Monday, November 28, 2011
Columbia's CBA: An EDC Progeny is Stillborn
The WSJ is reporting on the disarray in the West Harlem Local Development Corporation-the entity midwifed by EDC to implement a community benefits agreement. The CBA was the sugar that was designed to make the bitter Columbia expansion plan medicine go down smoothly in the local West Harlem neighborhood:
"It was supposed to be a breakthrough victory for Harlem residents and a model on how to settle raging land-use disputes.But more than 2½ years after Columbia University brokered an agreement with community groups—exchanging a lucrative package of benefits for the area's blessing of the university's expansion into West Harlem—local officials and residents are complaining that the fruits of the deal remain a mystery."
This is really nothing new and the seeds of this calamity were reported by the NY Post a year and a half ago: "A $76 million windfall intended to help Harlem residents is in limbo -- and may never be paid -- because the politician-backed nonprofit in charge of distributing the money is in disarray, the Post has learned. Although it formed four years ago, the West Harlem Local Development Corp. lacks a mission statement, has yet to get tax-exempt status from the IRS and doesn't even have a phone number. The group already has received $500,000 from Columbia University -- part of a 16-year payout designed to assuage community fears over the school's expansion -- yet hasn't spent a cent on the neighborhood."
This was why Nick Sprayregen-the property owner who fought the project-walked away from the group. He saw just how fraudulent the whole scheme was: "Concerns about the agreement surfaced even before it was drafted in December 2007. Five West Harlem board members resigned, upset over the heavy-handedness of the politicians involved in negotiating with Columbia. "The LDC sacrificed good development because it wanted to control a slush fund," Tom DeMott, one of the former board members, told The Post. Another former board member, the Rev. Earl Kooperkamp, said the politicians "dominated the LDC." Kooperkamp, the rector of St. Mary's Episcopal Church in Harlem, said the pols "whittled down" the community initiatives, which included better housing and subsidized transportation for seniors."
What is missing from the Journal story today is the extent to which EDC played a significant role in this charade-after all someone brought Jesse Masyr in, pro bono, to negotiate the pact and we don't think it was the residents of the community. Masyr is as smart a land use attorney as you can find in this city but even he would resist the appellation, "community spokesperson."
What this means for us at WPU is that the city will do and say anything once it embarks on a condemnation venture-and the use of a CBA is a neat trick used to beguile the gullible to sign off on a bad deal. This is reminiscent of EDC's promises of living wage at Willets Point. What the latest deceit makes abundantly clear is that Diogenes would not strike pay dirt down at 110 William Street.
"It was supposed to be a breakthrough victory for Harlem residents and a model on how to settle raging land-use disputes.But more than 2½ years after Columbia University brokered an agreement with community groups—exchanging a lucrative package of benefits for the area's blessing of the university's expansion into West Harlem—local officials and residents are complaining that the fruits of the deal remain a mystery."
This is really nothing new and the seeds of this calamity were reported by the NY Post a year and a half ago: "A $76 million windfall intended to help Harlem residents is in limbo -- and may never be paid -- because the politician-backed nonprofit in charge of distributing the money is in disarray, the Post has learned. Although it formed four years ago, the West Harlem Local Development Corp. lacks a mission statement, has yet to get tax-exempt status from the IRS and doesn't even have a phone number. The group already has received $500,000 from Columbia University -- part of a 16-year payout designed to assuage community fears over the school's expansion -- yet hasn't spent a cent on the neighborhood."
This was why Nick Sprayregen-the property owner who fought the project-walked away from the group. He saw just how fraudulent the whole scheme was: "Concerns about the agreement surfaced even before it was drafted in December 2007. Five West Harlem board members resigned, upset over the heavy-handedness of the politicians involved in negotiating with Columbia. "The LDC sacrificed good development because it wanted to control a slush fund," Tom DeMott, one of the former board members, told The Post. Another former board member, the Rev. Earl Kooperkamp, said the politicians "dominated the LDC." Kooperkamp, the rector of St. Mary's Episcopal Church in Harlem, said the pols "whittled down" the community initiatives, which included better housing and subsidized transportation for seniors."
What is missing from the Journal story today is the extent to which EDC played a significant role in this charade-after all someone brought Jesse Masyr in, pro bono, to negotiate the pact and we don't think it was the residents of the community. Masyr is as smart a land use attorney as you can find in this city but even he would resist the appellation, "community spokesperson."
What this means for us at WPU is that the city will do and say anything once it embarks on a condemnation venture-and the use of a CBA is a neat trick used to beguile the gullible to sign off on a bad deal. This is reminiscent of EDC's promises of living wage at Willets Point. What the latest deceit makes abundantly clear is that Diogenes would not strike pay dirt down at 110 William Street.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Living Wage: What Unions & the City Council said in 2008
The New York City Economic Development Corporation has solicited developer firms to implement the Willets Point development, on the basis of a Request for Proposals ("RFP") that contains NO living wage provision. However, that plainly contradicts the announcements and testimony of union officials during 2008.
This 4-minute video compilation shows union officials during 2008 announcing, and testifying to the New York City Council on the record regarding, an agreement that requires a living wage provision to be included in the Request for Proposals seeking developer firms to implement the Willets Point development.
No matter what the unions may now have us believe, it is quite clear from this video that:
(1.) The unions unequivocally state that a living wage provision is "guaranteed" and "required" to be included in the Willets Point RFP, and that this has been memorialized in a written and signed agreement (i.e., there is no wiggle room);
(2.) The agreement to include a living wage provision in the Willets Point RFP was "critical to labor's support on this [Willets Point] project";
(3.) The agreement was consistent with the ideology of the local City Council member (Hiram Monserrate), without whose consent approval of the proposed Willets Point development would have been unlikely;
(4.) The local City Council member forewarned that in the future, the City of New York might attempt to avoid implementing agreed labor provisions, but that the City must honor its commitments to labor and to the City Council;
(5.) The City Council requested, and union officials agreed to provide to the City Council, a copy of the written agreement pertaining to the the inclusion of a living wage provision within the Willets Point RFP. Therefore, that agreement is part of the record on which the City Council based its decision to approve the proposed Willets Point development.
Now that the City has reneged on its commitment to include a living wage provision within the Willets Point RFP, who will challenge this? Will the unions -- whose agreement apparently has been violated by the City -- bring a lawsuit to require a new RFP that includes a living wage provision? Will the City Council act? Will law enforcement?
Or, were union officials exaggerating, or perhaps deceiving themselves, during 2008?
This 4-minute video compilation shows union officials during 2008 announcing, and testifying to the New York City Council on the record regarding, an agreement that requires a living wage provision to be included in the Request for Proposals seeking developer firms to implement the Willets Point development.
No matter what the unions may now have us believe, it is quite clear from this video that:
(1.) The unions unequivocally state that a living wage provision is "guaranteed" and "required" to be included in the Willets Point RFP, and that this has been memorialized in a written and signed agreement (i.e., there is no wiggle room);
(2.) The agreement to include a living wage provision in the Willets Point RFP was "critical to labor's support on this [Willets Point] project";
(3.) The agreement was consistent with the ideology of the local City Council member (Hiram Monserrate), without whose consent approval of the proposed Willets Point development would have been unlikely;
(4.) The local City Council member forewarned that in the future, the City of New York might attempt to avoid implementing agreed labor provisions, but that the City must honor its commitments to labor and to the City Council;
(5.) The City Council requested, and union officials agreed to provide to the City Council, a copy of the written agreement pertaining to the the inclusion of a living wage provision within the Willets Point RFP. Therefore, that agreement is part of the record on which the City Council based its decision to approve the proposed Willets Point development.
Now that the City has reneged on its commitment to include a living wage provision within the Willets Point RFP, who will challenge this? Will the unions -- whose agreement apparently has been violated by the City -- bring a lawsuit to require a new RFP that includes a living wage provision? Will the City Council act? Will law enforcement?
Or, were union officials exaggerating, or perhaps deceiving themselves, during 2008?
Friday, November 25, 2011
Bloomberg for President?
There has been a lot of crack induced hysteria around the thought of Michael Bloomberg running for president. The latest is a story in the Washington Post: "The restless political middle — emboldened by the recent inability of a special congressional committee to agree on a debt-reduction deal — is staking out a controversial plan to insert itself into the 2012 election. A bipartisan group of political strategists and donors known as Americans Elect has raised $22 million and is likely to place a third presidential candidate on the ballot in every state next year. The goal is to provide an alternative to President Obama and the GOP nominee and break the tradition of a Democrat-vs.-Republican lineup."
Just what the hell is the "restless middle?" And who exactly is raising money on behalf of these restless folks? The only guy that Wapo cites is someone descrbed as a Rebublican strategist who once worked for the Democratic governor of Massachusetts-inspiring the thought that this kind of effort is self aggrandizing but not really stimulating to anyone not simply looking out to make a quick buck.
Perhaps all we need to know is that the effort is being bankrolled by Peter Ackerman, a former partner of Mike Milken-and that Mark McKinnon, a co-founder of the No Labels effort that Bloomberg has been allied with, sits on the board of directors. This is priceless-no labels, junk bonds and the surreptitious presence of one Michael Bloomberg. A perfect fit for the current political mood. Maybe they should call their party the Crony Capitalists.
As WaPo reports: "New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s name has also been mentioned, probably because a leader in the effort to draft the independent into the 2008 presidential race is involved in Americans Elect. " But we don't think that Mike will get involved with this crew-too haphazard and uncertain an effort, and Bloomberg needs to be fully in control of the rudder in anything he does.
Which brings us to John Podhoretz's column today in the NY Post:
"Fanciers and critics of Michael Bloomberg alike, take note; there are signs he’s noodling once again about making an independent run for president.
Item 1: After two months of dilly-dallying, the mayor finally moved on the Occupy Wall Street encampment, just as — fancy this! — the polls were showing public opinion turning firmly against the squatters nationwide.
Item 2: The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed calling on Barack Obama to forego a bid for second term by Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen. Doesn’t seem relevant? Schoen, an experienced Democratic pollster, has been a Bloomberg intimate for years and one of the leading expostulators of the notion that an independent could really win the presidency in 2012."
The speculation might be fueled by the mayor's apparent boredom with his current job: "He looks tired and bored and annoyed. And there are two long years until his liberation from the third term he foolishly sought. But what is a man who clearly loves the spotlight, the attention and the idea that he is a get-it-done guy who transcends ideological and partisan categorization to do?"
Just to get into the holiday spirit, "Ho, ho ho"-the idea that Mike Bloomberg is a "get-it-done" kind of guy is a train that has long ago left Rational Central Station. Bloomberg has shown a knack for self promotion but that has been accompanied by little in the way of tangible achievement-check the city schools, CityTime and last winter's snow storm if you nee to have your memory refreshed.
Podhoretz for his part is a fan of the idea because he feels that the mayor-as a "nanny state liberal"-would sink Obama's re-election efforts: "But given his own ideological predilections — meaning, he’s a nanny-state liberal — it’s more likely than not that those states would be ones Obama would otherwise win. If Bloomberg succeeds in capturing independents and a bunch of disaffected or depressed Democrats, he’ll ensure an Obama defeat and a Republican victory in 2012."
We tend to agree with this assessment but we would add that, aside from his nanny tendencies Bloomberg is the ultimate crony capitalist and the combination of traits would make him an anathema to a wide swath of the electorate. His run, however, would generate a great deal of mirth-and given the recent gloom and doom in the economy that is indeed something we would look forward to.
Just what the hell is the "restless middle?" And who exactly is raising money on behalf of these restless folks? The only guy that Wapo cites is someone descrbed as a Rebublican strategist who once worked for the Democratic governor of Massachusetts-inspiring the thought that this kind of effort is self aggrandizing but not really stimulating to anyone not simply looking out to make a quick buck.
Perhaps all we need to know is that the effort is being bankrolled by Peter Ackerman, a former partner of Mike Milken-and that Mark McKinnon, a co-founder of the No Labels effort that Bloomberg has been allied with, sits on the board of directors. This is priceless-no labels, junk bonds and the surreptitious presence of one Michael Bloomberg. A perfect fit for the current political mood. Maybe they should call their party the Crony Capitalists.
As WaPo reports: "New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s name has also been mentioned, probably because a leader in the effort to draft the independent into the 2008 presidential race is involved in Americans Elect. " But we don't think that Mike will get involved with this crew-too haphazard and uncertain an effort, and Bloomberg needs to be fully in control of the rudder in anything he does.
Which brings us to John Podhoretz's column today in the NY Post:
"Fanciers and critics of Michael Bloomberg alike, take note; there are signs he’s noodling once again about making an independent run for president.
Item 1: After two months of dilly-dallying, the mayor finally moved on the Occupy Wall Street encampment, just as — fancy this! — the polls were showing public opinion turning firmly against the squatters nationwide.
Item 2: The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed calling on Barack Obama to forego a bid for second term by Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen. Doesn’t seem relevant? Schoen, an experienced Democratic pollster, has been a Bloomberg intimate for years and one of the leading expostulators of the notion that an independent could really win the presidency in 2012."
The speculation might be fueled by the mayor's apparent boredom with his current job: "He looks tired and bored and annoyed. And there are two long years until his liberation from the third term he foolishly sought. But what is a man who clearly loves the spotlight, the attention and the idea that he is a get-it-done guy who transcends ideological and partisan categorization to do?"
Just to get into the holiday spirit, "Ho, ho ho"-the idea that Mike Bloomberg is a "get-it-done" kind of guy is a train that has long ago left Rational Central Station. Bloomberg has shown a knack for self promotion but that has been accompanied by little in the way of tangible achievement-check the city schools, CityTime and last winter's snow storm if you nee to have your memory refreshed.
Podhoretz for his part is a fan of the idea because he feels that the mayor-as a "nanny state liberal"-would sink Obama's re-election efforts: "But given his own ideological predilections — meaning, he’s a nanny-state liberal — it’s more likely than not that those states would be ones Obama would otherwise win. If Bloomberg succeeds in capturing independents and a bunch of disaffected or depressed Democrats, he’ll ensure an Obama defeat and a Republican victory in 2012."
We tend to agree with this assessment but we would add that, aside from his nanny tendencies Bloomberg is the ultimate crony capitalist and the combination of traits would make him an anathema to a wide swath of the electorate. His run, however, would generate a great deal of mirth-and given the recent gloom and doom in the economy that is indeed something we would look forward to.
Willets Point's Living Wager: A Bad Bet All Around
As we have discussed the issue of living wage has encompassed the issue of the city's plan to develop Willets Point -- and in that discussion we underscored just how mendacious the city has been in promoting the project. It appears that NYC EDC and various deputy mayors for economic development come straight out of the ends justify the means school of public policy-or is it the Lenin school of omelet making?
Put simply the city lied -- in Paradise by the Dashboard light fashion --to assorted labor leaders when it made promises around the living wage provision for Willets Point. Once it had gotten off, so to speak, it no longer felt the need to honor those promises so they were conveniently ignored. But the bad living wage wager is only the tip of the duplicitous iceberg when it comes to this development. Shall we count the ways?
(1) Created an illegal lobbying scheme to to promote the project: Set up Claire Shulman's LDC-a phony charity that was comprised of grasping developers - with tax payer money - to present an ersatz grass roots support group for the development plan;
(2) Shulman hid her lobbying activities until the whistle was blown by Willets Point businesses. The result? The largest fine for this kind of underhandedness in the city's history;
(3) Illegal activity exposed by the NY Times: resulting in an investigation that has disappeared into the miasma through two Attorney Generals' tenure -- raising the specter of a cover up and political corruption at the highest levels of city and state government;
(4) Failure of City Council oversight: The council approved the project sight unseen and left the details for later-opening the door because of legislative non-feasance for unacceptable uses such as Wal-Mart;
(5) Scandal of the Van Wyck Ramps: Another failure of council oversight that lead to a lawsuit from WPU against the city;
(a) Lawsuit dismissed when Deputy Mayor Lieber swore to the court that the city wouldn't condemn any property until the ramps were approved;
(b) Ramps application from EDC spit back: EDC consultants filed deceptive and/or fraudulent traffic data that has held up the approval process for over three years;
(6)Governor Cuomo appoints Joan McDonald as new SDOT commissioner: a former EDC executive and ringer who fits comfortably into the cover up narrative;
(7) City reverses its stand on condemnation: Ignores Lieber's sworn deposition and begins "Phase I" of the development that includes condemnation but no ramp approval. Phase I is a fiction that undermines all of the representations that EDC had made to the council in the approval process-indicating the extent to which nothing that the agency says about the development can be believed;
(8 Shulman's LDC receives a $1.5 million grant for the Flushing Waterfront: Grant is challenged by WPU which leads to NYS AG's Office contradicting itself about the existence of an investigation into Shulman's illegal lobbying-raising further questions about a cover up;
(9) City reverses itself on living wage: Comes full circle with its duplicity;
(10) Small property owners still facing eviction;
(11) Thousands of Hispanic workers still being displaced and losing their livelihoods;
(12) Crony capitalism: WPU property to be handed over to rich developer(s);
(13) Still no price tag on what this scheme is going to cost NYC tax payers.
What this narrative dramatizes is just how the city has exhibited a thoroughgoing bad faith throughout the Willets Point development process. The entire scam needs to be halted in its track-beginning with the act of bringing to justice the ringleaders of the illegal lobbying scheme that started this process off in such an initial stench.
Put simply the city lied -- in Paradise by the Dashboard light fashion --to assorted labor leaders when it made promises around the living wage provision for Willets Point. Once it had gotten off, so to speak, it no longer felt the need to honor those promises so they were conveniently ignored. But the bad living wage wager is only the tip of the duplicitous iceberg when it comes to this development. Shall we count the ways?
(1) Created an illegal lobbying scheme to to promote the project: Set up Claire Shulman's LDC-a phony charity that was comprised of grasping developers - with tax payer money - to present an ersatz grass roots support group for the development plan;
(2) Shulman hid her lobbying activities until the whistle was blown by Willets Point businesses. The result? The largest fine for this kind of underhandedness in the city's history;
(3) Illegal activity exposed by the NY Times: resulting in an investigation that has disappeared into the miasma through two Attorney Generals' tenure -- raising the specter of a cover up and political corruption at the highest levels of city and state government;
(4) Failure of City Council oversight: The council approved the project sight unseen and left the details for later-opening the door because of legislative non-feasance for unacceptable uses such as Wal-Mart;
(5) Scandal of the Van Wyck Ramps: Another failure of council oversight that lead to a lawsuit from WPU against the city;
(a) Lawsuit dismissed when Deputy Mayor Lieber swore to the court that the city wouldn't condemn any property until the ramps were approved;
(b) Ramps application from EDC spit back: EDC consultants filed deceptive and/or fraudulent traffic data that has held up the approval process for over three years;
(6)Governor Cuomo appoints Joan McDonald as new SDOT commissioner: a former EDC executive and ringer who fits comfortably into the cover up narrative;
(7) City reverses its stand on condemnation: Ignores Lieber's sworn deposition and begins "Phase I" of the development that includes condemnation but no ramp approval. Phase I is a fiction that undermines all of the representations that EDC had made to the council in the approval process-indicating the extent to which nothing that the agency says about the development can be believed;
(8 Shulman's LDC receives a $1.5 million grant for the Flushing Waterfront: Grant is challenged by WPU which leads to NYS AG's Office contradicting itself about the existence of an investigation into Shulman's illegal lobbying-raising further questions about a cover up;
(9) City reverses itself on living wage: Comes full circle with its duplicity;
(10) Small property owners still facing eviction;
(11) Thousands of Hispanic workers still being displaced and losing their livelihoods;
(12) Crony capitalism: WPU property to be handed over to rich developer(s);
(13) Still no price tag on what this scheme is going to cost NYC tax payers.
What this narrative dramatizes is just how the city has exhibited a thoroughgoing bad faith throughout the Willets Point development process. The entire scam needs to be halted in its track-beginning with the act of bringing to justice the ringleaders of the illegal lobbying scheme that started this process off in such an initial stench.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Pointed Living Wage Fight
In the battle over whether the city should adopt a living wage for retail workers when a development project is heavily subsidized the issue of Willets Point has wormed its way into the discussion. City Hall News lays out the reasons:
"In June 2008, the president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Stuart Appelbaum, stood on the steps of City Hall to praise the city’s Economic Development Corporation. Along with several other powerful union bosses, Appelbaum touted the EDC plan to jumpstart a long-stalled, $3 billion project at Willets Point in Queens, because he said it would lead to the creation of so-called “living wage” retail jobs for his workers – paying a minimum of $10 an hour.
“It won’t just mean thousands of jobs,” Appelbaum said. “It will mean thousands of construction and permanent jobs that pay prevailing wages and living wages.”
Juan Gonzales in the NY Daily News also weighs in on the correlation:
"And in 2008, when the mayor wanted the City Council to approve a proposed $3 billion Willets Point development project, his deputy mayor then, Robert Lieber, made such a deal with several labor unions.Under that deal, the city would require that all construction, maintenance and security jobs at Willets Point pay “prevailing” wages — far higher than $10 an hour.
As for retail jobs, Lieber promised to “view favorably” Willets Point proposals that “maximize” the number of “living wage jobs.” He even specified $10 an hour for a living wage. Because of those promises, the unions backed the plan and the City Council approved Willets Point."
Only one problem: EDC has-like it has done with so many other things -- reneged on the deal. In doing so EDC and the rest of the gang down at city hall demonstrate that they will say almost anything just to advance their crooked scheme to abscond with the Willets Point property. The key prevaricator in all of this is former Deputy Mayor Lieber -- a stone chump if there ever was one.
As City Hall reports:
"Appelbaum’s contentions that his members could expect living wage jobs at Willets Point were based upon by a letter penned in April 2008 by Robert Lieber, then the city’s deputy mayor for economic development, to the then-head of the city’s umbrella labor organization, Gary LaBarbera.
“NYCEDC will view favorably development plans that maximize the number of jobs that meet the City’s living wage and health benefits standards,” Lieber wrote. “The proposal must explain how the proposed tenanting plan maximizes the number of jobs that meet these criteria.”
That was then, and this is now-just as WPU has already reported: "Yet this May – when the EDC put out a 125-page request for Willets Point proposals to developers – there was not a single mention of living wage jobs. It did state that developers had to hire construction contractors who would pay prevailing wage and that some building workers would get prevailing wage salaries—but retail workers were left out completely. Earlier this week, far from offering tacit support for a living wage, the EDC released a list of 36 projects around the city, including Willets Point, that it said could be jeopardized by the living wage bill."
In response EDC has started to spin like a top: "EDC spokesman David Lombino declined to directly address why living wage language from the 2008 letter never made it into the requests for proposal. “When seeking proposals for development, the city always considers the creation of well-paying jobs in addition to other factors like the feasibility of the project, proposed uses, job density, and cost to taxpayers,” Lombino said."
For us this is quite a familiar scenario. When WPU went to court to challenge the Willets Point development the very same Robert Lieber -- in a sworn deposition -- promised that the city wouldn't move to condemn any Willets Point property until the ramps off of the Van Wyck were approved. When WPU stymied that approval EDC went right ahead with condemnation anyway-and prattled on about changing conditions. This issue is now before Judge Joan Madden who ruled for the city precisely because of the Lieber deposition.
Here's the exit question for us: If the Willets Point development was approved because of the city's wage promises, does that mean that the entire development needs to be re-analyzed? And if the city can so blithely renege on this promise, what does that say about all of the others?
"In June 2008, the president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Stuart Appelbaum, stood on the steps of City Hall to praise the city’s Economic Development Corporation. Along with several other powerful union bosses, Appelbaum touted the EDC plan to jumpstart a long-stalled, $3 billion project at Willets Point in Queens, because he said it would lead to the creation of so-called “living wage” retail jobs for his workers – paying a minimum of $10 an hour.
“It won’t just mean thousands of jobs,” Appelbaum said. “It will mean thousands of construction and permanent jobs that pay prevailing wages and living wages.”
Juan Gonzales in the NY Daily News also weighs in on the correlation:
"And in 2008, when the mayor wanted the City Council to approve a proposed $3 billion Willets Point development project, his deputy mayor then, Robert Lieber, made such a deal with several labor unions.Under that deal, the city would require that all construction, maintenance and security jobs at Willets Point pay “prevailing” wages — far higher than $10 an hour.
As for retail jobs, Lieber promised to “view favorably” Willets Point proposals that “maximize” the number of “living wage jobs.” He even specified $10 an hour for a living wage. Because of those promises, the unions backed the plan and the City Council approved Willets Point."
Only one problem: EDC has-like it has done with so many other things -- reneged on the deal. In doing so EDC and the rest of the gang down at city hall demonstrate that they will say almost anything just to advance their crooked scheme to abscond with the Willets Point property. The key prevaricator in all of this is former Deputy Mayor Lieber -- a stone chump if there ever was one.
As City Hall reports:
"Appelbaum’s contentions that his members could expect living wage jobs at Willets Point were based upon by a letter penned in April 2008 by Robert Lieber, then the city’s deputy mayor for economic development, to the then-head of the city’s umbrella labor organization, Gary LaBarbera.
“NYCEDC will view favorably development plans that maximize the number of jobs that meet the City’s living wage and health benefits standards,” Lieber wrote. “The proposal must explain how the proposed tenanting plan maximizes the number of jobs that meet these criteria.”
That was then, and this is now-just as WPU has already reported: "Yet this May – when the EDC put out a 125-page request for Willets Point proposals to developers – there was not a single mention of living wage jobs. It did state that developers had to hire construction contractors who would pay prevailing wage and that some building workers would get prevailing wage salaries—but retail workers were left out completely. Earlier this week, far from offering tacit support for a living wage, the EDC released a list of 36 projects around the city, including Willets Point, that it said could be jeopardized by the living wage bill."
In response EDC has started to spin like a top: "EDC spokesman David Lombino declined to directly address why living wage language from the 2008 letter never made it into the requests for proposal. “When seeking proposals for development, the city always considers the creation of well-paying jobs in addition to other factors like the feasibility of the project, proposed uses, job density, and cost to taxpayers,” Lombino said."
For us this is quite a familiar scenario. When WPU went to court to challenge the Willets Point development the very same Robert Lieber -- in a sworn deposition -- promised that the city wouldn't move to condemn any Willets Point property until the ramps off of the Van Wyck were approved. When WPU stymied that approval EDC went right ahead with condemnation anyway-and prattled on about changing conditions. This issue is now before Judge Joan Madden who ruled for the city precisely because of the Lieber deposition.
Here's the exit question for us: If the Willets Point development was approved because of the city's wage promises, does that mean that the entire development needs to be re-analyzed? And if the city can so blithely renege on this promise, what does that say about all of the others?
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
