New York State budget: more regressive ideas from Gov. Paterson

Two days ago I wrote about the proposal to jack up NYC transit fares by 28% and how that was in effect a regressive tax on the sort of New Yorkers whom could least afford it—and how this was being done at the same time New York State Governor David Paterson has refused to consider what’s come to be called the “millionaires’ tax.”

Well, just to add insult to injury, here’s another winner of an idea: New York State has started collecting a $25 child support enforcement fee from those that needed government help to recover child support payments.

To be fair, this insult was originally the brainchild of the Bush Administration and its rubberstamp Republican Congress. As part of the “Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,” the federal government started charging states a $25 fee for child support recovery. However, from then, till recently, New York had covered that fee for its needy residents.

But with the looming state budget crisis, no more. Governor Paterson has decided the state can no longer afford this level of generosity.

Millionaires, however, well, have no fear, the governor is looking out for you.

The “millionaires’ tax” is pretty simple as tax proposals go. Income over $1 million would be taxed an additional 1%, and income over $5 million would be taxed .75% more. New York has one of the highest concentrations of wealth in the country—just one-half of one percent earned 28% of the taxable income back in 2005. The proposed tax surcharge could bring in about $1.5 billion in the first year—or roughly three-quarters of the expected NY budget shortfall.

The millionaires that would have to pay this tax—or at least a few loud ones, like the ubiquitous, selfish, and inevitably wrong Donald Trump—argue that if you make them pay this increase, they just might leave New York. I say, as did the NY Daily News recently, call their bluff.

As the Daily News observed, New Jersey imposed a much larger increase on all incomes over half-a-million a few years back, and they got incredible bang for their buck—about $26 coming in for every $1 fleeing the state.

And they were fleeing New Jersey!

Even New York City’s billionaire mayor, Michael Bloomberg—who had previously been heard whining about a surcharge—now says this millionaire flight threat is a lot of hooey:

I can only tell you, among my friends, I've never heard one person say “I'm going to move out of the city because of taxes.” Not one. Not in all the years I've lived here. You know, they can complain, “Oh got my tax bill, it's heavy.” But they've not ever thought that. My friends all want to live here and understand the value.

He oughta know, right? That is his cohort.

As for the rest of us—that would be 99.5% of us—well, I’m guessing a lot of us have a little less mobility. And since Paterson knows he’s got a captive “audience,” I guess it’s up to this rest of us to pick up the slack, balance the budget, and so, look out for the Governor’s interests. . . whether we want to or not.


(PS The information on the child support fee comes from the office of Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), who has called on NY State to stop collecting this regressive tax, and has asked the Senate to increase funding to child support enforcement.)


(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)

endorsement: vote row E for WFP

If you are a regular reader, then I expect that you can guess what I’m going to say when it comes to choosing the next president of the United States. If you call yourself a liberal, or a progressive, or a lover of individual liberty and reproductive choice; if you want quality, affordable healthcare to be accessible to all Americans, if you want to restore some modicum of equity to the tax code, and some degree of sanity to our foreign policy; if you want to approach energy independence and global warming with the seriousness and the urgency those matters deserve; if you want a government staffed with experts instead of ideologues that is led by a man who trusts his intellect enough to be intellectually curious—or even if you just want some portion of all this—then there is only one way to vote on Tuesday: Barack Obama for president.

BUT, if you live in New York, there are actually two ways you can vote for Obama—you can go the old, stodgy, predictable route, and pull the lever or mark your box for Barack Obama (D), Democrat, or, if you really, really believe in all that I laid out above, you can vote for Barack Obama (WFP), Working Families Party.

As I have discussed in elections past, New York has something called “fusion” voting; this allows a candidate to receive the endorsement of more than one party, and to be listed on the ballot under multiple party lines. All the votes for a single candidate, however, are combined to count for the final total. A vote for Obama on Row E—the Working Families Party line—counts just as much as a vote on the Democratic line. . .

. . . and more.

More, because the Working Families Party is more than a social club or the vestigial organ of some moribund New York political machine, the WFP is an active and organized party that has been fighting for progressive ideals for better than a decade. They stand for universal healthcare, tax equity, and equal representation under the law. They have lead fights for a living wage, for green jobs and green homes, and affordable housing. They advocate for better-funded public schools so that every child gets a quality education, no matter where he or she lives, and the public financing of elections to get the corrupting corporate money out of the system.

Earlier this month, WFP teamed with organized labor and local activists to protest New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Speaker Chris “Quisling” Quinn’s naked power grab vis-à-vis term limit “extensions.” The effort did not prevent Bloomberg from buying enough influence on the City Council to win his rule change, but working together, the WFP and the people of NYC made a lot of noise and called a lot of attention to the undemocratic way that the mayor and speaker went about overriding the existing law. Because of this effort, the fight to unseat these arrogant plutocrats next year has a big head start.

By voting for Obama—and for other cross-endorsed candidates—on the Working Families line, you are showing candidate and country that you stand for these kinds of progressive ideals. A vote for BHO (WFP) Row E shows that you want our next president to embrace the progressive potential that has brought you to his side.

By voting for state candidates on the WFP line, you will help shape the next generation of New York politics. Democrats are poised to gain the majority in the state senate for the first time in over 40 years, and thus will control both houses of the legislature and the governor’s mansion. It will present a tremendous opportunity to reform a dysfunctional state government; a vote for the Working Families Party will give the left better leverage in the battles that lay ahead.

The Nation, The Albany Project, Daily Gotham, and Democrats.com have all endorsed a Row E WFP vote because they all know that strengthening the role of the Working Families Party is a solid step toward building a statewide progressive movement. Voting for Obama on the same line brings that voice to the national dialogue.

Barack Obama has promised change, and I truly believe that his election will noticeably transform the style and substance of our national leadership. What kind of change, how much change, and how directly that difference will affect the lives of hard working Americans, however, still hangs in the balance. The progressive direction advocated by the Working Families Party is the kind of change Democrats have been fighting for lo these many months and years—it is change we can believe in.

Vote Row E.


UPDATE: Thanks to the courts, we have a late-breaking exception to this rule in Western New York—NY-26, to be specific. Please vote for Democrat Alice Kryzan on the Democratic line.


(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)



[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]

the wages of sin: your wages, their sin

Now that our great and glorious leader Michael Bloomberg and Council Speaker Christine Quinn Quisling have succeeded in their power play, here’s a little question to consider this fine fall weekend: at what cost?

I am not asking about the political cost, which is, in many ways, immeasurable—at least as yet—I am talking about the real cost in New York City tax dollars that have already gone or will have to go quite literally to pay homage to our new born king. For along with the millions upon millions that have already been spent out of the mayor’s publicly financed slush fund to buy the votes he needed on the City Council (an impeachable offense, as best I can tell), NYC will now have to spend more taxpayer dollars to defend itself against the lawsuits that naturally had to arise from this extralegal end run around the city charter (two have already been filed, with the promise of more on the way).

It will certainly be in the millions of dollars—how many millions, I can’t say. I doubt anyone in the city government would dare give an estimate.

But, millions and millions of city dollars have been spent, and millions and millions of city dollars will be spent. . . all so that we can keep Mike Bloomberg and his supposedly irreplaceable expertise in place to guide the city through the dire fiscal crisis to come.

* * *

By the way, Mike and Chris caught the eye and ire of the national media on Thursday, making Keith Olbermann’s list of Worst Persons in the World.





(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)

liar, liar

Sensing a groundswell of increasingly organized opposition to the Bloomberg-Quinn term limits override plan, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn has rush-scheduled a vote on the proposal for tomorrow, Thursday, 10/23.

A new Quinnipiac poll shows a “dramatic swing” away from support for billionaire Bloomberg’s power grab: 51% of NYC voters now oppose a third term for Mayor Mike, up from 42% just two weeks ago. The same poll revealed that city residents prefer changing the term limits law through referendum by a whopping 89% to 7%.

Bloomberg could probably buy himself another election, but has continued to push his cheaper plan. As detailed yesterday, the mayor has used both public dollars from a previously secret slush fund, and donations from his philanthropies to buy what he thinks is enough support inside the City Council to avoid a less predictable plebiscite.

Democracy is messy. Bloomberg is famously phobic of messy.

You know what else can be messy? The facts. So, naturally, Hizzoner (his dishonor?) doesn’t like them, either:

Asked about the public’s preference that term limits be decided through referendum, Mr. Bloomberg said it was too late and too legally problematic to call for a special election or referendum. He also dismissed suggestions that he chose to work through the Council since he could be more confident of the result.

“I’m not trying to manipulate the system for an outcome,” he said, during an event at the P.S. 1 Contemporary Art Center. . . .

He then hightailed it back to City Hall. . . where he continued to meet in private with nominally wavering council members.

One of those who had been officially undecided, Peter Vallone Jr., decided—he’ll stay bought support the mayor.

“I’m doing what I think is right,” said Mr. Vallone, the son of a former City Council speaker who is also an avid supporter.

Vallone then said, “If you’ll excuse me, I have to go back to counting my money.”

Metaphorically, anyway. Vallone Jr. received $400,000 from Bloomberg’s slush fund (making him the third largest beneficiary), and has been granted a discretionary budget of $1.1 million—about twice the council average—for both 2008 and 2009.

I guess if you take the second-term councilman’s statement to mean that he is doing what he thinks is right for himself, then I guess that Vallone isn’t a liar. . . so I would still need a second liar to justify my headline. . . .

Well, there is billionaire Republican Ronald Lauder, who (as previously mentioned) bankrolled the previous two term limit referendums. Lauder has publicly decided that in Bloomberg’s case, his previous efforts shouldn’t count:

It was Mr. Lauder’s money and advocacy that originally paved the way for term limits, and it was only recently that Mr. Bloomberg convinced a reluctant Mr. Lauder that the economic crisis necessitated a third term for the mayor. In exchange for Mr. Lauder’s support, Mr. Bloomberg promised him a seat on a charter revision commission that would probably try to restore the two-term limit in a subsequent referendum, likely in 2010.

“I believe very strongly that the mayor should get the extra term and the City Council should get a third term,” Mr. Lauder said in an interview. “That is part of the deal. But I never spoke about the first-term council members.”

Well, actually, Lauder is being kind of honest there, isn’t he? He is publicly announcing to all the world that he cut a deal with Michael Bloomberg. Yes, that’s right, the laws can change because two billionaires made a deal.

But only for the mayor and some of the council members—not the first term-ers. Gosh, that’s not how the deal is being sold by Council Speaker Chris Quinn. As she sells tells it, the one time extension to three terms applies to the mayor, the whole council, and the city’s comptroller, public advocate, and five borough presidents. Could the City Council be voting Thursday on something other than what they’ve been told?

I think we’ve found our second liar.



(cross-posted on capitoilette and The Seminal)

impeach Bloomberg

And, while you’re at it, impeach Quinn, Markowitz, Felder, Recchia, Valone, Dilan, and Sears, too.

I know I should learn more about the rules and bylaws that govern New York City’s impeachment process—and maybe I’ll get to that later—but right now I don’t care. All I know is that there is already a stack of stories on how Mayor Michael Bloomberg has used both personal and public funds in a covertly choreographed attempt to buy the support he needs to override the city’s term limits law, and he can no longer be trusted as an honest steward of our interests.

He has also used our tax dollars for his master plan, so, beyond being forced from office, he probably belongs in jail.

Someday. . . I’ll call upon you to do a service for me. . . .

It has now been reported that Bloomberg and/or Deputy Mayors Linda Gibbs, Edward Skyler, and Kevin Sheekey (all New York City employees, paid with tax dollars, in case that’s not obvious) placed calls to at least five community, arts, and neighborhood groups that had received city contracts and/or large donations from Bloomberg’s private philanthropies. The mayor and his deputies asked if those organizations might testify before the City Council on behalf of Bloomberg, or lobby council members behind he scenes to vote for the mayor’s position postponing term limits.

One leader of a civic group made it clear that it was an offer they couldn’t refuse.

Yet, when representatives from these organizations testified before the council late last week, none revealed their financial ties to Bloomberg.

It has also been revealed that money from the mayor’s previously secret slush fund (it was discovered in June after a similar, City Council Speaker slush fund was exposed) was disproportionately ferried to City Council members who sit on the committee that must first approve Bloomberg’s third term scheme before it can come to a vote before the entire council.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a close ally of the mayor who made her support known last week, and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, a vocal advocate for the Bloomberg plan, were also recipients of supersized amounts of Mayor Mike’s munificence.

And, just to reiterate, this largess is public money. It is from a kitty funded by New York City taxpayers.

Does not pass the smell test

Not surprisingly, two mayoral hopefuls are not pleased:

“It is an abuse of power, and it must stop,” said the city’s top financial watchdog, the New York City comptroller, William C. Thompson Jr., who may run for mayor next year.

Representative Anthony D. Weiner, another likely candidate for mayor, said that “if you rely on the mayor or the administration to fund your organization, saying no when the mayor calls is not an option.”

Mr. Bloomberg’s tactic, he said, “walks right up to the line of coercion, and it’s very corrosive.”

But there are plenty of others from many different sectors that find these abuses equally (or even more) untoward:

Kenneth Sherrill, a political science professor at Hunter College, said it was inappropriate for the mayor to be asking the groups that are so dependent on his good graces to take a position on his legislation.

“It’s distasteful. And what’s distasteful about it is leaning on weak people — people who are vulnerable,” Mr. Sherrill said. “The problem is in the implicit threat that if you don’t help, we’re going to remember.”

….

Fred Siegel, a professor of history at Cooper Union who has studied New York City politics for decades, said Mr. Bloomberg had cynically “reversed the flow of money” in politics to build the illusion, if not the reality, of widespread support.

“The traditional politicians are bought by special interest groups, but Bloomberg buys special interest groups,” he said.

But wait, there’s more:

Mr. Bloomberg’s critics argue that changing term limits will not expand choice because it will all but guarantee his re-election, given his willingness, in two previous campaigns, to spend $80 million to win the office.

Gene Russianoff, a senior lawyer for the New York Public Interest Research Group, said that asking groups who receive city money to support the term limits bill “looks like an administration desperately abusing its power to stay in office. It just does not pass the smell test.”

Betsy Gotbaum, New York City’s public advocate, called the tactic “wrong.” She added, “You have the right to give all the money you want, but because you give support, you shouldn’t have to get support.”

Well, “you”—meaning Billionaire Bloomberg—might have the right to give all you/he wants. . . of his money! But if public funds are allocated on a quid pro quo, that would be not just smelly, but almost certainly illegal.

And, though not yet illegal, perhaps we need a law that requires full disclosure of financial ties from those testifying before public bodies. There needs to be some counter balance, some disincentive for this and future mayors and their client organizations.

Mike Bloomberg’s obscene wealth and the way he used it to pollute the electoral process has always been problematic (to say the least), but this current power play has crossed a new and more dangerous line. The use of personal funds to create the illusion of widespread support and to, let’s face it, bribe public officials should probably be made illegal. The use of taxpayer dollars to do the same sorts of things almost certainly already is.

Forget a third term; Mayor Bloomberg should not be allowed to finish his second.

(h/t DM)


(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)

what is the opposite of leadership? vol. II: NYC edition

Just in case you were buying into this whole “continuity of government” argument:

Mr. Bloomberg, who usually delegates the details of the legislative process to aides, personally tried to corral the 26 votes needed in the 51-member Council to pass the measure. He has started calling wavering members to press his case, arguing that the economic trouble requires “continuity of government.” A person who was briefed on one of the conversations said the mayor told members fearful of a backlash that if they voted to allow themselves a third term, “people do forget about things like this.”

Councilman Peter F. Vallone, who said he had spoken with Mr. Bloomberg within the last 48 hours, said the mayor told him it would be too “distracting and time consuming” to hold a referendum on his plan.

Oh, you bet I have more to say. . . .

Mayor Mike gives First Amendment a bad name (bad name)

In the summer of 2004, protestors wanting to demonstrate against the policies of the Bush Administration during the Republican National Convention’s visit to New York City were denied a permit to gather on Central Park’s Great Lawn. The city, we were told, could not afford the cost of repairing the damage done to the lawn by such a large crowd.

I didn’t buy it—no one really did—but the city could at least point to the $130,000 worth of damage that happened as a result of a 2003 Dave Matthews concert as some sort of object lesson. Concert crowds were bad for the lawn, protest crowds were bad for the lawn, crowds were just bad for the lawn, or so the story went. . .

. . . until Monday:

The rock band Bon Jovi will give a free concert on July 12 to as many as 60,000 people on the Great Lawn of Central Park in honor of Major League Baseball’s 79th All-Star Game, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced at a news conference on Monday afternoon. . . .

At a City Hall news conference, the mayor, who has been trying to drum up excitement around the July 15 All-Star Game in the last season at the current Yankee Stadium, pointed out that it will coincide with a baseball convention at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center and a July 15 parade on the Avenue of the Americas, with Hall of Famers like Yogi Berra and Willie Mays. Mr. Bloomberg said that Bon Jovi would be “following in the footsteps of Simon & Garfinkel, Barbra Streisand, Garth Brooks and the Metropolitan Opera.” (Actually, Mr. Brooks performed on the North Meadow, not the Great Lawn, in 1997.)

Garfinkel, Garfunkel, whatevs. . . . What Bloomberg was really saying is that the lawn can be used for private commercial ventures dressed up to look like public events, but real public gatherings—the kind that this country was built on—are strictly verboten.

“Getting together to shout and hold up signs about some politicians you don’t like,” remarked the mayor, “what’s the point in that? How does the city benefit? I mean financially benefit.”

OK, Mike Bloomberg didn’t really say that, but if he had, it would have been wholly consistent with the way he has governed the city so far. So, instead, we will have tens of thousands from Bon Jovi’s mostly white, mostly suburban fan base getting together on the Great Lawn to shout and hold up signs declaring their love for a band that is two decades removed from its heyday.

It is mostly irrelevant, totally whitebread, and blatantly commercial—much like the mayor himself.

I don’t want to cast aspersions on John Bon Jovi—he may be a perfectly nice guy, with progressive politics maybe even (I don’t really know)—and I don’t want to dismiss his importance as a cultural icon (well, OK, maybe I do), but the issues at hand are: Who has a right to Central Park, what constitutes a gathering worthy of the damage and clean up costs, and since when does a mayor get to mete out the people’s First Amendment right to free assembly based on his idea of what’s good for his image?

Of course, the NYC Law Department sees it some other way. There is a convoluted paragraph in the NYT piece I link to above that supposedly spells out a policy. The Bloomberg Administration calls it a set of formal rules designed to protect the park’s grass, but I think we all know it’s just a pile of fertilizer.


(cross-posted on The Seminal and Daily Kos)

accountability alphabet: NYC DoB EPA WTC. . . wtf?

That little cheer you heard on Tuesday afternoon, rising above the noxious symphony of a thousand backhoes and jackhammers that serves as the soundtrack for lower Manhattan these days, well, that was me, celebrating the news that the embattled head of New York City’s Department of Buildings, Pat “Splat” Lancaster, had finally stepped up and stepped down.

Lancaster, who has served as Commissioner for the entire reign of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, was originally tasked with modernizing the DoB. . . which, under Bloody Mike, meant making it run more smoothly so that developers (don’t call them greedy, just call them Mike’s “base”) could demolish old New York, build their banal office towers, super-luxury high-rises, and boondoggle developments, and cash out before term limits forced a change at City Hall.

And to that end, I’d have to say Lancaster’s tenure has been an, er, um, smashing success.

Bloomberg continued to make it clear that in his idea of New York, you have to break some eggs to make Mike’s “revitalized” breakfast (construction work is “complicated,” he said on Tuesday), but, much to his chagrin, Lancaster used these “raw materials” to make a garbage omelet.

Ms. Lancaster not only presided over increases in construction-related deaths and injuries for most of this decade, several high-profile disasters like last year’s Deutsche Bank fire and last month’s crane collapse revealed an agency that consistently failed to perform some of its most basic tasks. Safety inspections were not done, complaints of unsafe conditions were not taken seriously, building violations were allowed to mount with little consequence, and zoning restrictions were ignored. This year’s thirteen construction deaths have already surpassed 2007’s dirty dozen, but Lancaster’s position remained safe until she made an absolute idiot of herself at a public hearing of the City Council last Thursday. (She not only fessed up—sort of—to ignoring zoning restrictions on the building that spawned the crane collapse, she was unable to identify any other dangerous sites that she and her agency had previously been asked to find and fix.)

Well, doing bad is one thing, but, to media mogul Mike, looking bad is another—so, on Monday, the mayor distanced himself from Lancaster, and, on Tuesday, he “accepted her resignation” (at least he thinks that’s how it went down—he really didn’t sound too sure).

It remains to be seen what Lancaster has to say for herself now that she has been set adrift from the Good Ship Gracie Mansion, but if she were feeling the strain of tiny budgets and untoward influences while she held a position of power, then she owed it to the citizens of New York to stand up and say something. Her relative silence in the face of years of construction disasters was all I needed to, uh, hear to know that Splat wasn’t doing her job. . .

. . . though paragraphs like the following also make that pretty damn clear:

Her defenders, including a number of developers, said that Ms. Lancaster, 54, had been unfairly blamed for the failings of an antiquated and underfinanced department with a long history of corruption, inefficiency and missing records.

“She did a terrific job in getting the department back on track,” the developer Douglas Durst said.

. . . .

She built a considerable following in the industry she helped regulate.

“I think the world of Patricia Lancaster,” said Richard T. Anderson, president of the New York Building Congress, a trade group. “I think she accomplished an enormous amount.”

Calling her “a shining star,” he added, “If you look at her six-year record, it’s overwhelmingly positive.”

It is very worth noting that the only quotes singing Lancaster’s praises came from the industry that she was supposed to regulate—the Times had none to offer from the people that she was supposed to protect.

It kind of gives new substance to six years of accusations that Lancaster was too cozy with developers and contractors.

Lie down with dogs, and you get a dog’s dinner.

And while we’re on the subject of lying, let’s take a moment to address yesterday’s ruling in the case of former Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman.

In February of 2006, I wrote with more than a little personal interest about the ruling by Manhattan Federal Judge Deborah Batts that residents of the neighborhoods surrounding the World Trade Center could sue Whitman for lying about air quality in the aftermath of the Twin Towers’ collapse.

“Whitman's deliberate and misleading statements to the press, where she reassured the public that the air was safe to breathe around lower Manhattan and Brooklyn, and that there would be no health risk presented to those returning to those areas, shocks the conscience,” Judge Batts wrote.

“By these actions,” Batts added, Mrs. Whitman “increased, and may have in fact created, the danger” to people living and working near the trade center.

About 50,000 personal computers, 424,000 tons of concrete, 2,000 tons of asbestos, and untold tons of other toxic junk were turned to dust when the towers fell. I was walking around in a stupid surgical mask for days afterwards—I’d gag and cough when I took it off. That’s not a scientific assessment, but, apparently, neither was Christie’s.

Now, more than two years and several WTC Syndrome fatalities later, a federal appeals court has overturned Judge Batts.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals said that Mrs. Whitman, a former governor of New Jersey, was forced to balance competing interests after the attack. The court found that complying with instructions from the White House to hasten the return of financial workers to Wall Street as soon as possible after the World Trade Center was destroyed conflicted with Mrs. Whitman’s obligation to highlight the health risks facing people who lived, worked or went to school in Lower Manhattan.

“Whether or not Whitman’s resolution of such competing considerations was wise,” the court said, “she has not engaged in conduct that ‘shocks the conscience’ in the sense necessary to create constitutional liability for damages to thousands of people.”

The competing interests of. . . wait, let me get this straight. . . the interest of lying to cover for the president’s lies is competing with the interest of protecting the health and well-being of the citizenry. I am almost speechless (almost). If Christie Whitman’s conduct doesn’t shock the conscience, the idea that there was a balance to be struck between these “interests” most certainly does.

Well, if the head of the government agency tasked with testing the air quality isn’t accountable for her lies because she had to consider the interests of the White House, then surely someone higher up in the Bush Administration must be accountable, right?

[crickets]

Where does the buck stop around here—in the country, in New York City—where? Is any public servant ever going to be held responsible for what they do (as opposed to being held responsible for whom they do. . . well, at least if that official is a Democrat) while entrusted with the care of the people that pay their salaries?

Be it buildings falling down or building going up, it seems increasingly clear that the answer is “no.” If you are not rich, powerful, of a friend thereof, if you need the protection of the NYC DoB or the US EPA, well then, I’m afraid that you are SOL.


(cross-posted on capitoilette, The Seminal, and Daily Kos)

Pat and Mike kill again

With Monday’s death of a 25-year-old window installer on the upper east side of Manhattan, city construction accidents have now killed ten New Yorkers (according to the New York Times; 13 by WNYC’s count) since the start of 2008. But if Mayor Michael “Bloody Mike” Bloomberg or his Buildings Commissioner Patricia “stick with Pat—see workers go splat” Lancaster are alarmed, they sure have a funny way of showing it.

“We will be holding the individuals responsible for this terrible tragedy accountable,” Ms. Lancaster said during a visit to the site. “Construction companies, owners, architects and engineers have to obey the law.”

And, by “obey the law,” Lancaster means letting the construction companies, owners, architects, and engineers continue to build their monuments to Bloody Mike’s revitalization plan and profit off of the deaths of working class New Yorkers to the tune $45 million this decade.

“Safety is not a priority at the Buildings Department,” says US Representative Carolyn Maloney (whose district includes the site of the latest construction death)—which is a problem, since the DoB is the city agency tasked with ensuring construction site safety.

Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer reported that the development that killed the worker on Monday had been cited for 38 building code violations; the DoB says the number is 25, but whatever the number, construction continued while fines were assessed totaling a whopping $25,690. . . on a 30-story luxury tower that will net its developers millions in profits.

Under the reign of Bloomberg and Lancaster, construction accidents, injuries, and deaths have all skyrocketed while NYC development has charged ahead. Mayor Bloomberg has pretty much always exhibited a callous “to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs” attitude toward the city residents that actually work and live here, so his official silence on Monday, while disgusting, is hardly surprising. But, it is amazing to me that Commissioner Lancaster—a woman who continually talks of trying to reclaim the Department of Buildings from the years of neglect it suffered under Mayor Rudy Giuliani—well, it’s amazing to me that Pat can sleep nights.

I have, in recent months, repeatedly called for accountability in these matters. I have called for Lancaster to accept responsibility for the repeated failures of her department and step down—and if she won’t step down, then it is Mayor Bloomberg’s responsibility to show that he finds this reign of death/rain of bodies intolerable and fire her. At this point, however, after so many have died and continue to do so with no real accountability, that really isn’t enough.

I am not often one to call for frog-marching. . . but my feeling today is that slapping on the handcuffs and hauling Patricia Lancaster down to the courthouse is the least that this city can do. The Bloomberg Administration’s disregard for worker safety—indeed, all of our safety—is criminal. If the city’s officials can’t see their way clear to jailing the developers and contractors that keep killing New Yorkers, then it is time for us New Yorkers to start jailing our officials.

heckuva job, Patty

News broke late Thursday that a city buildings inspector had been arrested and charged with lying to New York City authorities about an inspection he was supposed to have performed earlier this month on the crane that collapsed in Turtle Bay on Saturday, killing seven and injuring dozens more. Concerns about the stability of the crane were called in to the city’s 311 complaint line on March 3rd. The inspector, Edward J. Marquette, never visited the construction site, but filed falsified reports claiming that he had.

The head of the NYC Department of Buildings, Patricia J. Lancaster, who, amazingly, still has her job, suspended Mr. Marquette, and sought to have the last six months of his inspection reports reexamined. But, it should be noted, that discovery and investigation of the inspector’s alleged criminal activity was conducted by the City’s Department of Investigations, and not Lancaster’s DoB.

And what about the matter that has shown such a bright light on the 51st Street site? Not an issue here, says Patty:

With regard to the crane accident itself, it is highly unlikely that a March 4 inspection would have prevented the horrific accident that happened on March 15, which we are still looking at the probable cause being mechanical failure or human failure during the ‘jumping’ operations when the crane was raised.

The New York Times City Room reports that Lancaster said the lack of an inspection of the complaint about the stability of the crane, “Was probably not even ‘remotely associated’ with the collapse.”

Oh, well, then, it’s not your problem, is it? Heckuva job, Patty.

While the parts of the crane that are now believed to be the root cause of the collapse (and I will note that is only “believed” to be the cause—the investigation is not complete by a long stretch—and several local news channels have reported that there were numerous serious problems with the way this crane had been set up, beyond the failing straps and collar that may have started the fatal chain reaction on Saturday) might not have been the parts that a March 4th inspection would have targeted, Lancaster misses the bigger—and I would say, quite obvious—point.

If an inspector could so easily mislead the DoB about a routine investigation of a civilian complaint, how can Lancaster be sure that her department is doing the inspections that would be “associated”—remotely or otherwise—with such dangerous situations? In fact, how do we as city residents know that our calls to 311 are even investigated at all?

This inspector’s alleged fraud is a symptom of a bigger problem.

During the 1990s, the city gave up on the function of building inspection, without issuing an official declaration of surrender. Year after year, graft scandals would wipe out dozens of inspectors at a time. By the end of 2001, the number of inspectors had dwindled to 277 from about 800 in the early 1990s. Developers were left to operate on what amounted to an honor system. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said the department had become “severely understaffed and deeply demoralized” by the time he took office in January 2002 — at the very moment that the city was beginning a surge in new building.

. . . .

In December, a nylon sling on a crane snapped, and seven tons of steel fell onto Murray Street in Lower Manhattan from the 25th floor of a construction site, severely injuring an architect, Robert Woo. A few weeks later, in January, Yuriy Vanchytskyy, a construction worker, fell 42 stories from a hotel on Spring Street being built by Donald Trump.

Awful as these accidents were, they hardly begin to describe the human price of growth in New York. The city’s construction business, particularly outside of Manhattan, is becoming the modern version of the 19th-century coal mine.

Between early 2006 and the middle of 2007, 44 people died on construction sites, 40 of them in nonunion jobs involving immigrants, said Louis Coletti, the president of an association of builders. Most of those deaths took place in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, records show. Miczyslaw Piatek, 52, was digging a foundation in Brooklyn when the cinder-block wall next door collapsed on him. The wall had not been shored up, a federal investigation found.

The number of inspectors has increased somewhat under Mayor Bloomberg (there are now 426. . . make that 425), but that growth does not begin to meet the needs of an industry that expects another $45 billion of construction this decade.

While the alleged behavior of Mr. Marquette is inexcusable, the inspector, who it is reported made an annual salary of $48,000, and, more importantly, his colleagues are no doubt over-extended. Perhaps it is shocking that an inspector just skipped doing his job and falsified records, but if Marquette had visited the site and done a hurried or insufficient inspection, would he have even been caught? Indeed, would he have even been guilty of a specific crime?

Jim Dwyer, who wrote the column that I quote above, reports that “colleagues say“ Lancaster is “capable and dedicated,” and that the DoB is just outgunned by the wealthy real estate and construction industries. That may be so, but some of the 45 billion bucks have to stop somewhere.

Patricia Lancaster has had six years to repair the damage to her department. If Mayor Michael Bloomberg has not given her the resources to do that job properly, then it is well past the time that she should have protested—publicly and loudly.

A system in which a building inspector can skip inspections and still cross them off his list is a system that is, like that Harlem building, past repair. It is broken. As Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer said in a statement:

What more evidence do we need? It is clear we cannot trust the Buildings Department to keep construction sites safe. We need now a complete top-to-bottom independent review of this department, its procedures and its personnel.

And we need much bigger fines for violations and criminal penalties for serial violators. We also need a system that stops work more quickly on buildings with multiple violations—even if no single violation is considered serious enough in itself to merit a stoppage.

Because a series of small violations should be seen as I see the inspections scandal, as a symptom that something bigger is amiss. It could be viewed as the regulatory equivalent of “broken windows” policing.

But ultimately, we need someone to take responsibility for what is happening. The rampant development that has outstripped our ability to regulate it has been encouraged at the highest levels of city and state government. If the elected officials who depend so heavily on donations from real estate developers lack the political will to protect the citizens of New York, then it is up to the appointed bureaucrats—the supposed experts—to live up to their sworn duties. It might take perseverance and courage, but the office and the people—your friends, neighbors, and family—deserve no less.

Patricia J. Lancaster, it’s time to step up, or step down.


(h/t Gowanus Lounge and Lost City)


(cross-posted on capitoilette, Daily Kos, and The Seminal)

n.y.c. f.u.b.a.r.

(Updated below - updated again)

The giant crane that fell Saturday in the Turtle Bay neighborhood of Manhattan killed at least four, with three still missing. One of the missing is an employee of the bar called Fubar, which occupied the ground floor of the townhouse on 50th street that was reduced to rubble by the toppled crane.

Fubar, of course, comes from what is most commonly believed to be the WWII-era acronym for Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition—and FUBAR is what New York is becoming under the building boom ushered in by the administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

These four (and possibly seven) deaths come on top of five other construction-related deaths this year (which, I remind you, is only 11 weeks old). Assuming that those lost are not found alive—as NYC Fire Commish Nick Scoppetta has pretty much already signaled—that would mean 2008 has already equaled last year’s construction death total. And we are well on our way toward surpassing the higher total of 18 from 2006. (Though if you measure from 9/30/05 to 9/30/06, as a city study did, the total is 29 dead—an increase of 61% over the previous 12 months.) And as I noted after another of these recent deaths—at the Trump SoHo—the number of construction injuries has skyrocketed under Mayor Mike.

And Bloomberg’s reaction to this most recent tragedy?

Sadly, construction is a dangerous thing. We don't know why this happened. We will do an investigation.

Will there be fines? Will anyone go to jail? Will licenses be revoked? Or building permits? Will development be slowed or stopped citywide until we get a handle on why construction sites have turned so deadly?

There might be a fine or two (though hikes in fines were proposed last year, I believe the maximum is still $2,500—a figure that must really scare an industry that expects to build $45 billion worth of properties in the next ten years), but as for the rest of the above list, don’t hold your breath.

But, more important than any of the above, perhaps: Will anyone in Mayor Bloomberg’s administration take responsibility for what they have wrought?

Again, my suggestion is to breathe.

Over the past six years, as Bloomberg and his cadre of developer-friendly deputies have rushed headlong to remake the city in Mayor Mike’s corporatist image, luxury high-rises and soul-crushing office towers have shot up like deadly amanitas after a summer rain, landmark-quality buildings (as well as a couple of designated NYC landmarks) have been razed, and neighborhoods have been damaged or destroyed. The under-funded infrastructure bridles under the strain.

And during this building boom, the number of homeless families has skyrocketed.

And, of course, there are the construction injuries and deaths. As Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer complained soon after the crane collapse, “This is becoming standard in my borough; I think we have a real issue here.”

We certainly do.

There are clearly not enough building inspectors, and the ones we have are sadly in need of re-training. The Department of Buildings is underfunded, and the sanctions for construction violations are pathetically light. People must be held responsible in real and certain ways—and I would start at the top.

Presiding over this building boom, the destruction, the injuries, the deaths, has been Patricia Lancaster, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Buildings. Her lack of accountability to date is a citywide running joke (local blog Gowanus Lounge has named an award after her in recognition of construction sites that show callous disregard for the rules); her coziness with high-powered developers is well documented. Her Department of Buildings issues the permits for construction, manages the inspection process, and theoretically responds to buildings violations. In an accountability-based society, Lancaster would resign. If there is to be any message of accountability sent, Patricia Lancaster should be fired—and fired posthaste.

(Commissioner Lancaster did, just two weeks ago, propose a series of reforms and laws designed to improve workplace safety and oversight, but after six years of decreasing safety and poor oversight, it seems too little, too late.)

Of course, her ultimate boss, Michael Bloomberg, is ultimately responsible. It is his technocratic “to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs” management style and his “the business of New York is business” vision that have created this wild west of the east coast. But he won’t fire himself, and the city has no recall process.

For now, Mike Bloomberg should attend the funerals of each and every construction worker that he has helped kill—starting with the four (that we know of) from Saturday—and he should get down on his knees and beg their families’ forgiveness. Then he should declare a citywide moratorium on new private construction permits that are not required to provide sub-market rate housing or repair unsafe structures until he can figure out just why he has failed so miserably to protect the workers and the neighborhoods. The city needs to better fund the DoB, retrain the existing inspectors, and likely hire more. Then the Mayor and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn need to make buildings violations criminal infractions punishable by much larger fines and jail time.

Alas, all of that might only slow the bleeding. There is simply too much developer money in New York City’s electoral process to expect a responsible approach to growth, development, and construction safety. Developers’ relationships with the Mayor and many who want to succeed him are far too close to expect any of the electeds to actively and truthfully represent the needs of the longtime residents of New York’s neighborhoods.

Without some sort of comprehensive campaign finance reform, I can’t see how that changes. For, while the city might still be in transition to something unrecognizable, the electoral system is already FUBAR.


Update: The three missing in the crane disaster have now been confirmed dead. Lost City has a partial list of this year’s NYC construction disasters, and also calls for the end of the Patricia Lancaster era at the Department of Buildings—as does NY City Council Member Tony Avella. Gowanus Lounge proposes a smart list of reforms for DoB.

Update 2: The Fubar employee, Juan Perez, was rescued from the rubble of the collapsed 50th Street building. He was taken to Bellevue Hospital Center, where, as of Sunday, he was listed in serious condition.



(cross-posted on capitoilette, Daily Kos, and The Seminal)

blank slate

I love this:
I took a screen grab to emphasize the empty space as seen in orange-vision. The link to the Bloomberg “opinion” column is here. Kargo’s takedown of Schoen is here.

As much as I hate to mess with the essential (and essentially true) simplicity of DH’s post, I do have to say that Mayor Mike does make one small point. . . (continued on capitoilette)

Trump kills. . . with an assist from the city

As many have probably heard by now, an accident Monday at the Trump SoHo construction site killed one man—a married father from the Ukraine who fell some 42 stories—and injured several others. Though I live only about three minutes from the scene, I can add little to the facts reported by Jen Chung at Gothamist and Sewell Chan at the NYT’s CityRoom. Both stories are also illustrated with evocative and disturbing photos.

And I think that Andrew Berman of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation pretty much sums up my feelings about the accident (though he is probably more polite than I would have been):

First and foremost, our thoughts are with the victims of this tragedy and their families and loved ones. But this is a tragedy that never should have happened. This building was illegal and never should have been approved by the City. But the City bent over backwards to push it through, and then the developers worked at lightning speed to get the building up while the legal challenge has been making its way through the system. This building was already a monument to greed and hubris; now, sadly, it will be a monument to tragedy as well.

What Berman alludes to and the news stories gloss over is that the developers of this massive tower (at 45 stories, it will be the tallest building between the financial district and midtown) created the sham designation of a “Condo Hotel” to get around the area’s zoning—which would have prohibited a residential building anywhere near this size. But at every juncture, the city, its institutions, and its leadership looked the other way, or, in many cases, helped push through this shameful project.

Further—while it should never have been approved, the project certainly should have been stopped once excavation began. It turns out, Trump and his backers, Bayrock and Sapir, are building on a burial ground.

Until the early 1960’s, a large portion of this site was home to a Presbyterian Church and its graveyard—one of the very first racially integrated graveyards in the country. When bones were unearthed early in the construction, the project should have been shut down, and the site should have been excavated by archeologists and preserved as a sacred and historical site.

But little is sacred in Michael Bloomberg’s New York. Little except, of course, the almighty dollar. The unprecedented and largely unchecked construction boom of this century has been welcomed and shepherded by Bloomberg under the oft-repeated excuse that he means to “revitalize” the city.

I, for one, think that NYC is pretty effin’ vital, and would be a lot more so if not for the rampant mall-ing initiated by former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and perpetuated by the current mayor.

Indeed, it is Bloomberg and his appointees at the Department of Buildings and the Board of Standards and Appeals (among others) that have bent over for mega-developers like Trump, unleashing shoddy, ugly, illegal, unnecessary, and un-contextual developments on some of the city’s most treasured neighborhoods.

And things don’t look like they are going to get better anytime soon.

Christine Quinn, who is the Speaker of the New York City Council and the councilmember representing the district that includes Trump’s murderous building, has been basically AWOL on this issue. Though the community has appealed repeatedly to Quinn’s office for help in defending the quality of the neighborhood and integrity of our laws, the Speaker has stonewalled, foot-dragged, and triangulated her way through the confrontation—selling out her constituency so as not to offend real estate interests that will no doubt play a large part in financing Quinn’s all-but-declared run for mayor when Bloomberg moves on.

Take a look at Quinn’s statement on Monday’s tragedy:

I want to express my deepest condolences to the family of the worker who was killed in today’s accident at the Trump Soho construction site, and my thoughts and prayers remain with the two others who remain injured at St. Vincent’s Hospital. I continue to monitor the situation closely, and we will remain in close contact with the Office of Emergency Management, the Department of Buildings, and all other relevant agencies as we work to determine the cause of this terrible accident, and to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future.

Do you see even an ounce of leadership in that statement? It is an army of words in search of a purpose. It is fence-sitting claptrap that might even make our junior senator blush.

Contrast Quinn’s statement, if you will, with that of Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer:

The accident at the new hotel at 246 Spring Street is another example of the dangerous conditions created by rushed construction in Manhattan. My office did an initial investigation of violations at the site and discovered that there were two Class A violations issued on Oct. 26, 2007. These violations are considered high risk. However, the construction was allowed to continue unchecked and the Environmental Control Board hearing to review the violations was not scheduled until Jan. 24, 2008.

This is unacceptable. The death and injury of construction workers and the compromised safety of emergency responders and surrounding community should not be considered the cost of doing business in Manhattan. Any type of high risk violation should necessitate a halt of unsafe work until the violation is cured. I will continue to investigate this matter and look to see rapid response from all relevant city agencies. I applaud the fire, police and other emergency responders for their bravery and for putting themselves at risk to ensure the safety of all New Yorkers.

The Times reports that the Trump project has actually accrued 11 construction-related citations since construction began last May. And yet, in every case, construction was allowed to continue. After all, there are a couple of very viable lawsuits against this project (that have themselves been repeatedly stalled by the city) awaiting their day in court, and Mayor Mike, his commissioners, and his wannabe successor can’t have the law getting in the way of another monument to their greed and hubris.


(cross-posted on capitoilette)