City comptroller takes aim at developer abuse

Newly elected city Comptroller John Liu is taking action to help protect communities from big developers and corruption.

Liu, the first Asian American elected to a top New York City office, has announced that he will set up a task force to establish more oversight over so-called Community Benefit Agreements between developers and community groups.

CBAs are generally supposed to ensure that a developer provides services agreed upon by both sides in exchange for community support for a particular project. Residents are in theory able to win such things as a certain percentage of affordable housing, jobs, parks and so on. Developers can receive zoning changes, no-bid contracting, tax subsidies - even the right to invoke eminent domain and seize private property for their project.

While such agreements are in use worldwide, New York City CBAs have drawn scrutiny.

Questions have arisen as to who represents a community and how enforceable an agreement is. Developers here have used CBAs to gain an upper hand in many communities and, in some cases, as a way to divide and even radically alter neighborhoods against the wishes of local residents.

Echoing concerned New Yorkers, Liu said, "In the absence of standards ... these agreements will become more problematic and ultimately irrelevant."

In Brooklyn, a CBA was signed in 2005 between Forest City Ratner, a multi-billion-dollar private developer which had already been guaranteed huge subsidies from the city, and a number of groups purporting to represent the community. The agreement was for Ratner's proposed Atlantic Yards project, which will, through eminent domain, throw people out of their homes and businesses and radically alter downtown Brooklyn.

Critics of the project note that it will displace thousands of local residents and replace decent existing housing with luxury condos in a neighborhood where the current median income is less than $30,000.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced the agreement in a flurry of press releases,. However, neither Bloomberg nor any city agency were signatories. Only Forest City Ratner and eight civic groups that don't directly represent the area were signers. Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, a coalition that came together to oppose Atlantic Yards, and others charged that the mayor had tried to hoodwink the community by making it appear that there was an agreement between the city and the developer.

Many felt that even the stipulations spelled out in the CBA were not enough to protect the neighborhood. The Develop Don't Destroy coalition charged that "misleading statements appeared in the mayor's press release, including the claim that the FCR proposal ‘will create 8,500 permanent new jobs, 4,500 mixed-income apartments. FCR themselves only claim 6,000 jobs and have admitted at a City Council hearing that they cannot guarantee that any new permanent jobs would be created or that local residents would get the jobs. FCR said at the same Council hearing that they now plan on building 6,000 or even 7,300 housing units, with no commitment to make those additional units affordable.'"

Astonishingly, Forest City Ratner official Mary Anne Gilmartin admitted in a July 2009 meeting that "Forest City has funding obligations and commitments to each of the organizations [that signed the CBA], and they're reviewed on an annual basis." In other words, though the mayor and FCR attempted to give the agreement a veneer of grassroots involvement, all the singers had received funding from the developer.

Further, the agreement, while technically binding, has no actual enforcement mechanism.

Atlantic Yards may be considered the most egregious case of abuse, but, Liu said, "the public has seen a string of broken promises to communities and questionable involvement by some government officials." He added that studies have singled out the city's community benefit agreements "as examples of what not to do."

Saying that it is "time for the embarrassment to end," Liu announced that his office would form a task force that includes business, labor and grassroots organizations, to examine the issue and propose proper procedures.

Findings and regulations would have to be approved by the City Council.

According to Liu, "It is simply common sense to have clear standards that ensure benefits for the public when private developers receive benefits from the public."

NY progressives begin to line up behind Gillibrand

Despite the early date on the political calendar, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., appointed to fill the seat vacated by now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has already picked up a spate of endorsements from labor, progressives, leaders of the African American and Latino communities, Democratic Party leaders and others.

Former New York City Comptroller Bill Thompson, who with a campaign budget of less than $10 million was able to come within five points of beating out billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2009, was the latest to offer his seal of approval. Gillibrand, according to Thompson, has been "putting more New Yorkers back to work and fighting for justice, fairness and equality for every single New Yorker."

Many are saying that, for a Democrat holding a statewide federal office, Gillibrand has strong progressive credentials. Indeed, a campaign has been organized by health care activists to call Gillibrand's office to thank her for taking a lead in the fight for health care reform. Gillibrand recently signed a letter urging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to, despite the recent defeat in Massachusetts that took the Democrats' filibuster proof majority, ensure that real health care reform-with a public option-is passed. The letter advocates using the budget reconciliation process, which requires only 51 votes.

While 119 House Democrats have signed the letter, as have 300,000 grassroots activists, only a few Senators have added their names.

The early endorsements are necessary, many argue, because Gillibrand will likely face a stiff Republican Party challenger in November, and she's also likely to be targeted by African American conservative Democrat Harold Ford, a former member of Congress from Tennessee and current and vice chairman of Merrill Lynch.

While Ford's policies favor Wall Street over Main Street, Gillibrand has "worked every day to pass health-care reform that protects New York workers, covers the uninsured and makes health care affordable for working families," Raglan George, leader of AFSCME District Council 1707, the first citywide union to endorse Gillibrand, said. "And she's been working hard since day one to make sure every worker receives the fair and equal pay they deserve."

Ford, a leader of the conservative Democratic Leadership Council has sought to portray himself as a moderate, but his past has put progressive organizations on edge.

On national security he's said, "We've got to get tough on ‘illegals.'"

While a member of Congress, Ford voted for restrictive measures sought by anti-choice advocates: parental notification laws banning late term abortions.

NARAL Pro-Choice New York's Kelli Conlin, after meeting with Ford for forty minutes, said that while he can't be classified as "pro-life," he also can't be classified as pro-choice. Consequently, NARAL's national and local organizations endorsed Gillibrand, who has established herself as a pro-choice candidate. Even back in 2006, while campaigning for Congress, Gillibrand told the national conference of the National Organization for Women that the extreme right was undermining democracy and women's rights to choice in particular.

Many have argued that they will support Gillibrand because she has a proven ability to beat Republicans, even on their home turf. In 2006, Gillibrand was able to win the seat representing New York's 20th Congressional district, an area with a much larger number of registered Republicans than Democrats.

A number of commentators have openly wondered why Ford is running: Is he backed by Republicans, they ask, in order to weaken Gillibrand in the general election?

Others who have endorsed Gillibrand make up a broad cross-section of New Yorkers: the vast majority of Democratic Party county chairs, Rep. Nydia Velzques and a number of other members of New York's Congressional delegation, Emily's list, the pro-GLBT rights Human Rights Campaign, the Rev. Al Sharpton, the New York State United Teachers, the Public Employees Federation, as well as numerous other leaders and groups. Also, the White House has made clear that it supports Gillibrand.

Trying 9/11 cases here not hatred for city

By Dan Margolis
for the New York State Communist Party

Reading New York City's tabloid press, one could easily get the impression that President Obama hates our city. This is not exaggeration; in fact, the sensational headline on the January 14 issue of the New York Post actually asked, "Why does Obama hate us?" The issue that has created such perceived animosity (and real animosity towards Obama from those on the right) is the plan by the Department of Justice to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Manhattan.

While there are some legitimate concerns, the vast majority of the controversy has been spearheaded by the extreme right wing, which is doing all that it can to try to weaken Obama, this time by attempting to make him look "soft" on terrorism.

The announcement of the plan ignited a firestorm of demands that the DOJ change venues to somewhere outside the city, perhaps even somewhere outside the state-or civilian law. Those calls now span the political spectrum, as more and more elected officials have been changing their minds about supporting the Manhattan trial since the tabloids and our few Republicans began a campaign against it.

According to those on the right, trying Mohammed in the city would be an insult to the nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 mass murder. Further, it would place a huge target on downtown Manhattan and would cost the city billions of dollars for security measures.

But this is all nonsense.

Let's start with the simple stuff. Virtually everyone now knows that Washington will pay the billion or so dollars necessary for security, creating something of a downtown Manhattan stimulus program. As for increased risk for Manhattan, if the trial actually does attract homicidal maniacs, can't the same be said for anywhere else in the country? As a New Yorker, I love my city and don't want to see anyone attack it. On a more personal note, I don't want to be murdered by terrorists. But I'm not prepared to say, "Well, why don't they hold the trial in Des Moines? Better a terrorist attack there." Still, what could be more ridiculous than the idea that this will make Manhattan a target? As the cultural and financial center of the United States, Manhattan is, unfortunately, always going to be at the top of the list for any crazed terrorists.

The most pernicious of the claims made by the right wing, and those it has influenced, is that holding the trial here is somehow a "slap in the face" to those who perished on 9/11. This is just wrong; in fact, the opposite is true. By trying Mohammed in Manhattan, in a civilian court, Obama and his administration are upholding long-standing American traditions.

It is an old tradition that, in federal courts, people are tried in the same jurisdiction where they committed their crimes. The reason is that whatever local circumstances there are may have some sort of influence. Residents know more about the case in the area: if you're guilty, the knowledge will help the defense; if you're innocent, you're more likely to go free.

People like Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who represents parts of Long Island in Congress, have called for Mohammed to be tried in some secret military tribunal, "where he belongs." The New York Post openly talks about the upcoming trial as "just for show" and says that we should not "pretend innocence until proven guilty."

Is the American system of justice not good enough for people like King and his cohorts?

Mohammed is portrayed as a demon in the mass media, and this is all very likely true, even by his own admission, but do we want to allow monsters like this to be used as a pretext for subverting the notion of a fair trial, something for which generations of patriots, going back to the Revolution and even before, have fought?

That would be a real slap in the face.

There are, as in all things, pros and cons to trying Mohammed in Manhattan, and it may very well be a good idea to change the location for logistical or other reasons. In fact, the trial will most likely not be held here; the administration is currently looking at other locations across, and even outside, the state. However, condemning Obama's Department of Justice for trying to uphold cherished democratic legal traditions (and campaign promises) is misguided at best, and anti-democratic in essence.

Respect for our legal system is not "softness" on terror.

CVS risking consumer, worker s' health for profits, laborers claim

Members of Laborers Local 78 are connecting poor treatment of consumers to poor working conditions for contractors, and are urging consumers to pressure CVS, the corporation responsible, to change its practices.

Local 78 members distributed leaflets outside of a CVS on Manhattan's Columbus Avenue, near Lincoln Center, explaining that the corporation has hired Panzner Brothers Demolition, a sub-standard non-union company, to remove asbestos from their buildings.

"When asbestos isn't properly removed," said one of the union activists, "the fibers go into the air. They're so small you can't see them, but, when inhaled, they can remain in someone's lungs forever."

According to a flier issued by Local 78, "Ultimately, asbestos fibers cause fatal diseases that currently have no cure."

The union activists charge that CVS has hired a non-union company to save money. While they are fighting this as an anti-union move, they are also concerned that this will ultimately endanger both people in the area and the unorganized workers themselves.

Local 78 members are connecting this lack of oversight to shocking abuses of consumers, including the sale of counterfeit drugs in Deer Park, N.Y., and a case in East Pointe, Georgia, where the company, known for understaffing its pharmacies, gave the wrong medication to a truck driver, resulting in post traumatic stress disorder.

The picketing unionists made clear that they are not asking for a boycott or a strike; the simply want members of the public to contact CVS and demand that responsible contractors be hired.

The suggest calling CEO Tom Ryan at 401-765-1500 and Bill Jacobs at 516-729-1018.

By Dan Margolis

This 'fracking' sucks, Ithaca residents say

ITHACA, N.Y. - Residents in this western New York college town, known for its picturesque waterfalls, have joined with others across Tomkins County and the state to protest a plan to extract gas from the ground by a process known as horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

Fracking has residents in upstate and western New York worried about their towns, and people in other areas, such as New York City, worried about possible contamination of their drinking water.

The procedure aims at extracting methane from an underground layer called the Marcellus formation, composed of sediments and organic material millions of years ago. In some areas, such as the town of Marcellus, the formation is near the surface, but in most places it is one to two miles below ground.

To bring the methane up from so far down, the gas company must drill far below the earth's surface, and then extend a pipe out horizontally for up to a mile. At the tip of the drill bore, explosives are detonated while two to six million gallons of water mixed with harsh chemicals are forced in at incredibly high pressure. The explosion creates fracturing in the rock, and the water forces the methane back towards the well to be harvested. Afterwards, the original drill area is sealed. The process is repeated every four to seven years in another portion of the horizontal well, over and over for up to 40 years. Each time, millions of gallons of fresh water is used-and contaminated.

The process is riddled with problems, say local residents, who have formed a coalition of organizations aiming to stop the fracking process before it starts in the state.

Andrew Byers, of Shaleshock, the anti-fracking coalition, says that even if the gas industry is right in saying that the procedure is safe - which seems not to be the case - there will be a massive disruption in the local lifestyle.

"You have 7,000 to 10,000 five-acre [wells] being drilled into the woods, with access roads to each one," Byers told the People's World. "Then you have diesel engines that are moving up and down every single one of those access roads. And every time a single well needs to be fractured, you have 200 tanker trucks that drive to it, and then 200 trucks that drive away, carrying the water. You have small country roads that are about to be inundated by chains of semi-trucks carrying fresh water from our local streams in, and toxic water out."

In order to be able to do this, gas companies need permission from landowners. Currently, in Tomkins County, where Ithaca sits, they have succeeded in getting 33 percent of the land leased to them. Under state Department of Environmental Conservation rules, once a certain amount of land is leased, the rest of the neighbors in the area must also lease the land, in return for monetary compensation.

According to Byers, the gas companies have been using tricky tactics to convince people to buy land in the area.

"No one in their right mind is going to purchase a piece of land with a lease on it that allows this type of activity," one disgruntled Ithaca resident told the People's World. "Why would someone choose to live next to something like that?"

In addition, there is the possibility of contamination of the water supply. In Pennsylvania, where fracking has already started, a recent small spill has had tremendous consequences: 37 miles of dead stream.

Water from the ground is normally clean because it is purified by aquifers, areas of dirt and rocks that purify the water as it moves towards the surface. But the drilling that is being done will cut through aquifers, many activists point out. The drills will introduce industrial-strength, highly poisonous lubricants into the aquifers. Further, the millions of gallons of water that are injected into the earth are full of chemicals, some of which cause such things as reproductive dysfunction in humans at one part per trillion. Activists claim that there has not been any proof that the water injected can't seep into other areas and mix with drinking water.

The waste water from fracking, after being brought to the surface, must also be dealt with. Municipal plants in New York can't handle it, so it must be brought to Pennsylvania and Ohio, both places that are nearly at capacity. Consequently, the energy companies plan to inject it deep into the ground and seal it off for future generations to deal with.

"God forbid there's an earthquake in this area," remarked Byers. He added that if one stream or lake in the area becomes contaminated, it would be nearly impossible to prevent rapid contamination of water across much larger areas of the state.

The DEC has only 17 field inspectors to oversee the entire operation of thousands of wells.

On January 25, concerned residents took their complaints to the state capital, Albany, calling for the state to put a halt to fracking. They are also pushing for passage of the "Frack Act" in Congress, which would remove a 2005 law that exempts oil and gas companies from the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Drinking Water Act, and the Superfund Act.

By Dan Margolis