NY Sun and Wal-Mart: Perfect Partners

The NY Sun continues today in an editorial with its unabashed Wal-Mart cheerleading. It seems that the paper feels that the old Caldor's site in Flushing "would be a boon for New York." It then goes on to argue, based on one study alone, that the chain may in fact "drive down wages" but even so the "cost" to workers "is significantly less than the benefits." (Huh?)

The study that the Sun refers to argues that the Walmonster is "one of the few retailers that offer health insurance to part time employees in addition to full time staff." The Sun should check with the UFCW and find out that every single supermarket chain represented by the union not only offers this coverage to their workers they also pay for it themselves!

It does no good for an employee to be offered something he or she simply can't afford. Which is precisely what happens with the majority of the Wal-Mart workers. The Sun than goes on to defend the chain claiming that while they do have more employees and their children on Medicaid than the national average other retailers have a worse record.

That's a defense for the richest corporation in the world? And what are we to make of the argument that the employees who are forced on to public assistance "choose" this coverage over the company's.

And the paper's argument that Councilmember John Liu's statement that "Wal-Mart is not welcome in Flushing", is a disservice to "that lot of low-income immigrants looking for work in Mr. Liu's district...", overlooks the hundreds of immigrant retailers who would be forced to close their doors (and look for work at Wal-Mart) if the retail giant opened in Flushing. It is these retailers, and not the carpetbagging interloper, that offer the most economic advantage to NYC.

Daily News Bashes Queens Delegation

In an editorial today, the Daily News excoriates Queens Councilman Hiram Monserrate and the other members of the delegation who demanded that the Mets agree to a community benefits agreement just as the Yankees did recently for their new stadium. Likening these elected officials to extortionist mobsters, the News opines, “What Monserrate & Co. are up to now is a squeeze play and an abuse of power.” This pro-developer piece, is not surprising coming from a paper published by a real estate mogul.

However, what’s interesting is that the paper has had no problem with community benefits agreements in the past, no matter how flawed or quid-pro-quo they may have been. In the case of the Bronx Terminal Market, the News hailed the awful CBA negotiated by the developer and a non-existent “coalition of neighborhood organizations.” In an editorial urging the approval of a new Yankee Stadium, the writers glowingly describe the community benefits package as a trust fund for the community, instead of a slush fund to be controlled by supportive Bronx electeds. So why all this sudden criticism when Queens decides it should be treated at least as well as the Bronx?

The other problem with the editorial is that it fails to consider the direct and indirect public subsidies the Mets will receive and how these incentives change the nature of the project. If the development is approved, the Mets will receive hundreds of millions dollars of taxpayer dollars for infrastructure improvements as well as tax-free bonds that will save the team $50 to $60 million. Therefore considering the huge public investment in this stadium, it is not unreasonable for Councilman Monserrate and his colleagues to ask the Mets to ensure that minorities and women will be hired and that neighborhood children have access to quality sports facilities, Mets games and job opportunities.

Since the Mets’ new stadium hinges upon the public’s generosity, and considering there will be a number of negative community impacts resulting from new construction, it makes sense to us for the franchise to reciprocate with an agreement similar to the those signed by other New York sports teams.

Wal-Mart Punked Again

For the second time in fourteen months Wal-Mart has tucked tail and run from a prospective store site in Queens. This time, as the NY Sun reports this morning (with reports also in the NY Daily News and the NY Times), it was an abandoned Caldor's site on the corner of Roosevelt and Main Streets in Flushing.

The location had been identified by Wal-Mart's opponents through the Dodge Report, a trade publication that tracks construction activity. As the Sun says, "The report said that the Wal-Mart project was in its "final planning" stages, and a renovation costing between $5 million and $10 million would begin this July."

Once Wal-Mart opponents got wind of this stealth operation notifications began to fly to area electeds and the press. We made it clear in the process that even though it appeared that the store might be "as-of-right" we were going to go all out to prevent its siting in Flushing.

As it happens the Wal-Mart people were meeting yesterday with Speaker Quinn's staff and, inexplicably, they failed to inform the staff about Flushing. As the Sun points out, "According to a spokeswoman for Ms. Quinn, Maria Alvarado, Wal-Mart representatives were asked 'point blank' about the Flushing site and said they had no serious plans for it."

This did not sit well with the Speaker who, having been informed about the Dodge Report, recalled the Wal-Mart folks back into her office to explain the situation. As Maria Alvarado says, the Wal-Mart people were "disingenuous at best" and at worst "lying."Quinn and her staff made it abundantly clear to the Walmonsters that they needed to inform the Council on any store location "even if not legally required to do so."

What are we to make of all this? It appears that the world's largest retailer was, while attempting to sneak into Queens, literally "punked" by the Speaker and their opportunities elsewhere in the city don't appear too rosy anywhere they might need land use approvals. Clearly, as the UFCW's Local 1500 political director Pat Purcell told the Sun, "...bypassing the City Council would be 'penny-wise, pound foolish' for Wal-Mart because it would likely anger the legislative body that would presumably need to approve future projects."

All in all not a stellar day for the Walmonsters and a great day for all of us in the anti-Wal-Mart coalition. Shout outs go to Speaker Quinn who stood the bully down!

Mets Lowball Council

As we have been reporting the Mets have chosen to ignore the requests made by some members of the Queens Council delegation for a comprehensive CBA. As the NY Daily News tells its readers this morning the Mets have agreed to provide only $200,000 a year to fund Queens youth sports. This is a far cry from the request made by the delegation to the team in a meeting late Sunday night.

The reason for the lowballing, and the hearing going forward yesterday, was that Speaker Quinn had intervened and prevailed upon a majority of the delegation to let the hearing proceed. She also pledged to conduct negotiations with the Mets. It is, however, hard to see how much leverage she will have-assuming that she cares to negotiate the best deal possible-once the process moves forward and the approvals of the PILOTS are garnered.

All of this has got Councilmen Avella and Monseratte, the two lawmakers who represent all of the areas around the new stadium, extremely upset. As Monseratte says, "Shame on them if they think that's okay! Shame on them! Our kids are worth more..." The $200,000 pledge represents 43 cents a year for every kid in Queens.

As he has done since the rumblings began over the Mets stadium, Mayor Bloomberg once again blasted the attempt to "extort" money from the team. This, of course, is quite incongruous since the mayor has responded to criticisms of the other CBAs with the defense that they were "private deals" (see previous post). Which is both silly as well as incorrect.

The fact is the "Mets will save $50 million to $60 million on the stadium if the council supports the tax exempt bonds." If the team will save this much than the kids of Queens deserve to be treated better.

CBA's For Sale?

As the ongoing controversy over the substance of various CBAs continues with the dispute over the construction of the new Mets stadium Alair Townsend of Crain's New York Business weighs in this week with her opinion that the entire process needs to be reined in. Her take on the CBA revolution does mirror some of the comments we've made on the subject but Townsend goes further by labeling the use of CBAs as "zoning up for sale."

Townsend's observations are contained in the form of a memo to Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker Quinn. She chides the two lawmakers saying, "You have both chosen to sit back and watch the action unfold...This way the most serious opposition will have been bought off by the time projects come before you for approval."

Where we agree with the former deputy mayor is in her concern that there is no standardization or oversight in the process, especially when cash grants are being forwarded to certain groups. "Should there be any oversight to ensure that the processes for selecting who gets the housing, contracts and jobs are fair and not just sleazy patronage? You need to decide how far you're willing to let this go."

At the same time there are legitimate reasons for CBAs and the city has for too long ignored this rationale in the rush to do developers' bidding. Standards are, however, welcome.

A cornered market

It today’s Metro, Patrick Arden reports on the continuing saga over the Fulton Street Transit Center where a number of small businesses are being evicted in order to make way for the new MTA facility. As we’ve reported in the past, these 140 or so firms are not fighting the plan but are simply trying to get fair compensation and a viable relocation plan.

In order to achieve this goal, the MTA has hired the Cornerstone Group of Bronx Terminal Market fame or should we say infamy. As you may remember Cornerstone was charged with relocating BTM merchants but all they did was copy NY Times real estate listings, many of which where too small, had no refrigeration and no loading docks. The biggest issue, of course, was that these spaces were spread throughout the Bronx and did not allow for the synergistic market to be maintained.

Cornerstone is similarly failing to help the evicted businesses at Ground Zero. Arden quotes Manhattan Borough President Stringer who describes an effort eerily similar to what happened with the Terminal Market:

“Their relocation effort was basically giving real estate ads out and saying, ‘Good luck,’” said Stringer. “We need now to figure out how we’re going to relocate these businesses in four months, what assistance do they really need, and who do we hold accountable.”

We’re pleased that Stringer and other elected officials are sticking up for these guys. Hopefully they won’t receive the same short shift as the Bronx Terminal Market merchants.

Shea it aint so

In a meeting last night, the negotiations between the Queens delegation and the Mets broke off, with the Mets agreeing to contribute $200,000 a year to a youth sports fund but remaining noncommittal on all the other demands which are described by Michael Saul in today’s Daily News. An agreement was reached to hold the bond financing hearing today after City Council Speaker Quinn intervened with a promise to negotiate the other items of the community benefits agreement. The Quinn intervention is unusual only in the sense that all the negotiations with the Yankees were handled by the Bronx delegation and the Bronx county leader. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Subway Series: Queens Pols Ask Mets for Parity with the Yankees

As we have been reporting the Queens council delegation, led by Hiram Monseratte, has held up the Finance Committee hearing on the financing of the new Mets stadium. The NY Daily News, hot on our heels, revealed the details of the snag in yesterday's paper.

As the News reports other members of the delegation are starting to aggressively push the Mets to replicate the deal that the Bronx negotiated with the Yankees. As Councilman John Liu said, "...a stadium imposes burdens, substantial burdens, on part of the nearby community...We'd like to see an integration between the Mets and the Queens community, so the Mets aren't an island unto themselves."

The Mets are finally aware that they need to do a beter job of lobbying the elected officials that hold their financial fate in their hands. Met CEO Jeff Wilpon, recognizing this reality, told the Queens councilmembers, "Look, the communication has not been good. I take full responsibility for that and I'm sorry, and I'm here to say I want to improve it."

The NY Times also weighed in on the two stadiums yesterday calling on the Yankees to fund the proposed Metro North station. The paper argues that the deal struck with the team and the additional support that it calls for would be "a good start toward restitution for the many years in which the team, the richest sports franchise in the land, largely ignore residents of the disadvantaged South Bronx."

The same could be said about the Mets and their neighbors in Queens. As the Times points out, "The Mets will get at least $165 million in public assistance for infrastructure and other costs...On top of that both teams want help through tax exempt bonds and tax-alternative payments that could save each club tens of millions."

Given this level of suppert it would be in the enlightened self-interest of the Mets to move quickly to consummate a CBA with Queens. The emphasis should be on helping the kids of the borough and should avoid the more questionable slush fund that severly taints the Bronx deal.

Wal-Mart: "Pre-Restitution"?

Normally when someone commits a financial crime part of the punishment involves restitution: the compensation awarded the crime victim that attempts to make him whole for his losses. Well, Wal-Mart is taking this principle to a new level.

As the SI Advance reported yesterday, in a followup to the Financial Times story the day before, the company is looking to pay out grant money to small retailers in and around their new stores in order to help these little guys to compete against the store that is trying to take away all of their business.

If all of this sounds crazy it's because it really is. And the retailers on Staten Island certainly get the picture Listen to Vincent Campitiello, a local pastry shop owner: "It's great propaganda, but how can it be true? Once they open they're going to destroy other businesses."

Wal-Mart is what it is and no new wrapping is going to change this. When the "present" is opened up what you have is a small business destroying behemoth. As the Advance accurately points out, Wal-Mart "has been responsible for hundreds of small business closings." And, it is the store's "all-in-one retailing" model that is the cause of these destructions. No grant money will ever change this and those who believe it will are truly gullible.

Meet the Mets

As expected focus rapidly shifted away from the just concluded Yankee Stadium deal and gravitated toward Queens and the proposed new stadium for the Mets. The stadium that was unveiled yesterday evoked memories of the old Ebbets Field and brought tears to the eyes of Met owner Fred Wilpon. All was not euphoric, however.

Amidst all of the hoopla was one discordant note. As we have already discussed there is a concern among the Queens council delegation, led in this regard by Hiram Monseratte, that the Mets need to do more to become "good neighbors" to the communities of the borough they reside in.

As an expression of their concern the councilmembers have temporarily tabled the Finance Committee hearing that was scheduled on the stadium funding for next week. As the NY Sun reports today, Monseratte and his colleagues want the Mets to replicate the Yankees' effort in the South Bronx. As the councilman said, "We love the Mets. But we also want the Mets to be good corporate neighbors...The same way the residents of the Bronx are benefiting from an agreement with the Yankees, Queens residents should be benefiting from an agreement with the Mets."

Monseratte's push for parity for Queens and his role in the delayed council hearing did not sit well with Mayor Mike. As the NY Times reports, "The prospect of community groups demanding a Yankee-like benefits deal from the Mets angered Mayor Michael Bloomberg. 'Every development project in the city is not just going to be a horn of plenty for everybody that wants to grab something...' New development, he said, should not be a rush to 'line up to get ransom.'"

Is the mayor serious? The Gateway project the AY project and the Yankee Stadium deal all have a community benefits component. In all of these cases there is a recognition that economic development needs to be accountable, particularly to the host communities. This is especially true when there is a considerable public investment in the deal.

In the case of a sports team the argument is even more compelling. As Andrew Zimbalist, the sports stadium guru from Smith College points out in today's Sun, "the amount of 'trickle down' from the arenas into the neighborhoods is more like a 'light trickle.'" The money flow is more out to the corporate office than towards the local community.

It is also true that a local professional sports team has a different relationship with the community than any other business. Very few companies can consistently break so many hearts as the Mets do on a regular basis. There is a deep emotional connection between a team and its local area fans. It is, or should be, in the interest of the franchise to nurture this relationship and certainly not take it for granted.

Insuring this kind of ongoing relationship should be job one when, as Crains Insider reports, the Queens delegation meets with the Mets today. We kind of like the idea the Andrew Wolf floated in his critique of the Yankees CBA today. A big chunk of any change that is negotiated should go directly in support of the little leagues of Queens, and not into the hands of local pols.

This is exactly what we're trying to do with FCRC, the Brooklyn Sports Alliance and the Brooklyn Nets: a working partnership with the kids and coaches of the borough. This is certainly not any "ransom" but an example of enlightened self-interest.

Yankees Score, Mets on Deck

As expected, the City Council overwhelmingly approved the Yankee Stadium redevelopment plan yesterday. As the NY Times reports this morning the approval came "despite opposition from parks advocates and residents in the surrounding community, which is among the most impoverished in the city."

The critics who still see the stadium, in the words of Councilmember Helen Foster, as "a win-win for the Yankees and leftovers for the community", were drowned out in a sea of Yankee euphoria and exuberant cheerleading from the Bronx BP and the eight other Bronx councilmembers. It would be hard to imagine this level of complicity against the loss of public parkland in any other city community.

All of which now shifts the focus of attention to Queens and the Mets. The Council had planned to take up the issue of the PILOT financing of both stadiums next Wednesday, but in a late move yesterday the Met financing was removed from the scope of the Finance Committee hearing.

The change was spearheaded by Councilman Hiram Monserrate who, while supporting a new stadium for the Mets, wants to be sure that his community doesn't get shortchanged (see end of article) . The Yankee CBA has generated its share of critics but when compared with the Mets even more limited efforts it manages to look robust.

In response a meeting has been set up between the Mets and the Queens council delegation for this Friday. We expect that a series of demands will be put on the table as a kind of quid pro quo for the council's support of the stadium financing.

Bloomberg: "Ours for the Taking"

In an attempt to enhance his and the city's political power the mayor has issued a "NYC Card" to 100 influential contributors to political campaigns. As the NY Sun reports this morning, the card highlights some of the key issues that the mayor feels should be a prerequisite of financial backing. One of the five priorities is "the ability to use eminent domain in blighted communities."

Now we have made it clear that we don't take an absolutist position on the ED issue. That being said, however, we also believe that the current policy and procedures involved in the taking of private property needs to be reformed.

In addition, Mike Bloomberg, given his immense wealth, does not come across as the best spokesman for the policy. More protection needs to be put in place for property owners and small businesses-along with greater compensation-and a more rigorous review of the public benefits must be made part of the process.

Wal-Mart’s Urban Agenda

In 1984ish parlance, Wal-Mart’s CEO Lee Scott announced yesterday that the company would create Jobs and Opportunity Zones in “socially deprived” neighborhoods, hoping to lessen the opposition to its urban expansion. According to the Financial Times these zones would:

include identifying local businesses to be featured in free local newspaper advertising and on Wal-Mart's instore radio broadcasts, as well as organising business development workshops aimed at exploring opportunities created by the presence of the retailer.

Wal-Mart said it would donate $500,000 to local chambers of commerce in the zones, with a focus on helping local minority groups and women.

Wal-Mart’s proliferation in urban areas like New York City will no doubt result in the destruction of numerous minority union jobs and countless minority-owned small businesses, as can be seen by this Brennen Center report. What good is free advertising and workshops when a huge chunk of your business evaporates? As for the money to local chambers of commerce, these bodies are pro-Wal-Mart to begin with because they are not generally comprised of mom and pop retailers but real estate firms, insurance brokers and other such non-competitive businesses.

WakeupWalMart makes a good point about Scott’s statement that the stores will be specifically located in high crime / environmentally-tainted areas:

Wal-Mart says it will build the stores in neighborhoods with high crime or unemployment rates, on sites that are environmentally contaminated, or in vacant buildings or malls in need of revitalization. Of course, new Wal-Mart stores would violently exacerbate existing problems of crime, poverty, environmental contamination, and urban blight in these areas.

That is exactly right considering Wal-Mart’s burden on police forces nationwide and its sub par record vis-à-vis pollution.

On the DMI blog, Adrianne Shropshire rightly suggests that Wal-Mart's goal is to stifle grassroots business opposition from groups like ours and that it fails to address greater issues surrounding poverty in these neighborhoods:

"Urban" areas with "high unemployment" and "high crime"? Well my-my, Wal-Mart, who on earth could you be referring to? I am disgusted to no end by this company trying to push their poverty-wage jobs on already poor communities of color and then looking for thank yous. The Brennan Center report also sites two other important stats, 1. communities experience job loss, not gain, when Wal-Mart enters and, 2. poverty actually increases in communities when big-daddy arrives on the scene pimpin' his low-wage, no benefit jobs. I don't think that one of the policy solutions recommended for addressing the disconnection of Black men from the workforce was "increase the number of jobs that keep families in poverty".

A final point is that these zones are in the same areas that groups like NY Industrial Retention Network are trying to preserve for better paying manufacturing jobs. The NYIRN would argue that by rezoning this manufacturing space for commercial use you are preventing the preservation / expansion of a sector that has family-supporting wages and benefits.

In the Financial Times piece, the Alliance’s Matt Lipsky responds to this PR tactic of emphasizing how Wal-Mart will create jobs and revitalize neighborhoods:

Matt Lipsky of the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, which campaigns against Wal-Mart opening in New York, said the argument that its stores promoted economic development overlooked their impact on the wider community.

"Our feeling is that the collateral damage, such as the impact on better paying competitors, is going to outweigh any benefits they might bring into an area," he said.

Scoping Out the Walmonster in Monsey

As the Journal News reports this morning there is growing concern in Monsey over the impact that a proposed Wal-Mart supercenter will have on the already over-congested Rt. 59 corridor. As local resident Hershel Klara told the paper it now takes him 20 minutes to drive 6,500 feet from Kennedy Drive to Remsen Avenue "And that's without Wal-Mart...I don't know how I'd do it with a Wal-Mart."

The Journal News also quotes extensively from the Alliance's own traffic expert Brian Ketcham, and from the looks on the faces of the developer's consultants last night Brian was most definitely not a sight for sore eyes. What Brian underscored was the need for the developer to go way beyond just a few intersections in and around the project site (a favorite ploy of developer consultants everywhere). He also emphasized that the five mile trade radius was way too conservative and the store will likely draw from ten miles or more.

The key point in Ketcham's testimony, however, was his estimate of the sheer number of cars Wal-Mart will generate. In his view the proposed store will bring "16,000 vehicle trips on a typical weekday and 21,000 on a Saturday."

He then went on to describe how this extra traffic will impact on auto accidents in an area that has a "sordid accident history." The are between Kennedy Drive and Rt. 306 has 175 car accidents a year and, as Ketcham points out, "Travel to and from this Wal-Mart is estimated to produce another 130 auto accidents annually, in which 45 people will be injured each year." The estimated additional cost of all this?--$30 million every year!

Spring Valley attorney Bruce Levine testified for the village and hit on the socioeconomic impacts that the store will have on local business, a point that the Alliance's Richard Lipsky also emphasized in his testimony. "Levine said that the store would greatly affect Spring Valley's urban renewal plan, which aims to bring more stores into the county's most populous village."

The scoping session sets the stage for what promises to be a titanic struggle. Last night over 50 residents came out but once the traffic impacts and social costs become more widely known we expect an outpouring of concern from the targeted community.

Monsey Wal-Mart Scoping Session

As a reminder, tonight at 7:30 at the Ramapo Town Hall there will be a scoping session to determine what Wal-Mart’s developer has to examine in its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Town Hall is located at 237 Route 59, Suffern, NY 10901.

Here is our testimony for tonight and here is Brian Ketcham’s comments on the developer’s traffic analysis.

Yankee Stadium to be Voted on Tomorrow

According to Frank Lombardi of the Daily News, an approval for the proposed Yankee Stadium is likely at tomorrow’s subcommittee and committee votes. Though one the South Bronx’s councilwomen has publicly stated her opposition the rest of the Bronx Delegation seems to favoring approval. One unnamed source sums it up the best:

"It stinks," said a resigned Bronx insider familiar with the Council's eleventh-hour negotiations with the Yankees. "But who's going to block the Yankees?"

Like with the Bronx Terminal Market redevelopment, these last minute talks will probably result in a couple more dollars being thrown on the table though not the resolution of the major issues. This extra money will most likely be added to the community benefits agreement Lombardi mentions, a document that was negotiated between the Yankees and supportive elected officials.

As the Daily News’s Juan Gonzalez writes, adding insult to injury is the fact that local opponents of the stadium deal are being shut out of a local school where they planned to have a rally:

Three weeks ago, Chauncy Young, a member of the United Parents of Highbridge in the South Bronx, got permission from the principal of PS 218 Rafael Hernandez Dual Language Magnet School, a public school near Yankee Stadium, to use the school's auditorium for a big community meeting scheduled for tonight.

...

But about 2:30 p.m. on Friday, top officials at the Education Department suddenly declared the school off-limits and threw the community out on the street.

"It's a political event," Education Department spokesman Keith Kalb told me. "Chancellor [Joel] Klein's regulation No. D-130 bars political activity in schools."

Of course the Department’s justification is ludicrous. Continues Gonzalez:

The January 2004 regulation he cited, a copy of which I have carefully reviewed, specifically states that it "governs the use of school buildings by candidates, elected officials, and political organizations and the conduct of school employees ... with respect to political campaigns and elections."

It affects political candidates but says nothing about barring local parent and community groups from school buildings.

"We've used local schools often and never had any event canceled until this one," Young told me. "This says a lot about the stakes involved."

One can’t help feel sorry for the community that is not only losing its parks but also the chance to speak out against this action.

Garbage Canned

As expected the city's largest private waste hauler was struck last night by workers from Local 813 of the Teamsters union. The strike focuses attention on the commercial waste sector and its 13,000 daily tons of trash that, along with the city's roughly 12,000 tons of residential waste, must find a home in some out-of-state landfill.

As we have pointed out the strike highlights the extent to which the commercial sector has become dependent on a garbage duopoly and this concentration hasn't been good for the city's neighborhood retailers. When former mayor Guiliani, amidst much media fanfare, set up his Trade Waste Commission there was much talk about how the racket-buster had eliminated a $500 million a year "mob tax."

Thanks but no thanks Rudy. Since this relief was given to the city's businesses the cost of garbage collection has more than doubled for food stores and restaurants, making retailers nostalgic for the bad old days. This situation has been exacerbated by the city's opposition to the introduction of commercial food waste disposers.

What's missing, however, is the city's own dependence on the new garbage cartel, something that the DSNY commercial waste study itself points out. As long as we are exporting to landfills, and this is the only mindset of our contracting companies that own these dumps, we can expect an everlasting escalation of the cost of trash removal.

This is precisely why we need to begin to develop the kind of alternative waste reduction strategies that actually have the real world potential to be effective. The suggestions of folks who have never spent a single day in the private sector, let alone in an actual waste hauling business, amount to little more than pie in the sky approaches that would, if ever implemented, either not work or be exorbitantly expensive.

Intro 133 is the most cost-effective and environmentally sound method available to reduce commercial waste and free local retailers from the grip of the garbage behemoths. If implemented properly on the residential side, disposers would dramatically reduce waste along with our city's dependence on garbage export.

Developer Defends Wal-Mart

The developer of the proposed Rockland Super Wal-Mart responded to critics (including us) who claim the store will have a detrimental impact of the surrounding neighborhoods and county as a whole. In today’s Journal News Jerrold Birmingham, managing director of the National Realty & Development Corp., had this to say:

Birmingham said the site was well-suited for this type of development because it had the right zoning and existing water and sewer lines. He said that in addition to creating a positive visual impact — the site is now a parking lot — the store would bring in thousands of dollars in real estate taxes that would benefit the town and school district. He said he expected the project to cost more than $20 million and open by spring 2007.

First, we couldn’t help but chuckle the implication that Wal-Mart’s bland white walls would help beautify the area. Perhaps the box store is more visually pleasing than a parking lot but if a main reason for the project is aesthetics than alternatives such as a high school or park make more sense. Second, the real estate tax argument is typical developer sophistry considering that Wal-Mart will burden tax payers in terms of safety net programs, subsidies, and burdens on police and emergency services.

Birmingham also floats the job rationale – Wal-Mart will purportedly create 500 new jobs – but again the argument is specious. What the developer leaves out is that a super Wal-Mart will put a lot of other jobs at risk, especially at competing small businesses. Spring Valley’s Mayor Darden sums up this counterargument nicely:

"You may gain 500 jobs, but you're going to lose 1,500," said Spring Valley Mayor George Darden, one of the project's most vocal critics.

Darden said the Wal-Mart would put smaller stores out of business along Route 59 and would greatly affect Spring Valley's urban renewal plan, which aims to bring more stores into the county's most populous village.

The developer’s feeble response:

Birmingham said the development company made a living leasing space to business owners who wanted to move in next to stores such as Wal-Mart.

"What Wal-Mart does is, it creates an interest for national retailers to come to this place," he said.

The issue isn’t attracting national retailers; it’s retaining homegrown businesses and recognizing their economic value. As the Alliance’s Richard Lipsky is quoted as saying:

The local businessman has local wholesalers and local accountants and advertises locally," said Lipsky, of New City. "It's a multiplying affect."

And there are already plenty of national retailers within a few mile radius of the proposed supercenter – Target, Home Depot and Staples to name a few. The developer makes it sound like the county is some backwoods hinterland in need of economic invigoration but the opposite is true. In fact, the area is in some ways overdeveloped, creating the traffic problems that will mostly likely be the most contentious issue:

Maryellen Griffin of Suffern said that if the Wal-Mart in Tallman closes, she might shop at the Wal-Mart Supercenter in Harriman because she didn't want to deal with the Route 59 traffic.

Al Meehan said he moved from Yonkers to Spring Valley about four years ago because he couldn't take the growing congestion on Central Park [sic] Avenue.

"But 59 is worse," he said. The increase in traffic a Wal-Mart could bring is among the reasons he doesn't want to see it built.

Sink These Putzes!

If you wanted to write a screen play that caricatured the issue of eminent domain you couldn't have even imagined this current scenario in affluent North Hills, Long Island. As the NY Post editorializes today ("Eminent Dementia") the town wants to use ED to confiscate a private golf course for another essentially private golf course.

In Mayor Natiss' view the acquisition of a "public" course (not really so since it would be restricted to North Hills property owners) would enhance local property values. As the Post points out, however, this is precisely the kind of taking that Kelo prohibits since it is designed to benefit exclusively "a particular class of identifiable individuals" (the property owners of the town).

What North Hills seeks to do is to enhance the value of some of the richest property in the region and, in the process, aggrandize the already wealthy (although in their defense there seems to be the kind of "well developed plan" that the SC and the NY Times saw as girding the defense of ED).

Sometimes, as Freud pointed out, it takes the truly irrational forms of behavior to really illuminate the so-called normal patterns. In this North Hills case what is exposed is the unseemly side characteristic of many ED property transfers. It is time for clarification and legislative reform.

Yankee Stadium Project Not a Done Deal?

According to Patrick Arden in today’s Metro, there is still much concern about the proposed new Yankee Stadium, even within the Bronx delegation. According to Helen Foster, one of the area’s councilwomen:

“Many Council members have concerns, many more than the media realizes,” said Foster, who represents the Highbridge neighborhood and opposes the project. “The Bronx delegation isn’t completely on board yet. I don’t see how between now and Wednesday the issues that we have can be resolved.”

Foster also makes an interesting point about how the Yankee plan relates to the Bronx Terminal Market redevelopment. She says that the projects are very much related but the city pursued them separately “for money reasons.” Because of this poor planning, alternate locations for Yankee Stadium (such as south of the current site) were never considered and now are unusable because they will part of the Gateway Mall.

Manhattan Councilman Dan Garodnick, chair of the land use subcommittee that will first vote on the proposal, had some interesting remarks as well:

“[Yankee President Randy Levine’s] reasons were that the footprint of the current stadium was too small and that the Yankees did not want to bear the expense and inconvenience of playing in Queens,” he said. “But in response to my questions, it became clear that this is really a matter of money. I still have some concerns.”

The major question is whether these concerns translate into credible, widespread opposition. There is still a lot of support within the Bronx Delegation so it will be interesting to see which way the Speaker will lean on this. While he hope that Councilwoman Foster is right, odds still are that the project will be approved and that the legal option will have to be exercised.

A lawsuit, though, may be quite effective in killing the project, at least according to one professor:

“If this gets dragged through the courts, it could be years,” said Baruch College professor Neil Sullivan. “Construction costs will keep going up, and it will become too expensive to build. That’s what killed the Westway.”

Butts for Terror

When Gristedes filed its lawsuit against the Indian retailers one of the complaints was that untaxed smokes is a source of terrorist financing. In response to the complaint, the tribal spokespeople took great umbrage over the terrorism link even though the point that was made was that the differential between untaxed and taxed cigarettes, and not the direct intention of the tribes, provided the opportunity for the financing of terrorist activity.

Now we have another confirmation of this point and a further indication that the tribes were protesting too much. In today's Daily Star, the largest English language paper in the Middle East, there is an article about 19 people who are charged in connection with a scheme to fund the terrorist group Hizbullah. Here is the money quote:

"The indictment charges that the group would obtain low-taxed or untaxed cigarettes in North Carolina and the Cattaraugus Indian Reservation in New York and bring them into Michigan and the state of New York for the purpose of evading tens of millions in state cigarette taxes."

As the story goes on to report, "The enterprise obtained large profits by reselling the cigarettes at market prices in Michigan and New York." Just as we have been arguing till we're blue in the face. Not only do these tax disparities hurt local businesses they also threaten our country's security.

Developer Needs to Answer these Questions about Wal-Mart

On April 4th, there will be a scoping session for participants to suggest what the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Monsey Wal-Mart should examine. Here is a summary of what the Alliance will be asking the developer’s consultant to address:

• Impact on Small Businesses – How many competing store will close and what does this signify in terms of jobs and tax loss?

• Economic Impact of Small Businesses – According to the multiplier effect, small businesses, by utilizing local services, contractors and wholesalers, keep more money in the local economy. If a new Wal-Mart results in the closure of competing neighborhood businesses how will this economically affect the service-providers (lawyers, banks, graphic designers, newspapers advertising) that currently rely on the threatened businesses?

• Property Values – How will a 215,000 sq. ft. Wal-Mart affect both commercial property values and the residential property values of the neighborhoods that are proximate to the store?

• Public Safety – Wal-Mart’s all across the country increase the burden on neighborhood police precincts. What will the cost of the potential increase be and how does it compare to the projected tax gains the country will receive from the store’s operation?

• Costs to Tax Payers – It is important to examine how much the proposed project will cost tax-payers in terms of Wal-Mart workers and their children using public safety net programs and the store receiving subsidies.

Trash Talking at Waste Management

In a thoughtful article in this week's Village Voice Tom Robbins delves into the labor dispute between Waste Mangement and Local 813 of the Teamsters. The bottom line: If no agreement is reached the city could well be looking at a garbage strike in the private sector come April 1st.

What is particularly of interest here is Robbins' narrative about the evolution of the city's commercial garbage collection. He rightly points out that then elimination of the unsavory element and the ushering in of Waste created its own problems. In fact, as Ray Kerrison pointed out over ten years ago in a NY Post column, "The Hoodlums are Out, But Who's In?"

In some ways the city traded in one monopoly for another and the fanfare surrounding the elimination of the "mob tax" proved to be premature: First, the big national firms, with Waste Management in the lead, started dropping customers, complaining that the city's cap on garbage collection prices was too low. The city responded by allowing some prices to rise, with the predictable result that many small businesses complained that their costs soared by 500 percent."

As a result, disposal costs for the city's food stores and restaurants now exceeds those charged during the reign of the old mob cartel. This is precisely why the Alliance has been advocating the use of food waste disposers for the private sector. It would dramatically reduce the amount of waste hauled from neighborhoods at both the retail and transfer station points in the disposal system. It would also, if implemented properly in the residential sector, dramatically reduce the city's garbage export costs.

In the process of removing the mob, however, Waste did emerge with a strong and profitable presence in the city's transfer station and garbage export business. It is the current duopoly that puts great pressure on the city and makes the export option so expensive. Innovation is stifled as alternative methods are stillborn given the private sector's stranglehold on solid waste management.

Wal-Mart Traffic Fears

Al Meehan, a resident of Rockland County, where Wal-Mart wants to build a supercenter, writes a very good letter to the local paper describing his greatest concern about the project:

I am curious as to what is going to happen to the Rockland Drive-In. A super Wal-Mart? Route 59 in Monsey doesn't need any more traffic and congestion. Why doesn't the Town of Ramapo take over the drive-in and turn it into a park with little gardens, green grass and nature trails?

Three and a half years ago, I moved to Rockland from the Yonkers area. I soon went into semi-retirement and wanted to live in a more natural environment with peace and quiet and with a slower and more relaxed pace. I wanted to escape from the hustle and bustle, stop and go traffic, congestion and the commercialism of the Central Avenue area.

It is worse here.

Indeed!

"Standing on a Corner in Winslow, Arizona"

Just finished listening to Imus in the Morning talk about the impact of Wal-Mart on small town America. He recounted taking his wife to the Winslow, Arizona, the town made famous in the Eagles song. He told his audience that it was really sad because the town was almost completely boarded up. The reason: Wal-Mart was built on the highway right on the outskirts of town.

This is the reality in many different areas of this country and it must come into play as Ramapo begins to gauge the store's impact along the RT. 59 corridor in Rockland County, New York. The economic and social costs must be carefully examined so the putative benefits are put into the proper perspective.

The Alliance's consultant Brian Ketcham does this in his traffic analysis. He points out that consultants hired by developers almost never examine the social costs of additional traffic. This doesn't mean just the aggravation and lost work time for those stuck on RT. 59 trying to get to work or go home. As Ketcham points out in his prepared testimony the congestion can be quantified if you model the increase in the number of accidents and the environmental impact of the traffic jams: "The dollar cost of these impacts is estimated at about $30 million a year. These are costs shifted from Wal-Mart to your community."

The beguiling mantra of economic development in the case of a Wal-Mart needs to be thoroughly examined and, when seen in conjunction with increased traffic and crime, we believe that the costs far outweigh the benefits.

Governor Butts Heads With Legislature

The recently concluded state budget negotiations were not without acrimony. The governor's budget division folks are carping about the legislature's refusal to include Pataki's $1.50 cigarette tax in the final package. As the NY Times reports this morning, "The governor's staff also expressed concern that the Legislature was rejecting Governor Pataki's plan to increase cigarette taxes, which provide money for a variety of health care initiatives..."

Joe Bruno and the NYS Senate have been the strongest opponents of the increase and as John McArdle, Bruno's Senate spokesman said, "'there are plenty of other options besides new taxes to pay for health care.'" Let's hope so.

Still unresolved, however, is the fate of Mayor Bloomberg's additional 50 cent a pack increase for New York City. We certainly hope that the moolah provided by the state for the city's school system is enough to assuage the need for the legislature to cave in on this issue. As we have said before the increase will only encourage the Indian retail black marketers.

Vermin and Disposers

The papers have recently been reporting on how New Yorkers are getting fed up with rats, cockroaches and other vermin. In Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn the failure to pick up garbage has resulted in a rodent feast right by PS 32. In Stuy Town, cockroaches are such a problem that at least one resident has decided to move ASAP.

One major reason for this vector problem is that there is a readily available food source: the organic refuse thrown out everyday by New Yorkers. The City of Philadelphia realized this public health danger and decided to mandate grinders in order to lessen the amount of material being thrown into dumpsters that would attract rats and insects. We are confident that the City Council will grasp this positive aspect of disposers and pass Intro 133, which will conduct a cost/benefit analysis prior to any legalization of these devices.

Monsey Wal-Mart: Prototypical Traffic Deficiency

On Tuesday, April 4th, the Town of Ramapo Planning Board will be holding a "scoping session" before letting the developer of the proposed Wal-Mart on Rt. 59 begin to conduct the environmental review pursuant to the submission of a full EIS. The purpose of such a session is to give the various stakeholders-neighborhood residents, small businesses and elected officials-the opportunity to suggest the kind of data that the developer's consultants should be collecting if an adequate analysis is to be forthcoming.

Typically consultants for the developer try to minimize the potential impacts of a project in an attempt to reduce opposition. It is also typical that localities, and this includes a large city such as New York, don't have either the inclination or the resources to challenge the developer's self-serving data.

This leaves it up to the opponents to hire expertise to question a project's assumptions. In the case of the Monsey Wal-Mart the Alliance has retained Brian Ketcham and he has already examined the preliminary traffic data that was submitted to the Ramapo Board. It shouldn't be shock to find that this traffic report leaves a great deal to be desired.

Initially, the submitted study appears to be almost entirely derivative: the consultants did very little independent data collection and instead relied on available information from the town and NYS DOT. Cleary, one of the primary necessities here will be for the consultants to collect data from comparable Wal-Mart stores in similar milieus.

In addition, as Ketcham points out, any reliance on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates is inadequate because these numbers are not only dated but they don't speak well to the hyper-Wal-Mart phenomenon. Wal-Mart is certainly not average.

One thing we know about Wal-Mart is that the company possesses precise data on customer counts by the hour! It will not be difficult to get a better estimate than the one that the consultants have submitted which relies on the experiences of the contiguous Pathmark supermarket. Pathmark is a grocery store that services the local community, not a regional supercenter that will draw people from as far away as the Bronx and Westchester.

It is also important to point out that the regional nature of the store means that the shopping patterns of the local Orthodox Jewish community will not be the factor that the consultants are alleging in their preliminary report. In fact it is more probable that, instead of the diminution of business that Pathmark experiences on Friday night and Saturday, there will be an increase as non-Orthodox shoppers take advantage of the relative calm in the local community.

Ketcham goes on to question the parking requirements and his full report can be found here. A final point is the issue of the "societal costs" of the store. Here the issue is traffic accidents and particularly the higher rate of fatalities that characterizes the Rt.59 corridor. Community safety, and not only traffic is involved in this, will become a big issue as the debate evolves on this Monsey store.

Anyone who is concerned with the quality of life in this area of Rockland should come down to the Ramapo Planning Board meeting at the town Hall on Tuesday at 7:30 PM.

Traffic Remedy for Staten Island?

In his unveiling of a "comprehensive" plan to alleviate Staten Island's traffic problem Mayor Bloomberg takes a page out of Murray Edelman's classic book, The Symbolic Uses of Politics. As Edelman points out, politics proceeds on a symbolic level (as opposed to a tangible one where folks actually get something concrete) when public pronouncements are used to relieve anxiety, allay uncertainty and, thereby, promote quiescence.

The use of symbolic rewards (such as press conferences announcing "comprehensive"plans to address intractable problems), creates the impression that action is being taken when nothing is really being done that would deal fundamentally with the problem at hand.

This is precisely the case with The StatenIsland Transportation Task Force. As the NY Times reports,"The announcement gave Mr. Bloomberg, a Republican who received significant support from Staten Island voters during his mayoral campaigns, an opportunity to surround himself with other Republican politicians..." In other words, as Otto Schindler said, "I'm here for the presentation."

All of which is better underscored in yesterday's StatenIsland Advance. As the paper reports, "The bulk of the proposed long-term projects that could make the most difference-such as road widenings and the replacement of the Goethals Bridge-will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and are in the out, out capital years." Precisely so; long after Bloomberg goes back to giving away his considerable fortune.

The Advance captures the point we're making about the two levels of politics when it indicates, "All that raises the question of how much the transportation task force will be able to accomplish." And the area that has been designated by Borough President Molinaro as a "traffic nightmare" along Page Avenue (where the Walmonster wants to go) has a "to be determined" time frame when it comes to road improvements.

This means that the proposed Wal-Mart for Richmond Valley Road and Page Avenue will potentially create-What transcends a "traffic nightmare"? As Amanda, The Dollar-a-Year Burden points out, "she did not know if those developers {including the Stop-N-Shop builders} could be forced beyond the legal requirement to improve local roadways if and when they seek approval from the city if and when they seek to build in those areas."

When, however, a project will exacerbate an already nightmarish traffic situation the city can simply say no to the developer's plans. This, we will argue, is exactly what should be done when Wal-Mart comes begging later this year.

Comparing Apples and Basketballs

The Daily News reported yesterday (with an assist to the clever playmaker Matt Scheurman) that State Senator Velmanette Montgomery is arguing that the $100 million requested by FCRC for Atlantic Yards be blocked "until a desperately needed Sunset Park high school is built..." Which might make some sense if the senator wasn't simply against any money going to Ratner at any time. Cause we all know that should the money for the school be forthcoming Montgomery's position on the project funding would still be -NO!

And of course if the AY development is not going to mean a net gain in jobs and city revenues it makes no sense to fund it at all. If, however, there is going to be a huge influx of positive economic growth, and we believe this to be the case, than trying to hold the arena plan hostage to a school building that everyone admits has been 37 years in the making is plain silly.

The refrain should be: more tax revenue, more money for schools. Which is one of the reasons that the nascent Brooklyn Amateur Sports Alliance (BASA) will be in Albany today. The other reasons are derived from the fact that the arena development will be a major boon to amateur athletics in Brooklyn, to groups in Senator Montgomery's district for sure. And we inform these folks that their senator is opposed to AY, well, we'll let her explain her position to her constituents.

The BASA will be constituted officially next week and we plan to reach all across the borough with clinics that emphasize athletics and academics-basketball as a means to an end and not an end in itself. We also plan to do a borough-wide BB tourney this summer that links the diverse Brooklyn neighborhoods together. FCRC and the Brooklyn Nets will become a major stakeholder for amateur sports in Brooklyn and the rest of the city.

Watch out NYK! With the Nets success on the court and the Knicks abysmal management it will only be a matter of time before the Brooklyn Nets logo becomes the hot ticket item in this city. We anticipate that the BASA will be working alongside the Nets and FCRC for many years to come.

The Yanks Are Coming!

As we approach the City Council hearing on the proposed Yankee Stadium more and more people are weighing in on the less than transparent political process that seems to be characteristic of the Bronx. We are particularly amused by Andrew Wolfe's take on the Yankees and how it underscores the questionable nature of the entire process.

In Wolf'e view, the use of a community benefits agreement masks the extent to which a new Tammany-like "honest graft" is being created in the Bronx. Now Wolfe sees absolutely no merit in the desire of the community to preserve its parks ("environmentalists who view parkland as sacred in perpetuity..."). But he blanches at the shakedown of the Yankees.

As he points out, "To ensure the continued support of Bronx elected officials, a scheme has been concocted to have the Yankees set up a $28 million trust fund to be run by 'an individual of prominence' selected by a group appointed by Bronx political leaders." Wolfe rightly sees this for what it is-public policy for sale.

He also sites the support that Maria Baez gave to the BJ's project in the BTM development, a project that Wolfe approves, as the same kind of "honest graft." The entire CBA charade needs to be redesigned so that the use of this vehicle doesn't get transformed into its opposite: a boondoggle that benefits the political machine much more than any putative community interest.

Confused (C) For (F) Ever (E)

In all of the hoo hah over the Campaign for Fiscal Equity's lawsuit and the state court decision saying that New York City school kids are being shortchanged, there is no better explanation of the legal issues than is contained in the article in today's NY Sun by Jacob Gershman ("A Court Without Power"). It all comes down to the fact that the court has no power to enforce its ruling.

Under our system of checks and balances it is the legislature that appropriates money and the executive that spends it (Of course when it comes to Indian retailers the governor has decided to take the law into his own hand). This is precisely why Speaker Silver has talked about the governor's "moral" rather than "legal" obligation to follow the court's ruling.

Plaintiff's lawyer Michael Rebell laments that the governor is setting a bad example for the kids by flouting "the rule of law." Others see it diferently and wonder how the violation of the legal separation of powers would enhance respect for the law. All of which reminds us of President Jackson's response to the SC's ruling on the banks: "Well, John Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it."

One Burnt, Twice Burnt Again

In today’s Daily News Errol Louis has a scathingly accurate column on how the pols in the Bronx need to listen to their communities and not rubber stamp a highly problematic Yankee Stadium proposal:

But it's not clear that the Bronx's elected officials, each of whom has sworn to protect the interests of his constituents, did very much demanding at all. Shame on them all, especially Borough President Adolfo Carrion and the county's Democratic boss, Assemblyman Jose Rivera.

Dispensing with all pretense of protecting the public interest, Rivera has allowed one of his right-hand men, longtime Bronx fixer Stanley Schlein - who was on Rivera's Assembly staff throughout last year and doubles as the party's lawyer - to also collect a paycheck from the Yankees to goose the project along.

Carrion, who is busy trying to run for mayor, has his own conflicts of interest - he has collected $9,000 in contributions from Yankee executives so far - and has been roundly criticized for giving community organizations the big runaround. This week, for instance, neither Carrion nor anybody from his office - despite promises to the contrary - could find time to attend a forum on the pros and cons of the project held at the New York Foundation.

We must point out that the precedent for this type of development was set by the Bronx Terminal Market fiasco. What can we really expect from Bronx politicians who, for the most part, did not even raise an eyebrow when 23 merchants were exterminated to make way for a mall development that many agreed was one of the biggest sweetheart deals in recent memory. Unfortunately the BTM merchants were the canaries in the mine shaft, portending how unrepresentative Bronx politics can be.

The Rockland Business Association And Wal-Mart

We met yesterday with Sandy Fried the owner of The Tire Warehouse in Spring Valley, New York. Sandy is a member of a group called the Rockland Business Association. Now we have been trying to make contact with the RBA and, since Mr. Fried is a member and supports our efforts against the Walmonster, we thought it would be a good idea if he reached out to Al Samuels, RBA's president.

Which he did but not with the results we would have hoped. It seems that Big Al is suspicious of the Alliance and told Sandy Fried that he thinks we are a "carpetbagger outfit." So, without the courtesy of a meeting, the head of a group that purports to represent Rockland's business community, a group that has actually set up a Small Business Council, won't meet to discuss the impact of the largest single retailer to look to locate in Rockland.

How sad is that? What's really ironic is that of all the participants in this site fight the Alliance's Richard Lipsky may be the only local resident of the county. In addition, calling the Alliance a carpetbagger when it looks to fight the ultimate retail carpetbagger of all time is beyond absurd and is an egregious example of the toadying that certain business groups do when the Walmonster comes to town.

In looking at the membership list of the RBA, however, what strikes us is the relative paucity of retailers. The RBA clearly doesn't represent the interests of local retailers in Monsey, Suffern, Airmont and Spring Valley. What's more it also doesn't represent the suppliers of these retailers, the local wholesalers who will also be ruined when their customers are put out of business. In addition, it isn't representing the professionals--the accountants, lawyers, insurance brokers and bankers--who service the local businesses and will be shut out by the out-of-town retail giant.

The RBA should have an obligation to examine carefully the potential negative impact of a Super Wal-Mart in Rockland. We have seen the kinds of impacts that the store has had on rural and suburban downtowns all over the country and there is no reason to believe that the Rt. 59 corridor would be any different. Just think of the local drug stores, supermarkets, florists, optometrists, dress store, appliance outlets- the list is endless-who will be put at risk by a Super Wal-Mart.

Not to mention the predatory pricing practices of the company. As we have pointed out, Wal-Mart doesn't look to compete it looks to eliminate the competition with initial prices that are designed to put competitors under. Once this is accomplished the company reverts back to a more profitable price structure.

All of which is meant to underscore the serious economic issues involved in the Monsey Wal-Mart fight. This seriousness demands that a group whose charter it is to represent and advocate for local business must not roll over and become a shill for a company that will threaten the viability of many hundreds of Rockland businesses.

Roger Perb-turbed

As NY 1 first reported yesterday, and is followed up in the papers today, the Public Employee Relations Board has voted to send the transit contract dispute to binding arbitration. Roger Toussaint, Local 100's leader, nevertheless vowed to re-submit the rejected contract back to the members saying, "Today's PERB ruling serves neither transit workers nor the riding public." Nor, of course, does it serve Roger himself very well.

Clearly Toussaint has not distinguished himself and the editorial in today's NY Post underscores just how much the contract fiasco has hurt his reputation. It's not just that Roger is dislikable, a trait that a leader can overcome, he is now being viewed as ineffective. This, when combined with his lack of good looks and charm, is becoming insurmountable as union elections loom at the end of the year.

The longer this dispute keeps going the more vulnerable Toussaint appears to be. It certainly doesn't help him that as of today workers will lose a day's pay for each day of work missed during the strike. All of which makes the re-vote process that much more interesting.

Yanking Their Chain

In today's NY Daily News Juan Gonzales goes after the Bronx political machine for its subservience to Boss George and a concomitant lack of concern for community interests. In particular, he comments on the lightening-like speed that the legislature passed the bill to alienate the parkland that the Yankees will use to build their new stadium: "Steinbrenner's bill, as it will now be known, was introduced in both houses of the legislature over the weekend of June 18...and the final vote was done by June 23."

The issue of the parks has been flim-flammed by proponents and their media acolytes and ignores the construction gap-the years when the old parks will be destroyed but nothing will have yet been built to replace them. What it really comes down to is that the elected officials in the Bronx have been given carte blanche by a downtrodden and apathetic constituency. Perhaps this, along with the Terminal Market debacle, will light a spark of grass roots democracy in a borough that doesn't get to experience it often.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

When we criticized the Bronx Terminal Market CBA we mentioned that a major concern was that the flawed agreement would become a precedent in the Bronx. It seems that our worries have been confirmed after seeing what the Yankees are supposedly offering to the community.

According to the NY Times today:

As part of the Yankees' proposal to build a new stadium, the team will contribute $28 million to a trust fund and distribute 15,000 free tickets each season to Bronx groups, according to the draft plan of a community benefits program.

The proposal also calls for the team to pay $100,000 a year to maintain parks around the stadium and distribute $100,000 a year in "equipment and promotional merchandise" to schools and youth groups in New York City.

As the paper points out one problem with this agreement is that there is no guarantee that a lion share of the money will go to the South Bronx community that is being asked to give up its park and accommodate increased traffic (and the money being proposed is a meager 3.5% of the project's total value). Another is that the fund will be administered by an “individual of promise” appointed by an elected-official controlled panel.

"It would be like the fox guarding the henhouse," said City Councilwoman Helen Diane Foster, one of the few Bronx officials opposing the new stadium.

And like the Bronx Terminal Market agreement one of the most egregious shortfalls with the Yankees deal is that the community has never been involved in the negotiations and therefore its concessions are minimal and enforceability suspect.

Bronx Community Board 4 member Lukas Herbert sums up document nicely:

After he read the eight-page draft yesterday, Mr. Herbert called the $28 million trust fund a "slush fund."

"This thing is disgraceful," he said. "It's going to be controlled by the Bronx political machine — the very people who sold out the community in the first place."

We must also mention that Councilwoman Helen Foster has been one of the few elected officials who has stood by her community:

"Everything we hear is about how this is going to be a better thing for the Yankees and their fans. But I don't care about the Yankees, I care about my constituents," she said.

Council on the Warpath?

In today's NY Sun Russell Berman reports on the City Council's weighing in on the Indian cigarette controversy. Council member Lou Fidler has introduced a resolution that calls on the governor to start enforcing the tax laws. As Finance Chair David Weprin says, "I think it's outrageous that the governor is not enforcing the law..." The Council plans to hold a hearing on the measure after the budget process is completed.

The paper goes on to recount how this dispute is pitting Pataki against Attorney General Spitzer, an elected official who feels strongly that the governor needs to enforce the law. Clearly, however, the state's claim that Indian violence is a reason for not enforcing the law doesn't sit well with the sponsor of the Council resolution. "'I don't believe it's appropriate to succumb to that'...Lewis Fidler of Brooklyn said, 'I don't believe you negotiate the enforcement of a statute when it's legal and on the books.'"

Amen to that. Things are starting to move in the right direction on this issue and the Gristedes lawsuit will certainly roil the waters further. Isn't it time for the mayor to step in and join us?

A Better Idea for Monsey

In today's Rockland Journal News the paper editorializes in favor of a "Science Academy" for a site that is being proposed for a new Wal-Mart Supercenter in Monsey. As the paper says, and we agree, "We bet that most area residents would prefer a school to a large shopping center which would exacerbate traffic in an already overbuilt area along Route 59."

The paper goes on to praise Mayor Darden of Spring Valley for his concern for the renewal of downtown Spring Valley, "Since he is convinced that a Wal-Mart would cause environmental and economic damage to Spring Valley, which is facing downtown renewal..."

The paper encourages the Ramapo planners to entertain this alternative idea and we agree wholeheartedly. An elite academy for math and science makes a lot more sense than a community wrecking Walmonster. "Let the idea be debated. A specialized academy that could help build the brain-trust this nation needs in math and sciences would be tempting."

Ground Hog's Day For TWU

Taking a page out of the Bill Murray movie, TWU Local 100 set in motion the machinery for a re-vote on the contract that was turned down by the membership in January. As the Times is reporting this morning this sets up a potential confrontation between the union and the MTA, since the agency is arguing that a contract, once turned down, is no longer on the table.

This is, as labor historian Joshua Freeman says, "an extremely confusing situation." It is also one that is fraught with danger for Jolly Roger Toussaint. The Local is already feeling the financial pinch from the strike, a docking of workers' pay is to begin this week, and the resentment against the leadership of the union will only grow worse if the contract issue is allowed to continue to fester.

Roger needs to get this all behind him quickly or else he will be history and a new group of leaders will take over.

Tax Deferred Indian Exemption

The Indian cigarette tax issue is now beginning to become a major issue up in Albany. The Attorney General and the Governor appear about to lock horns over the issue and the lawsuit filed yesterday by Gristedes (with a follow-up story in today's Newsday) will undoubtedly put pressure on the state to take the appropriate action.

The pressure will continue to build as the media attention focuses on the unfairness of the so-called Indian exemption. In today's NY Post the paper editorializes against this "foolish policy" that is costing the state and city-along with thousands of legitimate retailers-millions of dollars a year.

As the Post points out, "You can't blame the company for suing...After all, if it has to pay the taxes, then why shouldn't its competition-the stores and internet retailers on Indian reservations-also pay?

In addition the Post also points out the false correlation between higher cigarette levies and the decline in youth smoking As the paper says, "But data from the Centers for Disease Control suggest otherwise. Even Mayor Mike, in crediting cigarette-tax hikes with lower rates of smoking among kids, admitted that lighting up also fell before the hikes took effect."

Finally, the Post goes after the governor for discriminating "in favor of the tribes" and suggests that "If Albany won't make the tribes pay, it shouldn't make anyone else pay, either." Pataki, however, still feels entitled to flout the law.

As the NY Times reports this morning the Tax Department spokesman is saying, "Our goal has always been to solve this matter through cooperation instead of confrontation.." What balderdash! Someone should seriously investigate the money trail on all of this. It has a distinct Abramoff flavor to it and our suspicion is that the hoo hah over Indian violence is a true smoke screen to cover up the real source of the reluctance to enforce.

The NY Times' Suicide Pact

Once again the NY Times goes out of its way to demonstrate that we should all be grateful that its esteemed editorial board has no role in the governance of this country. This time its misguided advocacy for free speech in the case of Umar the Magnificent underscores its frightening naivete and limited worldview.

The Times editorial praises the mayor for a "Solomanic solution" in what the paper describes as a "unexpectedly stirring defense of First Amendment rights..." The description that the illustrious man of God used to depict the men and women in the White House--"the greatest terrorists in the world"--and the ant-Semitic attack on the "Zionists of the media" barely troubled the E-Board. All of the outrage that the Times could muster was that the Iman's remarks were "bound to raise some hackles."

Ah, "But should it be a dismissable offense?, the paper asks. Of course not. While the Iman "chose his words poorly" the overall context of his remarks were, well, in the Times' view, rather uplifting. How sad that the paper has absolutely no appreciation of the kind of war this country is in.

Perhaps we should just observe the troubles that Europe is facing with unassimalated Muslims on the front lines of this culture clash. What we observe, and the phenomenon can be seen in this country as well, is that we have folks in our midst who are all too eager to use our constitutional protections to destroy the very freedoms that the Times professes to hold dear. As Justice Jackson pointed out in 1949, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

And what about all of the clergy that came to Umar's defense? Looks to us as part of a GUILD that is eager to defend its own vested interests. If the Iman could say those things to a student group what is he telling inmates? Do any of those who rushed to his defense, including the Times, have any idea?

Which brings us to the blinders that the paper apparently has on the whole Church-State question. When the controversy over the display of the Ten Commandments was roiling public debate the Times vehemently objected and said that the courts should order the displays removed.

And what about school vouchers? The Times, in an editorial written in 2002 and titled "A Matter of Church and State", said that the use of vouchers, because public money was indirectly channeled into religious schools, was unconstitutional. Yet it is OK for public money to go directly to a rabbi, a priest or an iman? The paper simply ignores the issue, so intoxicated it is by the anti-Bush rhetoric of our Islamic Patrick Henry.

We are spending $1 million a year on prison clergy. We shouldn't be spending a dime. So when we see one of these public funded clerics express the most extreme anti-Semitic and anti-government rhetoric it should be seen as a golden opportunity to rid ourselves of the whole bunch.

Smoke Signals: Retailer on the Warpath

As we have been reporting the anticipated lawsuit against the Indian retailers selling cigarettes without tax is being filed today. The suit, being brought by Gristede's chairman John Catsimatidis, alleges that the tribes on Long Island helped spawn "a thriving black market of discount cigarette sales." The action seeks an injunction and punitive damages against the Poospatuck and Shinnecock, tribes that aren't recognized by the US government.

The legal action by Gristedes is also designed to force the hand of state government. As the Sun reports this morning, Governor Pataki's office has been dragging its feet on enforcement claiming that enforcement was "premature." Gristede's lawyer Bill Wachtel commented that "Our hope is that in the next month or two, we're going to get the enforcement from the state that we all think is warranted."

Warranted it is, with the state and city losing over $500 million a year and local retailers suffering from unfair competition. It goes without saying that ten years is too long to wait for equity to be achieved and the bleating of the tribes needs to stop. All of this economic activity that is supposed to benefit the tribal members should be thoroughly investigated since, as Wachtel points out, "the lion's share of the money made on reservation cigarette sales is not being used to improve tribal conditions."

The tribes deserve the last word on all of this because they never fail to provide a comical context to what hould be viewed with all seriousness. Harry Wallace, chief of the Unkechaug Nation, takes issue with the Supreme Court ruling that determined that NY State had the right to tax Indian sales to non-Indians: "That's charging people based on ethnic identity, and I refuse to do that."

So now the entire issue of Indian cigarettes is going to come down to a principled fight on the question of racial profiling. You really couldn't make this up.

Update: The State Tax Department ruled recently that a Buffalo wholesaler could ignore state law and resume shipping cigarettes to Native American retailers who weren't paying taxes. Attorney General Spitzer has condemned this move, setting up a showdown with certain tribes assuming he's elected governor.

Thank You for Not Taxing

In yesterday's Daily News Bill Sherman writes about the growing outrage, one that we have been harping on for four years, over the governor's failure to enforce the tax law against Indian retailers who sell cigarettes. The failure doesn't come cheaply "costing the city and state $500 million this year."

The funniest line in the story comes from "Seneca nation President" Barry Snyder who told the News that enforcing the law "would wreck havoc on both the nations and western New York economy." Now we can't comment on the impact of enforcement on the Senecas but the idea that this would hurt the economy of the region is a cruel joke to all of the legitimate retailers in that part of the state who are being shafted by the governor's pusilanimity.

As the News points out the cost of a carton of Marlboros is less than $30 at the reservation smoke shop and over $70 in New York City. This disparity has created a lucrative and violent black market in the city and is a major impediment to the mayor's efforts to reduce teen smoking.

Which is why the Gristedes company, and its president John Catsimatidis, is launching a lawsuit today against the Long Island Indians whose "tax free" cigarettes are flooding the city's neighborhoods. As the suit underscores these tribes have a great deal to lose and this legal action is probably only the first of a number of such claims agains tribes that are willfully disobeying the law.

Monsey Wal-Mart

The Alliance continues to make inroads into the Monsey community in our effort to stop the Walmonster from destroying the indigenous retail community. We've hired ace traffic consultant Brian Ketcham and have started an extensive community outreach.

There are a couple of factors that will make this an interesting site fight. The first, of course, is the religious nature of the immediately surrounding community. This brings up an interesting issue in regards to the question of Saturday shopping. The Monsey community shuts down on Saturday and there is a great deal of resentment when it feels that its Sabbath peace is being violated.

In addition, there are a number of vibrant shopping areas that will be dramatically affected by a Wal-Mart. In particular, the Route 306 corridor and Spring Valley's downtown, struggling to revive after years of decay. What can't be denied is that many of the impacted retailers come from the Orthodox community and these storeowners are vital contributors to the local communal institutions.

In addition, there are also significant numbers of Haitian and Jamaican retailers who will also suffer from the Walmonster's intrusion. This could become the most diverse retail coalition that the Alliance has ever generated. And we haven't even included Mr. Wu's large International Food Market on the corner of Rt. 59 and Rt 45 or the Suffern Chamber of Commerce that is led by Mel Berkowitz.

We anticipate that all of these forces will begin to mobilize to convince the Ramapo town leaders that this project is not in the interest of the overall business community. Local people still remembers what happened in 1969 when the Nanuet Mall opened, Spring Valley's downtown was devastated and still hasn't come back. Imagine what Wal-Mart will do to the Village's effort at revitalization.

Arbitration Mach Frei

It looks like we will see the entire TWU mess thrown into arbitration. At least, as the Times is reporting today, this is what the mediator in the dispute is suggesting and the MTA agrees. What this does to Toussaint's call for a re-vote is anyone's guess.

If the arbitration does go forward, however, it would not be a good thing for Jolly Roger. Almost everyone believes that the results of an arbitration would be worse than the contract that the members of Local 100 turned down in January.

Teflon Iman

Writing on the City Journal's blog Stefan Kanfer wonders why the city of New York is paying clergy to minister to the prison population. Kanfer's musings mirror the concerns of the NY Sun. Both sources are perplexed why the mayor can't understand that, in a war against terror, you simply don't subsidize the terror team's culture corps.

It really isn't, as the mayor would like us to believe, about free speech. Certainly, as Kanfer points out, you wouldn't approve some radical Christian fundamentalist to minister to the like-minded in our jails. So why does the city seem to go out of its way to get the most extreme Muslim to do so?

This gets us back to the issue of government subsidized religious leaders. Stormin' Norman Siegal jumps in to defend Umar the Magnificent while he wouldn't be caught dead defending the rights of, let's say, Catholic school students. We wonder what Siegal would have done if the chaplin in question had ties to the old Jewish Defense League? As long as the Iman was bashing US everything's OK.

Smoke at the End of the Tunnel

In a startling move both the NYS Senate and the Assembly have refused to pass the governor's proposed cigarette tax increase unless the state begins to enforce the tax laws against Indian retailers. In a story the other day in the Buffalo News, Tom Precious reported that, "The Senate turned down the governor's plan to raise the state's cigarette tax from $1 to $2.50 per pack, with Bruno saying such an increase would be 'aiding and abetting those that smuggle and cheat' through the sales of tax-free cigarettes."

In taking this stand both houses "rejected another year's delay in collecting tax on Indian sales..." In an interesting twist the Assembly went one step further "by requiring tobacco wholesalers to turn in their licenses June 30th. They would get new licenses only if they showed they had sold no tax-free cigarettes between the budget's passage and June 30th."

It appears that the handwriting may be on the wall for tax dodging Indian retailers. If, as we expect, a lawsuit is filed shortly the pressure will really be on the governor to stop his dilatory tactics and simply enforce the law.

Toussaint or Sinner?

It is always fascinating to watch someone trying to wiggle out of a tough situation of their own making. Even more so when the individual in question is so disagreeable to begin with. This is precisely the case with the attempt by TWU president Roger Toussaint to extricate himself from the labor pact snafu he himself created.

Now, as the NY Post is reporting this morning, Roger has come out of the closet on the "grassroots" petition effort to re-vote the contract that was voted down two months ago. The union leadership believes that the arbitration it faces will end up forcing Local 100 to accept a worse deal than the one that was rejected by the rank-and-file by a scant 7 votes.

The MTA, however, isn't being so accomodating. As Board Chairman Peter Kalikow told the Post, "Put simply, this dispute should be sent to arbitration. Period." Not everyone is as apparently obdurate as Kalikow. In an editorial in today's NY Times, the paper endorses the re-vote saying, "Settling this contract now would serve not just the workers, but the MTA and the riding public."

Fair enough. But the Times goes on to observe that many of those union members who voted to reject the pact, "were expressing their displeasure with management, not necessarily their position on the merits of the contract."

This misreads the TWU situation completely. The contract that was voted down by the members was negotiated by the Toussaint team and the rejection reflected a lack of confidence in their own leadership, one that lead them out on strike only to settle for a deal that wasn't worth the sacrifice it entailed.

As Toussaint opponent Ainsely Stewart tells the Post today, "Toussaint had a golden opportunity at the beginning of these negotiations...The MTA had a billion-plus surplus. And instead he boxed us in to this deal. And now he has no way out."

Survey Says?

When Wal-Mart released its survey showing just how much New Yorkers love the store everyone reacted with a good deal of healthy skepticism. Self-serving data deserves no less. But look what happened when the NYC DOH released the results of its own survey on teen smoking. The media's response was to swallow the results whole.

Yet when we examine the Department's own newsletter ("NYC Vital Signs") we find that the much ballyhooed survey was constructed and administered by the Department itself, with aid from the Department of Education. All of which makes us extremely skeptical since the folks doing the survey have a vested interest in finding, well, just what they seemed to find: youth smoking is in percipitous decline (you see the tax works!).

When we examine the Department's newsletter more close we see a number of interesting things. First, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids is listed as a resource and this lends credence to the suspicion that the Department is an advocacy group rather than a disinterested observer. Imagine if a survey had cross-listed Phillip Morris.

So what we have here is a government agency with a vested interest in obtaining certain results, collaborating with an advocacy group with the same bias. It doesn't inspire confidence that the study was done without prejudice.

Lastly, the newsletter advocates that "business owners who do not comply with state and city laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco to youths less than 18 years of age should be reported to 311." What about the 110,000 cartons a day that are being smuggled into the city and sold on the street? Not a word from our vigilant health commissars!