NYC voters are getting an education-a lesson in mendacity as the Bloomberg campaign, not simply satisfied with a 16-1 spending advantage, is now using some Bloombucks to tar Bill Thompson's record when he headed the old BOE. As the NY Times reports, however, the attack is mendacious. And the effort by the mayor's campaign is both mean spirited and smacks of desperation.
As the Times describes, Thompson, with little statutory power, played the skillful role of middleman between rival factions and a headstrong Mayor Giuliani:
"Mr. Thompson is running for mayor now, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg regularly excoriates his educational leadership. Mr. Thompson, the mayor has suggested, must answer for virtually every failure, from board infighting to low graduation rates, leaky roofs and test-grading scandals.
But Mr. Thompson’s role, interviews and a review of records show, was sometimes greater and often less than this critique suggests. The conciliatory Mr. Thompson rarely lost his footing, counted votes with a mathematician’s care and supported chancellors, including Mr. Levy, who broke the power of local school boards, took over failing schools and concentrated power in their hands. Test scores over all rose for four straight years as the reforms took hold."
Not only that, but Thompson's abilities were recognized and supported by one Rudy Giuliani: "In his book “Leadership,” Mr. Giuliani expressed something like affection for Mr. Thompson. The Brooklyn Democrat, the mayor explained, was in the pocket of the United Federation of Teachers and opposed to reform. And yet: “I often thought his reasons were wrong, but to his credit he didn’t try to finesse us; that’s why I always asked my two appointees to support Bill for board president.”
Let's remember, as the Times article helps us do, that the old BOE was so unmanageable that even a Giuliani often found himself helpless to control its direction: "Each borough president appointed a board member. The mayor appointed two, and controlled its budget. The board elected the president and hired the chancellor. A strong cup of coffee like Mr. Giuliani could influence but not control the board, and his feuds with chancellors made for antic political theater. (Four chancellors were chosen in Mr. Giuliani’s eight-year reign; all but the last left, figuratively, feet first.)"
In fact, if the Bloombergistas want to level attacks of this kind on Thompson-and any attacks that single out individuals out of context are basically dishonest-they might just as well demonize America's Mayor for haplessness in the face of Board chaos. But only the chancellor can really be seen as the face of education in NYC during the reign of the old BOE: “If you think back to any point in the history of the city’s schools, the chancellor is the name that comes to mind, not the board president,” said Diane Ravitch, an education historian at New York University. If the chancellor, structurally and often temperamentally, was the star of the opera, the board president was the stage manager. To the extent he tended to politics efficiently, he remained in the shadows. “Thompson had not a lot of power, a strong-willed chancellor and a very difficult mayor, and he wanted to walk the road least fraught with land mines,” said former Assemblyman Steven Sanders, the chairman of the powerful Education Committee for a decade. “To say that he ran the schools is kind of silly.”
And, of course, Bloomberg knows this very well-after all, his entire rationale for mayoral control rests on the assumption that the old system was dysfunctional; and that no one, not even a Giuliani, could rein it in. Which underscores the current Bloomberg dishonesty-a conscious effort to not only mislead, but to take the voters' attention away from the fraudulent testing benchmarks that are being used to to tout the city's current educational achievements.
But the political game is tough, and when you're putting politics over progress, a little mendacity is to be expected-as it is with the anti-Thompson comments of a leading Bloomberg toady: "His was a long tenure, and Mr. Bloomberg and his aides heap scorn on it. “A true warrior speaks out and fights for mayoral control,” said Christopher Cerf, a deputy schools chancellor now working for the Bloomberg campaign. “Bill Thompson did none of that.”
Of course, if honesty was to prevail here, it would behoove Cerf to recognize that as long as Rudy Giuliani was mayor, calling for mayoral control was as pointless as peeing up a rope. But then this kind of honesty would highlight just how divisive Bloomberg's predecessor and ally really was: "Legislators suggest this criticism is not apt; they were not going to hand over control of the schools until Mr. Giuliani exited. And Mr. Thompson’s epitaph lists accomplishments, including test scores that rose for four years."
All of which underscores just how disappointing this campaign for mayor has become. Imagine if Thompson had thirty or forty million to dramatize the fraudulent test scores-or to highlight how spending on education has leaped without any real concomitant rise in achievement? But that's not gonna happen, and Bloomberg will continue to use every monetary advantage in his effort to cling to power.
Piling on, or running up the score, is not a pretty sight-but just maybe, this mendacious effort at demonizing Thompson comes from the Bloomberg campaign's own polling showing that the mayor's support is really very soft. In any case, no matter what the explanation, this kind of strategy to maintain power could very well backfire-as an unloved chief executive buys his way into a questionable third term only to face a fiscal and political reality that will, in our view, unmask the Myth of Mike unlike any opponent could ever do.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Bad, But Other Would Be Worse
If you read the NY Post editorial on the fiscal acumen of one Michael Bloomberg, you might be led to believe that the paper, deeply disillusioned with the mayor, was about to throw him under a city bus: "Truth is, he frittered away boom-year revenues from Wall Street on spending bumps that left the city in worse shape than necessary. Indeed, city spending grew nearly 50 percent on his watch. When revenues have gotten tight, he's too often resorted to tax hikes -- notably, an 18.5 percent property-tax hit in 2002 and a sales-tax increase this year. And he's handed out unjustifiably generous wage hikes to unions. Teachers, for instance, got a 43 percent jump under Mike. His other recent raises were the basis for outrageous, unaffordable 11 percent, three-year hikes for transit workers."
And is this the guy who is not beholden to any special interests, and who only makes apolitical decisions? Kinda devalues the entire concept when you examine his love affair with the municipal unions. But the Post, having ginned up the third term mania, is stuck with the defense of the indispensable-arguing that others would be worse: "It may be years before the final verdict is in, but one thing's already clear: Gotham's finances would be a lot worse if Michael Bloomberg hadn't been around...Then again, Hizzoner stands head and shoulders above most other New York pols largely because everybody else is, fiscally speaking, a midget."
Well, perhaps that's so-but has the vertically challenged mayor performed well enough on this front to deserve the kind of redeemer status that the Post has anointed him with? And the unanswered nature of this question leads the Post in this worried direction: "Still, Mike is surely less beholden to the unions and other special interests than most other pols. The key question: Which Bloomberg will dominate over the next four years if he's re-elected? Despite recent gains, Wall Street isn't likely ever again to spin off enough cash to support New York's profligacy. (Institutional market changes and vindictive Dems in Washington will see to that.) Mike the clear-eyed manager could put the city on a firm fiscal footing. Mike the big spender . . . ?"
On balance, however, the big spending Bloomberg has been the most dominant persona over the past eight years, and as the Siegels have pointed out: "Under Mayor Bloomberg, city expenditures grew 40% faster than the rate of inflation even as he imposed record property-tax increases and the city's coffers overflowed with revenues culled from the booming stock and real-estate markets. To keep the politically powerful public-sector happy, Mr. Bloomberg bestowed raises two to three times the rate of inflation on the city's unionized workers. To keep politically wired developers happy, Mr. Bloomberg showered subsidies on economically dubious megaprojects..."
And NYC is in worse shape-particularly its small businesses-because of Bloomberg's profligacy: "The result is that New York, even as it's losing the luster of Wall Street, taxes small businesses the way California taxes millionaires."
That the Bloomberg record is mixed for his acolytes, underscores just what a scam this entire third term sleight-of-hand really has been. There simply isn't any rationale for overturning the will of the voters for this pig-in-a-poke third term, one that the even NY Post has trepidations about. When the paper speculates about, "which Mike," will be there for the next four years, it knows that the Bloomberg voters will be letting the pot ride on the hopes of an inside straight.
As the paper worries: "Mike the big spender . . . ? Well, that's too scary to contemplate." Our feeling? We're all going to be in for a case of Post traumatic shock.
And is this the guy who is not beholden to any special interests, and who only makes apolitical decisions? Kinda devalues the entire concept when you examine his love affair with the municipal unions. But the Post, having ginned up the third term mania, is stuck with the defense of the indispensable-arguing that others would be worse: "It may be years before the final verdict is in, but one thing's already clear: Gotham's finances would be a lot worse if Michael Bloomberg hadn't been around...Then again, Hizzoner stands head and shoulders above most other New York pols largely because everybody else is, fiscally speaking, a midget."
Well, perhaps that's so-but has the vertically challenged mayor performed well enough on this front to deserve the kind of redeemer status that the Post has anointed him with? And the unanswered nature of this question leads the Post in this worried direction: "Still, Mike is surely less beholden to the unions and other special interests than most other pols. The key question: Which Bloomberg will dominate over the next four years if he's re-elected? Despite recent gains, Wall Street isn't likely ever again to spin off enough cash to support New York's profligacy. (Institutional market changes and vindictive Dems in Washington will see to that.) Mike the clear-eyed manager could put the city on a firm fiscal footing. Mike the big spender . . . ?"
On balance, however, the big spending Bloomberg has been the most dominant persona over the past eight years, and as the Siegels have pointed out: "Under Mayor Bloomberg, city expenditures grew 40% faster than the rate of inflation even as he imposed record property-tax increases and the city's coffers overflowed with revenues culled from the booming stock and real-estate markets. To keep the politically powerful public-sector happy, Mr. Bloomberg bestowed raises two to three times the rate of inflation on the city's unionized workers. To keep politically wired developers happy, Mr. Bloomberg showered subsidies on economically dubious megaprojects..."
And NYC is in worse shape-particularly its small businesses-because of Bloomberg's profligacy: "The result is that New York, even as it's losing the luster of Wall Street, taxes small businesses the way California taxes millionaires."
That the Bloomberg record is mixed for his acolytes, underscores just what a scam this entire third term sleight-of-hand really has been. There simply isn't any rationale for overturning the will of the voters for this pig-in-a-poke third term, one that the even NY Post has trepidations about. When the paper speculates about, "which Mike," will be there for the next four years, it knows that the Bloomberg voters will be letting the pot ride on the hopes of an inside straight.
As the paper worries: "Mike the big spender . . . ? Well, that's too scary to contemplate." Our feeling? We're all going to be in for a case of Post traumatic shock.
Paterson in Fat City?
As his poll numbers continue to slip slide away, Governor Paterson has returned to an idea that was not only defeated last year, but had been previously set aside by the governor himself-the proposed fat tax on soda. As the NY Post reports: "That didn't take long! Less than week after calling on lawmakers to address New York's budget crisis without raising taxes, Gov. Paterson fizzled out and suggested he would take another pop at passing a state soda tax. "I promise I will put (the soda tax) back in my budget address and give the Legislature another chance to do it," Paterson said during an interview on WNYC. "But you can’t keep voting down the ways to create revenues and then saying you don’t want to make cuts."
But this statement belies the fact that Paterson himself has any number of ways to unilaterally cut the fat from the state budget-but wants to enlist the legislature so as to share the responsibility. But a fat tax is definitely not needed at a time when the economy is reeling-and it is basically simply a dishonest way to raise revenues by pretending you're doing something else: addressing an obesity epidemic.
And this is the kind of tax that falls disproportionately o New York's poorest citizens-the ones most likely to consume soda and other sugary products. But, just like other so-called "sin taxes," a tax on soda can be cloaked in righteousness-and that is a tempting proposition for a politician-even more so than the slug of a Pepsi on a hot summer's day.
But this statement belies the fact that Paterson himself has any number of ways to unilaterally cut the fat from the state budget-but wants to enlist the legislature so as to share the responsibility. But a fat tax is definitely not needed at a time when the economy is reeling-and it is basically simply a dishonest way to raise revenues by pretending you're doing something else: addressing an obesity epidemic.
And this is the kind of tax that falls disproportionately o New York's poorest citizens-the ones most likely to consume soda and other sugary products. But, just like other so-called "sin taxes," a tax on soda can be cloaked in righteousness-and that is a tempting proposition for a politician-even more so than the slug of a Pepsi on a hot summer's day.
A Kingsbridge Too Far?
The NY Daily News has also weighed in on Monday's CPC vote on the application to develop the Kingsbridge Armory: "Opponents of the developer's plans for the Kingsbridge Armory are bringing out the big guns for the final battle as the proposal moves to the City Council.
In a rare split vote that suggests growing opposition, the City Planning Commission approved on Monday a proposal by The Related Companies to turn the vast armory into a shopping mall. It voted 8 to 4 with one abstention. Commissioners representing the borough presidents of the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan, as well as the public advocate's representative, all voted against the project."
So, with the issue of a supermarket and a living wage still unresolved, the measure now goes to the City Council's Zoning and Franchises Committee: "The project's first stop in the Council will be the Zoning and Franchise subcommittee chaired by Councilman Tony Avella (D-Queens), who said yesterday the split commission vote signals significant opposition to the current proposal. "There are a lot of issues to be resolved," Avella said."
There are nine votes on the subcommittee, and if the application fails to get a five vote majority, it could be defeated at that point-exactly as the Related effort to put a BJs on Brush Avenue was four years ago. At that time, Related withdrew its proposal when it determined that there wasn't enough support for the store at the council.
Which very well could happen again if the growing labor opposition is any indication: "A letter from union leaders to all Council members, urges them to demand Related accept a community benefits agreement drawn up by Diaz that requires a living wage. The letter was signed by the heads of Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ, SEIU Local 1199, the United Federation of Teachers, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees DC 37, and the Hotel & Motel Trades Council. Collectively, these unions represent 750,000 workers in the city. In a separate letter, Gary LaBarbera, president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, also wrote to Council members advocating a living wage requirement. LaBarbera's group represents 100,000 members."
Still, much work needs to be done-and the council's eventually position remains unclear since there is so much uncertainty in the body as a result of attrition and the influx of considerable new blood: "The Council can vote to reject the proposal, approve it as is, or approve it with certain conditions attached, such as a living wage requirement or mandatory community benefits agreement. Opponents may have to wrangle a super-majority of Council votes to block the project, since Mayor Bloomberg - who has expressed support for the plan - can overturn a rejection by a simple majority. The Council would need a two-thirds vote to override the mayor's veto."
However, if there is enough support garnered for excluding a supermarket and including a living wage provision, than the formal need for a super majority is just that-a formality, Because the legislature, once it makes a decision, will insure that the decision is upheld-and leadership will be loathe to to allow the mayor to overrode its wishes at a time when the speaker's position will soon be decided for another four years.
But opponents have much work to do before they even reach that point-and in this business, nothing is written in stone, Still, the goals are within reach, and the next 50 days will tell the tale.
Update
As Crain's Insider is reporting: " The Central Labor Council has passed a resolution asking City Council members to demand living-wage jobs at a redeveloped Kingsbridge Armory, joining more than half a dozen other labor organizations that have made similar calls." This puts even more heat on the council, which will probably have its first hearing the second week in November.
In a rare split vote that suggests growing opposition, the City Planning Commission approved on Monday a proposal by The Related Companies to turn the vast armory into a shopping mall. It voted 8 to 4 with one abstention. Commissioners representing the borough presidents of the Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan, as well as the public advocate's representative, all voted against the project."
So, with the issue of a supermarket and a living wage still unresolved, the measure now goes to the City Council's Zoning and Franchises Committee: "The project's first stop in the Council will be the Zoning and Franchise subcommittee chaired by Councilman Tony Avella (D-Queens), who said yesterday the split commission vote signals significant opposition to the current proposal. "There are a lot of issues to be resolved," Avella said."
There are nine votes on the subcommittee, and if the application fails to get a five vote majority, it could be defeated at that point-exactly as the Related effort to put a BJs on Brush Avenue was four years ago. At that time, Related withdrew its proposal when it determined that there wasn't enough support for the store at the council.
Which very well could happen again if the growing labor opposition is any indication: "A letter from union leaders to all Council members, urges them to demand Related accept a community benefits agreement drawn up by Diaz that requires a living wage. The letter was signed by the heads of Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ, SEIU Local 1199, the United Federation of Teachers, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees DC 37, and the Hotel & Motel Trades Council. Collectively, these unions represent 750,000 workers in the city. In a separate letter, Gary LaBarbera, president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York, also wrote to Council members advocating a living wage requirement. LaBarbera's group represents 100,000 members."
Still, much work needs to be done-and the council's eventually position remains unclear since there is so much uncertainty in the body as a result of attrition and the influx of considerable new blood: "The Council can vote to reject the proposal, approve it as is, or approve it with certain conditions attached, such as a living wage requirement or mandatory community benefits agreement. Opponents may have to wrangle a super-majority of Council votes to block the project, since Mayor Bloomberg - who has expressed support for the plan - can overturn a rejection by a simple majority. The Council would need a two-thirds vote to override the mayor's veto."
However, if there is enough support garnered for excluding a supermarket and including a living wage provision, than the formal need for a super majority is just that-a formality, Because the legislature, once it makes a decision, will insure that the decision is upheld-and leadership will be loathe to to allow the mayor to overrode its wishes at a time when the speaker's position will soon be decided for another four years.
But opponents have much work to do before they even reach that point-and in this business, nothing is written in stone, Still, the goals are within reach, and the next 50 days will tell the tale.
Update
As Crain's Insider is reporting: " The Central Labor Council has passed a resolution asking City Council members to demand living-wage jobs at a redeveloped Kingsbridge Armory, joining more than half a dozen other labor organizations that have made similar calls." This puts even more heat on the council, which will probably have its first hearing the second week in November.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Mayoral Myopia-Well-Armored for Job Growth?
In response to Bronx BP Ruben Diaz's critique of the Kingsbridge Armory development plan, the Bloomberg administration rebutted with the following: "In a statement, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg praised the commission vote, calling the project “an enormous opportunity to revitalize it as a hub of activity and jobs in the West Bronx.” NY1 had an even more robust quote: "The mayor's office fired back Monday, saying the $310 million rehab of the armory will create 1,200 permanent jobs and more than 1,000 construction jobs at a time when people need them the most -- a claim Diaz, Jr. said he is not buying. "He wants his millionaire friends to get the IDA funding, and these low interest rate loans. He wants his millionaire friends to reap all of the benefits," Diaz Jr. said."
This is all pretty typical of the mayor's vision of economic development-all collateral benefits, no collateral damages. Put simply, his development schemes all come at great expense; to both local businesses, and to the communities that they support. But little effort is made to examine the extent to which any development plan will actually diminish the local economy-something that is made even more compelling as our local economic fortunes flag.
So, there's no analysis as to just what kind of impact a large, suburban-style 60,000 sq. ft. supermarket will have on the existing complement of neighborhood markets. But without this evaluation we will only be proffered the, "job gain." but not the concomitant losses-no matter how steep they may be.
And also keep in mind the fact that revenue and job loss in the neighborhood economy is only poorly replaced by the retail chain store economy that the Bloombergistas seem to favor. Not only does the money circulate at a lesser rate when the chain store replaces the locally-owned shop-but the replacement so often leads to a proliferation of minimum unlivable wage jobs.
But with Bloomberg it's all about the presentation-and the appearance of job growth is more important than really nurturing the small businesses that truly keep the city's economy humming-especially now that Wall Street is just about moribund compared to its heyday. We have, however, seen how this class-based myopia has led to an assault on small businesses that transcends anything we've seen over the past thirty years.
None of this is likely to change in a third Bloomberg term. And if you only read Chris Smith's brilliant Bloomberg portrait in NY Magazine for one observation, it should be this one: "Bloomberg talks to a wide range of other leaders, and has genuine respect for many—among them Dick Beattie, the Simpson Thacher senior partner who launched the New Visions charter-school program; Nat Leventhal, the old Ed Koch hand and recently retired president of Lincoln Center; and Chuck Schumer, the U.S. Senate dynamo. But who can tell the mayor that he’s wrong, that he has a bad idea or is making a big mistake, and be taken seriously? “No one,” a Bloomberg intimate says. “He doesn’t really listen to anyone.”
So everyone should be forewarned. When all the fiscal stuff hits the fan next year-and Mike emerges from his carefully constructed champion of the middle class persona, New Yorkers will experience buyer's remorse. But is may be the real purchase agent-the mayor himself-who will experience the remorse of being dethroned, like Aristophanes' Socrates in The Clouds, from the insulated perch he has constructed high above the mass of unenlightened citizens. Now that's the kind of development we will support unreservedly.
This is all pretty typical of the mayor's vision of economic development-all collateral benefits, no collateral damages. Put simply, his development schemes all come at great expense; to both local businesses, and to the communities that they support. But little effort is made to examine the extent to which any development plan will actually diminish the local economy-something that is made even more compelling as our local economic fortunes flag.
So, there's no analysis as to just what kind of impact a large, suburban-style 60,000 sq. ft. supermarket will have on the existing complement of neighborhood markets. But without this evaluation we will only be proffered the, "job gain." but not the concomitant losses-no matter how steep they may be.
And also keep in mind the fact that revenue and job loss in the neighborhood economy is only poorly replaced by the retail chain store economy that the Bloombergistas seem to favor. Not only does the money circulate at a lesser rate when the chain store replaces the locally-owned shop-but the replacement so often leads to a proliferation of minimum unlivable wage jobs.
But with Bloomberg it's all about the presentation-and the appearance of job growth is more important than really nurturing the small businesses that truly keep the city's economy humming-especially now that Wall Street is just about moribund compared to its heyday. We have, however, seen how this class-based myopia has led to an assault on small businesses that transcends anything we've seen over the past thirty years.
None of this is likely to change in a third Bloomberg term. And if you only read Chris Smith's brilliant Bloomberg portrait in NY Magazine for one observation, it should be this one: "Bloomberg talks to a wide range of other leaders, and has genuine respect for many—among them Dick Beattie, the Simpson Thacher senior partner who launched the New Visions charter-school program; Nat Leventhal, the old Ed Koch hand and recently retired president of Lincoln Center; and Chuck Schumer, the U.S. Senate dynamo. But who can tell the mayor that he’s wrong, that he has a bad idea or is making a big mistake, and be taken seriously? “No one,” a Bloomberg intimate says. “He doesn’t really listen to anyone.”
So everyone should be forewarned. When all the fiscal stuff hits the fan next year-and Mike emerges from his carefully constructed champion of the middle class persona, New Yorkers will experience buyer's remorse. But is may be the real purchase agent-the mayor himself-who will experience the remorse of being dethroned, like Aristophanes' Socrates in The Clouds, from the insulated perch he has constructed high above the mass of unenlightened citizens. Now that's the kind of development we will support unreservedly.
Sins of Commission
As the NY Times reports this morning the City Planning Commission, continuing its long standing record of kneeling slavishly at the feet of the mayor, has voted 8-4 to approve the land use application for the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory. At this juncture we're not sure whether or not Commission chair Burden was able to alter the project by adding at least two or three extra trees to the outside facade.
Still, the four No votes are noteworthy-an indication perhaps that the support for the development isn't rack solid; and going over to the city council, the eventual fate of the plan is up in the air. As the Times indicates, the opposition is gearing up: "But the development has many detractors, among them Borough President Rubén Díaz Jr. and a coalition of labor, religious and local groups. They argue Related should promise employees a “living” wage, allow workers to form a union and provide community space on the site, among other demands. The vote was 8 to 4, with one member of the commission, Maria M. Del Toro, having recused herself from the vote. Dozens of protesters holding placards — “Say no way to poverty pay” — packed the room."
Burden, for her part, continues to give evidence of fuzzyheadedness-transforming herself from an informed and skeptical critic at last month's hearing into a loyal cheerleader explaining why she is now following her marching orders: "The armory project “represents the most significant private investment in the northwest Bronx in generations,” Amanda Burden, a planning commissioner, said before she voted in favor of the development."
But, of course, it is the nature of the public side of the investment in the Armory that has roiled the opponents-from the supermarket owners peeved at the use of close to hundred million tax dollars to put their investments at risk; to the living wage proponents who believe that when this kind of public investment is made, people need to be provided with decent wage jobs: "Related has been offered extensive subsidies and tax incentives for the project, including more than $40 million in federal and state historic tax credits. The city also spent $30 million to replace the roof. Under the terms of the proposed deal, Related will pay $5 million for the property, which is a landmark."
How Burden is able to elide this elephant in her Reade Street room is a subject for her analyst. But, the living wage issue will soon become front and center-and its presence in the debate will throw into some relief the question of just how much good the Bloomberg investment and development strategy really is. As NY1 reports: ""I am not kidding around. There are too many young people and families suffering in the Bronx," said Heidi Hynes of the Northwest Bronx Community Coalition. "This plan they are putting forward is not good for the Bronx. We demand good jobs for the Bronx." "The fact still remains these jobs are not allowing for Bronx families to get themselves out of poverty, to support their families, to pay for their kids to go to college, to pay for a mortgage," Diaz Jr. said."
And the controversy will not be easily resolved-as Councilman Oliver Koppell reminds NY1: "There has to be some serious negotiation on issues raised by the community and the labor movement before I am ready to vote," said City Councilman G. Oliver Koppell." And we still haven't even discussed the fate of the proposed supermarket-an inclusion in the project that has garnered the opposition of all Bronx council members.
Clearly, the entire Armory project has raised serious concerns-ones that will be complicated by the leadership struggle that will certainly take place as the speaker attempts to engineer a second term at the head of the council. And the growing opposition of labor may prove to be the key here. As the Times tells us: "On the other side, presidents of five of the city’s largest labor unions recently sent letters to City Council members urging them to demand a living-wage pledge, while Richard Trumka, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., visited the armory last month to offer his support."
The battle lines are drawn-ladies and gentlemen, start your engines. This is going to heat up pretty soon.
Still, the four No votes are noteworthy-an indication perhaps that the support for the development isn't rack solid; and going over to the city council, the eventual fate of the plan is up in the air. As the Times indicates, the opposition is gearing up: "But the development has many detractors, among them Borough President Rubén Díaz Jr. and a coalition of labor, religious and local groups. They argue Related should promise employees a “living” wage, allow workers to form a union and provide community space on the site, among other demands. The vote was 8 to 4, with one member of the commission, Maria M. Del Toro, having recused herself from the vote. Dozens of protesters holding placards — “Say no way to poverty pay” — packed the room."
Burden, for her part, continues to give evidence of fuzzyheadedness-transforming herself from an informed and skeptical critic at last month's hearing into a loyal cheerleader explaining why she is now following her marching orders: "The armory project “represents the most significant private investment in the northwest Bronx in generations,” Amanda Burden, a planning commissioner, said before she voted in favor of the development."
But, of course, it is the nature of the public side of the investment in the Armory that has roiled the opponents-from the supermarket owners peeved at the use of close to hundred million tax dollars to put their investments at risk; to the living wage proponents who believe that when this kind of public investment is made, people need to be provided with decent wage jobs: "Related has been offered extensive subsidies and tax incentives for the project, including more than $40 million in federal and state historic tax credits. The city also spent $30 million to replace the roof. Under the terms of the proposed deal, Related will pay $5 million for the property, which is a landmark."
How Burden is able to elide this elephant in her Reade Street room is a subject for her analyst. But, the living wage issue will soon become front and center-and its presence in the debate will throw into some relief the question of just how much good the Bloomberg investment and development strategy really is. As NY1 reports: ""I am not kidding around. There are too many young people and families suffering in the Bronx," said Heidi Hynes of the Northwest Bronx Community Coalition. "This plan they are putting forward is not good for the Bronx. We demand good jobs for the Bronx." "The fact still remains these jobs are not allowing for Bronx families to get themselves out of poverty, to support their families, to pay for their kids to go to college, to pay for a mortgage," Diaz Jr. said."
And the controversy will not be easily resolved-as Councilman Oliver Koppell reminds NY1: "There has to be some serious negotiation on issues raised by the community and the labor movement before I am ready to vote," said City Councilman G. Oliver Koppell." And we still haven't even discussed the fate of the proposed supermarket-an inclusion in the project that has garnered the opposition of all Bronx council members.
Clearly, the entire Armory project has raised serious concerns-ones that will be complicated by the leadership struggle that will certainly take place as the speaker attempts to engineer a second term at the head of the council. And the growing opposition of labor may prove to be the key here. As the Times tells us: "On the other side, presidents of five of the city’s largest labor unions recently sent letters to City Council members urging them to demand a living-wage pledge, while Richard Trumka, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., visited the armory last month to offer his support."
The battle lines are drawn-ladies and gentlemen, start your engines. This is going to heat up pretty soon.
Queens Chamber of Horrors
Jack Friedman is at it again-selling off stuff that he doesn't own, and betraying the interests that his organization was founded to defend. As the NY Daily News reports, Friedman is busy shilling for the NY Islanders to relocate to Willets Point: "Pouncing proactively, the Queens Chamber of Commerce is planning a news conference this week to publicly court the Islanders - coveting jobs and tourists the team could bring to the borough."
Just one minor inconvenience; neither the Queens Chamber or the city currently own title to the property that Friedman wants for a hockey arena-and this isn't just any minor impediment, since the course ahead for the city is neither predictable nor an easy one to navigate. That doesn't seem to bother Jack the Grifter, however. And he's willing to violate his own charter and mission statement in order to promote something that, charitably, isn't much as far as economic development is concerned.
Here's Friedman's letter to prospective members of the QCC: "For 98 years, the Queens Chamber of Commerce has supported Queens businesses and the Queens economy. We have faced tough times before. Crisis after crisis, the Chamber has delivered for its members. Now more than ever, the Chamber is ready, willing and able to help you through this recession. Through discounts, networking and promotional opportunities, and a full calendar of educational and training programs, the Chamber will help increase your customer base and save you money."
Quite an offer; except if your a Queens business that's still doing business at Willets Point. But the Chamber isn't a Johnny-come-lately when it comes to betrayal. Back when the Willets Point plan was unveiled, the Chamber jumped right on board. As the Queens Courier reported: "The Queens Chamber of Commerce is delighted with the Master Plan that Mayor Bloomberg and Borough President Marshall unveiled today for the Willets Point peninsula in Northern Queens,” the Chamber of Commerce wrote."
So it should be clear to all Queens businesses, the Chamber of Commerce in your borough will stand four square behind you-at least until a bigger and better use for your property can be discovered; then you're on your own fellas and gals. In our view, this stand by the QCC's Friedman should be grounds for his dismissal, because in essence he is representing the interests of non-Queens businesses over those of existing borough firms.
The real question to us is: Cui bono? What's in it for QCC and Mr. Friedman-and what has this booty capitalist been promised for his perfidy? In our experience, when a local business group advocates against the interests of local businesses, it's time to look hard for the smoking gun of corrupt practices. Can it really be simply a love for Lord Stanley that motivating Jack? "This is the time to aggressively go after this," said Jack Friedman, the chamber's executive vice president. "It's time to bring Lord Stanley back to Long Island, and Queens is on Long Island."
And we're disappointed in the statements of Comptroller-elect John Liu on this issue: "I'm of the strong opinion that Queens has and will always be an attractive and viable option for the Islanders," said Liu, who won the Democratic runoff for city controller last month." Liu needs to examine the fiscal implications of his position-and refer his staff to the writings of Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist-knowing writers who are skeptical about the cost/benefit equation when it comes to arenas.
The economics of a third Bloomberg term have been discussed in the NY Times-and the need to be more frugal is patently obvious; a need that calls into question, not only a hockey arena, but the entire grandiose Willets Point vision. So everyone-but especially Jack Friedman-needs to cool off-and if the Grifter isn't careful WPU will find a true public use for the property that Friedman's house sits on-perhaps a homeless shelter would have symbolic value?
Just one minor inconvenience; neither the Queens Chamber or the city currently own title to the property that Friedman wants for a hockey arena-and this isn't just any minor impediment, since the course ahead for the city is neither predictable nor an easy one to navigate. That doesn't seem to bother Jack the Grifter, however. And he's willing to violate his own charter and mission statement in order to promote something that, charitably, isn't much as far as economic development is concerned.
Here's Friedman's letter to prospective members of the QCC: "For 98 years, the Queens Chamber of Commerce has supported Queens businesses and the Queens economy. We have faced tough times before. Crisis after crisis, the Chamber has delivered for its members. Now more than ever, the Chamber is ready, willing and able to help you through this recession. Through discounts, networking and promotional opportunities, and a full calendar of educational and training programs, the Chamber will help increase your customer base and save you money."
Quite an offer; except if your a Queens business that's still doing business at Willets Point. But the Chamber isn't a Johnny-come-lately when it comes to betrayal. Back when the Willets Point plan was unveiled, the Chamber jumped right on board. As the Queens Courier reported: "The Queens Chamber of Commerce is delighted with the Master Plan that Mayor Bloomberg and Borough President Marshall unveiled today for the Willets Point peninsula in Northern Queens,” the Chamber of Commerce wrote."
So it should be clear to all Queens businesses, the Chamber of Commerce in your borough will stand four square behind you-at least until a bigger and better use for your property can be discovered; then you're on your own fellas and gals. In our view, this stand by the QCC's Friedman should be grounds for his dismissal, because in essence he is representing the interests of non-Queens businesses over those of existing borough firms.
The real question to us is: Cui bono? What's in it for QCC and Mr. Friedman-and what has this booty capitalist been promised for his perfidy? In our experience, when a local business group advocates against the interests of local businesses, it's time to look hard for the smoking gun of corrupt practices. Can it really be simply a love for Lord Stanley that motivating Jack? "This is the time to aggressively go after this," said Jack Friedman, the chamber's executive vice president. "It's time to bring Lord Stanley back to Long Island, and Queens is on Long Island."
And we're disappointed in the statements of Comptroller-elect John Liu on this issue: "I'm of the strong opinion that Queens has and will always be an attractive and viable option for the Islanders," said Liu, who won the Democratic runoff for city controller last month." Liu needs to examine the fiscal implications of his position-and refer his staff to the writings of Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist-knowing writers who are skeptical about the cost/benefit equation when it comes to arenas.
The economics of a third Bloomberg term have been discussed in the NY Times-and the need to be more frugal is patently obvious; a need that calls into question, not only a hockey arena, but the entire grandiose Willets Point vision. So everyone-but especially Jack Friedman-needs to cool off-and if the Grifter isn't careful WPU will find a true public use for the property that Friedman's house sits on-perhaps a homeless shelter would have symbolic value?
Monday, October 19, 2009
NYC Small Business Exposé
In the current issue of the City Journal, Steve Malanga provides us with a withering critique of the plight of NYC small businesses-and, at the same time, gives us an incisive indictment of how the Bloomberg "five borough economic plan" is truly a fraud perpetrated against the small firms of this city. And he does so by leading with the comments of our own Morty Sloan.
Here are Sloan's lead off remarks: "Morton Sloan feels besieged. Over the last several years, the Bronx-based entrepreneur has watched the property taxes on the ten Morton Williams supermarkets he runs in the city swell by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Increasingly aggressive city inspectors now linger in those stores for hours, writing costly citations for items that clerks accidentally mislabel. Some of Sloan’s suppliers say they’ll no longer deliver to New York City because of the Department of Transportation’s frequent parking-ticket blitzes. It gets worse: a new Bloomberg-administration program that encourages fruit and vegetable vendors to set up on street corners has left him scrambling to match prices with competitors who don’t have to pay rent, utilities, payroll taxes, and various other expenses."
So, how does the city address Sloan's concerns? By using tax dollars to try to put the guy out of business entirely: "And now the city wants to plunk a 60,000-square-foot supermarket into a heavily subsidized new development just blocks from two of his stores. “I’ve never received a subsidy or asked anything of the city in 35 years, except to be left alone to do business,” Sloan says. “But everywhere I look these days, it seems like the city is trying to make life tough for me.”
But Sloan's plight is just the tip of the iceberg-and Malanga provides a litany of abuses and complaints. According to Malanga's well-researched piece, taxes and regulations are strangling the city's small business sector: "Doing business in Gotham has rarely been easy for the nearly 200,000 small firms that form the backbone of the city’s local economy. Virtually everyone who runs a business in New York has long had to deal with uncompromising inspectors, unsympathetic city bureaucracies, and complex regulations, to say nothing of profit-crushing taxes. But over the past few years, small businesses’ woes have worsened significantly, say many entrepreneurs and business groups."
All city agencies are playing their revenue enhancing role, as our friend Ramon Murphy tells Malanga: “In 25 years, this is the worst I’ve seen things,” claims Ramon Murphy, owner of two bodegas and president of the city-based Bodega Association of the United States." And he's not alone-but the Bloomberg campaign response ignores the tax and regulatory elephant in the room: "But while this (rare) attention to their problems is welcome, business owners say, what the city really needs is lower taxes, far fewer regulations, more manageable fines, and a more responsive bureaucracy. At stake is the health not just of a few small firms but of the city’s wider economy. Government-imposed barriers to doing business raise prices, narrow choices, and inhibit job growth for all New Yorkers."
All of which goes to the heart of our critique of the Bloomberg regime-and the hollowness of the idea that the current fiscal mess necessitates a third Bloomberg term. More of the same high tax and enhanced enforcement? Malanga's narrative should give us pause: "Far harder for Gotham businesses to survive, however, are steep recent tax hikes, especially the mayor’s $1.9 billion property-tax increase in 2003—the largest single increase in the city’s history, which fell disproportionately on businesses. Combined with aggressive reassessments of the value of buildings over the last eight years, the new levies have virtually doubled the real-estate tax bite in the city, from $8.6 billion in 2002 to $16.1 billion this year—a rate of growth nearly three times the rate of inflation."
And these real estate taxes have meant higher rents and an increased cost of doing business: "Property taxes have created a huge problem for landlords and for small-business owners who rent,” says Bradley Silverbush, a real-estate lawyer at Rosenberg & Estis in Manhattan. “Most landlords now insert clauses into leases saying tenants must pay any increase in real-estate taxes because landlords have been burned by the big increases, but tenants, especially small businesses, can’t bear these new taxes either. Their revenues just don’t change that much from year to year.”
Here are Sloan's lead off remarks: "Morton Sloan feels besieged. Over the last several years, the Bronx-based entrepreneur has watched the property taxes on the ten Morton Williams supermarkets he runs in the city swell by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Increasingly aggressive city inspectors now linger in those stores for hours, writing costly citations for items that clerks accidentally mislabel. Some of Sloan’s suppliers say they’ll no longer deliver to New York City because of the Department of Transportation’s frequent parking-ticket blitzes. It gets worse: a new Bloomberg-administration program that encourages fruit and vegetable vendors to set up on street corners has left him scrambling to match prices with competitors who don’t have to pay rent, utilities, payroll taxes, and various other expenses."
So, how does the city address Sloan's concerns? By using tax dollars to try to put the guy out of business entirely: "And now the city wants to plunk a 60,000-square-foot supermarket into a heavily subsidized new development just blocks from two of his stores. “I’ve never received a subsidy or asked anything of the city in 35 years, except to be left alone to do business,” Sloan says. “But everywhere I look these days, it seems like the city is trying to make life tough for me.”
But Sloan's plight is just the tip of the iceberg-and Malanga provides a litany of abuses and complaints. According to Malanga's well-researched piece, taxes and regulations are strangling the city's small business sector: "Doing business in Gotham has rarely been easy for the nearly 200,000 small firms that form the backbone of the city’s local economy. Virtually everyone who runs a business in New York has long had to deal with uncompromising inspectors, unsympathetic city bureaucracies, and complex regulations, to say nothing of profit-crushing taxes. But over the past few years, small businesses’ woes have worsened significantly, say many entrepreneurs and business groups."
All city agencies are playing their revenue enhancing role, as our friend Ramon Murphy tells Malanga: “In 25 years, this is the worst I’ve seen things,” claims Ramon Murphy, owner of two bodegas and president of the city-based Bodega Association of the United States." And he's not alone-but the Bloomberg campaign response ignores the tax and regulatory elephant in the room: "But while this (rare) attention to their problems is welcome, business owners say, what the city really needs is lower taxes, far fewer regulations, more manageable fines, and a more responsive bureaucracy. At stake is the health not just of a few small firms but of the city’s wider economy. Government-imposed barriers to doing business raise prices, narrow choices, and inhibit job growth for all New Yorkers."
All of which goes to the heart of our critique of the Bloomberg regime-and the hollowness of the idea that the current fiscal mess necessitates a third Bloomberg term. More of the same high tax and enhanced enforcement? Malanga's narrative should give us pause: "Far harder for Gotham businesses to survive, however, are steep recent tax hikes, especially the mayor’s $1.9 billion property-tax increase in 2003—the largest single increase in the city’s history, which fell disproportionately on businesses. Combined with aggressive reassessments of the value of buildings over the last eight years, the new levies have virtually doubled the real-estate tax bite in the city, from $8.6 billion in 2002 to $16.1 billion this year—a rate of growth nearly three times the rate of inflation."
And these real estate taxes have meant higher rents and an increased cost of doing business: "Property taxes have created a huge problem for landlords and for small-business owners who rent,” says Bradley Silverbush, a real-estate lawyer at Rosenberg & Estis in Manhattan. “Most landlords now insert clauses into leases saying tenants must pay any increase in real-estate taxes because landlords have been burned by the big increases, but tenants, especially small businesses, can’t bear these new taxes either. Their revenues just don’t change that much from year to year.”
Small firms with narrow profit margins have come to view Mayor Bloomberg as unsympathetic to their plight: "The mayor defended his 2003 tax hike by calling the city a “luxury product” that businesses were willing to pay a premium for. While that might have been true of the financial industry from which Bloomberg himself came, far more common are businesses, such as supermarkets, that typically earn only 1 to 2 percent of sales. “You can’t raise the price of a can of peas that much to pay for higher taxes and fines,” says Nelson Eusebio, who ran a supermarket in Brooklyn for nearly 20 years before closing up shop recently. Eusebio now heads a local association of struggling, mostly Latino, supermarket operators. He estimates that 300 supermarkets have gone out of business in the city since 2000..."
But while the tax burden certainly hurts, it is the regulatory onslaught that drives small business into a frenzy: "One big generator is the Department of Health, which projects 27 percent more revenues from fines this year. Owners say that they’ve already seen the result in a blitz of tickets. Rob Bookman, a Manhattan lawyer who represents restaurants and bars, says that inspectors are spending hours at each premise—and that “nobody walks out with zero violations.” James McBratney, owner of Jimmy Max on Staten Island and president of the local restaurant association, says that he was recently soaking his silverware in a way recommended by the manufacturer when he received a summons for having standing water in his restaurant. “I explained it to the judge, and even brought the manufacturer’s instructions with me, and I was told, ‘Do you expect the manufacturer’s instructions to supersede the laws of the city?”
This is so typical of the city's mindset-and underscores why the businessman Bloomberg has been such a big disappointment. He had an opportunity, as the guy who wasn't beholden to the special interests, to do some creative re-invention of government in order to make NYC a better place to do business. But it wasn't in his mindset at all-to wit, his witless "luxury city" remark.
But the unwillingness of the mayor to reform this anti-business climate, devolves more from his infatuation with big government-and the need to fuel its municipal work force-regulatory fines and fees will do just fine, thank you: "Businesses have understandably looked with alarm on the city’s latest budget, which projects collecting nearly $900 million in fines and fees this year—a whopping $110 million increase over 2008. The city says that much of the gain will come from an increased number of parking tickets and traffic violations, thanks to a new program of cameras set up at intersections. But that’s hardly consolation to businesses: many of them, especially package-delivery firms, wholesalers, and others that must negotiate the city’s streets every day, have borne the brunt of previous ticketing sprees."
And when it's not the fines themselves, it's the arrogant stupidity of the bureaucrats that drive smaller firms batty: "Lawyer Steven Barrison recently represented a small businessman and property owner who had pulled down a building on his land but kept getting water bills for it—and threats from the city for not paying them. “The city swore that they were reading a meter on the property,” says Barrison. “It took me two years to get an inspector to come to the site so I could show him there was nothing there, and another two years to get the city to stop sending bills. Meanwhile, this guy is paying me to represent him.”
And, as Malanga details, even when the mayor has tried to address some of the problems-as with the efflux of supermarkets-he manges to exacerbate rather than ameliorate the problem: "After the city’s own study backed up reports of a growing supermarket shortage, the administration offered virtually nothing to help struggling stores stay in business, instead debuting a package of tax incentives to lure new stores to New York and licensing new cart vendors to sell fruits and vegetables in underserved areas. The effect has been to worsen the plight of existing supermarkets. The cart vendors are already setting up shop near supermarkets, owners grumble. “The city sees people in line at these new vendor carts and declares the program a success,” says Morton Sloan. “What about the business I’m losing?”
Malanga really leaves no stone unturned-and turns to the use of eminent domain at Willets Point to drive home just how bad the Bloombergistas have been to the little guys: "He has supported everything from the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn to a massive new development in Willets Point, Queens, which would uproot hundreds of firms. Whatever the merits of these individual initiatives (and government’s record of picking winners in business is erratic at best), eminent-domain law as practiced in New York is a virtual death sentence to most small firms. “If government wants to displace a small business in New York and the business doesn’t own its own property, its chances of survival are slim because government pays virtually nothing to these businesses,” says Michael Rikon, an attorney at Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb in Manhattan, a firm that specializes in eminent-domain cases. “They come to me to represent them, and I often refer them directly to a bankruptcy lawyer.”
So, as the next two weeks lead us inexorably to the mayor's third term. Malanga's report on the plight of small business underscores just how mendacious the Bloomberg campaign-right from its opening phony justification for the over turning of term limits-has really been. Mike Bloomberg's legacy-if he continues along the same path that he has been leading the city up till now-will be that of the most anti-small business chief executive the city has ever seen. And nothing else he has done will ameliorate the shame of this epitaph.
CPC's Rubber Stamp: Press Conference at City Hall
The City Planning Commission is doing what it has always done for the past eight years-rubber stamping the mayor's wishes-and today it will ignore the entreaties of supermarket owners and elected officials and approve, without significant reservation, the zoning application for the Kingsbridge Armory. In the process, the Bloomberg personal promise to store owners, made in a meeting at Cafe Rubio in Corona, that there will be no supermarket in the Armory, will be left to the city council to fulfill.
But the council will have a more serious issue to tackle-one that goes beyond whether a supermarket will be sited in the new development. And this issue revolves around the question of whether the stores that are slated to go into the new development will be required to pay their employees a living wage. If left unresolved, a growing coalition of opponents of the development could well defeat the entire plan.
As Crain's highlights: "The heads of six of the city's most powerful unions sent letters in the past week to City Council members urging them to demand that the Related Cos. commit to permanent “living-wage” retail jobs for its redevelopment of the empty Kingsbridge Armory site. Leaders of two major locals of the Service Employees International Union, the United Federation of Teachers, the Hotel Trades Council, the Building & Construction Trades Council and the municipal workers union want the 1,200 permanent jobs predicted to arise from the redevelopment of the 92-year old West Bronx landmark to pay at least $10 an hour and come with health and retirement benefits. “It is time for New York City to move beyond a failed economic development model that promotes low-wage work,” wrote five of the leaders in one letter. In a separate letter, Gary LaBarbera, president of the building trades council, made a similar appeal."
Of course, the political thrust here is being spearheaded by Bronx BP Ruben Diaz, and RWDSU president Stuart Appelbaum: "The union leaders' calls follow ones made by Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr., Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union President Stuart Appelbaum and the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance calling for a wide-ranging community benefits agreement that includes the higher wages, local hiring, the exclusion of a supermarket and a promise to not hinder labor organizing, among other demands."
Crain's foreboding on this issue is merited: "The unions' missives landed at City Hall the week before the city's Planning Commission is expected to approve the project at a meeting Monday. The proposal will then move on to the council, where it faces an uncertain future. The local councilwoman, Maria Baez, says she supports the call for “good jobs,” but she's a lame duck, having been narrowly defeated by the Rev. Fernando Cabrera in September's primary. So, it's not clear if she'll hold any sway over her colleagues in a process where the local representative's position is typically echoed by the rest of the Council. It's possible, however, that the Council could line up behind organized labor, several other members of the Bronx delegation and Mr. Diaz, who have supported the move for living wages."
Which leaves the council leadership in a bind, because it has rarely vetoed a Bloomberg zoning initiative-although Crain's misstates the level of the council's obsequiousness: "Thus far, none of the Bloomberg administration's 99 rezonings have failed in the Council, but with the community alliance digging in and the administration and Related seemingly unwilling to budge, Mr. Bloomberg's unblemished redevelopment record could soon be put to the test."
The reality is that Related has already suffered a defeat at the council-in 2005 its plans to build a BJs at Brush Avenue in the Bronx was defeated in a land use sub committee; and the application was subsequently withdrawn when defeat was inevitable. It looks as if history may be repeating itself in the Bronx.
At 2:00 PM today all of the Armory stakeholders will gather at City Hall to advocate for the community benefits agreement-no supermarket and a living wage-or no to the entire project. It will be a very interesting battle, one whose resolution is far from clear.
MEDIA ADVISORY
Date: October 15, 2009
Contacts: Ava Farkas - 646-533-5454 Michael Yellin -- 917-434-6130
Living Wage Fight At Kingsbridge Armory Moves to City Council for Final Decision Coalition to Demand Council Reject Related’s Development Plans If They Do Not Include Enforceable Community Benefits Agreement
What: The Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance (KARA) will demand the City Council reject the Related Company’s application for the rezoning and sale of the Kingsbridge Armory until the developer signs a binding Community Benefits Agreement for High Road Development that includes: permanent living wage jobs, first source local hiring, protection of the right of retail workers to join a union without fear or intimidation, community and recreation space, and the exclusion of a supermarket and other stores that would be detrimental to local businesses.
Who: Ruben Diaz, Bronx Borough President; Desiree Pilgrim-Hunter, KARA leader and Executive Board member, Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition; Father Joseph Girone, St. Nicholas of Tolentine Church; Jeff Eichler, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union; Nelson Eusebio, National Supermarket Association; other members of the KARA coalition representing the Northwest Bronx community, clergy, small business and labor.
When: Monday, October 19, 2:00 pm, following the City Planning Commission vote
Where: New York City Hall steps
But the council will have a more serious issue to tackle-one that goes beyond whether a supermarket will be sited in the new development. And this issue revolves around the question of whether the stores that are slated to go into the new development will be required to pay their employees a living wage. If left unresolved, a growing coalition of opponents of the development could well defeat the entire plan.
As Crain's highlights: "The heads of six of the city's most powerful unions sent letters in the past week to City Council members urging them to demand that the Related Cos. commit to permanent “living-wage” retail jobs for its redevelopment of the empty Kingsbridge Armory site. Leaders of two major locals of the Service Employees International Union, the United Federation of Teachers, the Hotel Trades Council, the Building & Construction Trades Council and the municipal workers union want the 1,200 permanent jobs predicted to arise from the redevelopment of the 92-year old West Bronx landmark to pay at least $10 an hour and come with health and retirement benefits. “It is time for New York City to move beyond a failed economic development model that promotes low-wage work,” wrote five of the leaders in one letter. In a separate letter, Gary LaBarbera, president of the building trades council, made a similar appeal."
Of course, the political thrust here is being spearheaded by Bronx BP Ruben Diaz, and RWDSU president Stuart Appelbaum: "The union leaders' calls follow ones made by Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr., Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union President Stuart Appelbaum and the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance calling for a wide-ranging community benefits agreement that includes the higher wages, local hiring, the exclusion of a supermarket and a promise to not hinder labor organizing, among other demands."
Crain's foreboding on this issue is merited: "The unions' missives landed at City Hall the week before the city's Planning Commission is expected to approve the project at a meeting Monday. The proposal will then move on to the council, where it faces an uncertain future. The local councilwoman, Maria Baez, says she supports the call for “good jobs,” but she's a lame duck, having been narrowly defeated by the Rev. Fernando Cabrera in September's primary. So, it's not clear if she'll hold any sway over her colleagues in a process where the local representative's position is typically echoed by the rest of the Council. It's possible, however, that the Council could line up behind organized labor, several other members of the Bronx delegation and Mr. Diaz, who have supported the move for living wages."
Which leaves the council leadership in a bind, because it has rarely vetoed a Bloomberg zoning initiative-although Crain's misstates the level of the council's obsequiousness: "Thus far, none of the Bloomberg administration's 99 rezonings have failed in the Council, but with the community alliance digging in and the administration and Related seemingly unwilling to budge, Mr. Bloomberg's unblemished redevelopment record could soon be put to the test."
The reality is that Related has already suffered a defeat at the council-in 2005 its plans to build a BJs at Brush Avenue in the Bronx was defeated in a land use sub committee; and the application was subsequently withdrawn when defeat was inevitable. It looks as if history may be repeating itself in the Bronx.
At 2:00 PM today all of the Armory stakeholders will gather at City Hall to advocate for the community benefits agreement-no supermarket and a living wage-or no to the entire project. It will be a very interesting battle, one whose resolution is far from clear.
MEDIA ADVISORY
Date: October 15, 2009
Contacts: Ava Farkas - 646-533-5454 Michael Yellin -- 917-434-6130
Living Wage Fight At Kingsbridge Armory Moves to City Council for Final Decision Coalition to Demand Council Reject Related’s Development Plans If They Do Not Include Enforceable Community Benefits Agreement
What: The Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance (KARA) will demand the City Council reject the Related Company’s application for the rezoning and sale of the Kingsbridge Armory until the developer signs a binding Community Benefits Agreement for High Road Development that includes: permanent living wage jobs, first source local hiring, protection of the right of retail workers to join a union without fear or intimidation, community and recreation space, and the exclusion of a supermarket and other stores that would be detrimental to local businesses.
Who: Ruben Diaz, Bronx Borough President; Desiree Pilgrim-Hunter, KARA leader and Executive Board member, Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition; Father Joseph Girone, St. Nicholas of Tolentine Church; Jeff Eichler, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union; Nelson Eusebio, National Supermarket Association; other members of the KARA coalition representing the Northwest Bronx community, clergy, small business and labor.
When: Monday, October 19, 2:00 pm, following the City Planning Commission vote
Where: New York City Hall steps
No Mayor Culpas in a Third Term
Harry and Fred Siegal have made the point that the next four years are going to be really tough ones-and that candidates Bloomberg and Thompson are avoiding the task of being honest with the voters about what lies ahead:
"But as next month's mayoral election approaches, the city faces an economic downturn and a political reordering that augur badly for the future. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a two-term incumbent running against Bill Thomson, a lackluster Democratic challenger all but disavowed by his own party, has already spent at least $70 million funding 336 times as many TV ads as his rival through late last month. Yet the incumbent can barely break 50% in the polls..."
"The standard explanation for Mr. Bloomberg's weakness is anger at his ham-handed repeal of the term-limits law he had once championed. But underlying that, there's a growing civic unease, a foreboding that's remained nameless while the candidates have sidestepped the city's economic problems."
In Saturday's NY Times, there appears to be a first glimpse that the mayor's people recognize that the Days of Wine and Roses have gone: "He swept onto the national stage with feats of social engineering, colossal works of public art and grand plans to remake the cityscape. But if Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg wins a third term, he will return to City Hall with a less lofty agenda: preventing New Yorkers from losing their jobs and their homes."
Of course, there will be no recognition from the Bloombergistas that the hole the city finds itself in is partly the result of the mayor's own digging. As the Siegels point out: "Under Mayor Bloomberg, city expenditures grew 40% faster than the rate of inflation even as he imposed record property-tax increases and the city's coffers overflowed with revenues culled from the booming stock and real-estate markets. To keep the politically powerful public-sector happy, Mr. Bloomberg bestowed raises two to three times the rate of inflation on the city's unionized workers. To keep politically wired developers happy, Mr. Bloomberg showered subsidies on economically dubious megaprojects including two new major league baseball stadiums and plans for a basketball arena in Brooklyn."
Still, NYC government is do for some very serious downsizing. As the Times tells us: "Congestion pricing? Try loan modifications. In a series of announcements over the next two weeks, his re-election campaign will outline plans to reduce the city’s unemployment rate, stem home foreclosures, prop up small businesses and clamp down on predatory banking, according to his advisers. Aides said the mayor is delivering precisely what he has promised — innovative responses to a deep recession — and they do not rule out sweeping changes when the city’s finances recover."
But, as we have seen with addiction intervention, the first step towards recovery is owning the problem-and we see no evidence that Bloomberg, a man of limited self reflection, will suddenly become more introspective. However, the failure to see just how much the mayor's own policies are themselves responsible for the city's problems-a huge government apparatus supported by an irresponsible tax structure looms large in this respect-will severely limit the city's ability to recover.
And it appears to us that Bloomberg-limited by a John Lindsay-like world view-is still missing the point; and is resorting to limp liberal bromides rather than robust economic recovery proposals: "Today, his campaign pledges include keeping 3,000 households from losing their homes to foreclosure and giving emergency grants to 1,000 distressed households. “Obviously, the extreme vulnerability of people at this moment is what was driving a lot of our thinking about policy,” said Andrea Batista Schlesinger, a policy adviser on the Bloomberg campaign. “How could it not?”
The fact that Schlesinger is being elevated here as a campaign tout underscores Bloomberg's own limitations-because Andrea has no clue how to do any kind of economic development that doesn't involve simply giving stuff away: How could it not, given who she is, and where she comes from?
But the Times goes on to make this rather interesting observation-one that impacts directly on our concerns about Willets Point: "So, too, is the city’s yawning budget deficit — $5 billion — which leaves the mayor little, if any, money to set aside for new programs. During marathon policy sessions at campaign headquarters, Mr. Bloomberg has repeatedly pressed his advisers to work within existing agency budgets. “How much will it cost?” he asks at the end of presentations."
And when it comes to Willets Point this is exactly the question we have been asking-Bloomberg must have been reading our mind: How much will it cost? As we said last month: "But EDC has established an off set price here-and if the numbers are added up they probably would exceed $700 million. Where does the city expect to come up with this cash from-at a time when it is evicting the businesses and putting thousands of workers on the unemployment line?"
But Team Bloomberg is ready to roll out all of the non sequitors in its arsenal-and will probably still look to drop hundreds of millions of dollars on the Willets boondoggle, money that could be put to better use elsewhere. Here's what they are cooking up:
"Ms. Batista Schlesinger, and her colleague Brian Mahanna said that did not mean the policy team was thinking small or for the short term. To help working-class New Yorkers save, they propose creating new, universally available bank accounts with no minimum balance or overdraft fees. Ten banks have agreed to offer them.
They will try to inject city dollars into neighborhood credit unions to increase the pool of money that the banks can lend, a measure that would require approval from the State Legislature. They plan to install credit unions in public housing complexes to broaden access to banking services, which remain scarce in poor neighborhoods. And they want to dispatch mobile financial counselors to the homes of the elderly and the disabled."
No, we're not making this up-it's right there in the NY Times, so we're sure that they really mean this. And are, "credit unions in public housing complexes," the reason we needed Mike Bloomberg for a bogarted third term? This is beyond farce.
Unable to recognize that the problem lies with his own limited world view, Mike Bloomberg continues along the same self destructive path that got us to this point. As the Siegels observe: "During the peak years of 2003 to mid-2008, wages outside of Manhattan were essentially stagnant for the middle class, while the costs of housing, electricity, water and phone service rose sharply under Mayor Bloomberg. A report by the liberal Center for the Urban Future, "Reviving the City of Aspiration," reports that a person can live in Houston for $50,000 a year at the same standard as he or she would in Manhattan with a $123,000 income. "Astonishingly," the report notes, more residents left the five boroughs for other locales in each of the five years between 2002 and 2006 "than in 1993, when the city," suffering from staggering job losses and high crime, "was in seemingly far worse shape."
Driven out by the rising costs of government, and a mayor who has no understanding of what needed to be done to reduce the size and scope of government-so immersed in a Wall Street driven perspective that was blind to the concerns of the shlubs in the city's neighborhoods, or the problems of small business owners: "We don't want to lose people who work on Wall Street," Mr. Bloomberg said recently, neatly summing up the dynamic in which high taxes on the rich pay for a padded public-sector work force while squeezing out entrepreneurs. "We need the tax base. Our teachers need to get paid."
So, if we do get the third term that Bloomberg has done so much to purchase, we will be in the enviable position of having a front row seat for the upcoming debacle. The mayor may well live to regret his decision to run again-and while doing so, unleashing such vitriol against an underfunded opponent. In our view, the Bloomberg retrospective will be colored by the observation that he might have been better served to gracefully exit when his legitimate term was up. But when you're this rich, it's hard to simply leave well enough alone.
"But as next month's mayoral election approaches, the city faces an economic downturn and a political reordering that augur badly for the future. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a two-term incumbent running against Bill Thomson, a lackluster Democratic challenger all but disavowed by his own party, has already spent at least $70 million funding 336 times as many TV ads as his rival through late last month. Yet the incumbent can barely break 50% in the polls..."
"The standard explanation for Mr. Bloomberg's weakness is anger at his ham-handed repeal of the term-limits law he had once championed. But underlying that, there's a growing civic unease, a foreboding that's remained nameless while the candidates have sidestepped the city's economic problems."
In Saturday's NY Times, there appears to be a first glimpse that the mayor's people recognize that the Days of Wine and Roses have gone: "He swept onto the national stage with feats of social engineering, colossal works of public art and grand plans to remake the cityscape. But if Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg wins a third term, he will return to City Hall with a less lofty agenda: preventing New Yorkers from losing their jobs and their homes."
Of course, there will be no recognition from the Bloombergistas that the hole the city finds itself in is partly the result of the mayor's own digging. As the Siegels point out: "Under Mayor Bloomberg, city expenditures grew 40% faster than the rate of inflation even as he imposed record property-tax increases and the city's coffers overflowed with revenues culled from the booming stock and real-estate markets. To keep the politically powerful public-sector happy, Mr. Bloomberg bestowed raises two to three times the rate of inflation on the city's unionized workers. To keep politically wired developers happy, Mr. Bloomberg showered subsidies on economically dubious megaprojects including two new major league baseball stadiums and plans for a basketball arena in Brooklyn."
Still, NYC government is do for some very serious downsizing. As the Times tells us: "Congestion pricing? Try loan modifications. In a series of announcements over the next two weeks, his re-election campaign will outline plans to reduce the city’s unemployment rate, stem home foreclosures, prop up small businesses and clamp down on predatory banking, according to his advisers. Aides said the mayor is delivering precisely what he has promised — innovative responses to a deep recession — and they do not rule out sweeping changes when the city’s finances recover."
But, as we have seen with addiction intervention, the first step towards recovery is owning the problem-and we see no evidence that Bloomberg, a man of limited self reflection, will suddenly become more introspective. However, the failure to see just how much the mayor's own policies are themselves responsible for the city's problems-a huge government apparatus supported by an irresponsible tax structure looms large in this respect-will severely limit the city's ability to recover.
And it appears to us that Bloomberg-limited by a John Lindsay-like world view-is still missing the point; and is resorting to limp liberal bromides rather than robust economic recovery proposals: "Today, his campaign pledges include keeping 3,000 households from losing their homes to foreclosure and giving emergency grants to 1,000 distressed households. “Obviously, the extreme vulnerability of people at this moment is what was driving a lot of our thinking about policy,” said Andrea Batista Schlesinger, a policy adviser on the Bloomberg campaign. “How could it not?”
The fact that Schlesinger is being elevated here as a campaign tout underscores Bloomberg's own limitations-because Andrea has no clue how to do any kind of economic development that doesn't involve simply giving stuff away: How could it not, given who she is, and where she comes from?
But the Times goes on to make this rather interesting observation-one that impacts directly on our concerns about Willets Point: "So, too, is the city’s yawning budget deficit — $5 billion — which leaves the mayor little, if any, money to set aside for new programs. During marathon policy sessions at campaign headquarters, Mr. Bloomberg has repeatedly pressed his advisers to work within existing agency budgets. “How much will it cost?” he asks at the end of presentations."
And when it comes to Willets Point this is exactly the question we have been asking-Bloomberg must have been reading our mind: How much will it cost? As we said last month: "But EDC has established an off set price here-and if the numbers are added up they probably would exceed $700 million. Where does the city expect to come up with this cash from-at a time when it is evicting the businesses and putting thousands of workers on the unemployment line?"
But Team Bloomberg is ready to roll out all of the non sequitors in its arsenal-and will probably still look to drop hundreds of millions of dollars on the Willets boondoggle, money that could be put to better use elsewhere. Here's what they are cooking up:
"Ms. Batista Schlesinger, and her colleague Brian Mahanna said that did not mean the policy team was thinking small or for the short term. To help working-class New Yorkers save, they propose creating new, universally available bank accounts with no minimum balance or overdraft fees. Ten banks have agreed to offer them.
They will try to inject city dollars into neighborhood credit unions to increase the pool of money that the banks can lend, a measure that would require approval from the State Legislature. They plan to install credit unions in public housing complexes to broaden access to banking services, which remain scarce in poor neighborhoods. And they want to dispatch mobile financial counselors to the homes of the elderly and the disabled."
No, we're not making this up-it's right there in the NY Times, so we're sure that they really mean this. And are, "credit unions in public housing complexes," the reason we needed Mike Bloomberg for a bogarted third term? This is beyond farce.
Unable to recognize that the problem lies with his own limited world view, Mike Bloomberg continues along the same self destructive path that got us to this point. As the Siegels observe: "During the peak years of 2003 to mid-2008, wages outside of Manhattan were essentially stagnant for the middle class, while the costs of housing, electricity, water and phone service rose sharply under Mayor Bloomberg. A report by the liberal Center for the Urban Future, "Reviving the City of Aspiration," reports that a person can live in Houston for $50,000 a year at the same standard as he or she would in Manhattan with a $123,000 income. "Astonishingly," the report notes, more residents left the five boroughs for other locales in each of the five years between 2002 and 2006 "than in 1993, when the city," suffering from staggering job losses and high crime, "was in seemingly far worse shape."
Driven out by the rising costs of government, and a mayor who has no understanding of what needed to be done to reduce the size and scope of government-so immersed in a Wall Street driven perspective that was blind to the concerns of the shlubs in the city's neighborhoods, or the problems of small business owners: "We don't want to lose people who work on Wall Street," Mr. Bloomberg said recently, neatly summing up the dynamic in which high taxes on the rich pay for a padded public-sector work force while squeezing out entrepreneurs. "We need the tax base. Our teachers need to get paid."
So, if we do get the third term that Bloomberg has done so much to purchase, we will be in the enviable position of having a front row seat for the upcoming debacle. The mayor may well live to regret his decision to run again-and while doing so, unleashing such vitriol against an underfunded opponent. In our view, the Bloomberg retrospective will be colored by the observation that he might have been better served to gracefully exit when his legitimate term was up. But when you're this rich, it's hard to simply leave well enough alone.
School Achievement: InTestate
Well, even the NY Post, the paper that has led the cheers for the "Bloomberg miracle" in education, now has to admit that the tests used to measure the success of city school children don't pass the smell test: "City schoolkids may be making progress -- but compared to what?
Federal test scores this week cast serious doubt on state results that suggest big gains in New York, including in the city. The feds say just 40 percent of fourth graders cut it in math -- not 80 percent, as Albany claims. And only 34 percent of eighth graders are up to snuff -- versus 87 percent, in the state's account. Worse, New York's fourth graders are actually below their level of two years ago on the federal exam, despite huge "gains" on the state test. (City kids' national test results are due next month.)"
But the Post doesn't go so far as to admit that its boosterism for mayoral control was built on a very questionable foundation-and even tries to find a Klein-like silver lining in the results: "Still, a more comprehensive breakdown of state results this week gives plenty of reason for city kids to cheer. Going by actual average test scores, the five boroughs ranked in the bottom six counties in the state in 2002. This year, Queens kids are in the top quarter of all counties, with Staten Island not far behind. Manhattan, Brooklyn and The Bronx have also posted big gains."
So let's get this straight. The gold standard national tests show either flatlining or retrogression-but we can cheer how well we're doing compared to, say, Yonkers-or Eire County? This is really all so lame. As the Post's own conclusions underscore: "Still, New Yorkers need a clear, reliable measure of student achievement. When state and national testing methods produce such starkly discrepant pictures, folks logically conclude that one -- if not both -- must be wrong. It hardly instills confidence."
How about the fact that we have a mayor running for re-election and handing out large teacher bonuses based on the word the Post is wont to use-fraud! Those who, like the Post and the NY Daily News, hyped the success of the mayoral control regime in purple prose, have the obligation to, not only issue strong mea culpas, but to now hold Bloomberg and Klein responsible for the scam.
Don't hold your breathe for Morticia, however. In yesterday's paper, the News not only found a silver lining in the horrid national test results, it took the critics to task for their carping: "Opponents of Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein have gleefully glommed onto the so-so performance by New York State kids on the most recent national math tests as supposed proof that the city's educational reforms have been just a lot of hooey. But what's hooey is that critique. The critics would have us believe that the National Assessment of Educational Progress - which shows only slight gains from 2007 to this year in eighth grade math and a slide in fourth grade math - is the only test worth believing."
Talk about putting lipstick on a pig! Memo to Mort: The national tests are the more reliable measure-and when 87% of city schools, some of whom were threatened with closure for their violent chaos, are given A or B grades, the one thing we can be sure of is that the state tests are bogus. Or, as Big Daddy put it, “Didn’t you notice the powerful and noxious odor of mendacity in this room?”
And while we're talking mendacity, the Post praise for the mayor on his educational record in today's paper could use a little more honest perspective-like the fact that any gains made could perhaps be attributed to the fact that the city's educational budget has soared; an almost 80% rise, 0r $12 billion increase. Has the cost been really been worth it? We're just saying.
All of this covering up is getting really tiresome-and we believe that the coming fiscal meltdown in the city will expose all of those-including the News and the Post-who shilled for a third Bloomberg term because of his supposed superior abilities. In the end, the Bloomberg legacy will be all about how the richest man in the city was able to promotes himself-at the expense of any really positive civic vision. Once Bloomberg is gone, no one will be able to recall very much about why we elected this guy for the likely three terms. His accomplishments, as it were, will be seen to have all of the substance of a hologram.
Federal test scores this week cast serious doubt on state results that suggest big gains in New York, including in the city. The feds say just 40 percent of fourth graders cut it in math -- not 80 percent, as Albany claims. And only 34 percent of eighth graders are up to snuff -- versus 87 percent, in the state's account. Worse, New York's fourth graders are actually below their level of two years ago on the federal exam, despite huge "gains" on the state test. (City kids' national test results are due next month.)"
But the Post doesn't go so far as to admit that its boosterism for mayoral control was built on a very questionable foundation-and even tries to find a Klein-like silver lining in the results: "Still, a more comprehensive breakdown of state results this week gives plenty of reason for city kids to cheer. Going by actual average test scores, the five boroughs ranked in the bottom six counties in the state in 2002. This year, Queens kids are in the top quarter of all counties, with Staten Island not far behind. Manhattan, Brooklyn and The Bronx have also posted big gains."
So let's get this straight. The gold standard national tests show either flatlining or retrogression-but we can cheer how well we're doing compared to, say, Yonkers-or Eire County? This is really all so lame. As the Post's own conclusions underscore: "Still, New Yorkers need a clear, reliable measure of student achievement. When state and national testing methods produce such starkly discrepant pictures, folks logically conclude that one -- if not both -- must be wrong. It hardly instills confidence."
How about the fact that we have a mayor running for re-election and handing out large teacher bonuses based on the word the Post is wont to use-fraud! Those who, like the Post and the NY Daily News, hyped the success of the mayoral control regime in purple prose, have the obligation to, not only issue strong mea culpas, but to now hold Bloomberg and Klein responsible for the scam.
Don't hold your breathe for Morticia, however. In yesterday's paper, the News not only found a silver lining in the horrid national test results, it took the critics to task for their carping: "Opponents of Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein have gleefully glommed onto the so-so performance by New York State kids on the most recent national math tests as supposed proof that the city's educational reforms have been just a lot of hooey. But what's hooey is that critique. The critics would have us believe that the National Assessment of Educational Progress - which shows only slight gains from 2007 to this year in eighth grade math and a slide in fourth grade math - is the only test worth believing."
Talk about putting lipstick on a pig! Memo to Mort: The national tests are the more reliable measure-and when 87% of city schools, some of whom were threatened with closure for their violent chaos, are given A or B grades, the one thing we can be sure of is that the state tests are bogus. Or, as Big Daddy put it, “Didn’t you notice the powerful and noxious odor of mendacity in this room?”
And while we're talking mendacity, the Post praise for the mayor on his educational record in today's paper could use a little more honest perspective-like the fact that any gains made could perhaps be attributed to the fact that the city's educational budget has soared; an almost 80% rise, 0r $12 billion increase. Has the cost been really been worth it? We're just saying.
All of this covering up is getting really tiresome-and we believe that the coming fiscal meltdown in the city will expose all of those-including the News and the Post-who shilled for a third Bloomberg term because of his supposed superior abilities. In the end, the Bloomberg legacy will be all about how the richest man in the city was able to promotes himself-at the expense of any really positive civic vision. Once Bloomberg is gone, no one will be able to recall very much about why we elected this guy for the likely three terms. His accomplishments, as it were, will be seen to have all of the substance of a hologram.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Union Heads Join Armory Fight
As Crain's Insider is reporting (subscription), key labor officials have rallied to the support of the RWDSU and KARA in calling for a living wage agreement as a prerequisite for approving the redevelopment plans at the Kingsbridge Armory: "The heads of 32BJ SEIU, 1199 SEIU, the UFT, DC 37, the Hotel Trades Council and the Building & Construction Trades Council sent letters in the past week urging council members to demand that The Related Companies commit to permanent living-wage jobs at a redeveloped Kingsbridge Armory."
The support of labor could help opponents sway the council-and their opposition will be particularly significant since the final determination will come some time in December; at about the time when the council speakership will be decided. And, as Juan Gonzales points out this morning, Speaker Quinn is vigorously trying to maintain her position in the face of dissatisfaction with her reluctance to support the mayoral candidacy of Bill Thompson: "Christine Quinn's lack of political backbone in refusing to say if she'll back her party's mayoral nominee could spell the end of her reign as speaker when a new City Council convenes in January."
While we don't necessary agree with Gonzales' speculation here, we do think that the issue of her continuance as the leader of the council will play a role in the Armory fight. If opponents, now bolstered by a significant labor coalition, obtain critical mass, it will be more difficult for the speaker to push back against them-if that's what she is inclined to do (and we're not sure she is at all).
As Crain's observes: "The leaders have clout in the council, and their requests—which echo one by Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr.—could sway members' opinions on the project." But the key here for opponents is to really mobilize support across county lines-and use the Bronx opposition as a starting point for developing a wider consensus on the living wage issue. The greater the number of opponents that can be generated in the legislative body, the more likely that the speaker will seek to accommodate their wishes.
We did, however, get as kick out of the deputy mayor's position that is highlighted by the Insider: "Deputy Mayor Robert Lieber has said requiring retailers to pay living wages would result in no jobs, instead of good jobs, but unions want wage standards tied to projects like Kingsbridge that receive subsidies." Where does Lieber think that the shoppers will come from if this mall is eventually built? Has he seen the vacancies on the local shopping strips?
The problem with Lieber-and the entire economic development strategy of this administration, is that they propose these mammoth mall projects with no attempt to do an honest cost-benefit analysis-highlighting the job gains, but not the significant potential job losses. As MortonWilliams officials have directly told Liber-but perhaps his concentration was elsewhere-the mall across the street from their supermarket will lead to the closing of the store, and the other store that they own down at Fordham Road. This will mean the immediate loss of over 500 good union jobs.
And while we're talking about jobs, did you happen to see the NY Times report on this yesterday? "New York City’s unemployment rate rose to 10.3 percent in September as summer jobs programs ended and businesses that usually add staff in the fall held off on hiring, the state’s Department of Labor reported on Thursday. Over all, the employment picture was “markedly weaker” than it had been in August, when the city’s unemployment rate was 10.2 percent, said James Brown, an analyst for the Labor Department. (The department revised the August rate, which had been reported as 10.3 percent.)"
But the really significant news was from the other day in the Times, when the quality of the jobs gained and lost was analyzed: "Even in the downturn, the city has 130,000 more jobs than it had when Mr. Bloomberg became mayor, according to state labor statistics. Working-class New Yorkers who kept their jobs or stayed in the same field saw their pay rise faster than the rate of inflation. But the overall job market constantly shifts, particularly in a recession, when the economy sheds jobs and even whole industries. And in New York, middle- and working-class jobs that have disappeared — in fields like manufacturing, wholesale distribution and administrative services — have been replaced by jobs in sectors like retail, food service and home health care that generally pay less."
Not a great trade off. So we need to focus on job quality-exactly the issue that's being raised by the RW's living wage fight: “There’s been much more growth in lower-wage industries than in middle-wage industries,” said James Parrott, chief economist for the Fiscal Policy Institute, a liberal research group. “That’s a challenge for people struggling to maintain a decent livelihood in New York City, given the cost of housing and everything else.”
So when we listen to the deputy mayor we need to try to avoid being jobbed-and if the price of not having a living wage in the, "Shops at the Armory," is no project at all than, so be it. It's simply not worth the millions of tax payer dollars to create these kind of low end jobs; especially when the city's economic gurus sit idly by, and blithely watch the investment capitalists close down Stella D'Oro.
So let's hold the Bloombergistas' hands to the fire on the Armory-no supermarket, and a living wage for Bronx workers who are struggling to survive in this luxury item city. Simple enough?
The support of labor could help opponents sway the council-and their opposition will be particularly significant since the final determination will come some time in December; at about the time when the council speakership will be decided. And, as Juan Gonzales points out this morning, Speaker Quinn is vigorously trying to maintain her position in the face of dissatisfaction with her reluctance to support the mayoral candidacy of Bill Thompson: "Christine Quinn's lack of political backbone in refusing to say if she'll back her party's mayoral nominee could spell the end of her reign as speaker when a new City Council convenes in January."
While we don't necessary agree with Gonzales' speculation here, we do think that the issue of her continuance as the leader of the council will play a role in the Armory fight. If opponents, now bolstered by a significant labor coalition, obtain critical mass, it will be more difficult for the speaker to push back against them-if that's what she is inclined to do (and we're not sure she is at all).
As Crain's observes: "The leaders have clout in the council, and their requests—which echo one by Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr.—could sway members' opinions on the project." But the key here for opponents is to really mobilize support across county lines-and use the Bronx opposition as a starting point for developing a wider consensus on the living wage issue. The greater the number of opponents that can be generated in the legislative body, the more likely that the speaker will seek to accommodate their wishes.
We did, however, get as kick out of the deputy mayor's position that is highlighted by the Insider: "Deputy Mayor Robert Lieber has said requiring retailers to pay living wages would result in no jobs, instead of good jobs, but unions want wage standards tied to projects like Kingsbridge that receive subsidies." Where does Lieber think that the shoppers will come from if this mall is eventually built? Has he seen the vacancies on the local shopping strips?
The problem with Lieber-and the entire economic development strategy of this administration, is that they propose these mammoth mall projects with no attempt to do an honest cost-benefit analysis-highlighting the job gains, but not the significant potential job losses. As MortonWilliams officials have directly told Liber-but perhaps his concentration was elsewhere-the mall across the street from their supermarket will lead to the closing of the store, and the other store that they own down at Fordham Road. This will mean the immediate loss of over 500 good union jobs.
And while we're talking about jobs, did you happen to see the NY Times report on this yesterday? "New York City’s unemployment rate rose to 10.3 percent in September as summer jobs programs ended and businesses that usually add staff in the fall held off on hiring, the state’s Department of Labor reported on Thursday. Over all, the employment picture was “markedly weaker” than it had been in August, when the city’s unemployment rate was 10.2 percent, said James Brown, an analyst for the Labor Department. (The department revised the August rate, which had been reported as 10.3 percent.)"
But the really significant news was from the other day in the Times, when the quality of the jobs gained and lost was analyzed: "Even in the downturn, the city has 130,000 more jobs than it had when Mr. Bloomberg became mayor, according to state labor statistics. Working-class New Yorkers who kept their jobs or stayed in the same field saw their pay rise faster than the rate of inflation. But the overall job market constantly shifts, particularly in a recession, when the economy sheds jobs and even whole industries. And in New York, middle- and working-class jobs that have disappeared — in fields like manufacturing, wholesale distribution and administrative services — have been replaced by jobs in sectors like retail, food service and home health care that generally pay less."
Not a great trade off. So we need to focus on job quality-exactly the issue that's being raised by the RW's living wage fight: “There’s been much more growth in lower-wage industries than in middle-wage industries,” said James Parrott, chief economist for the Fiscal Policy Institute, a liberal research group. “That’s a challenge for people struggling to maintain a decent livelihood in New York City, given the cost of housing and everything else.”
So when we listen to the deputy mayor we need to try to avoid being jobbed-and if the price of not having a living wage in the, "Shops at the Armory," is no project at all than, so be it. It's simply not worth the millions of tax payer dollars to create these kind of low end jobs; especially when the city's economic gurus sit idly by, and blithely watch the investment capitalists close down Stella D'Oro.
So let's hold the Bloombergistas' hands to the fire on the Armory-no supermarket, and a living wage for Bronx workers who are struggling to survive in this luxury item city. Simple enough?
El Diario: Bloomberg-No Mas!
The NY Times focuses on the front page editorial in yesterday's El Diario that echoes the refrain of the Thompson campaign-eight is enough: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has spent years trying to perfect his Spanish. He bucked Republican allies to endorse immigration reform. And he has created a package of small-business services called the Latino Business Initiative. He has been rewarded with dozens of endorsements from ethnic news organizations. But on Thursday, the city’s biggest and most influential Spanish-language newspaper sent a different message: “adiós.”
This is significant for a number of reasons, but for us, it's importance devolves from the fact that it bucks the bucks trend-as the city's largest Hispanic outlet refuses to go along with the same money trail that has induced so many of it's smaller ethnic colleagues to see the light on the mayor's sterling qualities: "Still, he lags far behind the mayor in overall newspaper endorsements, which the Bloomberg campaign has pursued assiduously. So far, 48 have endorsed the mayor. Just two have backed Mr. Thompson since the Democratic primary."
This stampede, reminiscent of what happens when a Brinks truck accidentally spews money onto a crowded street corner is, as they say in New York, "Not for nothing." Still, the self evident apparently is not something that the Bloombergistas are good at noticing. As Bloomberg's campaign manager says with a straight face: "Every newspaper is different, but when 48 different newspapers across the city endorse one candidate, compared to just 2 for our opponent, that clearly says something,” Mr. Tusk said."
It does, but obviously not what Tusk wants us to believe. And that gets us to the Times lede about how the mayor has been wooing Hispanic concerns-particularly something we hadn't heard of called, "the Latino Business Initiative." This must be some really bad joke. Bloomberg policies have devastated the city's bodegas-with his "bodega tax" on tobacco sending over $250 million a year in cigarette sales into the black market. His retail malling of the city has contributed to the loss of around 300 independent supermarkets, the majority of whom are Latino owned.
And remember the mostly Hispanic food wholesalers who used to call the Bronx Terminal market home? Gone! Expelled to make room for a mall built by the mayor's friends at Related Companies. And now the same fate is being prepared for the 2500 or so immigrant Hispanic workers at Willets Point.
So, with unemployment in Hispanic communities soaring, and store vacancies at record levels, it is to El Diario's credit that it resists the lure of the mayor's lucre. And Tusk should, along with his fatuous comments, detail how much the Bloomberg campaign has spent advertising in each of the papers that have endorsed the mayor.
But in the end, at least for El Diario, it came down to term limits; and the paper sees the power grab as worthy of Latin America's favorite caudillo-but even Chavez, according to El Diario, wasn't as blatant as Bloomberg: "The editorial, in El Diario La Prensa, compared Mr. Bloomberg to Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan president, for his all-out campaign to upend the term limits law so he could seek a third term. At least Mr. Chávez, it said, held a referendum to extend his time in power. “New Yorkers were not even given that chance,” the editorial said. It called Mr. Bloomberg’s term limits maneuver “not simply slick scheming” but “a gross abuse of power.”
So good for El Diario for stating the obvious-NYC is in dire straights and the mayor bears a great deal of responsibility for the conditions we find ourselves in. These conditions, along with his engineered electoral coup, appropriately deserve opprobrium; and certainly not an endorsement for an unethical third term.
This is significant for a number of reasons, but for us, it's importance devolves from the fact that it bucks the bucks trend-as the city's largest Hispanic outlet refuses to go along with the same money trail that has induced so many of it's smaller ethnic colleagues to see the light on the mayor's sterling qualities: "Still, he lags far behind the mayor in overall newspaper endorsements, which the Bloomberg campaign has pursued assiduously. So far, 48 have endorsed the mayor. Just two have backed Mr. Thompson since the Democratic primary."
This stampede, reminiscent of what happens when a Brinks truck accidentally spews money onto a crowded street corner is, as they say in New York, "Not for nothing." Still, the self evident apparently is not something that the Bloombergistas are good at noticing. As Bloomberg's campaign manager says with a straight face: "Every newspaper is different, but when 48 different newspapers across the city endorse one candidate, compared to just 2 for our opponent, that clearly says something,” Mr. Tusk said."
It does, but obviously not what Tusk wants us to believe. And that gets us to the Times lede about how the mayor has been wooing Hispanic concerns-particularly something we hadn't heard of called, "the Latino Business Initiative." This must be some really bad joke. Bloomberg policies have devastated the city's bodegas-with his "bodega tax" on tobacco sending over $250 million a year in cigarette sales into the black market. His retail malling of the city has contributed to the loss of around 300 independent supermarkets, the majority of whom are Latino owned.
And remember the mostly Hispanic food wholesalers who used to call the Bronx Terminal market home? Gone! Expelled to make room for a mall built by the mayor's friends at Related Companies. And now the same fate is being prepared for the 2500 or so immigrant Hispanic workers at Willets Point.
So, with unemployment in Hispanic communities soaring, and store vacancies at record levels, it is to El Diario's credit that it resists the lure of the mayor's lucre. And Tusk should, along with his fatuous comments, detail how much the Bloomberg campaign has spent advertising in each of the papers that have endorsed the mayor.
But in the end, at least for El Diario, it came down to term limits; and the paper sees the power grab as worthy of Latin America's favorite caudillo-but even Chavez, according to El Diario, wasn't as blatant as Bloomberg: "The editorial, in El Diario La Prensa, compared Mr. Bloomberg to Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan president, for his all-out campaign to upend the term limits law so he could seek a third term. At least Mr. Chávez, it said, held a referendum to extend his time in power. “New Yorkers were not even given that chance,” the editorial said. It called Mr. Bloomberg’s term limits maneuver “not simply slick scheming” but “a gross abuse of power.”
So good for El Diario for stating the obvious-NYC is in dire straights and the mayor bears a great deal of responsibility for the conditions we find ourselves in. These conditions, along with his engineered electoral coup, appropriately deserve opprobrium; and certainly not an endorsement for an unethical third term.
Hiram Survives
We have not commented, at least before now, on the ongoing trail and tribulations of our friend Hiram Monserrate. But with Hiram getting acquitted of all of the most serious charges-and likely avoiding incarceration-we are ready to speak our peace.
When Hiram Monserrate was in the city council he was a fearless and relentless champion of small and minority business owners-taking on the giants of real estate when some of his colleagues were content to sit on the sidelines; or were either cowering or acting as self serving sycophants. In the fight for the merchants at the Bronx Terminal Market he, and he alone, stood up for the beleaguered merchants when Deputy Dan was corrupting the democratic process-in the ultimate sweetheart deal-for his friend Steve Ross, the head of the Related Companies.
And when local supermarket operators and restaurant owners were seeking a method to reduce onerous garbage disposal costs, Monserrate-along with Councilman Joel Rivera-lead the way. Hiram has always lead the way, while others simply pretended to be small business champions.
Which is a perfect segue into a discussion of the comments of Eric Gioia: "Monserrate also may be able hang on to his Senate seat - a prospect that galled Councilman Eric Gioia, who was the first Democrat out of the gate demanding that Monserrate resign. "There is no room in government or in the Democratic Party for people who commit such heinous crimes against women," he said. "Elected officials should rightfully be held to a higher standard."
Well, it may have been a "heinous" misdemeanor, but that comment, coming as it does from someone who has consistently shied away from any fight that might help a small business-while at the same time trumpeting his own small business family background-is gratuitously offensive.
Americans, by and large, believe in forgiveness and redemption. Hiram has a long road back-and he knows it-if he is going to recover the reputation sullied on that winter night last year. But, in our view, he deserves the chance to do so-and we will do all that we can so that the Hiram Monserrate that we have known can once again serve the interests of those who lack resources and the wherewithal to fight the power.
When Hiram Monserrate was in the city council he was a fearless and relentless champion of small and minority business owners-taking on the giants of real estate when some of his colleagues were content to sit on the sidelines; or were either cowering or acting as self serving sycophants. In the fight for the merchants at the Bronx Terminal Market he, and he alone, stood up for the beleaguered merchants when Deputy Dan was corrupting the democratic process-in the ultimate sweetheart deal-for his friend Steve Ross, the head of the Related Companies.
And when local supermarket operators and restaurant owners were seeking a method to reduce onerous garbage disposal costs, Monserrate-along with Councilman Joel Rivera-lead the way. Hiram has always lead the way, while others simply pretended to be small business champions.
Which is a perfect segue into a discussion of the comments of Eric Gioia: "Monserrate also may be able hang on to his Senate seat - a prospect that galled Councilman Eric Gioia, who was the first Democrat out of the gate demanding that Monserrate resign. "There is no room in government or in the Democratic Party for people who commit such heinous crimes against women," he said. "Elected officials should rightfully be held to a higher standard."
Well, it may have been a "heinous" misdemeanor, but that comment, coming as it does from someone who has consistently shied away from any fight that might help a small business-while at the same time trumpeting his own small business family background-is gratuitously offensive.
Americans, by and large, believe in forgiveness and redemption. Hiram has a long road back-and he knows it-if he is going to recover the reputation sullied on that winter night last year. But, in our view, he deserves the chance to do so-and we will do all that we can so that the Hiram Monserrate that we have known can once again serve the interests of those who lack resources and the wherewithal to fight the power.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Testing the Political Limits
The shocking discrepancies between the way NYC children performed on state versus national tests, has now become a political rallying cry for mayoral challenger Bill Thompson-as it should be, since the disparities totally debunk the central educational theme of the Blomberg campaign. As the NY Times reports: "But in a show of the politics involving test scores, a spokeswoman for William C. Thompson Jr., the Democratic candidate for mayor, called the Bloomberg administration the “Madoff of the American education system” and a “national disgrace. Bloomberg’s D.O.E. has systemically lied about test scores, graduation rates and dropout rates,” the spokeswoman, Anne Fenton, said in a statement. “Our children deserve a quality education; instead, they have become pawns in Mike Bloomberg’s 200-plus million-dollar public relations campaign to rewrite history.”
That's a good start, and the Bloomberg defense comes up rather lame: "Defending the mayor and the city’s school system, Mr. Cerf, the Bloomberg campaign adviser, said that there were important differences in scope and content between the state and federal tests. And he and Mr. Klein noted that even the federal No Child Left Behind law uses state tests to measure schools’ performance."
But the new head of the UFT begs to differ-and we haven't even touched the obscene spending orgy that accompanies this non-achievement: "Michael Mulgrew, the president of the United Federation of Teachers, the city teachers’ union, said the federal results showed that the state tests were not reliable yardsticks. “We’ve designed a school system that is just test-taking prep, and we have teachers saying, ‘I know I am not teaching children what they need to learn,’ ” he said."
This is all, however, information that the average voter will likely never see-since the air waves have been saturated by Bloomberg's bogus bombast. But Diane Ravitch is right to label this as a gigantic fraud on the parents and the school children. As the NY Daily News tells us: "Between 2007 and 2009, the number of fourth-graders who passed state math tests jumped seven percentage points, to 87% from 80%. The number of eighth-graders passing the national exams increased to 34% in 2009 from 30% in 2007. On state tests, eighth-graders improved by an impressive 21 percentage points during the same period of time, with the number passing climbing to 80% from 59%. State test scores also showed that blacks and Latinos were catching up with their white peers, narrowing the passing rate between them by about 10 percentage points. There is no narrowing of the achievement gap between the same groups on the national tests."
We paid NYC teachers $27 million in bonuses for what? Bill Thompson and all of his political allies need to immediately begin planning a massive rally and press conference in order to expose this scam. If handled properly, this could become a real political game changer.
That's a good start, and the Bloomberg defense comes up rather lame: "Defending the mayor and the city’s school system, Mr. Cerf, the Bloomberg campaign adviser, said that there were important differences in scope and content between the state and federal tests. And he and Mr. Klein noted that even the federal No Child Left Behind law uses state tests to measure schools’ performance."
But the new head of the UFT begs to differ-and we haven't even touched the obscene spending orgy that accompanies this non-achievement: "Michael Mulgrew, the president of the United Federation of Teachers, the city teachers’ union, said the federal results showed that the state tests were not reliable yardsticks. “We’ve designed a school system that is just test-taking prep, and we have teachers saying, ‘I know I am not teaching children what they need to learn,’ ” he said."
This is all, however, information that the average voter will likely never see-since the air waves have been saturated by Bloomberg's bogus bombast. But Diane Ravitch is right to label this as a gigantic fraud on the parents and the school children. As the NY Daily News tells us: "Between 2007 and 2009, the number of fourth-graders who passed state math tests jumped seven percentage points, to 87% from 80%. The number of eighth-graders passing the national exams increased to 34% in 2009 from 30% in 2007. On state tests, eighth-graders improved by an impressive 21 percentage points during the same period of time, with the number passing climbing to 80% from 59%. State test scores also showed that blacks and Latinos were catching up with their white peers, narrowing the passing rate between them by about 10 percentage points. There is no narrowing of the achievement gap between the same groups on the national tests."
We paid NYC teachers $27 million in bonuses for what? Bill Thompson and all of his political allies need to immediately begin planning a massive rally and press conference in order to expose this scam. If handled properly, this could become a real political game changer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
