Creating Good Jobs By Investing In Our Workforce And Leveraging City Economic Development Assistance To The Creation Of Quality Jobs

Questions . . . 1) What is the Mayor’s Fund to Advance New York City if not a slush fund for city employees to work on city officials’ under-the-radar pet projects? 1a) Followup: Why is this somehow OK? 1b) Followup: How many of these initiatives would be mistaken by the average person, applying contemporary community standards, as a stealth form of campaigning? 2) Why does New York City need another tour company operator? 2a) Followup: And why is this entity undercutting the private sector by using its massive organization and brand to edge out its competition? 3) Do we really need the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting making podcasts? 3a) Followup: Don’t they have enough to do by issuing all those permits? 4) Is New York City in danger of losing its tourism or something? 4a) Followup: Why is the City so desperate to promote itself like it’s some dusty Route 66 relic between Albuquerque and Vegas? I don’t know that there are answers to all these questions, but here’s a place to start:

If Cathy Epstein had been drinking a beverage when she saw a report about City Hall’s latest tourism promotion, the double-take she did probably would have been a spit-take.

Ms. Epstein is the director of marketing for On Location Tours, a company that has been selling tours of movie and television show locations in and around New York City for 10 years. On Monday, the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting started giving away audio tours of some of the same locations on its Web site.

The agency’s initiative upset some tour operators, who complained that it could cut into their already shrinking business. Rather than offer an alternative to their services, they said, city officials should be supporting them, especially during a severe recession.

. . .

She said nobody from the city government had contacted her company, which is a dues-paying member of the city’s tourism marketing agency, NYC & Company, about the podcasts. She said she and her colleagues wondered how much farther the film office planned to go with the audio tours, especially because On Location offers a walking tour of locations in Central Park.

Katherine Oliver, the commissioner of the film office, which helps arrange filming at city locations, declined to be interviewed about the podcasts. A spokeswoman said the office spent $23,000 on the podcasts, all of which came through private donations to the Mayor’s Fund to Advance New York City.

Another Day, Another Violent-Sounding Willets Point Pronouncement

The other day it was “a battle”. Today, it’s “mopping up”:

Bloomberg noted that planning for redeveloping Willets Point had begun with the advent of the 1964 World’s Fair and is now becoming reality some 45 years later. With more than 65 percent of the land area now owned by the city, “Willets Point is a mopping up operation that’s up to the private sector now,” Bloomberg added.

Interesting metaphor. More mopping:

The city will formally kick off plans to seize control of the remaining privately owned land at Willets Point this month, an announcement that left shocked property owners scrambling for legal help and prompted questions as well as criticism from borough elected officials.

The city Economic Development Corp. said a public hearing on eminent domain would be held at Flushing Town Hall June 22, a procedural first step in the legal process through which the city plans to take the remaining 22 acres of land at Willets Point.

Property owners at Willets Point said representatives from Cornerstone Realty Group, a firm hired by the city to assist in business relocation in the area, canvassed the Iron Triangle last week informing people that the city intended to begin eminent domain proceedings and a letter would arrive Thursday detailing the process.

Jerry Antonacci, co-owner of Crown Container Co. and president of Willets Point United Against Eminent Domain, said he was miffed that city officials did not show up to tell property owners themselves.

“I said to the guy, ‘Why are you here? Why are you telling me this? The city should be the ones telling me this,'” he said. “They’re pretty quick to pull the trigger on eminent domain. But I guess they’re gonna do what they’re gonna do and we’re gonna do what we have to do to stop them.”

He said the property owners group expects to hire a legal firm to fight the city plan within the next week. Private property owners will have 90 days to file a lawsuit after the city files a formal report on its plans, which the EDC expects to occur by early next year.

Location Scout: Iron Triangle.

Who’s Beyond What?

Disgraceful reporter Azi Paybarah breaks the fourth wall to ask where the mayor’s message has gone and explains how Mayor Iceberg apologizes:

Toward the end of the day, a Bloomberg spokesman called to inform me that I had been apologized to, then called and emailed other political reporters to notify them that the apology had been conveyed.

And Bloomberg, old media pro, seems to have developed a neat new way of answering critical concerns — say something is over, even if the other party doesn’t necessarily think so (maybe you’ve tried this on your spouse or loved one, e.g., “this conversation is over!” . . . perhaps with varying results):

The first press conference Mr. Bloomberg held after “disgrace” was on June 1, in his midtown campaign office. He was there to announce the Ackerman endorsement, but he also used the occasion to unveil an unusual new questions policy: He would “generally” take questions he thinks are related to his campaign at officially sanctioned campaign events, but at events at which he’s acting in his official capacity as mayor, he would not.

A reporter asked the mayor if he regretted “disgrace.”

“We’re beyond that,” the mayor replied.

But apparently, he still wasn’t.

The next day, at a press conference in Lower Manhattan on June 2 about cutting health care benefits to stave off layoffs for at least 90 days, Mr. Bloomberg asked if there were any off-topic questions.

A correspondent for Thomson Reuters promptly asked the following one: “Do you think it’s disgraceful for reporters in an open society to ask questions of people in power about their actions and motives?”

“I think we’re beyond that,” Mr. Bloomberg said again, this time with less conviction. “Let’s get on to the next thing.”

Compare “we’re beyond that” to the way he now seems to be explaining the status of the Willets Point/Iron Triangle redevelopment in Queens:

In terms of economic development projects, Bloomberg said that he wasn’t sure how quickly people were going to rush in and build at Willets Point, but he was confident about the project’s future.

“Willets Point — the battle is over; nobody’s going to stop that,” Bloomberg said.

You know who else was fond of shutting down dissent before something was a done deal? Or plowing forward with a plan before everyone was on board only to say that it was too late to stop? Robert Moses, who may have more in common with Bloomberg than once thought.

Bloomberg The Media Pro On How To Turn A Non-Story Into Something Actually Kind Of Disturbing

As promised, the end of term limits has brought more choices, more debate and definitely more democracy:

“He was coming to protest and disrupt the event,” said Marc La Vorgna, a spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg. “Anytime there is intelligence that an individual wants to disrupt an event, that information is circulated and appropriate measures are taken.”

What was this intelligence?

Several days earlier, Mr. Esposito had sent an e-mail message to the other 58 community board managers in the city, the last bastion of local government. The boards have yearly budgets of $189,000 each, but they face the same cuts of 5 percent as most city agencies.

All community board managers had been invited to the mayor’s presentation in the Fort Washington Armory, but Mr. Esposito said he suspected that more than a few would skip making the trip to Upper Manhattan.

“Perhaps we should attend to let our voices be heard about the cuts!” he wrote in his e-mail message. “What do people think?”

That is the entire text of the message that the mayor’s office took to be a signal of his plans to disrupt the event.

The Million Tree Mafia Always Gets Its Way

And there’s nothing you can do to stop them:

“Don’t worry, they won’t put another tree there,” a very nice city official assured her.

With that pledge, Smith had the pit paved over at her own expense. She was understandably surprised to see a small bulldozer with a pavement-busting attachment take up position there Friday morning.

“What are you doing?” Smith inquired from her front door.

“We’re putting in a tree,” the man in charge said.

“I didn’t ask for a tree,” Smith said. “I told them I didn’t want a tree there. Put it somewhere else.”

“This is going here,” the man said.

“I don’t want a tree there!” Smith exclaimed. “Who’s going to rake the leaves?”

A particularly good-hearted neighbor, Nancy Cardozo, approached and attempted to intervene.

“She doesn’t want a tree,” Cardozo noted.

“Sorry, I have the contract and I have a big payroll,” the man replied. “I have to put the tree there.”

The man’s tone remained remarkably amiable, even though Cardozo positioned herself in a way that might impede the work.

“You can have the tree moved later,” he offered.

“Wouldn’t it make more sense just to put it where we want it?” Cardozo inquired.

“No, this is what I have to do,” he said.

Cardozo dialed 311 from her cell phone. An operator informed her the city owns the sidewalk and has the right to put a tree there.

“Who’s responsible if somebody slips on the leaves?” Cardozo inquired.

“The homeowner,” the operator replied.

The operator then connected Cardozo to somebody in the Parks Department who did not answer. Cardozo left a message that would not get a reply.

Meanwhile, the man in charge was on his own cell phone to the Parks Department forestry office. He handed his phone to Cardozo.

“The tree’s going in,” an instantly nasty forestry guy told Cardozo. “There’s nothing she can do about it.”

Cardozo inquired if perhaps the work could be suspended until Smith spoke to the city.

“Do you want me to send the police and have you arrested?” the forestry guy responded.

“No, thank you, but I would like you to give me your name,” Cardozo said.

“I need you to move,” the forestry guy said.

“I need you to tell me your name,” Cardozo insisted.

“You’ll find out my name soon enough,” the forestry guy said.