At the February 9th hearing of the City Council's Committee on Consumer Affairs Mr. Sung Soo Kim of the Korean-American Small Business Service Center (KASBSC) outlined some of the issues facing the city's roughly 3,000 green grocers. In particular, after highlighting the intensity of the over-enforcement campaign against the stores, Kim underscored the disparity between the city's focus on these stores and its blithe disregard of street vendors who sell the exact same products.
As Mr. Kim pointed out, "Produce vendors in the city are thoroughly immune from any enforcement." He provided the Council with a chart that illustrated the unfair dichotomy. As he demonstrated the vendors, unlike the tax paying stores, are not subject to repeat violator guidelines, are not required to post any DCA complaint sign, are not held accountable for illegal dumping, and will only have a license suspended after four violations in one year (a store will face revocation for its second violation in two years).
We are working with the Council to draft equitable legislation that will create some parity between the vendors and the legitimate store owners (which goes to show you how far the disparity has come- the vendors are less scrutinized!). As if the the harshness of the regulatory climate wasn't bad enough, green grocers, bodegas and supermarkets must stand by and watch unregulated competitors simply steal their business away. Justice and equal protection demands nothing less
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
I'm-an Ill Suited Leader
The mayor's unwillingness to forcefully confront the Muslim chaplin who clearly is unsuited to continue to act in any official capacity, stands in sharp contrast to his percipitous dismissal of an employee in the city's Albany lobbying office. That poor sap's sin was having had a game of solitaire on his office computer.
Let's go back to 2002. It was at that time when the mayor, goaded by the NY Post's attack on his smoking ban, actually had a NYCHA employee fired for taking too long a smoking break in front of the agency's 250 Broadway headquarters.
It's a good thing that Umar Abdul Jalil wasn't caught at his desk smoking and playing computer solitaire. This, and not blatantly anti-Semitic and subversive statements in defense of Islamic extremism, would bring down the righteous wrath of our municipal leader.
How sad. And what is Norman Siegal doing defending a government paid religious leader? Isn't he the one who, along with the ACLU, is always fighting educational vouchers because some public money may get channeled into a parochial school? As the Sun editorialized yesterday, if you want any government funds to go to a religious activity you just have to go to jail.
Let's go back to 2002. It was at that time when the mayor, goaded by the NY Post's attack on his smoking ban, actually had a NYCHA employee fired for taking too long a smoking break in front of the agency's 250 Broadway headquarters.
It's a good thing that Umar Abdul Jalil wasn't caught at his desk smoking and playing computer solitaire. This, and not blatantly anti-Semitic and subversive statements in defense of Islamic extremism, would bring down the righteous wrath of our municipal leader.
How sad. And what is Norman Siegal doing defending a government paid religious leader? Isn't he the one who, along with the ACLU, is always fighting educational vouchers because some public money may get channeled into a parochial school? As the Sun editorialized yesterday, if you want any government funds to go to a religious activity you just have to go to jail.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Taxing Credulity
In today's NY Sun the paper editorializes on the much trumpeted decline in the consumption of cigarettes. What is fascinating in the Sun's take on all this euphoria is the apparent disparity between the sale of "legally traded cigarettes" and the percentage of Americans who continue to smoke (something that has barely changed at all).
What this means, if the dichotomy holds up, is that all of the "taxes up, teen consumption down" rhetoric is pure hokum. We've made this point before: if black market cigarettes are readily available on the street than price increases will only drive more business to the illegal sellers. And that is exactly what has happened.
As the Sun's editorial highlights, "...up to 110,000 cartons of untaxed cigarettes are smuggled into New York City each day..." If a black marketeer brings just one truck of low or no-taxed smokes into the city he or she is looking at a profit of--minimally--$2 million "for one day's work."
Of course the situation is exacerbated in NYC by the existence of the Indian loophole. We have two "tribes" out on the East End of Long Island (neither is officially designated as such by the federal government) that are selling "untaxed" smokes with impunity and the 50 mile hike into the city is a short cut to big profits for enterprising black marketeers.
What this means, if the dichotomy holds up, is that all of the "taxes up, teen consumption down" rhetoric is pure hokum. We've made this point before: if black market cigarettes are readily available on the street than price increases will only drive more business to the illegal sellers. And that is exactly what has happened.
As the Sun's editorial highlights, "...up to 110,000 cartons of untaxed cigarettes are smuggled into New York City each day..." If a black marketeer brings just one truck of low or no-taxed smokes into the city he or she is looking at a profit of--minimally--$2 million "for one day's work."
Of course the situation is exacerbated in NYC by the existence of the Indian loophole. We have two "tribes" out on the East End of Long Island (neither is officially designated as such by the federal government) that are selling "untaxed" smokes with impunity and the 50 mile hike into the city is a short cut to big profits for enterprising black marketeers.
Food Waste: The Worm Turns
Many of those who aggressively oppose the use of food waste disposers champion composting as a realistic alternative that is more environmentally friendly. As the DSNY points out, "The average New York City household discards two pounds of organic waste each day. This adds up to more than a million tons of organic waste per year." In response, the Department encourages New Yorkers to compost either in their backyards or indoors using (we kid you not) a "worm bin."
In fact, the Department has an entertaining brochure that it gives out to homeowners. The pamphlet details the kinds of worms best suited to the composting task (red worms are the best digesters). It was fascinating for us to be told that the best way to feed your worms is with broccoli stalks. It's also important for the budding "vermicomposter" to learn how to capture the fruit flies that inevitably become pesty accomplices to your indoor worm bin.
All of which makes for interesting reading but it has a kind of "theater of the absurd" quality. The money that is spent on this kind of quixotic venture is a waste and simply panders to the romantic environmentalists who don't want to address the realities of urban life.
In fact, as we have pointed out before, the use of food waste disposers not only is more effective at diverting food waste from export, it actually allows for the creation of the most nutrient rich compost, an end-product that is better for the soil than any backyard composting could ever hope to achieve.
In addition, the use of commercial disposers has the added environmental advantage of being able to facilitate the recycling of the waste that remains once organic material is diverted. Implemented properly, this methodology could allow the city to reduce the number of transfer stations needed to export municipal waste. It's a relatively simple technology with wide-ranging implications for waste reduction.
In fact, the Department has an entertaining brochure that it gives out to homeowners. The pamphlet details the kinds of worms best suited to the composting task (red worms are the best digesters). It was fascinating for us to be told that the best way to feed your worms is with broccoli stalks. It's also important for the budding "vermicomposter" to learn how to capture the fruit flies that inevitably become pesty accomplices to your indoor worm bin.
All of which makes for interesting reading but it has a kind of "theater of the absurd" quality. The money that is spent on this kind of quixotic venture is a waste and simply panders to the romantic environmentalists who don't want to address the realities of urban life.
In fact, as we have pointed out before, the use of food waste disposers not only is more effective at diverting food waste from export, it actually allows for the creation of the most nutrient rich compost, an end-product that is better for the soil than any backyard composting could ever hope to achieve.
In addition, the use of commercial disposers has the added environmental advantage of being able to facilitate the recycling of the waste that remains once organic material is diverted. Implemented properly, this methodology could allow the city to reduce the number of transfer stations needed to export municipal waste. It's a relatively simple technology with wide-ranging implications for waste reduction.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Cigarette Taxes: Whose Armey?
In yesterday's Daily News the paper prints a point-counterpoint on the question of whether it's good public policy to raise the state and city's cigarette tax. The advocate for the increase, something the Alliance has been commenting on for some time, makes the point that, "Public health authorities have amply documented that every 10% increase in the price of cigarettes causes about 7% of young people who smoke to quit."
Let's parse that sentence. It seems that according to the anti-tobacco advocates, citing other anti-tobacco advocates ("public health authorities"), there is a correlation between the tax increases and a decline in youth smoking. Why would we take the assertions of the ideologically driven as "amply documented"?
We routinely discount assertions of self-interested businesses as biased so why not those who are equally self-interested? Just because an entity is a self-described "public interest" or "public health" group doesn't mean that it is competent do econometric studies or even weigh data in a unbiased way.
What we do know is that smoking among teens has dropped dramatically in this country. And it has done so in low taxed as well as high taxed states. Let's not confuse correlation with causation.
And certainly when there is such a huge black market loophole as the one that exists in New York State it is dangerous to continue to postulate the correlation between taxes and cigarette consumption. Our advocate, however, is undeterred by the facts on the New York ground: he calls the smuggling and tax evasion an "insignificant" problem.
What this shows is that we shouldn't let public health advocates moonlight as financial experts. Only a good government type (or a NYC mayor) could call a $500 million tax evasion problem "insignificant." It is typical for these folks to simply ignore the reality of the black marketeering while continuing to hoist the same questionable data on a gullible public.
And just what did the News have in mind when it asked Dick Armey to craft the rebuttal argument? Armey did do a competent job in raising some of the Alliance's issues, particularly on the harm these taxes do to small businesses. Why didn't the paper go to the folks at NYACS or the Bodega Association? Choosing a right-wing Republican seems to be designed to discredit the point-of-view from the get-go.
In any case it is time to close the Indian loophole. No new tax should be levied until this shameful kowtowing to the threat of Indian violence is ended.
Let's parse that sentence. It seems that according to the anti-tobacco advocates, citing other anti-tobacco advocates ("public health authorities"), there is a correlation between the tax increases and a decline in youth smoking. Why would we take the assertions of the ideologically driven as "amply documented"?
We routinely discount assertions of self-interested businesses as biased so why not those who are equally self-interested? Just because an entity is a self-described "public interest" or "public health" group doesn't mean that it is competent do econometric studies or even weigh data in a unbiased way.
What we do know is that smoking among teens has dropped dramatically in this country. And it has done so in low taxed as well as high taxed states. Let's not confuse correlation with causation.
And certainly when there is such a huge black market loophole as the one that exists in New York State it is dangerous to continue to postulate the correlation between taxes and cigarette consumption. Our advocate, however, is undeterred by the facts on the New York ground: he calls the smuggling and tax evasion an "insignificant" problem.
What this shows is that we shouldn't let public health advocates moonlight as financial experts. Only a good government type (or a NYC mayor) could call a $500 million tax evasion problem "insignificant." It is typical for these folks to simply ignore the reality of the black marketeering while continuing to hoist the same questionable data on a gullible public.
And just what did the News have in mind when it asked Dick Armey to craft the rebuttal argument? Armey did do a competent job in raising some of the Alliance's issues, particularly on the harm these taxes do to small businesses. Why didn't the paper go to the folks at NYACS or the Bodega Association? Choosing a right-wing Republican seems to be designed to discredit the point-of-view from the get-go.
In any case it is time to close the Indian loophole. No new tax should be levied until this shameful kowtowing to the threat of Indian violence is ended.
Bruno Posted on Wal-Mart
The NY Post is at the defense of the Walmonster once again. This time it is in the context of an attack on Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno for his favorable response to legislation that would force a company like Wal-Mart to take care of its worker's health care costs.
What's particularly fascinating in this diatribe is the Post's defense of Wal-Mart's workers utilizing public health care benefits. As the paper says, "If a state health plan is available, why shouldn't workers partake of it?" Is this the same newspaper that inveighs regularly against welfare abuse?
So let's get this straight. If, in the Post's view, a poor black women is accessing too many public benefits that is somehow scandalous, but the richest corporation in the world is training its employees to obtain public benefits that the company itself should provide, and that is somehow OK.
It's more than just OK, however. In one of the most ridiculous passages in yesterday's editorial the Post actually says, "And if workers choose the state plan over Wal-Mart's, why blame the store for offering poor benefits; why not blame the state for being too generous?" This is plain silly. The workers go to the state because, on a Wal-Mart salary, they can't afford to both eat and pay for health care.
And what about the fact that Wal-Mart provides so many jobs? ("...which is why job applicants line up for blocks every time a new store opens"). The reality is that low paying retail, driven by WalMartization, has replaced the high paying, good benefit manufacturing jobs that we have exported overseas. It is a process that Wal-Mart itself aids and abets in its own lucrative outsourcing of the manufacturing goods that it is able to sell so cheaply at retail precisely because they have been made so cheaply overseas.
So when the Post says, "These stores are doing nothing wrong", it lays bare the bankruptcy of its own ethical standards. Maybe Lee Scott of Wal-Mart is right when he says that we as a country needs to do something about the rising costs of health care. But it is clear from Wal-Mart's record in this area and the Post's moral obtuseness that neither of these worthies are part of the solution.
What's particularly fascinating in this diatribe is the Post's defense of Wal-Mart's workers utilizing public health care benefits. As the paper says, "If a state health plan is available, why shouldn't workers partake of it?" Is this the same newspaper that inveighs regularly against welfare abuse?
So let's get this straight. If, in the Post's view, a poor black women is accessing too many public benefits that is somehow scandalous, but the richest corporation in the world is training its employees to obtain public benefits that the company itself should provide, and that is somehow OK.
It's more than just OK, however. In one of the most ridiculous passages in yesterday's editorial the Post actually says, "And if workers choose the state plan over Wal-Mart's, why blame the store for offering poor benefits; why not blame the state for being too generous?" This is plain silly. The workers go to the state because, on a Wal-Mart salary, they can't afford to both eat and pay for health care.
And what about the fact that Wal-Mart provides so many jobs? ("...which is why job applicants line up for blocks every time a new store opens"). The reality is that low paying retail, driven by WalMartization, has replaced the high paying, good benefit manufacturing jobs that we have exported overseas. It is a process that Wal-Mart itself aids and abets in its own lucrative outsourcing of the manufacturing goods that it is able to sell so cheaply at retail precisely because they have been made so cheaply overseas.
So when the Post says, "These stores are doing nothing wrong", it lays bare the bankruptcy of its own ethical standards. Maybe Lee Scott of Wal-Mart is right when he says that we as a country needs to do something about the rising costs of health care. But it is clear from Wal-Mart's record in this area and the Post's moral obtuseness that neither of these worthies are part of the solution.
Friday, March 10, 2006
The Yankee’s Bogus Community Agreement
As we have mentioned, the extremely flawed “Community Benefits Agreement” adopted for Related’s Gateway Mall project is now being used as a model for the controversial proposed new Yankee Stadium. Patrick Arden of Metro reports that despite promises no agreement is even ready yet:
In January, New York Yankees president Randy Levine made a promise to people who live near his team’s current ballpark and who were upset that the Yankees’ proposed new stadium and parking garages would claim 22 acres of parkland.Arden interviews Majora Carter, executive director of Sustainable South Bronx, who was involved in the Related negotiations and the removed herself when she realized it was problematic and that her critiques weren’t welcome:
“We will enter into a community benefits agreement,” he told a luncheon of the New Bronx Chamber of Commerce. “It will be a very good, fair one — and we intend to be long-term, good-standing neighbors in the Bronx. I promise that on behalf of the Yankees and George Steinbrenner. We care about the quality of life for residents in the Bronx.”
…
But after almost two months, there’s still no sign of any community benefits agreement.
“I took part in it until they determined that we should no longer be a part of it,” Carter said. “We weren’t exactly kicked out, but it became very well known that our assistance was not required.”Like with the Bronx Terminal Market, the Yankee CBA process is extremely problematic at least according to the nation’s foremost experts on these deals:
“This is pretty late in the game to still be negotiating an agreement,” said Roxana Tynan of the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, the group that pioneered the idea of CBAs. “The more votes that have been taken on the project the less leverage local folks have, unless they have a legal angle and can buy time.
“CBAs don’t work when they’re top-down, because then people don’t trust the process — you have a lot of trust issues to overcome about whose interests the CBA is really going to serve.”
Smoke and Taxes
The city has released another survey that documents the dramatic decline in youth smoking. Once again the mayor is crediting his cigarette tax increase as a major reason for the good news. What this overlooks of course is the fact that, as the NY Times points out this morning, "...the declines were also reflective of nationwide trends showing that teenagers are increasingly shunning smoking."
It is also important to emphasize the undeniable reality of the black market in cigarettes that in all likelihood is skewing the results of the city's survey. This phenomenon makes it easier for the youth of the city to avoid the higher prices that the mayor credits for lowering the number of youthful smokers.
In fact the city's health commissioner, Dr. Thomas Frieden, has himself pointed out that the black market is the one major obstacle in the way of a fully successful campaign against youth smoking. This is why the mayor's continued call for higher cigarette taxes, while Indian retailers are hawking non-taxed smokes with impunity, makes no sense.
The Alliance is poised to join with others in the fight against this problem and the litigation is likely to be launched next week. The tax payers and small businesses of this city and state are being hosed and we're hopeful that Bloomberg and Frieden will join with us in support of the effort to close this unconscionable loophole.
It is also important to emphasize the undeniable reality of the black market in cigarettes that in all likelihood is skewing the results of the city's survey. This phenomenon makes it easier for the youth of the city to avoid the higher prices that the mayor credits for lowering the number of youthful smokers.
In fact the city's health commissioner, Dr. Thomas Frieden, has himself pointed out that the black market is the one major obstacle in the way of a fully successful campaign against youth smoking. This is why the mayor's continued call for higher cigarette taxes, while Indian retailers are hawking non-taxed smokes with impunity, makes no sense.
The Alliance is poised to join with others in the fight against this problem and the litigation is likely to be launched next week. The tax payers and small businesses of this city and state are being hosed and we're hopeful that Bloomberg and Frieden will join with us in support of the effort to close this unconscionable loophole.
Bloomberg Hawks Eminent Domain
In a totally expected move Mike Bloomberg has taken up the fight to preserve eminent domain as a tool of municipal government. In a story that ran a couple of days ago on NY1, it was reported that the mayor was "racking up some frequent flyer miles" in the battle to preserve eminent domain. "Bloomberg says sometimes it has to happen, otherwise, 'Every big city would have all construction come to a screeching halt.'"
Quite the overstatement, Don't you think? What it comes down to, however, is the expansive nature of how ED is currently used, with very few safeguards to protect homeowners or small businesses. And Mike Bloomberg, with his vast wealth, is certainly not the best spokesman for the pro-ED side. After all, we can be sure that he will never have to worry about anyone taking his property.
No one is going to condemn a $20 million town house on the Upper East Side but someone with a couple of acres of property in Willets Point better watch out. This is all about who gets to decide just what is in the public interest. This is an extremely delicate situation when government is transcending basic constitutional rights.
In addition, as we have seen in this city, certain well-placed real estate companies have an insider's advantage. So what happens is that less well-situated firms find that their investments are at risk when government and the private sector collaborate on one of those "well-developed" plans that the NY Times ballyhoos.
As we have said before, we're not totally against a more expansive use of ED for development but it is absolutely essential for New York to craft more comprehensive (and fair) guidelines so that the entire exercise doesn't become Robin Hood in reverse. As David Birdsell of Baruch College points out, "'It's not necessarily the case that the fact that a private interest's developing property means there is no public value. The question is adequate compensation and adequate process for the people who are dispossessed'..."
Quite the overstatement, Don't you think? What it comes down to, however, is the expansive nature of how ED is currently used, with very few safeguards to protect homeowners or small businesses. And Mike Bloomberg, with his vast wealth, is certainly not the best spokesman for the pro-ED side. After all, we can be sure that he will never have to worry about anyone taking his property.
No one is going to condemn a $20 million town house on the Upper East Side but someone with a couple of acres of property in Willets Point better watch out. This is all about who gets to decide just what is in the public interest. This is an extremely delicate situation when government is transcending basic constitutional rights.
In addition, as we have seen in this city, certain well-placed real estate companies have an insider's advantage. So what happens is that less well-situated firms find that their investments are at risk when government and the private sector collaborate on one of those "well-developed" plans that the NY Times ballyhoos.
As we have said before, we're not totally against a more expansive use of ED for development but it is absolutely essential for New York to craft more comprehensive (and fair) guidelines so that the entire exercise doesn't become Robin Hood in reverse. As David Birdsell of Baruch College points out, "'It's not necessarily the case that the fact that a private interest's developing property means there is no public value. The question is adequate compensation and adequate process for the people who are dispossessed'..."
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Observations on Trash
The New York Observer has joined the NY Times in editorially supporting the mayor's SWMP. In giving its support to the plan the Observer talks about the mayor's "long-term vision to resolve the city's solid waste crisis."
Once again we are forced to remind people that a siting plan for garbage hauling is not a long-term vision by any definition. What is long term is for the city to figure out how to manage its trash without a heavy reliance on a truck-to-landfill methodology. The use of marine barges only solves a small part of this unhealthy reliance.
As far as the current SWMP is concerned no one has really put any long-term financial projections together to estimate what the export methodology will cost as landfill space dwindles. In addition, we haven't seen a real good cost estimate of the city's proposal to build all of these new marine transfer stations.
And what about commercial waste? How will the city get the private carters to dump at 59th Street if these companies have their own transfer station facilities? Will the city look to mandate this through some kind of flow control that will undoubtedly be litigated?
Our big fear in all of this is that the city's commercial sector will be held hostage to the public sector and, with a city-owned site mandated, local businesses will be forced to pay through the nose to get rid of their garbage (payments that the city will use to subsidize the residential disposal).
So once again we are left with a garbage disposal plan that isn't a plan, one that has no concept of waste reduction or long-term costs for that matter. No one at the City Council, however, has stepped up to address the SWMP's shortfalls. If it is only about siting, then by all means pass the mayor's plan. Just don't call it a "long-term vision."
Once again we are forced to remind people that a siting plan for garbage hauling is not a long-term vision by any definition. What is long term is for the city to figure out how to manage its trash without a heavy reliance on a truck-to-landfill methodology. The use of marine barges only solves a small part of this unhealthy reliance.
As far as the current SWMP is concerned no one has really put any long-term financial projections together to estimate what the export methodology will cost as landfill space dwindles. In addition, we haven't seen a real good cost estimate of the city's proposal to build all of these new marine transfer stations.
And what about commercial waste? How will the city get the private carters to dump at 59th Street if these companies have their own transfer station facilities? Will the city look to mandate this through some kind of flow control that will undoubtedly be litigated?
Our big fear in all of this is that the city's commercial sector will be held hostage to the public sector and, with a city-owned site mandated, local businesses will be forced to pay through the nose to get rid of their garbage (payments that the city will use to subsidize the residential disposal).
So once again we are left with a garbage disposal plan that isn't a plan, one that has no concept of waste reduction or long-term costs for that matter. No one at the City Council, however, has stepped up to address the SWMP's shortfalls. If it is only about siting, then by all means pass the mayor's plan. Just don't call it a "long-term vision."
Check-Off's In the Mail?
As the Daily News reports today and NY1 follows up, TWU Local 100 is scrambling to come up with a back-up plan just in case the court suspends the union's automatic dues check-off, a decision that could financially cripple the Local. The union is trying to create a voluntary dues plan to prevent what it describes as "union busting."
The union is still trying to fend off a $3 million fine that Governor Pataki wants the court to impose on the union for depriving the public of transportation for three grueling days. All of which makes it extremely difficult for Roger Toussaint to effectively represent his membership as elections loom at the end of the year
The union is still trying to fend off a $3 million fine that Governor Pataki wants the court to impose on the union for depriving the public of transportation for three grueling days. All of which makes it extremely difficult for Roger Toussaint to effectively represent his membership as elections loom at the end of the year
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Wal-Mart Looms Over 2 NY Bills to Improve Worker Health Care
From the NY Times:
The national effort to force Wal-Mart and other employers to provide better health care coverage came to Albany on Tuesday, with legislators of both parties promoting bills that would require many businesses to provide insurance for some 450,000 workers who now lack it.Some unlikely legislators are supporting and sponsoring these initiatives:
The move comes after similar legislation passed in Maryland in January, though that was aimed more narrowly at prodding Wal-Mart. The company has long been accused of offering meager benefits, forcing many employees to seek health care from state programs.
In fact, one of the two bills unveiled Tuesday — both based on a proposal by the Working Families Party — will be sponsored by Senator Nicholas A. Spano, a Westchester Republican who in 2004 provided crucial support for minimum wage legislation, ultimately persuading Senate Republicans to override Gov. George E. Pataki's veto.And how about powerful Majority Leader Bruno:
Governor Pataki and the Senate majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno, the state's two top Republicans, have been cool to proposals in the past to tax businesses that do not provide health insurance. But Mr. Bruno did not rule it out in comments during a news conference on Medicaid in his office.
"When some of these so-called big box stores say to their employees, 'Here is an application to go apply to Family Health Plus or Healthy New York to get your insurance,' that's a taxpayer expense, while the person next door is providing health insurance as part of their overhead," Mr. Bruno said, referring to two state programs aimed at low income people.
Online Cigs Attacked
Most of the papers are reporting the agreement reached by Mayor Bloomberg with a Virginia internet company that would enable the city to begin to collect taxes from folks who bought their smokes online from eSmokes. The mayor, in announcing the settlement made the following statement: "Internet cigarette merchants who misrepresent themselves and evade the law cheat local businesses and New Yorkers."
Hooray for the mayor. The Alliance applauds the enforcement action but the estimated $33 million recovered is just a drop in the bucket compared to the Indian retail loophole. With a lawsuit against the Indian retailers about to be launched the Alliance looks forward to the support of the mayor at eliminating a scam that "misleads the public and breaks the law."
We should point out that this cheating is costing New Yorkers and New York stores at least 20 times the money recovered by the city in yesterday's announced settlement. We would also argue that until this loophole is closed no new cigarette taxes, including the mayor's 50 cent increase, should be imposed. We applaud Joe Bruno for his pledge to hold the line in this regard.
Hooray for the mayor. The Alliance applauds the enforcement action but the estimated $33 million recovered is just a drop in the bucket compared to the Indian retail loophole. With a lawsuit against the Indian retailers about to be launched the Alliance looks forward to the support of the mayor at eliminating a scam that "misleads the public and breaks the law."
We should point out that this cheating is costing New Yorkers and New York stores at least 20 times the money recovered by the city in yesterday's announced settlement. We would also argue that until this loophole is closed no new cigarette taxes, including the mayor's 50 cent increase, should be imposed. We applaud Joe Bruno for his pledge to hold the line in this regard.
Environmental Obstacle for Wal-Mart in Monsey
Last night the Ramapo Planning Board unanimously approved a "positive declaration" for an application to build a 215,000 sq. ft. Wal-Mart Supercenter on RT. 59 in Monsey, NY. As the Journal News reports this morning the Board meeting was attended by members of Local 1262 of the UFCW as well as representatives of the Alliance.
The key issue for the board is the center's potential traffic impact on the already congested Rt. 59 corridor. Allen Berman, the Ramapo's attorney did, however, go through a more comprehensive list of concerns that the Town wanted to see addressed by the developer. In particular, he cited the potential impact on the character of the community as well as the socio-economic impact on area businesses. All of these issues are germane to any comprehensive review under the NYSEQR guidelines.
The attorney for the developer, one Charles Bazydlo, complained briefly to the Board that his consultants had already done "exhaustive" traffic studies of the area and held up a two volume example of the work at the meeting. Of course, no independent eyes have ever seen this work or reviewed it for its veracity. Its length is no testament to its accuracy, as we have seen in numerous other developer-sponsored studies.
A good sign last night was the presence of Bruce Levine, Spring Valley's tenacious village attorney. Levine was at the meeting to reiterate Mayor Darden's strong opposition to the proposed store. Darden is quoted in the News saying. "I just don't think this is a place for Wal-Mart...This is an organization that has been around to try to destroy other businesses."
Clearly, as the News points out quoting the Alliance's Richard Lipsky, the positive declaration is a victory for the community. The developer will no have to go through a rigorous year long review process and the Alliance will be hiring its own traffic consultant to provide a degree of accuracy to the developer's self-serving analysis. The Board has scheduled a scoping session for April 4th and we plan to be there in force.
The key issue for the board is the center's potential traffic impact on the already congested Rt. 59 corridor. Allen Berman, the Ramapo's attorney did, however, go through a more comprehensive list of concerns that the Town wanted to see addressed by the developer. In particular, he cited the potential impact on the character of the community as well as the socio-economic impact on area businesses. All of these issues are germane to any comprehensive review under the NYSEQR guidelines.
The attorney for the developer, one Charles Bazydlo, complained briefly to the Board that his consultants had already done "exhaustive" traffic studies of the area and held up a two volume example of the work at the meeting. Of course, no independent eyes have ever seen this work or reviewed it for its veracity. Its length is no testament to its accuracy, as we have seen in numerous other developer-sponsored studies.
A good sign last night was the presence of Bruce Levine, Spring Valley's tenacious village attorney. Levine was at the meeting to reiterate Mayor Darden's strong opposition to the proposed store. Darden is quoted in the News saying. "I just don't think this is a place for Wal-Mart...This is an organization that has been around to try to destroy other businesses."
Clearly, as the News points out quoting the Alliance's Richard Lipsky, the positive declaration is a victory for the community. The developer will no have to go through a rigorous year long review process and the Alliance will be hiring its own traffic consultant to provide a degree of accuracy to the developer's self-serving analysis. The Board has scheduled a scoping session for April 4th and we plan to be there in force.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Wal-Mart goes on the Blogfensive
The NY Times has an interesting front page story today on Wal-Mart’s attempt to use blogs as a PR weapon. Wal-Mart, through its PR company Edelman, sends out communiqués to bloggers, complete with formatted text and links, with favorable information about the country. One issue is that bloggers are lifting this information sometimes word for word with attribution:
But some bloggers have posted information from Wal-Mart, at times word for word, without revealing where it came from.But the bigger story is that Wal-Mart has been nettled by critics and is doing anything it can to strike back. With its controversial Staten Island store entering the land use review process shortly and its proposed suburban Monsey, NY supercenter receiving considerable flak, the world’s largest retailer is attempting to mitigate the poor PR that especially harms them in these site fights. However, though we obviously respect blogging, Wal-Mart is going to have to do much more to convince NYC and many other communities around the country that this store makes sense for their neighborhoods.
Glenn Reynolds, the founder of Instapundit.com, one of the oldest blogs on the Web, said that even in the blogosphere, which is renowned for its lack of rules, a basic tenet applies: "If I reprint something, I say where it came from. A blog is about your voice, it seems to me, not somebody else's."
Wal-Mart Boxed In
Theboxtank is running a feature on the attempt by Wal-Mart to devise some unique urban designs for some of their city stores. This brings to mind Al Smith's famous quote: "No matter how you slice it, it's still bologna." You really need to take a gander at some of the futuristic designs, it reminiscent of Jed Clampett in a tuxedo.
All of which is, at least for us, besides the point. The threat that Wal-Mart creates has little or nothing at all to do with the ugly box store design. And really when you look at some of the photos you have to wonder what this would mean to a site on Pitkin Avenue in East New York, or on on Richmond Valley Road in Tottenville.
What is intriguing about these new multi-level stores is, well, their multi-levels. But this design feature doesn't change the central dynamic of the box store: its dependence on cars and a large parking facility. Will it make any difference for a Wal-Mart in Soho if the parking is below grade?
Of course the union and small business issues aren't altered by the design component either. It reminds us of the attempt by Costco to introduce its "Costco Fresh" concept into the city in the late nineties. No on was fooled in Chelsea by this attempt at repackaging and the Wal-Mart makeover will generate the same kind of skepticism. As always, the real fight will be a site fight, and the nature of the local community will determine the outcome.
All of which is, at least for us, besides the point. The threat that Wal-Mart creates has little or nothing at all to do with the ugly box store design. And really when you look at some of the photos you have to wonder what this would mean to a site on Pitkin Avenue in East New York, or on on Richmond Valley Road in Tottenville.
What is intriguing about these new multi-level stores is, well, their multi-levels. But this design feature doesn't change the central dynamic of the box store: its dependence on cars and a large parking facility. Will it make any difference for a Wal-Mart in Soho if the parking is below grade?
Of course the union and small business issues aren't altered by the design component either. It reminds us of the attempt by Costco to introduce its "Costco Fresh" concept into the city in the late nineties. No on was fooled in Chelsea by this attempt at repackaging and the Wal-Mart makeover will generate the same kind of skepticism. As always, the real fight will be a site fight, and the nature of the local community will determine the outcome.
Et Toussaint?
It looks like when it comes to Roger Toussaint, when it rains it pours. The latest in the Toussaint travails is an allegation that the so-called grassroots petition drive at Local 100 to re-vote the contract that the rank-and-file turned down recently is in reality an effort orchestrated by the transit union head himself.
At least it is according to allegations reported yesterday in Newsday. As one union member remarked, "Don't put up a smokescreen and pretend it's grassroots." Toussaint must be getting quite antsy with union elections scheduled at the end of the year. The more this contract issue is allowed to fester and the closer it gets to a union vote, the greater the trouble for Roger.
At least it is according to allegations reported yesterday in Newsday. As one union member remarked, "Don't put up a smokescreen and pretend it's grassroots." Toussaint must be getting quite antsy with union elections scheduled at the end of the year. The more this contract issue is allowed to fester and the closer it gets to a union vote, the greater the trouble for Roger.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Toussaint just like the MTA
According to today’s NY Post, Transit Workers Union Vice President Ainsley Stewart is suing Roger Toussaint and Local 100 for illegally docking his pay more than $20,000. Stewart is one of Toussaint’s most vocal opponents and believes that this action is nothing more than retribution:
"He wants to bend and break me," Stewart said. "Everything he's condemned the MTA for he now does to me."It will be interesting to see if stories like these, combined with the failed strike and prolonged absence of a contract, will lead to Toussaint’s ousting during the next union elections.
Trashy Plan
In yesterday's NY Times the paper editorializes in favor of Mayor Bloomberg's solid waste plan. The paper continues to fail to understand the plan's total inadequacy to devise a single credible waste reduction strategy.
It is simply not enough to craft a "fair share" distribution of waste transfer stations whose sole merit is that more neighborhoods get to experience the pain of the siting of noxious garbage facilities. Ths Times, lost in the nuances of this debate, decides that the issue is NIMBY: "The not-in-my-backyard attitude is understandable. But that alone is no reason for one neighborhood to escape its responsibility."
Just so. The fact is that this is not what this should be all about and, quite frankly, the Times should do better than simply parrot the mayor's clever misdirection. When the paper says that the city's proposal would enable "most of the trucks" to come off of the street it has no idea what it is talking about. With no reduction in the amount of garbage generated truck traffic to local transfer stations continues unabated.
In addition, the Times has no discussion of the mayor's recycling proposals, the ones that the mayor has called "groundbreaking." The harsh fact is that the current SWMP is simply a real estate policy, one that already has a $1 billion price tag and the cost is still growing.
The editorial does make at least one good point about some critics of the mayor's plan: "So far its opponents have been short of real alternatives..." This is true of those folks fighting the Manhattan siting issue but is totally off-base when it comes to those of us who have been advocating the expansion of the use of food waste disposers.
The use of disposers would be the one method that would reduce the amount of waste generated and therefore trucked into the transfer station neighborhoods. In addition, the removal of food waste is also the single best method for the enhancement of recycling. Once putrescible waste is removed the rest of the materials, no longer contaminated, are more easily recyclable.
Entertaining the expansion of disposer use should also generate a re-evaluation of the need to construct so many of the proposed transfer stations. There should be no need if the level of garbage reduction begins to approach the percentage of food waste in the waste stream (over 25%). In addition, the transfer stations themselves could be converted into material recycling facilities (MRF's) and the noxiousness of their presence could be reduced.
It is simply not enough to craft a "fair share" distribution of waste transfer stations whose sole merit is that more neighborhoods get to experience the pain of the siting of noxious garbage facilities. Ths Times, lost in the nuances of this debate, decides that the issue is NIMBY: "The not-in-my-backyard attitude is understandable. But that alone is no reason for one neighborhood to escape its responsibility."
Just so. The fact is that this is not what this should be all about and, quite frankly, the Times should do better than simply parrot the mayor's clever misdirection. When the paper says that the city's proposal would enable "most of the trucks" to come off of the street it has no idea what it is talking about. With no reduction in the amount of garbage generated truck traffic to local transfer stations continues unabated.
In addition, the Times has no discussion of the mayor's recycling proposals, the ones that the mayor has called "groundbreaking." The harsh fact is that the current SWMP is simply a real estate policy, one that already has a $1 billion price tag and the cost is still growing.
The editorial does make at least one good point about some critics of the mayor's plan: "So far its opponents have been short of real alternatives..." This is true of those folks fighting the Manhattan siting issue but is totally off-base when it comes to those of us who have been advocating the expansion of the use of food waste disposers.
The use of disposers would be the one method that would reduce the amount of waste generated and therefore trucked into the transfer station neighborhoods. In addition, the removal of food waste is also the single best method for the enhancement of recycling. Once putrescible waste is removed the rest of the materials, no longer contaminated, are more easily recyclable.
Entertaining the expansion of disposer use should also generate a re-evaluation of the need to construct so many of the proposed transfer stations. There should be no need if the level of garbage reduction begins to approach the percentage of food waste in the waste stream (over 25%). In addition, the transfer stations themselves could be converted into material recycling facilities (MRF's) and the noxiousness of their presence could be reduced.
Traffic Nightmare Targets Staten Island
There was a good piece in Friday's SI Advance on the opening of a Target store at the Bricktown Centre on the South Shore of the Island. It will be interesting to see if Islanders will forego the lower-priced New Jersey option in favor of a Target that is closer to their homes. As the paper points out, "Opponents of Bricktown Centre have argued that Islanders can easily cross the bridge to shop at similar stores in New Jersey, where there is no tax on clothing..."
Borough President Molinaro disagrees and believes the store will be a success but, as we have pointed out, he is rightfully concerned with the pending traffic nightmare if the area's road infrastructure is not improved. The Advance underscores this point: "While Molinaro supported Bricktown, he has also recently predicted a 'traffic nightmare' in the area if untouched portions of Page Avenue and Arthur Kill Road and Veterans Road West are built out with similar stores, and he said that$100 million worth of roadway improvements is needed."
This of course has implications for the proposed Wal-Mart on Richmond Valley Road, as well as a Stop-N-Shop on Page. The supermarket is likely to have greater local support since it's not a regional draw and its trade area is much smaller.
Borough President Molinaro disagrees and believes the store will be a success but, as we have pointed out, he is rightfully concerned with the pending traffic nightmare if the area's road infrastructure is not improved. The Advance underscores this point: "While Molinaro supported Bricktown, he has also recently predicted a 'traffic nightmare' in the area if untouched portions of Page Avenue and Arthur Kill Road and Veterans Road West are built out with similar stores, and he said that$100 million worth of roadway improvements is needed."
This of course has implications for the proposed Wal-Mart on Richmond Valley Road, as well as a Stop-N-Shop on Page. The supermarket is likely to have greater local support since it's not a regional draw and its trade area is much smaller.
Friday, March 03, 2006
The McLaughlin Raid
New York City is abuzz with the news that the Central Labor Council offices were raided yesterday and its chief, Assemblyman Brian McLaughlin, is under suspicion of ridding bids for city street lighting contracts. While nothing is certain at this point we agree with Juan Gonzalez of the Daily News that McLaughlin has done a lot for the labor movement of this city but nonetheless he needs to answer questions and fast.
The NY Post also editorializes on the subject today in its typical vitriolic fashion. In the Post’s harangue it uses the investigation of McLaughlin and the CLC to make wide-sweeping attacks on the labor movement and those politicians who are supposedly bought by labor. Certainly organized labor has had its untoward incidents but then again so has corporate America, specifically Wal-Mart. We don’t remember the Post issuing a tirade against the world’s largest retailer when Vice President Tom Coughlin was forced out for improper conduct (depending on which side you ask it was either for improper use of company funds or illegal union busting).
We also can’t seem to remember the Post railing against the Bronx Terminal Market sweetheart deal, the genesis of which was the conflict-of-interest relationship between a city official and a powerful real estate firm. Or how about when Maria Baez accepted $40,000 dollars from the Related Companies and its consultants and then all of sudden became both a BJ’s and Gateway Mall booster?
We agree that McLaughlin has some explaining to do but so does the Post when it allows such ill-informed invective to appear on its pages.
The NY Post also editorializes on the subject today in its typical vitriolic fashion. In the Post’s harangue it uses the investigation of McLaughlin and the CLC to make wide-sweeping attacks on the labor movement and those politicians who are supposedly bought by labor. Certainly organized labor has had its untoward incidents but then again so has corporate America, specifically Wal-Mart. We don’t remember the Post issuing a tirade against the world’s largest retailer when Vice President Tom Coughlin was forced out for improper conduct (depending on which side you ask it was either for improper use of company funds or illegal union busting).
We also can’t seem to remember the Post railing against the Bronx Terminal Market sweetheart deal, the genesis of which was the conflict-of-interest relationship between a city official and a powerful real estate firm. Or how about when Maria Baez accepted $40,000 dollars from the Related Companies and its consultants and then all of sudden became both a BJ’s and Gateway Mall booster?
We agree that McLaughlin has some explaining to do but so does the Post when it allows such ill-informed invective to appear on its pages.
Eminent Domain Showdown
As we had noted the other day the city has designated a short list of finalists for the development of Willets Point. In today's NY Sun (Crain's Insider also makes note) Dave Lombino goes into greater details on the city's interest in developing the Iron Triangle. And as he points out, "The proposed project is likely to require condemnation of private property through the exercise of eminent domain..."
All 48 acre of the Point will be subject to at least the threat of eminent domain and it will create the single largest area of property threatened with a public taking in the city's recent memory. It certainly will be one of the largest land areas slated for condemnation that will be utilized exclusively for private development.
Even our good friend Jesse James Masyr, the lawyer for Related, a company that is "seriously thinking about" the possibilities at the Point, recognizes the complications this project entails, "It's a great piece of property, but it's complicated how you will get the land control--so much of it is privately owned."
Well, actually it isn't all that complicated as to how you can get control. It's the controversy that the process will generate. Related's interest will undoubtedly recall all of the questions concerning Steve Ross's relationship with Dan Doctoroff and will generate speculation over whether the company's "favored nation" status remains.
In any case it appears that, according to the Sun, a consultant will be hired by EDC to prepare an EIS and the review process may even begin before a company is selected. The review promises to be contentious since Councilmember Monserrate remains a skeptic of the development and is certainly no knee-jerk supporter of the work of EDC.
As Monserrate says about the Willets Point area,
All 48 acre of the Point will be subject to at least the threat of eminent domain and it will create the single largest area of property threatened with a public taking in the city's recent memory. It certainly will be one of the largest land areas slated for condemnation that will be utilized exclusively for private development.
Even our good friend Jesse James Masyr, the lawyer for Related, a company that is "seriously thinking about" the possibilities at the Point, recognizes the complications this project entails, "It's a great piece of property, but it's complicated how you will get the land control--so much of it is privately owned."
Well, actually it isn't all that complicated as to how you can get control. It's the controversy that the process will generate. Related's interest will undoubtedly recall all of the questions concerning Steve Ross's relationship with Dan Doctoroff and will generate speculation over whether the company's "favored nation" status remains.
In any case it appears that, according to the Sun, a consultant will be hired by EDC to prepare an EIS and the review process may even begin before a company is selected. The review promises to be contentious since Councilmember Monserrate remains a skeptic of the development and is certainly no knee-jerk supporter of the work of EDC.
As Monserrate says about the Willets Point area,
"It is a viable economic hub today. It generates revenues and produces jobs...I'm more concerned that those who work and live in the surrounding area will be directly impacted. It is unacceptable if we don't meet the needs and interests of the people in these communities first, before the developer."All of which rekindles the importance of addressing the issue of accountable development. The interests of the various community and business stakeholders must be catalogued and then taken into consideration. Collateral damages must also be evaluated and any effort that involves the taking of private property must meet some very high standards before being initiated.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Spring Valley Saying No To Wal-Mart
Periodically, we’ve been mentioning Wal-Mart’s desire to build a super center in Monsey, NY, about 45 minutes north of New York City. There is considerable opposition to the store both from local elected officials and the surrounding community. Traffic is a major concern as is environmental impact, the affect on small businesses and the desire to use the site for another purpose.
Yesterday we met with the mayor of the area George Darden as well as his village attorney Bruce Levine. Mayor Darden is a staunch opponent to a super Wal-Mart in the area and he was very receptive to the idea of forming a labor/business/community coalition in opposition to the store. He and Levine mentioned that representatives from nearby senior centers, housing developments and schools as well as Orthodox Jewish leaders expressed considerable concerns about the negative impact a 215,000 sq. ft. Wal-Mart would have on their quality of life and local businesses.
We plan to continue working with the mayor and his constituents to grow this coalition and stop Wal-Mart in Monsey. The first step will be at the town’s planning board meeting March 7th at 8:00 p.m. where they will decide whether Wal-Mart needs to conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement for the development. If the board votes for this “positive declaration” then we have the first sign that they’re at the very least concerned about what a mammoth big box store would do to the environment an already congested road infrastructure. We will be at this meeting to signal to the planning commissioners that this development needs the closest scrutiny possible.
Yesterday we met with the mayor of the area George Darden as well as his village attorney Bruce Levine. Mayor Darden is a staunch opponent to a super Wal-Mart in the area and he was very receptive to the idea of forming a labor/business/community coalition in opposition to the store. He and Levine mentioned that representatives from nearby senior centers, housing developments and schools as well as Orthodox Jewish leaders expressed considerable concerns about the negative impact a 215,000 sq. ft. Wal-Mart would have on their quality of life and local businesses.
We plan to continue working with the mayor and his constituents to grow this coalition and stop Wal-Mart in Monsey. The first step will be at the town’s planning board meeting March 7th at 8:00 p.m. where they will decide whether Wal-Mart needs to conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement for the development. If the board votes for this “positive declaration” then we have the first sign that they’re at the very least concerned about what a mammoth big box store would do to the environment an already congested road infrastructure. We will be at this meeting to signal to the planning commissioners that this development needs the closest scrutiny possible.
ED and Willets Point: Weld Sets The Bar
In a speech before the Manhattan Institute that is reported in today's NY Sun William Weld, a Republican candidate for governor, came out forcefully against the use of eminent domain for the purpose of economic development. Criticizing the SC's Kelo decision Weld said that the court, "has put alleged collective needs ahead of individual liberty and property rights."
Weld also likened the use of ED to the actions of Chinese Communists. Clearly, as we have said on numerous previous occasions, this is the kind of issue that can really create a strong coalition across the traditional liberal-conservative divide and Weld is smart to get out in front on it. He is right to challenge Eliot Spitzer on his stance because it is time for a real substantive debate on the use of this development tool.
Which of course brings us directly to the issue of Willets Point. Our sources are telling us that EDC has short-listed 6 developers for the Iron Triangle site. The basic template is for 1,000,000 sq. ft. of retail, a convention center and a hotel, along with a certain amount of residential as well.
The sticking point, however, is the 200 or so businesses and property owners who are currently occupying the site. The mayor has already staked out his pro-eminent domain position and it will be fascinating to see how the Willets Point thing plays out now that Weld, the Republican, is joining forces with Norm Siegal,Tish James and the other left of center folks who have led the anti-ED charge.
Oh yes, it is also important to mention that the Related Company is on the short list. But of course, another example of the meritocracy and the way in which the Bloombergers are above the "special interests." And why not Related? After all it has already exhibited its great sensitivity to local business in the eviction of the BTM merchants.
Weld also likened the use of ED to the actions of Chinese Communists. Clearly, as we have said on numerous previous occasions, this is the kind of issue that can really create a strong coalition across the traditional liberal-conservative divide and Weld is smart to get out in front on it. He is right to challenge Eliot Spitzer on his stance because it is time for a real substantive debate on the use of this development tool.
Which of course brings us directly to the issue of Willets Point. Our sources are telling us that EDC has short-listed 6 developers for the Iron Triangle site. The basic template is for 1,000,000 sq. ft. of retail, a convention center and a hotel, along with a certain amount of residential as well.
The sticking point, however, is the 200 or so businesses and property owners who are currently occupying the site. The mayor has already staked out his pro-eminent domain position and it will be fascinating to see how the Willets Point thing plays out now that Weld, the Republican, is joining forces with Norm Siegal,Tish James and the other left of center folks who have led the anti-ED charge.
Oh yes, it is also important to mention that the Related Company is on the short list. But of course, another example of the meritocracy and the way in which the Bloombergers are above the "special interests." And why not Related? After all it has already exhibited its great sensitivity to local business in the eviction of the BTM merchants.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
TWU: Between a Rock and a Hard Place
First reported by the Daily News, certain members of the TWU are pushing the union to revote the contract rejected in January. According to the NY Times, thousands of workers have signed a petition urging Local president Toussaint to call for a new vote before negotiations go to binding arbitration. They understand that no matter how flawed the voted down contract was it will certainly be better than whatever arbitration yields:
MTA board member Barry Feinstein sums up this reality:
As we’ve said in the past, the MTA deserves its fair share of the blame as well. Attorney General Spitzer made this point yesterday, mentioning out how the Authority lacks transparency, keeps two sets of books, and raises fares as it garners a record surplus. We agree with Spitzer that the MTA and these other semi-public organizations need better oversight and that it’s unfair for the union, no matter how leadership-challenged, to bear the brunt of the criticism for the current impasse.
MTA board member Barry Feinstein sums up this reality:
"Sure, I think it would be good," Mr. Feinstein said. For union members, "I don't believe it's possible to get a better deal," he said. "It's all down from here."This unfortunate choice between bad and worse is, in part, a result of Toussaint’s leadership failure. By engaging in a fruitless strike, the TWU Local 100 president put the union into a much weaker position, as is seen by the choice between a substandard contract and arbitration. And, as we have been told, there was a better offer on the table in December just prior to the strike call but Toussaint was more interested in walking out.
As we’ve said in the past, the MTA deserves its fair share of the blame as well. Attorney General Spitzer made this point yesterday, mentioning out how the Authority lacks transparency, keeps two sets of books, and raises fares as it garners a record surplus. We agree with Spitzer that the MTA and these other semi-public organizations need better oversight and that it’s unfair for the union, no matter how leadership-challenged, to bear the brunt of the criticism for the current impasse.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Wal-Mart Cries for Help
Acting as if his company was the struggling corner store, Wal-Mart's CEO Lee Scott told the National Governor' Conference on Sunday that his chain needs help with spiraling health care costs. Yeah, as if he were actually paying health benefits to the majority of his workforce.
If this wasn't so sad it would actually be quite funny since Scott claims that the company's health care costs "have risen 19% in each of the past three years and it's only a matter of time before it, along with other businesses, cannot sustain rising costs." Especially, we should add, those others that are truly covering their workers at the same time they're trying to compete with the Wal-Marts and BJ's of the world.
What is heartening is that it appears as if the campaign against the retail giant's poor record on benefits is beginning to bear fruit. As reported in AMNewYork (courtesy of the Associated Press),
All of which comes at a time when Wal-Mart is still the country's leader in employees on the government dole. Last Friday the Columbus Dispatch informed its readers that the retail giant "had the most workers on government health insurance rolls" in the state of Ohio (ahead of McDonalds).
At the same time that Lee Scott is trying to play catch-up and burnish his company image he couldn't resist taking a shot at health care legislation that is aimed at compelling companies to get their employees off the public rolls. He resents the requirement that companies "spend an arbitrary percentage" of payroll on benefits.
We're all for a nationwide approach to reining in health care costs. Wal-Mart, however, is the most inappropriate spokesman for this effort.
If this wasn't so sad it would actually be quite funny since Scott claims that the company's health care costs "have risen 19% in each of the past three years and it's only a matter of time before it, along with other businesses, cannot sustain rising costs." Especially, we should add, those others that are truly covering their workers at the same time they're trying to compete with the Wal-Marts and BJ's of the world.
What is heartening is that it appears as if the campaign against the retail giant's poor record on benefits is beginning to bear fruit. As reported in AMNewYork (courtesy of the Associated Press),
"Under mounting criticism Wal-Mart last fall offered new lower-premium insurance aimed at getting more of its work force on company plans."There are even new provisions that cover children of part-time workers.
All of which comes at a time when Wal-Mart is still the country's leader in employees on the government dole. Last Friday the Columbus Dispatch informed its readers that the retail giant "had the most workers on government health insurance rolls" in the state of Ohio (ahead of McDonalds).
At the same time that Lee Scott is trying to play catch-up and burnish his company image he couldn't resist taking a shot at health care legislation that is aimed at compelling companies to get their employees off the public rolls. He resents the requirement that companies "spend an arbitrary percentage" of payroll on benefits.
We're all for a nationwide approach to reining in health care costs. Wal-Mart, however, is the most inappropriate spokesman for this effort.
They Paved Staten Island and Made it a Parking Lot
We’ve mentioned in the past that Staten Island traffic congestion is already nightmarish and that the road infrastructure, according to the SI Chamber of Commerce, is at or above capacity. We’ve also mentioned that the borough’s top officials have called for a “Marshall Plan” to fix the myriad traffic issues on the Island.
Despite this, developers are still pushing additional automobile-dependent projects. One such proposal is the NASCAR speedway that has drawn considerable opposition from a wide cross-section of Staten Islanders. Of course, the 80,000 fans coming during a race weekend worries people but there is another aspect of the racetrack plan that isn’t talked about as much but will have a profound impact on the maneuverability.
According to the SI Advance, our friends the Related Companies want to build a 620,000 sq. ft. mall, similar to their Gateway Estates in East New York, as part of the NASCAR project. Councilman McMahon is concerned:
Wal-Mart and BJs
The other issue is whether Related is going to tenant this mall with a Wal-Mart or BJs. The latter is the most likely option considering the two companies’ close relationship and Related's push to add the non-union store to its South Bronx Gateway Center:
Despite this, developers are still pushing additional automobile-dependent projects. One such proposal is the NASCAR speedway that has drawn considerable opposition from a wide cross-section of Staten Islanders. Of course, the 80,000 fans coming during a race weekend worries people but there is another aspect of the racetrack plan that isn’t talked about as much but will have a profound impact on the maneuverability.
According to the SI Advance, our friends the Related Companies want to build a 620,000 sq. ft. mall, similar to their Gateway Estates in East New York, as part of the NASCAR project. Councilman McMahon is concerned:
The potential traffic impact of that kind of lineup has City Councilman Michael McMahon calling the retail center a "Trojan horse."Of course Related says everything is going to be fine:
During a peak Saturday shopping hour, the developers expect more than 1,800 cars coming into the center, and another 1,500 leaving.
It's the element that's sort of been presented as a gift, and no one's really looked at it. And it may end up being a thing that has a very serious impact on traffic and quality of life," McMahon (D-North Shore) says.
But the developers downplay the possible burden, saying much of that traffic would be on the road anyway, heading to New Jersey's big stores.This is typical developer pabulum and if Related’s Bronx Terminal Market traffic analysis is any indication, nothing the politically-connected company asserts should be trusted.
They also contend the road improvements they'll put in place for raceday events -- including new on- and off-ramps on the Island's two expressways -- will be able to handle retail traffic.
On race weekends, the developers predict in their traffic plan, fewer customers will show up because they'll be deterred by "the unusual race day travel conditions."
Wal-Mart and BJs
The other issue is whether Related is going to tenant this mall with a Wal-Mart or BJs. The latter is the most likely option considering the two companies’ close relationship and Related's push to add the non-union store to its South Bronx Gateway Center:
Based on Related's other retail projects, though, BJ's would be a good bet.We’ll keep you all updated.
Related has included a BJ's in its in Brooklyn and College Point, Queens, retail centers, and it plans to build another at the site of the old Bronx Terminal Market.
Shaw Departs
All of the local papers are reporting on the departure of Deputy Mayor Marc Shaw who's leaving the Bloombergers to join with the real estate development company Extell. Shaw will become Extell's VP for "strategic planning." We wish Marc well and can't help but use his departure to muse on a constant theme of ours: the interconnection of politics and real estate in this city.
You'll notice that Mr. Shaw didn't open up a neighborhood bodega or go toil with a public spirited not-for-profit. We can't really blame him for this since we know that Marc has children he needs to put through college. That's just the point, however.
Real estate is the premier industry in this city and folks in government are quite aware of this. Doing things for these folks makes sense because their interests seem to naturally be in the public interest, it's part of the "mobilization of bias" we have been talking about.
But of course there's another aspect of this that is less sanguine. The fact that the nexus of money and power resides in this quadrant creates a symbiosis that leads to the kind of revolving door we see with the lucrative departure of Marc Shaw. There is then a built-in self interest involved in the decision making process when it comes to economic development in this town.
Promoting development and the developers behind it has a potential benefit for the government official. This has been especially true of the good folks at EDC where the revolving door is well greased. As a result, policy is crafted with the built-in bias we talked about. Accountable development is sacrificed since the "accountants" are accountable only to their own worldview and personal self-interest.
You'll notice that Mr. Shaw didn't open up a neighborhood bodega or go toil with a public spirited not-for-profit. We can't really blame him for this since we know that Marc has children he needs to put through college. That's just the point, however.
Real estate is the premier industry in this city and folks in government are quite aware of this. Doing things for these folks makes sense because their interests seem to naturally be in the public interest, it's part of the "mobilization of bias" we have been talking about.
But of course there's another aspect of this that is less sanguine. The fact that the nexus of money and power resides in this quadrant creates a symbiosis that leads to the kind of revolving door we see with the lucrative departure of Marc Shaw. There is then a built-in self interest involved in the decision making process when it comes to economic development in this town.
Promoting development and the developers behind it has a potential benefit for the government official. This has been especially true of the good folks at EDC where the revolving door is well greased. As a result, policy is crafted with the built-in bias we talked about. Accountable development is sacrificed since the "accountants" are accountable only to their own worldview and personal self-interest.
The Young and the Restless Wal-Mart
You might have wondered what it would take for the NY Sun to find a reason to praise Andrew Young. Wonder no more. You see Jimmy Carter's favorite UN ambassador has come in for high praise because he has enlisted in the fight over Wal-Mart, lending his considerable prestige and support to the retail giant.
The Sun's editorial is entitled, "The Right to Low Prices", and goes on to underscore just how much the Sun feels that the retailer does for poor folks. Quoting economist Jason Furman the editorial opines that the successful effort to stifle Wal-Mart will lead "to higher prices that disproportionately harm lower-income families."
Going on in its praise of Mr. Young the Sun depicts the Wal-Mart fight as a "civil rights" battle where "the poor benefit most." Listen closely, Can't you hear the cadences of "We Shall Overcome" emanating from the lower Manhattan offices of the Sun? This is surely the silliest thing we've read in quite some time.
Let's put aside the fact that the Young-led Working Families for Wal-Mart is one well-funded Trojan Horse that will use poor people to enrich not only Wal-Mart, but of course Young himself. The Sun should know better and should be more aware of the ecology of neighborhoods in this city and the role of immigrant entrepreneurs in their resurgence. These are the issues we raise in our "conservative case" against Wal-Mart and they are especially germane to this city.
Still, the enlisting of Andy young is a harbinger of things to come as Wal-Mart uses its unlimited resources to line up the city's eager "booty capitalists" in its effort to penetrate New York's market. It won't do much good in Staten Island or Monsey, New York, but it will certainly resonate in East New York, the South Bronx and Jamaica. And this is where the real battle for New York will take place.
The Sun's editorial is entitled, "The Right to Low Prices", and goes on to underscore just how much the Sun feels that the retailer does for poor folks. Quoting economist Jason Furman the editorial opines that the successful effort to stifle Wal-Mart will lead "to higher prices that disproportionately harm lower-income families."
Going on in its praise of Mr. Young the Sun depicts the Wal-Mart fight as a "civil rights" battle where "the poor benefit most." Listen closely, Can't you hear the cadences of "We Shall Overcome" emanating from the lower Manhattan offices of the Sun? This is surely the silliest thing we've read in quite some time.
Let's put aside the fact that the Young-led Working Families for Wal-Mart is one well-funded Trojan Horse that will use poor people to enrich not only Wal-Mart, but of course Young himself. The Sun should know better and should be more aware of the ecology of neighborhoods in this city and the role of immigrant entrepreneurs in their resurgence. These are the issues we raise in our "conservative case" against Wal-Mart and they are especially germane to this city.
Still, the enlisting of Andy young is a harbinger of things to come as Wal-Mart uses its unlimited resources to line up the city's eager "booty capitalists" in its effort to penetrate New York's market. It won't do much good in Staten Island or Monsey, New York, but it will certainly resonate in East New York, the South Bronx and Jamaica. And this is where the real battle for New York will take place.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Toussaint not a saint
The New York Post editorializes today about the relatively high raises TWU Local 100 President Roger Toussaint received as compared with his rank and file. The Local’s rules explicitly forbid its employees from carrying over vacation time but an exception was made for Toussaint so that he could receive the increased salary. The Post reacts:
Now it comes to light that [Toussaint] flaunts the TWU's internal rules, too.Though we disagree with the Post’s general anti-union sentiment and failure to criticize MTA, they are absolutely correct that not only was the TWU’s President blithely breaking his union’s own rules but that this transgression is part of a larger failure of leadership. We believe that the rank and file realize this and that Toussaint’s days as the head of Local 100 very well may be numbered.
He claims he was just cashing in unused vacation time, not getting a true raise.
But that's a problem: TWU rules also say vacation time can't be carried over.
And this is the man who led Local 100 into battle.
Related’s CBA Is Criticized Again
According to Heather Haddon in the most recent Norwood News, community groups continue to criticize the “community benefits agreement” for the Related Companies’ Gateway Mall, saying that the negotiation process was illegitimate, the concessions were minimal and the document not even endorsed by the taskforce ostensibly set up to draft the agreement:
We guess that for Martinez a paltry $5 million CBA that was negotiated after the land use process began, did not involve direct talks between the developer and affected communities and does not even apply to the development’s tenants is close to the comprehensive Staples or LAX airport agreements. And when pressed on the fact that the Gateway agreement does not force Related to do anything:
The article continues to highlight community criticisms of the CBA and points out that a majority of the groups originally involved did not sign. Greg Bell, from Bronx Voices for Equal Inclusion, succinctly explains the lack of enthusiasm for this “historic” deal:
As we’ve mentioned before, it is important to criticize this agreement because certain elected officials and developers will attempt to use it as a model for future developments. Pat Canale, of the 161st Street Merchants summarizes this point:
“It’s a disgrace,” said Pasquale Canale, president of the 161st Street Merchants Association. “We don’t feel that the community got anything.”Assemblyman and Bronx County chief Jose Rivera said most of the credit for the “benchmark” CBA belongs to his chief of staff Ululy Martinez (since the community wasn’t involved it’s probably appropriate not to mention them). Martinez said he consulted the touted agreements from California and admitted that while the Bronx version wasn’t as good it came close.
We guess that for Martinez a paltry $5 million CBA that was negotiated after the land use process began, did not involve direct talks between the developer and affected communities and does not even apply to the development’s tenants is close to the comprehensive Staples or LAX airport agreements. And when pressed on the fact that the Gateway agreement does not force Related to do anything:
Martinez said Related was reluctant to make the agreement binding, but that officials succeeded in adding “enforcement mechanisms.” He didn’t elaborate on those measures.When a developer is under no pressure of course it’s not going to sign a binding agreement. And if the document isn’t binding, what good is it?
The article continues to highlight community criticisms of the CBA and points out that a majority of the groups originally involved did not sign. Greg Bell, from Bronx Voices for Equal Inclusion, succinctly explains the lack of enthusiasm for this “historic” deal:
“Our two main focuses are transparency and inclusion,” Bell said. “This had neither.”Borough President Carrion’s office responded, acknowledging that perhaps this was a tiny bit problematic:
Anne Fenton, a spokesperson for the borough president, admitted that the rushed nature of the endorsement process wasn’t ideal, but she said that the signatories did represent each of the committees. “We chose three people that were heavily involved,” she said.Wow, three people! And who were these three groups that are supposed to represent the South Bronx community? Two are government controlled entities and the one community-based group is located 3.5 miles from the project site.
As we’ve mentioned before, it is important to criticize this agreement because certain elected officials and developers will attempt to use it as a model for future developments. Pat Canale, of the 161st Street Merchants summarizes this point:
Critics worry that a closed-door process has implications for the neighboring Yankee Stadium development. The new stadium and parking garage, which would put replace two park, is moving forward despite growing community opposition.
Canale feels burned by Bronx officials. “How can you forget the neighborhood that put you up there?” asked Canale, who collected over 250 signatures against the stadium in less than two days. “The Yankees weren’t the people who elected you.”
New York's Business Climate
As the NY Sun reports today the non-partisan Tax Foundation has found that "New York State has the most hostile business climate in the nation, largely due to higher personal income, sales and business taxes." This report, coming as it does on the heels of similar previous appraisals, makes it clear that our Republican elected officials have failed in their efforts to make the state and the city more business friendly.
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that this message is getting through, since we don't see any of our city officials proposing tax and regulatory changes that would begin to alleviate this burden. Remember it was Mike Bloomberg who describe NYC as a "luxury item" and characterized the protests of bodegas against the confiscatory cigarette tax as a "minor economic issue."
Bloomberg has yet to demonstrate that he sees economic development as anything but the aggrandizement of large real estate interests. Will the City Council have a different perspective?
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that this message is getting through, since we don't see any of our city officials proposing tax and regulatory changes that would begin to alleviate this burden. Remember it was Mike Bloomberg who describe NYC as a "luxury item" and characterized the protests of bodegas against the confiscatory cigarette tax as a "minor economic issue."
Bloomberg has yet to demonstrate that he sees economic development as anything but the aggrandizement of large real estate interests. Will the City Council have a different perspective?
In Defense of Lobbyists
In today's NY Post the paper editorializes in support of lobbyists. What's really compelling in the piece is the way the Post goes after the mayor's rich man's noblesse oblige arrogance . To wit: "Bloomberg, as usual, is being hypocritical--this time in a classic 'the rich are really different' sort of way."
What's really interesting here is that it is the Post, and not the "get the money out of politics" NY Times (which broke the original story in this regard), that sheds a harsh light on the mayor's use of his great wealth to promote his own political agenda. "The mayor, the wealthiest man in American politics, has been giving for decades. Lately, though, his generosity has been locally focused...Beyond his longtime generosity to medical centers and cultural institutions, his gift list now includes many more local community and ethnic associations."
As the Times reported last year and the Post re-emphasizes in its editorial, "In 2004 alone...Bloomberg, with an enhanced regional focus gave some $140 million to 'more than 800 institutions and groups'-strategically spread around all five boroughs." And the mayor's future career as a philanthropist gives him even greater leverage, as groups vie for his continued largesse.
All of which makes a joke out of the mayor's interest in restraining the putatively nefarious influence of others. It is exactly as we have been saying, great wealth creates its own conflicts and those who promote lobbying and campaign reform without acknowledging this are not going to craft good public policy.
What's really interesting here is that it is the Post, and not the "get the money out of politics" NY Times (which broke the original story in this regard), that sheds a harsh light on the mayor's use of his great wealth to promote his own political agenda. "The mayor, the wealthiest man in American politics, has been giving for decades. Lately, though, his generosity has been locally focused...Beyond his longtime generosity to medical centers and cultural institutions, his gift list now includes many more local community and ethnic associations."
As the Times reported last year and the Post re-emphasizes in its editorial, "In 2004 alone...Bloomberg, with an enhanced regional focus gave some $140 million to 'more than 800 institutions and groups'-strategically spread around all five boroughs." And the mayor's future career as a philanthropist gives him even greater leverage, as groups vie for his continued largesse.
All of which makes a joke out of the mayor's interest in restraining the putatively nefarious influence of others. It is exactly as we have been saying, great wealth creates its own conflicts and those who promote lobbying and campaign reform without acknowledging this are not going to craft good public policy.
Lobbying Reform
In yesterday's NY Times the paper editorializes in favor of the recently announced lobbying reforms put forward by the mayor and endorsed by the council speaker. What's amusing in the paper's editorial is the assumption, without any evidence to substantiate the opinion, that there is a "kind of Jack Abramoff-on-the-Hudson scenario" operating on the City Council side of City Hall.
The Times goes on to say that this "coziness has been a huge disservice to New York's voters, whose interests have regularly been trumped by those with the money to hire lobbyists." Once again, it would be nice if the so-called paper of record would offer at least one example of this obviously egregious situation, instead of treating the observation as a revealed truth that is self-evident to all New Yorkers.
The paper also misconstrues how the political process works in this city. Wealthy interests often get their way because, well, they have inherent clout themselves. The Related Company spent tens of thousands of dollars on directly wooing Bronx officials. Its lobbyists were not the evil middlemen in this quest but played a secondary role.
In spite of this (the Times would call it influence peddling), there is nothing in the Bloomberg-Quinn reforms that addresses this potentially untoward situation. What the paper also misses is that there is a Weltanschauung in this city in favor of development. The existence of this worldview leads most of the media to reflexively endorse projects that "create jobs" and promote "development" without examining the relative merits with any real due diligence or, better yet, healthy skepticism.
The shame here, and we come back as always to the Bronx Terminal Market, is that the NY Times acts as a conservative force in NYC politics because its own interests are conjoined with what has been characterized as the city's permanent government. This leaves the paper unable to credibly evaluate the "special interests" that the Times itself is so much an integral part of.
Once again we must say that if lobbying reform is to have any credibility it needs to focus on the city's real estate industry and be linked closely to a concept of accountable development and a reform of ULURP. For a more comprehensive look at this perspective see the recent Gotham Gazette post on "Redefining Economic Development."
The Times goes on to say that this "coziness has been a huge disservice to New York's voters, whose interests have regularly been trumped by those with the money to hire lobbyists." Once again, it would be nice if the so-called paper of record would offer at least one example of this obviously egregious situation, instead of treating the observation as a revealed truth that is self-evident to all New Yorkers.
The paper also misconstrues how the political process works in this city. Wealthy interests often get their way because, well, they have inherent clout themselves. The Related Company spent tens of thousands of dollars on directly wooing Bronx officials. Its lobbyists were not the evil middlemen in this quest but played a secondary role.
In spite of this (the Times would call it influence peddling), there is nothing in the Bloomberg-Quinn reforms that addresses this potentially untoward situation. What the paper also misses is that there is a Weltanschauung in this city in favor of development. The existence of this worldview leads most of the media to reflexively endorse projects that "create jobs" and promote "development" without examining the relative merits with any real due diligence or, better yet, healthy skepticism.
The shame here, and we come back as always to the Bronx Terminal Market, is that the NY Times acts as a conservative force in NYC politics because its own interests are conjoined with what has been characterized as the city's permanent government. This leaves the paper unable to credibly evaluate the "special interests" that the Times itself is so much an integral part of.
Once again we must say that if lobbying reform is to have any credibility it needs to focus on the city's real estate industry and be linked closely to a concept of accountable development and a reform of ULURP. For a more comprehensive look at this perspective see the recent Gotham Gazette post on "Redefining Economic Development."
Solid Waste Battle
We have been commenting on the "Prague Spring" that has been orchestrated between the mayor and the City Council. Our position has been that the way in which city government is structured, with its strong mayoral form of governance, makes it essential for the City Council to act as an important check on executive excess and even stupidity. This is especially true with a mayor whose great wealth apparently gives him as sense of both noblesse oblige as well as infallibility.
Given these parameters the council needs to evolve into a real legislature, something that is difficult under the restrictions of existing term limits. That is why we took no offense when Speaker Quinn recently axed all those staffers. If Chris Quinn is going to restructure the council and strengthen its capacity to be a real counterweight to the mayor then we're all better off.
It goes without saying that the garbage issue, because of the profound weaknesses in the mayor's SWMP, offers the council the kind of opportunity to step up and truly legislate. The first responsibility of the council is to offer a comprehensive evaluation of the SWMP's flaws. A close look will expose its failure to come up with any significant waste reduction plan and, once this is clearly shown, the profligate nature of the building of so many marine transfer stations will become apparent.
Let's be clear. The use of food waste disposers for the reduction of both residential as well as commercial garbage offers the most realistic as well as economical method to alleviate our city's costly dependency on trucking garbage to out-of-state landfills. That is why the recently introduced measures (Intros 112 and 133) need to be advance quickly, along with a thorough critique of the limitations of the administration's proposed SWMP.
The previous council's failure to do this allowed the mayor to claim the policy high ground in his insistence on "fair share" siting for the city's transfer stations. As we have said all along, siting that allows for fair burden sharing is no substitute for a comprehensive waste reduction strategy that ameliorates everyone's burdens.
Given these parameters the council needs to evolve into a real legislature, something that is difficult under the restrictions of existing term limits. That is why we took no offense when Speaker Quinn recently axed all those staffers. If Chris Quinn is going to restructure the council and strengthen its capacity to be a real counterweight to the mayor then we're all better off.
It goes without saying that the garbage issue, because of the profound weaknesses in the mayor's SWMP, offers the council the kind of opportunity to step up and truly legislate. The first responsibility of the council is to offer a comprehensive evaluation of the SWMP's flaws. A close look will expose its failure to come up with any significant waste reduction plan and, once this is clearly shown, the profligate nature of the building of so many marine transfer stations will become apparent.
Let's be clear. The use of food waste disposers for the reduction of both residential as well as commercial garbage offers the most realistic as well as economical method to alleviate our city's costly dependency on trucking garbage to out-of-state landfills. That is why the recently introduced measures (Intros 112 and 133) need to be advance quickly, along with a thorough critique of the limitations of the administration's proposed SWMP.
The previous council's failure to do this allowed the mayor to claim the policy high ground in his insistence on "fair share" siting for the city's transfer stations. As we have said all along, siting that allows for fair burden sharing is no substitute for a comprehensive waste reduction strategy that ameliorates everyone's burdens.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Toussaint’s Bind
According to Steve Greenhouse of the NY Times:
In fact, on Tuesday February 28, 2006 from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. members of the TWU will be protesting in front of the NYC Transit Health Benefit Office in Brooklyn demanding, among other things, that the 1.5% “health care tax” must be excised from proposed contract. This certainly isn’t good news for the current TWU leadership and is most likely a sign of things to come when Toussaint is up for reelection later this year.
The union representing New York City's subway and bus workers filed papers last night opposing the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's call for binding arbitration to settle their long-running contract dispute. The union said a new agreement could still be reached through negotiations.The main problem, however, is that TWU Local 100’s bargaining position has been tremendously eroded due Roger Toussaint’s fruitless strike and a proposed contract already turned down once by the members. The Times reinforces this point:
When the authority formally asked for binding arbitration on Jan. 25, it toughened its proposal, taking the pension reimbursement off the table and asking that new employees pay 6 percent of their wages toward their pensions, up from 2 percent for current workers.According to the Post, the most likely course of action is that the Toussaint will ask for another vote on a contract similar to the one rejected last month. The major question is whether the “beleaguered” union head still retains enough control to make members accept a deal they feel is substandard, especially in terms of the required health care payments.
In fact, on Tuesday February 28, 2006 from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. members of the TWU will be protesting in front of the NYC Transit Health Benefit Office in Brooklyn demanding, among other things, that the 1.5% “health care tax” must be excised from proposed contract. This certainly isn’t good news for the current TWU leadership and is most likely a sign of things to come when Toussaint is up for reelection later this year.
Wal-Mart Health Care Spending Drops
According to "America Pays, Wal-Mart Saves,” WakeUpWalMart.com’s new study of Wal-Mart’s health care policies, what was thought to be a bad situation is even worse. Here are some key findings:
In response to these revelations as well as the fair share healthcare bills in places like New York City and Maryland, Wal-Mart announced that it plans to improve the health care offered to employees. According to the NY Times:
Wal-Mart health care spending actually dropped in the latest public filing with the Internal Revenue Service (from 2003-2004);As we’ve commented in our Conservative Case Against Wal-Mart, a major concern is that the company is exploiting the American taxpayer by having them subsidize its “everyday low prices”. With 13% of its workforce on public assistance and a 3.5% drop in health care spending (compared to 7.6% jump for the average company during the same time), Wal-Mart is assuming that it will continue to receive corporate welfare handouts. Check out the WakeUpWalMart.com site for all the details.
In 2005, nearly 300,000 Wal-Mart workers and their family members depended on taxpayer-funded public health care at a total cost to American taxpayers of $1.37 billion.
In 2005, Wal-Mart failed to provide company health care to 57% of its workforce, leaving over 775,000 Wal-Mart workers and their families without company health care;
The Wal-Mart health care crisis will cost taxpayers an estimated $9.1 billion over the next five years;
In response to these revelations as well as the fair share healthcare bills in places like New York City and Maryland, Wal-Mart announced that it plans to improve the health care offered to employees. According to the NY Times:
Wal-Mart said that for the first time it would permit part-time employees to enroll their children in the health insurance plan, and it pledged to reduce significantly the waiting period before a new part-time employee is eligible for benefits, though it declined to specify the reduction.It’s good to see Wal-Mart responding to valid critiques and attempting to improve its health care plans. However, like Wal-Mart Watch, we are pleased by cautiously so:
“Our curiosity is certainly piqued by his interest in ‘significantly reducing the waiting period for part-time associates.’ After all, that waiting period is a stunning two years. Moreover, Wal-Mart has admitted in internal documents that it is actively pushing full-time workers onto part-time status, reducing both their earning power and benefits.
“And Scott’s other announcements to tinker with their health benefits must be evaluated in the harsh light of the multitude of hidden charges buried in their plans. Wal-Mart’s new so-called ‘Value Plan’ remains a raw deal for its employees who can’t afford the high deductibles and strict eligibility requirements.
“Wal-Mart can and should act as a catalyst for change in the American health care system.”
Spitzer Attacks Governor's Refusal to Enforce the Law
As the NY Post is reporting today the state Department of Taxation and Finance, under the direction of Governor Pataki, "defiantly has said that it will not enforce a new law requiring Indian tribes to pay tax on the sale of cigarettes to non-Indians..." The law is scheduled to take effect on March the 1st next week.
This refusal has elicited a stinging rebuke from Attorney General Eliot Spitzer who said that "the department will be breaking the law and costing taxpayers millions..." All of this is, as we have commented, a remarkable display of arrogance on the part of the executive branch. It now appears that our conservative, law-and-order governor is deciding which laws he feels he should enforce, clearly a recipe for anarchy.
Even more so considering the history of this controversy and the outbreaks of violence in the 1990s when Indians were protesting the state's moves to enforce these tax laws. As State Senator Raymond Meir of Utica, NY, told the AP yesterday, "This is a dangerous precedent...It's an invitation to anarchy."
Tax Commissioner Eristoff continues to waffle here and says "he'll wait and see if the legislature agrees with Gov. Pataki to again delay enforcement by a year-a delay that the Democrat-led Assembly already rejects." Or, as Assemblyman Pete Grannis says, "No one is considering it seriously."
The report goes on to speculate that, "The next tier of action after Wednesday could be lawsuits, by non-Indian retailers against the state or by the state Attorney General's office against wholesalers, but either course would be lengthy." What's left is the possibility of direct legal action against the Indians themselves. These are the folks who are willfully failing to comply with requisite state and federal law and are misleadingly advertising that their cigarettes are "tax free."
All of which makes it even more compelling for the city and state to refrain from imposing any new taxes on cigarettes until this issue is resolved. The greater the disparity between legal outlets and those that are avoiding the tax the larger the black market that is created. The money quote comes from Eliot Spitzer:
This refusal has elicited a stinging rebuke from Attorney General Eliot Spitzer who said that "the department will be breaking the law and costing taxpayers millions..." All of this is, as we have commented, a remarkable display of arrogance on the part of the executive branch. It now appears that our conservative, law-and-order governor is deciding which laws he feels he should enforce, clearly a recipe for anarchy.
Even more so considering the history of this controversy and the outbreaks of violence in the 1990s when Indians were protesting the state's moves to enforce these tax laws. As State Senator Raymond Meir of Utica, NY, told the AP yesterday, "This is a dangerous precedent...It's an invitation to anarchy."
Tax Commissioner Eristoff continues to waffle here and says "he'll wait and see if the legislature agrees with Gov. Pataki to again delay enforcement by a year-a delay that the Democrat-led Assembly already rejects." Or, as Assemblyman Pete Grannis says, "No one is considering it seriously."
The report goes on to speculate that, "The next tier of action after Wednesday could be lawsuits, by non-Indian retailers against the state or by the state Attorney General's office against wholesalers, but either course would be lengthy." What's left is the possibility of direct legal action against the Indians themselves. These are the folks who are willfully failing to comply with requisite state and federal law and are misleadingly advertising that their cigarettes are "tax free."
All of which makes it even more compelling for the city and state to refrain from imposing any new taxes on cigarettes until this issue is resolved. The greater the disparity between legal outlets and those that are avoiding the tax the larger the black market that is created. The money quote comes from Eliot Spitzer:
Come Wednesday, state government will be breaking the law and begin costing taxpayers millions of dollars by choosing not to enforce legislation that would end the huge sales advantage that Indian tribes have over taxpaying competitors off reservations.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Wal-Mart: Not in My Backward
Via Wakeupwalmart.com, a new real estate survey demonstrates that while Americans consumers may like Wal-Mart they do not want it anywhere near their communities:
The Saint Index(C), a new survey by the Hingham, MA-based Saint Consulting Group, confirms Americans' love-hate relationship with Wal-Mart. Even as the global company revs up a campaign to protect its reputation, and despite Wal-Mart's undeniable popularity among consumers, almost two-thirds of those surveyed (63%) said that they would oppose a Wal-Mart store if one were proposed in their community.This NIMBY factor is extremely relevant to the debate over Wal-Mart entering in New York, including places like Staten Island. Because this city is a series of overlapping neighborhoods – many of which already suffer from traffic congestion and other negative affects associated with box stores – Wal-Mart is going to have a very hard time finding suitable space away from residential communities. Combine this dilemma with the overall concern New Yorkers display towards the store and the world’s largest retailer is going to find itself struggling mightily to enter the 5 boroughs.
[...]
According to The Saint Index, only landfills, quarries, power plants, and casinos generate more vehement community opposition than large retail stores. However, respondents singled out Wal-Mart as particularly unwelcome.
Will The Council Respond?
We have been commenting on the issue of the lease transfer involving the emergence of the Related Company as the landlord of the BTM property. Our argument has been that the lease needed to be put out for public bidding after a full appraisal of the value of the land was done. Normally the transfer is then made subject to a land use review process.
This contention was the crux of the legal challenge that the BTM merchants unsuccessfully brought against their eviction from the Market. It was unsuccessful because Judge Cahn ruled that, under the City Charter, the mayor had the power in regards to the city's public wholesale markets to override the provisions (Section 384) of the Charter requiring the public bidding.
It is our belief that this is one crackpot ruling but, as it stands now, it is the law and it means that the Council's power of review that inhere in Section 384 have been abrogated. This is a concern, or should be, of all of the businesses and thousands of workers in the wholesale markets. It should also be a concern of the City Council since the ruling exists as a direct challenge to its oversight role.
As it stands now the mayor (or his commissioner in this case) has unbridled power to evict businesses and punish workers. He can even, as the BTM case demonstrates, eliminate the entire wholesale market if a "better" use comes along.
It is time for the Council to address this "market exception" and revise Section 1301 so that it clearly delineates the mayor's powers and subsumes them under Section 384. This is the kind of checks and balances we've been talking about in our concern with the institutional integrity of the City Council.
This contention was the crux of the legal challenge that the BTM merchants unsuccessfully brought against their eviction from the Market. It was unsuccessful because Judge Cahn ruled that, under the City Charter, the mayor had the power in regards to the city's public wholesale markets to override the provisions (Section 384) of the Charter requiring the public bidding.
It is our belief that this is one crackpot ruling but, as it stands now, it is the law and it means that the Council's power of review that inhere in Section 384 have been abrogated. This is a concern, or should be, of all of the businesses and thousands of workers in the wholesale markets. It should also be a concern of the City Council since the ruling exists as a direct challenge to its oversight role.
As it stands now the mayor (or his commissioner in this case) has unbridled power to evict businesses and punish workers. He can even, as the BTM case demonstrates, eliminate the entire wholesale market if a "better" use comes along.
It is time for the Council to address this "market exception" and revise Section 1301 so that it clearly delineates the mayor's powers and subsumes them under Section 384. This is the kind of checks and balances we've been talking about in our concern with the institutional integrity of the City Council.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
A Massive Proposal
Under the sub-title “Wal-Mart Supercenter could stress Valley, traffic, stores, people” the Rockland Journal News editorializes against the planned Suburban Supercenter we talked about yesterday.
Due to poor planning and inadequate infrastructure, the road where Wal-Mart wants to build is simply inappropriate for a 215,000 sq. ft. Wal-Mart, the paper says. They point to the local mayor’s concerns:
The editorial ends:
Due to poor planning and inadequate infrastructure, the road where Wal-Mart wants to build is simply inappropriate for a 215,000 sq. ft. Wal-Mart, the paper says. They point to the local mayor’s concerns:
But Mayor George Darden is worried. A Wal-Mart Supercenter is planned at the former Rockland Drive-In Theater in Ramapo's Monsey hamlet, next to Kennedy Drive, and the mayor is concerned about the effect on area businesses and a further worsening of traffic in the busy Route 59 corridor.Similar to the situation in Staten Island, the elected officials and residents of Rockland County are concerned with their quality of life and are questioning whether adding a store that will generate over 1,000 peak hour cars is appropriate for a crowded area already saturated with strip malls. Also like Staten Island, the community sees better uses for the plot that Wal-Mart wants to build on:
"It's already impossible to go down Route 59 there," Darden told reporter Sulaiman Beg. "I think it's the wrong place and the wrong time. It's not a good idea."
Darden said he would like to see a passive park at the site instead, a good idea considering this section between Route 59 and the Old Nyack Turnpike is largely built up with multi-family housing approved by Spring Valley, as well as numerous shopping strips.We agree with Mayor Darden and especially considering that the land right next to the proposed Wal-Mart is state owned and has been promised to the community for parkland. While certain officials will disingenuously tout the tax revenue this supercenter will generate (the supercenter would replace a regular Wal-Mart so how much new tax revenue will actually be generated?), there needs to be proper planning and consideration of traffic and quality of life issues.
The editorial ends:
Additional drainage and traffic studies are supposed to be in the works, and the proposal will go before the Planning Board for a general discussion at some pointy.We would say that the project needs to be scaled back entirely for its adverse impacts won’t be mitigated until Wal-Mart is out of the picture.
This proposal needs more than a "general" discussion.
It requires full input from Ramapo, its Comprehensive Plan designers, Spring Valley and urban renewal officials, residents and the New York State Department of Transportation. If the land can be saved for a park, that would be best.
If not, scale this proposal way back, for it would affect too many adversely.
Checks and Balances?
In today's NY Sun, Jill Gardiner focuses on the rapport between Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker Quinn and writes that, "the two have acted like old friends since Christine Quinn was elected to the post seven weeks ago." In particular, Quinn stood with the mayor on his lobbying reform package and seemed to be part of the Bloomberg team in the dog-and-pony that was done on education financing in Albany last week. How are we to react to this lovefest?
Well, given the comments of the mayor's spokesman, Stuart Loeser ("Given the choice between a constructive partner in governing and the alternatives, the mayor certainly prefers a constructive partner"), we're a mite bit uneasy with all of this coziness. And the positive comparison to former speaker Peter Vallone is both inaccurate and unnerving.
Vallone was quite capable of standing up to the mayor, as he did on the Guiliani mega store proposal, but often let the mayor bulldoze him on faux mob-busting initiatives in carting and the public markets like Local Laws 28 and 42. Not to mention the mayor's attack on HANAC where Vallone simply hid under his desk.
All of this "partners in government" rhetoric certainly gives us pause because we're simply not all that enamored with the Bloomberg worldview particularly his tendency to see development from the top down. It is a paternalistic liberalism that lacks creativity and entrepreneurial spirit when it comes to the role of government.
What is particularly queasy in the Sun piece is the comments of mayoral toady Mitch Moss: "It's always better to start out harmoniously. Your alliances will help you get through the rougher times." What a load of self-serving crap! And when Moss and Loeser are whistling blithely you know immediately that the mayor is the senior partner in this arrangement and is getting the bigger cut of the political profits.
With a governmental structure that heavily favors the mayor it is important that the Council begin to sharply carve out its independent role because as Tom Lehrer reminded us about Vice President Hubert Humphrey, "Second fiddle's a hard part you know, when they don't even give you a bow."
Quinn needs to find a number of issues that she can use to properly carve out the Council's independent role. She has already flunked the Gateway issue where she allowed the mayor to roll her on the issue of the lease transfer and the Council's oversight responsibilities. Our hope is that solid waste will provide Quinn with the kind of an issue she can utilize to elevate the council's independence and proper place as an important check on mayoral incompetence.
One thing we know for sure is that the little guys, neighborhood folks and small businesses, have no real place in Bloomberg's world. Quinn's collaboration then, if it means less independence and more reliance on supporting mayoral initiatives, does not bode well for these less powerful constituencies. Just ask the BTM merchants.
Well, given the comments of the mayor's spokesman, Stuart Loeser ("Given the choice between a constructive partner in governing and the alternatives, the mayor certainly prefers a constructive partner"), we're a mite bit uneasy with all of this coziness. And the positive comparison to former speaker Peter Vallone is both inaccurate and unnerving.
Vallone was quite capable of standing up to the mayor, as he did on the Guiliani mega store proposal, but often let the mayor bulldoze him on faux mob-busting initiatives in carting and the public markets like Local Laws 28 and 42. Not to mention the mayor's attack on HANAC where Vallone simply hid under his desk.
All of this "partners in government" rhetoric certainly gives us pause because we're simply not all that enamored with the Bloomberg worldview particularly his tendency to see development from the top down. It is a paternalistic liberalism that lacks creativity and entrepreneurial spirit when it comes to the role of government.
What is particularly queasy in the Sun piece is the comments of mayoral toady Mitch Moss: "It's always better to start out harmoniously. Your alliances will help you get through the rougher times." What a load of self-serving crap! And when Moss and Loeser are whistling blithely you know immediately that the mayor is the senior partner in this arrangement and is getting the bigger cut of the political profits.
With a governmental structure that heavily favors the mayor it is important that the Council begin to sharply carve out its independent role because as Tom Lehrer reminded us about Vice President Hubert Humphrey, "Second fiddle's a hard part you know, when they don't even give you a bow."
Quinn needs to find a number of issues that she can use to properly carve out the Council's independent role. She has already flunked the Gateway issue where she allowed the mayor to roll her on the issue of the lease transfer and the Council's oversight responsibilities. Our hope is that solid waste will provide Quinn with the kind of an issue she can utilize to elevate the council's independence and proper place as an important check on mayoral incompetence.
One thing we know for sure is that the little guys, neighborhood folks and small businesses, have no real place in Bloomberg's world. Quinn's collaboration then, if it means less independence and more reliance on supporting mayoral initiatives, does not bode well for these less powerful constituencies. Just ask the BTM merchants.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Suburban Super Wal-Mart Update
A couple months ago we reported on Wal-Mart’s decision to open up a supercenter in Spring Valley, in the suburbs just north of New York City. Due to traffic, planning and small business concerns, the town’s mayor and county legislator are both very leery of the project.
According to our discussions with county officials, the town’s planning board will most likely issue a “positive declaration” within the month forcing the Wal-Mart developer to conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). However, this decision can be overruled by the town board so we will be pressuring the supervisor and other board members to uphold any positive declaration.
The need to environmentally review a Super Wal-Mart should be obvious especially in this case. Considering the development would be on busiest local road in the county, with one of the highest number of traffic accidents, an independent analysis is key. Furthermore, we have learned that the developer is actually petitioning to reduce the number of required parking spaces, something that would exacerbate the predicted traffic problems.
In addition to our continued political outreach, we will be contacting the various small businesses that would be impacted by a Wal-Mart. Many of these stores are owned and patronized by the tight-knit and influential Orthodox Jewish community in the area and, as this Washington Post article highlights, Wal-Mart has been adept at dominating various business sectors including religious items. For this reason as well as others, the world’s largest retailer may find stiffer resistance in Spring Valley than it anticipated.
According to our discussions with county officials, the town’s planning board will most likely issue a “positive declaration” within the month forcing the Wal-Mart developer to conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). However, this decision can be overruled by the town board so we will be pressuring the supervisor and other board members to uphold any positive declaration.
The need to environmentally review a Super Wal-Mart should be obvious especially in this case. Considering the development would be on busiest local road in the county, with one of the highest number of traffic accidents, an independent analysis is key. Furthermore, we have learned that the developer is actually petitioning to reduce the number of required parking spaces, something that would exacerbate the predicted traffic problems.
In addition to our continued political outreach, we will be contacting the various small businesses that would be impacted by a Wal-Mart. Many of these stores are owned and patronized by the tight-knit and influential Orthodox Jewish community in the area and, as this Washington Post article highlights, Wal-Mart has been adept at dominating various business sectors including religious items. For this reason as well as others, the world’s largest retailer may find stiffer resistance in Spring Valley than it anticipated.
A Raise for Roger
Yesterday's NY Post reports on yet more problems for the TWU's Roger Toussaint. It seems that members are questioning whether Toussaint violated union by-laws when he orchestrated himself a series of pay raises, raises that exceeded the "meager ones" received by Local 100's rank-and-file.
In the Post article Toussaint's Sancho Panza, Ed Watt, admitted that "an exception was made for Toussaint, but countered that, 'The Post's agenda is obviously to discredit Local 100.'" Some comeback. When faced with unpleasant facts Watt looks to shoot the messenger.
This line of defense continues in today's Post follow-up with Watt countering the paper's disclosure with, "It is unfortunate that the New York Post continues to ignore even basic facts in favor of their anti-worker agenda." That may be so about the Post but it doesn't take away from the serious questions about Toussaint's leadership.
As one worker comments, "People get into a position of money and prestige and they forget about the people they represent. He should be held accountable." What this means is that even more pressure is placed on Toussaint to really deliver the goods on a contract. Certainly the reservoir of goodwill has evaporated.
All of which adds to why there is a growing discontent with Toussaint's stewardship of the local. It will be interesting to see if Roger the dodger can overcome all of this as union elections loom later this year.
In the Post article Toussaint's Sancho Panza, Ed Watt, admitted that "an exception was made for Toussaint, but countered that, 'The Post's agenda is obviously to discredit Local 100.'" Some comeback. When faced with unpleasant facts Watt looks to shoot the messenger.
This line of defense continues in today's Post follow-up with Watt countering the paper's disclosure with, "It is unfortunate that the New York Post continues to ignore even basic facts in favor of their anti-worker agenda." That may be so about the Post but it doesn't take away from the serious questions about Toussaint's leadership.
As one worker comments, "People get into a position of money and prestige and they forget about the people they represent. He should be held accountable." What this means is that even more pressure is placed on Toussaint to really deliver the goods on a contract. Certainly the reservoir of goodwill has evaporated.
All of which adds to why there is a growing discontent with Toussaint's stewardship of the local. It will be interesting to see if Roger the dodger can overcome all of this as union elections loom later this year.
Troubles in the SWMP
According to yesterday's NY Times, Mayor Bloomberg's garbage disposal plans may be, well, in the dumps. The plan's problems devolve from the controversy surrounding the Manhattan aspects of the disposal methodology, particularly the use of two sites on the West Side and one on the East Side for waste transfer stations. As the paper reports:
The SWMP as it is presently constructed fails miserably in the area of waste reduction. That is what makes the issue of food waste disposers so compelling. This methodology, if implemented properly, has the potential to increase the level of waste reduction and to obviate the need for the number of transfer stations proposed in the current SWMP.
The critics of the use of disposer remind us of the old axiom about democracy: "It's the worst political system, except for all the others." As the leading experts on their use have pointed out, when a comparison of disposers with the other disposal methodologies is undertaken, this method out performs all of the others on both environmental as well as economic grounds. And, given the absence of realistic waste reduction strategies in the SWMP before the Council, the disposer approach becomes essential.
It is time for the City Council to step up, challenge the mayor's faulty assumptions, and devise a better plan. Food waste disposers should be a significant component of such a revised SWMP.
"But some environmental advocates are worried that the new obstacles will not only delay its adoption and execution, but compel the city to abandon some elements entirely."What's tricky here is the interdependence of all of the parts of the disposal plan. Without the Manhattan sites everything else in a "fair share" methodology is put at risk. This is put best by the NRDC's Mike Izeman:
"Bloomberg won the land use battle, but the larger solid waste war--if that's not too strong a word--between the Council and the administration is still unresolved."All of which calls to mind some of our comments on the deficiencies of the city's proposal. The concept of fair share is only good policy if the overall disposal plan is progressive at reducing the amount of garbage the city generates in the first place. Without this component, fair share only means that everyone is made to suffer equally.
The SWMP as it is presently constructed fails miserably in the area of waste reduction. That is what makes the issue of food waste disposers so compelling. This methodology, if implemented properly, has the potential to increase the level of waste reduction and to obviate the need for the number of transfer stations proposed in the current SWMP.
The critics of the use of disposer remind us of the old axiom about democracy: "It's the worst political system, except for all the others." As the leading experts on their use have pointed out, when a comparison of disposers with the other disposal methodologies is undertaken, this method out performs all of the others on both environmental as well as economic grounds. And, given the absence of realistic waste reduction strategies in the SWMP before the Council, the disposer approach becomes essential.
It is time for the City Council to step up, challenge the mayor's faulty assumptions, and devise a better plan. Food waste disposers should be a significant component of such a revised SWMP.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
ED Debate
The disingenuousness about the use of eminent domain as an economic development tool continues. The latest example, cited by Jacob Sallum in a Washington Times column, comes from Indianapolis mayor Bart Peterson.
Last fall Peterson told a Senate committee that "most people agree to sell"when face with an ED action. Sallum's comment: "...in the same way having a gun available makes it possible for a bank robber to negotiate with a bank teller."
Sallum goes on to describe the efforts underway all over the country to rein in the ED abuse. He is particularly concerned because last summer's Kelo decision "allows local governments to take perfectly good (not 'blighted') homes and businesses on behalf of private developers." In agreeing that any private use that enhances local tax revenues is fair game, the SC ruling has the potential of opening up a floodgate.
Peterson also dragged out the infamous "plan", the one that needs to be in place before any ED can proceed. As we have already commented, there is always a plan, and its existence offers no protection to anyone being threatened.
The key point in this discussion is Sallum's observation that all it takes to seize someone's home or business is "the unilateral judgment of politicians that society would be better served if the property were in different hands." A scary thought indeed, especially in New York City where, as one councilmember remarked about a large local real estate company: "Related is a fourth branch of government."
Last fall Peterson told a Senate committee that "most people agree to sell"when face with an ED action. Sallum's comment: "...in the same way having a gun available makes it possible for a bank robber to negotiate with a bank teller."
Sallum goes on to describe the efforts underway all over the country to rein in the ED abuse. He is particularly concerned because last summer's Kelo decision "allows local governments to take perfectly good (not 'blighted') homes and businesses on behalf of private developers." In agreeing that any private use that enhances local tax revenues is fair game, the SC ruling has the potential of opening up a floodgate.
Peterson also dragged out the infamous "plan", the one that needs to be in place before any ED can proceed. As we have already commented, there is always a plan, and its existence offers no protection to anyone being threatened.
The key point in this discussion is Sallum's observation that all it takes to seize someone's home or business is "the unilateral judgment of politicians that society would be better served if the property were in different hands." A scary thought indeed, especially in New York City where, as one councilmember remarked about a large local real estate company: "Related is a fourth branch of government."
Quinn Purge
The Friday night massacre at the City Council was to be expected. This is the nature of the spoils system and in many ways is preferable to the lifetime tenure of a civil service bureaucracy. Inevitably there will be a number of good people who are let go and a number of numbskulls who are retained.
The democratic nature of the periodic purging is that it allows the new leadership to put their own people in place and set their own agenda. The real criticism should begin after this process is completed and the direction of an administration or legislature is made clear.
From our perspective, and given the early moves that have been displayed, we are concerned that the new speaker has lost touch with her neighborhood roots and has become enmeshed within the concatenation of special interests that have traditionally toyed with the Council.
Whether this comes to totally characterize her tenure remains to be seen and we're hopeful the situation evolves sufficiently to create the appropriate balance that is necessary to good government. What will be particularly important to see is how Quinn cultivates the kind of institutional integrity that will allow the Council to perform its vital role in a democratic system of checks and balances.
The democratic nature of the periodic purging is that it allows the new leadership to put their own people in place and set their own agenda. The real criticism should begin after this process is completed and the direction of an administration or legislature is made clear.
From our perspective, and given the early moves that have been displayed, we are concerned that the new speaker has lost touch with her neighborhood roots and has become enmeshed within the concatenation of special interests that have traditionally toyed with the Council.
Whether this comes to totally characterize her tenure remains to be seen and we're hopeful the situation evolves sufficiently to create the appropriate balance that is necessary to good government. What will be particularly important to see is how Quinn cultivates the kind of institutional integrity that will allow the Council to perform its vital role in a democratic system of checks and balances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
