Rants & Raves

UPDATE: Yesterday, Mayor Bloomberg vetoed the 45-1 City Council decision, saying that it was more about “wanting political support” than doing what the neighborhood really needed. Well, Bloomberg, you might have lost political capital and votes with this one. Because we all know you’re going to bend the rules again and run for an even more illegal fourth term once you’re done here (and that’s another rant.) Anyway, the Council has 10 days to override the decision.
———————————
Here in little ol’ New York City, one of the biggest local stories here is the issue of the city wanting to tear down the Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx and putting up a mall. Mayor Bloomberg wanted to spend $310 million to add new construction jobs and new retail jobs and eventually give back to the city by way of taxes. Excellent idea, right?

There were a few people who believed that the community didn’t need another mall; that there was a shopping center already in Kingsbridge, and that they didn’t need another glut of stores. And I can understand that argument, but if people would shop at both places, and the jobs are needed, it might be a necessary evil, so to speak.

Then comes a provision from, actually, I don’t know who wanted it most, but I congratulate them. The issue was over wages. Workers in this mall should earn more than the minimum wage – either $11.50/hour or $10.00/ hour with benefits. Super excellent idea. This “living wage” would guarantee that families wouldn’t have to worry about scraping by on minimum wage. Henry Ford used the same principle, he called it “wage motive”, when he paid his workers twice what they would be earning anywhere else. You save money on training and turnover paperwork. The City Council said there would be a fund that voluntarily participating companies could utilize to pay the extra money. So in fact, no one had to pay the higher wage at all. The city would foot the bill for a relatively small number of people, who would then turn around and pay higher taxes and buy things, which would benefit NYC as a whole, etc.

The latest (from 2 days ago) was that Mayor Bloomberg said that a living wage is unacceptable. Here’s a billionaire telling New Yorkers that his city, one of the most expensive in the world, would not help pay workers the money that could help New York in the long run? I would actually go first to a store that treated their workers well, to encourage this practice. The City Council said there would be no mall without a living wage, so they nixed the plans to build one.

The New York City Council took a bold stance. By setting a bar that is actually very reasonable, they not only gave dignity to their constituents, but also showed the city (yet again) what an asshole their mayor is (I never voted for him, even when he was legally allowed to run for mayor.) It seemed that public sentiment was behind the Council. Bloomberg is lamenting the idea that the Council doesn’t want their community to grow economically, and he’s touting that the city would have put up the money to build the mall. This neighborhood has a very high unemployment rate and this mall might have helped. But what’s a job at Best Buy if you can’t afford the products you’re selling? And who’s to say that other people would have gone to this mall if the families in the neighborhood are struggling to make ends meet? Yes, there are no new jobs from this, but is a job a real job if you have to work 2 of them to survive?