As City Room is reporting, Comptroller Bill Thompson has jumped on the NY Times story about, well, conflicts at the city's Conflict of Interest Board: "Saying that he had “serious concerns” about the integrity of the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board, William C. Thompson Jr., the leading Democratic candidate for mayor, urged on Tuesday that the board’s membership and guidelines be revamped."
The key suggestion here, a reasonable one at that, is that the mayor shouldn't be the only elected official to appoint the Board's members: "...Mr. Thompson said Tuesday that board members should not be appointed solely by the mayor. Instead, he urged that two members be appointed by the City Council, another by the public advocate, and the two others by the mayor."
The reasonableness of the suggestion devolves from-at least in the case of Sir Michael-the possibility that those who are beholden to the mayor just may be loath to come down too hard on his possible transgressions. As the Times suggested yesterday: "The article reported that a number of board members had close ties with city financing or with the mayor’s personal fortune, either through their jobs or through other boards on which they sit. And though such affiliations do not violate the law, watchdog groups say they can leave the impression that they are beholden to the deep pockets of Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire who is the city’s wealthiest person."
But even absent the fact that the mayor also moonlights as the city's richest resident, the chief executive's sole appointment power is enough to leave the Board toothless-as has been the case with other mayors as well. But, in a campaign season, what may seem quite reasonable, can't be allowed to percolate without a rebuttal-particularly if it's the mayor's ox that's being gored.
As City Room tells us, the masters of the non sequitor hit right back: "The Bloomberg campaign, as has been its habit, hit back fast and hard. In particular, the campaign repeated its criticism of Mr. Thompson’s handling of the city’s pension funds, which, as mentioned in another Times article, have generally underperformed in relation to other comparable funds. Mr. Thompson has also collected more than $500,000 in campaign contributions from money managers, some of whom have given money to his campaigns."
See the correlation? Neither do we. We may have a lap dog conflicts board, but you're not so good yourself Mr. Thompson. You'll notice that there's nothing in the response of the Bloomberg campaign that's even remotely related to the endemic structural problems of the COIB. But hey, who's paying attention to consistency?
And former Democratic strategist Wolfson, doing what he does best, piles on with more misdirection: "For two terms in office Bill Thompson took hundreds of thousands of dollars firms that did business with his office, and now he wants to talk about curbing conflicts of interest? Maybe he should start by returning all the money he took from firms that mismanaged the city’s pension funds.”
It is left to, of all people, a mayoral appointee to the Board (but for how long?) to offer this hat tip to Thompson: "In an interview last month, one board member, Angela Mariana Freyre, said that she would not mind if the board’s membership came from different appointees. “Why not?” she said. “‘There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s less about who gets to choose them than the qualifications of the candidates. You’ve got to choose people that have intelligence and integrity.”
So, does Bloomberg believe that the Thompson suggestion has merit? Maybe we should ask the late deputy mayor Doctoroff who was put through such an exhaustive meat grinder by the Board for his double dealing with Related's Steve Ross that he simply quit to take a less demanding position as the head of Bloomberg LLP.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Columbia's Lynchpin
How ironic. For the second time in the short span of a month we learn about the transgressions of lobbyists who have been retained to help expedite the eviction of local businesses in an eminent domain battle. In the first case it was elected official emeritus, Clire Shulman whose LDC was whacked to the tune of over $59,000 for her failure to register her LDC with the city for lobbying purposes.
Now, another lobbying eminence has a potential six figure problem-as the Politicker reports (via the Columbia Spectator): "The lobbying firm that Columbia hired to promote the Manhattanville campus expansion plan did not report a nearly $400,000 increase in income from the University, according to the state’s Commission on Public Integrity. On Sept. 3, CPI publicly alleged that Bill Lynch Associates, a Harlem-based political consulting firm, failed to file required documents disclosing that Columbia had increased its compensation by $390,000 in 2007."
Now in our view, and in spite of the fact that we were bested in this process when the city council approved the re-zoning, the crime here is how much Bill Lynch was actually paid-and that the university prevailed in spite of the fact that Lynch instituted one of the most inept astro turf efforts of all time. But, as we lamented at the time-and it bears repeating: "And for those who may be curious about the Lipsky lobbying retainer it is for $6,000 a month. Our experience over twenty five years only reinforces the observation that it doesn't pay as well to battle Goliath; but it generally is a good deal more satisfying."
Now we don't wish Lynch any great harm-since we're not fans of the regulators in general. But we might feel that it is worthwhile to examine where all of the Columbia money actually went. A great deal of dough was spread around in the process of attempting to separate Nick Sprayregen from his property. In our view, those grass roots could use a good weed remover.
Now, another lobbying eminence has a potential six figure problem-as the Politicker reports (via the Columbia Spectator): "The lobbying firm that Columbia hired to promote the Manhattanville campus expansion plan did not report a nearly $400,000 increase in income from the University, according to the state’s Commission on Public Integrity. On Sept. 3, CPI publicly alleged that Bill Lynch Associates, a Harlem-based political consulting firm, failed to file required documents disclosing that Columbia had increased its compensation by $390,000 in 2007."
Now in our view, and in spite of the fact that we were bested in this process when the city council approved the re-zoning, the crime here is how much Bill Lynch was actually paid-and that the university prevailed in spite of the fact that Lynch instituted one of the most inept astro turf efforts of all time. But, as we lamented at the time-and it bears repeating: "And for those who may be curious about the Lipsky lobbying retainer it is for $6,000 a month. Our experience over twenty five years only reinforces the observation that it doesn't pay as well to battle Goliath; but it generally is a good deal more satisfying."
Now we don't wish Lynch any great harm-since we're not fans of the regulators in general. But we might feel that it is worthwhile to examine where all of the Columbia money actually went. A great deal of dough was spread around in the process of attempting to separate Nick Sprayregen from his property. In our view, those grass roots could use a good weed remover.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Non-Kosher Vending
The Wild West nature of street vending in NYC keeps getting worse. As the NY Post reports this morning, we now are seeing strong arm tactics in the absence of any visible city oversight: "Try to move in on a city food vendor's turf and there'll be halal to pay. Newcomers to the city's food-cart wars say that when they stake a claim to a busy corner, they frequently get threatened by a loose-knit band of gyro-cooking thugs they call the "Halal Mafia." "They had their friends park a truck in my location because they were trying to push me out," said Clive Dennis, who manages the Little Ochi Hot Spot, a Jamaican cart on Park Row downtown. "It's like a mob thing -- these halal guys think they're the only ones who should be selling food on the street."
The $64 question here is, when will the city get its act together to enforce what is, apparent to so many of us, an out of control situation. We have vendors selling fraudulent cart permits, impersonating veterans; and, our favorite pet peeve, setting up shop with over sized fruit carts right in front of tax paying food stores.
It is now time for the city to take appropriate remedial action-and after next week's primary, we plan to convene a meeting of all the affected stakeholders in order to devise an appropriate game plan. But, really, enough's enough with this outrageous lack of proper oversight.
The $64 question here is, when will the city get its act together to enforce what is, apparent to so many of us, an out of control situation. We have vendors selling fraudulent cart permits, impersonating veterans; and, our favorite pet peeve, setting up shop with over sized fruit carts right in front of tax paying food stores.
It is now time for the city to take appropriate remedial action-and after next week's primary, we plan to convene a meeting of all the affected stakeholders in order to devise an appropriate game plan. But, really, enough's enough with this outrageous lack of proper oversight.
News on Diaz and the Armory
The NY Daily News has weighed in on the opposition to the Kingsbridge Armory project by Bronx BP Ruben Diaz: "In a stark break with his predecessor, Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz has refused to back a project pushed by a politically connected developer. Diaz raised eyebrows Friday when he recommended rejection of the redevelopment plan from The Related Cos. for the iconic Armory building."
The News story reiterates what we had posted last week-and goes on the lay out the BP's case against the current configuration of the development: "Chief among Diaz's reasons was Related's failure to sign an ambitious community benefits agreement Diaz worked out with local stakeholders. Diaz said he was hopeful the developer "will continue negotiations with my office and the community stakeholders to craft a strong community benefits agreement that allows both the developer and our neighbors to prosper from this project." The most contentious item in the draft CBA is an unprecedented demand that Related require all retail tenants to pay a "living wage" - a demand Related has said would not only kill any deal on a CBA, but could even scuttle the whole project."
Which leads us directly into the City Planning Commission's first hearing that is scheduled for tomorrow. All of the opposition will be down at City Hall at 9:00 AM for a presser that will feature the local store owners, KARA, and Stuart Appelbaum of the RWDSU. And, while no one thinks that the CPC will do anything but act in its usual rubber stamp capacity, the presser's focus is on the city council-where the project's ultimate fate really rests.
The News lays out the projected ULURP schedule: "The project is now before the City Planning Commission, which will hold a public hearing at its Manhattan office tomorrow and vote on it next month. If the commission approves it, the City Council then has 50 days to approve or reject the plan. The Bronx Council delegation is united against the plan without a robust CBA and protections for local businesses, but will need Council allies to block it."
So, it's into the valley of the shadow of death for the mallers and their opponents. It should be a fascinating denouement in the works.
The News story reiterates what we had posted last week-and goes on the lay out the BP's case against the current configuration of the development: "Chief among Diaz's reasons was Related's failure to sign an ambitious community benefits agreement Diaz worked out with local stakeholders. Diaz said he was hopeful the developer "will continue negotiations with my office and the community stakeholders to craft a strong community benefits agreement that allows both the developer and our neighbors to prosper from this project." The most contentious item in the draft CBA is an unprecedented demand that Related require all retail tenants to pay a "living wage" - a demand Related has said would not only kill any deal on a CBA, but could even scuttle the whole project."
Which leads us directly into the City Planning Commission's first hearing that is scheduled for tomorrow. All of the opposition will be down at City Hall at 9:00 AM for a presser that will feature the local store owners, KARA, and Stuart Appelbaum of the RWDSU. And, while no one thinks that the CPC will do anything but act in its usual rubber stamp capacity, the presser's focus is on the city council-where the project's ultimate fate really rests.
The News lays out the projected ULURP schedule: "The project is now before the City Planning Commission, which will hold a public hearing at its Manhattan office tomorrow and vote on it next month. If the commission approves it, the City Council then has 50 days to approve or reject the plan. The Bronx Council delegation is united against the plan without a robust CBA and protections for local businesses, but will need Council allies to block it."
So, it's into the valley of the shadow of death for the mallers and their opponents. It should be a fascinating denouement in the works.
DOE's Bonus Babies
The situation with the NYC school grade inflation just keeps getting more farcical by the minute-with watered down state test scores producing, not only a proliferation of questionably high evaluations for 97% of the city schools; but now, in addition, teacher bonuses based on the very same watered down scores. As the NY Times reported on Saturday: "Parents may or may not be impressed by the fact that 97 percent of the city’s schools received grades of As and Bs this week from the Department of Education. But the tidal wave of high marks is meaningful in another way: It means the city will pay $27 million in teacher bonuses, almost double the amount paid last year."
Making this fiscal profligacy and pedagogical mockery even worse is that, unlike in previous years, it will be the tax payers who foot this bill-on top of the already bloated education budget: "The $14 million in bonuses last year was financed in large part by private donations. For the 2008-9 year, the city is putting up the money."
Nice. But, we are also told that: "Teachers at 139 elementary and middle schools — more than 90 percent of the high-poverty schools eligible for the bonus program — will receive them. The program is a centerpiece of Chancellor Joel I. Klein’s goal of linking teacher pay to performance." Can any one say fruit of the poisonous tree?
So, what we apparently have, is an entire evaluative structure that is rotten from the source-test scores that, if they were pregnancy exams, would be called false positives. It is precisely why the educational structure itself needs to have the kind of strict and independent oversight that the current administration, and its claque of cheer leaders-arguing from bad faith-have called, "going back to the old Board of Ed."
But you really have to love department spokespersons-their skill and candor actually would give lobbyists a more favorable reputation if compared side by side. Here's how the DOE flack interprets the situation: "Phil Vaccaro, a representative of the education department’s accountability office who helped design the school grading system, said that the high number of bonuses for the 2008-9 year came as a surprise to education officials. “Either this incentive worked really, really well or we set the targets a bit too low for the schools,” Mr. Vaccaro said. “We are pleased they reached them and they deserve to be rewarded for it.”
Underscoring Vaccaro's astuteness is the fact that a number of schools getting high marks-and whose teachers raked in the bonus bucks-were, we kid you not, just recently on the DOE's endangered species list: "Seven schools that have been scheduled to close over the next several years, at least in part because of low performance, are to receive bonuses. Department officials say that grades are not the only factor in the decision to close schools; declining enrollment and other factors play roles."
We're waiting for Buster Keaton to become the next chancellor-only the fable slap stick artist could do justice to the comical turn being done by the educrats. And even the NY Daily News, following the NY Post's wide eyed wonder on the matter, have weighed in critically; and we sense the comparison to a game of three card monte: "Chancellor Joel Klein and Mayor Bloomberg get a D for this year's school report cards, which paint a Norman Rockwell picture of a school system that still has miles to go. Because of a bar unwisely set, and then stuck to, by the Education Department, fully 84% of elementary and middle schools in the city got A's - up from 38% in 2008."
The News, which joined with the Post-albeit in a slightly more muted fashion-in its promotion of the alleged Bloomberg Miracle, gets the empty headedness of all this: "The dramatic grade inflation has rendered 2009's reports nearly meaningless to thousands of parents who look to the summaries for guidance as to which schools serve kids best."
But, unfortunately, its not, "in for a penny, in for a pound," with the News' candor. The paper won't take the next step here; which is to expose the entire structure as a Potemkin Village that masks breathtaking accounting fraud. This is more than a simple card trick when the entire deck is riddled with marked cards. And the paper won't go after the real culprits-the cards sharks themselves: "Conspiracy-minded critics suggest that Bloomberg, in an election year, is playing fast and loose with numbers to get votes. Wrong. This was simply a big flub. One that must not happen again."
Which gets us back to the poisonous tree. As the Daily News reported; "DOE officials also said this week they will raise the bar on what schools must do to achieve an A on next year's report card. They are also supporting the state's efforts to raise the standards for the state exams."
Yet, at the same time, they tell us this: "DOE officials said that teachers and principals serving low-income and previously low-performing students successfully deserved the schoolwide bonuses. "They are our highest-needs schools," said DOE spokeswoman Ann Forte. "This year these schools made amazing progress."
And, isn't it a little late to call for higher state standards-after the mayor succeeds in his third term power grab? After all, critics have been pointing out the problem of watered down tests for years. The Bloomberg/Klein regime has been happy to style with these phony numbers for eight years-and the media amen chorus has acted just like good toadies by enthusiastically suspending their disbelief.
As the NY Post pointed out-and isn't it amazing how much reporting we're seeing after the fact of re-upping mayoral control?-everyone now is telling us candidly about the ersatz state tests: "Concerns were also voiced this week after a surge in test scores led 97 percent of elementary and middle schools to get A's or B's under city "report cards." "The money went up solely because the test scores went up and we do have questions about whether those increases in test scores are legitimate," said Aaron Pallas, professor of education at Columbia's Teachers College.
That is no simple flub; but an active collusion in a scam on the city's school children and their parents-one that a vigilant press should have been dramatizing all the way up to the eventual vote on mayoral control. And the ponying up of bonuses in this situation is really adding insult to injury; and while we're glad the the News and Post have called the DOE out-and where the hell is the Times on this?-it's time that the entire house of cards was brought down with an independent political review and forensic audit.
Making this fiscal profligacy and pedagogical mockery even worse is that, unlike in previous years, it will be the tax payers who foot this bill-on top of the already bloated education budget: "The $14 million in bonuses last year was financed in large part by private donations. For the 2008-9 year, the city is putting up the money."
Nice. But, we are also told that: "Teachers at 139 elementary and middle schools — more than 90 percent of the high-poverty schools eligible for the bonus program — will receive them. The program is a centerpiece of Chancellor Joel I. Klein’s goal of linking teacher pay to performance." Can any one say fruit of the poisonous tree?
So, what we apparently have, is an entire evaluative structure that is rotten from the source-test scores that, if they were pregnancy exams, would be called false positives. It is precisely why the educational structure itself needs to have the kind of strict and independent oversight that the current administration, and its claque of cheer leaders-arguing from bad faith-have called, "going back to the old Board of Ed."
But you really have to love department spokespersons-their skill and candor actually would give lobbyists a more favorable reputation if compared side by side. Here's how the DOE flack interprets the situation: "Phil Vaccaro, a representative of the education department’s accountability office who helped design the school grading system, said that the high number of bonuses for the 2008-9 year came as a surprise to education officials. “Either this incentive worked really, really well or we set the targets a bit too low for the schools,” Mr. Vaccaro said. “We are pleased they reached them and they deserve to be rewarded for it.”
Underscoring Vaccaro's astuteness is the fact that a number of schools getting high marks-and whose teachers raked in the bonus bucks-were, we kid you not, just recently on the DOE's endangered species list: "Seven schools that have been scheduled to close over the next several years, at least in part because of low performance, are to receive bonuses. Department officials say that grades are not the only factor in the decision to close schools; declining enrollment and other factors play roles."
We're waiting for Buster Keaton to become the next chancellor-only the fable slap stick artist could do justice to the comical turn being done by the educrats. And even the NY Daily News, following the NY Post's wide eyed wonder on the matter, have weighed in critically; and we sense the comparison to a game of three card monte: "Chancellor Joel Klein and Mayor Bloomberg get a D for this year's school report cards, which paint a Norman Rockwell picture of a school system that still has miles to go. Because of a bar unwisely set, and then stuck to, by the Education Department, fully 84% of elementary and middle schools in the city got A's - up from 38% in 2008."
The News, which joined with the Post-albeit in a slightly more muted fashion-in its promotion of the alleged Bloomberg Miracle, gets the empty headedness of all this: "The dramatic grade inflation has rendered 2009's reports nearly meaningless to thousands of parents who look to the summaries for guidance as to which schools serve kids best."
But, unfortunately, its not, "in for a penny, in for a pound," with the News' candor. The paper won't take the next step here; which is to expose the entire structure as a Potemkin Village that masks breathtaking accounting fraud. This is more than a simple card trick when the entire deck is riddled with marked cards. And the paper won't go after the real culprits-the cards sharks themselves: "Conspiracy-minded critics suggest that Bloomberg, in an election year, is playing fast and loose with numbers to get votes. Wrong. This was simply a big flub. One that must not happen again."
Which gets us back to the poisonous tree. As the Daily News reported; "DOE officials also said this week they will raise the bar on what schools must do to achieve an A on next year's report card. They are also supporting the state's efforts to raise the standards for the state exams."
Yet, at the same time, they tell us this: "DOE officials said that teachers and principals serving low-income and previously low-performing students successfully deserved the schoolwide bonuses. "They are our highest-needs schools," said DOE spokeswoman Ann Forte. "This year these schools made amazing progress."
And, isn't it a little late to call for higher state standards-after the mayor succeeds in his third term power grab? After all, critics have been pointing out the problem of watered down tests for years. The Bloomberg/Klein regime has been happy to style with these phony numbers for eight years-and the media amen chorus has acted just like good toadies by enthusiastically suspending their disbelief.
As the NY Post pointed out-and isn't it amazing how much reporting we're seeing after the fact of re-upping mayoral control?-everyone now is telling us candidly about the ersatz state tests: "Concerns were also voiced this week after a surge in test scores led 97 percent of elementary and middle schools to get A's or B's under city "report cards." "The money went up solely because the test scores went up and we do have questions about whether those increases in test scores are legitimate," said Aaron Pallas, professor of education at Columbia's Teachers College.
That is no simple flub; but an active collusion in a scam on the city's school children and their parents-one that a vigilant press should have been dramatizing all the way up to the eventual vote on mayoral control. And the ponying up of bonuses in this situation is really adding insult to injury; and while we're glad the the News and Post have called the DOE out-and where the hell is the Times on this?-it's time that the entire house of cards was brought down with an independent political review and forensic audit.
Conflicted
The NY Times has a report on the swirling number of potential conflicts at-incongruously-the Deparment of Investigation: "Ever since the New York City Charter was revised in 1989, public officials have been warned about trying to parlay their official positions into personal gain. And the powerful, if largely anonymous, body that keeps those officials in line, using the threat of hefty fines and even job termination, is the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board. But even as they scrutinize the ethics of others, several board members, all five of whom were appointed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, have ties to city funding and the mayor’s fortune that raise questions about their own potential conflicts."
How droll. But really, even though we think that the evidence of possible conflicts at the Department is instructive about the pernicious nature of Mike Bloomberg's monetary reach, we still feel that the story lacks real punch. The reason we say this, is because DOIs have never been real watchdogs of mayoral malfeasance-instead functioning as fig leafs for possible corrupt acts in almost every administration we have seen over the past thirty years.
And David Chen's story-while right on the mark in demonstrating just how the reach of Bloomberg's charitable dollars has the potential for polluting every kind of governmental process-should have spent a brief minute in reviewing the comical DOI decision to absolve Deputy Dan Doctoroff of any possible conflicts in his public dealings with Related's Steve Ross-and the merchants at the old Bronx Terminal Market can tell you how much sense that decision made.
As we wrote over four years ago: "The entire mess at the BTM and the role played by Deputy Dan would seem to compel a reevaluation of the original ruling by the NYC Conflict of Interest Board (COIB), the one that told Doctoroff that Steve Ross' assumption of his $4 million loan to NYC 2012 didn't constitute a conflict because:
'Mr. Ross' guarantee predates your city service [which it did by four days] and inasmuch as you do not, by virtue of his guarantee, have a business or financial relationship with Mr. Ross...'
The last four years exposes this ruling as a sham. In the first place, the Board failed to adequately evaluate the Deputy Mayor's ongoing relationship and commitment to NYC 2012; indeed the Committee continued to list Doctoroff as its founder on all of its communications, even after he had entered into public service. In addition, the Board itself recognized that Ross was "one of the most active members and fundraisers for NYC2012," a role he continued to play well into the Bloomberg mayoralty.
It should also be pointed out, as everyone would now acknowledge, that the goal of obtaining the Olympic bid was a primary economic development objective of the administration. As such, Doctoroff's relationship with Ross, or better yet, using the Board's term - his "association" (That sounds just like the Giuliani-inspired mob busting carting regulations) - must be viewed as ongoing and not "predating".
Read the entire post-and the only possible conclusion that can be drawn is this: If the ongoing Doctoroff/Ross relationship, one that ended up with the most sweetheart deal possible at the Terminal Market, couldn't be construed as a conflict, then there simply aren't any real conflicts to be investigated in the city. But that doesn't stop COIB from continuing to pretend. As the Times points out: "Nor did it help when the board allowed Joel I. Klein, the schools chancellor, to raise millions of dollars for his national nonprofit education group last fall using city resources and on city time. By contrast, the board fined Susan Finkenberg, who was a lawyer for the city’s Human Resources Administration, $1,500 last month for using her city-issued LexisNexis password to look up 31 people, including several law school classmates. “Personal, non-city purposes,” the board ruled."
And let's not forget the COIB vigilance in investigating our friend Mike Nieves. As we said at the time: "We were a little bemused by the news that the city's Conflict of Interest Board had "scolded" staffer supreme Mike Nieves for his supposed indiscretion in "representing" a landlord. . Leaving aside the actual facts in the case-that the landlord in question was a sixty-seven year old Hispanic woman who was being hassled by her tenant-it is a manifestation of extreme hypocrisy for this useless agency to say anything about Nieves."
And we concluded-alluding to the Ross/Doctoroff conflict: "In the ensuing four years Related has done very well indeed and there is clear evidence of its favored nation status in the awarding of any number of lucrative city contracts... So it seems to us that the COIB should have the decency to keep silent on anything but the most egregious violations in the realm of interest conflicts. After all, giving Doctoroff a pass entitles all but convicted felons the same privilege."
So, while the Times story is germane to the larger Bloomberg issue of how the mayor's vast fortune can easily become a corrosive force in a supposedly democratic polity, the COIB focus is a bit less than compelling. It is but a small symptom of the larger disease-and serves in a minor way to underscore the loss of real democratic decision making in the city where progressive politics should, you'd think, yield a more vigorous grass roots political process.
How droll. But really, even though we think that the evidence of possible conflicts at the Department is instructive about the pernicious nature of Mike Bloomberg's monetary reach, we still feel that the story lacks real punch. The reason we say this, is because DOIs have never been real watchdogs of mayoral malfeasance-instead functioning as fig leafs for possible corrupt acts in almost every administration we have seen over the past thirty years.
And David Chen's story-while right on the mark in demonstrating just how the reach of Bloomberg's charitable dollars has the potential for polluting every kind of governmental process-should have spent a brief minute in reviewing the comical DOI decision to absolve Deputy Dan Doctoroff of any possible conflicts in his public dealings with Related's Steve Ross-and the merchants at the old Bronx Terminal Market can tell you how much sense that decision made.
As we wrote over four years ago: "The entire mess at the BTM and the role played by Deputy Dan would seem to compel a reevaluation of the original ruling by the NYC Conflict of Interest Board (COIB), the one that told Doctoroff that Steve Ross' assumption of his $4 million loan to NYC 2012 didn't constitute a conflict because:
'Mr. Ross' guarantee predates your city service [which it did by four days] and inasmuch as you do not, by virtue of his guarantee, have a business or financial relationship with Mr. Ross...'
The last four years exposes this ruling as a sham. In the first place, the Board failed to adequately evaluate the Deputy Mayor's ongoing relationship and commitment to NYC 2012; indeed the Committee continued to list Doctoroff as its founder on all of its communications, even after he had entered into public service. In addition, the Board itself recognized that Ross was "one of the most active members and fundraisers for NYC2012," a role he continued to play well into the Bloomberg mayoralty.
It should also be pointed out, as everyone would now acknowledge, that the goal of obtaining the Olympic bid was a primary economic development objective of the administration. As such, Doctoroff's relationship with Ross, or better yet, using the Board's term - his "association" (That sounds just like the Giuliani-inspired mob busting carting regulations) - must be viewed as ongoing and not "predating".
Read the entire post-and the only possible conclusion that can be drawn is this: If the ongoing Doctoroff/Ross relationship, one that ended up with the most sweetheart deal possible at the Terminal Market, couldn't be construed as a conflict, then there simply aren't any real conflicts to be investigated in the city. But that doesn't stop COIB from continuing to pretend. As the Times points out: "Nor did it help when the board allowed Joel I. Klein, the schools chancellor, to raise millions of dollars for his national nonprofit education group last fall using city resources and on city time. By contrast, the board fined Susan Finkenberg, who was a lawyer for the city’s Human Resources Administration, $1,500 last month for using her city-issued LexisNexis password to look up 31 people, including several law school classmates. “Personal, non-city purposes,” the board ruled."
And let's not forget the COIB vigilance in investigating our friend Mike Nieves. As we said at the time: "We were a little bemused by the news that the city's Conflict of Interest Board had "scolded" staffer supreme Mike Nieves for his supposed indiscretion in "representing" a landlord. . Leaving aside the actual facts in the case-that the landlord in question was a sixty-seven year old Hispanic woman who was being hassled by her tenant-it is a manifestation of extreme hypocrisy for this useless agency to say anything about Nieves."
And we concluded-alluding to the Ross/Doctoroff conflict: "In the ensuing four years Related has done very well indeed and there is clear evidence of its favored nation status in the awarding of any number of lucrative city contracts... So it seems to us that the COIB should have the decency to keep silent on anything but the most egregious violations in the realm of interest conflicts. After all, giving Doctoroff a pass entitles all but convicted felons the same privilege."
So, while the Times story is germane to the larger Bloomberg issue of how the mayor's vast fortune can easily become a corrosive force in a supposedly democratic polity, the COIB focus is a bit less than compelling. It is but a small symptom of the larger disease-and serves in a minor way to underscore the loss of real democratic decision making in the city where progressive politics should, you'd think, yield a more vigorous grass roots political process.
Malling Related?
The Kingsbridge Armory fight raises a series of interesting questions-but there is one that really intrigues us: Can enough critical political mass be generated to prevent the Related Cos. from bullying its way to victory in its land use fight; one that steamrolls all of the opposition that has been generated over the development? Up until now, Related has simply had its way with its opponents-losing only once when the Alliance, and its labor allies, cleaned its clock over a BJs on Brush Avenue.
In all of its other battles, Related has been able to use its favored nation status with the Bloomberg/Doctoroff regime, to muscle its way to tax subsidized no-bid victory after traffic congested no-bid victory. It has gotten so badly wired at city hall, that one Bronx council member who did sign the "No supermarket" at Kingsbridge letter told Morty Sloan that it wouldn't do any good since Bloomberg would make sure that, "Related got whatever it asked for."
But now, a real coalition of opposition is building against the plans that Related has put forward on the Armory. It began with the companies slight-of-hand over the siting of a supermarket. As the NY Daily News put it: "The inclusion of a 60,000-square-foot supermarket in the project's environmental impact study sparked controversy because the armory is directly across the street from an existing supermarket, and the city's original request for proposals specifically sought to avoid projects that would compete with the existing local businesses. When the city selected Related as the winning bidder last year, the developer's proposal made no mention of a supermarket."
Then, the contentious issue over a CBA that includes a living wage provision, reared its ugly (from Related's view) head-with the Bronx BP Ruben Diaz leading the charge on behalf of a community coalition that includes the strong support of the RWDSU. The coalition has reached the conclusion that Related will remain intransigent over this provision-leading to the conclusion that the opposition will probably have to try to kill the Armory deal altogether.
Which raises the interesting question of whether it is possible to stop the Related express. It is, but it certainly won't be easy. It will entail mobilizing a wide range of supporters from labor and small business in order to put a full court press on the city council and its leadership-and, hopefully, with the active participation of an energized Thompson campaign. The theme of the effort should be: "No more sweetheart deals for Steve Ross and Related."
We are already seeing the Related gravy train in action down at the site of the old Bronx Terminal Market. Here's what Metro's Pat Arden wrote about that deal:
"Sweetheart deal” was the label critics attached to the $400 million Gateway Mall at the Bronx Terminal Market. How else to explain the tax breaks, cash grants, cheap rent and money-back guarantees that went to handpicked developer Stephen Ross of the Related Companies, a onetime business partner of former deputy mayor Daniel Doctoroff? Now, add millions more to the tab: Taxpayers are on the hook to clean up land that was originally part of the project... In 2004, Related was supposed to pay for a 2-acre Harlem River park, but it later agreed to transfer 7.5 acres of waterfront property to the city in exchange for a $2.5 million rent credit. The city needed part of this land to replace parks lost to the new Yankee Stadium, a Parks rep said. Last week, Parks officials said all the acreage is heavily polluted, pushing the cost of the new parks from $14 million to $56 million."
And how is this deal coming to fruition for the favored Bloomberg developer. As the NY Times has reported, business is booming: "Such was her exhilaration at the neighborhood’s new options that Keila Rivera, 32, a home health aide who lives a 10-minute walk away, visited the mall, at East 149th Street and River Avenue, every day for a week. She bought a Whirlpool washing machine at Home Depot; school supplies for her children, Rafael, 13, and Salsina, 12, at Staples; and clothes and pillowcases at Target. At BJ’s, she picked up bushels of food and cleaning supplies for her patient. “You only have to go inside, and you can find anything,” she said, eating some wings in BJ’s cafe."
Not, however, without collateral damages: "But local businesses fear losing customers, and there is concern even at the closest shopping nexus, at 149th Street and Third Avenue, made up of independent stores and a smattering of national chains." But one sure thing has been demonstrated: a mall can be uber-successful in the Bronx-and larding any large retail development with tax subsidies is a shameful misuse of those funds.
So, Related is in clover with its successful use of its own version of insider trading. Which brings us to Kingsbridge; and while there was the appearance of competitive bidding, those close to the situation know that the eventual winner was never in doubt. But what's of interest here is not that Related was once again favored by the Bloombergistas; but the subsequent goodies that the company was able to gobble up in the post-bid environment.
In the first place, Related was able to purchase the facility for only $5 million-and that's after the tax payers, courtesy of Assemblyman Jose Rivera, helped garner $30 million to rehab the Armory's roof. As the Norwood News reported: "Related is buying the entire historically-landmarked building for a mere $5 million and is set to receive about $50 million in tax breaks and subsidies for the project."
All of these favors and tax subsidies come at the expense of local shopping-at a time when neighborhood shops are struggling big time. The big winner, of course, is Related. But the larger issue, and the central one in the upcoming city council fight over the land use application, is whether the developer, who has benefited so much from the kindness of its friends in government, should be required to share its bounty with the workers at the new mall-the essence of the living wage battle.
And especially when the roaring success of its other mall has been amply demonstrated-underscoring that any retailer who comes to the proposed Shps at the Armory will do quite well, thank you. Paying the workers well is not a high risk venture.
We take it as a given that the supermarket will be excised from the project-but not without preparing to make sure it happens; but the more controversial living wage fight will likely go down to the wire. It's meaning shouldn't be downplayed, however. Are we going to be living in a city where the mayor, New York's richest citizen, is allowed to give carte blanche to his Park Avenue friends at the expense of working people-and struggling small businesses? That should be the theme song of the upcoming battle, a fight that can be won if the coalition that is mobilizing does everything that it needs to do to enlist the support of all of the members of the city council.
In all of its other battles, Related has been able to use its favored nation status with the Bloomberg/Doctoroff regime, to muscle its way to tax subsidized no-bid victory after traffic congested no-bid victory. It has gotten so badly wired at city hall, that one Bronx council member who did sign the "No supermarket" at Kingsbridge letter told Morty Sloan that it wouldn't do any good since Bloomberg would make sure that, "Related got whatever it asked for."
But now, a real coalition of opposition is building against the plans that Related has put forward on the Armory. It began with the companies slight-of-hand over the siting of a supermarket. As the NY Daily News put it: "The inclusion of a 60,000-square-foot supermarket in the project's environmental impact study sparked controversy because the armory is directly across the street from an existing supermarket, and the city's original request for proposals specifically sought to avoid projects that would compete with the existing local businesses. When the city selected Related as the winning bidder last year, the developer's proposal made no mention of a supermarket."
Then, the contentious issue over a CBA that includes a living wage provision, reared its ugly (from Related's view) head-with the Bronx BP Ruben Diaz leading the charge on behalf of a community coalition that includes the strong support of the RWDSU. The coalition has reached the conclusion that Related will remain intransigent over this provision-leading to the conclusion that the opposition will probably have to try to kill the Armory deal altogether.
Which raises the interesting question of whether it is possible to stop the Related express. It is, but it certainly won't be easy. It will entail mobilizing a wide range of supporters from labor and small business in order to put a full court press on the city council and its leadership-and, hopefully, with the active participation of an energized Thompson campaign. The theme of the effort should be: "No more sweetheart deals for Steve Ross and Related."
We are already seeing the Related gravy train in action down at the site of the old Bronx Terminal Market. Here's what Metro's Pat Arden wrote about that deal:
"Sweetheart deal” was the label critics attached to the $400 million Gateway Mall at the Bronx Terminal Market. How else to explain the tax breaks, cash grants, cheap rent and money-back guarantees that went to handpicked developer Stephen Ross of the Related Companies, a onetime business partner of former deputy mayor Daniel Doctoroff? Now, add millions more to the tab: Taxpayers are on the hook to clean up land that was originally part of the project... In 2004, Related was supposed to pay for a 2-acre Harlem River park, but it later agreed to transfer 7.5 acres of waterfront property to the city in exchange for a $2.5 million rent credit. The city needed part of this land to replace parks lost to the new Yankee Stadium, a Parks rep said. Last week, Parks officials said all the acreage is heavily polluted, pushing the cost of the new parks from $14 million to $56 million."
And how is this deal coming to fruition for the favored Bloomberg developer. As the NY Times has reported, business is booming: "Such was her exhilaration at the neighborhood’s new options that Keila Rivera, 32, a home health aide who lives a 10-minute walk away, visited the mall, at East 149th Street and River Avenue, every day for a week. She bought a Whirlpool washing machine at Home Depot; school supplies for her children, Rafael, 13, and Salsina, 12, at Staples; and clothes and pillowcases at Target. At BJ’s, she picked up bushels of food and cleaning supplies for her patient. “You only have to go inside, and you can find anything,” she said, eating some wings in BJ’s cafe."
Not, however, without collateral damages: "But local businesses fear losing customers, and there is concern even at the closest shopping nexus, at 149th Street and Third Avenue, made up of independent stores and a smattering of national chains." But one sure thing has been demonstrated: a mall can be uber-successful in the Bronx-and larding any large retail development with tax subsidies is a shameful misuse of those funds.
So, Related is in clover with its successful use of its own version of insider trading. Which brings us to Kingsbridge; and while there was the appearance of competitive bidding, those close to the situation know that the eventual winner was never in doubt. But what's of interest here is not that Related was once again favored by the Bloombergistas; but the subsequent goodies that the company was able to gobble up in the post-bid environment.
In the first place, Related was able to purchase the facility for only $5 million-and that's after the tax payers, courtesy of Assemblyman Jose Rivera, helped garner $30 million to rehab the Armory's roof. As the Norwood News reported: "Related is buying the entire historically-landmarked building for a mere $5 million and is set to receive about $50 million in tax breaks and subsidies for the project."
All of these favors and tax subsidies come at the expense of local shopping-at a time when neighborhood shops are struggling big time. The big winner, of course, is Related. But the larger issue, and the central one in the upcoming city council fight over the land use application, is whether the developer, who has benefited so much from the kindness of its friends in government, should be required to share its bounty with the workers at the new mall-the essence of the living wage battle.
And especially when the roaring success of its other mall has been amply demonstrated-underscoring that any retailer who comes to the proposed Shps at the Armory will do quite well, thank you. Paying the workers well is not a high risk venture.
We take it as a given that the supermarket will be excised from the project-but not without preparing to make sure it happens; but the more controversial living wage fight will likely go down to the wire. It's meaning shouldn't be downplayed, however. Are we going to be living in a city where the mayor, New York's richest citizen, is allowed to give carte blanche to his Park Avenue friends at the expense of working people-and struggling small businesses? That should be the theme song of the upcoming battle, a fight that can be won if the coalition that is mobilizing does everything that it needs to do to enlist the support of all of the members of the city council.
Friday, September 04, 2009
Ruben Reads Related the Riot Act
The Bronx News Network is reporting that Bronx BP, Ruben Diaz Jr., has come out against the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory-and digs at former BP Carrion at the same time:
"We just got a press release from Borough President Ruben Diaz announcing that the will recommend a "no" vote to the City Planning Commission on the Kingsbridge Armory project. His chief reason for giving the thumbs down is that the city's chosen developer, the Related Companies, has not yet agreed to the terms of a community benefits agreement...Diaz's decision represents a monumental sea change compared with his predecessor, Adolfo Carrion, Jr., who was widely criticized for minimizing community involvement in the Gateway Mall and Yankee Stadium negotiations and exacting meager community benefits from developers and the city in return for supporting those projects."
Indeed it does represent a sharp shift from the craven Carrion whose actions around the Gateway project were nothing less than shameful. But, the Carrion issue aside, what does the Diaz decision mean for this project? As BNN reminds us: "Now the focus shifts to Related and the City Council. Will Related negotiate? Will Council members support the project if they don't? This issue is particularly likely to loom large in the Council primaries in the 11th and 14th Districts, where Oliver Koppell and Maria Baez will cast important votes that are sure to guide others from around the borough and the rest of the city."
Of course, the key issues are the supermarket exclusion and a living wage provision. Here's part of the BP's press release on these topics: "Several weeks ago, Borough President Diaz’s office submitted a draft community benefits agreement to the developer in hopes of negotiating the terms of that document with the Related Companies in advance of the borough president’s submission to the City Planning Commission. That document includes provisions concerning a living wage policy, first source and local hiring, various economic development initiatives, labor peace and the ability of employees at the retail development to unionize...The draft community benefits agreement also calls for a supermarket or big-box warehouse club to be excluded from the development."
So the gauntlet has been laid down, and the question remaining to be answered is how will the BP's position be transposed in the City Council negotiations surrounding the Armory. One thing that is clear, however, the days of the total appeasement of Related may soon be over. We expect that Bill Thompson will jump all over this-and the City Planning hearing on the 9th should provoke some fireworks.
"We just got a press release from Borough President Ruben Diaz announcing that the will recommend a "no" vote to the City Planning Commission on the Kingsbridge Armory project. His chief reason for giving the thumbs down is that the city's chosen developer, the Related Companies, has not yet agreed to the terms of a community benefits agreement...Diaz's decision represents a monumental sea change compared with his predecessor, Adolfo Carrion, Jr., who was widely criticized for minimizing community involvement in the Gateway Mall and Yankee Stadium negotiations and exacting meager community benefits from developers and the city in return for supporting those projects."
Indeed it does represent a sharp shift from the craven Carrion whose actions around the Gateway project were nothing less than shameful. But, the Carrion issue aside, what does the Diaz decision mean for this project? As BNN reminds us: "Now the focus shifts to Related and the City Council. Will Related negotiate? Will Council members support the project if they don't? This issue is particularly likely to loom large in the Council primaries in the 11th and 14th Districts, where Oliver Koppell and Maria Baez will cast important votes that are sure to guide others from around the borough and the rest of the city."
Of course, the key issues are the supermarket exclusion and a living wage provision. Here's part of the BP's press release on these topics: "Several weeks ago, Borough President Diaz’s office submitted a draft community benefits agreement to the developer in hopes of negotiating the terms of that document with the Related Companies in advance of the borough president’s submission to the City Planning Commission. That document includes provisions concerning a living wage policy, first source and local hiring, various economic development initiatives, labor peace and the ability of employees at the retail development to unionize...The draft community benefits agreement also calls for a supermarket or big-box warehouse club to be excluded from the development."
So the gauntlet has been laid down, and the question remaining to be answered is how will the BP's position be transposed in the City Council negotiations surrounding the Armory. One thing that is clear, however, the days of the total appeasement of Related may soon be over. We expect that Bill Thompson will jump all over this-and the City Planning hearing on the 9th should provoke some fireworks.
Posting Up the DOE
Well, the bloom certainly came off the DOE rose pretty quickly for the editorialists at the NY Post, didn't it? It seems as if the fact that over 97% of all the city schools received an "A" or a "B" grade doesn't sit all that well over at the paper; and we wonder if they're having some second thoughts about the way they shamelessly supported the purported Bloomberg Miracle: "The city Department of Education this week released letter grades scoring each of the New York's public elementary and middle schools -- and it turns out that nearly every one of them is above average. Indeed, the results simply beggar the imagination. Of the thousand-plus schools graded, nearly 900, or 85 percent, scored an A -- up from fewer than 400 last year. A mere 27 received C's, D's or F's."
It appears that these grades are like those anomalous SAT test scores that show someone jumping hundreds of points from one exam to the next-can any one say, "Re-test?" But the Post has some 'splaining to do: "We know the schools are improving, but that's a little ridiculous.
When Schools Chancellor Joel Klein unveiled the grading system two years ago, he touted it as a revolutionary new way to measure overall student progress -- and hold principals accountable for it. A worthy goal -- but not many can be shaking in their boots this year. And what does a top grade even mean, if nearly every school in the system "earns" one?"
And the Post discovers something that, if it had only looked and listened, would have seen right in front of their eyes. After all, critics were screaming (and on the Post's own Op-ed page) about the watered down state tests; but the paper wasn't listening, concerned as it was in getting the mayor's school governance package passed: "What's really going on here is unclear. The formula that determines school grades is enormously complex, but it relies heavily on students' progress on state tests. If those are getting watered down, school grades would jump unbidden. DOE officials admit they'd rather have fewer A's -- so as to better distinguish improving and worsening schools. Glad to hear that -- because as it stands now, the grades convey nearly no useful information whatsoever. Worse: A system that puts out results so contrary to plain common sense actively undermines confidence in Klein's generally worthy reforms."
But before the Post points any fingers, it needs to do a little soul searching of its own. After all, didn't the paper excoriate state senators for opposing the mayoral scheme-and do so by pointing out the rising test scores in the senators' districts? And shouldn't the Post now encourage the state senate oversight committee to insure that real transparency and accountability is now in place? It would be the right thing to do if one were somewhat concerned with previously over the top triumphalism.
And the Post should also now get after-with the same kind of zeal it has shown in the past-the state testing regime. The NY Times underscores the problem today: "The huge increase in the number of top marks on the city report cards — 97 percent of schools received an A or B, up from 79 percent in 2008 — was driven by broad gains on state standardized tests in math and English. This year, the number of students who met state standards jumped to 82 percent in math, compared with 74 percent last year. In English, 69 percent of students passed, up from 58 percent."
And the DOE, for its part, didn't adjust its grading system to the new watered down reality-giving credence to yesterday's remark of one school principal: "Do you think its any accident that its an election year?" scoffed one Brooklyn principal. "This is a game." The DOE knew what it was doing-and wanted the inflated test scores so it could style in the year that mayoral control was up for renewal-and the NY Post played along like a useful idiot.
Here's the money quote from the Times story: "The annual A through F grades measure how much students improved at a school, based on performance on the tests for the last three years. So this year, with large improvements on state tests far surpassing the jumps from previous years, many schools received far better grades. The city set the standards for the grades last year and has not changed them, despite the huge gains in state tests."
Why adjust when you can posture and get a willing claque of media cheer leaders to go along? State Chancellor Tisch gets this: "State education officials are also sensitive to criticism that their benchmarks have lost some of their meaning. Merryl H. Tisch, the chancellor of the State Board of Regents, has said that she hopes to make changes to the tests this year. Dr. Tisch said Thursday that the huge number of high grades was “one more indicator why we need to address the testing issue as quickly as possible.” All you need to do is understand that when you are telling parents that all of our schools are A’s and B’s or that all of our students are proficient, we are not providing a clear view of what is really happening in a school or with a student,” she said. “We need to raise the standards.”
Sorry for our misunderstanding, but we thought that this was already being done under the mayor's miraculous transformation-or, should we say, immaculate deception? The task ahead is to insure that there are legitimate benchmarks so that the progress in the schools can be accurately measured. Once those are in place-and the reality sets in-we wonder how magnificent the tax dollars on steroids Bloomberg/Klein tenure will end up looking?
It appears that these grades are like those anomalous SAT test scores that show someone jumping hundreds of points from one exam to the next-can any one say, "Re-test?" But the Post has some 'splaining to do: "We know the schools are improving, but that's a little ridiculous.
When Schools Chancellor Joel Klein unveiled the grading system two years ago, he touted it as a revolutionary new way to measure overall student progress -- and hold principals accountable for it. A worthy goal -- but not many can be shaking in their boots this year. And what does a top grade even mean, if nearly every school in the system "earns" one?"
And the Post discovers something that, if it had only looked and listened, would have seen right in front of their eyes. After all, critics were screaming (and on the Post's own Op-ed page) about the watered down state tests; but the paper wasn't listening, concerned as it was in getting the mayor's school governance package passed: "What's really going on here is unclear. The formula that determines school grades is enormously complex, but it relies heavily on students' progress on state tests. If those are getting watered down, school grades would jump unbidden. DOE officials admit they'd rather have fewer A's -- so as to better distinguish improving and worsening schools. Glad to hear that -- because as it stands now, the grades convey nearly no useful information whatsoever. Worse: A system that puts out results so contrary to plain common sense actively undermines confidence in Klein's generally worthy reforms."
But before the Post points any fingers, it needs to do a little soul searching of its own. After all, didn't the paper excoriate state senators for opposing the mayoral scheme-and do so by pointing out the rising test scores in the senators' districts? And shouldn't the Post now encourage the state senate oversight committee to insure that real transparency and accountability is now in place? It would be the right thing to do if one were somewhat concerned with previously over the top triumphalism.
And the Post should also now get after-with the same kind of zeal it has shown in the past-the state testing regime. The NY Times underscores the problem today: "The huge increase in the number of top marks on the city report cards — 97 percent of schools received an A or B, up from 79 percent in 2008 — was driven by broad gains on state standardized tests in math and English. This year, the number of students who met state standards jumped to 82 percent in math, compared with 74 percent last year. In English, 69 percent of students passed, up from 58 percent."
And the DOE, for its part, didn't adjust its grading system to the new watered down reality-giving credence to yesterday's remark of one school principal: "Do you think its any accident that its an election year?" scoffed one Brooklyn principal. "This is a game." The DOE knew what it was doing-and wanted the inflated test scores so it could style in the year that mayoral control was up for renewal-and the NY Post played along like a useful idiot.
Here's the money quote from the Times story: "The annual A through F grades measure how much students improved at a school, based on performance on the tests for the last three years. So this year, with large improvements on state tests far surpassing the jumps from previous years, many schools received far better grades. The city set the standards for the grades last year and has not changed them, despite the huge gains in state tests."
Why adjust when you can posture and get a willing claque of media cheer leaders to go along? State Chancellor Tisch gets this: "State education officials are also sensitive to criticism that their benchmarks have lost some of their meaning. Merryl H. Tisch, the chancellor of the State Board of Regents, has said that she hopes to make changes to the tests this year. Dr. Tisch said Thursday that the huge number of high grades was “one more indicator why we need to address the testing issue as quickly as possible.” All you need to do is understand that when you are telling parents that all of our schools are A’s and B’s or that all of our students are proficient, we are not providing a clear view of what is really happening in a school or with a student,” she said. “We need to raise the standards.”
Sorry for our misunderstanding, but we thought that this was already being done under the mayor's miraculous transformation-or, should we say, immaculate deception? The task ahead is to insure that there are legitimate benchmarks so that the progress in the schools can be accurately measured. Once those are in place-and the reality sets in-we wonder how magnificent the tax dollars on steroids Bloomberg/Klein tenure will end up looking?
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Obama and Bill Clinton
Steve Kornacki's latest observation in the Observer about President Obama's waning popularity, has a grain of truth-but only a grain; and it is important to separate the wheat from the chaff. Kornacki likens Obama's current slippage to Clinton's even greater loss of popularity-a loss that lead to the Republican revolution in 1994: "Pardon me for not getting too worked up about the Stunning Decline In Barack Obama’s Poll Numbers...Back then, the pundits were sounding the alarm about President Bill Clinton’s appalling poll numbers: a 44 percent approval rating, or—as every media outlet made sure to note—the worst score for a first year president since modern polling began during the Eisenhower administration."
Wild Bill did make a dramatic comeback; but not before being battered: "Clinton had introduced the budget plan in February, not long after taking office. Initially, the public reacted favorably. But marching in lockstep, Republicans relentlessly battered it as a jobs-killing enemy of economic recovery. They also screamed about the process, insisting that the White House and Congressional Democrats were force-feeding Americans a bill they didn’t need or want.The result was predictable: Week after week in the spring and summer of ’93, public support for Clinton’s budget dropped, and with it support for Clinton’s presidency."
So, how did he come back? "And then came the Republican Revolution of 1994, after which everyone agreed that Clinton would be thrashed in 1996, unless he had the good judgment to get out of the way before then. But by 1995, the public’s confidence in the economy had turned around and—not surprisingly—voters came to see their president in a new light. The seeds planted in the summer of ’93 were sprouting. (It didn’t hurt that Newt Gingrich and the Congressional Republicans badly overplayed their hand in budget negotiations, accelerating Clinton’s comeback.) The rest is history."
But, Kornacki's history is plagued by a selective memory-and if the Obama folks simply follow Steve along this garden path, they will court disaster. What is left out in this lacuna-laced lesson is the actual strategy Clinton took after the defeat of 1994. His former speech writer explains: "We were wasted with exhaustion, but Bill Clinton smiled and declared: "This could be liberating." It was nearly midnight on Election Day, Nov. 8, 1994. The president's party had just lost control of the House and Senate, hardly a time to be smiling or feeling liberated. President Clinton had too much sense to explain it out loud. But, walking with him down a White House ramp from the roof-top solarium to the family quarters, I thought I understood what he meant: The voters had given him leave from the leaders of his own party, who had pulled the president in directions -- mostly left of center -- that kept him from proving his claim to be a "different kind of Democrat."
And Clinton demonstrated this clearly to an approving electorate: "And it turned out that Clinton was spot on about the politics of it. The loss of Congress opened the way to pursue a more centrist approach, enabling him two years later to become the first Democratic president in 60 years to win a second term."
This observation is ratified by former Clinton advisor Dick Morris in his most recent column analyzing the Obama slide: "It now looks like health-care reform will cripple the Obama presidency, as it did Bill Clinton’s in 1993. Of course, Clinton was able to move to the center and secure re-election in 1996. But can a true believer like Obama do the same?"
So, Kornacki could be right, but that would depend on what the president does in response to his slippage. Anything can happen-and Obama has plenty of time to right the ship. How he tries to do this will determine the outcome.
Wild Bill did make a dramatic comeback; but not before being battered: "Clinton had introduced the budget plan in February, not long after taking office. Initially, the public reacted favorably. But marching in lockstep, Republicans relentlessly battered it as a jobs-killing enemy of economic recovery. They also screamed about the process, insisting that the White House and Congressional Democrats were force-feeding Americans a bill they didn’t need or want.The result was predictable: Week after week in the spring and summer of ’93, public support for Clinton’s budget dropped, and with it support for Clinton’s presidency."
So, how did he come back? "And then came the Republican Revolution of 1994, after which everyone agreed that Clinton would be thrashed in 1996, unless he had the good judgment to get out of the way before then. But by 1995, the public’s confidence in the economy had turned around and—not surprisingly—voters came to see their president in a new light. The seeds planted in the summer of ’93 were sprouting. (It didn’t hurt that Newt Gingrich and the Congressional Republicans badly overplayed their hand in budget negotiations, accelerating Clinton’s comeback.) The rest is history."
But, Kornacki's history is plagued by a selective memory-and if the Obama folks simply follow Steve along this garden path, they will court disaster. What is left out in this lacuna-laced lesson is the actual strategy Clinton took after the defeat of 1994. His former speech writer explains: "We were wasted with exhaustion, but Bill Clinton smiled and declared: "This could be liberating." It was nearly midnight on Election Day, Nov. 8, 1994. The president's party had just lost control of the House and Senate, hardly a time to be smiling or feeling liberated. President Clinton had too much sense to explain it out loud. But, walking with him down a White House ramp from the roof-top solarium to the family quarters, I thought I understood what he meant: The voters had given him leave from the leaders of his own party, who had pulled the president in directions -- mostly left of center -- that kept him from proving his claim to be a "different kind of Democrat."
And Clinton demonstrated this clearly to an approving electorate: "And it turned out that Clinton was spot on about the politics of it. The loss of Congress opened the way to pursue a more centrist approach, enabling him two years later to become the first Democratic president in 60 years to win a second term."
This observation is ratified by former Clinton advisor Dick Morris in his most recent column analyzing the Obama slide: "It now looks like health-care reform will cripple the Obama presidency, as it did Bill Clinton’s in 1993. Of course, Clinton was able to move to the center and secure re-election in 1996. But can a true believer like Obama do the same?"
So, Kornacki could be right, but that would depend on what the president does in response to his slippage. Anything can happen-and Obama has plenty of time to right the ship. How he tries to do this will determine the outcome.
Ending Tax Subsidized Wage Slavery
Errol Louis has a provocative piece in today's NY Daily News on what he calls, "the, gloves off economy." It refers to the increasingly prevalent tactics of creating, "permatemps," workers without a real living wage or proper benefits. Here's what the gloives off term really means: "The term, used as the title of a new book and a pair of studies released this week, describes a bareknuckled attack on basic employment laws in one industry after another. It's when employees aren't given sick days or even bathroom breaks, or get paid less than the minimum wage. It's when low-wage workers are illegally classified as "managers" in order to deny them overtime."
And our buddies at Wal-Mart have been pioneers in this field: "The best estimates suggest the phenomenon is widespread, affecting millions of people. A 2006 study by the Center for a Changing Workforce estimated more than 3.3 million people are "permatemps," long-term employees improperly classified as contractors or temps. That's what happened with Wal-Mart, which in 2008 settled cases in 42 states by paying $352 million in stolen wages owed to hundreds of thousands of current and former employees forced to work, without pay, after the end of their shifts."
But, as Louis points out, so-called real jobs have also begun to take on the same hue as their gloves off cousins: "Millions more toil away in industries, including janitorial services, security firms, food service and garment businesses, that are based on providing lousy wages and standards."
Which brings us naturally to the RWDSU's battle over the Kingsbridge Armory. We refer to the union's efforts to insure that when projects are tax subsidized, the jobs that are created will be those with the kind of wages and benefits that can support a family. As union head Stuart Appelbaum has said: "I don't buy that assumption," said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union. "It's not a matter of whether it's going to be profitable, but the size of the profit they will make." Living wage advocates point to the $40 million in city taxpayer money subsidizing the armory project in the form of tax breaks and city-funded repairs. "If they are taking from government," said Appelbaum, "they have to give back to the community."
Related, the developer of the mall project has been dragging its feet over this requirement-citing the fact that retailers will balk at locating in the development if they are required to raise their lower wage standards. We wonder. If the breathless cheer leading over Related's other mall project two miles south is any indication, the retailers should be knocking down the doors to get into this supposedly untapped market-and be willling to pay employees the living wage that the union's fighting for.
As the NY Times reported this week, retail business at the new mall is brisk-with one anti-union, poor wage package store crowing about how good things are: "Antonio Ramos, general manager of BJ’s Wholesale Club, which opened Aug. 1 and requires shoppers to become members, said his store was attaining “phenomenal membership numbers,” far exceeding expectations."
So Louis is right on target here-and the "Shops at the Armory" project should be his poster child. If Related can't live with the living wage requirement they should, in Bob Kappstatter's words, simply go home: ""It's time the city - led by the Bronx delegation in the City Council - draws a line in the sand and tells Related it needs to accept that make-or-break provision in a community benefits agreement now being hammered out by Borough President Ruben Diaz and community stakeholders. We can't see any great loss if the armory sits vacant until another developer - maybe one of the two that lost out in the original bid process - comes back to the table and accepts the terms. Oh, and, by the way, George Steinbrenner never did move his team to Jersey."
Related is making a killing from its Gateway sweetheart deal-one that makes the Armory's $5 million sale price look as if the city itself was short changed. Now it is using tens of millions of tax dollars to make the Armory development even more lucrative for the company. If so, they need to pony up for the workers. We'll give Errol Louis the last word: "We cannot build a healthy economy if millions are working for wages that leave them in perpetual poverty, unable to afford a car, a home or a decent education for their children."
And our buddies at Wal-Mart have been pioneers in this field: "The best estimates suggest the phenomenon is widespread, affecting millions of people. A 2006 study by the Center for a Changing Workforce estimated more than 3.3 million people are "permatemps," long-term employees improperly classified as contractors or temps. That's what happened with Wal-Mart, which in 2008 settled cases in 42 states by paying $352 million in stolen wages owed to hundreds of thousands of current and former employees forced to work, without pay, after the end of their shifts."
But, as Louis points out, so-called real jobs have also begun to take on the same hue as their gloves off cousins: "Millions more toil away in industries, including janitorial services, security firms, food service and garment businesses, that are based on providing lousy wages and standards."
Which brings us naturally to the RWDSU's battle over the Kingsbridge Armory. We refer to the union's efforts to insure that when projects are tax subsidized, the jobs that are created will be those with the kind of wages and benefits that can support a family. As union head Stuart Appelbaum has said: "I don't buy that assumption," said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union. "It's not a matter of whether it's going to be profitable, but the size of the profit they will make." Living wage advocates point to the $40 million in city taxpayer money subsidizing the armory project in the form of tax breaks and city-funded repairs. "If they are taking from government," said Appelbaum, "they have to give back to the community."
Related, the developer of the mall project has been dragging its feet over this requirement-citing the fact that retailers will balk at locating in the development if they are required to raise their lower wage standards. We wonder. If the breathless cheer leading over Related's other mall project two miles south is any indication, the retailers should be knocking down the doors to get into this supposedly untapped market-and be willling to pay employees the living wage that the union's fighting for.
As the NY Times reported this week, retail business at the new mall is brisk-with one anti-union, poor wage package store crowing about how good things are: "Antonio Ramos, general manager of BJ’s Wholesale Club, which opened Aug. 1 and requires shoppers to become members, said his store was attaining “phenomenal membership numbers,” far exceeding expectations."
So Louis is right on target here-and the "Shops at the Armory" project should be his poster child. If Related can't live with the living wage requirement they should, in Bob Kappstatter's words, simply go home: ""It's time the city - led by the Bronx delegation in the City Council - draws a line in the sand and tells Related it needs to accept that make-or-break provision in a community benefits agreement now being hammered out by Borough President Ruben Diaz and community stakeholders. We can't see any great loss if the armory sits vacant until another developer - maybe one of the two that lost out in the original bid process - comes back to the table and accepts the terms. Oh, and, by the way, George Steinbrenner never did move his team to Jersey."
Related is making a killing from its Gateway sweetheart deal-one that makes the Armory's $5 million sale price look as if the city itself was short changed. Now it is using tens of millions of tax dollars to make the Armory development even more lucrative for the company. If so, they need to pony up for the workers. We'll give Errol Louis the last word: "We cannot build a healthy economy if millions are working for wages that leave them in perpetual poverty, unable to afford a car, a home or a decent education for their children."
New York : "If You Can Fake it There, You Can Fake it Anywhere"
We almost missed the NY Post's excellent story on the school grade inflation scam-but the paper gets right to the nub of the issue with its report of the complaints of a number of school principals: "Do you think its any accident that its an election year?" scoffed one Brooklyn principal. "This is a game." Other principals complained that the love-you-all grading system diminished the significance of a high mark. "You work so hard and then you look and see that 85 percent of schools are A's," said a Brooklyn principal. "It's not like 'Wow!' for me anymore because this year everyone got A's, more or less." The grades are determined largely by schools meeting benchmarks of student performance and state math and reading tests."
And Comptroller Bill Thompson wasn't having any of this faux success party: "City Comptroller Bill Thompson, a mayoral candidate, blasted Mayor Bloomberg for the grading curve -- which comes when nearly a third of tested middle and elementary school kids can't read at grade level. "Once again today's schools success story is based on the world according to Bloomberg, not the reality that our students are graduating unprepared," said Thompson, a former school board president. "Bloomberg would rather inflate these numbers and falsely claim success at the expense of kids being educated."
And the Post, the paper that spent the better part of a year championing the "Bloomberg Miracle," expresses astonishment about all of this grade inflation as well: "Talk about a learning curve. An astonishing 97 percent of the city's public and elementary schools earned an A or B "report card" grade from the Department of Education yesterday -- an appraisal so unbelievably rosy that it elicited immediate allegations that the numbers were fixed."
So, what should be done about this disgraceful display of ersatz evaluation? In our view, the need for some real oversight is compelling-and the state senate appears to be the only place where this could actually happen; that is, if its special oversight committee ever gets off the ground. And it seems that even Joel Klein is hedging.
As the Chancellor told the Post: "In the face of the jaw-dropping results -- including every school in District 25 in Queens earning an A this year -- Schools Chancellor Joel Klein emphasized that a high grade was not synonymous with total success. "We want to make clear that that reflects that [schools] met their progress targets," he said. "It doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that those are schools that don't have a lot of improvement ahead of them."
So why not just skip the grade charade altogether? And isn't it sad, that the Post-and the Daily News as well-with excellent education beat reporters, spent all of the run up to the mayoral control decision editorially vamping for Mike Bloomberg. Now, after the dust has settled, we get comical grade inflation that obfuscates even further the failure of the current system-with its billions of additional dollars-to really transform the educational life of the city's school kids.
And the shame of the tabloids in this matter is the degree to which they used the tests-and allowed Mike Bloomberg to huff and puff them-in order to extol the merits of a governance system that is inherently flawed. We'll give the Post the last word on these test scores: "But scores on those tests have risen so substantially in recent years that the state has already committed to raising the benchmarks needed to pass them."
And Comptroller Bill Thompson wasn't having any of this faux success party: "City Comptroller Bill Thompson, a mayoral candidate, blasted Mayor Bloomberg for the grading curve -- which comes when nearly a third of tested middle and elementary school kids can't read at grade level. "Once again today's schools success story is based on the world according to Bloomberg, not the reality that our students are graduating unprepared," said Thompson, a former school board president. "Bloomberg would rather inflate these numbers and falsely claim success at the expense of kids being educated."
And the Post, the paper that spent the better part of a year championing the "Bloomberg Miracle," expresses astonishment about all of this grade inflation as well: "Talk about a learning curve. An astonishing 97 percent of the city's public and elementary schools earned an A or B "report card" grade from the Department of Education yesterday -- an appraisal so unbelievably rosy that it elicited immediate allegations that the numbers were fixed."
So, what should be done about this disgraceful display of ersatz evaluation? In our view, the need for some real oversight is compelling-and the state senate appears to be the only place where this could actually happen; that is, if its special oversight committee ever gets off the ground. And it seems that even Joel Klein is hedging.
As the Chancellor told the Post: "In the face of the jaw-dropping results -- including every school in District 25 in Queens earning an A this year -- Schools Chancellor Joel Klein emphasized that a high grade was not synonymous with total success. "We want to make clear that that reflects that [schools] met their progress targets," he said. "It doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that those are schools that don't have a lot of improvement ahead of them."
So why not just skip the grade charade altogether? And isn't it sad, that the Post-and the Daily News as well-with excellent education beat reporters, spent all of the run up to the mayoral control decision editorially vamping for Mike Bloomberg. Now, after the dust has settled, we get comical grade inflation that obfuscates even further the failure of the current system-with its billions of additional dollars-to really transform the educational life of the city's school kids.
And the shame of the tabloids in this matter is the degree to which they used the tests-and allowed Mike Bloomberg to huff and puff them-in order to extol the merits of a governance system that is inherently flawed. We'll give the Post the last word on these test scores: "But scores on those tests have risen so substantially in recent years that the state has already committed to raising the benchmarks needed to pass them."
Re-Markable Scores, Klein Testy
If any one can really make heads or tails out of the latest school grades released by the DOE-well, good luck. It has a bit of the old, "The operation was a success, but the patient died," quality to it. As the NY Times reports, 97% of all of the city schools received either an A or a B on the latest round of evaluations: "The news could have been cause for a huge celebration: a whopping 97 percent of New York’s elementary and middle schools earning an A or B on the city’s annual report card. Yet Chancellor Joel I. Klein was tempered in his praise, careful to say that the high marks did not necessarily mean that the city was filled with excellent schools."
What the grades do mean, then, escapes us: "We want to make clear that that means that they met their progress targets,” Mr. Klein said, a tad defensively, at a news conference at Public School 189 in Washington Heights on Wednesday. “Not by any stretch of the imagination that those schools don’t have a lot of improvement ahead of them.” At the same time, when asked if there was something wrong with a grading system in which nearly every school earned top marks — 889 of the 1,058 graded schools got A’s, and just two received F’s — he clearly took pride in the results. “If you’re asking whether I would rather see less A’s,” he said, “the answer is no.”
Boy, this is really so confusing. If the grades are not precise indicators, and, "a lot of improvement," is still needed, why the fanfare over these grades? And the rising grades simply encourages skepticism about the entire grading scheme-kinda like the questionable standardized test scores that gets Klein all chest puffy. As the Times points out: "Suddenly, New York City looks like Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average — or like the Ivy League, noted for grade inflation that makes, say, a B-minus seem like the new F."
And, as the the NY Daily News also indicates: "All of last year's F schools got A's or B's this year, including PS 8 in Brooklyn Heights, which scored an A. Last year's failing grade for the popular school caused critics to question whether report cards were a fair reflection of school achievement. The DOE faces criticism over report cards because they rely heavily on standardized test scores, which account for 85% of the letter grade. The high number of A's this year was also criticized because experts have said the state tests are getting easier to pass. State Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch has promised reform - with improvement expected on next year's exams. Klein pledged to support the move."
To us, this is a case of a rising tide lifting all mopes; and the Times also weighs in on the grade inflation: "Daniel Koretz, a professor who focuses on testing and accountability issues at the Harvard School of Education, said it was hard to come to any clear conclusions about schools or the system by looking at the grades. It is even harder, he added, because so many questions have been raised about whether the state’s math and reading tests had become easier in recent years. “The agnostics are right: We just don’t know what’s going on right now,” he said. “The problem is we are stuck with this. We really have no second measure.”
And we are stuck, it seems, with the Bloomberg/Klein educational regime-and the release of the NAEP scores this fall should underscore this false positive test system. These more reliable scores are the second measure that the DOE boosters want us to ignore. But the mayor's proposed allocation of an additional $50 million to the city's community colleges gives us the distinct impression that, for all the extra money that is being pumped into the school system operation, the patients are still dying.
What the grades do mean, then, escapes us: "We want to make clear that that means that they met their progress targets,” Mr. Klein said, a tad defensively, at a news conference at Public School 189 in Washington Heights on Wednesday. “Not by any stretch of the imagination that those schools don’t have a lot of improvement ahead of them.” At the same time, when asked if there was something wrong with a grading system in which nearly every school earned top marks — 889 of the 1,058 graded schools got A’s, and just two received F’s — he clearly took pride in the results. “If you’re asking whether I would rather see less A’s,” he said, “the answer is no.”
Boy, this is really so confusing. If the grades are not precise indicators, and, "a lot of improvement," is still needed, why the fanfare over these grades? And the rising grades simply encourages skepticism about the entire grading scheme-kinda like the questionable standardized test scores that gets Klein all chest puffy. As the Times points out: "Suddenly, New York City looks like Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average — or like the Ivy League, noted for grade inflation that makes, say, a B-minus seem like the new F."
And, as the the NY Daily News also indicates: "All of last year's F schools got A's or B's this year, including PS 8 in Brooklyn Heights, which scored an A. Last year's failing grade for the popular school caused critics to question whether report cards were a fair reflection of school achievement. The DOE faces criticism over report cards because they rely heavily on standardized test scores, which account for 85% of the letter grade. The high number of A's this year was also criticized because experts have said the state tests are getting easier to pass. State Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch has promised reform - with improvement expected on next year's exams. Klein pledged to support the move."
To us, this is a case of a rising tide lifting all mopes; and the Times also weighs in on the grade inflation: "Daniel Koretz, a professor who focuses on testing and accountability issues at the Harvard School of Education, said it was hard to come to any clear conclusions about schools or the system by looking at the grades. It is even harder, he added, because so many questions have been raised about whether the state’s math and reading tests had become easier in recent years. “The agnostics are right: We just don’t know what’s going on right now,” he said. “The problem is we are stuck with this. We really have no second measure.”
And we are stuck, it seems, with the Bloomberg/Klein educational regime-and the release of the NAEP scores this fall should underscore this false positive test system. These more reliable scores are the second measure that the DOE boosters want us to ignore. But the mayor's proposed allocation of an additional $50 million to the city's community colleges gives us the distinct impression that, for all the extra money that is being pumped into the school system operation, the patients are still dying.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
The Unfiltered Truth
We have been commenting for quite some time now about the ineptitude of the NYC DEP-and now comes this from the Comptroller's Office concerning the white elephant water filtration plant in the Bronx: "City Controller BILL Thompson said Tuesday what many Bronx residents have been saying for six years - the city low-balled its original cost estimate of the Croton Filtration Plant project. He said an audit by his office found a 2003 city Department of Environmental Conservation report estimated building the facility at Van Cortlandt Park would cost only about $992 million - but the true cost will be well over twice that amount."
Why does the comptroller think the agency was so far off? "The DEP's gross underestimation of the actual cost of the Croton Plant is utterly disturbing," said Thompson. "It's either one of two things - either the number was incredibly low-balled, or it's probably the worst case of incompetence I think we've seen in years."
This isn't an insignificant point, since the original decision to build in the Bronx-subject to widespread local protests-was itself based on cost: "At the time of the 2003 report, the city was deciding whether to build the facility in Van Cortlandt Park or at a site in Westchester County, and the allegedly lower cost of the Bronx site was a significant factor in the decision. Residents near the park were incredulous from the start, doubting that digging a hole the size of two football fields for the plant and rebuilding a golf course on top of it could really have been cheaper than building the plant above ground at the other site."
But will any one be held accountable? Given the Bloomberg administration's lax oversight and accountability, hardly likely-it is more likely that the mayor might donate money to a university so that a building can be named in honor of Emily Lloyd, the clueless former commissioner of the DEP. It was, after all, Lloyd who told us that the agency could better analyze the impact of food waste disposers with a theoretical study, than with an actual pilot program that gathered empirical data. We are supposed to now believe this wildly inaccurate and incompetent agency, that the cost of installing commercial disposers would be in the billions.
And then there are the city's water bills-a system that bilks consumers and generally hasn't a clue as to how to accurately gauge the average homeowners charges-so it ends up sending out bills that could have been generated by a DEP game of pin the tail on the tax payer. Yet no one puts the blame where it really belongs-at the feet of a disengaged mayor who, rather than punish incompetency, will only hold his minions accountable when buildings actually fall down.
Sorry, we take that back. When the Deustche Bank building did burn down, killing two fire fighters, Commissioner Scopetta-someone who apparently wasn't smoking and carrying a gun when the building went up in smoke-was given a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card by the kind and clueless chief executive.
So the record of mayoral nonfeasance and malfeasance keeps accumulating-but with little hope that the local media (not a monolith, of course) will tar baby the billionaire like they do the lesser electeds. The next four years, however, promises to be one of record buyers remorse. But remember, you heard it her first.
Why does the comptroller think the agency was so far off? "The DEP's gross underestimation of the actual cost of the Croton Plant is utterly disturbing," said Thompson. "It's either one of two things - either the number was incredibly low-balled, or it's probably the worst case of incompetence I think we've seen in years."
This isn't an insignificant point, since the original decision to build in the Bronx-subject to widespread local protests-was itself based on cost: "At the time of the 2003 report, the city was deciding whether to build the facility in Van Cortlandt Park or at a site in Westchester County, and the allegedly lower cost of the Bronx site was a significant factor in the decision. Residents near the park were incredulous from the start, doubting that digging a hole the size of two football fields for the plant and rebuilding a golf course on top of it could really have been cheaper than building the plant above ground at the other site."
But will any one be held accountable? Given the Bloomberg administration's lax oversight and accountability, hardly likely-it is more likely that the mayor might donate money to a university so that a building can be named in honor of Emily Lloyd, the clueless former commissioner of the DEP. It was, after all, Lloyd who told us that the agency could better analyze the impact of food waste disposers with a theoretical study, than with an actual pilot program that gathered empirical data. We are supposed to now believe this wildly inaccurate and incompetent agency, that the cost of installing commercial disposers would be in the billions.
And then there are the city's water bills-a system that bilks consumers and generally hasn't a clue as to how to accurately gauge the average homeowners charges-so it ends up sending out bills that could have been generated by a DEP game of pin the tail on the tax payer. Yet no one puts the blame where it really belongs-at the feet of a disengaged mayor who, rather than punish incompetency, will only hold his minions accountable when buildings actually fall down.
Sorry, we take that back. When the Deustche Bank building did burn down, killing two fire fighters, Commissioner Scopetta-someone who apparently wasn't smoking and carrying a gun when the building went up in smoke-was given a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card by the kind and clueless chief executive.
So the record of mayoral nonfeasance and malfeasance keeps accumulating-but with little hope that the local media (not a monolith, of course) will tar baby the billionaire like they do the lesser electeds. The next four years, however, promises to be one of record buyers remorse. But remember, you heard it her first.
Rehabbing the Lobby
If your head is spinning concerning the question of just what the city was funding when it forked over $450,000 to the indelicately named Flushing, Willets Point, Corona Local Development Corporation, you're probably not alone. Even EDC, the funding agency, remains at odds with the mayor-not to mention Claire Shulman, the LDC's head-over what the funding was supposed to be used for. The bigger question, however, is whether the local group was legally allowed to do precisely what Shulman claims her group's primary purpose was: lobby the city with the city's own money.
Which is why, as the NY Daily News reports this morning, Willets Point United has asked the US Attorney's Office to investigate the entire matter: "A group of property owners at Willets Point are taking another swing at a city-funded development company for a lobbying goof. Willets Point United asked federal prosecutors late last week to wade into its battle with the Flushing Willets Point Corona Land Development Corp. The corporation's leader - former Queens Borough President Claire Shulman - was slapped with a record fine recently for not registering as a lobbyist. "We're hoping the U.S. Attorney will do something about this," said Michael Rikon, a lawyer who represents the business group. "Anything to stop this."
Regardless of the lapses of the 83 year old Shulman, the legality of her group's activities political activities should be examined-and the question of the proper use of the public money resolved: "The development corporation pushed to rezone the gritty industrial area of Willets Point by swaying City Council members - a violation of state law that restricts such corporations from lobbying. Shulman's group was partially funded by the city Economic Development Corp., which is also barred from lobbying."
If the activities aren't legally permitted-and let's not forget that Shulman, while admitting that her group's creation was solely for the purpose of lobbying, checked the "No lobbying" box on a federal disclosure form-than the entire process was corrupt and, in our view, should be thrown out. This is no mere technicality: "The illegality of Shulman's actions should nullify any rezoning efforts, business owners said. The appeal to federal prosecutors comes two months after the group asked state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to investigate Shulman's organization. Cuomo's office is reviewing the complaint, a spokesman said Tuesday."
But what's up with the EDC and its spokesman Dave Lombino? Haven't they gotten the mayor's message? A week ago, the Law and Order mayor said the following: "These groups are designed to lobby,” Bloomberg continued. “I don’t know if they technically broke the law.” Well, someone should know, and if not the city's chief executive, than either the NYS Attorney General or the US Attorney should intervene with a clear ruling on this matter. The latest request, however, reflects WPU's skepticism over the willingness of AG Cuomo to investigate his own backyard.
As Gerson Borrero reports, Cuomo is going after State Senator Pedro Espada tooth and nail-but ignoring other potential malefactors, as was suggested by Senator Ruben Diaz: "Eighteen days after receiving a written request from State Senator Rubén Díaz that he look into New York State legislators who have family members on the public payroll, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo still has not responded...“I have not heard anything form Cuomo since he called after I sent the letter,” Díaz said on Sunday afternoon after church services. A disappointed Diaz told The Borrero Report, “We continue to read stories about investigations about Pedro Espada, but nothing from Cuomo about the investigation I requested.”
Concerns about a selective outlook is what prompted WPU to turn to the Feds-but the ball is in Cuomo's court to prove that he can rise above parochial interests-and his own self interest. By fully investigating the Willets Point lobbying affair-even the Sainted Shulman and the billionaire mayor-Cuomo will clearly show New Yorkers that he is the kind of strong and impartial leader that the state needs.
In our view, aside from the legality of the group's main activity, an investigation needs to focus on who is funding-and will potentially benefit from the LDC's lobbying activities. Because we read that: "In July, the city-funded group was fined a record $59,090 because Shulman forgot to register as a lobbyist. The fines will be paid from private donations, not city funds, Shulman's spokesman said."
Are these private funds coming from real estate firms with an eye on the Willets Point properties? If so, who are they, and how much are these, "private funds," also supporting a lobbying effort that will-potentially-accrue to their benefit? All of these firms, in our view, should be registered as lobbying the city-and the use of the LDC subterfuge shouldn't be allowed to cover up the intentions of predatory real estate scavengers. The entire situation has the redolence of an episode of The Sopranos.
Which is why, as the NY Daily News reports this morning, Willets Point United has asked the US Attorney's Office to investigate the entire matter: "A group of property owners at Willets Point are taking another swing at a city-funded development company for a lobbying goof. Willets Point United asked federal prosecutors late last week to wade into its battle with the Flushing Willets Point Corona Land Development Corp. The corporation's leader - former Queens Borough President Claire Shulman - was slapped with a record fine recently for not registering as a lobbyist. "We're hoping the U.S. Attorney will do something about this," said Michael Rikon, a lawyer who represents the business group. "Anything to stop this."
Regardless of the lapses of the 83 year old Shulman, the legality of her group's activities political activities should be examined-and the question of the proper use of the public money resolved: "The development corporation pushed to rezone the gritty industrial area of Willets Point by swaying City Council members - a violation of state law that restricts such corporations from lobbying. Shulman's group was partially funded by the city Economic Development Corp., which is also barred from lobbying."
If the activities aren't legally permitted-and let's not forget that Shulman, while admitting that her group's creation was solely for the purpose of lobbying, checked the "No lobbying" box on a federal disclosure form-than the entire process was corrupt and, in our view, should be thrown out. This is no mere technicality: "The illegality of Shulman's actions should nullify any rezoning efforts, business owners said. The appeal to federal prosecutors comes two months after the group asked state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to investigate Shulman's organization. Cuomo's office is reviewing the complaint, a spokesman said Tuesday."
But what's up with the EDC and its spokesman Dave Lombino? Haven't they gotten the mayor's message? A week ago, the Law and Order mayor said the following: "These groups are designed to lobby,” Bloomberg continued. “I don’t know if they technically broke the law.” Well, someone should know, and if not the city's chief executive, than either the NYS Attorney General or the US Attorney should intervene with a clear ruling on this matter. The latest request, however, reflects WPU's skepticism over the willingness of AG Cuomo to investigate his own backyard.
As Gerson Borrero reports, Cuomo is going after State Senator Pedro Espada tooth and nail-but ignoring other potential malefactors, as was suggested by Senator Ruben Diaz: "Eighteen days after receiving a written request from State Senator Rubén Díaz that he look into New York State legislators who have family members on the public payroll, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo still has not responded...“I have not heard anything form Cuomo since he called after I sent the letter,” Díaz said on Sunday afternoon after church services. A disappointed Diaz told The Borrero Report, “We continue to read stories about investigations about Pedro Espada, but nothing from Cuomo about the investigation I requested.”
Concerns about a selective outlook is what prompted WPU to turn to the Feds-but the ball is in Cuomo's court to prove that he can rise above parochial interests-and his own self interest. By fully investigating the Willets Point lobbying affair-even the Sainted Shulman and the billionaire mayor-Cuomo will clearly show New Yorkers that he is the kind of strong and impartial leader that the state needs.
In our view, aside from the legality of the group's main activity, an investigation needs to focus on who is funding-and will potentially benefit from the LDC's lobbying activities. Because we read that: "In July, the city-funded group was fined a record $59,090 because Shulman forgot to register as a lobbyist. The fines will be paid from private donations, not city funds, Shulman's spokesman said."
Are these private funds coming from real estate firms with an eye on the Willets Point properties? If so, who are they, and how much are these, "private funds," also supporting a lobbying effort that will-potentially-accrue to their benefit? All of these firms, in our view, should be registered as lobbying the city-and the use of the LDC subterfuge shouldn't be allowed to cover up the intentions of predatory real estate scavengers. The entire situation has the redolence of an episode of The Sopranos.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Kapps Off to KARA
Kudos to the NY Daily News' Bob Kappstatter who opines today that Related Cos should provide for a living wage in the "Shops at the Armory," or simply take a hike: "It's time the city - led by the Bronx delegation in the City Council - draws a line in the sand and tells Related it needs to accept that make-or-break provision in a community benefits agreement now being hammered out by Borough President Ruben Diaz and community stakeholders. We can't see any great loss if the armory sits vacant until another developer - maybe one of the two that lost out in the original bid process - comes back to the table and accepts the terms. Oh, and, by the way, George Steinbrenner never did move his team to Jersey."
Good for Kappy-who points out that favorite son Related has already gotten fat off the city's sweet largess: "Now comes Related Cos., with millions of dollars in tax breaks if the City Council approves its plan to develop the armory into a shopping mall. This is the same developer that got a sweetheart deal from the city to build the new Gateway mall at the old Bronx Terminal Market. Unlike the armory in the heart of a local shopping district, Gateway is isolated enough to keep from killing off local retailers."
Which is precisely the point we have made-there will be considerable collateral damages if this mall does get built, particularly if a supermarket is also included. Given that basic truth, the retail jobs that are eventually provided must be ones of substance. That's the only way this project has any public purpose. If that's a deal breaker for the corporate supplicant, well, ain't that a shame.
Good for Kappy-who points out that favorite son Related has already gotten fat off the city's sweet largess: "Now comes Related Cos., with millions of dollars in tax breaks if the City Council approves its plan to develop the armory into a shopping mall. This is the same developer that got a sweetheart deal from the city to build the new Gateway mall at the old Bronx Terminal Market. Unlike the armory in the heart of a local shopping district, Gateway is isolated enough to keep from killing off local retailers."
Which is precisely the point we have made-there will be considerable collateral damages if this mall does get built, particularly if a supermarket is also included. Given that basic truth, the retail jobs that are eventually provided must be ones of substance. That's the only way this project has any public purpose. If that's a deal breaker for the corporate supplicant, well, ain't that a shame.
Smoke Out Tax Indian Cheats
John Wilson of the NY Post-following up on our own call for action-editorializes this morning about the recent court ruling against the illicit cigarette sales by Indian retailers: "CITY lawyers have come up with a novel way around Albany's refusal to enforce state cigarette-tax law on New York's Indian reservations: Ask a federal judge to do the job. It might even work -- to an extent."
That it's even necessary is because New York's governors are cut from a coward's cloth: "Governors from Mario Cuomo to David Paterson have quaked at the idea of cracking down on the tribes' illicit tobacco trade. Last year, according to state Tax Department figures, that trade moved at least 270 million packs of cigarettes off state reservations -- costing state and local governments an estimated billion dollars in lost taxes."
That's billions with a B-and the silly claim by these tax evaders that they somehow have sovereign immunity-when they are glomming tens of millions of dollars in aid for schools and other services-doesn't stand up to even the most cursory legal scrutiny: "Treaties grant Indians the right to tax-free cigarettes smokes for their own use. But Poospatuck retailers bought a whopping 85 million packs of tax-free cigarettes last year -- and fewer than 300 Indians live on the reservation. You do the math."
Make no mistake about it, this enterprise has all of the trappings of a sophisticated criminal operation-except for the fact that the law and order folks are all hiding under their desks: "A 2006 law was supposed to cripple the trade by taxing wholesalers on all cigarettes they sell -- while issuing vouchers to the tribes for the few packs sold to Indians. But then-Gov. George Pataki backed down (presumably for fear of Indian demonstrations like the one that shut down the Thruway in 1997), telling the Tax Department not to issue the vouchers -- which let the tribes go to court and stop the enforcement. And Govs. Spitzer and Paterson have maintained Pataki's policy."
But these legal victories are time consuming-and should be unnecessary if our state leader would simply show some cojones: "Statewide, more than half a dozen major Indian-cigarette-related cases are under way. For example, Amon explicitly disregarded an ill-reasoned recent ruling by a Rochester-based state appeals court, which struck down efforts by Cayuga and Oneida Counties to prosecute Cayuga Indian retailers. Among other head-scratchers, that court found that Gov. Paterson's unwillingness to collect taxes on reservations means that no such taxes even exist. Judge Amon said that she expects the state's highest court to overturn that ruling. But if it doesn't, the city's back to square one. Of course, ultimately, no judicial remedy can take the place of firm executive action."
So we await such action-and it would help if the legislature found some more creative ways to hold Paterson's hands to the fire on this issue. It is a disgrace that a few outlaws are able to hold New York's tax payers and small businesses hostage. For the governor, this should have been a, "Make my day" moment. Eastwood he ain't, however. So someone is gonna have to help him find a backbone-there are a billion reasons for doing just this.
That it's even necessary is because New York's governors are cut from a coward's cloth: "Governors from Mario Cuomo to David Paterson have quaked at the idea of cracking down on the tribes' illicit tobacco trade. Last year, according to state Tax Department figures, that trade moved at least 270 million packs of cigarettes off state reservations -- costing state and local governments an estimated billion dollars in lost taxes."
That's billions with a B-and the silly claim by these tax evaders that they somehow have sovereign immunity-when they are glomming tens of millions of dollars in aid for schools and other services-doesn't stand up to even the most cursory legal scrutiny: "Treaties grant Indians the right to tax-free cigarettes smokes for their own use. But Poospatuck retailers bought a whopping 85 million packs of tax-free cigarettes last year -- and fewer than 300 Indians live on the reservation. You do the math."
Make no mistake about it, this enterprise has all of the trappings of a sophisticated criminal operation-except for the fact that the law and order folks are all hiding under their desks: "A 2006 law was supposed to cripple the trade by taxing wholesalers on all cigarettes they sell -- while issuing vouchers to the tribes for the few packs sold to Indians. But then-Gov. George Pataki backed down (presumably for fear of Indian demonstrations like the one that shut down the Thruway in 1997), telling the Tax Department not to issue the vouchers -- which let the tribes go to court and stop the enforcement. And Govs. Spitzer and Paterson have maintained Pataki's policy."
But these legal victories are time consuming-and should be unnecessary if our state leader would simply show some cojones: "Statewide, more than half a dozen major Indian-cigarette-related cases are under way. For example, Amon explicitly disregarded an ill-reasoned recent ruling by a Rochester-based state appeals court, which struck down efforts by Cayuga and Oneida Counties to prosecute Cayuga Indian retailers. Among other head-scratchers, that court found that Gov. Paterson's unwillingness to collect taxes on reservations means that no such taxes even exist. Judge Amon said that she expects the state's highest court to overturn that ruling. But if it doesn't, the city's back to square one. Of course, ultimately, no judicial remedy can take the place of firm executive action."
So we await such action-and it would help if the legislature found some more creative ways to hold Paterson's hands to the fire on this issue. It is a disgrace that a few outlaws are able to hold New York's tax payers and small businesses hostage. For the governor, this should have been a, "Make my day" moment. Eastwood he ain't, however. So someone is gonna have to help him find a backbone-there are a billion reasons for doing just this.
Pour a Little Sugar on it Honey
With a 9.6% unemployment rate-12.5% in the Bronx-the City of New York is taking aggressive action: they've launched a campaign to get city residents to stop drinking soda. As Crain's reports: "New Yorkers may think twice about drinking their next can of soda or sweetened ice tea after viewing the ads on some 1,500 subway cars sponsored by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. The agency that brought a halt to smoking in restaurants, a ban on trans fats in baked goods and a requirement to post calorie counts on restaurant menus is now taking aim at sugary drinks. A public awareness campaign, which starts Monday, advises New Yorkers to quench their thirst with water, seltzer or low-fat milk instead of sodas, teas, sports drinks and juices."
Now, we don't really object to public service messages, but we know one thing for certain-the NYC DOH will not be satisfied with simple jawboning; and the more serious kinds of intervention can't be far off. Taxes anyone? But someone should tell the Nannies that there are a lot of New Yorkers who earn a living making, distributing, and retailing soda-so we shouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bottled water.
As the NY Post reports, industry reps object to being singled out-but soda's only the beginning, trust us: "It's absurd and over the top and unfortunately is going to undermine efforts to educate about a serious and complex issue like obesity," argued Kevin Keane, a senior vice president at the American Beverage Association. "It just defies science and common sense to single out a single product as the contributor of obesity..."Why not educate them on all calories and how all calories affect one's weight, because they do?" he said. "Why aren't they going after cake? Why single out soft drinks?"
And, of course, there are a lot of sugary drinks besides soda, so confusion will likely reign. But the DOH loves to shock-as the NY Times points out: "Cathy Nonas, a dietitian who directs physical activity and nutrition programs at the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, said that officials concluded, after conducting focus group tests, that a graphic, in-your-face approach would work. “We are hoping that the biggest effect is, first of all, shock, and that the understanding is that when you drink extra calories, they will be stored as fat,” she said."
One thing that did catch our eye, however, was the following observation in Crain's: "The agency worked together with the Department of Education in developing a request for proposal to replace the city’s controversial contract with Snapple, which was the city schools’ exclusive provider of water, juice and ice tea. The RFP went out this spring and does not allow providers to sell sodas in school vending machines and it places a limit on the number of calories a snack or beverage may contain."
Well, a little bird involved with the RFP process did tell us that, in the case of this proposal, the city outsourced the decision to the Octagon Group-whose personnel seemed more interested, we are told, in the dollars to the city than the quality of the product being provided to the school kids. We await with great interest to see if the winning bidder lives up to the health standards that are supposedly being set.
But regardless, if Bloomberg is re-elected we will have another four more years of health hectoring-and how this will improve our quality of life as our economy keeps cratering is any one's guess. The latest sales tax collection numbers-down 10%-are indeed grim. But stop drinking soda-and don't forget that bottled water is a No No too because of the environmental damage-at least we will go to economic hell in a hand basket knowing that we're healthier while we take the ride to oblivion.
Now, we don't really object to public service messages, but we know one thing for certain-the NYC DOH will not be satisfied with simple jawboning; and the more serious kinds of intervention can't be far off. Taxes anyone? But someone should tell the Nannies that there are a lot of New Yorkers who earn a living making, distributing, and retailing soda-so we shouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bottled water.
As the NY Post reports, industry reps object to being singled out-but soda's only the beginning, trust us: "It's absurd and over the top and unfortunately is going to undermine efforts to educate about a serious and complex issue like obesity," argued Kevin Keane, a senior vice president at the American Beverage Association. "It just defies science and common sense to single out a single product as the contributor of obesity..."Why not educate them on all calories and how all calories affect one's weight, because they do?" he said. "Why aren't they going after cake? Why single out soft drinks?"
And, of course, there are a lot of sugary drinks besides soda, so confusion will likely reign. But the DOH loves to shock-as the NY Times points out: "Cathy Nonas, a dietitian who directs physical activity and nutrition programs at the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, said that officials concluded, after conducting focus group tests, that a graphic, in-your-face approach would work. “We are hoping that the biggest effect is, first of all, shock, and that the understanding is that when you drink extra calories, they will be stored as fat,” she said."
One thing that did catch our eye, however, was the following observation in Crain's: "The agency worked together with the Department of Education in developing a request for proposal to replace the city’s controversial contract with Snapple, which was the city schools’ exclusive provider of water, juice and ice tea. The RFP went out this spring and does not allow providers to sell sodas in school vending machines and it places a limit on the number of calories a snack or beverage may contain."
Well, a little bird involved with the RFP process did tell us that, in the case of this proposal, the city outsourced the decision to the Octagon Group-whose personnel seemed more interested, we are told, in the dollars to the city than the quality of the product being provided to the school kids. We await with great interest to see if the winning bidder lives up to the health standards that are supposedly being set.
But regardless, if Bloomberg is re-elected we will have another four more years of health hectoring-and how this will improve our quality of life as our economy keeps cratering is any one's guess. The latest sales tax collection numbers-down 10%-are indeed grim. But stop drinking soda-and don't forget that bottled water is a No No too because of the environmental damage-at least we will go to economic hell in a hand basket knowing that we're healthier while we take the ride to oblivion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
