As the ESDC charade on the use of eminent domain continues, it appears that, at least according to the NY Sun, that Columbia honcho Lee Bollinger is looking for "conciliation." Nothing in the story, however, indicates the manner in which the university hopes to achieve this laudable goal as landowner Mick Sprayregen (out client) continues to vow to fight the taking of his property: "Facing the prospect of a drawn-out legal battle with at least one private landowner, the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, is seeking conciliation in the final stages of the approval process for Columbia's $6 billion expansion plan."
The opportunity for real conciliation would mean that Columbia would become proactive in entertaining the kind of creative compromise that Sprayregen has proposed to create housing in exchange for his swapping property with the university. Conciliation, he should realize, is not something that can be reached posthumously-a state that would result from the successful effort to use eminent domain in the sole private benefit of Columbia.
The continues presence of former mayor David Dinkins in all of this has become offensive. The fact that this has been, and failed mayor, is actually teaching students-or going through the motions according to reports we've seen-is satire enough; unless he's having students gain insights by learning from his mistakes. Dinkens told the Sun: "Earlier in the day, Mayor Dinkins testified in support of Columbia's plan. He said the opposition to the plan was being fanned by "two or three people, yelling and screaming. That doesn't make it controversy."
It must have been earlier in the day, since any later and Dinkins would have joined Charlie Rangel snoozing on the beach-as the two octogenarians need their beauty rest. To bring someone to testify who's been given a sinecure at the university, only further exposes the tawdry nature of Columbia's land grab. New York's eminent domain law may be in for some real forced change, and the university a long problematic battle: the Sprayregen/Siegal lawsuit is that strong.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Poor School Oversight Hides Reality
As the countdown begins for what could be the final year of mayoral control of the schools, we still don't know if the exercise in changing educational governance has been effective; this lack of understanding is directly related to the way in which mayoral control was allowed to be structured. Sol Stern captures the essence of the problem in the City Journal:
"The problem was that the legislation failed to ensure that voters would have access to unimpeachable information about student achievement, a prerequisite to any reasoned judgment about how well the schools were doing under the new regime. Greater accountability was the theoretical argument for mayoral control, but it has been turned on its head in practice. An ambitious mayor—first running for reelection, then flirting with running for president, and now contemplating a change in the term-limits law so that he can run for mayor again—gained extraordinary power to control the flow of data on how the schools were performing under his administration."
So the reality here is that, when the mayor said if he didn't turn the schools around we could hold him accountable, he was playing with a stacked deck-one that he dealt himself. As we have said all along, echoing Stern and Andrew Wolf, the system needs to be subject to independent review. As Stern points out: "Too often, the Bloomberg administration has made claims about student achievement gains that no independent agency has vetted and that in light of other evidence appear unjustified. As for the spectacularly higher graduation rates that the Bloomberg administration has advertised as its greatest accomplishment, we have no way of knowing whether they are legitimate or whether they are the result of dumbed-down Regents exams—five of which the city’s high school students must pass in order to graduate."
Our point earlier in the year was similar: "Which is why a more rigorous and nonpartisan review mechanism is needed, one outside of the control of the mayor's educational tall tale tellers: "What's key in moving forward is to depoliticize student testing. Senator Kennedy has introduced legislation that would force governors to publish federal test results alongside states' scores. Multiple measures of progress are needed, and accented by the current debate over the city's dismal high school graduation rates. Given Mr. Bloomberg's faith in competition — heavily backing new options, like charter schools — he should know that markets work only when parents can exercise choice based on sound information. Recent test results prompted a feeling of disbelief, not one of confidence."
Stern underscores this, and calls for a General Accounting Office (GAO) style review agency: "But the single most important change that our city legislators should insist on—and without which they should not vote for reauthorization of mayoral control—is the creation of an independent agency, removed from all political influence, to monitor the data about test scores and graduation rates, to do research about which school programs are working and which are not, and then to make all that information available to the public on a regular, timely basis. We need something like a General Accounting Office (the federal government’s chief accountability agency) for the school system. Without such an institution, we can’t have a fair democratic debate about the city’s education policies."
Finally, in this morning's NY Daily News, the following report should help to dramatize the importance of what Stern has been saying: "About 83% of students entering City University of New York community colleges last year failed placement exams and had to take remedial courses in reading, writing or math - and most graduated from city high schools, records show. "It costs a lot of money," said Matt Zeidenberg, a researcher at Columbia University's Community College Research Center. "You're basically paying for the same stuff over again." About two-thirds of students graduating from city high schools will have to take remedial courses."
It's time for the Mayor Mike disinformation brigade to be subject to the disinfectant of sunlight. Stern and Wolf have started us in the right direction; it's time for Albany to finish the job properly so that NYC schools have the best governing structure possible.
"The problem was that the legislation failed to ensure that voters would have access to unimpeachable information about student achievement, a prerequisite to any reasoned judgment about how well the schools were doing under the new regime. Greater accountability was the theoretical argument for mayoral control, but it has been turned on its head in practice. An ambitious mayor—first running for reelection, then flirting with running for president, and now contemplating a change in the term-limits law so that he can run for mayor again—gained extraordinary power to control the flow of data on how the schools were performing under his administration."
So the reality here is that, when the mayor said if he didn't turn the schools around we could hold him accountable, he was playing with a stacked deck-one that he dealt himself. As we have said all along, echoing Stern and Andrew Wolf, the system needs to be subject to independent review. As Stern points out: "Too often, the Bloomberg administration has made claims about student achievement gains that no independent agency has vetted and that in light of other evidence appear unjustified. As for the spectacularly higher graduation rates that the Bloomberg administration has advertised as its greatest accomplishment, we have no way of knowing whether they are legitimate or whether they are the result of dumbed-down Regents exams—five of which the city’s high school students must pass in order to graduate."
Our point earlier in the year was similar: "Which is why a more rigorous and nonpartisan review mechanism is needed, one outside of the control of the mayor's educational tall tale tellers: "What's key in moving forward is to depoliticize student testing. Senator Kennedy has introduced legislation that would force governors to publish federal test results alongside states' scores. Multiple measures of progress are needed, and accented by the current debate over the city's dismal high school graduation rates. Given Mr. Bloomberg's faith in competition — heavily backing new options, like charter schools — he should know that markets work only when parents can exercise choice based on sound information. Recent test results prompted a feeling of disbelief, not one of confidence."
Stern underscores this, and calls for a General Accounting Office (GAO) style review agency: "But the single most important change that our city legislators should insist on—and without which they should not vote for reauthorization of mayoral control—is the creation of an independent agency, removed from all political influence, to monitor the data about test scores and graduation rates, to do research about which school programs are working and which are not, and then to make all that information available to the public on a regular, timely basis. We need something like a General Accounting Office (the federal government’s chief accountability agency) for the school system. Without such an institution, we can’t have a fair democratic debate about the city’s education policies."
Finally, in this morning's NY Daily News, the following report should help to dramatize the importance of what Stern has been saying: "About 83% of students entering City University of New York community colleges last year failed placement exams and had to take remedial courses in reading, writing or math - and most graduated from city high schools, records show. "It costs a lot of money," said Matt Zeidenberg, a researcher at Columbia University's Community College Research Center. "You're basically paying for the same stuff over again." About two-thirds of students graduating from city high schools will have to take remedial courses."
It's time for the Mayor Mike disinformation brigade to be subject to the disinfectant of sunlight. Stern and Wolf have started us in the right direction; it's time for Albany to finish the job properly so that NYC schools have the best governing structure possible.
Kosher Labor Practices?
In yesterday's NY Times, the paper focused on the questionable labor practices of a Kosher meat processor, a company with problems all over the country: "Agriprocessors, the Brooklyn-based company that is the nation’s largest kosher meat producer, is well known for the labor troubles at its meatpacking plant in Iowa — federal agents detained 389 of its workers as illegal immigrants in May, and labor officials in Iowa have accused it of employing 57 under-age workers."
Now, however, Local 342 of the UFCW (and our client) is exposing similar shenanigans right here in NYC: "But Agriprocessors is also having labor troubles closer to home, with the company asking the United States Supreme Court to overturn a vote to unionize at its distribution center along the Brooklyn waterfront. If successful, the company’s appeal could have repercussions at companies across the country: it is trying to persuade the Supreme Court to rule that illegal immigrants do not have the right to join labor unions."
It seems that, according to the Times article, Agriprocessors wants to have it both ways-hire illegals so it can exploit them; and then contest their unionization because they are, well, illegal: "In September 2005, the company’s Brooklyn employees voted 15 to 5 to unionize, with one ballot challenged. The workers, most of them immigrants from Mexico, complained of low pay, not receiving time-and-a-half for overtime and not having health insurance or paid holidays.
“It was a dirty place to work, and they treated some of the workers real bad,” said Lucilo Brito, a former Agriprocessors truck driver. Days after the vote, Agriprocessors stunned its employees by announcing that it would not recognize the union because, it said, it had just discovered that 17 of the workers were illegal immigrants."
And we're sure that they were shocked by the discovery: "After Agriprocessors refused to deal with the union, 14 of the workers went on strike for seven weeks. The company responded by firing the strikers. (During the strike, union officials said, management hired day laborers from a nearby street corner, many of them illegal immigrants.)"
There are a number of issues with this company-and its union status is just one. As one blog poster points out:
"There has been a lot of press in the past year or two about how Rubashkin, the second biggest kosher meat producer, has mistreated both the animals it slaughters, and the workers in the plants it operates...Then the Forward published an article about how poorly workers were being treated at the Postville, Iowa plant that had previously been the subject of the PETA video. Among the many complaints were low wages (the cap was at seven dollars an hour for most workers), and no unions because the workers, many of whom are undocumented immigrants, are afraid of being deported. There were also reports of workers being shortchanged for hours they worked, and of supervisers demanding bribes from employees who want to change shifts, or help relatives get a job. Perhaps the most troubling issue in the article is the lack of safety training given to the workers at the plant. The Forward quoted one man who said he received no training at all, and learned what to do only by being chewed out for bad work."
It's about time that these workers at Agriprocessors get the same rights and benefits as the other Kosher meat employees at the Brooklyn wholesale market: "Ante Vulin, a butcher at International Glatt Kosher Meats, a unionized wholesaler directly across from Agriprocessors, said belonging to the union meant higher pay and better benefits.“What’s the purpose of leaving here when you don’t get more at another place?” said Mr. Vulin, who earns $20.25 an hour after 20 years on the job."
So what about the company's argument concerning the rights of illegals? This final comment from the Times highlights its absurdity: "Last Thursday, a butcher who had just finished the midnight-to-9 a.m. shift at the Agriprocessors distribution center said that the company had improved wages and conditions somewhat since the unionization vote three years ago. The worker said he was paid $8.50 an hour, got one week vacation a year and received time-and-a-half pay for overtime. “We don’t get health insurance,” said the worker, who insisted on anonymity for fear of retaliation. And in a candid moment, he acknowledged that he was an illegal immigrant."
Now, however, Local 342 of the UFCW (and our client) is exposing similar shenanigans right here in NYC: "But Agriprocessors is also having labor troubles closer to home, with the company asking the United States Supreme Court to overturn a vote to unionize at its distribution center along the Brooklyn waterfront. If successful, the company’s appeal could have repercussions at companies across the country: it is trying to persuade the Supreme Court to rule that illegal immigrants do not have the right to join labor unions."
It seems that, according to the Times article, Agriprocessors wants to have it both ways-hire illegals so it can exploit them; and then contest their unionization because they are, well, illegal: "In September 2005, the company’s Brooklyn employees voted 15 to 5 to unionize, with one ballot challenged. The workers, most of them immigrants from Mexico, complained of low pay, not receiving time-and-a-half for overtime and not having health insurance or paid holidays.
“It was a dirty place to work, and they treated some of the workers real bad,” said Lucilo Brito, a former Agriprocessors truck driver. Days after the vote, Agriprocessors stunned its employees by announcing that it would not recognize the union because, it said, it had just discovered that 17 of the workers were illegal immigrants."
And we're sure that they were shocked by the discovery: "After Agriprocessors refused to deal with the union, 14 of the workers went on strike for seven weeks. The company responded by firing the strikers. (During the strike, union officials said, management hired day laborers from a nearby street corner, many of them illegal immigrants.)"
There are a number of issues with this company-and its union status is just one. As one blog poster points out:
"There has been a lot of press in the past year or two about how Rubashkin, the second biggest kosher meat producer, has mistreated both the animals it slaughters, and the workers in the plants it operates...Then the Forward published an article about how poorly workers were being treated at the Postville, Iowa plant that had previously been the subject of the PETA video. Among the many complaints were low wages (the cap was at seven dollars an hour for most workers), and no unions because the workers, many of whom are undocumented immigrants, are afraid of being deported. There were also reports of workers being shortchanged for hours they worked, and of supervisers demanding bribes from employees who want to change shifts, or help relatives get a job. Perhaps the most troubling issue in the article is the lack of safety training given to the workers at the plant. The Forward quoted one man who said he received no training at all, and learned what to do only by being chewed out for bad work."
It's about time that these workers at Agriprocessors get the same rights and benefits as the other Kosher meat employees at the Brooklyn wholesale market: "Ante Vulin, a butcher at International Glatt Kosher Meats, a unionized wholesaler directly across from Agriprocessors, said belonging to the union meant higher pay and better benefits.“What’s the purpose of leaving here when you don’t get more at another place?” said Mr. Vulin, who earns $20.25 an hour after 20 years on the job."
So what about the company's argument concerning the rights of illegals? This final comment from the Times highlights its absurdity: "Last Thursday, a butcher who had just finished the midnight-to-9 a.m. shift at the Agriprocessors distribution center said that the company had improved wages and conditions somewhat since the unionization vote three years ago. The worker said he was paid $8.50 an hour, got one week vacation a year and received time-and-a-half pay for overtime. “We don’t get health insurance,” said the worker, who insisted on anonymity for fear of retaliation. And in a candid moment, he acknowledged that he was an illegal immigrant."
Who's Extorting Whom?
Imagine our surprise when we saw the headline on a NY Post editorial; yesterday that read, "Blackmail at Willets Point." We instinctively assumed that the paper was referring to the possibility that the mayor would use the carrot of a term limit extension to suborn the council into supporting a project that a large majority of members are on record as opposing.
Well, we were dead wrong. Instead, the Post is accusing Councilman Monserrate of extortion for raising questions about a project without any designated developer, and bereft of a definitive development plan:
"The ringleader this time is City Councilman Hiram Monserrate. With one eye squarely on higher office - the state Senate - he's working against the rezoning...Days earlier, he got 32 of the council's 51 members to agree that the Willets Point project won't go forward unless the city promises not to use eminent domain to remove some 200 small businesses in the affected area. Eminent domain - a process whereby a municipality may confiscate certain properties with appropriate compensation for a larger public purpose - is controversial, and should indeed be debated. But that's not what Monserrate is up to. Rather, he's trying to hold up the project in order to squeeze out more "community" benefits."
Just when are we supposed to debate the "controversial" use of eminent domain? After the council gives the mayor carte blance by ceding to him its only oversight authority? And what exactly are the projects benefits? According to the Post: "Under proposed rezoning, the area would be opened for hotels, a convention center, offices, retail and residential space."
A re-zoning, however, merely permits certain use groups for a designated area-it is in no way a plan! And it would be grossly irresponsible of the council to give this a green light without any development scheme that can be properly vetted-especially not to a mayor who has exhibited not one iota of concern for the kinds of small businesses that would be replaced at the Point should Bloomberg get his way.
So the Post should shelve its accusations here. Checks and balances are still important even when the chief executive is given papal infallibility by so many media commentators.
Well, we were dead wrong. Instead, the Post is accusing Councilman Monserrate of extortion for raising questions about a project without any designated developer, and bereft of a definitive development plan:
"The ringleader this time is City Councilman Hiram Monserrate. With one eye squarely on higher office - the state Senate - he's working against the rezoning...Days earlier, he got 32 of the council's 51 members to agree that the Willets Point project won't go forward unless the city promises not to use eminent domain to remove some 200 small businesses in the affected area. Eminent domain - a process whereby a municipality may confiscate certain properties with appropriate compensation for a larger public purpose - is controversial, and should indeed be debated. But that's not what Monserrate is up to. Rather, he's trying to hold up the project in order to squeeze out more "community" benefits."
Just when are we supposed to debate the "controversial" use of eminent domain? After the council gives the mayor carte blance by ceding to him its only oversight authority? And what exactly are the projects benefits? According to the Post: "Under proposed rezoning, the area would be opened for hotels, a convention center, offices, retail and residential space."
A re-zoning, however, merely permits certain use groups for a designated area-it is in no way a plan! And it would be grossly irresponsible of the council to give this a green light without any development scheme that can be properly vetted-especially not to a mayor who has exhibited not one iota of concern for the kinds of small businesses that would be replaced at the Point should Bloomberg get his way.
So the Post should shelve its accusations here. Checks and balances are still important even when the chief executive is given papal infallibility by so many media commentators.
Who Will Speak for the People?
With the term limits extension roiling the political waters in NYC, the following question comes to Mind: Who will speak for the people? Certainly it won't be the business and media elites who, as we write, are lining up to insure that their fair-haired boy continues in office. This from Sunday's NY Daily News: "The city faces extraordinary challenges. A Wall Street meltdown has triggered a sudden decline in revenue. Corporate and individual tax collections have fallen sharply, and the big real estate deals that generate mega-taxes have slowed...Early on in his mayoralty, after 9/11 and in a national recession, Bloomberg demonstrated that he was equal to the challenge of leading the city through similar dire circumstances. He made the tough choice to raise taxes rather than slash police, schools, parks and other services that are critical to the quality of life. The decision paid enormous dividends."
Cue the iconic music; All hail Caeser! This kind of editorial comment is sure to continue as an incessant drum beat-a sycophantic chorus of permanent government pleas to keep the ship of state-so to speak-in capable hands. As if the city will collapse without Mike Bloomberg at its helm.
All of the soon to be unveiled editorial encomiums to the mayor, and the need to override the myopic popular will, will gloss over the dangers here-dangers that were emphasized by many of the same voices in the wake of 9/11 when Rudy tried to end run the term limits law. It was wrong them-in the middle of the worst crisis in NYC history-and it's just as wrong now; and the only reason its rearing its ugly head is because the mayor knows, even with all of his billions, he wouldn't be the favorite to overturn the will of the people in another referendum.
So now its incumbent on the folks to take a stand on all of this mishogos. And the grass roots needs to be activated. In order for that to happen, leadership must step up and play an active role. Who will that be? Let's see who among us is smart, savvy and courageous enough to seize this opportunity to lead.
Update:
In yesterday' Daily Politics post, Liz gets the following from Bill Thompson: "The voters of this city have cast their ballots twice on this issue, and clearly voiced their opinion. While I personally feel that city council seats should be extended to three terms, I do not believe that change should be made without voter approval."
Cue the iconic music; All hail Caeser! This kind of editorial comment is sure to continue as an incessant drum beat-a sycophantic chorus of permanent government pleas to keep the ship of state-so to speak-in capable hands. As if the city will collapse without Mike Bloomberg at its helm.
All of the soon to be unveiled editorial encomiums to the mayor, and the need to override the myopic popular will, will gloss over the dangers here-dangers that were emphasized by many of the same voices in the wake of 9/11 when Rudy tried to end run the term limits law. It was wrong them-in the middle of the worst crisis in NYC history-and it's just as wrong now; and the only reason its rearing its ugly head is because the mayor knows, even with all of his billions, he wouldn't be the favorite to overturn the will of the people in another referendum.
So now its incumbent on the folks to take a stand on all of this mishogos. And the grass roots needs to be activated. In order for that to happen, leadership must step up and play an active role. Who will that be? Let's see who among us is smart, savvy and courageous enough to seize this opportunity to lead.
Update:
In yesterday' Daily Politics post, Liz gets the following from Bill Thompson: "The voters of this city have cast their ballots twice on this issue, and clearly voiced their opinion. While I personally feel that city council seats should be extended to three terms, I do not believe that change should be made without voter approval."
Terms of Extortion
According to Dave Seifman's column at the NY Post, the possibility that the mayor will support a term limits extension strengthens his hand in negotiations with the city council on some major policy initiatives: "The possibility that Mayor Bloomberg will support an extension of term limits is going to provide him with a stronger hand than ever in his future dealings with the City Council. "They'll give him anything to get term limits changed," one council insider said."
Perhaps so, but we would think that this should evoke a Clint Eastwood response from the council-a call for the mayor to, "Make My Day," by publicly coming out and saying he supports what the council presumably is inclined to do. Without his public endorsement, the council could be played on a continuing basis, with the possible extension as a carrot always just out of reach.
This is a part of what the NY Daily News is arguing in its Sunday editorial. "Stop being coy," Mayor Mike, is the News' refrain: "Mayor Bloomberg is playing it altogether too cute in sending up flares that he might like to run for a third term in 2009. If that's his intention, he should simply make the call.Bloomberg must spare New Yorkers a prolonged period of will-he-or-won't-he speculation. Are you in or out, Mayor Mike?"
Than there's all of those who are making plans to abide by the terms of the current law, and who are running for new offices. As the News points out: "The mere possibility of a Bloomberg candidacy would chill, if not freeze, the plans of qualified would-be successors, depriving them of the time needed to raise funds and do all the other spade work for campaigns. Potential contenders need to know sooner rather than later whether the mayor plans to stay on the field of battle. The stakes are too serious for an extended tease."
Particularly if the mayor uses the interregnum to try to get stuff passed at the council, initiatives that the legislature wouldn't ordinarily support. As the Post indicates, Willets Point may be a test case here: 'Topping the list is the rezoning of Willets Point, a $3 billion project to create a gleaming minicity out of acres of dilapidated industrial and commercial space near Shea Stadium. But 32 of 51 council members, siding with business owners who don't want to move, have warned that they won't go along without significant changes. The buzz among the New York delegation at the Democratic convention in Denver was that there could be a trade: term limits for Willets Point."
How tawdry! Our view is that if the mayor wants term limits, it's his initiative and he should come forward and own it publicly. He should tell us, straight up, why he and the city council should stick around for another term, even though the voters view of all this has been made abundantly clear. If we were the council leadership, we would just tell the mayor to take a stand, and not allow itself to be subject to blackmail. In the words of President Jefferson to the Barbary Pirates: "Millions for Defense, but not one cent for tribute."
Perhaps so, but we would think that this should evoke a Clint Eastwood response from the council-a call for the mayor to, "Make My Day," by publicly coming out and saying he supports what the council presumably is inclined to do. Without his public endorsement, the council could be played on a continuing basis, with the possible extension as a carrot always just out of reach.
This is a part of what the NY Daily News is arguing in its Sunday editorial. "Stop being coy," Mayor Mike, is the News' refrain: "Mayor Bloomberg is playing it altogether too cute in sending up flares that he might like to run for a third term in 2009. If that's his intention, he should simply make the call.Bloomberg must spare New Yorkers a prolonged period of will-he-or-won't-he speculation. Are you in or out, Mayor Mike?"
Than there's all of those who are making plans to abide by the terms of the current law, and who are running for new offices. As the News points out: "The mere possibility of a Bloomberg candidacy would chill, if not freeze, the plans of qualified would-be successors, depriving them of the time needed to raise funds and do all the other spade work for campaigns. Potential contenders need to know sooner rather than later whether the mayor plans to stay on the field of battle. The stakes are too serious for an extended tease."
Particularly if the mayor uses the interregnum to try to get stuff passed at the council, initiatives that the legislature wouldn't ordinarily support. As the Post indicates, Willets Point may be a test case here: 'Topping the list is the rezoning of Willets Point, a $3 billion project to create a gleaming minicity out of acres of dilapidated industrial and commercial space near Shea Stadium. But 32 of 51 council members, siding with business owners who don't want to move, have warned that they won't go along without significant changes. The buzz among the New York delegation at the Democratic convention in Denver was that there could be a trade: term limits for Willets Point."
How tawdry! Our view is that if the mayor wants term limits, it's his initiative and he should come forward and own it publicly. He should tell us, straight up, why he and the city council should stick around for another term, even though the voters view of all this has been made abundantly clear. If we were the council leadership, we would just tell the mayor to take a stand, and not allow itself to be subject to blackmail. In the words of President Jefferson to the Barbary Pirates: "Millions for Defense, but not one cent for tribute."
Indeterminate
In Saturday's NY Post, the paper continued with a chronicling of Mayor Mike's well-orchestrated campaign to self perpetuate: "Mayor Bloomberg invited the City Council yesterday to send him a bill to amend term limits so he and all other city officials could serve an extra four years - and hinted he might just sign it. "I never speculate on what I'll do until I see a piece of legislation," the mayor said on his weekly WOR radio show. "But everything they've done I've given careful consideration to. Usually, they know where we stand before they vote on something, not always. Usually, where we stand before they vote is where we come out."
This, after all of his now obviously discredited definitive statements about his support for the current term limits restriction. As Randy Mastro pointed out, Bloomberg sung a different tune in 2002: "Before facing the end of his own time in office, Mr. Bloomberg felt very differently about the City Council's attempt in 2002 to alter voter-approved term limits by legislation. "I would oppose any change in the law that a legislative body tries to make," he declared. "I do think after you've asked the public to express their views twice, you don't try to circumvent the will of the public."
So, just like any power hungry pol enamored with his own indispensability, Bloomberg does an about face. As the Post says, it isn't the city council driving the term limits change: "Bloomberg's comments were surprising, because he is the one driving the issue, not the council, and insiders said he hadn't consulted council Speaker Christine Quinn, an ally who has declared her unequivocal opposition to any legislative changes to term limits."
And don't take the misdirection about what his aides re supposedly saying with any degree of seriousness-they're just playing all of us with this coy game of cat and mouse; testing the waters and using the city council as their foil. Pretty soon, however, the real Slim Shady will have to stand up.
This, after all of his now obviously discredited definitive statements about his support for the current term limits restriction. As Randy Mastro pointed out, Bloomberg sung a different tune in 2002: "Before facing the end of his own time in office, Mr. Bloomberg felt very differently about the City Council's attempt in 2002 to alter voter-approved term limits by legislation. "I would oppose any change in the law that a legislative body tries to make," he declared. "I do think after you've asked the public to express their views twice, you don't try to circumvent the will of the public."
So, just like any power hungry pol enamored with his own indispensability, Bloomberg does an about face. As the Post says, it isn't the city council driving the term limits change: "Bloomberg's comments were surprising, because he is the one driving the issue, not the council, and insiders said he hadn't consulted council Speaker Christine Quinn, an ally who has declared her unequivocal opposition to any legislative changes to term limits."
And don't take the misdirection about what his aides re supposedly saying with any degree of seriousness-they're just playing all of us with this coy game of cat and mouse; testing the waters and using the city council as their foil. Pretty soon, however, the real Slim Shady will have to stand up.
Mastroful Performance on Term Limits
In last week's NY Sun, former Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro laid out an impressive rationale for why the mayor is playing with fire on the alteration of term limits: "As mayor, Mr. Bloomberg could have stayed true to his word and appointed a mayoral charter commission to put a term limits proposition on the November ballot for voter approval. Instead, according to published reports, he did what a typical politician would do: He had a poll conducted that determined that, as popular a mayor as he is, New Yorkers overwhelmingly still favor term limits. Going the referendum route the mayor would hit a dead end."
So, continuing in this vein, Bloomberg starts to rope-a-dope the issue; with the story in last Friday's Times that his aides are not in sync with any third term antics. How many folks believe that this story is genuine? The key line in the piece was when Sheekey, et al, said that they'd, of course, follow the mayor's wishes-whatever they turned out to be. So in our view, this is all a phony exercise in insulating Bloomberg from ant direct accountability-as he plays with the idea and inveigles the gullible minions over at the other side of city hall.
As far as that's concerned, we haven't seen so much self serving going on since Horn & Hardart was in its heyday in NYC; and that definitely includes the mayor. Mastro hits it here: "Ultimately, that's the problem for Mr. Bloomberg. He won over New Yorkers as the anti-politician — the incorruptible private businessman who was above politics and would always put the public's interests first. Yet his latest machinations seem like politics as usual motivated by personal self-interest. He risks irreparably tainting his brand by so blatantly reversing himself and ignoring the will of the people on term limits."
So what's a mayor to do? Well, stir the pot and get others to do his bidding; and let the issue percolate without his direct finger prints on it. Isn't it time, then, to bell the cat? This is all a sophisticated effort by Bloomberg to end run his definitive statements on term limits-and he's already waffling like an old pol.
Once again, Mastro's right on point with his observation that New York can do very well-thank you-with a new cast of characters. There's no need to cry havoc: "Today, there is no such crisis in our city — only a popular mayor at a crossroad. That Mr. Bloomberg should even be at this crossroad is proof that term limits have served their purpose, giving new faces a chance to serve and reinvigorating our city government with fresh perspectives, for he almost certainly never would have run for that office had term limits not created the opportunity."
So, continuing in this vein, Bloomberg starts to rope-a-dope the issue; with the story in last Friday's Times that his aides are not in sync with any third term antics. How many folks believe that this story is genuine? The key line in the piece was when Sheekey, et al, said that they'd, of course, follow the mayor's wishes-whatever they turned out to be. So in our view, this is all a phony exercise in insulating Bloomberg from ant direct accountability-as he plays with the idea and inveigles the gullible minions over at the other side of city hall.
As far as that's concerned, we haven't seen so much self serving going on since Horn & Hardart was in its heyday in NYC; and that definitely includes the mayor. Mastro hits it here: "Ultimately, that's the problem for Mr. Bloomberg. He won over New Yorkers as the anti-politician — the incorruptible private businessman who was above politics and would always put the public's interests first. Yet his latest machinations seem like politics as usual motivated by personal self-interest. He risks irreparably tainting his brand by so blatantly reversing himself and ignoring the will of the people on term limits."
So what's a mayor to do? Well, stir the pot and get others to do his bidding; and let the issue percolate without his direct finger prints on it. Isn't it time, then, to bell the cat? This is all a sophisticated effort by Bloomberg to end run his definitive statements on term limits-and he's already waffling like an old pol.
Once again, Mastro's right on point with his observation that New York can do very well-thank you-with a new cast of characters. There's no need to cry havoc: "Today, there is no such crisis in our city — only a popular mayor at a crossroad. That Mr. Bloomberg should even be at this crossroad is proof that term limits have served their purpose, giving new faces a chance to serve and reinvigorating our city government with fresh perspectives, for he almost certainly never would have run for that office had term limits not created the opportunity."
Friday, August 29, 2008
A Labor Lament on the City Hall "Waffle House"
We just received the following from Pat Purcell, a key labor figure who works for Local 1500 of the UFCW. Pat is extremely disappointed with Mayor Mike, and his perceived failure to stand up for the supermarket workers of NYC. He reminds us that his comments are his alone, and don't necessarily reflect those of his union:
Richard,
Is this turn around on term limits any different than the turn around we have begun to see on other issues. Rally support for congestion pricing but then support a Warehouse Club in midtown? Release a report that says we need more Supermarkets but refuse to lift a finger to help the 70 workers who will lose their jobs when Key Food closes because Vornado is squeezing them out with impossible rent demands?
Use eminent domain to remove the businesses at Willet's Point but ridicule it for the purpose of taking the Bruckner Blvd Development to assure the residents access to healthy foods, prevent a dramatic rise in the number of pedestrian accidents that will occur by sending thousands of shoppers across the Blvd to buy food and also save 70 good paying jobs that provide health care to many people?
Encouraging the use of Green Carts but not willing to ensure they end up in front of Burger King instead of businesses that already sell fresh fruit and vegetables? Saying lower income communities need more fresh food and supermarkets but supporting the development of warehouse clubs that charge $50 a year admission and will not take food stamps in these communities?
Too busy to meet with the Key Food workers but found time in his schedule to meet with Brett Favre on one day notice? Those of you that know me could imagine how happy I was to find out City Hall had been turned into my favorite southern restaurant, "The Waffle House." I speak from the horrible experience of having been a supporter of some of the Mayors initiatives and now feeling the shame of having been mislead to think they really wanted to do what was right on healthy food access, congestion pricing, responsible development etc.
After all, what I am I to think when I testify in Staten Island at the request of the Administration in favor of congestion pricing and then have them publicly support a retail model that will bring thousands of cars into mid town? On term limits? As the band "The Who" sang...I wont be fooled again. Elected's who support over turning term limits by way of legislation and not the voters will have the right to do so. However, please do not try to justify to anyone with a fourth grade level of education or higher that your reasoning is anything more than a power grab.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe they they just don't want to give up the comfortable chair they have in their office? The pens, staples and paperclips they now get for free? By all means, take them with you when you leave. Make it a lifetime supply if necessary. Pass that law. Free office supplies for exiting elected officials. Consider them parting gifts. Please, just leave under the same laws that brought you here. Perish the thought that others may be elected and do what they think is right for electorate and take this City in another direction?
I guess to those who favor extending turning term limits by legislative means and not by the voters this is the equivalent of the inmates taking over the asylum. How could they allow such a thing to happen? Could there actually be someone else out there who could be Mayor? A Council member? I'll throw caution to wind and assume somehow society will go on with elected officials who come to their position under the guidelines prescribed by the voters under a Democratic process.
And we actually wonder why people have such a negative and cynical view of politicians? Unless they have removed all of the mirrors in City Hall, it shouldn't be too difficult to find the reason. Everyday, parents in this City teach their kids that in life you take the high road to happiness and success. What road would those who support extending term limits without the voters consent be taking? Thanks for reading this rant and rave but doesn't this whole idea just piss you off.
Happy Labor Day,
Pat Purcell
Richard,
Is this turn around on term limits any different than the turn around we have begun to see on other issues. Rally support for congestion pricing but then support a Warehouse Club in midtown? Release a report that says we need more Supermarkets but refuse to lift a finger to help the 70 workers who will lose their jobs when Key Food closes because Vornado is squeezing them out with impossible rent demands?
Use eminent domain to remove the businesses at Willet's Point but ridicule it for the purpose of taking the Bruckner Blvd Development to assure the residents access to healthy foods, prevent a dramatic rise in the number of pedestrian accidents that will occur by sending thousands of shoppers across the Blvd to buy food and also save 70 good paying jobs that provide health care to many people?
Encouraging the use of Green Carts but not willing to ensure they end up in front of Burger King instead of businesses that already sell fresh fruit and vegetables? Saying lower income communities need more fresh food and supermarkets but supporting the development of warehouse clubs that charge $50 a year admission and will not take food stamps in these communities?
Too busy to meet with the Key Food workers but found time in his schedule to meet with Brett Favre on one day notice? Those of you that know me could imagine how happy I was to find out City Hall had been turned into my favorite southern restaurant, "The Waffle House." I speak from the horrible experience of having been a supporter of some of the Mayors initiatives and now feeling the shame of having been mislead to think they really wanted to do what was right on healthy food access, congestion pricing, responsible development etc.
After all, what I am I to think when I testify in Staten Island at the request of the Administration in favor of congestion pricing and then have them publicly support a retail model that will bring thousands of cars into mid town? On term limits? As the band "The Who" sang...I wont be fooled again. Elected's who support over turning term limits by way of legislation and not the voters will have the right to do so. However, please do not try to justify to anyone with a fourth grade level of education or higher that your reasoning is anything more than a power grab.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe they they just don't want to give up the comfortable chair they have in their office? The pens, staples and paperclips they now get for free? By all means, take them with you when you leave. Make it a lifetime supply if necessary. Pass that law. Free office supplies for exiting elected officials. Consider them parting gifts. Please, just leave under the same laws that brought you here. Perish the thought that others may be elected and do what they think is right for electorate and take this City in another direction?
I guess to those who favor extending turning term limits by legislative means and not by the voters this is the equivalent of the inmates taking over the asylum. How could they allow such a thing to happen? Could there actually be someone else out there who could be Mayor? A Council member? I'll throw caution to wind and assume somehow society will go on with elected officials who come to their position under the guidelines prescribed by the voters under a Democratic process.
And we actually wonder why people have such a negative and cynical view of politicians? Unless they have removed all of the mirrors in City Hall, it shouldn't be too difficult to find the reason. Everyday, parents in this City teach their kids that in life you take the high road to happiness and success. What road would those who support extending term limits without the voters consent be taking? Thanks for reading this rant and rave but doesn't this whole idea just piss you off.
Happy Labor Day,
Pat Purcell
Pointless Summit?
It now appears that everyone's trying to get into the act on Willets Point. According to the NY Daily News State Senator Malcom Smith has been pushing for more negotiations with the businesses that have been opposing the redevelopment project: "A new round of talks is shaping up between the city and some of the largest businesses at Willets Point after State Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-St. Albans) helped kick-start stalled negotiations, the Daily News has learned. Smith arranged a closed-doors summit at his Manhattan office this month that brought together top city officials and a dozen representatives of the Willets Point Industry and Realty Association, a league of 16 of the largest businesses at the so-called Iron Triangle."
Now it's hard for us to see how Smith will be more successful than the city here; just what does he bring to the table that trumps the abilities (or lack thereof) of EDC? As the News tells us: "A spokeswoman for Smith, who is in Denver for the Democratic National Convention, confirmed the meeting about Willets Point took place but would say only that the senator "is a big proponent of economic development across the state."
Well, that describes a lot of folks, but the issues here are a bit more nettlesome-and the use of eminent domain under the gun of a ULURP time clock is certainly not helping things; not to mention the subversive role of Councilman Monseratte: "The City Council is expected to take a critical vote in November. "That puts pressure on both sides," said a source in the business group. "We are all watching that clock carefully."
Indeed it does, and while anything's possible here, our bet is that the whole thing falls apart under its own weight-and it will be left to the next administration to decide the fate of the Iron Triangle. Given the way this project has proceeded, this is only just.
Now it's hard for us to see how Smith will be more successful than the city here; just what does he bring to the table that trumps the abilities (or lack thereof) of EDC? As the News tells us: "A spokeswoman for Smith, who is in Denver for the Democratic National Convention, confirmed the meeting about Willets Point took place but would say only that the senator "is a big proponent of economic development across the state."
Well, that describes a lot of folks, but the issues here are a bit more nettlesome-and the use of eminent domain under the gun of a ULURP time clock is certainly not helping things; not to mention the subversive role of Councilman Monseratte: "The City Council is expected to take a critical vote in November. "That puts pressure on both sides," said a source in the business group. "We are all watching that clock carefully."
Indeed it does, and while anything's possible here, our bet is that the whole thing falls apart under its own weight-and it will be left to the next administration to decide the fate of the Iron Triangle. Given the way this project has proceeded, this is only just.
Con-Testing the Schools
In what comes closest to emulating Diogenes as you can get in the current crop of commentators, the NY Sun's Andrew Wolf underscores in today's paper all of the hypocritical hyperbole surrounding the discussions of Bloomberg'e educational achievements. "Fools Gold" indeed-especially when it comes to a test regimen that needs a disinfectant: "It is now just 10 months before the expensive experiment that is mayoral control of Gotham's public schools is set to expire. And as parents ready their children for the start of classes Tuesday, the news has been released that the average S.A.T. scores have declined here once again. There was no press extravaganza. No Power Point presentations, no top officials, union leaders at their side, beaming as the results were outlined. No, troubling test results turn out to be an orphan."
What Wolf finds-and would we see more critical commentary from the rest of the press corps on this-is that whenever our kids take New York spawned tests they seem to do much better than when the tests are national in scope. Perhaps our state attorney general should focus some attention here rather than all on the malfeasance of Wall Street speculators. As Wolf points out: "If there is a trend to be found here it is this. Whenever someone other than the State of New York administers a test, scores here are flat, or even go down. But when those kind folks from Albany come on the scene, scores on their tests magically increase, a phenomenon that explains the increases in graduation rates as well."
If true, this is a scandal of the highest proportion. But who will have the courage to say that the Emperor has no clothes? Especially when it comes to all of the money spent (squandered?): "This is truly "high stakes" testing. As public revenues shrink, and lawmakers look for new ways to pick the taxpayers' pocket, education funding has been largely maintained this lean year, following six fat years which saw the local school budget grow an astounding 79%. It is more than fair to ask if this really has been a prudent investment."
These are inquiries that need to be made, especially when the self-interested are trying to promote another extra-legal term for our exalted chief executive. We really need to have a full scale review of the mayor's school program-something that needs to be done in Albany where there is less sycophancy among the electeds.
There is a major disconnect here; with students and parents as the victims of a zirconium-like inflation of test results. As Wolf says, and we agree fully: "Until the state tests are aligned with the results of NAEP, all of the "profit" that we are told that the extra nine billion a year we are investing in our schools is bringing us will be, alas, but fool's gold."
What Wolf finds-and would we see more critical commentary from the rest of the press corps on this-is that whenever our kids take New York spawned tests they seem to do much better than when the tests are national in scope. Perhaps our state attorney general should focus some attention here rather than all on the malfeasance of Wall Street speculators. As Wolf points out: "If there is a trend to be found here it is this. Whenever someone other than the State of New York administers a test, scores here are flat, or even go down. But when those kind folks from Albany come on the scene, scores on their tests magically increase, a phenomenon that explains the increases in graduation rates as well."
If true, this is a scandal of the highest proportion. But who will have the courage to say that the Emperor has no clothes? Especially when it comes to all of the money spent (squandered?): "This is truly "high stakes" testing. As public revenues shrink, and lawmakers look for new ways to pick the taxpayers' pocket, education funding has been largely maintained this lean year, following six fat years which saw the local school budget grow an astounding 79%. It is more than fair to ask if this really has been a prudent investment."
These are inquiries that need to be made, especially when the self-interested are trying to promote another extra-legal term for our exalted chief executive. We really need to have a full scale review of the mayor's school program-something that needs to be done in Albany where there is less sycophancy among the electeds.
There is a major disconnect here; with students and parents as the victims of a zirconium-like inflation of test results. As Wolf says, and we agree fully: "Until the state tests are aligned with the results of NAEP, all of the "profit" that we are told that the extra nine billion a year we are investing in our schools is bringing us will be, alas, but fool's gold."
Dissension in the Ranks?
According to the NY Times, Mayor Mike's getting some push back on his stealth campaign to alter term limits: "As he weighs a bid to rewrite New York City’s term limits, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is encountering an unlikely group of opponents: his own aides. Three of Mr. Bloomberg’s most trusted advisers at City Hall — Deputy Mayors Edward Skyler, Patricia E. Harris and Kevin Sheekey — have confided to associates that they oppose revising the city’s election laws so that he can seek a third term, according to people familiar with the conversations."
If true, good for them-and it appears from the Times story that they're opposing the idea for the right reasons: "The deputy mayors have told associates that any campaign to change term limits, which restrict citywide elected offices to two consecutive four-year terms, could be viewed as an undemocratic end-run around voters, who approved the current laws twice, in 1993 and 1996. They fear that a third term could produce unexpected crises that might tarnish Mr. Bloomberg’s strong record, the fate of Mayor Edward I. Koch’s administration."
It would, as they say undermine the mayor's legacy as someone who is not a typical politician: "Even so, his flirtation with making the change has left his closest advisers unsettled. Their biggest fear is that a mayor who built a reputation as an anti-politician and common-sense problem-solver will appear self-serving and power-hungry." And it would, especially if the effort was thwarted by a legal challenge that would leave the mayor diminished.
This doesn't, of course, stop the toadies from pursuing their dream of continuing an administration that has been real good to the city's power elites: "On the one hand, there are business leaders, like the financier Steven Rattner and the developer Jerry I. Speyer, who are encouraging him to consider running again, arguing that he towers over the potential rivals." What they're really saying is that the city might get a chief executive with more concern for the businesses and people in the neighborhoods that Bloomberg had no idea existed before he was elected mayor.
In any case, the city council action on all of this remains somewhat problematic (and the lost war chests may also factor in)-and we await the return of the conventioneers so that a full public vetting of the issue can be attained. Those of us who, unlike the irritatingly loquacious Ed Koch, believe that the mayoral exit wouldn't be the end of the world by any means, are ready to make the case; and council members with much less cachet than the mayor need to be careful about self aggrandizement.
If true, good for them-and it appears from the Times story that they're opposing the idea for the right reasons: "The deputy mayors have told associates that any campaign to change term limits, which restrict citywide elected offices to two consecutive four-year terms, could be viewed as an undemocratic end-run around voters, who approved the current laws twice, in 1993 and 1996. They fear that a third term could produce unexpected crises that might tarnish Mr. Bloomberg’s strong record, the fate of Mayor Edward I. Koch’s administration."
It would, as they say undermine the mayor's legacy as someone who is not a typical politician: "Even so, his flirtation with making the change has left his closest advisers unsettled. Their biggest fear is that a mayor who built a reputation as an anti-politician and common-sense problem-solver will appear self-serving and power-hungry." And it would, especially if the effort was thwarted by a legal challenge that would leave the mayor diminished.
This doesn't, of course, stop the toadies from pursuing their dream of continuing an administration that has been real good to the city's power elites: "On the one hand, there are business leaders, like the financier Steven Rattner and the developer Jerry I. Speyer, who are encouraging him to consider running again, arguing that he towers over the potential rivals." What they're really saying is that the city might get a chief executive with more concern for the businesses and people in the neighborhoods that Bloomberg had no idea existed before he was elected mayor.
In any case, the city council action on all of this remains somewhat problematic (and the lost war chests may also factor in)-and we await the return of the conventioneers so that a full public vetting of the issue can be attained. Those of us who, unlike the irritatingly loquacious Ed Koch, believe that the mayoral exit wouldn't be the end of the world by any means, are ready to make the case; and council members with much less cachet than the mayor need to be careful about self aggrandizement.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
East Harlem Showdown
The NY Sun is reporting that the City Planning Commission, in what can't be described as a shocker, has passed the East Harlem re-zoning plan that currently lacks a designated developer: "The City Planning Commission voted in favor of rezoning the eastern portion of 125th Street, setting the stage for a final City Council vote on the 1.7 million-square-foot mixed-use complex.
The commission approved the project, which will include a mix of retail, restaurants, offices, and housing, by a vote of eight to one. The proposed area extends between East 125th and 127th streets, between Second and Third Avenues. The city has not yet selected a developer for the project, eliciting concern from local resident groups and the office of the president of Manhattan, Scott Stringer."
This one may be headed for a council denial, since the plan and the developer remain uncertain and murky-and the fact that the city will, in effect, name a developer at the eleventh hour doesn't bode well for the success of the application; a fact that is exacerbated by the community's (and the council person's) relative lack of enthusiasm for the three developers said to be finalists.
The commission approved the project, which will include a mix of retail, restaurants, offices, and housing, by a vote of eight to one. The proposed area extends between East 125th and 127th streets, between Second and Third Avenues. The city has not yet selected a developer for the project, eliciting concern from local resident groups and the office of the president of Manhattan, Scott Stringer."
This one may be headed for a council denial, since the plan and the developer remain uncertain and murky-and the fact that the city will, in effect, name a developer at the eleventh hour doesn't bode well for the success of the application; a fact that is exacerbated by the community's (and the council person's) relative lack of enthusiasm for the three developers said to be finalists.
Thor Gives BJs to Brooklyn
It now appears as if Joe Sitt is looking to have BJs Warehouse Clubs proliferate all over Brooklyn-with the NY Post reporting that his company, Thor Equities, is looking at a second location in Red Hook for the giant box store: "The Red Hook waterfront that some residents complain is already starting to resemble a strip mall - with Ikea and Fairway now firmly rooted - is gonna get another big-box retail tenant. Sources said today that they expect developer Joe Sitt to convert the former Revere Sugar Factory site he owns into a big national chain store."
This would be the third potential Brooklyn site for BJs-the first being off of Shore Parkway, and the second on the site of the old Key Food Warehouse. It won't be easy to attain this, however, not with the existing traffic issues that are already impacting Red Hook's waterfront. This isn't sitting well with the community: "John McGettrick, co-chair of the Red Hook Civic Alliance, said the neighborhood just can't handle more traffic. He said that besides lacking subway service, Red Hook doesn't have adequate roads and parking to handle IKEA – let alone another big retail chain next to it. "It's just another inappropriate use of waterfront property," he said."
The store would need to obtain a zoning permit in order to occupy the proposed site: "Sitt would need to get a zoning change through the city's land use review process because the retail business he plans to bring would take up more than 10,000 square feet in space." This will not be an easy task-particularly because of not only the traffic issue, but the fact that the store doesn't accept food stamps and Red Hook is a poor community.
There's more on this from the Brooklyn Paper: "More warehouse-sized retail stores like BJ’s could be tough to swallow for Red Hook residents, many of whom bitterly opposed the Ikea, though its impact has not caused the apocalypse some predicted. There’s more traffic, especially on weekends, but there have been few complaints." Wait, as we have pointed out, till they see just what kind of traffic a BJs generates.
Here's what we have found from other similar BJs stores: The BJ’s traffic analysis reports average weekday volumes of 6,223 and average Saturday volumes of 7,608 vehicles per day (parked vehicles only, no trucks, no-dropoffs). Which leads us to Marty Markowitz's comments in the Post: ""Red Hook - and Brooklyn - are open for business, but while welcoming major retailers to our borough could bring economic vitality and much-needed jobs to previously under-served and underutilized areas, we must also be sure to 'grow smart' and preserve a neighborhood's character," Borough President Marty Markowitz said."
This would include, we assume, the preservation of the local supermarkets that Marty has championed. Something will have to give in all of this-proliferating BJs and supermarket preservation is a contradiction in terms.
This would be the third potential Brooklyn site for BJs-the first being off of Shore Parkway, and the second on the site of the old Key Food Warehouse. It won't be easy to attain this, however, not with the existing traffic issues that are already impacting Red Hook's waterfront. This isn't sitting well with the community: "John McGettrick, co-chair of the Red Hook Civic Alliance, said the neighborhood just can't handle more traffic. He said that besides lacking subway service, Red Hook doesn't have adequate roads and parking to handle IKEA – let alone another big retail chain next to it. "It's just another inappropriate use of waterfront property," he said."
The store would need to obtain a zoning permit in order to occupy the proposed site: "Sitt would need to get a zoning change through the city's land use review process because the retail business he plans to bring would take up more than 10,000 square feet in space." This will not be an easy task-particularly because of not only the traffic issue, but the fact that the store doesn't accept food stamps and Red Hook is a poor community.
There's more on this from the Brooklyn Paper: "More warehouse-sized retail stores like BJ’s could be tough to swallow for Red Hook residents, many of whom bitterly opposed the Ikea, though its impact has not caused the apocalypse some predicted. There’s more traffic, especially on weekends, but there have been few complaints." Wait, as we have pointed out, till they see just what kind of traffic a BJs generates.
Here's what we have found from other similar BJs stores: The BJ’s traffic analysis reports average weekday volumes of 6,223 and average Saturday volumes of 7,608 vehicles per day (parked vehicles only, no trucks, no-dropoffs). Which leads us to Marty Markowitz's comments in the Post: ""Red Hook - and Brooklyn - are open for business, but while welcoming major retailers to our borough could bring economic vitality and much-needed jobs to previously under-served and underutilized areas, we must also be sure to 'grow smart' and preserve a neighborhood's character," Borough President Marty Markowitz said."
This would include, we assume, the preservation of the local supermarkets that Marty has championed. Something will have to give in all of this-proliferating BJs and supermarket preservation is a contradiction in terms.
Survey Says...
In what will unlikely come as a shock to most people, the NY Times survey of city council members finds-that they are in favor of altering term limits so that they can remain in office for another four years: "A majority of New York City Council members support — or are open to — overturning the term limit laws that will force most of them and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg from office in 16 months, according to a telephone survey conducted by The New York Times.
With Mr. Bloomberg considering a bid to change the term limits to 12 years from the current 8, the results of the survey suggest that the mayor would find ample support for such a proposal in the Council..."
What the Times goes on to point out may be more problematic, however, since the paper proclaims that the city council, "...has the authority to rewrite the law with or without voter ratification." Therein lies the rub on all of this-any council effort to self perpetuate would undoubtedly be subjected to a legal challenge, one whose outcome belies the Times' supposition here (And why does the Tines speak so peremptorily when the legal experts are far from unanimous here?).
Still, the story is of the dog bites man variety, with council members surveyed coming up with a whole host of reasons (some of which we agree with) as to why they shouldn't be cast aside at the end of their current term: "Besides eliminating the difficulties of looking for a new job, members of the Council said that extending term limits would give voters a chance to re-elect battle-tested leaders, allow members to complete unfinished work and bring stability to city government as New York enters a financial downturn."
The one thing we really agree on here, though, is that it's that mayor is driving all of this-no one on the council would have the nerve to publicly push this without the sense that Big Brother is behind it: "But members said that the decision to alter term limits — and allow them to seek a third term — would largely rest with the mayor. If he signals his support, many said in interviews, the Council will quickly change the law."
Some council folks do express the right amount of concern about the potential for chaos that the effort to over turn the will of the people could generate: "Such a change could carry a steep political price tag. Mr. Bloomberg and Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker, who is likely to run for mayor next year and who has the power to block the legislation from reaching a floor vote, have long supported the current term limits, and could face withering criticism for shifting course and undermining the will of voters. “The day we change the term limits is the day we take a step toward dictatorship,” said Tony Avella, a Democrat from Queens who opposes changing the law and is running for mayor. “We seem to have someone in the mayor’s office and speaker’s office who think they can change the law to stay in office.”
Clearly, this is an issue that will continue to be debated by the the political class once everyone comes back from Denver: "The prospect of overturning term limits has captivated the city’s political class. It has even dominated discussion among New York officials — including a dozen or so council members — who are attending the Democratic National Convention this week." Much will hinge on the kind of response that we see from the good government groups, labor, and the ordinary folks.
John Liu's perspective, however, is a good one: "“The issue at hand is not term limits, it’s who decides,” said John C. Liu, a Democrat from Queens who is considering running for comptroller. “Is it 52 people — 51 council members and the mayor — or is it 8 million people? Voting to legislate this could be a kiss of death for decades to come,” Mr. Liu added, “because it becomes an issue that every future campaign opponent can use: unilaterally overturning what the people have very clearly stated is their intent.”
As we have said before, the danger lies with the possibility that, after the council votes, the courts nullify the results, and leave those who have voted to self perpetuate in a dicey position of having to face the voters that they have dissed. Stay tuned on this-more drama is certainly ahead.
Update from Azi: "I got inside the CNN Grill last night (no easy task!), where I ran into Obama delegate and uber-operative Corey Johnson of Manhattan, who said that over at the Sheraton, where the New York delegation is staying, there's barely any talk about presidential politics.
“Term limits. Term Limits. Term Limits. That’s all anybody is talking about,” he said. Later he added, “All politics is local, I guess.”
With Mr. Bloomberg considering a bid to change the term limits to 12 years from the current 8, the results of the survey suggest that the mayor would find ample support for such a proposal in the Council..."
What the Times goes on to point out may be more problematic, however, since the paper proclaims that the city council, "...has the authority to rewrite the law with or without voter ratification." Therein lies the rub on all of this-any council effort to self perpetuate would undoubtedly be subjected to a legal challenge, one whose outcome belies the Times' supposition here (And why does the Tines speak so peremptorily when the legal experts are far from unanimous here?).
Still, the story is of the dog bites man variety, with council members surveyed coming up with a whole host of reasons (some of which we agree with) as to why they shouldn't be cast aside at the end of their current term: "Besides eliminating the difficulties of looking for a new job, members of the Council said that extending term limits would give voters a chance to re-elect battle-tested leaders, allow members to complete unfinished work and bring stability to city government as New York enters a financial downturn."
The one thing we really agree on here, though, is that it's that mayor is driving all of this-no one on the council would have the nerve to publicly push this without the sense that Big Brother is behind it: "But members said that the decision to alter term limits — and allow them to seek a third term — would largely rest with the mayor. If he signals his support, many said in interviews, the Council will quickly change the law."
Some council folks do express the right amount of concern about the potential for chaos that the effort to over turn the will of the people could generate: "Such a change could carry a steep political price tag. Mr. Bloomberg and Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker, who is likely to run for mayor next year and who has the power to block the legislation from reaching a floor vote, have long supported the current term limits, and could face withering criticism for shifting course and undermining the will of voters. “The day we change the term limits is the day we take a step toward dictatorship,” said Tony Avella, a Democrat from Queens who opposes changing the law and is running for mayor. “We seem to have someone in the mayor’s office and speaker’s office who think they can change the law to stay in office.”
Clearly, this is an issue that will continue to be debated by the the political class once everyone comes back from Denver: "The prospect of overturning term limits has captivated the city’s political class. It has even dominated discussion among New York officials — including a dozen or so council members — who are attending the Democratic National Convention this week." Much will hinge on the kind of response that we see from the good government groups, labor, and the ordinary folks.
John Liu's perspective, however, is a good one: "“The issue at hand is not term limits, it’s who decides,” said John C. Liu, a Democrat from Queens who is considering running for comptroller. “Is it 52 people — 51 council members and the mayor — or is it 8 million people? Voting to legislate this could be a kiss of death for decades to come,” Mr. Liu added, “because it becomes an issue that every future campaign opponent can use: unilaterally overturning what the people have very clearly stated is their intent.”
As we have said before, the danger lies with the possibility that, after the council votes, the courts nullify the results, and leave those who have voted to self perpetuate in a dicey position of having to face the voters that they have dissed. Stay tuned on this-more drama is certainly ahead.
Update from Azi: "I got inside the CNN Grill last night (no easy task!), where I ran into Obama delegate and uber-operative Corey Johnson of Manhattan, who said that over at the Sheraton, where the New York delegation is staying, there's barely any talk about presidential politics.
“Term limits. Term Limits. Term Limits. That’s all anybody is talking about,” he said. Later he added, “All politics is local, I guess.”
Seward Park Redevelopment
In a piece that we had missed in the Village Voice, Tom Robbins examines the failure to develop the Seward Park urban renewal site and finds fault with Shelly Silver's role: "Just south of Delancey Street on the Lower East Side, near the bustling entrance to the Williamsburg Bridge, lies that rarest Manhattan commodity: vacant land. This is not just a few buildable lots, but a huge swath of property, some five acres in all, every square inch of it owned by the City of New York. It is a fabulous parcel, the kind that developers—like those building the swanky new towers rising on the other side of Delancey Street—only dream about."
According to Robbins Silver has his thumb on the scale: "Who else but that wily old pol, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. This strip—carried on zoning maps as the Seward Park Urban Renewal Area—is the northern edge of Silver's lower Manhattan district. And while he rarely leaves fingerprints, nothing moves here without his approval. In Albany, where he is the state's second-most-powerful figure, Silver is notorious for his often-obstructionist ways. On Seward Park, he has outdone himself. Under his watch, this territory has remained desolate and empty for more than 30 years, held hostage to stubborn prejudice and fear of change."
Well, we don't know if Silver is the one to blame on this failure, but we do know that this area would be ripe for a mixed-use development that includes a neighborhood supermarket-and we also know that Touro College had been interested in developing the site, but there's more obstructions than the Speaker in this shameful lack of development. The neighborhood remains fractious; so much so that any plan is doomed almost before it starts.
So, it appears to us, that the Bloombergistas could have been more engaged here; and that engagement might have been enough to overcome all of the nettlesome obstacles. Given the lame duck status of the mayor, however, it's unlikely to occur on his watch.
According to Robbins Silver has his thumb on the scale: "Who else but that wily old pol, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. This strip—carried on zoning maps as the Seward Park Urban Renewal Area—is the northern edge of Silver's lower Manhattan district. And while he rarely leaves fingerprints, nothing moves here without his approval. In Albany, where he is the state's second-most-powerful figure, Silver is notorious for his often-obstructionist ways. On Seward Park, he has outdone himself. Under his watch, this territory has remained desolate and empty for more than 30 years, held hostage to stubborn prejudice and fear of change."
Well, we don't know if Silver is the one to blame on this failure, but we do know that this area would be ripe for a mixed-use development that includes a neighborhood supermarket-and we also know that Touro College had been interested in developing the site, but there's more obstructions than the Speaker in this shameful lack of development. The neighborhood remains fractious; so much so that any plan is doomed almost before it starts.
So, it appears to us, that the Bloombergistas could have been more engaged here; and that engagement might have been enough to overcome all of the nettlesome obstacles. Given the lame duck status of the mayor, however, it's unlikely to occur on his watch.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
De-Termination
The backlash against the legislative overt turning of term limits is beginning. As the City Room Blog reports, there are scores of potential candidates who are gearing up to run-and they're not happy about losing their opportunities: “I have a team of folks who have been working with me to plan our campaign,” said JoAnne Simon, a lawyer and Democratic district leader in Brooklyn who is running for the seat being vacated by Councilman David Yassky. She added: “I’ve been raising money and I’ve stepped up my activities in certain respects. It would be nice to have a better sense of what the rules of the road and that the rules aren’t going to change precipitously. It’s a little disappointing to think that all this work might be for naught.”
What this means is that there is a cohort of politically savvy folks who can easily convert into the leaders of a grass roots effort to thwart the legislative initiative. As the City Room points out: "Hector Ramirez, a Democratic district leader and candidate for the City Council seat being vacated by Maria Baez in the Bronx, offered a similar point of view. “I would be very unhappy,” he said, when asked who he might react if Councilwoman Baez were allowed to run for a third term. “I’ve started to raise money. I’ve started to work on my political future. I’m preparing to dedicate my life to this Council race. I don’t think changing the law is a good idea at all. Oh, no.”
In spite of all this, however, the mayor continues to coyly roil the waters. As the NY Daily News points out today, Bloomberg, who voted on both of the city wide referendums, now claims that he can't recall how he voted. Right: "I don't remember at all," he said when asked how he'd voted on the issue. "I just don't remember in either case." Without those two citywide referendums, Bloomberg may never have become mayor because he would likely have had to unseat incumbent Rudy Giuliani. City election records show Bloomberg - a Democrat at the time - did cast a ballot in both 1993 and 1996 but those records, as for all voters, don't reveal which lever he pulled."
And in the NY Sun he tells us that the lemgth of the limited terms should be a matter for debate: "I think you can debate how many years it should be," Mr. Bloomberg said at a press conference in Manhattan. He repeated the opinion a second time at the event, saying that while he believed term limits are democratic, "whether they should have been put in at two terms or three terms, that's something you could debate."
But we'll give the last word on this to Eric Gioia, the Public Advocate candidate. As Gioia told the Times: "When asked whether the Council should take up the issue of whether to expand the term limits of city officials, Mr. Gioia said, “I think we have to be very cautious allowing people to decide the terms of their employment unilaterally.” Indeed.
What this means is that there is a cohort of politically savvy folks who can easily convert into the leaders of a grass roots effort to thwart the legislative initiative. As the City Room points out: "Hector Ramirez, a Democratic district leader and candidate for the City Council seat being vacated by Maria Baez in the Bronx, offered a similar point of view. “I would be very unhappy,” he said, when asked who he might react if Councilwoman Baez were allowed to run for a third term. “I’ve started to raise money. I’ve started to work on my political future. I’m preparing to dedicate my life to this Council race. I don’t think changing the law is a good idea at all. Oh, no.”
In spite of all this, however, the mayor continues to coyly roil the waters. As the NY Daily News points out today, Bloomberg, who voted on both of the city wide referendums, now claims that he can't recall how he voted. Right: "I don't remember at all," he said when asked how he'd voted on the issue. "I just don't remember in either case." Without those two citywide referendums, Bloomberg may never have become mayor because he would likely have had to unseat incumbent Rudy Giuliani. City election records show Bloomberg - a Democrat at the time - did cast a ballot in both 1993 and 1996 but those records, as for all voters, don't reveal which lever he pulled."
And in the NY Sun he tells us that the lemgth of the limited terms should be a matter for debate: "I think you can debate how many years it should be," Mr. Bloomberg said at a press conference in Manhattan. He repeated the opinion a second time at the event, saying that while he believed term limits are democratic, "whether they should have been put in at two terms or three terms, that's something you could debate."
But we'll give the last word on this to Eric Gioia, the Public Advocate candidate. As Gioia told the Times: "When asked whether the Council should take up the issue of whether to expand the term limits of city officials, Mr. Gioia said, “I think we have to be very cautious allowing people to decide the terms of their employment unilaterally.” Indeed.
Giulianiosis
Clyde Haberman gets it just right in his column in the NY Times yesterday. Claiming that Mayor Mike was inflicted with a case of "Giulianiosis," he chided the mayor for his stealth campaign to alter term limits: "In the end, the theory of the indispensable man failed. Mr. Giuliani left office on schedule at the end of 2001. Both the city and the republic survived. Now Mr. Bloomberg is making noises that sound suspiciously like an echo of that theory. After years of speaking unswervingly in favor of term limits, he has wavered. He now seems open at least to the concept of a voter-dodging maneuver by the City Council to give him and other city officials a third term beyond 2009."
Haberman then goes on to debunk the, "indispensable man" theory, that underlies the mayor's less than candid effort: "But it just could be that Mr. Bloomberg, like Mr. Giuliani, has never fully absorbed Charles de Gaulle’s admonition about indispensable men. The graveyards, de Gaulle said, are full of them. Not bad advice for would-be presidents, too, come to think of it."
But will this admonition deter someone whose wealth seems to place him-at least in his own mind-above the strictures that deter more mortal men? Will being the mayor's cat's paw, deter Speaker Quinn, someone whose vulnerability in this is somewhat more pronounced than the mayor's?
Remember this. If the city council passes a law rescinding the results of two referendums it will be open to a strong legal challenge. If the challenge succeeds, than all those council members who voted for term extension will be very vulnerable indeed-particularly as they seek other offices when their terms end. A cautionary tale indeed.
Haberman then goes on to debunk the, "indispensable man" theory, that underlies the mayor's less than candid effort: "But it just could be that Mr. Bloomberg, like Mr. Giuliani, has never fully absorbed Charles de Gaulle’s admonition about indispensable men. The graveyards, de Gaulle said, are full of them. Not bad advice for would-be presidents, too, come to think of it."
But will this admonition deter someone whose wealth seems to place him-at least in his own mind-above the strictures that deter more mortal men? Will being the mayor's cat's paw, deter Speaker Quinn, someone whose vulnerability in this is somewhat more pronounced than the mayor's?
Remember this. If the city council passes a law rescinding the results of two referendums it will be open to a strong legal challenge. If the challenge succeeds, than all those council members who voted for term extension will be very vulnerable indeed-particularly as they seek other offices when their terms end. A cautionary tale indeed.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
More Markowitz Musings
The City Room Blog reinforces our point about the Markowitz endorsement of the term limits extension. In Marty's own words-seconding Mayor Mike's efforts in this self promotional campaign: "The Brooklyn Borough president, Marty Markowitz, said on Monday that he applauds any effort Mr. Bloomberg might undertake to extend the limit that an elected official could remain in municipal office, to three terms from two. “I support him – very selfishly, I might add,” said Mr. Markowitz, a Democrat, in an interview following a press conference..."
Couldn't have said it better-or more honestly-ourselves. Which is in refreshing contrast to the mayor's own slithering. As City Room points out: "In recent weeks, Mr. Bloomberg has had confidential conversations with newspaper publishers in New York to inquire about their views on extending term limits. In the past, Mr. Bloomberg has voiced intense opposition to making any changes in the city’s term limit laws, which restrict citywide elected officials and members of the City Council to two consecutive terms in office."
So, when faced with his own political demise, Mayor Mike metamorphasizes into just another pol looking to hang on to power. It underscores what we've said before; Bloomberg has been, and continues to be, a real champion of one major special interest-self-aggrandizement.
Couldn't have said it better-or more honestly-ourselves. Which is in refreshing contrast to the mayor's own slithering. As City Room points out: "In recent weeks, Mr. Bloomberg has had confidential conversations with newspaper publishers in New York to inquire about their views on extending term limits. In the past, Mr. Bloomberg has voiced intense opposition to making any changes in the city’s term limit laws, which restrict citywide elected officials and members of the City Council to two consecutive terms in office."
So, when faced with his own political demise, Mayor Mike metamorphasizes into just another pol looking to hang on to power. It underscores what we've said before; Bloomberg has been, and continues to be, a real champion of one major special interest-self-aggrandizement.
Terms of Endearment
It comes as no surprise for us that Brooklyn BP Marty Markowitz endorsed an extension of term limits yesterday. In fact, Marty's endorsement underscores perfectly just why the extension, as currently contemplated, is such a bad idea. Let's hear it in Markowitz's own words from today's NY Sun: ""If Brooklynites would have me again, I would love to serve as their borough president," Mr. Markowitz said."
Of course he would; as would all (or a great proportion) of the city council members who would be asked to vote on the altering under the currently envisioned scenario. Which is why it is such an unworthy idea-especially in the context of the fact that two recent referendums have established where the public stands on the issue.
The self serving nature of the effort is highlighted in the way in which political rationales are spun. Listen to MM again: "According to Mr. Markowitz, keeping experienced politicians in office prevents a "faceless, nameless bureaucracy" from making key decisions by outmaneuvering politicians who are learning the ropes of government. He added that politicians' second terms are often less effective under the current two-term system, as they must devote much of their time to planning their next campaign rather than governing."
Now that statement is worthy of deconstruction. It goes without saying that elected officials are an important counter balance to bureaucratic abuse-that goes to the essence of democratic governance. The idea that planning a re-election campaign makes a politician, "less effective," is, however sheer nonsense. Campaigns themselves are part of a democratic process that should, if conducted properly, increase public awareness at the same time that they enhance the effectiveness of political leadership. There's a synergy here that Marty is underplaying in his effort to sell his self perpetuation.
Which doesn't mean that the idea of term limits is unworthy of a serious challenge-it isn't. We should have a healthy debate, and that debate should be made part of a referendum process. We've already made it clear that a third term for council members makes a great deal of sense in the context of NYC's mayoral predominance. But the public needs to be educated as to why that is so; not so easy when seen against a backdrop of the recent slush fund scandals.
And Charles Barron gets it right when it comes to NYC and term limits in general: "A lot of people give that old line about term limits, 'It's called Election Day,' but it's almost impossible to get incumbents out," he said in an interview. "There are too many people in office who have really rendered themselves ineffective and need to go. We need new blood and new leadership."
Finding the right balance is important in all of this; and it's almost impossible to do so in the cauldron of political self-interest. Which is precisely why we need to bring this entire issue before the voters. If the mayor wants to make the case publicly that two terms for the city's chief executive is not enough, let him do so in an above board fashion. But to promote the idea in a self serving stealth campaign is unworthy of someone who has the resources-if not the integrity-to democratically sell the idea in a public forum.
Of course he would; as would all (or a great proportion) of the city council members who would be asked to vote on the altering under the currently envisioned scenario. Which is why it is such an unworthy idea-especially in the context of the fact that two recent referendums have established where the public stands on the issue.
The self serving nature of the effort is highlighted in the way in which political rationales are spun. Listen to MM again: "According to Mr. Markowitz, keeping experienced politicians in office prevents a "faceless, nameless bureaucracy" from making key decisions by outmaneuvering politicians who are learning the ropes of government. He added that politicians' second terms are often less effective under the current two-term system, as they must devote much of their time to planning their next campaign rather than governing."
Now that statement is worthy of deconstruction. It goes without saying that elected officials are an important counter balance to bureaucratic abuse-that goes to the essence of democratic governance. The idea that planning a re-election campaign makes a politician, "less effective," is, however sheer nonsense. Campaigns themselves are part of a democratic process that should, if conducted properly, increase public awareness at the same time that they enhance the effectiveness of political leadership. There's a synergy here that Marty is underplaying in his effort to sell his self perpetuation.
Which doesn't mean that the idea of term limits is unworthy of a serious challenge-it isn't. We should have a healthy debate, and that debate should be made part of a referendum process. We've already made it clear that a third term for council members makes a great deal of sense in the context of NYC's mayoral predominance. But the public needs to be educated as to why that is so; not so easy when seen against a backdrop of the recent slush fund scandals.
And Charles Barron gets it right when it comes to NYC and term limits in general: "A lot of people give that old line about term limits, 'It's called Election Day,' but it's almost impossible to get incumbents out," he said in an interview. "There are too many people in office who have really rendered themselves ineffective and need to go. We need new blood and new leadership."
Finding the right balance is important in all of this; and it's almost impossible to do so in the cauldron of political self-interest. Which is precisely why we need to bring this entire issue before the voters. If the mayor wants to make the case publicly that two terms for the city's chief executive is not enough, let him do so in an above board fashion. But to promote the idea in a self serving stealth campaign is unworthy of someone who has the resources-if not the integrity-to democratically sell the idea in a public forum.
Monday, August 25, 2008
More Joining Term Limits Fight
As we have anticipated, the attempt to alter the term limits law is beginning to generate a coterie of opponents; and the coalition of the upset and aggrieved is bound to grow if this stealth campaign surfaces for real. In this morning's NY Daily News, Liz Benjamin highlights this burgeoning opposition, and it's none other than Mark Green leading the charge: "If Mayor Bloomberg thinks he will be able to overturn term limits without raising the ire of Democrats, he hasn't spoken yet to Mark Green. Green, who ran against Bloomberg in 2001, said the mayor would "cross the line" if he attempts to change the rules midstream to allow both himself and two-thirds of City Council members to run again in 2009. "It is unethical and impermissible to change the rules in the middle of an election to benefit the mayor and the Council, who are the ones drafting and enacting the legislation to overturn the votes - twice - of the people," Green said after picking up his Democratic National Convention credentials here in Denver."
And he's absolutely right. Any attempt to change the rules of the game needs to be applied to the next set of office holders, and shouldn't be done by those whose vote would be self perpetuating. In our view, only the voters should decide. As the NY Post points out, both Anthony Weiner and Bill Thompson-potential candidates for mayor in 2009, feel that it's up to the voters: "City Comptroller Bill Thompson and Rep. Anthony Weiner, both Democrats, said any such proposal should be put before the voters, and not enacted by lawmakers... "I've said publicly before, the council should have three terms," Thompson told The Post from Denver, where he's attending the Democratic National Convention. "[But] I think any change in term limits should go before the voters again." Weiner (Brooklyn/Queens) said he wants to change mayoral term limits, but agrees that it should be done only at the ballot box. "Anthony has favored ending term limits, but believes the right way to do it is by public vote," said his spokesman, John Collins. "New Yorkers voted it in and they deserve the right to vote it out, if they so choose."
Mike Bloomberg needs to be held to account for his two-faced attitude. We have a mayoralty not a royalty in New York City. Mayor Mike has purchased power before, and now he apparently believes that he can effect a leveraged buy out of term limits. The people need to disabuse him of his regal arrogance.
And he's absolutely right. Any attempt to change the rules of the game needs to be applied to the next set of office holders, and shouldn't be done by those whose vote would be self perpetuating. In our view, only the voters should decide. As the NY Post points out, both Anthony Weiner and Bill Thompson-potential candidates for mayor in 2009, feel that it's up to the voters: "City Comptroller Bill Thompson and Rep. Anthony Weiner, both Democrats, said any such proposal should be put before the voters, and not enacted by lawmakers... "I've said publicly before, the council should have three terms," Thompson told The Post from Denver, where he's attending the Democratic National Convention. "[But] I think any change in term limits should go before the voters again." Weiner (Brooklyn/Queens) said he wants to change mayoral term limits, but agrees that it should be done only at the ballot box. "Anthony has favored ending term limits, but believes the right way to do it is by public vote," said his spokesman, John Collins. "New Yorkers voted it in and they deserve the right to vote it out, if they so choose."
Mike Bloomberg needs to be held to account for his two-faced attitude. We have a mayoralty not a royalty in New York City. Mayor Mike has purchased power before, and now he apparently believes that he can effect a leveraged buy out of term limits. The people need to disabuse him of his regal arrogance.
Fighting Unlimited Gall
In today's NY Sun, the paper focuses on the concern being generated by the stealth campaign to alter term limits: "With speculation heating up that the City Council will attempt to vote to extend term limits, a 1961 Buffalo court case is on its way to the center of the fight.
After years of scant mention, the case — in which the state Court of Appeals ruled that Buffalo's council could repeal a term limits law passed by referendum — is again being talked about around City Hall, where it is cited as evidence that New York's council has the authority to extend its term limits, even though New Yorkers twice voted in favor of a two-term limit."
There is considerable speculation that the Buffalo case is a poor precedent for the current effort. According to NYPIRG's Gene Russianoff: "While the Buffalo council voted to amend a term limits law that had been approved by referendum decades earlier, the New York City Council would be attempting to override a decision made by city voters in 1993 and again in 1996. "I think there's a big difference between a 35-year-old referendum from an earlier generation and something that has been approved by the voters" more recently, Mr. Russianoff said."
Our good friend, and peerless election lawyer, Gerry Goldfeder, disagrees: "An election lawyer at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, Jerry Goldfeder, said that if the council did extend term limits, it would be difficult to mount a strong legal argument against the vote..."It would obviously change the political landscape dramatically, but no candidate would be prohibited from running for an office for which they had been raising money," he said. "There would just be additional candidates, including, perhaps, incumbents."
All of this, of course, will lead to a huge political battle that will take on the city council and its incumbent protecting actions like no other in our memory. We agree with Norm Siegel here: "If the mayor and the speaker engage in an unholy alliance to undo the people's will, I think there will be people throughout the city who will be angry about that," he said. "There would be a political backlash for people who went and did it."
If a battle is to begin on this issue, it better begin soon-before the swells at the NYC Partnership get get a head wind on their effort to insure the perpetuation of their agenda and their mayor for life who has been dedicated to the aggrandizement of the city's permanent government. Russianoff gets the last word here: "A senior attorney for the New York Public Interest Research Group, Gene Russianoff, said it would be "undemocratic" for the council to overturn a ballot initiative approved by city voters, and said there was a "good chance" his group would join a fight against such a vote in court."
After years of scant mention, the case — in which the state Court of Appeals ruled that Buffalo's council could repeal a term limits law passed by referendum — is again being talked about around City Hall, where it is cited as evidence that New York's council has the authority to extend its term limits, even though New Yorkers twice voted in favor of a two-term limit."
There is considerable speculation that the Buffalo case is a poor precedent for the current effort. According to NYPIRG's Gene Russianoff: "While the Buffalo council voted to amend a term limits law that had been approved by referendum decades earlier, the New York City Council would be attempting to override a decision made by city voters in 1993 and again in 1996. "I think there's a big difference between a 35-year-old referendum from an earlier generation and something that has been approved by the voters" more recently, Mr. Russianoff said."
Our good friend, and peerless election lawyer, Gerry Goldfeder, disagrees: "An election lawyer at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, Jerry Goldfeder, said that if the council did extend term limits, it would be difficult to mount a strong legal argument against the vote..."It would obviously change the political landscape dramatically, but no candidate would be prohibited from running for an office for which they had been raising money," he said. "There would just be additional candidates, including, perhaps, incumbents."
All of this, of course, will lead to a huge political battle that will take on the city council and its incumbent protecting actions like no other in our memory. We agree with Norm Siegel here: "If the mayor and the speaker engage in an unholy alliance to undo the people's will, I think there will be people throughout the city who will be angry about that," he said. "There would be a political backlash for people who went and did it."
If a battle is to begin on this issue, it better begin soon-before the swells at the NYC Partnership get get a head wind on their effort to insure the perpetuation of their agenda and their mayor for life who has been dedicated to the aggrandizement of the city's permanent government. Russianoff gets the last word here: "A senior attorney for the New York Public Interest Research Group, Gene Russianoff, said it would be "undemocratic" for the council to overturn a ballot initiative approved by city voters, and said there was a "good chance" his group would join a fight against such a vote in court."
Punked?
In last Friday's Buffalo News there was some disappointing-although unsurprising-news. It appears that Governor Paterson may be about to do what most of his recent successors have tried to do-and failed: negotiate with the tribes on their failure to collect the taxes on cigarette tax sales: "Gov. David A. Paterson insists the state has a legal right to collect taxes on Indian retailer cigarette sales but says he wants to negotiate with the tribes to end the years-long stalemate instead of trying to force an immediate halt to the tax-free sales."
And why, if he admittedly has the legal right to do so, is Paterson going this route? One answer: fear. AS the News points out: "In his most extensive remarks on a subject that has stymied a long line of governors before him, Paterson on Wednesday suggested that fear of violence by Native American protesters is driving part of his decision to take a slower route than the State Legislature is demanding."
So all it takes now not to pay your taxes is the threat of violence? Where's a good old fashion, "Make My Day," when you need it? This is all so sad-and the tax payers and small store owners are the victims here. A growing coalition of groups is gearing up to fight. Here's a portion of an ad that the coalition ran in the Albany Times Union:
Using National demographics of cigarette consumption and New York tax rates, New York consumers are estimated to smoke 100
million cartons. By Government ‘biting the bullet’ and collecting the taxes on Native American sales to non tribal members as prescribed
by law and increasing our enforcement of tax collection, we will tax 90 million of the 100 million cartons this year.
The New Math
State Excise Tax: (90 million cartons x $27.50) = $2,475,000,000
City Excise Tax: (30 million cartons x $15.00) = $450,000,000
Average Sales Tax: (90 million cartons x $5.00) = $450,000,000
---------------------------
$3,375,000,000
• $1,605,000,000 will be added to our tax rolls.
• Criminal and Terrorist cigarette funding will be decimated.
• Our State Laws will be enforced as intended.
• New York Business and our economy will be uplifted.
• Fairness and a level playing field will be restored.
• Valued State and City Services will be permitted to continue.
This Solution is a ‘no-brainer’!
COLLECT THE TAX AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW!!!
Nothing could be clearer to us; and if the governor doesn't come to his senses this grass roots effort will metastasize to his great detriment. Not under the threat of violence! It's no wonder that the tribes are smiling. As the News points out: "Native American leaders, who have been hearing a growing number of legislators and others pressing Paterson to collect the tax to help raise revenues to reduce the state’s budget deficit, sounded relieved Tuesday evening." Indeed they are; it's the rest of us New Yorkers that are not. As the old Country and Western song goes: "The tribes got the gold mine; tax payers got the shaft."
And why, if he admittedly has the legal right to do so, is Paterson going this route? One answer: fear. AS the News points out: "In his most extensive remarks on a subject that has stymied a long line of governors before him, Paterson on Wednesday suggested that fear of violence by Native American protesters is driving part of his decision to take a slower route than the State Legislature is demanding."
So all it takes now not to pay your taxes is the threat of violence? Where's a good old fashion, "Make My Day," when you need it? This is all so sad-and the tax payers and small store owners are the victims here. A growing coalition of groups is gearing up to fight. Here's a portion of an ad that the coalition ran in the Albany Times Union:
Using National demographics of cigarette consumption and New York tax rates, New York consumers are estimated to smoke 100
million cartons. By Government ‘biting the bullet’ and collecting the taxes on Native American sales to non tribal members as prescribed
by law and increasing our enforcement of tax collection, we will tax 90 million of the 100 million cartons this year.
The New Math
State Excise Tax: (90 million cartons x $27.50) = $2,475,000,000
City Excise Tax: (30 million cartons x $15.00) = $450,000,000
Average Sales Tax: (90 million cartons x $5.00) = $450,000,000
---------------------------
$3,375,000,000
• $1,605,000,000 will be added to our tax rolls.
• Criminal and Terrorist cigarette funding will be decimated.
• Our State Laws will be enforced as intended.
• New York Business and our economy will be uplifted.
• Fairness and a level playing field will be restored.
• Valued State and City Services will be permitted to continue.
This Solution is a ‘no-brainer’!
COLLECT THE TAX AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW!!!
Nothing could be clearer to us; and if the governor doesn't come to his senses this grass roots effort will metastasize to his great detriment. Not under the threat of violence! It's no wonder that the tribes are smiling. As the News points out: "Native American leaders, who have been hearing a growing number of legislators and others pressing Paterson to collect the tax to help raise revenues to reduce the state’s budget deficit, sounded relieved Tuesday evening." Indeed they are; it's the rest of us New Yorkers that are not. As the old Country and Western song goes: "The tribes got the gold mine; tax payers got the shaft."
We're Back! (and so are they)
We took a week off to rest and recuperate; but we're back with a renewed vengeance today-what with Mayor Mike looking as if it will take the FBI HRT team to remove him from City Hall in 2009. There is nothing more tenacious in this world than a politician trying to cling to power, even when the clock has struck midnight-and Mike Bloomberg, stripped of the non-political spinning-is certainly no different.
The NY Post captures all of this subterfuge; talk about two faced: "In an abrupt reversal, Mayor Bloomberg yesterday left the door open to supporting a change to the term-limits law through legislation. "My job is if the City Council comes to us with a piece of legislation, we will look at it, we will consider it, and we'll make what I hope is an informed judgment into what is in the best interest in the city," the mayor said. "The City Council has the right to change term limits if they want to."
Oh, please! This is all about as subtle as a Paris Hilton sex tape. Bloomberg simply doesn't want to leave, and will do anything to avoid becoming an ex-mayor before he's really ready to leave. So what does he do? He works his business acolytes up to create an astro turf groundswell; all the while we nudges Speaker Quinn to reconsider her firmly stated opposition to the term limits overhaul.
As the NY Daily News reported yesterday: "City Council Speaker Christine Quinn froze any talk of changing term limits last year, but people who have spoken with her see signs of a thaw.
"I sense movement on both the speaker's side and the mayor's side," said Councilman Peter Vallone (D-Queens). "I sense movement that I hadn't sensed before." If Quinn joins Mayor Bloomberg in tacitly supporting an extension so they can run for another four-year term, it will set up the choice of her political life."
Indeed it will. But you can see the handwriting on the wall here, can't you? As the News points out: "The thawing, however, has begun. One insider who spoke with her said Quinn is already speculating about how to round up enough Council votes to extend term limits with a simple resolution." The only thing standing in the way of these two partners in crime may be the people of the city who have made their position on term limits rather clear, don't you think?
And the twin about face will put both Bloomberg and Quinn in a rather unpopular public spotlight. After all, here's what Quinn said last year on this topic: "I will not support the repeal or change of term limits through any mechanism, and I will oppose aggressively any attempt by anyone to make any changes in the term limits law," she said in December." As the Post highlights as well: "That would be a tough hurdle for Quinn, who announced last year it wouldn't be fair to overturn term limits through legislation. "I believe that overruling the will of New Yorkers . . . would be anti-democratic and anti-reform," she said then."
And now the mayor is weaseling on all of this as well/ It is time for the folks to be heard on this. We're ready to join forces with any and all to insure that self-serving pols don't try to maintain themselves against the wishes of the vast majority of New Yorkers.
The NY Post captures all of this subterfuge; talk about two faced: "In an abrupt reversal, Mayor Bloomberg yesterday left the door open to supporting a change to the term-limits law through legislation. "My job is if the City Council comes to us with a piece of legislation, we will look at it, we will consider it, and we'll make what I hope is an informed judgment into what is in the best interest in the city," the mayor said. "The City Council has the right to change term limits if they want to."
Oh, please! This is all about as subtle as a Paris Hilton sex tape. Bloomberg simply doesn't want to leave, and will do anything to avoid becoming an ex-mayor before he's really ready to leave. So what does he do? He works his business acolytes up to create an astro turf groundswell; all the while we nudges Speaker Quinn to reconsider her firmly stated opposition to the term limits overhaul.
As the NY Daily News reported yesterday: "City Council Speaker Christine Quinn froze any talk of changing term limits last year, but people who have spoken with her see signs of a thaw.
"I sense movement on both the speaker's side and the mayor's side," said Councilman Peter Vallone (D-Queens). "I sense movement that I hadn't sensed before." If Quinn joins Mayor Bloomberg in tacitly supporting an extension so they can run for another four-year term, it will set up the choice of her political life."
Indeed it will. But you can see the handwriting on the wall here, can't you? As the News points out: "The thawing, however, has begun. One insider who spoke with her said Quinn is already speculating about how to round up enough Council votes to extend term limits with a simple resolution." The only thing standing in the way of these two partners in crime may be the people of the city who have made their position on term limits rather clear, don't you think?
And the twin about face will put both Bloomberg and Quinn in a rather unpopular public spotlight. After all, here's what Quinn said last year on this topic: "I will not support the repeal or change of term limits through any mechanism, and I will oppose aggressively any attempt by anyone to make any changes in the term limits law," she said in December." As the Post highlights as well: "That would be a tough hurdle for Quinn, who announced last year it wouldn't be fair to overturn term limits through legislation. "I believe that overruling the will of New Yorkers . . . would be anti-democratic and anti-reform," she said then."
And now the mayor is weaseling on all of this as well/ It is time for the folks to be heard on this. We're ready to join forces with any and all to insure that self-serving pols don't try to maintain themselves against the wishes of the vast majority of New Yorkers.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Texas Fold-Um?
Governor Paterson looks like he's going to do the same Indian tribal dance that his predecessors did with the tribes over the collection of cigarette tax revenues. As the NY Sun reports this morning: " Days before the New York Legislature will try to stem growing budget deficits, leaders of the Seneca Nation pressed Governor Paterson's office to veto a bill that would require collecting millions of dollars in taxes on cigarettes now sold tax-free by tribes. Nothing was resolved yesterday, spokesmen for the tribe and Mr. Paterson said."
Brother, here we go again! Will we have another gubernatorial failure of will-and at a time when Governor Paterson clams that our fiscal situation is reaching Depression levels? The Sun's recapitulation of this issue misses the mark: "Although Indians may sell goods to other Indians free of sales taxes, most Indian sales are to non-Indians. Tribes argue that treaties dating to the 19th century allow them to avoid state government sales taxes. But state officials going back to the 1980s have argued sales to non-Indians are taxable and the money should be collected."
The fact is that the tribes don't have a legal leg to stand on; and the US Supreme Court has denied their sovereignty claims on this issue. The only reason there's been no enforcement lies with the pusillanimous nature of our state's chief executives: their fear of a repeat of tribal violence that closed the Thruway in the Nineties. Not a very good reason, is it? Do we now have the terrorist veto in New York?
The Indian arguments here are tragically farcical : "We continue to ask New York state to honor its treaties," the chairman of the Seneca Nation's Legislative Council, Richard Nephew, said. He said the taxes would cut into sales, which in turn would hurt the tribe's employment of 5,000 people and other economic benefits it spins off in western New York. "The state still comes out ahead," Seneca Counsel Robert Odawi Porter said. "It just doesn't go into the Albany trough."
This does, of course, overlook one important fact. The so-called economic benefits are those that are siphoned off from the tax paying store owners-who have lost sales and employment to the scofflaws. The jobs will still be there if the taxes are collected; just not at non tax paying tribal retailers.
So let's collect the $400-$500 million in taxes so that the state doesn't have to increase the tax burden on its already overburdened citizens. The governor has put $1billion worth of cuts on the table. The collection of the cigarette tax revenue would be a welcome relief if Paterson can make the strong stand that is necessary.
Brother, here we go again! Will we have another gubernatorial failure of will-and at a time when Governor Paterson clams that our fiscal situation is reaching Depression levels? The Sun's recapitulation of this issue misses the mark: "Although Indians may sell goods to other Indians free of sales taxes, most Indian sales are to non-Indians. Tribes argue that treaties dating to the 19th century allow them to avoid state government sales taxes. But state officials going back to the 1980s have argued sales to non-Indians are taxable and the money should be collected."
The fact is that the tribes don't have a legal leg to stand on; and the US Supreme Court has denied their sovereignty claims on this issue. The only reason there's been no enforcement lies with the pusillanimous nature of our state's chief executives: their fear of a repeat of tribal violence that closed the Thruway in the Nineties. Not a very good reason, is it? Do we now have the terrorist veto in New York?
The Indian arguments here are tragically farcical : "We continue to ask New York state to honor its treaties," the chairman of the Seneca Nation's Legislative Council, Richard Nephew, said. He said the taxes would cut into sales, which in turn would hurt the tribe's employment of 5,000 people and other economic benefits it spins off in western New York. "The state still comes out ahead," Seneca Counsel Robert Odawi Porter said. "It just doesn't go into the Albany trough."
This does, of course, overlook one important fact. The so-called economic benefits are those that are siphoned off from the tax paying store owners-who have lost sales and employment to the scofflaws. The jobs will still be there if the taxes are collected; just not at non tax paying tribal retailers.
So let's collect the $400-$500 million in taxes so that the state doesn't have to increase the tax burden on its already overburdened citizens. The governor has put $1billion worth of cuts on the table. The collection of the cigarette tax revenue would be a welcome relief if Paterson can make the strong stand that is necessary.
Food for Thought
The NY Times' City Room Blog is reporting on the role that rising food prices are playing in driving up the inflation rate in NYC: "Driven by rising prices of milk, bread and other groceries, the inflation rate in the New York metropolitan area rose in the last year at its second-fastest pace in more than 17 years, according to the federal Department of Labor."
What this means is that the phenomenon of disappearing supermarkets takes on an additional urgency. The loss of a neighborhood supermarket means that the local are forced to shop for food at more expensive delis, bodegas or drug stores. Or, travel longer distances to find a reasonably priced supermarket.
The rising box store situation that we remarked on yesterday, only exacerbates a crisis situation-as neighborhoods are being slowly abandoned by local markets. If the Bloomberg Administration is really serious about stemming the erosion, than it will need to step up in a major way and demonstrate a commitment to supermarket retention and promotion that goes beyond rhetoric.
What this means is that the phenomenon of disappearing supermarkets takes on an additional urgency. The loss of a neighborhood supermarket means that the local are forced to shop for food at more expensive delis, bodegas or drug stores. Or, travel longer distances to find a reasonably priced supermarket.
The rising box store situation that we remarked on yesterday, only exacerbates a crisis situation-as neighborhoods are being slowly abandoned by local markets. If the Bloomberg Administration is really serious about stemming the erosion, than it will need to step up in a major way and demonstrate a commitment to supermarket retention and promotion that goes beyond rhetoric.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Pointedly Clueless
The rubber stamp had its first hearing on the Willets Point redevelopment plan yesterday, and opponents and proponents had dueling press conferences that were marked by emotional outbursts and some spirited byplay. As the NY Times reports today: "Supporters and foes of the Bloomberg administration’s plan to turn gritty Willets Point in Queens into a $3 billion development of stores, offices and apartments faced off Wednesday in a confrontation that grew emotional and raucous at times. The City Council must decide this fall whether to approve the rezoning plan, which would require the removal of more than 200 small businesses, including auto-body shops and industrial outlets."
Perhaps the funniest comments came from the mayor, who told the NY Sun the following: "And I might point out that there's almost nobody that signed that letter, almost nobody, from Queens. They were from other places where perhaps they are getting support from real estate interests who just want to be able to be in a position to hold up the city," Mr. Bloomberg said." As the Times points out, however: "The mayor said that of the council members who signed the letter, “there was nobody or almost nobody from Queens.” In fact, 8 of the 14 members from Queens signed it."
So, the nefarious real estate interests, you know the ones that Mayor Mike has been aggrandizing for almost seven years, have all of a sudden been transformed into anti-development obstructionists in the mayor's mind. Quite droll, don't you think? And what's up with Bloomberg's counting problem?
Now maybe the project will be approved; the mayor does still have one important ally at the council. But things are by no means certain in this regard-and the defeat of the Willets Point plan would put Monseratte up in the pantheon of giant killers. The West Side Stadium and congestion pricing were, after all, killed by the powerful speaker of the assembly. Hiram only has his good looks and charm, and he's on the brink of joining Shelly.
Perhaps the funniest comments came from the mayor, who told the NY Sun the following: "And I might point out that there's almost nobody that signed that letter, almost nobody, from Queens. They were from other places where perhaps they are getting support from real estate interests who just want to be able to be in a position to hold up the city," Mr. Bloomberg said." As the Times points out, however: "The mayor said that of the council members who signed the letter, “there was nobody or almost nobody from Queens.” In fact, 8 of the 14 members from Queens signed it."
So, the nefarious real estate interests, you know the ones that Mayor Mike has been aggrandizing for almost seven years, have all of a sudden been transformed into anti-development obstructionists in the mayor's mind. Quite droll, don't you think? And what's up with Bloomberg's counting problem?
Now maybe the project will be approved; the mayor does still have one important ally at the council. But things are by no means certain in this regard-and the defeat of the Willets Point plan would put Monseratte up in the pantheon of giant killers. The West Side Stadium and congestion pricing were, after all, killed by the powerful speaker of the assembly. Hiram only has his good looks and charm, and he's on the brink of joining Shelly.
The New Polit-Burro?
In this week's NY Observer, Eliot Brown focuses in on what he sees as a change of direction in the development agenda of the Bloomber Administration: "Though Mr. Bloomberg is no laissez faire diehard by any means, the three projects—the revitalization of Coney Island; the redevelopment of the industry-heavy Willets Point area by Shea Stadium; and the creation of up to 5,000 units of mostly middle-income housing at Hunter’s Point South by Long Island City—seem to have far more city involvement and restrictions than those typical of the economic development agenda of the self-described fiscally conservative mayor."
We're not sure we see the alteration; or whether the change has significance-Bloomberg still has the same giant edifice complex and has no problem running roughshod over small businesses and communities wherever he points his development finger.
So it's no wonder that all of the permanent government types laud his approach, whatever direction it takes. And we think that Steve Malanga's observation is basically correct about all this: "We’ve moved beyond the low-hanging fruit, and these involve I guess what I would call a more aggressive government position because these are really harder, more involved projects,” said Steve Malanga, a senior fellow at the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute."
In the other cases, all that was required was rezoning-and if we look at Columbia we could say that there was no need for the government to do anything but adopt the university's plan and get out of the way-which they did. The results, however, are all the same: large development bulldozing local interests.
Moreover, it is our expectation that at least two of these last three mega-deals will fall flat-as Willets appears to be on a respirator, and Coney Island parkland is simply a pipe dream. So we might say that, where more Bloomberg meddling is needed, more is less.
We're not sure we see the alteration; or whether the change has significance-Bloomberg still has the same giant edifice complex and has no problem running roughshod over small businesses and communities wherever he points his development finger.
So it's no wonder that all of the permanent government types laud his approach, whatever direction it takes. And we think that Steve Malanga's observation is basically correct about all this: "We’ve moved beyond the low-hanging fruit, and these involve I guess what I would call a more aggressive government position because these are really harder, more involved projects,” said Steve Malanga, a senior fellow at the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute."
In the other cases, all that was required was rezoning-and if we look at Columbia we could say that there was no need for the government to do anything but adopt the university's plan and get out of the way-which they did. The results, however, are all the same: large development bulldozing local interests.
Moreover, it is our expectation that at least two of these last three mega-deals will fall flat-as Willets appears to be on a respirator, and Coney Island parkland is simply a pipe dream. So we might say that, where more Bloomberg meddling is needed, more is less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
