Sunday, October 16, 2011

Bloomberg’s Increasing Annual Wealth: 1996 to 2011

(Above, just one of the many Occupy Wall Street placards addressing the subject of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's wealth.)

With the Occupy Wall Street protesters in Zucotti Park earning the attention of the national and worldwide press it seemed overdue for a Noticing New York update on the history and status of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's accumulation of wealth. Many of the placards on display when you visit the protest are critical of Bloomberg, including the one above that suggests that Bloomberg be spoken to "about the looting." Conversely, Bloomberg is critical about what the protesters have to say.

For a long time and until just recently, Bloomberg was not only the Mayor but also the city's richest individual (now he is only the second richest), his wealth having skyrocketed after he announced his interest in politics. For more about the unprecedented peculiarity of that and Bloomberg's conflicts of interests as Mayor while his wealth accumulated see: Thursday, October 22, 2009, This Is Rich! Looks Like Bloomberg is Making History and Sunday, November 1, 2009 Bloomberg vs. Thomson (54% to 29%?): It’s Not What You Think. (For Instance the “P” is Missing and What Might “P” Stand For?). The image below is from, and explained in, those posts.

The coverage in those posts provides good material for asking Bloomberg questions "about the looting."

Here, as an updated quick reference, are figures on Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s increasing estimated annual net worth consolidated from Forbes for our article The Good News IS the Bad News: Thanks A lot for Mayor Bloomberg’s “Charity” (Monday, February 2, 2009). For more on what those numbers mean in context click to read the article.

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
2009- $16 billion (interim March figure)*
2009- $17.5 billion (A year of $105 million in direct campaign expenditures, plus. .)**
2010- $18.0 billion (Bloomberg surpassed by David H. Koch)***
2011- $19.5 billion
* For more on how Bloomberg's wealth declined (because he didn't see the financial crisis coming?- And how the press missed it) see: Bloomberg Update: Fire and Ice (Sunday, April 12, 2009)

** Respecting this: Direct campaign expenditure were over $105 million. Bloomberg, in his three bids for mayor, easily burned through more than $250 million in direct campaign expenditures. Taking into account funds Bloomberg spent indirectly for political purposes you get into billion dollar figures.

*** Bloomberg was still reported to be New York City's richest New Yorker in March of 2010 but in September 2010 was surpassed by David H. Koch, one of the two equally wealthy brothers providing substantial funding to the Tea Party. It is to be observed with some interest that Bloomberg's accretion of wealth substantially accelerated when Bloomberg got involved in politics. In August of 2010 people began writing about how David Koch and his brother Charles were funding the Tea Party which emerged starting in the beginning of 2009 (i.e. just weeks after Obama’s January 2009 inauguration.) Looks like it can be very good for one’s financial status to get involved in politics! (Though to be fair the Kochs were involved in politics before the advent of the Tea Party.) The brothers' privately-owned Koch Industries is a diversified conglomerate that had its origins in crude oil refining and still has substantial investment in pipelines and refineries. Consequently, Koch Industries has a history of accidents, spills and pollution of the environment.

For an older story about how the media is not keeping up with the story of Bloomberg's wealth, the conflicts of interests involved in where it comes from and his so-called "charitable" giving see: No Real Debate About It: Press Remains Way Off Track in Presupposing Bloomberg’s “Charity” (Friday, October 2, 2009)

For Noticing New York's remarks on Bloomberg's term limits extension see: Challenging Bloomberg Unlimited (Sunday, October 18, 2009)

(Mayor Bloomberg above listening to public testimony about the term limits extension bill he signed immediately afterward.)

Does making so much money make Bloomberg a good mayor? See: Monday, March 28, 2011, Take TWO (AYR’s) On Times Coverage- Revisiting Light Shed by CityTime Outsourcing Scandal When Reexamining Bloomberg Management Myth.

[Note, PS added January 25, 2013- Updating information is available in the post: Friday, January 25, 2013, Bloomberg’s Increasing Annual Wealth: 1996 to 2012 Plus Updates On His Annual “Charitable” Giving]

Friday, October 14, 2011

Nationally Noticing That I’m “Not THAT Michael White”: Visiting Occupy Wall Street and How I Know The Economy Is Bad (For the 99%)

Noticing New York readers will probably want to read another post I’ve written about visiting the Occupy Wall Street protestors in Zucotti Park, but to read this one you need to visit National Notice, Noticing New York’s sister blog that targets its focus on national policy issues: See: Not THAT Michael White: Visiting Occupy Wall Street and How I Know The Economy Is Bad (For the 99%).

The National Notice post explains what I mean when I say “I’m not THAT Michael White” (at least THIS time) and describes the special personal barometer I’m equipped with that lets me know that the economy is bad for the 99%.

If you are wondering, although I zero in on national issues comprehensively in this National Notice post it also addresses issues like Atlantic Yards that are of special concern to Noticing New York readers and New Yorkers while resonating with surprising reliability with numerous national issues. What also makes these issues special for New Yorkers and something to be noticed by Noticing New York is that Wall Street is located here in this city. Does that mean that we New Yorkers should all take cheer because of the benefit we get from rubbing shoulders with the 1%? Read through to the conclusion and you’ll know my thoughts on that subject.
(Above, "I think outside my box" OWS protester.)

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Visiting Occupy Wall Street We Hear “Eliminate the Fed!”: OR Maybe Just Federal Reserve Directors Backing Mega-Monopolies For the Super-Connected?

(Photo above from this link.)

There are provocative ideas circulating among the Occupy Wall Street protestors. Maybe with respect to one idea, a very powerful one, we can take heed, but start small by considering a basic essential: Is the Federal Reserve on the public’s side?

Visiting Occupy Wall Street you will probably see, as I did, the placards calling for elimination of the Fed, (aka the “Federal Reserve” or “Federal Reserve System”). That’s also something that Ron Paul, more frequently thought of as closer to the Tea Party side of things, is calling for. Indeed, hostility toward the Fed is a theme that is also circulating amongst the Tea Party activists and activists invoking the Tea Party label (how does one differentiate and how critical is it to do so?).
See:

From Tea Party Advocates, Anger at the Federal Reserve, by Sewell Chan, October 10, 2010

Tea Party Rallying Cry: Abolish the Federal Reserve! By Liz Peek, The Fiscal Times, November 10, 2010

End the federal reserve - American Tea Party Constitutional Coalition
The Federal Reserve - A Scam!

The Tea Party vs. the Federal Reserve, by Michael Tennant, Wednesday, 13 October 2010

AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE (New Hampshire Tea Party Coalition)
That's not to say that all those out to earn Tea Party credentials and endorsement are opposed to the Fed. Herman Cain was chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank in the mid-1990s. (See: Herman Cain: Federal Reserve Chairman, Tea Party Champion, by Joshua Green, May 27 2011.)

Eliminate the Fed? GULP! That would be a big step. It’s really hard to get one’s mind around what it would mean in terms of the economy. And the belief of some that eliminating the Fed would be good because it would be better to regulate the money supply by a return to the gold standard is scary: How much gold you have isn’t a measure of true societal wealth. Among other things you can’t eat it.

(Below an interfaith protest arrives Sunday with their version of Wall Street's "bull" being the bible's Golden Calf idol.)

We understand concerns that the Fed has a lot of power, that while it functions as if it is one of the most powerful organs of government it is not readily accountable as other branches of government are supposed to be, that it is in technical terms essentially a private entity.

Although it is embedded in the nation’s political history the Fed is a entire branch of government you can’t find in the Constitution.

The origin’s of the Fed go back to the creation of federal central banking via the famous Hamilton, Jefferson Dinner Table Bargain of June 1790 whereby the other side of the agreement was to locate the U.S. Capitol in Washington D.C. (The Constitution also doesn’t say where the capitol of the U.S. should be. Before D.C. it was located in Philadelphia and New York City.) Though the compromise may have traded away New York City’s then status as the official political capital of the U.S. via the compromise, Hamilton, then the Treasury Secretary (Jefferson was Secretary of State) secured for New York the de facto status as the nation’s financial capitol from then on.

Take the big step of eliminating the Fed? Maybe we could start with the smaller step of looking at who are the Federal Reserve Directors and whether they can be counted upon to serve the public interest. As mentioned above: Herman Cain?

(Above Federal Reserve Directors Kathy Wylde and Lee Bollinger both of whom are key backers of neighborhood-seizing eminent domain abuse to benefit government assisted monopolies.)

More important, I have previously pointed out with some anguish that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has on its board two directors, Kathy Wylde and Lee Bollinger, both with one thing conspicuously in common: They have both been key in backing the neighborhood-destroying seizure of land through eminent domain abuse. At the expense of community interests they have endorsed those seizures for the sake of governmentally assisting politically-connected private mega-monopolies. This is some of what I previously wrote:
Regarding Director Wylde:
Kathy Wylde, whose most high-profile recent actions have been to go out of her way to promote Atlantic Yards, the megadevelopment on track to be one of New York’s most conspicuous money-losing failures. (See the July 27, 2009 story in Crain’s.)

* * * *

Ms. Wilde has been president and chief executive of the Partnership for New York City for some time and was prominently in the news in the (pre-fiscal crisis) summer of 2008 as a supporter amongst the inner business circle strategizing for Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s overturn of term limits to get a surprise third term. Wylde effused that the business world was “primed” to help him. (See: Bigs Back Law Change to Keep Mike, By Angela Montefinise, July 27, 2008.) . . .

Wylde Support of Economic Mega-Losses for NYC

A spectacularly flawed project in almost all respects, New York City’s Independent Budget Office has concluded that the Atlantic Yards arena, the only part of the Atlantic Yards project currently designed or for which any kind of enforceable, documented deal exists will be a net money loser for the city to the tune of $220 million($39.5 million in direct losses and $180.5 million in opportunity losses). The megadevelopment’s guaranteed inadequacies flow principally from the fact that it was set up and concocted by the developer, Forest City Ratner, as a subsidy-infusion system intended to deliver maximum benefit to the developer at the expense of the public. The IBO has conservatively calculated that on the arena alone the city will be giving the developer$726 million in no-bid giveaways.
Regarding Director Bollinger:
Lee C. Bollinger, President of Columbia University. One of the three highest paid presidents at a private university ($1.4 million annual compensation package), Mr. Bollinger has spearheaded Columbia’s usurpation of West Harlem using eminent domain to gain a multi-decade monopoly shut-out on the real estate there, very much like Atlantic Yards.
(For more of what I said then- and I had a lot of points to make- See: Saturday, September 19, 2009, Really Wylde? New NY Federal Reserve Bank Director Supported Major NYC Net Loss ($220 Million) Megadevelopment.)

The Tea Party tends to focus its anger at government. Occupy Wall Street is focusing anger more directly at Wall Street. Both groups ought to be properly directing their anger at the double-whammy you get whenever government steps in to support Wall Street and/or to specially benefit politically connected monopolies and elites. We see it far too often. Indeed, the shared objections to the Fed is that it is a private entity usurping government prerogatives and functions to favor private interest over public interests.

So, if the Fed is going to be kept around do we want it to have directors like Wylde and Bollinger who readily endorse the kind of abuse favoring the 1% over the 99%?

Monday, October 10, 2011

Putting the Nyet in the New Jersey Nets! Deron Williams . . . Turkey?

I never thought NPR was a good venue for the sports stories that almost inevitably provoke my snooze reflex, but . . . . .

On Friday National Public Radio’s “All Thing Considered” played a story about the prospect that the NBA basketbal season might be cancelled because of a labor dispute. Sportswriter Stefan Fatsis told his interviewer, NPR’s Guy Raz:
The latest news is not good, Guy. The league already has postponed the start of training camps, cancelled its preseason. Now it says it's going to cancel the first two weeks of the regular season, which was supposed to start November 1st if no deal is reached by Monday.
And then he got into an example using New Jersey Nets player Deron Williams about how players are going to be drifting off to other locales to make money:
If the regular season games are cancelled, it's going to be the first work stoppage in the NBA since 1998 and I think then you're going to start to see players get on planes and go to Europe so that they can play some basketball and make some money.

One NBA star already got to work there this week, Deron Williams of the New Jersey Nets. He made his debut from Besiktas Milangaz of Turkey. He scored just seven points. He was fouled hard. He was booed mercilessly in a road loss to a Belgian team in a tiny and hostile arena.

The NBA guys are going to find that it's not quite as welcoming in Europe as it might be on their home courts.
(See: With NBA Season In Jeopardy, WNBA Plays On, October 7, 2011.)

I guess I can feel for some poor lonely bloke getting “booed mercilessly” when he is away on foreign soil. Nevertheless, I am not a fan of professional sports in general* and am myself booing mercilessly the construction for the Nets of the Ratner/Prokhorov (“Barclays”) arena, all the wretched connivances behind it and all the public detriment it will bring. If an NBA player’s strike lasts long enough or can otherwise effect a toppling of Messrs. Ratner and Prokhorov’s publicly financed arena bonds I'll be thrilled. When it comes to booing or cheering locales, brownstone Brooklyn is where I don't want to see the Net's players deployed.

(* See: Friday, September 24, 2010, Sports Culture Capper: Yankees, Professional Sports and Criminals Wearing Yankee Hats.)

Sunday, October 9, 2011

More Parallels: Atlantic Yards and the Way the Fossil Fuel Industry Is Setting Up An Approval For the Keystone XL Tar Sands High Pressure Oil Pipeline


Noticing New York made a comparison between Atlantic Yards and the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline in testimony the other day. One of our readers directing us to an article about the pipeline pointed out that there are additional comparisons to be made.

This recent testimony at the New York City Department of Transportation concerned how the Ratner/Prokhorov (“Barclays”) Atlantic Yards basketball arena being built for the New Jersey Nets and installation of related security bollards is resulting in the public’s being forced to surrender its expectation of adequate neighborhood sidewalk space where the brownstone neighborhoods of Park Slope, Prospect Heights and Fort Greene meet. (See: Wednesday, October 5, 2011, Mayor Michael Bloomberg In the Regalia of Queen Elizabeth I? Noticing New York’s Testimony at the DOT Hearing on Atlantic Yards Bollard Plan.)

Part of the testimony compared the Atlantic Yards megadevelopment with the Keystone XL oil pipeline proposed to carry the high pressure pumping of Canadian tar sands oil for shipping out of the Gulf of Mexico; both have involved collusion by developers with government officials to obtain public approvals incrementally so that complete disclosure of the true nature of the project and the full measure of the public’s sacrifice could be side-stepped as initial approvals were locked in.

For instance, the Atlantic Yards Forest City Ratner government-assisted mega-monopoly is consistently misrepresented as being just 22-acres. In truth those 22-acres are being added to additional government-assisted acres already owned by Ratner for a total of 30 contiguous Ratner-owned government assisted acres so that in the vicinity Ratner will control, in total 50+ acres of dense government assisted acres astride the subway lines. Now the public is being told it has to relinquish additional sidewalk to the monopoly after already having given up streets, avenues and sidewalk that should have inalienably belonged to the public. Now the public is being told that through variances and special permissions Ratner gets to jackhammer away throughout the night (and on weekends) at incredible hearing-destroying decibels for months when, in theory, his arena is on schedule and there is no need to rush its building with extraordinary measures. Now the public is being told that ongoing construction to complete the mega-project will need to be endured for decades (like the 40+ and counting year Roosevelt Island) when, and for purposes of public hearings, newspaper press release consumption and the Environmental Impact Statement the public was initially told construction would be a (comparatively) lickety-split 10 years.

In the case of the environmentally unsound Keystone XL oil pipeline, U.S. State Department e-mails show collusion by government officials and the proposed builder to win political support for the pipeline by applying to build it at low pressure but then apply afterwards for an exception to build it at high pressure once the project had cleared approvals.

The article to which our reader directed our attention was: Rigging the Keystone XL Pipeline-
How to Grease a Pipeline
. The article, appeared in the political newsletter Counterpunch with the byline of an activist best known for her intrepid reporter role reporting for the Daily Planet with the byline Lois Lane: Margot Kidder.

Here are the some of the main points in Ms. Kidder’s article and how they match up against Atlantic Yards:
• The State Department’s public review and consideration of the pipeline via hearings has “rigged from the get go.” Check: That's what we also pointed out about Atlantic Yards- See: Monday, June 22, 2009, Plus Ça Change, (The More Things Change,) Plus Une Chose En Particulier Ne Change Pas: La Transaction Fixée (The Wired Deal)!

• Money (and the hiring of flunkies) was flung around to ensure that the AstroTurf of bussed-in “orange t-shirted, pro-pipeline union workers” were in the spotlight to testify at the hearings. Sounds like Atlantic Yards: Friday, May 29, 2009, Today’s State Senate Hearings on Atlantic Yards and Noticing New York Testimony.

• The developer launched an expensive media campaign promulgating fictional job-creation figures (a promoted myth of 13,000 to 20,000 jobs versus only 3,500 to 4,200 indicated by filed documents). Same with Atlantic Yards: Saturday, March 26, 2011, The American Jobs Creation Act, Job Creation That Wasn’t: What Happens When Government Doesn’t Manage Its Programs.

“In a shocking conflict of interest, Cardno Entrix was also hired by the State Department to help conduct its cursory `environmental review’ of the pipeline.” That’s just what happened with Atlantic Yards and the AKRF Environmental Impact Study and the study whereby it was commissioned to find “blight.”

• A revolving door between industry and staff working for public officials where you find that “Cardno Entrix’s chief lobbyist on behalf of the pipeline is Paul Elliott, who served as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s national deputy campaign manager in 2008.” Through all its initial phases the executive in charge of Atlantic Yards for Forest City Ratner was Jim Stuckey. Stuckey’s qualifications were that he was formerly a city official responsible for city urban renewal projects including the “ATURA” (“Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area”) that intertwined with Ratner’s manipulations to seize land from neighboring private owners through the abuse of eminent domain.

• Mindlessly “cloned messages” scripted by the developer from those signed on to support the development, including politicians at high levels such as U.S. Senators.

• Deprecation of alternatives and phony ad hominem attacks on those speaking against the development.

• Facing what looks like a `done deal’ where the political representatives supposed to be making impartial decisions on the public’s behalf are taking a lot of money from the developer:
Hillary Clinton stated months ago that she is inclined to urge Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Over the years she and Bill have been the grateful recipients of a great deal of largesse from Big Oil.
(See the subheading of “Campaign finance, State Ethics and Lobbying Reform?”)
Read Ms. Kidder’s article and, kidding aside, you may be able to spot more parallels. Thank you to our reader for directing our attention to these. And it may please our reader to know that, tough to keep ahead of, Atlantic Yards Report’s Norman Oder, as of yesterday, also mentioned the eerie parallels in Ms. Kidder’s account.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Brooklyn Paper Blocks Links Re City Rules NOT Requiring That Hi-Decibel Late Night Construction On The Ratner/Prokhorov Arena Be Done At Night

In an Atlantic Yards Report story we read that the Brooklyn Paper today published an article headlined "Noises on! Barclays Center construction now 24-7-365" that contains the following language, “City rules require that the work be done at night, when traffic is lightest,” leading the reader to infer that city rules are requiring that ALL of the work now being done at night during the now 24/7 schedule must be done at night. That’s not so.

What was more startling however, was reading in the Atlantic Yards Report story that when Atlantic Yards Report’s Norman Oder twice tried to provide corrective comments to the article via the Brooklyn Paper’s “Reader Feedback” feature, his corrections were blocked. (See: Thursday, October 06, 2011, Brooklyn Paper covers after-hours construction but suggests that all of it is required to be done at night. Not so.)

Into the breach we went with a Noticing New York test of the Brooklyn Paper’s correction- censoring block. Here is our comment and our diagnostic of the situation.

The Noticing New York comment first attempt was blocked. See the text of that comment, followed by the screen shot below:
Forest City Ratner has indeed asserted that city rules require that SOME of the high-decibel work being done at night has to be done at night. Is that actually true? Forest City Ratner is an untrustworthy source of information. No matter, it is absolutely clear that NOT ALL of the ear-splitting work going on 24/7 is required by city rules to be done at night.

Why this work is going on 24/7 needs to be questioned. Why does Ratner get to jackhammer away throughout the night (and on weekends) at incredible hearing-destroying decibels for months when, in theory, his arena is “on schedule” and there is no need to rush its building with extraordinary measures?

See the following for details and more links respecting the above:

http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2011/10/brooklyn-paper-covers-after-hours.html

http://noticingnewyork.blogspot.com/2011/09/construction-of-ratnerprokhorov.html
I noticed that someone posting a comment as “Prospect Heights Resident from Prospect Heights” had posted a comment “via AYR & NLG” that was essentially Mr. Oder’s attempted correction except that it did not include effective links back to information in Atlantic Yards Report about the actual correct facts of the situation.

Considering the possibility that the inclusion of the links had resulted in the blocks, I substituted the following for my own attempted inclusion of links:
Google the following headlines (suggest you use quotes) for details and more links respecting the above:

“Brooklyn Paper covers after-hours construction but suggests that all of it is required to be done at night. Not so.”

“Construction of the Ratner/Prokhorov (“Barclays”) Arena Is Behind Schedule. Either That, OR a 24/7 Construction Schedule Was ALWAYS Intended”
It worked. So the effective http-style links back to Mr. Oder’s Atlantic Yards Report content were probably the problem. It’s unfortunate, especially in view of the need for the necessary corrections and the amplification of facts available from Mr. Oder, that links could not be included to help Brooklyn Paper readers get correct information.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Mayor Michael Bloomberg In the Regalia of Queen Elizabeth I? Noticing New York’s Testimony at the DOT Hearing on Atlantic Yards Bollard Plan

Why is the face of Mayor Michael Bloomberg superimposed (above) on the body of Queen Elizabeth I, who reigned as Monarch of England from November 17, 1558 to March 24, 1603?

It is perhaps a trifle reminiscent of the famous portrait (below- from Wikipedia, te New York Historical Society portrait) of an earlier local government official, Edward Hyde, 3rd Earl of Clarendon, Governor of New York and New Jersey between 1701 and 1708, who was renowned for cross-dressing while in office (before Giuliani). The explanation for the above image of Bloomberg is embedded in the Noticing New York testimony today provided to the New York City Department of Transportation at its hearing today about the plans for bollards around the Ratner/Prokhorov (“Barclays”) basketball arena being built for the New Jersey Nets where the brownstone neighborhoods of Park Slope, Prospect Heights and Fort Greene meet.
You can read up on all the details of it if you want in Atlantic Yards Report but the gist of the matter is that the Ratner/Prokhorov arena, even in its diminished non-hockey-accommodating size, is not fitting very comfortably into the neighborhood space that’s already been seized for it. Among other things, security is an issue since these days arenas have to be presumed to be attractive targets for terrorists (even if they hide out in or take brownstone neighborhoods hostage as human shields). That means that bollards are necessary.

Bottom line, because of the poor fit that has been managed the public, as a solution, is expected to surrender its expectation of adequate sidewalk space. The arena doesn’t have the dainty Cinderella glass-slipper-scale footprint that was once promised to slide easily into the neighborhood and instead its extra step-sisterish size mass is being squeezed and forced in. The original Cinderella folk tale involved the ugly step-sisters hacking off their toes as they pretended they could fit into the glass slipper. That’s what we’ve got going on here, some hacking off of toes- The public is losing its sidewalk.

Noticing New York’s Testimony

Here is Noticing New York’s testimony form this afternoon:
• The bollard plan for Atlantic Yards results in sidewalk bordering Ratner/Prokhorov arena with an effective width of 5.2 feet. 5.2 feet is less than my height. Add a whole foot to that planned width and the width would be only a scant couple of inches over my height. If I spread my arms their span covers more than half the 5.2 feet width we are talking about.

• It is clear that we are debating, and any excitement can only be about slivers of inches, how many additional slivers of inches are to be added to Forest City Ratner’s 50+ acre government assisted mega-monopoly.

• After all that has already been taken from the public by government for Forest City Ratner, do these additional slivers matter? They do if we recognize that we are in that straw-that-breaks-the-camel’s-back territory and that each additional sliver for Ratner must be considered insult added to previous significant injuries.

• Here is a picture: It is Mayor Bloomberg’s face superimposed on the body of Queen Elizabeth I of England. What does that represent? Queen Elizabeth angered the populace of the England over which she reigned when she abused her monarchical prerogatives to hand out lucrative monopolies to those in her political favor. Bloomberg and Cuomo’s ESDC have done the same thing, abusing eminent domain to hand out an enormous and dense monopoly over central subway Brooklyn to the Ratner organization.

• The question is where and when it stops. Does Ratner now get to crush Brooklyn’s pedestrians’ by scalpeling from them yet more slivers of what remains for them to add to his empire? In much the same way we are asking why Ratner gets to jackhammer away throughout the night (and on weekends) at incredible hearing-destroying decibels for months when, in theory, his arena is on schedule and there is no need to rush its building with extraordinary measures.

• What is being left to the public? Remember that the vast Ratner monopoly has already been engorged by the Bloomberg contribution of the public streets, avenues and sidewalks that should have inalienably belonged forever to the public.

• The insult of seizure by successive slivers can be a practiced subterfuge. Yesterday the New York Times carried a story about U.S. State Department e-mails showing collusion by government officials and the proposed builder of an oil pipeline from Canada to Mexico to win political support for the pipeline by applying to build it at low pressure but then apply afterwards for an exception to build it at high pressure once the project had cleared approvals. Isn’t this after-the-fact (and after-approval) pressured cramming of the arena into this neighborhood much the same thing?
City Receptivity to the Testimony?

Just as I got to the last paragraph of my testimony I was told flatly that my three minutes were up and that I had to stop. I didn’t get the impression the woman directing me to stop had enjoyed my comments. Often at hearings you are asked to conclude when you are informed that you have reached end of your allotted time. I didn’t want this additional nip-and-tuck cut on behalf of Ratner so I said I would continue and did. I did not time the statement of the Ratner spokesperson (who, by virtue of the way they were proceeding preceded me because she was speaking in favor of the project) so I don’t know if she ran over her allotted time.

The New York Times story with which I concluded my testimony involves the building of a “1,700-mile pipeline, which could carry 700,000 barrels a day from Alberta to the Gulf Coast of Texas” where it could then be easily shipped out of the country. (See: TransCanada Pipeline Foes See U.S. Bias in E-Mails, by Elisabeth Rosenthal, October 3, 2011.) The extraction of the oil proposed to be piped involves the massive excavation of tar sands in Canada, digging up and removing forest in an area of Canada the size of Rhode Island, which takes an immense amount of energy to extract and refine.

The environmental prices to be paid for this low grade resource raises issues very similar to the brand new (2007) technology of hydrofacking now being proposed for the State of New York. That is one reason Josh Fox, responsible for the documentary about hydrofacking “Gasland” with the famous flaming kitchen faucets, is also opposing the proposed “development” of the tar sands. Climatologist James Hansen has said that if the tar sands mining is allowed to proceed it will be essentially “game over” for efforts to slow climate change. For more on this you may want to listen to this Leonard Lopate program discussion: Backstory: Canadian Tar Sands & the Keystone XL Pipeline, Thursday, September 15, 2011.

The pipeline would also go through and endanger the huge Ogallala Aquifer, which is still heavily relied upon even if it is being dangerously depleted.

Noticing New York has raised the issue of regulatory capture in separate stories about Atlantic Yards and about hydrofacking. Here is what the Time story has to say about this in terms of the oil pipeline e-mails:
“You see officials who see it as their business not to be an oversight agency but as a facilitator of TransCanada’s plans,” said Damon Moglen, the director of the climate and energy project for Friends of the Earth. While the e-mails refer to multiple meetings between TransCanada officials and assistant secretaries of state, he said, such access was denied to environmentalists seeking input, who had only one group meeting at that level.
Upon completion of the testimony it was suggested that I hand in a written statement. (I had clearly been reading my testimony.) I demurred handing anything in except for my picture of Mr. Bloomberg in Queen Elizabeth’s regalia, explaining that my written statement would be the same as the hearing's transcription of my oral statement. It was then I was told that there would be no transcription of my testimony.

I asked how anyone would know what my testimony was if it wasn’t transcribed and how it could then be part of the record. I was told that the people in the room had heard it and that if anyone wanted to hear it they could ask for the recording.

This was confusing to me. I asked who the decision makers were and how they would receive the input of my testimony. I don’t believe I got a satisfactory answer or any answer at all.

When I used to personally conduct public hearings or supervise them when I worked at the state finance authorities those testifying were told what would be done with their testimony and how it would be used. I am not saying that it is necessary to provide this information at a public hearing but I think it should be provided if it is asked for. Perhaps no one there knew the answer to my questions. No one had testified with respect to the three prior agenda items that had come before Atlantic Yards so testimony may be unusual. But the refusal or inability to answer these queries should raise questions about the legal sufficiency of the process and it certainly says something about whether the process is regarded as being a meaningful process of actually listening to those providing testimony.

Mayor in Inappropriate Garb?

As you will now understand, it was not meant to be implied that Mayor Bloomberg cross-dresses like Governor Hyde. But the mayor is a cross-dresser in another respect. He presents himself as a symbol of capitalism, presumably the kind of virtuously productive capitalism that Adam Smith touted. But as the recent recent NNY story about the government-assisted Forest City Ratner mega-monopoly made clear, Adam Smith strenuously objected to and did not espouse monopoly as one of the parts of capitalism that works. Atlantic Yards is closer to . . .

Feudal Ownership of Land

In law school you learn that in England and America the legal history of land ownership goes back to William the Conqueror, who invaded England in 1066. To the victors go the spoils and so William handed out the conquered lands to those who fought with him. In other words you owned what you owned by the gift and grace of, and because you were allied with, those who victoriously took power.

William created a feudal state based on allegiances to those in power. Eventually with successive generations ownership of land became something more formal that included a recognition of the ability to pass land along to one’s heirs. This is oversimplifying law school lectures that were themselves somewhat simplistic about history, but by the time that the United State was formed the Bill of Right recognized that the early feudalistic practice of ownership of large tracts of lands based on political allegiance was long since past and that there should be protection against seizures of land by eminent domain.

Bloomberg with his award of a mega-monopoly of land to Forest City Ratner via the abuse of eminent domain rewinds the clock back many eras to an earlier millennium when you came into ownership of land by allying yourself with the victors who became head of state.

The image presented at the hearing was that of Bloomberg as Queen Elizabeth because the hearing was before the New York City Department of Transportation that Bloomberg oversees.

Governor Cuomo’s Empire State Development (recently “Corp.”) agency is also responsible for this new retro-feudalism but this hearing was not before that agency. Had it been, we probably should have produced the image below.
PS: (added October 9, 2011) Here is video of the above testimony courtesy of Atlantic Yards Report and is full report of the hearing (See: Thursday, October 06, 2011, At DOT hearing on bollard plan, a challenge to claim that an effective width of 5'2" would not create sidewalk bottleneck outside arena.)



The Atlantic Yards Report post reports on and contains video of additional community testimony that, unfortunately, i was unable to stay for.