The Neighborhood Retail Alliance

Kingsbridge Re-Moat?

2009-11-25T05:25:00.000-05:00

The NY Daily News is reporting that negotiations over the fate of the Kingsbridge Armory have stalled: "The Kingsbridge Armory cliff-hanger will keep dangling well into next month, after a failed attempt yesterday to reach a compromise on the living wage issue there. Bronx Council delegation members, who met with Deputy Mayor Robert Lieber, said they are determined to hold out until the last possible minute."

In a surprise move, however, Council member Joel Rivera told the News that the council may modify the land use application, and send it back to City Planning in order to buy a bit more time to negotiate with the city: "Normally, under the city's tightly scripted ULURP, the full Council would have to vote on the proposal by Dec. 14, or else the project would be approved by default.
Project opponents on the zoning subcommittee plan to extend that time with a vote to modify the proposal, which will send it back - according to the ULURP script - to the City Planning Commission for a two-week review before the full Council must act. By putting off the vote to modify until Dec. 9 - the last possible day for the subcommittee to act - opponents would effectively stretch the deadline to Dec. 21."

But if the Bronx delegation holds firm, time isn't on the city's side-and unless someone breaks the logjam, the whole deal could be turned down: "Rivera remains confident the Bronx delegation - which opposes approving the deal without a commitment on living wage retail jobs - can marshal the votes to kill the project if Related won't agree. Related's lawyer, Jesse Masyr, has long maintained that agreeing to a living wage mandate would doom the project. "It wouldn't be too surprising," Masyr said before yesterday's hearing."

How much of this is posturing is hard to determine-and it should be pointed out that total defeats are as rare at the council as snow in August. Still, if attitudes continue to harden, it will make resolution that much more difficult to achieve: "But Rivera said, "It's not like that neighborhood is starved for retail," pointing to nearby Fordham Road as the third busiest shopping corridor in the city. With both sides holding to their hard lines, Rivera said he expected the fight to come down to the wire - sometime around Dec. 21 under the city's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure."

The News points out that any resolution that either leads to a living wage deal, or kills the plan outright, will be perceived as a victory for Bronx BP Ruben Diaz-the instigator of the new militancy: "Whether the project is killed or saved by some last-minute wage compromise, either option would be a tasty stocking stuffer for Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr., who took on the armory wage fight as a signature issue after his election earlier this year."

So, the ball's in the city's-and Related's-court. We believe that compromise should be reached-and usually is-but what that might look like is hard to envision, even at this late date.

Community Organizer Charade

2009-11-24T15:55:00.002-05:00

One of the supreme ironies that emerged during the last presidential campaign was the conservative onslaught against BHO for his community organizing/Saul Alinsky background. The irony lies in the way in which this background was manipulated by the Obama forces to create the impression of the candidate's populist bona fides. In a word, street cred pure and simple.

But the entire narrative was to us-and remains-entirely one of artifice. Obama has little of the Alinsky worldview-except perhaps a bit of the old organizer's flair for grandiosity and manipulation. Which is why, at least to us, the news that the president has invited Mike Bloomberg to tonight's state dinner was certainly no shock-nor was Obama's petty ante treatment of Bill Thompson in the mayoral campaign.

At his core, Obama is a pure elitist-and one who has embraced the new Democratic party's conjugal relationship with the fat cats on Wall Street. Mike Bloomberg is, therefore, a soul mate-or at least one of a cohort of Illuminati that the Obami are joined with at the hip-to wit, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner.

This is all brilliantly captured by Michael Lind at Salon. Here's the devastating money quote:

"The financial industry is now to the Obama Democrats what the AFL-CIO was to the Roosevelt-to-Johnson Democrats. It is touching to watch progressives lament that "their" president has the wrong advisors. "We trust the czar, we simply dislike his ministers." Obama owed his meteoric rise from obscurity to the presidency not to any bold progressive ideas -- he didn't have any -- but rather to a combination of his appealing life story with the big money that allowed him to abandon campaign finance limits. According to one Obama supporter I know, the Obama campaign pressured its Wall Street donors to make their contributions in the form of many small checks, in order to create the illusion that the campaign was more dependent on small contributors than it was in fact. Even now President Obama continues to raise money on Wall Street, while his administration says no to every progressive proposal for significant structural reform of the financial industry."

So, as the ironies continue to unfold, it is left to the Tea Party movement and the enthusiasm behind the Palin phenomenon, to represent true working and lower middle class populism-while looking, at the same time, as if they are the true heirs of the Alinsky playbook. And, in our view, the current healthcare mania, pursued while real unemployment has been gauged at close to 17%, indicates just how elitist and out of touch the Dems are today.

Lind underscores this observations about how the health care obsession has led the party astray:

"It is only in the post-New Deal era that universal healthcare has become the Holy Grail of the American center-left, rather than, say, full employment or a living wage. Sure, Democrats from Truman to Johnson sought universal healthcare, and Medicare for the elderly was a down payment for that goal. But the main concern of the New Dealers was providing economic growth with full employment, on the theory that if the economy is growing and workers have the bargaining power to obtain their fair share of the new wealth in the form of wages, you don't need a vastly bigger welfare state. Having forgotten the New Deal's emphasis on high-wage work, all too many of today's progressives seem to have internalized the right's caricature of FDR-to-LBJ liberalism as being primarily about redistribution from the rich to the poor."

So, it seems to us as it does to Lind, that the Democrats are dangerously out of touch-and clueless when it comes to the burgeoning anger in the heartland-and its base is being driven by an almost John Lindsay like tone deafness: "This shift in emphasis is connected with the shift in the social base of the Democratic Party from the working class to an alliance of the wealthy, parts of the professional class and the poor. And progressive redistributionism also reflects the plutocratic social structure of the big cities that are now the Democratic base. Unlike the egalitarian farmer-labor liberalism that drew on the populist values of the small town and the immigrant neighborhood, metropolitan liberalism tends to define center-left politics not as self-help on the part of citizens but rather as charity for the disadvantaged carried out by affluent altruists. Tonight the fundraiser for endangered species; tomorrow the gala charity auction for poor children."

There it is, in a nutshell-and why the coupling of Barack Hussein Obama and Mike Bloomberg is a definite MasterCard moment. It is an elitist and condescending form of liberalism that reminds us of the passage in the great book by Joe Flaherty, Managing Mailer. When the late Norman Mailer was running for mayor of New York in 1969, he went to an East Side reform club made up of rich liberal women. When he began to advocate for community control and other empowering ideas for the poor, he was sharply interrupted and reminded: "Mr. Mailer, its about what we can do for them."

All of this is embodied in the hauteur of Obama-more Harvard Yard than South Side of Chicago. And our feeling is that the president was barely listening the Rev. Wright all those years as he carefully went about constructing this persona that elevated pretense into the highest kind of art form. So, as the president and NYC's richest man dig in to the haute cusine tonight, you will be able to get a glimpse of the authentic Obama. He is finally in the community where he is most comfortable.

Not All in the Family

2009-11-24T08:58:00.003-05:00

According to Jacob Gershman in New York Magazine, a movement is growing to mount a challenge to the political dominance of the Working Families Party: "With the pro-labor Working Families Party on the rise, a coalition of New York business elites is laying the foundation to counteract its influence with a political operation of their own. The plan is to collaborate with the Independence Party, which just backed Republican Mike Bloomberg, to push what they see as fiscally responsible positions.”

A challenge it certainly is, since the WFP has become one large tail wagging NY State's Democratic dog-witness the success locally of John Liu and Bill deBlasio. But the even greater hurdle is to create a coalition that will not be seen as a revival of the kind of permanent government that has always ruled in NYC-often to the detriment of small businesses and homeowners.

This is, however, trickier than it seems-and labor loyalist Mike McGuire understands the problem: “The problem is who is their constituency,” notes labor lobbyist Michael McGuire. “Unions are all member organizations. Who are the members of ‘business’?”

McGuire is correct, but the problem isn't insurmountable if it is approached in the right manner. That approach needs to view the effort as a grass roots organizing campaign-the very kind that the Alliance has conducted over the past three decades. The greatest danger is for this effort to be perceived as elitist-and there is some redolence of this already: "It’s being advised by Jay Kriegel, a longtime Democrat and member of the city’s Establishment who started his career as a hotshot 25-year-old aide to Mayor Lindsay. Most recently, he was executive director of Bloomberg’s failed 2012 Olympics bid. (Today, he works as an adviser to developer Stephen Ross.)"

There is nothing wrong with a coalition of interests-one that includes businesses both small and large-but there needs to be more of an effort, if the campaign is to really gain traction, to build the coalition from the ground up. It needs to be more tea party than tea room-and it needs to utilize a more populist (dare we say, Alinsky-style) approach.

And there is certainly some common ground here-and that commonality devolves from the expansion of government in the state and city, and all that the expansion entails in the way of taxes, fees and regulations: "The movement began taking shape after lawmakers in Albany passed a $133 billion budget in April, increasing taxes and fees by $7 billion and raising spending by 9 percent. Deficit projections have risen to nearly $30 billion over the next three years. While Governor Paterson has warned lawmakers that the state may not be able to pay its bills by the end of the year, the Legislature has spurned his attempts to slash education and health care."

These are trends that really hurt the small business backbone of the state and city's economy-and send tax paying homeowners fleeing to less burdensome environs. But using the mayor as a paragon is, in our view a mistake: "They want to help elect Bloomberg-like candidates statewide. The problem is going to be convincing voters that what’s good for the capitalists is good for them too. Their tentative slogan? “It’s Your New York.”,

That's a huge barrier to entry for any grass roots movement because it's perceived elitism precludes tapping into the kind of populist sentiment that will provide the ground troops necessary in order to compete with the union-backed WFP. Gershman hints at this: "Challenging the WFP, which is allied with a sophisticated army of operatives, canvassers, and pressure groups, is not going to be easy. The Independence Party lacks the same boots-on-the-ground infrastructure. Crosson says his new coalition knows what it’s up against: “They’re very effective and entrenched. The business community will be playing a game of catch-up for a long time.”

The Alliance has been doing precisely this for years-and by doing it successfully by tapping into small business and local neighborhood unrest at large and out-of-touch, and, yes, elite-driven government; a style of governing that the current mayor has been emblematic of. So the challenge is to find a way to tap into the funding of larger business interests while, at the same time, finding a way to inspire and mobilize the troops at the grass roots level.

If the latter isn't done properly, than the entire campaign will lack genuineness; and will appear as little more than an Astroturf effort by the rich folks to reassert their former dominance-a methodology that is almost guaranteed to end in failure. Still, the effort needs to be started and soon-or else we will all be singing in chorus; "California Hear I Come."

Small Business Challenge

2009-11-24T05:51:00.002-05:00

Eliot Brown does a nice job in the Observer cataloguing the effort by a wide range of small business groups to pass what is called the Small Business Protection Act-a bill that would insulate small businesses against arbitrary eviction and other landlord abuse. Robert Jackson, the bill's sponsor, isn't getting much help from council leadership, even though there are enough supporters to pass the measure should it be allowed to come to a vote.

As Brown points out: "With a month left before the current Council term ends and legislation expires, Mr. Jackson is scrambling to bring his bill to a vote—it has the official support of 30 of 51 members—making noise, threatening and pressuring fellow members to help him move on his top priority. The main resistance comes from Speaker Christine Quinn—Mr. Jackson said Mr. Yassky was deferring to her on a vote as is customary—who says she believes the bill would be ruled illegal by the courts."

Perhaps so, but as Eliot reminds us, there have been numerous bills that were of questionable legality that have managed to pass the council-indicating that this legislation has other impediments, like an enraged real estate community: "Mr. Jackson’s unusually strong push has sent a jolt of fear through the real estate world that had, until recently, paid the bill little attention, and industry advocates are now working to erode the bill’s support on the Council (though they do not seem to think there is much threat that the bill will come up this year). Landlord groups balk at the mere mention of new regulation on commercial rents, and seem to find Mr. Jackson’s legislation nauseating."

To us, the fact that the bill has generated this much support-both within and outside of the city council-is a tribute to Steve Null's organizing efforts-and his ability to bring so many disparate small business groups together on this contentious issue. It also underscores just how bad it is for small business in this city-and how its plight has been exacerbated under the Bloomberg watch, something we have underscored in our previous post..

As the Observer tells us: "The bill’s backers, led by a large set of minority business owners, call it absolutely essential for the survival of small businesses in the city. Landlords’ ability to dramatically raise rents after a lease expires forces far too many neighborhood stores to shutter, the advocates say, leaving streets with a limited and unhealthy variety of retail."

We're not really sure that this legislation is the silver bullet that is needed to address the severity of small business problems in the city-and we haven't been asked by any of the groups to get directly involved on the issue-but we understand where all of the angst is coming from. And it has been made that much worse by a businessman mayor who is simply tone deaf on anything related to neighborhood retailing.

And Big Real estate doesn't present an attractive opponent on this concept when it argues the following: "Then there is also criticism over the bill’s timing. In a recession, when rents are naturally falling everywhere, there is less hue, cry and demonstrated urgent need compared to the heady days of rapid gentrification and rent hikes a couple of years back."

Yeah, bad timing Little Guys. Just when the rent situation's getting better for you, you try to ram this rent bill through the council. Of course, the current recession has already led to the record shuttering of local stores; creating a situation where some falling rents don't come close to alleviating the current plight of the store owners.

But all of this back and forth elides for us the more severe underlying issue-the absolute heinous business climate in the city, one that is precipitated by a big government culture that the permanent government (including the real estate moguls) have done little to address. And the mayor's role here has not been insignificant.

We get as nice glimpse of this in a NY Post editorial today on Bloomberg's labor policy. Under the mayor, city government has grown almost exponentially, with municipal labor being aggrandized by a chief executive who apparently shares their grand vision: "Maybe this is Mayor Creampuff's -- er, Bloomberg's -- idea of driving a hard bargain. "There are newspapers that think we've been too generous with our unions," the mayor said recently. "I don't happen to think so. If you want great services, you have to have good people . . . You have to pay them fairly." It's an odd message to send at a time when the city's facing a $5 billion deficit -- and negotiating a new contract for its 80,000-plus schoolteachers."

All of this underscores the real challenge that has led to crisis pushing the organizing efforts behind the Small Business Protection Act-the size and scope of government; and the tax and regulatory structure that makes it so difficult for small businesses to survive in NYC. Put simply, Bloomberg's philosophy of government isn't that dramatically different from that of the Working Families Party-and it is this philosophy, along with those who promote it, that need to be confronted before the city's finances collapse completely (along with those of NY State).

Which is why we were disappointed-but understood-when the coalition behind the current protection measure made a deal to support the Paid Sick Leave Bill sponsored by the WFP. As the Observer points out: "The bill's supporters are no political fools. A set of small-business owners appear to have formed a pact with the increasingly influential Working Families Party to push the legislation. At a hearing last week on the WFP’s top priority, a paid-sick-leave bill, the small-business owners testified in favor of the commercial rent bill, which generally is opposed by businesses, as it adds to their cost. The WFP recently sent a letter of support to the Council in favor of Mr. Jackson’s bill (the group has previously said it is in favor of the legislation)."

Not a really good move in our view, but made in desperation since the WFP's opposition to protection would thoroughly sink its chances of passing. But these bedfellows are just too strange for us-and the short term gains aren't worth the deal with the forces that are, to us, deleterious to the long term health and survival of Mom and Pop in New York. The sick leave bill symbolizes the forces that are deadly for small business success.

The more meritorious and challenging battle, is the one that looks to confront the deteriorating business climate-and does so by aligning businesses, both big and small, with the city tax payers and homeowners. This is a righteous fight that, in the long run, will do more for the little guys than the current rent protection bill will ever do.

One Fine Day

2009-11-24T05:16:00.002-05:00

In Sunday's NY Post, the paper gave the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs a ream of free publicity-and nary a dissenting voice was heard about how DCA vigilant may be doing more harm than good: "New Yorkers are getting short-changed by supermarkets, delis, drugstores and gas stations that illegally inflate weights and measures, charge higher-than-marked prices and slap the sales tax on nontaxable items. City inspectors issued 2,976 violations so far this year to retailers who soak their customers -- a 58 percent increase over last year's 1,882 tickets."

Yikes! It sure sounds pretty bad-but we're so grateful that city regulators are on the case of all of these malevolent local businesses. Of course, what is left out in this kind of ticket blitz is just how much it costs NYC consumers when regulators are doing the blitzing. In fact, in our view, the aggregate cost of the fines adds to the already overly costly business climate in the city-a situation that has contributed to the high store vacancy rates in neighborhoods throughout the city.

What's really missing from the Post article, however, is just how pointless and arbitrary these fines and violations can often be. There are a myriad of fines for things like missing a light bulb on an exit sign, having your fruit overhang your outdoor stoop stand, and a fine for the failure to item price every single one of your products in a grocery store. These fines-some as high as $1500 a piece-can really add up.

And we haven't begun to even factor in our supremely vigilant Department of Health that is simply driving restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and food markets nuts. Make no mistake about it, this is big business for NYC-and adds to the small business failures that have driven local unemployment numbers so high.

But what about short weights? Here's the Post's take: "We have zero tolerance for an uncalibrated scale, and when the economy is in distress, that's especially important," said Jonathan Mintz, commissioner of the city Department of Consumer Affairs. "In the vast majority of cases, we don't think it's purposeful fraud. But whether it's a significant overcharge or a small overcharge to a significant number of people, that's unacceptable. Pennies add up."

Let's deconstruct. First: "When the economy is in distress..." Okay, we guess the commissioner is expressing support for strapped consumers-but at Whole Foods? Seriously, though, if the economy is distressed, shouldn't we be even more solicitous about being overly zealous in our attack on the retailers who are providing the employment? And, by the way, many so called short weight violations due to faulty scales inure to the benefit of consumers-and actually shortchange the big bad retailers. But why get in the way of a good storyline.

In examining DOH fines, the NY Post found a drastic escalation in the levies under the current administration. As the paper pointed out a few years ago: "The Health Department expects to collect a record $27 million in fines this year, about 25 percent more than it projected 10 months ago, The Post has learned...Last year, the Health Department projected that fine revenue would total $21.9 million by June 30, the end of the 2007 fiscal year. Last week, that was revised upwards to $27 million."

And so it goes with DCA as well-and we refer you to our section on DCA fines at the Alliance web site for more on this situation. All of this falls quite neatly into the narrative that Steve Malanga over at the City Journal has laid out about the city's hostility to small business.

Here's Malanga's money quote:

"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. Taxes, fees, and fines are worse than ever; city departments have stepped up inspections and enforcement; city agencies have stymied efforts to cut red tape; and at a time when the national and city economies are struggling, commissioners have promoted new social policies that have added to businesses’ burdens. “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 what about the taxes? The city has been squeezing local businesses-particularly on the their property taxes; and, at the state level, the current budget crisis has underscored just how a bloated government bureaucracy is harmful to business growth. This hasn't, however, stopped the Working Families Party from urging even higher taxes as an alternative to needed budget cutting.

So before the NY Post goes about reprinting some DCA press release we suggest that it gives more attention to how the city over-regulates and over-taxes retailers-and how groups like the WFP exacerbate this ominous trend by introducing job killing measures such as the current paid sick leave bill, legislation that we have described as the mandatory retirement act for small business employees.

And, by the way, where are the short weight fines for the city's proliferating bands of fruit and veggie peddlers? DCA is apparently too busy making it hard for the tax paying store owners to succeed in this most difficult of business environments to worry about people doing business right on our streets. If things don't change soon, neighborhood shopping strips will be better utilized as play streets.

Mene, Mene, Tekel

2009-11-23T05:44:00.002-05:00

Is the writing on the Armory wall for the redevelopment of that Kingsbridge landmark? According to this morning's NY Daily News, and Councilman Joel Rivera, it just might be: "Monday could be the turning point for the embattled Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment plan, with critical City Council members now claiming to have the votes to kill the project. Council Majority Leader Joel Rivera (D-Bronx) told the Daily News he has the support of enough members of the subcommittee on zoning and franchises, meeting Monday, to block plans to turn the 575,000-square-foot fortress into a $310 million shopping mall. "We have the votes to pass it, or to kill it," said Rivera, who noted not just Bronx members on the committee are ready to vote the proposal down."

Now, we have been down this kind of road before, and have seen many a unforeseen thing happen-so it isn't time yet for opponents to start any victory dances. And the real question is whether Related-and the administration-will be able to find a compromised middle ground: "At issue is whether the developer, The Related Companies, will agree to require retail tenants to pay workers a living wage. Related has said it would have to walk away from the project because it would be unable to get bank financing under such terms. Sources said that Related's options are to either offer some compromise on the wage issue, see the subcommittee kill the proposal or withdraw its application and let the city issue a new request for proposals to develop the armory."

Today could well tell the tale-and determine whether or not the redevelopment of the Armory will become the very first project to go down to actual defeat during Mike Bloomberg's mayoral tenure-although the Alliance was involved in another Related comeuppance over the building of a BJs warehouse club on Brush Avenue in 2005. At that time, the developer, bowing to the inevitable, did withdraw its application. As we told the Daily News when the zoning application was withdrawn: "They committed suicide rather than wait to be executed."

Whether history repeats itself, may now be up to the team of Bloomberg and Ross (Related's CEO Steve): "Rivera and other Council members are set to meet privately with Lieber this morning prior to the hearing in what could be make-or-break negotiations, with Related officials expected to be standing by. "They have a decision to make," Rivera said of Related. "Do they want to see this project move forward? If they don't budge, we have the votes to block it." Calling opposition to the project "unprecedented," subcommittee Chairman Tony Avella (D-Queens) agreed the armory proposal could be doomed."

Whatever happens, it is clear that the lobbying campaign that has been executed by KARA, the RWDSU and the Alliance has been a formidable one-and the issue of the supermarket that we raised at the earliest juncture doesn't even seem to be up for any discussion; so united is the Bronx delegation on this issue. If the Armory plan is defeated, it will mean that the next four years could well be characterized by a new found militancy at the city council.

The next few days may well tell the tale-but for Related and the mayor-just like for the Babylonian King Belshazzar-the writing may be on the wall. The room for maneuvering is getting smaller by the day.

InFatuated With Healthcare

2009-11-23T05:27:00.001-05:00

One of the main reasons why health care costs are so expensive is because Americans are too fat-something that Allysa Finley points out in the Wall Street Journal, isn't addressed in the current legislation: "While lawmakers like to vilify insurance and pharmaceutical companies for driving up health-care costs to make fat profits, obesity is actually a far bigger reason for ballooning costs. Call it the obesity bubble, and a study out this week shows that it's in no danger of bursting...Unfortunately, the pending health-care legislation in Congress isn't going to help reduce obesity-related costs, despite the supposed increased emphasis on "prevention."

But why not? Well, it seems that there's more sensitivity to the overweight than to the idea that others should pony up for large numbers of people behaving badly: "What's more, the House legislation specifically bars incentives for Americans to lose weight. The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA) lobbied against provisions that would help businesses use financial incentives to promote weight loss. The NAAFA also opposed allowing insurers to use a person's weight or BMI to differentiate rates or deny coverage. With two thirds of the population overweight or obese---and that share is predicted to increase to at least three in four in the next 10 years---a slim portion of the population is going to be bearing disproportionately the health-care costs of the large majority. That's a fat tax on thin people."

There is, however, this nugget in the bill: " Sure, there's a provision mandating that chain restaurants include calorie counts on their menus, but two scientific studies have come out this year demonstrating that New York City's calorie labelling law hasn't had a significant impact on people's caloric intake. People see the information and then usually choose to ignore it."

What we have, then, is the existence of a public health ideology that seeks to force everyone to pay for the unhealthy habits of others-whether the burdensome, expensive and ineffective calorie posting reg, or a tax on soda. While we are opposed to the government's mandating of behavior, there's nothing wrong with insurance that assesses risk.

But this isn't happening with today's third party insurance plans: "Because of the nature of our third-party payer health-care system, the costs of obesity aren't just borne by the over-eaters. This can result in the demonization and scapegoating of overweight people ("I wouldn't be paying so much for health care if you didn't keep eating Cheetos!). No one likes to feel that they're picking up the tab for other people's unhealthy behaviors, but most people don't like to feel that they're unfairly costing other people money either."

But imagine when the government gets to control the whole enchilada. With no pre-existing conditions as central to the public nature of the plan, you have a particular mindset embedded that looks to avoid stigmatizing-and also parceling out costs in any kind of equitable manner: "The public option, expansion of Medicaid, and government health-care subsidies will just exacerbate these resentments by making the costs of obesity more dispersed among the public. As Marilyn Wann, author of "Fat! So?" and a strong advocate of the public option, notes "We're all in this life raft together."

But if there are too many people like Wann, the raft won't float! And what's missing from these healthcare proposals are decent incentives to promote healthier behavior: "Obesity has become a collective action problem with people failing to take positive action because they don't reap the benefits. If Americans were told that they could save $821 a year by maintaining their current weight for the next 10 years, most people probably would. If told that they could double those savings by dropping 20 pounds, most probably would. So why don't they? Because they don't have any skin in the game. If they lose weight, they don't reap the financial benefits through lower insurance premiums, though they may reap the health benefits. Unfortunately, for many people, that's just not enough."

So, as Finley tells us, the solution isn't with menu labeling or soda taxes. The rational approach is through imposing a cost/benefit equation that elevates personal responsibility: "People are remarkably receptive to financial incentives. A 2006 survey of CEOs by the Conference Board, an organization that collects and analyzes business information, reported that wellness programs yield up to $5 of health-care savings per dollar invested. CEOs noted that awarding employees who drop weight with cash, extra vacation days, and insurance rebates has helped them reduce their health-care costs."

Basing insurance on risk surely isn't a new concept; but the way the current legislative dance is going, it looks as if the only risk that's in play is the one that devolves from the dangers of a mounting national debt. We'll give Finley the last word: "And no doubt such incentives could work on a national scale with insurers offering reduced premiums or rebates to individuals who maintain a healthy weight. But the House health-care legislation prohibits such incentives because it is "discriminatory." That's right. It is price discrimination. Health care shouldn't be a buffet where everyone pays the same amount no matter how much they consume, though that seems to be what Congress wants. But we all know the problem with buffets. It's too easy to consume too much."

Willets Point: Hide and Sneak

2009-11-23T05:16:00.000-05:00

The effort of Willets Point United-the group of business owners trying to stave off eminent domain generated eviction over at the Iron Triangle-is being stonewalled by the city's Economic Development Corporation in its effort to have all of the relevant project traffic information publicly disclosed. Of particular urgency is the data that pertains to the proposed Van Wyck ramps-the linchpin of any ability that the city would have to mitigate the impact of the 80,000 cars/day that this massive redevelopment will generate.

What the city is doing here, is attempting to avoid any public scrutiny-a scrutiny that would reveal the extent to which the entire traffic study that lead to the project's initial approval at the city council fraudulently fails to disclose essential information that would, we believe, totally undermine the public support for this expensive venture.

Central to this unethical-and perhaps illegal-end run, is the withholding of the Access Modification Report (AMR); and all of the data that has been generated to come up with the report that is the key to getting both state and federal approval for the ramps. While the report itself may still be considered, "work product," the traffic information that has been utilized to make it up, certainly isn't.

What exactly is the city trying to hide? Huge costs and unmitigatible local and highway traffic. As Brian Ketcham, WPU's traffic expert points out: "...the project will generate 80,000 vehicle trips on an average weekday (of which 2,500 are truck trips) and about the same number of trips for weekend days, with peak hour impacts of between 6,000 and 7,000 vehicle trips."

And nowhere in the original environmental review is the impact of the ramps ever actually analyzed. Ketcham again:

"The project assumes the construction of new access ramps on and off the Van Wyck Expressway south of the Whitestone Expressway. The ramps do not exist but are assumed as part of the project. However, they are not included as mitigation nor are the impact of these proposed ramps included in the New York City’s Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS). The ramps are not mentioned in the Mitigation chapter of the FGEIS. Nor are they analyzed in the traffic and parking chapter although Plan trip assignments are clearly assumed to utilize these ramps (while the FGEIS fails to provide details it appears New York City is planning on diverting about 2,000 trips during the evening weekday peak hour to these ramps, about a third of total PM peak hour trips)."

This is a massive cover up. Although NYCEDC may be entitled to withhold records that are inter-agency/intra-agency communications, the portions of those records that consist purely of statistical or factual tabulations or data (such as traffic statistics) must be disclosed. FOIL explicitly says so. Therefore, NYCEDC has erroneously applied a claimed blanket exemption from disclosure to every element of the AMR, when no such blanket exemption is available. NYCEDC's denial is discretionary, not mandatory, and NYCEDC should not choose to deny access under the present circumstances.

Of course, the less the public knows about what kind of traffic the Willets Point development will generate, the less the hue and cry from local civic groups and elected officials. In addition, the greater the traffic mess, the greater the concomitant need to create extensive road infrastructure to mitigate-something that will be inordinately expensive for the city's strapped tax payers.

EDC's shucking and ducking should not come as a surprise. When the city employs-and funds-an illegal lobbying group to create the pretense of grass roots support for a project, camouflages actual traffic impacts in a fraudulent environmental review designed to obscure rather than enlighten the effected communities, and refuses to divulge the actual costs of the expensive adventure, you just have to know that the attempted fix is in.

Which is exactly why there is a compelling need for the intervention of the federal government under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). The feds, in this case the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), need to do a full an unbiased traffic study and environmental review.

And we are calling on the FHWA to intervene. We are fully aware that USDOT/FHWA goes to great lengths to appropriately include the public in its decision making, especially a project that is as significant as the Willets Point Development Plan would have on this region. We are requesting that it open up the AMR to public scrutiny and that direct NYSDOT to provide all materials relevant to the AMR; including all modeling results demonstrating the effects of ramps on the region’s expressways and on the local roads in Queens accessing the Willets Point area. We are also asking that FHWA review the FGEIS for indications that this assessment violates NEPA requirements.

It's past time for this conspiracy of silence to be put to an end. This project's potential to damage local community quality of life is simply too great to allow a review process to be, not only advanced in the dark, but under conditions that suggest that the fix is in. Open the books up EDC-what are you afraid the public will find out?

My Dear Old Nanny

2009-11-23T05:11:00.000-05:00

In Saturday's NY Post, Reason's Jacob Sallum points out how the calorie counting mindset is poised to be incorporated into ObamaCare: "The most conspicuous effect you will see from President Obama's health-care overhaul won't be at your doctor's office or the hospital. It will be at your local Burger King. That's assuming the Senate goes along with a provision, already approved by the House, that requires restaurant chains with 20 or more locations to display calorie counts on their menus. Although supporters claim such mandates have the power to make people thinner and prevent obesity-related disease, New York City's experience suggests they have little or no impact, possibly because customers who are interested in nutritional information can already obtain it."

Now we have commented extensively on this silly but dangerous regulation-and our observations were given a forum last month in the NY Post, where we pointed out: "And the lesson here — just as with the failed menu-labeling regulation — is that you need to educate the folks in order to change their behavior. This involves treating them as functional adults who can think and act for themselves."

Education, however, isn't the goal of the new health care mandates-and the trend should be obvious. If the federal government gains full regulatory control over the health care of 200 million + Americans, it will begin to set the parameters by which we all will have to live. After all, if the government (read tax payers) is paying for your health care it will have the right to tell you what to eat and how to live-under the rubric of no one should be made to pay for the mistakes or the unhealthy habits of others (except, it seems, when it comes to abortion).

If you think this sounds alarmist-remember the pushback over the "death panels" claim-then you're someone who hasn't lived in New York under the reign of Mother Tom Frieden (now, fittingly, the head of Obama's CDC). Government run or controlled health care will be the most intrusive federal program yet into the most intimate aspects of the lives of all Americans.

And the fact that some of the mandated behavioral changes are inane-as is calorie posting-will not make one damn difference to the nannycrats. For them, it's all about control-and their self-delusion that they know best how others should be living their lives.

Unhealthy War on Small Business

2009-11-21T09:20:00.004-05:00

The continues march to government run health care continues-and the implications for small business in this country are profound: "The last thing struggling small businesses need now is yet another employer mandate from the government, but they'll be getting a big one if Congress passes the so-called Affordable Health Choices Act, better known as Obamacare. And the last thing the economy needs is more unemployment, which this budget-busting, jobs-killing bill virtually assures."

As we said last summer: "Yesterday we were given an opportunity by Lou Young of WCBS TV to comment on the president's health care plan; and our position remains, that the plan will severely damage the already reeling small business sector because, as we said, there is no cost containment that will insulate small firms from additional-and expensive-mandates. The current plans simply make matters worse.

With record job losses piling up every month, and with no clear idea on just how the 40 million or more folks who are currently uninsured are going to get covered-and who will be forced to pay for their coverage-it is not the best time for the federal government to be engaged in a complex overhaul of 17% of the American economy. And, as we pointed out to Lou Young, we're currently experiencing record bankruptcies and foreclosures in the NYC small business sector, and any additional burdens-no matter how well intentioned-will further cripple an already hobbled economic sector."

It's just the same thing as the proposed sick leave bill wending its way through the city council in New York. As the NY Post commented last week: "The bill, on which the council heard testimony yesterday, would require employers to provide paid sick leave to employees -- at least five days a year from all businesses, and nine if it employs 10 or more people. That may be nice for workers in the very short term -- but at a time when firms are still struggling just to survive, the last thing they need is steeper operating costs. And as for expansion, well, just forget about it. So let's call this what it is: a jobs tax, pure and simple."

The kinds of mandates that the health care bill are seeking to impose would be just that-a tax on small business and a barrier to any kind of expansion that the economy desperately needs in these high unemployment times. When we started advocating on behalf of small business three decades ago, what impressed us most was the entrepreneurial energy-and yes the job creation that resulted from it.

So it looks as if Joe the Plumber was right-at least about the president's myopia when it comes to understanding the economic principles that are the foundation for all real economic growth. As one small business web site puts it: "We’ve been having a lot of conversations with Small Business owners about how they will change their businesses if Congress passes their monstrous, prosperity-killing Health Care Bill. We are also small business owners and employees ourselves, and what is emerging from these conversations frightens us and should frighten all American workers.The consensus? “They can force us to pay for health care, and fine us if we don’t, but they can’t prevent us from firing workers or lowering wages.” When you change incentives, you change behaviors, and if this bill passes, Small Businesses are incentivized to lay off workers and lower wages."

As is true of the current sick leave legislation-something that shouldn't be done in the middle of a recession. What makes the health care bill's even more dangerous, however, is that there's a tax waiting to be imposed on top of the mandates; along with the fact that insurance premiums will be driven up to pay for both the uninsured as well as those with pre-existing conditions

As the Wall Street Journal points out in regards to the Rangel proposal that was largely incorporated into the current health care legislation: "Every detail isn't known, but late last week Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel disclosed that his draft bill would impose a "surtax" on individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $280,000 a year. This would hit job creators especially hard because more than six of every 10 who earn that much are small business owners, operators or investors, according to a 2007 Treasury study. That study also found that almost half of the income taxed at this highest rate is small business income from the more than 500,000 sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations whose owners pay the individual rate."

So there you have it. Expensive mandates, higher premiums, and the taxes to pay for an expansion of a government entitlement program that will add the the already ridiculously high national debt. How many more workers need to be let go before we begin to realize that we're all speedily heading for economic Hell on the road paved with the good intentions of the economically illiterate.

On the Sunny Side of the Streetsblog

2009-11-20T13:42:00.003-05:00

As many of you might recall, the Alliance and the folks at Transportation Alternatives, don't always see eye to eye-particularly when it came to the mayor's proposal on congestion pricing. But when it comes to over development, we're all on the same page-as the following commentary from Dr. Ronald Schiffman on the TA web site, Streetsblog, underscores:

"When Michael Bloomberg was first elected eight years ago, I and many others thought such a wealthy mayor might assert his independence from developers who choose to serve their own self-interest at the expense of the city's long term needs. Six years later, the release of PlaNYC 2030 finally gave hope to that desire. The mayor put forth a vision that, despite some shortcomings, promised a framework for sustainable, equitable growth. For all the city's progress toward advancing those goals, however, it has taken several steps backward by continuing to build real estate projects that erode the walkable city."

What Schiffman is recognizing is the fact that Mike Bloomberg, for all of his vaunted independence, still acts as a handmaiden of the city's real estate interests-and the results, at least as far as reducing the city's carbon footprint, and advancing sustainability, speak for themselves. This is true for Willets Point, as well as for other large, auto-dependent, real estate developments that the city has done:

"In these developments, the street is nothing more than square footage added to permit greater building heights and densities. Streets in these developments divide rather than integrate neighborhoods. Traffic lights are recalibrated, for instance, to facilitate the flow of traffic and hinder pedestrian movement by reducing crossing times. Perversely, these measures are dubbed “mitigation” in the environmental review process. Without them, the development would not be allowed to proceed. This is because the developments include more space for car parking than needed -- far above the norm in New York City -- creating more traffic and necessitating such "mitigations."

Schiffman throws down the gauntlet to the mayor-saying he has four years left to rectify all that he has wrought:

"To build a sustainable city, we need to think and plan on a small scale, not just the mega-project scale. We need to engage more New Yorkers in the process of building neighborhoods, not just the politically connected or wealthy. The place where everything comes together, where we all meet and interact, and where sustainable planning must begin, is the street. The mayor has the intellect and the openness to understand this. He now has four years to reinforce what his administration has done well so far. Four years to change direction from past mistakes. Four years to focus on what has been ignored until now."

While we never want to discourage folks from appealing to Mike Bloomberg's better nature, it is our view that the sustainability platform has been grafted on to the mayor-and has never been part of his very essence. That essence is nurtured by a particular class-based word view, and is intertwined with the interests of the very forces that Dr. Schiffman feels are harming the city.

If it comes down to a choice of which direction to go-as it did when Costco was proposed for 59th Street and 11th Avenue-Mike Bloomberg instinctively goes for what he feels in his gut; and carbon foot prints and sustainability concerns will always to a back seat to the mayor's support for the goals and objectives of NYC's permanent government.

If the direction of the city is to change in regards to the issues that Schiffman and TA hold dear, than it will only happen when other forces are arrayed against what the mayor will inevitably be promoting in the next four years. And when it comes to Willets Point, with its 80,000 car trips and 2500 truck trips a day, we look forward to working with the transportation and environmental advocates to, paraphrasing the words of Rousseau, force Mike to be free.

Evan Handed

2009-11-20T06:28:00.003-05:00

You have to hand it to our friend Evan Stavisky when it comes to unbiased political observations. Here's his take-via the Crain's Insider-on the possible Giuliani-Gillerbrand senate match up in 2010 that we commented on yesterday: "“New York's fundamentally a Democratic state, the Conservative Party's already attacking him, [running] would affect his business, and he still doesn't have the temperament to handle an inquisitive press corps,” says Democratic consultant Evan Stavisky. He likens the idea of Giuliani for Senate to Kevin Costner in Water World: “Marquee star, sounds like a good idea in the pitch meeting, but in reality, it's a flop.”

According to Evan, Rudy is this vulnerable ingenue, as likely to collapse like one of his favorite opera divas once the heat gets too intense. This is, of course all very silly-and tendentious we might add. One could observe that the fact that Giuliani is now ahead by 14 points in the latest Marist Poll, while somewhat a function of the former mayor's name recognition, is at the same time a recognition of the fact that the appointed senator has failed to make much of a dent in the public consciousness-aside from her consistent ability to alter her appearance at (Schumer's) will.

And campaign's do have two sides. So while Rudy has his weaknesses to exploit-and Stavisky is certainly right about New York's Democratic bona fides-Gillibrand's extreme makeover and her Paterson paternity can be exploited as well. No? And let's not forget the trouble that John Corzine faced over in the (mostly) Democratic state of New Jersey.

2010 might not be the best time for a newly minted senator-someone who has undergone a complete change from her original, more conservative Blue Dog positions. Chuck Schumer likes to say that Gillibrand has evolved, but to us it looks more like a mutation.

In Need of an Upgrade

2009-11-20T05:45:00.004-05:00

The DOE is still at it-handing out good grades with little rhyme or reason. In fact, we wonder just how much money is spent simply devising and implementing this grading system-money that could be better used for teachers and other truly educational uses. As the NY Daily News reported this week: "Only one school got hit with the dreaded F this year on this year's high school report cards - and some students say the place is so bad they want out. "I've been making complaints to my mom and my father," said Shameeka Bromfield, a 10th-grader at Peace and Diversity Academy in the Bronx, which fell to the flunking grade from last year's B. "I want to transfer."

And the number of schools getting either an A or a B fell from 82% to 75%-still very high considering the low skill sets that students are taking with them as they head off to college; or, we should say community college, since these schools are being inundated with all of the students who, because of poor preparation, can't make the grade at the city's senior colleges. So what we really have are skills with good grades and students with-whatever-grades floundering once they leave the system.

As the News tells us: "Overall, about 75% of high schools earned an A or a B, down from 82% last year. An increase in graduation rates - which would have nudged overall grades higher - was offset by the Education Department's decision to raise passing scores. "Despite setting rising standards and requirements, our schools are generally moving forward," Schools Chancellor Joel Klein said ."

All pretty obfuscating to us-obscuring the real conditions and the actual learning being done in exchange for a letter grade that reveals little. Except for the fact that these grades can mean big money for teacher bonuses-at least someone is getting the benefit of grade inflation. As the NY Times reports today: "Teachers at W.H. Maxwell Career and Technical Education High School in Brooklyn were among those at 23 high schools citywide awarded a total of $3.5 million in performance bonuses on Thursday, even though the school received a D on its progress report earlier this week. The Jane Addams High School for Academic Careers in the Bronx and three other schools earned C’s on their report cards, and their teachers will be getting bonuses, too."

Kind of like crackpot rationality to us. Now don't get us wrong, it's nice to see hard working educators score a little extra cash in these tough economic times-but let's not kid ourselves and think that that outlays have any correlation to any real measure of academic success-much as the school grades are often completely baffling.

As the Times indicates: "The reason for the discrepancy between the two measures of progress, school officials said, is that the teacher bonuses — awarded by the Department of Education — are determined by individual targets set for each school, and the bonus-eligible schools serve students starting from a very low threshold. It may also be rewarding improvement within each letter grade. “Maybe a school didn’t go from a D to a C, or stayed at a C, but it’s still making progress,” said Ann Forte, a department spokeswoman, defending both the report cards and the awards program."

Everyone following so far? It reminds us of Tom Lehrer's old song, "The New Math." The first few verses give you an idea, although you really need to hear his rapid fire delivery to get the real flavor of Lehrer's insanity:

"Now remember how we used to do that. Three from two is nine; carry the one, and if you're under 35 or went to a private school you say seven from three is six, but if you're over 35 and went to a public school you say eight from four is six; carry the one so we have 169, but in the new approach, as you know, the important thing is to understand what you're doing rather than to get the right answer.

Here's how they do it now. You can't take three from two, Two is less than three, So you look at the four in the tens place. Now that's really four tens, So you make it three tens, Regroup, and you change a ten to ten ones, And you add them to the two and get twelve, And you take away three, that's nine. Is that clear?"

And Lehrer's closing line was: "It's so simple, So very simple, That only a child can do it!" But in the case of the DOE's grading and bonus system, not even a child can comprehend how its computed. As UFT president Mulgrew tells the Times: "Michael Mulgrew, the head of the teachers’ union, the United Federation of Teachers, disagreed, saying that the difference underscored that the report cards are a flawed measurement. “The D.O.E. tools really don’t capture a lot of the challenges that the teachers and students face. There are teachers in the A schools doing a great job, and teachers in the D schools doing a great job,” he said."

Indeed. What we need is to pay teachers and administrators properly-across the board-and stop trying to introduce a form of merit pay that is always going to be corrupted by the sheer difficulty of coming up with accurate measure. If this silly system continues, we may well reach the point where the educational operation is deemed a success, but the school children patient dies.

Update

We missed the NY Post story on this subject-but can't someone re-do their web site, and the Daily News' one as well-they are simply too difficult to access information from.

But the Post did get a great deal of good info: "That means teachers at more than half the 40 struggling schools participating in the two-year pilot program took in an average of $3,000 each in bonus pay this year. An additional $1.6 million was paid to principals and other administrators under a separate bonus program that's based on annual performance reviews. Both pay plans are at least partially tied to the Department of Education's report-card grades released this week, which saw 75 percent of high schools rated with an A or B."

But what this really shows, is how difficult it is to devise a common sense merit pay scheme: "Supporters of paying teachers based on performance hailed the program as the first step toward merit pay. But the union has maintained that its structure -- which rewards teachers based on their school's collective performance rather than on individual class room achievement -- shuts the door on merit pay."

And especially when the crackheads are apparently doing the grading at DOE: "The uproar arose in part because the bonus bump stemmed from the city's elevated results on annual math and reading tests -- exams that the state has since acknowledged should have been more rigorous. "Somebody has to be complicit in this robbery -- it cannot be that DOE can simply appropriate public money as it sees fit," said Paola de Kock, whose son graduated in June from Stuyvesant HS in Manhattan."

And the NY Daily News has Diane Ravitch weigh in on this farce: "Staffers at Brooklyn's W. H. Maxwell High School, tarred with a D on its report card this week, still reaped more than $180,000 Thursday in bonuses for a job well done. The award to the East New York vocational school - one of 80 high schools that received bonuses from the city Thursday - left education officials defending themselves and critics scratching their heads. "Either the school is doing better than its grade, or the bonuses were miscalculated," said education historian Diane Ravitch. "When you get this sort of counterintuitive result - bonuses at an allegedly low-performing school - it suggests that the accountability system is seriously amiss."

This is all beginning to look like a game of pin the bonus tail on the teacher: "Other bonuses also raised eyebrows, including more than $100,000 to the staff at Bronx Coalition Community High School, which is being closed for poor performance. Principals and teachers at four C schools also scored more than $1 million."

Would some one please go back to all of Mike Bloomberg's campaign ads on the subject of education. If that is done, there would be no head scratching over anyone awarding the mendacious mayor an F for honesty.

Giuliani for Senate?

2009-11-19T15:31:00.004-05:00

According to the NY Times-and almost everyone else-Rudy Giuliani will not run for governor in the upcoming year: "Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has decided not to run for governor of New York next year after months of mulling a candidacy, according to people who have been told of the decision."

The prospect of going mano-a-mano with Andrew Cuomo was apparently enough to dissuade the former NYC mayor: "It was not clear what prompted the decision, but the prospect of potentially facing Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, who is quietly planning his own run for governor on the Democratic ticket, may not have appealed to Mr. Giuliani, who suffered a bruising defeat in the 2008 Republican presidential primary. While many political analysts believe Mr. Giuliani would have comfortably beaten Gov. David A. Paterson, he would likely have faced an uphill battle against Mr. Cuomo, one of the most popular politicians in the state."

Still, it does leave open the possibility of a senate run against novice Gillibrand. As Liz points out: "A source close to new state GOP Chairman Ed Cox, who had been pushing Giuliani to run for the US Senate and not for governor, said allies of the former mayor have "made it clear" he isn't going to make a bid for the executive mansion...According to this source, a potential challenge by Giuliani to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is still on the table."

In our view, this would be a good thing because it would generate a competitive senate race against someone who has only demonstrated an ability to be the ultimate chameleon-and there are too many important issues extant to allow both NY senate races to become cake walks. As far as the current junior senator is concerned, her flipping and flopping around has gotten us dizzy-and has lead us to believe that she simply has no core beliefs.

With a Giuliani in the race, health care, stimulus, taxes, cap and trade and KSM will really be part of a vigorous public debate. It would be a good thing for New York-and not only because it would drive Al Sharpton absolutely nuts.

Update

Marist Poll should have Gillibrand hearing foot steps: "Giuliani leads U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, the Democrat appointed by Governor David Paterson to fill the vacant seat left by Hillary Clinton. 54% of registered voters statewide would vote for Giuliani compared with 40% who would support Gillibrand. Even one-third of Democrats report they would back the Republican challenger, and Giuliani runs competitively against Gillibrand in overwhelmingly Democratic New York City."

Further Thoughts on Kingsbridge and Willets Point

2009-11-19T08:12:00.002-05:00

Earlier we pointed out that the city-eager to cut a deal and get city council approval-had agreed last year to provide living wage jobs at the proposed Willets Point development. This precedent totally undercuts the Deputy Mayor Lieber's current position on the Armory-the same deputy mayor, by the way, that crafted the labor settlement last year.

But what really struck us was the mayor's comments quoted in the Errol Louis column: "The city is not in the business of guaranteeing people's wages, and in private development, we shouldn't be," said Bloomberg." Ah, the sanctity of the private sector is discovered by the mayor-kind of like some lost ancient relic. Because, as we have seen so dramatically in Willets Point, Mike Bloomberg is willing to remove 225 of such private businesses in order to make way for Bloomburgh.

And pay all the workers a living wage on top of it! It goes to demonstrate just how class divided the mayor's administration really is. You see, Mike will stand up four square for private business-but only it appears if it is the right kind. The business owners at the Iron Triangle don't have the same cachet as Related's president Jeff Blau (despite the fact that he can't get into a Fifth Avenue Co-op even with the mayor personally calling the co-op board).

Which brings us to the Willets Point situation-and a fascinating story in Realclearpolitics this morning on New London. It seems that the Fort Trumball neighborhood that was the subject of the eminent domain fiasco up there, was also the home of auto body shops-just like at the Point: "New London had wanted to replace the area's weathered cottages and auto-body shops with a cityscape more amenable to the corporate types at the new Pfizer research park. The city bought some of the properties and seized those whose owners refused to sell."

And the end result? "New London remains blessed by fine old architecture, a waterfront setting and a choice location between New York and Boston. It will reinvent itself. In the meantime, it must live with this huge irony: Two years hence, the auto-body shops banished from Fort Trumbull would have been employing more people in New London than the pharmaceuticals giant they were sacrificed for."

The key phrase here is,"would have been," because, of course, they are no more-and the owners at Willets Point do not want to be in the same position that the home owners and auto body shop operators of New London are today: totally right, but posthumously-with the City of New York, much like New London, stuck with a huge bill for nothing

Workers and small businesses need better political leadership than they have gotten over the past eight years. The fight over Kingsbridge-and the continuing fight over the development of Willets Point-symbolize the blowing winds of political change. Mike Bloomberg is part of the old mindset-and Bronx BP Ruben Diaz represents the new outlook. Which leads us to close with this question for the mayor: "Brother, can you paradigm?"

Stop Jobbing NYC

2009-11-19T05:52:00.003-05:00

Errol Louis, following up on his previous work on the proliferation of poverty wages in New York, weighs in today in the NY Daily News on the need to hold Related Company's hands to the fire on the living wage provision in the Kingsbridge Armory development: "The pitched battle over how, when and whether to develop the Kingsbridge armory in the Bronx brings New York City to a crossroads. Either we commit to fighting for jobs that pay a decent, living wage, or we watch an ever-larger section of our populace take a slow tumble into a life of working full-time for poverty pay."

And Louis ridicules the idea-put forward by the mayor-that somehow this demand is an infringement on "private" development on the city: "Related - backed by high-ranking city officials up to and including Mayor Bloomberg - says asking possible tenants to pay employees at least $400 a week for full-time work is a deal-breaker because companies won't agree to rent space if they have to pay $10 an hour. "The city is not in the business of guaranteeing people's wages, and in private development, we shouldn't be," said Bloomberg. But this deal stopped being "private development" when the city committed $42 million in repairs and incentives. And it does guarantee people's wages - in the worst possible way."

But the city's own refusal to budge on this issue as far as the Armory is concerned lacks any semblance of consistency. Last year when it looked as if the Willets Point redevelopment project would go by the wayside, the city-and this includes Mike Bloomberg, who personally lobbied for the plan-struck a very broad living wage deal with local unions: "Some of New York's biggest union leaders lined up on the steps of City Hall Thursday to cheer Mayor Bloomberg's new megadevelopment plan - the $3 billion Willets Point project in Queens. One after another, they gave glowing praise to one more giveaway to real estate developers - one that had been opposed by a majority of the City Council. The labor leaders touted the "historic" concessions on future jobs at Willets Point they claim to have secured from City Hall in return for backing the project."

And the deal on the Point was a lot more controversial than the one being promoted by KARA at the Armory-involving as it did the proposed eviction of 225 local businesses and 2500 workers. So desperate was the city to compromise-and avoid embarrassing Mike Bloomberg-that it had no problem caving on the wage agreement at the Iron Triangle. That was then.

Now at the Armory we have another example of the city giving away millions-tens of millions-to a favored developer, while offering precious little to the future employees at the site. As Louis says, enough of this shafting:

"Giving tens of millions in assistance to Related without demanding a reasonable base wage would guarantee that many of the resulting jobs would pay less than many New Yorkers need to afford living in this city. Some jobs would be at the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. That's $290 a week for full-time work. Before taxes. Enough. Time and again, residents around the city are supposed to look the other way while bureaucrats and businessmen swap public money for crummy jobs that leave full-time workers using food stamps, soup kitchens and other welfare to survive. The lawyers and paper-pushers who cut these deals hold grip-and-grin press conferences, congratulating one another on how "creative" they had to be to strike the final bargain. As if underpaying security guards and stockroom clerks were akin to composing a symphony on a bar napkin."

And Louis agrees with Bronx BP Ruben Diaz that this should be the beginning of the development of a new paradigm for development in NYC: "New Yorkers have wised up to this immoral foolishness. The Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance, a coalition of community groups and unions, is calling Related's bluff, indicating they would rather have no deal than a guarantee of misery."The Bronx has the highest poverty rate of any urban county in the United States," Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr., said in testimony to the Council this week. "It is time to demand that developers do better."Damn straight. Let the "creative" geniuses figure out a new business model - one that doesn't depend on making sure working poor households stay poor."

In all of the city-and Related's-hand wringing you'd have thought that this was something so radical that it had never been tried any where else-even aside from the city's own Willets Point bow to living wage. But, as Drum Major Institute tells us in its blog post:

"Related Companies was selected by the city to redevelop the historic Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx into a retail mall. To assist with the redevelopment, Related will receive city tax subsidies equal to $17.8 million, plus $50 million in tax credits from the state and federal government. But as part of the deal, local residents demand that future retail tenants at the mall pay their employees a living wage. Related Companies insists that if it forces future retail tenants to pay a living wage, the mall will ultimately fail. But this statement must be confusing to those that live in Santa Fe, New Mexico. They have lots of big-box retailers like Target, Home Depot, Bed Bath and Beyond, The Gap, and Banana Republic. But they also have a living wage law that covers every single employee in the city: $9.85 an hour. The residents of San Francisco must be equally confused. The city has many national retailers and also has a city-wide minimum wage of $9.79 an hour. Plus, San Francisco workers get paid sick time and mandated employer contributions to health care. And somehow Barnes and Noble can still manage to get by."

So enough of this belly aching from the city and its development handmaiden-it's time to put up or shut up. What was good for Willets Point, San Fransisco and Santa Fe should be good enough for the people of the Bronx as well. We'll give Errol the last word here: "Let all the hand-wringing over the possibility of businesses leaving New York be matched by more concern about 150,000 people who move out of the city each year. Let us talk about why so many of the record 39,000 people living in city homeless shelters actually hold full-time jobs. Not only should Bloomberg and the Council support the community alliance, they should put living wage requirements in all city projects that receive significant public benefits, the way cities like San Francisco and Santa Fe, N.M., have already done. That would be real creativity of the kind our city needs."

Prevailing Winds

2009-11-18T13:38:00.003-05:00

The NY Times has an interesting story this morning about the new wind blowing through the state on the issue of prevailing wage-particularly when it comes to tax breaks gained through IDA: "In a bid to shore up his relations with labor unions, Gov. David A. Paterson is readying legislation that would require developers to pay prevailing wages on many construction projects that receive public financing, meaning that construction workers would have to be paid significantly more than minimum wage."

So the idea that projects that get significant public support should be required to pay workers at a higher than what has been normal rate is gaining traction-we call it a prevailing wind, and its implications should be clear for the city council in its deliberations on the fate of the Kingsbridge Armory. As the Times points out: "The issues at stake in the legislation are already being played out in the Bronx, where a $310 million development project would bring a new shopping mall to the Kingsbridge Armory. A coalition of community leaders has pushed for requirements that jobs at the mall pay a wage of $11.50 an hour, or $10 with benefits, as opposed to the $7.25 minimum wage. The governor is proposing a far higher wage rate. The developer of the Bronx project, the Related Companies, has said that it would give up the project if it faced such requirements."

And, just as he is in the city debate, it is the RWDSU's Stuart Appelbaum who is front and center in the state fight as well: "Why — in the middle of the worst crisis since the Great Depression — would the governor want to kill an economic development program that has created over 200,000 new jobs?” said Kenneth Adams, the president of the Business Council of New York State. “It’s a proposal that destroys hope for economic recovery in New York.” But Stuart Appelbaum, president of the national Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, said, “If public resources are being used to finance development of any kind, there should be a notion that the community gets something back in return, and that notion is that we are creating good jobs.”

The handwriting on the wall is quite legible if you are Related. If you take the money, be prepared to pony up for the workers-and as Daily Politics points out, this issue is really taking hold with New York's elected officials: "The bill would require prevailing wages on construction projects that receive public financing through IDAs throughout the state. Needless to say, members of the business community - particularly those in the construction business - are not big fans of this idea. IDA reform has been the cause célèbre of several big players in the labor community: 32 BJ, RWDSU and the building trades. Of that trio, 32BJ has been lobbying the hardest, even going so far as to launch a print and radio ad campaign."

So, as far as Related and the Armory is concerned, the open question is whether or not the price of entry here is too steep. If it is, the developer just might pull the plug on the entire effort-but that point certainly hasn't been reached quite yet. The progress of negotiations will determine if Related will employ the time honored strategy of quitting in order to be able to fight another day.

Waging on the Armory

2009-11-18T05:53:00.003-05:00

In some additional coverage of the Armory battle, the Observer's Eliot Brown hones in on the living wage controversy-and the renewed vigor of council members: "A repetitive refrain filled City Hall’s council chambers on Tuesday morning. For a good hour at a zoning committee hearing on the contentious plan to redevelop the Bronx’s Kingsbridge Armory into a mall, council member after council member battered the Bloomberg administration and the developer, the Related Companies, with a similar line of questioning: Given that city subsidies are to be used in the $323 million project, why isn’t there a guarantee that all the future mall’s jobs will pay a “living wage?”

And, as the NY Daily News reports, some of the comments were derisive of the mayor; underscoring our previous observation that his status may have been somewhat diminished by this month's close election: "Councilman Robert Jackson (D-Manhattan) scoffed at threats that the armory - which has been largely unused for more than a decade - would remain abandoned for decades if Related pulls out. "If Mayor Bloomberg wanted to finance this project, he could do it himself," Jackson said, drawing laughs. "There's other billionaires in this city, and this state that can do it also."

With an impasse having been reached, and the votes not there for the passage of the application, Related will need to come to the council with some ideas-and jettison others, such as a mega-supermarket, that are sticking points for the legislators: "Despite the hard public posturing of the two sides, veteran Council members said that private negotiations are continuing. Related's veteran lawyer-lobbyist Jesse Masyr said he was "willing to discuss anything that doesn't compromise the economic viability of the project."

What kind of an agreement could get the both sides to agree? Right now, that's difficult to predict-but Related and the city are going to have to show something that indicates that they understand the upset here over the developer getting the gold mine and the community the shaft. As the Observer tells us: "You’re basically saying that the city is going to subsidize a project that basically is going to have jobs that are not even committed to paying the minimum poverty level,” said Councilman Robert Jackson, one of at least seven consecutive members to bring up the wage issue. This all came as very welcome, if not unexpected, news to Stuart Appelbaum, the politically connected president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, who has been relentlessly pushing the Council on the living-wage issue. “I was pleased with every single one of the members of the committee who were there today,” he said. “The city is putting so many resources into the armory that I think we have the right to ask for something specific in return.”

And NY1 weighs in as well on the newly discovered council feistiness-and unwillingness to buy administration arguments that a liviing wage requirement would kill the development: "City Council members who attended the meeting, however, weren't buying it. "In 200 cities there are living wages requirements for publicly supported projects. Now if that is true there must be many retailers who are able to function in that kind of environment," said Councilman Oliver Koppell. "I don't think providing living wages is going to destroy any project," said Councilman Larry Seabrook. The City Council is scheduled to vote on the Kingsbridge Armory plan by December 17th, but it appears members will vote against the proposal if it doesn't change.

And it is our feeling, that the workers and the KARA coalition will be able to get a significant concession from an administration that is not in a position to play hard ball-and a speaker who appears unwilling to provide mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to a teetering project as a new council term is about to begin. Negotiations will continue, but their tenor and tone are likely to be different than they have ever been-with results that reflect what BP Diaz has called, "a new paradigm."

Related: Hard of Hearing

2009-11-18T05:34:00.001-05:00

Yesterday's land use hearing on the Kingsbridge Armory was remarkable because of the sheer level of opposition the project has generated. We have yet to see this kind of opposition in the eight years of the Bloomberg tenure. And in over twenty five years of lobbying on land use items before the city council, we have never seen a project move forward to the final stage with so many critics looking to scuttle the development-and in this case, to do so if it doesn't include a living wage.

At this juncture, we believe there is not a single council member on the Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee who would vote for the project as is-it seems as if there is something in the plan to alienate everyone for one reason or another. Still, the level of vitriol was unprecedented; and the diminished respect for Mayor Bloomberg and his administration was palpable among the council members at the hearing.

What struck us about the testimony of Related and Deputy Mayor Lieber was a level of disingenuousness that was, however, quickly dismissed by the council inquisitors. On the one hand, Related's Jesse James Masyr, claimed that the project couldn't be tenanted if a living wage was a requirement for the retailers at the proposed mall. On the other hand, he was quick to tell the council that Related's Gateway Mall was, "wildly successful," suggesting that retailers should be salivating to grab a piece of the Bronx market.

This is a point we have made elsewhere. If this were the first Bronx mall, than a degree of caution could be expected. But it isn't, and as the NY Times reported yesterday, giving credence to our position-one that was reinforced by the powerful testimony of RWDSU president Stuart Appelbaum: "Nearly 200 cities already require developers using public money to pay more than the minimum wage, though the salaries vary from project to project, said Peter Dreier, a professor at Occidental College in Los Angeles who has studied wage issues. He said businesses generally do not suffer as a result. “In every city in the country with living-wage laws, developers claim that this will kill their project, but they’re just crying wolf,” Professor Dreier said. “There’s no evidence at all that living-wage laws have a negative impact on specific businesses or the larger business climate.”

But those real world results make little impression on certain knee jerk, pro-development advocates. Over at Crain's, the paper inveighs against the living wage component as a deal killer (subsc.):

"The facts are simple. The armory has been vacant for more than a decade. After many fits and starts, the Bloomberg administration crafted a plan to redevelop it for retail use, allocating about $70 million in government incentives to make the project feasible. The Related Companies won a competition for the $310 million project. The local community board supports it. The logic is clear: The Bronx needs all the help it can get.Unfortunately, politics in the Bronx don't work that way. The new borough president and a group of clergy are demanding that Related guarantee something called living-wage jobs—at a legislated, not market-rate, salary, and with health benefits.This provision would kill the project, because no national retailers will agree to it. Why should they, when the other boroughs and the surrounding suburban communities embrace their jobs without restrictions? If turned away by the Bronx, they will follow Costco's example and position their stores to lure Bronx residents without putting any jobs in the borough."

Not content to editorialize just on the wage issue, Crain's goes on to take the Alliance to task for its advocacy on behalf of local supermarkets: "Further muddying the waters is a group called the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, which is mobilizing to stop the project as well. Missing from most coverage of its efforts is the fact that the alliance's spokesman is being paid for his efforts by local supermarkets seeking to stifle a new rival. Surely, residents of the Bronx, who have fewer shopping opportunities than people who live in any other borough, need more retail competition, not less."

Now we appreciate the shout out from Crain's inimitable editor, Greg David, we should point out that the Alliance's spokesman, your truly, is recognized by one and all as the lobbyist for local supermarkets-and is registered as such. Now maybe we should announce this every time we post, but we think that our readers are savvy enough to follow the arguments and avoid the ad hominen.

It should also be mentioned, that these local supermarkets have never received anything like the $70 million+ that Related's getting to possibly out a competitor in their path. And we would invite David to visit the are to see the 17 supermarkets that do business within a quarter mile of the Armory. That we be more productive than regurgitating administration talking points.

But we digress. Back to the hearing-and on the point that Crain's raises about supermarkets-Deputy Mayor Lieber was a font of misinformation, and disinformation, on this topic. He, like Masyr, repeated the fact that the local community board had supported the project with a supermarket, while eliding the fact that the board was looking for an "organic market," and not necessarily a full service one. In addition, the board subsequently signed on to the Bronx BP's no supermarket CBA proposal-a fact not alluded to by Lieber or Masyr.

Be that as it may, Lieber went on to discuss the city's "Fresh Initiative," a policy designed to encourage new supermarkets in so-called underserved areas-of which Kingsbridge Heights is one. Lieber, perhaps unaware of the details of the city's proposal, avoids mentioning the fact that the Initiative restricts supermarkets to be no larger than 30,000 sq. ft.-half the size of Related's proposed market. He also fails to point out-and to do so might diminish the credibility of the City Planning report that underlies the Fresh concept-that the two mile trade radius has over twenty five local markets; hardly the retail desert that city planners portray.

As we said, cited in the KARA press release: "Concern was also expressed about the effects on neighborhood businesses if national retailers open up stores in the publicly subsidized mall. "A 60,000 sq. ft. tax subsidized supermarket at the Kingsbridge Armory, in violation of the city's own request for proposal, would lead to the disappearance of at least four and possibly as many as six neighborhood supermarkets-as has been the case of other mega market projects on New York City," said Richard Lipsky, spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance. "This kind of impact runs counter to the city's expressed goal of preserving neighborhoods markets, and would lead to less access to the very fresh fruits and vegetables that the city feels is vital for the health of low income New Yorkers. The Armory project then is bad for local business and makes little public policy sense."

The subject of the supermarket was also brought up by Council member Felder who was upset by the fact that it seemed to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the city's own RFP-an issue we have discussed. But what got our interest here, was that the RFP also urged the successful bidder to seek to have its tenants pay a living wage-a goal that both the city and Related have abandoned.

What is very clear now, however, is that KARA, the RWDSU and the local supermarket owners have out-lobbied EDC and Related-at least up until this point! It is certainly not time for opponents to get complacent, but with the votes not there for approval, it will be up to the supporters of the project to figure out how to negotiate terms that can be accepted by the KARA coalition, and the council itself. The end game, while near, isn't in the cross hairs just yet. But if we hear the Fat Lady gargling, we'll let you know.

Adding Cant to Can't

2009-11-17T14:00:00.005-05:00

It is simply amazing to us how conventional wisdom, devoid of any data that would suggest its veracity, begins to permeate in certain quarters. So it is with the issue of Indian cigarette retail tax avoidance. When we last left the discussion, Senator Carl Kruger was presenting a demand note to the governor to begin enforcing the law forthwith. In making his demand he posited the figure of $135 million per month as a receivable that the state could begin to collect immediately.

Soon after Kruger had made the demand, the conventional wisdom hyenas-in the media as well as in government-let loose on the Brooklyn lawmaker, accusing him of vastly inflating these uncollected funds. As the NY Times reports this morning: "Not to be outdone in the effort to sway public opinion on the matter, the governor’s primary antagonist throughout the budget process, Senator Carl Kruger of Brooklyn, held a news conference demanding that Mr. Paterson order the state treasury to begin collecting taxes on cigarettes sold on Indian reservations. “We have to ask everybody to share both the benefits and the burdens of being a New Yorker,” Mr. Kruger said. “Part of being a New Yorker is paying the taxes that are assessed upon you. Today is the day that we draw a line in the sand. And I say we should collect before we cut.”

And the response: “The idea that New York State could reap anywhere close to $135 million in tax revenue within the next several weeks is preposterous,” the governor’s spokesman, Peter Kauffmann, said. “You can’t balance the state’s budget with gimmicks and imaginary revenue.”

No, what is preposterous is the fact that this governor simply refuses to enforce the current law-and consistently underestimates the tobacco revenue precisely because it would add to the embarrassment of having a chief executive who is simply afraid to hold the Indians to the same law abiding standards as everyone else must be held to. But what is even more embarrassing is a slothful press corps that seems to accept a government pronouncement without a smidgen of skepticism.

Some of this can be gleaned in this Observer story on the, "obstacle," Kruger: "Mr. Kruger had just delivered a letter to David Paterson demanding that the governor start collecting taxes on cigarettes sold on tribal reservations. It's one of those perennial proposals that politicians dust off when they need an alternative to something governmentally responsible but politically unpalatable. Mr. Kruger's projection of how much revenue it would yield is all but universally dismissed as absurd; its size unprecedented."

"Universally dismissed?" Is there a scorecard we can refer to on this? In fact, if the press would go about doing its own research it would find that the Kruger numbers parallel those that have been proffered by state tax department officials. In 2005, Deputy Commissioner William Comiskey of the State Department of Taxation and Finance, testified that the Indian retail outlets bought 47 million cartons of untaxed cigarettes in that year alone.

If you do the simple math here, and multiply the number of untaxed Indian retail cigarette cartons by the state excise tax ($27.50) and the average sales tax ($4.75)-for a total of $32.50-you reach the numbers that the senator has laid out in his letter. But that doesn't stop the real obstructionists from substituting derision and opprobrium for clearheaded analysis: "Carl Kruger's a liar, his letter is a lie, he owes the governor an apology and this is not helping the process of getting a deficit reduction package," Larry Schwartz, Mr. Paterson's top aide, told the Daily News. "I'd rather hear what Freddy Krueger thinks to be honest with you," Mr. Paterson told the Associated Press. "For them to even say it is irresponsible bordering on malevolence."

And-to fight fire with fire, perhaps-there may be many New Yorkers who would rather be governed by Freddy Kruger than the current occupant of the executive mansion. But all of this, smoke and mirrors really, is an effort to avoid the simple task of providing the senate, the media and the public with the accurate accounting that only the state tax officials can provide.

And the press should be demanding this as well-piercing the veil of fear that has apparently gotten in the way of the ability to do simple math and give an honest accounting. The Times Union is closer to the truth on all of this: "Citing earlier disruptions, Paterson fears a tax effort could spark violence, especially in the Seneca Nation of western New York where many of the disputed cigarettes are sold. "A police problem could quickly elevate to a military one," said Peter Kiernan, the governor's counsel, of the idea at a hearing last month. In 1997, the last time the government tried to collect such taxes, American Indian protesters shut down the Thruway and clashed with State Police."

And the TU credits Kruger for courage in the face of a pusillanimous governor: "But Kruger compared backing down on tax collections to saying the government wouldn't enforce property tax collections for fear angry homeowners might blockade the Long Island Expressway." Might not the cat calling from the Second Floor be a diversion from this unpalatable public timidity?

But instead we get the following from the NY Daily News' Bill Hammond: "Ditto for Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn, who made a big show yesterday of demanding that Paterson immediately start enforcing cigarette tax laws on Indian reservations. It's true that Albany has tolerated rampant tax evasion that hurts law-abiding merchants and costs state and local government big bucks. But for Kruger to claim that enforcement could reap $1.6 billion a year is reckless. "If people smoked that much there would be a big black cloud over the state blocking out the sun," one budget official quipped. Throwing around numbers like that suggests that Kruger is exploiting the issue as an excuse not to grapple with the politically dicey work of finding cuts."

We have a suggestion for Hammond-follow I. F. Stone's dictum and do some reporting-don't accept any official statistics without some verification. And for that matter, why don't you query the Bloomberg administration that puts the uncollected funds at around $1 billion. It is easy to dismiss inconvenient truths, especially when they get in the way of a good narrative.

Here's the bottom line: around fifty percent of all cigarettes consumed in NY State are untaxed. So, unless our state's consumption has drastically veered from those of all of the other 49 states, New Yorkers will smoke 90-96 million cartons and will collect the tax on only around 46 million.
The numbers are staggering, but the cloud that some nonfeasant state official claims surrounds Senator Kruger's figures, really applies to the exhaust fumes emitted from a mendacious state government that lacks the fortitude to apply the law equally to all of the residents of New York State.

Bloomberg to Living Wage: Drop Dead!

2009-11-17T08:24:00.002-05:00

Bob Kappstatter's column headline really nails it this morning in the NY Daily News: "Mayor Bloomberg on living wage: Drop dead" It appears that the mayor feels that the injection of a living wage into the Kingsbridge Arnory plan would harm development all over the city. As Kappy tells it: "Mayor Bloomberg has definitely stepped in to shoot down that living wage proposal for retail workers at the Kingsbridge Armory.Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Bob Lieber is reportedly set to oppose it today at a Council committee hearing, saying the Bloomberg camp fears a $10 an hour/and benefits wage deal would harm retail development citywide."

Given the impact of Bloomberg's economic policies on neighborhoods and small businesses, we can only say, "We hope so." And if our meeting with Herr Lieber was any indication, it is quite clear to us that this is one guy who simply has no clue when it comes to the local economy. Thorsten Veblen had the right term for this Wall Street trained functionary-"trained incapacity."

As the RWDSU's Stuart Appelbaum told the NY Times: "We don’t want them to bring in employers who are going to pay wages that keep people in poverty,” said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the national Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, and a member of the coalition. “When the government invests the city’s funds into the project, we have the right to expect something in return.”

What the Bloombergistas fail to understand-so distant are they from neighborhood reality-is that their policies of high taxes, over-regulation and over development, have crippled NYC's local economies. The record level of store vacancies and small business foreclosures should allow the city council to say proudly at today's hearing: "No mas!"

And when we look at the supermarket issue, if the mayor thinks that trading one 60,000 sq. ft. megastore for the four or five neighborhood supermarkets that will be lost, than he's doing about as well in math as our city's school children are. It flies in the face of the entire purpose of the city's "Fresh Initiative."

So, let's get it on, and have a debate that exposes the mayor's own policy limitations-ones that have led to the Bronx suffering through record levels of unemployment. It's time that Big Real Estate learned that it's not all about their own profits. As one man coming out of the cleaner's was overheard explaining to his young son about the need for accountability: "Son, if the money's good enough to go into their pockets, the pants gotta be good enough to go on my ass."

Kingsbridge's Last Stand?

2009-11-17T05:57:00.004-05:00

The first city council hearing on the controversial Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment plan will take place today-with a press conference scheduled at 1:00 PM on the steps of city hall-and there doesn't seem to be much movement yet towards a settlement. As the NY Daily News reports, the project has generated more opposition than any other such land use application that has come before the council in the past eight years: "The Council's subcommittee on zoning and franchises will hear testimony on a project which the subcommittee chairman, Tony Avella, said has generated a surprising wave of opposition. "There is more opposition to this project than any I've seen come to the committee since I've been the chair," said Avella, who has headed the committee for eight years. "And the opposition is at a higher level than I've seen before."

And, as the NY Times tells us, the line in the sand is over the question of whether the retailers in the project will pay their workers a living wage: "The dispute has escalated as the plan has moved forward, with the commission’s 8-to-4 vote leading to a public hearing before the City Council’s Land Use Committee set for Tuesday. But if the armory battle has become a high-stakes stare-down over wages at the mall, neither side is showing any sign of blinking. A coalition of political, religious, labor and local leaders has demanded that every new job at the Armory offer a “living wage” — $11.50 an hour, or $10 with benefits, compared with the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. They argue that since the developer, Related Companies, will receive millions in tax breaks and incentives for the project, some of those benefits should be passed on to the community."

And while Related claims that this is a deal killer, the Times suggests otherwise: "Nearly 200 cities already require developers using public money to pay more than the minimum wage, though the salaries vary from project to project, said Peter Dreier, a professor at Occidental College in Los Angeles who has studied wage issues. He said businesses generally do not suffer as a result. “In every city in the country with living-wage laws, developers claim that this will kill their project, but they’re just crying wolf,” Professor Dreier said. “There’s no evidence at all that living-wage laws have a negative impact on specific businesses or the larger business climate.”

Everyone's initial attention is focused on Avella's Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee, whose nine members hold the fate of the project in their hands. Four years ago, the committee's reluctance to approve a BJs that the Alliance opposed led to Related withdrawing its application to avoid a humiliating defeat. At this juncture, it doesn't appear that Related has enough votes to get its approval as the united Bronx delegation has been lobbying furiously for its living wage concept.

As delegation head Annabel Palma tells us, the delegation has never been as united as it is today-and she believes that Speaker Quinn will support the Bronx. Still, while the living wage is the bone of contention it is traffic that will be the focus of the land use application. And the traffic will be a nightmare-particularly if the plans for a mega supermarket aren't excluded from the plan.

As the Daily News points out: "Another controversial aspect is traffic congestion, which the developer's own study admits cannot be avoided at several surrounding intersections. A traffic study commissioned by project opponents suggests that the resulting delays would increase vehicle emissions by 93% over current conditions in a neighborhood that is already plagued with high asthma rates...Critics also say the plan offers just 400 parking spaces for a 600,000- square-foot mall, compared with the 3,300 spaces Related built for its newly opened million-square-foot Gateway Plaza a few miles to the south. The concern is that the area's narrow streets will be snarled with cars double-parking and cruising for metered spaces."

The Armory fight is the maiden city wide political voyage for Bronx BP Ruben Diaz, Jr,, and he is making the most of it. As the Times says: "Bronx Borough President Rubén Díaz Jr. stood before a raucous crowd and vowed to continue fighting a “new revolution.” “You cannot mess with us anymore,” he yelled. “You want to do business, we can do business, but business has to be good for everybody.” Mr. Díaz wound up his speech, at the annual meeting of the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition, to cheering that drowned out his words. He spoke just days after the City Planning Commission voted last month to approve the very development plan he hoped to change."

Diaz is a breathe of fresh air when contrasted with his predecessor, and the deals that were cut on Yankee Stadium and the Related Gateway Mall project: "The struggle is colored by residual anger over community benefits agreements signed in connection with the new Yankee Stadium and the nearby Gateway Mall, also built by Related, that critics called weak and overly accommodating to the developers. Those deals were negotiated during the tenure of Mr. Díaz’s predecessor, Adolfo Carrión Jr."

Clearly, a new day-and a new paradigm for development-is dawning in the Bronx; and it may well be sweeping down into city hall as well. Right now the opponents are in a strong position-and it does appear that the supermarket inclusion may be totally off the table-but the final decision is still not yet made since the push back from the mayor hasn't been seen in its full fury. Still, the mayor may be the 500 pound gorilla, but his close election may have diminished his full force at the council-witness the parking meter vote yesterday.

We'll see how this plays out over the next few weeks. But one thing is for certain, in eight years Related has never experienced the kind of intense and organized opposition that KARA, the RWDSU, and the local supermarket owners have generated on this development. In our view, things will never be quite the same.

Park and Deride

2009-11-17T05:11:00.000-05:00

As expected, Mayor Bloomberg announced that he would veto the city council's so-called parking meter grace period bill. As City Room reports: "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on Monday vowed to veto a popular City Council bill that would give ticket-fatigued drivers a five-minute grace period at thousands of parking meters, saying it would lead to “chaos.” Parking meter revenue has become a sizable contributor to the city’s coffers."

This, in our view, confirms the expectation that the closeness of the last election will yield little in the way of policy epiphanies for Mike Bloomberg: "But even as the Council moved ahead on the legislation, Mr. Bloomberg voiced his opposition. “I will veto that,” he said. “I think it’s a very misguided piece of legislation.”...The mayor’s dismissive remarks on Monday suggested that little had changed since his narrow re-election two weeks ago. During the campaign, his Democratic opponent, William C. Thompson Jr., mocked the city’s aggressive enforcement of parking rules, which has infuriated drivers, and cost them dearly: Most parking tickets start at more than $100."

The real question that needs to be asked of the mayor-and its relevancy is quite obvious to us-is: "When was the last time you used a parking meter, Mr. Mayor?" People are laboring in NYC under a mountain of taxes and fees, and all of this is well below the Bloomberg private jet radar: "Some predicted that the mayor would seek to appeal to those aggrieved drivers after the election. But he appeared unsympathetic at a Bronx food distribution center on Monday."

Of course, he did, and this is just the beginning of the end of the extended honeymoon. As the Observer points out, the mayor is asking for billions of budget cuts in both the near and longer term: "Michael Bloomberg wants to cut more than a billion dollars from next year's budget, and $550 million from this current budget, according to a letter to the heads of city agencies (and reporters) this afternoon. For the current year, Bloomberg is seeking to cut 1.5 percent from the Department of Education, 2 percent from "uniformed forces" and 4 percent from all other agencies."

Once Mike the Knife gets started on his great budget cutting adventure-and adds a few tax hike accessories-the hue and cry will resound across the five boroughs. And in the process, Bloomberg's reputation will suffer from the same kind of diminution that the governor is experiencing. Only for Mike, the fall will be that much greater

Kruger's, "Make My Day," Moment

2009-11-16T14:23:00.002-05:00

Right according to schedule, Senator Carl Kruger went over to the Second floor at the Capitol in order to present his demand note to the governor on the Indian cigarette tax avoidance. As Daily Politics reports, Kruger drew a line in the sand: "We have to ask everybody to share both the benefits and the burdens of being a New Yorker," said Kruger at a press conference following his staged letter delivery. Part of being a New Yorker is paying taxes that are assessed upon you," the senator continued. Today is the day that we draw the line in the sand, and I say that we should collect before we cut. We should collect the taxes due before we cut the services. While we negotiate we should be collecting. Anything short of that is denying the rule of law."

As would be expected, the governor's office shot back with the following: "The Observer's Jimmy Vielkind read Kruger a statement from a Budget Division spokesman who challenged the senator's numbers, calling them "preposterous," and adding: "If people smoked that much there would be a big black cloud over the state blocking out the sun."

Which, of course, is patently silly, since the numbers in question are extrapolated from the actual number of taxed cartons sold in the state in 2002; when apparently there was an indisputable cloud over the state that has suddenly, and miraculously, dissipated. But Kruger's response was spot on: "Kruger retorted that his estimates are based on information from "industry sources" and "the revenue agents themselves." He accused the Paterson administration of creating a black cloud of its own by refusing to share revenue details with the Finance Committee."

All of this could be resolved in a NY minute if the State Department of Taxation and Finance released the numbers that only they have. Anything short of full disclosure only serves to make the executive look rather foolish; not to say mendacious about the real reason for its reluctance to enforce the law-fear of Indian violence.

And Kruger went right after the governor on this issue: "Asked if he was concerned about possible violence, Kruger replied rather blithely that when the Post's Fred Dicker has to pay his property tax, "he doesn't have a State Trooper at his door." Kruger said Dicker "grudgingly" or "gleefully" writes the check and drops it in the mail - Dicker helpfully added "painfully" to that list. "The rule of law says that the taxes are due," Kruger said. "It’s the same law that applies to every property owner in the State of New York, and they grudgingly pay their tax without fear of violence. So, all I can say is that collect the tax and those that choose to break the law should suffer the consequences of their actions."

We have a governor who gets approval from barely 1/5th of all New Yorkers, demonstrating once again why the public lacks confidence in his leadership abilities-his inability to act with forthrightness and courage. When it comes to the Indians and their refusal to obey the law, David Paterson is simply hiding under his desk.

Vos Iz Neias (What's News)

2009-11-16T06:20:00.003-05:00

The NY Times is reporting that the most reliable Bloomberg constituency, New York's Hasidim, deserted him in droves this past election-and the reasons should be familiar to our readers: "Without question, Mr. Bloomberg was eager to woo the city’s Hasidic Jewish voters. He met behind closed doors with influential rabbis, courted their congregations, and gave an eight-page interview to an Orthodox magazine, describing the challenge of growing up Jewish in an Irish and Italian neighborhood. Still, his share of the vote fell sharply in Brooklyn’s largest Hasidic enclaves on Nov. 3, and the decline was one of the sharpest among any group of voters. “We didn’t vote as Hasidim. We voted as New Yorkers,” said Mendy Hecht, 36, a Lubavitcher in Crown Heights, who pulled the lever for the mayor’s Democratic opponent, Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. “My vote was a vote of protest against Bloomberg.”

Another sharp reminder to the mayor that there is a growing disenchantment with his anti-neighborhood policies: "Higher property taxes, an increase in water rates and other fees, a perceived parking-ticket blitz and a nagging feeling that money can truly buy anything, including a third term, made many Hasidic voters angry at Mr. Bloomberg."

All of this should be-but really we would be surprised if it did-a warning to Bloomberg that a course correction is in order. Unfortunately-and the stark fact that Mike stood alone on stage at his election victory symbolizes the problem-Bloomberg is who he is, and has no one in particular who can strongly advise him to alter his policies.

Change, if it is to come, will only do so when the people's anger at his callous disregard for their welfare becomes too much to bear. That time may soon be upon us-and the ticket blitzing is just the tip of the outrage that's coming.