Nicole Gelinas has one of her usual trenchant analyses of the mayor's budget in the NY Post today, and the education numbers jumped out at us: "This year, city spending jumped 11.5 percent -- even though some departments (including police, fire, sanitation and parks) will see their operations spending fall. Why? First, there's education. The city's own-funds spending on the schools will rise by a whopping 22.8 percent this year -- from $6.4 billion to $7.9 billion. That's because Albany is yanking $1 billion here -- even as the feds, done with stimulus, are pulling back $900 million. But that's a risk that Bloomberg took. This year, New York will spend $22 billion on education from federal, state and city funds -- up from $11.6 billion when the mayor took office."
The NY Post editorialists also weigh in on this today-going after the Bloomberg beg for $600 million from the state: "For one thing, Cuomo didn't cut $600 million in local aid to the city. The money wasn't in last year's state budget, and Bloomberg's claim on it is vaporous. Second, the mayor's budgeteers found enough local cash to fund a 12 percent hike in locally funded spending -- from $44.8 billion to $49.9 billion. This stands in sharp contrast with Cuomo's proposed 10 percent cut in state operating outlays."
And then there's the education outlay specifically: "Even with the proposed teacher layoffs, the Department of Education's budget stands to go up by more than $1.8 billion -- having soared nearly 50 percent since he took office, largely on the basis of a 16,000-plus increase in the number of education employees and dramatically higher teacher salaries and benefits."
Which brings us to the point that we have been making for quite some time-in all of the discussion of the mayor's educational achievements, as it were, there has been little in the way of any attempt to do a cost/benefit analysis. But there should be, because any of the putative gains that have been made in the last nine years have come at a huge cost-and now we are cutting police and fire budgets for education, adding more fuel to the pressing need for analyzing whether or not we are getting a good bang for all of the spending.
Gelinas provides the numbers: "New York City chose, for example, to hike teacher salaries by nearly 50 percent over the last decade and increase the education workforce by 16,360 people. Today, we spend $17,923 per student -- 69 percent more than Seattle and more than twice as much as Houston. For most of that time, the state helped out with extra money -- but it was always a risk that someday the state would pull back, leaving us holding the bag and with no flexibility to cut salaries or lay off less productive teachers.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Local Outrage at EDC Arrogance
The Queens Chronicle weighs in on the EDC eminent domain switcheroo-covering last week's presser out at Willets Point: "On one of the coldest days of winter, members of Willets Point United came out in full force Thursday, expressing their anger with Mayor Bloomberg over the city’s plan to begin eminent domain proceedings there. The rally was held at the Sunoco gas station at 127-48 Northern Blvd., which marks one of the borders of the city’s $3 billion mixed-use project for the area. Also in attendance at the protest were civic groups, workers and elected officials."
The Chronicle focuses in on a subject that EDC would rather avoid-those troublesome ramps off of the Van Wyck: "In order to accommodate the large amount of traffic, the city said it must build two ramps for the expressway before work can begin. The state and federal government must first approve the ramps, but that has not happened yet. However, the city still plans to proceed with the construction."
EDC, for its part, would have done well in the old Soviet Union-where the rewriting of history was done on a daily basis. Here's agency flack Julie Woods doing her realistic Pravda imitation: "Julie Wood, spokeswoman for the Economic Development Corp., said last week the project has evolved over the years and is now going to be done in phases and the first part does not require approval of the ramps."
That, of course, is a bold faced lie-and contradicts sworn court testimony from the former deputy mayor. Out to Lunch Lieber. State Senator Avella hones in on this outrage: "State Sen. Tony Avella, (D-Bayside) said he is displeased with the way the city is treating business owners in Willets Point. Avella, who has supported the WPU since the project was first announced, said it is the American dream to have the opportunity to work, own land and own a business, but the government is taking away the dream from these people. “Once again the EDC has lied,” Avella said, vowing, “Mike Bloomberg and the EDC, we’re gonna fight you. Why the City of New York refuses to listen to common sense is beyond me.”
Juniper Park's Robert Holden went even further: "Protester Robert Holden, the president of the Juniper Park Civic Association in Middle Village, claimed City Hall houses a “gangster government,” that buys elections, and that Mayor Bloomberg needs to be impeached. “They tell us one thing and do another thing,” Holden said."
What some folks tend to lose sight of is the many tenant businesses that will be displaced-and there is no plan to relocate them; another example of EDC duplicity. One of the tenant leaders spoke at the presser: "One person that the government’s eminent domain procedure will affect directly is Marco Neira, the president of the Willets Points Community of Defense. Neira, who has owned an auto repair shop in Willets Point for 22 years, said his life is being ripped out from underneath him. “We feel frustrated,” he said. “The city is lying to us.” He said he and members of Willets Point United are honest, hard-working people who pay taxes and have families, but the government is treating them like “criminals.”
Of course, EDC simply tries to ignore the ramp-ant dishonesty of its actions, but the statement of Ms. Woods lets the cat out of the bag: "The Bloomberg administration is committed to making considerable progress at Willets Point, transforming an area that generations have sought to change and improve into New York’s next great neighborhood. In 2011, we will reach several milestones, including the release of the RFP for the first stage of development, significant regulatory approvals and the beginning of construction of infrastructure that will link this isolated neighborhood to one of the most vibrant parts of Queens.”
Interpreted into English, what this means is that EDC-stymied by an inability to get the approvals for these ramps-is desperate to show progress this year. So desperate that it will violate sworn testimony and environmental protocols that the agency itself had put forth as essential for the development's ability to proceed. And if Woodsy the Owl is so confident about achieving, "significant regulatory approvals," this year, why not wait until you do before condemning property of small land owners?
Her prophecy about being able to start construction of linking infrastructure-if by that she means ramp-is hallucinatory. Don't be surprised if the courts throw this arrogant and lawless bunch back to square one. In a letter to the Ridgewood Ledger, the legendary Ben Haber nails the duplicity:
"An integral part of the Bloomberg administration’s misguided Willets Point project is the use of ramps to and from the Van Wyck Expressway to handle the expected huge increase of vehicular traffic the project will cause. Even without the project the Van Wyck and Grand Central Parkway are currently often clogged. The traffic issue as yet has not been resolved nor approved by the Federal Highway Administration.
Previously, Bloomberg officials have gone on record that no attempt to acquire Willets Point property through the eminent domain procedure law will be made until the Van Wyck ramps have been approved by the FHA. In the typical devious manner in which the Bloomberg administration has proceeded, notwithstanding that the ramp issue is still open, The Wall Street Journal reported Feb. 3 that Seth Pinsky, president of the city Economic Development Corp., threatened to begin condemnation of Willets Point properties last week. Whether this was a fact or just another attempt to intimidate the small business people in the area, I do not know, but clearly it does not comport with good government standards."With the Bloombergistas, good government standards are an oxymoron.
As we told the Chronicle: "Richard Lipsky, the Willets Point United spokesman, said the development will destroy lives and businesses in the area. Lipsky claimed the city and Mayor Bloomberg have left the employers of Willets Point with only one choice, “my way or the highway.” “Don’t lie to property owners,” he added. “The city doesn’t have money to spend on bad dreams. The city will never take property from the fat cats, only the skinny kittens.”
But, alas, when it comes to Willets Point, the dispossessed don't even get the highway-or the ramps that lead to it.
The Chronicle focuses in on a subject that EDC would rather avoid-those troublesome ramps off of the Van Wyck: "In order to accommodate the large amount of traffic, the city said it must build two ramps for the expressway before work can begin. The state and federal government must first approve the ramps, but that has not happened yet. However, the city still plans to proceed with the construction."
EDC, for its part, would have done well in the old Soviet Union-where the rewriting of history was done on a daily basis. Here's agency flack Julie Woods doing her realistic Pravda imitation: "Julie Wood, spokeswoman for the Economic Development Corp., said last week the project has evolved over the years and is now going to be done in phases and the first part does not require approval of the ramps."
That, of course, is a bold faced lie-and contradicts sworn court testimony from the former deputy mayor. Out to Lunch Lieber. State Senator Avella hones in on this outrage: "State Sen. Tony Avella, (D-Bayside) said he is displeased with the way the city is treating business owners in Willets Point. Avella, who has supported the WPU since the project was first announced, said it is the American dream to have the opportunity to work, own land and own a business, but the government is taking away the dream from these people. “Once again the EDC has lied,” Avella said, vowing, “Mike Bloomberg and the EDC, we’re gonna fight you. Why the City of New York refuses to listen to common sense is beyond me.”
Juniper Park's Robert Holden went even further: "Protester Robert Holden, the president of the Juniper Park Civic Association in Middle Village, claimed City Hall houses a “gangster government,” that buys elections, and that Mayor Bloomberg needs to be impeached. “They tell us one thing and do another thing,” Holden said."
What some folks tend to lose sight of is the many tenant businesses that will be displaced-and there is no plan to relocate them; another example of EDC duplicity. One of the tenant leaders spoke at the presser: "One person that the government’s eminent domain procedure will affect directly is Marco Neira, the president of the Willets Points Community of Defense. Neira, who has owned an auto repair shop in Willets Point for 22 years, said his life is being ripped out from underneath him. “We feel frustrated,” he said. “The city is lying to us.” He said he and members of Willets Point United are honest, hard-working people who pay taxes and have families, but the government is treating them like “criminals.”
Of course, EDC simply tries to ignore the ramp-ant dishonesty of its actions, but the statement of Ms. Woods lets the cat out of the bag: "The Bloomberg administration is committed to making considerable progress at Willets Point, transforming an area that generations have sought to change and improve into New York’s next great neighborhood. In 2011, we will reach several milestones, including the release of the RFP for the first stage of development, significant regulatory approvals and the beginning of construction of infrastructure that will link this isolated neighborhood to one of the most vibrant parts of Queens.”
Interpreted into English, what this means is that EDC-stymied by an inability to get the approvals for these ramps-is desperate to show progress this year. So desperate that it will violate sworn testimony and environmental protocols that the agency itself had put forth as essential for the development's ability to proceed. And if Woodsy the Owl is so confident about achieving, "significant regulatory approvals," this year, why not wait until you do before condemning property of small land owners?
Her prophecy about being able to start construction of linking infrastructure-if by that she means ramp-is hallucinatory. Don't be surprised if the courts throw this arrogant and lawless bunch back to square one. In a letter to the Ridgewood Ledger, the legendary Ben Haber nails the duplicity:
"An integral part of the Bloomberg administration’s misguided Willets Point project is the use of ramps to and from the Van Wyck Expressway to handle the expected huge increase of vehicular traffic the project will cause. Even without the project the Van Wyck and Grand Central Parkway are currently often clogged. The traffic issue as yet has not been resolved nor approved by the Federal Highway Administration.
Previously, Bloomberg officials have gone on record that no attempt to acquire Willets Point property through the eminent domain procedure law will be made until the Van Wyck ramps have been approved by the FHA. In the typical devious manner in which the Bloomberg administration has proceeded, notwithstanding that the ramp issue is still open, The Wall Street Journal reported Feb. 3 that Seth Pinsky, president of the city Economic Development Corp., threatened to begin condemnation of Willets Point properties last week. Whether this was a fact or just another attempt to intimidate the small business people in the area, I do not know, but clearly it does not comport with good government standards."With the Bloombergistas, good government standards are an oxymoron.
As we told the Chronicle: "Richard Lipsky, the Willets Point United spokesman, said the development will destroy lives and businesses in the area. Lipsky claimed the city and Mayor Bloomberg have left the employers of Willets Point with only one choice, “my way or the highway.” “Don’t lie to property owners,” he added. “The city doesn’t have money to spend on bad dreams. The city will never take property from the fat cats, only the skinny kittens.”
But, alas, when it comes to Willets Point, the dispossessed don't even get the highway-or the ramps that lead to it.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Timely Observations on Bloomberg's Disappearing Acts
We post the following with some sense of trepidation. We have been hectoring one and all about the need for Mayor Mike Bloomberg to let us peons know when he's leaving town-and now the NY Times endorses the legislation that we had suggested CM Vallone put forward: "Everybody deserves some corner of privacy, even the mayor of New York City. The problem comes when there is a big event — like a Christmas snowstorm — and the mayor has gone away (destination secret) and the deputy mayor is unavailable as well. The president, the governor and other mayors share their travel plans with the public and press. Mayor Michael Bloomberg should do the same. This is too big a city to be left on cruise control."
Or, as Gerson Borrero said on NY1 the other night, if Mike wants his privacy he should resign and we'll all leave him the hell alone. This all goes back, of course, to the mayor's in absentia performance during the Christmas blizzard: "The whole snowstorm mess has come up again because newly released travel logs show the Bloomberg airplane fleet making numerous trips to Bermuda and London and Paris. The mayor has refused to reveal when he has been on board those planes — including the one that went to Bermuda on Christmas Day and returned the next day just before the airports closed."
And the mayor's absence created a leadership vacuum that turned out badly for New Yorkers: "The City Charter says that when the mayor leaves the city’s five boroughs, he can turn the job over to the public advocate, currently Bill de Blasio, (which will never happen) or designate a deputy to take charge. The mayor has designated Deputy Mayor Patricia Harris, and if she is not in town, the job goes to another deputy mayor, Stephen Goldsmith. When the blizzard hit in December, Mr. Goldsmith was in Washington, and it was unclear where Ms. Harris was. As the storm bore down, nobody seemed to have the authority or the willingness to declare a snow emergency, when that obviously was needed to stop people from clogging the streets with private cars."
Which gets us to CM Vallone's suggestion-and may he keep a stiff upper lip on it: "City Councilman Peter Vallone Jr., of Queens, has promised a bill that would require City Hall to inform the public who is in charge while the mayor’s away. But even Mr. Vallone does not say the mayor must tell the city exactly where he is on those weekends. It is no invasion of Mr. Bloomberg’s privacy for him to announce when he leaves the city, where he’s going and exactly who’s in charge while he is away. Mayor of the City of New York is, after all, a public job."
But we have an additional suggestion-even though we do favor Borrero's helpful hint. If the mayor wants to leave town and is undecided about just who should lead in his place, than why not have Watson the Computer lead? He certainly could do no worse than those clueless clowns who couldn't simply say the magic words; snow emergency.
Or, as Gerson Borrero said on NY1 the other night, if Mike wants his privacy he should resign and we'll all leave him the hell alone. This all goes back, of course, to the mayor's in absentia performance during the Christmas blizzard: "The whole snowstorm mess has come up again because newly released travel logs show the Bloomberg airplane fleet making numerous trips to Bermuda and London and Paris. The mayor has refused to reveal when he has been on board those planes — including the one that went to Bermuda on Christmas Day and returned the next day just before the airports closed."
And the mayor's absence created a leadership vacuum that turned out badly for New Yorkers: "The City Charter says that when the mayor leaves the city’s five boroughs, he can turn the job over to the public advocate, currently Bill de Blasio, (which will never happen) or designate a deputy to take charge. The mayor has designated Deputy Mayor Patricia Harris, and if she is not in town, the job goes to another deputy mayor, Stephen Goldsmith. When the blizzard hit in December, Mr. Goldsmith was in Washington, and it was unclear where Ms. Harris was. As the storm bore down, nobody seemed to have the authority or the willingness to declare a snow emergency, when that obviously was needed to stop people from clogging the streets with private cars."
Which gets us to CM Vallone's suggestion-and may he keep a stiff upper lip on it: "City Councilman Peter Vallone Jr., of Queens, has promised a bill that would require City Hall to inform the public who is in charge while the mayor’s away. But even Mr. Vallone does not say the mayor must tell the city exactly where he is on those weekends. It is no invasion of Mr. Bloomberg’s privacy for him to announce when he leaves the city, where he’s going and exactly who’s in charge while he is away. Mayor of the City of New York is, after all, a public job."
But we have an additional suggestion-even though we do favor Borrero's helpful hint. If the mayor wants to leave town and is undecided about just who should lead in his place, than why not have Watson the Computer lead? He certainly could do no worse than those clueless clowns who couldn't simply say the magic words; snow emergency.
Ends and Means at Willets Point
The Flushing Times has an editorial on Willets Point that wonders about the use of eminent domain: "The use of eminent at Willets Point may prove to be legal, but it is also chilling. Don’t get us wrong: At the moment Willets Point is an eyesore, a flooded-out junkyard. It detracts from the ballpark and other facilities in Flushing Meadows Corona Park and is crying out for massive redevelopment. For many reasons we hope that the project can move forward. But it is regrettable the city could not find some way to persuade the holdout property owners to relocate without resorting to eminent domain. It is also the case that many of the problems in Willets Point are the result of the city’s neglect. The roads filled with potholes caused by constant flooding are the city’s responsibility."
We're always a bit bemused by editorial writers who are "torn" about the basic unfairness of certain things-only to support their implementation. In the case of the Flushing Times, it seems that being torn is just a rhetorical device that doesn't signal any real misgivings about what the city is doing to property owners at the Iron Triangle. How could it when the paper never really bothers to dig below the surface, and is content with being fed and mislead by EDC press releases lacking any semblance of truth.
Yes it would be, "nice," if there was another way to,"persuade," the property owners to give up their land-and that goes double when the blight is city-caused. But the paper fails to point out-because it never bothered to ask the owners-that the absence of persuasion wasn't the only thing missing in this land grab. In fact, for over two and one half years many of the 52 remaining property holders have not ever been contacted by EDC to negotiate sales of their land-a gross violation of everything that the agency pledged at hearings on the project before the city council.
It is time for everyone, but particularly the city council that was flim flammed by EDC's misrepresentations in 2008, to take a second look at Willets Point through 2011 eyes-not only because of the current state of the city's collapsed finances; but also because of the egregious failures of EDC to comply with the key environmental provision needed to make the massive development work: approval of ramps off of the Van Wyck.
If we were the editorialists at the Flushing Times and we knew that the city's economic development agency had gone back on so many of its important promises to the city council-promises that were beguiling to the body and enticing to its support-we would not be making fatuous statements like this: "We find ourselves torn. We are enthusiastic about the redevelopment of Willets Point but unenthusiastic about the steps being taken to allow this to happen."
Given the behavior of EDC, and the fact that a massive deception has and continues to take place concerning the fundamental assurances offered by the agency to garner approval for Willets Point, it wouldn't be just the steps being taken that would upset us-it would be the entire development fiasco itself. It is up to the city council to shed some sunlight on the EDC bait and switch at Willets Point.
We're always a bit bemused by editorial writers who are "torn" about the basic unfairness of certain things-only to support their implementation. In the case of the Flushing Times, it seems that being torn is just a rhetorical device that doesn't signal any real misgivings about what the city is doing to property owners at the Iron Triangle. How could it when the paper never really bothers to dig below the surface, and is content with being fed and mislead by EDC press releases lacking any semblance of truth.
Yes it would be, "nice," if there was another way to,"persuade," the property owners to give up their land-and that goes double when the blight is city-caused. But the paper fails to point out-because it never bothered to ask the owners-that the absence of persuasion wasn't the only thing missing in this land grab. In fact, for over two and one half years many of the 52 remaining property holders have not ever been contacted by EDC to negotiate sales of their land-a gross violation of everything that the agency pledged at hearings on the project before the city council.
It is time for everyone, but particularly the city council that was flim flammed by EDC's misrepresentations in 2008, to take a second look at Willets Point through 2011 eyes-not only because of the current state of the city's collapsed finances; but also because of the egregious failures of EDC to comply with the key environmental provision needed to make the massive development work: approval of ramps off of the Van Wyck.
If we were the editorialists at the Flushing Times and we knew that the city's economic development agency had gone back on so many of its important promises to the city council-promises that were beguiling to the body and enticing to its support-we would not be making fatuous statements like this: "We find ourselves torn. We are enthusiastic about the redevelopment of Willets Point but unenthusiastic about the steps being taken to allow this to happen."
Given the behavior of EDC, and the fact that a massive deception has and continues to take place concerning the fundamental assurances offered by the agency to garner approval for Willets Point, it wouldn't be just the steps being taken that would upset us-it would be the entire development fiasco itself. It is up to the city council to shed some sunlight on the EDC bait and switch at Willets Point.
Bloomberg's Fourth Estate Taxed
The Politicker is reporting that more and more of the media is pushing back on the mayor-and we say, it's about time, and welcome aboard the Mom and Pop express: "That the city's political press corps is now answering a mayor who has thrown verbal brickbats their way (he called an Observer reporter a "disgrace"; embarrassed a disabled reporter who was unable to reach a tape recorder which had gone off during a press conference) for close to 10 years with some brickbats of their own is something of a new development. For two terms the Bloomberg administration enjoyed, even seasoned reporters acknowledge, a relatively easy go of it in the press, and an even easier time among the editorial boards."
That's right, the mayor's been on easy street with the press-and it is the dreaded third term blues that has altered the equation to at least some extent. But it's certain reporters who have signalled the change of weather: "There has been a demarcation," said one reporter. "There is a certain sense that Mike Bloomberg's string has run out."The clearest evidence of this, political observers say, is the suddenly negative coverage the mayor has received from two columnists perceived as newsroom weather vanes: Clyde Haberman of The New York Times and Bob McManus of the New York Post. Over the past several years, Mr. Haberman has written various upbeat stories, including "Bloomberg Travels to the Old World In Search of New Ideas" and "Scenes from the Blue Room: A More Flexible Tone is Heard," but last month, the columnist openly wondered whether or not the whiz kids at City Hall were capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Mr. McManus meanwhile wrote recently that the mayor was guilty "of a spectacular failure of field leadership."
As we have also pointed out, when the NY Post, and to a lesser extent the Times, is going after Mike Bloomberg-after touting heavily his third term-we know that things have changed: "And the editorial pages of both papers, which cheered the mayor when he overturned term limits two years ago, have likewise begun to sing a new tune. "Nobody likes Mike these days," wrote the Post, and The Times called the mayor's recent initiative to ban smoking in parks "a civic disaster."
Of course the snowfu was a major catalyst: "The sharpened tone has been seen in the news pages as well. A few years ago, if the mayor was out of town during a snowstorm, the press would have pestered him about it, and then, after some stonewalling, moved on. "Editors sent the signal that they would not back you in a fight with City Hall," said one local political hack. "It became less about getting them and more about getting handouts, and Bloomberg was really effective at getting the press corps to play who likes me best. I think now reporters feel betrayed by their papers."
As they should, since the mayor's achievements have been, charitably, grandly overstated-and the beat reporters have become enraged and engaged, particularly when the snowfu is seen in conjunction with the CityTime scandal. In tandem, these events undermine the myth of the mayor's managerial acumen: "Now, two months after the mayor was AWOL as snowstorm clouds were approaching the city, the press continues to hammer him on his whereabouts, and have shown no sign of letting up."
And the managerial failures themselves, need to be placed in the context of the third term outrage-after all, it was the editorial chorus that claimed we needed the steady Bloomberg hand in a crisis: "Reporters and editors say they first noticed a change after the mayor pushed through his bid to overturn term limits in 2008. The mayor has been assiduously cultivating the city's press barons for years, and they ultimately were the ones who were cheerleaders for the move on their back pages. "Every reporter was freaked out by the term-limit thing, and they got much more critical after that," said one political reporter."
All of which says to us, however, that the fourth estate has a lot of catching up to do-even to the extent of re-evaluating the Bloomberg education effort that was similarly overly hyped by the editorialists. The Bloombergistas, after all, handed out bonuses and crowed from the roof tops about their educational achievements, based on what turned out to be fraudulent test scores (and spent billions more to reach rather meager gains).
So, all we can say once again, is welcome. We suggest that you peruse the website on a wide range of diverse issues-from small business policy and taxation, eminent domain abuse, to all of the crazy health experiments-so that you can begin to see the mayor through a clearer lens. It is the right time for the media to disenthrall itself from the Myth of Mike.
That's right, the mayor's been on easy street with the press-and it is the dreaded third term blues that has altered the equation to at least some extent. But it's certain reporters who have signalled the change of weather: "There has been a demarcation," said one reporter. "There is a certain sense that Mike Bloomberg's string has run out."The clearest evidence of this, political observers say, is the suddenly negative coverage the mayor has received from two columnists perceived as newsroom weather vanes: Clyde Haberman of The New York Times and Bob McManus of the New York Post. Over the past several years, Mr. Haberman has written various upbeat stories, including "Bloomberg Travels to the Old World In Search of New Ideas" and "Scenes from the Blue Room: A More Flexible Tone is Heard," but last month, the columnist openly wondered whether or not the whiz kids at City Hall were capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Mr. McManus meanwhile wrote recently that the mayor was guilty "of a spectacular failure of field leadership."
As we have also pointed out, when the NY Post, and to a lesser extent the Times, is going after Mike Bloomberg-after touting heavily his third term-we know that things have changed: "And the editorial pages of both papers, which cheered the mayor when he overturned term limits two years ago, have likewise begun to sing a new tune. "Nobody likes Mike these days," wrote the Post, and The Times called the mayor's recent initiative to ban smoking in parks "a civic disaster."
Of course the snowfu was a major catalyst: "The sharpened tone has been seen in the news pages as well. A few years ago, if the mayor was out of town during a snowstorm, the press would have pestered him about it, and then, after some stonewalling, moved on. "Editors sent the signal that they would not back you in a fight with City Hall," said one local political hack. "It became less about getting them and more about getting handouts, and Bloomberg was really effective at getting the press corps to play who likes me best. I think now reporters feel betrayed by their papers."
As they should, since the mayor's achievements have been, charitably, grandly overstated-and the beat reporters have become enraged and engaged, particularly when the snowfu is seen in conjunction with the CityTime scandal. In tandem, these events undermine the myth of the mayor's managerial acumen: "Now, two months after the mayor was AWOL as snowstorm clouds were approaching the city, the press continues to hammer him on his whereabouts, and have shown no sign of letting up."
And the managerial failures themselves, need to be placed in the context of the third term outrage-after all, it was the editorial chorus that claimed we needed the steady Bloomberg hand in a crisis: "Reporters and editors say they first noticed a change after the mayor pushed through his bid to overturn term limits in 2008. The mayor has been assiduously cultivating the city's press barons for years, and they ultimately were the ones who were cheerleaders for the move on their back pages. "Every reporter was freaked out by the term-limit thing, and they got much more critical after that," said one political reporter."
All of which says to us, however, that the fourth estate has a lot of catching up to do-even to the extent of re-evaluating the Bloomberg education effort that was similarly overly hyped by the editorialists. The Bloombergistas, after all, handed out bonuses and crowed from the roof tops about their educational achievements, based on what turned out to be fraudulent test scores (and spent billions more to reach rather meager gains).
So, all we can say once again, is welcome. We suggest that you peruse the website on a wide range of diverse issues-from small business policy and taxation, eminent domain abuse, to all of the crazy health experiments-so that you can begin to see the mayor through a clearer lens. It is the right time for the media to disenthrall itself from the Myth of Mike.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Saving Private Enterprise
Liz Benjamin posted yesterday on our relationship with the Committee to Save New York: "Sensitive to the class warfare criticism of its effort to assist Gov. Andrew Cuomo that has emerged in recent weeks, the business-backed Committee to Save New York is trying to diversify its membership by employing the services of a well-know lobbyist for the small business set: Richard Lipsky."
To us, it was important of demonstrate that Governor Cuomo's reform agenda to restore fiscal sanity to New York was something that resonated beyond the upper echelon of the state's business elite-as it certainly does. We have been talking to business groups and local chambers of commerce all over New York, and the response to the Governor's call for the restoration of a business friendly environment has been universally applauded.
We appreciate the kudos from CSNY's Bill Cunningham as well: "He’s got a network of people around the state that have a lot of experience with the taxing policies of the state of New York – the small business guys, people who are trying to make a living running small businesses and they run up against the policies they think make life difficult for them,” Cunnginham explained. “…He’s going to fill that niche for us. He’s helping us sort of activate that network of small business owners.”
What is clear to us is that the policies that slow business growth and impede job development impact more severely on the state's smaller business owners-and this is even more true for the so-called millionaire's tax that would put a real crimp on hiring. And, as the Committee has pointed out: "In fact, 76% of those who pay the tax aren’t even millionaires; they’re small business owners and hard-working middle class families trying to make it inNew York
These are those folks we have labeled the skinny cats. As we told YNN: "I certainly agree with the governor’s agenda and have been blogging consistently, I don’t know how many years, about reducing the size of government,” Lipsky told me. “A lot of my clients – particularly all the small business groups believe the same. I thought it was a natural fit as far as that’s concerned…There have been a lot of ‘fat cat’ attacks. The fact is there’s a lot of skinny kittens that are affected by government regulations and the tax environment in New York.”
As we pointed out yesterday in response to a Times Union Op-ed, the idea that government should be seen as a job generator is to view economic development from a fun house mirror. We need government to do much less-and to extract less from the job generators in the process. The governor has started off on the right foot. Now it is the job of all of us who want to grow New York's economy to support his efforts to make our state a better place to start a business in.
To us, it was important of demonstrate that Governor Cuomo's reform agenda to restore fiscal sanity to New York was something that resonated beyond the upper echelon of the state's business elite-as it certainly does. We have been talking to business groups and local chambers of commerce all over New York, and the response to the Governor's call for the restoration of a business friendly environment has been universally applauded.
We appreciate the kudos from CSNY's Bill Cunningham as well: "He’s got a network of people around the state that have a lot of experience with the taxing policies of the state of New York – the small business guys, people who are trying to make a living running small businesses and they run up against the policies they think make life difficult for them,” Cunnginham explained. “…He’s going to fill that niche for us. He’s helping us sort of activate that network of small business owners.”
What is clear to us is that the policies that slow business growth and impede job development impact more severely on the state's smaller business owners-and this is even more true for the so-called millionaire's tax that would put a real crimp on hiring. And, as the Committee has pointed out: "In fact, 76% of those who pay the tax aren’t even millionaires; they’re small business owners and hard-working middle class families trying to make it in
These are those folks we have labeled the skinny cats. As we told YNN: "I certainly agree with the governor’s agenda and have been blogging consistently, I don’t know how many years, about reducing the size of government,” Lipsky told me. “A lot of my clients – particularly all the small business groups believe the same. I thought it was a natural fit as far as that’s concerned…There have been a lot of ‘fat cat’ attacks. The fact is there’s a lot of skinny kittens that are affected by government regulations and the tax environment in New York.”
As we pointed out yesterday in response to a Times Union Op-ed, the idea that government should be seen as a job generator is to view economic development from a fun house mirror. We need government to do much less-and to extract less from the job generators in the process. The governor has started off on the right foot. Now it is the job of all of us who want to grow New York's economy to support his efforts to make our state a better place to start a business in.
Calorie Counting: A Colossal Waste of Time and Money
City Room put up an unintentionally hilarious post on how teenagers ignore the calorie posting on fast food menus-but what was really funny about the post that was titled, "The Calories Are Listed, but Teenagers Don’t Care," was that teenagers are just one of almost all groups surveyed on this topic who couldn't care one whit about this inane effort to educate the unwashed.
As City Room tells us: "Researchers at New York University have found that calorie-posting in fast-food restaurants has little influence on the foods teenagers order. They found that more than half of the teenagers noticed the calorie postings. A quarter of the teenagers said they were weight-conscious, and 9 percent of the teenagers said the labeling made them buy lower-calorie foods. But when the researchers examined their receipts, they found that the actual calorie counts were the same before and after restaurants began posting calories. Teenagers typically bought food totaling about 725 calories."
But what about others less footloose and fancy free than today's teens? Not much different it seems: "A similar study released in 2009 by some of the same researchers found that 28 percent of adults said they had been influenced by calorie posting. But when the researchers checked receipts, they found that the adults had, in fact, ordered slightly more calories after restaurants began posting calorie counts. The study also looked at parents buying food for their children, and found that their calorie purchases remained the same, about 600 calories, before and after calorie posting."
This is all pretty much what we predicted four years ago when we lashed out against this effort by the Bloombergistas to regulate us all into health-an effort that was fermented over at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a rabid anti-fast food advocacy group. Also pointed out was the fact that the cockamamie calorie counting concept had never ever been subject to a single trial-making the experiment an expensive shot in the dark lacking legitimacy.
In addition, unlike the three year FDA effort to evaluate nutritional package labeling, there was no attempt by the NYC DOH to gauge what impact-if any-the calorie posting would have on the profitability of local fast food franchises. After all, compliance with these regs means that local food outlets will incur considerable extra expenses. The wacky health commissioner, however, simply never cared about this rational weighing of the efficacy of his untested idea.
As a result, we get an unmitigated regulatory failure-another example of how government enacts rules and procedures that seem like good ideas, but end up being wasteful, ineffective, and expensive for small businesses to comply with. The DOH also underestimated the ignorance of the fast food customers-assuming that posting calories would easily be understood and processed: "The vast majority of teenagers — more than 70 percent — said that taste was the most important consideration in their fast-food purchases, followed by cost. The study found that most teenagers underestimated the number of calories they were consuming, some by up to 466 calories."
So, now that we have determined that this entire regulatory scheme is a gigantic waste of time and money, can we look forward to it being rescinded? Not on your life. This has been such a successful failure that it has been incorporated right into the heart of ObamaCare-demonstrating conclusively how nothing succeeds like failure when it comes to a government program
As City Room tells us: "Researchers at New York University have found that calorie-posting in fast-food restaurants has little influence on the foods teenagers order. They found that more than half of the teenagers noticed the calorie postings. A quarter of the teenagers said they were weight-conscious, and 9 percent of the teenagers said the labeling made them buy lower-calorie foods. But when the researchers examined their receipts, they found that the actual calorie counts were the same before and after restaurants began posting calories. Teenagers typically bought food totaling about 725 calories."
But what about others less footloose and fancy free than today's teens? Not much different it seems: "A similar study released in 2009 by some of the same researchers found that 28 percent of adults said they had been influenced by calorie posting. But when the researchers checked receipts, they found that the adults had, in fact, ordered slightly more calories after restaurants began posting calorie counts. The study also looked at parents buying food for their children, and found that their calorie purchases remained the same, about 600 calories, before and after calorie posting."
This is all pretty much what we predicted four years ago when we lashed out against this effort by the Bloombergistas to regulate us all into health-an effort that was fermented over at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a rabid anti-fast food advocacy group. Also pointed out was the fact that the cockamamie calorie counting concept had never ever been subject to a single trial-making the experiment an expensive shot in the dark lacking legitimacy.
In addition, unlike the three year FDA effort to evaluate nutritional package labeling, there was no attempt by the NYC DOH to gauge what impact-if any-the calorie posting would have on the profitability of local fast food franchises. After all, compliance with these regs means that local food outlets will incur considerable extra expenses. The wacky health commissioner, however, simply never cared about this rational weighing of the efficacy of his untested idea.
As a result, we get an unmitigated regulatory failure-another example of how government enacts rules and procedures that seem like good ideas, but end up being wasteful, ineffective, and expensive for small businesses to comply with. The DOH also underestimated the ignorance of the fast food customers-assuming that posting calories would easily be understood and processed: "The vast majority of teenagers — more than 70 percent — said that taste was the most important consideration in their fast-food purchases, followed by cost. The study found that most teenagers underestimated the number of calories they were consuming, some by up to 466 calories."
So, now that we have determined that this entire regulatory scheme is a gigantic waste of time and money, can we look forward to it being rescinded? Not on your life. This has been such a successful failure that it has been incorporated right into the heart of ObamaCare-demonstrating conclusively how nothing succeeds like failure when it comes to a government program
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Regaining City Council Oversight Authority
We have been arguing strenuously about the need for the city council to exercise rigorous oversight over EDC's efforts to change the rules of the game governing development at Willets Point. We made this point three years ago when we questioned the wisdom of the council giving the development agency what basically amounts to a blank check-owing to the fact that, after it gives the city its approval, the council cedes all control over the project to the mayor.
With no developer and no consequent development plan, the council approved, just what exactly did it approve? We don't know what, but what we do know is that the council took itself out of the crucial decision making prematurely-and in the process drastically diminished its key governing responsibility over the land use process.
So, when EDC now alters its direction and contradicts testimony it made before the council concerning the key issues of traffic and eminent domain, the council is left with little more than regrets about what it has squandered-unless it gathers the courage to revisit the approval based on the fact that EDC has essentially created a new development in its Phase I plan.
But the issue of council ceding its authority shouldn't be a shock to anyone who followed the Willets Point debate-and it was an assortment of council members who raised the red flag over the diminution of power that the body was willfully ceding to the mayor. During 2007 and the start of the ULURP in 2008, Council members openly resented that the manner in which EDC chose to proceed with the Willets Point ULURP -- i.e., without any developer presenting itself to the Council, to be vetted together with a specific plan which that developer would be responsible for implementing -- meant that the Council was being expected to cede its final land use authority as specified in the Charter, to EDC and Mayor's Office, who would then select one or more developer firms and a specific project plan, only after the City Council approved just a proxy "master plan," and thereby concluded its role in the process.
The concerns expressed by Council members at the time about this were not incidental, but quite grave. The late Tom White referred to this as an "institutional issue" with implications for the Council's future retention of its power. We excerpt a few of these other prescient comments:
(1) Council Member Thomas White, Chairperson, Economic Development Committee – City Council Economic Development Committee and Land Use Committee Joint Hearing, November 29, 2007:
"After the ULURP procedure is completed, the plan is to issue a Request for Proposal to developers. … This process differs from the usual process in that the City will issue the Request for Proposal only after the ULURP procedure has been completed, as opposed to prior to the ULURP process. This can be seen by some as an encroachment of the Council Land Use authority granted as a result of the 1989 Charter Revision …"
"I think that it would be important for our colleagues, as well as the City, to understand that this is an institutional issue and not a specific issue related to who is for and who is against. The history and the Charter revision section on Land Use states in 1989 that the Supreme Court ruled that the Board of Estimate violated the one person one vote mandate. In response, the new Charter abolished the Board of Estimate and provided for the redrawing of the City Council district lines to increase minority participation on the Council. It also increased the number of members from 35 to 51. The Council was then granted full power over the municipal budget, as well as authority over zoning and Land Use and franchises. Under the 1990 Charter revision, the Council acquired the power to review Land Use issues and approve zoning changes, housing and urban renewal plans, and community development plans, and the disposition of City-owned property. This power gives the Council the most significant voice in the growth and development of the City."
(2) Council Member Melinda Katz, Chairperson, Land Use Committee – City Council Economic Development Committee and Land Use Committee Joint Hearing, November 29, 2007:
"Well, just so it's clear, my issue in the last hearing and this one is clearly that if we do the ULURP process first, it takes the New York City Council out of the process as we move forward. It historically is not done that way. Historically we do the RFP first, the developer is chosen, then you do the ULURP process, and the reason that the community and the Council and the community boards are normally involved in the process, is because we have to vote on it. And, so, what's happening now, and the fear that I have, is that as we move forward and we do the ULURP first, I'm not sure what mechanism will be in place to assure community involvement. And to assure that the project goes forward in a way that makes everyone satisfied."
(3) Council Member Helen Sears – News conference statement, April 9, 2008:
"What we are being asked to do, is to bypass a very key part of the process; allow the certification of what they wish to do, and not do what we have to do to make that certification viable; to have it comply with the law; and move on to another step in the process. Now I ask you: Can any one of you give us a reason why the City Council should give up that major prerogative, which has a major effect on anything future in the development of the City? To give that up, which is a key part of the checks and balances of the government of the City of New York? Any one of you – Can you give me a reason, why? And none of you can, so as a result, you know why we are standing here today. Because when you begin to chip away at what those pieces are that weigh the scales of justice, you begin to chip away at what the rights are of everyone in the City of New York."
(4) City Council Speaker Emeritus Peter Vallone Sr. – City Council Subcommittee on Planning, Dispositions and Concessions Hearing, October 17, 2008:
"It took many, many years for the United States Supreme Court to declare the Board of Estimate unconstitutional and to say that only the City Council, only the City Council, has jurisdiction over land use. And while the Administration may propose, as it does a budget, this Council has to dispose." …
"So now you have a situation where they're asking the Council to say yes, you have land use power, but we will – the Executive Branch – we will make this so much better." …
"I can't believe that the Council would say to the Administration oh, hey, okay, take over. You're – forget our jurisdiction. You take it over 'cause you know better than us."
These are only a few of the comments surrounding this key issue of the cessation of the council's charter mandated authority-but, when read today, they do have a haunting quality to them. Whether its CM Ferreras' concern about a possible Walmart at Willets Point; or former CM, now state senator, Tony Avella's concern about EDC's abuse of eminent domain, it all comes back to the council's fatal decision to write the mayor a blank check in 2008-and, as former CM Katz pointed out, disregarding all land use precedent in the process.
As we have argued, however, the EDC end around Phase I gives the council the opportunity to undo the damage that was done in 2008. It should treat this de novo- from the beginning, as it were. But first an oversight hearing that brings in EDC to explain itself-its thinking and its plans. From there, a demand for a new SEQR review that sees this new phase of EDC's-along with the entire plan-with new eyes. It's not the same world in 2011 as it was when the council wrote the mayor that ill fated check, and there's no reason why it can't cancel it now-legitimately so-for insufficient funds.
With no developer and no consequent development plan, the council approved, just what exactly did it approve? We don't know what, but what we do know is that the council took itself out of the crucial decision making prematurely-and in the process drastically diminished its key governing responsibility over the land use process.
So, when EDC now alters its direction and contradicts testimony it made before the council concerning the key issues of traffic and eminent domain, the council is left with little more than regrets about what it has squandered-unless it gathers the courage to revisit the approval based on the fact that EDC has essentially created a new development in its Phase I plan.
But the issue of council ceding its authority shouldn't be a shock to anyone who followed the Willets Point debate-and it was an assortment of council members who raised the red flag over the diminution of power that the body was willfully ceding to the mayor. During 2007 and the start of the ULURP in 2008, Council members openly resented that the manner in which EDC chose to proceed with the Willets Point ULURP -- i.e., without any developer presenting itself to the Council, to be vetted together with a specific plan which that developer would be responsible for implementing -- meant that the Council was being expected to cede its final land use authority as specified in the Charter, to EDC and Mayor's Office, who would then select one or more developer firms and a specific project plan, only after the City Council approved just a proxy "master plan," and thereby concluded its role in the process.
The concerns expressed by Council members at the time about this were not incidental, but quite grave. The late Tom White referred to this as an "institutional issue" with implications for the Council's future retention of its power. We excerpt a few of these other prescient comments:
(1) Council Member Thomas White, Chairperson, Economic Development Committee – City Council Economic Development Committee and Land Use Committee Joint Hearing, November 29, 2007:
"After the ULURP procedure is completed, the plan is to issue a Request for Proposal to developers. … This process differs from the usual process in that the City will issue the Request for Proposal only after the ULURP procedure has been completed, as opposed to prior to the ULURP process. This can be seen by some as an encroachment of the Council Land Use authority granted as a result of the 1989 Charter Revision …"
"I think that it would be important for our colleagues, as well as the City, to understand that this is an institutional issue and not a specific issue related to who is for and who is against. The history and the Charter revision section on Land Use states in 1989 that the Supreme Court ruled that the Board of Estimate violated the one person one vote mandate. In response, the new Charter abolished the Board of Estimate and provided for the redrawing of the City Council district lines to increase minority participation on the Council. It also increased the number of members from 35 to 51. The Council was then granted full power over the municipal budget, as well as authority over zoning and Land Use and franchises. Under the 1990 Charter revision, the Council acquired the power to review Land Use issues and approve zoning changes, housing and urban renewal plans, and community development plans, and the disposition of City-owned property. This power gives the Council the most significant voice in the growth and development of the City."
(2) Council Member Melinda Katz, Chairperson, Land Use Committee – City Council Economic Development Committee and Land Use Committee Joint Hearing, November 29, 2007:
"Well, just so it's clear, my issue in the last hearing and this one is clearly that if we do the ULURP process first, it takes the New York City Council out of the process as we move forward. It historically is not done that way. Historically we do the RFP first, the developer is chosen, then you do the ULURP process, and the reason that the community and the Council and the community boards are normally involved in the process, is because we have to vote on it. And, so, what's happening now, and the fear that I have, is that as we move forward and we do the ULURP first, I'm not sure what mechanism will be in place to assure community involvement. And to assure that the project goes forward in a way that makes everyone satisfied."
(3) Council Member Helen Sears – News conference statement, April 9, 2008:
"What we are being asked to do, is to bypass a very key part of the process; allow the certification of what they wish to do, and not do what we have to do to make that certification viable; to have it comply with the law; and move on to another step in the process. Now I ask you: Can any one of you give us a reason why the City Council should give up that major prerogative, which has a major effect on anything future in the development of the City? To give that up, which is a key part of the checks and balances of the government of the City of New York? Any one of you – Can you give me a reason, why? And none of you can, so as a result, you know why we are standing here today. Because when you begin to chip away at what those pieces are that weigh the scales of justice, you begin to chip away at what the rights are of everyone in the City of New York."
(4) City Council Speaker Emeritus Peter Vallone Sr. – City Council Subcommittee on Planning, Dispositions and Concessions Hearing, October 17, 2008:
"It took many, many years for the United States Supreme Court to declare the Board of Estimate unconstitutional and to say that only the City Council, only the City Council, has jurisdiction over land use. And while the Administration may propose, as it does a budget, this Council has to dispose." …
"So now you have a situation where they're asking the Council to say yes, you have land use power, but we will – the Executive Branch – we will make this so much better." …
"I can't believe that the Council would say to the Administration oh, hey, okay, take over. You're – forget our jurisdiction. You take it over 'cause you know better than us."
These are only a few of the comments surrounding this key issue of the cessation of the council's charter mandated authority-but, when read today, they do have a haunting quality to them. Whether its CM Ferreras' concern about a possible Walmart at Willets Point; or former CM, now state senator, Tony Avella's concern about EDC's abuse of eminent domain, it all comes back to the council's fatal decision to write the mayor a blank check in 2008-and, as former CM Katz pointed out, disregarding all land use precedent in the process.
As we have argued, however, the EDC end around Phase I gives the council the opportunity to undo the damage that was done in 2008. It should treat this de novo- from the beginning, as it were. But first an oversight hearing that brings in EDC to explain itself-its thinking and its plans. From there, a demand for a new SEQR review that sees this new phase of EDC's-along with the entire plan-with new eyes. It's not the same world in 2011 as it was when the council wrote the mayor that ill fated check, and there's no reason why it can't cancel it now-legitimately so-for insufficient funds.
Willets Point "Holdouts"
The NY Daily News reports on the EDC driven effort to jump start the Willets Point development project: "THE CITY'S attempt to create a blank canvas for its sweeping Willets Point mega-development is set to kick off this week. But holdout landlords and business owners in the gritty industrial zone are vowing not to go without a fight."
Of course, to describe the property owners as, "holdouts," is to view this controversy from the perspective of those who are doing the holdup-using an eminent domain gun at the heads of recalcitrant property owners as a means to, "negotiate." And how is it that folks can be characterized as holdouts if they have yet to be contacted by EDC? Let's refrain from using the language of the oppressor-it becomes an inappropriate defining moment.
Language is very important here-as should be the depiction of the total lack of good faith by the city's development agency in regards to the use of eminent domain: "EDC officials said they have reached a deal with nearly 90% of the landowners in the area designated for the first phase of the project. There are nine holdouts. "As we seek to reach agreements with the nine remaining businesses, we will also begin the legal process that gives us the option to condemn these properties if needed," said EDC spokeswoman Julie Wood.
Of course, to describe the property owners as, "holdouts," is to view this controversy from the perspective of those who are doing the holdup-using an eminent domain gun at the heads of recalcitrant property owners as a means to, "negotiate." And how is it that folks can be characterized as holdouts if they have yet to be contacted by EDC? Let's refrain from using the language of the oppressor-it becomes an inappropriate defining moment.
Language is very important here-as should be the depiction of the total lack of good faith by the city's development agency in regards to the use of eminent domain: "EDC officials said they have reached a deal with nearly 90% of the landowners in the area designated for the first phase of the project. There are nine holdouts. "As we seek to reach agreements with the nine remaining businesses, we will also begin the legal process that gives us the option to condemn these properties if needed," said EDC spokeswoman Julie Wood.
Too Rich For His Blood
There's a wonderfully inapt commentary at the Albany Times Union that goes after Governor Cuomo's campaign to restore fiscal sanity to the state. One Fred LeBrun sees the governor acting as some kind of shill for big business: "Take, for example, Cuomo's latest barnstorming political speech, the budget message. He led off with a most provocative comment that sounded good. He said New York is "functionally bankrupt." What does that mean? We can't pay our bills? We're in receivership? A court-appointed guardian is handling the state's affairs? Of course not. Many large states are far worse off financially than New York. Now, do we need to rein in our spending so that it does not exceed our revenues? You bet, but that's not what he said. He oversimplified to a fault, in the process pandering to the public's innate distrust of government to make himself look like a shining knight coming to the rescue. That's fine for a political campaign, in which baloney is the daily featured item, but that's not the way to establish credibility as a governor of all the people."
Air Bloomberg
It is refreshing to see conscientious reporting on the mayor's sojourns. We'll begin with the WSJ's account of the flight patterns of Air Bloomberg: "Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who often takes weekend trips outside the city, has generated controversy by declining to say where he's going. He recently came under fire for being away at the start of the December blizzard that snarled the city for days. Clues to his travels can be found in flight records of Mr. Bloomberg's fleet of private planes, operated by his private financial-information company, Bloomberg LP, and also used by the mayor."
And Mike is a frequent flier-even though he doesn't need the free miles: "The planes flew to Bermuda, where Mr. Bloomberg owns a home, 16 times last year and 54 times in all from 2007 through 2010, according to Federal Aviation Administration records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. On 41 trips, the aircraft left New York and spent all or part of the weekend in Bermuda. One overnight trip there coincided with the December blizzard, according to flight records."
And what would be Air Bloomberg without an air of arrogance? "The records also show that the Bloomberg fleet has been the single largest user of scarce slots allocated to private aircraft at La Guardia airport. The flights continued apace even after the mayor two years ago called for curbs on small commercial planes at La Guardia and other area airports to reduce congestion."
Fancy that-another example of how the mayor views congestion reduction for thee, but not for me. Here is not someone who practices what he preaches-not unexpected from someone with one of the world's largest carbon footprints. And when the blizzard was bearing down on the city, the mayor barely made it back: "Flight records show that a Dassault Falcon 900 jet operated by Bloomberg Services left La Guardia Airport for Bermuda at 9:02 am on Christmas Day, then returned the next day at 2:49 pm, as the storm was growing fierce. The Bloomberg jet was the last private plane to land at La Guardia that day, according to the FAA records. The mayor appeared at a storm-related press conference shortly afterward."
CM Vallone, who has taken the lead on ankle braceleting the mayor, appears to be back peddling some now: "City Council Member Peter Vallone Jr., who endorsed the mayor's re-election, has been one of the most vocal critics of the city's response to the post-Christmas blizzard. He is examining legislation that would require the mayor to notify the city clerk whenever he leaves the city. The legislation wouldn't require the mayor to disclose his exact location. "I'm working with (the) administration now to possibly get this resolved without legislation," Mr. Vallone said, "but am prepared to move forward if that can't be done."
In our view, introduce the legislation first, and don't get into a weaselly compromise like the one Scott Stringer got into over Columbus Avenue bike lanes. The people have a right to be informed, and it is beyond ridiculous for the mayor's privacy to be more sacrosanct than the president of the United States. It is high time for the mayor to be held to a simple standard that all mayors have been held too-if he wants his privacy, there's the door.
And Mike is a frequent flier-even though he doesn't need the free miles: "The planes flew to Bermuda, where Mr. Bloomberg owns a home, 16 times last year and 54 times in all from 2007 through 2010, according to Federal Aviation Administration records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. On 41 trips, the aircraft left New York and spent all or part of the weekend in Bermuda. One overnight trip there coincided with the December blizzard, according to flight records."
And what would be Air Bloomberg without an air of arrogance? "The records also show that the Bloomberg fleet has been the single largest user of scarce slots allocated to private aircraft at La Guardia airport. The flights continued apace even after the mayor two years ago called for curbs on small commercial planes at La Guardia and other area airports to reduce congestion."
Fancy that-another example of how the mayor views congestion reduction for thee, but not for me. Here is not someone who practices what he preaches-not unexpected from someone with one of the world's largest carbon footprints. And when the blizzard was bearing down on the city, the mayor barely made it back: "Flight records show that a Dassault Falcon 900 jet operated by Bloomberg Services left La Guardia Airport for Bermuda at 9:02 am on Christmas Day, then returned the next day at 2:49 pm, as the storm was growing fierce. The Bloomberg jet was the last private plane to land at La Guardia that day, according to the FAA records. The mayor appeared at a storm-related press conference shortly afterward."
CM Vallone, who has taken the lead on ankle braceleting the mayor, appears to be back peddling some now: "City Council Member Peter Vallone Jr., who endorsed the mayor's re-election, has been one of the most vocal critics of the city's response to the post-Christmas blizzard. He is examining legislation that would require the mayor to notify the city clerk whenever he leaves the city. The legislation wouldn't require the mayor to disclose his exact location. "I'm working with (the) administration now to possibly get this resolved without legislation," Mr. Vallone said, "but am prepared to move forward if that can't be done."
In our view, introduce the legislation first, and don't get into a weaselly compromise like the one Scott Stringer got into over Columbus Avenue bike lanes. The people have a right to be informed, and it is beyond ridiculous for the mayor's privacy to be more sacrosanct than the president of the United States. It is high time for the mayor to be held to a simple standard that all mayors have been held too-if he wants his privacy, there's the door.
Monday, February 14, 2011
A Willets Point Warning Sign
As we have been arguing for quite some time, the NYC EDC is acting in an arbitrary and, we believe, extra legal manner in its desperate effort to try to get the Willets Point development off of the ground. We have also argued that, owing to this arbitrary behavior-actions that contradict what the agency has consistently said about its intentions for the Iron Triangle-the city council needs to re-assert its oversight role over the project.
Now comes this report from WNYC/NPR that underscores exactly what we have been trying to convey: "The city has started notifying holdouts in the Willets Point, Queens, development area of eminent domain proceedings. According to the Economic Development Corporation, there are nine businesses in the 20-acre Phase 1 area that haven't agreed to relocate. The issuance of letters on Friday, according to EDC spokesperson Julie Wood, is "the first step of the condemnation process," adding that negotiations with business owners would continue. A public hearing on the matter is set for March 2, at the Flushing branch of the Queens public library."
What negotiations? The blatant disregard for the truth by these unelected bureaucrats is absolutely breathtaking-there have been no negotiations with these property owners, nor with the other forty that simply don't want to hand their land over to a grasping city agency. But let's cut to the proverbial chase-EDC is doing a 180 on everything it said it would do when the Willets Point ULURP application was debated at the city council. And, as a result, the agency is not only courting a legal challenge, but is inviting an environmental disaster as well.
As we told NPR: "But Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for Willets Point United, a group of business owners fighting relocation, said the city can't initiate eminent domain proceedings until it gets environmental impact clearances for critical on and off-ramps for the Van Wyck Expressway. The ramps would eventually bring thousands of cars in and out of the area, adjacent to Citi Field. "If the ramps aren't approved, this project is an environmental disaster," said Lipsky."
Now comes this report from WNYC/NPR that underscores exactly what we have been trying to convey: "The city has started notifying holdouts in the Willets Point, Queens, development area of eminent domain proceedings. According to the Economic Development Corporation, there are nine businesses in the 20-acre Phase 1 area that haven't agreed to relocate. The issuance of letters on Friday, according to EDC spokesperson Julie Wood, is "the first step of the condemnation process," adding that negotiations with business owners would continue. A public hearing on the matter is set for March 2, at the Flushing branch of the Queens public library."
What negotiations? The blatant disregard for the truth by these unelected bureaucrats is absolutely breathtaking-there have been no negotiations with these property owners, nor with the other forty that simply don't want to hand their land over to a grasping city agency. But let's cut to the proverbial chase-EDC is doing a 180 on everything it said it would do when the Willets Point ULURP application was debated at the city council. And, as a result, the agency is not only courting a legal challenge, but is inviting an environmental disaster as well.
As we told NPR: "But Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for Willets Point United, a group of business owners fighting relocation, said the city can't initiate eminent domain proceedings until it gets environmental impact clearances for critical on and off-ramps for the Van Wyck Expressway. The ramps would eventually bring thousands of cars in and out of the area, adjacent to Citi Field. "If the ramps aren't approved, this project is an environmental disaster," said Lipsky."
Listen, however, as EDC changes the tune it has hummed all along about eminent domain: "While acknowledging the importance of highway ramps to the overall project, Wood said the eminent domain process can continue independently." But what happens if the ramps don't receive the necessary approvals? If that happens, we might end up with what many council members were worried would happen if eminent domain was triggered prematurely-the city could end up with empty property and no development.
Consider the original FGEIS: " "The City will not take possession of property acquired by eminent domain before the NEPA process is complete and the ramps are approved." – Willets Point FGEIS, Chapter 29, General Comments, Response G-8, September 12, 2008."
Consider the affidavit by Deputy Mayor Lieber before the Supreme Court: "The City will not acquire title to any property through Article 4 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (“EDPL”) until after ramps for the Van Wyck Expressway are approved by FHWA." -- Affidavit of Robert Lieber, Deputy Mayor for Economic Development, June 29, 2009, filed with Supreme Court of the State of New York (WPU's Article 78 case)."
Precisely we we have labeled the EDC cohort a "liar's choir." But there's a larger issue at stake here. and it relates to the city council's role in the land use oversight process. Willets Point was approved for redevelopment over two years ago under certain conditions laid out by the city-and those conditions included the proscription of the use of eminent domain before the crucial ramps were approved. The ramps were considered the linchpin of the development-and there were no scenarios considered that excluded these traffic mitigators.
Precisely we we have labeled the EDC cohort a "liar's choir." But there's a larger issue at stake here. and it relates to the city council's role in the land use oversight process. Willets Point was approved for redevelopment over two years ago under certain conditions laid out by the city-and those conditions included the proscription of the use of eminent domain before the crucial ramps were approved. The ramps were considered the linchpin of the development-and there were no scenarios considered that excluded these traffic mitigators.
Now, because EDC is stymied by the approval process for the ramps, they seek to initiate a different phase of development that was never vetted by the city council-or properly reviewed by SEQR. What will this development be, and what kind of impact will it have? Who knows. But we are now being told the following by the economic deception corporation: "The EDC intends to put out a Request for Proposals for Phase 1 in April, which would comprise a retail corridor, hotel and housing, all of which the city hopes to complete by 2016. A completion date for the entirety of the Willets Point redevelopment, a 61-acre project approved in 2008, hasn't been set yet."
A retail corridor? What a great place for a certain big box store. In the original FGEIS, however, it was the retail component that generated the huge traffic impacts. What about the retail in the bogus Phase I? Since we don't know what's in the mix we can't know what kind of an environmental impact it will all have-and whether or not the ramps remain as crucial for this phase as they do for the project as a whole.
All of this cries out for a city council review-and the body needs to get back its oversight mojo. If many of the members have been complaining about Related's bait and switch tactics over Walmart at the Gateway II site, what about the even more egregious bait and switch tactics of the city itself? The time for council action is now.
Focus on East New York
We have been commenting on the behind the scenes effort to pressure Related to abandon its Walmart dreams for East New York. On Saturday the NY Times focuses attention on the often neglected community: "It isn’t much to look at, just a big empty lot packed with snow and some struggling cattail plants sandwiched between the Starrett City apartment complex and a shopping mall. But a field in the East New York section of Brooklyn has become one of the most hotly debated spots in New York City. All because it may — possibly, one day— be home to the city’s first Wal-Mart store."
But, as we have pointed out earlier, Related is feeling the heat-still, all of this has an air of unreality to it because of the uncertain nature of the developer's plans: “It’s a little bit of Kabuki theater on both sides,” said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for small businesses who is helping lead the campaign to keep Wal-Mart out of New York. Not having a specific site to focus on, he explained, “makes it more difficult to hone in on an organizing strategy.” “But in spite of that,” Mr. Lipsky said, “the organizing is going forward.”
Indeed it is: "Lining up against the retail giant are a wide range of people who say the expansion will hurt small businesses and their employees, including elected officials like City Councilman Charles Barron, who represents East New York, and Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, immigrant groups, clergy members, unions representing retail workers, and small-business owners."
The Times argues that all Walmart needs to do on the site is sign a lease-owing to the as-of-right nature of a site that went through ULURP without a whiff of the Walmonster's potential presence. But we demur: "In East New York, all that Wal-Mart would need to do is sign a lease. A store there would become part of a huge project that has already been approved by the Council and includes several thousand units of housing and an expansion of the existing Gateway Center shopping mall. Wal-Mart’s opponents are crying foul, saying the plan approved by the Council in 2009 did not include the chain. “It was a total bait and switch,” said Bertha Lewis, the former chief executive of the community organizing group Acorn who is helping to organize the opposition throughout the city."
It may, however, not be as simple as a simple signature-since the status of 20 acres of state owned land remains murky. This property is in the middle of the development, and nothing could proceed on the site without the state's conveyance of the land-although current records indicate a byzantine back and forth between NYS OGS and Related. If there is anything untoward in this land acquisition process, a simple signature would not be sufficient to bring Walmart to Gateway.
But, as we have pointed out earlier, Related is feeling the heat-still, all of this has an air of unreality to it because of the uncertain nature of the developer's plans: “It’s a little bit of Kabuki theater on both sides,” said Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for small businesses who is helping lead the campaign to keep Wal-Mart out of New York. Not having a specific site to focus on, he explained, “makes it more difficult to hone in on an organizing strategy.” “But in spite of that,” Mr. Lipsky said, “the organizing is going forward.”
Indeed it is: "Lining up against the retail giant are a wide range of people who say the expansion will hurt small businesses and their employees, including elected officials like City Councilman Charles Barron, who represents East New York, and Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, immigrant groups, clergy members, unions representing retail workers, and small-business owners."
The Times argues that all Walmart needs to do on the site is sign a lease-owing to the as-of-right nature of a site that went through ULURP without a whiff of the Walmonster's potential presence. But we demur: "In East New York, all that Wal-Mart would need to do is sign a lease. A store there would become part of a huge project that has already been approved by the Council and includes several thousand units of housing and an expansion of the existing Gateway Center shopping mall. Wal-Mart’s opponents are crying foul, saying the plan approved by the Council in 2009 did not include the chain. “It was a total bait and switch,” said Bertha Lewis, the former chief executive of the community organizing group Acorn who is helping to organize the opposition throughout the city."
It may, however, not be as simple as a simple signature-since the status of 20 acres of state owned land remains murky. This property is in the middle of the development, and nothing could proceed on the site without the state's conveyance of the land-although current records indicate a byzantine back and forth between NYS OGS and Related. If there is anything untoward in this land acquisition process, a simple signature would not be sufficient to bring Walmart to Gateway.
Related Problems for Walmart
As Crain's is reporting, pressure is being brought to bear on Related Companies to convince the real estate giant that partnering with Walmart isn't good for business: "Opponents of Walmart plan to ratchet up the pressure on heavyweight developer The Related Companies this week, in a concerted campaign to show the city's real estate community that there's a potential cost to doing business with the nation's biggest retailer. Related has had contact with Walmart about leasing a site at its 650,000-square-foot Gateway II shopping center in East New York, Brooklyn, that already received the City Council's approval, enraging those unions, small storeowners and council members that oppose the retailer's entry into the city. Opponents hope to persuade Walmart's local partners—with threats of pickets outside their headquarters or homes and other actions—that doing business with the retailer will damage their future council dealings."
The Crain's report underscores our critique of Crain's columnist Greg David's observations that the mayor selection of Related to co-develop the Hunters Point site indicates that, "Let's accept the administration's position that Related and its partners offered the best proposal. It is also clear that this is a message that Related will not be penalized for doing business with Walmart."
But as we pointed out-and as today's Crain's report bolsters-all the Related selection indicates is that the Bloombergistas will still favor the company in any and all circumstances; but the mayor isn't the whole ball of wax by any means:
"Who in their right mind would have ever thought that Mike Bloomberg would act as a Walmart retardant mayor? If there would be any impediment to a developer, it would have to come at the city council-which last we heard still has oversight over the city's land use process.
But the really risible observation from David is that the selection of Related for a city development has any more meaning beyond the fact the the city has dropped its draws for this company ever since Deputy Dan Doctoroff (a good pal of Related CEO Steve Ross) deeded over Bradhurst Avenue development and the Bronx Terminal Market to Related (without any competitive bid in the latter case)."
What we are beginning to see is how other power centers are being engaged to challenge Related's scope of action-and it would do David well to remember that Related has less than a three year run left with Uncle Mike: "The Walmarts of the world may think they can ignore us, but the Relateds of the world can't,” state Sen. Diane Savino, D-Staten Island, told Crain's last month. “These are guys who want to develop in other places in the city. They could find that their relationship with Walmart may permanently damage their relationship with the city.”
Which brings our attention to Willets Point-and, as we have observed, the development could very well become a future Walmart site since the council, just as it did in Gateway II, failed to restrict the kinds of permissible uses at the site: "Opponents believe they have leverage over Related in part because it is one of 29 firms that have expressed interest in redeveloping Willets Point, a run-down section of northeast Queens slated to be remade with retail outlets, housing, a hotel and office space. The city will issue a request for proposals for the redevelopment in April. On Monday, three elected officials who represent the Willets Point area—Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras, state Sen. José Peralta and Assemblyman Francisco Moya—will send a letter to Related Chief Executive Stephen Ross, pressuring him to shun Walmart."
The letter, however, lacks real teeth: "We have a long working relationship together, creating new economic opportunities for New Yorkers and building more vibrant neighborhoods, and we hope to continue that strong partnership moving forward, perhaps at Willets Point,” reads the letter, a copy of which was provided to Crain's by the Walmart Free NYC coalition. “That's why we're urging you not to do business with Walmart at Gateway II or any other New York City location.”
But, as we have pointed out, the area elected officials do have some stronger medicine in regards to the future of Willets Point. As we indicate on the blog this morning, EDC is operating in an extra-legal manner to circumvent city council oversight and appropriate SEQR review on the Iron Triangle site.
Put simply, EDC is developing a 20 acre Phase I at Willets Point without building requisite ramps off of the Van Wyck that would mitigate the traffic generated. In addition, they have not deigned to indicate what will be the uses developed on this initial phase-and it is a short step towards realizing that Walmart or any large box store uses could easily fit in this first phase of development.
EDC's own traffic consultants, however, estimated that the project would generate 80,000 new car trips a day-much of this from the projected retail uses slated for the new development. If the lion's share of these uses are placed in the first phase, EDC has no justification not proceeding with the ramp approval process-before going ahead with condemning 53 small businesses at Willets Point. It told the council specifically that it would not do this-making Willets Point, like Gateway II, a perfect place for the city's (and the developer's) bait and switch.
A forceful collective response to the city on this dishonest attempt to end run proper review procedures-and a resultant restrictive covenant on the Willets Point site, would make the council players in the Gateway debate as well. The council needs to establish the fact that it has a strong hole card in this game of high stakes development poker-and putting the brakes on the mayor's legacy project would do just that.
The Crain's report underscores our critique of Crain's columnist Greg David's observations that the mayor selection of Related to co-develop the Hunters Point site indicates that, "Let's accept the administration's position that Related and its partners offered the best proposal. It is also clear that this is a message that Related will not be penalized for doing business with Walmart."
But as we pointed out-and as today's Crain's report bolsters-all the Related selection indicates is that the Bloombergistas will still favor the company in any and all circumstances; but the mayor isn't the whole ball of wax by any means:
"Who in their right mind would have ever thought that Mike Bloomberg would act as a Walmart retardant mayor? If there would be any impediment to a developer, it would have to come at the city council-which last we heard still has oversight over the city's land use process.
But the really risible observation from David is that the selection of Related for a city development has any more meaning beyond the fact the the city has dropped its draws for this company ever since Deputy Dan Doctoroff (a good pal of Related CEO Steve Ross) deeded over Bradhurst Avenue development and the Bronx Terminal Market to Related (without any competitive bid in the latter case)."
What we are beginning to see is how other power centers are being engaged to challenge Related's scope of action-and it would do David well to remember that Related has less than a three year run left with Uncle Mike: "The Walmarts of the world may think they can ignore us, but the Relateds of the world can't,” state Sen. Diane Savino, D-Staten Island, told Crain's last month. “These are guys who want to develop in other places in the city. They could find that their relationship with Walmart may permanently damage their relationship with the city.”
Which brings our attention to Willets Point-and, as we have observed, the development could very well become a future Walmart site since the council, just as it did in Gateway II, failed to restrict the kinds of permissible uses at the site: "Opponents believe they have leverage over Related in part because it is one of 29 firms that have expressed interest in redeveloping Willets Point, a run-down section of northeast Queens slated to be remade with retail outlets, housing, a hotel and office space. The city will issue a request for proposals for the redevelopment in April. On Monday, three elected officials who represent the Willets Point area—Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras, state Sen. José Peralta and Assemblyman Francisco Moya—will send a letter to Related Chief Executive Stephen Ross, pressuring him to shun Walmart."
The letter, however, lacks real teeth: "We have a long working relationship together, creating new economic opportunities for New Yorkers and building more vibrant neighborhoods, and we hope to continue that strong partnership moving forward, perhaps at Willets Point,” reads the letter, a copy of which was provided to Crain's by the Walmart Free NYC coalition. “That's why we're urging you not to do business with Walmart at Gateway II or any other New York City location.”
But, as we have pointed out, the area elected officials do have some stronger medicine in regards to the future of Willets Point. As we indicate on the blog this morning, EDC is operating in an extra-legal manner to circumvent city council oversight and appropriate SEQR review on the Iron Triangle site.
Put simply, EDC is developing a 20 acre Phase I at Willets Point without building requisite ramps off of the Van Wyck that would mitigate the traffic generated. In addition, they have not deigned to indicate what will be the uses developed on this initial phase-and it is a short step towards realizing that Walmart or any large box store uses could easily fit in this first phase of development.
EDC's own traffic consultants, however, estimated that the project would generate 80,000 new car trips a day-much of this from the projected retail uses slated for the new development. If the lion's share of these uses are placed in the first phase, EDC has no justification not proceeding with the ramp approval process-before going ahead with condemning 53 small businesses at Willets Point. It told the council specifically that it would not do this-making Willets Point, like Gateway II, a perfect place for the city's (and the developer's) bait and switch.
A forceful collective response to the city on this dishonest attempt to end run proper review procedures-and a resultant restrictive covenant on the Willets Point site, would make the council players in the Gateway debate as well. The council needs to establish the fact that it has a strong hole card in this game of high stakes development poker-and putting the brakes on the mayor's legacy project would do just that.
Willets Point and EDC Dishonesty: The Compelling Need for Legislative Oversight
We have been commenting on the actions by EDC regarding development of Willets Point-and the two key issues revolve around the need to gain approval of ramps off of the Van Wyck prior to any development; and the promise to the city council (one contained in the FGEIS) that there would be no condemnation action until the ramps had been approved. This latter point was because of the city council's concern that a premature condemnation action would create a, "New London situation," whereby the properties in question would have been condemned but lay fallow because the development couldn't proceed.
What follows is a summary of the key oversight issues:
What follows is a summary of the key oversight issues:
(1) EDC has decided that it can develop Willets Point without the ramps that it has always said are essential to the project;
(2) The agency spent millions of dollars devising a ramp report for NYS DOT so that an expeditious approval could be garnered to build theses ramps;
(3) When Willets Point United challenged the efficacy and veracity of the EDC consultants on the ramps, the DOT forced them back to the drawing board for a revised ramp report;
(4) That was over 15 months ago, and as the NY Times has reported diligently, the revised report was not received by the DOT with open arms-particularly after WPU's Brian Ketcham had so thoroughly discredited it;
(5) In October, it was made clear to us by DOT that a revised ramp report and environmental assessment would be available and subject to a hearing process in the near term. EDC stonewalled showing the documents to WPU;
(6) Three months passed with no news until last week when EDC went to the WSJ to announce that it was going to commence building Phase I of the Willets Point development without the ramps-that were deemed unnecessary for this initial phase;
(7) No aspect of the original development plan, or the concomitant EIS, envisioned doing any development without ramps off of the Van Wyck;
(8) In testimony before the city council and in a court affidavit, Deputy Mayor Lieber said that there would be no acquisition of property via eminent domain until ramps are approved;
(9) EDC has scheduled an EDPL hearing (eminent domain) for March the 2nd;
(10) There is no developer or any concrete development plan for Willets Point and the city has drastically cut back its capital spending-yet the Bloomberg administration will need to spend billions of dollars to buy out existing businesses and insure infrastructure and remediation for Willets Point. This is reminiscent of what happened in New London after Suzette Kelo house was taken-the land there lies fallow and the city is out around $100 million.
The original Times coverage of Willets Point-post city council approval-was Ray Rivera's stories about how the city paid Claire Shulman's not for profit $500,000 to lobby for the project-an almost prima facie violation of the law that proscribes lobbying for this kind of entity. Rivera followed up with the news that then AG Cuomo had launched an investigation of this ostensibly illegal lobbying. No conclusion to the investigation has been reached and, as we all know, Cuomo has moved on. But in our view this was an early indication that EDC was not going to scrupulously adhere to either law or ethics in its desire to promote a development of Willets Point.
Fernanda Santos followed up by exposing the rough give and take between EDC and state DOT-and a subsequent email revealed that NYC transportation commissioner Sadik-Khan apparently was threatening DOT because of the agency's alleged foot dragging. The following email is from Region 1 director Eng to then commissioner Gee: "JSK noted that she will be sending me a letter holding me personally responsible for holding the Willets Pt project hostage. I'm okay with that as we need to ensure that we have thoroughly reviewed the issues and that they are resolved satisfactorily. I told her that we need to have our staff meet (sometime next week) including NYMTC and go over the concerns raised by the city and bring them to a resolution."
Now, however, all of this time and effort on the ramps is being discarded in order to go to a Phase I that has never been vetted by anyone at the city council or DOT. But why has EDC radically shifted gears? In our view, it is because WPU has stymied it on the ramps and the agency needs not only to make an end run of the ramp process, but regain momentum lost by our derailing of the ramp approvals.
In addition, there are some serious questions over whether EDC can legally precede in this way without first obtaining ramp approvals. As WPU's legal counsel stated in a letter to the agency, the city has maintained that it would not proceed with condemnation before the ramps were approved-and the city council relied on this representation in the FEIS as a precondition of its approval.
The representation contained within the FGEIS, that eminent domain would not be used until after ramps are approved, was relied upon by Council members when evaluating the key PUBLIC POLICY QUESTION of when eminent domain is justified. Recall the great controversy during ULURP surrounding the use of eminent domain for this project, and the repeated expressions by Council members of concern regarding eminent domain for economic development purposes. Council members sought assurances that condemnation in Willets Point would not result in the same sort of vacant lots that now exist in New London, post-Kelo.
The representation within the FGEIS, that eminent domain would not be used until state and federal ramp approvals are obtained (thereby making it permissible to actually implement the development described within the FGEIS) made it more likely that New London-type vacancies would not result from condemnation in Willets Point.
Now all of this is forgotten as EDC-with the city flat broke-desperately looks for a way to salvage this white elephant of a project. This is a scandal, and a reckless development agency that began with illegally paying a not for profit to lobby itself, now looks to disregard all of its prior assurances and representations to the city council and the court in order to promote a project it simply doesn’t have the money to pay for.
Friday, February 11, 2011
EDC Outdoes Itself on Willets Point Chicanery
Business owners from Willets Point United joined with State Senator Tony Avella, workers and members of assorted civic groups yesterday to protest the actions of EDC in regards to the proposed development at Willets Point. NY1 has the story: "The city's Economic Development Corporation says they will use eminent domain to seize the property in the area near Citi Field. Protesters say it will change the dynamic of the neighborhood and force small businesses out. "To take these businesses, and again, people have built it up for years. These are family-owned businesses, and give it to a private developer who's gonna make millions of dollars, that is simply un-American," said State Senator TonyAvella."
But it isn't just the fact that EDC will be employing eminent domain that has bugged a wide array of folks-it is the underhanded manner and outright lying that has really riled those impacted businesses and their workers. As we said the other day:
"Talk about putting the cart before the horse! What EDC is trying to do here is to make an end run of the crucial approval process for ramps off of the Van Wyck ramps that it has said are the linchpin of the development's viability: "Opponents of the project have argued that the city isn't permitted to construct entrance ramps to the Van Wyck Expressway nearby that are called for as part of the project. Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist who represents business owners at the site, says that the eminent domain action was "an absolute disgrace."
In response, EDC’s Pinocchio Pinsky told the WSJ:"Mr. Pinsky said the city's position is that it isn't required to build the ramps—which would mitigate traffic congestion on the local streets—until later phases of the project."
As a falsehood, this ranks up there with the mayor's, "Christmas bonus," canard about police and fire pensions. Here's the reality. After the final EIS was completed, EDC drafted three technical memos-two of which addressed the possibility of scaled down plans: "Here's a money quote from Memo 003 (even the "Adjusted Plan" involves ramps!):
"Like the proposed Plan, the Adjusted Plan would include new connections to the Van Wyck Expressway in the northeast portion of the District. Because this development scenario would not include the early acquisition of all northern and eastern properties in the District, it is anticipated that the configuration of the new ramps would conform to the existing street network. Figures 2 and 3 show the potential configuration of the new ramps under the Adjusted Plan. The new connection to the Van Wyck Expressway would require federal (FHWA) and state (NYSDOT) approval of a Freeway Access Modification Report under both the proposed Plan and the Adjusted Plan." (p. 3)
But it isn't just the fact that EDC will be employing eminent domain that has bugged a wide array of folks-it is the underhanded manner and outright lying that has really riled those impacted businesses and their workers. As we said the other day:
"Talk about putting the cart before the horse! What EDC is trying to do here is to make an end run of the crucial approval process for ramps off of the Van Wyck ramps that it has said are the linchpin of the development's viability: "Opponents of the project have argued that the city isn't permitted to construct entrance ramps to the Van Wyck Expressway nearby that are called for as part of the project. Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist who represents business owners at the site, says that the eminent domain action was "an absolute disgrace."
In response, EDC’s Pinocchio Pinsky told the WSJ:"Mr. Pinsky said the city's position is that it isn't required to build the ramps—which would mitigate traffic congestion on the local streets—until later phases of the project."
As a falsehood, this ranks up there with the mayor's, "Christmas bonus," canard about police and fire pensions. Here's the reality. After the final EIS was completed, EDC drafted three technical memos-two of which addressed the possibility of scaled down plans: "Here's a money quote from Memo 003 (even the "Adjusted Plan" involves ramps!):
"Like the proposed Plan, the Adjusted Plan would include new connections to the Van Wyck Expressway in the northeast portion of the District. Because this development scenario would not include the early acquisition of all northern and eastern properties in the District, it is anticipated that the configuration of the new ramps would conform to the existing street network. Figures 2 and 3 show the potential configuration of the new ramps under the Adjusted Plan. The new connection to the Van Wyck Expressway would require federal (FHWA) and state (NYSDOT) approval of a Freeway Access Modification Report under both the proposed Plan and the Adjusted Plan." (p. 3)
In sum, EDC put out four separate plans that can be described thusly: "
The FGEIS pertains to a full build-out of 60+ acres. Ramps required (per EDC)? YES.
• The FGEIS also pertains to a "Staged Acquisition Alternative", which emphasizes the western side of the triangle, from Roosevelt all the way to Northern Boulevard. Ramps required (per EDC)? YES.
• Tech Memo 003, dated a year after the Council's ULURP vote, pertains to an "Adjusted Plan" which emphasizes the western side of the triangle, from Roosevelt to 34th Avenue (ONE block shy of Northern Boulevard). Ramps required (per EDC)? YES.
• The present "Phase 1" (recently distributed map) emphasizes the western side of the triangle, from Roosevelt to 35th Avenue (TWO blocks shy of Northern Boulevard). Ramps required (per EDC)? NO!
So EDC has shrunken the project, enough for it to, in its own jaundiced view, get away with building the project minus the ramps.
We know of no EDC traffic analysis that supports EDC's conclusion that Phase 1 does not require ramps. Wouldn't there have to be such an analysis? As no NYSDOT or FHWA action is required if EDC is NOT building ramps, would those agencies even have been involved in vetting such an analysis? NYSDOT and FHWA-as well as the city council-should be concerned with the traffic volume that Phase 1 will generate, even if the agencies are not being asked to approve. It seems to me we should be looking into all of this, aggressively. It is the corruption of the AMR, all over again.
Also, EDC now believes that if it does not intend to build ramps for Phase 1, then it is not bound by the representation made by Deputy Mayor Lieber in his affidavit, promising no acquisition of property via eminent domain until ramps are approved. Stated differently, Lieber's affidavit was made at a time when the ramps were presumed to be necessary, but EDC is now alleging that the reduced scale of Phase 1 makes that no longer the case.
Consider this: When we last left off in the back-and-forth with EDC, the agency had prepared an Environmental Assessment for the ramps, which was delivered to NYSDOT and FHWA on October 28, 2010. EDC indicated there would be a public hearing regarding that EA, either by the end of 2010 or very soon. So, the ramps were considered to be essential, until very recently. While WPU has been off worrying about the EA hearing, EDC has been prepping condemnation. But any way you slice it, EDC is drastically shifting the nature of the project, probably as a result of fact that WPU put a substantial roadblock into the agency's ability to get approval for the Van Wyck ramps.
What this all indicates is that EDC is operating with extreme subterfuge to go forward on this development by ignoring all of its representations to the city council and the court. Its, “Phase 1,” is a fictional invention that has no substance to it-no one knows what will be built within these 20 acres. But without knowing-and EDC doesn’t explicate any of this-how can the agency assert that no ramps will be needed?
As we said to one elected official’s office: “Yet the so-called Phase 1 lacks any detail or traffic analysis that would serve to justify the conclusion that the ramps are not necessary Remember that this phase is still huge-and encompasses 20 acres of property; which would easily hold a Walmart and thousands of additional square feet of traffic generating retail. This all needs re-review under SEQR according to WPU’s attorney Mike Gerrard.”
The City Council never considered this current EDC development configuration-and there is no environmental review extant that considers any manner of Willets Point project that excludes the necessity of ramps off of the Van Wyck. This is a bold attempt by an agency, whose ramp consultants were exposed as duplicitous, if not outright fraudulent in their traffic analysis, to try to rig the game at the eleventh hour-avoiding proper environmental review and sneaking an unsustainable development in through the back door at a time when the city is flat broke.
If this Category 6 level of chicanery doesn’t compel a new city council and SEQR review, than no manner of underhandedness ever would. The ball is, or should be, in the council’s court-or perhaps in state supreme court where EDC’s representations have proved to be egregiously untruthful.
Fire in the A-Hole
We have already commented on the crackpot idea of the mayor's to go after a pension benefits of both police and firefighters-and now the NY post chimes in with more abuse of the tone deaf Bloomberg: "If Mayor Bloomberg hopes to wrest from Albany the pension-reform goals he seeks and the city sorely needs, he should stop trying to pick the pockets of retired firefighters and cops. As has been amply documented in The Post for months now, New York's public-pension liabilities have brought the city to the brink of bankruptcy. Change is mandatory. But targeting retired firefighters and cops is no way to go."
Of course it isn't, but the mayor remains clueless to the need to treat public safety differently then less vital areas of government service. And what could be more dastardly then going after current retirees who served with the expectation that their benefits would be in place for their retirement: "But he swiftly trained his sights on current retirees -- folks who served the city honorably, in the full expectation that the cash would be there when they retired."
Of course it isn't, but the mayor remains clueless to the need to treat public safety differently then less vital areas of government service. And what could be more dastardly then going after current retirees who served with the expectation that their benefits would be in place for their retirement: "But he swiftly trained his sights on current retirees -- folks who served the city honorably, in the full expectation that the cash would be there when they retired."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
