In today's Crain's Insider the newsletter continues its coverage of the Columbia expansion plan with a report on the intervention of Charlie Rangel. Rangel, to his credit, is trying to jump start the sluggish negotiations between the West Harlem LDC and the university: "Meanwhile, Rep. Charlie Rangel has stepped into the negotiations over community benefits. He wrote a letter on behalf of the LDC, saying that the terms Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer named for his approval of the expansion—including a $20 million housing fund paid by Columbia—should be viewed as a starting point. Rangel says the Stringer agreement should not detract from the LDC’s claims about what constitutes adequate compensation for local businesses and residents."
This is promising because, absent the congressman's initiative, the rest of the area's elected officials quiescence was going to lead to very little positive for the community and the local businesses. Political will is exactly what has been missing, and Rangel's belief that the Stringer negotiated benefits should be seen as "ante," is spot on.
In the same report, Crain's speculates that the City Council could wrap up its deliberations over the CU expansion before the end of the year. While this is certainly a possibility, it makes little sense to fast track a vote before the outstanding CBA issues are resolved.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Wasted Days, and Wasted Nights
As we have been speculating, the West Harlem LDC is having great difficulty coming up with a consensus on the items that it would like to see in a community benefits agreement. In yesterday's Crain's Insider, the newsletter reported that the LDC couldn't get its act together: "Discussions about a community benefits agreement as part of the Columbia University expansion have stalled because both sides are waiting for the other to initiate a
proposal, insiders say."
It's the old, "a camel is a horse put together by committee," scenario-with no strong community leadership and an LDC that is being advised by Jesse James Masyr, the proverbial fox in the chicken coop. All of which leaves the community reps on the LDC stymied: "Members of the West Harlem Local Development Corp., which represents community interests, are frustrated. One insider says they feel outdone by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, who won
concessions from Columbia, including a $20 million housing fund. But they don’t believe that Stringer’s pact compensates adequately for the displacement of businesses and residents."
Something, however, must give here. The LDC is being relied on to garner the kind of concessions that will allow the City Council to give the project a green light when it votes on the development shortly after the first of the year. Without the LDC's input, the Council may be left to its own creative devices-and the proposed Nick Sprayregen land swap, in exchange for a chunk of affordable housing, may just be thrust front and center as part of an overall community benefit.
proposal, insiders say."
It's the old, "a camel is a horse put together by committee," scenario-with no strong community leadership and an LDC that is being advised by Jesse James Masyr, the proverbial fox in the chicken coop. All of which leaves the community reps on the LDC stymied: "Members of the West Harlem Local Development Corp., which represents community interests, are frustrated. One insider says they feel outdone by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, who won
concessions from Columbia, including a $20 million housing fund. But they don’t believe that Stringer’s pact compensates adequately for the displacement of businesses and residents."
Something, however, must give here. The LDC is being relied on to garner the kind of concessions that will allow the City Council to give the project a green light when it votes on the development shortly after the first of the year. Without the LDC's input, the Council may be left to its own creative devices-and the proposed Nick Sprayregen land swap, in exchange for a chunk of affordable housing, may just be thrust front and center as part of an overall community benefit.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Governor's Masochism Tango
We just can't figure out why Governor Spitzer continues to hold on to his tarred and feathered license plan. Masochism is the only rationale we can come up with. He should, however, follow Bill Hammond's advice in the NY Daily News today, and simply cease and desist: "Gov. Spitzer should pull the plug on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants - right now. Immediately."
And, as Hammond reminds us, he should do so not only for his own sake, but for the entire Democratic party; "But now the damage is spreading, weakening every Democrat it touches, up to and including Hillary Clinton." And yet, Spitzer continues to waffle. In the NY Sun this morning, we're told that he's looking to take this issue nationally where, as incredible as it sounds, there;'s even less support for the concept of giving illegals licenses.
The governor should just stop the bleeding and do the following: "He's got to pull his plan off the table completely, so no one can pretend it's a live proposal. If he wants to save face, he can appoint a commission to study the issue and build consensus on a solution - which is what he should have done in the first place." But then again, all of the entertainment would stop and we'd be left to talk about Troopergate.
And, as Hammond reminds us, he should do so not only for his own sake, but for the entire Democratic party; "But now the damage is spreading, weakening every Democrat it touches, up to and including Hillary Clinton." And yet, Spitzer continues to waffle. In the NY Sun this morning, we're told that he's looking to take this issue nationally where, as incredible as it sounds, there;'s even less support for the concept of giving illegals licenses.
The governor should just stop the bleeding and do the following: "He's got to pull his plan off the table completely, so no one can pretend it's a live proposal. If he wants to save face, he can appoint a commission to study the issue and build consensus on a solution - which is what he should have done in the first place." But then again, all of the entertainment would stop and we'd be left to talk about Troopergate.
Unpalatable Fare
The NY Times continues to editorialize against a fare increase, blithely unaware of just how much its own arguments go a long way towards refuting the rationale for the mayor's congestion tax plan. In an ironic twist, they argue that the fare increase actually threatens the mayor's proposal, but remain clueless as to just why this is so: "The rush to a fare increase could also help to subvert Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan, which Albany must act on by the end of March. If congestion pricing — which calls for a fee to drive into parts of Manhattan — is approved, it should generate a considerable amount of money for mass transit."
What's missing here is something that the Times pointed out last summer. The congestion relief that the mayor envisions comes with a huge price tag that the expensive system he proposes will fall far short of actually covering-and, as the paper has remarked elsewhere, there's no reason to give the agency a nickel until a greater degree of transparency is attained on how the MTA is governed.
Therefore, before we do anything, a full re-organization of the transit governing system needs to be implemented. Otherwise, the continued fare-hiking, and a new congestion tax, will end up pouring money down an unaccountable black hole.
What's missing here is something that the Times pointed out last summer. The congestion relief that the mayor envisions comes with a huge price tag that the expensive system he proposes will fall far short of actually covering-and, as the paper has remarked elsewhere, there's no reason to give the agency a nickel until a greater degree of transparency is attained on how the MTA is governed.
Therefore, before we do anything, a full re-organization of the transit governing system needs to be implemented. Otherwise, the continued fare-hiking, and a new congestion tax, will end up pouring money down an unaccountable black hole.
Teacher's Pet
The news is a never ending source of amusement. In yesterday's NY Sun, the paper reported on the fact that Kathryn Wylde, noted educator and critic, had resigned from her position on a commission studying the impact of mayoral control of the schools, because the panel's creator, Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, was "too critical" of the Bloomberg administration's school policies.
This is the same Wylde who famously had the chutzpah to criticize Diane Ravitch, a real educational, in what appears to be a continuing effort to be the mayor's chief flack; something that's worth a lot more than $1 a year. In an understatement Ms. Wylde told the Sun: "...she also felt uncomfortable serving on a commission headed by such an outspoken critic, as she often works closely with the Bloomberg administration on school programs."
In fact, it's hard to tell where Wlyde ends and Bloomberg begins, since she is always out in front on almost all of the key Bloomberg initiatives, most lately on congestion pricing. So if the mayor has a dim view of lobbyists in general, it apparently doesn't apply to the one lobbyist who represents the most influential and wealthiest New Yorkers. This is beyond irony, and we can't wait to see the upcoming Times story on the untoward influence of big business in the Bloomberg administration (just kidding).
It all goes back to the "mobilization of bias." The status and legitimacy of the city's real estate elites is unquestioned, even when there's an over all effort to identify and minimize the role of money in city politics. So we have the silly figurine of KW, reading copy that was written for her on subjects which she has no expertise; and doing so with an air of droit du seigneur that characterizes her elevation to a hallowed position in the New York City's "Thinkery."
This is the same Wylde who famously had the chutzpah to criticize Diane Ravitch, a real educational, in what appears to be a continuing effort to be the mayor's chief flack; something that's worth a lot more than $1 a year. In an understatement Ms. Wylde told the Sun: "...she also felt uncomfortable serving on a commission headed by such an outspoken critic, as she often works closely with the Bloomberg administration on school programs."
In fact, it's hard to tell where Wlyde ends and Bloomberg begins, since she is always out in front on almost all of the key Bloomberg initiatives, most lately on congestion pricing. So if the mayor has a dim view of lobbyists in general, it apparently doesn't apply to the one lobbyist who represents the most influential and wealthiest New Yorkers. This is beyond irony, and we can't wait to see the upcoming Times story on the untoward influence of big business in the Bloomberg administration (just kidding).
It all goes back to the "mobilization of bias." The status and legitimacy of the city's real estate elites is unquestioned, even when there's an over all effort to identify and minimize the role of money in city politics. So we have the silly figurine of KW, reading copy that was written for her on subjects which she has no expertise; and doing so with an air of droit du seigneur that characterizes her elevation to a hallowed position in the New York City's "Thinkery."
Doctoroff Withdrawal
New York magazine is reporting (and Liz is citing) that Deputy Dan may be looking for a new gig, because he "wants to run his own show." The news is bound to send shock waves over at the Related Company's headquarters on Columbus Circle; after all, for the past six years it's been an open secret in city government that Related CEO Steve Ross and Deputy Dan are joined at the hip, and that the company has a favored nation status when it comes to city projects.
Probably the best example of this, is the sweetheart deal that Dan gave to Related on the site of the old Bronx Terminal Market. Without any competitive bid whatsoever, the Doctoroff beneficiary was able to "purchase" the old BTM for less than a dollar a square foot. In the process, city procurement rules were bent better than Yuri Geller bends iron; with the City Council seemingly turned to stone just like Lot's wife. In the process, the COIB rolled over and played dead concerning the Doctoroff/Ross relationship.
So, as they say, God speed to The Deputy, and the funniest line in the New York piece is the following: "...the view is that Doctoroff is waiting to wrap up Bloomberg’s congestion-pricing plan before making any decisions." Well, the fate of that venture is very much up in the air, but we guess that we're the only ones who see irony in the fact that, in just six years The Deputy has engineered more car-dependent projects than any single official post-Moses (Robert, that is); and has done so in the most asthma infested areas of the city.
So we wish Dan well, and are reminded of the Shakespearean observation: "Nothing became him so much as his leaving." The question that remains is, will anyone look back on this blatant favoritism and reconsider the lionizing of the Bloomberg tenure?
Probably the best example of this, is the sweetheart deal that Dan gave to Related on the site of the old Bronx Terminal Market. Without any competitive bid whatsoever, the Doctoroff beneficiary was able to "purchase" the old BTM for less than a dollar a square foot. In the process, city procurement rules were bent better than Yuri Geller bends iron; with the City Council seemingly turned to stone just like Lot's wife. In the process, the COIB rolled over and played dead concerning the Doctoroff/Ross relationship.
So, as they say, God speed to The Deputy, and the funniest line in the New York piece is the following: "...the view is that Doctoroff is waiting to wrap up Bloomberg’s congestion-pricing plan before making any decisions." Well, the fate of that venture is very much up in the air, but we guess that we're the only ones who see irony in the fact that, in just six years The Deputy has engineered more car-dependent projects than any single official post-Moses (Robert, that is); and has done so in the most asthma infested areas of the city.
So we wish Dan well, and are reminded of the Shakespearean observation: "Nothing became him so much as his leaving." The question that remains is, will anyone look back on this blatant favoritism and reconsider the lionizing of the Bloomberg tenure?
Affordable Housing Shortage?
In a post done by the Observer's Matt Scheurman, there's a discussion of the IBO report's focus on the ability of the Bloomberg administration to live up to its goal of creating 165,000 units of affordable housing: "...it questions whether he will be able to meet his goal of building new affordable housing, as opposed to merely preserving existing units." The report says: “Funding the remaining units to meet the plan’s new construction goals, however, may pose more of a challenge.” (than simply preserving what exists)
All of which should be of prime consideration when it comes to the review of the Columbia expansion plan by the City Council early next year-since the plan to develop 18 acres lacks any affordable housing componnent. If, as we have read, the university is willing to fund an affordable housing initiative, than the Council should insist that it be part of the expansion plan itself.
It goes without saying, then, that the swap proposal put forth by West Harlem property owner Nick Sprayregen, affords the best opportunity for the university and the Bloomberg administartion to close the current gap in the mayor's laudable affordable housing goal. Stay tuned.
All of which should be of prime consideration when it comes to the review of the Columbia expansion plan by the City Council early next year-since the plan to develop 18 acres lacks any affordable housing componnent. If, as we have read, the university is willing to fund an affordable housing initiative, than the Council should insist that it be part of the expansion plan itself.
It goes without saying, then, that the swap proposal put forth by West Harlem property owner Nick Sprayregen, affords the best opportunity for the university and the Bloomberg administartion to close the current gap in the mayor's laudable affordable housing goal. Stay tuned.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Can the Plan on Traffic
Our favorite traffic analyst, Brian Ketcham, holds court today in the NY Daily News with a trenchant critique of the mayor's congestion tax plan. That's not to say that we agree with Ketcham's own conclusions, but his analysis of the mayor's overly complex and costly scheme is right on target.
The key point of attack is on the expensive grid system that the mayor's plan proposes: "Charging cars and trucks to get into the central business district makes perfect sense - but the rest of this scheme would be a logistical nightmare. All trips would be screened and photographed, some many times, and payments and locations recorded, producing a database of great concern to the American Civil Liberties Union - but adding little revenue."
Ketcham also feels strongly that until the current mass transit funding system is fixed, the fare shouldn't be raised: "Across the city, people are fed up with traffic. And they don't want to pay more for transit until it gets better. That's why we should immediately halt the MTA fare and toll hike process so we can determine whether a simpler congestion charging plan could net a reliable $500 million a year for fares and capital improvements."
Brian's solution, the tolling of the East River bridges, is something that we believe is also unacceptable-the mass transit fix, think Rockland as well, needs to come before any new tax scheme is put in place. And any system where wealthy New Jersey commuters are paying less than middle income New Yorkers is simply not a good plan.
So when Ketcham says; "New York needs congestion pricing. But to succeed, congestion pricing itself needs to be transformed into a more sensible version of the mayor's costly, headache-prone proposal."-we say let's improve the system before the taxers are let loose.
The key point of attack is on the expensive grid system that the mayor's plan proposes: "Charging cars and trucks to get into the central business district makes perfect sense - but the rest of this scheme would be a logistical nightmare. All trips would be screened and photographed, some many times, and payments and locations recorded, producing a database of great concern to the American Civil Liberties Union - but adding little revenue."
Ketcham also feels strongly that until the current mass transit funding system is fixed, the fare shouldn't be raised: "Across the city, people are fed up with traffic. And they don't want to pay more for transit until it gets better. That's why we should immediately halt the MTA fare and toll hike process so we can determine whether a simpler congestion charging plan could net a reliable $500 million a year for fares and capital improvements."
Brian's solution, the tolling of the East River bridges, is something that we believe is also unacceptable-the mass transit fix, think Rockland as well, needs to come before any new tax scheme is put in place. And any system where wealthy New Jersey commuters are paying less than middle income New Yorkers is simply not a good plan.
So when Ketcham says; "New York needs congestion pricing. But to succeed, congestion pricing itself needs to be transformed into a more sensible version of the mayor's costly, headache-prone proposal."-we say let's improve the system before the taxers are let loose.
Driving Us Crazy at the NY Times
In yesterday's NY Times the paper did what it usually does, drive us crazy on the issue of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. It's not that the paper consciously shills for the pro position on this issue; its more on what it chooses to focus on, and what it tends to ignore.
The story in this case was examining the impact that the governor's policy shifts on the drivers license for illegals would have on the illegals themselves. The paper, however, adds a new twist by looking at the schools that profit from the immigrant business-both legal and illegal.
Our concerns here are not so much with the story itself, a piece that we found both informative and balanced. One driving school owner made the following well-reasoned point: “Of course it’ll be good from a business point of view,” said Mr. Iqbal, whose customers are from Pakistan, India and Eastern Europe, among other places. “And I understand the advantages: Now we can identify a person — if someone is living here with no ID, then we know who he is. But we have to make sure these IDs would not be abused. If they’re lenient about issuing them, one person can have multiple licenses.”
So, from Mr. Iqbal-and more so than from the NY Times Editorial Board- we get the idea that there needs to be some care taken before we proceed in this area. He even alerts us to the security issue by describing the lively trafficking in phony IDs.
We also get a sense that many illegals don't approve the governor's amended plan because they'd rather continue to stay below the government radar. As one legal immigrant told the Times about one of his illegal relatives: "Mr. Chavez said his cousin Pablo would rather not risk the scrutiny that holding Mr. Spitzer’s limited license might expose him to. “He’d rather stay as he is now,” said Mr. Chavez, 21. “He doesn’t want to be in a government database.”
So we like the Times story. What we're concerned with, as we've said, is the things that the paper chooses to focus on, and what it ignores. There's nothing wrong with yesterday's story; it explores the impact of government policy on a group that's most personally impacted. But where's the story on the 77% of Americans-and 72% of New Yorkers- who think that the NY governor is daft?
Many years ago, the political scientists Bachrach and Baratz wrote about "decisions," and "non-decisions." They were examining the ways in which local governmental power structures make policy. What they found was that it was often more significant to ignore the decisions made by the locality, and instead focus on those issues and policy areas that were ignored so that they never even made it to the larger policy-making agenda.
The so-called non-decisions were generally not considered because of a certain "mobilization of bias" in the locality, a conforming ideology that unconsciously hid certain issues from view. And so it goes with the NY Times. The average New Yorker's views on the drivers license question get shuffled aside for the more compelling-in the paper's worldview-look at the angst of the dispossessed. The end result is a one-sided coverage of an important issue.
The story in this case was examining the impact that the governor's policy shifts on the drivers license for illegals would have on the illegals themselves. The paper, however, adds a new twist by looking at the schools that profit from the immigrant business-both legal and illegal.
Our concerns here are not so much with the story itself, a piece that we found both informative and balanced. One driving school owner made the following well-reasoned point: “Of course it’ll be good from a business point of view,” said Mr. Iqbal, whose customers are from Pakistan, India and Eastern Europe, among other places. “And I understand the advantages: Now we can identify a person — if someone is living here with no ID, then we know who he is. But we have to make sure these IDs would not be abused. If they’re lenient about issuing them, one person can have multiple licenses.”
So, from Mr. Iqbal-and more so than from the NY Times Editorial Board- we get the idea that there needs to be some care taken before we proceed in this area. He even alerts us to the security issue by describing the lively trafficking in phony IDs.
We also get a sense that many illegals don't approve the governor's amended plan because they'd rather continue to stay below the government radar. As one legal immigrant told the Times about one of his illegal relatives: "Mr. Chavez said his cousin Pablo would rather not risk the scrutiny that holding Mr. Spitzer’s limited license might expose him to. “He’d rather stay as he is now,” said Mr. Chavez, 21. “He doesn’t want to be in a government database.”
So we like the Times story. What we're concerned with, as we've said, is the things that the paper chooses to focus on, and what it ignores. There's nothing wrong with yesterday's story; it explores the impact of government policy on a group that's most personally impacted. But where's the story on the 77% of Americans-and 72% of New Yorkers- who think that the NY governor is daft?
Many years ago, the political scientists Bachrach and Baratz wrote about "decisions," and "non-decisions." They were examining the ways in which local governmental power structures make policy. What they found was that it was often more significant to ignore the decisions made by the locality, and instead focus on those issues and policy areas that were ignored so that they never even made it to the larger policy-making agenda.
The so-called non-decisions were generally not considered because of a certain "mobilization of bias" in the locality, a conforming ideology that unconsciously hid certain issues from view. And so it goes with the NY Times. The average New Yorker's views on the drivers license question get shuffled aside for the more compelling-in the paper's worldview-look at the angst of the dispossessed. The end result is a one-sided coverage of an important issue.
Food Co-optation
There's an interesting story on a new Bronx food co-op in yesterday's NY Times. The story highlights some of the on-going discussions about the importance-and availability-of fresh fruit and vegetables in the city's low income neighborhoods.
Here are the comments of Zena Nelson, the founder of the food venture: "Ms. Nelson had noticed, with some annoyance, the success of large marketers, like Whole Foods Market, in selling organic foods to an affluent clientele. “Why is it that people with higher incomes were able to buy better food at lower prices,” she exclaimed, “but people with lower incomes were buying worse food at higher prices? This is stupid!” We're really not sure just what world Ms. Nelson's living in, but we're quite sure that her understanding of marketing and the economics of food distribution and retailing needs bolstering.
First of all, Whole Foods ain't discounting to anyone, and the chain's price structure would insure that any store it opened up in a low income area would be doomed to failure-on price alone. Secondly, in spite of Ms. Nelson's belief that there's a huge market for good organic produce in these neighborhoods (“Some people say poor people are not going to buy organic,” she said. “But many poor people are from Africa or the Caribbean or Latin America. Most of their grandparents grew up on farms."), the fact remains that for whatever reason the demand for fresh fruit and vegetables of all kinds is low in these areas, a fact that will make the products both scarce as well as expensive.
The key, as always in our economic system, rests with generating the kind of demand that will eventually lead to the availability of good produce at reasonable prices. This is something that we don't hear any discussion of in the NY Times, a paper that hasn't done a single, non-demonizing, article on the economics of food retailing in low income areas in the past twenty years. All we hear about is the lack, the insufficiency, and the poor quality of the stores-both bodegas and supermarkets-in low-income neighborhoods.
So instead of focusing on the realities of the market-and, yes, the amazing economic success stories involving a whole class of immigrant entrepreneurs-we get a new age romanticizing of a non-capitalist business. Why not focus on how to use the existing distribution network to increase both the supply of, and demand for, fresh produce? Now that would be a positive kind of immigrant story, and we're left to wonder why the Times hasn't understood to do it.
Here are the comments of Zena Nelson, the founder of the food venture: "Ms. Nelson had noticed, with some annoyance, the success of large marketers, like Whole Foods Market, in selling organic foods to an affluent clientele. “Why is it that people with higher incomes were able to buy better food at lower prices,” she exclaimed, “but people with lower incomes were buying worse food at higher prices? This is stupid!” We're really not sure just what world Ms. Nelson's living in, but we're quite sure that her understanding of marketing and the economics of food distribution and retailing needs bolstering.
First of all, Whole Foods ain't discounting to anyone, and the chain's price structure would insure that any store it opened up in a low income area would be doomed to failure-on price alone. Secondly, in spite of Ms. Nelson's belief that there's a huge market for good organic produce in these neighborhoods (“Some people say poor people are not going to buy organic,” she said. “But many poor people are from Africa or the Caribbean or Latin America. Most of their grandparents grew up on farms."), the fact remains that for whatever reason the demand for fresh fruit and vegetables of all kinds is low in these areas, a fact that will make the products both scarce as well as expensive.
The key, as always in our economic system, rests with generating the kind of demand that will eventually lead to the availability of good produce at reasonable prices. This is something that we don't hear any discussion of in the NY Times, a paper that hasn't done a single, non-demonizing, article on the economics of food retailing in low income areas in the past twenty years. All we hear about is the lack, the insufficiency, and the poor quality of the stores-both bodegas and supermarkets-in low-income neighborhoods.
So instead of focusing on the realities of the market-and, yes, the amazing economic success stories involving a whole class of immigrant entrepreneurs-we get a new age romanticizing of a non-capitalist business. Why not focus on how to use the existing distribution network to increase both the supply of, and demand for, fresh produce? Now that would be a positive kind of immigrant story, and we're left to wonder why the Times hasn't understood to do it.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Coney Heads
The Coney Island planning process continues to amuse us-with the latest coming from Mike Clancy's post on the Runnin' Scared blog. In a further explication of the meaning of the city's announcement for the amusement area Clancy, who was first out of the box on the issue yesterday, opines that it could well mean the death knell for Thor Equities' Joe Sitt: "The upshot, two hours of Powerpoint later: Bloomberg is moving ahead with plans to revamp the amusement district, but Joe Sitt's condos-by-the-boardwalk plan is off the table—and the city plans on salting the earth to make sure things stay that way."
Perhaps, but perhaps not. As the blog points out all of this hinges on the parkland alienation process, taking currently designated parkland, de-designating it for other use; and taking land now owned by Sitt and making it parkland instead. This should not be seen as a slam dunk.
Here's the explanation of the president of the Coney Island Development Corporation, Lynn Kelly: "State legislation, explained Kelly, would be required next spring to "alienate" the parking-lot site; the city would then transmogrify the amusement district into new parkland via its ULURP land-use process." Are you beginning to see any problems here, especially considering the city's ham-handed approach to all things Albany?
And one last point. As Metro indicates, even the fans of the plan aren't totally sold on all of its features: "Dick Zigun, president of Coney Island USA, praised the city for stepping in and preserving the amusements, but he also said the plan needs some “fine tuning” regarding the type of retail the city hopes to attract and whether new buildings would be taller than the parachute jump. “Can we do what Paris does, where nothing goes higher than its national monument?” he asked."
Can we? Perhaps the better question is can we get five separate property owners to agree with the city so that the plan can go forward without the use of eminent domain, something that Doctoroff has pledged not to use. As AMNY tells us: "To make the plan work, however, three large swaths of land must be rezoned and much of the property must be acquired by the city -- including 10 acres now owned by a private developer, Thor Equities, which has its own revitalization plans for the neighborhood." This doesn't seem like a really good bet.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. As the blog points out all of this hinges on the parkland alienation process, taking currently designated parkland, de-designating it for other use; and taking land now owned by Sitt and making it parkland instead. This should not be seen as a slam dunk.
Here's the explanation of the president of the Coney Island Development Corporation, Lynn Kelly: "State legislation, explained Kelly, would be required next spring to "alienate" the parking-lot site; the city would then transmogrify the amusement district into new parkland via its ULURP land-use process." Are you beginning to see any problems here, especially considering the city's ham-handed approach to all things Albany?
And one last point. As Metro indicates, even the fans of the plan aren't totally sold on all of its features: "Dick Zigun, president of Coney Island USA, praised the city for stepping in and preserving the amusements, but he also said the plan needs some “fine tuning” regarding the type of retail the city hopes to attract and whether new buildings would be taller than the parachute jump. “Can we do what Paris does, where nothing goes higher than its national monument?” he asked."
Can we? Perhaps the better question is can we get five separate property owners to agree with the city so that the plan can go forward without the use of eminent domain, something that Doctoroff has pledged not to use. As AMNY tells us: "To make the plan work, however, three large swaths of land must be rezoned and much of the property must be acquired by the city -- including 10 acres now owned by a private developer, Thor Equities, which has its own revitalization plans for the neighborhood." This doesn't seem like a really good bet.
Coney Island: Amusing Park and Deride
The mayor has unveiled his long anticipated plan for the revitalization of Coney Island, and to say that there's a few kinks in the city's plan is probably an understatement, As the NY Times reports this morning, the plan calls for the designation of a fifteen acre parkland area that, "would create the nation’s largest urban amusement park, promote the development of stores and 4,500 apartments along Surf Avenue and preserve historic attractions like the Parachute Jump."
The proposal, if implemented, would be a dagger in the heart of Joe Sitt, the real estate developer who owns around 11 acres of land in and around the designated area. In a prepared statement, cited in the NY Daily News this morning, Sitt's company expressed its disappointment with the city's plan: "We're disappointed by the mayor's presentation, but are optimistic that a deal can be reached between the city, the land owners and the community to make Coney Island an even greater place to live and visit..."
According to Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff, Sitt lacks the ability to run the planned amusement facility. As the Times reports: "Mr. Doctoroff said yesterday that the city wanted to find an experienced, world-class amusement park operator to run the district, which is “a very different business than building a shopping center.”
Which sets the stage for a major confrontation, since Sitt has a number of influential political allies that would complicate any eminent domain inspired city action. Given this dynamic, and the fact that the proposal needs to be vetted by the legislature since it calls for the creation of parkland, we can't agree with Rich Calder's assessment in today's Post: "The mayor's plan for a new, 21st century Coney Island is a death knell for developer Joe Sitt's controversial, $1.5 billion proposal to build a glitzy, Vegas-style entertainment complex in the heart of the amusement district."
Hardly. With major zoning and legislative hurdles, the city's grandiosity seems to us much like all the other Coney Island dreams-visions that sit gathering dust in some room down at the Department of City Planning. We're reminded of the dust-up over the city's effort to put a recycling facility at Gansevoort on the West Side-an area that has the same parkland situation as the Coney Island area will. All of the city's huffing and puffing hasn't budged the assembly opponents of that plan, and we envision the same thing happening with the Coney Island dream.
The fact remains that Joe Sitt, and a number of other property owners, will not be sitting around wringing their hands waiting for the municipal Repo man to knock on their door. The city bulldozer will not be coming to Coney Island anytime soon; not unless the property owners are brought into a deal that they can support.
The proposal, if implemented, would be a dagger in the heart of Joe Sitt, the real estate developer who owns around 11 acres of land in and around the designated area. In a prepared statement, cited in the NY Daily News this morning, Sitt's company expressed its disappointment with the city's plan: "We're disappointed by the mayor's presentation, but are optimistic that a deal can be reached between the city, the land owners and the community to make Coney Island an even greater place to live and visit..."
According to Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff, Sitt lacks the ability to run the planned amusement facility. As the Times reports: "Mr. Doctoroff said yesterday that the city wanted to find an experienced, world-class amusement park operator to run the district, which is “a very different business than building a shopping center.”
Which sets the stage for a major confrontation, since Sitt has a number of influential political allies that would complicate any eminent domain inspired city action. Given this dynamic, and the fact that the proposal needs to be vetted by the legislature since it calls for the creation of parkland, we can't agree with Rich Calder's assessment in today's Post: "The mayor's plan for a new, 21st century Coney Island is a death knell for developer Joe Sitt's controversial, $1.5 billion proposal to build a glitzy, Vegas-style entertainment complex in the heart of the amusement district."
Hardly. With major zoning and legislative hurdles, the city's grandiosity seems to us much like all the other Coney Island dreams-visions that sit gathering dust in some room down at the Department of City Planning. We're reminded of the dust-up over the city's effort to put a recycling facility at Gansevoort on the West Side-an area that has the same parkland situation as the Coney Island area will. All of the city's huffing and puffing hasn't budged the assembly opponents of that plan, and we envision the same thing happening with the Coney Island dream.
The fact remains that Joe Sitt, and a number of other property owners, will not be sitting around wringing their hands waiting for the municipal Repo man to knock on their door. The city bulldozer will not be coming to Coney Island anytime soon; not unless the property owners are brought into a deal that they can support.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Is Wal-Mart's Trayf in Monsey?
In the Ramapo supervisor election, the incumbent, and Wal-Mart opponent, Chris St.Lawrence came away with a greater than 4,000 vote margin-mostly because of the wave of support he received from the Ramapo Orthodox community. As the Journal News reports today, the Hasidic neighborhoods voted overwhelmingly for St. Lawrence-a vote that was likely boosted by the supervisor's public announcement of his opposition to the Walmonster.
In some areas, St. Lawrence's opponent couldn't seem to buy a vote: "If democracy means that those who vote get a voice, then the voice appeared to go Tuesday to the ultra-orthodox community in and around Monsey. At one New Square polling place, Mele got one vote to St. Lawrence's 1,111, according to unofficial results. Those tallies also showed a score of 906 to zero for St. Lawrence at another New Square location."
The Orthodox community has made its opposition to Wal-Mart crystal clear, and the St. Lawrence announcement can be seen as a recognition of this political reality. In response the community delivered, and we're certainly hopeful that the newly re-elected supervisor will do the same.
In some areas, St. Lawrence's opponent couldn't seem to buy a vote: "If democracy means that those who vote get a voice, then the voice appeared to go Tuesday to the ultra-orthodox community in and around Monsey. At one New Square polling place, Mele got one vote to St. Lawrence's 1,111, according to unofficial results. Those tallies also showed a score of 906 to zero for St. Lawrence at another New Square location."
The Orthodox community has made its opposition to Wal-Mart crystal clear, and the St. Lawrence announcement can be seen as a recognition of this political reality. In response the community delivered, and we're certainly hopeful that the newly re-elected supervisor will do the same.
License Sobriety Test
The drivers license issue looks as if it might become the gift that keeps on giving-at least for a NYS Republican party looking to get off of life-supports. In today's NY Times, the paper reports on the growing fears among Congressional Democrats that the license policy can and will be held against them in next years election. As the Times puts it: "The opposition is especially strong among Democrats bracing for the prospect of tough re-election battles next year in politically moderate and conservative regions of New York; they have begun to speak out on the issue and, in many cases, have disavowed the plan."
All of which puts Governor Spitzer in the political doghouse, and makes the license advocates look kind of like Typhoid Mary: “It’s hugely unpopular,” said Representative Michael Arcuri, a first-term Democrat from central New York whom Republicans hope to defeat next year. “I don’t think it would be wise to move forward with it at this point.”
And less we forget about the cause of all of this underlying political sentiment, there's the Times story this morning on the killings in Newark-all of the suspects are in the country illegally, and a number had been arrested before, but not detained or deported because of the concerns manifested by the DMI crowd about the sensibility of the rights of illegals (has a nice oxymoronic ring to it, doesn't it?).
Here's the money quote to remind us what this fight's all about: "The $3 million bail set for Mr. Godinez included half a million dollars stemming from an outstanding arrest warrant from 2003. Mr. Godinez was accused of taking part in the violent robbery of three people outside a bar in Irvington, N.J." And, oh yes, all of these killers are believed to be members of M-13, a violent Salvadoren gang. Some economic contribution!
Update
The license issue won't only impact the congressional races. As the NY Post reports this morning, Hilllary has felt the impact of Hurricane Elliot as well, and could feel it even more if a bill being introduced by Pete King gets traction: "In a move that could put Sen. Hillary Clinton on the spot, Rep. Pete King will soon introduce a bill in Congress that would block New York and other states from providing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. "I believe strongly that the federal government has the right to do it because illegal immigration and homeland security are federal issues," King (R-L.I.) told The Post."
And the issue has already hurt her in New Hamphshire, which prompts this from the Post editorialists: "By contrast, there's a real clarity to the licenses-for-illegals question: "Yes" is a vote for illegal immigration. "No" is a vote against it. Is that fair? Probably not. But who should expect otherwise when the issue is eligibility for a document virtually all law-abiding Americans have - and value - but that Spitzer proposes to give willy-nilly to people whose very presence in the country is a violation of the law?
It is Clinton's misfortune that her governor decided to force the issue in her home state just as the presidential race was moving to the top of the stretch."
All of which puts Governor Spitzer in the political doghouse, and makes the license advocates look kind of like Typhoid Mary: “It’s hugely unpopular,” said Representative Michael Arcuri, a first-term Democrat from central New York whom Republicans hope to defeat next year. “I don’t think it would be wise to move forward with it at this point.”
And less we forget about the cause of all of this underlying political sentiment, there's the Times story this morning on the killings in Newark-all of the suspects are in the country illegally, and a number had been arrested before, but not detained or deported because of the concerns manifested by the DMI crowd about the sensibility of the rights of illegals (has a nice oxymoronic ring to it, doesn't it?).
Here's the money quote to remind us what this fight's all about: "The $3 million bail set for Mr. Godinez included half a million dollars stemming from an outstanding arrest warrant from 2003. Mr. Godinez was accused of taking part in the violent robbery of three people outside a bar in Irvington, N.J." And, oh yes, all of these killers are believed to be members of M-13, a violent Salvadoren gang. Some economic contribution!
Update
The license issue won't only impact the congressional races. As the NY Post reports this morning, Hilllary has felt the impact of Hurricane Elliot as well, and could feel it even more if a bill being introduced by Pete King gets traction: "In a move that could put Sen. Hillary Clinton on the spot, Rep. Pete King will soon introduce a bill in Congress that would block New York and other states from providing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. "I believe strongly that the federal government has the right to do it because illegal immigration and homeland security are federal issues," King (R-L.I.) told The Post."
And the issue has already hurt her in New Hamphshire, which prompts this from the Post editorialists: "By contrast, there's a real clarity to the licenses-for-illegals question: "Yes" is a vote for illegal immigration. "No" is a vote against it. Is that fair? Probably not. But who should expect otherwise when the issue is eligibility for a document virtually all law-abiding Americans have - and value - but that Spitzer proposes to give willy-nilly to people whose very presence in the country is a violation of the law?
It is Clinton's misfortune that her governor decided to force the issue in her home state just as the presidential race was moving to the top of the stretch."
More Licensed Poll-Axing
NY1 is reporting on its just conducted poll on Governor Spitzer's new drivers license plan. The results, while predictably revealing deep opposition to the governor's new proposal, are surprising when it comes to Latino voters: "The poll shows the majority of both Democrats and Latino voters are at odds with the licensing proposal, as are residents across the board in New York State. According to the poll, Latino voters did not like the original plan and also do not approve of the new proposal. Fifty-two percent reject it; 33 percent are in favor; and 15 percent did not respond.
What this shows is that the pandering being done by some elected officials may not be so politically astute. Latinos, most of whom are here legally, have as much resentment over giving illegals special treatment, as do any other ethnic group. In addition, the mainstream of the Democratic is resolute against this silliness as well. Only the NY Times and the DMI remain convinced, and the Democratic Party needs to be careful that these head-in-the-clouds folks don't drag them over the precipice.
What this shows is that the pandering being done by some elected officials may not be so politically astute. Latinos, most of whom are here legally, have as much resentment over giving illegals special treatment, as do any other ethnic group. In addition, the mainstream of the Democratic is resolute against this silliness as well. Only the NY Times and the DMI remain convinced, and the Democratic Party needs to be careful that these head-in-the-clouds folks don't drag them over the precipice.
Stigma!
In what has become expected from the Drum Major Institute, a group that feels that beating the drums for illegal immigrants is in the ultimate good of the country, we have another post on the drivers license scandal. In the missive, the resident documented Drummer-as tone deaf politically as one could be-calls for the governor to return to his original single tier license plan.
This advocacy comes on top of the just recently released Rassmussen Poll that shows that 77% of Americans think this is just a terrible idea. In the view of the DMI this apparently means that all of these folks, unable to understand the nuances of the issue, have been bamboozled by CNN's Lou Dobbs.
The three tiered system, a proposal that almost no one supports, is seen by the progressive policy group as the imposition of a stigma, akin to Hawthorne's scarlet letter: "By highlighting residents’ immigration status with a scarlet letter – indicated by the type of license people receive – the new proposal will give the green light to employers to treat immigrants differently based on their immigration status. Armed with this information, employers will likely continue to threaten their undocumented workers with deportation when those employees demand fair pay or complain about workplace safety violations."
So let's get this straight. It's wrong to treat illegal immigrants differently because, well, they're illegal! And what about the "demand fair pay" stuff? This all reminds us of the C. Wright Mills coined term-"crackpot rationality." In Mills' view, the term meant to treat a discussion of the implementation of means in a rational manner, in spite of the fact that an overall objective might was just plain crazy (like planning for World War Three).
In this case, the Drummers accept unquestionably the rights and the beneficence of a massive group of people who got into the country by illegal means-something that the vast majority of Americans find to be abhorrent. It comes down to a basic disrespect for the laws and sovereignty of our country; and this is without bringing in the national security and public safety concerns that this massive undocumented wave generates.
Frankly the fact that supposedly one in four illegals were fired under other tiered license systems doesn't prompt the slightest bit of rachmones, except with those people who in their hearts want two things: blanket amnesty for everyone here; and no aggressive border control policy. Where do the Drummers stand on the border fence? On the deportation of illegals arrested for a serious crime? Or any crime?
Instead we have the appeals to the economic contributions of these ghost workers. Do we believe that the country needs many of these workers? You bet we do. Yet until we get a better control over all of this, we can't start to anoint the illegals with all sorts of rights and privileges. In what country do non-citizens get rights conferred on them (we're thinking of in-state tuition breaks) that even the country's citizens don't get?
Which is why the license issue will continue to resonate-and may very well become the third rail 0f 2008. As the Washington Times remarked yesterday, "The numbers break down to 88 percent of Republicans, 75 percent of independents and even 68 percent of Democrats in opposition. Consider that last part: More than two-thirds of Democrats oppose driver's licenses for illegal aliens, even though at the recent debate, only Mr. Dodd raised his hand when NBC's Tim Russert asked which Democratic hopefuls oppose licenses for illegals. Expect to hear more from Republicans on this subject.
And expect the issue to continue to roil New York State politics next year; and watch for a Siena Poll due out shortly that looks as if it will underscore this point. The governor's actions, and the license thing is not the only misstep, have given Senate Republicans a new life-an ideological and emotional resuscitation that, while hard to quantify, will mean a renewed sense of commitment for a downtrodden party.
As Assemblyman McEneny has said (cited by Liz), the governor transformed and reinvigorated the Senate Republicans from what had become the "Ottoman Empire" of New York State; "He's actually managed to transform (Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno) from a heavy to a victim; that really takes something."
All of this goes right over the head of the bienpensants at the DMI. This time, however, the politics of the issue threatens to blow them all both out of the water and over the border.
This advocacy comes on top of the just recently released Rassmussen Poll that shows that 77% of Americans think this is just a terrible idea. In the view of the DMI this apparently means that all of these folks, unable to understand the nuances of the issue, have been bamboozled by CNN's Lou Dobbs.
The three tiered system, a proposal that almost no one supports, is seen by the progressive policy group as the imposition of a stigma, akin to Hawthorne's scarlet letter: "By highlighting residents’ immigration status with a scarlet letter – indicated by the type of license people receive – the new proposal will give the green light to employers to treat immigrants differently based on their immigration status. Armed with this information, employers will likely continue to threaten their undocumented workers with deportation when those employees demand fair pay or complain about workplace safety violations."
So let's get this straight. It's wrong to treat illegal immigrants differently because, well, they're illegal! And what about the "demand fair pay" stuff? This all reminds us of the C. Wright Mills coined term-"crackpot rationality." In Mills' view, the term meant to treat a discussion of the implementation of means in a rational manner, in spite of the fact that an overall objective might was just plain crazy (like planning for World War Three).
In this case, the Drummers accept unquestionably the rights and the beneficence of a massive group of people who got into the country by illegal means-something that the vast majority of Americans find to be abhorrent. It comes down to a basic disrespect for the laws and sovereignty of our country; and this is without bringing in the national security and public safety concerns that this massive undocumented wave generates.
Frankly the fact that supposedly one in four illegals were fired under other tiered license systems doesn't prompt the slightest bit of rachmones, except with those people who in their hearts want two things: blanket amnesty for everyone here; and no aggressive border control policy. Where do the Drummers stand on the border fence? On the deportation of illegals arrested for a serious crime? Or any crime?
Instead we have the appeals to the economic contributions of these ghost workers. Do we believe that the country needs many of these workers? You bet we do. Yet until we get a better control over all of this, we can't start to anoint the illegals with all sorts of rights and privileges. In what country do non-citizens get rights conferred on them (we're thinking of in-state tuition breaks) that even the country's citizens don't get?
Which is why the license issue will continue to resonate-and may very well become the third rail 0f 2008. As the Washington Times remarked yesterday, "The numbers break down to 88 percent of Republicans, 75 percent of independents and even 68 percent of Democrats in opposition. Consider that last part: More than two-thirds of Democrats oppose driver's licenses for illegal aliens, even though at the recent debate, only Mr. Dodd raised his hand when NBC's Tim Russert asked which Democratic hopefuls oppose licenses for illegals. Expect to hear more from Republicans on this subject.
And expect the issue to continue to roil New York State politics next year; and watch for a Siena Poll due out shortly that looks as if it will underscore this point. The governor's actions, and the license thing is not the only misstep, have given Senate Republicans a new life-an ideological and emotional resuscitation that, while hard to quantify, will mean a renewed sense of commitment for a downtrodden party.
As Assemblyman McEneny has said (cited by Liz), the governor transformed and reinvigorated the Senate Republicans from what had become the "Ottoman Empire" of New York State; "He's actually managed to transform (Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno) from a heavy to a victim; that really takes something."
All of this goes right over the head of the bienpensants at the DMI. This time, however, the politics of the issue threatens to blow them all both out of the water and over the border.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Sic Transit Dinero
In our previous post we commented on the confusion surrounding the various analyses of the city's congestion problem, a confusion exacerbated by the absence of any independent review. Well, the confusion extends to the funding stream that the congestion tax is supposed to supplement. For a long time, we've been saying that we need some good accountants to examine the various funding mechanisms for mass transit, yet all we've seen so far doing the analysis, is the usual public accounting firm of Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe.
This is all further underscored by a Pete Donohue story on the far hike in this morning's NY Daily News. As the story highlights: "NYC Transit's subways and buses move 7 million riders a day - but City Hall picks up just a sliver of the cost." But why is this so? And shouldn't the city be spending more of its own money on an essential public service?
Certainly, many of the transit advocates and almost all elected officials believe this should be the case. The Straphangers Gene Russianoff makes this point: "The city needs to up its very limited funding for the subways and buses system that makes our economy possible." But, if so, why are we putting the congestion tax horse before the MTA governance and finance cart?
In addition, even proponents of the congestion tax disagree with the mayor's assumption that the levy will be sufficient to meet the capital budget needs of the transit system. All of which underscores our point here: there is so much confusion on every side of this mass transit/congestion policy debate, that to simply plow ahead blindly with the congestion tax is short sighted, and is doomed to be ineffective at achieving almost all of the stated objectives articulated by its proponents.
This is all further underscored by a Pete Donohue story on the far hike in this morning's NY Daily News. As the story highlights: "NYC Transit's subways and buses move 7 million riders a day - but City Hall picks up just a sliver of the cost." But why is this so? And shouldn't the city be spending more of its own money on an essential public service?
Certainly, many of the transit advocates and almost all elected officials believe this should be the case. The Straphangers Gene Russianoff makes this point: "The city needs to up its very limited funding for the subways and buses system that makes our economy possible." But, if so, why are we putting the congestion tax horse before the MTA governance and finance cart?
In addition, even proponents of the congestion tax disagree with the mayor's assumption that the levy will be sufficient to meet the capital budget needs of the transit system. All of which underscores our point here: there is so much confusion on every side of this mass transit/congestion policy debate, that to simply plow ahead blindly with the congestion tax is short sighted, and is doomed to be ineffective at achieving almost all of the stated objectives articulated by its proponents.
Which Decongestants Work the Best?
There's a story on traffic congestion in today's NY Sun, that focuses on traffic congestion policy, and suggests that the city's failure to enforce existing laws is a major contributor to the congestion problem. As the paper points out, "The politics of where and when the New York Police Department enforces traffic laws is coming under scrutiny as Mayor Bloomberg pushes a congestion-pricing proposal to ease traffic in Midtown Manhattan."
The questioning of traffic enforcement policy came from Congressman Anthony Weiner, a firm opponent of the mayor's congestion tax: "I have a feeling — not to accuse anyone of doing something cynical — but they haven't been doing all they can to enforce existing laws because they need to continue the rationale for the plan they have out there," Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat of Brooklyn and Queens, said at an October 25 hearing on congestion pricing."
The suggestion, of course, immediately gets a rebuttal from fans of the proposed congestion tax, who ridiculed the whole idea as a conspiracy theory with little basis in reality. All of which seems to underscore the point that we've continually made about this whole debate: little of it is built on any empirical data, and the confusion between correlation and causation plagues all of the arguments-pro and con.
The fact remains, that we're all aware of the existence of congestion, and Weiner's flip remark about enforcement underlies a more serious observation that selective enforcement may be one of the most crucial reasons behind the congestion crunch. At least it should be a testable hypothesis, one that should be explored before an elaborate tax scheme is implemented.
Instead we get this from the mayor's spokesman: "Any suggestion that we're not enforcing traffic laws and regulations is absurd," a spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, John Gallagher, said in an e-mail message yesterday. "Congestion is and has been a huge problem in this city, and to suggest that it's artificially manufactured just isn't dealing with reality."
So we all continue to talk past each other and, in the absence of a thorough review by independent experts, the debate takes on a surreal quality. In the process, the mayor continues his carbon devouring peregrinations, unmindful of the hypocrisy involved in his "do what I say, not what I do" approach.
The questioning of traffic enforcement policy came from Congressman Anthony Weiner, a firm opponent of the mayor's congestion tax: "I have a feeling — not to accuse anyone of doing something cynical — but they haven't been doing all they can to enforce existing laws because they need to continue the rationale for the plan they have out there," Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat of Brooklyn and Queens, said at an October 25 hearing on congestion pricing."
The suggestion, of course, immediately gets a rebuttal from fans of the proposed congestion tax, who ridiculed the whole idea as a conspiracy theory with little basis in reality. All of which seems to underscore the point that we've continually made about this whole debate: little of it is built on any empirical data, and the confusion between correlation and causation plagues all of the arguments-pro and con.
The fact remains, that we're all aware of the existence of congestion, and Weiner's flip remark about enforcement underlies a more serious observation that selective enforcement may be one of the most crucial reasons behind the congestion crunch. At least it should be a testable hypothesis, one that should be explored before an elaborate tax scheme is implemented.
Instead we get this from the mayor's spokesman: "Any suggestion that we're not enforcing traffic laws and regulations is absurd," a spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, John Gallagher, said in an e-mail message yesterday. "Congestion is and has been a huge problem in this city, and to suggest that it's artificially manufactured just isn't dealing with reality."
So we all continue to talk past each other and, in the absence of a thorough review by independent experts, the debate takes on a surreal quality. In the process, the mayor continues his carbon devouring peregrinations, unmindful of the hypocrisy involved in his "do what I say, not what I do" approach.
Profile in Courage: Bill Perkins
There's a wonderful profile of State Senator Bill Perkins in the latest Spectator. The article in question focuses on the fact that Perkins is the only local elected official that has taken a public position in favor of the community's opposition to the Columbia expansion plan. As one CB9 board member, Michael Palma, told the paper: “He is really the only politician to be sticking out his neck and taking a clear position on the issue.”
But why is this so? Where are the elected officials who truly represent the voice of the people? Even if you believe that the university should expand, there's plenty of opportunity for a city councilmember or a state assemblymember to insert herself into the fray and fight for greater communiity equities.
Instead we have gotten an epidemic of weak knees and lockjaw. It certainly puzzles us, and we're inclined to believe Palma's further observation in this matter: "Though not as polarizing, politicians who have been unclear about their views have also drawn fire from CB9 members who feel that time is running out and political support is necessary. Palma said that he thinks Jackson and others are “sitting on the fence” and taking the “wait and see” approach, so they detract attention. “I think quietly they support the plan but do not want to take a position on it because of the community position,” he said."
It looks as if Palma is right about this, but if so, it means that the community is lacking the strong leadership it needs to gain a measure of community benefits that won't be available if Columbia doesn't see any compelling need to be proactive on the community's behalf. After all, if the elcted leaders won't stand up, why should the university?
It remains to be seen how this will all effect the future political ambitions of Council Member Jackson, someone who's rumored to be interested in Denny Farrell's assembly seat. What's clear from our perspective, however, is that Bill Perkins is a warrior. and between him and the push of labor for affordable housing there's a nice opening for a deal that will garner more community benefits that the efforts of the West Harlem LDC are likely to bring forth.
But why is this so? Where are the elected officials who truly represent the voice of the people? Even if you believe that the university should expand, there's plenty of opportunity for a city councilmember or a state assemblymember to insert herself into the fray and fight for greater communiity equities.
Instead we have gotten an epidemic of weak knees and lockjaw. It certainly puzzles us, and we're inclined to believe Palma's further observation in this matter: "Though not as polarizing, politicians who have been unclear about their views have also drawn fire from CB9 members who feel that time is running out and political support is necessary. Palma said that he thinks Jackson and others are “sitting on the fence” and taking the “wait and see” approach, so they detract attention. “I think quietly they support the plan but do not want to take a position on it because of the community position,” he said."
It looks as if Palma is right about this, but if so, it means that the community is lacking the strong leadership it needs to gain a measure of community benefits that won't be available if Columbia doesn't see any compelling need to be proactive on the community's behalf. After all, if the elcted leaders won't stand up, why should the university?
It remains to be seen how this will all effect the future political ambitions of Council Member Jackson, someone who's rumored to be interested in Denny Farrell's assembly seat. What's clear from our perspective, however, is that Bill Perkins is a warrior. and between him and the push of labor for affordable housing there's a nice opening for a deal that will garner more community benefits that the efforts of the West Harlem LDC are likely to bring forth.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Quinn For Licensing Illegals
In today's Daily Politics blog, Liz reveals that Speaker Quinn has thrown herself into the drivers license fray-on the side of the governor's original plan to license illegals. Let's parse this sentence. It appears to us, that Quinn believes two things: number one that Hispanics will be the key swing demographic, and the license issue will help her resonate with this constituency; and secondly that the NY Times, which has shilled for the open border remorselessly, is another key component to her potential electoral success.
At the same time, it may very well be that the position she's taking here, while useful in a Democratic primary, will prove to be deadly in a general election. The position of Mayor Bloomberg-"The bottom line is we should be giving driver's licenses to people knowing who they are and making sure that they have a right to have them, and we should make sure particularly when it comes to guns that you can only use a secure driver's license to buy guns."-also has the potential to throw the Quinn express off the rails in a more moderately oriented general election. Stay tuned.
Update: NY1 is reporting that Mayor Bloomberg is mulling over whether the city will go to court in an effort to block the governor's revised three tiered license plan: "A mayoral spokesman says the city is still reviewing whether the licenses would be "sufficient identification for city government functions, such as applying for welfare or a homeless shelter."
At the same time, it may very well be that the position she's taking here, while useful in a Democratic primary, will prove to be deadly in a general election. The position of Mayor Bloomberg-"The bottom line is we should be giving driver's licenses to people knowing who they are and making sure that they have a right to have them, and we should make sure particularly when it comes to guns that you can only use a secure driver's license to buy guns."-also has the potential to throw the Quinn express off the rails in a more moderately oriented general election. Stay tuned.
Update: NY1 is reporting that Mayor Bloomberg is mulling over whether the city will go to court in an effort to block the governor's revised three tiered license plan: "A mayoral spokesman says the city is still reviewing whether the licenses would be "sufficient identification for city government functions, such as applying for welfare or a homeless shelter."
Farely Outrageous
We've been arguing all along that it doesn't make much sense to impose a congestion tax if the money's being earmarked for the coffers of the MTA. This was a theme that was underscored by Councilwoman Melinda Katz in her recent testimony before one of the Congestion Commission hearings: "THE MTA, IN CONTRADICTION TO ALL OF THEIR PUBLIC EXPRESSIONS ABOUT THE USE OF CONGESTION TAX REVENUES, IS PLANNING ON USING THESE DOLLARS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE HAVE A FULL ACCOUNTING OF HOW CONGESTION TAXES ARE MEANT TO BE SPENT, AND THE METHOD FOR UTILIZING THESE FUNDS SHOULD BE MEMORIALIZED IN A PUBLIC DOCUMENT."
Until there is some degree of confidence in the MTA's ability to be both transparent and efficient, how can we ask commuters to fork over more bucks to the agency-whether its for a congestion tax or a fare hike. This was one of the themes that was on display in Brooklyn last night at an MTA fare hike hearing.
As the NY Times points out on its City Room blog, the hearing was characterized by a deep level of citizen mistrust: "Many spoke of a deep distrust of the authority. And they said they believed yesterday’s hearing was a formality and that the increase was a foregone conclusion." Given this prevalent attitude, one that was shared by the elected officials who testified, why create another pool of money for this unaccountable agency?
One of the key reasons for skepticism here, is the feeling that-much like with all the lottery money that doesn't go to education as promised-the MTA will not come forward with the transit improvements to make the congestion relief work on a practical level. This skepticism was on display the other day at the Bronx hearing of the Commission, where Riverdale officials bemoaned the lack of transit options for their community: "Officials representing upscale Riverdale, where many residents use their cars, all objected, arguing the neighborhood is already underserved by public transit, with few improvements offered."
So, as we have said many times before, the congestion plan needs to be subjected to a forensic accounting. Too much has been promised for the use of proceeds, and many of the promises are themselves contradictory. Which leaves us with the fare hike fight. Here, even Speaker Quinn, a proponent of congestion taxing, understands the folly of throwing good money after bad when it comes to the MTA-especially since, as the NY Daily News points out: "The MTA admittedly will end this year with a sizable surplus and doesn't need increases to balance next year's budget."
But if you won't give the agency more transit rider loot, why hit the car commuters? The MTA is badly in need of a hostile corporate takeover; when will our elected officials stop hectoring and posturing, and just act?
Until there is some degree of confidence in the MTA's ability to be both transparent and efficient, how can we ask commuters to fork over more bucks to the agency-whether its for a congestion tax or a fare hike. This was one of the themes that was on display in Brooklyn last night at an MTA fare hike hearing.
As the NY Times points out on its City Room blog, the hearing was characterized by a deep level of citizen mistrust: "Many spoke of a deep distrust of the authority. And they said they believed yesterday’s hearing was a formality and that the increase was a foregone conclusion." Given this prevalent attitude, one that was shared by the elected officials who testified, why create another pool of money for this unaccountable agency?
One of the key reasons for skepticism here, is the feeling that-much like with all the lottery money that doesn't go to education as promised-the MTA will not come forward with the transit improvements to make the congestion relief work on a practical level. This skepticism was on display the other day at the Bronx hearing of the Commission, where Riverdale officials bemoaned the lack of transit options for their community: "Officials representing upscale Riverdale, where many residents use their cars, all objected, arguing the neighborhood is already underserved by public transit, with few improvements offered."
So, as we have said many times before, the congestion plan needs to be subjected to a forensic accounting. Too much has been promised for the use of proceeds, and many of the promises are themselves contradictory. Which leaves us with the fare hike fight. Here, even Speaker Quinn, a proponent of congestion taxing, understands the folly of throwing good money after bad when it comes to the MTA-especially since, as the NY Daily News points out: "The MTA admittedly will end this year with a sizable surplus and doesn't need increases to balance next year's budget."
But if you won't give the agency more transit rider loot, why hit the car commuters? The MTA is badly in need of a hostile corporate takeover; when will our elected officials stop hectoring and posturing, and just act?
(Sand)Bagging Supermarkets
There's more today on the Speaker's sojourn over to Whole Foods yesterday. As the NY Sun reports: 'The City Council's proposed plastic bags recycling program is getting a boost from big business and a political bigwig, with superstore Whole Foods and a niece of the president, Lauren Bush, getting behind the plan."
What concerns us here, is the fact that the proposed legislation was crafted without any input from the city's retail food industry-but did receive considerable advice from plastic industry reps who have no local businesses in New York. This makes no sense.
If the speaker feels that the recycling of plastic bags is so important that it needs to be located in the city's retail stores, than she should have looked for feedback from an industry that not only employs tens of thousands of New Yorkers, but is being burdened into oblivion by high taxes and onerous regulations.
Instead, she uses Whole Foods, an upscale, non-union and unrepresentative store, for a photo-op on the proposed law. Why not try to use a 5,000 superette in East Harlem? According to the Daily Politics yesterday, the speaker did seek another supermarket for the event; there were, however, no sacrificial lambs willing to step forward.
But can you blame these stores, who weren't informed about the law beforehand, for not wishing to be made a prop for legislation that most don't look forward to? So the speaker went to Whole Foods where the plastic bag recycling was presented as a snap by company representatives, a fantasy that we rebutted for the News: "Whole Foods has run a plastic bag recycling program for 25 years. It’s no burden, said Christina Minardi, Whole Food’s regional president. But Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance said Whole Foods can afford its recycling because it deals in "high- markup goods."
This Whole Foods fantasy is given credence in the Sun story when the company tells the paper, "...businesses "must assume their share of responsibility" in protecting the environment. According to Ms. Minardi, Whole Foods already recycles plastic bags and even pays customers 10 cents for each returned bag, which adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year." With plastic grocery bags fetching around 1/5 of a penny on the recycling market, well, you do the math here
So the company that makes a fortune selling arugula, and can spread hundreds of thousands of dollars around to encourage upscale consumers to recycle, is now an exemplar for small supermarkets in the South Bronx where 99% of the customers have never heard of arugula, and where if you tried to sell the stuff at Whole Foods prices you'd be out of business in a week. As we told the Sun; "A lobbyist for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, Richard Lipsky, has a different view of the plan. He said large businesses like Whole Foods "can afford to spread goodwill," and are not representative of small businesses that he says would lose revenue complying with the recycling program."
This entire discussion has begun to have an otherworldly quality to it. Pat Brodhagen, who represents the Food Industry Alliance, a trade group for the supermarket industry, even found a way to be supportive of the bill before she canvassed her members. As she told the NY Times: "It’s important for folks to understand that plastic bags are ubiquitous, and that everyone who uses them needs to be invested in them. Given this new attention to bags and the environment, of all the positions that have been floated, the notion of recycling them is the most intelligent, in our view.” She said a ban on non-biodegradable plastic bags — as San Francisco has enacted — would not work in New York."
No mention here about the regulatory burden, just an acquiescence to what we like to call "speaker inevitability," or making the best of a bad situation. This kind of stance, however, does a disservice to the industry-particularly the smallest retailers that the FIA often fails to represent as assiduously as it does the larger markets. There's a need for greater honesty in the debate ahead.
What concerns us here, is the fact that the proposed legislation was crafted without any input from the city's retail food industry-but did receive considerable advice from plastic industry reps who have no local businesses in New York. This makes no sense.
If the speaker feels that the recycling of plastic bags is so important that it needs to be located in the city's retail stores, than she should have looked for feedback from an industry that not only employs tens of thousands of New Yorkers, but is being burdened into oblivion by high taxes and onerous regulations.
Instead, she uses Whole Foods, an upscale, non-union and unrepresentative store, for a photo-op on the proposed law. Why not try to use a 5,000 superette in East Harlem? According to the Daily Politics yesterday, the speaker did seek another supermarket for the event; there were, however, no sacrificial lambs willing to step forward.
But can you blame these stores, who weren't informed about the law beforehand, for not wishing to be made a prop for legislation that most don't look forward to? So the speaker went to Whole Foods where the plastic bag recycling was presented as a snap by company representatives, a fantasy that we rebutted for the News: "Whole Foods has run a plastic bag recycling program for 25 years. It’s no burden, said Christina Minardi, Whole Food’s regional president. But Richard Lipsky, a lobbyist for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance said Whole Foods can afford its recycling because it deals in "high- markup goods."
This Whole Foods fantasy is given credence in the Sun story when the company tells the paper, "...businesses "must assume their share of responsibility" in protecting the environment. According to Ms. Minardi, Whole Foods already recycles plastic bags and even pays customers 10 cents for each returned bag, which adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year." With plastic grocery bags fetching around 1/5 of a penny on the recycling market, well, you do the math here
So the company that makes a fortune selling arugula, and can spread hundreds of thousands of dollars around to encourage upscale consumers to recycle, is now an exemplar for small supermarkets in the South Bronx where 99% of the customers have never heard of arugula, and where if you tried to sell the stuff at Whole Foods prices you'd be out of business in a week. As we told the Sun; "A lobbyist for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, Richard Lipsky, has a different view of the plan. He said large businesses like Whole Foods "can afford to spread goodwill," and are not representative of small businesses that he says would lose revenue complying with the recycling program."
This entire discussion has begun to have an otherworldly quality to it. Pat Brodhagen, who represents the Food Industry Alliance, a trade group for the supermarket industry, even found a way to be supportive of the bill before she canvassed her members. As she told the NY Times: "It’s important for folks to understand that plastic bags are ubiquitous, and that everyone who uses them needs to be invested in them. Given this new attention to bags and the environment, of all the positions that have been floated, the notion of recycling them is the most intelligent, in our view.” She said a ban on non-biodegradable plastic bags — as San Francisco has enacted — would not work in New York."
No mention here about the regulatory burden, just an acquiescence to what we like to call "speaker inevitability," or making the best of a bad situation. This kind of stance, however, does a disservice to the industry-particularly the smallest retailers that the FIA often fails to represent as assiduously as it does the larger markets. There's a need for greater honesty in the debate ahead.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Plastic Policy
Today, as the NY Times is reporting on its blog, Speaker Quinn joined with Lauren Bush, the president's niece, at a Whole Foods store to promote the council's plastic bag legislation. We're unsure as to why the 73,000 sq. ft. Whole Foods was chosen as a representative venue, but we can't think of a store in New York that is less typical of the average retail outlet.
In fact, according to the reports that we've heard the upscale food retailer is going to pay customers ten cents a bag if it is returned to the store-which is some trick since five bags are worth about one penny. What this underscores is the fact that Whole Foods, unlike most New York supermarkets, is able to subsidize its bag recycling because it not only has ample space, but it also has much higher margins than the average food store. In addition, as a Times story earlier this year pointed out, Whole Foods customers, unlike the average borough consumers, are high-end, environmentally conscious shoppers who will be more likely to respond to the voluntary recycling system being proposed.
As one food executive told us, if his stores were able to charge its customers in East Harlem and the South Bronx the kind of prices that Whole Foods routinely gets from its customers, they would be able to easily afford to pay 10 cents for a recycled bag. The reality, however, is that New York supermarkets are being squeezed by high rents and real estate taxes, so much so that the Manhattan supermarket is rapidly becoming a vanishing breed.
In addition, with the city becoming urgently concerned with an obesity epidemic, and the access to fresh fruits and vegetables for low income New Yorkers, does it make sense to increase the cost of doing business for these vital retail services? Is the Speaker serious when she says that this regulation won't have a major economic impact on the stores? Has an economic impact study been done? Is it even being considered as part of this bill?
The reality is that the current bill version puts local stores right in the middle of the regulatory cross hairs-while holding the bag manufacturers harmless for their product. There's a $2,000 a day penalty for stores that fail to comply with the statute! This regulation alone is not the death knell of the supermarket industry, but it's part of an escalating regulatory and taxation pattern that is slowly killing off all independent retailers in the city.
And what about the provisions for recycling the bags. Is there a pick-up service in place to do the work? And who's responsible for paying for the recycling. At a penny for every five bags there's no one gonna get rich here on the recycling value alone. Therefore, the recycling must be subsidized. And read the relevant language in the bill: "A manufacturer whose plastic carryout bags are sold or distributed to a store subject to the provisions of this chapter shall make arrangements with the operator, upon the operator’s request, for the collection, transport and recycling of plastic carryout bags consistent with the provisions of this chapter. Such arrangements may include contracts or other agreements with third parties."
What exactly does "make the arrangements" mean? Make no mistake about it, this is a costly operation and, unlike the bottle bill, there's no aluminum to subsidize the pick-ups. How do you propose third party recycling pick-ups when there's no one doing the business, and you haven't a clue about its cost?
And doesn't the bag manufacturer have any fiduciary responsibility? Isn't it interesting that the bag industry, which obviously had a hand-or input-in the crafting of the bill, was present at the press announcement but the food industry wasn't? Is there any correlation here?
Lastly, at least for now, why do the chain drug stores below the 5,000 sq. ft. threshold get a pass, while the small independently owned supermarket gets the privilege of inclusion? There's a long way before this bill gets its final burden. What's really needed, however, is a more engaged industry. This is just the latest, but it won't be the last so-called good intention, that local stores will be forced to foot the bill for.
In fact, according to the reports that we've heard the upscale food retailer is going to pay customers ten cents a bag if it is returned to the store-which is some trick since five bags are worth about one penny. What this underscores is the fact that Whole Foods, unlike most New York supermarkets, is able to subsidize its bag recycling because it not only has ample space, but it also has much higher margins than the average food store. In addition, as a Times story earlier this year pointed out, Whole Foods customers, unlike the average borough consumers, are high-end, environmentally conscious shoppers who will be more likely to respond to the voluntary recycling system being proposed.
As one food executive told us, if his stores were able to charge its customers in East Harlem and the South Bronx the kind of prices that Whole Foods routinely gets from its customers, they would be able to easily afford to pay 10 cents for a recycled bag. The reality, however, is that New York supermarkets are being squeezed by high rents and real estate taxes, so much so that the Manhattan supermarket is rapidly becoming a vanishing breed.
In addition, with the city becoming urgently concerned with an obesity epidemic, and the access to fresh fruits and vegetables for low income New Yorkers, does it make sense to increase the cost of doing business for these vital retail services? Is the Speaker serious when she says that this regulation won't have a major economic impact on the stores? Has an economic impact study been done? Is it even being considered as part of this bill?
The reality is that the current bill version puts local stores right in the middle of the regulatory cross hairs-while holding the bag manufacturers harmless for their product. There's a $2,000 a day penalty for stores that fail to comply with the statute! This regulation alone is not the death knell of the supermarket industry, but it's part of an escalating regulatory and taxation pattern that is slowly killing off all independent retailers in the city.
And what about the provisions for recycling the bags. Is there a pick-up service in place to do the work? And who's responsible for paying for the recycling. At a penny for every five bags there's no one gonna get rich here on the recycling value alone. Therefore, the recycling must be subsidized. And read the relevant language in the bill: "A manufacturer whose plastic carryout bags are sold or distributed to a store subject to the provisions of this chapter shall make arrangements with the operator, upon the operator’s request, for the collection, transport and recycling of plastic carryout bags consistent with the provisions of this chapter. Such arrangements may include contracts or other agreements with third parties."
What exactly does "make the arrangements" mean? Make no mistake about it, this is a costly operation and, unlike the bottle bill, there's no aluminum to subsidize the pick-ups. How do you propose third party recycling pick-ups when there's no one doing the business, and you haven't a clue about its cost?
And doesn't the bag manufacturer have any fiduciary responsibility? Isn't it interesting that the bag industry, which obviously had a hand-or input-in the crafting of the bill, was present at the press announcement but the food industry wasn't? Is there any correlation here?
Lastly, at least for now, why do the chain drug stores below the 5,000 sq. ft. threshold get a pass, while the small independently owned supermarket gets the privilege of inclusion? There's a long way before this bill gets its final burden. What's really needed, however, is a more engaged industry. This is just the latest, but it won't be the last so-called good intention, that local stores will be forced to foot the bill for.
Developing Congestion
We have argued for a while about the inconsistencies involved in the Bloombergistas support for a congestion tax, and their seemingly contradictory support of development that causes more congestion. In fact, so great is the contrast between the two positions, that Brian Ketcham has joked that the current mayor's trying to undo all of the environmental damage done in the past five years by the former mayor.
Well, the contrasts may in fact be even more contemporaneous, and might demonstrate a form of policy schizophrenia that deserves a good shrink. As the NY Daily News reports this morning, there are a lot of folks on the Far West Side who are up in arms about the zoning proposal for the area that calls for the building of an additional 20,000 parking spaces. Assemblyman Richard Gottfried gets this confusion just right: "It sounds to me like the development people are not talking to the environmental people at City Hall," said Assemblyman Richard Gottfried (D-Manhattan), who represents the area. "It would encourage more people to drive cars into the central business district. If you build off-street parking, they will come."
And the confusion extends of course to the corporate supporters of the mayor's congestion tax who rail against the dangers of asthma on the one hand, while they build their auto-dependent projects in the nabes where respiratory diseases are rampant. We're thinking of two real estate entities in particular, Related and Vronado, firms that frankly are threatening to give hypocrisy a bad name with their phony environmental shilling.
You simply can't have it both ways. If you're going to battle the evils of congestion, at some point you're gonna need to reduce the kinds of development that causes it-in spades. We have suggested a box store moratorium in regards to this dilemma. Once again, Gottfried gets it right: "Gottfried, though, said more parking will create more congestion. "If increased development is going to be accompanied by increased automobile traffic, it will strangle itself," he said."
And while we're at it, isn't it time for the press to examine the incestuous relationship between this administration and the two aforementioned real estate companies? An editorial in today's Daily News only touches the surface of the intertwining that has led to aggrandizement at the expense of neighborhoods.
Here's the News' take on the "special relationship" between Vronado, Related and the city-in regards to the new Penn Station: "Clearly, Vornado and Related are positioned to reap a bonanza. But the zoning rules say that in exchange, they must make transportation improvements. Which is where the plan to build a new Penn Station enters the picture. Even a $1 billion contribution to the project would be dramatically less than the value that's been created for them by the city and state. Which is why Spitzer and Bloomberg must hold them to every penny of their obligations while shielding New York taxpayers."
While we're at it, let's begin to look at all of the special deals involving these two favored nations over the past five years. A close examination would underscore just how much the supposed "above special interests" mantra of the current administration is simply a chimera.
Well, the contrasts may in fact be even more contemporaneous, and might demonstrate a form of policy schizophrenia that deserves a good shrink. As the NY Daily News reports this morning, there are a lot of folks on the Far West Side who are up in arms about the zoning proposal for the area that calls for the building of an additional 20,000 parking spaces. Assemblyman Richard Gottfried gets this confusion just right: "It sounds to me like the development people are not talking to the environmental people at City Hall," said Assemblyman Richard Gottfried (D-Manhattan), who represents the area. "It would encourage more people to drive cars into the central business district. If you build off-street parking, they will come."
And the confusion extends of course to the corporate supporters of the mayor's congestion tax who rail against the dangers of asthma on the one hand, while they build their auto-dependent projects in the nabes where respiratory diseases are rampant. We're thinking of two real estate entities in particular, Related and Vronado, firms that frankly are threatening to give hypocrisy a bad name with their phony environmental shilling.
You simply can't have it both ways. If you're going to battle the evils of congestion, at some point you're gonna need to reduce the kinds of development that causes it-in spades. We have suggested a box store moratorium in regards to this dilemma. Once again, Gottfried gets it right: "Gottfried, though, said more parking will create more congestion. "If increased development is going to be accompanied by increased automobile traffic, it will strangle itself," he said."
And while we're at it, isn't it time for the press to examine the incestuous relationship between this administration and the two aforementioned real estate companies? An editorial in today's Daily News only touches the surface of the intertwining that has led to aggrandizement at the expense of neighborhoods.
Here's the News' take on the "special relationship" between Vronado, Related and the city-in regards to the new Penn Station: "Clearly, Vornado and Related are positioned to reap a bonanza. But the zoning rules say that in exchange, they must make transportation improvements. Which is where the plan to build a new Penn Station enters the picture. Even a $1 billion contribution to the project would be dramatically less than the value that's been created for them by the city and state. Which is why Spitzer and Bloomberg must hold them to every penny of their obligations while shielding New York taxpayers."
While we're at it, let's begin to look at all of the special deals involving these two favored nations over the past five years. A close examination would underscore just how much the supposed "above special interests" mantra of the current administration is simply a chimera.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Indian Giver
As if the governor didn't have enough tsuris, he now takes another controversial position-this time on the Native Americans right to sell cigarettes without charging any taxes. In this morning's NY Times we find that Spitzer has renegged on his promise-we should know since we were in the meeting-to enforce the law on these sales.
Now as AG he was firm that the state's right to insure that Native American sellers are put on the same plane as all other retailers in the state was settled law-and he told us that, once elected, he would do just that. Instead: "The governor had promised during the election to begin collecting the taxes during the current fiscal year, which ends on March 31, but the administration revealed in its latest budget forecast yesterday that it was no longer planning on the $200 million coming in from the collections."
Which is really bad news for all of those convenience store operators who are losing their shirts to the unfair competition. The Spitzer announcement brought this response from Jim Calvin, the mead of the New York Association of Convenience Stores: "(Spitzer) promised during the campaign and vowed in the early days of his administration to follow through and restore the level playing field for all retailers of tobacco and motor fuel," said James Calvin, president of the New York Association of Convenience Stores."
So this becomes just another example of the mercurial nature of the governor-shedding promises like a sheep being clipped of its wool. As the Buffalo News reported today: "Spitzer was steadfast in the past about the state's rights in the matter. "The notion that somehow the anomaly is New York trying to collect these taxes is just wrong. Virtually every other state collects them, and it is proper that we do so," he said in an interview earlier this year."
Now as AG he was firm that the state's right to insure that Native American sellers are put on the same plane as all other retailers in the state was settled law-and he told us that, once elected, he would do just that. Instead: "The governor had promised during the election to begin collecting the taxes during the current fiscal year, which ends on March 31, but the administration revealed in its latest budget forecast yesterday that it was no longer planning on the $200 million coming in from the collections."
Which is really bad news for all of those convenience store operators who are losing their shirts to the unfair competition. The Spitzer announcement brought this response from Jim Calvin, the mead of the New York Association of Convenience Stores: "(Spitzer) promised during the campaign and vowed in the early days of his administration to follow through and restore the level playing field for all retailers of tobacco and motor fuel," said James Calvin, president of the New York Association of Convenience Stores."
So this becomes just another example of the mercurial nature of the governor-shedding promises like a sheep being clipped of its wool. As the Buffalo News reported today: "Spitzer was steadfast in the past about the state's rights in the matter. "The notion that somehow the anomaly is New York trying to collect these taxes is just wrong. Virtually every other state collects them, and it is proper that we do so," he said in an interview earlier this year."
Fidler on the Routes
Councilman Lew Fidler has put together a comprehensive alternative plan to the mayor's proposed congestion tax. As the NY Sun reports this morning: "From the far reaches of southeastern Brooklyn, a City Council member whose district has no subway stops, Lewis Fidler, is mounting a one-man campaign against Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal."
We love Lew, and we think that he's spent a great deal of thought on this alternative, but to say that he's engaged in a one man fight does overlook the efforts of so many others all over the city. Suffice it to say, however, that the Fidler plan demonstrates that there are any number of alternative possibilities that don't involve taxing middle class commuters from the outlying areas of Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx.
What we like about the plan is that it looks to fund a number of transportation initiatives through a small regional payroll tax that spreads the balance of payments more equitably across income levels: The council member's proposal calls for a .0033% regional payroll tax to be paid by businesses in the city: "Sounding like John Edwards during his "two Americas" speech, Mr. Fidler said congestion pricing stresses the city's economic differences and is morally wrong. "We don't just want to be a city of rich people and poor people," he said. "I don't think they thought it out as fully as they needed to."
Of course, as we have stated ad nauseum, there's no way to evaluate the Fidler plan for efficacy-or any other plan-because there's really no review mechanism in place that could contrast and compare alternatives in any thing that resembles an empirical manner. In spite of this, the Fidler concept was praised by Commission member Richard Brodsky: "Mr. Fidler's proposal, is exactly what this debate needs, which is a workable, bold concept that responds to the city's needs in ways that don't have the defects of the mayor's plan."
Finally, on the thoughtful council member front, there's the testimony of councilwoman Melinda Katz. Katz questioned whether the mayor's plan fit into any larger regional transportation plan, a concern that's magnified by the recent furor over the MTA's fare hike proposal. As she said: THE PROPOSAL TO TAX COMMUTERS AND TRUCKS GOING INTO THE CONGESTING PRICING ZONE (CPZ) CANNOT BE EFFECTIVELY ANALYZED OUTSIDE OF A MUCH WIDER PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM CONTEXT. RECENTLY, THE MTA HAS MADE STATEMENTS REGARDING AN INCREASE IN FARES FOR THE SUBWAY AND BUS SYSTEM. THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE LACK OF COORDINATION. IT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO PASS A PLAN THAT ON THE ONE HAND IS MEANT TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF MASS TRANSIT WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND THE FARES ARE BEING RAISED MAKING MASS TRANSIT A MUCH LESS ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVE.
All of which underscores the extent to which the enthusiasm for the mayor's proposal has begun to ebb significantly. The last word on this belongs to Richard Brodsky: "Mr. Brodsky, a critic of congestion pricing, said alternatives to the plan are surfacing because the momentum behind congestion pricing is fading."
We love Lew, and we think that he's spent a great deal of thought on this alternative, but to say that he's engaged in a one man fight does overlook the efforts of so many others all over the city. Suffice it to say, however, that the Fidler plan demonstrates that there are any number of alternative possibilities that don't involve taxing middle class commuters from the outlying areas of Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx.
What we like about the plan is that it looks to fund a number of transportation initiatives through a small regional payroll tax that spreads the balance of payments more equitably across income levels: The council member's proposal calls for a .0033% regional payroll tax to be paid by businesses in the city: "Sounding like John Edwards during his "two Americas" speech, Mr. Fidler said congestion pricing stresses the city's economic differences and is morally wrong. "We don't just want to be a city of rich people and poor people," he said. "I don't think they thought it out as fully as they needed to."
Of course, as we have stated ad nauseum, there's no way to evaluate the Fidler plan for efficacy-or any other plan-because there's really no review mechanism in place that could contrast and compare alternatives in any thing that resembles an empirical manner. In spite of this, the Fidler concept was praised by Commission member Richard Brodsky: "Mr. Fidler's proposal, is exactly what this debate needs, which is a workable, bold concept that responds to the city's needs in ways that don't have the defects of the mayor's plan."
Finally, on the thoughtful council member front, there's the testimony of councilwoman Melinda Katz. Katz questioned whether the mayor's plan fit into any larger regional transportation plan, a concern that's magnified by the recent furor over the MTA's fare hike proposal. As she said: THE PROPOSAL TO TAX COMMUTERS AND TRUCKS GOING INTO THE CONGESTING PRICING ZONE (CPZ) CANNOT BE EFFECTIVELY ANALYZED OUTSIDE OF A MUCH WIDER PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM CONTEXT. RECENTLY, THE MTA HAS MADE STATEMENTS REGARDING AN INCREASE IN FARES FOR THE SUBWAY AND BUS SYSTEM. THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE LACK OF COORDINATION. IT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO PASS A PLAN THAT ON THE ONE HAND IS MEANT TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF MASS TRANSIT WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND THE FARES ARE BEING RAISED MAKING MASS TRANSIT A MUCH LESS ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVE.
All of which underscores the extent to which the enthusiasm for the mayor's proposal has begun to ebb significantly. The last word on this belongs to Richard Brodsky: "Mr. Brodsky, a critic of congestion pricing, said alternatives to the plan are surfacing because the momentum behind congestion pricing is fading."
Crying Wolf on Congestion Plan
In today's NY Sun, the paper's Andrew Wolf calls out the mayor on the congestion tax plan in a column appropriately titled, "In Praise of Congestion." In the piece Wolf, who we have disagreed with on some of our box store fights, but who we acknowledge as one of the shrewdest political observers around, questions whether the plan to charge commuters a $8 tax will have any impact on the congestion in the CBD.
He goes on to point out, that the mayor's claims that the congestion relief idea will reduce asthma and other related health conditions is, well frankly, not credible, and will likely exacerbate conditions in neighborhoods that are suffering the most: "The mayor uses images of children suffering from asthma to promote his scheme. Those children don't live in the areas that will supposedly "benefit" from his scheme. They do live in areas of the Bronx that could experience increases in congestion — and presumably asthma rates — as drivers and truckers seek to avoid the tax by using roads such as the Major Deegan, the Bruckner and the Cross Bronx to avoid the congestion levy."
Wolf also details that in so many cases the drive into Manhattan from Riverdale-or from any other of the less accessible nabes-is much more convenient and quicker than the available mass transit alternatives-and that these trips are so often good for the city's economy (hence the title of the piece). In addition, the current proposed tax is one that he sees as likely to rise because of the minuscule impact the $8 fee will have on traffic reduction.
And in the end, the tax on commuters will also fail to generate the needed dollars for mass transit improvement; "There will be virtually no improvement in mass transit that to accommodate extra riders. The Daily News suggested last week that after expenses there will hardly be any extra funds generated by the Bloomberg scheme to improve subways and buses." This whole scheme, in other words, is a tax and spend, without the mend.
He goes on to point out, that the mayor's claims that the congestion relief idea will reduce asthma and other related health conditions is, well frankly, not credible, and will likely exacerbate conditions in neighborhoods that are suffering the most: "The mayor uses images of children suffering from asthma to promote his scheme. Those children don't live in the areas that will supposedly "benefit" from his scheme. They do live in areas of the Bronx that could experience increases in congestion — and presumably asthma rates — as drivers and truckers seek to avoid the tax by using roads such as the Major Deegan, the Bruckner and the Cross Bronx to avoid the congestion levy."
Wolf also details that in so many cases the drive into Manhattan from Riverdale-or from any other of the less accessible nabes-is much more convenient and quicker than the available mass transit alternatives-and that these trips are so often good for the city's economy (hence the title of the piece). In addition, the current proposed tax is one that he sees as likely to rise because of the minuscule impact the $8 fee will have on traffic reduction.
And in the end, the tax on commuters will also fail to generate the needed dollars for mass transit improvement; "There will be virtually no improvement in mass transit that to accommodate extra riders. The Daily News suggested last week that after expenses there will hardly be any extra funds generated by the Bloomberg scheme to improve subways and buses." This whole scheme, in other words, is a tax and spend, without the mend.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Astringent Stringer
Demonstrating that there's nothing as as intemperate as a politician with a wounded ego, Manhattan BP Scott Stringer, exhibiting once again the lack of temperance and wisdom that would qualify him for higher office, turned thumbs down on the re-zoning plan put forward by West Harlem property owner Nick Sprayregen. As the Spectator reports this morning, Stringer not only said no to Sprayregen, but he did so with classless insults as well.
Stringer found fault with the re-zoning plan because, and you really have to read this to believe it, he claimed it was "illegal." Now this is the same official who swore that he'd lie down in front of the bus if Columbia was going to use eminent domain to remove property owners from the expansion zone-that is until he cut his own side deal, a deal that cut out the community. And, adding insult to injury, he's calling Sprayregen's proposal selfish and illegal!
The BP backlash is cited this morning in the Crain's Insider, and the newsletter notes the payback side of the decision: "Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer will announce today that he opposes Nick Sprayregen’s rezoning application in West Harlem. Sprayregen, who owns property where Columbia University wants to build, has proposed zoning his land for residential use and swapping parcels with the school. Stringer’s decision is not surprising. He green-lighted Columbia’s rezoning in September, and Sprayregen has been accusing him of going back on his word."
As one CB 9 board member said, acutely characterizing the Stringer ignominy: “If there’s anyone who should be calling anyone’s activity illegal it should be Mr. Sprayregen and his family,” CB9 member Vicky Gholson said. “They have been victimized.” A sentiment that is echoed by Board 9 chair, Jordi Reyes-Montblanc: "Reyes-Montblanc added that Stringer’s feelings about Sprayregen’s proposal “exquisitely expressed” his own views—but about Columbia’s expansion plan."
You know the more we think about it, the acumen exhibited by Stringer may in fact qualify him for a post in the Spitzer administration, where being in a hole always seems to necessitate further digging. What remains, however, is the observation that the office of BP in general (and particularly Stringer's performance in it) is much like a prehensile tale, a vestigial organ with no possibly good use
Stringer found fault with the re-zoning plan because, and you really have to read this to believe it, he claimed it was "illegal." Now this is the same official who swore that he'd lie down in front of the bus if Columbia was going to use eminent domain to remove property owners from the expansion zone-that is until he cut his own side deal, a deal that cut out the community. And, adding insult to injury, he's calling Sprayregen's proposal selfish and illegal!
The BP backlash is cited this morning in the Crain's Insider, and the newsletter notes the payback side of the decision: "Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer will announce today that he opposes Nick Sprayregen’s rezoning application in West Harlem. Sprayregen, who owns property where Columbia University wants to build, has proposed zoning his land for residential use and swapping parcels with the school. Stringer’s decision is not surprising. He green-lighted Columbia’s rezoning in September, and Sprayregen has been accusing him of going back on his word."
As one CB 9 board member said, acutely characterizing the Stringer ignominy: “If there’s anyone who should be calling anyone’s activity illegal it should be Mr. Sprayregen and his family,” CB9 member Vicky Gholson said. “They have been victimized.” A sentiment that is echoed by Board 9 chair, Jordi Reyes-Montblanc: "Reyes-Montblanc added that Stringer’s feelings about Sprayregen’s proposal “exquisitely expressed” his own views—but about Columbia’s expansion plan."
You know the more we think about it, the acumen exhibited by Stringer may in fact qualify him for a post in the Spitzer administration, where being in a hole always seems to necessitate further digging. What remains, however, is the observation that the office of BP in general (and particularly Stringer's performance in it) is much like a prehensile tale, a vestigial organ with no possibly good use
Weiner's Decongestable
With all of the sycophancy going on, it's refreshing to see that Congressman Anthony Weiner has two hands holding on to his integrity. In this morning's NY Post, the former mayoral candidate lays out an excellent critique of the congestion tax plan: "But the idea for dealing with the critical challenge of traffic mitigation is too expensive and places an unfair burden on New York City residents. Worst of all, it ultimately would fail to achieve our shared goals of improving the environment and fostering mobility."
Weiner goes on to point out that there are a myriad of good ways, short of a tax, that the mayor could begin to implement in the congestion relief effort. One in particular that we lime is his suggestion about trucks. As we have been saying all along, the $21 truck tax has nothing whatever to do with any congestion relief, and functions solely as a tax on small businesses.
As Weiner says, we need a better way to address the truck problem: "There are more cars on the road these days - but a lot more trucks, a 30 percent rise since 1998. We should give truck drivers incentives to do deliveries during off-peak hours - and also give companies good reason (such as tax credits) to agree to only accept deliveries only at times of lighter traffic. I also support dramatic increases in bridge and tunnel tolls during for trucks during "prime time" - and reduced or free off-peak passage."
This is a good start. We would add that some attention needs to be paid to small contractors, service vehicles that can't do their vital business at off-peak hours. Not all truck traffic is for delivering to stores in the CBD.
And Weiner hits the nail in the head as far as the inequitable nature of the congestion tax: "Improving our environment will require us all to make sacrifices. But the PlaNYC proposal whacks residents of the five boroughs while letting many suburban commuters off scot-free. If you live in Manhattan or cross into Midtown over the East River bridges, PlaNYC would hit you with an $8 car tax. But Long Island or Westchester residents who take the Midtown Tunnel or Triborough Bridge would pay nothing - because the plan gives these suburban drivers credit for their tolls. If anyone should get a free pass, it should be residents of New York City, not our friends in the suburbs."
Not to mention the fact that the tax itself will be eaten up by the exorbitant administrative costs involved with installing and monitoring thousands of cameras. Here Weiner gets it as well: "The PlaNYC congestion-pricing scheme requires installing and maintaining hundreds of cameras and license-plate scanners; that's an enormously expensive big-government solution to our Midtown traffic woes. Nearly 40 percent of the "car tax" receipts would go not to improving mass transit, but to upkeep of the machines and the giant bureaucracy behind them."
So what we need is to go back to the drawing board on the congestion front. The current plan, ill thought out, and way to unfair and expensive, needs to be replaced by a more targeted approach that reduces congestion without penalizing New Yorkers with an unnecessary tax.
Weiner goes on to point out that there are a myriad of good ways, short of a tax, that the mayor could begin to implement in the congestion relief effort. One in particular that we lime is his suggestion about trucks. As we have been saying all along, the $21 truck tax has nothing whatever to do with any congestion relief, and functions solely as a tax on small businesses.
As Weiner says, we need a better way to address the truck problem: "There are more cars on the road these days - but a lot more trucks, a 30 percent rise since 1998. We should give truck drivers incentives to do deliveries during off-peak hours - and also give companies good reason (such as tax credits) to agree to only accept deliveries only at times of lighter traffic. I also support dramatic increases in bridge and tunnel tolls during for trucks during "prime time" - and reduced or free off-peak passage."
This is a good start. We would add that some attention needs to be paid to small contractors, service vehicles that can't do their vital business at off-peak hours. Not all truck traffic is for delivering to stores in the CBD.
And Weiner hits the nail in the head as far as the inequitable nature of the congestion tax: "Improving our environment will require us all to make sacrifices. But the PlaNYC proposal whacks residents of the five boroughs while letting many suburban commuters off scot-free. If you live in Manhattan or cross into Midtown over the East River bridges, PlaNYC would hit you with an $8 car tax. But Long Island or Westchester residents who take the Midtown Tunnel or Triborough Bridge would pay nothing - because the plan gives these suburban drivers credit for their tolls. If anyone should get a free pass, it should be residents of New York City, not our friends in the suburbs."
Not to mention the fact that the tax itself will be eaten up by the exorbitant administrative costs involved with installing and monitoring thousands of cameras. Here Weiner gets it as well: "The PlaNYC congestion-pricing scheme requires installing and maintaining hundreds of cameras and license-plate scanners; that's an enormously expensive big-government solution to our Midtown traffic woes. Nearly 40 percent of the "car tax" receipts would go not to improving mass transit, but to upkeep of the machines and the giant bureaucracy behind them."
So what we need is to go back to the drawing board on the congestion front. The current plan, ill thought out, and way to unfair and expensive, needs to be replaced by a more targeted approach that reduces congestion without penalizing New Yorkers with an unnecessary tax.
Wylde Thing
We just can't resist weighing in on the orchestrated attack against educational guru Diane Ravitch by the NYC Partnership's Kathy Wylde. The sheer audacity of the whole thing, outlined yesterday in the NY Sun, astounds us-with a corporate lobbyist lacking any educational background, going after someone who has spent her entire life exposing educational failures with a deftness and independence that Wylde could only dream of.
And on top of this, the Wylding of Ravitch isn't even in her own words, but comes from a crib sheet supplied by the DOE. AS the Sun points out, "Ms. Wylde said the idea for the piece was her own, but that she wrote it with the help of a research file composed by the Education Department that chronicles Ms. Ravitch's policy positions over the years. The seven-page document, titled "Diane Ravitch: Then and Now," tallies quotations by Ms. Ravitch on nearly a dozen topics, comparing comments she made in the 1990s to statements in recent years."
What chutzpah! It's bad enough that the bumbling bureaucrats think that they have the ability and expertise to attack Ravitch, but what possesses the always available Wylde to think that her limited perspective and background qualifies her to weigh in as the DOE's munecha?
It's also bad enough that the Partnership's leader is speaking out of both sides of her mouth on congestion pricing-with a new found environmental sensibility that is belied by the mall building of all of her key partners in the Partnership. Now, to go along with her freshly minted Sierra Club membership, she's an educational expert as well?
The real issue here, and its one that we've commented on before, is the way in which the DOE acts more like the DOD in its ruthless approach to dissent. Here's what we said in response to Sol Stern's scathing analysis of the educrats: "There is a fascinating analysis piece, one of many that is done by the inimitable Sol Stern, that focuses on the reality behind the mayoral PR campaign about how well the schools are doing under Bloomberg's stewardship. In many ways, the elaborate mayoral burnishing is reminiscent of the current campaign on congestion taxing-lavish spending on media relations designed to conceal some unpleasant truths lying beneath the surface of all the glitter."
So now it continues in a more ruthless way, as Ravitch points out to the Sun: "Ms. Ravitch said her most serious concern with the Bloomberg administration is the way it responds to dissent. She said that many educators who are professionally reliant on support from the city, through grants or contracts, fear voicing any differing opinions."
It's a variant of the Marx Brother's line: "Who're gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?" And Ravitch lays it all out in an editorial blasting Wylde and the DOE in today's NY Post: "This attack, I have learned from published accounts, was orchestrated by the New York City Department of Education, which compiled a secret dossier about my views and turned it over to Wylde. I am at the top of the Department's enemies list. This is a frightening way for a public agency to behave."
It is, as Ravitch, Sol Stern and Andrew Wolf have all pointed out, the way that an agency behaves when it has a good deal to hide. It is an agency that will go to great lengths to do bureaucratic sleight-of-hands, and when that doesn't work on seasoned educational experts, the agency will bring out corporate toadies to do ghost-written character assassination.
And on top of this, the Wylding of Ravitch isn't even in her own words, but comes from a crib sheet supplied by the DOE. AS the Sun points out, "Ms. Wylde said the idea for the piece was her own, but that she wrote it with the help of a research file composed by the Education Department that chronicles Ms. Ravitch's policy positions over the years. The seven-page document, titled "Diane Ravitch: Then and Now," tallies quotations by Ms. Ravitch on nearly a dozen topics, comparing comments she made in the 1990s to statements in recent years."
What chutzpah! It's bad enough that the bumbling bureaucrats think that they have the ability and expertise to attack Ravitch, but what possesses the always available Wylde to think that her limited perspective and background qualifies her to weigh in as the DOE's munecha?
It's also bad enough that the Partnership's leader is speaking out of both sides of her mouth on congestion pricing-with a new found environmental sensibility that is belied by the mall building of all of her key partners in the Partnership. Now, to go along with her freshly minted Sierra Club membership, she's an educational expert as well?
The real issue here, and its one that we've commented on before, is the way in which the DOE acts more like the DOD in its ruthless approach to dissent. Here's what we said in response to Sol Stern's scathing analysis of the educrats: "There is a fascinating analysis piece, one of many that is done by the inimitable Sol Stern, that focuses on the reality behind the mayoral PR campaign about how well the schools are doing under Bloomberg's stewardship. In many ways, the elaborate mayoral burnishing is reminiscent of the current campaign on congestion taxing-lavish spending on media relations designed to conceal some unpleasant truths lying beneath the surface of all the glitter."
So now it continues in a more ruthless way, as Ravitch points out to the Sun: "Ms. Ravitch said her most serious concern with the Bloomberg administration is the way it responds to dissent. She said that many educators who are professionally reliant on support from the city, through grants or contracts, fear voicing any differing opinions."
It's a variant of the Marx Brother's line: "Who're gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?" And Ravitch lays it all out in an editorial blasting Wylde and the DOE in today's NY Post: "This attack, I have learned from published accounts, was orchestrated by the New York City Department of Education, which compiled a secret dossier about my views and turned it over to Wylde. I am at the top of the Department's enemies list. This is a frightening way for a public agency to behave."
It is, as Ravitch, Sol Stern and Andrew Wolf have all pointed out, the way that an agency behaves when it has a good deal to hide. It is an agency that will go to great lengths to do bureaucratic sleight-of-hands, and when that doesn't work on seasoned educational experts, the agency will bring out corporate toadies to do ghost-written character assassination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
