Bronx, when the fate of the Kingsbridge Armory was being debated early on, was the need for class room space. Instead the community got malled-or, at least malling was attempted.

As the News points out: "The problem, parents and advocates charge, is that the city offered incentives to developers to build without also increasing school seats." And the News' Michael Daley agrees-and sees Black as an absolute disaster: "We are instead left with a chancellor in the oldest sense, a title rooted in the Latin "cancellarius," originally a doorkeeper or porter. That, in turn, derives from "cancellus," the latticework over a window or entryway." Ouch!

The Post grasps just how damaging the Black faux pas really are-with its, "Put a lid on it Cathie," editorial: "Now, we don't think that the chancellor finds her students a burden, or thinks there are too many forgotten urchins in her schools. But the circumstances of her ascension to the chancellorship were such that she has zero margin for error. It's inexcusable for her to make jokes where birth rates -- always a sensitive issue among minority parents -- are the underlying punch line. And if Black wants to compare overcrowded city schools to packed-in Nazi cattle cars, she may very well be in the wrong line of work."

As many of us have said. The Post goes on to say that Black is giving aid and comfort to her enemies: "Certainly she needs to come to terms with the stark fact that, ex officio, she acquired many, many enemies when she became chancellor. They want her to fail, and they will do everything in their power to harm her and, by extension, her principal -- Mayor Bloomberg. Black has just given them much aid and comfort, unnecessarily so. The chancellor truly needs to watch her words in the future."

Her words, however, bespeak of a particular mindset-one of a woman who is ill suited for the role that the mayor chose for her. It's hard to see this situation getting any better.

Cuomo's Road Trip

Governor Cuomo, walking the walk of his election talk, went out last week and barnstormed for his low tax, small government agenda. The NY Times reported: "Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo leaned forward at the lectern, his gaze hardening on the audience in front of him, his right arm jutting forward, his forefinger extended like a spear. For a half-hour on Thursday, he chronicled the ills of Albany: the taxes that were crippling businesses and driving away residents, and the politicians too corrupt to care."

He then proceeded to lay the burden for change right where it should belong-on the people themselves: "It changes,” Mr. Cuomo said, “when you make it change.” His finger wagged. The audience clapped. His voice rose. “You know why it hasn’t changed for 20 years?” he asked. “Because you haven’t insisted on it.” He added, “It didn’t change because you let them get away with it.”

Cuomo is right-people do get the government that they deserve-but change does need the kind of catalyst that the governor wants to provide. However, even a catalyst needs the proper ingredients so that an effective chemical reaction can be achieved. So far, the right reagents are still not in place-and speeches by the governor, as he himself admits, won't be nearly enough: "My voice only resonates when I have you behind me,” Mr. Cuomo told about 300 people who crowded into the college’s cafeteria. “You want that Legislature to change?” he added. “You tell the Legislature.”

Michael Goodwin at the NY Post also sees this our way: "The plans are a tough sell, with many lawmakers mere puppets of public unions and other feeders at the government trough. Enter Cuomo’s business allies, the Committee to Save New York, which is spending millions to run that ad across the state. It’s a good start, but money alone won’t be enough to get results. An engaged public is the key.

 

Now in the thirty years we have been doing grass roots organizing and lobbying, we have made some pretty good speeches-and have been recognized for being an A-1 rabble rouser. What we have learned, however, that good pep talks only go so far-and where we have been most successful has been in communities that are well organized with a strong local civic voice. So, what the governor is missing is the infrastructure to promote the kind of change that he envisions.

In many ways, Cuomo is still a general without an army-and we can see the weakness in this approach from the following: "Mr. Cuomo has made clear that he might try to turn voters against uncooperative lawmakers, offering on Friday his sharpest warning yet when discussing his desire to overhaul ethics laws he said the Legislature did not support. “I’ll tell you this in front of your assemblywoman, and I’ll tell you this in front of your senator: they don’t want to pass it,” Mr. Cuomo said. “And if they don’t pass it, I’m going to remind the people of this state constantly that the Legislature hasn’t passed it, and I wonder why. What aren’t they telling you?”

Won't work. What's needed are boots on the ground-which is exactly what the governor's opponents have plenty of. The forces that are massing to oppose Cuomo's agenda will be well financed and galvanized-because what he is proposing is a dire threat to their vital self interests: "Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in Jamestown, N.Y., on Thursday. In appearances there, and in Watertown on Friday, Mr. Cuomo stressed bipartisanship and again brought up the dominant pro-business, anti-tax, anti-spending themes of his State of the State address."

You're talking people's livelihoods here-jobs, pensions, health benefits. The political scientist Robert Dahl once said that, "intense minorities tend to overwhelm apathetic majorities." Unless the governor can find a way to truly catalyze the majority-and create an infrastructure that would counteract that of the public employee unions-he won't be able to effect the kind of change that he would like to see.

Cuomo ended his speech last week with a reference to the battleship slide that he used in his State of the State message: "While Mr. Cuomo had customized some of the PowerPoint slides from the State of the State address for the local audiences, he kept intact the most memorable one, which depicted Mr. Cuomo; Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker; and Dean G. Skelos, the Senate majority leader, atop battleships passing in the night, a purported representation of the dynamic in Albany in recent years. On Thursday, however, Mr. Cuomo added a brief editorial comment — and one that might also serve as a bit of foreshadowing for the months to come.
“You notice how I have the biggest battleship,” he said, drawing laughs from the crowd. “That,” he added, “is a factual representation.”

Maybe so. But Cuomo should be cognizant of the fact that, while he may be the big battleship, the other sides will be resorting to submarine warfare. A more thoughtful battle plan is needed to truly engage New York's tax payers and small businesses.  They are primed, but not yet ready to fight. What's missing is the grass roots activism that has enlivened American politics all over the country-except in New York.