Sell-Offs Of New York City Libraries Gets Focus In Public Advocate Runoff Race Between James and Squadron

From Citizens Defending Libraries YouTube video of rally in April outside the Brooklyn Heights Library, one of the libraries threatened to be sold off

There is an October 1st runoff of the race for the Public Advocate.  Letitia James, the City Council member famous for taking on Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards government-assisted mega-monopoly actually won the Democratic primary for that nomination, but by just a few percentage points shy of what she needed to avoid a runoff race.  She is now running against Daniel Squadron, the runner-up who outspent Ms. James by more than two-to-one in that original primary.  In all, Ms. James, who was running against four other Democratic candidates, was outspent more than four-to-one in that first leg of the race almost winning the forty percent nonetheless.

The issue of selling off New York City libraries is now shaping up to be a big issue in the race, getting a lot of spotlighting focus.

The Issue?:  Our libraries are being emptied of books (devastating pictures here) in preparation for selling them off in real estate deals intended to benefit developers, not the public.   The Brooklyn Heights Library is one of the first libraries being sold in a deal where it looks like most of the proceeds and most of the benefit of any such sale will go to Forest City Ratner, whether or not Forest City Ratner officially takes over the library as formally-named developer of the site.  See:  Friday, September 20, 2013, Forest City Ratner As The Development Gatekeeper (And Profit taker) Getting The Benefit As Brooklyn Heights Public Library Is Sold.  Forest City Ratner?: Tish James is going to feel right in her element taking them on again as it becomes part of the library fight she has taken on.

Tish James Opposes Bloomberg Sell-Off of NYC Libraries

Ms. James has been opposing the sale of New York City libraries since the city-wide plans for these sales first came to light as can been seen in a series of videos available on Citizens Defending Libraries YouTube Channel (March 8, 2013, April 13, 2013, and June 30, 2013, - and Ms. James visited other Citizens Defending Libraries events as well) and is made clear in Ms. James Huffington Post/Brooklyn Eagle Op-Ed piece:  Shrinking the Library System Is A Loss for New Yorkers (August 21, 2013) and OPINION: Shrinking the library system is a loss for New Yorkers (August 29, 2013).  Note:  I am a cofounder of Citizens Defending Libraries and a promoter of its petition against the sale of city libraries for the benefit of developers.



Letitia James & Stephen Levin Fight Library Selloff Schemes (From the June 30th Micah Kellner State Assembly hearings on the sell-off NYC libraries where Tish James spoke against such sell-offs.  State Senator Velmanette Montgomery attended and made a statement.  State Senator Daniel Squadron did not attend or provide a statement opposing the sales.)

Squadron Campaign Recognition of Library Sell-offs Relevance to Runoff Campaign For Public Advocate

Proof that the library sell-offs is becoming a focus of the campaign is presenting itself in multiple ways.  One of them: Just a half hour before Daniel Squadron’s kickoff press conference to launch his runoff campaign Squadron released a press release (also handed out at the press event) with his new position on the library sell-offs.  The statement says he is now against them.  His campaign sent his statement to Citizens Defending Libraries at the same time.  There will be more analysis about where Mr. Squadron actually now stands and about clarifying questions Citizens Defending Libraries has asked him to answer as we proceed. . .

Mayoral candidate de Blasio with Citizens Defending Libraries at 42nd Street library in July

In any event, it is strange to think that any elected representative or candidate running for office would ever openly favor the sell-off and shrinkage of New York City libraries.  Christine Quinn favored the library sales and shrinkages, but she did not do so very openly.  As it was, she lost the race of for the Democratic nomination for mayor while Bill de Blasio, the candidate who triumped handily in beating her, stood with Citizens Defending Libraries on the steps of the library at 42nd  Street to decry and call a halt to these sales.    

Linkages: Libraries and Campaign- Squadron Supporters Attacking James And Supporting Library Sell-off 

Prior to Mr. Squadron’s issuance of his campaign kickoff library press release, the first indication that people supporting Mr. Squadron see the library issue as an important campaign issue came another way: in communications from Deborah Hallen right after the election.  We'll explain who Deborah Hallen is in a moment.  The communications from Ms. Hallen attempted to attack and attempted to discredit Tish James respecting her stand on the libraries whilst arguing that the sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library is proper and publicly supportable.   (Does this involved the implication that sales of other threatened city libraries should also proceed?)

The primary election which Tish James won and Daniel Squadron lost was September 10th.  The first communication from Ms. Hallen we know of, to at least one person, was a voice mail was left the morning of the 12th at 10:46 AM.

Ms. Hallen is now the head of a 501(c)(3) ("charitable") group named (many think deceptively) “The Friends of the Brooklyn Heights Library.” This past spring, Noticing New York first wrote about how that group has been supporting the sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library and how the Brooklyn Heights Association has used that "Friends" group’s support to rationalize its similarly condoning the sale.  See: Saturday, April 13, 2013, Condoning The Sale and Shrinkage Of The Brooklyn Heights Library, Does The Brooklyn Heights Associations Think Of Friends Group As A Fig Leaf? It Should Think Again.  The Friends group, the Brooklyn Heights Association, Urban Librarians Unite?: It is worth taking the time to ask why there are a few groups like these that, surprisingly, support or won’t oppose the sell-off of new York City Libraries.

Since Noticing New York’s April 13th examination of Hallen’s "Friends" group I have provided little Noticing New York follow up about that group's activities, although a fair amount has happened in terms of Ms. Hallen’s efforts to purge from that group any alternative points of view about saving the Heights library.  We’d like to think that the very small group is relatively inconsequential in the broader scheme of things.  Indeed, it has certainly been less so after the revelations of the April 13th Noticing New York article.  After that the membership of the so-called “Community Advisory Committee” (set up to provide the appearance of a public process as the Brooklyn Heights Library is sold) was expanded to include other more credible groups to “represent” the community.  Nevertheless, Ms. Hallen on behalf of her group condoning the library sale, still "chairs" its meetings with the BPL's Josh Nachowitz, formerly of the mayor's real estate development agency.

After the April 13th article Ms. Hallen contacted us to urge us to believe the following distinction: That while the “Friends” group she is leading is going along with the sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library, she says she personally opposes seeing the library sold.

Here is a transcript of the voicemail Ms Hallen left on the 12th, the first of her communications attempting to discredit Ms. James' position on libraries.  Click on the video below to listen to the actual message itself:

Hi Martha it's Deborah Hallen, calling you,  The Friends of the Brooklyn Heights Branch Library-  and Obama. of course.  I noticed that the Citizens in Defense of Libraries [sic, actually Citizens Defending Libraries*] are supporting Tish James against Daniel Squadron. And I thought that you should know that ten years, when she was in City Council, she gave no money to the support of the Brooklyn Public Library, though she represented Central, Clinton Hill and Walt Whitman libraries and they needed tens of millions of funding requests or they made tens of millions of funding request and she gave nothing to the libraries. So I find it a little odd that the Citizens are supporting her and I thought you should know this.

Thanks and bye for now.

(* Note: We have observed that Squadron supporters exchanging information concerning how to attack Ms. James about libraries, tend to refer to Citizens Defending Libraries incorrectly as “Citizens in Defense of Libraries.”  Tish James got under Mayor Bloomberg’s skin by opposing real estate projects like Atlantic Yards, and she likes to tell stories about how Bloomberg kept calling her “Trish” full well knowing her nickname was as actually “Tish.”)


Library Sell-off Group Smears Tish, Backs Squadron  - From Citizens Defending Libraries YouTube Channel.

Deborah Hallen of the 501(c)(3) Library "Friends" Group Enters Political Fray of Public Advocate Race Attacking Tish James 

Was it appropriate for Ms. Hallen to be invoking her status as the head of a 501(c)(3), theoretically “charitable” organization as she leads into this campaign communication?  Citizens Defending Libraries, by contrast, has not organized itself as a 501(c)(3) specifically so as not to be hampered by restrictions that might, as a result, apply on speech of a political nature.

Previously, Ms. Hallen has communicated with her Friends group trustees asserting that they are restricted vis-à-vis their possible opposition to a sale of the Brooklyn Heights library. Here is what Ms. Hallen previously emailed her 501(c)(3) “Friends of the Library” Trustees when she was telling them they could not oppose the sale of the libraries:

I have been told that as a representative of the Friends (by our attorney and accountant) that we cannot oppose the impending sale 

    * * *

ALSO PLEASE UNDERSTAND that we are not in the position of trying to stop the sale. We are a 501(c) 3 Organization and have to adhere to our by-laws. Recall that our position is to have continuity of library service no matter what happens to the building.

 More Such Linkages: Into the Weeds on Funding Allegations

Mr. Squadron’s kickoff event was scheduled for Noon at Borough Hall on Sunday September 15, 2013.  At 12:09 PM, virtually the moment Squadron was supposed to start speaking and 39 minutes after Squadron had issued his press release with his new statement on libraries Ms. Hallen followed up with an email attack on Tish James and her position on saving the libraries from sale.  Perhaps awkwardly for Squadron (whose campaign seems to be feeding Hallen her information-- perhaps with additional coordination from BPL officials wanting to sell libraries) she weaves into her email statements in which she is supportive of the Brooklyn Heights Library sale:  

Letitia James was elected to the City Council in 2003; her district includes the Central Library at GAP, Walt Whitman (a historic Carnegie primarily serving the lower income community in the Whitman-Ingersoll Houses), and Clinton Hill.

BPL has met with Ms. James several times and fully briefed her on the Pacific Street project. Ms. James has claimed that she was never briefed and had no information about the project.

Clinton Hill requires over $3M in capital work and Walt Whitman over $6.5M. BPL has asked Ms. James for millions over ten years and received absolutely nothing in discretionary (called “Reso A” in Council bureaucratic language) funds. The Council (at least since 2006) has published all of their capital and expense grants (http://www.council.nyc.gov/html/budget/database.shtml). This year, for instance, BPL received discretionary capital funding from CMs Dilan, Greenfield, Lander, Gentile and Reyna. CM Dilan generously gave BPL $1M. Ms. James? Nothing.

Ms. James will claim that BPL “never asked her for money” or “didn’t ask aggressively.” This is also not true, and BPL can get you copies of letters they've sent to her asking for funds.

Ms. James will claim the current Brooklyn Heights project is being “rushed” through the approval process before the Mayor leaves office. This is demonstrably false. As you know BPL won’t even be close to starting the public approval process until mid-late next year, and this is far from a “done deal” until the extensive public review is complete. BPL has gone out of their way to be as transparent as possible and have started a dialogue with the public long before the RFP was even drafted.

The branches in James' district illustrate perfectly why BPL's project in Brooklyn Heights makes sense for the borough as a whole. The Walt Whitman Library has over $6.5M in capital needs. It’s a historic Carnegie building serving a high need population isolated in an increasingly gentrified community. BPL will generate capital revenue from Brooklyn Heights that can be plowed back into Walt Whitman and other branches just like it, borough wide. BPL strategy at Brooklyn Heights allows them to build a brand new branch in Brooklyn Heights and generate desperately needed money to pay for projects at branches like Walt Whitman.

BPL is currently using Mayoral money to fund a small renovation project at Clinton Hill. Doing what  Letitia James wants them to do would mean cancelling that project, and many like it borough wide, and pouring that money into Brooklyn Heights. BPL just can’t do that.

BPL receives two types of funding from the City Council. Usually each year they get 5M from the Brooklyn Delegation/Speaker's office that they use for projects borough wide. They then also receive additional funding from individual members. This is really where Brooklyn does worse than other boroughs.

Letitia James will say she has awarded millions in grants for BPL and take credit for the Delegation money. Beyond raising her hand in a meeting, she has done nothing to support the library.

Please note that the Brooklyn Heights building will not be sold unless there is a meaningful bid.

As for Ms. Hallen’s assertion the sale of the library is not being “rushed,” pushed through suddenly at the last minute, the library is even now being emptied of books and Ms. Hallen has herself acknowledges that the BPL made and kept secret its decision to sell the library from at least 2008 when it decided to evict the Business and Career Library until 2013 when it started moving forward fast to sign a contract before the end of Bloomberg's term.

That lack of transparency on BPL's part (even if Ms. Hallen asserts “BPL has gone out of their way to be as transparent as possible”) presents a problem in retroactively analyzing what City Council members who were kept in the dark should have done with respect to providing funds to libraries.  City Council members knew nothing about planned sales or how funds being provided to the BPL and NYPL were actually being used.

At the times in question, Ms. James was chair of Brooklyn delegation, and negotiated with the mayor for money for Clinton Hill, but she didn’t have the information the BPL was keeping secret and which she needed to be fully effective to have that delegation seek and procure funds.

Ms. Hallen is also, essentially, criticizing Ms. James for not having gotten sucked into a funding charade that Noticing New York has criticized in the past.  I wrote the following back in March:

What’s wrong with this picture is that none of it should be going on the first place and that in the end, despite the pleasing happy-ending show of heroism, it still leaves the libraries underfunded.  So underfunded, in fact, that now at the end of the Bloomberg era as part of an overall bigger end-of-term fire sale to the real estate industry* Bloomberg is getting ready to sell off libraries and shrink the system.

        (* Mid-town rezoning anyone?)

This is not what City Council or Borough President discretionary funds are for.  And if the City Council and Borough Presidents have the imagination for how those funds ought to be better used (and they indeed should) they ought to be screaming their heads off about the intentional underfunding of libraries, not content that "saving libraries" is an easy way to use the funds while looking as if they are riding to the rescue on a white horse.

See: Thursday, March 7, 2013, Tossing Dwarfs?: It’s Time To Demand That We Change The Way We Fund Libraries . . End The False Political Theater.

Here are some factors that complicate maters greatly when City Council members (or even the donating public) attempt to send money to the libraries in the midst of this charade:

    •    Not all City Council members have equal access to discretionary funds.  Speaker Christine Quinn was less generous in giving Tish James discretionary funds than others because the speaker has used the handouts of those funds for the purposes of reward and punishment, and Tish James stood up to Speaker Quinn more than most City Council members.
    •    As noted, until late January of this year nobody outside the Bloomberg administration and the BPL knew that those people would be selling off libraries using the lack of funds as an excuse- The plans to sell libraries go back at least to 2008, but were kept secret since that time.  Therefore, no council member could perceive urgency or could have put money into a library about to be under threat on condition that it not be sold.
    •    Discretionary funds coming from City Council members and Borough Presidents have been met with off-setting reductions on the other side from the Bloomberg administration, negating their effect.
    •    Funds provided to libraries have been used to pay for moving forward the real estate deals to sell libraries.
    •    Funds provided to libraries in very recent years have also been wasted as library assets paid for with them are sold off.  For example, within the time window roughly approximate to what Ms. Hallen is talking about, taxpayers paid $50 million for SIBL, the Science, Industry and Business Library, only to see it sold off for an apparent substantial loss, and in 2007 the Donnell Library renovated with a substantial amount of taxpayer funds was sold off at a fraction of its value to the public.
    •    City Council members who redirect their scarce discretionary funds into this library money pit can’t use those funds for other competing needs.

Under these circumstances, could and should a Council member have directed her concilmatic discretionary funds to libraries?  How would you know except in hindsight and with greater transparency than we have now.

What was James doing?  Here is a report in the Clinton Hill Blog about how James was fighting for restoration of library funds and library hours back on March 31, 2009: Our Local Reps React to the Proposed Budget Cuts.

Squadron Balks When Asked to Speak About His New Library Press Release

As Mr. Squadron wound up his campaign kickoff press conference I asked him to speak for the record about his position on libraries per his press release being handed out at that time.  He declined, dodging the opportunity, and the result is here on video on Citizens Defending Libraries YouTube Channel:



Squadron Campaign Kickoff: Equivocation on Libraries? 

It is not as if people haven’t been after Squadron for the longest time on these issues.  It’s just that the responses have been inadequate.  Here is an open letter from “long time Brooklyn Heights resident and preservationist Martin L. Schneider” to Mr. Squadron on the subject that appeared in the Brooklyn Heights Blog March 28, 2013: Preservationist to Squadron: BPL Is Prepared To Sellout For A Mess Of Pottage. 

Similarly, Citizens Defending Libraries members were constantly reaching out to Mr. Squadron.

More Support For Squadron Coupled With Support For Sale Of Brooklyn Heights Library On Brooklyn Heights Blog

The Brooklyn Heights Blog put up the Citizens Defending Libraries Squadron video in a post and you get the feeling that, when they did so, they may have been intending some damage control for Squadron.  Unfortunately for everyone, what might have been intended as damage control extended to an apparent argument (a “forward thinking” one) for selling the Brooklyn Heights Library based on slurring those who patronize it:

So, is it so strange for us to be more focused on that sort of forward thinking than to fight for a building with broken air conditioning, nannies on cell phones, homeless men fighting and creeps surfing for porn?

Noticing New York previously wrote about how some see selling the Heights library as a welcome opportunity to evict those they see as not belonging in the Brooklyn Heights community: Tuesday, May 14, 2013, A Consideration of Race, Equality, Opportunity and Democracy As NYC Libraries Are Sold And The Library System Shrunk And Deliberately Underfunded.

Most of the comments posted on the Brooklyn Heights Blog post were against any sale of the library but two commenters chimed with quotes (that can be added to the collection in my previous article) to the effect that those using the library were undesirables. 

“Lady in the Heights” who announced she was “voting for Squadron” and seemed intent on the idea that books can be replaced with Kindles said:

I used to spend time in the library until it was overrun with nannies IGNORING their charges. The children's room is appalling.

“HenryLoL,” reacting negatively to the support for keeping the library said:

Give it a rest already. Most of us here cant wait for that dump to be blown up. In its place will be nice housing and a new library. Cadman Plaza West and the hood in total will be better for it.

“HenryLoL” who seems to like selling off public assets to benefit developers at the expense of the public, similarly doesn’t like hospitals and wants to get rid of Long Island College Hospital (LICH) at the other end of Brooklyn Heights.  On another blog post he said about LICH:

Close this dump down! The City has NO RIGHT to tell this organization what to do. We have more hospitals in a few square miles than most cities have in 100. Getting to the point of ABSURD! And it is all because of unions!

(There are those involved in the fight to save LICH who think Squadron is doing the barest minimum in that regard- That's something else that’s relevant to running for Public Advocate.)

Here is my own comment to the post taking the issue with the implicit sympathy given Mr. Squadron by calling my requesting him for a statement “an ambush”:

“Ambush” connotes surprise. As for surprise: Citizens Defending Libraries was surprised that one half hour before his kickoff press conference Daniel Squadron issued a press release changing his position on the sell-off of New York City libraries, the Brooklyn Heights Library among them. I would say we were surprised and pleasantly gratified to have had an effect.

As for Mr. Squadron being surprised by us: Normally, when you issue a press release in connection with a press conference with your campaign staff handing out stacks of those releases at the conference, you expect to be asked about that statement you have released. Too bad Mr. Squadron did not use the opportunity to speak to NY1 about libraries and their sell-off if he truly wants the public to know his position.

If “ambush” means that the ambusher springs out from hiding; no one was hiding- We were standing in plain sight of Mr. Squadron with our protect-the-libraries signs for well over a half hour before we approached Mr. Squadron to ask him to speak about his written statement. Some would infer from the issuance of the Squadron library position statement a half hour before his kickoff (plus the fact that they emailed it to us at that time) that Squadron and his campaign managers were expecting Citizens Defending Libraries long before we ever showed up.

Well before the press conference started I spoke with one of Mr. Squadron’s campaign managers saying that we were hoping to get an oral statement that morning from Mr. Squadron based on his new release and I even used the contact phone number his campaign provided to initiate this conversation, meeting at the press conference site with his designated representative.

I politely waited to speak to Mr. Squadron until he had completed all other business and was not distracted by other matters.

Where the Brooklyn Heights Blog switches into “Point of View” it raises some interesting topics about libraries that are worth discussing. I think you will find that those topics are covered by the questions that Citizens Defending Libraries presented to Mr. Squadron in the form of a questionnaire and in connection with its Candidates Forum on libraries, questions about his position on libraries to which Mr. Squadron has not yet responded. I think you will find that those topics are amply discussed and debated by others on Citizens Defending Libraries web pages.

As for referring to the air conditioning at the Brooklyn Heights Library as “broken,” the better adjective would be “unfixed,” given the very strange documentation provided by the BPL attempting to explain what went wrong with the library’s air conditioning AFTER its decision to push this library onto the chopping block for real estate developer benefit. (cf: The Donnell Library.)

From using and canvassing the Brooklyn Heights Library I know that it is intensely used by a broad swath of society, including families such as our own that are definitely at the high end of the socioeconomic spectrum. I think it is unfortunate that in arguing for the sale and shrinkage of the library you offer a `profiling’ and, I think, false caricature of people using the library whose resources are not equal to ours. Sadly, you are not the first to suggest that selling the library would evict what you are portraying as a different and undesirable population. (Note that our last forum was co-sponsored by the NAACP.)

I am glad that Mr. Squadron’s press statement is now up on the web. When I last checked I had to inform his campaign people that it wasn’t.

A Matter of Proper Tone?

When Citizens Defending Libraries first met with Mr. Squadron as a state senator representing us to ask him to oppose the sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library he used it as an opportunity to admonish us that he considered that Citizens Defending Libraries was using an inappropriate “tone” when it was decrying the sale, shrinkage and deliberate underfunding of the New York City’s libraries for the sake of creating real estate deals that benefit developers, not the public.

What is an appropriate tone when Citizens Defending Libraries challenges a sell-off of public assets that is not for the public good?  Or the proper tone when the Public Advocate does its job by opposing such sell-offs?

An example of what Mr. Squadron meant by inappropriate tone?   He thought the cartoon (below) created by Mark Hurwitt was out of bounds.

From the pen of Mark Hurwitt: BPL officials say they want to sign a contract with a developer for the sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library before the end of Bloomberg's term.  The NYPL also plans to demolish the research stacks of the 42nd Street on a similar time frame- On Bloomberg's own site, something he says he wants to accomplish (along with his Mid-town Rezoning!

What about the similarly critical works of illustrator Simon Verity like the one below?

From the pen of Simon Verity: Is Bruce Ratner going to get the Brooklyn Heights Library?  Maybe.

Mr. Verity’s works illustrate the cover story in The Nation this month about the NYPL’s sell-offs of city libraries.

The Nation's current cover story by Scott Sherman reports on early (June of 2007) communications with the Bloomberg administration to sell off NYC libraries

Inside it is illustrated with drawings by Simon Verity like: "Not much of a civilization, they destroyed the library," and. . .

. . . Playing of the name of NYPL president Anthony W. Marx. . .

Giving Mr. Squadron the Last Word

The end of an article is considered a place of honor and, usually, it is considered that whoever gets the last word is favored by getting to top off the argument.  I’ll give Mr. Squadron the last word.  The following is his short press release statement on libraries.  It is just that without more that we have asked him for, including responses to questions presented by Citizens Defending Libraries, and, more important, actions, it is difficult to know what it really means.  In other words we are still waiting for Mr. Squadron’s last words:    

For Immediate Release: September 12, 2013 [Later corrected to the 15th, this incorrect date- the date of Deborah Hallen's morning voice message- is likely when it was first drafted]
Contact: Amy Spitalnick, 516-521-0128

        Statement from Daniel Squadron about New York City Libraries

I am opposed to the proposed plans by the city's library systems in Brooklyn and Manhattan.

As always, I believe that meaningful community input is absolutely necessary; when it comes to these proposed plans, transparency and responsiveness have been insufficient.

I also believe that it is simply unacceptable to sell or shrink libraries for profit.

And I am deeply opposed to cuts to library funding, which put our libraries in crisis.

I've been proud to work on these issues in the State Senate, receiving an 'A' from New Yorkers for Better Libraries on my voting record last year.

I continue to be focused on protecting funding and finding solutions that ensure strong, healthy libraries across the five boroughs.

Physical copy of press lease on new library position that Squadron was handing out at kickoff press conference

Candidate News: Tomorrow’s Primary Election - Silly Season? Some Consider It So, But. . .

Here’s some news, a bit of a round-up of stories concerning who you might vote for in tomorrow’s primary election.

When I was in government, for all the months leading up to an election we kept our heads down, referring to the election season as the “silly season” trying to ignore, particularly the hyperbole and shrill rhetoric,  what was going on.  It was axiomatic that much of what was being said wasn’t sincerely meant and that in many respects whatever politicians were elected to office they would wind up doing very similar things.  You know, `politics is the art of promising what is popular to the public and governance is what actually gets done in terms of running things after the election.’

Nevertheless, as a member of the electorate there is no better or more important time than now in terms of having candidates clarify their positions and locking them firmly into promises tat will cause embarrassing damage to their careers if they don’t honor.

With that as background. . .

Candidate Recommendations From Citizens Defending Libraries

Citizens Defending Libraries (of which I am a co-founder), formed in February of this year in response (with a petition) to the breaking headlines about the selling off, shrinking and underfunding of New York City libraries to create real estate deals that benefit real estate developers, not the public, has issued recommendations on candidates running for office in new York City.
 
Citizens Defending Libraries first issued its recommendation NOT to vote for Christine Quinn.  (See: Citizens Defending Libraries First Election Recommendation: NO to Christine Quinn, Who Favors Selling & Shrinking Libraries.)

Citizens Defending Libraries then issued its recommendations, pro and con, respecting other candidates in the election.  (See: Citizens Defending Libraries Recommendations On Other Candidates: Vote For Liu or de Blasio (Depending), Tish James For Public Advocate, NO to Squadron, and . . . More .)

Citizens Defending Libraries recommends voting for John Liu or Bill de Blasio (depending- detailed explanation at its site) for the Democratic nomination for Mayor and recommends voting for Tish James for Public Advocate.  Citizens Defending Libraries strongly recommends against voting for Daniel Squadron for that position.  In addition, Citizens Defending Libraries has other recommendations on other candidates.  That includes City Council and Borough President races in addition to a recommendation to vote for George McDonald for the Republican nomination for Mayor.

Candidates that Citizens Defending Libraries recommends include the following candidates for City Council seats: Steve Levin, Yetta Kurland, Micah Kellner and Ede Fox.

As for who I will be voting for, for Mayor (and who I think most Noticing New York readers will be voting for). . . .  I will get to that in a minute.

Citizens Defending Libraries recommendations are based on the Mayoral forum on libraries it held for Mayoral candidates on August 30th (link provided below), the Public Advocates and Comptroller Candidates forum on libraries held September 4, (link provided below), responses to its candidates questionnaire and its other interactions with, and information about, the candidates.  The full whys, wherefores and analysis are provided at Citizens Defending Libraries web pages links provided above.

    •    Mayoral Forum on Libraries Held August 30, 2013
   
    •    Public Advocates and Comptroller Candidates Forum on Libraries Held September 4, 2013 
   
If you check in with what was said at these forums you'll notice that the politics of the real estate industry and its influence in this city was talked about a lot.

Other Candidate News: WNYC Reports on de Blasio’s Atlantic Yards History

A few days ago WNYC ran one of its best stories to date on the Atlantic Yards mega-project:  De Blasio’s Atlantic Yards Support Helped Old Ally ACORN played pivotal role in 2001 City Council race, Thursday, September 05, 2013, by Matthew Schuerman.

Click to listen to the audio below.



Norman Oder of Atlantic Yards Report is quoted (using a sound bite) in the WNYC story.  Here is his largely complimentary Atlantic Yards Report take on WNYC’s reporting: Thursday, September 05, 2013, WNYC on de Blasio: "his handling of Atlantic Yards raises questions about whether he has been able to push developers to keep their promises".
       
Mr. Oder says:

I'd encourage people to listen to the audio, rather than rely on the text version, since there are some key differences and shadings.

Notably, in the audio version, the last word goes to the skeptical Letitia James, rather than the self-serving Bill de Blasio. And she deserves it.

By the way, not by coincidence, Tish James, running and recommended for the Public Advocate office by Citizens Defending Libraries, has been in the forefront of the opposition to the selling off, shrinking and underfunding of libraries for real estate deals.  See the follwoing Tish James OpEd that appeared in both the Brooklyn Eagle and the Huffington Post: OPINION: Shrinking the library system is a loss for New Yorkers, August 29, 2013.

The best financed opponent of Tish James, Daniel Squadron, recommended for office by Noticing New York for his senatorial office in 2008 because of expressed opposition to Atlantic Yards (though never ultimately acted on), has refused to oppose New York City’s library sales, including not representing his constituents to oppose the proposed sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library.  Squadron is also regarded as having sold out the supporters who got him into office when he relinquished, without a fight, substantial leverage he had to oppose a huge amount of development that might have been parts of Brooklyn Bridge Park.

For more on Squadron and libraries Citizens Defending Libraries has a tasty YouTube Video up with moderator Roy Paul asking some hard questions: Squadron Surrogate Mark Green Grilled On Offensend Donation.

Back to WNYC’s story about de Blasio on Atlantic Yards. .

Here is my Noticing New York comment posted at WNYC’s site:

This story is one of the best that WNYC has done on Atlantic Yards giving to it the kind of time the subject deserves.

Nevertheless, here is what is absent from the narrative reported. The story is all about failure to enforce the "public benefit" aspects of Atlantic Yards (de Blasio's failures in particular), not about the fact that those public benefit terms were, in the first instance, written by the developer for the developer's benefit, not the public.

Atlantic Yards as originally conceived was not right and de Blasio should have opposed it (He once feinted at doing so) from the beginning demanding a different project divided up and competitively bid amongst multiple developers, one that did not involve tearing down much of the neighborhood with eminent domain. The project should only be building over the rail yards, not on the rubble of what Ratner was allowed to tear down.

Instead, one of the main features of Atlantic Yards that is bad is also now central to the problems of negotiating with the developer and enforcing public benefit: That Forest City Ratner has been granted a government-supported mega-monopoly. You can't negotiate with a monopoly. You can't negotiate with a mega-monopoly. Mr. de Blasio and others should insist that the Atlantic Yards mega-monopoly be taken away from Forest City Ratner, Mr. de Blasio's campaign donor.

Here is more Noticing New York analysis on that subject: Tuesday, April 30, 2013, Relevance of Mayoral Debate Discussion About Forest City Ratner Atlantic Yards Misconduct To The Sale and Underfunding of NYC Libraries.

Relevant Background Report: The Vicious Cycle Of Subsidies And Elections

In early August Atlantic Yards Report ran a story extremely relevant to elections, echoing a concern repeatedly raised here in Noticing New York: How government subsidies pick and flow money to economic winners, including the very politically connected Forest City Ratner, and then companies like the Ratner firm, awash in such benefit, flow that money back to get their favorite politicians elected.  (That’s why de Blasio taking money and campaign support from Ratner is such a concern.)  The story was about a new Cause of Action report specifically about Forest City Ratner.  According to the New York Post:

Forest City Enterprises, the real-estate behemoth whose subsidiary built the Barclays Center, has taken pay-to-play to new levels, an explosive new report charges.  The company has gotten indirect government subsidies totaling $2.6 billion over the last decade — or 23 percent of its $11.4 billion in revenues over the period, according to the report.

See: Wednesday, August 07, 2013, A national spotlight: libertarian watchdog group targets Forest City Enterprises for "political profiteering"; while report goes over the top, Forest City's defense is too pat.

More from the Post:

“For far too long, Forest City Enterprises has operated on the model of political profiteering, essentially rigging the marketplace by paying off government officials with lavish campaign contributions and gambling with taxpayer funds for its private profit,” Cause of Action's Epstein told the Post.

Responds Forest City Ratner (Oder says “a wee bit” defensive and self-righteously):

Forest City spokesman Jeff Linton said, “It should come as no surprise that we support candidates whose policies promote economic development and job creation. However, to suggest or imply a direct connection between this support and our opportunities as a company is baseless and defamatory.”

He said without government development incentives, most of the company’s development projects “would not be economically viable.”

To me that sounds nearly like, `yes, you’re right.’

Apparently the report doesn’t get all its subsidy calculations correct (I think it may underestimate them), a hard thing to do, which is one reason firms like the Ratner firm walk away pocketing so much more taxpayer money than the electorate is likely to actually know.

I’ll leave the quibbles about the report and its calculations to Mr. Oder, who says: 

It's also simplistic to suggest that Forest City's considerable spending on campaign contributions and lobbying directly delivers subsidies and government assistance.

Instead, I will pose the following as a standing question which I think that any reporter interviewing Forest City Ratner and its executives should always be primed and ready to ask:

What was the last project, if any, that Forest City Ratner did that did not receive significant public subsidy from some level of government and was subject to a true competitive bid?   

The question has never been asked.  The answer is that there aren’t any.

The New York Times Weighs In On What Developers Think Of The Silly Season

With all that money flowing in, developers likely believe that, in the end, they have the upper hand, according to a New York Times article that describes what developers think of the silly season:

In the Democratic primary for New York City mayor, a new set of political dirty words has surpassed the usual favorites, like “lobbyist” and “flip-flop,” that are traditionally used to spritz opponents and adversaries with a film of slime.

These new dirty words are “real estate,” “developers” and “condos” — printable, and yet filthy with disdain. But, conveniently, they have not stopped any of the major campaigns from accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the real estate industry. 

    * * * *

Some members of the real estate industry may grumble to find themselves on the raw end of a stump speech, said Kathryn S. Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, a business group, but most just shrug it off.

 “It’s political pandering to a public sentiment that the middle class and low-income people have been left out of the prosperity of the past decade,” Ms. Wylde said. “I think, for the most part, they would govern with very different interests than their political rhetoric suggests.”

And so the money rolls in.

(See: The Appraisal: In Mayoral Race, Attacking Real Estate Industry but Taking Its Cash, by Elisabeth A. Harris and Jo Craven McGinty, September 2, 2013.)

That “shrug” above comes from the same Kathryn S. Wylde with whom I used to do a considerable amount of work and who favors the use of eminent domain to take property away from individuals and hand it over to politically-connected developers.  (I don’t yet know her position on handing over public libraries, but I fear to guess.)

Kathy Wylde

 And The Winner Is. . . . ?

Who will I personally vote for, for Mayor?: I will vote for John Liu!

That's because in this season of rhetoric I think it is most important to go back and look at the record of what a candidate has actually done and John Liu has a record of standing up to the real estate industry.  He also one of the candidates not funded by that industry.  I suspect that most regular Noticing New York readers, remembering the record of the candidates, will be voting for Liu.

Voting for Liu may get us into a run-off in which Liu will participate.  Whether or not it does, I think that voting for Liu sends the best message, one that desperately needs to be sent.

Citizens Defending Libraries Launched As New Site Posting Resources Concerning Fight Against Shrinkage, Defunding And Sell-Off Of Libraries

There is a new site up, Citizens Defending Libraries, in connection with:

the petition and campaign to oppose the defunding of New York City's libraries, the shrinkage of the system and the sale of library real estate in deals that prioritize benefit for developers.

The site has links to articles pertaining to the current situation (including a number of Noticing New York articles), the petition, action steps and information about upcoming events and meetings (including weekly organizational meetings).  For instance, Thursday, (February 28, 2013) there will be a meeting at the library in Brooklyn Heights Library (280 Cadman Plaza) about the proposed sell-off and shrinkage of that library, possibly to Forest City Ratner (that will include attendance by elected representatives, City Councilman Steve Levin and State Senator Daniel Squadron and representatives of the Brooklyn Heights Association) and on Friday, March 8, 2013 there will be a City Council hearing about the city budget for libraries meaning that it will provide a forum for addressing the defunding of libraries and the “demolition by neglect” of the library system preparatory to its shrinkage through the proposed sell-offs to developers.

The Citizens Defending Libraries site will keep updating so it can be visited periodically to keep up-to-date with the latest information.

Those wishing to access a complete list of Noticing New York articles about the situation concerning  libraries can do so here by clicking on the “libraries” label at the bottom of this post.

Last Night’s Community Meeting To Save Long Island College Hospital- Pictures And The Big Picture

One segment of last night's crowd convened to save LICH

Last night’s “Community Forum on the Future of Long Island College Hospital” (LICH), really a rally in support of saving the hospital with the dissemination of some strategy, was very well attended.  (It was held at the Kane Street Synagogue, 236 Kane Street in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn.)

I am going to let the images here speak for themselves about that.

What I heard at the meeting was this:

    •    The community needs its hospital.
    •    The doctors and financial staff affiliated with the hospital are pretty well convinced they won’t have problems operating the hospital in the financial black if SUNY Downstate would just leave them alone to do it, thank you very much.
    •    That the integration of LICH into the SUNY Downstate system, which was ostensibly for the purpose of ensuring the future of LICH, has had the opposite effect.
    •    That instead of a good faith effort to run LICH as a successful hospital, a plan of asset stripping was being implemented almost immediately.  That meant, among other things, that no money was invested in the hospital with any significant expenditures being made (theoretically for the hospital) directed exclusively to portable assets that could easily be removed from the site when the secretly envisioned closure that was being worked toward takes effect.
    •    That to those in power pursuing this course of action, the attraction of shutting the hospital down  is to create a real estate deal, a sell-off, that will strip the real estate as the final asset out of the health care resources available in the surrounding neighborhood.   This doesn’t recognize that, when used for a necessary community hospital, the real estate has greater value to Brooklyn’s Northwest communities than the construction of more high-end condos.  (Elsewhere in Brooklyn, including at the other end of Brooklyn Heights, - with sort of a bookending effect- public property is similarly being sold off to shrink the library system for the purpose of creating real estate deals.)

More analysis and a petition to prevent the closure of the hospital is available here: Wednesday, February 13, 2013, One-Stop Petition Shopping: Report On The Brooklyn Heights Association Annual Meeting, LICH and Libraries.

The crowd standing to chant "Save LICH"

State Assembly Member Joan Millman, whose petition is available to sign to save LICH, addressing the crowd

Panoramic collage of those Millman is addressing  (click to enlarge)

 

Senator Daniel Squadron

At the very back from the viewpoint of Lincoln Restler

Briefing press

Filled to the back

Middle

Front

Signs at the ready to be raised

Schumer Says Atlantic Yards Area Is Not Blighted. Doesn’t See AY As A Ratner Mega-Monopoly, But Could His Support Wane?

(Above, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer with State Senator Daniel Squadron at the 25th Senate District Community Convention were Senator Schumer spoke about protecting the public from vested interests saying that the political spending of big corporations receiving government largess should be restricted.)

We had a short conversation with Senator Charles E. Schumer on Sunday April 11 following his statement at the 25th Senate District Community Convention held by State Senator Daniel Squadron in downtown Manhattan. We talked about Atlantic Yards and Senator Schumer said some interesting things.

Schumer said that he bicycles around the Atlantic Yards area (which he says he lives “very close to”) and that he knows it is not blighted. He also denies that Forest City Ratner has been granted a mega-monoply (while attesting that he strongly opposes monopolies) even though he acknowledges that the single-developer mega-deal is being handled totally differently from the multi-developer Battery Park City. Schumer said he still supports the Ratner mega-project but used words to indicate he may not support the project now as much as he used to. He said that his support is because of the housing it will provide.

Among other things, we discussed whether the no-bid Atlantic Yards effectively leverages the housing subsidies it is getting. Supplying the Senator with documentation that Atlantic Yards is not leveraging its housing subsides effectively could conceivably get the Senator to withdraw his support for the project if it is provided in a manner so as to be sufficiently incontrovertible. Such documentation, however, is already available and we are not overly sanguine about politicians, Schumer included, paying attention to facts over politics and campaign contributions when it comes to Atlantic Yards.

Atlantic Yards “Not Blighted” (Is It Official and of Legal Weight When a Senator Says What He Sees With His Own Eyes?)

Schumer’s statement that he knows the Atlantic Yards area well and that it is “not blighted” is extremely important because even if one envisions that Atlantic Yards is somehow a desirable mechanism to create “affordable housing” it would be illegal to seize all the acreage for it so as to give Bruce Ratner and his Forest City Ratner company his 30-acre mega-monopoly unless that area were in fact “blighted.” Though Schumer says he knows it doesn’t exist at Atlantic Yards, finding “blight” was a prerequisite for state agencies to proceed with the mega-project and that finding was a prerequisite for state and federal courts to find that Ratner’s mega-deal was legal.

Atlantic Yards as Ratner Mega-monopoly

We began our discussion with Senator Schumer about the subject of Atlantic Yards as a monopoly, referring to a jocular remark he had made moments before about how the fancifully-envisioned merger of the efforts of a number of politicians (consolidated in one giant form) would violate the antitrust law. We previously wrote about Schumer’s opposition to monopolies and how his message on the subject is muddied by his support for Atlantic Yards (See: Friday, November 27, 2009, Schumer's Multi-Monopoly Positions Unhealthily Muddy Debate on an Issue With Left, Right and Center Appeal.)

Schumer denied that Atlantic Yards is a mega-monoply but given what we have written about the scale of the project that is being handed to Ratner on a no-bid basis that is hard to conceive. Nominally and conventionally referred to as a 22-acre project with 17 buildings, eminent domain has actually been abused so that Ratner can carry out plans to construct 19 new towers plus an arena. And that is just the new development Forest City Ratner intends to hold the rights to. When all is said an done, the Atlantic Yards mega-development site Forest City Ratner intends to own includes the following on 30 contiguous acres of prime Brooklyn real estate:

• Two large suburban-style shopping malls (existing)
• One sports arena (proposed)
• 20 towers of both residential and commercial development. (One built and 19 planned.)

(See: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, Did New York City Planning Officials Sidestep Looking at the Bigger Atlantic Yards Picture?)

(Above, map of Ratner's 50-acre mega-monopoly of government-assisted high density development sitting astride Brooklyn's subway lines.)

Extended Implications of Ratner Mega-Monopoly

We have also written providing analysis about how Forest City Ratner’s of these 30 acres is coordinated with its ownership of other nearby properties so that it is, in this process, seizing most of the density available for development above our major Brooklyn subway lines getting an aggregate of approximately 50 interlinked acres most of which it has acquired with government assistance and playing-field-tilting devices like eminent domain. (See: Saturday, November 21, 2009, Mapping Out Forest City Ratner’s Monopolistic Strategy of Subsidy Collection.)

Cracking the Nut of the Question: Who Says Atlantic Yards Is Providing “Affordable Housing”?

Previously we reported that when confronted in a neighborhood Park Slope barber shop about his support for the project Schumer used the `it provides housing’ defense in support of Atlantic Yards. Back then, as we were told, he used a short cut that would be much less politically convenient now: “I just accept what ACORN tells me about the project.” ACORN, having undertaken the PR necessity to reinvent themselves as “NY Communities for Change,” is viewed now as significantly less trustworthy than it was back then, not a good entity to be passing off the reliance-buck to. We have also tackled the way that Bertha Lewis, the head of ACORN aka “Communities for Change” was totally irresponsible when it came to seeking affordable housing for the community, how she essentially negotiated for the community to get nothing at all. She did this by shilling for Forest City Ratner's plan to do only the bare bones minimum that the tax code requires combined with what for economic reasons the market would pretty much dictate that Forest City Ratner would do anyway in terms of renting apartments. (See: Friday, July 31, 2009, Ratner: The Little Boy Trying To Get Too Many Cookies Out of The Cookie Jar and Getting None.)

Ratner Getting a Lot of Housing Subsidy Anyway

That doesn’t mean that a lot of scarce housing subsidy won’t be directed to Ratner when it could and should be directed elsewhere. We have written about our calculation of the amount of subsidy being concentrated on Ratner without bid. We came to a total of $638.67 million in housing subsidies alone. (See: Monday, February 8, 2010, Award of No-Bid Mega-Monopoly Means Forest City Ratner Hopes To Claim an Awful Lot of Housing Subsidy, ALSO Without Bid.) Of course the figures we gave are subject to increase as costs escalate. They are mostly based on figures publicly available in the fall of 2006. Further, as we noted in the post where we calculated that number, it does not represent the total subsidies going to Ratner for the no-bid deal which come to between $2 and $3 billion.

Schumer Walking the Walk on His Own Sidewalks

Had Schumer denied the pretext of “blight” that was used to give Ratner his no-bid mega-deal we would have known he was off-base. As we noted when we spoke to him, the same sort of cracked sidewalks that were used as a pretext to find “blight” necessary to transfer the many acres to Forest City Ratner can be found right outside Schumer’s own home, something we covered in a previous post. (See: Thursday, January 21, 2010, Senator Schumer’s Block Is (Super) “Blighted”! (And Back to You, Marty).)

Atlantic Yards Detracts From Schumer’s National Message

We think that Schumer’s support for the Atlantic Yards project weakens him as a Senator and the messages he needs to convey to do a good job. In his statement to Senator Squadron’s Senate District Community Convention Schumer staked out positions on a number of issues that should relate to Atlantic Yards. Among them he spoke about:

• The people vs. the special interests
• The need to appoint a suitable replacement for Justice Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Stevens noted that one of his most unpopular decisions during his tenure on the court was the Kelo eminent domain abuse decision without which Atlantic Yards could never have proceeded. (Most unpopular as in over 90% of the country strongly opposes Kelo whereas on controversial abortion choice decisions the country is more or less split.) He also noted it was bad policy. Schumer observed that he personally had recommended Justice Sonia Sotomayor for appointment to President Obama. (See our open letter to Justice Sotomayor concerning Atlantic yards and eminent domain abuse: Tuesday, October 6, 2009, First Monday in October: An Open Letter to Sonia Sotomayor about Noticing an Eminent Reality.)
• The need to control money going into politics from big corporations (a Supreme Court issue given the much-reviled Citizens Union case that corporations are “persons” for the purpose of campaign spending). He suggested disclosure and, addressing pay-to-play specifically saying that corporations that receive sizable contracts from the government (like Forest City Ratner?) should be barred from making political contributions.
• The need for financial services reform to protect the consumer and the average citizen. Of course a big part of the financial services reform debate is addressing the way that “too big to fail” has been used as an excuse to soak the taxpayers. The same kind of concept and maneuvering is very much in evidence respecting Atlantic Yards.

For those of you who wish to listen to the above referenced remarks which Schumer made just before we spoke, a sound file including them is provided here.

Our Actual NNY Exchange With Senator Schumer

You can read my conversation with Senator Schumer below. If you would prefer to listen to it (I acknowledge that “His Girl Friday”-style we are talking over each other to a certain extent) go here.

NNY: Michael White, Noticing New York.

CS: Yes, I know who you are.

NNY: You made a jocular remark about anti-trust while you were speaking and I know that you have spoken about the evils of monopolies.

CS: I am strong anti-trust, you bet.

NNY: But you have been supporting Atlantic Yards which is 30 acres of mega-monopoly through eminent domain abuse for Forest City Ratner, which gives him essentially, with his neighboring properties, about 50 acres of monopoly.

CS: Well it’s not monopoly. You can’t call that a “monopoly.” He’s going to build, he still is going to build. . . .

NNY: You’ve got the density that’s sitting on top of the subways. . .

CS: I know, but . .

NNY: . . . contiguous acreage. It’s not Battery Park City. . In Battery Park City, right over there, every parcel is bid out separately to developers. [Next to us, Battery Park City was visible right outside the windows of the school we were in.]

CS: Yes it was. It’s true.

NNY: And that is the way it could have been done.

CS: The reason I supported it, and it’s still part of it, not as much but still, is affordable housing. We’re desperately short of affordable housing.

NNY: That’s not what’s being built.

CS: Oh, Some of it is.

NNY: It’s like Yankee Stadium.

CS: No, No, some is affordable housing. 1,800 units. It was 3,000; it’s still 1,800. You know how long I fight to get 1,800 units of affordable housing to New York? Do you know how many families that helps?

NNY: And what you are doing is you are redirecting subsidies away from where they would be better leveraged elsewhere in the city.

CS: It’s not subsidies. It’s not subsidies.

NNY: You and I worked . . We worked on the housing programs together over the years. We go back to the 80s.

CS: Yes, we did. We did.

NNY: What you are doing is you are taking subsidies that would go much further with other developers elsewhere in the city.

CS: Yes, well I will look at that if you’ve got paper on that. OK? I don’t think that’s true, but if it is, I will look at it. OK?

NNY: OK. And the area is not blighted. I mean sidewalk cracks, the same as outside your building; Right?

CS: I live very close to it. I ride my bicycle around there all the time. I know it’s not blighted. But, I care about affordable housing, I really do. OK? I do. Anyway, send me something about how it could go better elsewhere, I’d be interested in that.

NNY: OK.

Schumer’s Possible Reconsideration of Support For Atlantic Yards

So might Senator Schumer further reconsider his support of the mega-project? (In fact, is there maybe even an indication of the possibility of ebbing support when he uses the phrase “not as much” saying: "The reason I supported it, and it’s still part of it, not as much but still, is affordable housing.") If there is no “blight” as he assures us he knows there isn’t, then it’s illegal. And as for the inappropriate use of housing subsidy, surely our calculations that there is approximately $638.67 million in housing subsidies involved should convince him that the amount is substantial. Our review of what Ms. Bertha Lewis of ACORN “negotiated” should convince him that the community is really getting virtually nothing in terms of true affordable housing. And the testimony of urban planner Ron Shiffman and Michelle de la Uz, Executive Director of the Fifth Avenue Committee, ought to convince that the subsidies can be far better used and leveraged elsewhere.

Analogy of a Schumer Shift on Wall Street and Financial Services Reform? Financial Patrons vs. Harmed Constituents

Last week the New York Times wrote a story indicating that when it’s time to do so, Senator Schumer can back away from the support of special interests working against the public good. We mentioned that the day of the community convention Senator Schumer spoke about the need to reform the financial industry. The Times wrote about how Schumer has backed away from defending the financial industry, describing how this means he has been navigating “gingerly between the financial patrons he has mined for millions in campaign donations for himself and his party, and constituents who were hurt by the economic collapse.” (See: Friend to Wall Street, Schumer Is Suddenly Quiet, by Carl Hulse, April 22, 2010.)

From that article here are statements by Mr. Schumer that could, with only the slightest change, be applied to Ratner and Atlantic Yards:

“There are some on Wall Street who want me to say Wall Street right or wrong, and I’m not going to do it,” Mr. Schumer said in interview on Thursday, a few hours after Democrats brought their overhaul of financial rules to the floor.

“Clearly they did a lot of things wrong,” he said. “Too many Wall Street firms had no one looking over their shoulder, and they went off the deep end.”

The Times article also notes that Schumer’s shift on Wall Street and financial services reform had put him at odds with Wall Street-defending Bloomberg. Were Schumer to withdraw his support from Atlantic Yards he would similarly be at odds with Bloomberg, who is an Atlantic Yards stalwart without whom Ratner’s megadevelopment would not be happening. (Bloomberg’s seems consistent about supporting big vested interests at the expense of the public.) Democrats (presumably Schumer included) who expect to support Obama in the 2012 presidential race may well want to put some distance between themselves and Bloomberg so they can effectively attack him when Bloomberg runs to depose Obama.

Financial Patrons vs. Harmed Constituents: Political Business-as-usual?

Why are we worried that in a political business-as-usual fashion Schumer may not change his support for Ratner’s mega-deal as he should? This article in Politico about Bruce Ratner being a headline figure in some fund raising Schumer was doing for harry Reid and the Democrats on Monday morning is the answer to that. (See: Would-be replacements raise for Harry Reid, By Manu Raju & John Bresnahan, 4/27/10.) The article reports:

Sen. Chuck Schumer invited Harry Reid to spend Monday morning with him in Brooklyn, where some of Schumer’s well-heeled friends opened their checkbooks to help the Senate majority leader’s struggling reelection bid.

and

Monday’s fundraiser was headlined by Bruce Ratner, the real estate mogul who owns the Nets — and who has donated more than $127,000 to Democrats in recent years.

(In aggregate, the money directed by Ratner and those connected with him is probably much greater than this stated figure.) What’s going on is complicated. Harry Reid is currently the Senate leader but as the article points out about Schumer, “most Capitol Hill insiders think there’s little doubt each sees himself as the next Democratic leader if Reid goes down to defeat in November.” Factoring into the overall complexity is the log-rolling that hides who is getting what campaign money from whom for what.

The question is whether Schumer can, like he did with Wall Street, collect lots of money on behalf of Democrats from Mr. Ratner and his cohorts and then take a stand on behalf of those who should be his true constituents to oppose the harm Mr. Ratner’s projects are doing to Schumer’s Brooklyn and the rest of the city? What is more important to Schumer: The money he is collecting from Ratner or a clear and consistent message for Democrats about what needs to be done in this country? When Schumer made a distinction speaking of the people vs. the special interests wasn’t the idea that he would stand up against the vested interest on behalf of the people?

Financial Patrons vs. Harmed Constituents: A Clear and Consistent Message for the Schumer Democrats?

Remember what we said about how Senator Schumer had spoken out at the community convention against pay-to-play and in favor of disclosure when it comes to accepting contributions from huge companies, especially those receiving huge contracts (and subsidies?) from the government? Here again from the Politico article about Monday’s morning’s fund raising:

While Schumer’s office won’t say how much money the event raised for Reid, cash poured in from a number of developers and real estate types. The event came just hours before a procedural vote on a plan to rewrite the rules for Wall Street, but Reid’s office stressed that the donors who turned out Monday weren’t bankers or Wall Street officials — and that, in fact, many work for Ratner’s company as well as for electrical and construction companies.

Forest City Ratner is getting between $2 and $3 billion in subsidies from the government (state, local and federal combined) and Schumer’s support has been an important part of making that happen on all levels. In terms of a message that needs to clarified, is that clear enough?

Postscript on Schumer’s “Affordable Housing” Unit Count vs Actual Numbers: Schumer’s reference to there being 1,800 units of affordable housing in the proposed Atlantic Yards or the mega-deal having been reduced down to the that number of affordable units from 3,000 (“1,800 units. It was 3,000; it’s still 1,800") doesn’t parse with any publicly released descriptions of what has ever been agreed to. Officially, the nominal number of affordable units (to be included in 16 of the 19 new towers to be built on the 30-contiguous acres the developer is getting) is still 2,250, half of the non-condominium units in the sixteen towers. In real terms, the truly affordable units will actually be only 20% of the non-condominium units in the sixteen towers as required by the tax code, or 900 low income units, which is less than 20% of all the units in those sixteen towers and far, far less than 20% of the units in all 19 of the new residential towers the developer plans to build on his 30 contiguous acres.

Schumer might simply be flat-out wrong about his numbers for the project which is entirely possible since he hadn’t prepared for our questions. Alternatively: Might this be a hint that some sort of reduction of the mega-project is planned? The only public reference we can find to there being a reduction in the nominal number of “affordable housing” units at Atlantic Yards to “1,800" is with respect to the bill Assemblyman Jim Brennan proposed (initially in 2006) to reduce the size of the project so that 1,800 would then be number of nominal “affordable” units required of Ratner. (See: Friday, March 28, 2008, "Deeply troubled" Jeffries says it's time to evaluate changes in AY; Brennan's subsidy bill resurfaces.) Unfortunately, that kind of compromise, to reduce just the size of the project, is not the fix we need to address the corruption of the Forest City Ratner mega-deal. Yes, the project needs to be taken back to the drawing board and redesigned along the lines of the community’s UNITY plan design (which means it would be significantly smaller), but what is also needed is for the property to be taken away from Forest City Ratner so that it can be divided up and properly bid, parcel by parcel, among multiple developers, just like the Battery Park City model the senator and I discussed. That way it won’t give Forest City Ratner a government-assisted 50-acre mega-monopoly on prime Brooklyn real estate. Breaking up ownership of the huge acreage needs to be done even if the monopoly-opposing Senator Schumer wishes to deny that Atlantic Yards is indeed a mega-monopoly that he needn’t therefore oppose.