The Good News IS the Bad News: Thanks A lot for Mayor Bloomberg’s “Charity” (Part I)

(Mayor Bloomberg above listening to public testimony about the term limits extension bill he signed immediately afterward.) Mayor Bloomberg has set a new record. The New York Times reports that Mr. Bloomberg “can now claim to be No. 1" in that he is “the leading individual living donor in the United States, according to a list released online on Monday by The Chronicle of Philanthropy.” He did this by giving, in 2008, $235 million to “1,200 organizations promoting arts, education and health care.” (See: At $235 Million, Bloomberg Was Biggest Giver in U.S., by David W. Chen, January 26, 2009.) Sounds pretty wonderful? Not really. Not if you relate it to Mr. Bloomberg’s political ambitions and perhaps let the Times article’s penultimate paragraph sink in. We all know what penultimate paragraph status means: By convention that is reserved for the contrarian point of view not held worthy enough of being the article’s summary last word. In this case, the Times penultimate paragraph reads:

Mr. Bloomberg generated controversy a few months ago when he asked some of the local groups that rely on his private donations to publicly support his bid for a third term in office. But administration officials say that Mr. Bloomberg separates his philanthropy from his job as mayor, and that the organizations that endorsed his third-term endeavor have worked with the city for years.

Well, we think that the Times “buried the lead” and that the penultimate paragraph is the major story here. Just as the subject of Bloomberg’s abuse of charities for political purposes has been the main subject of several Times stories, this should have been both the lead and the concluding capper buttoning the article. For more on this see: Monday, October 20, 2008, “Charity?” We Begin to Groan. To the Times city staff: We have heard that you have recently been “emboldened” but we think this article could have taken a bolder look at things. David Chen, who wrote the above paragraph, co-authored the key Times front page story on the Mayor’s abuse of charities to promote the extension of term limits: Bloomberg Enlists His Charities in Bid to Stay, by Michael Barbaro and David W. Chen, by Michael Barbaro and David W. Chen, October 17, 2008. The follow-up article was by-lined just by Mr. Chen’s coauthor of that original piece: Criticism of Bloomberg Over Nonprofits’ Support, by Michael Barbaro, October 19, 2008. Political Goosebumps? Bloomberg’s Aspirations The first thing to notice about Bloomberg’s $235 million in contributions in 2008 is that the figure represents a significant bump up in Mr. Bloomberg’s “giving” exactly coincident with Mr. Bloomberg’s launching of his campaign for a third term that included, as a necessary prerequisite, the stealthily launched campaign to overturn term limits, the finale of which involved ramming the extension through the City Council on an accelerated basis at the last minute. Mr. Bloomberg’s “charitable” contributions have escalated each year since 1997. Escalations seem to have been, at times, proportionate to the emergence of his political ambitions. Looking back, public discussion of the idea that he might run for mayor was goes back to 1998. (See: Coming of Age At Bloomberg L.P., by Felicity Barringer and Geraldine Fabrikant, March 21, 1999.) Although the new $235 million Bloomberg contributions for 2008 was itself a big bump-up ($30 million/14%) from the preceding year, it was not as big as, and should be considered in conjunction with the bigger bump-up ($39.7 million/24%) that occurred the immediately preceding year, which conjoined with Mr. Bloomberg’s 2007 angling for a possible presidential run (or an appointment as vice presidential running mate). (See: New York magazine’s His American Dream, The Bloomberg-for-president scenario starts with the mayor’s growing sense of himself as a man of destiny. Throw in the country’s disgust with the two parties, add a half-a-billion bucks, and you’ve got yourself a race, by John Heilemann Published Dec 4, 2006 and Forbes’ President Mike? David A. Andelman, 12.15.07.) Together the 2007 and 2008 bumps that take Bloomberg’s “giving” up from $165.3 million in 2006 come to a $69.7 million, or a 42% increase aligning themselves with pursuit of these two political ambitions. Bloomberg “Giving” 1997-2008 Below in chart form is information about Bloomberg’s level of giving and the years of associated Bloomberg political campaigns.

$26.6 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 1997 (when he distributed to 433 groups). Handouts have increased every year since - Press mentions of Bloomberg philanthropy begin this year $45 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 1998 - Year Bloomberg started talking publicly about running for mayor $47 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 1999 $100.5 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2000 (579 organizations)- Year before first mayoral election campaign $122.5 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2001 (540 groups) Was elected mayor in November $130.9 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2002 (655 groups) Became mayor $135.6 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2003 (653 groups) $138/139.9 million*:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2004 (843 groups) $143.9 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2005 (987 groups)- Second campaign for mayor in connection with the 2005 election $165.3 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2006. (1,077 groups) $205 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2007.- The year he started to run for President.- The year he left the Republican party $235 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2008 (1,221 recipient groups)- The year that Bloomberg started running for his third term as mayor and overthrew the city’s term limits restrictions.

* (difference between Times and Chronicle of Philanthropy figures) (Figures available from:

∙ the Chronicle of Philanthropy ∙ Mayor's $weet Charity, by David Seifman, January 27, 2009 ∙ Bloomberg’s Gifts to Charity Exceeded $165 Million in 2006, by Diane Cardwell, September 17, 2007 ∙ Nearly 1,000 Groups Gain From Bloomberg’s Largess, by Sewell Chan, October 18, 2006 ∙ 2003 tax year? For Bloomberg, 'Rich' Is Just Too Weak an Adjective, By Leslie Eaton, July 3, 2004. ∙ In 2002, Bloomberg Lost a Bit (for Him) and Gave a Lot, by David Johnston (Correction: David Cay Johnston), June 14, 2003

Running For Mayor Looking at the above information, the next thing that should be obvious is that while increases in contributions were sometimes relatively gradual, the consecutive years of 2000 and 2001 reflected big bump-ups. Those were the two years which preceded Bloomberg’s first run for mayor. The combined $75.5 million increase of those years represent a 160% increase over the $47 million figure for 1999. Articles about “Charitable Giving” That Preceded “Running for Mayor” Bloomberg’s “giving” began to be prominently highlighted in a series of articles about philanthropic giving corresponding in time to when his quest to become mayor began. Bloomberg’s quest was public information as of 1998. Bloomberg participated as an interviewee in several of these articles, including one, the theme of which, was the value of giving conspicuously. (See: Lone Rangers Of Charity Are Losing Their Masks, By Geraldine Fabrikant and Shelby White, February 2, 1997, Why Do We Donate? It's Personal, by Susan Jacoby, December 9, 1997, It's All in Who You Know (and Who They Know), by Shelby White, November 18, 1998 and Neighbors Give Central Park a Wealthy Glow, By Blaine Harden, November 22, 1999.) Similar articles about Bloombergian “giving” do not seem to have appeared before this time. The first of the above articles, the one about giving conspicuously, Lone Rangers Of Charity Are Losing Their Masks, is coauthored by a Times writer, Geraldine Fabrikant, who two years later coauthored an laudatory article on Bloomberg that favorably brought up his his potential run for mayor: “Last year, his profile rose as rumors began circulating that he might enter politics -- perhaps with a run for Mayor of New York. He neither encourages nor discourages that notion.” (See: Coming of Age At Bloomberg L.P., by Felicity Barringer and Geraldine Fabrikant, March 21, 1999.) The same article mentions political ambitions and philanthropy in the same sentence: “ . .Mr. Bloomberg has withdrawn slightly, devoting more time to philanthropy and nurturing gossip about possible political ambitions.” In the 1997-1999 articles that were more specifically about charity we learn, as mentioned, that Mr. Bloomberg adopted a public relations postion promoting the idea that philanthropy should be conspicuous (Lone Rangers Of Charity Are Losing Their Masks). We find out that he likes to brag about his denotations to Central Park (Neighbors Give Central Park a Wealthy Glow). As might be expected in an article entitled “ Why Do We Donate? It's Personal” Bloomberg says he doesn’t give in order to receive but a qualification thereupon ensues (emphasis supplied):

''I didn't give because I expected to get anything back,'' Mr. Bloomberg wrote in straight-faced fashion, referring to a $55 million donation to his alma mater, the Johns Hopkins University. ''I gave because it's a great school and I felt I owed them.''

He then confessed cheerfully that the donation had generated ''great publicity for my company and the university, yielding rewards in terms of new business and accelerated fund gathering (I was also chairman of the Johns Hopkins capital campaign) that I couldn't have anticipated.''

The article “It's All in Who You Know (and Who They Know)” seems to verify that, as of 1998, Bloomberg was new upon the scene. Categorizing donors for the nature of their importance, it puts Bloomberg in the“Big Bucks” category, describing him thus: (emphasis supplied)

Michael Bloomberg. The head of Bloomberg Financial Markets. He gives away his own money, which is considerable, and his company's money (most of which is his money, too, although Merrill Lynch owns 20 percent). He is becoming ubiquitous on the charity circuit; he was co-chairman of two benefits on the same evening last month.

While Bloomberg’s giving seems to proportionately relate to his political goals, it is not necessarily proportionate to his wealth. It seems that giving up managerial control of your company (ostensibly), accepting a new job (mayor) at a salary of $1 per year and giving away money can be very beneficial to one’s wealth. Ten years ago Bloomberg began talking about being mayor and he has actually been mayor for the past 7 years. During that time his wealth has multiplied many times over, by about a factor of 10. Ten years ago, in 1999, when Bloomberg was publicly toying with the idea of being mayor his net worth was reportedly $2 billion (See: Coming of Age At Bloomberg L.P.). While in office and receiving a nominal $1 a year salary he has become the richest resident of New York and the eighth richest American with an estimated wealth of $20 billion according to Forbes. In comparison, according to the same Forbes 2008 list, Donald Trump is reported to be dawdling along with a mere $3 billion net worth. (See: Bloomberg Shoots Up List Of Richest; Greenberg Off, by Jay Akasie, Special to the Sun September 18, 2008.) Figures about Bloomberg’s Phenomenally Growing Wealth: As Mayor He Became the Richest New Yorker The figures for Mr. Bloomberg’s increases in wealth are perhaps just a little bit fuzzy, mainly with respect to recent very substantial increases, and it also looks as if there may have been some misinformation that retroactively inflated statements of Bloomberg’s wealth pertaining to the time he first took office (which would make recent increases in his wealth while in office seem less dramatic). Just months before the Forbes 2008 list was out, Bloomberg was putting his substantially increased wealth in a lower ballpark: $16.2 billion. (See: July 17, 2008, Bloomberg Stays Modest on His $16.2 Billion Worth, by Austin Bogues.) The Wall Street Journal was willing to quibble with the Forbes’ list estimation of Bloomberg’s wealth, speculating that Bloomberg may have paid a premium on the acquisition of Bloomberg stock from Merrill Lynch. (See: September 22, 2008, Why Mike Bloomberg Is (or Isn’t) Worth $20 Billion, Mayor Mike has soared to the No. 8 spot on the Forbes list of richest Americans.) The interesting political events of 2008 ought to provide fertile ground to speculate about how Bloomberg was valuing any “premium” he might have paid on acquiring all of the Bloomberg stock. The New York Times has recently referred to Bloomberg’s wealth as being north of the $20 billion figure: “upward of $20 billion, according to the latest unofficial estimates of the value of the financial data and news business he founded.” (See: Rich as Mayor Is, New Yorkers Feel He Cares, by Sam Roberts, August 6, 2008.) Running For Mayor: A Retroactive Pumping of Wealth Figure? When the New York Times reported on the substantial increases in Bloombergian wealth since he took office, it reported that “When Mr. Bloomberg first ran for mayor in 2001, his net worth was estimated at $5 billion.” (See: For Bloomberg, Another $10 Billion or So Doesn’t Count for Much, by Sam Roberts, July 18, 2008) That information may be inaccurate and conflicts with other reporting of his wealth at that time. Generally, Bloomberg’s wealth was reported as being less than $5 billion until Forbes reported that it reached that figure in 2004. According to Forbes, Bloomberg’s wealth was $4 billion in 2000 and 2001 when Bloomberg was first running for mayor. The Times reported in 2001 that there was inadequate information “for assessing his real worth” (Bloomberg Discloses He's Rich, But He's Frugal With the Details, by Dean E. Murphy and Eric Lipton, July 14, 2001) and in 2002 and 2004 reported that Bloomberg’s wealth had been estimated at $4 billion (Mayor's Report Gives Hazy Peek At His Finances, by Diana B. Henriques, June 8, 2002 and If Only for a Night, Wall St. Fallen Idol Is One of the Boys, by Landon Thomas Jr., February 6, 2004) Once upon a Time: a “Hovering” For benchmarking purpose it is worth noting that while Bloomberg’s wealth has overall been shooting up dramatically there was an extended period in the middle of his tenure as mayor that his reported wealth hovered close to a $5 billion figure. Increases to his wealth accelerated again into his second term as mayor (217% in 2007). It can, of course, be speculated that some of this “hovering” was attributable to underestimations of the increases in his wealth for some of these years; for instance, maybe it wasn’t true that there was no increase in Bloomberg’s wealth between 2000 and 2001 when Forbes 400 reported $4 billion in wealth reported for both years. Forbes Figures on Bloomberg Wealth Escalation The most reliably constant gauge of his wealth over the years are the annual figures published by Forbes in September of each year:

1996 - $1 billion 1997 - $1.3 billion 1998 - $2 billion 1999- $2.5 billion 2000- $4 billion 2001- $4 billion 2002- $4.8 billion 2003- $4.9 Billion 2004- $5 Billion 2005- $5.1 Billion 2006- $5.3 Billion 2007- $11.5 billion 2008- $20 billion

Bloomberg Could Have Been a Contender But For . . . It is interesting to note that, for all this prosperous ten-folding of wealth, the New York Times in July of 2004 was given information based upon which it reported (emphasis supplied):

Serving as mayor has been costly for Mr. Bloomberg, who was ordered by the city's conflict of interest board to sell all his stocks in 2002. He has not revealed how much of a bath he took on the sales, except that it was in category G ($500,000 or more).

(See: 2003 tax year? For Bloomberg, 'Rich' Is Just Too Weak an Adjective, By Leslie Eaton, July 3, 2004.) Numbers in Perspective It is worthwhile to put some of these huge numbers in perspective. Perspective: Level of Positive Gift vs. Negative Cost Isn’t 2008's Bloombergian $235 million in “giving” bound to be a net positive to the city even if it were concluded that he might not be the best mayor or the best person to entrust with so much political power? Hardly. As large as the $235 million figure is, it is neck and neck with just a fraction of some of the damage Mr. Bloomberg can do: Look at just one project involving a slew of city give-aways. It has already been documented that the mayor’s focus was misplaced in the Yankee Stadium financing: The mayor wanted to procure a luxury suite complete with food irrespective of the public cost of the trade-offs that were being made. (See: Wednesday, December 3, 2008, Mayor’s Focus on City Planning Matters: Some Quantified Analysis.) More recently, however, new figures have come to light about what it will actually cost to replace the public parks that Bloomberg sacrificed to put up the stadium. The costs are ballooning and were apparently understated just as community representatives had originally said. The latest replacement estimate is almost $195 million, more than double 2004's $96 million figure which was based on “conceptual designs.” (Report Cites Unexplained Costs of New Parks in the Bronx, by Ralph Blumenthal, January 27, 2009.) So compare the mayor’s $235 million in “giving”to the $195 million it will cost to restore parks to the community and you get an idea of the scale of the damage Bloomberg can cause with his sell-outs of the public interest. And that is just a faction of the cost of just one project. The projects may not all be moving along briskly, but Bloomberg has a slew of projects where he is proposing to sell the public out in various ways. (To add the insult of delay to financial injury, the city is procrastinating on replacing the Yankee Stadium parks. See: Sports of The Times, Tear Down Stadium and Build Up the Bronx, by Harvey Araton, January 24, 2009.) Perspective: Level of Influence Yes, Bloomberg’s contributions may go up when the political stakes are high and yes, they are up to $235 million now, but how much influence can that possible involve? Answer: A lot. It is reported that Bloomberg plans to directly spend $80 to $100 million on his next campaign for mayor. (See: Mayor Plans an $80 Million Campaign, by David W. Chen and Raymond Hernandez, October 9, 2008.) His 2009 “charitable” contributions can be expected to go up and are likely to go up substantially given that it is a campaign year. Given that Mr. Bloomberg does not draw a line at using his charity for political influence it is easy to look at this as upwards of $335 million in campaign spending ($100 + $235 +?). (The figures for Bloomberg’s last mayoral election would have come to a total of $228 million, $84 million in direct spending plus $144 million in “charity.” Bloomberg’s direct campaign expenditures to win the 2001 campaign were $74 million.) Consider also that expenditures (or “contributions”) in preceding years should probably be thrown into the total. These kinds of totals stack up impressively against the $750 million record-smashing overall amount raised by the Obama presidential campaign this year. (See: Obama Campaign Shatters Fundraising Records, by Peter Overby and Renee Montagne.) The difference, of course, is that the Obama campaign set a new model for effective grass-roots fund raising with more campaign donors than ever before. In the case of the Bloomberg campaign the money all comes from the single individual who is the city’s wealthiest resident. Putting the $335+? million amount in perspective another way, the Times editorial page has implored the mayor to be restricted, like other candidates accepting public campaign funding, and wants him to spend no more than $12.2 million. It proposes:

Like other candidates in the system, the mayor would be limited to spending $6.1 million for a contested primary and another $6.1 million for the general election.

(See: Mayor Bloomberg’s Opportunity, November 9, 2008) The Times points out how this would save everybody money, particularly the public, and it moralistically exhorts:

The presidential election did serious, perhaps mortal harm to the national public financing system. Mr. Bloomberg can help New York set a better example.

We already commented on the futility of the Times effort to so implore better conduct from the Mayor (Saturday, November 15, 2008, The Mayor, The Times’ Timing, and a Proper Ordering) but we have to point out, that such futility is additionally compounded if the Times doesn’t recognize that $235+ million in “charitable” spending by Bloomberg pretty much washes away the $12.2 million in spending to which the Times conceives that Mr. Bloomberg and his opponents might respectively limit themselves. Perspective: It Can’t Be Any Worse; Doesn’t the Level of Financial Influence End Here? Ahem. Do things end with Bloomberg just controlling his own contributions? No. As mayor, Bloomberg controls more money resources and influence. We pointed out in Self-Congratulation “Befalls” a Man Who Would Know No Limits (Wednesday, October 15, 2008), that Bloomberg as mayor, controls and uses for his all-too-personal goals, resources such as the City Hall-based Mayor’s Fund and federal 9/11 disaster recovery money. There is also the question of how he leverages the funds he directs to achieve his personal goals even further by collecting remittances from those receiving discretionary spending from the city in a questionable intermingled fashion. This then becomes difficult to distinguish from acts that should likely be considered illegal. (See: Wednesday, October 22, 2008, Are the Atlantic Yards Land Grab and City Official Fraud Being Used to Finance Bloomberg’s Bid for Billionaire Term Limit Exceptionalism?) Wayne Barrett’s recent Village Voice piece (Bloomberg Maneuvers to Crown a Kennedy: Who's Caroline's daddy? January 13th 2009) makes the case that the school system and other city resources were politically exploited by the Bloomberg administration to promote Caroline Kennedy’s appointment to the Senate:

In fact, the best argument now against renewing the state law that granted Bloomberg control over the school system, which expires in 2009, is the wholesale political exploitation of the Department of Education by Bloomberg to advance Kennedy's candidacy, including the crafting of a fable of a résumé. While the mayor doggedly maintains at press conferences that he favors no Senate candidate, his consigliere, Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheekey—who shamelessly intends to draw his $196,574 public salary in 2009 even as he continues to act as the mayor's chief political adviser—has been tightrope-walking ethics laws to promote Kennedy's candidacy right out of his City Hall office, hosting meetings and dialing up backers in apparent violation of Conflict of Interest Board Rule 1-13, which bars the use of city resources "for non-City purposes," as well as "the performance of private activities" on city time. (It's also a charter violation for Bloomberg to "request any subordinate public servant to engage in a political campaign.") With Sheekey, Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, and Bloomberg's consultant, Isay, driving the Kennedy candidacy, Bloomberg's public professions of neutrality are a contemptuous joke.

Muddied Waters; Self-Referential and Self-Reverential Cycles Because of the mayor’s now truly vast and increasing wealth we are perpetually encountering self-referential cycles reiterating and reinforcing the power and prestige of a single man. This situation is more dire because Bloomberg doesn’t respect boundaries. He allows for very muddy situations to exist where the net net is that he directs his power and prestige to reinforce the personal goals of more power and prestige. This is part of what we wrote, about in October, in Self-Congratulation “Befalls” a Man Who Would Know No Limits. There we noted that when the Mayor chose to have the city’s Doris C. Freedman Award go to the controversial and ultimately destructive New York City Waterfalls art project, he was, when you lifted the veils, essentially making an award to his own personal pet project. In November the Times was making similar observations about how the city’s Mayor’s Award was being handed out. It was going unmentioned that the city award was frequently being given to groups that were also being personally supported by the mayor. (See: Some Award Winners Share Trait: Bloomberg’s Charity, By Michael Barbaro, November 10, 2008) Here again, the term limits hearing and the testimony in support of the mayor’s desire for a third term comes up. Bloomberg directed huge amounts of resources (including millions of public and City Hall-controlled money to the Waterfalls; Susan Freedman, the president of the Public Art Fund, the recipient of the Waterfalls millions, then testified for her benefactor without mentioning the extent to which he had `benefactored’ her. (Tuesday, October 21, 2008, Time to Report on the Best City Council Hearing Testimony.) Similarly, observing that “the blurring of Mr. Bloomberg’s philanthropy and his role as mayor. . became a flash point during the recent term limits debate.” the Times pointed out that:

One of the people who testified in favor of the mayor’s proposal during the hearings was Virginia P. Louloudes, executive director of the Alliance of Resident Theaters, who accepted an award on Monday on behalf of her group. In an interview, Ms. Louloudes said she was “happy to testify” and did not feel obligated by the mayor’s donations. Yet even some who receive the mayor’s private money said it can be hard at times to distinguish his official actions from his private charitable giving. “It does end up blurring,” said Melanie Cohn, the executive director of the Council on the Arts and Humanities for Staten Island, which has received about $500,000 from Mr. Bloomberg since he took office in 2002, and won a Mayor’s Award in 2006. “It muddies the water a bit.”

With Muddied Waters, Do Bloombergian Business and Bloombergian Government Remain Separate? With the waters being so muddy and such mind-boggling amounts of money being involved, does the public need to be concerned that Bloomberg business and the business of government will stay safely separate? Does the public need to worry that Bloomberg’s many-fold increase in wealth during his years as mayor might be attributable, in part, to any imperfect separation of the two? Does the public need to be concerned about the poor financial leadership of the Bloomberg administration being rooted in the conflicts we face? (See: Saturday, October 25, 2008, More Discredit of Bloomberg as Qualified Financial Crisis Leader.) There is certainly reason for significant concern. Noticing New York is concerned foremost with proper and appropriate development of New York, which we believe should be based on an appreciation of what New York is and what it should be. We see the world of real estate as fraught with possibilities for serious and detrimental conflicts of interest. Likewise, the world of Wall Street, bonds and public subsidy that integrally supports big real estate development. Obviously, Bloomberg’s business is very intertwined with the fortunes of client Wall Street firms. How separate are the worlds of big mega-deal city administration-assisted real estate development and the Bloomberg private-wealth businesses that are growing so fast? Perhaps the first and best clue would be how responsibilities divide up when Bloomberg puts his senior confidants in charge of these worlds. It turns out that at the very top of the Bloomberg administration there is a troubling lack of separation and all sorts of problems with conflicts. Let’s talk about two of Bloomberg’s top administration officials, two deputy mayors with key city real estate development responsibilities, Daniel Doctoroff and Patricia Harris. The latter, Ms. Harris, is also key when it comes to Bloomberg’s charities, both dispensing them and collecting charitable donations from New York developers who are receiving city largess. Of course, Bloomberg’s own conflicts deserve further discussion too. Conflicts of Interests Rumination Will Require a Long Part II Because the discussion about how uncomfortably unseparate these worlds are will take some time, we will address them in a separate Part II of this article, devoted to examining the conflicts of interest at the top level of the Bloomberg administration. (Click here for Part II.)

Out of the Mouths of Young Observationists: Waterfalling

We would like to think that Noticing New York is doing a pretty good job in observing and commenting upon the way that the public environment in New York is being built and managed. We hope that we are living up to the standard we set, dedicating ourselves to the proposition that “developing New York and appreciating New York go hand in hand.” It has come to our attention, however, that if Noticing New York ever falls down on the job, there is a cadre of budding young journalists ready to step in to pick up the slack.

Public Process an Integral Part of Public Art, Says Christo (Waterfalls?)

Noticing New York has previously commented on the value of Olafur Eliasson’s “The New York City Waterfalls” as public art and as a concurrent disappointment in public process and Zeitgeist. (Wednesday, September 3, 2008, “Yeah, sure. Bad for the glass.” (Inartful Clues to New York City Government?). We might note that another artist of grand-scale public art, Christo, considers the public process to bring his art into existence an inextricable part of his art. For this reason he films public hearings and community meetings that prepare the way for his art. (If someone wants to dig through film archives from the 80's, you can probably find footage of lawyer/urban planner Michael D. D. White- me- at a New York City Bar Associations meeting that Christo considered a relevant lead-up to his Gates project.)

Noticing New York has also commented on the Bloomberg-led funding of the Waterfalls; an involved and artfully complicated performance in itself: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, Self-Congratulation “Befalls” a Man Who Would Know No Limits.

If Noticing New York Falls Down on the Journalistic Job. . .



It turns out that five essayists from Saint Ann’s, the Brooklyn Heights school, have also provided excellent commentary on the Waterfalls in the “Saint Ann’s Ram” (October 17, 2008, Vol. XII No. 1). If you are interested in urban planning issues and New York governance, the Ram gets into some pretty meaty stuff. In the same issue Susan Yassky reflects on the development of Brooklyn Bridge Park interviewing Marianna Koval, the president of the Brooklyn Bridge park Conservancy. (Eliot Spitzer’s scandalous downfall was dealt with in point/counterpoint fashion by Maggie Henry and Grace Dunham.) We are tempted to get into a discussion of the Koval/Yassky interview postulation that it might be “wishful thinking” to believe that parks don’t necessarily have to be “self-sustaining,” instead of, for instance, taking into consideration increased property tax receipts as community property values rise. We will we have to save that discussion for another time.

I’d like to think that younger journalists might bring a fresher, less jaundiced eye when reflecting upon the value of the Waterfalls, one that might be more spontaneous and less influenced by having learned what we are supposed to think about public art. In our view the five journalist-essayists reviewing the Waterfalls, (Michael Danziger, Julia Greenwald, Emma O'Connor, Ilana Harris-Babou, Mina Seckin), were sterner critics of the art installation than we ourselves were. Since the Saint Ann’s school is in Brooklyn Heights, these commentators were in a neighborhood that probably had the best possible vantage point to consider all four waterfalls.

Themes of “Waste” and Commercialism

The word associated with the predominate theme of the reviews, which came up in a number of ways, was “waste”: “waste of energy,” “waste of time,” “utter waste of energy and water,” “waste of time and money.” Only one of the reviews, Mr. Danziger’s, did not specifically invoke the “waste” word, but the theme was sufficiently present when he called the Waterfalls “moronic” and found himself asking "why do these exist?" He didn’t seem to find a satisfactory answer.

The reviewers also found themselves tending to regard the Waterfalls as something that was pitched to tourists, exuding an overly-commercial feel. Mr. Danzinger disparages the tourism revenues and associated gawking. Ms. O'Connor considers tourists’ expenditures on Waterfall packages a waste and is skeptical of the estimated $55 million in boosted city revenues that were supposed to result. Ms. Harris-Babou finds Waterfalls “too commercial,” mentioning “Greyhound bus tour guides” and says she experiences the “hype” surrounding the Waterfalls as a detracting element. She links in the officiously demanding signs in the state-run (Empire State Development Corporation) Brooklyn Bridge Park viewing area. The signs say: "TALK", "PLAY" and "WALK," she says to “remind park-goers that he or she is being entertained” and she reports on how it summons up for one viewer the feeling of “an ad for Ikea." Ms. Harris-Babou sees the commercialism as “a sorrowful glimpse into the future of Brooklyn waterfront development.” Ms. Seckin actually zeros in to interview tourists whom she found unreceptive to the Waterfalls unless she “gave them background information on Eliasson's perspective of his art.” In some cases she found them unappreciative even afterward.

Excretion

Ms. Seckin reports that:

One tourist whom I asked said that the waterfalls not only made the Brooklyn Bridge look like it was taking a massive piss, but that they made her want to take a massive piss as well.

This is something I had never thought of looking at the flow coming from under the Brooklyn Bridge, but Ms. O'Connor likewise commented that New Yorkers had described the project "the river pissing," (Journalistic standards must have changed. When I was a high school journalist in the ‘70s I am sure that we would have rigorously adhered to the verb“urinate.”)

Unspectacular?

The reviews tend to see the see the Waterfalls as an unspectacular effort. Two of them unflatteringly compare them to waterparks.

Mr. Danzinger:

They are half-hearted attempts that belong in a waterpark, where they would not only blend in with the setting, but would also be put to better use.

Ms. O'Connor:

Unfortunately, Waterfalls are plant killing, nondescript excuses for art that creepily resemble a water park ride from the 1980s that was sued for killing too many children.

She introduced her essay with this line:

After talking to many people, I have come to the conclusion that nobody really cares about the Waterfalls.

Ms. O'Connor observes in follow-up:

. . . generally people are relatively indifferent. I guess you have to be---how much can you really say about a bunch of bars, pipes, and water that you cannot get closer to than 2000 feet without wasting $25 and an hour of your time?

She also says:

Some people have described them as "a construction malfunction," . . .

Making “Light” of an Appearance: This Is Just a Construction-“Sight”

The construction project feel of the project is also noted by Ms. Greenwald, who observes that the “scaffoldings” made her think of construction and the “city's constant need to renovate and build, and seemingly never be done.” Her “initially negative reaction” to how “tremendously wasteful” it is “to run these four large apparatuses all day long” shifts a bit after she takes her mother’s advice to go back to look at the Waterfalls illuminated at night, after which she tells us:

I now wish that they were only run at night. Not only would it require less energy, but more importantly, we would see only the impressive aspect of the Waterfalls, and not the scaffolding which adorns almost any block in New York City.

This reminds us what any clever real estate executive knows about promoting real estate projects. Lighting, presentation, and pretty pictures help. In real estate promotions, skies are always blue, trees (perhaps actually non-existent) are leafed out, and the ideal time of the day is often that evening hour around sunset when a building’s interior lighting is just beginning to interplay with the soft glow of the sky.

Whiff of Ego

The young critics sniff “ego” in the air. Mr. Danzinger writes: Why do we welcome these displays of the artists' egos? Ms. O’Conner asks, “would you ever admit your art is an ugly waste of time?” when she mistakenly ascribes projections ($55 million) of the high financial benefit of the project to the artist himself. It is Mr. Danzinger who associates it most closely with the “pseudo” and unnatural. Saying that they are not true waterfalls, Mr. Danzinger says that apparently, per the artist’s intention, the Waterfalls:

. . . . feel out of place. If juxtaposing them. with actual waterfalls, they are an affirmation of man's subordination to nature; compare the metal scaffold and conveyor belt to, say, Niagara Falls.- Man created one, the other formed naturally; water naturally flows over Niagara falls, pumps and conveyor belts are required to shoot water out of the Waterfalls.

(Mr. Danzinger hasn’t quite caught up with the arrogance of man. Niagra is no longer a natural waterfall. A fraction of its former flow now goes over the falls. Much of the flow has been diverted by Niagra Mohawk to provide power for upstate. The waterfall can be turned on and off at will and the falls have been dynamited to direct the more meager flow of water more evenly in a prettier way that helps disguise how little water is still falling in the cataract.)

Intervening in the Mundane?

I was interested that Harris-Babou opined, I think correctly, that the Waterfalls “are meant to be interventions into the mundane.” I am thinking that, as adults, we may appreciate this interruption more, but such interruptions seem objectionable to Mr. Danzinger, who has experienced fewer seasons. Talking about the much more appreciated Gates public art project, he is not inclined to see Olmsted and Vaux’s work in Central Park as mundane:

The Gates were truly an garish contrast to the Romantic beauty of Central Park created by Olmstead and Vaux. Now, the Waterfalls will join the ranks of pretentious attention-grabbing pseudo-art

Not Emphasized: Environmental Damage

What wasn’t covered in the student reviews is itself quite interesting. Only one of the reviews, the one by Ms. O’Conner, dealt with the Waterfalls’ unforecast environmental damage:

So, yes, the Waterfalls are unattractive and unexciting, but at least they are beneficial to our city, right? Wrong. They are actually killing the little plant life there is on the East Side. The Waterfalls are stirring up the salt and pollutants from the harbor into a mist and settling and crystallizing them onto the leaves of the surrounding plants and trees. This is hindering their photosynthesis and so the plants are dying. The city has acknowledged the problem and cut the operating time of the waterfalls in half, but, in my opinion, it is too late. Many innocent plants have already died, for this "Public Art.”

What Money Wasted?

Although the reviews repeatedly harped on the “waste,” including the “waste of money” they saw in the Waterfalls, the reviews did not hone in to identify where the wasted money was coming from. This is not surprising because the information is under-reported elsewhere. As we have noted, although we know that Bloomberg directed millions into the project from a number of sources, how much he put into the project in total is still being kept secret. We focused on the subject only as a follow-up article to our original essay. One review, Ms. Seckin’s, mentions funding reporting:

Funded by private donations raised by the Public Art Fund, this approximately $15 million display is being hailed as the biggest outdoor art project in New York since The Gates in Central Park. However, a thick cloud of controversy hangs over this bold statement of public art.

In asserting that the project is “funded by private donations raised by the Public Art Fund,” Ms. Seckin doesn’t report the lead role Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg took in channeling money into the project in multiple ways and the fact that $2 million in federal funds, certainly not private money, was steered into the project by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. Mr. Bloomberg controls half the LMDC board, and the LMDC was set up to help with the short-funded ground zero redevelopment effort and lower Manhattan recovery. It received federal block grant funds (like the block grant funds used for the Waterfalls) for “disaster recovery” purposes. In addition, what was counted as “private money” included money from a City Hall-based charity that Mr. Bloomberg controls as Mayor.

Back to That “Ego” Thing

Although the young writers picked up on the whiff of ego hanging in the air over the Waterfalls, they did not seem aware of Mr. Bloomberg’s presence, despite the many hats Mr. Bloomberg has been wearing to bring the Waterfalls to fruition, including privately lead-sponsoring the project with Bloomberg, LP media company funds. When Ms. O'Connor unwittingly said that the artist himself had (in a perhaps self-inflating fashion) predicted a $55 million tourism benefit from the project, she was therefore actually half-right. It was really the sponsoring Mr. Bloomberg who, doubly involved, made this projection through a city-controlled agency. The same Mr. Bloomberg then similarly gave his sponsored project a city award for its contributions to the public environment.

Limits Not Reached: Waterfall Falsity

The Saint Ann’s reviews appeared and were written before the term limits battle was joined in a publicly recognized way, with the Mayor engaging various billionaire tactics to extend term limits to specially gain a third term for himself. Susan Freedman, president of the above-mentioned Public Art Fund, had not yet appeared before the City Council to aver that Mr. Bloomberg specially deserves a third term. We had not written about the disconcerting ways Mr. Bloomberg pumped money from various sources into the Waterfalls. Neither we nor the New York Times had written about the problematic ways that Mr. Bloomberg uses the convoluting cover of his “charities” to secure political power. (See: Bloomberg Enlists His Charities in Bid to Stay, yy Michael Barbaro and David W. Chen, October 17, 2008, Criticism of Bloomberg Over Nonprofits’ Support, by Michael Barbaro, October 19, 2008 and Monday, October 20, 2008 “Charity?” We Begin to Groan)

When the Saint Ann’s reviews were written we had not yet pointed out how the financial convolutions regarding the Waterfalls, if you think about it, are being used with a certain “Waterfalls falsity” as an interloping mechanism for some unpleasant things. For instance, we asked: Is the Atlantic Yards land grab paying for Mayor Bloomberg’s effort to specially exempt himself from term limits and achieve a third term? For that matter, is the Mayor’s bid for billionaire exceptionalism fueled by city officials' fraud? (See: Wednesday, October 22, 2008, Are the Atlantic Yards Land Grab and City Official Fraud Being Used to Finance Bloomberg’s Bid for Billionaire Term Limit Exceptionalism?)

Overall, the assessment of the young Saint Ann’s journalists were extremely valuable and on the right track. Their skepticism about the “art” was even stronger than mine. Paying attention to this skepticism expressed by these young citizens is important and encouraging as we look to the future.

Are the Atlantic Yards Land Grab and City Official Fraud Being Used to Finance Bloomberg’s Bid for Billionaire Term Limit Exceptionalism?

Here is a quick thought we can’t seem to shake. It’s been bedeviling us ever since we posted our article about the way in which abuse of “charities” for political ends has gotten out of hand: Monday, October 20, 2008, “Charity?” We Begin to Groan.

The Bedeviling Question

We must ask:

Is the Atlantic Yards land grab paying for Mayor Bloomberg’s effort to specially exempt himself from term limits and achieve a third term? For that matter, is the Mayor’s bid for billionaire exceptionalism fueled by city officials' fraud?

It seems pretty simple. In an apparent quid-pro-quo for city approvals for Atlantic Yards, developer/subsidy-collector Forest City Ratner gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Mayor’s charities; the Mayor then uses his charities as an instrument of pressure to generate coerced testimony in favor of his remaining in office.

Quid-pro-quo Money from Ratner?

As I reviewed in “Charity?” We Begin to Groan I think that Matthew Schuerman astutely pointed out in the New York Observer (Forest City Ratner Gives to Coney Island Carousel, Other Bloombergian Public Projects, April 1, 2007) that Bloomberg used a nonprofit to collect between $450,000 and $1 million from Atlantic Yards developer/subsidy-collector Forest City Ratner. The collection of this amount, which is very difficult to distinguish from a straight quid-pro-quo kickback, occurred following a “lobbying meeting” Forest City Ratner’s Bruce Ratner had with Bloomberg and Deputy Mayor Patricia Harris. As Schuerman’s article pointed out the Ratner $450,000 and $1 million went to the Bloomberg nonprofit organization “In December 2005, right as the debate over the Atlantic Yards complex was heating up and before the city made several crucial decisions about the project.” (Might one consider that the Mayor had privately negotiated his own version of a project “Community Benefit Agreement?”

Making the Ratner-to-Bloomberg gift appear more illicit: 1.) there was an after-the-fact attempt to deny that the lobbying meeting was the “lobbying” meeting it had been reported to be, and 2.) the meeting was with Patricia Harris. (Atlantic Yards Report has reported: that Harris a. “was Mayor Mike Bloomberg's chief philanthropic advisor at Bloomberg, LP., and her portfolio includes arts organizations” -Bloomberg, LP is the Mayor’s private media company-, and b. has been involved in dealing with officials from arts organizations since she became a city official working for Bloomberg as deputy mayor. (See: Tuesday, April 08, 2008, Ratner, the deputy mayor, the "Wild Card" BP, and the conversion of subsidies into philanthropy)

Similarly, we reported on how Forest City Ratner money was flowing back to the Bloomberg-championed-and-sponsored “New York City Waterfalls” project in “Charity?” We Begin to Groan and Self-Congratulation “Befalls” a Man Who Would Know No Limits (Wednesday, October 15, 2008). Last Thursday the president of the Bloomberg-benefactored Public Art Fund, which did the Bloomberg-championed Waterfalls (with a complex array of Bloomberg-directed funds coming into it), testified in favor of amending the City Charter for an exception to keep Bloomberg in office. This was reported in the New York Times front-page story about how charities were pressured to provide this kind of supportive testimony at the Thursday City Council hearings. The pressured charities were receiving “donations” from Bloomberg as a “private” corporate-donor and/or from city donations he controls as Mayor (See: Bloomberg Enlists His Charities in Bid to Stay, by Michael Barbaro and David W. Chen).

How Much Money? Uncertain-- Hundreds of Thousands or More

How much money is flowing in total? If we think that it is limited to what was picked up on in the Schuerman Observer article in our Noticing New York posts, we are probably naive. Also, although the Schuerman article cites a $450,000 and $1 million range for the “donation” made at the time of the December 2005 Atlantic Yards activities, neither the Observer article nor our own can cite with specificity the exact amount of money, due to the secrecy that surrounds this kind of activity. We know we are talking about at least hundreds of thousand of dollars, perhaps much more.

Loop Closed

That essentially closes the loop. The Atlantic Yards land grab is funding the Mayor’s bid to stay in office to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars or more. You can add to the picture fuel from city official fraud to serve Ratner’s Atlantic Yard’s interests. We will get to that in a moment.

Do Charities Launder?

Is the involvement of charities sufficient to launder these funds so that they are not considered kickbacks and improper? We’ll see what the NYC Conflicts of Interest Board has to say, but our own opinions will survive for obvious reasons.

That Atlantic Yards is financially supporting the Mayor’s bid to stay in office comes back full circle because the Mayor remaining in office is likely to interfere with the natural and deserved political death the megadevelopment deserves.

Principles: Government of Rules vs. Government of Men

The Mayor’s bid to be specially honored with a third term would be a triumph of billionaire-power over principle. City Council Member Tish James observed at a Develop Don’t Destroy walk-a-thon on Saturday that we are in danger of sacrificing a government of rules for a government of men. Atlantic Yards is also an example of principle and rules being sacrificed to favor a singled-out rich individual, Bruce Ratner. No legitimate process was followed with respect to Atlantic Yards: It is essentially a rape of Brooklyn, a rape of the local community, a rape of the city and its taxpayers. This is what you get with a government of “billionaire exceptionalism.”

Bloomberg’s Lack of Principles

New York Times columnist Clyde Haberman wrote an excellent piece the other day skewering the Mayor for his lack of principle on this issue. (Back When the Mayor Loved Term Limits, October 20, 2008) He quotes the Mayor’s 2005 statements about term limits:

“This is an outrage,” he said in a radio interview. The people had spoken, he said. He added: “There’s no organization that I know that would put somebody in charge for a long period of time. You always want turnover and change. Eight years is great. You learn for four years. You can do for four years.”

Then he goes on to discuss the Mayor’s justification for his change to his current stand:

Mr. Bloomberg has redefined the concept of principle. These days, he calls it dogmatism.

“People that don’t change their mind when the facts change are so dogmatic, they’re not very practical or effective,” he said a few days ago.

What has changed, he says, is the turmoil in the American economy; it requires that his hand remain on the tiller an extra four years. In fact, he was thinking and winking about a third term well before the Dow Jones charts started looking like the EKG of a heart attack victim. For the mayor, principle had morphed into dogmatism quite a while ago.

(Billionaire) Power for (Billionaire’s) Power’s Sake

What does a government of men rather than principles look like? There was a clue in the New York Post story about how Christine Quinn was manipulating the City Council vote of the issue with assignments of committee chairmanships. Reacting to this manipulation of what should be a vote based on principle, billionaire Bloomberg defended the naked use of power-over-principle to stay in power in these words:

“Her job is to corral people and convince them to support legislation, . . .This is an administration-sponsored bill . . . Do you really want us to not go out and promote [it]?”)

In other words, “the Bloomberg justifies the means.”

(See: Quinn Targeting Term Foe's Plum, by Sally Goldenberg and David Seifman, October 15, 2008.)

Fueling Fraud: IRS Reward for Misrepresentation

Are there limits? If Bloomberg is using everything available to him, including the flow-back of Atlantic Yards land grab money to stay in power, then we think his efforts are also being fueled by city officials’ fraud.

We note with a fair amount of consternation the just-reported action by the IRS to provide Forest City Ratner with a special loophole to possibly issue tax-exempt bonds for the proposed Atlantic Yards Nets basketball arena. (See the many recent press reports.) This would not have been possible without highly inappropriate lobbying by city officials. Furthermore, if these bonds are ever allowed to be issued, it will be tantamount to a direct reward of benefit to Forest City Ratner for fraud perpetrated on the IRS by city officials who collaborated in ginning up fake numbers to try and fool the Feds. (See: Wednesday, October 1, 2008, Safety in the Numbers You Pull out of a Hat.) I have not had time to study the theoretical shelter for Ratner that is provided by the recent IRS action. I am not sure it will actually work to make the bonds tax-exempt in light of the city’s misrepresentations. I suspect the tax-exemption of the bonds will be subject to challenge.

Billionaire Exceptionalism: Anything Is Possible and Public Good Is Not the Standard

The point is that when principle and a government of rules is replaced by a government of men then anything is possible, fraud and kickbacks included, and all that really matters is what serves the interest of “billionaire exceptionalism.” What would best serve the people is left by the wayside.

Time to Report on the Best City Council Hearing Testimony

Alright, this can’t wait any longer although it has already been reported by others. We usually self-report our Noticing New York testimony in a post after hearings. Last Thursday, we testified at the City Council hearing on Bloomberg’s proposed repeal of term limits to specially give himself a third term.

We arrived home late from the hearing and phoned a Coney Island colleague, who told us that they were laughing because our testimony of a half hour before had already been reported upon by the New York Times live blog of the hearing. The next morning it also appeared in a thorough account of the day’s hearing in Atlantic Yards Report.

Well, last night we got an e-mail with a link informing us that a new website, “Term Limits: “It’s Our Decision.org”, was set up to oppose the special Bloombergian elimination of term limits and that there is a page (inset- click to enlarge) on that website proclaiming our testimony as “Best Council Hearing Testimony Comment.”

What was it in our testimony that got picked up in all these places? This is the way that Atlantic Yards Report put it:

AY opponent Michael White had a neat moment: (then quoting from the Times)
Michael D. D. White, a lawyer who blogs at The Huffington Post, was the next up.

Referring to the two-minute limit on testimony, he said, “I’d like to have my limits extended to five minutes, please.” When Mr. Felder politely declined, Mr. White said, “You don’t like the rules being changed in the middle of the game.” That retort prompted applause from several of the remaining audience members — there are a few dozen now, down from hundreds earlier.

(See: Friday, October 17, 2008, At the term limits hearing, AY opponents and supporters make their mark.)

So now, perhaps it is time to self-report and tell you about the rest of Noticing New York’s testimony on Thursday.

Waiting and Access To Testify

First, some background. Though we were exhilarated by the importance of testifying, the day was grueling. We arrived at 11:00 AM and were turned away by City Hall security because we were too early. (Former City Councilman and Parks Commissioner Henry Stern, a more familiar figure, recounting about his own testimony in opposition to the Bloomberg maneuvering, says he got in at 11:00 AM.) When we returned at 2:45 we were told by security that we couldn’t come in because we were too late; we would have to wait. Then, looking at our jacket and tie, the security guard paused, “Wait,” he said, “are you going to testify?” “Absolutely,” I told him and he told me that they could let me in if I was on the list of people who were supposed to be let in to testify. Though I made him check the list I was, of course, not on it.

We couldn’t get in because there were so many people waiting to testify. There were even a fair number of people there to testify for what Bloomberg wants. Clyde Haberman of the Times has written several recent very good columns about the appalling things that are happening as Bloomberg reaches for this crowning exception that he is now so abjectly pursuing. In one of them describing the hearing, Haberman commented on the sign holders who had shown up to testify for the Mayor:

The sign holders resisted efforts to find out who they were and why they had gone to City Hall. Everything about them screamed rent-a-crowd.

(See: What’s the Matter at City Hall: Democracy, the Voice of the People and All That, October 16, 2008)

In addition to the sign holders, there were the well-dressed beneficiaries of the Mayor’s “charities.” The Times has already written, about how they were pressured to be there writing, not once, but twice. We did so ourselves, not only afterwards, but maybe by not-such-a-coincidence we wrote beforehand about the Mayor and the Public Art Fund. When we were at the hearing Susan Freedman, (inset) president of the Public Art Fund, testified for her benefactor, the Mayor. She did not mention the extent to which he had `benefactored’ her. He did so substantially. You can read what we wrote.


We outnumbered the Mayor’s remunerated minions but because of them, real people had to wait to get in and testify. Were the minions on “the list” to get in? The Post described how lunch money was being doled out to them. Our waiting outside to get in was not a total loss. We got to talk to a reporter from Reuters.

We finally got in and signed up to speak at 3:38. On our way in we saw the Mayor exiting with a stressed-looking Amanda Burden, the Chairman of the City Planning Commission which deals a lot with real estate developers. We wondered what that was about in an earlier piece, given that the hearing on term limits was the order of the day.

We did not get to testify until after 10:00 PM.

Reducing Meaningful Testimony: The Two Minute Rule

Reducing meaningful testimony down to two minutes is almost impossible. It is hard enough to reduce testimony to three. I didn’t know if my jest about asking that my “limits be extended” to five minutes would work, but I began by referring to the fact that allowing for three minutes is more typical.

Here is the rest of what I was able to get into two minutes by speaking very fast:

Noticing New York believes term limits' greatest value is with respect to certain city offices. First and foremost the office of the Mayor.- Parallel to our federal system.

While we tend to disfavor term limits, we are absolutely against their elimination in the middle of the ongoing 2009 election cycle.

Most objectionable is the Bloomberg/Lauder billionaires' pact designed to make the repeal of term limits a special event for wealthy Mr. Bloomberg.

We have been communicating with our representatives and those running for office, predicated on the understanding that term limits were the rules of the game. Meanwhile, Mayor Bloomberg was communicating privately to members of his real estate developer constituency that he was NOT planning to have these publicly understood rules apply to him. Not Fair! Not fair to any of us.

Campaign finance questions highlight just one way in which changing the rules in the middle of the game is unfair and problematic.

The rules, including those of campaign finance, are already too special for Mr. Bloomberg. This specific change would probably not have been ventured were his wealth not an operative factor.

Mr. Bloomberg has told us that he is uniquely equipped to help the city during the current Wall Street financial crisis (only as mayor). We disagree.

Warren Buffett, George Soros and Felix Rohatyn were among those who offered warning about the financial crisis before it started unfolding. We are not aware of Mr. Bloomberg offering of any similarly prescient or unique warnings.

If I’d had the microphone for a moment more I would have commented that had I been granted five minutes to speak, I could have solved the Wall Street financial crisis! As it was, with only two minutes, I had to leave out the following important points from what I was prepared to say:

How can $15 million in public spending for a referendum setting election rules for everyone be considered too extravagant if Mr. Bloomberg himself plans to privately spend $80 million of his own money to campaign for his third term?

The Mayor’s heavy personal giving to the city’s cultural institutions is a problem. People have pointed out that “giving” immunizes the Mayor from criticism from New York’s most influential citizens. Silence may have been more pronounced because everyone mistakenly expected him soon to be out of office because of term limits.

It is not fair that Speaker Quinn is using City Council Chairmanships designations to manipulate Council member voting. This belies the story that days ago she herself was undecidedly treating this as a difficult issue on which to make a choice.

At least I, the Times, and others have now had a chance to begin to write about the problem the Mayor’s heavy personal (and sometimes municipal) giving to the city’s cultural institutions is a problem.

I was able to hand in the longer written testimony which concludes this piece.

Get Involved


Meanwhile, get involved. For instance, check out the “Term Limits: “It’s Our Decision.org” site. Certain City Council Members need to be called and told to do the right thing. We are sorry to say that David Yassky, whom we like to support, is among those who still needs a push. Call him at (718) 875-5200.

Noticing New York’s Written Testimony:

* * * * *

October 16, 2008

Hon. Christine C. Quinn, Speaker
City Council
City Hall
New York, NY 10007



Re: Proposed elimination of term limits during the ongoing 2009 mayoral election cycle- Public Hearing

Dear Speaker Quinn:

1.) Noticing New York mostly disfavors term limits while recognizing that they can have certain values. The value of term limits is likely greater with respect to certain city offices. The office which most probably should be subject to term limits is that of the Mayor. And if the executive office of the Mayor were singled out as the sole office to which term limits would apply, the City Charter would then reflect an approach parallel to that of the U.S. Constitution and our national elective offices.

2.) While we tend to disfavor term limits, we are absolutely against their elimination in the middle of the ongoing 2009 election cycle.

3.) The proposed elimination is made profoundly more objectionable by the Bloomberg/Lauder billionaires’ pact designed to make the repeal of term limits a special event applicable only to the exceedingly wealthy Michael R. Bloomberg.

4.) Noticing New York has been very attentive to the current campaigns for elective office and has based its strategies in communicating with current elected officials and those running for office, taking into careful account term limits as the publicly understood rules of the game. We are not the only ones who have so weighed our actions. At the same time Mayor Bloomberg was communicating privately with members of his real estate developer constituency that he was planning to have these publicly understood and appreciated rules not apply to him. This is not fair to any of the citizens of New York.

5.) The problematic questions that will arise with respect to campaign finance highlight how unfairly problematic it is to change rules in the middle of a game in but only one respect.

6.) The rules, including those of campaign finance, are already special for Mr. Bloomberg and tilted in his favor. His proposal for a special application of term limits to himself probably would not be possible were his wealth not an operative factor. As Atlantic Yards Report noted today, how can $15 million publicly spent on a referendum setting election rules for everyone be considered too extravagant if Mr. Bloomberg himself plans to privately spend $80 million of his own money to campaign for his third term?

7.) Because Bloomberg, LP giving is clearly an extension of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s influence, the Mayor’s heavy personal giving to so many of the city’s cultural institutions has been viewed as a problem. People have pointed out that giving quietly immunizes the Mayor from criticism. Institutions receiving the money are less like to criticize the Mayor, and each institution has associated with it huge numbers of New York’s most influential (and wealthy) citizens whose impulses to criticize the Mayor are probably also largely neutralized. The silence may have been more pronounced because people and organizations expected him soon to be out of office because of term limits.

8.) It is not fair that Speaker Quinn is using the award and withholding of City Council Chairmanships to manipulate Council member voting on this issue. This belies as disingenuous the story that Speaker Quinn told the press, saying that until days ago she herself was undecidedly treating this as a difficult issue on which to make a choice.

9.) Mr. Bloomberg has told all of us that he is uniquely equipped to help the city during the current Wall Street crisis and that the assistance he can offer requires he be granted a third term as Mayor. We disagree. We think that as time affords us perspective we will discover that being a crisis-insider actually handicaps Mr. Bloomberg’s ability to offer effective aid.

10.) Warren Buffett, George Soros and Felix Felix G. Rohatyn were among those who offered warning about the financial crisis before it started unfolding. Despite his place atop the pinnacle of so much information, we are not aware of Mr. Bloomberg’s offering of any similarly prescient or unique words.

11.) I would like to conclude my statement by saying that when I came to testify my time to speak was going to be limited to 3 minutes but I myself am now changing that rule to allow myself 5 minutes- But that might be unfair because. . ..

12.) Two recent Noticing New York articles on the issue of term limits are attached to this letter.*

Sincerely,


Michael D. D. White

* Monday, October 6, 2008, Term Limits: Voting Against the Voters

* Wednesday, October 1, 2008, Coming to Terms With Mistakes

“Charity?” We Begin to Groan

Here are a few observations it is time to pull together.

NY Times Front Page: Bloomberg Using His Private Charities and City Money To Press for Third Term

Yesterday the New York Times had a front-page story (Bloomberg Enlists His Charities in Bid to Stay, by Michael Barbaro and David W. Chen), picking up on one of our own stories, about how Mayor/Billionaire Michael R. Bloomberg is using control over his “charitable” giving to press “many of the community, arts and neighborhood groups that rely on his private donations to make the case for his third term”. Notwithstanding the “His Charities” in the article’s headline, the article is about how Bloomberg has extraordinary leverage over the groups’ finances by using both:

1.) his “private” (read that as “secret” too) giving through his media company, Bloomberg, LP, and also
2.) our city money with contracts overseen by his city staff.

Follow-up on Original New York Times Story

The Times ran a follow-up today, (Criticism of Bloomberg Over Nonprofits’ Support, by Michael Barbaro) about a number of the city’s political figures' “harsh” denunciations of Michael R. Bloomberg’s administration for asking the nonprofit groups to support City Council legislation that would allow Mr. Bloomberg to seek a third term in office. The article added that the Bloomberg administration was also similarly coordinating support statements from union leaders. The article quoted Gene Russianoff, a senior lawyer for the New York Public Interest Research Group, as saying 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.”

There was similar follow-up on WNYC today.

True Charity?

Isn’t it overdue that we notice how many ways this “charity” thing has gotten dangerously out of hand and that the “charity” we are seeing is in many ways not so real?

A quote worth considering:

"Those who give, hoping to be rewarded with honor, are not giving, they are bargaining"
Philo Judaeus

Christine Quinn’s Fake Charities and Term Limits

As nearly everyone knows, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn was embroiled in a messy political slush fund scandal a relatively short time ago. What was the instrument by which Quinn was busy illegally routing monies? Fake charities! (See: Quinn Raises Less Money Amid Inquiry Into Council, By David W. Chen, July 13, 2008).

Quinn was in the middle of running for mayor when she was caught in the scandal. We speculated, as the Times did later, that her imminent support for a repeal of term limits for Mr. Bloomberg was linked to the way her political prospects had been weakened by the fake charity scandal. In a story reporting on Quinn’s angst about reversing her decision to support Bloomberg’s continuation in office* (Quinn’s Silence on Term Limits May Reflect Conflict of Ambition and Past Stand, by Michael Barbaro, October 7, 2008.) the Times wrote:

Leading the effort to revise the current limits could be advantageous to Ms. Quinn, who was ensnared in a messy scandal this year involving Council budget appropriations for dozens of fictitious community groups. A third term in the Council could give her four years to put that embarrassment behind her.

*(We believe it was fairly clear that Bloomberg did not announce that he was going to pursue a repeal of term limits until after Quinn was on board, but officially her decision to reverse herself on term limits was played out after Bloomberg’s announcement, with the Times reporting in the above article the requisite stage-managed drama concerning how agonizing the decision was going to be for Ms. Quinn. Once Quinn was out with her position she started making the decisions of others on the issue difficult in another way: She is reportedly using City Council chairmanship assignments to manipulate the City Council vote. See: Quinn Targeting Term Foe's Plum, by Sally Goldenberg and David Seifman, October 15, 2008. The same story reports that Bloomberg defended her manipulations, saying: “Her job is to corral people and convince them to support legislation, . . .This is an administration-sponsored bill . . . Do you really want us to not go out and promote [it]?”)

Marty Markowitiz’s Not-So-Real Charities

How many steps removed from Christine Quinn’s fake charities are Marty Markowitiz’s “charities,” which are politically motivated and politically funded? The charities can be used as pseudo-campaign funds, but whereas there are limits to what companies can donate to politicians’ campaigns, there are no limits to what companies can donate to pet political charities used as pseudo-campaign funds. Further, Markowitz uses the charities to supplement the incomes of people working for him in non-charitable capacities. (Is there more we need to know about how and to whom charities are being used to pay salaries?)

Taxpayer Money

Markowitz also put taxpayer money directly into his “charities.” A New York Post editorial (Beeping Marty, October 13, 2008) notes that Markowitz’s directed “no-bid city contracts worth nearly $700,000 to” to one of his “charities,” Best of Brooklyn raised “the same questions as the City Council's nonprofit scandal earlier this year.” They were speaking of the aforementioned scandal involving Speaker Quinn. Even more taxpayer money was funneled in from City Hall by the Bloomberg administration. In a story appearing after the Post’s editorial (Sure Pays for Marty to Be Mike's Buddy, by Rich Calder, October 14, 2008) the Post reported that “Since 2003, the Bloomberg administration has handed out at least $2.7 million in taxpayer cash to three nonprofit groups Markowitz set up to fund "free" concerts and other pet projects, a Post investigation has found.” The Post says the amount the Bloomberg administration has given is between $2.4 million and $4.8 million of taxpayer dough over the last five years, and that Markowitz's groups also got between $544,724 and $834,724 from state agencies.

Money Back From Companies Doing Business With The City

The donations received from companies doing business with the city are difficult to distinguish from outright kickbacks, which is not to say they can or should be. Markowitz is famous for his irrational and unqualified support for Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards megadevelopment. Because of Markowitz’s support, Atlantic Yards stands to get over $2 billion in taxpayer subsidies for the project, plus effect a 22-acre land grab with associated eminent domain abuse and zoning-override windfalls. It has now come to light that since 2003, when Atlantic Yards came into the picture, Markowitz’s “charities” have pulled in between $680,000 and $1,00,075 from various Ratner-affiliated companies and allies.

For the informed, it is pretty obvious that Atlantic Yards stands to have devastating effect on Brooklyn, yet Markowitz supports the megadevelopment unquestioningly. Atlantic Yards Report provided an excellent litany making it clear how indefensibly irrational Markowitz’s support is: Monday, October 13, 2008, Marty "bought and paid for"? Following up on the Post's scoop.

Even if these cannot be legally proven to be kickbacks, the same Post editorial mentioned above states that “the Markowitz-Ratner relationship appears to be evading city campaign-finance regulations.” Similarly, Markowitz saw his nonprofits get at least $170,000 in donations from the cruise ship industry when he helped convince the city to open a cruise ship terminal in Red Hook.

How Real?

Do the Markowitz charities exist other than for the purpose of politically self-serving artifice? Markowitz took office in the beginning of 2002. His principal charity, Best of Brooklyn, received its IRS ruling in 2002. The Brooklyn Paper reports that Markowitz’s Borough Hall spokeswoman said she is uncertain whether Markowitz would be involved with the charities after leaving political office and unclear whether the charities will even continue to exist after Markowitz leaves office. (See: Marty’$ borough haul, by Mike McLaughlin, The Brooklyn Paper, September 18, 2008.)

Markowitz’s three pet charities are: Best of Brooklyn, Inc., the Martin Luther King Concert Series and the Seaside Summer Concert Series.

Round and Round

These charity things keep going around in circles. The respective sponsorship pages for the Seaside Summer Concert Series and the Martin Luther King Concert Series say that they would like to acknowledge the outstanding support of: Mayor Michael Bloomberg (plus two of his deputy mayors) and Christine Quinn, NYC Council Speaker.

From Bloomberg, LP

Perhaps the charities should not just be thanking Bloomberg in his capacity as Mayor. Carolyn Greer, the director of public events in Markowitz’s Borough Hall, is a civil employee who gets salary beyond her civil salary from the Markowitz charities. According to Bloomberg, LP, Ms. Greer is the individual with whom the Mayor’s media company, Bloomberg LP, communicates in connection with its philanthropic donations to the Martin Luther King Concert Series and the Seaside Summer Concert Series. What those donation amounts might be is, as yet, unreported. When called by Noticing New York about how much money “private” Bloomberg, LP donates, Ms. Greer did not return phone calls.

More To Investigate?

This just in: In an editorial in today’s paper, the Post calls for an outside third party to investigate Markowitz’s charities. They suggest Brooklyn District Attorney Joel Hynes. See: Marty Markowitz's Millions.

How Real is Bloomberg’s Charity?

Back again to Speaker Christine Quinn, once upon a time the woman who would be Mayor. It would be ironic if, by virtue of being side-lined in her run for Mayor by a fake charity scandal, her support for Bloomberg’s attempt at another term creates an environment where Bloomberg’s own charities are themselves now perceived as scandalously less real.

Quinn’s path to the office of Mayor was going to be her close alliance with a popular mayor. Quinn’s support of Bloomberg now could be a very bad move that ends her political future. It is not clear that Bloomberg’s popularity would survive a possible third term, or that it will survive what is now coming to light about the motivations and uses associated with what was once considered his largess.

What Marty Markowitz engages in on small scale with his charities you see reflected on a much larger palette in the wealthy Bloomberg’s activities. Among other things, Bloomberg wears more hats.

Waterfalls as a Focus

In our original October 15th story observing how Bloomberg’s control over charitable giving seemed tied in with a general unwillingness to recognize limits, we focused on the many-sided lead Bloomberg took, adopting the New York City Waterfalls as an object of his attention. The less than completely successful New York City Waterfalls were the recipient of various sources of funds Bloomberg was able to direct to it in his multiple capacities. The Waterfalls are a project of the Public Art Fund. Our timing was apt given what happened the next day.

Public Art Fund Testimony: Not a Coincidence

Several hours after we posted our Waterfalls article, we were at the City Council hearing on term limits when Susan Freedman, president of the Public Art Fund, appeared to testify in support of the Bloomberg-proposed exception to term limits. (See: Friday, October 17, 2008, At the term limits hearing, AY opponents and supporters make their mark.) The front page New York Times story mentioned the Public Art Fund’s testimony supporting the Mayor’s cause twice. The first time, they cited the Public Art Fund amongst several other charitable organizations and observed that “None of the officials disclosed their financial ties to the mayor’s charity when they testified.” Then, mentioning Ms. Freedman’s testimony specifically, the Times reported that the Public Art Fund “has received more than $500,000 from Mr. Bloomberg.”

Private $ = Secret $

The “private” charitable giving that is being used to exert pressure is more insidious because it is “secret” and undisclosed. Part of my original story was about the difficulty in obtaining this information and bringing it to light. All of the following refused to inform Noticing New York how much money was donated by Bloomberg, LP to the Waterfalls: The Mayor’s Office, The Parks Department, Bloomberg, LP and the Public Arts Fund. While the New York Times reported that Bloomberg, LP donated a minimum of $500,000 to the Public Art Fund, it is still in question how great the Bloomberg donations actually are. Further, what the Times reported about the amount Michael Bloomberg directed to the Public Art Fund is only a fraction of the story.

Public Art Fund: Beyond $$ the Times Reported

As we noted in our earlier article, apart from what the Times reported, the Public Art Fund received a minimum of $2 million dollars in federal money that was channeled to it by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, half of whose board is appointed by Bloomberg. The LMDC, which manages the World Trade Center site redevelopment, was created after the 9/11 disaster to assist with the lower Manhattan recovery. It receives federal money (such as was passed on to the Waterfalls) intended for the ongoing disaster recovery efforts.

Moreover, while Bloomberg used his media company to be lead sponsor of the Waterfalls, he was doing the same thing with a City Hall-based charity that he controls, the Mayor's Fund to Advance New York City. The Mayor revved up the City Hall charity after coming into office. Both the Bloomberg, LP giving and the City Hall-controlled giving were characterized as “private” money, and both would have been at least in the same minimum amount. That minimum amount would be substantially above what other listed donors gave. Were we to assume that the minium amount for the lead sponsors of the Waterfalls was $500,000 (that could easily be low), it would mean that, by virtue of all of the above, Bloomberg has directed at least $3 million to the Public Art Fund, which would be several multiples of what the Times reported. Then there is the money I described coming from organizations doing business with the city. As noted above with respect to Mr. Markowitz, it is not so easy to distinguish these from kickbacks.

Information Please?

I contacted the City Hall-based Mayor's Fund to Advance New York City to find out how much the fund had donated to the Waterfalls. I was put in touch with Jason Post, the same Mayoral spokesperson who is handling press inquiries on the management of term limits. As of this time I have not been furnished with information about the amount. Meanwhile, I again contacted the Public Art Fund and inquired about the $500,000 figure the Times had obtained. The Public Art Fund refuses to confirm that the information in the Times about how much money the Public Art Fund has received was accurate. It was pointed out to me that the Times was not reporting a figure of how much was received by the PAF in connection with the Waterfalls. That would possibly be a subset of the total amount they might have received.

In addition to the “donated’ amounts described above that Bloomberg sent fairly directly to the Public Art Fund, there are appreciable additional amounts that went to the PAF from entities receiving substantial benefits and subsidies in dealings with the city. My earlier article goes into detail, noting that contributors of this ilk predominated among the “givers.”

Money Back From Companies Doing Business With the City

Bloomberg is in a very similar position to Marty Markowitz when it comes to the large donations that came in from Forest City Ratner. There are those who would say that Bloomberg’s continuing support for Atlantic Yards is no more logical than Markowitz’s, since his administration seems to have clearly acknowledged Atlantic Yards as a mistake. Once again. As with Markowitz, because of Bloomberg’s support Atlantic Yards stands to get over $2 billion in taxpayer subsidies for the project, plus effect a 22-acre land grab with associated eminent domain abuse and zoning-override windfalls.

Charities That Receive: Do They Do The Right Thing?

When donations with strings attached are offered to charities that are created to do good, can those charities be counted upon to the do the right thing? Or do charities that take money from those with a political agenda tend to fall under their sway? The Times article says that it is difficult for charities to do the right thing.

In Saturday’s Times article:

“It’s pretty hard to say no,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of upsetting the mayor. “They can take away a lot of resources.”

In today’s follow-up article:

Many of the organizations contacted by the administration rely on Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire, for tens of thousands of dollars a year in private donations and millions in city contracts, making it difficult to turn down the request, these leaders said.

The Community Suffers

If these charities do the wrong thing, they do so at the expense of the citizenry. If the public has picked a method like referendum to make the decision on term limits and twice used it, public choice and process should not be overridden. Public process should not be infected by people who do not advocate their true and considered beliefs in hopes of collecting additional contributions.

We think that overturning term limits in the special self-serving way proposed by Bloomberg is wrong. Among other things, it is wrong to change the rules in the middle of this 2009 electoral cycle. The timing was last-minute, with the public being the last to know (long after real estate developers). If Bloomberg or the City Council wanted to change term limits, they missed the boat for doing it in this 2009 election cycle: They know the process; if it was ever going to start, it should properly have been started long ago.

Charities doing the wrong thing may pocket money for themselves, but the greater good of the community suffers.

What do charities selling out at the expense of the community look like? The Ratner organization’s donations in connection with both the Markowitz and Bloomberg charities have been cited as objectionable. Let’s stick with Ratner for one more example. Bruce Ratner's Forest City Ratner runs charities and donates money for questionable purposes, questionable because they are self-serving. The end goal of their activities is to make private, personal profit and Rater has a record of doing so at the expense of the public. For instance, the New York Observer reported an apparent result of a reported lobbying meeting that Bruce Ratner had with Mr. Bloomberg and Deputy Mayor Patricia Harris:

In December 2005, right as the debate over the Atlantic Yards complex was heating up and before the city made several crucial decisions about the project, Forest City Ratner gave between $450,000 and $1 million to a nonprofit closely associated with Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Patricia Harris was responsible for coordinating charitable giving matters for Mayor Bloomberg.
(See: Forest City Ratner Gives to Coney Island Carousel, Other Bloombergian Public Projects by Matthew Schuerman, April 1, 2007)

Familiarity of a Quote: Ratner and the Brooklyn Museum

The Philo Judaeus quote at the beginning of this post may strike some as familiar: "Those who give, hoping to be rewarded with honor, are not giving, they are bargaining".

It was one of the quotes we offered at a community demonstration to admonish the Brooklyn Museum for the way it sorely wounded the communities of Brooklyn by inappropriately “honoring” Bruce Ratner in exchange for donations. The timing of the museum’s award was highly inappropriate since Ratner had an overriding goal of pushing through Atlantic Yards at substantial cost to the community and the rest of the public.

What did the Brooklyn Museum get from Ratner for this misadventure? Atlantic Yards Report reported about Ratner donating over $200,000 to the museum. (Thursday, April 03, 2008
How much has FCR given the Brooklyn Museum? At least $200,000, with more coming) There were also various conflicts of interest involving people on the Brooklyn Museum board which may have caused the museum to go off on the wrong track in the decision it made. Joanne Minieri, president of Forest City Ratner, was on the museum's board. (See: Thursday, March 13, 2008, At the Brooklyn Museum gala, honors for (and $ from) Bruce Ratner)

This is where we leave off writing this post, but if you want to read more about how far astray the judgement of nonprofit institutions can go when tempted with “donations,” read the letter of protest sent to the museum in connection with that event.