Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Sharpton to the Rescue
As the Times and News are reporting today, Al Sharpton has decided to support the Atlantic Yards project (full disclosure). The key point here for us is that the Reverend made it a point to single out the CBA signed by Ratner and a consortium of community groups. It may not be a perfect agreement, but it is the first such effort in NYC and it certainly is an agreement that others can use to promote accountable development.
Health Care Front and Center
Hats off to Errol Louis for revisiting the Health Care Security Act, still languishing in a City Council committee. The key point here is the roughly 420,000 New York City workers who, because they are uninsured, “end up using Medicaid and other government-funded anti-poverty programs to pay for health care.”
This, as Louis emphasizes, is nothing less than corporate welfare and it’s costing NYC tax payers around $466 million a year. Under the legislation sponsored by Councilmember Chris Quinn and being pushed by Jobs with Justice, around 60,000 uninsured workers would get coverage.
So, what’s the hang up? It seems that the Bloomberg administration is holding up the bill on a pretext. This is the same administration that has made it clear that it will leave no stone unturned to find New Yorkers who aren’t getting the benefits they’re entitled to. It seems, therefore, that the mayor feels it’s okay to further burden the tax payers but, God forbid, we should expect the BJ’s and the Gourmet Garages to take care of their workers.
Big Box Store Issue
As we have been continually emphasizing here, the health care issues goes to the heart of the box store fight in NYC. Already on Staten Island, a local community health awareness group has jumped on the anti-Wal-Mart bandwagon because of that company’s poor record on health benefits.
If the Mayor, Deputy Dan, and the rest of real estate team Bloomberg are going to cheerlead for stores like Wal-Mart and BJ’s the least it can do is to try to level the playing field so that, in the words of Paul Sonn of the Brenner Center, we can begin “to take health care out of compeititon.”
This, as Louis emphasizes, is nothing less than corporate welfare and it’s costing NYC tax payers around $466 million a year. Under the legislation sponsored by Councilmember Chris Quinn and being pushed by Jobs with Justice, around 60,000 uninsured workers would get coverage.
So, what’s the hang up? It seems that the Bloomberg administration is holding up the bill on a pretext. This is the same administration that has made it clear that it will leave no stone unturned to find New Yorkers who aren’t getting the benefits they’re entitled to. It seems, therefore, that the mayor feels it’s okay to further burden the tax payers but, God forbid, we should expect the BJ’s and the Gourmet Garages to take care of their workers.
Big Box Store Issue
As we have been continually emphasizing here, the health care issues goes to the heart of the box store fight in NYC. Already on Staten Island, a local community health awareness group has jumped on the anti-Wal-Mart bandwagon because of that company’s poor record on health benefits.
If the Mayor, Deputy Dan, and the rest of real estate team Bloomberg are going to cheerlead for stores like Wal-Mart and BJ’s the least it can do is to try to level the playing field so that, in the words of Paul Sonn of the Brenner Center, we can begin “to take health care out of compeititon.”
EDC’s Bad Faith
It is instructive to read the DEIS that AKRF has prepared for its client Related alongside the communication from EDC to the layers from the Bronx Terminal Market merchants. Before you do, however, it is important to point out that these same accommodating consultants got millions of dollars to spew forth self-serving claptrap when Rudy Giuliani was proposing to rezone all the M1 and M2 space in the city for big box use. They remind us of Tom Lehrer’s observation about Werner Von Braun: “A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience.”
Direct Displacement
Under the rules of CEQR a land use applicant must conduct a rigorous analysis if a proposed development will have a significant impact on the city’s economy or businesses that may depend on the economic activity being displaced. Terms such as “uniquely dependent,” “critical social or economic role” and “substantial economic value to the city” frequent the CEQR narrative on direct displacement.
If such a possibility of significant impact exists, the applicant must conduct a “detailed analysis” so that the lead agency can “understand the potential for and extent of a significant adverse impact to a level that will allow appropriate mitigation to occur.”
Mitigation
Two points about mitigation should be made. First, it may include “helping to seek out and acquire replacement space” and/or a provision of “relocation assistance.” Clearly, the City has refused to consider the first option. What is not being said, however, is that the relocation assistance is not mitigation at all because, as CEQR alludes to, the possibility that there may be “unusual difficult in relocation.”
Ironically, the DEIS makes the merchants case very well. As Professor Fainstein has pointed out to us after reviewing the DEIS:
Finally, CEQR counsels that if direct displacement is to occur it might also be advisable to reconfigure the size and scope of the project:
All of the potentially constructive mitigations are never considered because EDC had an a priori evaluation of the worthlessness of the businesses in the market, a view they have freely expressed throughout the controversy. Unsurprisingly, AKRF, trained in the abject aping of its master’s whims, mirrors this view in their so-called analysis of the value of the BTM to the city’s economy.
Elsewhere we have argued how insufficient this analysis is, saying that it underscores the need to remove the evaluation process from the sullied hands of those who would benefit from a falsely sanguine analysis of a project’s impact. What’s clear in this case is that all of the economic observations done by the consultants are simply made to rationalize EDC’s originally held, jaundiced view of the BTM merchants.
Whither negotiations?
Given all of this where is the ground for compromise? If the Bronx electeds truly want to save the BTM they must do so by aggressively challenging the EDC-Related premises.
Direct Displacement
Under the rules of CEQR a land use applicant must conduct a rigorous analysis if a proposed development will have a significant impact on the city’s economy or businesses that may depend on the economic activity being displaced. Terms such as “uniquely dependent,” “critical social or economic role” and “substantial economic value to the city” frequent the CEQR narrative on direct displacement.
If such a possibility of significant impact exists, the applicant must conduct a “detailed analysis” so that the lead agency can “understand the potential for and extent of a significant adverse impact to a level that will allow appropriate mitigation to occur.”
Mitigation
Two points about mitigation should be made. First, it may include “helping to seek out and acquire replacement space” and/or a provision of “relocation assistance.” Clearly, the City has refused to consider the first option. What is not being said, however, is that the relocation assistance is not mitigation at all because, as CEQR alludes to, the possibility that there may be “unusual difficult in relocation.”
Ironically, the DEIS makes the merchants case very well. As Professor Fainstein has pointed out to us after reviewing the DEIS:
“The text on p. 3-15 indicates that shoppers at the market are drawn primarily from the Bronx and northern Manhattan and that access and one-stop shopping are the principal attractions.”Additional irony inheres in the consultant’s contention that the market merchants are currently utilizing 407,180 sq. ft. Once again Fainstein nails the hypocrisy:
“Finally it notes that altogether the Bronx affords only 472,500 sf of vacant space (scattered around and not necessarily suitable for a market) and finally concludes that the businesses on the project site "would not have any difficulty in finding alternate industrial space within the Bronx" (p.3-18). This is obviously contradictory and the analysis of the direct displacement effect is not fully included in the summary EIS.”Reconfigure the project
Finally, CEQR counsels that if direct displacement is to occur it might also be advisable to reconfigure the size and scope of the project:
“If those businesses occupy only a portion of the project site, a smaller project or an alternative configuration that avoided them could also be considered” (p3b – 1b).Lying and Swearing to It
All of the potentially constructive mitigations are never considered because EDC had an a priori evaluation of the worthlessness of the businesses in the market, a view they have freely expressed throughout the controversy. Unsurprisingly, AKRF, trained in the abject aping of its master’s whims, mirrors this view in their so-called analysis of the value of the BTM to the city’s economy.
Elsewhere we have argued how insufficient this analysis is, saying that it underscores the need to remove the evaluation process from the sullied hands of those who would benefit from a falsely sanguine analysis of a project’s impact. What’s clear in this case is that all of the economic observations done by the consultants are simply made to rationalize EDC’s originally held, jaundiced view of the BTM merchants.
Whither negotiations?
Given all of this where is the ground for compromise? If the Bronx electeds truly want to save the BTM they must do so by aggressively challenging the EDC-Related premises.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Brooklyn Wal-Mart Could Look Like A Brownstone
Via the Box Tank, Wal-Mart met with New York City reporters on June 30th to discuss Wal-Mart's desire to come to New York City. In addition to other speculated sites (Staten Island, East Harlem):
Now add a site near or within the Atlantic Terminal mall and Atlantic Avenue subway station as a possible site (think Target). "There are many situations where we are right across the street from a direct competitor," said Mia Masten, Wal-Mart's communications director. "In many of our competitive districts its not uncommon to see a Target, a Lowe’s, a Wal-Mart and a Kohl’s across the street from each other — and they all do well."Wal-Mart is ready to modify its architecture to accomodate New York:
Would a Brooklynized Wal-Mart be in the shell of a couple of brownstones? “Yeah, to the extent we could find the space, yeah, I think that could work,” Masten agreed.The Box Tank responds appropriately:
There you have it. New Wal-Mart Architectural Style: Brooklyn Brownstone! Obviously Mia has never seen one of her stores and a couple of Brooklyn brownstones side by side, because it isn't likely a 100,000 square foot store will fit in a couple of brownstones.The Box Tank also references the "strife" over a rumored Wal-Mart in East Harlem, showing two flyers side by side, one in support of the big-box, one against. Though we must say from the scoping meeting we attended concerning the East Harlem project, there was no love for Wal-Mart.
“Hail Seizers!”
The eminent domain issue continues to galvanize diverse constituencies. This post’s title for instance is cribbed from Jacob Sallum’s on-line piece for the libertarian Reason magazine. The Sallum piece is cited in another eminent domain article penned by Brad Lander, director of the progressive Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development.
Sallum’s piece is directed at the New York Times editorial that we have already commented on. The important point that needs to be continually reiterated, however, is fact that the court’s decision and the Times’s rationalization of it sets absolutely no limits on what constitutes legal taking. As Sallum writes:
Which gets us back to the vaunted Plan, you know the one that somehow justifies the taking of your property. Without the Plan it’s a no-no but with the Plan anything can be justified. What this mystifies of course is the fact that a) plans are always a creative part of the taking and b) all a plan really does is to ensure that the scope of the eminent domain seizure is properly grandiose.
In fact, without the Plan more of people’s property would be safe. Justice O’Conner, cited by Sallum, gets to the core of this issue:
Lander’s piece hits the protean nature of the eminent domain questions and underscores the point we have continually made. The progressive position against development becomes linked to the conservative affirmation of basic property rights (“all rights are property rights,” says Sallum).
Not everyone agrees, however. It is interesting that David Goldberg, the former counsel to the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, filed an amicus brief in support of the Brooklyn Nets development. Goldberg has been collaborating with the Community Rights Counsel, a D.C. organization which works with community groups that are seeking to “preserve the power of government to regulate development.”
Accountable Development
Goldberg takes issue with Siegal and Develop Don’t Destroy because, unlike the Robert Moses-sponsored urban renewal of the 1950s and 60s that displaced poor people arbitrarily, the Atlantic Yards project displaces middle-class homeowners and business people “who are being paid a fair market value for their property.”
This just demonstrates how tricky and nuanced the eminent domain issue can be. It’s worthwhile to note that it was the NAACP that intervened in New London, on behalf of the homeowners, indicating that it might not be easy to hold an absolutely pure ideological position on this issue.
The Neighborhood Retail Alliance’s Position
We have been consistent over the past 20 years in our efforts at protecting neighborhood business. Our position in this fight, however, did not emerge from the purity of an intellectual ivory tower but from a perceived vacuum that needed to be filled. Put simply, no one was stepping up to protect the interests of neighborhood stores in the face of first suburban style shopping centers and then an invasion of box stores.
On this front we have a great deal to be proud of. You can read about some of these success stories on the website. From the protection of 15 supermarkets in an East Bronx shopping center fight in 1981 to the defeat of BJ’s and Wal-Mart in 2005, the Alliance has been the only group successfully lobbying for neighborhood businesses.
In fact we are proud to say that we have been the linchpin in the defeat of five box store fights in the past five years and, even more impressively, got one company (Costco) to totally give up on its misguided urban adaptation (“Costco Fresh”). So if people want to criticize us for our support of Atlantic Yards let them. Just ask yourself however which of the protagonists in this argument you’d want to see in a political battle if your neighborhood was being threatened.
Where do we go from here?
It seems to us that the overlapping sides and nuances of the eminent domain battle demand a full and frank political debate. We’d definitely say that our position has not been fully defined and, as so often in the real world of politics, will gain more clarity as this debate continues to percolate.
We’re not sure yet that we will always agree, for instance, with Brad Lander’s position that eminent domain can be part of an accountable development process. We do feel, however, that without such an approach it is hard to see where seizure is justifiable. This is particularly true when small minority businesses are “traded up” for larger chains or box stores after the smaller entrepreneurs have pioneered the redevelopment of blighted areas.
Property Rights are Important
We will always need to be extremely vigilant about property rights because we agree with Sallum’s position and that articulated by the conservative members of the Supreme Court. To believe otherwise is to begin the embrace of the collectivist “greater good” mentality that Goldberg seems to express.
The important point to stress is that one can never be cavalier about taking anyone’s property. If you don’t feel the need to at least in part stand up for property rights you are left in a relativist position that, when you examine it, leaves the protection of your own interests in peril. It does no good, for instance, for Goldberg to argue that eminent domain is OK if it benefits poor people but not so if it hurts them. It is the principle of property rights and its defense that offers all of us, rich and poor alike, the protection we all need and deserve.
New Jersey up Next
Which brings us to New Jersey where, as reported in Friday’s New York Times, both candidates for governor have come out strongly against eminent domain abuse and, most tellingly, have also begun to craft policy positions on the issue. Interestingly, Forrester the Republican makes the point about a “sinister” nexus between pay-for-play and development abuse. Corzine for his part introduced a 7 point plan which according to a spokesperson (if you can believe it), “had been in the works since even before the court ruling.”
Hail Brodsky
The Times also points out that a “bipartisan, nationwide gallery of officials have condemned the ruling and pledged to protect their constituencies. First and foremost in New York is attorney general candidate Richard Brodsky who, not accidentally, has also been in the forefront of the accountable development movement.
Sallum’s piece is directed at the New York Times editorial that we have already commented on. The important point that needs to be continually reiterated, however, is fact that the court’s decision and the Times’s rationalization of it sets absolutely no limits on what constitutes legal taking. As Sallum writes:
“Mindful of the appearance that big corporations such as Pfizer and the New York Times Co. use eminent domain for their own ends, the Times cautioned that "eminent domain must not be used for purely private gain.”Anything’s a “Public Benefit”
Which gets us back to the vaunted Plan, you know the one that somehow justifies the taking of your property. Without the Plan it’s a no-no but with the Plan anything can be justified. What this mystifies of course is the fact that a) plans are always a creative part of the taking and b) all a plan really does is to ensure that the scope of the eminent domain seizure is properly grandiose.
In fact, without the Plan more of people’s property would be safe. Justice O’Conner, cited by Sallum, gets to the core of this issue:
“nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public.”Left-Right Coalition
Lander’s piece hits the protean nature of the eminent domain questions and underscores the point we have continually made. The progressive position against development becomes linked to the conservative affirmation of basic property rights (“all rights are property rights,” says Sallum).
Not everyone agrees, however. It is interesting that David Goldberg, the former counsel to the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, filed an amicus brief in support of the Brooklyn Nets development. Goldberg has been collaborating with the Community Rights Counsel, a D.C. organization which works with community groups that are seeking to “preserve the power of government to regulate development.”
Accountable Development
Goldberg takes issue with Siegal and Develop Don’t Destroy because, unlike the Robert Moses-sponsored urban renewal of the 1950s and 60s that displaced poor people arbitrarily, the Atlantic Yards project displaces middle-class homeowners and business people “who are being paid a fair market value for their property.”
This just demonstrates how tricky and nuanced the eminent domain issue can be. It’s worthwhile to note that it was the NAACP that intervened in New London, on behalf of the homeowners, indicating that it might not be easy to hold an absolutely pure ideological position on this issue.
The Neighborhood Retail Alliance’s Position
We have been consistent over the past 20 years in our efforts at protecting neighborhood business. Our position in this fight, however, did not emerge from the purity of an intellectual ivory tower but from a perceived vacuum that needed to be filled. Put simply, no one was stepping up to protect the interests of neighborhood stores in the face of first suburban style shopping centers and then an invasion of box stores.
On this front we have a great deal to be proud of. You can read about some of these success stories on the website. From the protection of 15 supermarkets in an East Bronx shopping center fight in 1981 to the defeat of BJ’s and Wal-Mart in 2005, the Alliance has been the only group successfully lobbying for neighborhood businesses.
In fact we are proud to say that we have been the linchpin in the defeat of five box store fights in the past five years and, even more impressively, got one company (Costco) to totally give up on its misguided urban adaptation (“Costco Fresh”). So if people want to criticize us for our support of Atlantic Yards let them. Just ask yourself however which of the protagonists in this argument you’d want to see in a political battle if your neighborhood was being threatened.
Where do we go from here?
It seems to us that the overlapping sides and nuances of the eminent domain battle demand a full and frank political debate. We’d definitely say that our position has not been fully defined and, as so often in the real world of politics, will gain more clarity as this debate continues to percolate.
We’re not sure yet that we will always agree, for instance, with Brad Lander’s position that eminent domain can be part of an accountable development process. We do feel, however, that without such an approach it is hard to see where seizure is justifiable. This is particularly true when small minority businesses are “traded up” for larger chains or box stores after the smaller entrepreneurs have pioneered the redevelopment of blighted areas.
Property Rights are Important
We will always need to be extremely vigilant about property rights because we agree with Sallum’s position and that articulated by the conservative members of the Supreme Court. To believe otherwise is to begin the embrace of the collectivist “greater good” mentality that Goldberg seems to express.
The important point to stress is that one can never be cavalier about taking anyone’s property. If you don’t feel the need to at least in part stand up for property rights you are left in a relativist position that, when you examine it, leaves the protection of your own interests in peril. It does no good, for instance, for Goldberg to argue that eminent domain is OK if it benefits poor people but not so if it hurts them. It is the principle of property rights and its defense that offers all of us, rich and poor alike, the protection we all need and deserve.
New Jersey up Next
Which brings us to New Jersey where, as reported in Friday’s New York Times, both candidates for governor have come out strongly against eminent domain abuse and, most tellingly, have also begun to craft policy positions on the issue. Interestingly, Forrester the Republican makes the point about a “sinister” nexus between pay-for-play and development abuse. Corzine for his part introduced a 7 point plan which according to a spokesperson (if you can believe it), “had been in the works since even before the court ruling.”
Hail Brodsky
The Times also points out that a “bipartisan, nationwide gallery of officials have condemned the ruling and pledged to protect their constituencies. First and foremost in New York is attorney general candidate Richard Brodsky who, not accidentally, has also been in the forefront of the accountable development movement.
Eminent Quandary
In one of the most precious examples of how difficult it is to remain consistent about eminent domain, the Sun reported last Friday that Congressman Major Owens, after composing a rap poem blasting eminent domain, had voted against the Garrett amendment which would have limited federal funds for some private projects that make use of eminent domain.
Since neither the congressman or his spokespersons were available for comment it was left to Chris Owen, his son and a candidate for the office, to explain the apparent inconsistency (hypocrisy). Young Mr. Owens justified his father’s vote by saying he believed the language of the amendment wasn’t “specific enough” because “you’re opening the door to stopping things that are justified.” In addition, he said that he might support its use for economic development in some instances.
All of which leaves us in very murky waters indeed since Owens junior doesn’t specify und what conditions government taking might be justified. Are we to make these decisions ad hoc, so to speak, since it appears that Owens isn’t ready to strongly support the concept of private property rights?
Since neither the congressman or his spokespersons were available for comment it was left to Chris Owen, his son and a candidate for the office, to explain the apparent inconsistency (hypocrisy). Young Mr. Owens justified his father’s vote by saying he believed the language of the amendment wasn’t “specific enough” because “you’re opening the door to stopping things that are justified.” In addition, he said that he might support its use for economic development in some instances.
All of which leaves us in very murky waters indeed since Owens junior doesn’t specify und what conditions government taking might be justified. Are we to make these decisions ad hoc, so to speak, since it appears that Owens isn’t ready to strongly support the concept of private property rights?
City Callous on Bronx Terminal Market
Kudos to Albor Ruiz for his trenchant column yesterday on the city’s callous indifference to the fate of the Bronx Terminal Market. Citing Hiram Monserrate’s chiding of the city for its view of the merchants as “expendable” Ruiz says:
All this makes the July 20th meeting between the merchants, EDC and Bronx political leaders that much more compelling. Will Bronx leaders insist on the city’s obligation to reconstruct a market? Will they be willing to use their considerable leverage to force EDC and Related tot the negotiating table? This week will, perhaps, be the crossroads for the final determination of the fate of the merchants.
Yet the city's indifference is telling the soon-to-be-displaced merchants very clearly to drop dead.Ruiz’s peeve is the city’s refusal to even consider the construction of a new market and its factually inaccurate claim that, unlike the Fulton Fish market case, the city is not the landlord of the BTM. In his rebuttal Ruiz cites our blog:
"But Terri," they answered her, "the city is indeed the landlord and in its landlord capacity brokered the deal that brought Related into the market."Ruiz goes on to cite Monserrate’s concern about the lack of transparency and proper due diligence in the Related deal and labels the entire mess a “secret deal” done between Deputy Mayor Doctoroff and Steve Ross of Related, Dan’s once and future business partner.
All this makes the July 20th meeting between the merchants, EDC and Bronx political leaders that much more compelling. Will Bronx leaders insist on the city’s obligation to reconstruct a market? Will they be willing to use their considerable leverage to force EDC and Related tot the negotiating table? This week will, perhaps, be the crossroads for the final determination of the fate of the merchants.
Wal-Mart Class Action Update
From Bloomberg News comes a very lengthy update on the gender discrimination class action lawsuit currently pending against Wal-Mart. One of the newest developments:
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. took no action on internal warnings seven years ago that it was falling short in promoting women, documents in a federal sex-discrimination lawsuit show.The key point is that Wal-Mart knew it had a problem as seen by the creation of the task force but as William Gould, a former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board who teaches employment law at Stanford Law School remarked:
The world's largest retailer didn't carry out the 1998 recommendations of a diversity task force and disbanded the panel, according to company memos, reports and depositions filed in the case. Two years later, Wal-Mart had a reduced percentage of female managers.
But they didn't have the wherewithal or the interest to follow through or do something about it. It strengthens the plaintiff's case that it's about intentional as well as unintentional discrimination. I'm sure this has made them more interested in settling.The article also summarizes the various claims of the class action lawsuit including pay disparity, a lack of female representation in manager positions and a system of promotion that lacked transparency.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Big Box Traffic Jam
This from Durham County, NC:
Like some of the critics in the story, we are also skeptical of the traffic study, knowing from experience that the consultants developers hire are brought on specifically to minimize impacts. This is why independent consultants are needed and why the residents of in that area of North Carolina should encourage the county to conduct its own report.
A traffic study in the hands of the N.C. Department of Transportation estimates that a planned shopping center on the northern edge of Chatham County that could house a Wal-Mart Supercenter will generate almost 21,600 car and truck trips each day.The study also mentions a considerable increase in traffic on a currently local, rural road, which doesn’t sit well with at least 1 local official:
The study -- authored on behalf of the center's would-be developer, the Lee-Moore Oil Co. -- also says he soon-to-be-widened U.S 15-501 and its intersections can handle the added traffic.
...
The traffic study's conclusion drew a skeptical response Tuesday from one critic of the project, Chapel Hill Town Councilman Ed Harrison, who contended that commuters are likely to experience a lot of frustration as they travel up and down the 15-501 corridor:
Because of the growth occurring in the corridor, "this could be a messy piece of roadway with a lot of turning movements, including U-turns, and a lot of signals in a short period of space -- as does 15-501 north [between Chapel Hill and Durham]," Harrison said. "It's Chatham's choice how to use the land, but it's a road of at least regional if not statewide significance."
The percentage of traffic assumed likely to use Smith Level Road caught the eye of Carrboro Alderman and mayoral candidate Alex Zaffron, who said it raised questions about the future of a road local officials want kept as a rural byway.Now we know this area of North Carolina very well - Go Duke! – and it’s one that is often plagued by with congestion. The 15-501 corridor, between Durham and Chapel Hill, is lined with big-box retail and, as a result, makes the 8 mile trip often take 30 minutes or more. One of the worst stretches is near the shopping center that houses the Chapel Hill Wal-Mart (not a supercenter) where, on weekends, it could take 15-20 minutes just to turn off of 15-501 and park.
If the developer's assumptions are correct, the 4,320 additional cars that would use Smith Level would push the road's daily traffic load up over 14,000 by 2020, Zaffron noted.
That "could put pressure on DOT to add improvements that are completely outside the scope of preserving it as a rural corridor," he said. "My concern is that pressure is going to be brought to bear that could turn Smith Level into 'Wal-Mart Parkway,' and that is precisely what everyone in Orange County has been working to avoid for any number of years. And mark my words, we will continue to do so."
Like some of the critics in the story, we are also skeptical of the traffic study, knowing from experience that the consultants developers hire are brought on specifically to minimize impacts. This is why independent consultants are needed and why the residents of in that area of North Carolina should encourage the county to conduct its own report.
Wal-Mart Wants Sam's Club To Sell Alcohol
Wal-Mart is poised to enter yet another market: liquor. This goal is going over well with local liquor store owners in Fayetteville, where a local Sam's Club is attempting to obtain a liquor license:
FAYETTEVILLE -- A battle over booze could stop the world's largest retailer from opening a store in Fayetteville.Add liquor stores to a growing list of small businesses that would be affected if Wal-Mart enters New York City.
A group of local liquor store owners want to block a Sam's Club that would be the first in the state to sell liquor. Wal-Mart officials want to open a 135,000-square-feet store at the southwest corner of Arkansas 112 and Interstate 540.
The state Alcoholic Beverage Commission will hear a request July 20 to transfer an existing liquor license to the proposed Sam's Club.
Jay Gillespie, manager of Liquor Mart and Wine Shoppe, said allowing Sam's Club to sell liquor circumvents Arkansas law, which prohibits selling liquor with other merchandise.
Wal-Mart and Race
Wal-Mart is shrewd with its messaging as evidenced by its sponsoring of the American Black Film Festival:
And here's an interesting fact sheet from the Coalition for a Better Inglewood about Wal-Mart and racial discrimination.
We are supporting African-American filmmaking because it makes good business sense," said Troy Steiner, senior media director, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. "We would like to see these wonderful films gain a wider audience, so we are making it possible for our customers to enjoy them both on network television and by making them part of their family film libraries.We think this sponsorship is a great thing but are skeptical about the motivation behind it as well as the timing. These last few days have not been kind to Wal-Mart in terms of alleged race-related discrimination. According to the Boston Globe:
Nine minority customers say they were racially profiled while shopping at a Wal-Mart store in Avon.Though Wal-Mart denies any discrimination while searching these shoplifters, when a white teenager and her two black friends were leaving the Avon store only the African American teens were stopped:
In a lawsuit filed in US District Court in Boston yesterday, the consumers alleged they were followed, searched, humiliated, and in some cases, detained by greeters at the store after entering the retail center in 2002 or 2003.
In one case, two black Brockton teenagers, Alexandra Bastien, 18, and Toni Gabriel, 18, and their white friend, Courtney Myles, also 18 and from Brockton, entered the store in September 2003. The three teens decided not to buy anything. They allege in court papers that as they were leaving, store employees pulled Gabriel and Bastien aside and searched them. Myles was not searched, but she is a party to the lawsuit.As Wal-Mart Watch points out, there has been some more bad news for Wal-Mart vis-à-vis its treatment of blacks:
As NAACP members gather in Milwaukee for their annual meeting, the civil rights organization released its 2005 Economic Reciprocity Initiative industry report card. Wal-Mart scored a C in general merchandising and a C- on philanthropic giving to African American organizations and programs.Wal-Mart Watch also mentions this story about black truckers suing due to alleged discrimination.
And here's an interesting fact sheet from the Coalition for a Better Inglewood about Wal-Mart and racial discrimination.
Album Cover Gives Wal-mart the Willies
Wal-Mart was irked by Willy Nelson’s latest album cover and, using its power as the country’s largest seller of music, made sure it was altered:
The regular cover, which features marijuana leaves, was replaced by a palm tree, in order to satisfy the retailer’s strict rules regarding packaging and lyrics. Critics have charged that as the nation's largest music retailer - it tallies more than $52 million in music sales - Wal-Mart has the power to persuade artists to edit content. In the past it has refused to stock albums by artists such as Sheryl Crow and The Prodigy.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Clinton Critiques Court
Former President Bill Clinton, the master of triangulation, always has had the most acute political instincts. So it was not a great surprise to read the Gerstein article in today’s Sun and find that Clinton had come out and strongly criticized the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision on eminent domain. If Bill Clinton has arrived at this conclusion than it would certainly be smart for other Democrats to do the same. We’re sure that, once the issue gets local relevancy, a veritable stampede on both sides of the ideological isle will soon follow.
Controversy in Flushing
Both Newsday and El Diario covered a development story in Flushing yesterday. Of particular interest to us was that a group called “Save Our Flushing Community” came out with dozens of protestors because of the perceived threat that the Flushing redevelopment plans posed to traffic and small business in the area. The group, probably predominately Korean, was led by a Daniel Kim and heartily booed Councilmember John Lui indicating perhaps an ethnic tone to the development controversy.
In addition, in Eva Sanchis’s story she reports that 13 developers have presented proposals for the redevelopment of Willets Point and Deputy Dan is quoted as saying all of this development is the harbinger of a totally new Flushing river waterfront.
In addition, in Eva Sanchis’s story she reports that 13 developers have presented proposals for the redevelopment of Willets Point and Deputy Dan is quoted as saying all of this development is the harbinger of a totally new Flushing river waterfront.
New Republic Disappoints
The New Republic is often characterized as a more moderate liberal voice so it was disappointing to read their editorial defending Kelo in the latest issue of the magazine. Arguing that the principle of judicial restraint was admirably expressed in the Kelo decision the editors applaud the court’s refusal “to second-guess the economic judgments of city and state legislatures.”
So according to the New Republic, judicial restraint is to be applauded when the highest court fails to uphold the constitutionally protected property rights of Americans but judicial activism is affirmed when, as it did in Roe v. Wade, the court finds a privacy right that is explicitly expressed nowhere in the Constitution.
Stranger still is the slippery slope argument that foresees a “torrent of judicial activism” if the Court had acted differently, one that “might have called into question everything from local zoning ordinances to environmental laws.”
Political Response Most Appropriate
The New Republic believes that the appropriate response in unfair eminent domain cases is political and not judicial. It cites the Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2005, introduced in the Senate by Texas Senator John Cornyn, as the right approach to this issue. The money quote:
We could also argue that the same principle – developing a political approach and consensus – could as equally be applied to abortion rights. On what basis does the New Republic make decisions about what constitutes legitimate judicial activism? Our opinion is that the violation of basic constitutional rights is not something that can be cleverly elided from a discussion of judicial philosophy without undermining the core responsibility of this country’s highest court.
So according to the New Republic, judicial restraint is to be applauded when the highest court fails to uphold the constitutionally protected property rights of Americans but judicial activism is affirmed when, as it did in Roe v. Wade, the court finds a privacy right that is explicitly expressed nowhere in the Constitution.
Stranger still is the slippery slope argument that foresees a “torrent of judicial activism” if the Court had acted differently, one that “might have called into question everything from local zoning ordinances to environmental laws.”
Political Response Most Appropriate
The New Republic believes that the appropriate response in unfair eminent domain cases is political and not judicial. It cites the Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2005, introduced in the Senate by Texas Senator John Cornyn, as the right approach to this issue. The money quote:
A bill like this might help to discourage eminent domain abuse--that is, condemnation of private homes for private profit--without asking judges to second-guess the economic decisions of legislators, a task for which they are notoriously ill-equipped.
We could also argue that the same principle – developing a political approach and consensus – could as equally be applied to abortion rights. On what basis does the New Republic make decisions about what constitutes legitimate judicial activism? Our opinion is that the violation of basic constitutional rights is not something that can be cleverly elided from a discussion of judicial philosophy without undermining the core responsibility of this country’s highest court.
Eminent Domain: Where are the Democrats?
Up until now, the uproar over the Kelo decision has been in the exclusive purview of conservatives, reflecting the court’s ideological split. Yesterday we reported that Conn. Dems were starting to get it and it will be interesting to see who on the left is the first to take up this cause in New York State (not including paid advocates like Norman Siegel, of course). Any candidate for statewide office would be smart to pick it up.
Speaking of which, the Hartford Courant reported on July 6th about a rally in New London attended by hundreds of people “some from as far away as Texas,” who had come to protest the Kelo decision. Most telling is the fact that, “support is also building for a bill proposed late last week that would forbid the use of eminent domain power for economic development projects.”
Also of interest is a Washington Times Op-Ed piece done by three retired justices that looks at the “elitist bent” underlying the Kelo decision. What we liked was the point that was made about how medieval kings used to simply take someone’s property and transfer it to “another” who was in greater favor with the ruler or who offered greater kickbacks.
Building on this analogy, the three judges characterize the SC’s decision thusly:
Speaking of which, the Hartford Courant reported on July 6th about a rally in New London attended by hundreds of people “some from as far away as Texas,” who had come to protest the Kelo decision. Most telling is the fact that, “support is also building for a bill proposed late last week that would forbid the use of eminent domain power for economic development projects.”
Also of interest is a Washington Times Op-Ed piece done by three retired justices that looks at the “elitist bent” underlying the Kelo decision. What we liked was the point that was made about how medieval kings used to simply take someone’s property and transfer it to “another” who was in greater favor with the ruler or who offered greater kickbacks.
Building on this analogy, the three judges characterize the SC’s decision thusly:
“the elaborate 20 page majority opinion of the Supreme Court is one of the most eloquent, articulate, intellectual efforts to ever rationalize or try to cerebrally legitimize the forced transfer from the legal, legitimate owner of non-blighted property to someone who is in greater favor with the ruler of the area.”Anyone who knows anything about development will understand the “greater favor” concept all too well.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
The Big Unanswered Question: Traffic
While working to preserve the Bronx Terminal Market we have become intimately familiar with not only the merchant’s plight but the Related Companies redevelopment proposal. As we have pointed out previously, there are a number of unanswered questions concerning this plan, questions that can’t even be asked because of the lack of community education and input.
One of the biggest question marks with this Gateway proposal is its impact on traffic. Though Related plans to build over 1,000,000 sq. ft. of retail space there are few details about exactly how the greatly expanded number of trucks and cars will be able to get to and from the site. There is currently a lack of adequate access from the Major Deagan, a highway that already is a veritable parking lot most of the day. This situation will only get worse if the Gateway project is built.
Local roads will also become inundated as truck drivers and motorists seek alternative routes to get to the mall. The dangerous intersections at 161st and Grand Concourse and 149th at Grand Concourse will become even more so as the number of vehicles and delivery trucks expand considerable.
This increase in traffic also has significant environmental implications. For a neighborhood that already has the highest asthma rates in the country, what is going to happen to the air quality when trucks delivering to Gateway’s big-box tenants rumble down the Concourse or sit in traffic on the Deagan? What is going to happen to asthma rates as cars trying to enter the Gateway mall idle while waiting to enter one of its inadequacy few entrance points? These are questions that EDC and Related need to answer.
With Gateway being planned for the same time as the Yankee Stadium redevelopment, people and elected officials in the Bronx need to stand up to make sure that the enriching of a politically-connected developer does not trump the maneuverability, health and safety of a community. According to our sources, even City Planning has serious questions about how Related is planning to handle the new traffic flow. If the agency that certified the project is worried so should the community members who will have to deal with that nightmare for years to come.
One of the biggest question marks with this Gateway proposal is its impact on traffic. Though Related plans to build over 1,000,000 sq. ft. of retail space there are few details about exactly how the greatly expanded number of trucks and cars will be able to get to and from the site. There is currently a lack of adequate access from the Major Deagan, a highway that already is a veritable parking lot most of the day. This situation will only get worse if the Gateway project is built.
Local roads will also become inundated as truck drivers and motorists seek alternative routes to get to the mall. The dangerous intersections at 161st and Grand Concourse and 149th at Grand Concourse will become even more so as the number of vehicles and delivery trucks expand considerable.
This increase in traffic also has significant environmental implications. For a neighborhood that already has the highest asthma rates in the country, what is going to happen to the air quality when trucks delivering to Gateway’s big-box tenants rumble down the Concourse or sit in traffic on the Deagan? What is going to happen to asthma rates as cars trying to enter the Gateway mall idle while waiting to enter one of its inadequacy few entrance points? These are questions that EDC and Related need to answer.
With Gateway being planned for the same time as the Yankee Stadium redevelopment, people and elected officials in the Bronx need to stand up to make sure that the enriching of a politically-connected developer does not trump the maneuverability, health and safety of a community. According to our sources, even City Planning has serious questions about how Related is planning to handle the new traffic flow. If the agency that certified the project is worried so should the community members who will have to deal with that nightmare for years to come.
East Harlem Says No to Wal-Mart, No to Uptown NY
We attended a scoping hearing last night in East Harlem that dealt with Uptown NY, a proposed mega-project for 125th, 126th and 127th streets in Harlem between 2nd and 3rd avenues. This immense mixed use development is the same one that has been rumored to contain a Wal-Mart or similar non-union big box store.
What was amazing about the hearing was the incredible community attendance. Well over 125 people packed into Julia de Burgos Latino Cultural Center and they unanimously railed against a project that they said had numerous flaws and, in general, was rapidly moving ahead without community input. Elected officials, affordable housing advocates, environmental justice activists, affected businessmen, local architects and planners as well as White, Black, Latino and Asian members of the community all told the developer that they could not support the development in its current form especially if the affected neighborhoods were not brought to the table. Specifically, they said that they were concerned about the affordability of the apartments, the scale of the development, the environmental impact and the presence of irresponsible employers like Wal-Mart.
The turnout was especially amazing considering that these scoping hearing are quite purposely poorly advertised. Generally, a 10 point font advertisement will appear in the NY Post, 5 people will show up and the developer wins because he does not have to deal with true community opposition and can simultaneously claim that the public had the chance to voice its opinions. The East Harlem scoping hearing was not well advertised either but fortunately a number of active community members spread the word.
This whole mobilization, though, is starkly different that what occurred with EDC’s Bronx Terminal Market scoping hearing. There, not including two representatives from the community boards, only 5 community members testified. No one was alerted about the meeting and to this day few community-based organizations or community residents know the details of the Gateway development. If these stakeholders had learned early on about the project’s specifics they probably wouldn’t have been very happy and this opposition might have jeopardized the political support for the project. However, now that the project has been certified Related and EDC believe that even if there is opposition it’s too late to change anything.
What was amazing about the hearing was the incredible community attendance. Well over 125 people packed into Julia de Burgos Latino Cultural Center and they unanimously railed against a project that they said had numerous flaws and, in general, was rapidly moving ahead without community input. Elected officials, affordable housing advocates, environmental justice activists, affected businessmen, local architects and planners as well as White, Black, Latino and Asian members of the community all told the developer that they could not support the development in its current form especially if the affected neighborhoods were not brought to the table. Specifically, they said that they were concerned about the affordability of the apartments, the scale of the development, the environmental impact and the presence of irresponsible employers like Wal-Mart.
The turnout was especially amazing considering that these scoping hearing are quite purposely poorly advertised. Generally, a 10 point font advertisement will appear in the NY Post, 5 people will show up and the developer wins because he does not have to deal with true community opposition and can simultaneously claim that the public had the chance to voice its opinions. The East Harlem scoping hearing was not well advertised either but fortunately a number of active community members spread the word.
This whole mobilization, though, is starkly different that what occurred with EDC’s Bronx Terminal Market scoping hearing. There, not including two representatives from the community boards, only 5 community members testified. No one was alerted about the meeting and to this day few community-based organizations or community residents know the details of the Gateway development. If these stakeholders had learned early on about the project’s specifics they probably wouldn’t have been very happy and this opposition might have jeopardized the political support for the project. However, now that the project has been certified Related and EDC believe that even if there is opposition it’s too late to change anything.
Eminent Domain Politicized
The New York Times is reporting today on the political fallout in Connecticut from the Supreme Court’s eminent domain decision in the Kelo case. What’s really interesting is the about face of Nutmeg Democrats who have routinely worked to defeat any change in the law.
More interestingly still is the rethinking done by Richard Blumenthal the state’s astute attorney general. After initially praising the court’s decision as “vindicating long-established eminent domain principles,” he reversed himself one day later saying that Connecticut’s eminent domain law deserved “serious, critical scrutinizing.”
Once a certain momentum gets going in New York, we can see similar rethinking here as well. It is likely that the Columbia and Willets Point cases will jump start the political debate and will help inject the issue into next year’s gubernatorial and attorney general races.
More interestingly still is the rethinking done by Richard Blumenthal the state’s astute attorney general. After initially praising the court’s decision as “vindicating long-established eminent domain principles,” he reversed himself one day later saying that Connecticut’s eminent domain law deserved “serious, critical scrutinizing.”
Once a certain momentum gets going in New York, we can see similar rethinking here as well. It is likely that the Columbia and Willets Point cases will jump start the political debate and will help inject the issue into next year’s gubernatorial and attorney general races.
CBA for the Bronx Terminal Market?
Anne Michaud is reporting in Crain’s Insider that the July 20th meeting scheduled by the Bronx leaders is for the purpose of creating a CBA. If that’s true it’s the first we’ve heard since our understanding is that the meeting on the 20th is for the purpose of negotiating a settlement for the BTM merchants.
While we’re on the subject of a CBA, however, it is useful to point out that the Ratner agreement that Crain’s refers to was worked out in the absence of input from the area’s local elected officials and, instead, negotiated directly with a consortium of community groups. That certainly is the correct precedent to follow with Gateway.
While we’re on the subject of a CBA, however, it is useful to point out that the Ratner agreement that Crain’s refers to was worked out in the absence of input from the area’s local elected officials and, instead, negotiated directly with a consortium of community groups. That certainly is the correct precedent to follow with Gateway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
