High Comedy in High Office

The Times Union has a story on the efforts being made by AG Schneiderman to expand the powers of his office to investigate public corruption: "Cracking down on public corruption was a major theme of last year's election, but Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says he was rebuffed by the Cuomo administration when he sought to expand his office's jurisdiction in the area."

Poor Eric, he isn't being given enough power to root out all of the bad guys. Of course, this is all quite laughable considering his Keystone Kops routine involving the supposed investigation his office has into the illegal lobbying of Claire Shulman. If the AG is either unwilling or unable to use the power of his office to get to the bottom of an illegal scheme-one that involves the billionaire mayor of NYC-to deprive small property owners of their Constitutional rights, then it serves no public good to give the guy greater authority to root out corruption.

Willets Point is a test case and so far Schneiderman-and the hapless Comptroller DiNapoli-are flunking the test. But then again the AG is in good company since his predecessor sat on the investigation for a year and a half and pocket vetoed any action after Mike Bloomberg endorsed him on September, 6, 2010. Cuomo went on to become governor and in one of his first appointments placed Joan McDonald in charge of the DOT.

Why is this significant? Because McDonald used to be an executive of the NYC EDC-the lead agency promoting Willets Point development. State DOT is responsible for the approval of ramps off of the Van Wyck-the linchpin of the development. This is therefore a target rich environment and we suggest that the AG accomplish this test of his bona fides on corruption before begging the governor-of all people!-for more authority.

EDC Cruzin' for a Bruisin'

The NY Daily News is reporting on the awarding of a Willets Point sewer construction project to a New Jersey firm. This is in keeping with EDC policy of doing as much harm to NYC business as is reasonably possible:

"A New Jersey company has snared lucrative contracts to build a sewer system for Willets Point, angering critics who say the job near Citi Field should go to a city firm. Cruz Contractors signed deals in May and July for $36 million of work for sewers at the mix of auto body shops and junkyards by the Mets’ stadium."

This didn't sit well with State Senator Tony Avella: "State Sen. Tony Avella (D-Bayside) called Cruz’s hiring a “disgrace.”

“City residents are out of work, especially construction workers,” Avella said. “Why can’t we give our people these jobs?”

The action was defended by EDC as a necessary requirement of the bidding process: "But the EDC defended picking Cruz, based in Holmdel, since it was the lowest bidder. The law bars discriminating against bidders based on their geographic base, said EDC spokeswoman Jennifer Friedberg."

From our standpoint we are amazed that EDC decided to bid the contract out at all since it is notorious for sole sourcing so much of its consultant work. And since the agency's word is worth a bucket of warm spit it would be interesting to see if what EDC is saying is actually the truth. But we did get a kick out of the lame comments of Queens BP Helen Marshall-she of the "Keep it in Queens" program.

WPU's Lennie Scarola underscores the fecklessness of Marshall and attacks EDC's failure to find a local firm:

"Len Scarola, who leases land at Willets Point for an auto body shop, bashed the contracts as “outrageous.”...But Scarola argued that Cruz’s hiring contradicts the message of a “Keep It In Queens” initiative by the city, the Queens Chamber of Commerce and Borough President Helen Marshall. The program trumpets the rejuvenation of Willets Point as a way to bring jobs to the borough. Marshall said in a statement that she supports the redevelopment because it will bring more than 18,000 construction and 5,000 permanent jobs. “Our hope and expectancy is that many of them will be filled by local labor and businesses,” she said."

Marshall can't even summon up an ounce of outrage for the award-a sign of just how deep she is in with the administration. As Tom Lehrer once sang: "Second fiddle is a hard part we know, when they don't even give you a bow."

This story, however, is just the beginning. Willets Point is in an environmental justice zone and EDC has violated all of the rules for complying with permitting in these zones-and that is a story to be continued.

A Capital Idea?

The WSJ is reporting that the Bloomberg administration is throwing in the towel on building some of the (controversial)marine transfer stations: "The city is also proposing to privatize four marine transfer stations that are part of the city's comprehensive sanitation plan.:

It is now five years since the city's SWMP was passed by the clueless council and we still have no movement to realizing the environmental justice dream of sticking a solid waste station to the snooty Upper East Side-leaving aside the fact that the marine transfer station is in a residential area that is home to thousands of lower income public housing tenants and is slated to be built over a park!

What does this privatization scheme mean? It means to us that New York is tap city when it comes to capital expenditures and is looking to out source the costs of these transfer stations. Now for us this makes a great deal of fiscal sense but it underscores the fact that the city has little money to waste and that the Willets Point pipe dream should be shelved because of the fiscal uncertainty that NYC faces. We are still waiting for the hidden costs of the project to be publicized for the awaiting sticker shocked citizens.

But for the environmental justice folks this privatization means that the transfer stations will not be coming any time soon-with litigation and a lengthy bidding process very much in the way. Who in the private sector is going to step up to bid under these circumstances?

As the city's dire fiscal conditions become clear-and the Bloomberg folks are busy trying to raise every fee they can think of-isn't it time for some fiscal watchdog to take a look at Willets Point and observe that the emperor has no clothes on?

The Living Wage Wedge

Opponents of a living wage are now trying to use the Willets Point development as a weapon in their efforts to kill the measure in its crib. As Crain's reports:

"Opponents of the measure are promising a fight. They've advertised in local newspapers and a dozen plan to testify at the council hearing. “It's no surprise that the same union which helped kill 2,000 good jobs at the Kingsbridge Armory is back on the bandwagon now,” said a spokesman for a coalition of business groups that oppose the bill. The opponents say it would make it impossible to develop retail projects in the outer boroughs. An insider at one firm that bid for the first phase of the Willets Point redevelopment said the project “would be unleaseable,” and therefore unbuildable, if the living-wage ordinance passes."

Now many of these opponents-looking no doubt at the fundraising opportunity derived from fronting for the big real estate interests-are local chambers of commerce. What strikes us about this is that these chambers are supposed to be representing the neighborhood businesses-you know those small retailers that are the backbone of the NYC economy.

For their edification those 2,000 jobs would have come at the expense of the retailers on Kingsbridge and Fordham Roads-all done courtesy of the subsidizing from Mike Bloomberg's crony capitalism program for economic (aggrandizement) of his billionaire real estate buddies. And that 2,000 number is risible since the Gateway Mall built on the gravesite of the Bronx Terminal Market was supposed to generate over 3,000 jobs but yielded around 900.

But it seems that if the living wage is applied to Willets Point than it would be the death knell of the project-at least according to the vaunted (and self interested) "insider" that Crain's finds to courageously comment on the issue: "Any project that has a large retail component will not be able to get over the burden with national retailers,” the insider said."

Wonder who that was? Perhaps Jesse Masyr the lawyer for the Related Companies whose Armory project was bitch slapped by the RWDSU. In our view if the Willets Point project would be doomed without a ban on living wage than that's just another good reason why the development should be relegated to the dustbin of NYC history. It is, after all, the retail mall on the site that creates most of the unmitigatable traffic for the project.

If NYC is going to squander hundreds of millions-or in the case of Willets Point, billions-of dollars to take away property from the little people to give to the well heeled interests, than the peons working at the site need to be paid a living wage-period! If that can't be done than the entire development needs to be re-thought. It has become an intolerable burden on NYC tax payers in these recessionary times.

Bloomberg Silence: Part II

Earlier we pointed out that the mayor's new found stab at eloquence should be shelved for silence because of the paucity of achievements that the Bloomberg administration can justifyingly point to. In doing so we left at a significant reason-and perhaps the most significant reason-for the mayor to remain mute-especially in the area of fiscal management. In this regard Mike Bloomberg is throwing stones from inside a glass house.

The NY Post highlights the incongruity of the 99 lb weakling trying to Bogart a bully pulpit:

"Sure, when it comes to Washington’s spending, he’s got all the answers. But critics note New York City’s debt has ballooned on Mayor Bloomberg’swatch. Hizzoner said on Tuesday that fixing the federal budget is “just not that difficult to do, if you have courage.” He scolded President Obama and both houses of Congress for their budget gridlock, sketching out a cost cutting, tax raising, entitlement shaving plan that he said would dismantle the deficit and balance the budget in 10 years. “I was reminded of the guy telling his neighbor how to fix his roof while his own is leaking,” Councilman James Oddo (RSI/Brooklyn) said of Bloomberg’s lecture. “Ten years into the mayor’s term, we have large, longterm fiscal problems we have not dealt with.”

The sharp minded Nicole Gelinas adds more ridicule to the mayor's farcical posturing: "Debt above 15 percent of personal income is not a good idea,” said Nicole Gelinas, of the Manhattan Institute. Worse, the mayor has kicked the can down the road when it comes to the budget busters of the future. “The city continues to take on pension and healthcare benefits for its current and future retirees that it cannot afford,” Gelinas said."

Mike Bloomberg has increased the size and scope of NYC government with little or no evident payoff in terms of better services-pay attention to the education budget if you want the sad truth. In the process of hiring more and more municipal workers he has added to the ballooning debt that is saddling future generations of New Yorkers.

And where is the danger in all of this impecunious behavior? Right in the capitol budget where the city is kicking the debt can down the road: "The expense budget, which by law must be balanced every year, is funded by taxes and fees. Money for the capital budget comes from bonds that the city sells to investors and must pay off, with interest, over many years. The city’s growing debt comes from increases in capital spending, which means higher principal and interest payments."

Which gets us to the issue of the development of Willets Point. Can we afford to develop the site and increase the burgeoning debt for a project that might take decades to come to fruition? In raising this question we are still waiting for the city to put a price tag on all of this silliness. Someone should try to get the answer to this and get the cost/benefit equation before the public in the context of the city's debt crisis.

Bloomberg: Silence is Golden

The NY Times has a long and seemingly pointless article about the mayor's new penchant for public speaking:

"MAYOR MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG is not, by his own admission, much of a wordsmith. He is forever mispronouncing names — even those of his own commissioners. He is impatient with speechwriters. And he rarely, if ever, practices his remarks. “His mentality,” concedes his top speechwriter, Francis S. Barry, “is not one of rehearsal.” But despite his rhetorical handicaps and a reputation for perfunctory prose, New York City’s uneasy speaker in chief is doing something unexpected in his third term: embracing grand-scale oratory with fervor."

Puleeze! Why anyone-but particularly Mike Barbaro over at the Times-would want to wax eloquent about a man whose eloquence is, to be charitable, in very short supply is beyond us. Mike Bloomberg's major contribution to public dialogue is silence-and when he does reach for grand oratory, as he did with the GZ mosque, the results are more cacophonous than the rhetoric itself.

What Bloomberg is now doing is styling because he no longer has to worry about the backlash from his jarring inability to put a comprehensive and mellifluous sentence together: "Mr. Bloomberg, of course, rarely shies from speaking his mind, a quality that has long grated and gratified New Yorkers in equal measures. But in these lengthy and lofty speeches, even those closest to the mayor sense a new found liberation — from worries about polls (which remain middling), re-election (impossible) or the White House (a dream abandoned). "

What truly funny, however, is that the Times observes that the mayor's newly discovered rhetorical flourishes are designed to distract from what has long been considered-although wrongly in our view-his forte: bureaucratic expertise; "It is a striking shift for Mr. Bloomberg, 69, whose reputation as a bureaucratic maestro has been dented by a series of managerial missteps, leaving the administration eager to burnish his legacy and elevate him above the daily dramas of municipal government."

That Barbaro writes this straight faced is dripping with irony. Now that his bureaucratic expertise has been exposed as a hoax the mayor is going to resort to some kind of rhetorical renaissance to literally talk his way out of the failed paper bag that he finds himself in? Isn't this silly? And why does Barbaro-a first rate political reporter-find himself writing seriously on a topic that should have been relegated to a humor column?

The CitiTime scandal, the exposed failures of the public schools, and the snow storm debacle-not to mention his handling of the Goldsmiith resignation-has left the mayor's reputation for managerial expertise in tatters. That he wants to change the subject by reaching for an eloquence above his considerable pay grade is simply risible.

But back to the putative eloquence surrounding the GZ mosque:

"The intense national debate during the summer of 2010 over the proposed Islamic center, to include a mosque in a building only blocks from ground zero, did much to change that. The mayor, the first major public figure to express forceful support for the project, insisted on giving a rousing speech that he tinkered with and tweaked endlessly, even on the 10-minute ferry ride out to Governors Island, where he delivered it. In an unapologetic tone, he argued that the government had no right to tell a religious group where to pray, and that tolerance was at the core of New York life."

This was an issue that directly was connected to core constitutional values-at least as Bloomberg saw them. That he was at the same time tone deaf about what a majority of New Yorkers saw as an inappropriate siting issue, well, who cares-Mike Bloomberg was never one to consider the feelings of his inferiors. What's ironic for us is that Bloomberg''s defense of Constitutional rights, his faux eloquence, was extremely limited-and never was expanded to, let's say, property rights.

The issue of the mosque never involved freedom of worship-it was a land use matter. The taking of private property, however, is a core Constitutional issue-and that Bloomberg doesn't give a rat's ass about the rights of Jake Bono, Irene Presti and the others at Willets Point speaks volumes about his priorities and values.

The entire discussion of the mayor's bully pulpit is downright farcical-and by focusing on it the Times elides the more serious discussion of the fact that the emperor stands clothesless before history-having failed in better than a decade to distinguish himself in any area of public policy. That he now feels he even has a bully pulpit we find deserving of nothing but scorn. Mike Bloomberg's major contribution to the public dialogue would be a merciful silence.

One Mississippi...

Well the supposed rubes and rednecks down in Dixie have a lot more on the ball than New York sophisticates-at least when it comes to the Constitution and the right of private property. This past Tuesday the voters of Mississippi voted overwhelmingly in favor of an eminent domain referendum that severely restricted the government from condemning property:

"WJTV, Channel 1 of Jackson, Mississippi, reports that in yesterday’s election the eminent domain amendment to the state constitution passed by a whoppping 73% to 27% margin, in spite of opposition by Republican Governor Hailey Barbour. The new constitutional provision prohibits the taking of private property for commercial redevelopment. Under its terms the taker must hold the property for at least 10 years before conveying it."

What this indicates is that the people of the state have more sense than their governor-remember that back in 2009 Governor Haley Barbour had vetoed the strong anti-condemnation bill that had passed the legislature:

"Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour vetoed eminent domain reform legislation yesterday after it was passed with strong support from both houses of the state legislature. Today, the Mississippi House voted 101 to 19 to override the veto, but the Senate has yet to weigh in. Mississippi is one of the few states not to have passed eminent domain reform legislation since the Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo v. New London decision."

Of course enlightened New York has yet to even make a small move in the direction of reform. And Governor Barbour is a role model for Mike Bloomberg in this regard-a front man supreme for crony capitalism:

"But none of that mattered to Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, who promptly vetoed the bill, claiming it would cripple his ability to lure large corporations into the state. As Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, admitted in his veto statement, had he not promised Toyota that he would use eminent domain to secure a piece of contested land for its Blue Springs facility, "Toyota would have broken off negotiations with us and chosen one of the other states competing with us for the project."


That sob story may be true, but it still does nothing to justify the state's forcible seizure of private property for the benefit a rich and powerful corporation. Toyota won't be building bridges or roads or waterways or any other legitimate public project that might permit the use (or threat) of eminent domain. It wants to build a plant to manufacture cars and then sell them for a profit. That's not a legitimate public use."

As Reason Magazine points out: "...if Barbour wants to attract business to his state, he might try pushing for lower corporate taxes or for any number of other pro-business enticements that don't involve stripping citizens of their fundamental rights." And if Bloomberg wants to promote economic development he might try making the NYC business climate just a bit more hospitable-something that tax happy Mike finds inordinately hard to do.