89 degrees inside 3918

85 in the back yard.

my smoothie shop's renewable power deal

not certain it's legible, but the sign notes that though PG&E delivers the power (they buy offsets), it is not allowed to claim the shop's 2000kw per month as part of their commitment to deliver 20% renewable power.

nice to see a loophole closed for the better.

day one: lunch

the morning benders

tonight at 330 ritch.

my first chess victory against dave...

...still eludes me despite this opening.

city hall is the middling smudge

walking up church to dolores park

by my watch, 8:28pm

Multimedia message

70 Liberty St.

My kitchen faucet also carries water.

Howard St. Hippy Hacker

Matching Vanagon not shown.

hippy hacker

robotech siting

this is not insignifigant.

a band at cafe du nord

price of non-biodiesel outside truckee

crystal ridge, diamond peak, tahoe

sarah is the white-coated snowboarding blur.

walking downtown, san antonio

dooley wedding 5.25 hours and counting.

sarah hanging lights

our nod to the bistro garden aesthetic.

view from front door, saturday afternoon

broken fish on church st.

seen, panting, at the top of the hill above dolores park.

noticed on my ride in this morning

premature, perhaps

san franciscans are so Green we're ready to "get past" Green. i think it's precisely the polar bears we should be worrying about.

waiting for the J Church

We would not be smiling an hour later, after a shudderingly bad dinner at Deep Sushi.

avant apres ski

"feeling a little sluggish this morning"

waiting or the bus to park city mt.

yahtze at the grub, park city

from left: matt, aya, crash

she was saying a nap would be nice

we got to the airport at 4:45 am.

view from office office

a week of sunshine, and counting.

d at OB

leaving for beach

home sick today...

...but this helps. shanghai to anchorage to noe valley in three days.

traffic ta-hoe!

hour three finds us eating blazin' buffalo doritos and listening to this american life. hopeful we'll make it home in time to get d.

not rain

view from home office.

sarah arrives home

camera too slow to capture duncan's wagging greeting.

duncan vigilant

we declared a stalemate in the aarr war.

duncan bored by pitiless unceasing rain

We are of one mind on this.

welcome to LA

first notable sight leaving LAX: pickup with tanning bed.

me and d

Seeing this again, I realize it's more accurately some guy and d; i took the picture.

first trip to la palma

chaotic new year's shopping scramble ensued.

s. on beach

Vote Not-Bloomberg

The Village Voice has a Tom Robbins article on the eviction of wholesale merchants at the Bronx Terminal Market. It has all the signs of potentially positive development warped into a retail megaplex land grab. The development deal is being scrutinized by the City Council; the details here may turn out to provide some insight into what four more years of Bloomberg would be like.

Development in the Bronx is, of course, a very desirable direction to move in. However, the too-close ties between the Mayor's office and the developers ensures that these fast tracked deals become entrenched and "inevitable" before the public really has a chance to scrutinize. Public scrutiny assures that these large deals are structured in a way that integrates the needs of the effected community.

Getting back to the BTM.

The windup:
About 23 merchants there employ several hundred workers, most of them minorities. The exact number is a matter of dispute, as is the amount of business conducted in the market. The merchants' association claims as much as $500 million a year, although city officials question that figure as well. The one thing no one disputes is that the vendors at the market have survived in spite of not because of their old landlord.

The pitch:
Last year Michael Bloomberg announced a solution to what he called a "blight" and an "eyesore." His plan calls for wiping out the produce market and replacing it with 1 million square feet of retail shopping, most likely department stores like Target or Marshalls. The new $300 million mall would create 4,500 jobs, the mayor said. It would be built by the Related Companies, the developer of the new Time Warner Center on Columbus Circle and headed by Stephen Ross, a close friend and former business partner of Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff.

This Bronx Times Reporter article from last April provides equal time on the benefit of this development plan for the BTM:

A spokesperson for the EDC said that a key point to accepting Related's bid for the property is that the company plans to build a waterfront esplanade and park adjacent to the retail complex. A multi-level parking facility will also be a part of the project.

Carrion estimated the new shopping center and park will create 3,700 new jobs, and added that he expects Related Companies to play a major role in redeveloping both the Yankee Stadium and waterfront communities of the Bronx.

A Newsday article from last week shows how this begins to devolve:
Within the $42.5 million sale price for the sprawling site, Related paid $10 million in cash and got a $32.5 million loan from the Bank of America.

The city gave Related $7 million for demolition costs and allowed Related access to a $4.5 million account made up of tenant security deposits.

Those items left Zuckerman questioning whether Related actually put any money down.

Third bid for west side railyard, MTA's head turning rapidly back and forth

A third bid (proposal is the better word here) for the west side railyard cum proposed Jet's stadium was announced Monday by TransGas. Link to the NYTimes; link to Google News {"west side" MTA TransGas}.

From the Times: The bid was submitted yesterday by TransGas, an energy company, which has offered to pay $700 million for the railyard and a platform over the tracks, which is $100 million more than the next highest bid, from Cablevision. But there is a catch: TransGas wants the M.T.A.'s help in getting approval for the company's plans to build an electric power plant on the waterfront in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, along with a contract from the authority to buy power from the company for the next 20 years.

My next question is, of course, what would Marty Markowitz do (WWMMD)? From Marty's site:

MARTY BLASTS WATERFRONT
POWER PLANT PROPOSAL

On September 29 [2004], Marty, under the leadership of State Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, Councilman David Yassky and members of the Greenpoint Waterfront Association for Parks and Planning (GWAPP), joined together on the steps of City Hall to blast the State Task Force’s decision on the power plant proposal along the Williamsburg-Greenpoint waterfront. The New York State Siting Board on Electric Generation Siting and Environment recently voted to give TransGas Energy Systems an additional 60 days to submit more testimony regarding their new scheme to build the power plant "underground" at the North 12th Street site, continuing the procedure indefinitely. “The Williamsburg-Greenpoint community has had enough last minute changes in plans — enough delayed decisions, and enough disrespect for the future of this vibrant neighborhood,” said Marty. “A power plant in the middle of a neighborhood with such potential would derail all of the plans on the table for the future of the waterfront. Our vision for the waterfront is parks and affordable housing – Brooklyn will not stand for anything less. Our borough demands that this charade end - because enough is enough!”

100% of Mayors describe "unveiling" as the most effective means to propose a budget

The Mayor unveiled his FY06 (Jun) budget proposal today. Gifford Miller has not currently released a response, at least through the City Council press section. A pre-emptive rebuttal, his January 11th response to the Mayor's State of the City address.

Edit: The City Council posted its response on Friday here.

An early barometer for the Mayoral race

I'm starting to do my City election cycle reading, and came across these comments appending this entry on Gothamist about Bloomberg. I offer the unedited invective-laced-with-insight as an early indicator of how the Mayor is being scored.

We're approaching nearly four years of Bloomberg complaining about lack of funding from Albany. Yet we're still underfunded.

We're also approaching nearly four years of Bloomberg complaining about the mismanagement of the MTA. So has Bloomberg actually done anything about it?

Those are two big problems that constantly loom over the heads of New Yorkers, and we expect our mayor to fix them. We elected Bloomberg over three years ago to address these and other problems, yet in 2005 we're still on square one.

It seems Bloomberg can talk the tough talk but doesn't follow through. How many more years of this do we need?

Posted by: Blike Moomberg at January 26, 2005 04:33 PM

So would you prefer the Mayor go up to Albany and insult the Governor? How is that going to result in the City getting more money?

Unlike Gif Miller who did just that, not helping any city resident other than himself, Bloomberg bit his tongue and is trying to produce a reasonable outcome with this budget. I actually think his political instincts in this case were pretty good. (or for a much better analysis that I can provide on the fly, consult Henry Stern at NY Civic)

Speaking of political instincts, did anyone else notice when he put out a release congratulating Verizon on keeping their headquarters in lower Manhattan, the two politicians Bloomberg thanked were democrats?

Posted by: dirtgirl at January 26, 2005 04:37 PM

Yes, I'd prefer the mayor to go up to Albany and insult the governor if it actually got results. It's a hell of a lot better than what he's doing now--going up to Albany, turning around, bending over and taking it.

Nearly half of the state's residents live within the five boroughs of NYC. *WE* pay the significant share of the very money the rest of the state fools around with and won't give to us.

Yes, Bloomberg handled the small amount he had to work with. But he should've had more, and that's his fault. The mayor should be more convincing to Albany, whatever it takes. I can't believe Bloomberg hasn't stood up for us more. The fact is that Bloomberg is not convincing enough. We need a new mayor who won't succumb to Albany's might; even at the possible expense of etiquette.

New York is literally starving because of Pataki's tactics, and we need a mayor who WILL stand up to him.

Posted by: Blike Moomberg at January 26, 2005 04:52 PM

Pataki was elected not by NYC but the rest of the state. Why should he help NYC? Bloomberg has no control over MTA. What do you expect him to do? Do you think Miller would be any better? Have you actually bothered to look at the things that Bloomberg has done for the city? I've seen firsthand the difference Bloomberg has made. Here's some food for thought.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/html/promises/promises.html

Posted by: bloomberg fan at January 26, 2005 05:52 PM

Blike, again, the MTA only answers to the state, not the city.

While, I too would like more money spent in this city, particularly on education, I don't know how much Bloomberg can do to get more. I also believe that he has handled our budget shortfalls in a responsible manor.

The people with the real power are us, the voters. When was the last time you called Pataki to complain? Or getting all of your friends to do the same. That will make them listen.

Honestly, do you think a young firebrand like Gifford Miller as mayor will have more clout in Albany than Bloomberg the billionaire?

I am not a fan of Bloomy's smoking laws though.

Posted by: ADHC at January 26, 2005 06:18 PM

I'm a die hard democrat, but I refuse to engage in blaming the mayor (or the city government) for items that they have no actual control over, such as the MTA (which is state run and appointed).

And I agree with dirtgirl - if Bloomberg were to rip into Pataki (as people seem to want him to do) it would simply give Pataki a political cover for shafting the city yet again.

There's a reason that back in the day, Giuliani endorsed the ultra-liberal Cuomo - he knew that Pataki would screw us downstaters every which way he could.

Posted by: sam at January 26, 2005 06:34 PM

Together, we can end unemployment in our lifetimes

Editors note: Do not be alarmed by satire.

Bear with me here: I've solved unemployment. It's just going to take a little explanation. But by the end of this bit, you'll be able to explain to your boss, with a totally straight face, why it's so important for you to work less each day. And I'm going to give you the data to back up this claim and send him/her scampering with uncertain fear in his/her eyes out of your cubicle, never to return.

Productivity is the quantitative measure of the aggregate output of goods and services in an economy in terms of the working hours it took to create those goods and services. If I write more newspaper articles this month versus last month but do it without taking up more time, my productivity has increased. It's an intuitive concept. For the detail hounds: it is, of course, an approximation and is calculated using different data from major industries. The official estimate is released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and comes out on the 7th of the second month of a quarter, and is the number for the prior quarter.

This is a chart of productivity since 1989.


The blue line shows productivity change in terms of the prior quarter: e.g. "up 4%". Notice that during this time frame, productivity has not remained negative, but rather has increased sequentially for 14 years now.

The times of new york duly ran an article Wednesday giving some context to the most recent productivity data. "Productivity Grew at Fastest Rate Since 1983" I link to it here tangentially -- it's interesting to me how such a quality newspaper can wallpaper the front page with coverage of Tyco or Enron, but provide no analysis whatsoever on the fundamental statistics that underpin our economy. But I digress.

What does productivity have to do with unemployment? There's a pretty clear link between the two: if each month I am producing more & doing so in the same amount of time, then I have created a marginal decline in demand for someone else's work. If I'm writing three articles for my newspaper when before I was doing two, the newspaper can do two things: print more stories or cut someone else's hours. If two of us on staff are each writing a third article (and the paper doesn't want to print more articles) then there's a two-article guy sitting around reading blogs whose job is in jeopardy.

So check out unemployment. This is where I'm making a bit of a jump, but it's I think pretty well founded.


Unemployment increased from 4% to over 6% in two years -- there are half again as many people without jobs in just two years. That's a rapid and, as we've seen, incredibly painful increase. 4% is historically quite low; 6%, for that matter, is not too far above the 5.5% ten-year average (which itself would be below the 20 year average, etc).

Now look at productivity since January 2001. It still hops around, but at higher levels than before. In effect, we're all suddenly writing three articles -- even as our collective newspaper looks to save cash by cutting back from 20 to 18 pages a day. The result: the cryptic corporate process whose end is "headcount reduction" or, more insultingly, "rightsizing."

"Is there something I can do?"

Yes. In fact, together we lower and eventually eliminate unemployment altogether. I think the solution is quite simple: each of us must take a solemn oath to increase on the job sloth. Today, reading blogs at work gets you fired -- but there's no little irony that reading blogs could also be your professional salvation. Let's rediscover that pleasantly stress-free two article a day output. Let's get Jimmy his job back. He wrote some pretty good stuff, after all. If we can band together and work less, steadily and forever, we can drop productivity such that every business everywhere needs to find workers to fill all the new jobs our sloth has created.

I believe that we can turn this dream into reality in our lifetimes. And I, for one, am starting today.

One last note. Notice that on both charts there is a measure of income. Notice, too, that each has fallen quite sharply in the past two years. Even as we're working harder, we are being paid less. To some extent, this is familiar supply and demand: if there's 6% of the workforce quite happy to take over your job, your employer isn't really in such a rush to give you that raise you've been suggesting. How do we make sure we always get that raise? Well, we make sure that there's no one waiting in the wings to pounce. How do we make sure no one is available? Work less.

My take on the NYC ballot proposals

I read through the text of the 5 ballot questions, and looked through Gotham Gazette's excellent (though brief) pro/con summary. For what it's worth, I'll be voting 'no' on each proposal. The 3 key ballot questions are:

(1) On ballot as "Exclusion of indebtedness contracted for sewage facilities" -- Extends the right for municipalities to exclude sewage construction cap ex from constitutional budgetary debt limits. This is an accounting gimmick writ large. While supporters argue that rejecting this measure "reduces spending on schools and road", I would counter that it is the responsibility of a government agency to spend only what it has to spend [in a non-emergency situation]. If it does not have the resources, it does not have the resources. Increasing debt load is a short term soltion with very long term repercussions -- debt is never paid off quickly.

(2) On ballot as "Elimination of small city school districts from constitutional debt limitations" -- same as above. I appreciated the point that increasing expenditure on facilities can represent decreasing expenditure on salaries and materials.

(3) On ballot as "A question - city elections" -- the big one. Bloomberg calls it creating nonpartisan elections. Opponents call it eliminating party primaries. Bloomberg says it will increase participation by voters and boost minority candidates (though I haven't heard how he believes this is the case?). Opponents say it's a clever scheme to mask a candidate's party affiliation early in a race and thus boost Republican candidates in our overwhelmingly Democratic city. I seem to recall that our current and former mayors are Republicans, however. They seem to be doing fine.

morning news

a good article from the voice on a former democratic judge running on the working families ticket in reaction to the corrupted judicial-selection process.

minority politicians denounce bloomberg's [bogus] open primary plan. this post article sums it up nicely.

here's the board of elections site with the text of the ballot proposals.