The NY Times has an Op-Ed round table today on the meaning of the eminent domain fiasco in New London that we, and others, have been commenting on. The lead question is whether the New London situation is a harbinger for a renewed re-thinking about the use-and abuse-of the eminent domain tool by local government.
As the Times points out: "But the New London redevelopment never got off the ground, even after the local and state governments spent more than $80 million to buy and demolish private property to pave the way. Now comes the blow from Pfizer: how will its withdrawal affect future eminent domain battles in redevelopment projects? What are the lessons learned for urban planners and local governments?"
And the four respondents take a diverse view of the Kelo lesson-but at the same time, all agree that it is a cautionary tale. Even Paul Finkelman, the staunchest proponent of the legality of Kelo, believes that the decision wasn't as well thought through as it should have been:
"Whether the city of New London was wise in its decision is another matter. The issue was debated, and there were elections in the city while it was being debated. This is how democracy works. The Constitution allows the taking of private property for public use with just compensation. This happened in New London. The project, in retrospect, was ill-conceived. Obviously, the city should have required a greater commitment from Pfizer for the redevelopment program. But this is not a constitutional issue, it is simply an issue of economic development and political decision-making."
But the Finkelman point underscores, in our view, that municipalities should be using eminent domain with greater care-and that the eviction of people from their homes and businesses should be done cautiously, and in recognition that property rights deserve great respect. Dana Berliner of the Institute for Justice underscores this point:
"Risky real estate deals are, well, risky. That means they often fail. And if a private company made a risky deal that failed, we wouldn’t even be discussing it. But when government uses eminent domain to remove people from their homes, while spending tens of millions of public dollars on a failed risky deal, that’s a travesty."
But Finkelman may be right that the decision to use eminent domain is ultimately a political one-and that the decision by so many states to change their laws in Kelo's aftermath reflects this. But taking people's property, that Finkelman so cavalierly supports, runs the risk of creating a huge backlash-one that adds fuel to the tax revolt that appears to be on the horizon.
Paul Bass makes this point, and does so strongly: "The lesson learned in the City of New London’s Fort Trumbull neighborhood — or what was once the Fort Trumbull neighborhood — is that urban liberals make mistakes, big mistakes when they stand against the little guy through the misuse of eminent domain. These urban liberals — the Democrats running New London at the time — thought they could build a “better” neighborhood by destroying generations of individual investment. And they used government power, the power of eminent domain, to do it. Eminent domain makes sense when used for public safety, but it doesn’t make sense when it means giving already powerful interests an advantage in real estate development."
Which bring us-as it always does for us lately-to the issue of Willets Point. Does it make sense to take the property from the Willets Pointers when the city is currently in dire fiscal shape? Will the area end up like the one in New London? Or, even worse, the other example of blatant failure that Bass presents:
"Forty-seven miles south on I-95, in another Democratic city, that same lesson has been on display since the 1960s at another stretch of vacant land. That land just west of downtown New Haven used to be the site of a vibrant, multiethnic working-class neighborhood along Legion Avenue and Oak Street. Liberal Democrats seized it all — and much more in New Haven — through eminent domain, with the idea of bringing in investors to build a better neighborhood. The neighborhood never got built. Four decades later, the 26-acre stretch of land remains largely abandoned or used for surface parking, a testament to the failure of economic development-driven eminent domain."
So let's not be in a big rush to evict the businesses on the Iron Triangle. Let's insist that the city be more transparent and proffer openly the true costs that the development will incur-and burden the tax payers of the city with. How many services will the city be cutting in the coming months because of our dire economic circumstances? Is another mega real estate development worth further cuts and retrenchment in the public sector? These and other questions need to be answered honestly and openly before any move forward on Willets Point is even contemplated.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Testing, Not Learning
The evidence continues to pour in that the entire Bloomberg educational edifice is more smoke and mirrors rather than solid educational achievement. This story today from the NY Daily News underscores just how teaching to the test has been used as a substitute for genuine learning: "City kids' poor math skills is the result of education officials' relentless focus on test prep, the head of the teachers union charged on Thursday..."There is teaching for the test ... and there's learning. They are not the same thing," Mulgrew said. "What we're going to have is children leaving school not learning what they should be learning."
So all of that campaign advertising palaver is just that-spin that camouflages the fact that we have over spent on educational uplift; with very poor outcomes for the money laid out: "A report by the Council of Math Chairs showed some CUNY kids couldn't solve problems involving fractions, decimals and simple algebra on their first day of college math."
That doesn't, however, stop the continued cant from Cantor: "City Department of Education's David Cantor dismissed Mulgrew's criticism. "This is the first time I've heard the argument against testing used to explain students' failure on tests as well as their success," he said."
Well, there's a first time for everything Dan-and from what we hear you saying, we hope that the old axiom about you're never too old to learn applies to you as well. Because, it seems obvious to us, that an obsessive methodology of teaching to the test can account for the success as well as the failures that Cantor can't quite untangle.
The reason lies with the fact that teaching to a specific test can garner better results-for that particular test. But when confronted with a different type of exam, many of the same students-not really learned in the subject-will often become mystified and fare poorly.
Cantor himself is in need of some good and intensive remediation-and taking a paring knife to the PR budget at DOE would give this spokesman a wonderful opportunity to, as the cliche often goes in these cases, "explore other opportunities." Ones that would hopefully allow this flack to get a better grounding in real educational policy; and not the ersatz menu offerings that the Bloomberg/Klein regime sees as specialties of the house.
So all of that campaign advertising palaver is just that-spin that camouflages the fact that we have over spent on educational uplift; with very poor outcomes for the money laid out: "A report by the Council of Math Chairs showed some CUNY kids couldn't solve problems involving fractions, decimals and simple algebra on their first day of college math."
That doesn't, however, stop the continued cant from Cantor: "City Department of Education's David Cantor dismissed Mulgrew's criticism. "This is the first time I've heard the argument against testing used to explain students' failure on tests as well as their success," he said."
Well, there's a first time for everything Dan-and from what we hear you saying, we hope that the old axiom about you're never too old to learn applies to you as well. Because, it seems obvious to us, that an obsessive methodology of teaching to the test can account for the success as well as the failures that Cantor can't quite untangle.
The reason lies with the fact that teaching to a specific test can garner better results-for that particular test. But when confronted with a different type of exam, many of the same students-not really learned in the subject-will often become mystified and fare poorly.
Cantor himself is in need of some good and intensive remediation-and taking a paring knife to the PR budget at DOE would give this spokesman a wonderful opportunity to, as the cliche often goes in these cases, "explore other opportunities." Ones that would hopefully allow this flack to get a better grounding in real educational policy; and not the ersatz menu offerings that the Bloomberg/Klein regime sees as specialties of the house.
Suffering From a Seizure
The NY Times focuses today on the impact of the abandonment of New London by the Pfizer drug company-five years after all of the home owners had their property seized to make way for a wondrous development that was supposed to provide the community with three thousand new jobs. The controversial Supreme Court Decision, now known as just Kelo, paved the way for this colossal failure: "From the edge of the Thames River in New London, Conn., Michael Cristofaro surveyed the empty acres where his parents’ neighborhood had stood, before it became the crux of an epic battle over eminent domain. “Look what they did,” Mr. Cristofaro said on Thursday. “They stole our home for economic development. It was all for Pfizer, and now they get up and walk away.”
As we have been commenting before, the seizure of people's property should never be done lightly-and when the plan is massively expensive, as it is at Willets Point, a city needs to think long and hard before it absconds with land that may have been in families for generations: "That sentiment has been echoing around New London since Monday, when Pfizer, the giant drug company, announced it would leave the city just eight years after its arrival led to a debate about urban redevelopment that rumbled through the United States Supreme Court, and reset the boundaries for governments to seize private land for commercial use. Pfizer said it would pull 1,400 jobs out of New London within two years and move most of them a few miles away to a campus it owns in Groton, Conn., as a cost-cutting measure. It would leave behind the city’s biggest office complex and an adjacent swath of barren land that was cleared of dozens of homes to make room for a hotel, stores and condominiums that were never built."
So, all that New London has left for all of the heartache it cause Susan Kelo and the 89 other homeowners is a giant vacant sore. As Juan Gonzales points out in this morning's NY Daily News: "Kelo ended up losing her home and moving to nearby Groton, and the entire neighborhood was bulldozed. Four years later, there are only empty lots and weeds where their houses once stood. As for those 3,000 jobs, residents are still waiting for them. "There are some projects in the pipeline, but they've been unable to move forward for lack of financing," John Brooks, executive director of the New London Development Corp., conceded. Finances have gotten so bad, Brooks said, that he will soon be relegated to working part time for the corporation."
So, as we have been saying, here, here and here, NYC needs to see this New London fiasco as a lesson to be learned-and before the city moves to hold any eminent domain hearings on Willets Point (slated for this month or next) it needs to re-evaluate the cost and feasibility of this massive undertaking before it proceeds any further. New Yorkers need to know where the money is coming from; and how the traffic infrastructure will be built that will accommodate a proposed 9,000,000 square feet of development.
Is this the kind of speculative venture that New York needs in this parlous economic time? And will the business owners of Willets Point-along with 2500 workers-lose their life work because of the edifice complex of the richest citizen of the city? In four years, Mike Bloomberg will be (hopefully) gone; but what happens at the Iron Triangle may well define his tenure. As Gonzales reminds us-giving a shout out to Jake Bono of Willets Point as well: "This week, the other shoe dropped. Pfizer announced that it will soon close its New London research center and shift its 1,500 jobs to Groton. The jobs will be gone just around the time the facility's tax abatement ends. Ten years after New London started destroying a neighborhood for a development dream, red-faced town leaders have only a dust bowl on their hands."
And what of the Kelo decision itself? Justice Clarence Thomas has had opprobrium heaped on him for his conservative views and for a supposed lack of intellect. But as the Times tells us, he was right on with his dissent on this case: "In a 5-to-4 decision, the high court ruled that it was permissible to take private property and turn it over to developers as part of a plan to bolster the local economy. Conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas, dissented. Justice Thomas called New London’s plan “a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation.”
A vague promise indeed. And in the case of Willets Point, that vague promise of Valhalla-in the midst of the worst economic recession in 80 years-is simply one expensive road that NYC can ill afford to travel. It doesn't have the money, and it can't afford to lose the jobs and tax paying businesses-not for a promissory note that Mike Bloomberg, long gone when it comes due, will not forced to make good on.
As we have been commenting before, the seizure of people's property should never be done lightly-and when the plan is massively expensive, as it is at Willets Point, a city needs to think long and hard before it absconds with land that may have been in families for generations: "That sentiment has been echoing around New London since Monday, when Pfizer, the giant drug company, announced it would leave the city just eight years after its arrival led to a debate about urban redevelopment that rumbled through the United States Supreme Court, and reset the boundaries for governments to seize private land for commercial use. Pfizer said it would pull 1,400 jobs out of New London within two years and move most of them a few miles away to a campus it owns in Groton, Conn., as a cost-cutting measure. It would leave behind the city’s biggest office complex and an adjacent swath of barren land that was cleared of dozens of homes to make room for a hotel, stores and condominiums that were never built."
So, all that New London has left for all of the heartache it cause Susan Kelo and the 89 other homeowners is a giant vacant sore. As Juan Gonzales points out in this morning's NY Daily News: "Kelo ended up losing her home and moving to nearby Groton, and the entire neighborhood was bulldozed. Four years later, there are only empty lots and weeds where their houses once stood. As for those 3,000 jobs, residents are still waiting for them. "There are some projects in the pipeline, but they've been unable to move forward for lack of financing," John Brooks, executive director of the New London Development Corp., conceded. Finances have gotten so bad, Brooks said, that he will soon be relegated to working part time for the corporation."
So, as we have been saying, here, here and here, NYC needs to see this New London fiasco as a lesson to be learned-and before the city moves to hold any eminent domain hearings on Willets Point (slated for this month or next) it needs to re-evaluate the cost and feasibility of this massive undertaking before it proceeds any further. New Yorkers need to know where the money is coming from; and how the traffic infrastructure will be built that will accommodate a proposed 9,000,000 square feet of development.
Is this the kind of speculative venture that New York needs in this parlous economic time? And will the business owners of Willets Point-along with 2500 workers-lose their life work because of the edifice complex of the richest citizen of the city? In four years, Mike Bloomberg will be (hopefully) gone; but what happens at the Iron Triangle may well define his tenure. As Gonzales reminds us-giving a shout out to Jake Bono of Willets Point as well: "This week, the other shoe dropped. Pfizer announced that it will soon close its New London research center and shift its 1,500 jobs to Groton. The jobs will be gone just around the time the facility's tax abatement ends. Ten years after New London started destroying a neighborhood for a development dream, red-faced town leaders have only a dust bowl on their hands."
And what of the Kelo decision itself? Justice Clarence Thomas has had opprobrium heaped on him for his conservative views and for a supposed lack of intellect. But as the Times tells us, he was right on with his dissent on this case: "In a 5-to-4 decision, the high court ruled that it was permissible to take private property and turn it over to developers as part of a plan to bolster the local economy. Conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas, dissented. Justice Thomas called New London’s plan “a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation.”
A vague promise indeed. And in the case of Willets Point, that vague promise of Valhalla-in the midst of the worst economic recession in 80 years-is simply one expensive road that NYC can ill afford to travel. It doesn't have the money, and it can't afford to lose the jobs and tax paying businesses-not for a promissory note that Mike Bloomberg, long gone when it comes due, will not forced to make good on.
Blowing Smoke Up...
Tom Robbins really has a wonderful piece of satire in this week's Village Voice-and he satirizes the fatuous claim by Bloomberg's crack advisers that they did an unbelieving stellar job in the face of an, "anti-incumbent," wave: "A lot of New Yorkers were still scratching their heads about last week's election results when the mayor's campaign brain trust arrived at the NY1 TV studios the day after the vote to talk about the fine job they'd done. Their candidate, a popular two-term incumbent, had just spent somewhere north of $90 million on his re-election—the most by any local politician in history. The net result? Nearly 200,000 fewer votes than Mike Bloomberg got the last time he ran."
Do you think any bonuses are forthcoming? If you listen to the Bloomberg team, the checks should be hand delivered: "Bloomberg campaign manager Bradley Tusk, communications chief Howard Wolfson, and field director Maura Keaney were as smug and satisfied as if they had just brought an underfunded long shot across the finish line in first place. "One of the great things about this campaign and our success was making sure that we had a comfortable lead and margin throughout," said Tusk. High fives all around! We spent the annual budget of a Caribbean nation and managed to barely beat a campaign that never even got to first base!"
How badly did the campaign do? Check out the numbers from May to November: "What the Bloomberg Three accomplished for this big money was to barely tread water for six months. The first Marist Institute poll back in May had the mayor at 51 percent and the comptroller at 33. At that point, Bloomberg had already doled out $19 million, more than double Thompson's entire campaign purse. Fast-forward to election night: Bloomberg came in at the same 51 percent; Thompson hiked his tally to 46 percent of the vote. The way this breaks down when data-driven executives like Bloomberg start crunching the numbers is this: The additional $71 million he spent in the six months between May and November produced absolutely nothing, other than a 13 percent boost for his opponent."
The so-called anti-incumbent wave was a bit more specific to the mayor and the lavish campaign that he ran: "Tusk and company naturally scoff at such math. It is the old way of thinking, they say. It completely ignores the vicious anti-incumbent riptide that was surging through the electorate this year. Just look at what happened to poor Jon Corzine, a fellow billionaire, across the river in New Jersey. That was the Bloomberg Three's mantra: Voters were mad as hell this year, and we alone bucked the tide. This is another silly fiction adopted at the last minute by people who lack all class. In Corzine's case, the soon-to-be ex-governor was wildly unpopular, and was always viewed as a tough bet. Bloomberg boasted approval ratings that hovered around 60 percent. Corzine fought back to within striking distance, falling just short at the polls; New York's billionaire squandered a nearly 20 point lead."
A great many New Yorkers were either pissed off; or just disgusted by the incessant droning of the Bloomberg advertising-and this, in our view, doesn't bode well for the mayor's swan song (we hope). There is a striking level of discontent out there, and it is surely going to be getting worse as the mayor confronts the city's (and state's) fiscal mess with policies that will not play well at all.
Mike Bloomberg is getting what he overpaid for-and we feel no one deserves it more than he does; since he has done so much to help us reach this unpalatable point (and his actions in creating our current mess, just like much of his charitable giving, too often goes unacknowledged). This is one deluge that isn't après moi, and the king will have to deal with the mess he has made.
Do you think any bonuses are forthcoming? If you listen to the Bloomberg team, the checks should be hand delivered: "Bloomberg campaign manager Bradley Tusk, communications chief Howard Wolfson, and field director Maura Keaney were as smug and satisfied as if they had just brought an underfunded long shot across the finish line in first place. "One of the great things about this campaign and our success was making sure that we had a comfortable lead and margin throughout," said Tusk. High fives all around! We spent the annual budget of a Caribbean nation and managed to barely beat a campaign that never even got to first base!"
How badly did the campaign do? Check out the numbers from May to November: "What the Bloomberg Three accomplished for this big money was to barely tread water for six months. The first Marist Institute poll back in May had the mayor at 51 percent and the comptroller at 33. At that point, Bloomberg had already doled out $19 million, more than double Thompson's entire campaign purse. Fast-forward to election night: Bloomberg came in at the same 51 percent; Thompson hiked his tally to 46 percent of the vote. The way this breaks down when data-driven executives like Bloomberg start crunching the numbers is this: The additional $71 million he spent in the six months between May and November produced absolutely nothing, other than a 13 percent boost for his opponent."
The so-called anti-incumbent wave was a bit more specific to the mayor and the lavish campaign that he ran: "Tusk and company naturally scoff at such math. It is the old way of thinking, they say. It completely ignores the vicious anti-incumbent riptide that was surging through the electorate this year. Just look at what happened to poor Jon Corzine, a fellow billionaire, across the river in New Jersey. That was the Bloomberg Three's mantra: Voters were mad as hell this year, and we alone bucked the tide. This is another silly fiction adopted at the last minute by people who lack all class. In Corzine's case, the soon-to-be ex-governor was wildly unpopular, and was always viewed as a tough bet. Bloomberg boasted approval ratings that hovered around 60 percent. Corzine fought back to within striking distance, falling just short at the polls; New York's billionaire squandered a nearly 20 point lead."
A great many New Yorkers were either pissed off; or just disgusted by the incessant droning of the Bloomberg advertising-and this, in our view, doesn't bode well for the mayor's swan song (we hope). There is a striking level of discontent out there, and it is surely going to be getting worse as the mayor confronts the city's (and state's) fiscal mess with policies that will not play well at all.
Mike Bloomberg is getting what he overpaid for-and we feel no one deserves it more than he does; since he has done so much to help us reach this unpalatable point (and his actions in creating our current mess, just like much of his charitable giving, too often goes unacknowledged). This is one deluge that isn't après moi, and the king will have to deal with the mess he has made.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Why the Stalling?
As we continue to ponder why the issue of the illegal lobbying of Claire Shulman's FWPCLDC remains unaddressed, more facts add to the clarity of the case-and the confusion surrounding the delay. In a previous post we looked at the blatant violation of a federal IRS statute (see this IRS complaint form); but the egregious violation of state law (Section 1411) is equally as bad.
FWPCLDC's violation of the NYS Not-For-Profit Corporations Law is perhaps even more serious because, unlike the federal statute, there really isn't any wiggle room. FWPCLDC is prohibited from attempting to influence legislation, plain and simple-and that is the law that AG Cuomo is empowered to enforce.
While admittedly, the federal statute allows for the issue of "substantial lobbying" to create some uncertainty, FWPCLDC's violation of Section 1411 of the NYS Not-For-Profit Corporations law is black and white, and the most fundamental violation of all. In our view, however, the admissions of Shulman go along way towards removing any subjectivity from the question of whether what she and her group is doing is a violation of federal law.
At the same time, if this LDC-and the others that the NY Times referenced in its story of a few weeks ago-are lobbying in violation of state law, why are they even allowed to register for that purpose? The registration process should include confirming the type of organization registering, and if the organization is prohibited from doing the lobbying, then it should be prevented from registering. There are no safeguards to prevent an organization from deliberately registering to do an unlawful act; such registration is accepted by the City and State as if it is legitimate. It is like an unlicensed driver going into a dealership, purchasing a vehicle, and driving off with it.
So, the time for due diligence should have passed-and the need for action is, or should be, upon us. The Willets Point firms have been victimized by a illegal conspiracy to deprive them of their property rights. We await the recognition that equal protection under the law still exists in this state.
FWPCLDC's violation of the NYS Not-For-Profit Corporations Law is perhaps even more serious because, unlike the federal statute, there really isn't any wiggle room. FWPCLDC is prohibited from attempting to influence legislation, plain and simple-and that is the law that AG Cuomo is empowered to enforce.
While admittedly, the federal statute allows for the issue of "substantial lobbying" to create some uncertainty, FWPCLDC's violation of Section 1411 of the NYS Not-For-Profit Corporations law is black and white, and the most fundamental violation of all. In our view, however, the admissions of Shulman go along way towards removing any subjectivity from the question of whether what she and her group is doing is a violation of federal law.
At the same time, if this LDC-and the others that the NY Times referenced in its story of a few weeks ago-are lobbying in violation of state law, why are they even allowed to register for that purpose? The registration process should include confirming the type of organization registering, and if the organization is prohibited from doing the lobbying, then it should be prevented from registering. There are no safeguards to prevent an organization from deliberately registering to do an unlawful act; such registration is accepted by the City and State as if it is legitimate. It is like an unlicensed driver going into a dealership, purchasing a vehicle, and driving off with it.
So, the time for due diligence should have passed-and the need for action is, or should be, upon us. The Willets Point firms have been victimized by a illegal conspiracy to deprive them of their property rights. We await the recognition that equal protection under the law still exists in this state.
Re:Is it Legal
We have been arguing-one could say vociferously-that the political activities of the Flushing/Willets Point/Corona LDC were in fact a blatant violation of its not for profit status. We are only belaboring the point because it feels as if the authorities charged with investigating the charge-the NYS AG, and the IRS-are dragging their feet. But we could be wrong, and there may be ongoing investigations that are being done in a time consuming but judicious manner.
What's the big deal here if the LDC did in fact operate as an illegal political action organization? The big deal, in our view, devolves from the fact that property rights are a fundamental constitutional right-and should be sacrosanct. If there is agreement on this point, than the process that is implemented to take the property of the Willets Point businesses should be as scrupulous and as above board as possible.
Remember, the effected companies are already at a huge disadvantage combating the power of the city; and the area that they are located in is easily disparaged-in spite of the fact that its condition is directly related to the city's own dereliction. If this is the case than it should be incumbent on the city, and its economic development arm at EDC, to refrain from employing illegal lobbying tactics that put the small business owners at an even greater disadvantage.
When it does this using a phony grass roots entity, it unfairly stacks the deck-and as a consequence corrupts the democratic process. So, if this is the case, than in our view the validity of the Willets Point ULURP application is also called into question.
But we have been giving this question some thought-and really examining the relevant IRS statute even further. Here's what it says:
From Instructions to Form 1023 (the application for 501c3 status):
"You are attempting to 'influence legislation' if you directly contact or urge the public to contact members of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting or opposing legislation. You are also attempting to influence legislation if you advocate the adoption or rejection of legislation...
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are prohibited from engaging in a substantial amount of legislative activities. Whether you are engaged in substantial legislative activities depends on all of the facts and circumstances"
Well the facts and circumstances here leave little wiggle room-especially since LDC head Shulman herself has helpfully explicated her role and that of her group. As the NY Times pointed out: "In late 2006, as the Bloomberg administration girded for what promised to be a bruising rezoning fight over the Willets Point section of Queens, it enlisted the help of Claire Shulman, the former Queens borough president. At a meeting in City Hall that December, Ms. Shulman and Daniel L. Doctoroff, then a deputy mayor, agreed to form a nonprofit group with city and private money. Its primary purpose, Ms. Shulman said, would be to lobby on behalf of the mayor’s plan to turn the long-neglected area near the New York Mets stadium into a thriving hub of shops, hotels, condominiums and a convention center."
Given these set of facts, it is time for the agencies charged with the enforcement of the law to simply do their job-since we have been lectured of late that no one should consider themselves above the law, no matter what position they have held, or their obvious political connections, than the task in front of them shouldn't be complicated whatsoever.
What's the big deal here if the LDC did in fact operate as an illegal political action organization? The big deal, in our view, devolves from the fact that property rights are a fundamental constitutional right-and should be sacrosanct. If there is agreement on this point, than the process that is implemented to take the property of the Willets Point businesses should be as scrupulous and as above board as possible.
Remember, the effected companies are already at a huge disadvantage combating the power of the city; and the area that they are located in is easily disparaged-in spite of the fact that its condition is directly related to the city's own dereliction. If this is the case than it should be incumbent on the city, and its economic development arm at EDC, to refrain from employing illegal lobbying tactics that put the small business owners at an even greater disadvantage.
When it does this using a phony grass roots entity, it unfairly stacks the deck-and as a consequence corrupts the democratic process. So, if this is the case, than in our view the validity of the Willets Point ULURP application is also called into question.
But we have been giving this question some thought-and really examining the relevant IRS statute even further. Here's what it says:
From Instructions to Form 1023 (the application for 501c3 status):
"You are attempting to 'influence legislation' if you directly contact or urge the public to contact members of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting or opposing legislation. You are also attempting to influence legislation if you advocate the adoption or rejection of legislation...
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are prohibited from engaging in a substantial amount of legislative activities. Whether you are engaged in substantial legislative activities depends on all of the facts and circumstances"
Well the facts and circumstances here leave little wiggle room-especially since LDC head Shulman herself has helpfully explicated her role and that of her group. As the NY Times pointed out: "In late 2006, as the Bloomberg administration girded for what promised to be a bruising rezoning fight over the Willets Point section of Queens, it enlisted the help of Claire Shulman, the former Queens borough president. At a meeting in City Hall that December, Ms. Shulman and Daniel L. Doctoroff, then a deputy mayor, agreed to form a nonprofit group with city and private money. Its primary purpose, Ms. Shulman said, would be to lobby on behalf of the mayor’s plan to turn the long-neglected area near the New York Mets stadium into a thriving hub of shops, hotels, condominiums and a convention center."
Given these set of facts, it is time for the agencies charged with the enforcement of the law to simply do their job-since we have been lectured of late that no one should consider themselves above the law, no matter what position they have held, or their obvious political connections, than the task in front of them shouldn't be complicated whatsoever.
The Emperor's New School Uniform
The more facts that come to light about the actual conditions in NYC schools, the more we believe that the real level of mayoral dishonesty has yet to be fully understood. The latest "revelation" is in today's NY Daily News-and the story underscores the fact that the schools are dramatically under performing: "More city kids are graduating from high school, but that doesn't mean they can do college math. Basic algebra involving fractions and decimals stumped a group of City University of New York freshmen - suggesting city schools aren't preparing them, a CUNY report shows."
And these are some of the kids that are coming from better NYC schools: "I just did this earlier. Now I forgot it again," Jennifer Fortune, 18, who graduated from Brooklyn's Edward R. Murrow High School, said when asked to answer one of the questions. "I was only required to take two years of math in high school, but I forgot a lot of it."
Still, with all of the hoo ha over the {inordinately expensive} Bloomberg miracle, this is just one more example of how the mayor has been able to shuck and jive-while using his vast fortune to inveigle supporters-about how well the schools have done under his watch. The facts reveal another reality: "These results are shocking," said City College Prof. Stanley Ocken, who co-wrote the report on CUNY kids' skills. "They show that a disturbing proportion of New York City high school graduates lack basic skills." During their first math class at one of CUNY's four-year colleges, 90% of 200 students tested couldn't solve a simple algebra problem, the report by the CUNY Council of Math Chairs found. Only a third could convert a fraction into a decimal."
So, we look forward to a vigorous investigation of the Bloomberg/Klein regime-and especially to the state senate that has convened an investigative committee to do just that. In our gut we believe that the parents of school children have been sold a bill of goods-and that there is enough smoke and mirrors here to provide the appropriate mood for hundreds of sleazy bars and taverns.
And these are some of the kids that are coming from better NYC schools: "I just did this earlier. Now I forgot it again," Jennifer Fortune, 18, who graduated from Brooklyn's Edward R. Murrow High School, said when asked to answer one of the questions. "I was only required to take two years of math in high school, but I forgot a lot of it."
Still, with all of the hoo ha over the {inordinately expensive} Bloomberg miracle, this is just one more example of how the mayor has been able to shuck and jive-while using his vast fortune to inveigle supporters-about how well the schools have done under his watch. The facts reveal another reality: "These results are shocking," said City College Prof. Stanley Ocken, who co-wrote the report on CUNY kids' skills. "They show that a disturbing proportion of New York City high school graduates lack basic skills." During their first math class at one of CUNY's four-year colleges, 90% of 200 students tested couldn't solve a simple algebra problem, the report by the CUNY Council of Math Chairs found. Only a third could convert a fraction into a decimal."
So, we look forward to a vigorous investigation of the Bloomberg/Klein regime-and especially to the state senate that has convened an investigative committee to do just that. In our gut we believe that the parents of school children have been sold a bill of goods-and that there is enough smoke and mirrors here to provide the appropriate mood for hundreds of sleazy bars and taverns.
Judge Not...
In what is a departure from the bulk of the commentariat, Errol Louis of the NY Daily News believes that the state senate should cease and desist in its judgment action against Senator Hiram Monserrate: "Don't be fooled by the moral posturing going on in Albany, where a "special committee of inquiry" of senators has begun investigating the domestic violence case of their colleague, Sen. Hiram Monserrate. The panel is nothing more than a political kangaroo court, one that typifies the arrogance and conflicts of interest that are standard operating procedure in the state capital."
Louis feels that Monsrrate, having been acquitted of the more serious felonies involved in his case, should be next judged by the voters of his district: "Monserrate was convicted of misdemeanor assault and could spend up to a year in jail when he's sentenced next month. That should be the last word on the case, one that would give Queens voters something to think about when Monserrate stands for reelection in 2010."
Instead, Louis finds that the senate is setting up a farcical venue-one rife with conflicts of interest: "Several of the senators sitting in judgment over Monserrate have conflicts as well. One member of the committee, Sen. Toby Ann Stavisky, is the mother (and client) of Evan Stavisky, whose Parkside Group political consulting firm is working for Assemblyman José Peralta, the pol running against Monserrate. Another senator, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, has told the press that calls for Monserrate to resign were "appropriate," suggesting she's already made up her mind. "It's breathtakingly stupid for these members to get involved in this kind of conflict of interest," says David Grandeau, a consultant who spent 13 years as top ethics watchdog as chairman of the Temporary Commission on Lobbying."
Making matters worse, is the structure of the committee-as well as the question of of its jurisdiction over an incident that occurred before Monserrate had even been sworn in as a senator:
"Unfortunately, the Senate leadership is not content to let the court system and elections function as designed. Instead, they have cobbled together an inquiry process, which could lead to a vote to censure Monserrate or remove him from the Senate. Every pol involved in this farce should be ashamed of themselves, particularly the senators who are lawyers. Start with the fact that the whole ugly incident took place before Monserrate was sworn in as a state senator, raising the question of why the Senate has any jurisdiction over the matter at all. Instead of activating the mostly dormant Senate Ethics Committee, or the Legislative Ethics Commission, the Senate concocted a new panel, one with no set rules of what evidence can be admitted and what procedures will be followed. Unlike a court of law, there will be no neutral judge supervising the proceedings to make sure all constitutional rights are protected."
Now in our view-and we have watched as a laundry list of ethical and financial violations by Congressman Rangel have gone uncriticized by any of his fellow New York lawmakers-Louis is right, and the voters ought to be the final judge of this matter. And let's not forget that almost the entire Queens political establishment has lined up against Hiram; so his re-election next year will be a real challenge for the maverick pol.
But, if the voters decide that they still want Monserrate to represent their interests-and he is one elected official who has been unafraid to advocate on behalf of those who are less powerful, and do so forcefully-than the matter should rest there. Because, while much of the outcry over the Monserrate incident is righteously related to the nature of the offense he was charged with-as well as the accompanying video-there is also an element of the, "Monserrate should be removed," crowd that is lining up precisely because of how he has irritated the powers that be.
We understand fully, and find abhorrent, any incident of violence against either woman or children. And Monserrate needs to demonstrate that he understands this as well-and why there has been so much of a hue and cry over this incident with a woman he has told the world that he cares deeply about. But, that being said, we live in a country of second chances-and redemption should be a possibility if the person involved understands why his behavior has caused such pain-and seeks to rectify the actions and dedicate himself anew to becoming a better person. There is much good that Hiram can still do-and it should be up to the voters of the 13th Senatorial district to decide if they want him to continue to represent them.
Louis feels that Monsrrate, having been acquitted of the more serious felonies involved in his case, should be next judged by the voters of his district: "Monserrate was convicted of misdemeanor assault and could spend up to a year in jail when he's sentenced next month. That should be the last word on the case, one that would give Queens voters something to think about when Monserrate stands for reelection in 2010."
Instead, Louis finds that the senate is setting up a farcical venue-one rife with conflicts of interest: "Several of the senators sitting in judgment over Monserrate have conflicts as well. One member of the committee, Sen. Toby Ann Stavisky, is the mother (and client) of Evan Stavisky, whose Parkside Group political consulting firm is working for Assemblyman José Peralta, the pol running against Monserrate. Another senator, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, has told the press that calls for Monserrate to resign were "appropriate," suggesting she's already made up her mind. "It's breathtakingly stupid for these members to get involved in this kind of conflict of interest," says David Grandeau, a consultant who spent 13 years as top ethics watchdog as chairman of the Temporary Commission on Lobbying."
Making matters worse, is the structure of the committee-as well as the question of of its jurisdiction over an incident that occurred before Monserrate had even been sworn in as a senator:
"Unfortunately, the Senate leadership is not content to let the court system and elections function as designed. Instead, they have cobbled together an inquiry process, which could lead to a vote to censure Monserrate or remove him from the Senate. Every pol involved in this farce should be ashamed of themselves, particularly the senators who are lawyers. Start with the fact that the whole ugly incident took place before Monserrate was sworn in as a state senator, raising the question of why the Senate has any jurisdiction over the matter at all. Instead of activating the mostly dormant Senate Ethics Committee, or the Legislative Ethics Commission, the Senate concocted a new panel, one with no set rules of what evidence can be admitted and what procedures will be followed. Unlike a court of law, there will be no neutral judge supervising the proceedings to make sure all constitutional rights are protected."
Now in our view-and we have watched as a laundry list of ethical and financial violations by Congressman Rangel have gone uncriticized by any of his fellow New York lawmakers-Louis is right, and the voters ought to be the final judge of this matter. And let's not forget that almost the entire Queens political establishment has lined up against Hiram; so his re-election next year will be a real challenge for the maverick pol.
But, if the voters decide that they still want Monserrate to represent their interests-and he is one elected official who has been unafraid to advocate on behalf of those who are less powerful, and do so forcefully-than the matter should rest there. Because, while much of the outcry over the Monserrate incident is righteously related to the nature of the offense he was charged with-as well as the accompanying video-there is also an element of the, "Monserrate should be removed," crowd that is lining up precisely because of how he has irritated the powers that be.
We understand fully, and find abhorrent, any incident of violence against either woman or children. And Monserrate needs to demonstrate that he understands this as well-and why there has been so much of a hue and cry over this incident with a woman he has told the world that he cares deeply about. But, that being said, we live in a country of second chances-and redemption should be a possibility if the person involved understands why his behavior has caused such pain-and seeks to rectify the actions and dedicate himself anew to becoming a better person. There is much good that Hiram can still do-and it should be up to the voters of the 13th Senatorial district to decide if they want him to continue to represent them.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Eminent Domain as Corporate Welfare
In keeping with our own observations, the Wall Street Journal weighs in on the fiasco that is Kelo: "The Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London stands as one of the worst in recent years, handing local governments carte blanche to seize private property in the name of economic development. Now, four years after that decision gave Susette Kelo's land to private developers for a project including a hotel and offices intended to enhance Pfizer Inc.'s nearby corporate facility, the pharmaceutical giant has announced it will close its research and development headquarters in New London, Connecticut."
And the WSJ tells it like it is-corporate welfare in extremis: "The aftermath of Kelo is the latest example of the futility of using eminent domain as corporate welfare. While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other "desirable" elements. Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation."
Did you get that price tag for futility? Yes, $78 million wasted for this pipe dream-and what about the vaunted economic development plan that Justices Kennedy and Stevens touted as the basis for their legal wisdom? "That's especially galling because the five Supreme Court Justices cited the development plan as a major factor in rationalizing their Kelo decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy called the plan "comprehensive," while Justice John Paul Stevens insisted that "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." So much for that."
It is time for the City of New York-and one Mike Bloomberg-to wake up and take a long hard look at the Willets Point pipe dream-a potential massive disaster in the making that will make New London's outlays look like the school bake sale. With city spending already out of control, and even larger deficits looming, can we afford to spend...Well, we're not sure how much, because EDEC and the mayor haven't been extremely transparent at revealing the full costs involved in the Willets project (or, as we have already indicated, the full impact of the traffic nightmare in the making).
So, in our view, it's time for the Bloomberg Administration to take a deep breath-and a step backwards. With city coffers running low, and the long term high cost of developing Willets Point unknown, this is not the time to be using eminent domain to remove tax paying businesses-and their workers-from the property that they own.
We'll give the WSJ the last word on the lessons of Kelo: "If there is a lesson from Connecticut's misfortune, it is that economic development that relies on the strong arm of government will never be the kind to create sustainable growth."
And the WSJ tells it like it is-corporate welfare in extremis: "The aftermath of Kelo is the latest example of the futility of using eminent domain as corporate welfare. While Ms. Kelo and her neighbors lost their homes, the city and the state spent some $78 million to bulldoze private property for high-end condos and other "desirable" elements. Instead, the wrecked and condemned neighborhood still stands vacant, without any of the touted tax benefits or job creation."
Did you get that price tag for futility? Yes, $78 million wasted for this pipe dream-and what about the vaunted economic development plan that Justices Kennedy and Stevens touted as the basis for their legal wisdom? "That's especially galling because the five Supreme Court Justices cited the development plan as a major factor in rationalizing their Kelo decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy called the plan "comprehensive," while Justice John Paul Stevens insisted that "The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue." So much for that."
It is time for the City of New York-and one Mike Bloomberg-to wake up and take a long hard look at the Willets Point pipe dream-a potential massive disaster in the making that will make New London's outlays look like the school bake sale. With city spending already out of control, and even larger deficits looming, can we afford to spend...Well, we're not sure how much, because EDEC and the mayor haven't been extremely transparent at revealing the full costs involved in the Willets project (or, as we have already indicated, the full impact of the traffic nightmare in the making).
So, in our view, it's time for the Bloomberg Administration to take a deep breath-and a step backwards. With city coffers running low, and the long term high cost of developing Willets Point unknown, this is not the time to be using eminent domain to remove tax paying businesses-and their workers-from the property that they own.
We'll give the WSJ the last word on the lessons of Kelo: "If there is a lesson from Connecticut's misfortune, it is that economic development that relies on the strong arm of government will never be the kind to create sustainable growth."
Tax Revolt
We may be reaching the stage, where a tax revolt could be inevitable-just take a look at the California situation and see New York City and State right around the corner. In this morning's NY Post, Michael Goodwin sees the warning signs; and focuses in on the size of government: "The weather in New York has been unseasonably warm, and I have a theory. The temperature is rising because politicians are blowing hot air about the budget mess. As usual, they are all heat and no light.Their promises to cut spending conceal as much as they reveal. Despite the dire warnings of doom, nary a mention is made of trimming the workforce. It is a sacred cow, no touching allowed.Not only are workers spared any unpleasantness, they are pampered with generous raises. While the state's private economy limps along, having shed 275,000 jobs during the recession, government workers stay safe."
And there is no one willing to wield the knife-if you exclude the butter knife Governor Paterson's bringing to the current legislative gunfight over the budget. But Goodwin sees tax hikes as inevitable: "Mark this prediction: Tax hikes will be the outcome this time, too, even though Gov. Paterson and Mayor Bloomberg swear they won't do it again.New York City and state have a combined deficit of $9 billion and counting. Vows to trim spending and ban tax hikes are impossible to believe because the pols say they will eliminate billions without a single reduction or concession from the workforce. It's not possible."
So some one's going to have to take on the workforce. Paterson may be inclined, but without the clout force these cuts through a recalcitrant legislature, all of his proposals amount to little more than huffing and puffing. And we remember what happened during the last budget imbroglio. The governor talked tough-and even with the one time stimulus to boost his revenue-but ended up raising taxes: "That was the "solution" last spring, when the city and state hiked taxes by $13 billion, despite getting a federal stimulus bailout."
As for Bloomberg, we've already offered our predictions about Tax Hike Mike-with the upcoming teacher's contract a bellweather for all of the upcoming contract negotiations. As the NY Daily News reports: "What will a Bloomberg third term look like for the city's workforce? City labor leaders are about to find out as they get ready for the next round of contract negotiations...The United Federation of Teachers is in the middle of some tortured contract negotiations with the Bloomberg administration. If they get 4%, will it be based on the last round of negotiations? Or will that in itself be the pattern going forward?"
The problem for the city is that the mayor has never exhibited the kind of tough outlook needed to tackle the size and scope of government-and that was in good times when revenue was coming in at a nice clip. Now, with deficits expected to exceed $5 billion, Bloomberg is floundering around-having squandered the opportunity to use the just finished election campaign to warn and prepare New Yorkers for tough times. He is also bereft of any philosophical rationale that would give him the ability to sell a smaller government-and all the initial pain that it will likely cause.
But make no mistake about it-we are about to sink under our own government weight. Goodwin underscores this: "The city and state employ nearly 600,000 people, an army of bureaucrats larger than the United States Army. And perhaps as powerful, for these workers and their unions are close to sinking Gotham and the Empire State. Their weapons are blunt: votes and cash for your election, or votes and cash for your opponent. Guess which option every pol chooses every time."
Which is why we believe that a tax revolt may be on the horizon-even in as liberal a state as New York. Our advice is: Watch California-a state where the government is so broke that it just enacted a 10%! surcharge on all tax payers; on top of its already high rates. Californians will soon be joining the revolt that was started by the Tea Party response to government run health care. And NY will, in our view, be right behind.
That is, unless we get a new sheriff who can use the current crisis to implement a new governing paradigm. And the talk we heard from Andrew Cuomo the other day surely looks like the kind of approach we're talking about. As Liz pointed out last week: "AG Andrew Cuomo sounded a distinctly pro-business and centrist note at a Tuesday night fundraiser organized for him by Republican supermarket mogul John Catsimatidis, according to an attendee at the event..."It was almost as if he was reading the tea leaves of some of the results in Nassau and Westchester counties," said my source. "He talked about lowering the cost of government and business, how we can't be taxing people in the middle of a recession. It was the right tone for the time, and the right tone for a business audience."
So, as we ride into the fiscal abyss, will we get the strong dose of realism from a Governor Cuomo to allow us to avoid disaster? Or we we be left with the old tired tax raising approaches that the Bloomberg conventional wisdom always ends up doing. If we do, the tax revolt is right around the corner-and for NY, it might just take the form of an even more copious mass exodus from an over taxed state.
"Brother, Here We Go Again"
Well, it certainly didn't take long for Mike Bloomberg to begin walking back his no tax pledge. As Liz reports: "Mayor Bloomberg today more or less stuck to his campaign pledge not to raise taxes through 2011, but left himself some wiggle room by reiterating that a lot depends on how Albany decides to address its own budget woes."
Mike may not be much of a dancer, but he's surely a great wiggler: "But at the moment, I do think, as long as Albany doesn’t take an enormous amount of monies that we’re counting on away from us, or raise taxes so much so that some of our tax base leaves, I do think we will get through it without a tax increase for 2011. Having said that, it is something between now and January that we’ll have to look at."
Translation: Hold on to your wallets, folks. The existence of a $5 billion deficit means that Bloomberg, who really has only one arrow in his deficit reducing policy quiver, will do what he is congenitally programmed to do: "Bloomberg stressed that the city is going to have to "spend less," but also repeated his usual mantra about being unwilling to cut key services."
But, maybe we're wrong, and a new and improved-fiscally prudent-Bloomberg model will emerge: "We made that mistake in the seventies," the mayor said. "(It) took us decades to recover from that and we really can't raise taxes anymore and drive small business owners out of the city, taking the jobs that we need with them or people who are going to stay here anyways but just are so up against it because of the down economy."
What's missing? The concept that the way the city can really become more economically viable is through a policy of tax reduction-an acknowledgement that it is way too expensive now for those small businesses to thrive in the current city economic environment.
That hope, however, may be a little too much to ask. And we would be happy with the status quo-but we're not gonna be betting that the mayor sticks to his words. A fundamental expansive government world view is not a garment that's thrown off easily; even if severe economic times would recommend just that.
Mike may not be much of a dancer, but he's surely a great wiggler: "But at the moment, I do think, as long as Albany doesn’t take an enormous amount of monies that we’re counting on away from us, or raise taxes so much so that some of our tax base leaves, I do think we will get through it without a tax increase for 2011. Having said that, it is something between now and January that we’ll have to look at."
Translation: Hold on to your wallets, folks. The existence of a $5 billion deficit means that Bloomberg, who really has only one arrow in his deficit reducing policy quiver, will do what he is congenitally programmed to do: "Bloomberg stressed that the city is going to have to "spend less," but also repeated his usual mantra about being unwilling to cut key services."
But, maybe we're wrong, and a new and improved-fiscally prudent-Bloomberg model will emerge: "We made that mistake in the seventies," the mayor said. "(It) took us decades to recover from that and we really can't raise taxes anymore and drive small business owners out of the city, taking the jobs that we need with them or people who are going to stay here anyways but just are so up against it because of the down economy."
What's missing? The concept that the way the city can really become more economically viable is through a policy of tax reduction-an acknowledgement that it is way too expensive now for those small businesses to thrive in the current city economic environment.
That hope, however, may be a little too much to ask. And we would be happy with the status quo-but we're not gonna be betting that the mayor sticks to his words. A fundamental expansive government world view is not a garment that's thrown off easily; even if severe economic times would recommend just that.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Re: Is it Legal?
A few months ago we pointed out, and the NY Times reported, that the lobbying activity of the Claire Shulman-led Flushing/Willets/Point/Corona LDC were a violation of the group's not-for-profit-status. As if there wasn't enough evidence available to make a prima facia case, here is a letter from not only Shulman, but one that is co-signed by Queens BP Marshall and Congressman Joe Crowley (who doubles in the apolitical post as Democratic county leader).
In it, the co-signatories implore the city council to approve the Willets Point development: "We are writing to urge you to support the City's plan to remediate and redevelop Willets Point, Queens...As council members you hold the key to the future of Willets Point, and we ask you to vote for the project and insure it comes true."
That friends is as clear an indication of the overtly political activities of this astroturf operation as anything we have seen-which brings us back to the fact that official complaints have been filed with the NYS Attorney General and the Internal Revenue Service. But as of yet, the response must have been lost in the mail.
Just in case you might have had some questions about the relevant statute that Shulman has been violating-so far with impunity-we refer you to the relevant section of the IRS code: Section 501 (C)(3). In it, we read the following: "Thus, 501(C)(3) prohibits qualifying organizations {not-for-profits} from participation in any political campaign and limits the amount of permissable legislative activity. If the organization engages in substantial legislative activities...the organization is an 'action' organization and exemption will be denied."
Well, as Shulman herself admitted to the Times, "substantial legislative activity" was the raison d'être of her little lobbying entity-and almost her entire half million or so public dollars were in fact misused precisely for the purpose of "excessive" legislative influencing. So what happened to the impartiality of the law here?
No one should be placed above the law-and there are those in Queens County who are going after a certain legislator with hammer and tongs because of the principle that, not only is no one above the law, but that elected officials need to be judged by a higher standard. Well, in that case, the Mayor Bloomberg, BP Marshall, and Congressman Crowley-all of whom aided and abetted the Shulman violation of the law-should be admonished; and the LDC itself disbanded and fined for all of the back taxes it has accrued while operating illegally as a tax exempt organization.
As more and more questions arise about the cost and feasiblility of redeveloping Willets Point, it is time that the city be held accountable for setting up and funding an illegal lobbying group to set this whole thing in motion. Small business has enough trouble defending its interests against large real estate ventures, but when the city conspires illegally to torpedo their survival, someone needs to step up and say: "Enough"
In it, the co-signatories implore the city council to approve the Willets Point development: "We are writing to urge you to support the City's plan to remediate and redevelop Willets Point, Queens...As council members you hold the key to the future of Willets Point, and we ask you to vote for the project and insure it comes true."
That friends is as clear an indication of the overtly political activities of this astroturf operation as anything we have seen-which brings us back to the fact that official complaints have been filed with the NYS Attorney General and the Internal Revenue Service. But as of yet, the response must have been lost in the mail.
Just in case you might have had some questions about the relevant statute that Shulman has been violating-so far with impunity-we refer you to the relevant section of the IRS code: Section 501 (C)(3). In it, we read the following: "Thus, 501(C)(3) prohibits qualifying organizations {not-for-profits} from participation in any political campaign and limits the amount of permissable legislative activity. If the organization engages in substantial legislative activities...the organization is an 'action' organization and exemption will be denied."
Well, as Shulman herself admitted to the Times, "substantial legislative activity" was the raison d'être of her little lobbying entity-and almost her entire half million or so public dollars were in fact misused precisely for the purpose of "excessive" legislative influencing. So what happened to the impartiality of the law here?
No one should be placed above the law-and there are those in Queens County who are going after a certain legislator with hammer and tongs because of the principle that, not only is no one above the law, but that elected officials need to be judged by a higher standard. Well, in that case, the Mayor Bloomberg, BP Marshall, and Congressman Crowley-all of whom aided and abetted the Shulman violation of the law-should be admonished; and the LDC itself disbanded and fined for all of the back taxes it has accrued while operating illegally as a tax exempt organization.
As more and more questions arise about the cost and feasiblility of redeveloping Willets Point, it is time that the city be held accountable for setting up and funding an illegal lobbying group to set this whole thing in motion. Small business has enough trouble defending its interests against large real estate ventures, but when the city conspires illegally to torpedo their survival, someone needs to step up and say: "Enough"
A Keloid Scar
More on the cautionary tale that is Kelo. As the Washington Times is reporting, Pfizer, once the linchpin of the development that became the poster child for eminent domain abuse, is now abandoning that infamous New London site: "The private homes that New London, Conn., took away from Suzette Kelo and her neighbors have been torn down. Their former site is a wasteland of fields of weeds, a monument to the power of eminent domain. But now Pfizer, the drug company whose neighboring research facility had been the original cause of the homes' seizure, has just announced that it is closing up shop in New London."
No mention, however, of how much this all cost the city of New London. As Susan Kelo's attorney reminds us: "Scott Bullock, Kelo's co-counsel in the case, told me: "This shows the folly of these redevelopment projects that use massive taxpayer subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare and abuse eminent domain."
Which brings us to the Willets Point project-projected to cost billions that NYC simply doesn't have. Willets Point United is now in the middle of trying to determine whether the Van Wyck ramps will actually alleviate the traffic mess that the development will generate; and what the cost of all this will mean for the city's already over burdened tax payers.
Unfortunately, EDC is stonewalling handing over the information-and we are planning to present this refusal, as well as its implications, to the residents of the nearby communities that will be impacted by the mess. As it stands now, the cost of remediation is unclear, with the city planning to figure this all out (according to the EIS) after the project is built. A blatant act of malfeasance in our view.
But consider what kind of traffic mess will assault the Van Wyck. According to our own traffic expert Brian Ketcham, the results will be anything but pretty: "The problem is that the project is surrounded by clogged expressways: the Van Wyck Expressway, the Grand Central Parkway, and the Long Island Expressway. And, with the project, clogged local access roads as well! At 9 million square feet the Willets Point Development Plan will generate 80,000 vehicle trips including 2,500 truck trips entering or leaving Willets Point every weekday and a similar amount of traffic on weekends. And, during the baseball or tennis season the project will have far greater impacts."
And the ramps are supposed to be a savior-but there role is left unexamined by the EIS: "The City is asking the NYSDOT to approve two new ramps connecting with the Van Wyck Expressway south of the site. It would provide more than a third of the car and truck trips accessing and leaving the site to travel to and from the south without using local streets. Without these ramps these trips would be forced to use local streets that would already be jammed with 60% to 70% of project trips. These impacts are never disclosed in the FEIS.
Nor are the ramps mentioned in the mitigation section of the FEIS. Instead, the City has applied in a separate secret document for State DOT approval of the ramps. This document, which includes the results of extensive traffic modeling and which it is assumed contains a discussion of the effects on traffic should NYSDOT fail to approve the ramps, is not available for public review."
So, once again, we are in a very secretive process whereby EDC is playing hide the ball-to the extent that we simply don't know what is being told NYSDOT, and how accurate the information proffered by the city really is. Which is why this entire process needs to be opened up for public scrutiny.
The abandoned New London property should serve as a warning that our vaunted decision makers sometimes simply don't know what they are doing-and plow ahead because they are programmed to act in a certain way. It is time that EDC opened up and presented all of the needed information to those whose lives will be effected by this massive redevelopment scheme. And, by the way, someone should let us all know how much it will cost and where the money will be coming from.
No mention, however, of how much this all cost the city of New London. As Susan Kelo's attorney reminds us: "Scott Bullock, Kelo's co-counsel in the case, told me: "This shows the folly of these redevelopment projects that use massive taxpayer subsidies and other forms of corporate welfare and abuse eminent domain."
Which brings us to the Willets Point project-projected to cost billions that NYC simply doesn't have. Willets Point United is now in the middle of trying to determine whether the Van Wyck ramps will actually alleviate the traffic mess that the development will generate; and what the cost of all this will mean for the city's already over burdened tax payers.
Unfortunately, EDC is stonewalling handing over the information-and we are planning to present this refusal, as well as its implications, to the residents of the nearby communities that will be impacted by the mess. As it stands now, the cost of remediation is unclear, with the city planning to figure this all out (according to the EIS) after the project is built. A blatant act of malfeasance in our view.
But consider what kind of traffic mess will assault the Van Wyck. According to our own traffic expert Brian Ketcham, the results will be anything but pretty: "The problem is that the project is surrounded by clogged expressways: the Van Wyck Expressway, the Grand Central Parkway, and the Long Island Expressway. And, with the project, clogged local access roads as well! At 9 million square feet the Willets Point Development Plan will generate 80,000 vehicle trips including 2,500 truck trips entering or leaving Willets Point every weekday and a similar amount of traffic on weekends. And, during the baseball or tennis season the project will have far greater impacts."
And the ramps are supposed to be a savior-but there role is left unexamined by the EIS: "The City is asking the NYSDOT to approve two new ramps connecting with the Van Wyck Expressway south of the site. It would provide more than a third of the car and truck trips accessing and leaving the site to travel to and from the south without using local streets. Without these ramps these trips would be forced to use local streets that would already be jammed with 60% to 70% of project trips. These impacts are never disclosed in the FEIS.
Nor are the ramps mentioned in the mitigation section of the FEIS. Instead, the City has applied in a separate secret document for State DOT approval of the ramps. This document, which includes the results of extensive traffic modeling and which it is assumed contains a discussion of the effects on traffic should NYSDOT fail to approve the ramps, is not available for public review."
So, once again, we are in a very secretive process whereby EDC is playing hide the ball-to the extent that we simply don't know what is being told NYSDOT, and how accurate the information proffered by the city really is. Which is why this entire process needs to be opened up for public scrutiny.
The abandoned New London property should serve as a warning that our vaunted decision makers sometimes simply don't know what they are doing-and plow ahead because they are programmed to act in a certain way. It is time that EDC opened up and presented all of the needed information to those whose lives will be effected by this massive redevelopment scheme. And, by the way, someone should let us all know how much it will cost and where the money will be coming from.
Mike's Related
In this morning's NY Daily News, Bob Kapstatter speculates that, in the end, Mayor Bloomberg will intervene on behalf of Related-and kill living wage in the process: "Could Mayor Bloomberg put the kibosh on the living wage proposal for the Kingsbridge Armory mall?...Related Cos. has threatened to walk away if the living wage demand is included, saying it won't be able to get bank financing because retailers won't move in. But one Council insider thinks that if it comes down to it, the mayor's people "will go to bat for Related and cut a deal [without the wage issue] that everybody will have to live with." They [Bloomberg's people] don't want the living wage, it's too much of a problem with development. Living wages and union jobs on projects just make the cost too high in this city. Once you let the cat out of the bag. . . ."
Only one real problem with this line of thought-and it isn't the question of whether Mike Bloomberg will carry Related's water, he's been doing that for eight years. In fact, as we have remarked before, when Mike takes time out from his busy schedule-and shows a personal concern for Related honcho Jeff Blau's ability to get into an exclusive Co-op-then you know that the ties run deep.
As the Observer pointed out last May: "The Observer's Max Abelson reports that Michael Bloomberg personally called the head of the co-op board at 820 Fifth Avenue in an attempt to get him to approve the application of his friend Jeff Blau. The board did not budge. Citing an unnamed source Abelson writes: 'That source said Mayor Michael Bloomberg placed a call to 89-year-old Jayne Wrightsman, the building’s feared, persnickety gatekeeper, who lives one floor below the Hovnanian family...'"
So, while we know that blue blood is thicker than water, it must be pointed out, that there has already been living wage deals hammered out in the council-and the deal over at 126th Street in Melissa Mark-Viverito's district with hotel workers is one such arrangement that has already passed the legislature's approval. But that doesn't mean that Bloomberg won't be pushing for his buddies.
But it does mean, however, that the council shouldn't be upholding any form of Related exceptionalism. And the Kingsbridge Armory offers it an opportunity to let a new paradigm for development be established-and to uphold the parameters of the city's own RFP (the one that precludes a competing supermarket) at the same time. Will a new day dawn here? Still much work to do.
There's Got to Be a Morning After
We just love all of the second guessing surrounding the failure of so many to get aboard the Thompson campaign train-as well as the ridicule of the mayor's rope a dope strategy that we still have trouble believing. After all, they failed to get out their own vote, as 200,000 Bloomberg voters stayed home for a number of possible reasons.
And how about the Marist Poll people sitting on their own pre-election poll that showed Thompson gaining? It starts to look almost conspiratorial to us-especially in light of the NY Times' premature announcement of a Bloomberg win soon after the polls closed.
One of the absolutely most shameless of bogarters at the Thompson election night bash was the Reverand Al Sharpton-the man who, during the campaign, pretended to be supportive of the comptroller, but whose obvious in the Bloomberg tank status was as funny as someone with lockjaw at a fellatio convention. The fact of the matter is that the Rev Al should have been screaming bloody murder when the mayor unleashed millions of dollars of ads to tarnish Bill Thompson's good name. Imagine if a Giuliani had done that.
But then again, Rudy never had the money to buy Al off-not that he would have ever thought of even doing so. So Sharpton joined the list of preachers for hire: Flake, Butts, Bernard, et al; but Al didn't have the decency to admit he had been purchased by giving Bloomberg an outright endorsement. The real shame here is that no one in the media has the cajones to really unmask this huckster-a man of absolutely no morals whatsoever.
But back to the Bloomberg carnival-a campaign that was seen as ridiculously disingenuous by the NY Post's Dave Seifman: "It doesn't make any sense. Mayor Bloomberg's campaign crew's excuses for his shockingly close 4.6 percentage-point win over Bill Thompson go something like this:
* No matter that we consistently told everyone publicly he was leading by double digits, we knew that it was going to be very close. We did this to hurt Thompson's fund-raising and to convince as many Democrats as we could to not go anywhere near him.
* Incumbents got clobbered all over the place last Tuesday, so the mayor's win was an outstanding achievement by our team."
The reality is harsher. There is a significant malaise that the Bloomberg power grab has generated across the city-one that will undoubtedly continue to linger as two eager rivals, John Liu and Bill DeBlasio, begin to nip at his heels: "Bloomberg will also face, for the first time in eight years, a sustained challenge from the other two citywide officeholders, De Blasio and John Liu, the comptroller-elect."
And then there's the city's finances: "The mayor’s surprisingly close five-point win over Thompson only compounds his daunting third-term problems. There’s the $5 billion city-budget deficit (even Bloomberg might balk at paying for that with his own money); coupled with Bloomberg’s election-season vow not to raise taxes, the gap is likely to force cuts in city services next year, unless the economy bounces back sooner than expected. Homelessness and unemployment rates are at painfully high levels. The mayor remains invested with far greater institutional power than the City Council, but council members are angry at having been used by both Bloomberg and Speaker Christine Quinn, and last week’s results will embolden them to put up more of a fight against the mayor’s agenda. The press is on alert for a Bloomberg decline. And there’s widespread public discontent with the mayor’s reign."
So it should be a very interesting four years; and in our view the conditions for a serious deconstruction of the Myth of Mike are readily apparent. He shoulda quite while he was ahead.
And how about the Marist Poll people sitting on their own pre-election poll that showed Thompson gaining? It starts to look almost conspiratorial to us-especially in light of the NY Times' premature announcement of a Bloomberg win soon after the polls closed.
One of the absolutely most shameless of bogarters at the Thompson election night bash was the Reverand Al Sharpton-the man who, during the campaign, pretended to be supportive of the comptroller, but whose obvious in the Bloomberg tank status was as funny as someone with lockjaw at a fellatio convention. The fact of the matter is that the Rev Al should have been screaming bloody murder when the mayor unleashed millions of dollars of ads to tarnish Bill Thompson's good name. Imagine if a Giuliani had done that.
But then again, Rudy never had the money to buy Al off-not that he would have ever thought of even doing so. So Sharpton joined the list of preachers for hire: Flake, Butts, Bernard, et al; but Al didn't have the decency to admit he had been purchased by giving Bloomberg an outright endorsement. The real shame here is that no one in the media has the cajones to really unmask this huckster-a man of absolutely no morals whatsoever.
But back to the Bloomberg carnival-a campaign that was seen as ridiculously disingenuous by the NY Post's Dave Seifman: "It doesn't make any sense. Mayor Bloomberg's campaign crew's excuses for his shockingly close 4.6 percentage-point win over Bill Thompson go something like this:
* No matter that we consistently told everyone publicly he was leading by double digits, we knew that it was going to be very close. We did this to hurt Thompson's fund-raising and to convince as many Democrats as we could to not go anywhere near him.
* Incumbents got clobbered all over the place last Tuesday, so the mayor's win was an outstanding achievement by our team."
The reality is harsher. There is a significant malaise that the Bloomberg power grab has generated across the city-one that will undoubtedly continue to linger as two eager rivals, John Liu and Bill DeBlasio, begin to nip at his heels: "Bloomberg will also face, for the first time in eight years, a sustained challenge from the other two citywide officeholders, De Blasio and John Liu, the comptroller-elect."
And then there's the city's finances: "The mayor’s surprisingly close five-point win over Thompson only compounds his daunting third-term problems. There’s the $5 billion city-budget deficit (even Bloomberg might balk at paying for that with his own money); coupled with Bloomberg’s election-season vow not to raise taxes, the gap is likely to force cuts in city services next year, unless the economy bounces back sooner than expected. Homelessness and unemployment rates are at painfully high levels. The mayor remains invested with far greater institutional power than the City Council, but council members are angry at having been used by both Bloomberg and Speaker Christine Quinn, and last week’s results will embolden them to put up more of a fight against the mayor’s agenda. The press is on alert for a Bloomberg decline. And there’s widespread public discontent with the mayor’s reign."
So it should be a very interesting four years; and in our view the conditions for a serious deconstruction of the Myth of Mike are readily apparent. He shoulda quite while he was ahead.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Related Disinformation
The Bronx News Network is reporting that the Kingsbridge Armory opposition is gaining steam-with the Bronx delegation optimistic that Speaker Quinn will follow its lead: "Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr. and the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance (KARA) have been lobbying Bronx City Council members to reject the Related Companies’ plan to redevelop the Kingsbridge Armory into a giant shopping mall unless the firm sits down to negotiate a binding community benefits agreement with elected officials and community stakeholders. They seem to be having success."
The basis of their optimism? "Council Member Joel Rivera told the Norwood News on Wednesday that he and several other Bronx Council members are coalescing around the borough president who has taken a strong position on the project. The more united the Bronx Council members are the more likely Council members in other boroughs will follow their lead. Rivera's position is also important because he is the Council's majority leader and sits on the both Council panels that will review the project – the Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee and the Land Use Committee."
All of this is well and good-but we would caution any one who has the urge to get up and do an end zone dance just yet. There is a lot of hard political work ahead, and the Related Companies is not without resources of its own-including a more than cozy relationship with the city's chief executive. It is also not without the ability to disseminate disinformation.
That has taken the form of a letter from Related's attorney Jesse Masyr. In it Masyr, to the Bronx City Council Delegation, the Land use Committee, Speaker Christine Quinn and other citing a story in the Riverdale Press, accuses the KARA coalition of bad faith: "Unfortunately, as clearly evidenced by a statement from the leader of the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance that appeared in today's Riverdale Press, it is now obvious that KARA has not joined us in this commitment to good faith negotiation."
Masyr in accusing KARA of bad faith, however, resorts to outright deceit-chopping the Desiree Pilgrim-Hunter quote that appeared in the same article to make it look as if her organization's objective was simply to kill the project. Left out was the following conclusory statement from Ms. Pilgrim-Hunter: "We have no problem with a mall, if it was done in a way that would serve the community,” Ms. Pilgrim-Hunter said. “Developers should be working in partnership in the community, not against the community. We want the Armory Center, where people will come together as a community and not just to spend money. The community has specific needs and they are not being met.”
KARA follows up the Masyr missive with a corrective letter of its own; but the lesson here is that this is a company that will use all of its resources, and won't refrain from dirty tricks in its effort to keep on riding on the Bloomberg gravy train. Those of us who are concerned with the supermarket and living wage issues-and who support small business and worker rights-need to gird ourselves for thirty days or so of really nasty in-fighting. There is simply too much at stake to get complacent now.
You Are What You Eat
We went to see the new movie Precious over the weekend, and it got us to thinking about the calorie posting initiated last year by the Department of Health-you know, the policy that proved to have absolutely no impact on the way fast food customers eat.
Precious is about an abused and overweight Harlem teen, and when we see what the girl has to go through just to maintain her sanity and survive, it underscores, in our view, the futility of those policy makers who think that they can regulate folks into having healthier lives. Eating for many-but particularly for low income people who have any so many different stressors in their lives-is about emotional reassurance; and until these folks are able to have a better environment to live in, they will continue to use food for more than just pure sustenance.
Which brings us to the calorie posting experiment-the subject of an interesting article over the weekend in the Wall Street Journal. The article summarizes the failed experiment-and points to other reasons for its failure:
"Only half of the customers said they noticed the caloric information, and only about 15% said they used the information. But the researchers' most striking finding was that customers actually ordered more caloric items after the law went into effect than before, despite the fact that nine out of ten customers who reported using the information said they made healthier choices as a result of the law. This disconnect can partly be explained by response bias in which people tell surveyors what they think the surveyors want to hear.
But the problem may also be more complex. It's possible that people who are less educated may actually think they are eating more healthily than they are notwithstanding the calorie numbers staring them in the face. Calories as a measure of food intake (or more precisely, energy consumption and output) may be as foreign to them as the metric system is to many Americans."
Quite true, and this was another reason why we had originally thought that this entire experiment was a crock-and another unnecessary mandate on local business at a time when they are struggling mightily to survive. But here's a real nugget of truth: "The lawmakers who enacted the calorie posting regulations succumbed to the fallacy that everyone thinks like them. They probably reasoned that because they would make healthier choices if presented with nutritional information, everyone else would as well. But maybe what consumers actually want is a delicious meal at a low price."
Or maybe, they have too many other pressing life concerns to worry about the contents of their meals-food that is also making them feel better at the same time. So, as the WSJ piece makes clear, there's sometimes an underlying rationality to the irrationality of peoples' choices: "While information is important, even fully informed people won't always act as lawmakers think they should, especially if it's economically irrational. Any public health legislation won't significantly change people's behavior unless it 1) provides proper incentives for people to put their long-term well-being above temporary gratification and 2) takes into account the economic rationality of people's behavior. Unfortunately, many lawmakers refuse to swallow this inconvenient truth, preferring the taste of their Kool-Aid."
Maybe in the third Bloomberg term, there will be more attention paid to alleviating the suffering of the folks-you know, good jobs with living wages. And less time trying to re-make peoples' lives in the image of the leisure class. When government tries to go beyond its legitimate scope of action, it not only meddles needlessly in the lives of its citizens, it fails to address the real problems that it does have the ability to alleviate.
Precious is about an abused and overweight Harlem teen, and when we see what the girl has to go through just to maintain her sanity and survive, it underscores, in our view, the futility of those policy makers who think that they can regulate folks into having healthier lives. Eating for many-but particularly for low income people who have any so many different stressors in their lives-is about emotional reassurance; and until these folks are able to have a better environment to live in, they will continue to use food for more than just pure sustenance.
Which brings us to the calorie posting experiment-the subject of an interesting article over the weekend in the Wall Street Journal. The article summarizes the failed experiment-and points to other reasons for its failure:
"Only half of the customers said they noticed the caloric information, and only about 15% said they used the information. But the researchers' most striking finding was that customers actually ordered more caloric items after the law went into effect than before, despite the fact that nine out of ten customers who reported using the information said they made healthier choices as a result of the law. This disconnect can partly be explained by response bias in which people tell surveyors what they think the surveyors want to hear.
But the problem may also be more complex. It's possible that people who are less educated may actually think they are eating more healthily than they are notwithstanding the calorie numbers staring them in the face. Calories as a measure of food intake (or more precisely, energy consumption and output) may be as foreign to them as the metric system is to many Americans."
Quite true, and this was another reason why we had originally thought that this entire experiment was a crock-and another unnecessary mandate on local business at a time when they are struggling mightily to survive. But here's a real nugget of truth: "The lawmakers who enacted the calorie posting regulations succumbed to the fallacy that everyone thinks like them. They probably reasoned that because they would make healthier choices if presented with nutritional information, everyone else would as well. But maybe what consumers actually want is a delicious meal at a low price."
Or maybe, they have too many other pressing life concerns to worry about the contents of their meals-food that is also making them feel better at the same time. So, as the WSJ piece makes clear, there's sometimes an underlying rationality to the irrationality of peoples' choices: "While information is important, even fully informed people won't always act as lawmakers think they should, especially if it's economically irrational. Any public health legislation won't significantly change people's behavior unless it 1) provides proper incentives for people to put their long-term well-being above temporary gratification and 2) takes into account the economic rationality of people's behavior. Unfortunately, many lawmakers refuse to swallow this inconvenient truth, preferring the taste of their Kool-Aid."
Maybe in the third Bloomberg term, there will be more attention paid to alleviating the suffering of the folks-you know, good jobs with living wages. And less time trying to re-make peoples' lives in the image of the leisure class. When government tries to go beyond its legitimate scope of action, it not only meddles needlessly in the lives of its citizens, it fails to address the real problems that it does have the ability to alleviate.
So Long, It's Been Good to Know you
Well, here's something that you really didn't hear from the Bloomberg campaign, even with $100 million in infomercials-the plight of small business under his watch, and the exodus of New Yorkers unable to bear up under the high cost of living in this luxury product city. As the NY Post highlights:
"Experts say the city’s rising levies and property taxes have taken their biggest toll on its nearly 200,000 small-business owners. “The city extracts a very high cost on small businesses,” said Manhattan Institute senior fellow Steve Malanga. “The biggest problem that they face is actually property taxes.” According to Malanga, the commercial property tax in most cities is generally 1.7 times that of the residential property tax, but in New York City, the rate is eight times more. Annual revenue from property taxes has doubled from $8 billion in 2001 to $16 billion today."
But you would think that a wealthy businessman who supposedly isn't beholden to the city's special interests would be able to devise public policy that wouldn't cripple the real engine of New York's economy. That supposition, however, is based on the Myth of Mike-and eludes the extent to which Bloomberg himself comes from and embodies the city's elite class. It is based on the illusion-one that the editorialists at the NY Times cling to religiously-that it is only when politicians are taking campaign donations from the Fat Cats that they must be viewed with suspicion.
That belief is just flat out wrong-and Mike Bloomberg is the poster child for its debunking. Many years ago, a sociologist named Floyd Hunter wrote a seminal book on community power structure. In it, Hunter underscored how certain industries come to dominate the social life and politics of a municipality. Hunter's work on power was popularized by C. Wright Mills in his more famous book, The Power Elite.
In NYC it is, as Newfield and Paul du Brul have so eloquently shown, the real estate industry that forms the bedrock of the city's permanent government since it is the engine that drives politics and a great deal of the big policy decisions. That it does is rather obvious when we take a look at the value of property in the city, and the list of our town's richest citizens. Yes, it is true that finance and financiers are part of the wealthy elite, but decisions effecting that sector are generally not made down at city hall-but the big real estate moves most certainly are.
Which brings us to "Above Politics" Mike. In the past eight years, Bloomberg has either driven or supported all of the major big real estate grabs-ignoring or down playing whatever impacts these developments might have on neighboring communities or smaller businesses. From the Bronx Terminal Market to Willets Point, the mayor has tireless promoted big real estate. These are his friends, they are, "his people."
And no firm has benefited more from the mayor's energetic promotion of mega-development than the Related Companies. No bid contracts and huge, risk reducing tax subsidies, have characterized Related's successful real estate efforts all over the city. The latest, of course, is the Kingsbridge Armory.
Mike Bloomberg naturally sees these kinds of projects as good for the city-having no insight or sympathy for whatever the collateral damage might be from these kinds of policies. Is he thus, "beholden" to special interests? Does it really matter when the substance of his policy decisions are examined?
No matter how you characterize the Bloomberg decision making model, it still comes down to the fact that the mayor sees the world through the eyes of the Steve Rosses and Steve Roths of the world-demonstrating just how limited the concept of, "beholden to special interests," really is when it comes to one Michael Bloomberg. The end result, in any case, is the same as if the mayor was on Related's payroll-except the company gets off cheaper with a billionaire mayor, one that it doesn't need to fork over even one penny to, as its number one cheerleader.
But, back to the Armory. In the case of this development, tens of millions of tax dollars are being used to subsidize the project-one that, when finished, will likely siphon millions of dollars away from the small businesses at nearby Kingsbridge and Fordham Roads; retailers that have been devastated by the current recession as well as the economic policies that the NY Post writes about so movingly. For these entrepreneurs, the proposed mall is like a bus ticket out of town.
Yet, the city's Economic Development Corporation-somewhat of an oxymoron, no?-never even bothered to do its own economic impact analysis of just how this development might impact local businesses; leaving this task to the Related itself. And guess what the developer found? Yes, you're right-a 600,000 square foot retail mall, funded with tax payer dollars, would have no negative impact on the adjacent retail shopping areas.
The plight and flight of the city's small businesses, then, is something of a natural phenomenon in the eyes of the mayor's brain trust-having no relationship to the city's own economic decisions. And who exactly is over at city hall to tell the mayor about this plight, and the potential negative impact of these subsidized malls? All of the Wall Street refugees that populate the economic brain trust, like Lieber and Pinsky?
So, as we get ready for this third term, what can we expect differently from a mayor whose entire world view and mindset is in sync with all of the bien pensants of the wealthy elite? A greater awareness of how development needs to be sensitive to Bronx residents who are unemployed at record levels? This would mean insuring that Related agree to a development paradigm that includes a living wage and protection of workers at the new mall.
In the absence of that kind of expectation-and the realization that Bloomberg will continue to govern on behalf of the power elite, it falls on the city council to begin to speak truth to power. Next week, the first city council hearing on the Kingsbridge Armory will be held. It is the first test of whether we will see a new political metric-one that looks to protect and nurture small businesses and workers alike; or simply a continuation of the special interest politics that Bloomberg has so famously championed, while simultaneously proclaiming his apolitical independence from the very forces that adhere seamlessly to his very genetic make up.
"Experts say the city’s rising levies and property taxes have taken their biggest toll on its nearly 200,000 small-business owners. “The city extracts a very high cost on small businesses,” said Manhattan Institute senior fellow Steve Malanga. “The biggest problem that they face is actually property taxes.” According to Malanga, the commercial property tax in most cities is generally 1.7 times that of the residential property tax, but in New York City, the rate is eight times more. Annual revenue from property taxes has doubled from $8 billion in 2001 to $16 billion today."
But you would think that a wealthy businessman who supposedly isn't beholden to the city's special interests would be able to devise public policy that wouldn't cripple the real engine of New York's economy. That supposition, however, is based on the Myth of Mike-and eludes the extent to which Bloomberg himself comes from and embodies the city's elite class. It is based on the illusion-one that the editorialists at the NY Times cling to religiously-that it is only when politicians are taking campaign donations from the Fat Cats that they must be viewed with suspicion.
That belief is just flat out wrong-and Mike Bloomberg is the poster child for its debunking. Many years ago, a sociologist named Floyd Hunter wrote a seminal book on community power structure. In it, Hunter underscored how certain industries come to dominate the social life and politics of a municipality. Hunter's work on power was popularized by C. Wright Mills in his more famous book, The Power Elite.
In NYC it is, as Newfield and Paul du Brul have so eloquently shown, the real estate industry that forms the bedrock of the city's permanent government since it is the engine that drives politics and a great deal of the big policy decisions. That it does is rather obvious when we take a look at the value of property in the city, and the list of our town's richest citizens. Yes, it is true that finance and financiers are part of the wealthy elite, but decisions effecting that sector are generally not made down at city hall-but the big real estate moves most certainly are.
Which brings us to "Above Politics" Mike. In the past eight years, Bloomberg has either driven or supported all of the major big real estate grabs-ignoring or down playing whatever impacts these developments might have on neighboring communities or smaller businesses. From the Bronx Terminal Market to Willets Point, the mayor has tireless promoted big real estate. These are his friends, they are, "his people."
And no firm has benefited more from the mayor's energetic promotion of mega-development than the Related Companies. No bid contracts and huge, risk reducing tax subsidies, have characterized Related's successful real estate efforts all over the city. The latest, of course, is the Kingsbridge Armory.
Mike Bloomberg naturally sees these kinds of projects as good for the city-having no insight or sympathy for whatever the collateral damage might be from these kinds of policies. Is he thus, "beholden" to special interests? Does it really matter when the substance of his policy decisions are examined?
No matter how you characterize the Bloomberg decision making model, it still comes down to the fact that the mayor sees the world through the eyes of the Steve Rosses and Steve Roths of the world-demonstrating just how limited the concept of, "beholden to special interests," really is when it comes to one Michael Bloomberg. The end result, in any case, is the same as if the mayor was on Related's payroll-except the company gets off cheaper with a billionaire mayor, one that it doesn't need to fork over even one penny to, as its number one cheerleader.
But, back to the Armory. In the case of this development, tens of millions of tax dollars are being used to subsidize the project-one that, when finished, will likely siphon millions of dollars away from the small businesses at nearby Kingsbridge and Fordham Roads; retailers that have been devastated by the current recession as well as the economic policies that the NY Post writes about so movingly. For these entrepreneurs, the proposed mall is like a bus ticket out of town.
Yet, the city's Economic Development Corporation-somewhat of an oxymoron, no?-never even bothered to do its own economic impact analysis of just how this development might impact local businesses; leaving this task to the Related itself. And guess what the developer found? Yes, you're right-a 600,000 square foot retail mall, funded with tax payer dollars, would have no negative impact on the adjacent retail shopping areas.
The plight and flight of the city's small businesses, then, is something of a natural phenomenon in the eyes of the mayor's brain trust-having no relationship to the city's own economic decisions. And who exactly is over at city hall to tell the mayor about this plight, and the potential negative impact of these subsidized malls? All of the Wall Street refugees that populate the economic brain trust, like Lieber and Pinsky?
So, as we get ready for this third term, what can we expect differently from a mayor whose entire world view and mindset is in sync with all of the bien pensants of the wealthy elite? A greater awareness of how development needs to be sensitive to Bronx residents who are unemployed at record levels? This would mean insuring that Related agree to a development paradigm that includes a living wage and protection of workers at the new mall.
In the absence of that kind of expectation-and the realization that Bloomberg will continue to govern on behalf of the power elite, it falls on the city council to begin to speak truth to power. Next week, the first city council hearing on the Kingsbridge Armory will be held. It is the first test of whether we will see a new political metric-one that looks to protect and nurture small businesses and workers alike; or simply a continuation of the special interest politics that Bloomberg has so famously championed, while simultaneously proclaiming his apolitical independence from the very forces that adhere seamlessly to his very genetic make up.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Lipstick on a Mandate Pig
As the reality of just how little Mike Bloomberg got for all of his election cash outlay really sinks in, the mayor continues to try to present his sorry showing as a bold departure from the anti-incumbent trend that characterized so many other races in the region and around the country. But, as Wayne Barrett points out, it's simply the old lipstick on a pig metaphor at play: "The key question coming out of this election is whether Mike Bloomberg got the message. Can he listen to voters he'll never face again? If Bloomberg L.P took a hit like he did Tuesday, wouldn't the company take stock and make real changes?Bloomberg spent $80 million in 2005 and won by 19 percent of the vote. He spent more than a hundred million this year (the final number isn't in yet), and won by 4.6 percent of the vote. Diminishing returns on an investment like that might trigger a change at the top in the corporate world."
C'mon Wayne, tell us how pathetic it really was: "In 2005, Fernando Ferrer got 503,219 votes; last night Bill Thompson got 506,717 (Ferrer's final tally includes absentee and affidavit ballots, while Thompson's is not yet final). Bloomberg's total dropped from 753,089 in 2005 to 557,059 now. The big difference between the elections is that Bloomberg will get between 180,000 and 200,000 fewer votes than four years ago when all the paper ballots are recorded. Bloomberg will also get the lowest total vote of any mayoral winner in a two-candidate race since 1917, when John Hylan got 314,000 votes. Ed Koch got 868,000 votes when he ran for a third term in 1985, hundreds of thousands more than Bloomberg. If Mike reads his measly vote as a mandate for more of the same, he is delusional. Yet that's how he spun it election night and today -- as a towering triumph over anti-incumbent sentiment."
Brave words, perhaps, but even Mike doesn't really believe that his victory was a big triumph-and his effort to mend fences is a good indication of what the mayor truly understands about this vote of no confidence: "Michael R. Bloomberg, stung by an election outcome that revealed resentment over his undoing of the term limits law and his extravagant campaign spending, moved quickly Wednesday to strike a conciliatory tone as he reached out to the Democratic establishment that backed his opponent in the mayor’s race."
But as Mike himself, our own NYC Popeye, is wont to say: "I am who I am." So don't expect that the mayor will all of a sudden transform into a cuddly empath. And then there are those intractable problems that Bloomberg's campaign extravaganza did so much to keep hidden.
Michael Goodwin captured this yesterday in a satirical look at the mayor's "legacy." "It was not an inspiring or informative campaign, but he bought the job, fair and square. After eight years of a supine City Council and media support, Bloomberg owns the problems as well as the power. There will be no honor in joining the pantheon of three-termers if he leaves Gotham on the brink of ruin. Fixing the finances is key. Everything else depends on it, especially the gains in public safety."
And things are going to go south pretty fast: "The current course is unsustainable, with projected spending outstripping revenues by billions as far as the eye can see. While the national recession and Albany spendthrifts share some blame with Bloomberg, the crisis provides the perfect opportunity to renovate the city's fiscal house. Because the state could run out of cash by the end of the year and because Bloomberg ruled out even more ruinous tax hikes, he has no choice except serious spending cuts and restraint."
But let's not forget the Popeye analogy-one that Clyde Haberman also uses this morning-and the mayor, being who he is, can be trusted to simply ignore his campaign rhetoric in order to courageously, "make the hard choices," that normal pols shy away from. So we disagree with Goodwin on this, and the columnist himself hedges: "Or at least he should have no choice, but that's where the campaign disappointed most. Some of the mayor's words and deeds actually sent the opposite message. He refused to say how he would get out of a $5 billion hole next year, and oddly added in the final debate that revenues were coming in slightly better than expected, as if there were no worry."
Of course he did. Here is someone whose wealth has left him all alone on a self made pedestal-unaccountable to the wishes or the views of any other human being. And not only that-he has clearly demonstrated that there is no consequences when he simply ignores what he had previously said, and embarks on a course that's 180 degrees different from what he had promised (the tax hike in 2002 as a prime example).
So, if being forewarned is being forearmed, get ready for the old tax and fee hiker to emerge soon-Freddy Krueger-like. And Goodwin, usually sharp in this regard, misses the Bloomberg essence: "When he emerged onto the political scene in 2001, he promised his wealth would buy him independence and said he wouldn't owe favors to unions and other special interests. Maybe that's the mayor we'll finally get in the third term."
Unfortunately, that Bloomberg self portrait was in reality a caricature-and his aggrandizement of government, along with those who make up its work force, was a natural concomitant of how Mike sees the world. Asking him to see it differently would amount to the expectation that Popeye could somehow transform himself into Blutto.
C'mon Wayne, tell us how pathetic it really was: "In 2005, Fernando Ferrer got 503,219 votes; last night Bill Thompson got 506,717 (Ferrer's final tally includes absentee and affidavit ballots, while Thompson's is not yet final). Bloomberg's total dropped from 753,089 in 2005 to 557,059 now. The big difference between the elections is that Bloomberg will get between 180,000 and 200,000 fewer votes than four years ago when all the paper ballots are recorded. Bloomberg will also get the lowest total vote of any mayoral winner in a two-candidate race since 1917, when John Hylan got 314,000 votes. Ed Koch got 868,000 votes when he ran for a third term in 1985, hundreds of thousands more than Bloomberg. If Mike reads his measly vote as a mandate for more of the same, he is delusional. Yet that's how he spun it election night and today -- as a towering triumph over anti-incumbent sentiment."
Brave words, perhaps, but even Mike doesn't really believe that his victory was a big triumph-and his effort to mend fences is a good indication of what the mayor truly understands about this vote of no confidence: "Michael R. Bloomberg, stung by an election outcome that revealed resentment over his undoing of the term limits law and his extravagant campaign spending, moved quickly Wednesday to strike a conciliatory tone as he reached out to the Democratic establishment that backed his opponent in the mayor’s race."
But as Mike himself, our own NYC Popeye, is wont to say: "I am who I am." So don't expect that the mayor will all of a sudden transform into a cuddly empath. And then there are those intractable problems that Bloomberg's campaign extravaganza did so much to keep hidden.
Michael Goodwin captured this yesterday in a satirical look at the mayor's "legacy." "It was not an inspiring or informative campaign, but he bought the job, fair and square. After eight years of a supine City Council and media support, Bloomberg owns the problems as well as the power. There will be no honor in joining the pantheon of three-termers if he leaves Gotham on the brink of ruin. Fixing the finances is key. Everything else depends on it, especially the gains in public safety."
And things are going to go south pretty fast: "The current course is unsustainable, with projected spending outstripping revenues by billions as far as the eye can see. While the national recession and Albany spendthrifts share some blame with Bloomberg, the crisis provides the perfect opportunity to renovate the city's fiscal house. Because the state could run out of cash by the end of the year and because Bloomberg ruled out even more ruinous tax hikes, he has no choice except serious spending cuts and restraint."
But let's not forget the Popeye analogy-one that Clyde Haberman also uses this morning-and the mayor, being who he is, can be trusted to simply ignore his campaign rhetoric in order to courageously, "make the hard choices," that normal pols shy away from. So we disagree with Goodwin on this, and the columnist himself hedges: "Or at least he should have no choice, but that's where the campaign disappointed most. Some of the mayor's words and deeds actually sent the opposite message. He refused to say how he would get out of a $5 billion hole next year, and oddly added in the final debate that revenues were coming in slightly better than expected, as if there were no worry."
Of course he did. Here is someone whose wealth has left him all alone on a self made pedestal-unaccountable to the wishes or the views of any other human being. And not only that-he has clearly demonstrated that there is no consequences when he simply ignores what he had previously said, and embarks on a course that's 180 degrees different from what he had promised (the tax hike in 2002 as a prime example).
So, if being forewarned is being forearmed, get ready for the old tax and fee hiker to emerge soon-Freddy Krueger-like. And Goodwin, usually sharp in this regard, misses the Bloomberg essence: "When he emerged onto the political scene in 2001, he promised his wealth would buy him independence and said he wouldn't owe favors to unions and other special interests. Maybe that's the mayor we'll finally get in the third term."
Unfortunately, that Bloomberg self portrait was in reality a caricature-and his aggrandizement of government, along with those who make up its work force, was a natural concomitant of how Mike sees the world. Asking him to see it differently would amount to the expectation that Popeye could somehow transform himself into Blutto.
And So It Begins
The NY Times has an interesting story this morning on one of the Bloomberg campaign promises unraveling before our eyes-the first, we believe, of many: "Throughout the fall as he campaigned for re-election, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg pledged to fight the waste, dirt and delays in the region’s mass transit system, promoting a new era of cooperation between City Hall and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority — as long as the right candidate prevailed. On Thursday, however, in his first public appearance with Jay H. Walder, the authority’s new chairman, Mr. Bloomberg’s fiery words had been replaced by something less aggressive: a plea for patience."
We, however, won't patient-in fact, we simply can't wait until, one after one, these extravagant campaign promises fall by the wayside once reality sets in. That's the problem-not only with hubris, but with a vast fortune to feed and expand the overweening sense of self. When the Bloombergistas launched their MTA ad last summer, we pointed out that they were just blowing smoke; as we will find with so many things that the campaign promiscuously rolled out in glossy color brochures.
Here's what we pointed out at the time, in case you weren't following too closely: "Mike Bloomberg has been busy-at least his campaign's economic stimulus plan for NYC has been-inundating voters with fatuous ads on his grandiose plans for mass transit improvements-much of them outside of his purview to attain, but, what the hell, it's only a campaign promise."
As the Times reminds us, that was then, and this is now: "Asked about a much-discussed proposal to make crosstown buses available to riders at no cost — a pledge repeated in bold print on thousands of his campaign mailers and pamphlets — the mayor appeared to retreat from his plan. “We have not talked about that one yet,” he began, noting that new technology, like computerized fare cards that could speed up boarding times, “might be able to accomplish part of that. “I thought it was a good idea, although, the real issue there, there’s two things we’re trying to do: one is to make it easier for people to go back and forth, but two is also to stop the delays from getting on and off the buses,” the mayor said. “That’s another one of these things down the road. I think there’s a whole bunch of things that we laid out that we can explore together.”
At this rate, reporters are going to have a cottage industry around explaining why this or that Bloomberg campaign pledge won't be able to see the light of day. But the biggie will be when the stark reality of the city's budget mess is fully revealed. That's when we predict the mayor will fully abandon his no tax pledge-forgetting all of those Thompson blasting commercials that labeled Bill as a tax hiker-and, once again, sock it to the gullible New Yorkers who gave Bloomberg this undeserved third term. The third term will create a new popular expression: "You get what he paid for."
We, however, won't patient-in fact, we simply can't wait until, one after one, these extravagant campaign promises fall by the wayside once reality sets in. That's the problem-not only with hubris, but with a vast fortune to feed and expand the overweening sense of self. When the Bloombergistas launched their MTA ad last summer, we pointed out that they were just blowing smoke; as we will find with so many things that the campaign promiscuously rolled out in glossy color brochures.
Here's what we pointed out at the time, in case you weren't following too closely: "Mike Bloomberg has been busy-at least his campaign's economic stimulus plan for NYC has been-inundating voters with fatuous ads on his grandiose plans for mass transit improvements-much of them outside of his purview to attain, but, what the hell, it's only a campaign promise."
As the Times reminds us, that was then, and this is now: "Asked about a much-discussed proposal to make crosstown buses available to riders at no cost — a pledge repeated in bold print on thousands of his campaign mailers and pamphlets — the mayor appeared to retreat from his plan. “We have not talked about that one yet,” he began, noting that new technology, like computerized fare cards that could speed up boarding times, “might be able to accomplish part of that. “I thought it was a good idea, although, the real issue there, there’s two things we’re trying to do: one is to make it easier for people to go back and forth, but two is also to stop the delays from getting on and off the buses,” the mayor said. “That’s another one of these things down the road. I think there’s a whole bunch of things that we laid out that we can explore together.”
At this rate, reporters are going to have a cottage industry around explaining why this or that Bloomberg campaign pledge won't be able to see the light of day. But the biggie will be when the stark reality of the city's budget mess is fully revealed. That's when we predict the mayor will fully abandon his no tax pledge-forgetting all of those Thompson blasting commercials that labeled Bill as a tax hiker-and, once again, sock it to the gullible New Yorkers who gave Bloomberg this undeserved third term. The third term will create a new popular expression: "You get what he paid for."
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Hope and Small Change
In all of the speculating over, "Who Killed Billy Thompson," the role of President Obama has loomed large. The NY Daily News raises some very interesting points: "President Obama's brain trust floated a raft of excuses on Wednesday in answer to complaints that he didn't lift a finger for vanquished Democrat William Thompson. "It was a sleeper race. No one thought it was going to be a close race, especially Bloomberg," a source told the Daily News. A stronger presidential embrace of Thompson might have backfired, the Obama insider contended, by driving more Bloomberg backers to the polls."
What a load of complete crap. Does this anonymous source-and why won't Gaspard man up about his meddling here-really understand the implications of this horse manure? So, if we understand what the Obami is saying, it means that the intercession of the man who ran up record numbers in NYC last November, has been so tarnished that his intercession now would have caused a backlash. Come on!
The emmis is that Obama is apparently the latest featured fish in the Bloomberg tank-and there is no limit to the reach of the man's millions: "But the source acknowledged that Obama had no desire to take on Bloomberg. "[Bloomberg's] an ally, so I'm not sure we would have spent the political capital," the source said. "Obama didn't even put out a statement endorsing [Thompson]. That tells you how we feel about Bloomberg."
But why is the plutocrat such an ally for Mr. Hope and Change? What this unseemly alliance underscores, is that the president's populism is simply an autobiographical artifice-lacking any real depth of commitment. Why else would he avoid supporting his party's nominee over the man who used his millions to both overturn a popular referendum, as well as to subvert any real democratic debate during the concluded election cycle?
Or, as our Hispanic brethren might say: Dos Alas del mismo pajaro. Obama the Community Organizer comes off in this sad spectacle as purely a parvenu-just another toady to the mayor's vast fortune. So much for the need to speak truth to power.
What a load of complete crap. Does this anonymous source-and why won't Gaspard man up about his meddling here-really understand the implications of this horse manure? So, if we understand what the Obami is saying, it means that the intercession of the man who ran up record numbers in NYC last November, has been so tarnished that his intercession now would have caused a backlash. Come on!
The emmis is that Obama is apparently the latest featured fish in the Bloomberg tank-and there is no limit to the reach of the man's millions: "But the source acknowledged that Obama had no desire to take on Bloomberg. "[Bloomberg's] an ally, so I'm not sure we would have spent the political capital," the source said. "Obama didn't even put out a statement endorsing [Thompson]. That tells you how we feel about Bloomberg."
But why is the plutocrat such an ally for Mr. Hope and Change? What this unseemly alliance underscores, is that the president's populism is simply an autobiographical artifice-lacking any real depth of commitment. Why else would he avoid supporting his party's nominee over the man who used his millions to both overturn a popular referendum, as well as to subvert any real democratic debate during the concluded election cycle?
Or, as our Hispanic brethren might say: Dos Alas del mismo pajaro. Obama the Community Organizer comes off in this sad spectacle as purely a parvenu-just another toady to the mayor's vast fortune. So much for the need to speak truth to power.
Not Good Enouugh To Open
The fact that the West Suide restaurant, Good Enough to Eat, remains closed one week after a gas leak shut the place, is symbolic of the struggles of all small businesses in NY. As Julia Vitullo-Martin explains in this morning's NY Post: "How hostile is the city to its businesses? Consider the plight of Good Enough to Eat -- a renowned restaurant on Manhattan's West Side, that can't seem to reopen in the wake of a gas leak one week ago. A Con Edison meter reader smelled gas in the small, 18-unit apartment building that also houses Good Enough at 2:45 p.m. last Thursday. An inspector quickly arrived, found several leaks and turned off the gas. The repairs needed to get gas back on couldn't start without a permit from the city -- and it was too late in the day to get one. Carrie Levin, Good Enough's owner, says: "I'm a cook. I was preparing for our biggest weekend of the year -- Halloween, the Marathon, plus great weather. I faced a financial calamity and had no idea what to do."
For the past eight years, small businesses have been abandoned by the city-left to their own devices to struggle to succeed against man-made barriers that could easily be eliminated if the will existed. Owner Levin exemplifies the struggle against a regulatory system that's a maze-and we haven't even begun to touch the confiscatory taxes that saddle all small retailers in this town. The record levels of store foreclosures underscore just how bad things are-a fact that wasn't visible during the relentless Bloomberg advertising blitz about ersatz economic plans.
But in the case of small business, Good Enough to Eat's plight demonstrates that in his last term, the mayor needs to send small business head Rob Walsh packing, and revamp the agency to actually be in a position to speed help to businesses-especially those in an emergency situation.
The difficulties Levin faces should be the wake-up call the mayor responds to: "Of course, gas leaks aren't to be trifled with. But Levin's dilemma shows how badly the city's bureaucratic maze frustrates its businesses, especially smaller ones. There's no clear (let alone efficient) system for small businesses facing catastrophic closure. Instead, each owner has to figure out a path on his or her own. Levin sat down with a list of government numbers and started calling. Turns out that 311 only helps private citizens, not businesses. The office of Small Business Services promised to look into the problem and call back. It never did."
The mayor's resume is padded with the title of management guru-and he spent the last days of his campaign acting as the best friend of the little retailers. But the fact that Good Enough is still closed and Walsh is still employed exposes the padding and the campaign posing as well. The only real help that arrived for Levin was when Council member Gale Brewer got involved: "Says Levin: "Each time I think I'm done, they come up with something else. Once your business is shut down, all these rules and regulations keep you from opening again." The building's leaks are finally getting fixed, with another inspection to go when work's done. Maybe the restaurant will survive, thanks to the councilwoman's help with the bureaucracy. But no one should need a politician's pull in such situations -- the vast city workforce ought to be helping its citizens, especially a jobs-generating businesswoman."
Small businesses like Levin's are vital to the city's neighborhoods-and are the real engine for economic and community stability. Good Enough's success story-at least before the current snafu-is replicated thousands of times over all around this town: "When Levin opened for business in 1981, Amsterdam Avenue at 81st Street was forlorn and dangerous. Her tiny restaurant, serving old-fashioned American food stylishly prepared (she's French-trained), became an immediate success and ushered in the rebirth of the neighborhood. In 1989, she moved across the street and two blocks north to her current, larger space. She replaced bullet-pocked windows, installed a pretty awning and enclosed her sidewalk café with a white picket fence. Lines of customers snaking down the block became a regular West Side sight."
In the mayor's final term, the centrality of the small business engine needs to be acknowledged in a tangible way. Unlike the past eight years, with one large real estate initiative after initiative being constantly unveiled, the next four should be a focus on how we help the tens of thousands of small neighborhood firms not only recover or thrive. And if this task is beneath Mike Bloomberg, that others need to step up and re-focus the city's political energies where they can do the most good.
Carrie Levin's fate is a cautionary tale for the future: "Now her future looks grim -- the delays in reopening could kill the business...Fans have set up a Facebook page to monitor the situation -- and to call 311 as private citizens. Maybe e-democracy will help. But surely the Bloomberg administration could establish an advocate's office to ensure that no business in New York closes needlessly." It should-and that's an ingredient for a five borough economic plan that should be Good Enough to Eat.
For the past eight years, small businesses have been abandoned by the city-left to their own devices to struggle to succeed against man-made barriers that could easily be eliminated if the will existed. Owner Levin exemplifies the struggle against a regulatory system that's a maze-and we haven't even begun to touch the confiscatory taxes that saddle all small retailers in this town. The record levels of store foreclosures underscore just how bad things are-a fact that wasn't visible during the relentless Bloomberg advertising blitz about ersatz economic plans.
But in the case of small business, Good Enough to Eat's plight demonstrates that in his last term, the mayor needs to send small business head Rob Walsh packing, and revamp the agency to actually be in a position to speed help to businesses-especially those in an emergency situation.
The difficulties Levin faces should be the wake-up call the mayor responds to: "Of course, gas leaks aren't to be trifled with. But Levin's dilemma shows how badly the city's bureaucratic maze frustrates its businesses, especially smaller ones. There's no clear (let alone efficient) system for small businesses facing catastrophic closure. Instead, each owner has to figure out a path on his or her own. Levin sat down with a list of government numbers and started calling. Turns out that 311 only helps private citizens, not businesses. The office of Small Business Services promised to look into the problem and call back. It never did."
The mayor's resume is padded with the title of management guru-and he spent the last days of his campaign acting as the best friend of the little retailers. But the fact that Good Enough is still closed and Walsh is still employed exposes the padding and the campaign posing as well. The only real help that arrived for Levin was when Council member Gale Brewer got involved: "Says Levin: "Each time I think I'm done, they come up with something else. Once your business is shut down, all these rules and regulations keep you from opening again." The building's leaks are finally getting fixed, with another inspection to go when work's done. Maybe the restaurant will survive, thanks to the councilwoman's help with the bureaucracy. But no one should need a politician's pull in such situations -- the vast city workforce ought to be helping its citizens, especially a jobs-generating businesswoman."
Small businesses like Levin's are vital to the city's neighborhoods-and are the real engine for economic and community stability. Good Enough's success story-at least before the current snafu-is replicated thousands of times over all around this town: "When Levin opened for business in 1981, Amsterdam Avenue at 81st Street was forlorn and dangerous. Her tiny restaurant, serving old-fashioned American food stylishly prepared (she's French-trained), became an immediate success and ushered in the rebirth of the neighborhood. In 1989, she moved across the street and two blocks north to her current, larger space. She replaced bullet-pocked windows, installed a pretty awning and enclosed her sidewalk café with a white picket fence. Lines of customers snaking down the block became a regular West Side sight."
In the mayor's final term, the centrality of the small business engine needs to be acknowledged in a tangible way. Unlike the past eight years, with one large real estate initiative after initiative being constantly unveiled, the next four should be a focus on how we help the tens of thousands of small neighborhood firms not only recover or thrive. And if this task is beneath Mike Bloomberg, that others need to step up and re-focus the city's political energies where they can do the most good.
Carrie Levin's fate is a cautionary tale for the future: "Now her future looks grim -- the delays in reopening could kill the business...Fans have set up a Facebook page to monitor the situation -- and to call 311 as private citizens. Maybe e-democracy will help. But surely the Bloomberg administration could establish an advocate's office to ensure that no business in New York closes needlessly." It should-and that's an ingredient for a five borough economic plan that should be Good Enough to Eat.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Mr. Vulnerability
Mike Bloomberg has never been known as an empathic kind of guy, but people sometimes do change. And that is why we were fascinated by the NY Times analysis of the mayor's victory: "For the first time in years, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg finds himself governing New York City from a most unaccustomed vantage point: Vulnerability."
So, inquiring minds want to know, will this new vulnerability be translated into an enhanced concern for the welfare of ordinary New Yorkers? Even the NY Daily News editorialists, shameless shills as they have been, see the need for a bit more rachmones from the imperious mayor:
"Bloomberg's record on education, as well as on service delivery in general, was key to reelection. He had a fight on his hands partly because of term limits and partly because so many New Yorkers feel squeezed by rising costs, including taxes, subway and bus fares, parking fees and revenue-producing ticket blitzes. On this front, the mayor must reduce the expense of government. With unemployment at 10% and with the death of the Wall Street cash cow, New Yorkers face service reductions and/or higher levies unless Bloomberg dramatically alters the city's cost structure."
And while the News notes this cost factor, it really doesn't lay appropriate blame where it belongs-at the feet of a mayor who is a true believer in expansive, and expensive, government. In order to realize the News' imperative, Bloomberg will have to somehow reinvent himself-and he should start-if he's serious about this, and aware of what the close vote portends-by cleaning house among his closest advisers. There is simply little creativity in the Bloomberg inner circle.
But he needs to be mindful that the ground has shifted under his feet. The Times captures this potential sea change: "Ninety million dollars and a near-constant loop of negative commercials about his opponent later, the mayor ended election night in possession of a surprisingly modest margin of victory — far narrower than pollsters had predicted and with 100,000 fewer votes than he won in 2005. This could have profound implications for the tenor of a third Bloomberg term, not least that it is likely to hinder the mayor’s well-honed ability to cow Democrats and liberal interest groups."
The race for 2013 is about to start, and the long knives are being sharpened: "You’re going to see Democrats lining up to run in 2013, and they’ll start next week,” said George Arzt, a longtime campaign consultant who generally works for Democrats. “For a mayor who is very confident in himself, this is an earthquake.”
Which brings us to the Council speaker's conundrum. Will Christine Quinn see the narrow Bloomberg triumph as handwriting on the wall-and a signal that she needs to tack closer to her populist roots as an advocate and community organizer? Will Quinn understand the new landscape, and interpret the change as a call for greater independence from the mayor? If so, we could well see, "The New Adventures of Old Christine."
But, even if Quinn doesn't go back to her future as we would wish, the changed political landscape-along with the fact that a good chunk of the electorate is chafing from the mayor's haughtiness-will put inordinate demands on Bloomberg to make adjustments; but at 67 years old, can he really change now? As the Times observes: "Now, given his huge financial advantage in the campaign, he will have to confront the question of whether his five-point margin offers a different mandate: to change his governing style."
We'll see. But the one thing we're pretty sure of, is that the next four years will pose some unique challenges-made more so by the message of no confidence in Mayor Mike that last night's close vote signified. In our view, the amen choir will soon be short quite a few hymnals.
So, inquiring minds want to know, will this new vulnerability be translated into an enhanced concern for the welfare of ordinary New Yorkers? Even the NY Daily News editorialists, shameless shills as they have been, see the need for a bit more rachmones from the imperious mayor:
"Bloomberg's record on education, as well as on service delivery in general, was key to reelection. He had a fight on his hands partly because of term limits and partly because so many New Yorkers feel squeezed by rising costs, including taxes, subway and bus fares, parking fees and revenue-producing ticket blitzes. On this front, the mayor must reduce the expense of government. With unemployment at 10% and with the death of the Wall Street cash cow, New Yorkers face service reductions and/or higher levies unless Bloomberg dramatically alters the city's cost structure."
And while the News notes this cost factor, it really doesn't lay appropriate blame where it belongs-at the feet of a mayor who is a true believer in expansive, and expensive, government. In order to realize the News' imperative, Bloomberg will have to somehow reinvent himself-and he should start-if he's serious about this, and aware of what the close vote portends-by cleaning house among his closest advisers. There is simply little creativity in the Bloomberg inner circle.
But he needs to be mindful that the ground has shifted under his feet. The Times captures this potential sea change: "Ninety million dollars and a near-constant loop of negative commercials about his opponent later, the mayor ended election night in possession of a surprisingly modest margin of victory — far narrower than pollsters had predicted and with 100,000 fewer votes than he won in 2005. This could have profound implications for the tenor of a third Bloomberg term, not least that it is likely to hinder the mayor’s well-honed ability to cow Democrats and liberal interest groups."
The race for 2013 is about to start, and the long knives are being sharpened: "You’re going to see Democrats lining up to run in 2013, and they’ll start next week,” said George Arzt, a longtime campaign consultant who generally works for Democrats. “For a mayor who is very confident in himself, this is an earthquake.”
Which brings us to the Council speaker's conundrum. Will Christine Quinn see the narrow Bloomberg triumph as handwriting on the wall-and a signal that she needs to tack closer to her populist roots as an advocate and community organizer? Will Quinn understand the new landscape, and interpret the change as a call for greater independence from the mayor? If so, we could well see, "The New Adventures of Old Christine."
But, even if Quinn doesn't go back to her future as we would wish, the changed political landscape-along with the fact that a good chunk of the electorate is chafing from the mayor's haughtiness-will put inordinate demands on Bloomberg to make adjustments; but at 67 years old, can he really change now? As the Times observes: "Now, given his huge financial advantage in the campaign, he will have to confront the question of whether his five-point margin offers a different mandate: to change his governing style."
We'll see. But the one thing we're pretty sure of, is that the next four years will pose some unique challenges-made more so by the message of no confidence in Mayor Mike that last night's close vote signified. In our view, the amen choir will soon be short quite a few hymnals.
"This is Hardly a Mandate"
Mike Bloomberg escaped last night by the leather skin of his wallet-and the five point margin that no one expected to be that close, could very well be a harbinger of some tough times ahead for the big spending incumbent. As the NY Times reports: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg pulled out a narrow re-election victory on Tuesday, as voters angry over his maneuver to undo the city’s term limits law and his extravagant campaign spending provided an unexpected lift to his vastly underfinanced challenger, William C. Thompson Jr."
So, as it turns out, New Yorkers weren't so easily bought-and hats off to their independence: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg pulled out a narrow re-election victory on Tuesday, as voters angry over his maneuver to undo the city’s term limits law and his extravagant campaign spending provided an unexpected lift to his vastly underfinanced challenger, William C. Thompson Jr."
The folks were truly pissed off by the over turning of term limits as well as his incessant intrusion of campaign commercials, junk mail and telephone calls that drove people nuts: "But voters from Park Slope in Brooklyn to Morrisania in the Bronx seemed torn. While they praised his competence and intelligence, many were put off by what they saw as Mr. Bloomberg’s heavy-handed move to rewrite the law that would have limited him to two consecutive terms, saying it was obviously self-serving. The mayor had previously opposed any undoing of term limits, which voters had approved twice."
And the political pushback will soon begin. As Juan Gonzales observes in the NY Daily News:
"No doubt, many voters rebelled against the constant harangue of Bloomberg flyers and those nasty Bloomberg commercials and phone calls and just wanted them to end. The mayor will still call this a democratic victory - final proof that New Yorkers endorse his naked power grab last year to overturn term limits. He fools no one. In the midst of the city's worst economic crisis in 60 years, Bloomberg spent money like a million drunken sailors to buy his job for the third time. Quite simply, he buried democracy under mountains of cash - because he could. Mike Filippou, a former worker at the Stella D'Oro factory, was one those in the Bronx who voted for Thompson. A Connecticut private equity firm shuttered Filippou's factory a few weeks ago. The closing followed a yearlong struggle between the plant's owner and its unionized workers. The owners wanted to drastically cut pay and benefits. When they couldn't succeed, they closed the plant and sold the brand to an Ohio company. "Bloomberg never lifted a finger to save our jobs," Filippou said. "At least Thompson tried."
Make no mistake about it, as our new comptroller points out, this will be no third term cakewalk. As the News reports: "Bloomberg will face scrutiny from a new public advocate and controller - vocal opponents of his term-limit extension, who are expected to spend four years throwing hard punches at him. "This third term will not be a cakewalk," said Councilman John Liu, elected last night as the next city controller. "The well of good will has been substantially drained, if not evaporated altogether."
And Gonzales hones in on three areas where trouble lies ahead for the good will drained mayor:
"1) Computerization of government. Under Bloomberg, city agencies spent billions for new computer systems that haven't delivered what they promised and have exploded in cost - beginning with the new 911 system. Many of those contracts were awarded with little or no bidding. It's a scandal waiting to be unearthed.
2) Land development. Bloomberg's people spent years giving favored developers public spaces, city subsidies, and friendly zoning for huge megaprojects - many of which stalled in the economic slowdown. The price will now come due.
3) Education reform. The mayor's biggest claim has been improving the school system. But as more independent reviews come out of his reforms - from charter schools to improved test scores - proof mounts that much of the progress is smoke and mirrors. City test scores could prove to be as reliable as all those Triple A-rated subprime mortgages Bloomberg's Wall Street friends peddled."
And speaking of the second point, isn't it fortuitous that the Kingsbridge Armory fight will be first up on the land use agenda-with the very issues that Juan cites, particularly the question of large subsidies-livening the debate down at the city council this month. In addition, we just might also get people taking a second look at the entire Willets Point project-wondering whether this is simply another boon for wealthy real estate speculators and not in the larger public interest.
But we come back to the shocked Bloomberg ballroom for our final observations. Right up until the very end, the mayor had the spending faucet turned on full blast, partying like it was 1999. So we can take a great deal of satisfaction with the swells shocked realization, amidst the free beer wine and liquor, that widespread dissatisfaction exists with what the mayor did over the past year-a dissatisfaction that will animate the next four difficult years.
The Daily News is right on this, and we'll give the paper's Erin Einhorn the last word: "As thousands of supporters milled around waiting for a victory speech they expected hours earlier, Bloomberg aides sat glumly in an anteroom staring into their BlackBerries as the embarrassingly close results trickled in. "This is not what they expected," a Bloomberg campaign consultant fretted. "People are going to think it's a waste of $100 million." Another aide sorrowfully checked his iPhone, muttering, "This is hardly a mandate."
So, as it turns out, New Yorkers weren't so easily bought-and hats off to their independence: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg pulled out a narrow re-election victory on Tuesday, as voters angry over his maneuver to undo the city’s term limits law and his extravagant campaign spending provided an unexpected lift to his vastly underfinanced challenger, William C. Thompson Jr."
The folks were truly pissed off by the over turning of term limits as well as his incessant intrusion of campaign commercials, junk mail and telephone calls that drove people nuts: "But voters from Park Slope in Brooklyn to Morrisania in the Bronx seemed torn. While they praised his competence and intelligence, many were put off by what they saw as Mr. Bloomberg’s heavy-handed move to rewrite the law that would have limited him to two consecutive terms, saying it was obviously self-serving. The mayor had previously opposed any undoing of term limits, which voters had approved twice."
And the political pushback will soon begin. As Juan Gonzales observes in the NY Daily News:
"No doubt, many voters rebelled against the constant harangue of Bloomberg flyers and those nasty Bloomberg commercials and phone calls and just wanted them to end. The mayor will still call this a democratic victory - final proof that New Yorkers endorse his naked power grab last year to overturn term limits. He fools no one. In the midst of the city's worst economic crisis in 60 years, Bloomberg spent money like a million drunken sailors to buy his job for the third time. Quite simply, he buried democracy under mountains of cash - because he could. Mike Filippou, a former worker at the Stella D'Oro factory, was one those in the Bronx who voted for Thompson. A Connecticut private equity firm shuttered Filippou's factory a few weeks ago. The closing followed a yearlong struggle between the plant's owner and its unionized workers. The owners wanted to drastically cut pay and benefits. When they couldn't succeed, they closed the plant and sold the brand to an Ohio company. "Bloomberg never lifted a finger to save our jobs," Filippou said. "At least Thompson tried."
Make no mistake about it, as our new comptroller points out, this will be no third term cakewalk. As the News reports: "Bloomberg will face scrutiny from a new public advocate and controller - vocal opponents of his term-limit extension, who are expected to spend four years throwing hard punches at him. "This third term will not be a cakewalk," said Councilman John Liu, elected last night as the next city controller. "The well of good will has been substantially drained, if not evaporated altogether."
And Gonzales hones in on three areas where trouble lies ahead for the good will drained mayor:
"1) Computerization of government. Under Bloomberg, city agencies spent billions for new computer systems that haven't delivered what they promised and have exploded in cost - beginning with the new 911 system. Many of those contracts were awarded with little or no bidding. It's a scandal waiting to be unearthed.
2) Land development. Bloomberg's people spent years giving favored developers public spaces, city subsidies, and friendly zoning for huge megaprojects - many of which stalled in the economic slowdown. The price will now come due.
3) Education reform. The mayor's biggest claim has been improving the school system. But as more independent reviews come out of his reforms - from charter schools to improved test scores - proof mounts that much of the progress is smoke and mirrors. City test scores could prove to be as reliable as all those Triple A-rated subprime mortgages Bloomberg's Wall Street friends peddled."
And speaking of the second point, isn't it fortuitous that the Kingsbridge Armory fight will be first up on the land use agenda-with the very issues that Juan cites, particularly the question of large subsidies-livening the debate down at the city council this month. In addition, we just might also get people taking a second look at the entire Willets Point project-wondering whether this is simply another boon for wealthy real estate speculators and not in the larger public interest.
But we come back to the shocked Bloomberg ballroom for our final observations. Right up until the very end, the mayor had the spending faucet turned on full blast, partying like it was 1999. So we can take a great deal of satisfaction with the swells shocked realization, amidst the free beer wine and liquor, that widespread dissatisfaction exists with what the mayor did over the past year-a dissatisfaction that will animate the next four difficult years.
The Daily News is right on this, and we'll give the paper's Erin Einhorn the last word: "As thousands of supporters milled around waiting for a victory speech they expected hours earlier, Bloomberg aides sat glumly in an anteroom staring into their BlackBerries as the embarrassingly close results trickled in. "This is not what they expected," a Bloomberg campaign consultant fretted. "People are going to think it's a waste of $100 million." Another aide sorrowfully checked his iPhone, muttering, "This is hardly a mandate."
An "Icon of Political Autonomy"
Over at the Observer-and this post was written before the election returns came in last night-Steve Kornacki muses about just how Mike Bloomberg, once assumedly elected, struggles to maintain his relevancy: " If New York voters hand Mr. Bloomberg his third term today, there will be no talk of a 2012 presidential campaign and there will be no second term-limits extension. Nor is there the prospect of a Bloomberg for Governor campaign (speculation about that came and went - briefly - last year) or a Bloomberg Senate bid. The clock will be ticking."
But, according to Steve, there's still opportunity for the vast fortune to be put to some use: "Nonetheless, Mr. Bloomberg in his third term should still have an opportunity to continue playing a leading role on the national political stage - even though the threat of a future campaign for any office will be off the table. The key to his relevance, this time, will be the unique reputation -genuine political independent entrenched in one of the most powerful perches in the country, and backed up by billions of idle dollars - that he's carved out for himself."
Pardon if we demur here. In our view, Mike Bloomberg's vaunted independent status is seriously overrated-and to us, his political stances reflect a quotidian social liberalism that doesn't always play well in the heartland. In fact, Bloomberg can be seen in some ways as a kind of John Lindsay on cash-driven steroids.
But his relevancy on the national stage will, we believe, be dependent on the direction that the country goes after the current midterm elections. If, as is certainly possible, the country trends right-frustrated and upset by the Obama governing philosophy-than what role could a Mike Bloomberg possibly play? His independent status, then, is truly unmoored from a coherent world view that goes beyond his reflexive social liberalism-and onanistic trumpeting of things such as gun control, smoking cessation, and calorie counting.
And then there's New York City itself. Mike Bloomberg has indeed been fortunate to rule-in the post 9/11 era-in a time of rising revenue that obscured, for a period of time, the truly disastrous 2002 decision to raise taxes to record levels in the city. That period, however, has come and gone; and the coming era will challenge Bloomberg's autocratic and non-empathic governing style. The austerity that certainly confronts us will also pose problems for the philosophical limitations that the mayor is saddled with.
So, Bloomberg may well have his hands full with NYC problems that will help to redefine his tenure-as well as how his legacy will be perceived. It is in this context that the observation of Mitchell Moss becomes particularly risible: "As N.Y.U. professor and former Bloomberg campaign adviser Mitchell Moss puts it, the mayor is an "icon of political autonomy."
In our view, this is the kind of statement that borders on incoherence. The mayor's putative freedom to do things that other pols dare not do has not manifested itself in any successful initiative that challenges liberal orthodoxy. And, in some of the initiatives he has undertaken-like the congestion tax effort-he has failed spectacularly.
But, who knows? Maybe Mike Bloomberg will reinvent himself-now that's a refreshing thought! Perhaps he will take a long sober look at the city's unwieldy municipal Leviathan and undertake the Herculean task of revamping the way government operates to the detriment of the city's tax payers, homeowners, and small businesses. Such an effort-one that would look to cut the size of government, eliminate wasteful programs, and reduce taxes so that local business can grow-would indeed be prelude to real iconic status.
So, as regards to the Kornacki analysis, the real Bloomberg cautionary tale devolves more from the conditions that he will face for the next four years-ones that he himself has done so much to bring about. The mayor and his minions-and Moss is far from singing solo in this Bloomberg production-have haughtily proclaimed that these parlous times demand someone of Mike's unique talents. Have all these mighty mouths been issuing promissory notes that even a Mike Bloomberg can't cover?
But, according to Steve, there's still opportunity for the vast fortune to be put to some use: "Nonetheless, Mr. Bloomberg in his third term should still have an opportunity to continue playing a leading role on the national political stage - even though the threat of a future campaign for any office will be off the table. The key to his relevance, this time, will be the unique reputation -genuine political independent entrenched in one of the most powerful perches in the country, and backed up by billions of idle dollars - that he's carved out for himself."
Pardon if we demur here. In our view, Mike Bloomberg's vaunted independent status is seriously overrated-and to us, his political stances reflect a quotidian social liberalism that doesn't always play well in the heartland. In fact, Bloomberg can be seen in some ways as a kind of John Lindsay on cash-driven steroids.
But his relevancy on the national stage will, we believe, be dependent on the direction that the country goes after the current midterm elections. If, as is certainly possible, the country trends right-frustrated and upset by the Obama governing philosophy-than what role could a Mike Bloomberg possibly play? His independent status, then, is truly unmoored from a coherent world view that goes beyond his reflexive social liberalism-and onanistic trumpeting of things such as gun control, smoking cessation, and calorie counting.
And then there's New York City itself. Mike Bloomberg has indeed been fortunate to rule-in the post 9/11 era-in a time of rising revenue that obscured, for a period of time, the truly disastrous 2002 decision to raise taxes to record levels in the city. That period, however, has come and gone; and the coming era will challenge Bloomberg's autocratic and non-empathic governing style. The austerity that certainly confronts us will also pose problems for the philosophical limitations that the mayor is saddled with.
So, Bloomberg may well have his hands full with NYC problems that will help to redefine his tenure-as well as how his legacy will be perceived. It is in this context that the observation of Mitchell Moss becomes particularly risible: "As N.Y.U. professor and former Bloomberg campaign adviser Mitchell Moss puts it, the mayor is an "icon of political autonomy."
In our view, this is the kind of statement that borders on incoherence. The mayor's putative freedom to do things that other pols dare not do has not manifested itself in any successful initiative that challenges liberal orthodoxy. And, in some of the initiatives he has undertaken-like the congestion tax effort-he has failed spectacularly.
But, who knows? Maybe Mike Bloomberg will reinvent himself-now that's a refreshing thought! Perhaps he will take a long sober look at the city's unwieldy municipal Leviathan and undertake the Herculean task of revamping the way government operates to the detriment of the city's tax payers, homeowners, and small businesses. Such an effort-one that would look to cut the size of government, eliminate wasteful programs, and reduce taxes so that local business can grow-would indeed be prelude to real iconic status.
So, as regards to the Kornacki analysis, the real Bloomberg cautionary tale devolves more from the conditions that he will face for the next four years-ones that he himself has done so much to bring about. The mayor and his minions-and Moss is far from singing solo in this Bloomberg production-have haughtily proclaimed that these parlous times demand someone of Mike's unique talents. Have all these mighty mouths been issuing promissory notes that even a Mike Bloomberg can't cover?
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
No Mr. Buttinsky
The NY Post's editorial today on Governor Paterson's fecklessness when it comes to enforcing the law against Indian cigarette tax avoidance, captures the essence of this profile in cowardice: "Looks like Gov. Paterson was just blowing smoke when he asked the feds to assess the risk of violence from attempts to collect cigarette taxes from state Indian reservations. At a state Senate hearing last Tuesday, Paterson's chief counsel, Peter Kiernan, made clear that his boss would not pursue the taxes, because the gov -- like his predecessors, George Pataki and Eliot Spitzer -- just doesn't think enforcing the tax law is worth the hassle. Even though his recent request for a federal "threat assessment" suggested that he was preparing to go after the taxes. And even though the courts say the state has every right to collect taxes from cigarette sales to non-Indians."
Can anyone show the man the door quick enough? And the explanation offered is so lame-as well as a bow to the power of violent resistance to the rule of law: "Paterson, it seems, is just too nervous about the prospect of tribal violence to claim what Albany is legally owed. What a dangerous message to send. Among the "costs" of enforcement (i.e., excuses for non-action), Kiernan noted "the psychic harm of forgone opportunity to live in peace with those who are entitled to sovereignty and their interpretation of what that means." Say what? He's talking about tribes that rioted, threw burning tires on the Thruway and fought state troopers, sending many to the hospital, when authorities tried to collect the tax in 1992 and 1997."
And the cost of this pusillanimity continue to rise-along with the taxes and fees that the legislature passed, and the governor signed into law: "Meanwhile, the state and city lose an estimated $1 billion a year in uncollected tax revenues -- even as both face multibillion-dollar budget shortfalls."
We'll give the Post the last word here-and it provides a fitting epitaph to an accidental leader so clearly out of his depth: "Paterson's message? We won't collect taxes from you if you threaten violence. Clearly, he has no right to gripe when critics attack his lack of mettle."
Can anyone show the man the door quick enough? And the explanation offered is so lame-as well as a bow to the power of violent resistance to the rule of law: "Paterson, it seems, is just too nervous about the prospect of tribal violence to claim what Albany is legally owed. What a dangerous message to send. Among the "costs" of enforcement (i.e., excuses for non-action), Kiernan noted "the psychic harm of forgone opportunity to live in peace with those who are entitled to sovereignty and their interpretation of what that means." Say what? He's talking about tribes that rioted, threw burning tires on the Thruway and fought state troopers, sending many to the hospital, when authorities tried to collect the tax in 1992 and 1997."
And the cost of this pusillanimity continue to rise-along with the taxes and fees that the legislature passed, and the governor signed into law: "Meanwhile, the state and city lose an estimated $1 billion a year in uncollected tax revenues -- even as both face multibillion-dollar budget shortfalls."
We'll give the Post the last word here-and it provides a fitting epitaph to an accidental leader so clearly out of his depth: "Paterson's message? We won't collect taxes from you if you threaten violence. Clearly, he has no right to gripe when critics attack his lack of mettle."
A Tale of Two Studies:"Where's the Beef?"
Well don't act real shocked, but the city has issued its own calorie posting study, and guess what? It contradicts the independent analysis, and offers a less gloomy picture of the impact of this inane regulation. As the NY Times reports: "Just a few weeks ago, independent researchers reported that New York City’s ground-breaking calorie labeling law had had absolutely no effect on the caloric content of meals bought at chain restaurants in poor neighborhoods. Last week, city health officials delivered a more upbeat assessment, saying New Yorkers ordered fewer calories at four chains — Au Bon Pain, KFC, McDonald’s and Starbucks — after the law went into effect last year."
But at least some of the discrepancy is a result of methodology: "Although the findings of the two reports appear to contradict one another, researchers said differences in focus and size might explain the discrepancies. The first study, published in the journal Health Affairs last month, assessed the effect of calorie labeling only in low-income, minority neighborhoods, while the larger health department study assessed the effect citywide."
So, the NYU folks, responding logically to the assertion of DOH that its cockamamie calorie concept was directed at the obese among the city's low income residents, studied the measures impact in those neighborhoods while DOH-hoping, you think, for a better outcome?-did a city wide study. But even so, the results weren't-Carly Simon like-earth moving under our feet.
As the Times tells us: "The changes reported by the city health department’s preliminary data were modest, indicating little change either way in the number of calories bought at 8 of 13 chains surveyed, and a significant increase in calories ordered at Subway, which researchers attributed to a continuing $5 promotional special on footlong sandwiches that has tripled demand for them."
All of this time, effort, and misinformation for this? As the NYU researcher informs us, proceeding with just a bit more integrity than the city: "We looked at a population that’s much more price sensitive, so calorie information could have taken a backseat to pricing in our group,” said Brian Elbel, author of the earlier study and an assistant professor of medicine and health policy at New York University School of Medicine. Since obesity rates tend to be higher in these neighborhoods, Dr. Elbel added, “this is where we would have liked to see an impact most.”
Ah, price sensitivity, otherwise known as being poorer, plays a role. Who would have thunk it? Well, we did poke any number of holes in this social experiment that had no basis in social science or public health research-and the issue of cost was one of those variables that we mentioned. And cost to the franchisees was another inconvenient truth ignored when the health bureaucrats began to unleash this Nanny attack on New Yorkers.
But here's the stark reality that should-but won't-give the Nannies pause before they embark on their next crusade: "In fact, only about 56 percent of chain restaurant customers said they noticed the posted calorie information, and even fewer, about 15 percent, said they took the calorie information into account when making their choices. Those 15 percent bought 106 fewer calories, on average, than consumers who said they had not seen or used the information, the study found."
The good news? The Starbucks customers-higher incomes and skinnier than the Big Mac aficionados-apparently did make changes: "While the health department study found little change in the number of calories bought at most chain restaurants, researchers said the number of calories ordered over all at coffee shops declined by almost 10 percent, to an average of 237 in 2009 from an average of 260 in 2007, even though many people said they did not really notice or use the information."
But as far as making even a small dent on the city's rampant obesity problem in low income communities, this experiment was a total failure-all the rats got fatter it seems. But the DOH is gratefully patient about this setback, as the always nice Dr. Lynn Silver explains: "Dietary changes come slowly,” said Dr. Lynn Silver, an assistant commissioner in the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene who presented the data from the study at a meeting of the Obesity Society in Washington. “We were not expecting to see miracles.”
Nice to not have to live up to those kind of expectations. But even some minor changes would have been nice, no?
But at least some of the discrepancy is a result of methodology: "Although the findings of the two reports appear to contradict one another, researchers said differences in focus and size might explain the discrepancies. The first study, published in the journal Health Affairs last month, assessed the effect of calorie labeling only in low-income, minority neighborhoods, while the larger health department study assessed the effect citywide."
So, the NYU folks, responding logically to the assertion of DOH that its cockamamie calorie concept was directed at the obese among the city's low income residents, studied the measures impact in those neighborhoods while DOH-hoping, you think, for a better outcome?-did a city wide study. But even so, the results weren't-Carly Simon like-earth moving under our feet.
As the Times tells us: "The changes reported by the city health department’s preliminary data were modest, indicating little change either way in the number of calories bought at 8 of 13 chains surveyed, and a significant increase in calories ordered at Subway, which researchers attributed to a continuing $5 promotional special on footlong sandwiches that has tripled demand for them."
All of this time, effort, and misinformation for this? As the NYU researcher informs us, proceeding with just a bit more integrity than the city: "We looked at a population that’s much more price sensitive, so calorie information could have taken a backseat to pricing in our group,” said Brian Elbel, author of the earlier study and an assistant professor of medicine and health policy at New York University School of Medicine. Since obesity rates tend to be higher in these neighborhoods, Dr. Elbel added, “this is where we would have liked to see an impact most.”
Ah, price sensitivity, otherwise known as being poorer, plays a role. Who would have thunk it? Well, we did poke any number of holes in this social experiment that had no basis in social science or public health research-and the issue of cost was one of those variables that we mentioned. And cost to the franchisees was another inconvenient truth ignored when the health bureaucrats began to unleash this Nanny attack on New Yorkers.
But here's the stark reality that should-but won't-give the Nannies pause before they embark on their next crusade: "In fact, only about 56 percent of chain restaurant customers said they noticed the posted calorie information, and even fewer, about 15 percent, said they took the calorie information into account when making their choices. Those 15 percent bought 106 fewer calories, on average, than consumers who said they had not seen or used the information, the study found."
The good news? The Starbucks customers-higher incomes and skinnier than the Big Mac aficionados-apparently did make changes: "While the health department study found little change in the number of calories bought at most chain restaurants, researchers said the number of calories ordered over all at coffee shops declined by almost 10 percent, to an average of 237 in 2009 from an average of 260 in 2007, even though many people said they did not really notice or use the information."
But as far as making even a small dent on the city's rampant obesity problem in low income communities, this experiment was a total failure-all the rats got fatter it seems. But the DOH is gratefully patient about this setback, as the always nice Dr. Lynn Silver explains: "Dietary changes come slowly,” said Dr. Lynn Silver, an assistant commissioner in the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene who presented the data from the study at a meeting of the Obesity Society in Washington. “We were not expecting to see miracles.”
Nice to not have to live up to those kind of expectations. But even some minor changes would have been nice, no?
Dishonest to the End
It is finally election day, which means one thing to us-when game six starts tomorrow, we will not have to reach for the remote whenever another insufferable Bloomberg attack on Bill Thompson pollutes the airwaves. But in the final day of campaigning yesterday, Bloomberg added real insult to injury by doing a city wide sweep of small businesses in a final demonstration that he simply has no sense of shame. In fact, both candidates finally took a look at the city's economy-what should be the most pressing campaign issue; after all, it was the single justification for changing the term limits law in the first place.
As the NY Times reports: "On the eve of Tuesday’s election, the top two mayoral candidates put aside their bitter arguments over term limits, campaign spending and the city’s schools to try to reassure voters about a more pressing worry: the economy. The Thompson theme reminded us of what coulda-shoulda been: "With the unemployment rate at a 16-year high, tens of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and the city’s budget deficit topping $5 billion, Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg offered strikingly different messages to an unsettled electorate. Mr. Thompson, the Democrat, described two New Yorks. One, he said, was for people like Mr. Bloomberg: the superrich Manhattanites and Wall Street titans. The other was for hardworking wage-earners and small business owners who, he said, were being endlessly taxed and driven out of the city."
Now there's a theme that has resonance; and its late appearance is sad-but not as sad as the Bloomberg magical mystery tour: "Mr. Bloomberg, during a tour of the five boroughs, dropped in on small businesses and greeted commuters, stressing his financial acumen and background as a businessman. He acknowledged the troubled economy — “it has big problems” — but did not seem eager to dwell on it, instead emphasizing the stories of small businesses that have thrived: “We’re trying to help small businesses that need loans, give them advice on how to structure a loan application, or how to deal with city government, trying to reduce taxes.”
There he goes again! How to structure a loan application is right up there among the most compelling solutions for the economic difficulties being faced by New York small businesses-and notice how, "reduce taxes," is used as a throwaway line-delivered almost sotto voce. It allows Bloomberg to once again avoid his own record and culpability. Loan applications indeed!
In fact, as the Times reminds us, the emphasis on economic turmoil should have been central in this campaign from the McDuck vault, but never was, as Bloomberg successfully changed the subject-never so much as with his disgraceful last two month effort to demonize Thompson, in spite of the fact that he had a double digit lead and had out spent the challenger 16-1: " With a return to the economic theme, Mr. Bloomberg seemed to quietly remind New Yorkers of his reason for seeking a third term: that his financial expertise was required to guide the city through an extraordinary time. It is an argument that he offered with less and less frequency as the campaign wore on, in part to distance himself from his unpopular flip-flop on term limits."
There is the smoking gun of Bloomberg disingenuousness. With enough money to sell ice to Eskimos, the mayor couldn't bring himself to level with the folks and campaign on why he was The Man in these troubled economic times. His whole campaign was a concerted effort to change the subject, and the gap between his supporters and those of the comptroller underscores just how self aggrandizing and basically pusillanimous Bloomberg really is: "Despite the mayor’s healthy lead in the polls, the surveys show a big divide among voters along income lines. A Marist poll released on Friday showed that among registered voters, wealthier respondents overwhelmingly support Mr. Bloomberg, while the race is essentially tied among those who make less...In some neighborhoods, resentment over Mr. Bloomberg’s spending on the race has intensified the sense of economic imbalance. The mayor is on track to spend more than $100 million to be re-elected, and some residents say his nonstop advertisements and mailings serve as reminders of how distant he is from their lives."
So we head into today's election with only one real uncertainty-will Bloomberg's record spending give him a double digit margin or not? Make that two questions, because we also simply have no clue how the mayor, who spent and taxed us into this hole, will respond to the serious crisis ahead. The campaign didn't offer us even a small clue. Perhaps, as circumstances worsen we can all look forward to getting one of those Bloomberg loan applications.
As the NY Times reports: "On the eve of Tuesday’s election, the top two mayoral candidates put aside their bitter arguments over term limits, campaign spending and the city’s schools to try to reassure voters about a more pressing worry: the economy. The Thompson theme reminded us of what coulda-shoulda been: "With the unemployment rate at a 16-year high, tens of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and the city’s budget deficit topping $5 billion, Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg offered strikingly different messages to an unsettled electorate. Mr. Thompson, the Democrat, described two New Yorks. One, he said, was for people like Mr. Bloomberg: the superrich Manhattanites and Wall Street titans. The other was for hardworking wage-earners and small business owners who, he said, were being endlessly taxed and driven out of the city."
Now there's a theme that has resonance; and its late appearance is sad-but not as sad as the Bloomberg magical mystery tour: "Mr. Bloomberg, during a tour of the five boroughs, dropped in on small businesses and greeted commuters, stressing his financial acumen and background as a businessman. He acknowledged the troubled economy — “it has big problems” — but did not seem eager to dwell on it, instead emphasizing the stories of small businesses that have thrived: “We’re trying to help small businesses that need loans, give them advice on how to structure a loan application, or how to deal with city government, trying to reduce taxes.”
There he goes again! How to structure a loan application is right up there among the most compelling solutions for the economic difficulties being faced by New York small businesses-and notice how, "reduce taxes," is used as a throwaway line-delivered almost sotto voce. It allows Bloomberg to once again avoid his own record and culpability. Loan applications indeed!
In fact, as the Times reminds us, the emphasis on economic turmoil should have been central in this campaign from the McDuck vault, but never was, as Bloomberg successfully changed the subject-never so much as with his disgraceful last two month effort to demonize Thompson, in spite of the fact that he had a double digit lead and had out spent the challenger 16-1: " With a return to the economic theme, Mr. Bloomberg seemed to quietly remind New Yorkers of his reason for seeking a third term: that his financial expertise was required to guide the city through an extraordinary time. It is an argument that he offered with less and less frequency as the campaign wore on, in part to distance himself from his unpopular flip-flop on term limits."
There is the smoking gun of Bloomberg disingenuousness. With enough money to sell ice to Eskimos, the mayor couldn't bring himself to level with the folks and campaign on why he was The Man in these troubled economic times. His whole campaign was a concerted effort to change the subject, and the gap between his supporters and those of the comptroller underscores just how self aggrandizing and basically pusillanimous Bloomberg really is: "Despite the mayor’s healthy lead in the polls, the surveys show a big divide among voters along income lines. A Marist poll released on Friday showed that among registered voters, wealthier respondents overwhelmingly support Mr. Bloomberg, while the race is essentially tied among those who make less...In some neighborhoods, resentment over Mr. Bloomberg’s spending on the race has intensified the sense of economic imbalance. The mayor is on track to spend more than $100 million to be re-elected, and some residents say his nonstop advertisements and mailings serve as reminders of how distant he is from their lives."
So we head into today's election with only one real uncertainty-will Bloomberg's record spending give him a double digit margin or not? Make that two questions, because we also simply have no clue how the mayor, who spent and taxed us into this hole, will respond to the serious crisis ahead. The campaign didn't offer us even a small clue. Perhaps, as circumstances worsen we can all look forward to getting one of those Bloomberg loan applications.
Monday, November 02, 2009
Pay to Publish
There's this tidbit in this morning's MY Daily News about tomorrow's election that put a smile on our face (via Liz): "Bloomberg is the one with endorsements from 61 papers - not just the three major dailies, but also dozens of tiny neighborhood weeklies that thrived on Bloomberg advertising dollars." A representative of Mayor Bloomberg called me, and he made it very clear to me that I know how it's done. And I had to join the program, and the earlier I endorsed him, the more money I'd get," said Jerry Lippman, publisher of the Manhattan Jewish Sentinel and the Long Island Jewish World. His papers endorsed Thompson, all 30,000 weekly copies of them.
Howie Wolfson, a man of unquestionable probity and integrity, had this response-one that couldn't pass the smell test in the bronchitis ward full of congested pleurisy sufferers: "Bloomberg spokesman Howard Wolfson denied the allegation: "We have advertised in dozens of papers that have not endorsed the mayor. We try not to advertise in publications that don't have significant readership in the five boroughs, like this one."
So, let's get this straight. Every one of the 61 prescient publications that have endorsed our philosopher king had a larger circulation than the Jewish Sentinel? And the Riverdale Review as well? Oh please! This is all part of the grand spending spree that is euphemistically being called a campaign. And Lupica is right-he better win big for this kind of serious coin drop.
Howie Wolfson, a man of unquestionable probity and integrity, had this response-one that couldn't pass the smell test in the bronchitis ward full of congested pleurisy sufferers: "Bloomberg spokesman Howard Wolfson denied the allegation: "We have advertised in dozens of papers that have not endorsed the mayor. We try not to advertise in publications that don't have significant readership in the five boroughs, like this one."
So, let's get this straight. Every one of the 61 prescient publications that have endorsed our philosopher king had a larger circulation than the Jewish Sentinel? And the Riverdale Review as well? Oh please! This is all part of the grand spending spree that is euphemistically being called a campaign. And Lupica is right-he better win big for this kind of serious coin drop.
Baited and Switched
In this morning's NY Daily News, Mike Lupica makes the point that we have been making-ad nauseum-for the entire length of this political campaign-the one brought to you, and paid for, by Advertiser Bloomberg: "This is what Michael Bloomberg said in October 2008 at City Hall, one of the great purchases Bloomberg ever made.This is what he said in the Blue Room before he began to spend like the Yankees for a third term as mayor of New York, before he ran so many television and radio commercials that people of the city started to feel as if Bloomberg had moved in with them: "Today, our nation and our city face unprecedented challenges. As a businessman with expertise on Wall Street and finance, and as a mayor who has balanced budgets and delivered services, I can tell you the enormity of the challenges ahead ..."
And during the campaign itself? You heard bupkas about all of this indispensability during the doom and gloom ahead: "Bloomberg's message couldn't have been clearer at the time, as he began to explain why he - and his tame City Council - had to make the city's laws on term limits go away. The message was that only he, Michael Bloomberg, could save New York City from impending economic doom. Only that's not the campaign Bloomberg has run, the campaign that really started in the Blue Room in October '08, where a potential "meltdown" was his slick transition into talking about term limits. If that's been the real message of his campaign - sometimes you get the idea that the $85 million he's spent to get himself reelected produced 85 million hours of commercials - you tell me where."
The paucity of honesty from a potential three term incumbent who rigged new rules for himself is simply jaw dropping-and not one of the three editorial toadies who conspired with him in this leveraged buy-out had the decency to even call him out on the blatant sleight-of-hand. Of course they didn't, because doing so would have necessitated a looking in the mirror mea culpa of their own.
Now, after having spent more than any other human being to rent New Yorkers for a third time, he faces the task of demonstrating why it was that he was so irreplaceable. Our bet is that Bloomberg will try to re-write history on that point; and will flounder to tell us just what the hell he is doing as the city's economic fortunes decline.
This is what happens when you base a campaign like this on purely false premises-and pay tens of millions of dollars to generate a collective amnesia about the dishonest power grab. Lupica has the essence of this: "It just all started with a completely phony premise, that he had to do this for the good of all New Yorkers. Bloomberg got the city's economy moving, all right. Just with his own campaign. So it was all about money in the end. Just his, not yours."
And during the campaign itself? You heard bupkas about all of this indispensability during the doom and gloom ahead: "Bloomberg's message couldn't have been clearer at the time, as he began to explain why he - and his tame City Council - had to make the city's laws on term limits go away. The message was that only he, Michael Bloomberg, could save New York City from impending economic doom. Only that's not the campaign Bloomberg has run, the campaign that really started in the Blue Room in October '08, where a potential "meltdown" was his slick transition into talking about term limits. If that's been the real message of his campaign - sometimes you get the idea that the $85 million he's spent to get himself reelected produced 85 million hours of commercials - you tell me where."
The paucity of honesty from a potential three term incumbent who rigged new rules for himself is simply jaw dropping-and not one of the three editorial toadies who conspired with him in this leveraged buy-out had the decency to even call him out on the blatant sleight-of-hand. Of course they didn't, because doing so would have necessitated a looking in the mirror mea culpa of their own.
Now, after having spent more than any other human being to rent New Yorkers for a third time, he faces the task of demonstrating why it was that he was so irreplaceable. Our bet is that Bloomberg will try to re-write history on that point; and will flounder to tell us just what the hell he is doing as the city's economic fortunes decline.
This is what happens when you base a campaign like this on purely false premises-and pay tens of millions of dollars to generate a collective amnesia about the dishonest power grab. Lupica has the essence of this: "It just all started with a completely phony premise, that he had to do this for the good of all New Yorkers. Bloomberg got the city's economy moving, all right. Just with his own campaign. So it was all about money in the end. Just his, not yours."
Billy Who?
All of the normal kibitzing about the relative merits of a campaign challenger's efforts seems to us-at least when we examine the current Thompson challenge-to take on the characteristics of theater of the absurd. The Bloomberg spend-a-thon takes the mayoral contest to a different dimension-so much so that his apparent victory should, in our view, be treated very much like the Mark McGuire home run record; and be given a steroid induced asterisk.
Some of this is brought home by a NY Daily News story in yesterday's edition of the paper that found that a great many New Yorkers simply don't know who Thompson is: "Who is this guy?
Just days before Election Day, few New Yorkers can identify a photo of Democratic challenger William Thompson, an unscientific Daily News survey showed. "I know he's running for mayor, but I don't know his name," said Rashel Craig, 34, a stay-at-home mom from East New York, Brooklyn."
The fact that Thompson is campaigning in what appears to be almost total anonymity, gets to the root of the manner in which the Bloomberg fortune-and Mike's willingness to spend it-has made this election a charade of true democratic practice. So when consultants start to critique Thompson's efforts-focusing on his failure to do this or that-they are demonstrating what C. Wright Mills, in a different context, labeled, "crackpot rationality."
This form of rationality is an example of instrumental reason unhinged from any ethical or moral context. So, in the case of the current mayoral campaign, this takes the form of examining the intricacies of the challenger's "failures," while eschewing the larger context of how Bloomberg will likely win the pot by the simple act of buying the entire casino.
This is all about the complete mockery that Bloomberg has made of a process where real choice presupposes certain things being relatively equal. When this basic factor is totally obliterated with tens of millions of dollars of self aggrandizement, it becomes the only factor worth analyzing-all else is, as they day, merely footnoting.
Some of this is brought home by a NY Daily News story in yesterday's edition of the paper that found that a great many New Yorkers simply don't know who Thompson is: "Who is this guy?
Just days before Election Day, few New Yorkers can identify a photo of Democratic challenger William Thompson, an unscientific Daily News survey showed. "I know he's running for mayor, but I don't know his name," said Rashel Craig, 34, a stay-at-home mom from East New York, Brooklyn."
The fact that Thompson is campaigning in what appears to be almost total anonymity, gets to the root of the manner in which the Bloomberg fortune-and Mike's willingness to spend it-has made this election a charade of true democratic practice. So when consultants start to critique Thompson's efforts-focusing on his failure to do this or that-they are demonstrating what C. Wright Mills, in a different context, labeled, "crackpot rationality."
This form of rationality is an example of instrumental reason unhinged from any ethical or moral context. So, in the case of the current mayoral campaign, this takes the form of examining the intricacies of the challenger's "failures," while eschewing the larger context of how Bloomberg will likely win the pot by the simple act of buying the entire casino.
This is all about the complete mockery that Bloomberg has made of a process where real choice presupposes certain things being relatively equal. When this basic factor is totally obliterated with tens of millions of dollars of self aggrandizement, it becomes the only factor worth analyzing-all else is, as they day, merely footnoting.
Politics You Can Vouch For
The inanity of the Bloomberg campaign slogan-"Progress, Not Politics"-is being brought home constantly by the mayor's actions. Which only underscores the wisdom of the old saying of watching what people do, but not what they say. The latest example can be seen in a column by Dave Seifman in yesterday's NY Post.
Seifman examines the Bloomberg about face in the matter of a certain voucher program that effects Orthodox Jewish schoolchildren: "Two weeks before the election, Mayor Bloomberg told Orthodox Jewish leaders in a private meeting that he planned to restore $8 million in day-care vouchers that the administration had pulled just months earlier as the city braced to cope with the collapsing economy. "They are a huge help to many families, especially in the Orthodox community," the mayor said at the Oct. 22 session in Borough Park, Brooklyn, which wasn't listed on his campaign schedules. That was a 180-degree flip from what Bloomberg had said before."
Now, do we think that this is a major scandal? Of course not-but it dramatically reveals the hypocrisy behind Bloomberg's sloganeering; and demonstrates, in our view, the basic dishonesty that underlies the Myth of Mike that has been propagated, not just by Bloomberg himself, but by his retainers in the editorial rooms of the city's tabloids.
The reality is the Bloomberg has been a consummate politician-and has aggrandized this political skillfulness with the use of a private fortune that has been, until now, unheard of in NYC politics. In fact, as the election draws near, this city has never seen the ingathering of so many pigs at the trough as we are seeing now; from black ministers to Orthodox rabbis, no one has been as skillful as Mike Bloomberg at bringing disparate groups together. Let's praise the cash nexus, pass the collection plate and, all together now, say: "Hallelujah!"
Seifman examines the Bloomberg about face in the matter of a certain voucher program that effects Orthodox Jewish schoolchildren: "Two weeks before the election, Mayor Bloomberg told Orthodox Jewish leaders in a private meeting that he planned to restore $8 million in day-care vouchers that the administration had pulled just months earlier as the city braced to cope with the collapsing economy. "They are a huge help to many families, especially in the Orthodox community," the mayor said at the Oct. 22 session in Borough Park, Brooklyn, which wasn't listed on his campaign schedules. That was a 180-degree flip from what Bloomberg had said before."
Now, do we think that this is a major scandal? Of course not-but it dramatically reveals the hypocrisy behind Bloomberg's sloganeering; and demonstrates, in our view, the basic dishonesty that underlies the Myth of Mike that has been propagated, not just by Bloomberg himself, but by his retainers in the editorial rooms of the city's tabloids.
The reality is the Bloomberg has been a consummate politician-and has aggrandized this political skillfulness with the use of a private fortune that has been, until now, unheard of in NYC politics. In fact, as the election draws near, this city has never seen the ingathering of so many pigs at the trough as we are seeing now; from black ministers to Orthodox rabbis, no one has been as skillful as Mike Bloomberg at bringing disparate groups together. Let's praise the cash nexus, pass the collection plate and, all together now, say: "Hallelujah!"
Friday, October 30, 2009
Misplaced Sympathy
Our good friend Albor Ruiz covered a vendor protest last week, and we believe that his sympathies are misplaced: "New Yorkers are a famously contentious bunch. But there is one issue everybody agrees on: Unemployment in the city is far too high. So, it is difficult to understand why, in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the city decided to go after street vendors with a vengeance. But vendors are not taking what they consider unfair treatment by the Police Department sitting down."
Now this may be a case where two disadvantaged groups are being unfairly pitted against each other; but our primary sympathies lie with the store owners-something that Ruiz knows a great deal about. As he pointed out earlier this year: "Small, friendly and convenient, bodegas are more than businesses - they are veritable neighborhood institutions. Yet they are disappearing faster than you can say "stimulus package." Ramón Murphy, president of the Bodega Association of the United States, and a bodega owner, is sounding the alarm about the state of the business to which he has dedicated 24 years of his life - and that has allowed him to raise four
children."Bodegas are family businesses, and every time one closes, two or three families suffer," he said at his Red Apple Grocery, at 134 Hamilton Place in Manhattan. "Last year, 137 of them went down only along Broadway from 230th St. to 197th St.," Murphy added. "Hundreds of bodegueros [bodega owners] are throwing in the towel. Every day, two or three bodegas close in New York."
So the stores are hurting badly-and it's not just the little guys, although they have the hardest time. As the NY Daily News reported in January: "Now is the worst," said Ramon Murphy, a bodega owner for 24 years and president of the Bodega Association of the United States.
The recession added another burden to stores already facing rising rents, Murphy said, causing a surge of bodega closings across the city last year - including 137 bodegas along Broadway in Manhattan."
So while we sympathize with the plight of vendors, it is important to stabilize the city's small business base-and in many areas vendors setting up shop in front of stores are bleeding the revenues away from retailers that depend on these lost sales to survive. That is why we oppose the measure to increase the number of street vendors that Ruiz touts in his column.
As Ruiz tells us: "With unemployment at 10.3% in the city, higher than the national rate of 9.7% according to the state Labor Department, some City Council members like Melissa Mark-Viverito (D-Manhattan) and Charles Barron (D-East New York) believe that instead of punishing vendors, the cap on street vending permits should be raised. Barron recently introduced a bill that would do exactly that...The vendors' demands are reasonable: End the disproportionate fines, open more streets to vendors and increase the number of permits."
Until there is a coherent regulatory and enforcement mechanism to control existing street vending, we believe that any increase would be a disaster, not only for the small businesses that are forced to compete with these low overhead peddlers, but also for many local communities whose quality of life is being eroded by vendor proliferation.
Now this may be a case where two disadvantaged groups are being unfairly pitted against each other; but our primary sympathies lie with the store owners-something that Ruiz knows a great deal about. As he pointed out earlier this year: "Small, friendly and convenient, bodegas are more than businesses - they are veritable neighborhood institutions. Yet they are disappearing faster than you can say "stimulus package." Ramón Murphy, president of the Bodega Association of the United States, and a bodega owner, is sounding the alarm about the state of the business to which he has dedicated 24 years of his life - and that has allowed him to raise four
children."Bodegas are family businesses, and every time one closes, two or three families suffer," he said at his Red Apple Grocery, at 134 Hamilton Place in Manhattan. "Last year, 137 of them went down only along Broadway from 230th St. to 197th St.," Murphy added. "Hundreds of bodegueros [bodega owners] are throwing in the towel. Every day, two or three bodegas close in New York."
So the stores are hurting badly-and it's not just the little guys, although they have the hardest time. As the NY Daily News reported in January: "Now is the worst," said Ramon Murphy, a bodega owner for 24 years and president of the Bodega Association of the United States.
The recession added another burden to stores already facing rising rents, Murphy said, causing a surge of bodega closings across the city last year - including 137 bodegas along Broadway in Manhattan."
So while we sympathize with the plight of vendors, it is important to stabilize the city's small business base-and in many areas vendors setting up shop in front of stores are bleeding the revenues away from retailers that depend on these lost sales to survive. That is why we oppose the measure to increase the number of street vendors that Ruiz touts in his column.
As Ruiz tells us: "With unemployment at 10.3% in the city, higher than the national rate of 9.7% according to the state Labor Department, some City Council members like Melissa Mark-Viverito (D-Manhattan) and Charles Barron (D-East New York) believe that instead of punishing vendors, the cap on street vending permits should be raised. Barron recently introduced a bill that would do exactly that...The vendors' demands are reasonable: End the disproportionate fines, open more streets to vendors and increase the number of permits."
Until there is a coherent regulatory and enforcement mechanism to control existing street vending, we believe that any increase would be a disaster, not only for the small businesses that are forced to compete with these low overhead peddlers, but also for many local communities whose quality of life is being eroded by vendor proliferation.
Who Will Educate the Educators?
There's a great line from Karl Marx's Theses on Feuerbach III that comments on Plato's concept of the philosopher king: "Who will educate the educator?" And nothing so much underscores this world view than the actions of our educrats over the use of school testing. To paraphrase Marx: "Who will test the testers?"
All that we have said about the faulty test regime of the city's Department of Education is starting to come into a sharper focus-with the NY Post ironically taking an unexpected lead role this morning: "The numbers don't add up. New York and most other states set their benchmarks for student proficiency in math and reading well below those of a gold-standard national test, according to a new analysis. The report by the National Center for Education Statistics, which compared state testing standards between 2005 and 2007, provides additional ammunition to critics who charge that New York has set the passing bar too low on annual math and reading tests -- which students have been acing with increased frequency in recent years."
Now we don't want to appear to be really snide here, but isn't this the same newspaper-along with the Daily News-that played the amen choir to the Bloomberg effort to retain mayoral control of the city schools-with the riding test scores being used as rationale #1? It is, and we have apparently reached the classic Gilda Radner-Emly Latella "Never Mind!" moment.
Is it too early to demand a recount? And where can we go for redress from the mendacity that has been exhibited over the ginned up test results? And, equally as apparent in this dishonest campaign, is the fact that one person's proficiency is another's basic skills: "Overall, the study found that what many states called a "proficient" skill level, the National Assessment of Educational Progress considered one skill level below that, known as "basic."
So, basically we've been had-and it's our own new secretary of education who nails the testing sleight-of-hand for what it is: ""Today's study confirms what we've known for a long time: States are setting the bar too low," said Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. "We're lying to our children when we tell them they're proficient but they're not achieving at a level that will prepare them for success once they graduate."
And we have a mayor-riding a wave of unprecedented campaign spending-using these lies to justify a third term. We could chalk this up to politics as usual-but it sure isn't progress for our school children, their teachers and administrators, and of course their parents. Bloomberg promised better; but his failure in regards to this issue-one that is shared by his media toadies-is truly monumental.
All that we have said about the faulty test regime of the city's Department of Education is starting to come into a sharper focus-with the NY Post ironically taking an unexpected lead role this morning: "The numbers don't add up. New York and most other states set their benchmarks for student proficiency in math and reading well below those of a gold-standard national test, according to a new analysis. The report by the National Center for Education Statistics, which compared state testing standards between 2005 and 2007, provides additional ammunition to critics who charge that New York has set the passing bar too low on annual math and reading tests -- which students have been acing with increased frequency in recent years."
Now we don't want to appear to be really snide here, but isn't this the same newspaper-along with the Daily News-that played the amen choir to the Bloomberg effort to retain mayoral control of the city schools-with the riding test scores being used as rationale #1? It is, and we have apparently reached the classic Gilda Radner-Emly Latella "Never Mind!" moment.
Is it too early to demand a recount? And where can we go for redress from the mendacity that has been exhibited over the ginned up test results? And, equally as apparent in this dishonest campaign, is the fact that one person's proficiency is another's basic skills: "Overall, the study found that what many states called a "proficient" skill level, the National Assessment of Educational Progress considered one skill level below that, known as "basic."
So, basically we've been had-and it's our own new secretary of education who nails the testing sleight-of-hand for what it is: ""Today's study confirms what we've known for a long time: States are setting the bar too low," said Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. "We're lying to our children when we tell them they're proficient but they're not achieving at a level that will prepare them for success once they graduate."
And we have a mayor-riding a wave of unprecedented campaign spending-using these lies to justify a third term. We could chalk this up to politics as usual-but it sure isn't progress for our school children, their teachers and administrators, and of course their parents. Bloomberg promised better; but his failure in regards to this issue-one that is shared by his media toadies-is truly monumental.
Bully For You!
Steve Kornacki has an interesting piece in the Observer about how the mayor, running against a hopelessly outmatched challenger-at least as far as resources are concerned-has still felt the need to pile on. He calls it, beating a dead horse: "...Mr. Bloomberg has dumped more than $85 million into his campaign. He’s gobbled up big-name consultants, saturated the television and radio airwaves for months, secured endorsements from countless Democrats and media outlets and squeezed every drop of benefit imaginable from his incumbency. (Did you see him awkwardly standing in Fox’s shot as the ALCS trophy was handed to the Yankees on Sunday night?)Meanwhile, his opponent has raised virtually no money, relied on a sub–big-time campaign operation, been snubbed by influential members of his own party and been reduced to pretending that the president of the United States is strongly in his corner, when he plainly isn’t."
But this tactic comes with a cost-and, in our view, it has sucked all of the democratic air out of the room in making a mockery of the electoral process; a point Kornacki also makes as follows: "More notable was the simple fact the Mr. Bloomberg chose to lay out his vision of a 2013 New York in a speech on a weekday afternoon. Almost no voters saw it in its entirety, and only a few probably bothered to read the brief news accounts that made it into the next day’s papers. This wouldn’t be the case if Mr. Bloomberg had devoted his October media budget to sharing his 2013 dream with New Yorkers--instead of using his cash to savage Mr. Thompson."
So the campaign to literally save New York-so dire are our economic circumstances-is transmuted into a typical challenger savaging; typical in style but not in the substance since few have as much money to do as thorough a job as Mike does. In the process, however, Bloomberg has lost something-and it's reflected in the polls, as well as in the lethargy that is the one thing really scaring the Bloombergistas: "Which brings us to the polling, and Mr. Bloomberg’s stubborn inability all year—despite his many, many advantages—to climb much higher than 50 percent in head-to-head matchups against Mr. Thompson. This failure is remarkable when considered in context. Last November, just after he forced a term-limits extension through the City Council, Mr. Bloomberg was running just 15 points ahead of Mr. Thompson, 49 to 34 percent. No one was too surprised: The mayor had just endured some of the worst press of his tenure. Of course he’d be underperforming. Give it some time, and a ton of money, and his number will improve, the thinking went. But it really hasn’t."
What do we see $85 million and counting later? "All of this has added up to a net gain of just a few points over the past 11 months in Mr. Bloomberg’s head-to-head standing with Mr. Thompson. Fifty-three to thirty-five percent is his lead in the latest poll from Quinnipiac University, the same outfit that gave him a 49 to 34 edge last November."
And the reason why this has happened is a direct result of Mike Bloomberg's lack of any real political vision-a trait shared by the expensive team he put together to help run his campaign juggernaut. This was reflected in his rambling and lackluster NYU speech-as well as in his confusion at the Crain's breakfast when queried about his third term.
What this boils down to, is that this campaign is all about-and only about-the mayor's money; and his willingness to use and abuse it for the one thing that really matters to him-his own self interest: "We could have seen a more inspiring, meaningful campaign on the mayor’s part—one that would have allowed him to ignore his hapless opponent (instead of sullying him) and focus his efforts on laying down markers for a third term. It could have been the kind of campaign some dared to imagine back in June. Instead, the Bloomberg campaign has opted for politics as usual."
Imagination and real honesty simply isn't in Bloomberg's basic character. And when the media is acting as co-conspiritors, we get the lifeless-and relentless-barrage of mendacity clogging the airwaves. Trust us, the third term will be Bloomberg simply winging it in the face of some real difficulty. And how he responds to the difficulty may just shock us all-because there is certainly nothing in the current campaign that has even given us a tiny peek at what lies ahead for the city. But, don't be too harsh on Mike Bloomberg, he doesn't really know himself and hasn't given the problem all that much thought.
But this tactic comes with a cost-and, in our view, it has sucked all of the democratic air out of the room in making a mockery of the electoral process; a point Kornacki also makes as follows: "More notable was the simple fact the Mr. Bloomberg chose to lay out his vision of a 2013 New York in a speech on a weekday afternoon. Almost no voters saw it in its entirety, and only a few probably bothered to read the brief news accounts that made it into the next day’s papers. This wouldn’t be the case if Mr. Bloomberg had devoted his October media budget to sharing his 2013 dream with New Yorkers--instead of using his cash to savage Mr. Thompson."
So the campaign to literally save New York-so dire are our economic circumstances-is transmuted into a typical challenger savaging; typical in style but not in the substance since few have as much money to do as thorough a job as Mike does. In the process, however, Bloomberg has lost something-and it's reflected in the polls, as well as in the lethargy that is the one thing really scaring the Bloombergistas: "Which brings us to the polling, and Mr. Bloomberg’s stubborn inability all year—despite his many, many advantages—to climb much higher than 50 percent in head-to-head matchups against Mr. Thompson. This failure is remarkable when considered in context. Last November, just after he forced a term-limits extension through the City Council, Mr. Bloomberg was running just 15 points ahead of Mr. Thompson, 49 to 34 percent. No one was too surprised: The mayor had just endured some of the worst press of his tenure. Of course he’d be underperforming. Give it some time, and a ton of money, and his number will improve, the thinking went. But it really hasn’t."
What do we see $85 million and counting later? "All of this has added up to a net gain of just a few points over the past 11 months in Mr. Bloomberg’s head-to-head standing with Mr. Thompson. Fifty-three to thirty-five percent is his lead in the latest poll from Quinnipiac University, the same outfit that gave him a 49 to 34 edge last November."
And the reason why this has happened is a direct result of Mike Bloomberg's lack of any real political vision-a trait shared by the expensive team he put together to help run his campaign juggernaut. This was reflected in his rambling and lackluster NYU speech-as well as in his confusion at the Crain's breakfast when queried about his third term.
What this boils down to, is that this campaign is all about-and only about-the mayor's money; and his willingness to use and abuse it for the one thing that really matters to him-his own self interest: "We could have seen a more inspiring, meaningful campaign on the mayor’s part—one that would have allowed him to ignore his hapless opponent (instead of sullying him) and focus his efforts on laying down markers for a third term. It could have been the kind of campaign some dared to imagine back in June. Instead, the Bloomberg campaign has opted for politics as usual."
Imagination and real honesty simply isn't in Bloomberg's basic character. And when the media is acting as co-conspiritors, we get the lifeless-and relentless-barrage of mendacity clogging the airwaves. Trust us, the third term will be Bloomberg simply winging it in the face of some real difficulty. And how he responds to the difficulty may just shock us all-because there is certainly nothing in the current campaign that has even given us a tiny peek at what lies ahead for the city. But, don't be too harsh on Mike Bloomberg, he doesn't really know himself and hasn't given the problem all that much thought.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Media Milquetoasts
Tom Robbins lays out the bill of particulars against the political quiescence of the local papers: "One reason for the remarkably charmed life of Mike Bloomberg's administration as he sails toward re-election has been the waning of the city's news business. This is an odd blessing for a man who made his fortune as a media mogul. But just ask Rudy Giuliani, or David Dinkins, or Ed Koch, and they'll painfully explain."
And Robbins goes on to highlight a number of stories that, perhaps, in another more robust time, would have become fodder for tabloid competition-and a challenge to the Teflon image of the mayor. And the 911 scandal heads the list: "It's not that there's no investigative spadework being done. What's missing is critical mass. Last week, the Daily News's Juan González delivered some excellent fodder for a full-scale media assault in City Hall's Blue Room. He reported that the mayor's billion-dollar plan to relocate the city's emergency 911 call system has become a fiasco. Not only has Bloomberg's team blown its budget and deadlines, but it has also ignored the findings of its own consultant, which found the project was mired in mismanagement. Rather than dump its lead contractor, as the consultant recommended, Bloomberg's top aides insisted that the plan go ahead as is—defects be damned."
The deserved furor, however, never occurred. But we're placing the blame less on the state of newspaper lassitude, and more on the incandescence of Mayor Mike. How else can we explain why the 911 scandal, one that exposes the expertise myth of the mayor, never caught hold? As Robbins observes: "This type of project is supposed to be smack in the mayor's sweet spot since it involves computers and communications, the business that made him the city's richest man. It should also be one of those instances where he runs rings around old-school politicians because of his keen business acumen. Instead, here he is, tripped up by the same cost overruns and bureaucrats that plague ordinary humans. Another mayor in another time might have suffered many tough questions the day after such information surfaced. Instead, only the News chased its own story."
And then there are the schools: "Bloomberg's biggest claim to mayoral fame as he grabs for the third term that he used to insist he would never seek is his success at the business of education. This is a debate worth having. But Bloomberg consistently wins by default because the other side never fully shows up. As the legislature was considering the renewal of Bloomberg's mayoral control law this year, Brooklyn Assemblyman Jim Brennan issued six lengthy reports on the law's impact on the schools. They were detailed and thoughtful critiques on student achievement, school organization, and contracting. Asked recently how much press he received about them, Brennan paused. "I'm not sure there was any," he said."
But the education media miasma is, in our view, a sole consequence of the mayor's MC Hammer, "Can't Touch This," routine. As Crain's Insider pointed out yesterday: "But in attacking the mayor on education, Thompson has gained no traction. Various advocacy groups and elected officials have likewise failed. Leonie Haimson, executive director of Class Size Matters, says class sizes are going up, contrary to claims in the Mayor's Management Report. She recently testified that the Department of Education is “committing fraud” by ignoring a state mandate to reduce class size, which last year grew by the largest amount in a decade. Neither the department nor Haimson can explain the discrepancies in the numbers...Teachers frequently complain about tedious drilling to inflate test scores, but their union has been silent on this topic during the campaign—which, given the contract it got from the mayor, was no surprise to insiders. The three major dailies' endorsements of the mayor ignored the context of the scores."
So the pattern is clearly established. What would normally prompt editorial outrage and an accompanying media feeding frenzy for the sins of mortals, is ignored when it pertains to the actions of Mayor Mike. And this Robbins observation underscores our point: "At the mayor's annual Gracie Mansion Christmas party for the press last year, those in attendance report that Bloomberg took the stage to offer his idea of a joke. "I see that my three best friends in the media—Mort, Rupert, and Arthur—aren't here," he quipped. Then he walked out, right past the grunts who cover him all year."
So the fix is in-and we see it every day. In this morning's NY Post editorial on the collapsing state of the NY economy, the paper lashes out against Governor Paterson, who's only been around for a short stint, and fails to even mention Big Spender Mike. The lesson here is that the press owners finally have one of their own at the helm.
So, when misdeeds that would normally earn someone the Post's disdain, or garner a, "Knucklehead Award," from the News, are committed by the mayor they may be reported, but not with anything like the vitriol that is reserved for the lower class miscreants. In the end, the silence of the press lambs is all about the weight and influence of New York's richest and most powerful man.
And Robbins goes on to highlight a number of stories that, perhaps, in another more robust time, would have become fodder for tabloid competition-and a challenge to the Teflon image of the mayor. And the 911 scandal heads the list: "It's not that there's no investigative spadework being done. What's missing is critical mass. Last week, the Daily News's Juan González delivered some excellent fodder for a full-scale media assault in City Hall's Blue Room. He reported that the mayor's billion-dollar plan to relocate the city's emergency 911 call system has become a fiasco. Not only has Bloomberg's team blown its budget and deadlines, but it has also ignored the findings of its own consultant, which found the project was mired in mismanagement. Rather than dump its lead contractor, as the consultant recommended, Bloomberg's top aides insisted that the plan go ahead as is—defects be damned."
The deserved furor, however, never occurred. But we're placing the blame less on the state of newspaper lassitude, and more on the incandescence of Mayor Mike. How else can we explain why the 911 scandal, one that exposes the expertise myth of the mayor, never caught hold? As Robbins observes: "This type of project is supposed to be smack in the mayor's sweet spot since it involves computers and communications, the business that made him the city's richest man. It should also be one of those instances where he runs rings around old-school politicians because of his keen business acumen. Instead, here he is, tripped up by the same cost overruns and bureaucrats that plague ordinary humans. Another mayor in another time might have suffered many tough questions the day after such information surfaced. Instead, only the News chased its own story."
And then there are the schools: "Bloomberg's biggest claim to mayoral fame as he grabs for the third term that he used to insist he would never seek is his success at the business of education. This is a debate worth having. But Bloomberg consistently wins by default because the other side never fully shows up. As the legislature was considering the renewal of Bloomberg's mayoral control law this year, Brooklyn Assemblyman Jim Brennan issued six lengthy reports on the law's impact on the schools. They were detailed and thoughtful critiques on student achievement, school organization, and contracting. Asked recently how much press he received about them, Brennan paused. "I'm not sure there was any," he said."
But the education media miasma is, in our view, a sole consequence of the mayor's MC Hammer, "Can't Touch This," routine. As Crain's Insider pointed out yesterday: "But in attacking the mayor on education, Thompson has gained no traction. Various advocacy groups and elected officials have likewise failed. Leonie Haimson, executive director of Class Size Matters, says class sizes are going up, contrary to claims in the Mayor's Management Report. She recently testified that the Department of Education is “committing fraud” by ignoring a state mandate to reduce class size, which last year grew by the largest amount in a decade. Neither the department nor Haimson can explain the discrepancies in the numbers...Teachers frequently complain about tedious drilling to inflate test scores, but their union has been silent on this topic during the campaign—which, given the contract it got from the mayor, was no surprise to insiders. The three major dailies' endorsements of the mayor ignored the context of the scores."
So the pattern is clearly established. What would normally prompt editorial outrage and an accompanying media feeding frenzy for the sins of mortals, is ignored when it pertains to the actions of Mayor Mike. And this Robbins observation underscores our point: "At the mayor's annual Gracie Mansion Christmas party for the press last year, those in attendance report that Bloomberg took the stage to offer his idea of a joke. "I see that my three best friends in the media—Mort, Rupert, and Arthur—aren't here," he quipped. Then he walked out, right past the grunts who cover him all year."
So the fix is in-and we see it every day. In this morning's NY Post editorial on the collapsing state of the NY economy, the paper lashes out against Governor Paterson, who's only been around for a short stint, and fails to even mention Big Spender Mike. The lesson here is that the press owners finally have one of their own at the helm.
So, when misdeeds that would normally earn someone the Post's disdain, or garner a, "Knucklehead Award," from the News, are committed by the mayor they may be reported, but not with anything like the vitriol that is reserved for the lower class miscreants. In the end, the silence of the press lambs is all about the weight and influence of New York's richest and most powerful man.
Bridge to Nowhere?
Our friends at Queens Crapper have sent us the following missive about the continued political activities of one Claire Shulman-it seems that she's trying to emulate former the Alaskan politicians who got funds for a bridge to nowhere: "Flushing and Corona leaders continue to make incremental progress on the plans for the revitalization of the Flushing River waterfront to accompany the redevelopment of Willets Point.The board of the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corp. met last Thursday with other leaders, including Maura McCarthy, Queens borough commissioner of the city Department of Transportation, to discuss options for the long-neglected area.Possible plans discussed at the meeting include one which is not well-known among nearby residents but could have a significant impact on the area’s character: the construction of a pedestrian bridge connecting Flushing’s business district to Willets Point."
Claire, for her part seems to continue to spit in the face of the ongoing AG investigation into the questionable political activities of her so-called not-for-profit local development corporation-and he signed federal waiver to refrain from lobbying: "Former Borough President Claire Shulman, who now heads the development group, said she and the group’s board plan to secure funding, maybe even from the federal government, for the bridge and that they “intend to do everything we can to make sure it happens.”
So, let's get this straight. Claire's going to go and lobby the federal government-the same one that she pledged to refrain from lobbying in order to be granted her not for profit status-in order to get money for a project that is on land that the city doesn't even own yet.
And, as the NY Times reported yesterday, she might have to move fast: "Redevelopment can look easy on paper, but there are always neighborhood concerns, even in a place like Willets Point, a 62-acre industrial shanty town of body shops and scrap yards near the Mets’ stadium in Queens. The administration viewed it as an area ripe for economic development if the 225 existing businesses could be cleared....Mr. Doctoroff was determined to do better, through a local business group, the Flushing-Willets Point Local Development Corporation, which received half its money from the city. But about half the group’s money was spent doing something not allowed under state law: lobbying city officials. The group’s lobbying, has led to an investigation by the attorney general’s office."
In fact, as we have already pointed out, Shulman is a whirlwind of political activity-obtaining a so-called brownfields grant as a result of her clearly effective political activity. If the AG doesn't hurry here, he might find that his house-no matter where it's located-has been condemned to make way for some other aspect of the Willets Point development.
This Willets Point deal is rapidly becoming another example of a great NYC boondoggle. Money's being spent-or being asked to be spent-on a myriad of expensive projects at a time when the city treasury is supposedly tapped out. When the dust clears, will it be a sad case of "money for nothing?" It's time for the city to do a preliminary cost accounting for this development. Bloomberg may be immune to any form of sticker shock-but we're betting that the tax payers aren't.
Claire, for her part seems to continue to spit in the face of the ongoing AG investigation into the questionable political activities of her so-called not-for-profit local development corporation-and he signed federal waiver to refrain from lobbying: "Former Borough President Claire Shulman, who now heads the development group, said she and the group’s board plan to secure funding, maybe even from the federal government, for the bridge and that they “intend to do everything we can to make sure it happens.”
So, let's get this straight. Claire's going to go and lobby the federal government-the same one that she pledged to refrain from lobbying in order to be granted her not for profit status-in order to get money for a project that is on land that the city doesn't even own yet.
And, as the NY Times reported yesterday, she might have to move fast: "Redevelopment can look easy on paper, but there are always neighborhood concerns, even in a place like Willets Point, a 62-acre industrial shanty town of body shops and scrap yards near the Mets’ stadium in Queens. The administration viewed it as an area ripe for economic development if the 225 existing businesses could be cleared....Mr. Doctoroff was determined to do better, through a local business group, the Flushing-Willets Point Local Development Corporation, which received half its money from the city. But about half the group’s money was spent doing something not allowed under state law: lobbying city officials. The group’s lobbying, has led to an investigation by the attorney general’s office."
In fact, as we have already pointed out, Shulman is a whirlwind of political activity-obtaining a so-called brownfields grant as a result of her clearly effective political activity. If the AG doesn't hurry here, he might find that his house-no matter where it's located-has been condemned to make way for some other aspect of the Willets Point development.
This Willets Point deal is rapidly becoming another example of a great NYC boondoggle. Money's being spent-or being asked to be spent-on a myriad of expensive projects at a time when the city treasury is supposedly tapped out. When the dust clears, will it be a sad case of "money for nothing?" It's time for the city to do a preliminary cost accounting for this development. Bloomberg may be immune to any form of sticker shock-but we're betting that the tax payers aren't.
Pay for Pray
You know the old line, that whenever they say it isn't about the money, it's always about the money. And so it goes, it seems, with a great swath of our esteemed clergy who have lined up behind that old time religion-the almighty dollar-and endorsed Mike Bloomberg. And Abyssinian's Calvin Butts is right there in front of the line singing that famous NYC gospel hymn: "Not for Nothing."
So it really doesn't matter that challenger Bill Thompson and Butts have longstanding personal ties; this isn't personal-it's business. As the NY Times reports: "A few weeks ago, the Rev. Calvin O. Butts III, the influential pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem, came to a difficult decision, one he had wrestled with all summer. He would not endorse William C. Thompson Jr., the city comptroller and a longtime friend and ally, for mayor, as he had promised Mr. Thompson last spring. Instead, he would endorse Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg."
And the check certainly wasn't in the mail: "Mr. Thompson was furious at the betrayal. But what he did not know was that Mr. Bloomberg gave a $1 million donation to the church’s development corporation — roughly 10 percent of its annual budget — with the implicit promise of more to come. “What could I say to a man who was mayor, and was supportive of a lot of programs that are important to me?” Mr. Butts said in an interview before he endorsed Mr. Bloomberg."
There is, we guess, something to be said for honesty-but what's the difference here between what Bloomberg is doing and the "street money" that John Corzine was excoriated for giving out to members of the Black clergy when he first ran for public office? This is literally a pay for pray scheme that dramatizes the extent to which Mike Bloomberg's money corrupts the democratic political process.
But Butts isn't alone: "In his quest for a third term, Mr. Bloomberg has deprived Mr. Thompson of what many once regarded as his political birthright: the blessings of the city’s most powerful black ministers, who together preach to tens of thousands of congregants each week. And to win them over, he has deployed an unusual combination of city money, private philanthropy, political appointments and personal attention, creating a web of ties to black clergy members that is virtually unheard of for a white elected official in New York City."
All of which gets to the core of our argument-one that Thompson finally began to pick up in the last debate-that the mayor has reversed the normal flow of special interest money, and has done so in the the interest of the most special of interests-his own: "Looming over it all is Mr. Bloomberg’s dazzling wealth, whether already bestowed — as in the case of Mr. Butts — or hoped for down the line. “We have to come to his foundation sooner or later,” said the Rev. Timothy Birkett, pastor of the Church Alive Community Church in the Bronx, who is backing the mayor this year. “We hope that he will be receptive.”
And the final accounting may never be understood-and the clergy here may be unfairly singled out-because when you're the city's richest man and are giving away $235 million a year-almost three times the amount that you gave out before you came into office-it isn't only the ministers feeding at the Bloomberg trough. And when we look at the congestion pricing battle of a few years ago, and the term limits fight of last year, we can better understand the "outpouring of public support" as simply a concomitant of the outpouring of Bloombucks-a further Astroturf example of the subornation of an open democratic process.
We do have one thing to be grateful for. According to the Butts, the new Bloomberg family retainer, he wouldn't have taken the money and given the endorsement if the mayor had been Rudy Giulliani: "Since Mr. Bloomberg was sworn in, the church and its affiliated nonprofit groups have received at least $7 million in city contracts. None of that, Mr. Butts said, made it any easier to tell Mr. Thompson that he had changed his mind about the endorsement. But he denied that the mayor’s philanthropy played a role in his decision. “If Giuliani had the money Bloomberg had, and spread it around, he still wouldn’t get support,” Mr. Butts said. “This is not about Bloomberg’s money.”
Boy, are we confused. Go back and read the opening quote for Cool Cal: "What could I say to a man who was mayor, and was supportive of a lot of programs that are important to me?” But this isn't about the money? And using Rudy as a prop to his conscience here does little credit to the avaricious Mr. Butts-it's really a low bar considering that Giuliani is right up there next to Satan with the members of the Black clergy.
But even that fact didn't get the normal high dudgeon going when Rudy, being Rudy, made his inflammatory comments about crime a few weeks ago: "That contrast was on display last week when Mr. Bloomberg appeared at a campaign event with Mr. Giuliani, who suggested to a mostly white, Jewish audience in Brooklyn that “the wrong political leadership” could return New Yorkers to the days of “fear of going out at night and walking the streets.” Several black elected officials immediately denounced the comments as race-baiting. But no prominent black pastors demanded that the mayor disavow the comments."
So sorry Calvin, as we remarked in the beginning, when they say it isn't about the money, it is always about the money. And the behavior of these paid sycophants is a reminder that democracy in NYC is officially off life supports; and is only waiting for the final coroner's report on Tuesday to pronounce its death. Can we get a church chorus of-"Michael Bloomberg, mm...mm...mm?"
So it really doesn't matter that challenger Bill Thompson and Butts have longstanding personal ties; this isn't personal-it's business. As the NY Times reports: "A few weeks ago, the Rev. Calvin O. Butts III, the influential pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem, came to a difficult decision, one he had wrestled with all summer. He would not endorse William C. Thompson Jr., the city comptroller and a longtime friend and ally, for mayor, as he had promised Mr. Thompson last spring. Instead, he would endorse Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg."
And the check certainly wasn't in the mail: "Mr. Thompson was furious at the betrayal. But what he did not know was that Mr. Bloomberg gave a $1 million donation to the church’s development corporation — roughly 10 percent of its annual budget — with the implicit promise of more to come. “What could I say to a man who was mayor, and was supportive of a lot of programs that are important to me?” Mr. Butts said in an interview before he endorsed Mr. Bloomberg."
There is, we guess, something to be said for honesty-but what's the difference here between what Bloomberg is doing and the "street money" that John Corzine was excoriated for giving out to members of the Black clergy when he first ran for public office? This is literally a pay for pray scheme that dramatizes the extent to which Mike Bloomberg's money corrupts the democratic political process.
But Butts isn't alone: "In his quest for a third term, Mr. Bloomberg has deprived Mr. Thompson of what many once regarded as his political birthright: the blessings of the city’s most powerful black ministers, who together preach to tens of thousands of congregants each week. And to win them over, he has deployed an unusual combination of city money, private philanthropy, political appointments and personal attention, creating a web of ties to black clergy members that is virtually unheard of for a white elected official in New York City."
All of which gets to the core of our argument-one that Thompson finally began to pick up in the last debate-that the mayor has reversed the normal flow of special interest money, and has done so in the the interest of the most special of interests-his own: "Looming over it all is Mr. Bloomberg’s dazzling wealth, whether already bestowed — as in the case of Mr. Butts — or hoped for down the line. “We have to come to his foundation sooner or later,” said the Rev. Timothy Birkett, pastor of the Church Alive Community Church in the Bronx, who is backing the mayor this year. “We hope that he will be receptive.”
And the final accounting may never be understood-and the clergy here may be unfairly singled out-because when you're the city's richest man and are giving away $235 million a year-almost three times the amount that you gave out before you came into office-it isn't only the ministers feeding at the Bloomberg trough. And when we look at the congestion pricing battle of a few years ago, and the term limits fight of last year, we can better understand the "outpouring of public support" as simply a concomitant of the outpouring of Bloombucks-a further Astroturf example of the subornation of an open democratic process.
We do have one thing to be grateful for. According to the Butts, the new Bloomberg family retainer, he wouldn't have taken the money and given the endorsement if the mayor had been Rudy Giulliani: "Since Mr. Bloomberg was sworn in, the church and its affiliated nonprofit groups have received at least $7 million in city contracts. None of that, Mr. Butts said, made it any easier to tell Mr. Thompson that he had changed his mind about the endorsement. But he denied that the mayor’s philanthropy played a role in his decision. “If Giuliani had the money Bloomberg had, and spread it around, he still wouldn’t get support,” Mr. Butts said. “This is not about Bloomberg’s money.”
Boy, are we confused. Go back and read the opening quote for Cool Cal: "What could I say to a man who was mayor, and was supportive of a lot of programs that are important to me?” But this isn't about the money? And using Rudy as a prop to his conscience here does little credit to the avaricious Mr. Butts-it's really a low bar considering that Giuliani is right up there next to Satan with the members of the Black clergy.
But even that fact didn't get the normal high dudgeon going when Rudy, being Rudy, made his inflammatory comments about crime a few weeks ago: "That contrast was on display last week when Mr. Bloomberg appeared at a campaign event with Mr. Giuliani, who suggested to a mostly white, Jewish audience in Brooklyn that “the wrong political leadership” could return New Yorkers to the days of “fear of going out at night and walking the streets.” Several black elected officials immediately denounced the comments as race-baiting. But no prominent black pastors demanded that the mayor disavow the comments."
So sorry Calvin, as we remarked in the beginning, when they say it isn't about the money, it is always about the money. And the behavior of these paid sycophants is a reminder that democracy in NYC is officially off life supports; and is only waiting for the final coroner's report on Tuesday to pronounce its death. Can we get a church chorus of-"Michael Bloomberg, mm...mm...mm?"
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Loan Them Back Their Own Money?
Politicians, when faced with a faltering economy and the collapse of the small business sector in particular, love to devise loan programs to trumpet their concern for the economy's most vulnerable. We have commented on the effort of Mike Bloomberg in this regard, and have pointed out just how it avoids the central issue of high taxes and over regulation.
Why can't these leaders simply lower the cost of doing business? They can if they eschew a big government, high tax agenda. Which brings us to President Obama's-and sidekick Pelosi's-replication of the Bloomberg game plan. As the Foundry points out: "Obama promised that the stimulus would “create or save” 3.5 million jobs, and significantly tempter the rising unemployment rate. Now that it is clear that his plan has failed to save or create jobs, and unemployment is still rising, Democrats are reaching out to small business. “Small business is the engine of job creation and capital creation in our country,” Nancy Pelosi said yesterday. Their plan? Use more taxpayer money to increase Federal loans to small businesses—those that qualify according to government guidelines, of course."
But the Heritage Foundation website agrees with our position, and says that the effort is misguided: "Why first burden small businesses with taxes and regulation, and then turn around and use that tax money to give them loans? Why not instead first lower the tax rate, simplify and let go of some of the red tape, and then—if they are still struggling—consider using tax money to make special loans? Wouldn’t that make more sense?"
It would, but it is an approach discordant with the world view that sees the aggrandizement of government as the solution to the country's ills-and not the essential cause of them; at least from the economic side of the ledger. We'll give Foundry the last word: "Indeed, does it not make sense to first reduce existing tax and regulatory burden before jumping to subsidize?"
Why can't these leaders simply lower the cost of doing business? They can if they eschew a big government, high tax agenda. Which brings us to President Obama's-and sidekick Pelosi's-replication of the Bloomberg game plan. As the Foundry points out: "Obama promised that the stimulus would “create or save” 3.5 million jobs, and significantly tempter the rising unemployment rate. Now that it is clear that his plan has failed to save or create jobs, and unemployment is still rising, Democrats are reaching out to small business. “Small business is the engine of job creation and capital creation in our country,” Nancy Pelosi said yesterday. Their plan? Use more taxpayer money to increase Federal loans to small businesses—those that qualify according to government guidelines, of course."
But the Heritage Foundation website agrees with our position, and says that the effort is misguided: "Why first burden small businesses with taxes and regulation, and then turn around and use that tax money to give them loans? Why not instead first lower the tax rate, simplify and let go of some of the red tape, and then—if they are still struggling—consider using tax money to make special loans? Wouldn’t that make more sense?"
It would, but it is an approach discordant with the world view that sees the aggrandizement of government as the solution to the country's ills-and not the essential cause of them; at least from the economic side of the ledger. We'll give Foundry the last word: "Indeed, does it not make sense to first reduce existing tax and regulatory burden before jumping to subsidize?"
State Senate on the Warpath
Yesterday's overflow state senate hearing on Indian cigarette tax avoidance was a tour de force-and that it was so can be attributed to the performance of our old friend Steve Rosenthal. Steve has as much knowledge about how cigarettes are sold as anyone in New York; and he cogently laid out how much it is costing the state because of the ability of one special interest to flout the law.
But we should also add that the entire hearing was an education-and Deputy Tax Commissioner Comiskey did a solid job explaining why his department has held back from enforcing the law. He made it clear to the senators that his tax department is ready to start to enforce 471-E today; as long as the governor gives them the green light-something that hasn't happened because Paterson is dithering on this issue.
And Comiskey made it clear why that's so-talking about the, "complexity," of this issue; and the need to try to find a, "peaceful resolution." Indicating clearly to us that it is the fear of Indian violence that is holding the governor back.
But as we said in our testimony-and the point was emphasized by Rosenthal as well: "I think it is also important to point out that the failure of the executive to enforce a cigarette tax law that the legislature has mandated leads inevitably to the erosion of the respect for the rule of law itself. The fact that a New York State Tax Commissioner, in response to the legislative mandate, has stated that he won’t enforce the cigarette tax equally because of a supposed fear of Indian violence, is both a shocking statement and precedent. There should never be any “rioter’s veto” that prevents law enforcement from doing its job."
But Comiskey clearly stated that the governor has stayed his hand-but in the face of a barrage of questions, was unable to pinpoint just how much this diffidence is costing the tax payers of the state. Rosenthal, however, was happy to oblige with as accurate an evaluation of the tax loss as we have heard.
Using federal tobacco consumption data, he computed the formula that analyzed what the state has lost through the declining rate of cigarette consumption, versus what it has lost-and continues to lose-through illegal, non taxed sales. The estimated loss from illegal sales comes to around 40 million cartons a year; and at approximately $40 per carton the loss to New York State is a staggering $1.6 billion/year.
But Rosenthal also documented the loss of business that this Indian avoidance has generated-90% of cigarette wholesalers that were operating 10 years ago have closed-and that doesn't account for all of the bodegas that have shuttered as 60% of their tobacco business has gone to the black market that is fueled by reservation sales.
But it gets worse. With buttleggers operating with impunity right in front of local bodegas, store owners have been forced to resort to fighting fire with fire-buying Internet smokes and selling them on the street in competition with the smugglers. In essence, as Rosenthal points out, we have made thieves out of many an honest merchant.
And kudos to Senator Ruben Diaz who asked the commissioner: "Do the Indian children go to public schools? Do the Indians use the public hospitals and transportation? If so, why don't they pay taxes for the services that they are using?" And Commissioner Comiskey said: "That's a good question, senator, one that I don't have a good answer for."
But the governor's lawyer, Peter Kiernan, demonstrated just what kind of cowardice lies behind the executive diffidence. As NY1 reports: "...the cost of police may wipe out all that extra revenue. 'And that is without trying to assess the cost of physical injury, or the loss of life, or possible property damage,' Kiernan said." Don't enforce the law, then-and allow that rioter's veto to prevail, we guess. All of which makes Paterson the Neville Chamberlain of New York governors. How sad a spectacle.
So the senators received an earful-with the convenience store owners stating their case as well (led by the inimitable Jim Calvin of NYACS). It is now up to the senate to devise a solution to the governor's hard to fathom timidity. There's too much money at stake to drop the ball now, and if the governor's too afraid to act, someone needs to find a way to give him a spinal transplant.
But we should also add that the entire hearing was an education-and Deputy Tax Commissioner Comiskey did a solid job explaining why his department has held back from enforcing the law. He made it clear to the senators that his tax department is ready to start to enforce 471-E today; as long as the governor gives them the green light-something that hasn't happened because Paterson is dithering on this issue.
And Comiskey made it clear why that's so-talking about the, "complexity," of this issue; and the need to try to find a, "peaceful resolution." Indicating clearly to us that it is the fear of Indian violence that is holding the governor back.
But as we said in our testimony-and the point was emphasized by Rosenthal as well: "I think it is also important to point out that the failure of the executive to enforce a cigarette tax law that the legislature has mandated leads inevitably to the erosion of the respect for the rule of law itself. The fact that a New York State Tax Commissioner, in response to the legislative mandate, has stated that he won’t enforce the cigarette tax equally because of a supposed fear of Indian violence, is both a shocking statement and precedent. There should never be any “rioter’s veto” that prevents law enforcement from doing its job."
But Comiskey clearly stated that the governor has stayed his hand-but in the face of a barrage of questions, was unable to pinpoint just how much this diffidence is costing the tax payers of the state. Rosenthal, however, was happy to oblige with as accurate an evaluation of the tax loss as we have heard.
Using federal tobacco consumption data, he computed the formula that analyzed what the state has lost through the declining rate of cigarette consumption, versus what it has lost-and continues to lose-through illegal, non taxed sales. The estimated loss from illegal sales comes to around 40 million cartons a year; and at approximately $40 per carton the loss to New York State is a staggering $1.6 billion/year.
But Rosenthal also documented the loss of business that this Indian avoidance has generated-90% of cigarette wholesalers that were operating 10 years ago have closed-and that doesn't account for all of the bodegas that have shuttered as 60% of their tobacco business has gone to the black market that is fueled by reservation sales.
But it gets worse. With buttleggers operating with impunity right in front of local bodegas, store owners have been forced to resort to fighting fire with fire-buying Internet smokes and selling them on the street in competition with the smugglers. In essence, as Rosenthal points out, we have made thieves out of many an honest merchant.
And kudos to Senator Ruben Diaz who asked the commissioner: "Do the Indian children go to public schools? Do the Indians use the public hospitals and transportation? If so, why don't they pay taxes for the services that they are using?" And Commissioner Comiskey said: "That's a good question, senator, one that I don't have a good answer for."
But the governor's lawyer, Peter Kiernan, demonstrated just what kind of cowardice lies behind the executive diffidence. As NY1 reports: "...the cost of police may wipe out all that extra revenue. 'And that is without trying to assess the cost of physical injury, or the loss of life, or possible property damage,' Kiernan said." Don't enforce the law, then-and allow that rioter's veto to prevail, we guess. All of which makes Paterson the Neville Chamberlain of New York governors. How sad a spectacle.
So the senators received an earful-with the convenience store owners stating their case as well (led by the inimitable Jim Calvin of NYACS). It is now up to the senate to devise a solution to the governor's hard to fathom timidity. There's too much money at stake to drop the ball now, and if the governor's too afraid to act, someone needs to find a way to give him a spinal transplant.
For the Love of Money
The Bloomberg campaign's ability to buy support is now taking on Biblical proportions-with the admonition that money is the root of all evil becoming a kind of catch phrase to describe the fervor with which a wide range of folks are finding the mayor irresistible. Here courtesy of the omnipresent Liz Benjamin is the first example:
"TWO COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS ENDORSE MIKE -- BRINGING THE MAYOR’S TOTAL NEWSPAPER ENDORSEMENTS TO 60 FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION
Today, Polish-language Nowy Dziennik - Polish Daily News and Spanish-language El Universal Prensa endorsed Mayor Bloomberg’s bid for re-election. Nowy Dziennik has a circulation of roughly 22,000 and is distributed across the five boroughs."
Now, in a more scrutinized election campaign this kind of chest bumping would be treated with a heavy dose of scorn, given the fact that all of these endorsements have come with an obvious price tag. Mike Bloomberg's ability to lavish tens of thousands of dollars on almost every paper that is published in NYC has achieved the desired result-the quid pro quo of support.
A case in point serves as an example. Andy Wolf, who runs the Riverdale Review, has been a persistent thorn in the mayor's side-attacking him at every turn, and even printing some of our own broadsides on the paper's front page. Do you know how much money the Riverdale Review has received in advertising from the Bloomberg campaign? Absolutely zilch!
This is pure pay to play-but as we have pointed out time and time again, it is a P-T-P scheme that has the money flowing in the opposite direction; from Mike Bloomberg's inexhaustible supply of cash. Which brings us to Mayor Corey Booker of Newark, an anodyne for Bloomberg in running against an African-American challenger. Booker has been doing down field blocking for Mike-and did so this past Sunday in African-American churches all over Queens.
Now, as the NY Times report, we find out that young Mr. Booker has also been lavished with some monetary affection from the Bloombucks stash-albeit through a convenient second hand source: "On April 17, Mr. Booker, a Democrat, crossed party and state lines by endorsing Mr. Bloomberg, an independent running as a Republican, in Harlem. About a month later, Mr. Bloomberg’s longtime accountant contributed $26,000 — the maximum allowed — to Mr. Booker’s re-election committee, according to campaign finance records."
It's amazing what a little monetary affection can bring-and has anyone heard from the irrepressible Al Sharpton recently? Money can buy both love and silence, it appears. So we move inevitably to the upcoming election with Mike Bloomberg having enough folks on retainer to beat off his challenger. But what about the dire fiscal challenge that made his third term so compelling in the first place?
As Michael Powell tells us in this morning's Times, Bloomberg has difficulty articulating just why he has opened his personal bank vault for another electoral spending spree: "But by night’s end, what was missing was the urgency that motivated the mayor to embark on this most controversial of his election bids. Months ago, he suggested that the city’s dire fiscal condition, the ledgers dipped in red ink, required his cool competence and financial legerdemain. But asked the question on Tuesday night — what do you hope to accomplish in the next four years that you haven’t done yet? — Mr. Bloomberg turned prosaic. “So,” he said, hesitating just a second, “I think it’s more of the same, making sure that we continue the things, making sure that we expand the universe of people that benefit from those things.”
No compelling rationale can be proffered because the third term overreach was never really about anything but self-aggrandizement. And, as the campaign ends, Mike Bloomberg finds that given the amount of largess he has spread around-and the level of editorial ass-kissing he has received-he doesn't even need to fake it. Everything gets buried in an avalanche of spending, and in the most ironic fashion, Bloomberg has demonstrated that NYC really is a luxury item-one that only he can afford to buy.
"TWO COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS ENDORSE MIKE -- BRINGING THE MAYOR’S TOTAL NEWSPAPER ENDORSEMENTS TO 60 FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION
Today, Polish-language Nowy Dziennik - Polish Daily News and Spanish-language El Universal Prensa endorsed Mayor Bloomberg’s bid for re-election. Nowy Dziennik has a circulation of roughly 22,000 and is distributed across the five boroughs."
Now, in a more scrutinized election campaign this kind of chest bumping would be treated with a heavy dose of scorn, given the fact that all of these endorsements have come with an obvious price tag. Mike Bloomberg's ability to lavish tens of thousands of dollars on almost every paper that is published in NYC has achieved the desired result-the quid pro quo of support.
A case in point serves as an example. Andy Wolf, who runs the Riverdale Review, has been a persistent thorn in the mayor's side-attacking him at every turn, and even printing some of our own broadsides on the paper's front page. Do you know how much money the Riverdale Review has received in advertising from the Bloomberg campaign? Absolutely zilch!
This is pure pay to play-but as we have pointed out time and time again, it is a P-T-P scheme that has the money flowing in the opposite direction; from Mike Bloomberg's inexhaustible supply of cash. Which brings us to Mayor Corey Booker of Newark, an anodyne for Bloomberg in running against an African-American challenger. Booker has been doing down field blocking for Mike-and did so this past Sunday in African-American churches all over Queens.
Now, as the NY Times report, we find out that young Mr. Booker has also been lavished with some monetary affection from the Bloombucks stash-albeit through a convenient second hand source: "On April 17, Mr. Booker, a Democrat, crossed party and state lines by endorsing Mr. Bloomberg, an independent running as a Republican, in Harlem. About a month later, Mr. Bloomberg’s longtime accountant contributed $26,000 — the maximum allowed — to Mr. Booker’s re-election committee, according to campaign finance records."
It's amazing what a little monetary affection can bring-and has anyone heard from the irrepressible Al Sharpton recently? Money can buy both love and silence, it appears. So we move inevitably to the upcoming election with Mike Bloomberg having enough folks on retainer to beat off his challenger. But what about the dire fiscal challenge that made his third term so compelling in the first place?
As Michael Powell tells us in this morning's Times, Bloomberg has difficulty articulating just why he has opened his personal bank vault for another electoral spending spree: "But by night’s end, what was missing was the urgency that motivated the mayor to embark on this most controversial of his election bids. Months ago, he suggested that the city’s dire fiscal condition, the ledgers dipped in red ink, required his cool competence and financial legerdemain. But asked the question on Tuesday night — what do you hope to accomplish in the next four years that you haven’t done yet? — Mr. Bloomberg turned prosaic. “So,” he said, hesitating just a second, “I think it’s more of the same, making sure that we continue the things, making sure that we expand the universe of people that benefit from those things.”
No compelling rationale can be proffered because the third term overreach was never really about anything but self-aggrandizement. And, as the campaign ends, Mike Bloomberg finds that given the amount of largess he has spread around-and the level of editorial ass-kissing he has received-he doesn't even need to fake it. Everything gets buried in an avalanche of spending, and in the most ironic fashion, Bloomberg has demonstrated that NYC really is a luxury item-one that only he can afford to buy.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Third Term Mike: Nostradamus
Mike Bloomberg is proving to be more than a mirthless technocrat and businessman-he's now become a seer. And his remarks yesterday at NYU envisioning the city in 2013 are truly inspiring; if you are someone who is inspired by the musings of a fellow who has spent a little bit too long in his own echo chamber: "I’m so proud of what we’ve done over the past eight years, but I’m running because I believe the next four can be even better. So let’s fast forward four years...By 2013, we will also have created - far and away - the best - public - school system - of any big city in the country. Not only will more middle class families be staying in the City and sending their kids to school here, I believe we will start to see an entirely new phenomenon: Families from around the nation and the region will be moving into the City for the schools."
Is this unhinged, or what? Let's juxtapose this solipsistic vision with a sharper dose of reality-like what's in this morning's NY Post: "New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers -- and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows. More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country. The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City -- meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out."
So the schools with be so outstanding that they will stem the exodus of tax payers? Sounds like a psychotic break to us-and Bloomberg's vision for 2013 conveniently avoids the harsh economic reality-one that, as Nicole Gelinas points out, he deserves a great deal of credit for fostering: "Mayor Bloomberg, you presided over the biggest economic boom that the city has ever seen. But you also presided over the biggest spending boom that modern New York has ever seen. When you took office, the portion of city spending paid by local taxpayers, as opposed to federal and state subsidies, was about $26.3 billion annually. Today, it's $41.5 billion, a 31 percent jump after inflation, and more than 20 percent higher, adjusted for population, than under Mayor John Lindsay. Much of that spending went to higher benefit costs for public employees, as well as for Medicaid."
And the NY Daily News, avoiding the finger pointing that the mayor deserves, makes a similar point today: "From 2000 to 2008, 1.5 million people left the state, including 1.1 million from the city. Most went to the Sun Belt, but it wasn't the weather that drew them. What stole them away was the promise of a better life at lower cost. And, make no mistake, the departees were not down-on-their-luck types. They were solid wage earners with average adjusted gross incomes in 2006 and 2007 of $57,144, according to Internal Revenue Service statistics analyzed by the Empire Center for New York State Policy. This migration is a result of an economic squeeze that has become unendurable for working- and middle-class families. While a lucky few at the very top have prospered handsomely, the broad middle has suffered wage stagnation and a rising cost of living."
And this happened under whose watch? Funny, but this didn't even get a brief mention yesterday when Bloomberg did his P. T. Barnum sucker act over at NYU. Third term Mike did, however, get to try out his newly honed comedy routine.
As Clyde Haberman tells us: "Buoyed by the polls and his own astonishing campaign spending, Mr. Bloomberg seems confident that four more years at City Hall are in the bag for him. Monday morning, he spoke about the New York that he envisioned in 2013, when his third term would end. This was in a speech to students attending New York University’s Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service. He was pleased, he told them, to speak at a school named for “a distinguished three-term mayor.” That produced thin laughter. Maybe the students had the Monday morning blahs. Or maybe they simply didn’t think it was funny. “I thought I’d get a better laugh than that,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “It’s not easy to do three-term jokes, folks.”There’s a reason for that."
And that reason lies with the underlying cause of why the folks are fleeing this "luxury item" city-as the News cogently observes: "This migration is a result of an economic squeeze that has become unendurable for working- and middle-class families. While a lucky few at the very top have prospered handsomely, the broad middle has suffered wage stagnation and a rising cost of living."
The paper goes on to hold the governor accountable, while not even giving a passing shout out to Third Term Mike. But isn't that basically unfair? After all, most New Yorkers feel that Paterson is really over his head with this governing thing; but Bloomberg? Isn't he Mr. Indispensable, the guy we simply can't do without in this most serious of economic crises? You know, we're staring to feel some sympathy with Paterson's complaints about unfair double standards.
Is this unhinged, or what? Let's juxtapose this solipsistic vision with a sharper dose of reality-like what's in this morning's NY Post: "New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers -- and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows. More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country. The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City -- meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out."
So the schools with be so outstanding that they will stem the exodus of tax payers? Sounds like a psychotic break to us-and Bloomberg's vision for 2013 conveniently avoids the harsh economic reality-one that, as Nicole Gelinas points out, he deserves a great deal of credit for fostering: "Mayor Bloomberg, you presided over the biggest economic boom that the city has ever seen. But you also presided over the biggest spending boom that modern New York has ever seen. When you took office, the portion of city spending paid by local taxpayers, as opposed to federal and state subsidies, was about $26.3 billion annually. Today, it's $41.5 billion, a 31 percent jump after inflation, and more than 20 percent higher, adjusted for population, than under Mayor John Lindsay. Much of that spending went to higher benefit costs for public employees, as well as for Medicaid."
And the NY Daily News, avoiding the finger pointing that the mayor deserves, makes a similar point today: "From 2000 to 2008, 1.5 million people left the state, including 1.1 million from the city. Most went to the Sun Belt, but it wasn't the weather that drew them. What stole them away was the promise of a better life at lower cost. And, make no mistake, the departees were not down-on-their-luck types. They were solid wage earners with average adjusted gross incomes in 2006 and 2007 of $57,144, according to Internal Revenue Service statistics analyzed by the Empire Center for New York State Policy. This migration is a result of an economic squeeze that has become unendurable for working- and middle-class families. While a lucky few at the very top have prospered handsomely, the broad middle has suffered wage stagnation and a rising cost of living."
And this happened under whose watch? Funny, but this didn't even get a brief mention yesterday when Bloomberg did his P. T. Barnum sucker act over at NYU. Third term Mike did, however, get to try out his newly honed comedy routine.
As Clyde Haberman tells us: "Buoyed by the polls and his own astonishing campaign spending, Mr. Bloomberg seems confident that four more years at City Hall are in the bag for him. Monday morning, he spoke about the New York that he envisioned in 2013, when his third term would end. This was in a speech to students attending New York University’s Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service. He was pleased, he told them, to speak at a school named for “a distinguished three-term mayor.” That produced thin laughter. Maybe the students had the Monday morning blahs. Or maybe they simply didn’t think it was funny. “I thought I’d get a better laugh than that,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “It’s not easy to do three-term jokes, folks.”There’s a reason for that."
And that reason lies with the underlying cause of why the folks are fleeing this "luxury item" city-as the News cogently observes: "This migration is a result of an economic squeeze that has become unendurable for working- and middle-class families. While a lucky few at the very top have prospered handsomely, the broad middle has suffered wage stagnation and a rising cost of living."
The paper goes on to hold the governor accountable, while not even giving a passing shout out to Third Term Mike. But isn't that basically unfair? After all, most New Yorkers feel that Paterson is really over his head with this governing thing; but Bloomberg? Isn't he Mr. Indispensable, the guy we simply can't do without in this most serious of economic crises? You know, we're staring to feel some sympathy with Paterson's complaints about unfair double standards.
Bloomberg-Induced Coma
It appears as if the Bloombergistas may be worried that New Yorkers, lacking enthusiasm for the ebullient billionaire, and exhausted by his relentless huckstering, will simply stay home next week. As the NY Times reports: "His administration’s record aside, and his campaign’s unmatched spending notwithstanding, Michael R. Bloomberg’s aides in the field mince no words about exactly what will determine the outcome of next Tuesday’s mayoral election. “At the end of the day, every election is about one thing: making sure your supporters get to the polls and vote,” Lenny Speiller, the campaign’s get-out-the-vote director, declares on the Bloomberg Web site. Recalling the record-low turnouts in last month’s primary and runoff, Mr. Speiller exhorts Bloomberg volunteers to shift into overdrive."
And, of course, there's plenty of money for that as well-leaving us to wonder whether the Beatles can be resurrected to do a reprise-with altered lyrics-of their "Money Can't Buy You Love" single. As Speiller (what an apt name for those of you who understand Yiddish) says: "“Our efforts have been and will continue to be the most expansive and effective grass-roots operation this city has ever seen,” he said in a blog post dated Friday. “Tonight we will knock on our 1,500,000th door, make our 550,000th volunteer phone call and hand out literature at our 4,000th transit stop and high traffic location — and if you think that’s impressive, you haven’t seen anything yet!”
These folks are actually patting themselves on the back for an ability to spend Bloomberg's unlimited funds-as if that's a sign of acumen and sophistication. The reality, it seems, is that there could be a record low turnout next Tuesday: "With the mayor leading in public opinion polls by 16 percentage points or more, most New Yorkers might think he has nothing to worry about. But elections have been lost — most notably David N. Dinkins’s 1993 re-election race — because people who insisted to pollsters that they supported a candidate ultimately did not bother to vote. And a number of political analysts say that a predicted record-low turnout next Tuesday may jeopardize Mr. Bloomberg’s projected double-digit victory margin and even deliver him a third term with the lowest total vote received by a New York City mayor in nearly a century."
And this is in spite of how grateful we all should be for Bloomberg providing us with more choice in this election season. What the mayor failed to tell us, was that the best choice he has given us is the one to stay home in protest of his arrogant over turning of the term limits law, and his record attempts at numbing us to death with Soviet-style campaign pronouncements.
But the low projected turnout could well mean a much closer race than the latest polls are indicating: "Those analysts discount the projections of a large margin of victory because, they argue, the most motivated voters are likely to be those who are angry with the mayor and inclined to vote against him, largely because of his reversal last year over term limits. Still, few, if any, independent analysts are going so far as to predict that Mr. Bloomberg will lose, given his sophisticated and amply financed get-out-the-vote operation, abetted by the support of major unions. “There’s no doubt that the term limit issue will be driving a lot of voters to the polls,” said Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, “but my guess is so will Bloomberg’s vans.”
So it may come down to Bloomberg's ability to hire chauffeured limos for every voter-along with the free beer that Tammany Hall used to use as a motivator back in the day: "Mr. Bloomberg won in 2001 with 744,000 votes. He won a second term four years later with 753,000 of the 1.3 million cast. If as few as 20 percent of eligible voters turn out and Mr. Bloomberg wins even by a 10-percentage-point landslide, he would be re-elected with fewer than 500,000 votes — the lowest total since John F. Hylan’s in 1917."
So we're back to the future it seems.-with enthusiasm as low as it can be. This is some legacy for the greatest campaign profligacy of all times. The Bloombucks have done their job in driving voters into a coma; a sad day for democracy in NYC.
And, of course, there's plenty of money for that as well-leaving us to wonder whether the Beatles can be resurrected to do a reprise-with altered lyrics-of their "Money Can't Buy You Love" single. As Speiller (what an apt name for those of you who understand Yiddish) says: "“Our efforts have been and will continue to be the most expansive and effective grass-roots operation this city has ever seen,” he said in a blog post dated Friday. “Tonight we will knock on our 1,500,000th door, make our 550,000th volunteer phone call and hand out literature at our 4,000th transit stop and high traffic location — and if you think that’s impressive, you haven’t seen anything yet!”
These folks are actually patting themselves on the back for an ability to spend Bloomberg's unlimited funds-as if that's a sign of acumen and sophistication. The reality, it seems, is that there could be a record low turnout next Tuesday: "With the mayor leading in public opinion polls by 16 percentage points or more, most New Yorkers might think he has nothing to worry about. But elections have been lost — most notably David N. Dinkins’s 1993 re-election race — because people who insisted to pollsters that they supported a candidate ultimately did not bother to vote. And a number of political analysts say that a predicted record-low turnout next Tuesday may jeopardize Mr. Bloomberg’s projected double-digit victory margin and even deliver him a third term with the lowest total vote received by a New York City mayor in nearly a century."
And this is in spite of how grateful we all should be for Bloomberg providing us with more choice in this election season. What the mayor failed to tell us, was that the best choice he has given us is the one to stay home in protest of his arrogant over turning of the term limits law, and his record attempts at numbing us to death with Soviet-style campaign pronouncements.
But the low projected turnout could well mean a much closer race than the latest polls are indicating: "Those analysts discount the projections of a large margin of victory because, they argue, the most motivated voters are likely to be those who are angry with the mayor and inclined to vote against him, largely because of his reversal last year over term limits. Still, few, if any, independent analysts are going so far as to predict that Mr. Bloomberg will lose, given his sophisticated and amply financed get-out-the-vote operation, abetted by the support of major unions. “There’s no doubt that the term limit issue will be driving a lot of voters to the polls,” said Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, “but my guess is so will Bloomberg’s vans.”
So it may come down to Bloomberg's ability to hire chauffeured limos for every voter-along with the free beer that Tammany Hall used to use as a motivator back in the day: "Mr. Bloomberg won in 2001 with 744,000 votes. He won a second term four years later with 753,000 of the 1.3 million cast. If as few as 20 percent of eligible voters turn out and Mr. Bloomberg wins even by a 10-percentage-point landslide, he would be re-elected with fewer than 500,000 votes — the lowest total since John F. Hylan’s in 1917."
So we're back to the future it seems.-with enthusiasm as low as it can be. This is some legacy for the greatest campaign profligacy of all times. The Bloombucks have done their job in driving voters into a coma; a sad day for democracy in NYC.
Curb Your Enthusiasm!
Curbed is reporting on the latest EDC efforts to appear as if it has a great deal of momentum going in its plan to redevelop Willets Point-and remove the legitimate property owners: "Now, with the one-year anniversary of the rezoning win fast approaching, there is Willets Point news to report. The city's Economic Development Corporation has announced a new set of acquisition deals with landowners in the, er, colorful area, bringing the total amount of iTri land acquired to about 70 percent. And now the bigger headline: The EDC has issued a Request for Qualifications to interested developers. Could this crazy plan actually be happening? You gotta believe!"
What's left out of EDC's Lombino breathlessness, is that the city agency doesn't have agreements with over half of the current property owners-and that its methodology has apparently been changed, indicating an almost complete absence of truthfulness. As its press release tells us: "The City is contemplating moving forward with a staged development strategy for Willets Point that will first focus on the southwest portion of the District that includes approximately 18 acres of development area and streets and about four acres of an interim buffer zone."
This is a complete about face from its original assertion that, because of the soil contamination, the entire 60 or so acre parcel needed to be developed all at once. So, as Meatloaf used to sing: "What'll it be boy?" To us, it looks as if the city is continuing to posture-and we're in for a long an expensive process that the city lacks funds to see to a conclusion. Just wait until the budget starts to crater and the re-elected Bloomberg tells New Yorkers that he's going to spend $700 million to evict hundreds of tax paying businesses and thousands of workers-mostly immigrants (another example of how the mayor's campaign rhetoric directed at immigrants rings hollow.)
As fantasy prone as the EDC statement is, it lacks the imagination of the Queens BP who commented as follows: "Each step forward gives us a clearer vision of a plan that will redevelop Willets Point in way that will capitalize on the resources surrounding it, including recreational uses and a network of highways, while strengthening the entire region. The redevelopment of Willets Point will also provide construction and permanent jobs that will broaden our City’s tax base and create a much improved, greener environment for a new generation of residents and businesses.”
Our funny bone got tickled with the "network of highways" remark-an indication that Helen has overlooked the fact that there is no rational plan in place to get people in and out from upwards of 1,000,000 square feet of development. And we're still waiting for the city to put a price on all of this malarkey. The city should be informed at the costs-after all, the pie in the sky benefits are being trumpeted, so why not put a price tag on all of this so we can do our own cost-benefit analysis?
What's left out of EDC's Lombino breathlessness, is that the city agency doesn't have agreements with over half of the current property owners-and that its methodology has apparently been changed, indicating an almost complete absence of truthfulness. As its press release tells us: "The City is contemplating moving forward with a staged development strategy for Willets Point that will first focus on the southwest portion of the District that includes approximately 18 acres of development area and streets and about four acres of an interim buffer zone."
This is a complete about face from its original assertion that, because of the soil contamination, the entire 60 or so acre parcel needed to be developed all at once. So, as Meatloaf used to sing: "What'll it be boy?" To us, it looks as if the city is continuing to posture-and we're in for a long an expensive process that the city lacks funds to see to a conclusion. Just wait until the budget starts to crater and the re-elected Bloomberg tells New Yorkers that he's going to spend $700 million to evict hundreds of tax paying businesses and thousands of workers-mostly immigrants (another example of how the mayor's campaign rhetoric directed at immigrants rings hollow.)
As fantasy prone as the EDC statement is, it lacks the imagination of the Queens BP who commented as follows: "Each step forward gives us a clearer vision of a plan that will redevelop Willets Point in way that will capitalize on the resources surrounding it, including recreational uses and a network of highways, while strengthening the entire region. The redevelopment of Willets Point will also provide construction and permanent jobs that will broaden our City’s tax base and create a much improved, greener environment for a new generation of residents and businesses.”
Our funny bone got tickled with the "network of highways" remark-an indication that Helen has overlooked the fact that there is no rational plan in place to get people in and out from upwards of 1,000,000 square feet of development. And we're still waiting for the city to put a price on all of this malarkey. The city should be informed at the costs-after all, the pie in the sky benefits are being trumpeted, so why not put a price tag on all of this so we can do our own cost-benefit analysis?
Paterson: NY Times Worse Than New York!
You gotta give David Paterson some credit for feistiness-and his calling out of the NY Times on its criticisms of his leadership put a smile on our face. As Liz reports: "Still stinging from the Oct. 19 New York Times editorial that deemed him “weak and ineffective,” Gov. David Paterson took some shots at the Gray Lady this weekend, DN Capitol Bureau Chief Ken Lovett reports.
Employing the old "those in glass houses" analogy, Paterson noted the Times is suffering from its own money problems and announced last week it will be cutting 100 newsroom positions - about 8 percent of the total - by the end of the year. “Two days after this high edict about what they think about what I’m doing, they laid off 100 people from their newsroom,” Paterson told the state chapter of the National Federation of the Blind on Saturday."
You go guv! The Times is probably one of the last places that should be issuing obiter dicta on someone else's fiscal competency. Of course, the governor couldn't leave well enough alone, and went on to complain that he was being unfairly ridiculed because of his limited vision: "During his speech, Paterson also said he has been subjected to "degrading" attacks and "blatant hostility" due to his visual impairment. This comes on the heels of his claim in August that black elected officials like himself, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and even President Obama are subjected to unfair scrutiny by the media because of the color of their skin."
Which would normally prompt us to comment on the Times tangle as an example of the blind leading, well, you know the rest, so we won't go there because it really appears that this administration is in its death rattle phase-and there's no sense beating on a dead horse; no matter what its sighted condition might be.
Employing the old "those in glass houses" analogy, Paterson noted the Times is suffering from its own money problems and announced last week it will be cutting 100 newsroom positions - about 8 percent of the total - by the end of the year. “Two days after this high edict about what they think about what I’m doing, they laid off 100 people from their newsroom,” Paterson told the state chapter of the National Federation of the Blind on Saturday."
You go guv! The Times is probably one of the last places that should be issuing obiter dicta on someone else's fiscal competency. Of course, the governor couldn't leave well enough alone, and went on to complain that he was being unfairly ridiculed because of his limited vision: "During his speech, Paterson also said he has been subjected to "degrading" attacks and "blatant hostility" due to his visual impairment. This comes on the heels of his claim in August that black elected officials like himself, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and even President Obama are subjected to unfair scrutiny by the media because of the color of their skin."
Which would normally prompt us to comment on the Times tangle as an example of the blind leading, well, you know the rest, so we won't go there because it really appears that this administration is in its death rattle phase-and there's no sense beating on a dead horse; no matter what its sighted condition might be.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Fresh Initiative Hearing Today
The City Planning Department's initiative to bring new supermarkets uinto areas that have been labeled as, "underserved," will be heard today at the City Council's Zoning and Franchises Committee. Our own analysis is as follows:
Mike Bloomberg’s administration is promoting a program of new supermarket development in the city-and hopes to bring an additional 15 stores into New York over the next decade. What is missing in this effort, is the recognition that, under Bloomberg’s watch, the city has lost 300 local markets
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/nyregion/05citywide.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion)
The Fresh Initiative, then, avoids confronting the larger problem of why the city is losing neighborhood supermarkets-a problem that devolves from the city’s high cost of doing business (high taxes, rents and over-regulation primarily). A focus on marker preservation, rather than new market construction, would force attention to be paid to the policies of the current administration that have contributed to the efflux of these important local businesses.
In addition, concomitant with the disappearance of these local food stores, , is the loss of good paying union jobs with pensions and other benefits; a situation that has been exacerbated-promoting more store closures- by mega-development policies that have led to the proliferation of non-union box stores such as BJs. So the loss of local markets has been accompanied by the loss of good jobs and their replacement by part time and low wage employment.
A sensible policy of supermarket retention-providing low income New Yorkers with better access to healthier foods-needs to be developed along side of any program of subsidized new store development. If retention policies are ignored, new store promotion becomes at best a palliative; but at worst a contributor to even more losses as subsidized markets put older stores at greater risk of failure. And, it goes without saying, that any public subsidy effort in this area-or any other, for that matter-must include a provision for living wage so that New Yorkers get the most mileage out of the use of their tax dollars.
http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2009/06/fallacies-in-going-to-market.html
Mike Bloomberg’s administration is promoting a program of new supermarket development in the city-and hopes to bring an additional 15 stores into New York over the next decade. What is missing in this effort, is the recognition that, under Bloomberg’s watch, the city has lost 300 local markets
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/nyregion/05citywide.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion)
The Fresh Initiative, then, avoids confronting the larger problem of why the city is losing neighborhood supermarkets-a problem that devolves from the city’s high cost of doing business (high taxes, rents and over-regulation primarily). A focus on marker preservation, rather than new market construction, would force attention to be paid to the policies of the current administration that have contributed to the efflux of these important local businesses.
In addition, concomitant with the disappearance of these local food stores, , is the loss of good paying union jobs with pensions and other benefits; a situation that has been exacerbated-promoting more store closures- by mega-development policies that have led to the proliferation of non-union box stores such as BJs. So the loss of local markets has been accompanied by the loss of good jobs and their replacement by part time and low wage employment.
A sensible policy of supermarket retention-providing low income New Yorkers with better access to healthier foods-needs to be developed along side of any program of subsidized new store development. If retention policies are ignored, new store promotion becomes at best a palliative; but at worst a contributor to even more losses as subsidized markets put older stores at greater risk of failure. And, it goes without saying, that any public subsidy effort in this area-or any other, for that matter-must include a provision for living wage so that New Yorkers get the most mileage out of the use of their tax dollars.
http://momandpopnyc.blogspot.com/2009/06/fallacies-in-going-to-market.html
Brownnosing?
It seems that Queens weeklies are giddy about the brownfields grant that was received by the Flushing Willets Point Corona LDC-forgetting the controversy surrounding whether the group is legally allowed to lobby in the first place. This controversy was given a renewed focus this past week when the NY Post revealed that AG Cuomo was investigating the political activities of NY charities: "The issue of charities or not-for-profits giving political contributions is a matter we are currently investigating. It is not appropriate, and it is not legal, and we want to make sure it doesn't happen anymore," a spokesman for Cuomo told The Post.
Now we await to see whether or not the AG will be taking a closer look at local development corporations, also not-for-profits, acting as lobbying arms for economic development initiatives. In particular, the aforementioned Willets Point LDC has to answer whether its application for not for profit status with the federal government-where its president Claire Shulman specifically claimed to eschew any direct lobbying-proscribes it from lobbying for the brownfields grant-or for anything else.
Because, as the Times Ledger reports: "The Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corp. got the largest grant among 24 projects across the state to receive money through the state’s Brownfield Opportunity Area Program." Now, this wasn't achieved through any kind of immaculate conception-not when the Parkside Group is involved in advocacy for the group.
All of this is, of course, speculation, since we can't read the AG's mind. But we do know that the local development groups are trying to defend themselves by claiming that what they do isn't real lobbying. Former president Bill Clinton might be of some help with this effort: "Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton's presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton's rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." How can this be? Here's what Clinton told the grand jury..."It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
So it goes with lobbying, we guess. But let's make one thing perfectly clear. Shulman's group was formed by a public/private partnership designed to advance the interests of, not only the city, but of the private business owners who make up the board of Shulman's LDC. This effort was both controversial and difficult-and the LDC was conceived of to advance the interests involved through the creation of the impression that this was a true grass roots initiative-and not the manufactured Astroturfing that it really was.
If, as we believe, this effort was illegal-and not just because Shulman failed to register as a lobbyist-then the entire land use review was corrupted and needs to be overturned since Shulman and her faux group played a central role in the campaign to remove local businesses from their properties. The ball is in the AG's court on this-and the family legacy is at stake as well.
As Crain's reminded us a few years back: "If Willets Point businesses' fight against eviction propels a champion of the underdog into a political career, it wouldn't be the first time. In 1963, a young, unheralded lawyer named Mario Cuomo took on Robert Moses, who wanted to raze the very same Queens site for aesthetic reasons before the 1964 World's Fair. Mr. Cuomo won. "It started a whole chain of events that got me into public life,'' recalls the former governor, who grew up in the borough's rough South Jamaica section."
Can history repeat itself? Stay tuned.
Now we await to see whether or not the AG will be taking a closer look at local development corporations, also not-for-profits, acting as lobbying arms for economic development initiatives. In particular, the aforementioned Willets Point LDC has to answer whether its application for not for profit status with the federal government-where its president Claire Shulman specifically claimed to eschew any direct lobbying-proscribes it from lobbying for the brownfields grant-or for anything else.
Because, as the Times Ledger reports: "The Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corp. got the largest grant among 24 projects across the state to receive money through the state’s Brownfield Opportunity Area Program." Now, this wasn't achieved through any kind of immaculate conception-not when the Parkside Group is involved in advocacy for the group.
All of this is, of course, speculation, since we can't read the AG's mind. But we do know that the local development groups are trying to defend themselves by claiming that what they do isn't real lobbying. Former president Bill Clinton might be of some help with this effort: "Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton's presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton's rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." How can this be? Here's what Clinton told the grand jury..."It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
So it goes with lobbying, we guess. But let's make one thing perfectly clear. Shulman's group was formed by a public/private partnership designed to advance the interests of, not only the city, but of the private business owners who make up the board of Shulman's LDC. This effort was both controversial and difficult-and the LDC was conceived of to advance the interests involved through the creation of the impression that this was a true grass roots initiative-and not the manufactured Astroturfing that it really was.
If, as we believe, this effort was illegal-and not just because Shulman failed to register as a lobbyist-then the entire land use review was corrupted and needs to be overturned since Shulman and her faux group played a central role in the campaign to remove local businesses from their properties. The ball is in the AG's court on this-and the family legacy is at stake as well.
As Crain's reminded us a few years back: "If Willets Point businesses' fight against eviction propels a champion of the underdog into a political career, it wouldn't be the first time. In 1963, a young, unheralded lawyer named Mario Cuomo took on Robert Moses, who wanted to raze the very same Queens site for aesthetic reasons before the 1964 World's Fair. Mr. Cuomo won. "It started a whole chain of events that got me into public life,'' recalls the former governor, who grew up in the borough's rough South Jamaica section."
Can history repeat itself? Stay tuned.
Small Business Error
The coalition that is behind the Small Business Protection Act, legislation designed to protect retailers against exploitation and eviction, has now launched a pre-election campaign that basically counsels, "none of the above;" advising Hispanic New Yorkers to vote for neither Mike Bloomberg nor Bill Thompson. This, in our view, is a big mistake-precisely because if the fact that the grave conditions facing immigrant businesses have not only happened on Bloomberg's watch, but have been exacerbated by his policies.
In addition, the counseling of abstention is actually promoting Bloomberg, since it encourages potential anti-Bloombertg voters to stay home. Albor Ruiz highlights this issue in yesterday's NY Daily News: "Dominican business owners in New York, well-known for their enterprising spirit and their work ethic, will not vote for Mayor Bloomberg in the upcoming mayoral election. Not that they like William Thompson, his Democratic opponent, any better. Actually, they won't vote for either one of them. As far as they are concerned, it doesn't make any difference who becomes the next mayor."
And the group's logic is faulty as well: "Dominican small businesses are in crisis," the poster reads. "Yet neither Bloomberg nor Thompson have done anything to alleviate the high rents, extortions and landlord abuse Dominican small business owners endure." Perhaps, but only Bloomberg has been mayor for the past eight years, and accountability for his non- and mal- feasance is important-even if Thompson is unlikely to truly address this pressing issue.
The group's leader Steve Null, underscores our point: "According to Steve Null, director of the Coalition to Save Hispanic Small Businesses, the merchants are upset that both men will come into their communities seeking support. They make speeches about how important they are to the future of the city but will do nothing to stop greedy landlords from destroying thousands of businesses, says Null."
Now Null is our friend-and we support his goals-but his group's actions are both wrongheaded and self-defeating. The key objective should be to sanction the incumbent for his misdeeds; and thus send a message to the challenger should he, by some divine intervention, actually win. Sometimes, the lesser of two evils is actually the right course, unless moral purity is more important than pragmatic political success.
In addition, the counseling of abstention is actually promoting Bloomberg, since it encourages potential anti-Bloombertg voters to stay home. Albor Ruiz highlights this issue in yesterday's NY Daily News: "Dominican business owners in New York, well-known for their enterprising spirit and their work ethic, will not vote for Mayor Bloomberg in the upcoming mayoral election. Not that they like William Thompson, his Democratic opponent, any better. Actually, they won't vote for either one of them. As far as they are concerned, it doesn't make any difference who becomes the next mayor."
And the group's logic is faulty as well: "Dominican small businesses are in crisis," the poster reads. "Yet neither Bloomberg nor Thompson have done anything to alleviate the high rents, extortions and landlord abuse Dominican small business owners endure." Perhaps, but only Bloomberg has been mayor for the past eight years, and accountability for his non- and mal- feasance is important-even if Thompson is unlikely to truly address this pressing issue.
The group's leader Steve Null, underscores our point: "According to Steve Null, director of the Coalition to Save Hispanic Small Businesses, the merchants are upset that both men will come into their communities seeking support. They make speeches about how important they are to the future of the city but will do nothing to stop greedy landlords from destroying thousands of businesses, says Null."
Now Null is our friend-and we support his goals-but his group's actions are both wrongheaded and self-defeating. The key objective should be to sanction the incumbent for his misdeeds; and thus send a message to the challenger should he, by some divine intervention, actually win. Sometimes, the lesser of two evils is actually the right course, unless moral purity is more important than pragmatic political success.
"Unprecedented Economic Ills"
We had thought that it would do little good to comment on the editorials of support coming from both the NY Post and the NY Daily News for the re-election of Mike Bloomberg-and we let the Post fatuous hosannas stand without critique-but sometimes we just can't help ourselves. And when it comes to yesterday's Daily News canonization effort, its gag response-inducing encomiums had to to be challenged.
First, there's the issue of greater choice-a guffaw when the mayor first used it as a rationale for overturning the will of the voters on term limits: "As for term limits, Bloomberg was right, in our estimation, because the extension has given November's voters greater choice. Had he bowed out, the winner of the Democratic primary would be coasting to victory as the public's sole option."
Of course, this dishonestly elides the fact that the Democratic field would have looked like Grand Central during rush hour if the prospects of the $100 million man wasn't looming in November-and neither the News or the Post mentions, or gives a tinker's damn, about the obscene levels of Bloomberg spending that gives the notion of choice a distinctively hollow ring.
All of which underscores how the tabloid press has failed to live up to the journalistic injunction of, "speaking truth to power." Hard to do when your all so cozy as bugs in the same billionaire rug. And Morticia has some more side-slappers in his slavish obeisance: "And, freed of electoral considerations, Bloomberg could swing for the fences without regard to political fallout. The rule would have to be: all pragmatism, all the time. No calculations of the sort that won labor peace through outsize raises."
Translation: We can't be honest, so in the tank as we are, and say that Mike Bloomberg was as crassly political as any Tammany ward-healer in his first two terms-and gave away the store to the municipal labor force while raising taxes and bloating the public payroll. Now, however, as we have already commented, he can play Mack the Knife with impunity.
And, since Bloomberg has already exhibited a callous disregard for the fate of small businesses and community quality of life-see Jim Dwyer's piece in Sunday's NY Times on the plundering of Bronx parkland-we can only imagine what an unfettered Bloomberg will do in the next four years. This prospect, however, doesn't phase the Park Avenue crowd-safe in the knowledge that the mayor will always look after their interests.
But, why won't Mike raise taxes some more-like he did in 2002? "Freed from electoral consideration," Mike could continue to be Mike and, as he did with the sales tax hike in this election year, continue to adhere to his Lindsay-like philosophy of sticking it to middle class tax payers. And in its brief lukey warm shout out to Thompson, the News inadvertently hits on this theme: "He has also given voice, constructively, to New Yorkers' real frustrations with living in a city where everything seems to go up but paychecks."
But the role of Bloomberg, in both creating as well as exacerbating this situation, is left unexamined by the hagiographer at 33rd Street: "Finally, New York is beset by unprecedented economic ills that will force the next occupant of City Hall to do more with far less. Who would you trust to get that mountain of a job done?
Breathtaking! No critique at all of the way in which Bloomberg has outspent even David Dinkins, raising taxes to unprecedented levels-shuttering small stores all over the city as a consequence; and has obligated the tax payers for the next fifty years with bloated pensions for a municipal workforce that has increased in the manner of Mickey Mouse's duplicating brooms in Fantasia's Sorcerer's Apprentice.
Let's face it, we have as free a press when it comes to this mayor as the old Soviet Union-at least as far as the tabloid editorial boards are concerned, And did anyone think that Pinch would come out swinging against the $100 million man? Sorry, this Pinch hasn't grown an inch.
Here's his "excoriation" of the man who simply made a mockery of campaign finance reform-in the paper's overall enthusiastic endorsement of its future bail out hope: "Like Mr. Thompson, who has made the mayor’s wealth a major issue, most New Yorkers are concerned about Mr. Bloomberg’s spending $85 million — so far — to win re-election. In his first campaign in 2001, he argued that he was spending so much to introduce himself. Now a nationally recognized figure, he argues that as a candidate running on Republican and Independent Party lines, he needs to fight for votes in a city that is so predominantly Democratic. We think Mr. Bloomberg exaggerates his vulnerability. New York City’s campaign finance system is one of the best in the country. He does everyone a disservice by not complying with the system’s limits on spending."
But it should be pointed out that, as bad as the editorial boards have been, the reporters and columnists-especially at the News and the Times, have distinguished themselves in an effort to provide balance and perspective about the Reign of Mike. And Adam Lisberg does just that in yesterday's News, by pointedly critiquing the mayor's blatant tax dishonesty: "Bloomberg has been careful not to make an explicit no-new-taxes pledge, though, telling a Crain's breakfast last week: "Nobody can ever promise for sure that they won't raise taxes." He should know: The last time he said he wouldn't raise taxes was his 2001 campaign, which was followed by his 18% property tax hike to fill a $6 billion budget gap. Which could add up to a bit of a credibility problem."
Yah think? And going back to the phony claim that the voters have more choice with Mike running for a third term, it might be nice for Mort to muse a bit on how a $100 million dollar flood of ads and mailings not only sucks the air out of the democratic debate, but also limits the voters' awareness's that there is even another candidate running-making the argument for more choice ludicrous. In fact, the only way most New Yorkers are aware of a Bloomberg opponent comes from the attack ads that we've seen proliferating in the final weeks of this one sided campaign. Choice? More like Grade A fraud.
So, with "unprecedented economic ills" facing New Yorkers, we have one candidate running from his tax and spend record, while using his vast fortune to attack his opponent as duplicitous on-of all things, taxes. As Lisberg points out: "But he hasn't said how he'll balance the budget either. When reporters asked him the other day, this was his response: "I'll talk at another time. I can't in two seconds here outline how you're going to balance the budget. It's much too serious for that, and much more complex." We're still waiting for a more serious and complex answer. In the meantime, we have those TV ads and mailers slamming Thompson. Shown a copy of one of Bloomberg's mailers last week, one of Bloomberg's highest-paid advisers shrugged and said, "Thompson is not running on his record either." Then he walked away."
Just as the editorial boards of the Post and the News have walked away from the truth about Mike and his record-so intent, as they are at acting as an amen chorus for their leading classmate. We can't wait for the fallout when the financial sh#t hits the fan-and when it does, the shameful sycophancy of the editorialists will stand exposed..
First, there's the issue of greater choice-a guffaw when the mayor first used it as a rationale for overturning the will of the voters on term limits: "As for term limits, Bloomberg was right, in our estimation, because the extension has given November's voters greater choice. Had he bowed out, the winner of the Democratic primary would be coasting to victory as the public's sole option."
Of course, this dishonestly elides the fact that the Democratic field would have looked like Grand Central during rush hour if the prospects of the $100 million man wasn't looming in November-and neither the News or the Post mentions, or gives a tinker's damn, about the obscene levels of Bloomberg spending that gives the notion of choice a distinctively hollow ring.
All of which underscores how the tabloid press has failed to live up to the journalistic injunction of, "speaking truth to power." Hard to do when your all so cozy as bugs in the same billionaire rug. And Morticia has some more side-slappers in his slavish obeisance: "And, freed of electoral considerations, Bloomberg could swing for the fences without regard to political fallout. The rule would have to be: all pragmatism, all the time. No calculations of the sort that won labor peace through outsize raises."
Translation: We can't be honest, so in the tank as we are, and say that Mike Bloomberg was as crassly political as any Tammany ward-healer in his first two terms-and gave away the store to the municipal labor force while raising taxes and bloating the public payroll. Now, however, as we have already commented, he can play Mack the Knife with impunity.
And, since Bloomberg has already exhibited a callous disregard for the fate of small businesses and community quality of life-see Jim Dwyer's piece in Sunday's NY Times on the plundering of Bronx parkland-we can only imagine what an unfettered Bloomberg will do in the next four years. This prospect, however, doesn't phase the Park Avenue crowd-safe in the knowledge that the mayor will always look after their interests.
But, why won't Mike raise taxes some more-like he did in 2002? "Freed from electoral consideration," Mike could continue to be Mike and, as he did with the sales tax hike in this election year, continue to adhere to his Lindsay-like philosophy of sticking it to middle class tax payers. And in its brief lukey warm shout out to Thompson, the News inadvertently hits on this theme: "He has also given voice, constructively, to New Yorkers' real frustrations with living in a city where everything seems to go up but paychecks."
But the role of Bloomberg, in both creating as well as exacerbating this situation, is left unexamined by the hagiographer at 33rd Street: "Finally, New York is beset by unprecedented economic ills that will force the next occupant of City Hall to do more with far less. Who would you trust to get that mountain of a job done?
Breathtaking! No critique at all of the way in which Bloomberg has outspent even David Dinkins, raising taxes to unprecedented levels-shuttering small stores all over the city as a consequence; and has obligated the tax payers for the next fifty years with bloated pensions for a municipal workforce that has increased in the manner of Mickey Mouse's duplicating brooms in Fantasia's Sorcerer's Apprentice.
Let's face it, we have as free a press when it comes to this mayor as the old Soviet Union-at least as far as the tabloid editorial boards are concerned, And did anyone think that Pinch would come out swinging against the $100 million man? Sorry, this Pinch hasn't grown an inch.
Here's his "excoriation" of the man who simply made a mockery of campaign finance reform-in the paper's overall enthusiastic endorsement of its future bail out hope: "Like Mr. Thompson, who has made the mayor’s wealth a major issue, most New Yorkers are concerned about Mr. Bloomberg’s spending $85 million — so far — to win re-election. In his first campaign in 2001, he argued that he was spending so much to introduce himself. Now a nationally recognized figure, he argues that as a candidate running on Republican and Independent Party lines, he needs to fight for votes in a city that is so predominantly Democratic. We think Mr. Bloomberg exaggerates his vulnerability. New York City’s campaign finance system is one of the best in the country. He does everyone a disservice by not complying with the system’s limits on spending."
But it should be pointed out that, as bad as the editorial boards have been, the reporters and columnists-especially at the News and the Times, have distinguished themselves in an effort to provide balance and perspective about the Reign of Mike. And Adam Lisberg does just that in yesterday's News, by pointedly critiquing the mayor's blatant tax dishonesty: "Bloomberg has been careful not to make an explicit no-new-taxes pledge, though, telling a Crain's breakfast last week: "Nobody can ever promise for sure that they won't raise taxes." He should know: The last time he said he wouldn't raise taxes was his 2001 campaign, which was followed by his 18% property tax hike to fill a $6 billion budget gap. Which could add up to a bit of a credibility problem."
Yah think? And going back to the phony claim that the voters have more choice with Mike running for a third term, it might be nice for Mort to muse a bit on how a $100 million dollar flood of ads and mailings not only sucks the air out of the democratic debate, but also limits the voters' awareness's that there is even another candidate running-making the argument for more choice ludicrous. In fact, the only way most New Yorkers are aware of a Bloomberg opponent comes from the attack ads that we've seen proliferating in the final weeks of this one sided campaign. Choice? More like Grade A fraud.
So, with "unprecedented economic ills" facing New Yorkers, we have one candidate running from his tax and spend record, while using his vast fortune to attack his opponent as duplicitous on-of all things, taxes. As Lisberg points out: "But he hasn't said how he'll balance the budget either. When reporters asked him the other day, this was his response: "I'll talk at another time. I can't in two seconds here outline how you're going to balance the budget. It's much too serious for that, and much more complex." We're still waiting for a more serious and complex answer. In the meantime, we have those TV ads and mailers slamming Thompson. Shown a copy of one of Bloomberg's mailers last week, one of Bloomberg's highest-paid advisers shrugged and said, "Thompson is not running on his record either." Then he walked away."
Just as the editorial boards of the Post and the News have walked away from the truth about Mike and his record-so intent, as they are at acting as an amen chorus for their leading classmate. We can't wait for the fallout when the financial sh#t hits the fan-and when it does, the shameful sycophancy of the editorialists will stand exposed..
Buyer's Remorse?
In politics, as most of us know, there is a phrase that's used called, "buyer's remorse." It's used to connote how disillusionment sets in with the voters after their candidate wins-and fails to live up to their often unrealistic lofty expectations. In NYC, however, we're afraid that the term is going to get, in the jargon of the philosopher Nietzsche, "transvaluated."
Because in this city it isn't the voters who have bought anything, it is the free spending Mike Bloomberg-who has now broken the land speed record in this category. As the NY Times reports: "Michael R. Bloomberg, the Wall Street mogul whose fortune catapulted him into New York’s City Hall, has set another staggering financial record: He has now spent more of his own money than any other individual in United States history in the pursuit of public office."
Bloomberg, being the buyer in this context, is the most likely one to be subject to the proverbial buyer's remorse-having bought the voters and gotten what he wished for, he must confront the daunting political problems he will inherit and, in our view, may well regret what he so freely spent to get. So, to mix metaphors, since he has broken all known election spending records, he will soon find himself subject to Pottery Barn rules: "you break it, you buy it"
Or, in Bloomberg's case, own it-since now he will be subject to a much higher standard; particularly since he proffered his own indispensability as the rationale for overturning the term limits law. As the Times points out:
"The spending has drawn howls of protest from good-government groups and advocates of campaign finance reform. In interviews, several said, angrily, that the mayor’s decisions to rewrite New York City’s term limits law and then spend wildly to secure re-election, have undermined democratic principles. “Whether Bloomberg wins or loses, the toxic combination of mega-spending and crass use of his office to bypass the voters on term limits will always be a stain on his mayoralty,” said Gene Russianoff, staff attorney for the New York Public Interest Research Group. “These twin assaults on municipal democracy will undermine his political clout in a third term and sadly fuel public skepticism about elections and elected officials,” Mr. Russianoff said."
Gee, we can't wait for the scathing Times editorial denouncing this profligacy as a stain on democracy-and its subsequent endorsement of challenger Thompson. Sorry for the reverie folks. But, back the Bloombucks bacchanal: "He has spent at least 14 times what his Democratic rival in the race, William C. Thompson Jr., has: $6 million. A Thompson campaign spokeswoman on Friday called the mayor’s spending “obscene.” Since late September, the pace of Mr. Bloomberg’s spending has drastically accelerated: He is now sending nearly $1 million a day into the city’s economy. The bulk of the money is devoted to advertising on television, radio and the Web, but much of it bankroll ls a first-class approach to parties, snacks and travel. The campaign has spent $322,521 on food, $293,953 on transportation, $176,066 on furniture and $39,858 on parking."
All seen as overkill, of course: "His lavish spending has confounded political consultants and campaign finance experts, who said that his popularity with New Yorkers, and his built-in advantages as a two-term incumbent, should be sufficient to win him re-election. “The main thing money does is allow you to get name recognition,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group in Washington. “But in this case, with Bloomberg, because he’s so well known, it’s more like, he can do it, so why not?”
So a Bloomberg third term is a potential combustible mix-and if things go south with the city's fiscal condition, as they appear to be going now, than Mike may really be in for it. Especially since, as Crain's Insider reported last week, he doesn't really have any clear third term goals: "In an appearance in which he otherwise seemed relaxed and well-prepared, Mayor Bloomberg's response to the final question at yesterday's Crain's Breakfast Forum suggests that a third term might lack the goal-driven agenda that has characterized his first two. When asked by Crain's editorial director Greg David what he would like to add to his legacy in a third term—beyond improving schools and lowering crime—the mayor did not have a clear answer."
The third term, then, may not be such a charm for our less than charming chief executive. Not that the tabloids would even notice-given their myopia over the Bloomberg campaign spending.
And this was made clear on Saturday when both the Post and the News buried the spending story-Liz, however, did her usual good job on her blog. And adding insult to injury, the Post's rather snarky lead political story is about a large fine that the Thompson campaign received for its posters!-from the Bloomberg sanitation department, no less: "It looks like Bill Thompson is going to easily win the write-in vote over Mayor Bloomberg -- unfortunately for him, the people doing the writing are city Sanitation agents. The Sanitation Department reported yesterday that Thompson's campaign is facing a hefty $125,775 bill for plastering city property with 1,677 illegal campaign posters."
You'd think that the Post would have the decency not to pile on-seeing that Bloomberg is doing such a good job all by himself at playing the schoolyard bully role in this election. And, in our opinion, given the spending disparities in this campaign, Thompson probably deserves a pass on this offense. In fact, he should be allowed, like Lady Godiva, to ride naked down Broadway just so he can attract a bit of attention amidst the electoral blizzard from Bloomberg ($30 million on TV ads alone!).
The city's political problems-along with those of the state as well-are going to present huge challenges. When he first came into office, Bloomberg broke his campaign pledges, and raised taxes to obscene levels-something that we're all still paying for today. With that gambit apparently foreclosed, he's left to emulating Mack the Knife-and with his dour unlovable personality we just might enjoy the spectacle, and the public distaste that it generates, once the cuts begin.
Because in this city it isn't the voters who have bought anything, it is the free spending Mike Bloomberg-who has now broken the land speed record in this category. As the NY Times reports: "Michael R. Bloomberg, the Wall Street mogul whose fortune catapulted him into New York’s City Hall, has set another staggering financial record: He has now spent more of his own money than any other individual in United States history in the pursuit of public office."
Bloomberg, being the buyer in this context, is the most likely one to be subject to the proverbial buyer's remorse-having bought the voters and gotten what he wished for, he must confront the daunting political problems he will inherit and, in our view, may well regret what he so freely spent to get. So, to mix metaphors, since he has broken all known election spending records, he will soon find himself subject to Pottery Barn rules: "you break it, you buy it"
Or, in Bloomberg's case, own it-since now he will be subject to a much higher standard; particularly since he proffered his own indispensability as the rationale for overturning the term limits law. As the Times points out:
"The spending has drawn howls of protest from good-government groups and advocates of campaign finance reform. In interviews, several said, angrily, that the mayor’s decisions to rewrite New York City’s term limits law and then spend wildly to secure re-election, have undermined democratic principles. “Whether Bloomberg wins or loses, the toxic combination of mega-spending and crass use of his office to bypass the voters on term limits will always be a stain on his mayoralty,” said Gene Russianoff, staff attorney for the New York Public Interest Research Group. “These twin assaults on municipal democracy will undermine his political clout in a third term and sadly fuel public skepticism about elections and elected officials,” Mr. Russianoff said."
Gee, we can't wait for the scathing Times editorial denouncing this profligacy as a stain on democracy-and its subsequent endorsement of challenger Thompson. Sorry for the reverie folks. But, back the Bloombucks bacchanal: "He has spent at least 14 times what his Democratic rival in the race, William C. Thompson Jr., has: $6 million. A Thompson campaign spokeswoman on Friday called the mayor’s spending “obscene.” Since late September, the pace of Mr. Bloomberg’s spending has drastically accelerated: He is now sending nearly $1 million a day into the city’s economy. The bulk of the money is devoted to advertising on television, radio and the Web, but much of it bankroll ls a first-class approach to parties, snacks and travel. The campaign has spent $322,521 on food, $293,953 on transportation, $176,066 on furniture and $39,858 on parking."
All seen as overkill, of course: "His lavish spending has confounded political consultants and campaign finance experts, who said that his popularity with New Yorkers, and his built-in advantages as a two-term incumbent, should be sufficient to win him re-election. “The main thing money does is allow you to get name recognition,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group in Washington. “But in this case, with Bloomberg, because he’s so well known, it’s more like, he can do it, so why not?”
So a Bloomberg third term is a potential combustible mix-and if things go south with the city's fiscal condition, as they appear to be going now, than Mike may really be in for it. Especially since, as Crain's Insider reported last week, he doesn't really have any clear third term goals: "In an appearance in which he otherwise seemed relaxed and well-prepared, Mayor Bloomberg's response to the final question at yesterday's Crain's Breakfast Forum suggests that a third term might lack the goal-driven agenda that has characterized his first two. When asked by Crain's editorial director Greg David what he would like to add to his legacy in a third term—beyond improving schools and lowering crime—the mayor did not have a clear answer."
The third term, then, may not be such a charm for our less than charming chief executive. Not that the tabloids would even notice-given their myopia over the Bloomberg campaign spending.
And this was made clear on Saturday when both the Post and the News buried the spending story-Liz, however, did her usual good job on her blog. And adding insult to injury, the Post's rather snarky lead political story is about a large fine that the Thompson campaign received for its posters!-from the Bloomberg sanitation department, no less: "It looks like Bill Thompson is going to easily win the write-in vote over Mayor Bloomberg -- unfortunately for him, the people doing the writing are city Sanitation agents. The Sanitation Department reported yesterday that Thompson's campaign is facing a hefty $125,775 bill for plastering city property with 1,677 illegal campaign posters."
You'd think that the Post would have the decency not to pile on-seeing that Bloomberg is doing such a good job all by himself at playing the schoolyard bully role in this election. And, in our opinion, given the spending disparities in this campaign, Thompson probably deserves a pass on this offense. In fact, he should be allowed, like Lady Godiva, to ride naked down Broadway just so he can attract a bit of attention amidst the electoral blizzard from Bloomberg ($30 million on TV ads alone!).
The city's political problems-along with those of the state as well-are going to present huge challenges. When he first came into office, Bloomberg broke his campaign pledges, and raised taxes to obscene levels-something that we're all still paying for today. With that gambit apparently foreclosed, he's left to emulating Mack the Knife-and with his dour unlovable personality we just might enjoy the spectacle, and the public distaste that it generates, once the cuts begin.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Après Batts Le Déluge
As the NY Times is reporting, Judge Deborah Batts has issued a court order mandating-without any hearing from the involved parties, that the deposit on water bottles will commence October, 31st-giving retailers scant time to comply; and leaving water distributors scrambling to devise redemption systems: " federal judge issued an order on Friday lifting an injunction on an expansion of the state’s bottle bill, meaning that nickel deposits will be imposed on bottled water starting Oct. 31. All containers of water under a gallon will have a 5-cent refundable deposit, as beer and soda containers have had for years."
Get ready for the water tax folks: "The Food Industry Alliance of New York State, a trade group representing groceries, has said the expansion will increase the cost of a 24-pack of water by $2." And it will-but first the upcoming chaos.
As we argued the other day-at a time when we had no idea that Judge Batts would, well, go batty: "What is clear, is that the water distributors better gear up-and fast-if they want to avoid a disruption in their distribution system. As we have advised some of the impacted companies: "The expansion of the New York State Returnable Container Act to water creates some unique challenges for the new players in the redemption system.. The reason lies with the fact that the water companies-from the largest on down-are nor geared up to do this redemption work, and will need considerable help in order to simply avoid the kind of chaos that could easily spill over into their distribution network, and hurt sales."
So now, with no system really in place, water bottlers and distributors need to figure out how best to comply with the new law-and do so on the run. But just remember, when you pay $1.50 for the bottle of water that used to cost only a buck, it's courtesy of the governor and the environmental advocates. But at least you all can sleep well, knowing that all of the unredeemed deposits are going to be earmarked for a good cause. As the Times reminds us: "Governor Paterson issued a statement on Friday saying that 80 percent of unclaimed deposits would go to the state as much-needed revenue."
Whew! We feel so much better now.
Get ready for the water tax folks: "The Food Industry Alliance of New York State, a trade group representing groceries, has said the expansion will increase the cost of a 24-pack of water by $2." And it will-but first the upcoming chaos.
As we argued the other day-at a time when we had no idea that Judge Batts would, well, go batty: "What is clear, is that the water distributors better gear up-and fast-if they want to avoid a disruption in their distribution system. As we have advised some of the impacted companies: "The expansion of the New York State Returnable Container Act to water creates some unique challenges for the new players in the redemption system.. The reason lies with the fact that the water companies-from the largest on down-are nor geared up to do this redemption work, and will need considerable help in order to simply avoid the kind of chaos that could easily spill over into their distribution network, and hurt sales."
So now, with no system really in place, water bottlers and distributors need to figure out how best to comply with the new law-and do so on the run. But just remember, when you pay $1.50 for the bottle of water that used to cost only a buck, it's courtesy of the governor and the environmental advocates. But at least you all can sleep well, knowing that all of the unredeemed deposits are going to be earmarked for a good cause. As the Times reminds us: "Governor Paterson issued a statement on Friday saying that 80 percent of unclaimed deposits would go to the state as much-needed revenue."
Whew! We feel so much better now.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Profitable Investigation Points in the Right Direction
It looks as if AG Cuomo is serious about his pledge to investigate the political activities of so called not-for-profits in New York. If you remember, we jump started some of this when we helped to point out the questionable activities of Claire Shulman and her papier-mâché LDC. Our actions-along with a letter to Cuomo's office, was reported on by the NY Times.
As the Times report said: "The attorney general’s office is reviewing the complaint. In recent months, the office has been looking into lobbying by local development corporations, and has identified a “small but not insignificant set” of groups that appear to be improperly lobbying, said a person briefed on the attorney general’s initial review."
Now the first phase of the AG's efforts is beginning to bear fruit-as the NY Post exclusive story reveals today: "As part of a probe into sleazy "pay-to-play" donations made by nonprofit groups, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has ordered dozens of charities to take back illegal contributions they've made to politicians -- or lose their tax-exempt status, The Post has learned. Cuomo has begun notifying individual charities by letter that he's on to their wrongdoing. His office has uncovered improper campaign donations to state and city lawmakers that have been made by dozens of nonprofits, despite laws that bar them from such political activity. "The issue of charities or not-for-profits giving political contributions is a matter we are currently investigating. It is not appropriate, and it is not legal, and we want to make sure it doesn't happen anymore," a spokesman for Cuomo told The Post."
This is, as we have pointed out, only the tip of the iceberg. And Shulman's political effort went way beyond simply writing a check. As the Queens Tribune laid out: "In the build-up and battle for the redevelopment of the Iron Triangle, the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corporation championed the proposed rezoning and rebuilding of the 62-acre plot of land. With former Borough President Claire Shulman, 83, at the helm, the corporation actively promoted Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s plan. It initially hired prominent lobbying firm the Parkside Group before advocating the plan to elected officials – and then taking over those duties itself, spending about $450,000 on lobbying efforts."
If pay for play is your target, than Shulman's group is the poster child here. But the focus takes on a different dimension when Mike Blooomberg is involves-since whenever he is, the money flows, but it does so downstream from his own rich mother load. And we're hopeful that Cuomo will expand the scope of his investigation and recognize the Shulman scheme for what it is-an improper use of not-for-profit staus to achieve a political goal.
The AG's office gets the larger picture-so we're relatively confident that it will rathchet up its probe; even if it hits close to his home base of Queens: "Federal and state laws bar non-profits from making donations to candidates or officeholders, as well as participating in their campaigns.
Charities that break the law risk losing their tax-exempt status."
As should Claire's bogus LDC. But if Cuomo does do this, and the LDC is chastised properly, will the entire effort to rezone Willets Point be legally tainted (as fruit of the poisonous tree)? Let's see how the Ag's investigation continues-but Willets Point United urges him to show no fear or favor when it comes to the breaking of the law in these matters.
As the Times report said: "The attorney general’s office is reviewing the complaint. In recent months, the office has been looking into lobbying by local development corporations, and has identified a “small but not insignificant set” of groups that appear to be improperly lobbying, said a person briefed on the attorney general’s initial review."
Now the first phase of the AG's efforts is beginning to bear fruit-as the NY Post exclusive story reveals today: "As part of a probe into sleazy "pay-to-play" donations made by nonprofit groups, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has ordered dozens of charities to take back illegal contributions they've made to politicians -- or lose their tax-exempt status, The Post has learned. Cuomo has begun notifying individual charities by letter that he's on to their wrongdoing. His office has uncovered improper campaign donations to state and city lawmakers that have been made by dozens of nonprofits, despite laws that bar them from such political activity. "The issue of charities or not-for-profits giving political contributions is a matter we are currently investigating. It is not appropriate, and it is not legal, and we want to make sure it doesn't happen anymore," a spokesman for Cuomo told The Post."
This is, as we have pointed out, only the tip of the iceberg. And Shulman's political effort went way beyond simply writing a check. As the Queens Tribune laid out: "In the build-up and battle for the redevelopment of the Iron Triangle, the Flushing Willets Point Corona Local Development Corporation championed the proposed rezoning and rebuilding of the 62-acre plot of land. With former Borough President Claire Shulman, 83, at the helm, the corporation actively promoted Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s plan. It initially hired prominent lobbying firm the Parkside Group before advocating the plan to elected officials – and then taking over those duties itself, spending about $450,000 on lobbying efforts."
If pay for play is your target, than Shulman's group is the poster child here. But the focus takes on a different dimension when Mike Blooomberg is involves-since whenever he is, the money flows, but it does so downstream from his own rich mother load. And we're hopeful that Cuomo will expand the scope of his investigation and recognize the Shulman scheme for what it is-an improper use of not-for-profit staus to achieve a political goal.
The AG's office gets the larger picture-so we're relatively confident that it will rathchet up its probe; even if it hits close to his home base of Queens: "Federal and state laws bar non-profits from making donations to candidates or officeholders, as well as participating in their campaigns.
Charities that break the law risk losing their tax-exempt status."
As should Claire's bogus LDC. But if Cuomo does do this, and the LDC is chastised properly, will the entire effort to rezone Willets Point be legally tainted (as fruit of the poisonous tree)? Let's see how the Ag's investigation continues-but Willets Point United urges him to show no fear or favor when it comes to the breaking of the law in these matters.
Not Everyone's a Fan
Yesterday we expressed our thanks to the Village Voice for its recognition of our work-and that of this blog-on behalf of small business, But not everyone is a fan, and the Atlantic Yards blog responded to the award with the following riposte: "WTF? Can't the Voice look beyond his SAT words--words the press should know--and consider the contradictions: NYC Lobbyist Search shows (click on graphic to enlarge) Lipsky working for Willets Point United and Tuck-It-Away, which are fighting eminent domain in Willets Point and West Harlem, respectively, while working for the Atlantic Yards Development Company and Forest City Ratner, which are hoping to gain from eminent domain in Prospect Heights."
Our good friend Norman Oder is upset because the Voice didn't go into a greater in-depth evaluation of our record? What the AY foes fail to realize, is that their fight over the Ratner project is not the sine qua non of deciding whether someone deserves either credit or opprobrium-and, if it's more in-depth analysis that they're looking for, well, there simply isn't enough room to detail all that we've done for small businesses over the past 28 years.
And we've done this work when no other lobbyists would even stoop so low-busy as they are with trading up. This is, however, no critique of my colleagues, since we have no problem taking on clients both large and small; it is simply a statement of fact, and an effort to set the record straight. So while the opponents of AY lawyer on, we can point to dozens of large scale developments that we have stymied over the three decade span of our work. Now that's an asterisk that couldn't be fit into the small Voice tribute.
And speaking of fans, our blog post on DOH hypocrisy that was reprinted in the NY Post last week generated some interesting reader responses. Here's T Cahill's: "I like Richard Lipsky's logic ("Healthy-Eating Hypocrites," PostOpin- ion, Oct. 15). It's true that the McDonald's coupon giveaway is only symptomatic. All it does is reinforce bad behavior. If you treat people like adults, there's the chance they will begin to respect themselves and start to act like adults. If you treat them like children, you are always going to get childlike behavior. Educate them, help them think for themselves, and everybody wins. Then you can start handing out broccoli coupons."
Other folks aren't as optimistic; and Brian Daniels disagrees with our assessment that you should treat people as adults-feeling it just won't work: "I agree that our current nanny-state approach is overbearing, but Lipsky's argument for educating people and treating them as functional adults is weak. Last Sunday, at the movies, a woman who was clean and well-dressed sat in my row. She was smart enough to come to the half-price show and was there on time. To use Lipsky's term, she appeared to be functional. However, she was 75 to 100 pounds overweight, and as soon as she sat down, she ate two hot dogs and a large soda. What kind of education does Lipsky think she needs? If she is a functional adult who can think and act for herself, why is she doing what she is doing? What will a broccoli lesson do for her behavior?"
The moral of all this? You can't worry about what some people might say-and the arm chair critics who haven't done anything but carp are legion-and you have to try to do what you think is right. Just don't emulate Anita Dunn and use Mao as a role model for individual conscience.
Our good friend Norman Oder is upset because the Voice didn't go into a greater in-depth evaluation of our record? What the AY foes fail to realize, is that their fight over the Ratner project is not the sine qua non of deciding whether someone deserves either credit or opprobrium-and, if it's more in-depth analysis that they're looking for, well, there simply isn't enough room to detail all that we've done for small businesses over the past 28 years.
And we've done this work when no other lobbyists would even stoop so low-busy as they are with trading up. This is, however, no critique of my colleagues, since we have no problem taking on clients both large and small; it is simply a statement of fact, and an effort to set the record straight. So while the opponents of AY lawyer on, we can point to dozens of large scale developments that we have stymied over the three decade span of our work. Now that's an asterisk that couldn't be fit into the small Voice tribute.
And speaking of fans, our blog post on DOH hypocrisy that was reprinted in the NY Post last week generated some interesting reader responses. Here's T Cahill's: "I like Richard Lipsky's logic ("Healthy-Eating Hypocrites," PostOpin- ion, Oct. 15). It's true that the McDonald's coupon giveaway is only symptomatic. All it does is reinforce bad behavior. If you treat people like adults, there's the chance they will begin to respect themselves and start to act like adults. If you treat them like children, you are always going to get childlike behavior. Educate them, help them think for themselves, and everybody wins. Then you can start handing out broccoli coupons."
Other folks aren't as optimistic; and Brian Daniels disagrees with our assessment that you should treat people as adults-feeling it just won't work: "I agree that our current nanny-state approach is overbearing, but Lipsky's argument for educating people and treating them as functional adults is weak. Last Sunday, at the movies, a woman who was clean and well-dressed sat in my row. She was smart enough to come to the half-price show and was there on time. To use Lipsky's term, she appeared to be functional. However, she was 75 to 100 pounds overweight, and as soon as she sat down, she ate two hot dogs and a large soda. What kind of education does Lipsky think she needs? If she is a functional adult who can think and act for herself, why is she doing what she is doing? What will a broccoli lesson do for her behavior?"
The moral of all this? You can't worry about what some people might say-and the arm chair critics who haven't done anything but carp are legion-and you have to try to do what you think is right. Just don't emulate Anita Dunn and use Mao as a role model for individual conscience.
The Buck Passes Here
You have to give Governor Paterson credit for one thing-innovation; no one has thought of a new way to not enforce the tax laws against Indian cigarette retailers until he came along and somehow decided that this was really a federal issue: "Gov. David Paterson is concerned that members of the stat’s Indian tribes may engage in “violence and civil unrest” if he attempts to tax cigarettes sold at reservation smoke shops.In a letter dated Sept. 23, Paterson asked three of the state’s top federal prosecutors to help him assess the possibility of violent demonstrations if the state begins collecting its $2.75 per-pack tax on cigarettes sold at tribal shops.Paterson also asked the Justice Department for an “operational commitment to help mitigate any disturbances that might occur.”
How pathetic! Come on, David, New York State has the wherewithal to solve this problem-and the resources needed to combat the threat, or the reality, of Indian violence. This is all classic buck passing-and with Paterson it's kinda like an Olympic sport; but the need to once and for all let violence-prone law breakers know who's in charge is long over due: "Gov. David Paterson is concerned that members of the state’s Indian tribes may engage in “violence and civil unrest” if he attempts to tax cigarettes sold at reservation smoke shops.In a letter dated Sept. 23, Paterson asked three of the state’s top federal prosecutors to help him assess the possibility of violent demonstrations if the state begins collecting its $2.75 per-pack tax on cigarettes sold at tribal shops.Paterson also asked the Justice Department for an “operational commitment to help mitigate any disturbances that might occur.”
He might as well have requested some help in just doing his job-since this tax avoidance could be as much as $700 million a year: "Since then, the reservation shops have become among the biggest cigarette dealers in the state, selling more than 300 million packs annually. Some reservations are now also home to cigarette factories churning out native brands sold throughout the U.S.But with the state desperate for new revenue, Paterson is signaling he is giving the issue new thought."
But listen to the timidity expressed: "In his Sept. 23 letter, the governor told the U.S. attorneys for Western New York, Northern New York and Long Island that while his intent was to continue negotiating with the tribes, he wished to assess the possibility “of a repeat of the violent demonstrations that occurred in 1997” if the state were to act without an agreement.“I would be grateful if you would please review this matter and provide me with your assessment as to the likelihood of violence and civil unrest,” he wrote."
Please! As one upstate opponent of this foot dragging points out, you don't refuse to enforce the law out of fear that some will violently oppose: "If violent reactions are expected, it makes sense to prepare a counterforce to deal with it – including being ready to call in the U.S. National Guard, said attorney David Vickers, president of the Upstate Citizens for Equality,But the taxes should be collected regardless of what reaction is anticipated, he said.“I think that if public policy is created and pursued or not based on whether a segment of the population may get violent or not, you have an extremely weak public policy maker on your hands,” Vickers said. “I am astounded that we have had four governors who are afraid to do their job.”
But don't expect any action soon from the dithering governor-he's shucking and ducking, as Tom Precious of the Buffalo News reports: "Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, said that it is “fair” for the public to ask, “How much money, if any, can be reasonably expected from the collection of those taxes? And is there a plan to move forward consistent with the law?” Paterson, in response, dismissed some of the “bloated projections” involving how much the state could reap if the taxes were brought in. Lawmakers have said $1 billion is lost each year by Albany to Indian sales of tax-free cigarettes. “No state has collected more than $75 million from Indians,” Paterson said...The issue of collecting taxes from the Indians is a law enforcement issue, and very much a federal issue,” Paterson said."
But no state is tax free central like our is: "Advocates of the tax-collection effort, though, have said New York is a major tax-free haven for Indian retailers, especially those on the Seneca Nation reservations, because of the state’s relatively high tobacco tax rate and large population base." And it is the state's tax payers and convenience store owners that are victimized by leaders without spines.
But we would caution, that the call for the federal cavalry is not the optimistic sign of imminent action that the NY Post envisioned in its editorial yesterday: "Gov. Paterson has asked the US Justice Department to back him up if any at tempt to finally collect unpaid cigarette taxes at Indian reservations is met -- as it has been before -- with "violence and civil unrest." That's welcome news on two fronts: It suggests that the governor is prepared to correct this outrageous flouting of state law, as we've long urged, and that he understands the violent resistance that could result."
Nah. It's simply a dilatory measure; and real action awaits another chief executive with the cojones to simply enforce the law. Paterson should just stop pretending-and if he wants too do something, just do it without asking permission from the grown ups.
How pathetic! Come on, David, New York State has the wherewithal to solve this problem-and the resources needed to combat the threat, or the reality, of Indian violence. This is all classic buck passing-and with Paterson it's kinda like an Olympic sport; but the need to once and for all let violence-prone law breakers know who's in charge is long over due: "Gov. David Paterson is concerned that members of the state’s Indian tribes may engage in “violence and civil unrest” if he attempts to tax cigarettes sold at reservation smoke shops.In a letter dated Sept. 23, Paterson asked three of the state’s top federal prosecutors to help him assess the possibility of violent demonstrations if the state begins collecting its $2.75 per-pack tax on cigarettes sold at tribal shops.Paterson also asked the Justice Department for an “operational commitment to help mitigate any disturbances that might occur.”
He might as well have requested some help in just doing his job-since this tax avoidance could be as much as $700 million a year: "Since then, the reservation shops have become among the biggest cigarette dealers in the state, selling more than 300 million packs annually. Some reservations are now also home to cigarette factories churning out native brands sold throughout the U.S.But with the state desperate for new revenue, Paterson is signaling he is giving the issue new thought."
But listen to the timidity expressed: "In his Sept. 23 letter, the governor told the U.S. attorneys for Western New York, Northern New York and Long Island that while his intent was to continue negotiating with the tribes, he wished to assess the possibility “of a repeat of the violent demonstrations that occurred in 1997” if the state were to act without an agreement.“I would be grateful if you would please review this matter and provide me with your assessment as to the likelihood of violence and civil unrest,” he wrote."
Please! As one upstate opponent of this foot dragging points out, you don't refuse to enforce the law out of fear that some will violently oppose: "If violent reactions are expected, it makes sense to prepare a counterforce to deal with it – including being ready to call in the U.S. National Guard, said attorney David Vickers, president of the Upstate Citizens for Equality,But the taxes should be collected regardless of what reaction is anticipated, he said.“I think that if public policy is created and pursued or not based on whether a segment of the population may get violent or not, you have an extremely weak public policy maker on your hands,” Vickers said. “I am astounded that we have had four governors who are afraid to do their job.”
But don't expect any action soon from the dithering governor-he's shucking and ducking, as Tom Precious of the Buffalo News reports: "Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, said that it is “fair” for the public to ask, “How much money, if any, can be reasonably expected from the collection of those taxes? And is there a plan to move forward consistent with the law?” Paterson, in response, dismissed some of the “bloated projections” involving how much the state could reap if the taxes were brought in. Lawmakers have said $1 billion is lost each year by Albany to Indian sales of tax-free cigarettes. “No state has collected more than $75 million from Indians,” Paterson said...The issue of collecting taxes from the Indians is a law enforcement issue, and very much a federal issue,” Paterson said."
But no state is tax free central like our is: "Advocates of the tax-collection effort, though, have said New York is a major tax-free haven for Indian retailers, especially those on the Seneca Nation reservations, because of the state’s relatively high tobacco tax rate and large population base." And it is the state's tax payers and convenience store owners that are victimized by leaders without spines.
But we would caution, that the call for the federal cavalry is not the optimistic sign of imminent action that the NY Post envisioned in its editorial yesterday: "Gov. Paterson has asked the US Justice Department to back him up if any at tempt to finally collect unpaid cigarette taxes at Indian reservations is met -- as it has been before -- with "violence and civil unrest." That's welcome news on two fronts: It suggests that the governor is prepared to correct this outrageous flouting of state law, as we've long urged, and that he understands the violent resistance that could result."
Nah. It's simply a dilatory measure; and real action awaits another chief executive with the cojones to simply enforce the law. Paterson should just stop pretending-and if he wants too do something, just do it without asking permission from the grown ups.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Kudos From the Village Voice
We need to thank the folks over at the Village Voice for recognizing our work on behalf of small business-and awarding Richard Lipsky as the, "Best Small Business Lobbyist." It should, however, be pointed out that there aren't too many lobbyists to choose from in the category, as the Voice realizes: "In a city where lobbyists get paid big bucks to whisper quietly to influential politicians, Richard Lipsky will have none of it. He barks, bellows, and bites. When handed the microphone at a rally, he's as good a rabble-rouser as an irate Bronx tenant. This is not how lobbyists are supposed to do business, but Lipsky has long gone his own way. Victims who can attest to the sharpness of his bite include the likes of Wal-Mart—defeated three times in its bid to find sites for giant local box stores."
And thanks for the recognition of our blog as well: "Another un-lobbyist-like tool is his nonstop blog—cloyingly dubbed "momandpopnyc.com"—which regularly takes journalists to task on subjects ranging from Israel to school testing. He may also be the only lobbyist now working City Hall to hold a Ph.D., which he sometimes can't help showing off: His blog posts often include words like "avidity"—which he knows the press corps will have to look up."
Still, the greatest recognition we can receive, comes from helping yet another little guy defeat the less than honorable intentions of the city-usually done on behalf of some fat cat developer. It's been a rewarding almost three decades, and we don't feel the need to slow down since there are so many good fights left to wage.
And thanks for the recognition of our blog as well: "Another un-lobbyist-like tool is his nonstop blog—cloyingly dubbed "momandpopnyc.com"—which regularly takes journalists to task on subjects ranging from Israel to school testing. He may also be the only lobbyist now working City Hall to hold a Ph.D., which he sometimes can't help showing off: His blog posts often include words like "avidity"—which he knows the press corps will have to look up."
Still, the greatest recognition we can receive, comes from helping yet another little guy defeat the less than honorable intentions of the city-usually done on behalf of some fat cat developer. It's been a rewarding almost three decades, and we don't feel the need to slow down since there are so many good fights left to wage.
Armory PlanTrashed
The Riverdale Press weighs in on the Kingsbridge Armory plan-and doesn't like what it sees so far: "The Kingsbridge Armory has taken another crucial step toward becoming a mall. What a relief. The City Planning Commission has voted 8 to 4 to allow the private development project, which will be completed with massive public help, to proceed. Soon more jobs flipping burgers for starvation wages will be available to people who will be unable to afford to take them. What more can the Bronx ask for?"
Apparently, a great deal more: "In fact, the people of Kingsbridge Heights, labor unions and many elected representatives have asked for considerably more. They’ve asked for money to help build schools. They’ve asked for the jobs that will be created inside the enormous near-centuryold structure to pay enough to become the first rung on a ladder out of poverty, rather than another endless plateau of poverty and disenfranchisement."
But, according to the RP-as it was with the BTM-so far Related's got the goldmine, and the community the shaft: "The company gets to buy a massive, historic structure of 600,000 cavernous square feet, under a roof that stretches to the sky, for $5 million. Not a bad deal considering the fact that a 2,000-square foot apartment on 3rd Avenue in Manhattan can go for about the same price. It’s true that the space isn’t doing much right now, and the city can certainly use this drop in the bucket during tight economic times. Still, it’s hard to buy the idea that the economic stimulus provided by yet another mall (have we already forgotten the brand-spanking new Gateway Center?) will really help the community turn much of a profit, let alone the city as a whole. Related is being given massive tax incentives as well as the sweetheart pricing as an added enticement to make a large profit in Kingsbridge Heights. That means that the city won’t get much back, at least directly, from the mall it (meaning us) will help to subsidize."
No it won't-and this epitomizes the Bloomberg economic development strategy; a cornucopia for the special interests (of which Related is more equal than others), and crumbs for the communities: "Related says that if it is forced to provide a better deal for Kingsbridge Heights, including a guarantee that people who work inside will get paid a fair wage, it will have to scrap its entire plan. If that’s a threat, it’s unclear whom it would hurt. It is now looking like the people of the Northwest Bronx — even those the mall will employ — will end up standing on the outside. They will be unable to buy many of the things they will sell as clerks or keep track of as stockroom employees. Who will be making patties one minute and buying a $20 candle the next?
Who needs another place to buy a $20 candle in the first place?"
And the local paper has some advice for the local council member: "Today is the day to ask Oliver Koppell to help persuade other members of the City Council to vote no on this development unless there are specific guarantees to the people of the borough. Guarantees that there will be something in it for them — for us — other than bad jobs and luxuries far too many are unable to afford."
We'll give Bronx BP Ruben Diaz the last word on this idea: " People are starting to realize that this is something that has to happen citywide. We need to shift the paradigm. We want development. We want corporate America to make their money -- but in partnership with the people."
Apparently, a great deal more: "In fact, the people of Kingsbridge Heights, labor unions and many elected representatives have asked for considerably more. They’ve asked for money to help build schools. They’ve asked for the jobs that will be created inside the enormous near-centuryold structure to pay enough to become the first rung on a ladder out of poverty, rather than another endless plateau of poverty and disenfranchisement."
But, according to the RP-as it was with the BTM-so far Related's got the goldmine, and the community the shaft: "The company gets to buy a massive, historic structure of 600,000 cavernous square feet, under a roof that stretches to the sky, for $5 million. Not a bad deal considering the fact that a 2,000-square foot apartment on 3rd Avenue in Manhattan can go for about the same price. It’s true that the space isn’t doing much right now, and the city can certainly use this drop in the bucket during tight economic times. Still, it’s hard to buy the idea that the economic stimulus provided by yet another mall (have we already forgotten the brand-spanking new Gateway Center?) will really help the community turn much of a profit, let alone the city as a whole. Related is being given massive tax incentives as well as the sweetheart pricing as an added enticement to make a large profit in Kingsbridge Heights. That means that the city won’t get much back, at least directly, from the mall it (meaning us) will help to subsidize."
No it won't-and this epitomizes the Bloomberg economic development strategy; a cornucopia for the special interests (of which Related is more equal than others), and crumbs for the communities: "Related says that if it is forced to provide a better deal for Kingsbridge Heights, including a guarantee that people who work inside will get paid a fair wage, it will have to scrap its entire plan. If that’s a threat, it’s unclear whom it would hurt. It is now looking like the people of the Northwest Bronx — even those the mall will employ — will end up standing on the outside. They will be unable to buy many of the things they will sell as clerks or keep track of as stockroom employees. Who will be making patties one minute and buying a $20 candle the next?
Who needs another place to buy a $20 candle in the first place?"
And the local paper has some advice for the local council member: "Today is the day to ask Oliver Koppell to help persuade other members of the City Council to vote no on this development unless there are specific guarantees to the people of the borough. Guarantees that there will be something in it for them — for us — other than bad jobs and luxuries far too many are unable to afford."
We'll give Bronx BP Ruben Diaz the last word on this idea: " People are starting to realize that this is something that has to happen citywide. We need to shift the paradigm. We want development. We want corporate America to make their money -- but in partnership with the people."
Bottle Bill Delayed Again
For those who thought that today's judicial hearing on the expansion of the state's bottle bill would end the current bottleneck, think again: "The potential start of the state's collection of 5-cent deposits on bottles of water was delayed Tuesday by a federal court judge. U.S. District Court Judge Deborah Batts delayed a Thursday hearing in Manhattan in which the state had hoped to get the go ahead to implement the program, which was approved in April."
There are, however, behind the scenes negotiations being conducted in order to end the stalemate-but the end, or, perhaps, the beginning, doesn't appear to be near: "Batts notified the parties that the hearing would be delayed because of an ongoing criminal trial she's overseeing. The sides are also working on a potential settlement that could end the court's involvement, officials said. Either way, the expectation that the new deposit on water could start Thursday has been washed away. There was no new hearing date set."
What is clear, is that the water distributors better gear up-and fast-if they want to avoid a disruption in their distribution system. As we have advised some of the impacted companies: "The expansion of the New York State Returnable Container Act to water creates some unique challenges for the new players in the redemption system.. The reason lies with the fact that the water companies-from the largest on down-are nor geared up to do this redemption work, and will need considerable help in order to simply avoid the kind of chaos that could easily spill over into their distribution network, and hurt sales."
And from where we're observing, it doesn't appear that these needed preparations have been made. Gearing up is complicated by the fact that the state's largest third party collector, Boro Recycling, is under an indictment cloud: "Five Long Island beverage dealers are among seven people who have been arrested as part of an elaborate scam to re-redeem bottle deposits at 7 cents a clip. The dealers, four operating in the town of Islip, made hundreds of thousands of dollars by redeeming beverage containers more than once. The scheme involves BORO Recycling NYC shipping bottles and cans they receive for recycling back to Long Island for re-redemption. Joseph Luzzi, owner of BORO Recycling, allegedly recruited beverage dealers to participate in the scheme, Suffolk County District Attorney Tom Spota said. It involved BORO employee Robert Grady scheduling deliveries and at times himself delivering truckloads of cans and bottles to the beverage dealers for re-redemption."
All of which underscores the need for the state to come up with a more sophisticated enforcement mechanism-particularly now since 80% of the unredeemed nickels are going to the public trough. In addition, in our view, this new reality opens up an opportunity for the state to set up rules that would encourage third part pick ups-and remove redemption from beer wholesalers and bottlers, freeing them up to concentrate on their core businesses.
There are, however, behind the scenes negotiations being conducted in order to end the stalemate-but the end, or, perhaps, the beginning, doesn't appear to be near: "Batts notified the parties that the hearing would be delayed because of an ongoing criminal trial she's overseeing. The sides are also working on a potential settlement that could end the court's involvement, officials said. Either way, the expectation that the new deposit on water could start Thursday has been washed away. There was no new hearing date set."
What is clear, is that the water distributors better gear up-and fast-if they want to avoid a disruption in their distribution system. As we have advised some of the impacted companies: "The expansion of the New York State Returnable Container Act to water creates some unique challenges for the new players in the redemption system.. The reason lies with the fact that the water companies-from the largest on down-are nor geared up to do this redemption work, and will need considerable help in order to simply avoid the kind of chaos that could easily spill over into their distribution network, and hurt sales."
And from where we're observing, it doesn't appear that these needed preparations have been made. Gearing up is complicated by the fact that the state's largest third party collector, Boro Recycling, is under an indictment cloud: "Five Long Island beverage dealers are among seven people who have been arrested as part of an elaborate scam to re-redeem bottle deposits at 7 cents a clip. The dealers, four operating in the town of Islip, made hundreds of thousands of dollars by redeeming beverage containers more than once. The scheme involves BORO Recycling NYC shipping bottles and cans they receive for recycling back to Long Island for re-redemption. Joseph Luzzi, owner of BORO Recycling, allegedly recruited beverage dealers to participate in the scheme, Suffolk County District Attorney Tom Spota said. It involved BORO employee Robert Grady scheduling deliveries and at times himself delivering truckloads of cans and bottles to the beverage dealers for re-redemption."
All of which underscores the need for the state to come up with a more sophisticated enforcement mechanism-particularly now since 80% of the unredeemed nickels are going to the public trough. In addition, in our view, this new reality opens up an opportunity for the state to set up rules that would encourage third part pick ups-and remove redemption from beer wholesalers and bottlers, freeing them up to concentrate on their core businesses.
Getting an Education
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.
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.
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 r
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 r