Quantcast
Channel: Noticing New York
Viewing all 153 articles
Browse latest View live

One Last Check As Mayor Leaves Office- Bloomberg’s Increasing Annual Wealth: 1996 to 2013, Plus Updates On His Annual “Charitable” Giving

$
0
0
The media recently provided us with a mostly adulatory free-for-all summing up Michael Bloomberg's years as mayor.  Did all that coverage avoid placing appropriate focus on the major story that most deserved it, even when attention was paid to Bloomberg’s wealth?

Bloomberg left office as mayor December 31, 2013, and there was no end to the articles summing up what Mr. Bloomberg theoretically accomplished and had `bestowed' upon the city.  A few of these articles mentioned Bloomberg's wealth.  The New York Times article that likely did so most directly and with the most detail had some fun with its subject, engaging in some peculiar calculus, an estimation that over the past twelve years that Michael Bloomberg was mayor of New York City he spent about "$650 million" (an “undoubtedly low” estimate according to the article) on things associated with the way he ran his office.  Some of the expenditures sounded almost like gifts to the public, given that taxpayers theoretically didn't pay for them, . .  Things like about $62,400 to clean fish tanks Bloomberg installed in City Hall, noshes for his City hall Staff, private planes for his aides to travel.  See: Cost of Being Mayor? $650 Million, if He’s Rich, by Michael Barbaro and Kitty Bennett, December 29, 2013.

Clean fish tanks and bagels notwithstanding, what really boosted and comprised a substantial portion of the $650 million figure the Times reporters came up with are the huge sums Bloomberg invested to stay in office, retain and firm up his control of it: “He poured at least $268 million of his personal funds into three campaigns for mayor” and hundreds of millions of dollars “to New York arts, civic, health and cultural groups, personally and through his company, Bloomberg LP” (I won’t give the article’s figure for the charities  because if you look at the figures in the Times article and its links I think you will find the amounts grossly understated), and “$23 million” in campaign donations (again understated?).

Take a look at some of the figures and calculations in this 2009 Noticing New York article for more orientation on these sorts of expenditures: 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?).

It appears the Times reporters used a mixture of research and access to generate the story:
To calculate Mr. Bloomberg’s spending, The Times relied on public documents, travel records, philanthropy databases, conversations with vendors and interviews with his government employees.
$650 million seems like a figure sufficient to arrest our attention and perhaps bemuse, but where was the summing up of the really much bigger numbers representing the really big picture?  Whatever Bloomberg might have been spending while in office, however many hundreds of millions that was, it is nothing compared to the wealth he was accruing at the same time.  Further, to inform the public that Bloomberg was a relatively rich man when he entered office and throughout his tenure isn't telling the most important part of the important story about his wealth even if people garner from the telling that Bloomberg left office a lot richer than he came in, which he absolutely did.  The real story is the phenomenal, unusual, rate at which his wealth increased while he was theoretically directing a significant amount of his attention to the job of running the city, and not supposedly to the elevation of his wealth.

People are utterly inured to the idea that rich men could be getting richer.  "The poor stay poor, the rich get rich" is, after all, a line of Leonard Cohen's song, "Everybody Knows" (1988), a song that also choruses that everybody also knows "the dice are loaded," but the axiomatic sentiment goes back eons in the popular culture, appearing similarly in the 1921 Tin Pan Ally hit by Richard Whiting, Raymond Egan and Gus Kahn', "Ain't We Got Fun": "There's nothing surer, The rich get rich and the poor get poorer."   "Everybody Knows" came out toward the end of Ronald Reagan's presidency.  "Ain't We Got Fun" was popular throughout the pre-Great Depression Roaring Twenties and for long afterwards.

Whatever was the case then when those sentiments were lyrically enshrined, wealth has sincethose times "become more concentrated in the hands (and bank accounts and houses) of the richest Americans." See:  July 10, 2012, Richer Rich, and Poorer Poor, by Catherine Rampell, New York Times.

The share of national income flowing to the rich is at a record high even surpassing 1929.  95% of the increase in American income since 2009 has gone to the top 1%.  This is because, in contradistinction to the aftermath of the Great Depression where income rebounded commensurately with losses across economic groups when the economy recovered, the benefits from the economy’s rebound since the last downturn, the Great Recession, has gone almost exclusively to the top 1%.  Incomes are actually shrinking for the “bottom 90% of earners.”  See: Daily chart- The rich get richer- Sep 12th 2013, by R.A., J.S. and L.P, the Economist.  (If you like the charts in this NNY article you’ll like the one on this Economist article.)

Although the economic the recession of 2008 brought about a brief dip in the income and wealth of the wealthiest, including Bloomberg, from which Bloomberg recovered, the widening gap between the wealthy and the rest of us is part of a long-term, escalating trend.  In his documentary, “Park Avenue: Money, Power & the American Dream” about wealth disparity, and as particularly exemplified by the particularly wealthy and well-known set of individuals living in 740 Park Avenue, film maker Alex Gibney (at about 10 minutes in) presents a traveling scan of a chart showing the widening gap over the years between the average incomes of top 1% and everybody else, the bottom 99%.  It’s startling.  Below is a rough pasting together of the chart that streams by in the film.  Notice how the income of bottom 99% percent undergoes little perceptible escalation, but the income of the top 1%, especially recently, skyrockets, creating an ever more vast differential in status.   
Income of the 99% escalates almost imperceptibly, but income for the 1% mountains way up

Ergo, the overall all context is clearly established:  The wealthy are getting proportionality more wealthy than the rest of us and the growing gap is very significant.  Bloomberg is one of the wealthy, but when it come to wealth he isn't part of the overall pack. . . .  That's because he's way ahead of it.

Even many of the wealthiest are experiencing disparity between their wealth and the wealth of the even wealthier still, a widening one at that.  As we'll see, Bloomberg, with his unusual accelerating accumulation of more wealth is a disparity laid atop that disparity.  The chart above shows incomes.  Although accumulating a substantial income is perhaps the best avenue to wealth (Ben Franklin's advice about saving pennies, notwithstanding), income it isn't wealth.  The chart below is one that shows wealth: The average net worth of wealthiest the “Forbes 400" wealthiest individuals from 1982 to 2011, represented in billions of dollars.  See: Economic Policy Institute- The State of Working America.


Even within this very select “Forbes 400" group, one can differentiate in order to measure and track the relative status of different members of the elite club.  The chart below does that, with three lines, the middle of which shows the “average” income of that “Forbes 400" group over the years 1982 to 2009.  At first glance, the line tracking that average may be comfortably in the same neighborhood as the other two lines, the one that shows the entry-level price for admission to the “Forbes 400" group and the one that shows where the club tops out.  Actually, the lines, although on the same chart, are in very different and vastly spread.  See that $950 million entry-level qualification figure, the $3.2 billion figure for the average and the $50 million figure for the top wealth figure?: The top figures being tracked are more than 50 times the bottom figure!

The trick to reading and understanding the chart is to know that in order to have all these figures appear comfortably beside each other, the chart is a logarithmic: The bigger the numbers on the scale, the more they get contracted when depicted; big numbers go up as they increase, just not as much.  See: The State of Working America’s Wealth, 2011, Through volatility and turmoil, the gap widens, By Sylvia Allegretto, March 23, 2011.
Note the wealth amounts ascend logarithmically
How does the escalating wealth of Michael Bloomberg during these years stack up against this chart?  See the figure provided and the charts below.  Once upon a time, not so very long ago, his wealth was relatively close to the entry-level price of admission to the club.   It headed up when he got interested in politics and around the time he becomes mayor it crosses the line for the average member of the “Forbes 400" club.  While mayor, Bloomberg became the wealthiest New Yorker,* his wealth skyrocketing past that average.  Before he leaves office it gets into the neighborhood of those at the top of the “Forbes 400" list.
(*  Bloomberg was eventually overtaken in this specific regard by David H. Koch who, although he doesn't similarly hold an elected office himself. is very much involved in politics and influencing those that do.)
Noticing New York has previously provided detailed coverage on Bloomberg's annual increases in wealth and also tracked his "charitable" giving that has been associated with his exercise of political influence and control.  See: Wednesday, March 6, 2013, Bloomberg’s Increasing Annual Wealth: 1996 to 2013, Plus Updates On His Annual “Charitable” Giving.

Noticing New York reported on the last jump in Bloombergs's wealth to $31 billion here: Friday, September 20, 2013, Forest City Ratner As The Development Gatekeeper (And Profit taker) Getting The Benefit As Brooklyn Heights Public Library Is Sold.

It is appropriate to escort Mr. Bloomberg out of office with an update-to-date restatement of that information.

Here is that updated information with links below.  (Forbes publishes wealth figures twice a 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
2012- $25 billion
2013- $27 billion
2013- $31 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 expenditures were about $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 started to emerge in the beginning of 2009 (i.e. just weeks after Obama’s January 2009 inauguration.) Looks as if 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.
Noticing New York previously published and commented on running tallies of the mayor's escalating wealth.  See:  Sunday, October 16, 2011, Bloomberg’s Increasing Annual Wealth: 1996 to 2011, Tuesday, February 3, 2009, Bloomberg’s Increasing Annual Wealth: 1996 to 2008, and Friday, January 25, 2013, Bloomberg’s Increasing Annual Wealth: 1996 to 2012 Plus Updates On His Annual “Charitable” Giving.

As mentioned, Noticing New York has also reported on the history of the mayor's "charitable" giving, which is important because the mayor is at the very top of the list of such spenders in this country.  The last Noticing New York article noting the update available respecting Bloomberg's $350 million beginning-of-the-year donation Bloomberg gave to his alma mater, Johns Hopkins University, is: Wednesday, January 30, 2013, Latest (Early) Update On Bloomberg’s “Charitable” Giving- A Preview Of 2013? (Added to Info For Years 1997 to 2011).  With an infusion of that kind of money into New York City's libraries, the Bloomberg administration's pretextual rationale for selling libraries to real estate developers would disappear.

Below in chart form is updatedinformation about Bloomberg’s level of giving and the years of associated Bloomberg political campaigns. 
$26.6 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 1997 (when he distributed to 433 groups). Handouts have increased every year since - Press mentions of Bloomberg philanthropy begin this year
$45 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 1998 - Year Bloomberg started talking publicly about running for mayor 
$47 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 1999 
$100.5 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2000 (579 organizations)- Year before first mayoral election campaign 
$122.5 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2001 (540 groups) Was elected mayor in November $130.9 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2002 (655 groups) Became mayor 
$135.6 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2003 (653 groups) $138/139.9 million*:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2004 (843 groups) 
$143.9 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2005 (987 groups)- Second campaign for mayor in connection with the 2005 election 
$165.3 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2006. (1,077 groups) 
$205 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2007.- The year he started to run for president.- The year he left the Republican party 
$235 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2008 (1,221 recipient groups)- The year that Bloomberg started running for his third term as mayor and overthrew the city’s term limits restrictions.  
 $254 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2009 (1,300 organizations).  2009 was the year that Bloomberg was elected in November to his third term as New York Mayor after spendingapproximately $105 million in acknowledged direct spending on his campaign (many multiples of what his challenger could raise from the public) and, in addition, Bloomberg's political aides (also holding public posts) get fabulously huge bonuses for campaign work. 
$279.18 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2010 - Bloomberg ranked the #2 American "giver", "giving" to "arts, human services, public affairs, and other groups".  2010 was the year that Bloomberg shifted his charitable spending,which had always concentrated on New York City recipients, to focusing on recipients connected to issues of national significance. 
$311.3 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2011 - Bloomberg ranked the #5 American "giver,""giving" to "1,185 arts, human-services, public-affairs, and other groups". 
 $370 million:- Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2012 - According to information from Bloomberg's own website, in 2012 "$370 million was distributed by Bloomberg Philanthropies across its areas of focus"although that would apparently qualify Bloomberg to be listed amongst the top 50 givers list for 2012 put out by The Chronicle of Philanthropy, where for some reason he does not appear for this year.  The discrepancy is strange.  Was someone thinking as NNY has suggested that his "giving" doesn't actually qualify as such?
$350 million (and counting):-  Bloomberg’s charitable gifts in 2013.
* (difference between Times and Chronicle of Philanthropy figures)
(Figures for calendar years1997 through 2008 available from:
•     the Chronicle of Philanthropy
•     Mayor's $weet Charity, by David Seifman, January 27, 2009
•     Bloomberg’s Gifts to Charity Exceeded $165 Million in 2006, by Diane Cardwell, September 17, 2007
•     Nearly 1,000 Groups Gain From Bloomberg’s Largess, by Sewell Chan, October 18, 2006
•     2003 tax year? For Bloomberg, 'Rich' Is Just Too Weak an Adjective, By Leslie Eaton, July 3, 2004.
•     In 2002, Bloomberg Lost a Bit (for Him) and Gave a Lot, by David Johnston (Correction: David Cay Johnston), June 14, 2003)
The 1997 through 2008 figures were originally consolidated to go along with this Noticing New York article about Bloomberg's "charitable" giving: 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.
Noticing New York has previously produced this annual wealth and charitable giving information in the form below.

The figures above for Bloomberg's increasing annual wealth also chart out this way.


That looks like it might possible overlay with the chart of average increasing wealth of the “Forbes 400" that appeared above (and for easy reference is repeated below). . . .

. . .  Until you realize that each of these two charts must be radically reshaped in order to be accurately overlaid with each other (see chart below) because even though the average wealth of the “Forbes 400" is going up it is doing so far more gradually, depicted on that chart over a far longer period.  That average is now far, far less than Bloomberg's wealth even though within the charted time frame Bloomberg's wealth started out at a low figure that was hardly at the entry level price of admission to be on the chart at all.

When adjustments are made to properly overlay the charts Bloomberg's terrifically escalating wealth almost makes the escalating wealth of the rest of the wealthy look like it has flat-lined.

The two previous charts, reshaped so that they can be overlaid, showing how Bloomberg's increasing annual wealth makes the increasing annual average wealth of the rest of the "Forbes 400" look virtually flat by comparison
It is important to keep track of Bloomberg's wealth and "charitable" spending because Bloomberg was a public official and the earning of his wealth is subject to many conflict-of-interest concerns.  At the same time, cycling around, that wealth was routinely deployed for political purposes that included the "charitable" spending above.  The charitable spending cited above does not reflect the non-tax-deductable augmenting amounts the Bloomberg donates to political campaigns and causes mentioned by the Times when it calculated its $650 million figure mentioned at the outset of this article.

It will be interesting to see in what direction Bloomberg’s wealth goes now that he is out of public office.  If his wealth was truly related to his personal business acumen we might expect his wealth to increase even more now as he has more time and attention to devote to his Bloomberg, L.P, business.  The New York Times has reported, just 18 days after Bloomberg’s departure from office, that he is diving into the affairs of his business empire in a very hands-on way.  See: After Leaving Office, Bloomberg Is More Hands-On at Old Company, by Nathaniel Popperjan, January 17, 2014.

On the other hand, what would it say if Bloomberg’s departure from city office resulted in a leveling off of his accumulation of wealth or even its decrease?  That same Times article notes that the financial fuel for Bloomberg L.P. came from its sale of “$20,000-a-year data terminals” (sold, we should add, to almost all the big companies with which the New York City did business), and that recently:
terminal sales have slowed and there has been a reorganization of the newsroom, leading to the departure of some of the company’s most respected journalists.
The article notes that although Bloomberg’s previous practice was to focus on the “much more lucrative data terminal business, and was not known for attending editorial meetings” he is now involving himself in the news side of the organization, sitting in with the TV operation and media group on the fifth floor of the Lexington Avenue Bloomberg tower.

The article notes a problem, reported last spring, that could affect sales of the financial terminals: abusing a conflict-of-interest access, “some reporters had used a function on the data terminals to monitor client activity.”  The article didn’t note that Bloomberg while mayor breached City Conflict of Interest Board proscriptions when he monitored the sale of his terminals to companies doing business with the city.

Yes, it will be interesting if Bloomberg's spectacular increases of wealth disappear with his departure from office and, if they do, what explanation is offered.
Another way of looking at the overlaid charts that doesn't quite restore the average "Forbes 400" wealth chart to "normal," which would be more like . . . . (see below)

. . .like this.  But not even this is tall enough!

Libraries And Climate Change: The Dangerous Destruction of Information We May Need To Know To Survive

$
0
0
A 2011 vanity book the NYPL published about itself.  Its title, "Know The Past, Find The Future" is now ominously ignored when it comes to climate change and other issues.
Do you know enough about climate change?

Do you know enough of what you need to know, have access to everything you need to know about climate change?

How much do we really need to know. .  how much information should be at our disposal on the subject. . .   if climate change could result in the end of the human race?. . .   Or, almost as bad, if it could soon bring about the mass extinctions of many of the world’s species?*
(* One snapshot: A week ago, Wednesday, January 29, 2014, the New York Times had stories about penguin populations dying because of heat and the extraordinary reduction of the Monarch Butterfly populations.- For Already Vulnerable Penguins, Study Finds Climate Change Is Another Danger by Henry Fountain, - “Since 1987, the number of breeding pairs in the colony has declined 24 percent” and Migration of Monarch Butterflies Shrinks Again Under Inhospitable Conditions, by Michael Wines- “the span of forest inhabited by the overwintering monarchs shrank last month to a bare 1.65 acres. . At their peak in 1996, the monarchs occupied nearly 45 acres of forest.”)
What if many important things you could learn about climate change and its possible solutions were being eliminated from libraries?  That would be very sad.

One thing that would make that even sadder: There are those who, probably correctly, theorize that there will be no one silver bullet that addresses climate change challenge, that our answers to climate change will involve a mosaic of solutions, a myriad of approaches locally tailored and designed. . . .  Solutions will not be handed to us top down: Everyone’s participation will matter.  But what if our common resources for discovery and self-education like libraries are being removed?

CHAPTER ONE: The Canadian Government Destroys Libraries and Records That Furnish Information About Climate Change.

It has recently been revealed that Canada’s government is busy destroying irreplaceable climate change data in Canadian libraries that was collected at taxpayer expense and gathered over more than a hundred years.  Canada has the world’s longest coastline and, as should be readily noticed, much of that coastline travels up into the Arctic where some of the fastest, most important climate change is taking place.  See: What's Driving Chaotic Dismantling of Canada's Science Libraries? Scientists reject Harper gov't claims vital material is being saved digitally, by Andrew Nikiforuk, December 23, 2013, The Tyee.ca, and Canadian libricide: Tories torch and dump centuries of priceless, irreplaceable environmental archives, By  Cory Doctorow at 12:00 pm Sat, Jan 4, 2014.

Let’s go back just a few months before the Canadian library destruction was disclosed to put that disclosure in context.  Led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the current Conservative government in Canada, which embraces fossil fuel resource extraction from Canada’s tar sands has been criticized, including in a New York Times editorial for muzzling scientists in, “an attempt to guarantee public ignorance”:
    . .  to make sure that nothing gets in the way of the northern resource rush — the feverish effort to mine the earth and the ocean with little regard for environmental consequences. The Harper policy seems designed to make sure that the tar sands project proceeds quietly, with no surprises, no bad news, no alarms from government scientists. To all the other kinds of pollution the tar sands will yield, we must now add another: the degradation of vital streams of research and information.  
(See: Editorial / Notebook: Silencing Scientists, by Verlyn Klinkenborg, September 21, 2013.  See also: New York Times criticizes Harper government’s alleged muzzling of scientists to protect oil sands, Michael Woods, Postmedia News, September 22, 2013.  Mr. Klinkenborg, author of the Times editorial, is a member of the Times editorial board.)

Here is some of what is in the December article in the Canadian news magazine The Tyee about how the Harper government, whittling nine regional Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) libraries down to two, seems intent on destroying records:
Scientists say the closure of some of the world's finest fishery, ocean and environmental libraries by the Harper government has been so chaotic that irreplaceable collections of intellectual capital built by Canadian taxpayers for future generations has been lost forever.

Many collections such as the Maurice Lamontagne Institute Library in Mont-Joli, Quebec ended up in dumpsters . . .Others were burned or went to landfills, say scientists.

    * * *

The Department has claimed that all useful information from the closed libraries is available in digital form. This is simply not true. Much of the material is lost forever.

Local staff in the regions were given a brief opportunity to scavenge through the piles of books, journals and documents not wanted by the remaining two DFO Science libraries. Books and other library material already on loan to researches were never recalled, indicating a chaotic and haphazard process.

    * * * *

Some of the research scientists interviewed questioned the legality of what they saw happening, accusing the Harper government of "libricide."

    . . .the Canadian public lost critical environmental and cultural baseline data more than 100 years old. .

    * * *

In a private email originally sent to a colleague and then shared with The Tyee, one scientist compared the dismemberment of the Freshwater Institute library last week to a rummage sale: "I did manage to salvage a few bits and pieces, one of which was a three volume print version of the data that went into the now extinct DFO toxins database."

The scientist suggested "that interested individuals should drop-in and loot [the] library before the bonfires begin."

Kelly Whelan-Enns, head of media and policy research for Manitoba Wildlands, spent two days at the library trying to salvage maps from the 1900s and wildlife data from the 1920s.

    * * * *

"Through a misguided policy purportedly driven by the desire for cost savings in the public service, and I believe this was only one reason for this action, we have trashed a network of world-class marine and fisheries libraries, the envy around the world. The rest of the world cannot believe what is happening in Canada on this issue."

    * * *

The Freshwater Institute library held collections dating back 100 years, on the quality and state of freshwater systems in central Canada, the Great Lakes and the Arctic.

    * * * *

'It must be about ideology': Hutchings

Hutchings said none of the closures has anything to do with saving money, due to the small cost of maintaining the collections. He, like many scientists, concludes that Harper's political convictions are driving the unprecedented consolidation.

    * * * *

Hutchings saw the library closures fitting a larger pattern of "fear and insecurity" within the Harper government, "about how to deal with science and knowledge."

    * * * *

"There is a group of people who don't know how to deal with science and evidence. They see it as a problem and the best way to deal with it is to cut it off at the knees and make it ineffective," explained Hutchings.
   
    * * * *

The cuts were carried out in great haste apparently in order to meet some unknown agenda. No records have been provided with regard to what material has been dumped or the value of this public property.
The idea that some of these records were “scavenged by . . environmental consultants” as reported by The Tyee is scary when you consider that “environmental consultants” are usually paid for their work, too often by polluting industries, and it is disconcerting to think of all the available information migrating into a private sector inclined to cherry-pick what gets made public as was the case when BP payrolled a vast proportion of the scientists investigating its massive 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.                               
The Cory Doctorow article on the Canadian library destruction observes:
An irreplaceable, 50-volume collection of logs from HMS Challenger's 19th century expedition went to the landfill, taking with them the crucial observations of marine life, fish stocks and fisheries of the age.
It’s little consolation that a copy of the logs was later found overseas.

Further gory details about what is happening in Canada appear in these other recent Tyee articles: Dismantling of Fishery Library 'Like a Book Burning,' Say Scientists- Harper government shuts down 'world class' collection on freshwater science and protection. By Andrew Nikiforuk, 9 Dec 2013, TheTyee.ca,  Gutting of Fisheries Act a 'politically motivated abrogation': biologists, By Andrew Nikiforuk, October 31, 2013, The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed- Experimental Lakes Area was world famous; its findings might have saved Canada billions. By Andrew Nikiforuk, 23 May 2012, TheTyee.ca, Harper's Seven-Year War on Science- Chris Turner's treatise on Tory anti-empiricism should spark outrage. But those in power won't see it. By Crawford Kilian, 1 Nov 2013, TheTyee.ca, 'The Death of Evidence' in Canada: Scientists' Own Words- Data distorted for 'propaganda' and other complaints against the Harper government made at last week's Ottawa rally. By Katie Gibbs, Adam Houben, Jeff Hutchings, Arne Mooers, Vance L. Trudeau and Diane Orihel, 16 Jul 2012, TheTyee.ca

CHAPTER TWO: Libraries in New York City and the Ephemerality of Records About Climate Change.

These articles about the Canadian libraries brought to mind the fact that a friend of mine, after attending a conference dealing with the weather, told me that one of the conference speakers had complained that records the speaker had consulted over many years respecting New York climate history were no longer available at the NYPL’s 42nd Street Central Reference Library.  He alerted me because, in New York, as part of Citizens Defending Libraries, which I helped co-found, we have been very concerned and keeping track of the way that books and resources are disappearing from New York City’s libraries.

When we met with NYPL Chief Operating Officer David Offensend on May 30, 2013 to discuss this and other problems of the NYPL’s “Central Library Plan” that sells off and shrinks libraries while wrecking the research stacks at the reference library I brought up the subject of climate records.

When I asked Mr. Offensend whether climate change records would be in the science library (SIBL, the Science, Industry and Business Library, completed in 1996) intended to be sold off as part of the Central Library Plan’s consolidation and shrinkage of flagship libraries, he told us that he didn’t know where the climate change books were.   I told him that my attention had been directed to the fact that information about climate change that was readily available in the 42nd Street reference library wasn’t available anymore. He answered: “I am not familiar with what’s going on with any particular subject area.”

Of course, those dismantling physical libraries or making them smaller will talk about the shift to electronically available information which Mr. Offensend told us was “more efficient”to purchase and he assured us that when it came to research materials “little is really culled out.”

Weather historian Stephen Fybish in a WPIX video.
I’ve recently fleshed out the issue of available weather records by talking with weather historian and climate researcher Stephen S. Fybish, the researcher who my friend had heard complaining about the disappearance of records.  Mr. Fybish is the go-to expert who makes frequent appearances in the New York City’s local media when there is question concerning how extreme or little unprecedented weather situations compete with years prior in terms of setting new thresholds of experience.  Through Mr. Fybish’s assiduity we have all been better informed on innumerable occasions with curious facts about the weather that are likely to stick in our minds.

For instance all the stories below are from the New York Times:
•        January 28, 2014, New York Today: It’s Freezing (Déjà Vu), by Andy Newman and Annie Correal.

With Groundhog Day around the corner, it is a good time to remember that weather patterns tend to repeat themselves. . . .

. . .By January’s end, if the forecast holds, there will have been 15 days with temperatures in the teens or lower.

That’s the most since 2004, according to Steve Fybish, a weather-statistics obsessive whom we consult on such things.

•        December 17, 2013, New York Today: Again With the Snow, By Andy Newman

. . .  the fourth measurable snowfall in a 10-day stretch of – can it be? — autumn.

Stephen Fybish, a freelance weather historian, could not locate any precedent for it in his voluminous records.

“For four days to have measurable snow before winter is very rare,” he said. . . . .

Another tidbit from Mr. Fybish: The last 13 times there has been eight inches of snow in December, at least 17 inches more has fallen from January onward.

The expected high of 33 today would also make it the 11th straight day with colder than normal temperatures.

•        July 19, 2013, When New York Baked for 12 Sweltering Days, by James Barron

Con Edison, which said there have been seven seven-day heat waves since 1896, listed only one nine-day heat wave on its PowerPoint slides, the one in August 2002.

Stephen Fybish, an amateur weather sleuth who lives on the Upper West Side, remembers others — nine-day stretches in July 1966 and July 1944, when he was 7.

•        February 25, 2013, Weather- Link Eyed Between 1908 Siberian Fireball and Record Heat in New York, by Andy Newman

. .  the Tunguska Event. . . was immediately followed by one of the hottest Julys ever in Central Park. . .

Even more curious, Mr. Fybish has discovered, July 1908 set a 52-year record for highest average barometric pressure in Albany, Nashville, Denver, Omaha and Marquette, Mich., among other cities.
The old adage is that `everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it.’  One hopes that doesn’t translate into our doing nothing about climate change.  Mr. Fybish, studying and synthesizing information, does a lot more than most of us.  You may speed-read the rest of this "Chapter Two" of this article or skim parts of it, unless you are interested in the intriguing details of how libraries are used to keep history and facts straight and sometimes rescue them from oblivion as seen through the prism of just one man's investigation of local climate records.

Mr. Fybish told me that he used to regularly access the city weather records of Central Park’s Belvedere Castle weather station for the period 1869 to 1940 at the 42nd Street Central Reference library quickly and without difficulty but that because those records were moved to New Jersey he now had to wait "3 to 4 business days" every time he had need to consult them.  He described this and the fact that he can’t find material he used to be able to find as “extremely distressing” saying that it “discourages the research.”  Mr. Fybish said he also goes to SIBL, the Science Industry and Business Library at 34th Street to do research where materials are also not as available as previously and may now have to be ordered from New Jersey or printed out in more limited forms from electronic sources.

It is not just whether information is available but the forms in which it may be available that make it valuable.  Mr. Fybish explained how he prized certain summaries that had been compiled in the past, so much so that he has some taped to the wall in his bathroom.  He said he felt somewhat guilty that he had records in conveniently accessible forms that he didn’t think could be found in the libraries anymore.

He explained how it was a loss that the Mid-Manhattan Library no longer had the pages of the New York Times index that made information available alphabetically for a given year, because there’s “no replacement for having a big fat alphabetical index.”

Mr. Fybish said that he had been able to find some other things he was looking for because he had the help of a trained librarian.  In the example he gave the help was from a friend who was a retired librarian.  (It is unfortunate that these days we have to increasingly wonder whether there is any kind of librarians around other than retired.)

Another example of a way that a still different presentation of New York Times information could be valuable according to Mr. Fybish is the three CD set of all the New York Times front pages through 2009.  Mr. Fybish also used to research materials (“live copies” of the New York Times and Herald Tribune from the 1930s) that the NYPL kept in its now sold-off 42nd Street Annex building.  I told him I knew that when the New York Times donated a substantial potion of its `morgue’ (newspaper vernacular), an excellent resource of clipping files,* they were kept at the Annex.  Mr. Fybish never had the benefit of coming across them.  Neither of us can tell you where they are now.  Mr. Fybish hopes the“live copies” of the newspapers he used to find in the Annex have at least been sent to New Jersey rather then being “neutralized,” totally destroyed.
(* Though the story is that William Randolph Hearst forbade his papers from keeping a morgue file on him, my grandfather was President and General Manager of the Hearst Organization and when, in my youth, I went to visit the Hearst Chicago American newspaper and met one of my grandfather’s former secretaries, one of the staff’s first instincts was to bring up the paper’s morgue files on my grandfather, then deceased, for my inspection and edification.- BTW: The link in this footnote to Time Magazine won’t fully work unless you make a payment so you may want to try going to the library instead.)
Mr. Fybish uses other libraries in New York as well.  He is able to find useful New York City Health Department Reports in city’s Municipal Library at Chambers Street although the hours are limited, the photocopier expensive, and he notes that he also can’t find all the records there that he used to be able to.  Mr. Fybish is a graduate of Columbia and says he has been able to do so some good research at the Columbia University Geology Building on the 116th Street campus inside the Schermerhorn building.  (The general public does not tend to have ready access to university libraries.)  Fybish also mentioned his regard for the natural History Museum Library.

Mr. Fybish is a stickler with, as he says, an “interest in getting things straight,” and has learned how to keep an eye out for the inaccuracies that can slip by getting treated as fact. Writing about climate change in New York City in 2010, Noticing New York quoted from Mike Wallace’s history of the city, “Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898” to remember the Revolutionary War year of 1780 when the British moved troops, two 2-ton cannons and eighty sleighs of provisions from Manhattan to Staten Island over the frozen river ice: Wednesday, September 29, 2010, Brooklyn Tornadoes and a Cool-Headed Appraisal of Weather Weirding in New York.

Mr. Fybish informed me that he was once able to let Mr. Wallace know that he found three weather mistakes or oversights in Mr. Wallace’s book that I then myself looked for in the book: 1.) Wallace writes that in the winter of 1779-80 “snow fell almost every day from early November to March”- no way says Fybish 2.) for December of the winter of 1835-36 the book gives a figure ten degrees lower than actual “it would bottom out at seventeen degrees below zero” p. 594, 3.) There’s no mention in the book’s index of the Blizzard of 1888 (an impetus for building the underground subways completed soon after)- I actually found two (unindexed) mentions of the blizzard on page 1067 (accompanied by a sketch- explaining why wires once on poles were buried) and page 1149.

The Blizzard of '88- From Wikipedia
In Mr. Wallace's "Gotham," an unindexed reference and picture respecting the '88 blizzard
Regarding the Blizzard of 1888, Mr. Fybish notes how (as in the letter he wrote to the New York Times Editor: To the Editor: Sorting Out Blizzards and 'Mild' Winters, January 18, 1996) he has been the one to correct a widely prevalent misconception reiterated in a New York Times article and elsewhere* that the winter leading up to the ‘88 blizzard was an exceptionally mild one, the Times apparently printing on January 12, 1996 that it was “the mildest winter in 16 years.”  Mr. Fybish explained to me that he’d traced the misconception back to Irving Werstein’s book “The Blizzard of '88,” a book at least one reader/reviewer has dubbed “the best” on the subject of this very famous blizzard.  Fybish says that year’s winter was actually one of the colder ones, with some pretty nippy months but that in the months leading up to the Blizzard there was no snow.  In his letter to the Times Fybish surmised that “At least one local writer must have exaggerated” a short-term mildness in late February and early March.
(* For instance: "The Epic of New York City: A Narrative History Paperback" by Edward Robb Ellis, 1997- “It had been the mildest winter in seventeen years.”)
Sorting out the true story of that particularly fabled event furnishes more than one signal of how treacherously ephemeral the records connecting us to our past can be:  While Mr. Fybish’s correction of the January 12, 1996 New York Times story about the weather can easily be found on line, the actual 1996 Times article he corrects ("When Winter's Reality Hits Home- Editorial Notebook, Jan. 11") cannot be found on line!  Maybe that missing article can be found in the library as would once surely have been the case, . . .  Or is it gone, perhaps for good?
George Templeton Strong- from Wikipedia
Mr. Fybish, sometime referred as an amateur weather sleuth, knows that history can disappear with a typo because he was the one who found a missing December 1874 snowstorm (occurring around the 20th).  He found it described (together with preparations for Christmas) in the 2,250-page diary of New York lawyer George Templeton Strong in the New-York Historical Society.  It was the last December the diarist was alive points out Mr. Fybish: Strong died after what was one of the most vicious winters, one of the coldest overall years in modern records.  The 10-inch snowstorm Mr. Fybish rediscovered had disappeared due to a typo that stood in the Central Park observatory records for decades that reduced total snowfall for the month of December to .1 inches.

Weather records are disappearing not just from the libraries.  Fybish provides some irksome and unsettling information about how weather history is not so rock solid stable at the National Weather Service, mostly hailing back to the era of Harold Maurice Gibson, New York City's chief meteorologist at that NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) agency in the 1980s, whom Mr. Fybish recalls as having been a “pal” of Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens.  (Before landing in New York, one of Mr. Gibson’s many stints was reportedly forecasting “weather for fishermen in Anchorage.”)

Frank Sinatra- From Wikipedia
When the Weather Service moved out of its former headquarters in the NBC Building at Rockefeller Center Mr. Fybish says the service “with no real realization of their significance” did not bring along with them records the service had compiled in the form of annual booklets.  Mr. Fybish has many of the booklets or copies of them: “I may well be the only living individual” who has these books of around 28 pages each “with special italics of the highlights.”   The 1915 edition’s italics  told him that Frank Sinatra was born in the middle of a medium level snowstorm.  A lot of books about the weather were also abandoned at the time of the move.

According to Mr. Fybish, somewhere around a decade ago NOAA and the weather service office that is part of NOAA made a change in the way they report snowstorms so that the record for snowfall for a storm that lasts over a day only reports the total snowfall for the first day of that storm.  Fybish points out that by contrast, the old method of reporting for the entire storm is still used for regular precipitation.  Heavier snowstorms, the result of more moisture in the air, can indicate global warming.

It’s a bit esoteric, but Mr. Fybish can also explain how some of the weather statistics reported these days are not the same statistics that were previously reported for the same days in the past.  He said he noticed that they can be a degree or two different: “sort of a distortion.”  This is likely particularly to come into play when reporting the lowest temperatures of bygone years, tending to exclude some minimum cold records.   Some other past statistics are being banished from the records. (Like Barry Bonds home runs?)  Mr. Fybish tells about how at one point the National Weather Service decided that the accuracy of certain of the Central Park records should be “disrespected” and how that means that certain precipitation records are now treated as blank. 
                   
Says Mr. Fybish:
The most egregious result of whatever he [Harold Gibbons] was doing was he announced right before New Year of 1983 going into 1984 that the Central Park precipitation records needed to be invalidated because there had been something going on with the tipping gage that caused the rainfall totals to be greater than they should have been.  So from that time on when you look at one of these annual reports which covers thirty years, the year 1983 is a blank on the precipitation part of the report, not on the temperature or the snow.  But it turned out in later years [another analysis determined ] for all we know the rain gauge may have given less than the amount . . . 
Mr. Fybish comments, the facts were that “all around the area” those keeping records “had their wettest year in 1983.”

What you understand the records to be may even depend on whether you are getting them from the national service or from those working at Central Park.  Mr. Fybish is inclined to solutions that give more information but footnote what has been called into question even if it formatting it for presentation thereby become a greater challenge.
It's not really about remembering Tex Antoine and "Uncle Wethbee" says Fybish
As finicky as he is about knowing what the records really are, Mr. Fybish says that what he values the most is information that presents a “rounded historical sense” of the way things were rather than giving undue deference to the particular records that surpass and thereby supersede other “impressive records of the past.”  If two records tie they are both presented with an asterisk, but Mr. Fybish points out that a record-breaking storm can cause us to forget other events worth remembering.  Nearly 26 inches of snow fell the day after Christmas, December 26th 1947.  That doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth remembering that 18 inches fell on that day in 1872 and 11.5 inches fell in 1933.

Naturally, many people have been discussing with Mr. Fybish this year’s unusual January, given the attention that has been grabbed by the “polar vortex” wandering deep into the south of eastern North America.  While it’s made things cold here this winter there is thinking that it is nevertheless a product of global warming or climate change because climate change has resulted in a less swift, less stable jet stream, meaning that the planet’s northern cap of cold air doesn’t sit as neatly or securely in place over the planet’s North Pole as it used to.

That wandering jet stream explanation could account not only for the cold in New York this year, but also for the winter of 2011/2012 when it was exceptionally warm here (vying with 2001-02 for the warmest New York winter ever, but Europe, (France, the Ukraine, Poland, Bosnia, Serbia, Switzerland, Italy Russia) was in the grip of frigid temperatures.

Mr. Fybish doesn’t weigh in on the science of causation.  He's aware of various theories, but that's not his expertise.  Mr. Fybish instead dedicates himself to being a very careful noticer of what our experience of the weather has been over the many, many decades for which we have records.  Others, perhaps engaging supercomputers to model the weather, may tell us why, but Mr. Fybish’s is the one who will tell us that while this January’s polar vortex weather with “all the curious things that happened this month” was cold, New York’s coldest January of this century so far was January, 2004, which was the second coldest of any since 1920, hitting 1 degree twice and 2 degrees once with 23 days of a minimum temperature of 20 degrees or less and 21 days that were 19 degrees or less.
                               
Mr. Fybish has been collecting his own library of materials for years including his own notebooks and materials he has rescued from destruction by others.   I asked him if he had given any thought to where he would bequeath these materials in he future, myself knowing that renowned biographer Edmund Morris had testified that, because of the NYPL’s poor treatment of research materials, he was changing the plans he once had to leave his own materials to the NYPL.  Mr. Fybish volunteered that he had given some thought to leaving his materials to the NYPL, then self-editorialized with a quick sarcastic “Ha-ha!”

Mr. Fybish, intensely using and caring a lot about libraries, knows a lot about them.  So it was that he knew about Nicholas Baker, author of “Doublefold” and of the article we will review next before I brought it up.
 
CHAPTER THREE: The San Francisco Library Destroys Its Books (Including Books Regarding Climate Change?)

Reckless bulk destruction of rare and valuable books and information that was meant to be safely preserved in libraries reminded me of Nicholson Baker’s 1996 account in The New Yorker of how substantial holdings of the San Francisco Public Library were trashed and sent to landfills when the library moved in order to shrink itself into what was supposed to be a technologically improved `library of the future,’ going broke in the process by doing so!  See: Letter from San Francisco: The Author vs. The Library, by Nicholson Baker, October 14, 1996.

The description of the more recent Canadian carnage reminded me of the San Francisco wreckage, and also set me wondering if unique and hard-to-obtain climate records had been destroyed in that devastation as well.  How legitimately might we hope that what was destroyed to the north in Canada might be found in back-up form in San Francisco further down the North American Pacific Coast?

I went back to reread Nicholson Baker’s article.  Certainly, climate change records were not his particular focus; his focus was the general destruction of research library materials, often one-of-kind and invaluably important for knowing about the past.

Nevertheless, in writing with general broadness and somewhat anecdotally to describe what sorts of things were vanished from the San Francisco Public Library, Baker makes it appear very likely that books concerning zoology, biology, the natural world, with records and information relevant to climate change probably did disappear.

Baker indicates that he thinks that books on “cell biology” together with books about “Elizabethan poetry,”“model trains,” and “pets” were all given short shrift in the way they were treated “because they represent the old-fashioned public library of knowledge, with its space-intensive storage needs.”  Baker picks one particular vanished book to speak about: “Garden Friends and Foes,” by Richard Headstrom, because of its metaphorical value to Baker's argument. The book is about weeds and throwing out books in a library like the San Francisco library is sometimes referred to as “weeding.”  “Weeds” are what supposedly lack value, but, as Baker quotes from Headstrom’s book to make the point: “If you were asked to prepare a list of weeds and compare it with one prepared by somebody else, they would probably not be completely in agreement.”

In other words, weeding must be done carefully.  Writes Baker: “You must be mindful of the traditional strengths and weaknesses of your library, and the myriad and secondary ways in which an out-of-date book may enlighten the historically curious”- and as Baker cautions “if your potential weed is outside of your main area of knowledge” you have some self-education and research to do beforehand.

Baker's metaphorical zeroing in on the discard of a book about "weeds" (who wants a book about "weeds") as a book that could have relevance and value in unexpected and secondary ways could be on target when it comes to climate change in ways Baker probably didn't think about: “Weeds,” and the study of them may turn out to be highly relevant to the study of climate change, to understanding climate change, fighting it and to providing certain possible solutions.  See the New York Times: Can Weeds Help Solve the Climate Crisis?  By Tom Christopher, June 29, 2008.

In other words, mankind’s close observance of nature, in all sorts of ways, is important to this kind of science.  Other books Baker notes the elimination of: The last copy of Darwin’s “The Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants” (in a 1901 edition), “Rivers of North America”  from 1907 and “The Way to Study Birds” from 1917.  In fact, when it comes to birds, Baker notes “I found so many old books about birds” (and ethics) “in the Discard Room.”

The overhaul at S.F.P.L also meant that other relevant books, those actually still there, were more difficult for patrons (including those interested in birds) to access and refer to (“Patrons who want to consult these materials must make a special request and wait until the next day”): “John Gould's eight-volume 'Birds of Australia'” (a set of which sold at auction last March for over a quarter of $1 million)” and “Bligh’s `Voyages to the South Seas.’” That’s Bligh as in the dictatorial Captain Bligh who ruled over the ship the “Bounty” and the mutinous crew that included Fletcher Christian.

Elimination of “Garden Friends and Foes” was not likely because the book would be readily available elsewhere or because this book or other books of Headstrom* didn’t have value.  According to Baker:
There are now no copies of “Garden Friends and Foes” on the shelves of San Francisco Public Library.  There are no duplicates of it at the University of California at Berkley or at Davis or at Stanford.  There are copies of a number of Headstrom’s other books in the S.F.P.L.’s collection— he has written about spiders, lizards, birds, and insects and even A Complete Field Guide to Nests in the United States”— but books like this sole copy of his work on weeds were weeded.  Why?
(* Richard Headstrom“(1902-1985) published many books related to nature and natural history. He began his writing career while teaching for more than twenty years high school chemistry, physics and biology. He also worked as a curator of botany at the 'New England Museum of Natural History', and curator of entomology at the 'Worcester Museum of Science and Industry'. He was also a columnist for the Boston Globe, the Boston Transcript and the Worcester Telegram.”)
“Getting into the weeds,” or “weedy” is currently a slangy colloquialism for veering into details that take one away from telling more conveniently simple narratives.   Rather than implying that details and their complexity lack validity the phrase tends to assume that the limitations of the listener taking in a story must be catered to.  . . .  But conforming facts to attractive narratives isn’t always good for science.

The New York Times just recently ran a story about how Dr. John P. A. Ioannidis concluded, after studies of the scientific literature, that currently “most published findings are probably incorrect.”  Reportedly, after examining “more than a decade’s worth of highly regarded papers”  Dr. Ioannidis found “that a large proportion of the conclusions were undermined or contradicted by later studies.”  Buttressing the finding, the article describes the experience of drug scientist C. Glenn Begley:
He and his colleagues could not replicate 47 of 53 landmark papers about cancer. Some of the results could not be reproduced even with the help of the original scientists working in their own labs.
(See: Science- New Truths That Only One Can See, by George Johnson, January 20, 2014.)

Why?  Human nature and the almost inevitable attraction of certain predetermined narratives:
    . .  many hypotheses already start with a high chance of being wrong. Otherwise proving them right would not be so difficult and surprising — and supportive of a scientist’s career. Taking into account the human tendency to see what we want to see, unconscious bias is inevitable. Without any ill intent, a scientist may be nudged toward interpreting the data so it supports the hypothesis, even if just barely.
               
The effect is amplified by competition for a shrinking pool of grant money and also by the design of so many experiments — with small sample sizes (cells in a lab dish or people in an epidemiological pool) and weak standards for what passes as statistically significant. That makes it all the easier to fool oneself.

Paradoxically the hottest fields, with the most people pursuing the same questions, are most prone to error. . .
This reminds us how urbanist and thinker Jane Jacobs consistently approached her examination of subjects with a rigorous insistence on direct observation, routinely skeptical of the pronouncements of `experts' and their ability to self-delude.  Jacobs as rigorous and hard working was she was, like Mr. Fybish, was never certified as an expert in any of the areas she passionately researched.

By no means am I venturing that the general climate science of today be targeted for any special skepticism.  I personally believe quite the opposite: We need to discount the climate science deniers, pretty much utterly, as a small smattering of virtual nuts, who claim credentials and expertise while being almost entirely financed by the fossil fuel industry.  The case I am trying to make is that with science in general we need to be ever ready to return to original observations. We can't blithely rest assured that the latest pronouncements of the experts of today are correct, superseding all that has gone before. That's something that Mr. Fybish and Ms. Jacobs have both demonstrated.

CHAPTER FOUR: Modern News and the Internet as Our Future Source For Knowing Things.

Are there are those who think that as things are eliminated from the library we will forget things and lose our bearings?  The United Nations just appointed fracking-endorser Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York as its `Climate Change Envoy’ in which capacity he is to be:
responsible for nudging cities around the world to take steps to combat climate change, helping to “raise political will and mobilize action among cities” 
(See: Bloomberg Picked to Be Climate Envoy, by Somini Sengupta, January 31, 2014.)

Secretary of State John Kerry said “I can’t think of a person better suited for this important new role.”  Really?. . . Despite Bloomberg’s being a very environmentally ambiguous fellow?  Bloomberg was mayor of New York for twelve years.  He was more or less the opposite of an environmental mayor and didn’t launch his ballyhooed environmental initiates until spring of 2007, pretty much halfway through that twelve year tenure, a year after Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” film documented Gore’s long running lectures on climate dangers.  See: Monday, November 2, 2009, On Your Way To Vote, We Quizzically Ask: How “Green” Is Our Bloomberg? and Saturday, April 23, 2011, A Post-Earth Day Post: Bloomberg, His PlaNYC 2030, His Environmental Creds (Credentials and Credibility) and Population Projections.

Bloomberg- 2009 photo to promote him as an `environmentalist'
Even after clamoring to be awarded environmental credentials, Bloomberg has quite recently been endorsing hydro-fracking (so long as it is not in New York City's backyard or watershed) with all the fossil fuel extraction greenhouse gas producing and other destructive environmental implications that entails.

John Kerry’s adoption of the platitudinous script for this alternate realty, “I can’t think of a person better suited for this important new role,” is particularly dismaying because as Secretary of State Kerry is supposed to arbitrate what is reality in terms of climate change respecting the environmental effect of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline intended to deliver tar sands oil from Canada.  He is supposed to tell president Obama what he thinks and both activists and the fossil fuel industry are seizing upon the influence of his determinations as key.
February 3rd in Union Square, New York, one of the many demonstrations that evening around the country against the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline
The reality and accuracy with which climate matters are perceived is crucial. Clayton Thomas-Muller, co-director of the Indigenous Tar Sands (ITS) Campaign of the Polaris Institute spoke at Union Square February 3rd at one of the hundreds of coordinated demonstrations around the country that night against the pipeline.  I spoke with both Bill McKibben of 350.Org and Mr. Thomas-Muller after the demonstration.  Both were acutely aware of the Canadian government’s destruction of the  libraries and climate information in them.  Mr. Thomas-Muller said the Harper government’s actions with respect to the libraries were part and parcel of a total “attack on science” that puts Canada in danger of “sliding into a petrostate.”
      
In New York, selling off of New York City libraries, shrinking the library system, dispensing with ready access to books (and the variety of information they provided) was part of the Bloomberg administration’s agenda.  The indicators are that the principal goal was to hand out real estate deals to developers, not to make the public more stupid about climate change or another particular matter.  But will we lose our grip on the realities of the past if the Bloomberg agenda for selling off and shrinking the city’s libraries proceeds as was intended when he was in office?

Are other libraries in the U.S., as in Canada, being purged of information with the same Orwellian objective of preventing the public from knowing what it needs to know?  It may not be that simple or stark but those cutting back on libraries likely see little problem with libraries that streamline mankind’s collected body of historical knowledge down to what the public `needs to know', just to what a business efficiency expert thinks people `should know.'  It certainly results in more manageable narratives that are easier to control and more likely handed out top down, narratives more likely to be in sync with the latest edition of PR stories those ensconced in society's upper ranks are handing out.

But what is really going to serve us best at a time when we need to develop new solutions?  Don’t we need libraries with depth and diversity?

In her 2000 book, “The Nature of Economies,” Jane Jacobs, consistent with her earlier writings about how the jumbled and clustering activities of cities generate civilization and progress, made the case that “development,” which she proposes is a naturally and organically evolving process isn’t linear in nature, that like a natural ecosystem, it comes from the mixing of different `genetic pools’ of ideas and information, different ways of working and doing things (p.28-29).  These `genetic pools’ include, among other things, old information and old ways of doing things that hopefully won’t be lost: Be careful of what you generalize to deem “obsolete” she warns because “even the most obscure and frivolous” things are “potentially economically fertile, provided that somebody who needs them can find them.”

“The Nature of Economies,” is written in the form of a Socratic dialogue where different characters express Jacobs’ ideas:
    . . . development can’t be usefully thought of as a ‘line,’ or even as a collection of open-ended lines.  It operates as a web of interconnected co-developments . . . (p.19)

    . . . the richest— which means the most expanded— economies are diverse economies.  The practical link between economic development and economic expansion is economic diversity.  Here’s the principle, which applies to both ecosystems and he economics of settlements: Diverse ensembles expand in a rich environment, which is created by the diverse use and reuse of received energy.   (P.63)
Jacobs writes, at one point, about how discrimination, selectively removing resources and opportunity from segments of the population, impoverishes the overall economy.  Her words may also pertain to the effects of removing books from libraries, particularly when there are less advantaged segments of the population that rely on them most heavily.
Now suppose portions of a population are prevented from exercising economic creativity and initiative because of discrimination attached to gender, race, caste, religion, social class, ideology, or whatever.  This means that the kinds of work those people, do are automatically sterilized, so to speak. . . .  If categories of people doing specific kinds of work can’t use those kinds of work as bases for development, it’s unlikely anybody else in the economy will.  (P.32)
In terms of ensuring diverse contributions from all sectors of society, it is not much consolation that somebody trimming the library down (with a corporatist bent) thought they knew the value others would find in what might be kept.

Libraries are about the societal sharing of resources.  Jacobs writes about  “the practice of sharing” as potently serving “economic development,” going way back to our origins:           
By that I don’t mean random or inadvertent sharing but calculated, intended sharing as an institutionalized social practice.  Along with us, our closest primate cousins, the chimpanzees and bonobos, go in for deliberate, socially formalized sharing.  This suggests that the practice may go back to an ancestor common to the three of us, back to prehominid times. (p. 27)
Towards the end of her “The Nature of Economies,” Jane Jacobs wrote about the manifestation of environmentally preservationist instincts in the human race being important to its survival.

Jacobs addressed herself to the environment in earlier books as well.  In her “Economy of Cities” she observed that the most ruthless depredations of the environment are symptomatic of stagnating societies that are failing to develop in dead-end folly (p. 117) “where people exploit too narrow a range of resources too heavily and too monotonously for too long,” without repair or developing alternatives.

Looking back over the entire history of mankind for her evidence she sees appalling destructions of the environment (p. 118):
        . . Common sequels in the past have been deforestation, complete destruction of wild life, loss of soil fertility and lowering of water tables.   
Her later “The Nature of Economies,” presents a more evolved discussion of humankind’s relationship with the environment, or should I say one that speaks to the issue of our evolution.  She takes on Darwin’s famously “unsolved puzzle” concerning altruism (p. 124), asking whether the evolutionary “survival of the fittest” falsely constricts to a definition of competitive top-dog success where our ‘selfish genes’ dictate that individuals must strive to succeed at the expense of all those around them.  That is not, in fact, the way that humankind has evolved.

This significant question has been tackled by the `Beautiful Mind’ of John Nash (b. 1928), the Nobel Laureate in Economics and by chemist, scientist, and mathematician George Robert Price (1922-1975- see:  The Price of Altruism: George Price and the Search for the Origins of Kindness, by Oren Harman).  Jacobs remarking on some of the thought given to the question, references the attempt to solve the puzzle with game theory models.  (It is interesting how, despite caparisons that can be drawn, Googling the names of Nash and Price in combination generates so few hits.)

Considering the work of game theorists, Nash or Price, we are likely to focus on the relationships and sacrificing balances between competing individuals of our species, but Jacobs speaks of the human race as having co-evolved in symbiotic relationship with the environment and other species such that our “fitness of habitat maintenance” and  “habitat-preserving traits” must be “important evolutionary assets” to our race, including our “capacity for aesthetic appreciation” as a trait to “check habitat destruction.”  In Jacobs' view the fittest environments are the most rich and diverse environments

One oughtn’t to doubt the truth of what Jacobs asserts about humans co-evolving as symbionts living in coordinated concert with the other organism of the environment.  It happens at all levels.  As evolved, humans can’t produce all the vitamins we need to survive: We symbiotically rely on bacteria in our gut to produce Vitamin K while we and the other primates also rely on other organisms like citrus plants to produce Vitamin C so that we don’t get scurvy.

Does Jane Jacobs offer insights that could help us understand and respond to climate change?  Probably.  Are you going to be able to get those insights at the library? Maybe not.

. . .  I went to the Brooklyn Heights Library, at least the second most important library in the Brooklyn library system, a flagship and destination library that the Brooklyn Public Library is proposing to sell-off for shrinkage.  Of the seven books that Jane Jacobs wrote, the library had only one copy of one them, “Systems of Survival” (1992) which I actually wrote about in connection with the moral issues surrounding the proposed sale of that destination library.

Another three of Ms. Jacobs books were supposed to be on the shelves there, but weren’t.  “The Nature of Economies,” written about in this article and “Cities and the Wealth of Nations” (1984) were supposed to be in the Business and Career portion of the library.   The Business and Career portion of the library may largely cease to exist if the BPL follows through with its plans of exiling the section when it shrinks the library.
It is not as if the shelves of the Brooklyn Heights Library don't have room (see above) for putting the books of Jane Jacobs where they are supposed to go.  Click here to see many more picture of the library's now empty shelves and the emptying shelves of other NYC libraries.
Ms. Jacob’s most highly regarded, seminal work “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” (1961) was supposed to be in the main reading room, but wasn’t.  Do we blame these absences on a lack of books or a dearth of librarians to shepherd and tend them?  In either case it's a lack of library resources.

“The Economy of Cities,” the book that I quoted from above about the environment, would only be found in the Main Library several subway stops away from downtown, the same with Ms. Jacobs’ last book, “Dark Age Ahead” (2004).

Apparently nowhere in the system can you find Ms. Jacobs’ third book, “The Question of Separatism: Quebec and the Struggle over Sovereignty” (1980 republished in 2011 with a 2005 interview) in which she offers analysis to understand Canadian government and politics, including the pull on the government of the resource extraction constituencies:
To understand . . . we must be aware of Canada's customary view of economic life and it's traditional approach to economic development. Canada exploits and exports resources, to the neglect of developing industries and services based on manufacturing or inventions requiring manufacturing.  . . .

The experience of Canada has been that the largest and most quickly obtained fortunes, whether public or private, come from resources . . . Canada's get-rich-quick experience with resources has shaped all the countries major institutions. . . It has shaped the way venture capital and subsidies are used, the types of development schemes contrived, and the assumptions of almost everyone in authority. These are not easy things to change.

When a single dominant approach to economic life and wealth has been pursued as consistently and as long as it has been here, the experience gets thoroughly built into how things work.  Dazzling sums of money are available for resource exploitation and for vast construction projects associated with them. . . pipelines, refineries 
. . .
. . . pitifully little . . . goes into initially modest innovative work.

It is not as if Jane Jacobs books take up a lot of shelf space.  For reference, three of books above, the two biggest, beside the rest of an entire Jacobs home library collection are not by Jacobs.
Will the internet replace libraries to provide what we need to know about climate change and to address it?  You can buy “The Question of Separatism” for a price from Amazon and get it in a few days, but you can't read it on the internet.
Above, NOT in the Brooklyn Public Library system's collection, Jacobs'“The Question of Separatism: Quebec and the Struggle over Sovereignty”  The kind of thoughts inside: “Power is the attribute of bigness that makes bigness attractive to people.  Admiration of bigness because of its power tends to make us overlook its inherent weakness. . .  Big organizations . . . can make big mistakes, just as small ones can, and when they do, the mistakes will be big ones.”
When it comes to climate change there is a lot to try to figure out about what is happening.  Maybe you understand how the earth’s less stable cap of cold air, sending wandering and more octopus-like tentacles south (getting 'loopy'), has delivered polar vortex temperatures to New York.  Is that related to California’s current mega-drought, the worst it has experienced in the more than 100 years that records have been kept?  Yes, in that right now the vortex located in the northeast is probably ensuring California stays arid (therefore having a probable relationship to the way climate change effects are showing up). . . Nevertheless, as unusual as California’s drought is, though it is the worst in 500 years, there was a drought 500 years ago, before mankind polluted the air with greenhouse climate-warming gasses so there is still more to know and assess on that score.
California's Central Valley grows a third of a third of of all the nation’s produce, one third of all the nation's fruit and vegetables?
In winter of 2011/2012 when New York was warm Europe was frigid in interrelating ways.  So that makes what’s happening on the other side of the globe of potentially more personal interest.

What about the Southern hemisphere where on November 8, 2013, (our fall their spring) Typhoon Haiyan, the strongest cyclone to hit land in recorded history devastated the Philippines?  Now, it's summer in Australia and there is record heat there as well as fires.  Bats are dropping dead from the sky, over 100,000 dead, because they simply fail when the temperature exceeds 109 degrees Fahrenheit. Kangaroos, parrots and emus are also dying.  Maybe you knew about the 2014 Australian heat wave because of reports of the fainting hallucinating tennis players* and the melting plastic water bottles.  (2013 was Australia’s hottest year on record.)  Does heat in Australia mean that the other side of the Southern Hemisphere will be cool?   One might hope unless you have caught up with the news about the heat waves in Argentina (104̊F and 113̊F), Uruguay, and Brazil.
(*  At the same time we are running out of venues cold enough to host the Winter Olympics.)     
New Zealand?  Not in the news with any reports of excessive heat as far as I can see.

Frankly, despite being able to inform myself that the heat down in Argentina turned into an unfortunate confrontation between 70 swimmers and a school of piranhas trying to share the same river, I find the availability of information on the internet a bit thin.  While I don’t know exactly what figures would be completely accurate I know that very few companies own far too much of the media.

Making things potentially worse in terms of getting information that isn’t corporately moderated, only a few days ago this past January a federal appeals court ruled against the Federal Communication Commission's.(F.C.C.) regulations requiring "net neutrality," a ruling it is predicted will "give large, rich companies an unfair edge in reaching consumers" allowing different "companies to pay to stream their products to online viewers" faster and preferentially.   Essentially, the internet will be treated as privately owned and, accordingly, because the internet "is not considered a utility," corporations seeking profits will be free to prefer what gets through on that basis.  Could things be getting even worse than this?  There are books to read on the subject.

How might we envision that the mosaic of locally tailored solutions to climate change might be created?  If we recognized the true cost to society of fossil fuels by imposing a substantial immediate tax on fossil fuels as we probably ought to do to discourage their use, shifts would be going on everywhere, all of them trending toward solutions of differing ilk.  We could flatter capitalist thinkers by speaking in terms of "harnessing the power and creativity of capital markets,"but it is really a question of unleashing the creativity and collective power of human individuals, provided we supply those many individuals with appropriate resources.  The resources I am talking about, of course, include libraries.

We now spend somewhere upwards from 8% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP*) on energy.  I go by figures (see chart below) of  the Institute for Energy Research.  Although, the Institute for Energy Research (like the American Energy Alliance) seems to have been created backed by Koch and fossil fuel industry money for the purpose of climate science denial, their figures on this one particular score appear sufficiently reliable for our immediate purposes here.
(* GDP can be a misleading way to consider energy production.  If someone make energy for you in Niagara Falls and sells it to you, it will be included in GDP.  If you make energy for yourself at home with a solar panel or if you conserve it with long-life, energy-saving light bulbs or smart practices that will not be included in GDP.)

Though per capita spending varies terrifically state by state, that GDP percentage divided up into an average per capita spending of U.S. citizens on energy was $3,460 for 2009 (see the U.S. government chart below- or go to the interactive map that was its source).

The GDP and per capita spending figures above don't reflect the total amounts devoted to energy or particularly to fossil fuels because they do not include the amounts that the fossil fuel industry has not been  internalizing in the prices it charges by paying a tax.  How much more are we already spending on energy factoring those things in.  Estimates I read seem low to me, but that might be because cold, hard, calculating, numbers-oriented economists don't have the same aesthetic appreciation for the environment and survival of fellow species that I do.

Is it true that "Most cost estimates clustered between 1 and 2 percent of the world's gross domestic product"?  (See: Economic Scene- Counting the Cost of Fixing the Future, by Eduardo Porter, September 10, 2013.)  A report in Business Week says "Climate change and pollution related to carbon-dioxide emissions are reducing the world’s gross domestic product by 1.6 percent a year" currently and if unchecked could "cut global GDP by 3.2 percent a year by 2030."  The Environmental Defense Fund citing a Tufts University report and the National Resources Defense Counsel give figures of"3.6 percent of GDP" or possibly higher.

Says the NRDC report:
New research shows that if present trends continue, the total cost of global warming will be as high as 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Four global warming impacts alone—hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs—will come with a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100.
The journal "Nature," in a July 2013 report, found that global"costs would vary between $10 trillion to $220 trillion, depending on the emissions reductions that are put in place during the same period for other greenhouse gases, such as CO2." 

To put that in perspective, U.S. GDP is $15.68 trillion if you refer to the chart below.
It's likely that even these additional costs of climate change cited above overlook inclusion of relevant costs, like security.  In the U.S. we spend 4.35% of our GDP on military spending.  (So as not to double count let's acknowledge that figure includes money already acknowledged as part of the GDP spending on energy.) That 4.35% of GDP is the calculated figure used by the CIA for ranking purposes, but it is not clear that it includes what we spend on the CIA itself or the NSA to be secure.  What we spend on the NSA is secret. By the calculation of some we spend more than 50% of our discretionary U.S. spending on the military.

In a study by the National Research Council  commissioned by the C.I.A. it's forecasted that accelerating climate change:
will place unparalleled strains on American military and intelligence agencies in coming years by causing ever more disruptive events around the globe. . .

. . clusters of apparently unrelated events exacerbated by a warming climate will create more frequent but unpredictable crises in water supplies, food markets, energy supply chains and public health systems.  
(See: Climate Change Report Outlines Perils for U.S. Military, by John M. Broder, November 9, 2012.)

The Pentagon now has an "Arctic Strategy" because "as rising global temperatures shrink the polar ice. .  Russia, China and other nations" will "compete for economic opportunities and influence in the region."

Discussing the issue in the fall, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel:
noted that tourism, shipping and commercial fishing might gravitate toward new Arctic sea routes, but he underscored in particular what could happen as nations vied for the region’s vast quantities of oil and gas.

“A flood of interest in energy exploration has the potential to heighten tensions over other issues,” Mr. Hagel said. Multilateral security cooperation will be a priority, he added, as “this will ultimately help reduce the risk of conflict.”
(See: Pentagon Releases Strategy for Arctic, by Thom Shanker, November 22, 2013.)

There are plenty who will asset to you that the expensive cost of recent wars fought by the United States, particularly the last two Iraq wars had a lot to do with fossil fuel oil people were after.  It’s estimated the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion.  Whatever you calculate the unreimbursed cost of the short first Iraq war to have been, it is important to remember that in ways it helped led to the two following wars.

That's the kind of money we are spending on energy, and energy from fossil fuels, that create climate change:  many thousands of dollars per capita and well over 10% of our GDP.  On libraries that could be furnishing and incubating clever solutions for smarter, cheaper energy use, helping us to properly understand the challenges while solving many of the world's other problems at the same time we spend $36.18 per capita on U.S. citizens with expenditures varying by state, with some states spending as low as $15.99.

In other words, in contrast to vast devotion of societal resources to energy and everything else that hangs in the balance, we are spending on the order of  00.08% of our GDP, an almost incalculably small fraction, on libraries even though they may be the source of many of society's answers.  Instead of believing that knowledge and information and the accumulated wisdom of the past can provide answers, we now seek to shrink away and destroy libraries, and in the case of Canada's environmental libraries it's because those libraries are telling us the truth we need to confront and deal with.

Do those running the libraries where I live in New York City have a vision of how libraries relate to this era of climate change?  They do!. . . But only sort of.  The vision offered by the NYPL and BPL is not one where we all fan out as capable citizens using the libraries as libraries- the way libraries were always intended to be used-  (together with other resources) to save the environment, creating solutions and protecting the world from climate change.  In the vision offered by the library administrators, the general populace isn't offered the chance to arise as heroes of their own tale; Instead, more paternalistically it is envisioned that New York City libraries will be converted to the new use of housing our assaulted populace in “cooling centers,”  “cooling stations,” and “hurricane/emergency relief centers.”  (See:  Thursday, October 3, 2013, Michael Kimmelman’s Scary Tightrope Act On Library Design: A Dance With The PR Machine Of Library Officials Intent On Selling Off Libraries.)

There is an accentuating problem in this regard. Library administrators are using this new vision as a reason to sell and shrink libraries:
Everyone knows that going back to the sudden secretive sale of the Donnell Library there hasn’t been a library that library administration officials have wanted to sell or destroy (including the stacks of the 42nd Street Central Reference Library) where they don’t blame theoretically problematic air conditioning.  They argue that the air conditioning can’t be fixed, but must be fixed, so they say that the ownership of the real estate must be turned over to developers.  Witness the current shenanigans respecting the intentional overestimation of air conditioning repair costs and refusal to repair the air conditioning with respect to the Brooklyn Heights Library.  The air conditioning `broke down'just months before Brooklyn Public Library officials were about to make public their longstanding (going back to 2008) secret plans to sell that library.
The interim result is that the public swelters more as climate change ushers in hot days as the library officials refuse to fix or upgrade air conditioning, trying to force public assent to the proposed real estate deals.

Here is another link that can be made between climate change and Bloomberg's developer-driven library sales: One of the trustees of the NYPL who has been key to pushing the NYPL's Bloomberg-blessed sale of its precious library real estate is Stephen Schwarzman, head of the Blackstone Group, the "largest real estate investor in the world."  When he is not pushing the Bloomberg agenda of selling libraries for real estate deals, Schwarzman, like Bloomberg, is promoting hydro-fracking, a fossil fuel industry in which he invests heavily.  (See:  Saturday, June 22, 2013, On Charlie Rose NYPL Trustee Stephen Schwarzman Confirms Suspicions: His $100 Million To The Library Was Linked To NYPL’s Real Estate Plans.) . . .

. .  A third leg of this stool: Mr. Schwarzman has been cited in two Paul Krugman columns as an example of a plutocratic class warrior who believes that the 1% must retain their supremacy over the rest of society, winning at any cost. (See: Plutocrats Feeling Persecuted, September 26, 2013 and Paranoia of the Plutocrats, January 26, 2014.)
How is it that libraries and civilizations end?  Drawing by Simon Verity.
The fact is that we have known for millennia how to keep and store books containing mankind's collected knowledge.  We have known how through libraries and librarians to makes those stores of knowledge readily available to those seeking to absorb that knowledge and educate themselves.     

We also have some historical notions about how civilizations have crashed and burned when they have let their great libraries fall to ruin or destruction.  See: See Books on Fire: The Destruction of Libraries throughout History, by Lucien X. Polastron (2007).

But now in a fit of digital, real estate-grabbing fashion that may pass soon enough, recognized as transient folly, we risk what we have preserved through generations.

Similarly, the carbon we are now releasing with the extraction of fossil fuels from the earth has been sequestered, buried underground for hundreds of millions or, as the case may be, billions of years and thus with that carbon out of the atmosphere the earth's climate has been the hospitable home of our homo sapiens race for 200,000 years.  Now, taking extraordinary risk, we are making a break from that past.
 (* Most coal was sequestered starting about 400 million years ago. Coals have been discovered in rocks as old as the Precambrian, but it was not until the Devonian Period (some 400 million years ago) that woody plants became abundant on land and peat deposits were able to accumulate enough to make a minable coal. The deposit of significant quantities of oil underground goes back even further, 2.5–2 billion years to the Archean-Paleoproterozoic transition. Then a radical modification in recycling of organic matter, and the Shunga Event—the accumulation and abundant deposition of unprecedented anomalously organic-carbon- rich-matter sediments forming petroleum source rocks and the inferred generation and migration of the oldest known significant volumes of oil/petroleum.)
And we should remember that climate change, like the destruction of the great libraries of history, has also been associated with the demise of civilizations, sometimes for similar interrelated reasons.  See: Climate change and the rise and fall of civilizations, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, by Emily Sohn,  January 21, 2014.

It may seem impertinent and shrill to suggest that cutting back and eliminating libraries could bring about the downfall of our civilization claiming that the climate change threatening our species and the rest of the world will be likely be exacerbated as a result . . .  But it is highly reasonable to believe, as I do, that the answers to climate change will ultimately involve a multiplicity of individuals and talents and a mosaic of solutions, locally developed and fine tuned to address challenges in all sorts of specific and different ways.  Seeking all the solutions we can has got to be essential, even a question of survival.  Libraries will assuredly be important in the mix contributing to those solutions.  Also contributing will be the significant and due respect for knowledge and information that libraries represent and deserve.

Here is one way I am personally working towards solutions locally in New York City.  As part of Citizens Defending Libraries we are working to make sure that the Bloomberg agenda for selling off New York City libraries ends with Bloomberg's very recent departure.  Towards that goal we stood with Mayor de Blasio this summer when de Blasio was a candidate calling for a halt to the sales.  We helped elect Public Advocate Tish James and other candidates running for office who opposed the sales.  Our work is not done.  Though Bloomberg left office at the end of 2013, and although his administration is being replaced, library officials (including some officials previously appointed and left behind by Bloomberg) have announced that they intend to work to lobby Mayor de Blasio and the other officials who were elected opposing library sales to get those elected officials to change their minds.  Our job is now is to keep the spines of our newly elected officials stiff, representing the voters who put them into office.

Some good news in this regard: Recently elected City Councilman Costa Constanidis, is the new head of the City Council subcommittee on libraries and he is holding hearings on libraries.  He, along with the new City Comptroller Scott Stringer, will be investigating how the city's libraries were run under the Bloomberg administration with a focus on whether the trustees were truly attending to the public interest.  One thing making this especially good news: Councilman Constanidis, a lawyer, came into office elected partly on the basis of his background as an “environmental activist.”

Musical On Broadway: The “Revolting Children” of “Matilda” Throwing Away Library Books? No, It’s Revolting Adults! Really!

$
0
0
One of the four young actresses playing Matilda in the musical on Broadway.  Matlida loves her library books!
One of the hottest tickets on Broadway that you might be likely to take a cherished youngster to is about . . . child abuse!

Amazing?

It’s true, although it might be said as well that is also about the broader paradigm of those with power taking advantage of the powerless.

The show is Matilda, a musical based on the children’s novel of the same name by Roald Dahl, made into a film in 1996.

While the subject may, indeed, be child abuse, it is tackled presenting the kind of world you find in fairy tales, with reviled villains broadly expressed, their conspicuously awful traits laid on thickly with can-you-top-this imaginativeness.  It allows you to relish pinnacles of awfulness while resting safely assured the tale must be in the realm of fiction.  Although it's highly entertaining fare for adults, it is children’s satire that employs a sort of reverse-logic humor to have its 'nasty' fun.  The wickedly base adults of the plot do the opposite of the mature conduct that one stereotypically expects from grownups charged with responsibly raising children.

An example of some of the extreme absurdity central to the plot: The bad adults hate library books!  There is one scene where the horrid father of the young heroine Matilda delights in throwing away library books, tossing them in high arcs through the air, one after another, into a rubbish bin and another where that father ferociously dives into a tearing attack on a poor defenseless book to destroy it.  The book actually stands up pretty well in the battle.  These `adults' of this strange world are outraged that others would want to read books!  
Mr. Woomwood, Matilda's father-  a riled attack on a book
It stands as fairly self-evident that the show’s secure dramatic connection with its (often juvenile) audience presupposes that everybody sitting in the theater’s seats will clearly understand that is bad, really bad.  And yet. . .

. . . . In the very same American city where Matilda is playing on Broadway with the theme of destruction and hatred of library books being key to characterizing the plot’s travesties, just blocks away in a building on 42nd Street there are people who in real life have an inordinate amount of power and control, who are, in truth, plotting to get rid of books and libraries that house them.  The funding of libraries is being stymied and at the same time diverted into real estate boondoggles that won’t benefit the public.  These real life people are actually  like Ms. Trunchbull, the cruel school headmistress of the Matilda story: They are in similarly charge with positions of trust and responsibility . . .  they will actually be able to make the books, libraries, and librarians disappear. .  if they are not stopped.  They are people like New York Public Library trustee Stephen A. Schwarzman, head of the Blackstone Group, the world’s largest real estate investment firm which has multiple other side enterprises like hedge funds.

Amazing?

You don’t believe me about Matilda’s plot?  That it’s about child abuse?  Or that the adults in the plot are caricatured as so dastardly that they would be fixated on throwing away library books?  The good news is that the musical has a happy, if tricky and unusual, surprise ending which makes it, in the end, about conquering oppression and the resources it takes to liberate oneself.
Ms. Trunchbull with her tongue out as a non-fan of books.  Ms. Honey, teacher and friend to Matilda, is aghast.
In an interview about the show’s construction in the UK’s Telegraph (the show is an import from England where it was first performed) director Matthew Warchus explained: “This might be a story about child abuse but the twist is the child doesn’t see herself as helpless.”

Here is some description of the show from New York Times review when the musical opened last spring.
Rush now, barricade stormers of culture, to the Shubert Theater, and join the insurrection against tyranny, television, illiteracy, unjust punishment and impoverished imaginations, led by a 5-year-old La Pasionaria with a poker face and an off-the-charts I.Q.

    * * *

Above all it’s an exhilarating tale of empowerment, as told from the perspective of the most powerless group of all. I mean little children.

    * * *

The printed word is regarded in the Wormwood household [Matilda’s home] as kiddie pornography might be looked upon in others.
(See: Theater Review- Children of the World, Unite! ‘Matilda the Musical’ at Shubert Theater, by Ben Brantley, April 11, 2013.)
Above, Leslie Margerita as Mrs. Wormwood, Matilda's mother, from one of the videos ,"looks not books," promoting the show.
Even Matilda’s garish mother, obsessed with ballroom dancing, is flatly antagonistic to books.  Her motto?: “Looks, not books!”. . .  

. . .  The motto might as well also be the motto of those generating the designs for what we will supposed to be getting in place of real libraries in the future.
"Looks Not Books" again?  On left the proposed design for the tiny shrunken Donnell "replacement library."  On the right the design of the bookless library that design was apparently taken from.
You don’t believe me that those at the pinnacles of New York power running libraries are similarly antagonistic to and getting rid of books, selling off and shrinking libraries to virtual shadows?

Not that long ago, before Mayor Bloomberg had taken over from Mayor Giuliani, the flagship, destination libraries of Manhattan had on the order of 13 million books in them to be readily available to city readers.  Now as Bloomberg has just left office those running the libraries are busy reducing that number way down to around only 4 million books, perhaps closer to 3.5 million
From 1987 to an envisioned 2015 (with an implemented Central Library Plan), how total number of books in Manhattan's principal libraries is declining drastically.  Over 12 million books in 1996 and 2003 to perhaps 4.2 million books (or even far fewer?) when CLP is implemented.  Starting figures in the graph for 1987 and 1992 are graphed lower than than they actually should be because they don't include unknown numbers for Mid-Manhattan and Donnell
When Giuliani left office, libraries and library space had been expanding and there were plans for more growth with, particularly significant, new construction to almost double of the size of Mid-Manhattan, the borough’s most used circulation library at 40th Street and Fifth Avenue.  Across the street, the world-esteemed 42nd Street Central Reference Library, expanded to nearly double its book-holding capacity in 1992 (with the Bryant Park being closed for more than four years at taxpayer expense for this purpose) completed still another expansion, its most recent, in 2002.  During the Bloomberg years, those running the library system pivoted. . .     

. . .  The beloved Donnell Library on 53rd Street across from MoMA was suddenly and secretively sold off for a pittance, not yet replaced, to shrink it down to less than a third of its previous size, in space that will be mostly subterranean and largely bookless.  Having so far gotten away with this affront to library lovers, the same perverse crew running libraries is pursuing something called the “Central Library Plan” that sells off Mid-Manhattan, the recently completed Science, Industry and Business library, and plunders the research stacks of the Central Reference Library, getting rid of and exiling the research books kept there, reducing all this space to about one quarter the amount of library space that existed before.
From an earlier NNY Article- 1987 to an envisioned 2015 (with an implemented Central Library Plan), total actual midtown Manhattan Library destination space actual and planned, first going up and then going lower than ever before
The Donnell debacle spun off a real estate deal benefitting developers and people in real estate.  The Central Library Plan would likewise spin off such deals as would comparable plans to sell off libraries in Brooklyn, similarly shrinking them and getting rid of books.

The bad adults in Matlida are characterized by mendacity and lying.  They use deceit to surreptitiously appropriate from others what does not belong to them.  Though the Central Library Plan would reduce more than 380,000 square feet of library space down to just 80,000 square feet, those selling off and reducing all this library space have the effrontery to be representing the reduction as an expansion.  See: Saturday, July 13, 2013, Deceptive Representations By New York Public Library On Its Central Library Plan: We’re NOT Shrinking Library Space, We Are Making MORE Library Space!   
A scene of a destroyed English library in Matilda?  No, a photo in a warning Tweet from Library Lovers League about pending destruction in the New York City library system.
This is akin to Matilda’s father, a used car salesman, turning back the odometers on cars he hopes to deceptively sell.  Did you know that one excuse given for why the libraries now supposedly need to be sold off in a scheme of self-cannibalizing shrinkage is that Bloomberg has not been funding them adequately, but on November 4th, at the end of his mayoral term, the eve of the election that would replace Mr. Bloomberg with Bill de Blasio (calling for a halt to Bloomberg's plans), the NYPL held a trustee gala specially honoring this mayor who presided over the sale, shrinkage, underfunding of libraries and banishment of their books?

Below are two videos from the rally held outside the gala to protest this absurdity.



Carolyn E. McIntyre, Citizens Defending Libraries Rally, 4 November 2013




Citizens Defending Libraries Rally, New York Public Library, 4 November 2013

The “Central Library Plan” has not found favor with the public so the NYPL has deceptively tried changing its name to the “42 Street Library Renovation,” (“It's the same plan,”says NYPL COO David Offensend), and most recently, even more abstrusely referring to a  “renovated central branch library,” in a bit of trickiness whereby the NYPL attempted to fool people into unknowingly supporting the unpopular plan. 
Matilda's library set- full of books
In contrast, empty shelves in the Brooklyn Heights Library.  More pictures of the empty library shelves around the city compared to the way we conceptually believe library shelves should be filled are here in this article.  
The shelves of Matilda's library refuge are full of books
The counter to the bleakness of the villains in Matilda is the library (and its resident librarian).  Throughout the evening there are recurring scenes in a library that is Matilda’s sustaining refuge in a world where she must fend entirely for herself.  Brantley, the Times reviewer, speaks of the library set as:
an airy wonderland of large letter-bearing tiles and bookcases. It suggests the endless supply from which Matilda (and vicariously we) can draw to make words, which make sentences, which make stories.
Because, as Brantley discerns, the story celebrates a wellspring of available empowerment:
"Matilda," you see, is about words and language, books and stories, and their incalculable worth as weapons of defense, attack and survival. It's about turning the alphabet into magic, and using it to rule the world.
One of the show's Facebook promotions referencing the "Telly" song
Matilda’s father offers a competing philistine vision to ‘thinking’ and what ought to be desirable.  The second act opens with the musical number “Telly.”  Some sample lyrics:
Somewhere on a show I heard, that a picture tells a thousand words, so telly, if you bother to take a look. is the equivalent of like, . . .  lots of books!

All I know, I learned from telly, this big beautiful box of facts.

. . . all you need to make you wise is twenty-three minutes plus advertisements.

. . . The bigger the telly, the smarter the man.. .  You can tell from my big telly just what a very clever fellow I am.

. . . all you need to fill your noggin without really having to think or nothing.
Library administration officials aren’t exactly promoting television screens to replace books, but as books take up real estate and thus entail keeping the libraries, they are promoting the idea that books be replaced with computer screens despite public preference for physical books and recent reviews of scientific literature suggesting that the human brain is hardwired to learn and remember better when reading physical books.
Mr. Tony Marx Wormwood?  Is Photoshop all it takes to imagine NYPL President Tony Marx as Mr. Wormwood?  Mr Marx was hired and is very well paid to promote the NYPL's plans to eliminate books and libraries as `populism' (like the Telly?) NOT discriminatory and antidemocratic.
But, as Mr. Wormwood articulates in his anthem to couch surfing: “Why would we waste our energy our energy turning pages, one, two, three, when we can sit comfortably, on our lovely bumferlies.”

Promotion for the musical's satire
Another anthem in the show extolling a contrary value system antagonistic to what one expects to  appreciate in libraries as sanctuaries of thought and contemplation is Mrs. Wormwood’s song Loud.”  Some sample lyrics:
People don't like smarty pants
What go round claiming
That they know stuff
We don't know.

Now, here's a tip.
What you know matters less
Than the volume with which
What you don't know's expressed!

Content, has never been less important.
So you have got to be ...

Loud!
(Loud, loud, loud)
Do I need to express that the song repeats the word “loud” many times and LOUDLY?

Did you know that new York City library administration officials are now touting the idea that libraries should be “loud” (with a `non-shush' policy) so that they can be smaller spaces where everything “flexibly” happens pell-mell on top of everything else.  So with the opening of Mariners Harbor, the NYPL’s most recently designed library, we learn that it is supposed to be NOISY!:“`We encourage noise,’ said Elizabete Pata, the library manager. `I’m not the typical librarian, shushing people.’”

Might that drive away an earnest, contemplative, book-reading child like Matilda?  Might that, in fact, be the point?

In the show’s second act Ms. Trunchbull in her supervillain musical number unveils her vision of the world (“scarier than any spook house,” according to Brantley), a world without children
Imagine a world with no children.
Close your eyes and just dream.
Imagine – come on, try it –
The peace and the quiet.
A burbling stream.
Absurd for a school mistress?  But in well-to-do New York City we have been substantially cutting back on the very small amounts required to fund libraries when usage is up 40% programatically and 59% in terms of circulation.  And then, as noted, the NYPL trustees specially honor Bloomberg for cutting that funding!  Shouldn’t we suspect that the intent is to drive away the patrons?  All the better to sell the real estate?  In the future, those who were library users can just sit at home downloading to smart phones, leaving the developers to access their real estate in “peace and quiet.”

The odious adults in Matilda are all self-obsessed, arrogant, and self-congratulatory.  Matilda's parents hardly notice her, except occasionally as a nuisance.

Agatha Truchbull’s expressed-in-Latin credo?: “Bambinatum est maggitum”- “Children are maggots.”

Above Stephen A. Schwrzman, NYPL Trustee and Blackstone Group Head, as Agantha Trunchbull.  Is Mr. Schwarzaman a real life version of Ms. Trunchbull?
One wonders what vision of the world NYPL trustee Stephen A. Schwarzman, has of the world: He is providing funds specifically for the consolidating shrinkage of the Central Library Plan and its elimination of books.  Consider his real estate empire, an important part of which has been collecting empty foreclosed homes, an activity he says he wishes were not coming to an end so fast.  There is also his promotion of fracking with its implications in terms of devastating worldwide climate change.  Will that wind up emptying the world of humans?
From the pen of Simon Verity- mournful, if fantastical contemplation of some real life fears for New Yorkers loving libraries 
Most of Matilda takes place at a school, Crunchem Hall, where the children’s spirits are oppressed by the monstrous Ms. Trunchbull.  One of the most horrifically harrowing scenes occurs when at their desks the children are forced to sit writing essays arguing for the abolition of free public libraries, replacing them by institutions that can only be used by those lucky enough to have the wherewithal to pay to get in.. . .   WAIT!. . . WAIT!. . That’s not really part of plot of Matilda, although it easily could be.   . . .  The spirit-crushing essay assignment actually comes from the real world, something that is now happening in New York City schools.
Kick Matilda out of her book-filled library?-  Tell her she can only come back if here parents give her money to pay to get in?
Yes, it’s true.  New York youngsters, striving to graduate, are being assigned the task of writing arguments in favor of abolishing public libraries!  Or they can write to argue that public libraries can be kept. . . but to create this either/or assignment is to imply that the debate is somehow down-the-middle.  Down-the-middle?  Really?  Should we assign susceptible children the an optional task of arguing that climate change isn’t occurring or that evolution is a suspect and unreal science?

Yes it is amazing, but. . .

. . . Amazing doesn’t make it any less true or unfortunate-  Also, as children in Ms. Trunchbull’s school find out when offered ghastly either/or choices: When the children succeed beyond expectation in surmounting one shocking challenge, it's best they be prepared to learn that Ms. Trunchbull still has in store for them the other more dreaded choice.

Here is the story about those essays.  Even as our schools are themselves being increasingly privatized in various ways and increasingly become corporately-sponsored, corporately-massaged environments with teaching-to-the-test regimes that starve intellectual curiosity and passion, focusing perhaps too much on churning out credentialed graduates certified that slot easily into that kind of business environment, suggestions are being made in ways you might never guess respecting how our values perhaps ought to shift.  Are we really supposed to be thinking in terms of selling off everything that is public and with privatization let the private sector take charge of everything that used to be publicly handled?

You remember the 71-year-old tradition of the GED, the high school equivalency diplomas with GED standing for “General Educational Development”?  The exam is being privatized with McGraw-Hill a for-profit education company taking over.

Would you as a young ungraduated person like to prepare for McGraw-Hill’s new replacement test, the TASC (Test Assessing Secondary Completion), by taking on one of their practice questions?---  Maybe, if you have been forced to think about completing your high school education with this substitute you are particularly reliant on libraries and self-education— Well, that’s how you will wind up answering the McGraw-Hill essay question that suggests that the public libraries, like this school testing, should be taken over by the private sector.  Because, doesn’t the private sector know best how to deliver the message that public assets don’t have value?
McGraw-Hill essay prompt: "There is an ongoing debate . . .  whether free public libraries are still practical in today’s world."

Here is McGraw-Hill’s “essay prompt”:
There is an ongoing debate in the public domain as to whether free public libraries are still practical in today’s world. What are the implications for society of a “free”public library system? Has the time come for cities to consider requiring patrons to pay a fee to use library services?
There is an ongoing debate about keeping libraries?  It’s going on “in the public domain”?

Promotion for the musical
Really?  Tell that to Matilda!  Tell that to writers, producers and performers of the musical Matilda!  I think they thought when they put these anti-library arguments in the mouths of their villains it was cartoonish satire more than a good safe remove from reality.

It’s time to fight back, not just be `amazed.'

Meanwhile, until there is a new musical based directly on the conniving in New York with respect to libraries, you can get a good dose of satiric relief by going to see Matilda, which has parodic fun with some closely analogous situations where fiction vies to be as strange as the truth.

Promotion for the show.  You'd be surprised what little can do a lot.  Support the campaign.
Personal Note

I cannot bring this article to a conclusion without a very personal note in memoriam for a comrade in life.

Randy-  A helluva guy
I went to see Matilda partly as an observance to respect the death of a friend, my best friend from high school, Nicholas Randolf “Randy”Morrison, a stagehand who worked at the Shubert Theater on this show.  He died between Christmas and New Years and this was the very last show of the many, many Broadway shows he worked on over the years, beginning with “Beatlemania” in 1977.  I talked with Randy a lot during the time he was working on Matilda (it opened in April), especially in the recent months and weeks before he died, when he was cutting back substantially for health reasons. . .

. .  Odd thing: For all the time I talked with him, Randy never mentioned to me how much the plot of show Matilda was about libraries, although he knew about my campaign as a co-founder of Citizens Defending Libraries to save New York City’s libraries from being sold to real estate developers and he’d signed our petition to help the cause.  Randy never suggested to me about how observing these parallels might help the cause- or I didn't pick up on it.  I think he must have been preoccupied with his health.  Sometimes we need to think about other things and we had so much to talk about concerning all the other things that were good in life.
One of the pictures posted by a friend imagining a musical at the Schubert about Randy who worked there

Internet Guru Clay Shirky Speaking At Brooklyn Heights Association Annual Meeting Says We Need Libraries Because Of Holes In The Internet

$
0
0
Internet guru Clay Shirky:  We need libraries.  Why?  Because there is lots that you won't find on the internet.- Photo by Jonathan Barkey
Last week the Brooklyn Heights Association introduced Clay Shirky, the author/digital thought leader/NYU professor/Brooklyn Heights area resident as its featured speaker at its annual meeting, to talk about “what the internet does to culture.”  There are plenty who suspected that in selecting Shirky as its speaker for the meeting the BHA was attempting to convey that the BHA is technologically hip and therefore qualified and even prescient in supporting the sale and shrinkage of the neighborhood’s library.

Digital happy talk? If that was the BHA’s goal it wasn’t exactly a slam dunk or even an easy lay up.  Quite the contrary.  Mr, Shirky explained that because of the holes in the internet, the significant material that is missing from the what you can find there, we need our libraries.

Mr. Shirky had a little help in making this point about libraries from the podium: my question to him during the ensuing question and answer session.  My question was about what you won’t find on the internet.  By the way, in asking the question, I made no mention of "libraries."

I commenced my question with a personal example: One of my aunts was frequently referred to as the “First Lady of Chicago,” which I think accurately indicates that she was a very well known individual.  When she walked down a Chicago Street everyone knew her.

When I early on developed a love of and fascination with the internet I looked for my aunt, plugging her name into a search engine and found that in the virtual world of the internet she virtually didn’t exist, and that was because of the very recent time period in which she existed.  Her many several decades were slightly pre-internet.  Walk into a good library and you could learn about her, but not on the internet.*
(* Because this article is largely about things that are not on the internet I am going to leave my aunt’s name unstated here.  Perhaps a commenting reader will disclose her name which can ultimately be discerned from the internet with some detective work.  One hint: Her last name made the “First Lady” title somewhat confusing.  When I visited my aunt I would meet and spend time with all manner of celebrities.  She regularly borrowed the Playboy limousine to whip around the city.  Often we’d run into the rather shy- my opinion- Mr. Heffner in the lobby of where she lived.  I remember climbing into a limo at crack of dawn with her, shaking Gore Vidal’s weak handshake, as we headed off to do an early AM interview program, and I remember conversing with comedian Alan King about how to improve the world after sitting with him at a Lainie Kazan nightclub performance as we headed up to a late night radio program and thrusting upon him some of my high school student writing about which he was very gracious.  For years after the visits I spent in Chicago with my aunt I couldn’t watch television for any appreciable stretch without thinking, “I met that person in Chicago with my aunt”: Joan Rivers, Oddetta, Rosie Greer, Walter Cronkite.  Bob Crane, star of “Hogan’s Heros” who had done radio early in his career, told me that I should consider doing voiceover work and I seriously thought about his advice for years.  Another hint, when I first looked up my aunt’s name on the internet one of the only places I could find mention of her was in a Warren Commission Report document.  My aunt in her job talked to nearly everybody, including some people that were considered mobsters.) 
As I told Mr. Shirky, the perception I formed was that the internet presented a “thin rich topsoil” of recent events, but there was much missing from it.  Albeit it has some rocky bedrock too: It’s easy for me to find some information about my ancestors' Civil War participation (though not their letters that are in the Library of Congress).


I expressed my concern about the potential ephemerality and evanescence of things on the internet and the way, with various applied tilts to this sphere, things get crowded out.  I told Mr. Shirky that I didn’t doubt that he had caught up with the recent Frontline documentary, Generation Like.” That show confronts the viewer with the fact that a massive amount of material taking over the internet is, in fact, corporately curated.  (The program talks about “the man behind the curtain” and, using the promotion of “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” film as an example, points out“What's designed to look like a grass roots wave of excitement is actually a meticulously planned marketing strategy. It may be 'catching fire,' but it was doused with gasoline [i.e. corporate dollars] beforehand.”)

Books by Tim Wu and Lewis Hyde
I mentioned Tim Wu and Lewis Hyde, two names I knew that Mr. Shirky would have to know, who both write about the impoverishment of the public sphere, Wu writing about how it occurs when media industries inevitably trend toward monopoly and Hyde talking about the disappearance of the public commons through increasingly privatizated ownership of the ideas and information we consume.  They are both also professors, Wu a professor of law at Columbia and Hyde a professor at Harvard and Kenyon.

Another thinker on these subjects, Jaron Lanier, author of the recent, “Who Owns the Future,” disparages the facile utopianism of some internet/technological future hucksters.  (Eclectic in his thinking Lanier also doesn’t automatically sign on to the various strains of dystopic thinking either.)

I didn’t have time to get into it (though I was prepared), but at the same time that recent headlines are currently talking about the jeopardy into which court rulings have put “net neutrality,” we may be seeing the first effects of that: Netflixs users just saw their connection speeds slow downs so much the service became unusable and Netflixs ultimately anted up for restoration of that speed on a preferential basis after what some suspect was an intentional degradation of their access to the internet.  (Some readers may find themselves more disturbed if I report that at least one person I know complained that their PBS access over the internet was slowed at the same time.)
Ghostly trace of a vanished article

Another ghostly trace
It is scary how mutable the internet and technology can make things.  In 2008, in the scheme of things not so very long ago, I wrote a fairly widely read and circulated article for the Huffington Post, More Money for the Very Rich: An Unsporting Pursuit?  (I can actually say that before I wrote this I met Arianna Huffington, soliciting contributions for HuffPo, when it was in its original incarnation, but that is not so important to the point here).  My article is now no longer anywhere to be found on the Huffington Post site although there are a few ghostly traces of its prior existence.

When the Huffington Post was sold to AOL in 2011 in a complicated merger, some contributors like former U.S. Senate candidate, political organizer and Jonathan Tasini, objected (including legally) saying this was not why they had contributed upaid work to the site.  Now the Huffington Post has just changed its rules for commenting on its sites to require that anyone commenting let the HuffPo have access to their Facebook accounts.  The HuffPo says that they are doing this to ensurecivil discourse,” but is that the case?  Aren't they more likely simply seeking to data-mine the same data that Mark Zuckerberg has access to?  Much of the history of the internet has similarly consisted of the acquisition of companies in sell-outs and with their acquisition their disappearance, or the introduction of totally new sets of rules.

In an article we handed out at the BHA meeting I cited this ominous sentence from a very recent New York Times technology section article: “If you own a Nook, the fate of your books may now be up in the air.”  George Orwell’s "1984" is largely about how books and information with which the public is furnished can be manipulated to exist exclusively only in an ever-fluid present where what exists need have no relationship to the past.  In one of the most famous early events with respect to the Amazon kindle it was Orwell’s book itself that Amazon caused to mysteriously disappear from readers' tablets.

Brooklyn Eagle story about BHA meeting when it was upcoming- Picture shows Shirky protesting against PIPA which along with and like SOPA would greatly curtail the public utility of the internet.  Those laws, defeated by activists, are now in danger of coming back in the form of the TPP.
All of the above should be excellent grist for discussions that at least some groups ought to be having at the SXSW (South by Southwest) music and technology festival about to begin in Austin Texas (Friday, March 7 to Sunday, March 16).

The ability of technology to preserve and communicate knowledge is much vaunted, . . . we often fret over the indeliblity of the internet. . . if you post something indiscreet on Facebook will it haunt you forever?. . . But my question to Mr. Shirky was about what we are losing, whether with everything that is missing, potentially missing or pushed under on the internet are we in danger of a great loss, a great extinction of Mankind’s knowledge?
Me asking my question- Photo Jonathan Barkey
Responding to my question, Mr. Shirky began by saying that Tim Wu on the subject of monopolization (with its resultant corresponding lack of diversity) is “absolutely correct.”  Shirky offred his opinion that what is missing from the internet partly reflects an issue of what people are most interested in, with the relatively recent past being less interesting, but acknowledged that there is an information “gap between recent history and anything that predates our time on earth.”  He said it sounded like my aunt fell into that gap, further noting that digitized content on the web only starts with the 1980s.  My aunt died in 1992 and her activities along with her health had ebbed a number a few years before.  Going “backwards” in time, said Mr. Shirky so that other older information could be in the “public sphere” is “the work of libraries and archivists.”

At that point in the meeting a number of us held up our “Don’t Sell Our Libraries” signs and called out that our libraries should not be sold.

"Save The NYPL" flyers attendees band-aided to their chairs- Right now a people are signing a letter to Mayor de Blasio at the CSNYPL site
It has long been sort of mystery why the Brooklyn Heights Association has been supportively working towards a sale and shrinkage of the Brooklyn Heights Library.  The library is at least the second most important library in the entire Brooklyn system.  Rather paternalistically the BHA has decided that the library should be sold and shrunk when that is not what the people of the neighborhood want.
BHA president Alexandra Bowie who thinks the reason we ought to sell and shrink the Brooklyn Heights Library is so that we don't have books on "phrenology"
From Wikipedia
Thursday night at the BHA meeting BHA President Alexandra Bowie offered a sort of goofy pseudo-explanation to clear up that mystery saying that the library should be sold and shrunk so that we won’t have books on “PHRENOLOGY” in it!

Really?

Is that why the art section in the library is now empty of books on art history?

Is that why the children's section has vast expanses of empty shelves?

One year ago, at the last Brooklyn Heights Association meeting, one of the books Jane Jacobs, famous urbanist and thinker, (“Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics,” was discussed by Brooklyn Heights Board President Jane Carroll McGroarty to elucidate the moral issues relative to selling off neighborhood hospitals libraries. Notwithstanding, and although Jane Jacobs' work is highly relevant to being able to understand and address climate change and myriad other problems in our society, only one copy of one one of Jane Jacobs seven books can be found in the Brooklyn Heights Library.  And you won’t be able to read those books on the internet.
It is not as if Jane Jacobs books take up a lot of shelf space.  For reference, three of books above, the two biggest, beside the rest of an entire Jacobs home library collection are not by Jacobs.
After the meeting the BHA representatives speaking with the press described themselves as `negotiating'* with the BPL about the subject of the library, but anyone who has attended any of the so-called “Community Advisory Committee” meetings knows that this is obviously not the case . .  It cannot be the case when the BHA has described itself as following the lead of the teeny-tiny “Friends of the Brooklyn Heights Library” group that has explicitly stated it isn’t permitted to “negotiate” for anything and can do nothing but what the BPL wants.
(* Instead of endorsing Mayor de Blasio's own call for a halt to the plan last July?)
Mr. Shirky does have some good news about how the internet operates sometimes.  His lead into the evening's discussion of the internet was to talk about Martha Payne, a British schoolgirl who was banned from posting pictures of her school’s meal on her very successful blog "NeverSeconds."  When word got out on the internet that her school banned her from posting pictures of the less-than-appetizing meals there was a viral furor that liberated Ms. Payne from the injustice.

A Facebook post about Matthew Zadrozny gone viral
 The week of the BHA meeting the fight to save New York City's libraries from being sold off and shrunk was having its own viral success.  After “Humans of New York,” which is both a for-purchase book and Facebook page, posted a picture of Matthew Zadrozny together with his statement of activism to save the 42nd Street Central Reference Library, the post received almost a quarter of a millionlikes” and over 52,000 shares (at last count 231,091 likes and 52,999 shares).  The astronomical, sudden and unusual popularity of the post and its relationship to the lurking news story resulted at least five articles in: The Atlantic, New York Metro, The Wire, Melville House, and Gothamist.  In fact, during an discussion with former Senator Harris Wofford at NYU's Gallatin School last night respecting the history of civil rights and race and activism NYPL president Anthony W. Marx noted the success the campaign against the NYPL's Central Library Plan has had in going viral. "It's amazing," he said.

Mr. Zadrozny was at the BHA meeting working to save libraries, picture below.
From left to right, Matthew Zadrozny, Micahel D. D. White, Carolyn McIntyre, Christabel Gough at the BHA meeting- Photo by Jonathan Barkey
In another example of the way that the internet can function with respect to these meetings, the Brooklyn Heights Blog published an article about the BHA meeting and the actions of Citizens Defending Libraries (I am a cofounder).  It is uncertain how flattering that article (Citizens Defending Libraries Has One Hiss-terical Week, By Homer Fink on March 2, 2014) was actually meant to be to Citizens Defending Libraries, but it presented a poll on who people agreed with, Citizens Defending Libraries or the Brooklyn Heights Association.  Approval for Citizens Defending Libraries has been hovering around 92% with approval for the BHA around 5 or 6%.  (You can still got to that link to vote, hopefully for CDL.)

Photo Jonathan Barkey

Not THAT Michael White - “Return of the Library Dragon” And Other Books Meant To Save Books and Libraries!

$
0
0
Noticing New York is written by Michael White, maybe you know.  That’s me.  Michael White is an award-winning fine artist.  His art is regularly exhibited in area galleries.  (I am quoting.) . . . I am not THAT Michael White.

THAT Michael White is Michael P. White, the illustrator of “Return of the Library Dragon,” a children’s book that with humorous eloquence makes the case for keeping our books in our libraries.
I am Michael D. D. White, not only the writer of Noticing New York and National Notice, but also a co-founder of Citizens Defending Libraries, a group that is working hard to keep the books in our libraries, fighting to make sure our New York City libraries are not sold off and shrunk, our books and libraries discarded using the fictional arrival of an all digital future as a pretext for real estate boondoggles detrimental to the public.

I have previously noted that there are many, many Michael Whites in the world, declaring myself NOT to be certain others of them.  See: Wednesday, August 13, 2008, Not THAT Michael White, and Friday, October 14, 2011, Not THAT Michael White: Visiting Occupy Wall Street and How I Know The Economy Is Bad (For the 99%).

Given how ubiquitous the Michael Whites of the world are it is hardly surprising that there would be at least two Michael Whites involved in the library fight.  Good thing we are both on the same side of it and nice that we seem to share book-loads of the same sentiments.

The “Return of the Library Dragon” is very much like the book I myself might have written to defend our libraries, books and librarians from incineration on the alter of a nonsensical dystopian future where digital brashly banishes all that is physical.  The removal of books occurs suddenly, secretively, behind closed doors hastily festooned with a “Progress in Progress” banner at the hands of a Mr. Mike Krochip with the goofy notion that in short order he’ll have everyone forgetting what a book even looks like.

Michael P. White illustrates, within his books' pages, library bookshelves that are suddenly as sadly empty as the real empty shelves of New York City libraries I have photographed and included in Noticing New York articles: Saturday, September 14, 2013, Empty Bookshelves As Library Officials Formulate A New Vision of Libraries: A Vision Where The Real Estate Will Be Sold Off.

Brooklyn Heights Children's Library
Does this children’s book have a sad ending?  Guess who comes to the rescue?  (I suspect you are presuming that somebody does.)  The answer is sort of fantastically complex, but I will clue you in that part of the answer comes in the form of librarians who care about what ought to be cared about.

The inside cover pages are filled with a zillion quotes about books
The short beautiful book written by Carmen Agra Deedy with White’s illustrious contributions has lots of small, wonderful touches, including both sets of inside cover pages that arrange in panoply a multitude of quotes from passionate booklovers over the millennia from Thomas Jefferson, Neil Gaiman, to Erasmus, Cicero and Ramesses II.  Reminding us that others are out there thinking of these things in terms of children’s fables, the inside texts include a quote from Roald Dahl, the author of “Matilda,” now transformed into a hit musical on Broadway where the good and the righteous do battle with book and library-hating, book-discarding and -destroying meanies: Tuesday, February 25, 2014, Musical On Broadway: The “Revolting Children” of “Matilda” Throwing Away Library Books? No, It’s Revolting Adults! Really!
One of the four young actresses playing Matilda in the musical on Broadway.  Matlida loves her library books!
“Return of the Library Dragon” is not the only new book out there right now hoping to defend the existence of books and libraries.  Citizens Defending Libraries has been involved in producing two other books pitched to children as well as adults.  On of them, in fact, is written by children: “What Our Libraries Mean To Us: Letters To Mayor Mike,” a book from Lynn Rosen of Lynn’s Kids International.

Have you ever noticed how much more straightforward and clear our morality is when we think in terms of the truths that children recognize and ought to be taught?  The simplest expressions, as found in this book are so often the clearest.  Joshua and Amair write:
    Libraries are knowledge
    You can use them for college
    Books are cool as ice
    They make you think twice
Citizens Defending Libraries was also involved with Lynn Rosen and Lynn’s Kids International to produce: “Mr. Rights across the Sea Saving Libraries.”  Part of the book is feedback from other parts of the world where they are astounded New York would be wrecking its libraries. The book also includes an adventure fable where Mr. Rights, a character who has appeared in other books produced by Ms. Rosen, joins forces with the Girl Scouts of the Pacific Branch Library and Andrew Carnegie’s ghost to confront the small group of privileged elite who would deprive the public by selling libraries and getting rid of books and librarians.  Remember that many of our libraries were donated to the public with the proviso that they be taken care of once we got them.
David Nasaw speaking about Carnegie at the BPL on March 2nd
In the story, Andrew Carnegie, certainly a morally complex person in real life, is presented in a somewhat simplified form as he allies with Mr. Rights' team, but it is interesting to note that David Nasaw, a Carnegie biographer, recently made the point speaking at the Brooklyn Public Library that Mr. Carnegie was actually very different from many of the wealthy today.  Saying that Carnegie had a lot in common with Senator Elizabeth Warren, Nasaw said that Carnegie was a  proponent of the “dangerous but cogent belief” that the wealthy hold their wealth “in trust for the benefit of the public.”  Carnegie did not believe that he should die possessed of wealth that he had not directed toward the public benefit.

I should mention that in real life Nasaw has a lot in common with Mr. Rights.  Although he was being hosted by the Brooklyn Public Library to give his Carnegie talk he is a co-plaintiff with Citizens Defending Libraries in a lawsuit seeking to stop the same NYPL “Central Library Plan” selling and shrinking libraries and getting rid of books and librarians that Mr. Rights opposes in the story.

Isn’t it wonderful when fables take on the muscle and sinew of actuality?

I have previously written about how, if you go to the library to find Mr. Nasaw's acclaimed books, you might not find them there.

In the Mr. Rights story, Mr. Rights feels himself weakened by the changes going on at the library but doesn’t understand exactly what is happening until a librarian is able to inform him of the facts even though the librarian fears the consequences for herself of giving out information.

Again the librarian as protector of the books!

Last week a new book about the destruction of the 42nd Street Central Reference Library and the banishment of books became available.  It was unveiled by the Committee To save The New York Public Library at a rally held in a downpour outside the NYPL’s trustees meeting.  The book, by Simon Verity, filled with his sensitively witty drawings, is “The Library of Libraries.”  Expect it to be at bookstores around the city.
Mr. Verity, on left, at the March 12th rally in his bookselling hat and with his bookselling tray
Many more great picture of the event and its publication by "The Illuimnator"are available
It too is a parable, beginning with “ONCE UPON A TIME,” but it is only slightly fantastic or fanciful.  Unfortunately it is far too close to the truth.

A real estate advertisement for the luxury apartments that will replace the Donnell Library sold for a pittance.  Looks like those buying them are expected to have many books, more than. . .
It envisions a world where those in control of the city “grew rich and had fine libraries in their own houses” and ask themselves, “Why should people who are not as rich and as clever as we have a magic library when an ordinary one would do perfectly well for them?”

Verily, Simon’s book was written before we found out, based on the advertisements for luxury apartments in the New York Times, that the luxury apartments replacing the Donnell library, sold off for a pittance, will have more books than the NYPL’s libraries.  (We we made this part of Citizens Defending Libraries testimony at last week’s City Council hearing on library funding.)

Mr. verity writes of shushed librarians
As in the Mr. Rights story Mr. Verity’s tale, grimly based on fact, has the librarians who could save the library being told “that they will lose their jobs if the criticize” the plans of those running the city.

Is Mr. Verity’s tale suitable for children?  Maybe the more mature among them.  Sometimes children can especially love stories with sad endings.  I remember, as a child, going back again and again to the tale of “Old Yeller,” in the end, about a fearfully depressing loss.  Yes, Verity’s story has an unhappy ending (you can't always presume there will be a happy one), but let us hope that the cautionary downer and as yet fictional note on which it concludes will be impetus for real victories that prevent the destruction of our libraries. . . .

. . . .  Better this than that the hopeful, happy endings of “Return of the Library Dragon,” “Mr. Rights . . Saving Libraries” and “Matilda” are contradicted in real life by much more bleak results. . .

. . .  But then would people know of such contradictions to the endings of these books if the world "Mr. Krochip" envisions materializes with everyone forgetting what these or any other books even looked like.

Two New Surprises Courtesy Of Forest City Ratner Respecting Luxury Tower Designs To Replace Brooklyn Heights Library: Modular Construction And A Museum Expansion!

$
0
0
Rendering of possible "luxury" tower to replace Brooklyn Heights Library built using Forest City Ratner modular units
There are two new surprises with respect to the luxury tower designs that are in the running to be built at the site of the current Brooklyn Heights Library and replacing that library with a much smaller, largely bookless one, 25% of which will likely be underground.  Previously it was known that none of the tentative designs scaled the buildings at the full size that would use all of the available development rights actually expected to be utilized in the end.  That means design changes were expected.. . .
Tall new towers in Brooklyn Heights to replace the Brooklyn Heights Library?  The image of the two non-modular unit towers above are of buildings whose potential height speculatively ranges, Photoshopped to show their tallest announced possible version for which an image isn't available.  Maybe not what they will look like, but for other reasons they may be even taller.  
. . . Now it turns out that the design changes will be more dramatic than expected.  Forest City Ratner, owning the property adjacent to the library and effectively acting as the gatekeeper to the extra development rights, is requiring that no matter which developer proposal is chosen the new building be built with modular construction.  Forest City’s new modular construction subsidiary, operating on a subsidized basis out of the Brooklyn Navy Yard, will provide the modular units.  This way most of the construction can be done more cheaply off-site with the Ratner firm taking a profit percentage while whatever developer is ultimately selected can swiftly flip the units into a final building at less cost to itself.
Above and below: Modular units in the Brooklyn Navy Yard

No doubt these units will be the first modular units to be targeted to the very high end clientele to whom the Brooklyn Heights apartments are expected to be marketed.  At first, the Brooklyn Heights Association bridled at the idea of a new building that would be modular and it was ready to call upon Mayor de Blasio (who controls disposition of the city-owned land) to intervene: “Make the library smaller, but don’t sacrifice quality design in our neighborhood” was going to be the appeal, but FRC had a significant sweetener to toss into the deal. . . and that’s the second surprise.

Forest City Ratner will make a contribution that will, it says, using the library space, effectively double the cultural space at the site.  It is donating an art museum.  (Technically, Forest City Ratner did not need to sweeten the deal; there was a provision in one of the “site file” documents on the $50 CD offered to those responding to the Request For Proposal that let them dictate this construction result although nobody understood this from the way the language was crafted.)
Forest City Ratner is providing the new museum by buying the artwork of the currently closed San Francisco Art Museum that is in storage and theretofore otherwise unavailable for view.  (See: Its Art Elsewhere, a Museum Tries to Stay Relevant- San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Is Closed but Active, by Jori Finkel, March 25, 2014.)  The question might be asked: How can these works be displayed in a New York City Brooklyn Heights location without a significant loss to residents and museum goers of San Francisco?  Will there be such a loss? . .

. . .  “That’s the beauty of digital duplication,” said FRC’s Bruce Ratner.  All of these works will be digitized so there will be no need to see them physically and that means that museum goers in San Francisco can absorb and study a work at the same time it is being viewed by a Brooklyn audience.  “Replicating modular units on the assembly line sort of got me thinking appreciatively in this vein,” said the contemplative and philosophical Mr. Ratner. . .“And then MaryAnne Gilmartin, CEO at Forest City Ratner and a great art admirer, pointed out how quintessentially perfect additional replications would be to make the repeated Warhol images even more meaningful and more valuable.”
San Francisco Museum Warhol with repeating images.  Those repeated images can easily e digitally repeated again, see below, even enhancing the meaning of the repetition.

Gilmartin says that screen idiosyncrasies generating further color variations also add value
Most proudly, Ratner said that donation of art for a museum in the library space would effectively double the cultural space in the building.  Many have criticized the diminished amount of space proposed for shrunken “replacement” library space as being far too small, 20,000 square feet vs. the current 63,000 square feet.  But Ratner, concurring with Brooklyn Public Library pronouncements, said “you can’t measure space by square feet, you have to evaluate it by what is actually used and how its used.”  Ratner said that the introduction of the museum would effectively double the space or more because the new library is already relying on computer, iPad and tablet screens for their reading pleasure in substitution for space-consuming physical books.  “These very same screens can display the digitized artwork,” said Ratner triumphantly.

For those who long to be in actual physical proximity to great art, Ratner is again one step ahead: “The actual original artwork will be in the luxury apartments in the building above where we will be renting it out below cost for at least a fifteen year period as an inducement for purchasers to buy the apartments.”  The apartments are expected to be snapped up in many cases as pied-à-terres for visiting foreigners.  “If you buy a luxury apartment in the 50-story building that is replacing the Donnell Library across from MoMA you can run out and see the paintings across this street, but this is one step better: We bring the art to you, it’s in your apartment.”
A real estate advertisement for the luxury apartments that will replace the Donnell Library sold for a pittance.  Looks like those buying them are expected to have many books, more than. . .
Book lovers can also be assured that, like the luxury Bacarrat going up at the site where Donnell was torn down, the apartments in the luxury building at the site of Brooklyn Heights Library will likely be full of books, a proximity readers can instinctually enjoy as they peruse their tablets downstairs.

Might the library/art museum get too crowded with multitudes arriving to enjoy an air conditioned study of screens showing text or art?  Ratner points out that as the art and text is all digitized nobody need even come to the physical space at all to enjoy these assets just so long as they pay him his collection fee for the art and make sure not to run up over-due fees on borrowed digital texts. “And we can always change the rules to discourage too much use,” he said.

The one big hurdle for Ratner in pulling the art museum deal together was financing.  The financing is coming: 10% from Ratner himself (reimbursed to him by a taxpayer subsidy) with the rest coming in equal parts from, Mikhail ProkhorovGreenland Holdings Group of China, and through an EB-5 sale of green cards to Chinese millionaires and their families.  This joint venturing group of investors will go by the name “Four Reins Investors.”  Eventually, decisions about the ultimate physical dispensation and `patriation' of the art will have to be arbitrated between these investors.

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis Medal
The Municipal Art Society, crediting Forest City Ratner with how the museum plan and modular housing will catalyze a revitalization of Brooklyn Heights, will be awarding its 2015  Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis Medal to Ratner, so that Ratner will be receiving this annual award for two years running.   The 2014 award is going to Forest City Ratner for preserving a swath of Prospect Heights by tearing it down to build the Ratner Prokhorov Barclays arena while letting the rest of the destroyed neighborhood acreage lie fallow for a few decades.  This is actually the second award that MAS has given Forest City Ratner for that decimation.

MAS president Vin Cipolla said that the MAS directors are hoping that they can hand out the Onassis award to Ratner on an annual basis from here on in.  The determination of the award is not made on a calendar year basis, he explained.  The last day of March concludes the `award year cycle’ so, by coordinating with MAS to withhold the announcement of the museum plans and modular construction until the first day of April, Ratner qualified the plans for the 2015 award.

What’s Wrong With These Numbers?: The Baccarat Tower’s $60M Penthouse and NYC’s Library Budget

$
0
0
Does the above look familiar?  I presented this image March 11th to the New York City Council at the council hearing on the library budget as part of my Citizens Defending Libraries testimony.  It’s the photograph of the real estate advertisement for the luxury Baccarat tower that had just run in the New York Times Magazine that oddly features prominently the library of the building’s $60M Penthouse.  The luxury Baccarat is the 50-story building on the site of former Donnell Library, once a regional, destination library of high renown and much beloved, importantly located in central Manhattan across from MoMA on 53rd Street.  The advertisement reappeared this weekend, again expensively placed, as the double page spread immediately inside the cover.

At the end of last month, the real estate site Curbed ran a “first look” at the penthouse providing more details about the luxury abode: First Looks, Floorplan Unveiled For Baccarat's $60M Penthouse, Thursday, March 27, 2014, by Hana R. Alberts.

What’s wrong with these numbers?:
    •    This apartment (7,381 square feet) is just 7.6% the size (1/13th) of the beloved 97,000 square foot Donnell of the days of yore, yet. .
    •    . .  It is on the market for more than 150% of what the NYPL netted selling the Donnell Library, which was less than $39 million.
    •    This apartment, by itself, is more than one-quarter the size of the so-called “library” space (28,000 square feet), with which the NYPL proposes to "replace" Donnell.  (If you include the apartment’s 602 square foot terrace it is 28.5% the size of that replacement “library” space.)
    •    This apartment devotes 3.737% of its space to a 275 square foot (21' 7" x 13' 1") luxury private library.  That 3.737% is several multiples of the percent of the NYC budget devoted to New York City's public libraries.  On an all-in basis, (capital + operating expenditures), that percentage in the city budget, based on currently proposed figures, equals just 1% of the budget for Fiscal Year 2014 and, even less, 00.59% of the budget for FY 2015.
We could go on making these comparisons.  With the 7,381 square foot penthouse on the market for $60 million it could wind up selling for almost exactly the $60.8 million amount that the NYPL recently suddenly and secretively sold off 87%, 140,000 square feet, of the Science, Industry and Business Library (SIBL).  SIBL, another regional library, was completed in 1996 for $100 million in public money, much of it new money provided by the taxpayers.  It was just nineteen blocks south of Donnell on 34th Street and similarly just off of Fifth Avenue, this time on the East, Madison Avenue side.

Floor plan for penthouse library featured in visual above

Penthouse floor plan- First floor
Penthouse floor plan- Second floor, top floor
Looking for Perspective- An Overview of the New York City Budget

Analyzing city budget figures intelligently can be difficult, with adjustments required to make real sense of it.  If you look at the city budget as including the state and federal funds that pass through, then the budget is a much bigger amount and the fractional percentage spent on libraries would consequently be much smaller than what is given above.  Then there are adjustments that appropriately ought to be made so that skewing doesn’t result whenever the city makes annual forward payments for a future year out of surpluses when a year comes to a close.  Additionally, capital improvements are frequently multi-year affairs so you have to be careful not to double count (or worse) such unspent budget items that reappear, reappropriated in order to be carried over into the successive budget years a project takes to complete.

Maybe this is why reporters skip and neglect putting budgetary expenditures in perspective.  In order to do so myself and ensure I was doing so accurately and appropriately I asked the city’s Independent Budget Office to supply the numbers after making all those appropriate adjustments.  See below.
Fiscal year 2014 is the year we are currently in.  The figures for fiscal year 2015 are what Mayor de Blasio has currently proposed.  These figures are not yet adopted and, as we will get to in a moment, it is the job of the City Council to react to them as it has already done this year.

From the above you can see that:
    •    Operational subsidies for Libraries represent 0.47% of Total City Funds in Fiscal Year 2014 and 0.58% of Total City Funds in Fiscal Year 2015.

    •    Capital Commitments for Libraries represent 2.96% of Total Capital Commitments in Fiscal Year 2014 and 0.82% of Total capital Commitments in Fiscal Year 2015.
Notice that the very biggest number in the two charts above is $264,206,000 for capital expenditures for the NYPL appearing in 2014.  That number not only attracts the eye as being by far the largest number of any of the tallied numbers (the next largest number is more than $124 million smaller), it is also the most deceptive number of the batch.  That’s because the NYPL is proposing to spend $150 million in new taxpayer money, not for the capital improvement of the city’s libraries, but to sell off and shrink the city’s libraries and to get rid of books, including dismantling the book stacks that hold 3 million books at the 42nd Street Central Reference Library.

The figure is even more deceptive because that $150 million is just part of $350++ million that the NYPL proposes to spend on this library system shrinkage, thus requiring at least another $200 million in public money be spent on such shrinkage.  With overruns the expenditures for shrinkage could easily mount up to a figure in in the neighborhood of a half billion.

Spending Capital Dollars To Sell and Shrink, Not Improve Libraries

Ergo, at first blush it might look like that in FY 2014 2.96% of the city’s capital commitments (almost up near the 3.737% proportion of that penthouse private library), an aggregate number of $487,751,000 is going to be used to build and up and grow NYC’s capital library assets.  Nevertheless, that $487,751,000 number must be balanced against the $350,000,000++ that is actually being directed to reduce, sell and subtract from those assets.  That means that, in real terms, hardly any money, after such adjustment, only a really tiny percentage of the city's budget, is being spent to fix, build up and grow the capital assets of the library system. . . .

. . .  That dismaying information doesn’t mean that this $350,000,000++ figure for selling and subtracting from the city’s library assets couldn't be spent, instead, to grow those assets: All of that money could be redirected to fix, improve and add to city library system assets.  The $150,000,000 in new tax dollar appropriations could be reclaimed and redirected to all the libraries in the system.  At the April 8, 2014 meeting of the Brooklyn Public Library trustees, BPL president Linda Johnson explained to the trustees how the city's three library systems `negotiate’ collectively for their capital needs with everything going into a central pot that is then divided up.  So, reclaimed for other uses, the $150,000,000 could, would and should go to libraries in the Brooklyn and Queens system, not just the NYPL system that covers Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island too.  In addition, killing the Central Library Plan would free up at least another $200,000,000 in immediately available NYPL funds that could also go to the NYPL’s branch libraries.  While that $200,000,000+ could go only go to branches in the three borough served by the NYPL, the fact that it did so would make it easier to send more, or all, of the redirected $150,000,000 city taxpayer to Queens and Brooklyn.

Would this reallocation of the money make a lot of sense?  You bet it would!  The high irony of the situation in New York is that it was a theoretical insufficiency of funds for capital improvements to the libraries that was cited as the justification for the agenda the Michael Bloomberg administration launched to sell off and shrink libraries.  But the NYPL’s Central Library is so expensive that selling and shrinking libraries winds up being more expensive than fixing them!

Zeroing on True Capital Needs and Appropriate Level of Expenditures

What’s the true cost of needed capital repairs for the libraries?  You need to be careful.  Why?  It appears that the capital needs of the libraries were built up and exaggerated under the Bloomberg administration so that it could more easily make the argument for selling libraries.  It therefore isn’t wise to cite any of the recently generated repair figures as reliable.  The Brooklyn Heights Library air conditioning system broke down (and wasn’t repaired) just six months prior to the January 2013 announcement of its sale.  Bloomberg administration era plans to sell the library, though secret, date back to at least 2008.  That's suspicious as is the way the estimated cost of repairing that air conditioning system escalated continually, starting off at a relatively manageable figure and quickly becoming outrageous.

Do we know what repairs to library buildings should cost and are we doing any apples to apples tracking to monitor and cross-evaluate?  The situation is not quite what one might hope.  Yesterday, (April 28th), at a City Council committee hearing about: “Tracking How the Department of Design & Construction Spends, Monitors and Discloses Capital Funding for Library and Cultural Projects” the attending City Council members got what should have been some eye-opening news.  The city’s Department of Design & Construction (DDC) keeps track and evaluates some library projects, but not others.  Sometimes the Office of Management and Budget is involved, and in the case of the Brooklyn Heights Library a private firm to whom chores had been passed off came in with escalated cost estimation figures.  At the hearing, the new head of DDC, Feniosky Peña-Mora, testified that library renovation projects that are typically simple in scope average about $150 per square foot, and that in the case of new libraries or recent major renovations the average cost is $600 per square foot.  Other cultural facility projects that he described as “broadly similar to the cost of our library projects” came in just slightly higher, at an average of $732 per square foot for newly-constructed or comprehensively renovated facilities and lower than libraries for simple interior renovations, at approximately $121 per square foot.

The last publicly available version of the Central Library Plan resulted in an 80,000 square foot space replacing the Central Reference Library research stacks. The $350,000,000 starter figure for that amount of space comes out to $4,375 a square foot, about seven times the cost of new construction.  The NYPL rather deceptively keeps calling its Central Library Plan a “renovation” but it is really wholesale conversion of the use, purpose and configuration of the library space to sell off and shrink what it owns.  These astronomical figures make that all the more obvious.  The NYPL's description of the plan as a “renovation” is really to bamboozle and lull into a sense of false security people for whom figures are a blur with everything depending on decimal points they can’t keep track of.  What does DDC think of these astronomical figures?  DDC has never been asked to look at these figures and put them in context, that context including how the money could otherwise be spent more efficaciously.

The way in which the $150,000,000 taxpayer dollars seems to bulk up the city’s FY 2014 capital expenditures for the Central Library Plan in the figures supplied by the Independent Budget Office above is deceptive in other ways.  There currently is no workable Central Library Plan, the NYPL having acknowledged that the previous plan it came up with was flawed in the ways critics said.  As of yet it has not come up with an overhaul and therefore the FY 2014 $150,000,000 is unlikely to be spent in 2014.  Even if a new plan is presented, such a huge single expenditure is likely to be carried over and spent across multiple years, making it that much more appropriate that it should be considered averaged out or amortized over a number of years.

City Council's Call For More Library Funds?  Is It Up To Speed?

What does the City Council have to say about the city library expenditures?  It says that the city should be spending more money on libraries, both for operating and a capital repairs, with a response to the mayor’s budget that was hot off the presses April 23rd: Response to the FY 2015 Preliminary Budget and FY 2014 Preliminary Management Report. (See pages 37 and 38.)

The City Council document doesn’t specify how much more should be spent on capital repairs of the libraries.  It doesn’t suggest that the Central Library Plan capital expenditures be redirected and it also does not estimate how much of whatever additional amount it recommends should be spent for capital expenditures could be reduced if the redirection of those hundreds of millions of dollars were rearranged.  Too bad, because the City Council should be making these points emphatically.

The City Council’s proposed increase to operating funding for the libraries is, in the bigger scheme of things, really small potatoes, $35 million, 00.067% of the city’s operations budget!  That’s right, you have to pay careful attention to a lot of zeroes and a decimal point before you get to that first non-zero 6 100ths of a percent digit.  This serves as a reminder that, when it comes to libraries, no matter how you slice and dice it, we are dealing with total funding figures that come to fractions of a percentage point, this despite the fact that, economically, libraries more than pay for themselves, and: “More people visited public libraries in New York than every major sports team and every major cultural institution combined.”

Notwithstanding, subsidies to sports venues like the Ratner/Prokhorov “Barclays” arena dwarf what we spend on libraries.

Nor was the City Council being particularly brave in making the recommendation for more library funding: It is what the people want and a top priority of Community Boards; it's number one for boards in Brooklyn.

Furthermore, as the council notes, its recommendation is not even to increase overall library funding when library use has grown 40% programmatically and 59% in terms of circulation, its recommendation is merely to restore previous cuts made by the Bloomberg administration during a period of city growth and prosperity and such increasing library use.   During the Bloomberg administration much was made about what was cynically referred to as a “budget dance” or worse, where the mayor proposed drastic cuts to the library system to be followed, as everyone knew, by distracting spectacle and drama as a lot, but not all of those cuts were restored upon the insistence of the City Council, or made up for by discretionary funds from Borough Presidents and individual City Council members.  Wonder why there’s more money spent on Queens libraries than on Brooklyn’s?  Because Queens Borough President Helen Marshall in office until the end of 2013, viewed the libraries as important and directed significant discretionary funds in their direction while her Brooklyn counterpart, Marty Markowitz, a Bloomberg ally who was supportive of selling libraries, did not.

This year much was being made at the March 11th City Council hearing on library funding about how the Bloomberg budget dance around library funds was being abandoned, with Mayor de Blasio proposing no cuts to library funding from the previous year’s budget.  But this year there is still (see the council’s comment below) a “budget dance” to be done about restoring previous Bloomberg cuts that were accumulated over many years.
    Increase Funding to Libraries

    The Council urges the Administration to increase funding to the three library systems by $35 million. This funding would go a long way to provide 6-day service, increasing hours of operation to over 50 hours a week, increasing education programs, and giving the systems leverage to increase non-city funds.

    Throughout the Bloomberg Administration the systems were forced to reduce hours, lay-off staff and limit their circulation in an effort to meet the budget reduction requirements. While the November Plan baselined funding for the three systems, it did not take into account the impact of budget reductions in the past.

    Increase and Stabilize the Libraries Capital Commitments

    The City Council is concerned about the lack of capital commitments for the three Library systems in the out-years of the Preliminary 2014-2017 Capital Plan. The three systems have a total of $47.3 million in Fiscal 2015, $3.8 million in Fiscal 2016 and $2.1 million in Fiscal 2017. The Council urges the Administration to provide adequate capital funding to help maintain and revitalize these critical institutions.

    By providing the Libraries with almost no capital funding in the out-years of the plan, the Administration does not allow the Libraries to do any cyclical replacements of building systems, and provides little or no incentive for strategic planning for the future. Guaranteeing the three library systems a base level of capital funding would enable them to address the capital needs of the branches in a thoughtful and systematic way.
Running Libraries: Playgrounds For The Wealthy?

Libraries cost the citizens of New York practically nothing in terms of their benefit or how New Yorkers value them, but the trustees running the library systems are still proposing that libraries be sold off and shrunk.  Maybe that is because they view libraries differently, more as their own playground of private assets despite their public funding. . .

. . .  I wrote an April 1st satire at the beginning of this month, far too much of which was absolutely true if you clicked on the links.  In it I discussed the private library in the penthouse of the Baccarat luxury tower and ridiculed the excuses being given for shrinking public library space and selling off public assets.  I also imagined ways in which private apartment space in the towers replacing our libraries would become venues for the wealthy to enjoy, on a specially privileged personal and private basis, assets belonging to the public.  Satire is challenging when reality outpaces your cynicism.  At the April 8th Brooklyn Public Library Trustees meeting we heard the trustees discuss and describe to themselves a new program: They will be inviting famous authors to read at the trustees' homes starting May 20th with American Book Award and U.S. National Book Award winner Alice McDermott.

The trustees were invited to think who their favorite authors are to invite to read.       

Albeit, this new program, for gatherings of contributors, is in the name of fund-raising, but these trustees who will get this private preserve benefit while the libraries are publicly funded are the same trustees who want to sell and shrink our libraries.  And, it is important to remember, as was discussed here, how library funds raised are being used to sell and shrink libraries.

Fine Tuning Our Calculations- Would Schwarzman Send NYPL a Bill?

Admittedly, there are those who may want to correctly point out that the $350,000,000++ (again, how much with overruns?) proposed to be spent on the NYPL CLP plan to sell and shrink libraries must ultimately be reduced somewhat by netting out money that will be brought in when library real estate is sold.  Nevertheless:
    1.    The $350,000,000++ figure we are talking about spending for the CLP is in ready, presently available funds that can go immediately into improving other libraries with much greater cost efficiency, and

    2.    We have to look at the substantial losses to the public that were incurred when Donnell and part of SIBL were sold off for pittances, bringing back into the system sums far less than was their value to the public.
There are also those who may want to point out that NYPL trustee Stephen A. Schwarzman transferred $100,000,000 million to the NYPL at the time of the Donnell sale in the expectation that the money would be used for the Central Library Plan’s selling off of real estate.  Setting a new precedent Schwarzman got his name emblazoned in five separate places on the stone of  the 42nd Street Central Reference Library whose research book stacks would be destroyed as part of this sell-off and shrinkage.  Some might want to point out that Schwarzman, head of the Blackstone Group, just one of whose seven major lines of business is the world’s largest real estate investment company, might be chagrined and feel betrayed if the NYPL doesn’t proceed with the sell-off of its real estate as he was assured was the plan when he advanced his money.  Can it be envisioned that he might even irately demand his money back if it was proposed that the money be better spent to improve and expand rather than shrink the library system?  Might there be a document that gives him that right?

No matter, there were many who, only a few years past, gave their money to have their names on SIBL with that library standing as a memorial to the their generosity.  If and when SIBL is completely sold that won’t be the case any longer.   Besides, if Schwarzman takes his money back we’d still come out ahead and it would be good riddance: Among other things Schwarzman has been investing in fracking and privatization of prisons.  Schwarzman’s name could be taken off the 42nd Street building, no longer appearing on as a proclamation of the research library’s imminent destruction.

Visuals: Life In A Luxury Aerie- Lots of Bathrooms
Below are the visuals of the Baccarat penthouse apartment that appeared in Curbed.  One might note the bathroom emphasis in the selected visuals.  There are six bathrooms in the penthouse, one a “powder room” off the 22' 8" x 28' 7 “ living room (potentially actually a bigger room depending on where you think it actually stops).  Despite the way that the library is featured, don’t think that the designers of the penthouse were envisioning that the buyers would be book-reading intellectuals with self-education their highest priority: Though no dimensions are given for the master bathroom, it easily eyeballs as appreciably larger than the featured library (see comparison below).

For comparison: The penthouse library (3.737% of the apartment'sfootage) seen in the portion of the floor plan at left is easy to eyeball as being considerably smaller than the size of the master bathroom (one of six bathrooms) in portion of the floor plan on the left

It seemed to me that the percentage of space taken up by the private library was a pretty good surrogate both in maintenance and capital expenditure terms for how this future private apartment owner values books and libraries in his/her personal life.  Of course with public libraries the equation is different in that we pool our resources because that way the resources go further with greater benefit and a much greater depth of resources can be accessed equitably and equally by all.  Aren't libraries about democracy after all?

I suppose I could write about the percentage of space these bathrooms take up in the apartment as compared to what the city, in its budget, spends on sanitation, but that would be another article entirely.  Besides, I think I’ve written enough in this particular article about matters of outrage going on in this city that ought to be tidied up.
Books and materials on their way to eviction from the former Donnell Library.  More pictures and a link to Driven by Boredom here.

Citizens Defending Libraries Issues New (Updated) Petition Asking Mayor De Blasio and Other Electeds to Rescue Our Libraries

$
0
0



Time brings changes!. . .

. . .  Keeping up with the product of its own successes Citizens Defending Libraries (of which I am a co-founder) has today issued a new (updated) petition asking Mayor De Blasio and our other electeds to rescue our New York City libraries from the program of sales, shrinkage and removal of books launched by the Bloomberg administration:

    •    Mayor de Blasio: Rescue Our Libraries from Developer Destruction

The previous Citizens Defending Libraries petition addressed to Mayor Bloomberg (Save New York City Libraries From Bloomberg Developer Destruction- itself still available for signing) garnered over 17,000 signatures (mostly on line) and helped persuade candidate de Bill de Blasio take his position calling for a halt to New York City libraries, which, in turn, helped lead to abandonment of the NYPL Central Library Plan.

Here is the petition statement:
Mayor de Blasio: Rescue Our Libraries from Developer Destruction

    We demand that Mayor de Blasio, all responsible elected officials, rescue our libraries from the sales, shrinkage, defunding and elimination of books and librarians undertaken by the prior administration to benefit real estate developers, not the public. Selling irreplaceable public assets at a time of increased use and city wealth is unjust, shortsighted, and harmful to our prosperity. These plans that undermine democracy, decrease opportunity, and escalate economic and political inequality, should be rejected by those we have elected to pursue better, more equitable, policies.
For more information about the new petition (including all those to whom it is addressed) and to sign it click here.

 



Spaceworks And Its Privatizing Space Grab Of The Libraries

$
0
0
From the website of the mystery firm Spaceworks: the Williamburg Library where the private, Bloomberg-created firm is privatizing second floor library space
 SoHo was full of artists.  Not any longer: They can’t afford the rents.

Artists move into an affordable neighborhood, some say “discover” it, give it its cachet making it  fashionable and then are chased out again as rents rise.  The Sisyphean sequence is increasingly common and recognizably played out repeatedly on an accelerating basis as rapid gentrification is more and more the norm. . .

. . .  Tuck that thought away away for a moment or you won’t completely appreciate just how insidious is the story you are about to hear about the privatization of public space with a “politically connected nonprofit” from the Bloomberg era angling for insider no-bid deals.

What does all this have to do with the sale and shrinkage of New York City libraries?  We’ll be getting to that.

One hint, though, before I invite you to walk with me through a detective story:  How many people do you think know that before leaving office the Bloomberg administration created a private company to use public money to privatizepublic space? . .

. .  Like many a good detective story we are about to poke and peer with interest at a lot of things that may be other than they appear to be.

Enter Spaceworks

The Bloomberg administration was trying to push through and lock in a lot of privatizing sell-offs of public assets before the mayor’s final day in office, December 31, 2013.  That included libraries, schools, parks, hospitals.  On the library front, the mayor was pushing for the sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library, the Pacific Branch Library (both next to Forest City Rater property) and the Central Library Plan, a scheme that involved sale of Mid-Manhattan, the Science, Industry and Business Library (SIBL) and destruction of the research stacks and exile of books from the 42nd Street Central Reference library, and would have cost the public an undisclosed half billion dollars, hundreds of millions more than publicized.  As we’ll be discussing, other libraries were under attack as well although not all was known at the time.

Another hand-off?: On December 18th the Bloomberg administration was pushing through another privatizing hand-off to cronies that got the attention of the Daily News.  This time it involved part of Brooklyn Bridge Park.  The deal was ultimately delayed when it came under scrutiny by the New York City Comptroller’s office.  See:  Parks advocates slam the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp. for giving free space to Spaceworks NYC-  The park's board voted late last year to give the arts organization a 15-year no-bid cost-free license agreement to occupy two floors at the 334 Furman St. office building inside the park. by Reuven Blau, Monday, February 3, 2014.

Here from the Daily News story:
Parks advocates are slamming the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corp. for giving a politically connected nonprofit a free ride in an old dock building that could have generated big bucks.

The park's board voted late last year to give Spaceworks NYC, an arts organization, a 15-year no-bid cost-free license agreement to occupy two floors at the 334 Furman St. office building inside the park.

    * * * *

Critics of the Dec. 18 vote contend that other charity groups should have been allowed to bid for the space and lament that the arrangement got no public input or scrutiny.

"This is public land. There is absolutely no justifiable defense for trying to get away with this," said Geoffrey Croft, president of New York City Park Advocates, a watchdog group.

    * * * *

 . . .  President Regina Meyer later wrote that the park's policy did not require the board to follow that
[bypassed request for proposals] process.

    * * * *

"These sleazy, behind closed-door-deals that flowed freely under Bloomberg must be extinguished," Croft charged.
Other Spaceworks Porjects- Also No-Bid?

The Daily News focused specifically on this no-bid handout to Spaceworks that was spotted by the vigilant community watchdogs keeping track of Brooklyn Bridge Park shenanigans, but there were also other similar hand-offs to Spaceworks simultaneously in the works.
From the Spaceworks website, its 20,000 square foot school which the city wil give it at least $4.5 million to fix up
Across Buttermilk Channel, on Governors Island, Spaceworks has an entire 20,000 square foot school that the city is giving it at least $4 million to $4.5 million to renovate.  The City Independent Budget Office informs me that, while $4 million was the original figure for the project, the budgeted number is now up to $4.5 million. (Brooklyn Bridge Park and Governors Island were both similarly placed under exclusive, virtually unchecked mayoral control using a baffling-to-the-public structure of Empire State Development Corporation subsidiaries when a weakened Governor David Patterson made deals nearing the end of his term.  That means that Bloomberg exclusively controlled both of these fiefdoms through the end of his own term.)

The Real Estate of two More Libraries on the Block- Overlapping Boards

More important, Spaceworks was also taking over and converting to different use substantial space at two Brooklyn Libraries, essentially a privatizing sell-off, one in Williamsburg and the other in Red Hook.  Guess what?: The Brooklyn Bridge Park board, faulted for its lack of judgement by the Daily news when it approved the no-bid contract giving the Brooklyn Bridge Park to Spaceworks notably has overlapping members, now increasingly so, with the trustees of the Brooklyn Public Library.  See: New Scrutiny of City's Library Trustees- The trustees of the city's library systems oversee more than 200 branches and the spending of hundreds of millions of city dollars. How representative of the city are they? By Suzanne Travers, June 18, 2014.

Those of the trustees who overlap are prone to push development agenda.  The way that such individuals pushing for development get shuffled and reused is pretty common so overlap was also a complained of problem in the Daily News article about the Brooklyn Bridge Corporation’s vote:  Robert Steel, former Deputy Mayor for Economic Development under the Bloomberg administration, was criticized for conflict of interest being on both the board of Spaceworks and the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation notwithstanding that he recused himself from the criticized December 18th vote.  Steel worked at Goldman Sachs, Barclays Bank, Wachovia/Wells Fargo with the majority of his career, nearly thirty years, spent at Goldman.  Alicia Glen is now on the Speaceworks board, ex officio by virtue of her appointment by Mayor de Blasio to the position of NYC Deputy Mayor for Economic Development.  She also worked at Goldman, moving from the firm into that position.

The trustees of the Brooklyn Public Library currently reflect the fact they were mostly appointed by Bloomberg or those under his influence: either former Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz or by the trustees that each of these two men respectively appointed.

Who Is Spaceworks?

When Spaceworks materialized as the beneficiary of the December 18th vote, the reaction of the community watchdogs was apparently: `who the hell is Spaceworks and why should they be the proposed beneficiary of such largess.'  Who they are is a good, not easy to answer question.

The Daily News article refers to the group as “hatched by the Bloomberg administration in 2011.”   “Hatched” is a good word because of the way that Bloomberg administration was funneling not only assets, but city money their way.  If the Brooklyn Bridge Park space is given to Spaceworks the private company would also have been spending a reported $6 million the Bloomberg administration was giving it to renovate the space.  The current NYC budget figure is now $6.2 million.  $6.2 million for Brooklyn Bridge Park plus at least $4.5 million for the Spaceworks Governors Island premises (and they have other projects as well): pretty soon it adds up.  Pretty soon it thoroughly dwarfs even the intentionally inflated amount that the Brooklyn Public Library and Bloomberg administration officials were saying can’t be spent to repair the air conditioning in the Brooklyn Heights Library, a central destination library that is at least the second most important in the BPL system.

So who is Spaceworks exactly?  The Daily News article cautioned:  
The intertwining arrangements - which move money between multiple city-funded entities - can be difficult to follow, even for experienced government watchdogs.
When I was in government having to give legal opinions about what government development and finance officials could do within the parameter of their jurisdiction in running programs, the question came up more than once whether government officials could go beyond the powers they had been formally granted by the legislature and the often specific prescriptions of program legislation and, by acting in a simultaneous private citizen capacity, amplify their powers.  It might even be proposed that they could essentially partner with themselves, their official government functions collaborating with their personally assumed roles.

I will leave you hanging as to what the answer to these questions actually was.  I will instead ask you another question: Do you really think that would be a good idea no matter what the answer was?

One thing you see when you look at the structures that the Empire State Development Corporation (actually the “Urban Development Corporation” if you go by its statutory given name) has created with subsidiaries for the governance of Brooklyn Bridge Park, Governors Island or the Financing of Atlantic Yards is that those statutorily permitted subsidiary structures can be unexpectedly complex and confusing and not necessarily in the public’s best interest.  However, Spaceworks was created it was not created by ESDC and is not an example of what is permitted.  Nor is it a subsidiary of anything.

Spaceworks NYC, Inc. is filed as a domestic not-for-profit corporation with the New York Department of State.   Maybe the Bloomberg administration thought about hatching it in 2011 as the Daily News reports but its initial corporate filing with that office was closer to Bloomberg’s departure from office, June 28, 2012.  Its filing was handled by Forsyth Advisors (588 Broadway).

Forsyth Street Advisors says of itself:
Positioned at the intersection of real estate and public finance, Forsyth Street Advisors excels at structuring and executing innovative financing solutions for real estate projects. Forsyth has an unsurpassed reputation for deploying public and private resources to capitalize large-scale residential, commercial and institutional projects both in New York City and nationwide. 
It says that one of its “four primary areas of concentration” is “Public Finance for Real Estate.”

Spaceworks' Form 990 filed with the IRS says that Forsyth did this work for the Bloomberg administration's Department of Cultural Affairs and that Forsyth “conducted initial planning, fundraising support and performed start up activities.”

There is virtually nothing on Spaceworks’ website that explains its mission, but you can see a concentration of real estate development associated names on its board.  There is also no mission statement filed with the IRS.

To discern its mission we must instead look at what it is doing and a description of its projects and listen, with a grain of salt, to how those are being described.

Spaceworks' Mission?  Privatizing "Underutilized" Public Space 

From Spaceworks PowerPoint presentation: Utilize "public . .real estate assets"and  "initially focusing on surplus city-owned property"-  Like the libraries?
August 20, 2013, Mayor Bloomberg’s office furnished this statement in connection with a ribbon cutting for the first opening of a Spaceworks in Long Island City (emphasis supplied):
A feasibility study funded by the Charles H. Revson Foundation and conducted by Forsyth Street Advisors in 2011 led to the creation of Spaceworks as an independent nonprofit that would transform underutilized public and private facilities into workspaces for cultural use.
See: Mayor Bloomberg Opens Affordable, Rentable Work Space For Artists In Long Island City, August 20, 2013.

That same Office of the Mayor release listed as two of its three upcoming projects Spaceworks taking over library space at two Brooklyn libraries, the Williamsburg branch and the Red Hook branch.  Is that library space therefore presumably “underutilized public” space?  Even though another Revson Foundation funded study, “Branches of Opportunity,” by the Center For and Urban Future, says that New York City library use is way up, 40% programmatically and 59% in terms of circulation?  The same mayoral release identifies as amongst the “current program partners” for “collaborative projects,” The Brooklyn Public Library.  Does that mean that Spaceworks and the BPL view much of the BPL space as underutilized and subject to being taken over?

A Brooklyn Paper article describeed the first two deals where Spaceworks would take over and convert library space this way (emphasis supplied):
Taking over the public space for private use is the perfect way to provide much-needed cheap digs to creative types, an organizer said.
(See: Libraries invite artists and musicians to move in upstairs, By Danielle Furfaro, February 27, 2014.)  In Brooklyn the libraries are city owned public spaces.

The Brooklyn Paper article came out shortly after the Daily News article about the absence of a competitive bid (and public scrutiny) respecting the Brooklyn Bridge Park property.   Do we think that this takeover of “public space for private use” at the Brooklyn Public Library with all its Bloomberg appointees, or at the Bloomberg-controlled Governors Island involved competitive bid or an appropriate level of public scrutiny?  That seems highly doubtful indeed.

Reassurance that Spaceworks Will Not Be Going After Valuable Utilized Spaces

From an ArtPlace video (below) of Executive Director Paul Parkhill presenting a Spaceworks PowerPoint presentation
Paul Parkhill was appointed as Executive Director of Spaceworks in 2012.  In an interview with Artplace Parkhill described the kind of space that it was his goal to “repurpose” (emphasis supplied):
ARTPLACE: What types of public and privately-owned spaces will Spaceworks repurpose? How many spaces are you looking to develop, thus far?

PARKHILL: We're being opportunistic and looking at literally dozens of sites right now. We're generally exploring buildings and spaces that are vacant, although there are a couple of sites that I'd characterize as underutilized. The prospects are pretty incredible: old schools on Governors Island; abandoned caretaker apartments in public libraries; century-old institutional buildings that have been largely vacant for decades, and more.
(See: Spaceworks, by ArtPlace America New York, NY, June 18, 2012.)  NOTE: It should not go unobserved that  ArtPlace is described as one of the key early funders of Spaceworks, so that what poses as its journalism here should not be considered the most objective.
Don't be alarmed: The city-owned assets that Spaceworks is going after (like libraries as a first focus) are "surplus."  So it is no problem when Spaceworks `thinks strategically' about them working collaboratively with "private partners"
A 2012 Village Voice article unwarily touting Spaceworks plans as “win-win” speaks in terms of “unused vacant spaces” suggesting “don't forget folks, there are, by some standards, actually a lot of vacancies in this crowded city.”

The Goal of Spaceworks to Hold Space "Long-term"

The Spaceworks promise?  "Long-term" space to make life more "stable" for artists?
The ArtPlace article above introduces another theme that crops up in connection with descriptions of what Spaceworks is doing: That it has a focus on “long-term” control of space. The introduction to the interview says “Spaceworks is working to develop long-term affordable rehearsal and studio space.”    In the interview Parkhill says Spaceworks “will build affordable, long-term, high quality work space for visual and performing artists across New York City. Artists.”

Indeed, Spaceworks does go for a long-term hold on properties.  In the case of the Brooklyn Bridge Park site Spaceworks was taking the premises for 15 years and there was “also an option to extend the agreement for five years.”

In the Brooklyn Paper report about the takeover of the library spaces Parkhill says:
“We are looking to do projects that are 15 or 20 years at least to make sure they are stabilizing forces in the community.” 
The Village Voice article describes Spaceworks as“a real estate intermediary that creates long-term and permanent studio space for artists.”

Possibly Needing the Space for  "Different Purpose"?
One-year lease for the artists

For all the talk about Spaceworks controlling the real estate it takes over on a long-term basis, the leases that Spaceworks is offering to recipient artists are short-term, for just one year.  There are also hints that despite the provisions for Spaceworks to step in and hold on a long-term basis, that if certain people thought better of things and wanted to turn on a dime these arrangements might not always be so long-term in the end.  Brooklyn Bridge Park President Regina Meyer, on the defensive about what was being done, said in the Daily News article that the “agreement can be terminated at any time if the space is needed for a different purpose.”

The image of the young black woman above is from a video sales pitch selling artists on applying for the Spaceworks space that is coming available in the Williamsburg Library, see below.  (Click through for best viewing)

Spaceworks Williamsburg Library Video Pitch to Artists

Real Estate Intermediary Creates Lottery
The space is handed out to artists via “a lottery.”  That’s reminiscent of the city’s housing programs where only a few from the entire community can benefit in the end, programs that have often been used by development officials, as in the case of Atlantic Yards and other controversial projects, as wedges that divide communities against themselves.  The “lottery” reflects the introduction by Spaceworks in is role as “real estate intermediary” as the Village Voice phrased it, of something that didn’t exist in the function of market mechanisms when artists took over underutilized spaces in cycles of gentrification: Scarcity.

A World Tamed For Artists or Just Some Tamer Artists?

The most famous story of artists occupying underutilized properties to transform a neighborhood and imbue it with new vitality is New York’s SoHo.  Those artists were an adventurous crew, ignoring, later changing, building and zoning codes, living were it wasn’t officially residential and often without conventional amenities, even sometimes heat and hot water.

They not only transformed the neighborhood they took over, they actually rescued it more ways than one.  There was a reason that the manufacturing space in SoHo was underutilized and one more reason those artists may be considered adventurous: The neighborhood lived for years under threat of condemnation because Robert Moses planned to build the ten-lane Lower Manhattan Expressway that would have wiped out much of the neighborhood and Little Italy as it connected the Holland Tunnel to both the Williamsburg and Manhattan Bridges.  Activists, including Jane Jacobs, fought the plan that had been pursued for two decades and won.

Activists like Margot Gayle were also responsible for preservation of much of the neighborhood’s architecture with the establishment of the SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District.

SoHo is now more a shopping district with very high-priced residential real estate.  While some artists have carried over and still live there and a few galleries remain, and while the artists may be outnumbered by Wall Street bankers, many artists benefitted as the neighborhood changed.  Some even made killings in the real estate market when they sold.

By contrast with this adventuresome forerunning set of artists the Spaceworks vision for such creative types in respect to real estate sounds pathetically paternalistic. As described by the Village Voice:
The idea with Spaceworks is that artists don't have to make expensive and risky real estate investments, but instead can affordably find spaces that fit their unique needs.  (It's sorta like these incubator projects that Bloomberg keeps talking about).
Spaceworks might do broad outreach to artistic communities with the prospective promise of benefits, it might have charrettes that whet artists' appetites asking what their dreams might be, but in the end dribble out just a few subsidized studios to the lucky lottery winners.  Will they be duly appreciative that Spaceworks largess comes from core funders“ArtPlace, the Revson Foundation, the New York Community Trust, The David Rockefeller Foundation, Deutsche Bank, and the [Bloomberg] New York City Department of Cultural Affairs.”  Will they be able to sort out that most of that largess comes from the last-named Cultural Affairs Department?
In their Dreams? With focus groups Spaceworks reaches out to lots of artists asking them what they want
Although Spaceworks is adding additional projects to its list, when its first five projects were unveiled, the Wall Street Journal (Aug 20, 2013) reported those projects would cost a total of  $5.8 million, of which the city would be paying $5.3 million.  That was four months prior to and didn’t include the vote on the $6 million Brooklyn Bridge Park Spaceworks project.  However the funds were actually shuffled around, the inaugural Spaceworks project, Spaceworks LIC, 3,800-square-feet, located at 33-02 Skillman Avenue in Long Island City, which got lots of focus with the mayoral release promoting Spaceworks wasn’t theoretically financed by Cultural Affairs.  The mayoral release got to state that its relatively low $200,000 price tag was privately funded

City funds for Spaceworks projects are on the rise although new specific projects don't yet seem to be identified.  The city’s Independent Budget Office tells me that it has been able to find $15.15 million thus far committed for Spaceworks-related projects through 2018.  Collecting these funds, Spaceworks, charging for its spaces, intends ultimately to become "self-sufficient."

Monthly rent: $350 to $400
According to the real estate site, The Real Deal, Spaceworks is renting some of its spaces for "50 to 60 percent of the market rate." See Artists turn to temporary workspaces in tight market- Shared spaces operated by nonprofits offer rents at roughly half the market rate, May 30, 2014.

Aligning the Settlement of Artists in the City With City Planning/Spaceworks' Mastery of Complex Unprecedented Development Deals

Above, from PowerPoint presentation, logos of city agencies Spaceworks will do real estate work with: City Planning, Economic Development Corporation, Department of Buildings, Department of Design and Construction, NYCHA.  Also in this soup of real estate logos, the logos of the New York Public Library and the Brooklyn Public Library  
Notably, the activism to preserve SoHo worked against what the mega-planners like Moses intended for the city.  In a PowerPoint presentation describing its activities Spaceworks puts the various logos of the city planning agency, the city’s real estate development corporation (EDC) and the buildings department, up amongst those it considers its partners.  Yes, the world has changed: That's same Department of Buildings whose edicts were defied by the artists who settled SoHo.
Mr. Parkhill on LinkedIn

Executive Director Parkhill, who credits himself with about 20 years in the development field, and says he thrives on the multi-layered complexity of development with a “longstanding interest in how art intersects with urban planning and development,” says in another ArtPlace interview that what Spaceworks brings to the table with its mission is expertise with complicated real estate development deals that have no “obvious precedents”:   
PARKHILL: Most groups that create or manage space for artists do so as a secondary activity that grows out of their cultural mission, and can at times distract from it. Spaceworks represents the reverse: our mission is creating and managing space first and foremost. Since many of our projects involve the use of public funds and public buildings with multiple public and private partners, these are pretty complicated and varied real estate transactions without obvious precedents. Spaceworks was created to bring real estate development, planning, management and operations expertise to the field to address the workspace needs of artists.
(See Spaceworks,  By ArtPlace America New York, NY, October 11, 2012.

Parkhill also frequently describes Spaceworks as pursuing an economic development function although funded out of the Department of Cultural Affairs and, as we will soon be discussing in more detail, redeveloping and converting library resources.

Economic Development "Chess Pieces"?
Self-characterization by Spaceworks: Approaching development "opportunistically" and aggressively
Urbanist Jane Jacobs in her “Death and Life of Great American Cities” (1961) in a discussion about the constant shifts and changes of uses in the urban environment gets into a discussion (starting at pages 168-169) about how cultural institutions can be viewed in the words of land-use economist Larry Smith as “chess pieces” that, susceptible to public influence, can be deployed in weaving the fabric of the city and maintaining its vitality.  Jacobs was talking about major institutions like Carnegie Hall or those multiple institutions that Jacobs thinks were improperly segregated and consolidated into the “planning island” of Lincoln Center.

Spaceworks is not dealing with grand institutions like Carnegie Hall.  Nevertheless, I suspect that the real estate professionals pulling the strings at Spaceworks view the more interstitial Spaceworks projects largely like chess pieces too.

When it comes to dealing with collections of individuals (in contradistinction to the major cultural institutions just mentioned), Jacobs always favored organic development rather than top-down, government-planners-know-best schemes and many free market economists would argue for the superiority of artists fanning out to tailor space for their own needs, perhaps creating new paradigms like loft living, rather than responding to a managed sweepstakes incentive to take one-size-fits all handouts of space.

The stated primary purpose of Spaceworks may be to furnish artists with affordable spaces in which to work although ultimately the few actually served will be proportionateley minuscule.  Figures Spceworks points to for reporters writing articles are that there are 124,000 New Yorkers identifying themselves as artists, writers or photographers according to the 2010 census.  Will Spaceworks benefit more than a few score of them at best?

Spaceworks may be said to be serving an “economic development function” when, by introducing artists, it brings greater vitality and stability to a neighborhood, seeking to somewhat replicate the benefit and course of events that unfold with greater naturalness when artists themselves act to take over less-utilized spaces.  Will the vitality introduced be as great if the artists, rather than scrapping for space themselves, arrive there by applying and patiently waiting on the list to win a lottery?

Here is the really big question when it comes to the conceptualization of Spaceworks as existing to perform “economic development” functions: As artists are introduced and neighborhoods gentrify will Spaceworks, as it seemingly promises to do, seek to stymie economic forces at work?  Or will those making its decisions behave as real estate thinkers more conventionally and predictably do and seek to capitalize on the economic opportunities presenting themselves?  If the latter is true, then the“long-term” control that Spaceworks is seeking to exercise may be calculated as more properly being a holding action until the day that this other “economic development function” can be fulfilled. . .  When, to quote Brooklyn Bridge Park President Regina Meyer, about the proposed Spaceworks project there, it is determined that space is needed for a different purpose.”

If the latter is true, then that would mean that the real mission of Spaceworks is almost the opposite of what is stated: it’s not to give artists long-term protection or a long-term role, it’s just to use them as interim fill-in on the way to a long term goal.  It wouldn’t be the first time that soemthing was described as exactly its opposite to sell it to the public, like describing the shrinkage of libraries as being “an expansion.”   See:  Saturday, July 13, 2013, Deceptive Representations By New York Public Library On Its Central Library Plan: We're NOT Shrinking Library Space, We Are Making MORE Library Space!

Taking this theory to be correct would mean that, in the instance of Brooklyn Bridge Park where Spaceworks is putting the bulk of its first real money, the most important goal of spending the $6.2 million proposed to be spent on the 334 Furman Street premises isn’t to lure artists within the boundaries of the park to ply their creativity in space over the offices of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation.   Instead the goal would be for the three story 334 Furman Street to one day be supplanted by a bigger building.  The idea wouldn’t be to tear it down immediately, but one day during the Spaceworks’ 15 to 20 year control of the space, after change and public acclimatization to bigger buildings this could, without too much fuss or muss, be the site of a tall tower.
Visual from Curbed article showing towers proposed to be put on the south side of One Brooklyn Bridge Park
It’s hardly far-fetched.  334 Furman Street is right next to One Brooklyn Bridge Park.  City and Brooklyn Bridge Park officials are currently proposing that two tall new towers will be built on the south side of One Brooklyn Bridge Park.  (See: Brooklyn Bridge Park's Pier 6 Towers Could Take These Shapes, Curbed, by Jeremiah Budin, May 7, 2014.)  Across the street from those towers, on the other side of Atlantic Avenue, the real estate community is fighting hard to have Long Island College Hospital sold off for development with the expectation that there will be a continuous line of such tall towers overlooking the harbor.
334 Furman Street, the three-story building standing in the foreground before One Brooklyn Bridge Park could easily be replaced by a tall tower that would then be just one more in a long sequence of towers
A fifty or sixty floor tower in place of 334 Furman Street would then be just one more tower in this long sequence of towers.  Brooklyn Bridge Park is totally under the mayor’s control, so it would take only a mayor’s say-so to accomplish it.  With the new, most recent plan to install "workforce housing" in the towers proposed for south of the One Brooklyn Bridge Park, Mayor de Blasio is already proposing to throw out the so-called “rules” that theoretically apply to Brooklyn Bridge Park.  Further, since a new Furman Street tower would not have to pay real estate taxes to the city, whatever developer was given the project would be very grateful with all that could imply.  Instead of taxes the developer would enter into a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement, an arrangement developers are finding far more preferable given the way PILOTs are being done in the park (by some of those same board members and individuals supporting library sales).

Spacework Pontification, With Real Estate Expertise, On the Future of Libraries

Maybe expertise about real estate development matters, including Mr. Parkhill’s own, is Spaceworks principal raison d'être, but Mr. Parkhill is also willing to expound on another subject important to the city’s future: The future of libraries.
Spaceworks tells you it has a reason to exist because it will participate in changing the future of libraries
When he does so, he sounds just like those others (including City Councilman Brad Lander) that espouse the real estate industry’s view that it is time to sell and shrink the city’s libraries, getting rid of books and librarians.

In the video below Mr. Parkhill, with the aid of PowerPoint slides, discusses reasons for Spaceworks to  take over library space:
The 21st Century redefinition of and evolution of library space, which isn’t just about borrowing books anymore, but really its about kinda multifaceted community facilities.
Councilman Lander also refers to “21st Century libraries” when he explains why libraries should be sold and shrunk.



Video- Paul Parkhill, Spaceworks, Creative Placemaking Summit 2013, Published by ArtPlace America on Mar 11, 2013.  (Click through to YourTube for best viewing.)

These thoughts are expressed in more amplified form here with Mr. Parkhill being interviewed again by ArtPlace, one of his funders, asking a the question that leads into his points:
ARTPLACE: Civic leaders are experimenting with new roles for library buildings across the country. Major technological change and the desire for publicly accessible community space have created an opportunity to expand the definition of how a community uses its libraries. What role might Spaceworks initiatives play in libraries?

PARKHILL: Libraries remain an incredibly important public resource, but the way they are used has changed dramatically in the last decade or two. In addition to the changes related to the proliferation of electronic media, libraries are increasingly used for a range of community and arts-related activities, from concerts to media centers to yoga classes.

The arts uses that Spaceworks will bring to the branches are thus very much in keeping with the overall trajectory of libraries as a whole. Spaceworks is currently working with both the Brooklyn and New York Public Library systems to build both rehearsal spaces and visual art studios in vacant or underutilized library branches. We see this as an opportunity to attract new users to the libraries while creating spaces that the branches can also utilize. So this is a great way not only to expand library services, but also to invest in the buildings themselves.
See: Spaceworks, By ArtPlace America New York, NY, December 7, 2012.

The Proposition That Spaceworks Is Helping the Libraries Pursue Their Mission
Building on the library's existing mission?  Or dismantling the libraries as institutions?
Rather than portray its takeover of library space as antagonistic to the library, Spaceworks’ description on the web of the Red Hook library project lullingly suggests that its takover of library space is more than consistent with the library’s goals, saying about its takeover of space at that library (emphasis supplied):
Spaceworks is collaborating with Brooklyn Public Library to build on the library's existing mission and activities by creating new affordable work spaces for artists.
The different uses of the library space, at least not all of them don’t have to be viewed as, per se, inconsistent with the multifaceted mission of libraries.  For instance, Spaceworks is proposing performance space to be included in the Williamsburg Library project.  The Donnell Library, before its destruction for a real estate deal, had a fabulous auditorium where the community could readily meet for forums and discussion and where jazz concerts were regularly performed.  That library with its state of the art media center had a focus on music and performance arts.

The first question that must be asked is, if these are true library functions, why is the public library space being put into the hands of a private company created by Bloomberg?  The next obvious question to ask is why the city would direct available public funds to this private company rather than to the libraries.  Or, in the very least, why wouldn’t public funds for the project come to the library directly from the Department of Cultural Affairs through an appropriate program.  Why resort to the interposition of this non-transparent privatization?
Second floor library space in the Williamsburg Library bing turned over to Spaceworks
The next question is whether it is appropriate to hand off and convert this amount of space for uses less related to the traditional core functions libraries are supposed to serve.  Also why, if these uses augment library functions, should space be taken over and converted at all rather than adding to existing library spaces?  The Williamsburg Library is two floors and Spaceworks will be taking over pretty much the entirety of the upper floor.  This may not amount to half the space of the 26,000 square-foot library but how much space should the library be giving up, exiling books?

Here is a review of the Williamsburg Library on appearing on Yelp indicating that the library is already deficient in its supply of books:
I am a huge fan of libraries but this had the smallest fiction section I've ever seen in my life! They had NOTHING! I'm hoping there are better libraries in Brooklyn but since this one is so close to me it was a huge disappointment. And I really didn't appreciate the woman at the front desk on what seemed like a personal phone call when I was trying to get a library card.
(Poor City Councilman Steve Levin, the Williamsburg Library is the third library that has been in his district that has been the subject of a privatizing sell-off of space, the other two, the Brooklyn Heights Library and the Pacific Branch haven't involved Spaceworks to date.)

Other things to think about: Libraries are generally free.  Spaceworks charges user fees intended to be sufficient to make it self-sustaining so the privatization achieves a net subtraction of the resources being made freely available and meant to be shared as part of the public commons.

In the case of the Red Hook Library a special separate door will be created for the Spaceworks space.  That will mean that Spaceworks can be open when the library is closed. .  Or thinking about that conversely, there is less incentive for the library to be open and it goes less noticed when it is closed and its publicly paid for space sits wastefully unused.

Even if you value music and the performing arts and think they should be publicly assisted by devoting library system resources, how equitable is it to assist a few lottery winners who can afford fees while libraries are cutting back more broadly on freely available resources as we cut back on library space, like removing the music scores from the shelves of the BPL’s Grand Army Plaza library, or the sale and shrinkage of the NYPL’s Donnell library that did so much to support music and the performing arts?  Libraries also have very well-defined policies of equal access developed over a long history with staff familiar with the traditions of administering them.

Why is it being asserted that there is a problem and that libraries are under used at all?  Why are libraries foremost among the public assets that are Spaceworks takeover targets?  How broadly are they setting their sights and which libraries will be next?

Still Under Wraps- More Spaceworks Library Projects

Although the funding that was first announced for Spaceworks has nearly tripled, the list of its first formally announced projects has not grown beyond the first five announced, except for the suddenly disclosed Brooklyn Bridge Furman Street project.  Spaceworks identifies Brooklyn Public Library as one of its prime partners for projects, but only the Williamsburg and Red Hook Library projects have thus far been revealed.  Spaceworks identifies New York Public Library as another its prime partners but no NYPL projects have yet been revealed.

Intriguingly, the Queens Library system is not identified as a partner.  Queens is the one system of the city’s three library systems that has not yet been participating in the Bloomberg plans for library sales and shrinkage to create real estate deals.  All of this may be about to change: The Queens system is under attack for mismanagement with an effort to change its governance.  Attacks on the Queens system involving misconduct are valid in principle but they involve what, in the scheme of things, are relatively small amounts of money compared to losses suffered by the public from mismanagement in the other two systems.  Notably, the Queens trustees leading the attack on the current management, while they may be doing the right thing, are Bloomberg appointees.

Privatization of Public Housing Space Too!
Repeating this slide: What's NYCH, the housing authority doing in the soup of real estate logos above?
Ergo, we don’t know what other libraries are in the sights for a privatizing hand-off to Spaceworks.  The Bloomberg administration also had in its sights the goal of privatizing and selling off public housing property before leaving office.  Its plans go back at least to the reign of former New York City Housing Preservation Commissioner Sean Donovan, who has since gone on to become Secretary of Housing and Urban Development as part of the Obama administration.  Spaceworks also identified the New York City Housing Authority that administers the city’s public housing properties as a partner, but has not yet identified what NYCHA properties it might be intending to take privatizing possession of.

Attendees of Note at Spaceworks Inaugural Ribbon Cutting
Overlaid charts showing how Bloomberg's increasing annual wealth makes the increasing annual average wealth of the rest of the "Forbes 400" look virtually flat by comparison- Available at: One Last Check As Mayor Leaves Office- Bloomberg’s Increasing Annual Wealth: 1996 to 2013, Plus Updates On His Annual “Charitable” Giving
Accompanying Bloomberg at the ribbon cutting for the first Spaceworks project was First Deputy Mayor Patricia (Patti) E. Harris.  Ms. Harris was with Bloomberg as his political strategist before he entered politics and before he amassed absolutely phenomenal wealth as mayor.  Ms Harris was involved when, in the summer of 2007, Bloomberg gave his blessing to the sell-off of libraries shortly after which the sale of Donnell and the Central Library Plan were announced.  Ms Harris oversaw library matters for the mayor and has always been in a position of oversight at the nexus of things most importantly defining the Bloomberg administration: Political strategy, real estate projects and the use of charities, including Mr. Bloomberg’s own that she used to pull political strings.
From City Hall: Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer beside Bloomberg at the ribbon cutting promoting the launch of Spaceworks- From the Queens Courier

Also in the relatively select entourage at that ribbon cutting was City Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer.  He appeared as Chair of the New York City Council's Cultural Affairs Committee, but, a former librarian, he is also informally thought of by many as `Mr. Libraries,’ probably having attended more events in recent memory than any other local politician as evidence of his love for and dedication to libraries.  The City Council’s Library Committee is a subcommittee of the Cultural Affairs Committee and is thus under his oversight.

It may seem ironic that a politician that promotes himself as a protector of libraries should have appeared prominently to launch a private corporation that is to be used to privatize and shrink library space.   It is not so strange though when you realize that Mr. Van Bramer has been defending the sell-off and shrinkage of libraries, even holding and presiding over a hearing as recently as September 30, 2013 that made an effort to portray the half billion dollar Central Library Plan favorably before it was abandoned as a fiasco about seven months later.  It was also on Mr. Van Bramer’s watch that Bloomberg massively defunded the libraries and then let library and city officials cite the resulting lack of funds as reason to sell libraries. 

Valuing Input From The Public on Spending?
“Participatory Budgeting” outreach from Councilman Van Bramer to constituents asking the public how it would like to spend its money
This year Councilman Van Bramer is participating for the first time in an exercise that is catching on amongst council members, something called “Participatory Budgeting,”  As a consequence he is telling his constituents that they can decide how to “spend $1 million.”  Libraries typically show up high on the list in terms of the public’s votes and its suggestions about how to spend such sums.  Given the opportunity, would the public be voting to redirect money for Spaceworks to shrink and privatize libraries?  With the greater sums being channeled to Spaceworks largely out of view some might dismiss the “Participatory Budgeting” process involving smaller sums as eyewash and distraction.

Sidestepping Transparency on Salaries

How much will we even know about how Spaceworks funds are being spent?  Spaceworks is required to file a Form 990 with the IRS.  The form would normally show the salaries it pays, but against the recommendations of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants it has used the engagement of a “Professional Employer Organization” (PEO) to avoid reporting compensation to those working for it.  All you can therefore discern from the 990 is that during its first year of operation, 07/01/2012 to 06/30/2013, it paid $302,055 for its employee management agreement with the PEO.  This is the transparency we get from a private corporation paid for with public money formed by the Bloomberg administration?

Perhaps those preparing the Spaceworks IRS tax forms thought this secrecy was a wiser course given how the public has noticed the escalation of salaries for library officials since those officials become involved in selling off libraries.

Good Works Building Up Good Will?
It is not necessary to question all the activities of Spaceworks or to negate the benefit of everything Spaceworks does to have many serious concerns about its existence and mission.  Governors Island is a spectacular asset abandoned by the U.S. Military and the city is benefitting from programs that ramp up a new era of uses for it.  In Parkhill’s PowerPoint presentation we learn that one of Spaceworks current goals is to pursue “flagship projects to raise the profile” of the Spaceworks organization, and presumably get the Spaceworks name a good reputation.  Governors Island does that, but still, why isn’t government doing what needs to be done directly (perhaps burnishing its own reputation) rather than having Bloomberg use taxpayer funds for this private corporation?

Why Bloomberg Charities Aren't Charities

Spaceworks is a not-for-profit and that implies that it was created to benefit the public.  But an important first step in examining whether or not Spaceworks is intended to benefit the public is to realize that it is a charity created by Bloomberg and in Bloomberg’s autobiographical self portrait, “Bloomberg by Bloomberg” he explained that his “FIRST” consideration in charitable giving (and oversight by Ms. Patti Harris) is how “it will be useful to our company later in our commercial activities.”
      
Bloomberg is not altruistic.  He has routinely used his charities for political purposes.  See: Monday, February 2, 2009, The Good News IS the Bad News: Thanks A lot for Mayor Bloomberg's "Charity" (Part I), 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?), Saturday, March 19, 2011, Bloomberg Muscles In On Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan With the "Mayors Fund to Advance the City": Charity? We Groan Again!, Monday, October 20, 2008, “Charity?” We Begin to Groan.

An Advantage of Being a Charity- No Taxes

One practical advantage of Spaceworks being a charity is that, if its purpose is to warehouse property, it can do so at a lower cost because it pays no taxes.  In real estate slang there is a term “taxpayer.”  It refers to low-rise minimal structures on property that is just sufficient enough to pay the taxes on property awaiting a day when a replacement building will take fuller advantage of the building lot’s development potential.  Taxes are a real consideration in holding property as you wait for that day.

Spaceworks vs. Library Defenders- A Divide and Conquer Strategy?

Libraries also do not pay real property taxes.  But it can be hard to move in on a library when you want to sell one, because libraries have their inevitable defenders.

Transforming communities in what way?-  Keep reading.
In divide and conquer fashion, the Spaceworks strategy makes sidestepping the defenders easier.  There will be fewer defenders for libraries that have already been shrunken.  A more minimal library is easier to displace to another location, perhaps shrinking it more.   The library lovers and the displaced artists will be negotiating, somewhat confusingly, with separate entities for different outcomes and they may not coordinate or unite to be effective.  There may be a lack of sympathy for the wealthier artists being displaced, viewed as lucky lottery winners whose luck has simply run out.  Some artists might get lured away from the fight with alternative arrangements or benefits, or if they are insufficiently resolute they may retire in the face of adversity.

Is all this really planned out in advance?  Isn’t it silly to think so?  The truth is that we are talking about a long-term unfolding of not exactly known events, what the real estate industry typically deals with, so much that happens will be ad hoc and improvisational in response to what actually happens.  This just describes the context in which such improvisations can be expected.

Big picture is that right now libraries in New York are a significant institution and important institutions have a way of enduring and persisting over time.  The privatizing Spaceworks strategy clears the decks for a different future.

BPL Fails to Disclose Planned Privatizations of Library Space

Brooklyn Public Library president Linda Johnson was less than forthright about Spaceworks deals in the works.  When asked by Public Advocate Tish James at the June 3rd City Council hearing on the city library budget what other library sales or “leveraging” of BPL properties were in the works besides the Brooklyn Heights Library, Johnson did not mention Spaceworks deals.  Johnson said vaguely that the BPL was looking at all of its properties for “opportunities” and looking for “partners.”  The BPL has previously been frank that their attention is attracted to the most valuable of the public libraries first.  In this context Johnson abstrusely hinted, cat and mouse fashion, that the BPL although being warned against it by the public and Ms. James, was not entirely backing away from its earlier goal of selling the Pacific Branch.

Ms. Johnson did not tell Public Advocate James about the proposed Red Hook and Williamsburg library privatizations of library space, did not tell her she had found her "partner" for them.  Ms. Johnson did not tell Ms James about any other deals with Spaceworks whereby they are considering each other partners.  Ms. Johnson did not tell Ms James about plans being looked at for “redevelopment” of the Sunset Park Library (5108 4th Ave. at 51st St.) although the deal being formulated there doesn’t involve Spaceworks.  (The Sunset Park and Red Hook libraries are both in City Councilman Carlos Menchaca's district.) Nor did Ms. Johnson fill Ms. James in on what thoughts had been given to selling a list of other Brooklyn libraries for redevelopment like the Clinton Hill Library.

Perhaps one reason that Ms. Johnson felt she could avoid answering Ms. James more forthrightly about the Spaceworks deals is that the “long-term” privatizations of real estate in the Spaceworks deals are being fashioned as “licenses.”   Remember Mr. Parkhill’s somewhat self congratulatory description of Spaceworks doing “pretty complicated” real estate transactions“without obvious precedents”?  It’s likely some lawyer thought up the 20-year licenses to control space as a way to argue that certain public reviews needn’t apply, for instance like ULURP.  That could be particularly important for such conveyances in Brooklyn where the libraries, mostly donated by Andrew Carnegie with restrictions, are owned by New York City itself.

Ambush of Community Board 6 Land Use Committee 

Last week, Thursday June 26th, one of these 20-year licensing arrangements was brought to Brooklyn’s Community Board 6 Land Use Committee for approval with little fanfare.  In fact, one of the Land Use Committee members voting against the proposal said it felt like “an ambush.”   The item wasn’t on the committee’s agenda when it was presented.  The item was for the Red Hook Library project.

There was no written presentation of what was being proposed.  No information was given about how much the project would cost or how much the city or the Department of Cultural Affairs was paying for it.  The committee was told that Spaceworks would be putting in air conditioning as part of its work, something that many libraries are now being denied with refusals to make repairs as library officials like Ms. Johnson participate in driving them into the ground.  It is not actually clear whether any space other than Spaceworks would benefit from the air conditioning being built.  It was not explained to the committee exactly who or what Spaceworks is.  (That would be an explanation, indeed, were all the details laid out.)

A majority of the confused and inadequately informed committee voted to approve the proposal.  The next action on the proposal will probably be taken in a non-public meeting of the CB6 Executive Committee scheduled for July 7th.

Need a Library Renovation?  That Might Require Routing Funds Through Spaceworks

The Spaceworks webpage for the project makes it sound like the Brooklyn Public Library is getting a pretty good deal by letting Spaceworks in to do some work as it takes over library premises:
Spaceworks will work closely with the BPL to perform a joint renovation of the Red Hook branch, located at 7 Wolcott Street. In addition to performing long-needed upgrades to the branch as a whole, the renovation work will create two new 1000 square foot rehearsal spaces for theater and dance artists.
This is all a rather odd description given that Red Hook library was flooded during Superstorm Sandy (10/29/2012) just reopened Tuesday, April 1st after a substantial amount of work.  Maybe the idea is that this renovation paid for by insurance that fully covered everything should be considered an April Fool’s Day joke. Because the library is a one-story library, the entire library was badly hit.

According to the Brooklyn Paper:
The library replaced nearly half of the 2,500 waterlogged books and the 38-year-old building's mechanical and electrical systems, damaged floors, furniture, shelving, and equipment.
It’s interesting that any additional work that needed to be done couldn’t be done at this time or that it wasn’t.  (See: New chapter: Red Hook library turns the page on Hurricane Sandy, by Natalie Musumeci, April 1, 2013.)
Closing down the library all over again and adding a private back door access for the space Spaceworks will privatize

According to this article, bringing Spaceworks into the building for its renovation (giving it two studios aggregating 2000 square feet of the library’s total 7,500 square feet) will require the library to close all over again this year.  It would reopen some time in 2015.

The article includes the standard patter about how the community values its libraries:
Neighborhood book lovers are thrilled about the library's comeback.

"This library is the life of the community," said Lillie Marshall, president of the tenants association in the west wing of the Red Hook Houses. "It has been truly missed - it serves a great purpose in the community."
Following with words probably few understood when they read them:
The branch is slated to close for complete renovation next year, and will come back as a partner with Spaceworks - an organization that helps artists find long-term and permanent studio space.
Spaceworks,  Last Heard From Spring 2013., Goes Off Radar

The six promotional stories that ArtsPlace at regular intervals between June 2012 (when Spaceworks was officially formed) and May 16, 2013 were a source to derive a fair number of the insights into its activities provided here.  After that last May 16, 2013 publication date ArtsPlace went radio silent about Spaceworks, including its goal of privatizing library space.

What accounts for the silence of that past year?. .

. . .  Could it have something to do with the fact that on July 12, 2013 candidate Bill de Blasio, running for Mayor, stood on the steps of the 42nd Street Library with Citizens Defending Libraries and other library defenders calling for a halt to the sale and shrinkage of libraries?

. . . Could it have anything to do with the fact that candidate de Blasio thereafter won and became Mayor de Blasio.?

Very probably.  But absent the stories that were previously being written about it describing what it might be up to next, Spaceworks is still out there and it doesn’t appear to have abandoned its agenda.  That’s why people are still fighting to prevent the sale and shrinkage of libraries and the elimination of books and librarians.  That’s why Citizens Defending Libraries of which I am a co-founder has a new petition up to make sure that Mayor de Blasio’s resolve stays firm.

You are invited to sign it: Mayor de Blasio: Rescue Our Libraries from Developer Destruction.

Our library trustees ought to be on guard to protect our libraries as institutions.  Shouldn’t they be fending off dismantling of the institution?  One thing the Mayor, the Comptroller, the Speaker of the City Council and the Borough Presidents can all do, perhaps prompted and encouraged by those signing the petition, is appoint representatives to the library boards who, leveling a critical and discerning eye, will shun no-bid contracts with the likes of Spaceworks and will send packing this Bloomberg-created private firm that is spending public money to privatizepublic space.

Would that be a woeful outcome for those sweepstakes-winning artists that might have been ministered to if Spaceworks pursued its agenda?    Maybe not so much.  Not if the true Spaceworks agenda, despite its promises of fostering stability and predictability for artists, was in the end delivering the same Sisyphean frustrations for artists, allowing them, just as before, but in a more controlled and shepherded fashion, to be placeholders decorating and enlivening a neighborhood for a time before that inevitable day of their eviction to clear the way for those higher up on the economic ladder.

Mostly In Plain Sight (A Few Conscious Removals Notwithstanding) Minutes Of Brooklyn Public Library Tell Shocking Details Of Strategies To Sell Brooklyn’s Public Libraries

$
0
0
The Brooklyn Public Library would like to deny it, and, in fact, has publicly denied it multiple times, but the minutes of the meetings of the the Board of Trustees of the Brooklyn Public Library (BPL) document that BPL has system-wide plans for the sale of libraries, creating real estate deals that put libraries across-the-borough in imminent jeopardy.

Oh, for a straight answer. . . What would you give to really know about the plans that were originated during the Bloomberg administration to sell and shrink New York City libraries, eliminating books and librarians in the process?  And wouldn’t it be nice if the library administration officials like those at the Brooklyn Public Library would give you straight dope when asked?

. . .  I was at the first meeting, Tuesday, January 29, 2013, where the Brooklyn Public Library's plans to sell and shrink the Brooklyn Heights Library, one of its central libraries were unveiled.  I asked what other libraries is BPL looking at similarly selling?  It’s just this library we were told by the BPL spokesperson presiding over the question-and-obfuscated-answer session!.. . Not so by any means!. . .

. .   More than a year later, at a June 3, 2014 City Council hearing on the library budget, Public Advocate Tish James asked BPL president Linda Johnson about the BPL’s  plans to sell off the rest of the library system as is set forth in BPL’s strategic plan.   Johnson, more frank than she had been before, actually admitted that she was, in fact, looking at all the libraries for“opportunities,” but, when pressed, said there were no present existing plans to sell any other library but Brooklyn Heights.  Also, rather far from the truth . . . .

Oh, for a straight answer!  We actually start to get a straight answer reading the BPL minutes.

Documented: Secret Plans to Sell Libraries

The minutes document the BPL strategy of keeping such plans of sale secret, and its intent to lock in the de Blasio administration, as a successor to the Bloomberg administration, to the sales.  Even now not fully disclosed, the plans were years in the making, mostly being implemented after a statutorily enabled restructuring of the BPL board giving Bloomberg greater control, sort of the library equivalent to the mayoral assumption of control of schools.

The plans were structured to make the case for selling libraries by hiring consultants, including as a first essential lynchpin to the scheme, a former senior Forest City Ratner official, to formulate a new evaluation of the library system's capital needs that would make what was intended to be a convincing argument for selling libraries.  Ultimately, the first two libraries publicly announced as prioritized for sale based on this capital needs analysis were right next to Forest City Ratner property.  Furthermore, as the plans were launched, the BPL consciously and intentionally deferred capital improvements thus building up these `convincing' numbers further.

You’ve heard about the air conditioning breaking down in all the libraries the BPL wants to sell to developers?  Those breakdowns arriving on cue have generated a lot of suspicion already.  There’s intriguing information about that in the minutes too! *
(* If you are impatient and want to see a bulleted list of to let you know in advance the many revelations that will be covered in this extensive article, click here: Sunday, August 31, 2014, A Multiplicity of Scoops: An Astounding List of Things You'd Discover By Reading The Brooklyn Public Library's Minutes- All About Its System-wide Plans To Sell And Shrink Libraries!)
 When the BPL’s spokesman at that Tuesday, January 29, 2013 meeting where the BPL first unveiled its plans to sell the and shrink the Brooklyn Heights Library said that no other libraries were being looked at to be sold the desire to mislead was detectable: I knew that the development community had previously been furnished with a list of libraries to look at for redevelopment.  In addition, the New York Times sat on the chair beside me, with an article on its front page by architectural critic Michael Kimmelman lambasting the consolidating shrinkage of the New York Public Library’s Central Library Plan with its sell-off of the Mid-Manhattan and the Science, Industry and Business libraries.  Kimmelman’s article trod in in the venerable footsteps of Ada Louise Huxtable’s critique of the plan appearing the month before, the very last article she wrote before she died.

It was therefore easy to guess that such plans to sell city libraries were widespread and integrated.. . .

. . . Upon checking further, the list of Brooklyn libraries being looked at for redevelopment was in the hands of the development community in the summer of 2007 (possibly sooner, of course), and that same summer of 2007 was the one that, as a review of NYPL’s minutes by Scott Sherman of The Nation subsequently disclosed, Mayor Bloomberg and his First Deputy Mayor Patricia E. (Patti) Harris blessed the NYPL’s plan to sell and shrink a number of its important central libraries.  The NYPL's approach was embodied in the Central Library Plan and first unveiled to the public in disturbingly concrete terms November 7, 2007 when the NYPL announced the sudden secretive sale of the Donnell Library, a beloved central library across the street from MoMA, for a pittance.  The NYPL netted less than $39 million for that sale.  It’s true that someday, perhaps in 2015, there is supposed be a replacement "Donnell" library, but that replacement library will be less than one-third the size, barely more than a quarter of the former 97,000 square foot Donnell, largely underground and bookless.   Had the NYPL negotiated for a full-scale replacement of Donnell it would have lost millions on the seemingly senseless transaction.

Knowing that the plans to sell and shrink libraries go back at least to 2007 in two of the city’s three library systems is important, but leaves many details unknown.  When exactly did these plans begin?

NYPL Libraries Being Shrunk Were Previously Being Expanded

The NYPL’s sale and shrinkage plans for Donnell and the Central Library scheme were overseen by its Chief Operating Officer, David G. Offensend, who arrived at the NYPL in the first half of 2004 from Evercore, a private equity and investment firm that spun off from the Blackstone Group, an investment company which has, as just one of its many lines of business, the world’s largest real estate investment company, and which is headed by Stephen A. Schwarzman.  Mr. Schwarzman transferred $100 million to the NYPL when it was his understanding that the Central Library Plan would then proceed.  Oddly, months before the relatively contemporaneous Donnell sale was publicly known, there was weird speculation in the press that Schwarzman and his Blackstone Group would be involved in an acquisition of Orient Express, the company that it was revealed had contracted to purchase Donnell when information about the apparently bidless sale came out.

Offensend didn’t have much time after his arrival at the NYPL to turn prior NYPL policies around: Throughout the Giuliani administration and into the early Bloomberg administration, which began January 1, 2002, the NYPL was expanding instead of shrinking and selling off libraries.  The 42nd Street Central Reference Library that would have been part of the Central Library Plan was expanded with completion of a project in 2002, because, as the then President of the NYPL said, additional space was needed.  At the end of the Guiliani administration there was a plan to nearly double the size of the Mid-Manhattan Library across the street and those plans survived, persisting until at least 2003, just before Offensend’s arrival from his investment banking firm.
From a 2012 Brooklyn Eagle story, Janet and David Offensend
In Brooklyn the Brooklyn Public Library was similarly renovating, building and expanding libraries and then it, as ten years worth of minutes show, made a similar 180 degree turn that occurred synchronously with the arrival of one Janet Offensend, David Offensend’s wife, as a trustee of the library.

Expansion of Queens Libraries While Other Libraries Shrink

At the MAS forum, the three library heads, Marx, Galante and Johnson
By contrast, things at the Queens Public Library, no Offensends in evidence, were markedly different: Ten years of minutes, more or less coinciding with the entirety of Queens Library President Thomas Galante’s tenure, show constant building and expansion of libraries through at least 2012 or 2013.  On a Municipal Art Society forum panel on libraries in April of 2012, Libraries as Cultural Hubs, Galante explained:
We continue to expand out the size of our facilities.  Over about 15 years, with the funding we have in place we will have seen a 30% growth of our footprint in Queens. And it still won't be enough.
And though all three library heads were complaining about funding cutbacks by the Bloomberg administration, Galante indicated that with elected officials like former Queens Borough President Helen Marshall contributing funds, he had no problems obtaining the capital funds needed for such growth.

A PowerPoint from the Queen minutes showing how over the years, including those every recent, the Queens system has been growing, enlarging its footprint substantially

Up Until 2005 Brooklyn Libraries Were Being Renovated, Built and Expanded

Looking at the BPL’s minutes for the last ten years we see that during the initial years of the decade covered, 2003 through 2013 into the beginning of 2014, the BPL was regularly renovating libraries and building new ones and expanding its libraries.
Library Branches
The November 18  2003 minutes provide this overview of capital projects: “There are currently over $76 million in capital funding that involve 42 separate projects in 33 of our 60 buildings.” 

Although Janet Offensend makes two preview appearances in the minutes that are very interesting in themselves, she has no official position at the BPL until the end of 2005.  The minutes for the February 15, 2005 meeting provide a snapshot of renovation activity before her arrival.  There is note of the reopening of renovated Williamsburg Library, celebrated with a January  26th reception where Borough President Marty Markowtiz and City Councilman David Yassky “toured the beautiful new branch” with a  ribbon cutting planned to occur in two days (February 17th).  Further, we read that:
This spring Mapleton , Mill Basin, Bedford and Stone Avenue  will reopen after renovation.  Macon and Kings Highway will close in spring to undergo restoration.*
(*  Mapleton- a stunning, $1.7 million renovation that took two years
Mill Basin-a two-year, $867,000 makeover
Bedford- spectacular $2.9 million renovation of one-hundred-year-old 16,780-square-foot library
Stone Avenue- two-year, $1.7 million renovation of the 14,252-square-foot library] will reopen after renovation.
Macon-$2 million renovation funded by the New York City Council to restore historic details, improve the library's interior and resources of the  two-story, 17,968 square foot, Classical Revival red brick library
Kings Highway- $7.5 million renovation that was held up by extensive construction delays before completion of the 24,000 square foot renovation.)
Not mentioned among these is the Highlawn Library for which the BPL would hold a community forum later that year in Novermber and then reopen the following November after a $572,000 renovation, or the Bay Ridge Library reopened September 22, 2004 after a $2.6 Million renovation the library resulting in thirty public access computers, a “five Years” space dedicated to children, new lighting, furniture, shelving, express check-out machines, a new roof and is ADA-compliant with the installation of a new elevator.  (Reported as $2.1 million here).

Touted in many of these renovations, almost all of them, is the creation of children's reading rooms, "First Five Years Reading Area for infants and pre-schoolers furnished with age-specialized, foam furniture suitable for the rumble tumble of youngsters' play," rooms "for early-childhood programs,""reading room for babies!" cheerful places "for babies and preschoolers to discover the world of literacy through board books, learning tools"  and similarly, in some, rooms and equipment for teenagers.  The Williamsburg Library is one: "A First Five Years Reading Room for preschoolers, which offers age-specific furniture, computer software, books and videos, and will host Baby Story Time and other preschooler programs." . . .

. . . And yet, now as the Williamsburg Library is planned to be shrunk by another "renovation" using the Spaceworks firm, which has as one of its main missions the shrinkage and privatization of library space, it appears that the Children's room space there is part of what will be sacrificed.
Grand Army PlazaLibrary
Further, those same February 15, 2005 minutes tell us about the construction at the Grand Army Plaza Central Library: ongoing boiler replacement, electrical load upgrade, which began last October, scheduled to be complete in June, launch of the Plaza and Auditorium, and the expansion over the rear garage, which will commence construction early next month. . . . These renovations are to the same library that in very recent weeks the BPL somewhat suspiciously complained to the Daily News was in shockingly serious disrepair: Brooklyn's central library branch needs $100 million in repairs for a wrecked roof, cracked windows, creaky elevators and faulty air conditioning, by Marco Poggio, Reuven Blau, July 1, 2014.

The complaints to the Daily News came after these renovations plusafter another $5 million dollars more of very recent renovation of the library finished in January of 2013 (just in time to announce the sale of the Brooklyn Heights and Pacific Branch Libraries), the Shelby White & Leon Levy Information Commons.  A New York Times article extolled the “Commons” as being appropriate for a:
diversity of new uses, most of which have little to do with reading or books, that the library says is part of a larger campaign to maintain relevancy in an increasingly digital world.
The most featured example of such a diverse new use cited in the article is its impromptu conversion into a wedding space when the weather outside is bad.  (See:  Public Spaces- At Brooklyn Library's New Center, Books Are Secondary, by Eli Rosenberg, May 9, 2013.)   Use for a wedding, depicted as an accidental use forced by the weather, echos the fact that the NYPL has recently hired a wedding planner for grand events held in the famed Rose Reading Room of its 42nd Street Central Reference Library, epitomizing a shift in focus and mission.

The Times puff piece introducing the Shelby White & Leon Levy Commons to the public describes it as “a $3.25 million addition to its central branch” making it sound like another“expansion,”  but it wasn’t an actual "addition," because, for better or worse, books and bookshelves were removed to create it.  Additionally, according to the BPL‘s minutes, it cost $5 million to jettison the books (February 23, 2010), not the figure given by the Times, which lower figure in the Times, was the amount of Leon Levy Foundation gift money paying for this.  One figure the Times gave doesn’t include, for instance, is the $1,334.764 that came from Albany by virtue of taxpayer largess (June 15, 2010 minutes).

The verdict to be reached?: Whether the White/Levy Information Commons was intended in the main to be a digital distraction from the library sales and shrinkages about to be unveiled.
150,000 square foot Visual and Performing Arts Library
Back to to the time of the February 15, 2005 minutes when there was an actual really true expansion of the Grand Army Plaza library.  Unlike similar smaller libraries in Queens that were being expanded as they were renovated, most of the Brooklyn renovations happening around 2005 do not involve expansions except for the Kings Highway Library renovation which increased the library by 2,000 square feet to a total interior space of 24,000 square feet.

Nevertheless, there was on very major expansion of the system afoot, a very fancy and ambitious one: The creation of another new central library, a new Visual and Performing Arts Library across from the Brooklyn Academy of Music that would be designed by Enrique Norton of TEN Arquitectos in Mexico City, originally proposed to be 150,000 square feet.  A 150,000square foot library would be almost three times the size of the central Brooklyn Heights library that is now proposed to be sold and shrunk.  It would be ten times as large as the mere 15,000 square feet that the BPL proposed to shrink the Brooklyn Heights Library down to when it announced its plan to sell that real estate in January of 2013.  If the BPL’s Grand Army Plaza library is 350,000 square feet that would make such a new central library nearly half its size even though the Grand Army Plaza Library also contains central administration space.

Spread around the BPL system's sixty buildings, 150,000 square feet of space could double the size of twenty libraries the size of the small 7,500 square foot Red Hook Library that the BPL is now proposing to use Spaceworks to shrink down to just 5,000 square feet.  As of 2004, the proposed size of the Visual and Performing Arts Library ("VAP") was scaled back to about 110,000 square feet, smaller but still huge.

The creation of the new Visual and Performing Arts Library might have been a good idea, but consider: Although handing off library real estate for private use by developers (at great expense) in deals like Donnell, and the Central Library Plan (that was going to cost $500 million) should definitely be viewed as boondoggles, the building of the Visual and Performing Arts Library and public expenditures on it, even the chosen spot for this concentration of public resources, may also be viewed as a another, more traditional form of boondoggle. . .

. . . The Visual and Performing Arts Library was proposed to be built just around the corner from another Boondoggle costing the public billions of dollars, the Atlantic Yards mega-monopoly handed off without bid to Bruce Ratner and his Forest City Ratner company.  The VAP would be across the street from, and a sort of extension of, the Brooklyn Academy of Music (BAM) with which Ratner had thoroughly involved himself, even assuming chairmanship of BAM's board.  See: Friday, July 1, 2011, Cultural Circus? Mr. Ratner's Attempt to Rechristen His Arena A "Cultural Center." 

Among other things this involvement meant that the reputation of BAM was put on the line to promote the highly controversial "Atlantic Yards" whose original name is now so thoroughly besmirched by scandal that it has just in recent days been euphemistically rechristened"Pacific Park" in an attempt to outrun criticism  But Ratner's involvement at BAM and promotion of its expansion offered other possible advantages for his Atlantic Yards mega-monopoly. . .

At the outset, the VAP Library plan was considered  "a main feature of the city’s plan to surround the Brooklyn Academy of Music with a Lincoln-Center-style campus that includes new housing and cultural institutions” which, as one can imagine, would by virtue of its proximity have greatly increased the value of Ratner's Atlantic Yards, probably one reason Ratner was at one point approached for a cash contribution.  (See: Bruce to the rescue? Library courts Ratner for big cash infusion, by Ariella Cohen, September 2, 2006, The Brooklyn Paper)

Arrival of Janet Offensend, Officially As of the End of 2005

Janet Offensend makes her first appearance in the BPL’s minutes of September 21, 2004, about half a year after her husband David’s assumption of the position of Chief Operating Officer at the NYPL.  When did shrinkage plans start at the NYPL?  In a meeting with Citizens Defending Libraries,* David Offensend said, somewhat imprecisely, that NYPL’s consolidating shrinkage Central Library Plan was originated in 2005/2006 with a group of people that came in with him when he started in 2004.  And the 2007, suddenly announced, Donnell Library sell-off was first in the works as of when?
(* I am a co-founder of Citizens Defending Libraries and was at this meeting.)
Ms. Offensend makes her appearance as a benefactor of the BPL offering a grant.  She makes her gift in conjunction with Marilyn Friedman who had made a donation the previous year so Ms. Offensend's arrival is less conspicuous in one way, but since the grant is “contingent upon 100% donations from all the trustees” it is as if she has tapped each and every one of the trustees on the shoulder to announce her arrival and her generosity.

In the same minutes that document Janet Offensend’s grant with Ms. Friedman it is recorded that the trustees have learned from staff“the library was confronting some very serious space issues” so that the board decided it needed to appoint an ad hoc space committee to deal with the “major causes for needing more space, as well as some possible solutions.”  Also at that meeting, the trustees approved the contract with architect Enrique Norton for the Visual and Performing Arts library that would have expanded the system's space at least at the location across from the Brooklyn Academy of Music.
VAP Library New York Times, August 15, 2006
Ms. Offensend’s Linked-in entry says that she was on the Board of Trustees of the Brooklyn Public Library from 2006 to 2009, (“three years”).  Although there is another preceding report of Ms. Offensend in a gift bearing capacity in June 2005,* Offensend’s formal relationship actually begins at the end of 2005 when she becomes the newly elected chair of the BPL’s Foundation and, per report of the minutes for the BPL’s December 20, 2005 meeting where Ms. Offensend is welcomed, is stated to be invited to the meetings for the purpose of reporting foundation activities.
(* The June 21, 2005 minutes have a report about a gala where Ms. Offensend served as one of the chairs, not one of the BPL’s own galas, but that of the Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation where her husband David Offensend was on the board.  The relevance of the gala’s mention in the BPL’s own minutes seemed to come from the fact that a number of BPL trustees were invited to serve on the gala committee with Janet Offensend, including Antonia Yuille-Willaims and Albert Wiltshire (long-term) and new trustee Danny Simmons.  According to the minutes:
“On June 13th, the Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation held is annual gala dinner.  Restoration is celebrating 38 years of service to the Bedford Stuyvesant, Ocean Hill/Brownsville and Crown Heights communities.  Trustees Albert Wiltshire, Chairman of restoration Corp., and Antonia Yuille Williams served on the Gala Committee.  Both Trustee Wilshire and Trustee Williams are also member of the Board of Directors.  Trustee Danny Simmons served on the Honorary Committee and Foundation Trustees Bob Catell and Janet Offensend served as Vice Chairs of the gala.”)
According to the December 20, 2005 minutes announcing Ms. Offensend’s first truly official arrival at the BPL, Ms. Offensend:
. . . conveyed her appreciation to the board for their willingness to have her attend these meetings.  It is her goal that the trustees will look ahead and work even more closely together.
At that same meeting Ms. Offensend was also immediately put on the advocacy task force for construction of the high profile Enrique Norten Visual and Performing Arts library.

Ms. Offensend’s stay at the BPL just slightly exceeded three years.  Her departure is announced in the minutes of the February 24, 2009 meeting, with the information that due to “family considerations” Janet Offensend was unable to continue as a trustee.

In those slightly more than three years a lot happened and a lot changed.  Ms. Offensend introduced herself saying that it was “her goal” that trustees of the Brooklyn Public Library and the board BPL’s foundation “will look ahead and work even more closely together,” but by the time Ms. Offensend leaves that goal was more than exceeded: State legislation* was speedily passed in summer 2007 that merged the two BPL boards with Mayor Bloomberg, thus as a practical matter, gaining substantially more control over the “streamlined” organization with new appointments that included Ms. Offensend becoming a regular trustee on the principal board she had once visited to express “her goals.”
(* S6233/A9160 introduced June 2007 and signed into law by the governor as Chapter law 569 on August 15, 2007)
There appears to have been little resistance to the Bloomberg takeover, but the September 16, 2008 minutes record that there was lengthy discussion about who the trustees would be and one trustee, Mable W. Robertson, was presciently concerned about mayoral and borough president control over the trustees. As Bloomberg was generously funding Borough President Marty Markowitz's charities in multiple ways this, as a practical matter, translates into a concern exclusively about the control the mayor would exercise either directly or through Markowitz.

The board restructuring was, for the most part, going largely unnoticed by the public, but Janet Offensend spoke to the New York Sun to explain it, saying a single board is the "normal structure" for a not-for-profit.  (See: Brooklyn Library Looks To Raise Private Funds, By Kate  Taylor, September 19, 2007.)  Notwithstanding, the Queens system still has two boards and in a recent CSPAN interview with NYPL president Tony Marx the interviewer assumed that the NYPL has two boards (it doesn't).

In this same New York Sun article announcing the board restructuring, Janet Offensend, explains the BPL's abandonment of its plan to expand mightily by building the BAM Visual and Performing Arts Library:
there have also been setbacks. In May, the city announced it was scrapping plans for a $135 million Visual and Performing Arts Library designed by Enrique Norten, which was to have been part of the BAM Cultural District. The Brooklyn Public Library had not been able to raise the funds.

Ms. Offensend said that, given the large number of branch libraries in need of maintenance, a project on the scale of the arts library did not make sense. "We are still hoping to have a presence in the BAM Cultural District of some sort or other; it's just not likely to take that particular form."
   
This foreshadows much that is to come, including the plans that develop to sell the family-oriented Pacific Branch to furnish a relatively small library across from BAM that the future head of the library will refer to as a "cultural condominium" library.

 2007- BPL Library Shrinkage Plans Begin To Go Into High Gear

Although a first indication that Brooklyn libraries would be sold for redevelopment crops up as early as April, 2005, plans for selling off real estate go into high gear starting in 2007, particularly so after the board reorganization legislation is passed.  What turns out to be a central feature of this effort starts off in what could seem an innocuous enough description in the February 2007 minutes of a “Capital Budget Request” discussion:
The discussion included-- working with the City to construct a system-wide building condition survey; developing a master plan for capital construction and hiring a construction management firm to supplement staff efforts to complete the many projects that are in various stages of activity as the Library considers a different kind of staffing plan to support Brooklyn Public Library’s capital program.
These minutes speak of the "master plan" having as an objective to “right-size” the “construction portfolio,” but it later turns out that the examination being launched ran the gamut of the entire BPL real estate portfolio with “right-size” being the euphemistic term for putting on the table a change in size for all the branches throughout the system.  What kind of change in size?: Shrinkage

Postage Stamp-Size Libraries?

So, if Brooklyn or NYPL libraries were to be shrunk, as per the Donnell and Central Library Plan coming to light as being pursued by David Offensend at the NYPL that 2007 autumn, how small might a “right-sized” library be?   Maybe very small.  The Red Hook library is considered by many to be very small at a mere 7,500 square feet, yet the BPL recently unveiled plans to shrink it down via the Spaceworks corporation and its efforts focused on the privatizing and shrinkage of library space.  The BPL/Spaceworks proposal: Shrink the Red Hook Library by 2000 square feet down to just 5,500 square feet. . .

. . . . But conceptually, libraries could shrivel down to even smaller virtually postage-stamp size spaces. That autumn of 2007 the BPL was considering creating a very much smaller library, a “new library model” it was piloting referred to as an “Out-Post” library in DUMBO.  The library would have been only 1,700 square feet.  The lease was considered in the September minutes.  At the December 18th meeting the BPL hoped to actually start the lease in January.  Problems with the lease for the “new model” were mentioned in February 26, 2008 meeting minutes.  As of the April 15, 2008 minutes, alternative locations for the “Out-Post” library were being considered.  Subsequently the subject of this DUMBO library has not yet come up again.

The details on only a few library shrinkage plans have been made public, so we have only seen what we have seen, but the model of NYPL shrinkage being implemented by COO David Offensend at the NYPL with shrinkages of libraries down to between one third to a quarter of their former size is convincingly aggressive and was followed by the BPL almost exactly when it ultimately unveiled its plans to sell and shrink its Brooklyn Heights central library.

Forest City Ratner Connection to Right Sizing: Ex-FCR VP Hired to Produce Real Estate Analysis Argument For Selling and Shrinking Libraries

There is something ominous and not so innocuous in the February 2007 minutes saying that there would be a “system-wide building condition survey” and a new “a master plan for capital construction,” the “hiring a construction management firm” and “a different kind of staffing plan to support Brooklyn Public Library’s capital program”. . .It is that this would be done working with the City.”  That would be city in the form of Mayor Bloomberg and his First Deputy Mayor Patti Harris who, at that point, were just a few months away from formally approving the NYPL’s shrinkage schemes launched with the sale and shrinkage of Donnell.

By the end of 2007, according to other BPL records, the construction management consultant that would formulate figures to justify the "right-sizing" sale and shrinkage of Brooklyn libraries would be chosen and the firm would start work, including, right off the bat, putting together a projection of needed capital expenditures at the Brooklyn Heights Library that would be used to argue for its sale and shrinkage.  The capital needs evaluation for the Brooklyn Heights Library has long been regarded as suspicious and inflated.. .

. .  The firm that was hired that did it was Karen Backus & Associates. Karen Backus was Vice President at Forest City Ratner until 1997 when she left to start this firm.  The Brooklyn Heights Library is immediately adjacent to Forest City Ratner's One Pierrepont Plaza building.  Development rights from the library, about half of them, were transferred out to Forest City Ratner in 1986.  The library's development rights are so so intertwined with Forest City Ratner's adjacent property as to constitute Forest City Ratner a gatekeeper to the development of the property and Ratner stands to profit from the library's sale whether or not it actually develops the property itself.  For a more detailed analysis see:  Friday, September 20, 2013, Forest City Ratner As The Development Gatekeeper (And Profit taker) Getting The Benefit As Brooklyn Heights Public Library Is Sold.

The second library that the BPL prioritized for sale based on the Karen Backus analysis was the historic Pacific Branch, across the street from Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards property and within sight and yards away from the Ratner/Prokhorov "Barclays" arena.

During the time I was researching and writing this article, Karen Backus & Associates, like Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards at the same time, changed its name and website. The firm's new name is "U3 Advisors" apparently the delayed "result of the January 2014 merger of U3 Ventures, LLC and K Backus & Associates."Karen Backus & Associates was formed 1997.  Karen Backus and a  preponderance of others who were at her firm had backgrounds with New York City's development agency, the New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC).  Most of the team on her site recently were new arrivals with the exception Steven Jacobs who joined Backus in 2005, another one of the Backus team that came from EDC.  Before that Mr. Jacobs worked with the Mayor’s Office of Transportation.  Mr. Jacobs was lead manager for KBA's work with NYU’s much-criticized Abu Dhabi campus construction.  The Backus firm has worked on Brooklyn Bridge Park (there is a great deal of overlap between those working on Brooklyn Bridge Park and those working to sell and shrink libraries, including, to mention another one, David Offensend's position on the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation board) and on “Upper Manhattan Redevelopment Studies,” for NYCHA the owner of New York City’s public housing (where efforts are similarly being made to sell-off those public assets).  Thor Equities, the firm that led the dismantling of amusements at Coney Island was a client.  . . . Oddly, the firm did not list the Brooklyn Public Library as having been one of its clients.

Community Needs Assessment- Another Consultant to Strengthen Rationales For The Plan

Someone thinking about it might have considered that it would appear rather silly to structure a system-wide sell-off and shrinkage of libraries around the thinking of one real estate consultant, one with questionable allegiances at that.  After all, when it comes to building and designing buildings, isn't one supposed to start with what one wants to accomplish and the needs one wants to serve?  Not to worry: The BPL plans evolved to make things look better; a second consultant would be hired toretroactivelyfill in this gap with a "community needs assessment."

While BPL records indicate that Backus had assessments already in place in 2007, the BPL September 16, 2008 minutes, about a year later, indicate that an RFP (request For Proposals) for a community needs assessment would be done in an effort to catch up.  (The minutes do not appear in any way to indicate that such a competitive bid or process was used to select the previously hired Backus firm.)

By the way, an almost axiomatic fact of life in the realm of public administration is that, if you are going to do something that might look really stupid, that, in fact, may actually be really stupid, you should hire a consultant to tell you that the potentially very stupid thing you are going to be doing is actually a very smart thing.  In retrospect, the NYPL's Central Library Plan and sale of Donnell appear to have incredibly stupid decisions but the NYPL, ahead of time, hired high-priced consultants to explain for the record that they made all the sense in the world.  Booz Allen Hamilton was just one of them.  In his article about the NYPL's real estate plans culled from examination of their minutes Scott Sherman wrote for The Nation: 
Finally, what was the role of Booz Allen Hamilton—the gargantuan consulting firm whose tentacles reach into the defense, energy, transportation and financial service sectors—which was hired by the NYPL in 2007 to formulate what became known inside the trustee meetings as “the strategy”?

* * * *
 In January 2007, Booz Allen Hamilton was hired to assist the trustees with “the strategy.” On February 7, the trustees went into executive session (the substance of which is never covered in the minutes) to discuss “certain real estate…matters.” Booz Allen appears to have finished its work by May, because the board held two “special meetings” the following month (June 6 and June 28), at which the strategy was unveiled and discussed. (At this time, First Deputy Mayor Patricia Harris was told of it, and she and her colleagues expressed “initial enthusiasm.” NYPL officials also met with Mayor Bloomberg in 2007.) 

* * * *

The NYPL is known for its institutional sluggishness. But the minutes show that the trustees moved swiftly in 2007. Offensend, at the first special meeting, reminded the trustees that “Booz Allen, based on its extensive experience with large organizations, recommended that the strategy be implemented as soon as it is approved by the Trustees.” Three weeks later, the trustees passed a resolution approving the new strategic direction, and board chair Catherine Marron, who served in that capacity from 2004 to 2011, noted “the crucial assistance provided to the effort by consultants Booz Allen Hamilton.” 
For more details about whether Booz, and what possible other "consultants" might have been involved specifically in the Donnell sale and other real estate matters, and at what point, read Mr. Sherman's entire article: The Hidden History of New York City's Central Library Plan- Why did one of the world's greatest libraries adopt a $300 million transformation without any real public debate? August 28, 2013.

The BPL didn't hire Booz to do its "community needs assessment,"but, before the ten year's worth of minutes runs out, the BPL did hire Booz as another of its consultants, apparently upon instigation from City Hall and Patti Harris, yet another consultant to advocate that "right-sizing" was advised.  This we will return to.

November 18, 2008- A Most Remarkable Set of Minutes, "Strategic Real Estate Plan" Unveiled

November 18, 2008 minutes- appearing all collectively, an interestingly related set of matters receive board attention
Although commencing work for the BPL in 2007, Karen Backus doesn't make her first appearance in the BPL minutes until the November 18, 2008 trustees meeting, the meeting immediately after the September 16th meeting in which the preparation of the RFP for the "community needs assessment"was described.

It is a remarkable set of minutes:
  1. Backus is introduced to present her "initial findings" about the condition of the entire system's real estate facilities "along with preliminary ideas for maximizing BPL's ability to provide library services throughout Brooklyn."
  2. "As these findings continue to be developed, they will be further evaluated together with those of the soon to be initiated BPL Community Needs Assessment Plan."  (emphasis supplied)
  3. A task force is created "to work on a timeline and communications plan for the Strategic Real Estate Plan."
  4. "BPL  will continue [continue?] to explore all possibilities regarding the emerging mixed-use [like Donnell/Brooklyn Heights?] real estate opportunities"
  5. The BPL will, at city request, start deferring expenditures for its "uncommitted city funded capital projects" 
  6. The BPL retains Pfeiffer Partners and Associates, the architectural firm that proceeds to do the $5 million Grand Army Plaza White/Levy Commons, to "create a Master Plan for Central Library." 
In addition to all of the above, another interesting thing about the meeting is that no quorum was present at the meeting so that the Executive Committee subsequently took responsibility for the approvals.  This was apparently the only time in ten years when the minutes indicate this happening. If you are familiar with government related boards you may know that sometimes when trustees don't show up at meetings, their staying away is an indication that there is trouble brewing with which they don't want to be associated.

The task force created at the meeting to promote the "Strategic Real Estate Plan" is to be led by Trustees Sharon Greenberger and Eric Eve.  Although Mr. Eve, the son of an important politician, has held a number of positions over the years,  “a veteran corporate and public policy strategist” was “senior vice president at Citigroup” and “Verizon,” “held the senior intergovernmental relations position for New York State comptroller Carl McCall," all indications are that Bloomberg-appointed Sharon Greenberger was the true leader of this task force.

Ms. Greenberger, Chief of Staff for Deputy Mayor for Economic Development and Rebuilding Dan Doctoroff when she was appointed to her five year term as BPL trustee in December of 2004, is interesting, including her familial connections with politics and real estate.  The following is from a New York City Department of Education press release about her departure a number of months following the brief troubled tenure and departure of Schools Chancellor Cathie Black, a Bloomberg appointee from the public relations world without education experience.
Sharon Greenberger first joined the Bloomberg Administration in 2002. She served as Chief of Staff for then-Deputy Mayor for Economic Development and Rebuilding Dan Doctoroff from 2002- 2005. She then briefly left the Administration to become Vice President of Campus Planning and Real Estate for New York University. Ms. Greenberger returned to the Administration in 2006, when she was appointed President and CEO of the New York City School Construction Authority. She served in that role until 2010, when then Chancellor Joel Klein appointed her COO of the Department of Education.
 (See: Chancellor Walcott Annouces the Departure of Chief Operating Officer Sharon Greenberger; Veronica Conforme, DOE'S Chief Financial Officer Will Assume the Role of Chief Operating Officer, 10/05/2011.)

Greenburger was also involved with and was described as having "bolted" from the NYU expansion plan in 2006, and was criticized by Greenwich Village Historic District Director Andrew Berman for her involvement in selling air rights to developers, quipping that the same thing might now happen to NYC schools, ultimately a very valid concern. (See: Planning czar bolts N.Y.U. for Bloomberg schools job, By Lincoln Anderson, April 19 - 25 2006)

While the initiation of the city-requested deferral of capital items is partial, "approximately 20 percent," it is important because the build-up of deferred capital items that begins here in late 2008 will later be cited as the pretext or rationale for selling off libraries.  Just recently in this year of 2014 we read this:
Driving the proposed sale, BPL claims, is a whopping $300 million in deferred capital repairs, including $82 million in immediate needs. . . .  capital funds must come either from selling off assets or from the budgets of public officials.   
(See: Who Can You Trust in Brooklyn Heights Library Sale?  By Michael Randazzo on June 5, 2014.)

Prior to this meeting and build-up of deferred capital costs, the December 18, 2007 minutes show capital needs of $108 million of which approaching half was for acquisition and upgrades.
The total request of $109 Million is broken down into three categories.
Critical Neighborhood branches ($67M)
Site Acquisition ($5.8 Million) for Browar Park
Infrastructure Upgrade projects ($36.4M)  
This is the fall of 2008, but you probably shouldn't conclude that the deferral of capital expenditures is in response to the Wall Street crisis, September 15th being the date of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, because the script was written ahead of time.  The minutes reference this arrangement as being something that the NYC Office of Budget and Management has approved after the BPL's Capital Planning & Facilities Oversight Committee had submitted the plan early in September.  This description and the entirety of the minutes make no reference to the bankruptcy that was topping the financial headlines.  In fact, it is not until the meeting of February 24, 2009, skipping over the December meeting, that the first recognition of a potential long-term fiscal downturn appears in the minutes.  Even then there is no connecting mention to the deferral of BPL capital improvements, plus the "Master Plan" for the Grand Army Plaza Library was discussed as if it were still going at a good clip.

It is worth noting how much the Master Plan for the Grand Army Plaza resembles the NYPL's Central Library Plan, starting with how the Levy Commons shoves aside books to add technology without adding space. . In fact, in both cases, library space was also being discarded elsewhere in the system.

It is also key to observe that the deferred capital repairs and immediate needs are built up in two ways, by actual deferral, and by Backus's identification of potential capital costs that will become reasons to target library buildings for sale, including her analysis that the Brooklyn Heights Library is massively in need of a staggering shopping list of necessary repairs, including the need for a new and very substantially upgraded air conditioning system.  She concludes that the air conditioing is needed despite prior evaluations of the city's Department of Design and Construction to the contrary. . .and . .  according to BPL records, Backus was able to conclude this about five years before the Brooklyn Heights air conditioning breaks down and 'can't be repaired,' an event that happens right on cue only months before the scheduled January 2013 announcement to the public that the building was going to be sold.

Ms. Backus's next appearance is at that 2009 meeting which is also the meeting at which Janet Offensend's departure from the board was announced.  The minutes say:
Trustee [Sharon] Greenberger introduced Karen Backus, President, K, Backus and Associations, Inc. (KBA).  KBA has completed their study of the Real Estate Plan for the Branch Libraries and p[resented their findings to the Board.  The Task Force will continue working with KBA on other aspects such as cost estimates that can be included in the presentation to the full Board in April.  At that point, there will be a discussion on implementation strategies.
The minutes then say something relating back to something in the December 18,  2007 minutes, around the time Backus had first started work for the BPL.  No thought might have been given to it by the average person then: Those earlier minutes simply said that new trustees website was being implemented.  Now, in connection with delivery of Ms. Backus's study, the trustees are informed:
Staff will make available through the Trustees' web site, assorted documents from the Backus report.  All comments should be directed to the committee.
The delivery of Backus documents through the website could make an audit trail more difficult, making it more difficult to see what documents said what at a particular time and putting things where auditors may be less likely to pick up on them.  Maybe not.  Perhaps time will reveal.  . . .  Presumably, "the committee" (above) to whom comments should be directed was Ms. Greenberger's task force working on the Strategic Real Estate Plan.

"Community Needs Assessment" Underway 

While Ms. Backus's study was now stated to be "completed" we learn from Bloomberg appointee Laura Ensler that the "community needs assessment" is "underway," being conducted by the Ivy Group.   The Ivy Group is a marketing agency from Charlottesville (1001 E. Market St.), that does web design, graphic design, branding, marketing, public relations, video, advertising, and digital strategy services.  A segregated set of web pages pitches its services for libraries, advertising that the BPL is one of the four libraries for which it has done "strategy projects" (the others being the Hershey Public Library and the Des Moines and San Antonio public libraries).  The board was told the community needs assessment would be presented in April.

Can you guess whether the Ivy Group's recommendations would support real estate deals to reconfigure the system's real estate?  Since a soupçon of suspense is good- we will get to that in a while. 

Ms. Ensler was appointed by Bloomberg to the BPL board in March of 2003 and recently, in 2012, was also appointed by Bloomberg to the board of the now besieged Queens Library board.

Board Changes- Laurel Blatchford, Another Board Member With a Doctoroff Past- South Street Seaport's Bankruptcy

The first meeting of 2009, the February meeting, reflects a number of concurrent changes of trustees on the board in addition to Janet Offensend's departure announced at the tail end of meeting.  There are too many to make it worthwhile to go into complete detail though interesting stories might be told.  There are the trustees that Janet Offensed is involved in recommending to leave behind in her wake, those that are reelected by the rest of the trustees, Borough President Markowitz makes some reappointments including attorney Nicholas Gravante who in this year of 2014 became the new chair of the board.  Two of those leaving the board are Elly Klienman (with a record of Medicaid abuse going back to 2005, although politically active) and Danny Tsoi (owner of the Ocean Palace Restaurant in Sunset Park and described sometimes as a community leader).

The departure from the board that provides some of the most telling insights is covered by the announcement from Board Chair Thomas Amon (Bloomberg appointed) that "Laurel Blatchford, who represented Mayor Bloomberg as his designated representative on the BPL Board of Trustees has moved to Washington, DC to serve in the Obama Administration's urban development."

Ms. Blatchford, who served for the mayor on the BPL board 2007-2009 (roughly the same time as Offensend) was going to work under Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan, who himself went to the Washington from his job with the Bloomberg administration as housing chief, where one of the things he had worked on before he left was privatizing NYCHA property.  According to the HUD page announcing her appointment by Donovan:
Ms. Blatchford worked for New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg for six years, first as a Senior Policy Advisor to Daniel Doctoroff, the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development and Rebuilding and then as Chief of Staff and Deputy Commissioner for Strategy Planning, Policy, and Communications at New York City's Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). . . . She played a leadership role in many major initiatives while at HPD, including the Mayor's 165,000-unit New Marketplace Housing Plan, the rezoning of Greenpoint/Williamsburg, and the City's response to the mortgage foreclosure crisis.. . . .During her tenure in city government, she worked closely with city agencies and private partners on major mayoral initiatives, including the redevelopment of the Far West Side of Manhattan and the transformation of the High Line.
Although still representing Mayor Bloomberg on the BPL board, Blatchford was no longer working for the city when she went to work for Donovan:
She joined the Obama Administration from General Growth Properties (GGP), a Chicago-based real estate investment trust that has holdings across the United States and abroad, where she was Vice President for Development and Project Director in the New York City office. During her tenure at GGP, she directed the company's plans to redevelop the South Street Seaport, a GGP property.
General Growth Properties is the company that put the South Street Seaport into bankruptcy.  See: Bankruptcy Unlikely to Shut the South Street Seaport, by Charles V. Bagli, April 17, 2009.  While some might say that General Growth Properties work was a "redevelopment" of the historic Seaport district, others would more acerbically christen it a dismantling of the original vision intended to benefit the public. The bankruptcy and theoretical inability to profitably run the shoreline property bordering Wall Street canyons has been the pretext to dishonor the prescriptions of the original lease with the city and thereby build sky-scraping towers instead, essentially acquiring a vast amount of building rights without paying for them.

Blatchford's job at General Growth Properties had her outspokenly selling its plans to the press and community:
"I think we've done a lot of work to engage the community and really feel we've made connections with people and gotten input all along the way," said Laurel Blatchford of General Growth Properties.
(See: Plan To Restore Tin Building Divides Manhattan Neighborhood, By: Rebecca Spitz, 10/23/2008.)

More Plans to Sell Real Estate Previously Unmentioned

The minutes for this eventful first meeting of the year in February has a major revelation that comes out of the blue: Even while the Backus real estate study and Ivy Group "community needs assessment study" were being readied as a red carpet to welcome library system real estate deals, there were other plans existing with an independent, previously undisclosed, life of their own.  Described here and never mentioned before or afterwards in the minutes, is an intent to sell the Sunset Park Library for redevelopment and another study, referred to cryptically as "the Revson Study," marshaling library buildings as candidates for redevelopment.  The apparently somewhat secret study almost became the reason to deprive Sunset Park Library of a renovation the community was awaiting:
Emerging Mixed Use Real Estate Opportunities was also discussed.*  The Library currently has a capital renovation project at Sunset Park that has project funds totaling $1,390,000.  The project is in design and expected to start construction in summer 2010.  Sunset park has been identified in the Revson Study as a potential candidate for redevelopment and the Committee [Capital Planning & Oversight Committee- co-chaired by Sharon Greenberger and Alice Fisher Rubin] weighed the calculated risk of holding off on the capital project and redesignating these funds to another project, versus continuing as is.  The start of the Revson project may be delayed given the complexities and challenges that the Library is faced with the current economic downturn.
The Committee recommended that Brooklyn Public Library proceed as planned with the capital project at the Sunset Library because the Revson project does not, as yet, have a confirmed schedule.
(* The underlining is in the minutes, probably indicating a trustee's requested revision before final adoption.)  
There is nothing in the minutes from which to make any sort of suitable guess about what "the Revson Study"is.  By referring over to the Queens system minutes one might speculate that it could have something to do with the Fifth Avenue Committee, but the Queens minutes themselves have no reference to such a study.  The fact that the Revson Foundation is also a supporter of and contributor to the library-shrinking Spaceworks firm also provides little clue.

While we have been focusing on documenting the progress towards formally implementing a system-wide strategy of library real estate deals that surfaced in at the beginning of 2007 with the plan of hiring a real estate right-sizing consultant and progressed as the 2007 board restructuring legislation was passed and then with the hiring of Backus and plans for the community needs assessment, now is probably the best time to mention that there were other independent indications that library real estate was going to be up for sale and redevelopment.

Redevelopment of Crown Heights Brower Park Branch library

Brower Park Library- BPL asked a developer to submit a more formal proposal respecting putting a 7-floor residential tower at the site
The 7,000 square foot Brower Park Branch library in Crown Heights, close to the Children's Museum (where David Offensend was a trustee) and the border of Prospect Heights, was nearing such redevelopment in 2007.  The library had been completely renovated in 1990.  The minutes of the September 18th and December 18th speak of the plans, in one case referring to the owner-landlord of the property (leasing the property to the BPL) structuring the deal, in the other "the developer":
September 18, 2007 Minutes-"The Library's current lease at this site ends in May 2008.  The Landlord has proposed the following to BPL: demolish the building and build a 7-floor residential condominium; a new library would be on the ground floor; the library space would be available for purchase by the City; BPL has expressed interest in this opportunity subject to further due diligence, board approval and the availability of capital funding."

December 18,  2007 Minutes-“Brower Park Branch–  Developer has agreed to submit to BPL a proposal outlining an offer for a new branch library on the site in a more formal and detailed manner.
The December minutes also include in the preliminary capital budget request figures, $5.8 million for site acquisition for Browar Park.

Libraries That Are Leased- BPL's Use of Eminent Domain

In most cases, New York City owns Brooklyn's libraries.  The city owns them even though Andrew Carnegie donated many of the libraries specifically with the intention that they be libraries.  The BPL occupies the building legally as a tenant of the city although it needn't pay rent.  In some cases though, as with a newer library like the Brower Park Branch, the BPL, as tenant, pays rent to a private landlord.  It's an expense the BPL wouldn't have if the asset were publicly owned, and it also puts investments in longer-term capital improvements at risk, because they stand to be lost if the lease isn't renewed due to escalating rent.

The May 20, 2003 minutes provide an overview:
Staff provided an information item about the status of property lease renewals and extensions.  Leases are being extended for Crown Heights, Kensington, Paerdegat and Ulmer Park.  The lease for Brower Park has been renewed.  It was expected that Sheepshead Bay would soon be renewed.

BPL currently leases about 72,000 gross square feet for branches around the Borough, at an FY'03 cost of about $1.3 million for rent and taxes.  These costs have escalated and are budgeted at $1.5 million for FY'04.
Buying a library like Brower Park, leased from a private owner, for public ownership expands the library system, increasing its overall capital assets.
Ulmer Park Library - Acquired by the powerful tool of eminent domain
And when a library is bought, a special tool of acquisition can be used, as was the case with the Ulmer Park Library, acquired for the Library by the city at around this time.  The acquisition of Ulmer Park was apparent accomplished by invoking the city's powers of eminent domain (per the minutes of February 2007, September 2007, and April 2008).  Holding down the cost of land acquisition and potentially streamlining the acquisition process, eminent domain is a very powerful tool for the public and one that private developers love to have handed over to them by public entities as was done in the case of Atlantic Yards.  If the BPL's real estate strategy is ever in full swing, then it is something we might see a lot more of.

Gravesend Library- described by BPL as part of its "strategic real estate plan," City Councilman Domenic Recchia found money for that purpose.  The plan?: It would be acquired by eminent domain.
To flash foward on this point, according to the minutes of June 30, 2011 meeting, Linda Johnson, president of the BPL for about a year:
reminded the Board that the strategic real estate plan included the purchase of several leased branches and reported that Councilman [Domenic] Recchia had found funds for BPL to purchase one of those branches, Gravesend.
Going back to February 20, 2007, the minutes indicate that the BPL was also proceeding to acquire the Gravesend Library site (nearby Ulmer Park) via eminent domain at that time.*  Some plans are in the works a long time.
(* Added 9/1/'14- I didn't pick up any cue in the BPL's minutes, but the Real Deal, which reports focusing on real estate matters, reported this year that the McKinley Park Branch library may soon also be taken by eminent domain.  See: the City could seize Brooklyn library to save on rent, March 10, 2014, and the Brooklyn Paper, at that same time reported the BPL would similarly acquire all seven other branches that it doesn't own, with their spokesperson David Woloch saying, "I would not be surprised if we pursued a similar path down the road for some of the others."  See: Brooklyn Public Library wants to seize Dyker branch building, By Will Bredderman, The Brooklyn Paper, March 10, 2014.  In that Brooklyn Paper article Woloch engages in some standard coy devlopement-speak, saying that although an eminent domain court proceeding was brought and pursued with respect to the Ulmer Park branch, eminent domain wasn't used, because the owner, confronted with the seizure, settled before the end of the proceedings.)
Sale of Midwood Library
Midwood Library- Wanted by a developer
Before the Sunset Park Library and Brower Park Library redevelopment discussions, there is another proposed library sale that crops up far earlier, the very earliest to appear in the minutes, perhaps an example of a developer jumping the gun on a program of library sell-offs that was rumored to be in the works.  It goes back to March/April of 2005, about a year after David Offensend arrived at the BPL and about half a year before Janet Offensend would officially arrive at the BPL.

Without there being any preamble or prior hint of any sort, the minutes of the meeting  April 19,  2005 recite that a developer was angling to buy the 12,200 square-foot Midwood Library:
A proposal regarding the sale of the Midwood Library was presented to the Executive Committee for review at their January 25, 2005 meeting.  President Thomas affirmed that the Executive Committee voted not to pursue this issues.  This decision was presented to the Board for discussion at the meeting.  After discussion,

Trustee Alice Fischer Rubin MOVED to ratify the Executive Committee's decison not to pursue this issue.  Trustee Danny Simmons seconded it.  A VOTE of hands was taken with 12 ayes, 1 nay (Morris Missry), and 1 abstention (Thomas Amon), MOTION carried.
Where might such a possible sale stand now with the BPL and its reconstituted board looking at real estate "opportunities" with respect to all its portfolio?   Some plans are in the works a long time.

Approving and Promoting An Unconvincing Real Estate Strategic Plan

According to the February 2009 minutes the next meeting, April 28, was supposed to be the meeting where the Ivy Group would present the "community needs assessment," but it wasn't ready although Nancy Davis, Cathi Alloway and Pam Fitzgerald from the Ivy Group did come to talk about their work on it.  That didn't mean that the Backus "Strategic Real Estate Plan for the Branches" wasn't ready for adoption with the "community needs assessment" still destined to catch up.  Likewise the Central Library Master Plan presented by Pfeiffer Partners that would "maximize the Library's ability to deliver the library services needed in the 21st Century"  (i.e. not books or real estate) could outpace the assessment.

Ms. Backus presented her findings from which the trustees picked one of two options (the differences not identified in the minutes) recommended by the Capital Planning & Oversight Committee, co-chaired by Sharon Greenberger and Alice Fisher Rubin.  According to the minutes:
The adoption of the plan will enable the BPL to begin discussion and take actions that support a strategic vision.  As opportunities arise, the BPL will have the benefit of the plan to guide its response.  The plan will enable the BPL to take a proactive approach to the improvement and right-sizing of its physical plant.
The plan was adopted specifying that certain further specified actions, moved by Alice Fischer Rubin and seconded by Laura Ensler.  First of the list of those additional actions to be taken was that there be (emphasis supplied):
a continuation of KBA’s [Backus'] analysis that will strengthen the argument for the approved strategy
It is interesting to speculate in what ways the trustees thought that Backus' analysis might, at that time, have been making an insufficiently convincing argument for the strategy so that further work was required to strengthen the argument.  It is also noteworthy that the instruction here is not an instruction to pursue truth or a factually balanced and correct analysis.
The BPL board votes unanimously to continue the Karen Backus "analysis" to "strengthen the argument" for the real estate strategy. . . In the meantime, they will begin promoting that strategy.
The other actions instructed to be taken in conjunction with plan's adoption:
  • The beginning of an exploratory conversation with key government officials
  • The development of short-term and longer-term communications strategies for Trustees and staff as they promote the plan with elected officials and stakeholders
In other words, despite the unconvincing holes needing to be filled regarding the Backus analysis and notwithstanding the absence of the yet-to-be-done "community needs assessment," it was time to start selling this plan to the rest of the world.

Landmarks Commission

The BPL was getting its ducks in a row in another respect.  Apparently, the city Landmarks Commission was asked to inventory the BPL portfolio to identify what libraries were historically significant.  Landmarks, like libraries, was another city agency affecting real estate overseen by First Deputy Mayor Patti Harris.  According to the minutes, the BPL was going to juggle the possibility of landmark designations to meet its real estate needs, a rather frank acknowledgement that the system works in ways we often pretend it doesn't:
Landmarks informed BPL that they had completed their survey of our branches and found that we have 8 branches that are potentially eligible for designations as landmarks.  The Committee [Capital Planning & Oversight Committee, co-chaired by Sharon Greenberger and Alice Fisher Rubin] recommended that in response to Landmark's request to prioritize these branches, the Library will respond that we are conducting a comprehensive analysis of our real estate portfolio and would like to wait on any decisions on landmarking individual sites until the Board has reviewed and approved the findings of the analysis. 
Lack of Trustee Involvement- Brooklyn Heights & Pacific Branch Covered By Plan 

There's one statement in the minutes at which to be aghast:
Since the presentation of the Strategic Real Estate Plan to the board in February there have not been any questions from trustee attendees.
All the BPL's real property is going to be put up for a reshuffling down-sizing, right-sizing of the system through real estate deals and not one trustee has any questions?

Also disconcerting, although the "Strategic Real Estate Plan for the Branch Libraries" will be referred to again in subsequent meetings, never will the subject of the sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library ever appear in the minutes before the public announcement that the BPL intends to sell it.  That announcement, like announced sale the sale of Pacific Branch library will be based on the "Strategic Real Estate Plan," sidestepping any transparent trustee involvment.

What references to the Brooklyn Heights central library appear in the minutes?
  •  The December 16  2003 minutes discuss book donations to Brooklyn Heights, observing “this is one of our larger collections, with a number of donations from the community.”
  • June 21,  2005 Minutes- Brooklyn Heights Library was a great success for the Spanish Spelling Bee with a May 21st photo in the NY Times.
  • June 21,  2005 Minutes- The Adult Summer reading kick-off was on June 29th at the Brooklyn Heights Library.  (According to weather Almanac it was 87 degrees, so presumably the air conditioning was working without any problem that day.)
  • September 19, 2006 Minutes- Acknowledgement that Brooklyn Heights is a distinct Central Library
  • June 17, 2008 Minutes- Trustee Ensler mentions that a "Power Breakfast" will be held the next day (June 18th) at the Brooklyn Heights Library (either they were planning ahead for a cool morning or expecting the air conditioning would work if needed.)
After that, the only references to the Brooklyn Heights Library are after the announced sale of the Brooklyn Heights and Pacific Branch libraries has caused the public to react with furor, for instance in the minutes for the February 26, 2013 meeting:
Representative [Carolyn Greer of the Borough President's Office] reported that the Borough President’s Office had received many complaints and concerns about the Library’s plan for the Brooklyn Heights branch. She said her office would be represented at community meetings to listen to these concerns and would pass them along to BPL as needed.
In the minutes itis exceedingly rare that something causes an ex-officio's representative to speak up on a topic.

Libraries Will Always be There?

The public was going to be taken by surprise by the sell-off plans, and with good reason.  As the BPL board was approving the real estate sell-off plans Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz was soliciting the public's donations for the libraries, running a "Support Our Shelves" campaign where he was flourishing assurances that the libraries were going to be there through good times and bad:
"Brooklynites may be forced to tighten their belts, but guess what?" Borough President Marty Markowitz declared at the "Save Our Shelves" kick off event held at Grand Army Plaza on Thursday. "Libraries are still there for us. Through good times and bad, libraries are shining beacons of knowledge, places where you can fill your mind without worrying about breaking the bank."
(See: BPL to readers: `Don't be shellfish, donate money, by Joe Maniscalco, March 19, 2009.)  Markowitz was coordinating with the BPL and sending his then representative Carlos Sissura to represent him at the trustee meetings so he certainly should have known better.

"Community Needs Assessment” Finally Arrives November 2009 

At the November 17, 2009 meeting, seven months after adoption of the Strategic Real Estate Plan and the BPL's proceeding with the Grand Army Plaza Master Plan, the “Community Needs Assessment” was finally presented by Pam Fitzgerald and Nancy Davis of the Ivy Group.  This could easily have been problematic were the results not preordained.

The results of the “Community Needs Assessment” were quite the opposite of problematic . .


One of the “Community Needs Assessment” findings?: The Brooklyn Public Library should be engaged in "support for economic development"!

The report also found that system weakness included: "a large number of facilities, aging facilities, and a risk averse culture."

Other things the report recommended the BPL focus on included:  "technology,""innovation and risk" and “alliance and partnerships.” 

There were twelve points in all, the first two supporting reorganizations at BPL. "Philanthropic Support" was third and fourth was "Branding, Marketing and Public Relations."

At least, the report had to acknowledge that in New York, where libraries are very heavily used, the BPL was first in usage among the city's three systems.

The minutes say that in a cautionary instruction Fitzgerald and Davis said that the board “must act swiftly to move the institution ahead.” 

Reorganization Upheaval

At this point the BPL is on the cusp of further changes.  There will soon be a new executive to head the library, replacing Executive Director Dionne Mack-Harvin.  The recommendations in the "community needs assessment" alluding to reorganization ("organizational development") could have foreshadowed this.  (The April 27, 2010 meeting minutes have some additional difficult-to-interpret references to implementing Ivy Group recommendations.)

Dionne Mack-Harvin's departure was very well covered in the press.  Ostensibly, Mack-Marvin quit the first week of March 2010, and the reason she quit was, ironically, stated to be that BPL board was angry with her that the firing of 13 BPL employees had been so well covered in an article about the work of a firm of corporate "downsizing" experts.  That article had appeared in the Washington Post the previous August.  Another possibility?: Ms. Mack-harvin may herself have been on a longer list.  June 15, 2010 is the last board meeting Ms. Mack-Harvin attends before departing.  Those fired in the summer of 2009 included four long-time chefs working in the Grand Army Plaza libary. . . to make way for the new Master Plan?

Air Conditioning Contract With Performance Mechanical Corporation Delivers Performance Contrary To What One Might Expect

Transitions can be funny twilight zones.  The minutes of the last meeting Ms. Mack-Harvin attended that June describes the approval of  "two major service contract renewals,"  one of them a $1,200,000 5-year contract (described as "up from $978.900") for Performance Mechanical Corporation, "a Brooklyn-based company that will service BPL's system-wide HVAC needs." . . .

Rather than being Brooklyn-based, Performance Mechanical Corporation actually seems to be based in Long Island (New Hyde Park L.I. or 932 Tooker Avenue, West Babylon, NEW YORK, 11704) and/or New Jersey (Belmar, NJ 07719).

There is very little that can be picked up from the internet to glean information about the firm, but from NYS Secretary of State filings it looks like one of the individuals associated with the company is Scott R. Cohen, an attorney who is apparently listed as practicing in Bellmore L.I. and Cherry Hill, NJ08034(Touro Law School, admitted 1990). A general practice lawyer, he handles a range of cases in areas including real estate, malpractice, criminal defense and corporate and commercial litigation. Another individual the firm appears to be connected to from those filings is Chris Gomes, a consultative real estate professional with international business experience in commercial real estate development, investment and management. According to the web, Chris Gomes joined the National Hospitality Group at Marcus & Millichap's Dallas office in 2009 as an Associate, bringing over 15 years of hospitality brokerage, advisory and operations experience to the firm.  Prior to joining Marcus & Millichap Gomes worked as a Senior Consultant at PKF in Dubai.

The minutes do not indicate that the $1,200,000 5-year contract was bid by competitive process, something the Queens library system's minutes routinely assure.  From the minutes it appears that Queens bids each new iteration of a contract, so that a `renewal' would not be an exception from competitive process.  Also, the Queens system does not put all of its HVAC responsibilities in the hands of one one single contractor; instead it breaks up responsibilities.  The Brooklyn minutes do not indicate how long the prior version of the contract being renewed at this time was, or whether that previous contract was bid.  That makes it impossible to detect how much of a jump in price the renewal actually amounted to and to know how far back the contract might have been competitively bid.  There is no information about the firm's prior performance, or whether there were problems with it.

Information respecting some of these questions may or may not have been put before the board at the time it acted, notwithstanding their exclusion form the minutes, but the questions are important . . . .  The questions are important because, almost exactly two years later, the summer of 2012 that preceded the planned winter announcement of the first of the system's library sales, massive problems start being reported with air conditioning in libraries throughout the system.  One of those affected libraries is the Brooklyn Heights Library whose air conditioning system (only partially broken) is declared to be entirely unfixable.  (See: More libraries fall as heat nears 100 degrees, by Mary Frost, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, July 6, 2012.)

At the time of these widespread breakdowns the Performance Mechanical Corporation's contract still had three years to run.  Now, two years later, the problems persist with a high coincidence of libraries being affected that that are also targeted for eventual sale like Clinton Hill and Sunset Park.  (See: Sunset Park Library Goes Weeks Without Air Conditioning, Residents Say, by Nikhita Venugopal on July 29, 2014.)  This July, when the BPL presented plans to sell to Spaceworks and privatize a portion of the Red Hook Library, the meeting was held in the Red Hook Library with the community attendees sweltering.  The air conditioning was off as the BPL explaining that the air conditioning would be fixed if the library space sell-off and shrinkage occurred.  (See: Red Hook residents angered over proposed sale of library, by Jess Berry, Jul 30, 2014.)
The Red Hook community showed up at a sweltering CB6 Land Use Committee meeting to protect their library against proposed shrinkage even as they were told that the air conditioning would be fixed if the library could be shrunk
It is worth noting that over at the NYPL, under the auspices of COO David Offensend, air conditioning problems were cited as a reason to sell the Donnell Library (even though much new air conditioning equipment had been installed in the course of recent renovations there), and for selling the Mid-Manhattan library, and for ripping out the research stacks of the 42nd Street Central Reference Library.

Linda Johnson Arrives as New BPL Head To Floor The Accelerator on Library Real Estate Sell-off Plans

July 20, 2010, the meeting after the hiring of the air conditioning firm, Linda Johnson arrived at the BPL as the new interim Executive Director (a position eventually corporately rechristened "president,").  She comes from National Constitution Center in Philadelphia and before that Free Library of Philadelphia.  Johnson says the first “great challenge” she faces is“getting the organization to think strategically” and says that the good news is that “we’ve done some great work we’ll be able to build from. the community Needs Assessment and the Real Estate Plan which is certainly going to be the foundation that we’ll build from.”

Digression On a Problem- Who Runs Libraries- Do You Need To Be a Librarian?

Linda Johnson immediately announces that she is expanding the senior management team from three people to nine and, at the next meeting, augments that expansion further.  We'll skip the details of itemized names, but it appears that there are a number of title changes that appear to be promotions that probably aren't truly (you know, like grade inflation at colleges) mixed appointments that insert new people into higher level positions- Traditional change of management slieght-of-hand.

One senior appointee to keep track of in all this is librarian Richard Reyes-Gavilan.  Reyes-Gavilan first came to the BPL (November 2007 minutes and beginning work January 2008) from the NYPL just as it was announcing the sale and shutdown of Donnell.  He had worked at Donnell earlier in his career, but came from NYPL Central and there in no evidence that he worked on the Donnell sale.  At the October 11, 2011 meeting the board approved him as Director of the Library and Chief Librarian, a newly created position escalating him from being in charge of just the Grand Army Plaza library.  In this new position he oversaw the library sell-offs ultimately before the public although he seems always to have been amenable to the new `vision' of things.  It is Reyes-Gavilan who explains in the December 15, 2009 minutes that the White/Levy Information Commons is a space with “lots of different things happening all at the same time, mostly technology."

Rising to his new position Reyes-Gavilan tells the Brooklyn Eagle,“I look forward to working with Linda to lead the transformation.”

Reyes-Gavilan's appointment to the newly created position is critical to solve one problem.  Linda Johnson did not have the professional qualifications to meet the New York State professional librarian requirement for public library directors.
NYCRR TITLE 8 - EDUCATION
§90.8 Appointment of library personnel

(3) A library which is a member of a public library system and serves a population of 7,500 or more shall employ as director only persons who hold the public librarian's professional or provisional certificate or a certificate of qualification. The library shall employ in all other professional librarian positions only persons who hold the public librarian's professional or provisional certificate, a certificate of qualification or a conditional certificate.
Did it leave the BPL somewhat in the lurch when Mr. Reyes-Gavilan departed for Washington, D.C. in the spring of 2014, leaving the increasingly publicized library sales behind him?

Ms. Johnson's predecessor, Dionne Mack-Harvin, has a master’s in library science from SUNY Albany’s Nelson A. Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy. It's an ALA-accredited library school.  She  began her career in 1996 as a librarian at BPL’s Crown Heights branch.

Thomas Galante, president of the Queens Library system, has a Master of Library and Information Science from Queens College.  NYPL president Marx apparently doesn't ahve such qualifications, but, as Linda Johnson was doing, covers the lack with Mary Lee Kennedy who has an MLS and is the Chief Library Officer, and with Ann Thornton who has an MLS and is the Andrew W. Mellon Director of The New York Public Libraries. Anne Coriston has an MLS and is the VP for Public Service. 

Johnson Charging Ahead

At the next meeting, September 21, 2010, Linda Johnson says that “everything she would be doing over the coming months would tie back to strategic planning so that the BPL would be a strong institution in the long-run.”  Invoking the word "strategically" yet again she says it is “important to think strategically while making financial and operational decisions.”  She then proclaims that her first step would be an October 1st and 2nd Board retreat.

Board retreats for substantive discussion, if quorums of the trustees are present, are likely violations of the New York State Open Meetings Law.  The reason is obvious: Since there are no minutes and the retreat was not open to the public no one can say what of substance may have occurred at such a meeting except for the fact that Johnson tells the trustees that the retreat would focus on board responsibilities with Jennifer McCrea, “marketing and branding” with Ed Tettemer (out of Philadelphia- on Twitter a “brand therapist” and “dot connector”) and Mo (Maureen) Craig.  She also tells the board members that there will be a presentation by the founders of a company, Espresso Book Machine, that is setting up to print, on demand, books that aren't at the library, but only if those books are in the public domain.

Prospect That Dormitory Authority Would issue Bonds?

Then, at this her second meeting Ms. Johnson did something unexplained that was unprecedented in prior minutes and about which there is no discernible follow-up in later minutes.  She:
asked the Board to fill out the questionnaire from the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY). This documentation must be executed in order to receive funds from DASNY.
The Dormitory Authority of the State of New York provides funds by issuing tax-exempt bonds for non-profit institutions.  The questions respecting this seeming priority of Ms. Johnson is, what kind of bonds would DASNY issue for the BPL and how would it issue them . . .

. .   I worked many years for the state's financing authorities and participated in the issuance of quite a few billion dollars worth of bonds.  Pardon if I get technical here, but one doesn't normally issue bonds unless they are backed by an income stream or an entity with income streams that make it a suitable credit, even if one can put up assets such as real estate as security.  A library building is real estate that can be forfeited if put up as securities, but libraries don't generate income with which to pay off bonds.  An entity like the NYPL with a substantial endowment expected to generate income from it plus a expectation of large future gifts might do some borrowing based on its own general credit based, but it makes little sense for the BPL, dependent on the fluctuating support from the city, to issue bonds, especially when the city is cutting its funds.

But if the idea was that the BPL might be involved with library sell-offs to create mixed use projects. . . If it were envisioning air or development rights like those over the Brooklyn Heights Library were going to be converted into tall towers. .

In the early 1980s the Museum of Modern Art pushed the envelope of what could be built with tax-exempt, so-called `municipal bonds' in a very convoluted scheme to finance, Museum Tower, the 52-story luxury condominium tower next to it on a tax-exempt basis.  (See: Museums Turing To Air Rights For Revenues, by Howard Blum, January 7, 1983.)

In an article, "Government by Subterfuge," for the City Journal (Winter 1995), Michael S. Gruen described the transaction:
 the State Legislature concocted another special tax exemption, this time to benefit the Museum of Modern Art, which faced financial problems and needed additional space. MoMA owned several brownstones west of the museum building. It wanted to acquire additional property and then develop the entire site to provide both exhibition space and a steady source of income. The city, state, and MoMA developed what the Court of Appeals described as a "highly intricate and imaginative scheme" to finance a 50-story Museum Tower housing museum facilities on the first six stories and condominium apartments on the other floors.

But how to ensure a flow of income to the museum? Condominium owners don't pay rent after all-but they do pay property taxes. MoMA needed a way to tap the taxes for itself. The city obliged: it would exempt the property from taxes but require the condo owners to make tax-equivalency payments to the museum.
Gruen notes how the Court of Appeals ruled the scheme legal, but dissenting justices considered it:
"gimmickry" designed to conceal a subsidy from the public and irrevocably commit longterm support to a single institution.
A point those astute justices and Mr. Gruen may have missed, however, is that, like similar diversions/conversion of tax revenues into "tax-equivalency payments,"like Brooklyn Bridge Park (or the Atlantic Yards arena), depending how things are sliced and diced and depending on how these things are `negotiated,'this financial benefit also readily becomes a subsidy to construction of the luxury towers themselves.

Was the MoMA scheme, or something like it, involving creation and difficult-to-understand use of the Trust for Cultural Resources to get around what would otherwise have been prohibited, a one-shot aberration? or was it likely to be repeated?   Defending the plan after the first New York Times article, William S. Paley and Blanchette  H. Rockefeller wrote this in a letter to the Times editor (emphasis supplied):
The museum's expansion project, a model for cultural institutions seeking to secure their financial future, deserves correct depiction if others are to consider similarly innovative solutions.
(See: The Modern Museum's No-risk Project, January 18, 1983, January 18, 1983.)

One might hope that bonds issued by DASNY for the BPL would only be used for good, librrary purposes, not to help sell libraries off.

This year a law was passed in Albany (Assembly Bill 9241 and Senate Bill S6931, introduced April 2nd, signed into law by the governor August 11, 2014) that lets DASNY finance projects of the  Brooklyn Public Library among those previously eligible for the financing of projects through the Dormitory Authority. The legislation was sponsored in the State Assembly by Lentol, Brennan, Cymbrowitz, Abate, Brook-Kransy, Camara, Davila, Jacobs, Millman, and Mosley, and in the Senate by Marty Golden, who has a history of support for and connections to Forest City Ratner.

On April 24th, Citizens Defending Libraries met with Assemblymen James Brennen, one of the bill sponsors, and received critical assurances that the legislation would under no circumstances authorize DASNY to issue bonds for any kind of mixed use project like the Museum Tower or a skyscraper at the Brooklyn Heights Library site.  But what is its intent really?

Bonds could be issued to catch up on any true deferral of capital expenditures for libraries if the general credit of the city or the state were put on the line, but that wouldn't be through DASNY.  That was what many were hoping for when Governor Andrew Cuomo was proposing this year to issue $2 billion in state taxpayer-backed bonds for education purposes that could have included libraries.  See: Cuomo pushes $2 billion school-bond issue, by Jessica Bakeman Jan. 8, 2014 and the end of this video about extending the bonds to libraries, NY Library Association's concerns over funding cut, 01/24/2014.

Time For More Booz and a Gracie Mansion Patti Harris/Mayor Bloomberg "Summit"

Ms. Johnson's fourth meeting (February 8, 2011) is the one where she tells the trustees that Booz & Co. has been hired.  It's as simple as that: She does not say anything about there having been an RFP or one having been needed.  She says that Booz has "extensive experience with libraries" and would be involved with right-sizing, but it is not recorded in the minutes that she said this experience was connected to sale and down-sizing of Donnell at the NYPL.  She says that Booz would be "helping BPL for a two month period"(emphasis supplied) but does not say that, after the three city library systems met at the "summit, hosted by First Deputy Mayor Patricia Harris," Booz would work for a much longer period for all three library systems:
Ms. Johnson spoke about the engagement with Booz & Co. to increase efficiency within BPL and to develop strategic cost-cutting measures. She reported that BPL staff had tried to strategically change service delivery models but found it difficult, if not impossible, to be objective about cuts; BPL hired Booz & Co. to help in the effort. Booz came to BPL with extensive experience with libraries and would be helping BPL for a two month period. The goals would be to reduce cost, right size operations, improve efficiency and generally improve service to patrons. The consultants had gathered information and were analyzing it. The consultants met with various Library stakeholders including staff and Board members. DC37 had not yet been involved but both Booz and BPL staff had reached out to them in hopes of including Union representatives in the discussion. The expectation was that Booz would develop a list of possible improvements in time to meet FY12’s adopted budget but it would be
up to BPL staff to implement.

Ms. Johnson reported that the three City library systems would be meeting at a summit, hosted by First Deputy Mayor Patricia Harris and underwritten by the Revson Foundation. The goal of the summit would be to find areas for collaboration amongst the systems to improve the operations and reduce the operating costs of all three.
The "summit," described alternately in the Queens Library minutes as a "retreat," was at Gracie Mansion Monday, March 7, 2011 from 9:30 AM to 4:00 PM, and also attended by the Mayor's Office of Management and Budget.  Ideas such as "collaborative opportunities like Shared Service Agreements" were discussed. One gets the sense of interest in a possible merger of the systems under mayoral control.  Mayor Bloomberg himself was present at the retreat.
From the Executive Director's log in the Queens minutes- Mayor Bloomberg attends the "summit"
 Spending Big Bucks On  Strategic Real Estate Plan

At that same February meeting, Karen Backus again presented the Strategic Plan for the Branches. It turns out the plan was at this time going to cost the BPL around $1 million.  Ms. Johnson says:
that Ms. Backus had presented to the Board before but BPL wanted to update Board on what had been happening in the meantime. She added that the reason to bring it to the Board at this time was that BPL needed $925,000 to move forward with the plan and wanted the Board to approve this funding. She also noted that this was a business plan and was not set in stone. Ms. Backus presented the plan, noting that the most important aspects relate to the facilities’ renovation needs, staffing efficiently and meeting changing community needs. The Board discussed the plan, including how it could affect low-income communities, the equitable distribution of closures and improvements across geographic and demographic areas, the changing footprint of the branches, branch performance, changing technology, community response and potential maintenance needs.
Who gets hurt most when libraries are sold, shrunk, books eliminated?  The above image, from a PowerPoint presentation in the Queens Library minutes was retweeted a number times when I tweeted: "Library Service most important to low-income users: 2/3rds visit at least weekly, & almost 30% visit every/most days."

Blueprint to Merge Library Operations

When the next meeting (April 4, 2011) rolled around, Ms. Johnson updated the board that the three systems:
had submitted to the Mayor’s office a blueprint for future collaborations. Possibilities included: one library card for the three systems; a centralized processing operation; and centralized purchasing operation; shared digitized collections and more. She said the most important aspect of the summit was the breaking down of barriers between the systems an the opportunity to start thinking about how best they could work together.
Minutes Document Intended Secrecy About Sales. . . And Identify Pitfall of Such Practice
Names of "affected" libraries were removed from the real estate plan causing problems for OMB. . . still, the were shared only "in strict confidence."

The next meeting (May 17, 2011) would be just one month later, as would be the one after that.  Its minutes explicitly document the BPL's decision to keep information about the libraries' sales secret, even from the city's Office of Management and Budget (though probably not from the mayor having so many appointments, nor his senior staff).  OMB points out a fatal flaw with such secrecy (emphasis supplied):
Ms. Johnson stated that, per the Board’s recommendation, BPL presented the real estate plan to OMB, removing the names of the affected branches. She said the meeting went well but that OMB was reluctant to give funds to any branch in the future as, from the presentation, they were unsure if the branch would be used as it was currently. She asked the Board for their goahead to present the names of the affected branches to OMB to help them understand the plan further and to build good will. She stated the information would be shared in strict confidence. The Board voiced no opposition to this proposal.
Sharing such information about branches to be sold "in strict confidence"exclusively with the city's Office of Management and Budget does not solve the problem of telling all the funding decision makers what they need to know to make an appropriately informed decision: The New York City Council also reviews and approves the city budget and would be left in the dark.  Similarly, other library funders like the state and federal governments would be left in the dark.  So would private funders. The NYS Education Department regulating and requiring annual reports for state aid plus submission of a  five year plan of service would be uninformed.  The general public being regularly appealed to for donations and supplying tax money would be too.  And obviously, as was intended by this secrecy, every library-using constituent and intended beneficiary of the library's services with inalienable political rights, no matter whether they were rich or poor, would be denied the ability to protest or complain about such plans or appeal to their elected representatives.

It's perhaps all the more deceptive because this kind of secrecy is the opposite of what we expect from those who run libraries,  Not so long after confirming that information about the sales should be kept in "strict confidence," Ms. Johnson on a Municipal Art Society forum panel on libraries, Libraries as Cultural Hubs, in April of 2012, is addressed by Sam Roberts of the New York Times as moderator who says (at 21:41):
As a journalist I have often found that librarians and archivists are really some of my favorite people.  I deal a lot with people in government whose job is to withhold information [audience laughter]: It's a pleasure to deal with people whose job, and intent, and instinct is to share information.
This, and Ms. Johnson's reaction, is viewable as a clip here (click through to YouTube for best viewing): Linda Johnson's Secretive Moment at MAS Libraries Forum.



The plan had to be kept secret because, if disclosed, its expected unpopularity would likely sound its death knell.  Similarly, it was anticipated that other electeds, those of the next administration, would not favor the secret plan.

Plotting to Lock In the Next Mayor- Mr. de Blasio?
"the goal was to get far enough into the plan with this Mayor [Bloomberg]  so that when a new Mayor takes office [de Blasio], the plan will be deep in progress and he or she will not derail it."

At the October 11, 2011 meeting, Ms. Johnson made absolutely clear on the record the goal of locking the next mayor into the real estate plans that were secretly underway (emphasis supplied):
Ms. Johnson continued with a report on the real estate plan. She reminded the Board of past conversations about the plan and let them know that the goal was to get far enough into the plan with this Mayor so that when a new Mayor takes office, the plan will be deep in progress and he or she will not derail it. She thanked Board Chair Crowell and Trustee Kimball for their work helping with moving it forward. 
Board Chair Anthony Crowell, whom Ms. Johnson thanked for moving the plan forward was Bloomberg's legal counsel, a senior policy adviser to him, and one of his earliest and longest-standing BPL trustee appointments, first appointed in January of 2003.  Is this to say that such incipient plans may have gone back even that far?
Candidate Bill de Blasio, July 12, 2013, running for mayor, calling for a halt to the sale and shrinkage of New York City libraries. . . Linda Johnson and the BPL wanted to constrain him, intending that he be powerless to bring about such a halt. 
In May of 2012 Crowell left the Mayor’s Office for a position as the President and Dean of New York Law School but he continued to serve as Board Chair to "work on behalf of BPL with City Hall.”

How much more of this history is there to tell?
  • Though it is not in the minutes, in October of 2011 Ms. Johnson meet with the Daily News to speak with mysterious abstractness of plans to sell certain valuable real estate with the pretext of paying for "repairs."
  • As noted, the summer of 2012 became she summer air conditioning breakdowns are complained of around the system, including the air conditioning system of the Brooklyn Heights Library which is proclaimed unfixable.
  • January 2013, the BPL announced the sale of the Brooklyn Heights and Pacific Branch libraries, but ddid not identify what other libraries were to be part of its plan.
After that, public opposition takes hold.  Among other things, Citizens Defending Libraries is created and its petition against library sales and shrinkages launched.

The next really significant thing in the minutes about real estate deals shrinking libraries is in the board's June 27, 2013 minutes where the board votes "to approve [apparently without any competitive bid] signing the license agreements with Spaceworks for the spaces in the partnership projects taking place at Red Hook and Williamsburgh."  . ..

. . . Ironically, this vote to shrink libraries with long-term leases (evasively dubbed "license agreements") was on the same day that New York State Assemblyman Micah Kellner was holding a powerful day-long hearing about the sale and shrinkage of libraries.  The public turned out en mass to oppose these sales and nearly everyone engaged in this fight to save libraries was there.  That's why I wasn't at this particular BPL boardmeeting even though I had begun observing these meetings in person, a helpful practice because the BPL had begun to shorten its minutes, paring them down to uninformative sparseness.
Kellner led Assembly hearing on selling off and shrinking libraries, Assembly members Micah Kellner and Joan Millman reacting to NYPL president making the case for the Central Library Plan- That day the BPL trustees would approve a deal with Spaceworks on the premise that space in libraries is a "surplus" government asset.


It's A Snapple?

Let's digress to elucidate . . ..

The 2007 legislative restructuring of the BPL board before launching the real estate deals gave Bloomberg augmented, surer influence over the BPL board, but it is instructive to know that the BPL board was pretty tractable to his wishes before that.  This can be seen with respect to one of the board's first ill-advised forays into “partnership” with the private sector.

To appreciate the story fully you will have to remember that before Mayor Bloomberg was against sugary drinks he was for them and he was pushing them on New York City residents and school children.   The minutes for November 15,  2005 meeting (the meeting the month before the December 20, 2005 meeting when Ms. Offensend arrives at the meeting as Trustee Foundation chair) record the following:
BPL is building on New York City’s partnership with Snapple and is prototyping the installation of Snapple Machines in seven branches and Central.  BPL will be the first public library in New York City to participate in the Snapple relationship, and it is expected that this will provide a new source of revenue to the institution.
The New York City Comptroller had already criticized Bloomberg’s Snapple partnership deal as having been done without a proper competitive bid, and sued.  Separately, Bloomberg used mayoral control of schools to put the machines in schools for children.  More than a year before coming to the libraries the two contracts Bloomberg put through for this first-ever marketing deal to make the beverage the city's exclusive brand aggregated $166 million and was much criticized already.

The Queens Library and its head Thomas Galante took a different tack as set forth in its February 17, 2005 minutes:
Mr. Galante reported that the City’s Marketing Office has sought the installation and sale of Snapple beverages in libraries and he had advised the City that the Queens Library was not interested in participating in the City Program.
Too bad the BPL didn't follow the prior action of the Queens library as its model.  Just four months after the BPL’s going forward with the Snapple “partnership” the New York Times was delivering a postmortem on the Snapple program’s embarrassment and failure calling the criticized contract “a symbol of unfulfilled potential, with the deal failing to generate the revenues the city had hoped.”  See: Snapple - News Analysis-  Why Snapple Deal Shrank, By Sewall Chan, March 10, 2006.

That Times article explains that Daniel L. Doctoroff, the deputy mayor for economic development, was also the chairman of the non-profit Marketing Development Corporation, in charge of the Snapple partnership.  This Marketing Development Corporation was set up with a loan from the city's Economic Development Corporation also under Doctoroff’s auspices and the Times article explains how the “deal has cast a spotlight” on the somewhat questionable operations of this oddly-created entity.  Doctoroff communicates apologetically in the Times article:
that the Snapple arrangement "proved more difficult" than he had anticipated, in part because officials "assumed it would be easier to get machines located in properties controlled by the city."
Partnering With . . .  Ratner?

Remember that one recommendation of the Ivy Group was that the BPL enter into more "partnerships"?

What might more "partnerships" look like?

Ms. Johnson's "President's Report" in the December 13, 2011 minutes is a brief jumble that uninformatively tells one that certain things were discussed, engagement of Booz, more of that shared coordination putting together the systems that Booz was working on, the BPL's Master Plan for the Grand Army Plaza Library. . . "and possible partnerships with the Brooklyn Nets."  . . .

. . . In about nine months time the Ratner/Prokhorov so-called "Barclays"arena would be opening so no doubt some publicity would be appreciated.

Even before the November 2009 Ivy Group recommendations that the BPL enter into more partnerships and should engage in "support for economic development" the BPL board was apparently predisposed to support Ratner and his Atlantic Yards.

In February 2007 community “free-speech advocates” charged that the BPL was censoring “a politically charged art exhibit inspired by Atlantic Yards” ("Footprints: Portrait of a Brooklyn Neighborhood") by removing from it images critical of Forest City Ratner and its mega-project, including a “portrait of Yards opponent Daniel Goldstein” that:
showed the activist staring calmly at the viewer - and its creator thinks it was cut not because the image itself was too hot to handle, but merely because of the political baggage Goldstein carries in the fight against Yards developer Ratner.
The show, which portrayed the “condemned 22-acre area where Atlantic Yards is slated to be built, capturing those who live and work there on the eve of the land's condemnation,” consisted mostly of “documentary-style depictions.”  (See: Atlantic Yards-Images the Brooklyn Public Library doesn't want you to see- By Ariella Cohen- The Brooklyn Paper, February 17, 2007.)

Queens Library System Independence 

During this same decade the Queens Library system under Galante diverged to show independence in ways other than refusing to "partner" with Snapple and the fact that it was growing substantially, intending to grow more, while the other two systems were looking to sell off libraries and real estate that would shrink them. 

The Queens system elected not to merge its book-sorting operations in a new central operation with those of the NYPL and BPL even though that book sorting operation called "BookOps" was to be established in Queens, its very own borough.  BookOps would enable the NYPL and BPL to buy fewer books and drive down the price of books, while keeping far fewer of them on-site at local libraries, so that in some banter between Ms. Johnson and Chairman Crowell, not recorded in the minutes of the October 22, 2013 meeting, it was noted how unfriendly this `model for urban  libraries around the country' would be for struggling independent booksellers, yet another factor that might drive them out of business.  All those minutes record about the presentation and discussions at that meeting:
PRESENTATION- BookOps
As noted, the BPL minutes have become much less informative.

The minutes of the February 21, 2013 Queens trustees meeting set forth the following about why the Queens system was not participating in BookOps:
As we have discussed, Queens Library decided not to merge into this for several reasons: It would not save us money, in fact, it would have cost us money.  But this doesn't mean that we couldn't have citywide services.  We are moving ahead with plans to accept universal returns from BPL and NYPL.  This would be a great service for all New Yorkers.  It is not contingent on a consolidated NYPL sorting center at all.  We can return NYPL and BPL books through our existing self-check in system and the upfront cost is only $45,000 for the self-check software updates to implement this.
The Queens minutes refer to Wall Street Journal coverage of the BookOps sorting operation: NY Region- Libraries in Four Boroughs Plan to Unify Some Tasks, by Jennifer Maloney, February 15, 2013.  In the Journal article, Galante, the Queens Library head, offered more specifics about the costs and absence of savings while endeavoring not to appear obstreperously uncooperative:
Queens Library President Thomas Galante said relocating book processing to Long Island City from the library's current hub in central Queens would increase trucking costs and wouldn't achieve any labor savings.

But, he said, even without merging back-office operations, the Queens Library could still collaborate with the other two systems to make a universal library card and citywide book returns possible.

"It's going to be an all-for-one, one-for-all thing," he said. "This is not like Queens not wanting to play ball."
The NYPL's David Offensend is quoted to present opposite thinking:
"It actually makes it far more economical," said David Offensend, chief operating officer of the New York Public Library. "The logistics side flows all through one place. You take out huge labor costs."
More in that vein comes from BPL and NYPL officials as follows:
The "Book Ops" merger is expected to save the Brooklyn Public Library $2 million per year and the New York Public Library about $1.5 million per year, the libraries said.

Library officials said the upfront costs totaled $340,000, and the consolidation won't involve any layoffs or involuntary relocations. The Brooklyn library will still select its own materials, Ms. Johnson said.
Were the NYPL and BPL officials using calculations from the Booz firm?  Probably, given the many, many meetings attended by the firm about consolidating operations.  The Journal reports the obvious: that although "the Queens Library isn't participating in the merger. . . city officials had hoped that all three libraries would join operations."The article also mentions the Gracie Mansion "summit" at which Mayor Bloomberg appeared.

There are hints, partly in the form of a denial, of thoughts being given to a merger that would take away the Queens system independence:
New York ended up with three separate library systems through a quirk of history. 

* * * 

While they are exploring ways to improve access to patrons across the city, the libraries have no plans to merge into one citywide library.  They will retain their own identities, programs and services geared to local communities.
One example of independent identity and programs?: Spaceworks!  The Bloomberg-created private firm that is pursuing, as a principal mission, the privatization and shrinkage of NYC library space, and which lists the BPL and NYPL as two of its principal partners. . . but Queens isn't`partnering' with Spaceworks.

Queens minutes document the Queens board rejection of Bloomberg's appointment of Haeda Mihaltses, Chief of Staff for Patti Harris.
At the end of 2013, the waning days of the Bloomberg administration, the Queens Library has an out-and-out showdown with the mayor.  In October, it rejects Bloomberg's appointment as trustee of Haeda Mihaltses, Chief of Staff for Patti Harris.  That appointment would have survived Bloomberg's December 31st departure as mayor. It was rejected based on the fact that the Queens system bylaws protectively require that a specified number of appointments of trustees shall be from Queens community districts.

The rejection apparently resulted in a fair amount of pressure on Queens president Galante, including calls with Patti Harris, Nanette Smith, Bloomberg council Michael Best.  One might also wonder about what happened in visits Galante gets from others, such as developers around this time.  November 6th, the day that after the new mayor, de Blasio, was elected, Galante meets with Michael Best at City Hall.

The picture at the NYPL was different, November 4th, the eve of the de Blasio election, the NYPL was having a "Literary Lions" gala event honoring Bloomberg despite his history of unprecedented cuts in library funding so often complained of by the NYPL and the other two systems and despite Bloomberg's then known role in selling off and shrinking NYC libraries.

In the end, the Queens Library's rejection of the Haeda Mihhaltses appointment was less than entirely successful: In December, the final month Bloomberg was in office, Mihhaltses became a trustee when Bloomberg had other of his trustee appointments resign to clear the way for her ensconcement.  A few month's later, The New York Mets ensured Ms. Mihaltses would be adequately looked after in terms of employment while she went forward acting as a a trustee: The Mets named her to the "newly created position of Executive Director, External Affairs."

Now, in events people that have heard about widely, the composition of the Queens board, under siege, is in the process of changing wholesale.  Via enabling legislation passed in Albany, the board has been largely cleared of the appointees of former borough president Helen Marshall, whose term ended at the end of the year along with Bloomberg's.  See: 8 Are Removed as Queens Library Trustees, by Tatatiana Schlossberg,* July 23, 2014, Mayor de Blasio and Queens borough president dismiss library trustees in ongoing investigation, by Claire Kelley, July 25, 2014, Former Qns Library Trustees Sue BP Katz, by Joe Marvilli, August 7, 2014.
(* NOTE: One of these articles is by the daughter of Caroline Kennedy, someone who, in his busy schedule, Mr. Gravante once took on a tour of Queens libraries- according to the Queens system minutes.)
Without stopping to parse some of the less significant details, the chief and major complaint about these dismissed Queens Library trustees is that they tolerated a salary for Galante, $392,000, that is considerd to have been too high.  But there are significantly higher salaries being paid at the NYPL and nobody is making congruent objections.  His first full year at the NYPL president Tony Marx was rewarded with a compensation package of $781,000 (perhaps not including his expense account) and his predecessor, during his last year in office, recieved total compensation of $1.4 million.  A level down, NYPL COO David Offensend in 2011 was being compensated, $372,712, not all that different from Galante.  See:  Saturday, March 16, 2013, Read All About It: Library System Burglars Are Getting Inside Help - AND - The Mystery Of The Brooklyn Heights Association.

Open Meeting Law

Most of the history consolidated here could not have been written were it not for the New York State Open Meetings Law that requires meetings of the three library system trustees to be open to the public, minutes to be kept, and those minutes to be available to the public.  Once upon a time, opportunity for the public to attend or read those minutes was not taken advantage of,.  Nevertheless, perhaps someone gave thought to this possibility.

In Decemeber of 2003, the year Bloomberg's counsel Anthony Crowell was appointed to the BPL board, the BPL requested an opinion as to whether the BPL was subject to the Open Meetings Law. . . in other words, whether its activities were going to be subject to a certain amount of sunlight.  The answer was that they were.

"TMI"? Queens minutes stack up providing much more information than the BPL's
There are still ways to keep things out of the sunlight, one reason this article has not been able to tell you more: executive sessions held in private, "retreats" that substitute for meetings to evade the law, black box studies on website pages like the Karen Backus report that are referred to obliquely and without detail, and, of course, keeping the minutes sparse so that they say nothing as is increasingly now the case with the BPL minutes.  By contrast, if the Queens Library has anything to hide, and I am not saying they do, it would have to be by the strategy of TMI, "Too Much Information."  The Queens minutes document in detail how that system is run. . .  by the evidence available, very well in many respects.
Corporation Takeovers- Ducks In a Row

One of the things that one likely does if one is going to take over a corporation or an entity and steer it in new directions is to initially do inventory and check on the rules.  This might look like a certain amount of housecleaning, there may be changes on the board.  Lawyers and other hired professionals may be taking a fresh look at what's what.  Checking on application of the Open Meeting Law can be an example of such inventory. . .  restructuring the board another.

One of the groups that has been key in spearheading support for the sale and shrinkage of the Brooklyn Heights Library is a group named "Friends of the Brooklyn Heights Branch Library" that has existed for many years.  In 2012, just as the library's air conditioning was about to break down that group went through a lot of housekeeping and trustee changes and then the new trustees were told that they could not oppose the proposed sale or shrinkage of the library and resignations were invited from those who didn't agree.  See: Saturday, April 13, 2013, Condoning The Sale and Shrinkage Of The Brooklyn Heights Library, Does The Brooklyn Heights Associations Think Of Friends Group As A Fig Leaf? It Should Think Again.

Conflicts of Interest

If you were going to use a public library system for the purpose of "supporting economic development" and start selling off its libraries, questions about "conflict of interest" would be some of the housekeeping and inventory you would want to do.  Readers of this article have probably already found themselves wondering why all these real estate machinations were not violative of some conflict of interest rules or something of that ilk.

The meeting of January 20, 2004 (the same meeting where it is confirmed that the BPL must observe Open Meetings Law requirements) a "Conflict of Interest Policy" was inserted into the Trustees "handbook."  A draft conflict of interest policy was then later reviewed at the February 15, 2005 meeting.

At the January 17, 2006 meeting something very interesting happens.  The minutes report that trustee Mark Lieberman (a Fox Business Network Senior Economist and on-air commentator) raised the question of Anthony Crowell’s conflict of interest as an employee of Bloomberg in proposing the library’s budget message.  At that meeting it was agreed to request a ruling from the Conflicts of Interest Board before the February 28th meeting.  Do you think of government as being slow, especially when tackling difficult, thorny questions?  . . (That's something Fox commentators might rail about.)


. . . in short order, in time for the February 28, 2006 meeting, the Conflicts of Interest Board opined that it would not be a conflict of interest for Anthony Crowell to perform activities on behalf of the BPL (case number 2006-041, dated February 6, 2006)  Which means it took exactly 14 business days to prepare and submit the request and receive a Conflicts of Interest Board response.  Express or not, the permission granted by that Conflicts of Interest Board opinion was also likely deemed to apply to new trustee Jordan Barowitz, appointed by Bloomberg at the January 17, 2006 meeting, the “First Deputy Press Secretary at City Hall.” 

Having a possible conflict of interest because you are working for a mayor who wants to turn libraries into development tools is one kind of possible conflict.  Barowitz went on to have others. In November he  married Elisa Beth Zuritsky (a writer-producer for the HBO series "Sex and the City") whose father was the chairman and chief executive of the Parkway Corporation, a parking and real estate development company in Philadelphia. Her mother was on the board and the chairwoman of fund-raising for the Philadelphia Mural Arts Program.  It tends to be difficult go to work for big New York real estate firms without familial connections, but shortly after that Barowitz left the Bloomberg administration and went to work for the Durst Organizatin, one of the city's biggest.

One might hope that library trustees entrusted with preserving billions of dollars of public assets paid for by taxpayer money would be subject to the same public disclosure filing requirements as other public officials.  Those filings are intended to shed light on and prevent conflicts of interest.  Unfortunately, library officials don't have to file them, although State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky thought he had closed this loophole with legislation.    

In 2008 the Queens Library decided to go to the city Conflicts of Interest Board seeking an exemption from disclosure filing rules.  The BPL trustees, observing, decided to follow suit and did likewise, per their November 18, 2008 minutes.  The COIB granted the exemption, ruling over the objection of such people as Senator Brodsky.  See: Gray Areas Seem to Grow in State Law on Disclosure, by Alison Leigh Cowan, October 12, 2008 and September 13, 2008, Note to Civic-Minded: Prepare to Reveal Riches, by Alison Leigh Cowan.

In the first of the two Times articles above about the "sort of hairsplitting" whereby the Conflicts of Interest Board found the disclosure would not apply although “state lawmakers who had hoped to shine a light on civic groups that operate in quasi-governmental capacities,” Assemblyman Brodsky is quoted as follows:
"That kind of wiggling around is not acceptable," said Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Westchester Democrat who is chairman of the Assembly's Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, which had a hand in developing the law. On Friday, Mr. Brodsky announced that he would hold a hearing on compliance with the law in coming weeks.

"If people want to argue that we've captured the wrong kind of organizations, we're going to listen very carefully," he said. "But we're not going to accept wild gyrations that turn words on their heads."

* * * *

“The law is written broadly,” he said. “What we said was if you’re acting in the place of government, you should be treated like government.”

It is not that the Conflicts of Interest Board wasn't willing to take actions showing that it could be tough and sensitive to infractions.  Days after the the COIB threw out the disclosure requirement it sought to fine a librarian at Brooklyn Technical High School, Robert Grandt, for pridefully promoting his daughter's new graphic novel version of  of"Macbeth."  (See: A Brooklyn Librarian Is Fined for Promoting His Daughter’s Book, by Alison Leigh Cowan, October 21, 2008.)

Are you now convinced that the public can rest assured that the Conflicts of Interest Board is doing its job?

In 2009, the New York Times wrote about how the Conflicts of Interest Board was likely not so reliable for discerning conflicts pertaining to Mr.Bloomberg:  City Board Set Up to Monitor Ethics May Have Conflicts of Its Own, By DAVID W. CHEN, Published: September 6, 2009:
But even as they scrutinize the ethics of others, several board members, all five of whom were appointed by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, have ties to city funding and the mayor's fortune that raise questions about their own potential conflicts.

* * * *

Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, a nonprofit government watchdog, said, "There may be reason to question how strongly they are monitoring the activities of senior administration officials, given that they have ruled against a number of lower-level city employees for rather minor mistakes or judgments and then appear not to be as equally fair-minded in their review of higher-level folks."
Ultimately, while still a BPL trustee, BPL Board Chair Anthony Crowell, by virtue of Mayor Bloomberg's appointment, himself became a member of the regulating Conflicts of Interest Board.

In a well-functioning democracy it would be hoped that Conflicts of Interest Board opinions would be easily and readily obtainable, that the city government would, itself, have a robust system for researching and accessing these and related documents and/or that one could walk into any library to find them.  There isn't such a robust system.  Finding and obtaining the rulings above is a challenge, but one porthole through which such information can be pursued is through a private source, the site linked to by the Conflicts of Interest Board site, . . .New York Law School's.  Yes, that's New York Law School where Anthony W. Crowell is President and Dean.  This is probably too much privatization and too much conflict.

I called the Conflicts of Interest Board and asked about Spaceworks and its creation.  The lawyer on duty opined without equivocation that it violated the conflict on interest rules and was almost incensed that I would propose such an outrage- But will that be what the COIB holds when they find out that this scheme for shrinking public space is another Bloomberg-formulated plan?

Conclusion

There is probably even more to write than this.  Among other things the Brooklyn Public Library minutes speak euphemistically of the `21st Century Library' and they say this and that about initiatives to do some things digitally, but they are virtually silent about the elimination of books from the system or the fact that the system's shelves now are strangely empty of books pursuant to apparent direction as has been reported at the NYPL.  (For pictures, see:  Saturday, September 14, 2013, Empty Bookshelves As Library Officials Formulate A New Vision of Libraries: A Vision Where The Real Estate Will Be Sold Off. . .

. . . I attended the most recent meeting of the BPL trustees, June 26, 2014.  The trustees were told that there had been a recent dip in the number of "old-school type analogue books" (i.e. BPL jargon for physical books) that library users were reading- breaking the rule that the public doesn't participate at these meeting, I called out, "That's because you can't find books on the shelves."

Along with books, librarians and other essentials are similarly disappearing.

And what are we spending to get rid of these invaluable resources?  The minutes document that just one consultant was paid close to $1 million at the outset.  And so many consultants what were the total costs for consultants and their studies?: Karen Backus & Co., The Ivy Group, Booz & Co., The "Revson Study," the "branding" and PR consultants, among them Berlin Rosen.   The lobbyists?  If the libraries are not required to use competitive bid processes to hire contractors, what does it mean when they accommodate City Hall, which ought to be subject to such requirements, hiring firms to spend vast amounts sidestepping such oversight or constraint?

As the BPL minutes document, the plans for selling libraries, though they go back to 2005, are secret; the intention is to push them so far along that, when disclosed, elected officials will already consider themselves locked in.  These plans are fraught with negative ramifications for the public that will assuredly make them unpopular.  Nevertheless, when Linda Johnson was asked by Public Advocate James at last June's hearing what other libraries are in the works and being looked at for sale, Ms Johnson did not describe the plans or even begin to list libraries closest to being sold. .  .

. . .  Shouldn't Ms. Johnson at least have disclosed what the BPL minutes themselves publicly document?  That there is a long list of libraries being considered for the sort of real estate deals that sell and shrink them, that there is a "Strategic Real Estate Plan" prepared by former Forest City Ratner Vice President Karen Backus that includes, to name only a few, not only the called-for sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library, but also: Pacific Branch, Sunset Park, Williamsburg, Brower Park Library, Midwood Library, Gravesend Library, Clinton Hill Library . . .  and what others?  To start naming libraries is to promote opposition and it also deprives the BPL of its divide-and-conquer strategies. . .

And, speaking of disclosure, what would have happened if Ms. Johnson had admitted that the purpose of Ms. Backus's study of the branches was to "strengthen the argument for selling libraries," . . . . which goes along with the BPL's having started to defer capital repairs at the same time?

The minutes of the Brooklyn Public Library tell us much about those who are supposed to be protecting our public assets . . .  and what really directs them instead.  They don't tell enough, but the template of what is being done is clearly visible.  It is a template that applies to, and can likely shed light on, many other stories unfolding in this city, many of which have made cameo appearances here.  Those stories often involve the same people in power with respect to other public assets being sold or dismantled in very similar fashions: Long Island College Hospital, Brooklyn Bridge Park, South Street Seaport, NYCHA's public housing, New York City schools, NYU's expansion through Greenwich Village, the hand-off of a swath of Brooklyn to Forest City Ratner once referred to as "Atlantic Yards.  Those who have been granted such power operate mostly out of the public view, utilizing pretext and predetermination towards results that, when announced, they would have the public believe are inevitable, but aren't. . . results that most of us would consider contrary to the public interest, which is why they are pursued by stealth and misdirection.

I am uncertain whether an Open Meetings Law review of documents respecting some of these other sell-offs of public assets could be as revealing the BPL's.  If not, it's all the more reason to study the revelations of this chronicle for insight.

I have set forth this particular history, such as it can be discerned, in exhaustive, but I hope not exhausting detail. I hope these explorations engaged you throughout.  Still, despite the great deal that the minutes do disclose, all that can be deciphered only points to how much more needs to be investigated.  Certainly, we have identified here a great deal that should be addressed and covered by the next (now ongoing) audit by the New York City Comptroller. There are also all the other elected potential investigators we elect and pay to work for the public: The State Comptroller, the State Attorney General, the New York City Public Advocate, the City Council, the New York State Department of Education regulating libraries, the State Legislature, the federal government. . . . the mayor can investigate too. . .

. . . But there is so much about the City's library sell-offs that has already been disclosed to public officials urging them to investigate that has not been followed up upon.  That's why it is is good that the public has tools under the state sunshine laws to investigate these matters on its own just as was done here, . . .

. . .  and it's why those tools should be used by the public to investigate these matters further.

A Multiplicity of Scoops: An Astounding List of Things You’d Discover By Reading The Brooklyn Public Library's Minutes- All About Its System-wide Plans To Sell And Shrink Libraries!

$
0
0

Here’s a bulleted road map to the multiplicity of scary, documented scoops that you need to know are in Noticing New York’s new article: August 31, 2014, Mostly In Plain Sight (A Few Conscious Removals Notwithstanding) Minutes Of Brooklyn Public Library Tell Shocking Details Of Strategies To Sell Brooklyn's Public Libraries.

Each one is potentially a major story in and of itself, but collectively. . . .

Noticing New York has sourced, from the Brooklyn Public Library’s own board of trustee minutes, a history of how the BPL plans to sell and shrink Brooklyn’s libraries, secretly turning them into real estate“opportunities” that would “support economic development.”

Here’s what you can discover from the minutes of the Brooklyn Public Library that constitute BREAKING NEWS, because, before this, the public just didn’t know.
    •    How influential and strategically placed were a married couple, David Offensend and his wife Janet Offensend, with the New York Public Library and Brooklyn Public Library respectively, so as connect and interrelate in terms of timing, approach and purpose, the sale and shrinkage of NYPL libraries in Manhattan with the sale and shrinkage of libraries in Brooklyn?
    •    Profound Secrecy!: What were the BPL’s instructions about keeping secret the names of libraries affected by its real estate plans? What did it instruct should be kept in "strict confidence" in this regard and what information was kept from the public and those funding libraries?
    •    A problem for incoming Mayor Bill de Blasio?: What is known about plans to lock his administration into the BPL’s secret library sell-offs?  During his campaign to be elected, candidate de Blasio called for a halt to the sale and shrinkage of New York City libraries, including those the BPL was targeting in Brooklyn.
    •    How small has the BPL considered making libraries?  To what postage stamp-size could libraries be shrunk and what did the BPL have in mind in this regard? . .  And what name did it give to what it considered to be the model it would promote?- In what (lucky?) neighborhood was the first such model library intended to appear?
    •    How many critical mentions (and in how many different ways) do First Deputy Mayor Patti Harris and Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Daniel Doctoroff, Bloomberg’s principal henchmen when it comes to real estate and development deals, come up in this saga of targeting libraries as real estate “opportunities”
    •    A real estate strategy plan was formulated that prioritized at the top of its list for sale two libraries both immediately adjacent to Forest City Ratner property- What former Forest City Ratner Vice President did the BPL hire to formulate that strategy?   What is to be known about how and why the firm was chosen?
    •    Air conditioning breakdowns?: In the summer of 2012 the air conditioning in the Brooklyn Heights Library `broke down` along with other air conditioning systems of libraries across the BPL system- This was just before library sales were to be announced.  Who was hired to handle this `emergency' and on what terms, exactly how long before it happened?
    •    Brazenness?  In 2012 Sam Roberts of the New York Times praised the library heads for their instinctive and open sharing of information as BPL president Linda Johnson was, in fact, withholding information about the library sales.  How did Ms. Johnson react to Mr. Robert’s praise?
    •    What’s being proposed with respect to the issuance of tax-exempt bonds for the libraries?  Why are powers being given to the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York in this regard and what did now City Club President Michael Gruen say in 1995 about the building of tall towers that could be relevant to the subject of libraries today?
    •    Eminent Domain is a powerful tool that enables private owner’s property to be seized against a property owner’s will. It's a tool that private developers love to have put in their hands by public officials- Find out about eminent domain being a part of the BPL’s strategic real estate plan and what libraries that might affect.
    •    What is the mysterious “Revson Plan” that identifies libraries to be turned into development projects and could possibly prevent your community’s library from being renovated?  Why does this plan exist if there is a separate strategic real estate plan to identify projects for sale?
    •    What were the first Brooklyn Libraries to be viewed as real estate deals, and how far back in the last decade was that?
    •    For which library that the BPL included in its strategic real estate plan did City Councilman Domenic Recchia find funds?
    •    What consultant(s) did the BPL get to tell it in a `needs'study that the BPL should be engaged in “support for economic development”?
    •    How many consultants does it take to say that pursuing real estate deals changing libraries is a bright idea? . . .  And how after-the-fact will their justifications be provided?
    •    What consultant got the better part of $1 million for its work to justify selling off libraries?
    •    What consultant assessing the condition of real estate in the library got what instruction about continuing to work to make their report a more convincing argument for selling libraries?
    •    What telling relevance does Mayor Bloomberg’s promotion of sugary drinks (that’s right, promotion) have to do with this history respecting the sale of libraries?
    •    What are the BPL’s likely troublesome goals with respect to entering into private partnerships and with what big, well-known developer did the BPL enter an odd-sounding partnership as one of its first?
    •    When Brooklyn libraries were in jeopardy from system-wide sale plans what did Borough President Marty Markowitz tell the public that would persuade them quite the opposite, and why should he have known better?
    •    What unknown knock-down drag-out fight did the Queens Library have with Mayor Bloomberg just as Bloomberg was leaving office about whether the powerful exiting mayor would be able to appoint, and leave behind him, a top aide on the Queens board?
    •    There has been a massive story covered by the media at great length concerning charges that the Queens Library is `mismanaged.' What could you read here that may convince you that when you thought you knew enough to understand this heavily-reported story, you actually didn’t?
    •    What is and isn’t in the minutes about how the BPL is getting rid of books?
    •    What is and isn’t in the minutes about how the Brooklyn Heights Library that the BPL has prioritized to be sold?
    •    How little scrutiny did the BPL board give to selling off of libraries and how little objection did its trustees raise?
    •    Before the plans to sell Brooklyn libraries proceeded, what legislation was passed in Albany to restructure the BPL board, giving Mayor Bloomberg much greater mayoral control (like with NYC schools)?
    •    What thought might have been given to the question of whether ethics laws and considerations would be violated by BPL board trustees selling libraries to pursue real estate development objectives?
    •    How much do the New York State sunshine laws, like the Open Meetings Law, allow us to discover about the way power works when real estate deals like the selling off of libraries are being worked on in secret?
    •    What does the sale of libraries have to do with the stories involving the sale of a number of other public assets up for dismantling: Long Island College Hospital, Brooklyn Bridge Park, South Street Seaport, NYCHA's public housing, New York City schools, NYU's expansion through Greenwich Village?
Yes, it’s a multiplicity of multiplicity of scary, documented scoops that you need to know are in Noticing New York’s new article, each an arresting story on its own and certainly deserving of even further investigation and follow-up. .

 . . Collectively they interrelate to tell a stark story about how our public officials have strayed far and dismally from the standards the public is entitle to expect.

NOTICE TO HUMMINGBIRDS!- How Sweet the Media’s Coverage of NYC Library Administrators Isn’t. . . What You Probably Don’t Know About a Queens Library “Scandal”

$
0
0
NOTICE TO HUMMINGBIRDS!

Mayor Bloomberg cautions
sugary drinks can be bad
for your health and cause
diabetes- Take SMALL SIPS
ONLY . . . No large takeaway
bottles!

But do you remember that BEFORE Mayor Bloomberg was AGAINST sugary drinks he was FOR THEM and he was PUSHING THEM on New York City residents and school children. . . and in New York City libraries?

Do I have your attention?  Would it intrigue you to know that this Bloomberg's pushing of sugary drinks relates to the way that New York City Libraries are being sold and shrunk, handed off to developers with an inside track as real estate deals?

There is a pretty good story here, but it is surprising how hard it can be to get the media to pick up on some pretty good scoops in this area and disconcerting how selectively the news media is choosing  to report certain news. . .

 . .  The Daily News has a Juan Gonzalez article up today reporting that Queens Library head Thomas Galante is likely to be dismissed from his position Thursday night by a newly reconstituted Queens Library board of trustees.  See:  Queens Library chief likely to be suspended in upcoming meeting- Close the book on this one. Thomas Galante, the library's $392,000-a-year president and CEO, who has held the post since 2003, will see his fate decided by a new board of trustees on Thursday night, according to board sources, September 10, 2014.

You may think that Juan Gonzalez is an investigative reporter who delves into things, one that’s going to give you the whole story, everything you need to know.  But do you know what Gonzalez hasn’t bothered to report yet?- What hasn’t been reported at all by the Daily News or the rest of the press as its focuses full bore on this story? . .

. . .  It’s not just that these news stories consistently skip over reporting that Galanate’s salary, the main source of contention in the scandal making abject claim on their focus, is lower than the salaries at the NYPL. .

Do you know that the Queens Library had a long history of standing up to Mayor Bloomberg?

Did you know that The Queens Library system has been expanding its libraries while the BPL and NYPL have been shrinking and selling libraries to hand off as real estate deals?

Did you know that just before Bloomberg left office there was a knock-down, drag-out fight concerning the Queens library board, about what real estate development oriented high-ranking aide the departing Bloomberg would leave as a trustee on the board in violation of the library’s bylaws? . .

. . .  That big board fight was immediately prior to the one now playing out. And the last time Albany stepped in to alter a library board via legislation, as was just done here, was to give Bloomberg greater control over the BPL board, clearing the way for those in Bloomberg’s inner circle who were readying to sell and shrink libraries, handing them off as real estate deals.

Did you know that the Queens Library has resisted efforts to merge operations of all three library systems resisting so-called "cost-saving": changes that might actually cost the public extra?

Read about the way the Queens Library stood up to Bloomberg repeatedly in different ways, starting with the "Snapple" fiasco (the sugary drink connection first mentioned) in Noticing New York: Sunday, August 31, 2014, Mostly In Plain Sight (A Few Conscious Removals Notwithstanding) Minutes Of Brooklyn Public Library Tell Shocking Details Of Strategies To Sell Brooklyn's Public Libraries.  You'll get a fuller and more complete understanding of what is likely going on at the Queens Library than just reading Juan Gonzalez's retransmission of the superficial story that several anonymous "board sources" are handing out as if it is, provocatively, the inside, insight-providing story it isn't.

That Noticing New York article is chock-full of scoops (highlighted here) about the mismanagement of our libraries, including how library administration officials seem to think that it is just fine and dandy to run libraries as if they were economic development agencies . . .  What’s even worse is that they also seem to think that “economic development” means handing off deals to connected developers in crony capitalism fashion.

What Contemplated Price For Junior’s Says About Real Estate Value of City-Owned Pacific Branch Library and Adjacent Medicaid Office Site: Couldn’t Be Crony Capitalism Again, Could It?

$
0
0
Properties not very far away from each other  in Brooklyn, city-owned Medicaid office and adjacent Pacific Branch library, and, 11 minutes away, Junior's
Just this last June it was announced that the city-owned Park Slope Boerum Hill Medicaid Office building on Fourth Avenue had been sold to a mysterious developer.  It's the building next to the Pacific Branch library.

Park Slope Boerum Hill Medicaid Office building- 35 4th Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11217
This sale was noted by Citizens Defending Libraries (of which I am a co-founder) in the course of reporting on June City Council budget hearings about the libraries (see below).  The reason to note the sale of the property next to the library is that Brooklyn and NYC libraries are being turned into real estate deals, and it has long been suspected that the Medicaid building would be sold to a developer focused on folding the library real estate into its plans:
As was expected by those reading the development tea leaves, the city is now selling the property immediately adjacent to the library, “one of Brooklyn's few Medicaid offices.”  (See: Park Slope Medicaid Office Building With Lots of FAR Sells for $25,000,000, by Rebecca of Brownstoner, 06/05/14)

Air rights could easily be sold and utilized on that adjacent site without incurring the expense of tearing down (or replacing) the landmark building.  But this doesn’t mean that the library would remain a library unless the community asserts itself.  As it is, Citizens Defending Libraries is getting reports that this summer the BPL is shuttling down programs at Pacific Street and refusing to do proper maintenance.

One has to wonder whether the $25 million that the Medicaid building sold for wasn’t rather low.  In a few weeks we will probably see what the sale of Junior’s site, a few blocks away, brings in for comparison.
(See: Report on Tuesday, June 3rd-9th City Council Hearing On Budget For NYC Libraries Plus Testimony of Citizens Defending Libraries.)  - Note the building is, indeed a de facto "landmark," but has never officially been been designated as such by the city despite community urging and a partially successful lawsuit to bring that about.

This week in the New York Times we have the awaited update on the value of the Junior's property, the site of the "legendary" cheesecake restaurant.  The update does make it sound like the amount the city sold the Medicaid building for was, indeed, rather low.  Despite the fact that the Times article reports that Junior's property will now no longer be sold, as was previously the plan, the story zeros in on what was likely to have been paid for the property:
Offers to buy and build an apartment tower poured in from Brooklyn, Manhattan and abroad. The highest bid: $450 per buildable square foot, well over the previous high for Brooklyn of $350, for a total of $45 million in cash.

* * * *

When Mr. Rosen, 45, put the site up for sale in February, he said he would insist that the buyer bring Junior's back to the ground floor of any new building. . .

* * * *

The $45 million offer would not have accommodated a ground-floor Junior's.

Mr. Rosen said he also received offers worth half that amount that would have allowed the restaurant to return, but after receiving disappointed calls from customers and talking it over with his longtime employees, his wife and his 81-year-old father, Walter Rosen, who still walks around the dining room some mornings, he decided he could not give it up.

* * * *

Robert Knakal, the broker on the not-quite-sale. . . . said he was consoling himself with the prospect of a couple of properties that would "probably" break the $500-per-square-foot barrier.
(See:  N.Y. / Region- Junior's, Legendary Restaurant, Is to Stay in Brooklyn- Owner of Junior's Rethinks a Move, by Vivian Yeesept, September. 8, 2014.)

So the figures from the story to work with are "$450 per buildable square foot" if the new owner can do whatever it wants with the site, half that, $225 per buildable square foot, if there were restrictions involving the owner taking back ground or lower floor space, or $500+ per buildable square foot if Mr. Knakal's boosterish ambitions could bear fruit.  Given that the city is apparently selling the Medicaid building free and clear of any restrictions that would lower the price, the "$450 per buildable square foot"is the comparable that should therefore apply.  If the mysterious developer believes that it has an inside track with the city to also buy the Pacific Branch or air rights from it, then there'd be reason to pay a premium for the Medicaid office building, raising the price even a bit higher.

Did the mysterious 35 Holdings LLC, buying the Medicaid office property get any kind of a bargain?  If Brownstowner is correct in reporting that the property has "up to 108,000 square feet in development rights" (being a "18,000-square-foot property") then the $25 million the buyer paid for the property means it paid about $231 per buildable square foot.  Yikes!  That only about half what the Junior's property was being valued at!
Walk from Junior's- 386 Flatbush Avenue Extension, Brooklyn, NY 11201
Maybe the low price can be explained?  Although prices are supposed to be shooting up in Brooklyn, maybe the Medicaid office location, just a few blocks and eleven minute walk away from Junior's (see above), is terrifically less desirable?  To be more specific, the library and the Medicaid office are yards away from the Ratner/Prokhorov so-called "Barclays" arena.  The library, itself, stands directly across the street from the Ratner Atlantic Yards footprint.  Does this short shift in distance depress prices that much?  Or, alternatively, could it theoretically depress prices to be so close to Ratner's mega-redevelopment?
Above, below: Pacific Branch (25 Fourth Ave. at Pacific Street, Brooklyn, NY 11217), down the street, yards away, the Ratner/Prokhorov "Barclays" arena

Wasn't the arena supposed to be giving a boost to the value of the properties next door?  Maybe not. See:  Wednesday, August 22, 2012, The arena effect or the "Brooklyn" effect? Top broker suggests the latter is more important.  Still, on the other hand, while the existing Junior's location is already notably close to the Ratner arena, the Junior's owner when contemplating his sale options considered establishing another Junior's even closer to the arena. 
Atlantic Yards footprint (PC Richards on left) and arena: Is it desirable to be located near them?
Why should an exceptionally low price for the city's sale of the Medicaid office attract our scrutiny?  Because it could be a strong indicator of a crony-capitalistic deal where property is being handed off to someone with an inside connection, shortchanging  the public of the value it deserves . . . just like the neighboring Atlantic Yards mega-monopoly itself, where public and eminent-domain-seized property property was handed off to Forest City Ratner without bid and at an apparent fraction of its true value.

And if the city's Medicaid office sale reflects a crony-capitalistic shortchanging of the public, then there is every reason to believe that any sale of the Pacific Branch library or its real estate development rights by the city likely to fold into that transaction, would similarly reflect such a crony-capitalistic shortchanging of the public.  What's more, when crony-capitalism drives deals there is never assurance that any of the underlying reasons for proceeding with such transactions make any sense at all, no assurance that such sales are undertaken intending to true public benefit in any way.
With two photos side-by-side you can see, left to right, Ratner property in Atlantic Yards (now euphemistically "Pacific Park") footprint across from library, the arena, Pacific Branch and adjacent Medicaid office. 
Is the Times article declaring that the original Junior's will not be moving and will be preserved, its intact value recognized, just publicity for a playing-hard-to-get ploy?  Would the Junior's owner really leave millions on the table and walk away?  The Times article article doesn't carefully parse all the options, but maybe one is that Junior's, remaining at this location to which the owner explicitly wanted to bring it back in the end, would remain in place, its historic heritage undisturbed, while selling its air rights to neighboring property owners.  The Times article doesn't say so, but that would be `a have your cheescake location and eat it too' option that could still scoop up most of the money now on the table. . . .

. . . .One thing is certain: Whatever deals are made, the property owner who might have sold Junior's is looking out for his own and his business's best interests.  That protection of the seller's interest is not at all assured (quite the opposite) when it comes to those in hurrying to sell off our public assets.

(Note: Additional photos added 9/12/2014.)

The Public Loss of Selling And Shrinking the Brooklyn Heights Library- How Great Will the Loss Be? Let's Calculate

$
0
0
In simple bar graph form- The BPL is proposing to drastically shrink the size of the publicly owned space in the Brooklyn Heights Library from 63,000 feet (blue) to just 21,000 square feet (on left) of which just 15,000 square feet would be above ground.  More visuals in this article look more directly at the existing building and property to explore what the public would lose at the site in terms of the benefits it is familiar with.
Of course, it was disheartening to learn that Brooklyn Public Library wanted to take another step forward with its proposed sale and shrinkage of the Brooklyn Heights Library by voting to approve and announcing the selection of a developer on Tuesday, September 16th. . . .  Actually, they did it in the reverse: First the BPL announced with a morning press release and press conference that the developer selection was in place and then the BPL board voted in the evening to bless that apparently forgone conclusion. . .   

It was disheartening, but it meant that, for the very first time, key specifics were available to the public, an actual design associated with, very importantly, an identified gross sales price figure that, once paid, would give the developer, whom we now know to be the Hudson Companies, the right to buy and shrink the library. . .  With that information we can, for the first time, calculate the extent to which the public will be losing out in the transaction.

It does appear that the public will be losing out in the transaction big time, that the transaction as this irreplaceable library is sold will almost certainly be a net loss for the public.
Base of the building visual now being abandoned
With the identification of the developer we also get to see a new proposed visual for the base of the building housing the "replacement" library apparently abandoning the visual previously supplied.
New version of the building's base (interestingly squoze down) giving a faux impression of being much like the existing library.  Think it's two above-ground floors?  Probably not.  Appears to extend all the way to Ratner's One Pierrepont building? Don't press your luck.
The new visual seems as if it was meant to suggest that the new library, although vastly shrunken, would look, reassuringly, very much like the existing two-floor library, similarly stretching most of the property line along Cadman Plaza West.  But don't be deceived: Were the above-ground space of the replacement library arranged as two stories and stretched out that length, it would be the equivalent of a thin laminate onto the base of the new luxury tower, a virtual applique for visual effect, a Hollywood set, a classic Potemkin Village maneuver.
The existing Brooklyn Heights Library (to be demolished and lost?) actually two stories tall and running about 200 feet, most of the property facing along Cadman Plaza West.
The proposed "replacement" library would have just 15,000 square feet of above-ground space, a small fraction of the Brooklyn Heights Library's current above-ground space.  It would have another 6,000 feet of space underground.  The existing Brooklyn Heights Library also has underground space, far, far more than that, that holds books and though not currently visited by the public, is otherwise available to be put to what the public decides is the best use.

Stretched out as two floors along the Cadman Plaza West side of the space the existing Library building occupies, one can see what a small fraction of the existing building's current above-ground space that amounts to, significantly less than half.  The library is giving up most of its above-ground space before even considering the great deal of underground space we tend to discount.
Above- The existing two-story Brooklyn Heights Library overlaid on the real estate parcel (with boundaries indicated) on which it sits.  That portion highlighted in brighter orange would be the amount of similar above-ground space the proposed "replacement" library would take up.  Hardly enough to be functional, certainly not functional as the central, destination library it has been since it was built. 
Same as above with a ruler for reference.
The existing Brooklyn Heights Library is essentially a two-story building with substantial underground space.  The is a small amount of square footage on the first floor that has no space over it on the second.  There is also some cantilevered space on the second floor with no corresponding ground floor space under it.  There is also some third floor mechanical space and stairs that leads up to it.

The visuals above show nothing for the underground space just as you can't see the underground space (quite voluminous) of the existing building. 
Aerial view of existing library from Bing maps used in the composite image above.
Boundaries of the city-owned library property that would be handed off to the developer (Hudson) for the luxury tower with the shrunken library tucked in its base.
There is another way of looking at the space, rather than consider what a thin laminate it would make along the length of Cadman Plaza West How much space would be retained measuring from the south where the adult reading room and Business and Career section of the library currently are.  Doing so (see below) allows for an easy way to describe (see below) space being lost.
If you know the library, you can now see it like the equivalent of giving up:
    •    The auditorium
    •    The Computer Center
    •    The Children's library
    •    The second floor conference room
    •    Office areas
    •    The entrance area
    •    The main administration desk
    •    The bathrooms
    •    The elevators
    •    The stair areas
OR, if you were looking at it the previous version with the library space arranged as a "laminate," what was being given up was:
    •    Parts of all the above
    •    Plus substantial portions of:
    •    - The public part of the Business and Career Library, and
    •    - The main public reading room for adults upstairs
The images also make clear how we are giving up the park space sitting area and the landscaped open areas around the library.
Above you see how much of the area alongside the library on Clinton Street and to the immediate north is publicly owned open landscape that, sold, would disappear along with the library.
The same space would disappear, replaced by the base of the luxury tower when the library is shrunk.  See below.
319 feet tall
Although the intended sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library was not publicly announced until 2013, those making decisions at the Brooklyn Public Library have known for years, since 2007 and perhaps as far back as 2005, that it wanted to effectuate such a sale.  For some seemingly inexplicable reason, the charming sitting area and park at north end of the library has been locked and made off-limits to the public for some time.  One possible explanation?: The first thing one wants to do when selling off a public asset is to run that asset into the ground and otherwise alienate it from the public's affection.  Locking up the park helps to do that.
Is this park and sitting area kept locked to ensure that the public won't use it, be attached to it and fight for it when the BPL sells it to a developer that will build on top of it?
Similarly, are there green space areas outside the library that might have been maintained and landscaped with significantly less zeal in recent years (see below) precisely because they want to sell the library off?  This is very typical behavior when institutions plan development they hope the public won't oppose.  NYU has done it and St. Vincent's was doing it before it went bankrupt in the middle of pursuing its contorted real estate machinations.
Maintained with less than appropriate zeal?  What about those visiting the library to check out books on botany?
The BPL recently paid a consultant to tell it that "economic development" should become part of its mission.  If it wants to go into sidelines, why not let those who come to the library wanting to check out books on botany further their interest and learn more by doing some community gardening on the premises.

Would the public be compensated, and adequately so, for the loss of all the library space and the surrounding property?. . .

. . . It is obvious that the BPL knows it has a problem on this score in making representations on two fronts:
    •    It wants to under-represent what is being sold, and
    •    It wants to over-represent what it is getting back in return.

Under-representation of what is being sold

In terms of under-representing what is being sold, the BPL attempted an obvious ploy in its press release announcing the sale.  It pretended to be selling less of the library than it actually is by comparing the total square foot size of the proposed replacement library to the  "square feet in the current branch that are accesible (sic) to the public."  That's hardly an apple-to-apples comparison unless the 100% of the replacement library will be "square feet" that, unlike the locked park area, are "accesible" or "accessible"  to "the public."  Heaven knows how the BPL calculated what it didn't consider "accesible/accessible" to the public.  They obviously cut a lot of space out of their consideration as being accessible to the public.  Did they exclude auditoriums?  Conference rooms where public meetings have been held?  Bathrooms?  Service desk areas?  Stairways?  Elevators?  Staff offices?  Mechanical support areas?  Bookshelf space?  Any area where books or any other library necessaries are stored?  How about entryways, hallways and stairways?

Somehow the library managed to calculate that there are only 28,000 square feet "accessible to the public."  Then the BPL wanted to disregard nearly half of this space because it is space of the Business and Career portion of the library that it "will move to the Central Library, a more central location"  where they are not adding or building any new space to house it.  A "more central location "?:  There are 11 colleges in the central business district of Downtown Brooklyn which by virtue of the central mass transit hub upon which it sits is central not only to all of Brooklyn, but residents of Manhattan as well.  What's more, because there is no new space being created for it at the Grand Army Plaza Library we may more properly think of the Grand Army Plaza Library as being the place where that Business and Career portion of the existing library goes to disappear.


We now know that the gross price the Brooklyn Public Library will receive from the developer for selling and shrinking the library is $52 million.  It is not surprising that this gross price is small given that most of the development rights for the site were transferred out to Forest City Ratner in 1986: Friday, September 20, 2013, Forest City Ratner As The Development Gatekeeper (And Profit taker) Getting The Benefit As Brooklyn Heights Public Library Is Sold.  Ratner still holds some of those development rights unused.

The next problem is that the public doesn't net the already very small gross sales price.  The BPL seems quite aware of how very little is being netted because it is estimating that the new much smaller library will cost $10 million to build, an obviously low-balled figure.  The sale and shrinkage of the Brooklyn Heights Library is closely modeled on the sale of the Donnell Library, a five-story central destination library in Manhattan sold for a pittance, netting the NYPL far less than its value to the public and less than it would have cost to replace it.  It was sold to net the NYPL less than $39 million while the far smaller penthouse apartment in the 50-story building going up on its former site is on the market for $60 million.

Based on the $20 million cost of building the shrunken 28,000 square foot "replacement" Donnell library (still under construction) the price of building the shrunken 21,000 square foot "replacement" Brooklyn Heights Library would come to $15 million.  The developer's proposal for the library even mimics closely the design for the Donnell Library, that in turn mimics a bookless Japanese library and a Prada store in SoHo.  See below: 
Proposal C's Donnell mimicking descending stair-step "flexible" space
Library?- The stair-step "flexible" space design to 'replace' Donnell
Bookless Japanese library as inspiration for Donnell? From A AS Architecture
The developer's proposal- A library?
That $15 million replacement estimate 's is conservative if you believe the cover of the issue of the Real Deal, stacks of which were available for free at Brooklyn Heights Library this week (see below):  "Rising construction prices hit developers."

The Real Deal: "Rising construction prices hit developers."Really?
Netting $15 million out of a $52 million gross purchase price already leaves only $37 million, but to ascertain whether the public is is coming out ahead or behind on this deal one has to tally up all its costs and everything the public is giving up.  So one should actually subtract out the cost of replacing the entire assets being sacrificed to the deal, the cost of replacing the entire Brooklyn Heights Library.  Certainly the costs of replacing just the rest of the above-ground portion of the library would be at least another $20 million.  That would leave just $17 million before netting out any other additional costs. . . It also doesn't consider the loss of the rest of the space that is currently underground.


But what must additionally be netted includes:
    •    The value of the library that the public will miss from the time the existing library is shuttered until the time it is replaced by the new one.  The current plan is to have a very small, 8,000 square foot, temporary library for this interim that will be paid for by the developer (essentially as a self-cancelling increment to the purchase price), but, even by the BPL’s own stingy assessment that the “replacement” library should be 21,000 square feet, that leaves the community 13,000 feet shy of having a library even the size of that shrunken library for the entire construction period.  The BPL is assuring that the “replacement” library will be supplied in no more than 3 ½ years.  In the case of Donnell the “replacement” library was also supposed to be in place in place in no more than 3 ½ years.  Donnell closed in spring of 2008, six months sooner than it was supposed to, and its “replacement” will currently not be in place until at least the end of 2015, 7 ½ years later.  Construction of the replacement has been repeatedly pushed back without consequence to the developer or recompense to the public although the NYPL had the power to insist on the same.  Similarly, government officials have gone out of their way to enforce publicly promulgated and promised time frames for the Atlantic Yards project, something that is virtually impossible to expect when developers have the political upper hand.

    •    All of the transaction costs associated with selling off the library, including all of the professionals, lawyers, real estate experts, etc., associated with the transaction.  This naturally includes the allocable amounts paid to the former Forest City Ratner Vice president who came up with the strategic real estate advice and analysis that the first two libraries the BPL should sell should be this one and another, the Pacific Branch, right next to Forest City Ratner property.  The initial payment authorized to be paid to that professional real estate consultant was just a little under $1 million.  Amounts paid to consultants should also include amounts paid to consultants and lawyers to deal with community opposition to the sale even if no lawsuit si brought by the community and all such expenditures are prophylactic.

    •    The cost, including all allocable staff time, of moving the library twice, first into the very small temporary library (and storage for what won’t fit), and then into the new shrunken library.

    •    The value of the space surrounding the library.

    •    The value of the light and air the library supplies to the neighborhood.  While some may argue for the desirability of the new density to create the luxury condominiums that will tower sufficiently over the surrounding neighborhood to gain a view of the harbor from the upper floors, it should be remembered that the library was built with urban renewal, and that many affordable housing units and commercial properties were demolished with eminent domain on the theory that creation of less density and more light and air was the most desirable thing.

    •    The historic and landmark value of the library.
What might some of these additional losses to the public amount to?

The 13,000 square feet of library missing during construction.   Sephora's is reportedly paying $140 per square foot for its commercial lease down the street, in the Municipal Building, where is is occupying space where the library should likely have been moved (without any ensuing interruption in service) if, with better planning, the library was, indeed to be sold for redevelopment.  As a comparable that might seem high, but a real estate comrade I was talking with pointed out that assembling large amounts of space on the edge of Brooklyn Heights and Downtown Brooklyn is difficult, so it is arguable that a premium price might be in order.   The 13,000 square feet at $140 would come to $6.37 million for a 3 1/3 year lease.  Arguably, the construction might be completed in less than 3 1/2 years so, with luck, some amount of this could be recouped upon surrendering the lease back to the landlord or some sort of very short sublease, but, because it could not be assured that construction would be completed sooner, it would be necessary to lease the space for the entire 3 1/3 years.  There is also another countervailing risk: That rather than the promised 3 1/3 years the actual expense might involve something more like the 7 ½ years it's, so far, taking to replace Donnell.

Total transaction costs.  We know that the initial payment to the Forest City Ratner Vice President was close to $1 million.  We know that there are many very highly-priced consultants already engaged by the BPL in connection with the library sales, including Booz and Co.  We know that high-priced legal talent is expensive.  We know that the transaction here is not just a sale, it is also negotiation for new space with plans to build.  Would we be conservatively underestimating to expect that all transaction costs would come to at least 10%, or another $5.2 million?

The cost of two moves.  Have you ever moved a business?  Experienced the distractions and time it took for staff to plan and figure out where everything is going to go and how it is going to go and be kept track of? The costs are not to be discounted and there are more outside professionals to pay.

The value of the space surrounding the library.  There are surely those who don't value green spaces around a dense and growing neighborhood. 

Without arguing that point we will simply note how the lyrics of Joni Mitchell’s “Big Yellow Taxi” acknowledge a world where some people not appreciating the trees and trees and green that they've got act accordingly to replace them with what Ms. Mitchell’s song makes clear that, she at least, values less, paved parking spaces:
They took all the trees
Put 'em in a tree museum *
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
Rather than argue the point of how valuable the green may or may not be to the public we'll use Ms. Mitchell’s song as a basis to simplify things by valuing the space around the library at what Ms. Mitchell values less: parking spaces.  In fact, some of the space around the library is now currently used for parking.
Sunday, the library sadly closed, a lone care pulls in to take advantage of the space
The space around the library might, if used entirely for parking, provide maybe about nineteen parking spaces.  See below:
What are parking spaces worth in New York City?  There are actual market figures on this.

In the summer of 2007 parking spaces were reported to be worth almost a quarter of a million dollars, $225,000.  Prices may have gone up with the New York Times reporting a parking space purchase of "$250,000 a tire" or $1 million.  See: Buy Condo, Then Add Parking Spot for $1 Million, by Michelle Higgins September 9, 2014. 

To be fair, this was one transaction "at Broome and Crosby Streets, itself the former site of a parking lot" and the Times supplied other figures, another Manhattan transaction where spaces were listed for a half million and a Boston space for $560,000 and a London space for $565,859.  It reports that the past year the average price throughout Manhattan has been $136,052.

Nineteen parking spaces at that average Manhattan price would come to about $2.6 million, but if it is assumed that the border of Brooklyn Heights and Downtown Brooklyn is a relatively premium neighborhood and that the value of a parking space, albeit outdoors, ought to be around $260,000, then the value of nineteen spaces ought to come to around $4.94 million.  Of course we don't know if this would make Joni Mitchell happy.

319 feet tall- But how much taller?
The value of the light and air the library supplies to the neighborhood.  We probably have already arrived at an appreciable net negative, the public suffering a loss if this proposed transaction is implemented, without attributing any further additional loss to the light and air that will be sacrificed if a luxury tower is built, but it is difficult to calculate the value of lost light and air because no version of any of the possible proposed developments showed a project with all the development rights that are available being used.  See: Monday, December 16, 2013, Tall Stories- Buildings Proposed To Shrink The Brooklyn Heights Library: Brooklyn Public Library Publishes Seven Luxury Building Proposals To Shrink Away Brooklyn Heights Library.
The value of light and air?
The historic and landmark value of the library.  The current library is at least the second most important library in the BPL system, one that everybody in the borough knows, and the building was designed by by Francis Keally, the same man who designed the Grand Army Plaza Library, the other Brooklyn library that almost everybody knows.  Keally was a former president of the once-venerable Municipal Arts Society and a head of the New York chapter of the AIA.  One might consider how nice it is that these two well-designed buildings go together providing stature and thematic linkage.
Francis Keally's Brooklyn Heights design

Francis Keally's Grand Army Plaza design
Repairs?  Are we forgetting something?  Aren't there calculations that say that the current library needs repair, perhaps $9 million?  Should these amounts be treated be weighed in favor of  shrinking the library since the replacement library would theoretically not need repair when built?  The BPL would argue this to be the case, but it should only be done if you believe the BPL's inflated estimates and to do so you would have to disregard that the BPL's own board meeting minutes indicate that the estimates were worked on by a former Forest City Ratner Vice President specifically with the goal that they become a convincing argument to sell the library.  The BPL's calculations for the Brooklyn Heights library are clearly intentionally inflated.

The BPL has been playing with its figures respecting the capital repairs it says it needs in its system's and which it argues are a reason for selling and shrinking libraries.  Often it rounds up the figure stated for the public to $300 million in what it will say are "necessary repairs."  Other times, pinned down to be more specific, they BPL gives a lower figure, $280 million and uses the weasel words "unmet repairs" allowing for more exaggeration.  In any event, these figures didn't exist at all until the BPL launched its plans for real estate deals and started building them up with deferrals while scouting for additional expenses to add into the its pretextual mix.
The developer's proposal as summarized in the materials previously furnished by the BPL about the proposals it received

114 "Affordable Housing" Units?  What about the announcement that the developer will also build "114 off-site affordable housing units"somewhere else within the boundaries of Brooklyn Community Board 2, perhaps by the Brooklyn Navy Yard.  That involves a whole other set of calculations.  Those units will be subsidized with government funds that could be used for other "affordable housing" and purposes other than dismantling a library that all Brooklynites need and evicting them from an increasingly wealthy and exclusive Downtown.

"Reaction" of Brooklyn Heights Association

The Brooklyn Heights Association's behavior respecting the issue of the library has been very unbecoming.  Theoretically the protector of the neighborhood it has, instead, explicitly condoned the sale and shrinkage of the library, giving the BPL cover to sell it off.  The BHA has now “reacted” specifically to this proposal that has been before it since the beginning of last December.  Its reaction at this late date bespeaks a certain amount of play-acting as they express “concern and cautious optimism.”  The expression of “concern” is offered seemingly to certify that they are looking out for the community (which few at this point believe) and the “cautious optimism” comes as their first step toward further promotion of the sale.   See: BHA Speaks Out on Brooklyn Heights Library with "Concern and Cautious Optimism", By Homer Fink on October 4, 2014 and OPINION: BHA responds to Heights Library redevelopment plan, From the Brooklyn Heights Association's website

The BHA’s “reaction” is mostly a very mild stab at an aesthetic critique with a pretext that there is an open process going on about issues (i.e. they hoped “the developers and BPL trustees will take the time to re-evaluate their design, and engage in an open process with the broader library”):
. . . what we are seeing is a clunky condominium sitting atop generic retail space. We want to see a distinctive and welcoming public building that provides a graceful transition from the civic buildings on Cadman Plaza to the residences of Brooklyn Heights — a library that is a visual gateway to the neighborhood.
The two most substantive aspects of the BHA’s reaction are both dangerously clumsy on their part.
How far away from Brooklyn Heights and the downtown area might the "affordable" units be built?  The boundaries of Brooklyn's Community Board 2 range far.
They unfortunately seem a little too pleased that the affordable units for lower income tenants will not be in the building and thus likely outside of the neighborhood as well:
The off-site affordable housing, which must be within Community District 2 boundaries, will allow for a less bulky building on this constricted site.
The second clumsily taken substantive position?: Like the proverbial broken clock that manages occasionally to be right the BHA observes:
The decision to assign considerable square footage to an exclusive private school gymnasium does not reflect the inclusive mission of our public library system.
The BHA is right that it should not be within the mission of the library to benefit a private school by selling and shrinking libraries just as it should not be within the mission of the library system to do so to benefit a private developer, both of which are happening here.  More simply, it should not be the mission of the library to be engaged in “economic development” notwithstanding the fact that the library hired a consultant from Philadelphia to tell it that its mission should be expanded to include “economic development” in which case there could be odd arguments made for a library system to sell and shrink libraries and eliminate books and librarians.

The BHA is wrong, however, in its apparent background supposition that the gymnasium for the Saint Ann’s School was a benefit that the city or the BPL negotiated to exchange the library for, with the thought that it might now be possible to figuratively come back with receipt in hand to exchange the gymnasium for something else:
Moreover, the project can and should address broader community priorities. . . . Community or public school space is called for in lieu of a private school gym.
It might be pure doltishness on the BHA’s part to think the library was traded for a gymnasium, or perhaps this is a cynical ploy to make it look like the BHA is negotiating for something it knows it won’t obtain.  The fact is that Saint Ann’s is getting a gymnasium isn't because the city or the BPL negotiated for that. Saint Ann’s is getting a gymnasium because it is selling its development rights by joining in the same zoning lot with Forest City Ratner and library property.  By selling and shrinking the library the city makes it possible for Saint Ann’s to negotiate that benefit for itself, but Saint Ann’s is not going to sell its privately owned development rights for “community or public school space.”   Does the BHA really understand so little about this transaction that is affecting the Brooklyn Heights neighborhood so significantly?

More About Private School Saint Ann’s Interest in the Transaction
 
What is true is that private benefit that Saint Ann’s is getting by virtue of this transaction means that the private school is likely to push for the public library to be sold and shrunk just as the private condominium developer undoubtedly wants the same thing to happen.  The question is whether they will have the upper hand when dealing with our public officials, because this transaction can only happen if those public officials, including our City Council and Mayor de Blasio, allow it to proceed. 
Monday afternoon at 4:30 the Saint Ann’s faculty was treated to an hour-long PowerPoint presentation explaining how the library sale would benefit Saint Ann’s.
At the top right of the PowerPoint, the library property labeled as the BPL's, with arrows indicating what is going to be switched around where.
Getting involved in these real estate transactions apparently has Saint Ann's thinking in bigger and broader terms with other interrelated real estate projects and renovations planned as funds flow in.  During the PowerPoint presentation a pie chart was shown of some of the funds involved (below).  What exactly is Saint Ann’s thinking?  Maybe they'll say if asked.
   

The entire block, Ratner Property highlighted, showing what, with Ratner cooperation, could be treated as a single merged zoning lot to transfer development rights from Saint Ann's School to the library site
Above, Saint Ann School building with development rights that are not yet utilized.  Ratner property is in the background, literally (and metaphorically?)
Perhaps the best way to end this article is with a gallery of more pictures so that people will better understand (see below) what stands to be lost if the Brooklyn Heights library is sold and shrunk.  Or maybe it would be best to note that Citizens Defending Libraries (of which I am a co-founder) has launched a Citizens Audit and Investigation of the details concerning the Brooklyn Public Library's secretive and strange pursuit, going back to around 2005, of converting all of Brooklyn's libraries into real estate transactions that will shrink them diminishing the respect for and availability books and librarians and the core missions of a library system.  See (last accessed 10/7/2014): Press Release: Citizens Audit and Investigation of Brooklyn Public Library- FOIL Requests and PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY: September 16, 2014 Rally Outside BPL Trustees Meeting- BPL Trustees Vote To Hand Off Brooklyn Heights Library To Hudson Co. As Developer.
In essence, the proposal is to shrink the library to the equivalent size of just two rooms like this Business and Career Library space from which would have to be subtracted all entryway, administrative, bathroom, stairway and elevator space.
 
Adult reading room on the second floor over the Business and Career section of the library.
Is the public likely to feel more privileged with second floors window to look out as it has now rather than any additional space being stuck in the basement?
Computer room- Excess space?

The normally full children's room, right before closing, on a day just after the Library has again changed its hours ensuring confusion about when it's open and what routines will work when you plan your visits

Useless hallway space?  Where you can wait for an elevator or congregate waiting for friends, take in an exhibit in this space that graciously transitions from one room to another, buffering sound . . .
I am presently missing pictures that show the frequently used auditorium in its full glory, but this picture from the Brooklyn Eagle is from the night that the auditorium was used to announce this as the first public disclosure of plans to sell and shrink a Brooklyn public library.  The community was not happy.  (The auditorium was used for primary voting this last election.)
Here, also from the Brooklyn Eagle, a photograph of Deborah Hallen using the auditorium to ceremonially display for the record a proclamation by Borough President Marty Markowitz honoring the work of the “Friends of Brooklyn Heights Branch Library" which was then , and now, a lead collaborator in pushing forward the proposed sale and shrinkage of the library.

“We’re Starting From Scratch!” Says Developer Getting Brooklyn Heights Library Site- So How Tall Luxury Building Replacing Library Will Be And What It Will Look Like Is Unknown!

$
0
0
Eeny, meeny, miny, moe- What might the luxury tower proposed to replace the Brooklyn Heights Library looks like?  We don’t now how tall or what shape, or anything, because the developer is “starting from scratch” stealing shamelessly from his competitors
The big, takeaway-with-a-gasp headline from the Tuesday, October 7th “Community Advisory Committee” meeting about selling and shrinking the Brooklyn Heights was that the developer said that he couldn’t say how tall the luxury tower replacing the Brooklyn Heights Library will be or what that building will look like, because, now that his company has been awarded the bid for the library site, they are“starting from scratch . .  just beginning” and that he could “now shamelessly steal” from his competitors to design what might actually be built.

Invisible Dog, Invisible . . . .

Ergo, a tricky feat was managed: While the CAC meeting had aspects of a dog and pony show where Brooklyn Public Library President Linda Johnson and cohorts were self-congratulatorily announcing their plans with an odd sense of certainty and inevitability, there was a certain invisibility to both the dog starring in the show (a library proposed to be vastly shrunken) and the pony (the luxury tower).
Version of Proposal F released by the BPL- Without the Saint Ann's development rights included to make it taller?
How tall might the luxury tower be and what might it look like?  If David Kramer and his Hudson Companies are stealing shamelessly from his competitors that means that anything that was previously possible or under consideration is still possible and under consideration.  It means the tower might, in height, be the equivalent of 45 to 55-stories.  That’s what was being looked at in terms of “Proposal F.”  See the analysis done of all the previously competing designs when they were presented:  Monday, December 16, 2013, Tall Stories- Buildings Proposed To Shrink The Brooklyn Heights Library: Brooklyn Public Library Publishes Seven Luxury Building Proposals To Shrink Away Brooklyn Heights Library.

There is an incentive for the developer to make his building as tall as possible that was highlighted in the Request For Proposals (RFP) that the BPL and New York City Economic Development Corporation issued that touted to developers the benefits of buying the library site.
The site enjoys park views to the east with the prospect of achieving views of Manhattan and Brooklyn skylines, as well as of the New York Harbor and bridges.
(See: Friday, September 20, 2013, Forest City Ratner As The Development Gatekeeper (And Profit taker) Getting The Benefit As Brooklyn Heights Public Library Is Sold.)

By making two choices the developer increases the number of luxury apartments that will vault into the heavens high enough to see over the rest of the neighborhood and across the harbor: 1.) make the building tall and skinny, and 2.) go with extra tall floor to floor/ceiling heights.  Each of these choices is all the more likely to be the developer’s strategy in the New York City market where an increasingly large part of the city’s luxury condo ales are comprised of what a New York Magazine cover story referred to has high-end “stash pads,” apartments that are pitched, largely to foreigners, as money-sponge assets, ways to soak up and park illegally obtained or ill-gotten gains now that new post-9/11 laws prohibit Swiss bank accounts from performing the functions they formerly did.  See:  Stash Pad- The New York real-estate market is now the premier destination for wealthy foreigners with rubles, yuan, and dollars to hide, (Why New York Real Estate Is the New Swiss Bank Account), by Andrew Rice, June 29, 2014  and (from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists) Hidden in Plain Sight: New York Just Another Island Haven, By Michael Hudson, Ionut Stanescu and Samuel Adler-Bell, July 3, 2014.

Image that appeared in the New York Times and elsewhere as if the developer wasn't "starting from scratch" and incorrectly reporting that the tower would be "20 stories"
Asking how tall the new luxury tower might be or what it would look like might have seemed a somewhat stupid, time-wasting question when it was asked, given that when the BPL issued its press release about the selection of a developer an image of a building submitted with the developer’s proposal circulated and appeared in all the press reports including the New York Times.  The question, in fact, was far from foolhardy given the developer’s response.
Two incorrect reports that the new tower would be 20 stories.  On the left the New York Times correction.  On the left, the same incorrect information in a photo caption on the Brooklyn Paper
Another reason it made sense to ask?: After the BPL press release and press conference announcing the developer’s selection there were reporters, including for the New York Times and the Brooklyn Paper, who got the misimpression that the tower would only be 20 stories tall,  The information was incorrectly reported  with corrections needing to be made later.

You also can’t trust pictures that developers release to promote their projects as really being reflective of what the buildings will look like in relation to their environs.  Right now Forest City Ratner is taking lumps for new project renderings that obviously distort, trying to make proposed new Atlantic Yards (aka “Pacific Park” as euphemistically renamed) mega-project buildings look smaller. See these two recent articles: Friday, October 10, 2014, 550 Vanderbilt condo renderings fudge transition from row houses to tower; building marketed along with Nets in China and Tuesday, September 02, 2014, Playing with perspective: how renderings suggest new 18-story tower (smallest of all) almost harmonizes with row houses.  And see these older articles:  Wednesday, December 18, 2013, What's wrong with this picture? Atlantic Yards B2 rendering skews several perspectives, suggests clock tower,  Friday, September 26, 2008, Weighing Scale, and Thursday, September 10, 2009, The Surrounding Light Smears Ratner's Atlantic Yards Arena.
A taller version of Proposal F if Saint Ann's and Ratner development rights were used?
Lastly, another reason to wonder about how tall and large the building actually built might be is that none of the seven renderings previously presented to the public showed the development using all of the available development rights.  . . . . Six of the seven did not show development using the substantial development rights that Saint Ann’s, the private school on the same block (on the other side of the Forest City Ratner building) will transfer in when its zoning lot is joined with the Ratner zoning lot, as the library property is already joined.  From recent details released (the fact that Saint Ann’s is getting a new gymnasium out of the transaction and has been briefing its faculty on the benefits of the library sale and shrinkage for Saint Ann’s) it seems clear that this developer is, now at least, doing business with Saint Ann’s.  But did the developer’s original proposal reflect that fact?  If so, then “Proposal F” by another developer depicting the tallest of the proposed towers was a depiction that didn’t already include the Saint Ann’s development rights, a proposal that when stolen “shamelessly” can be much taller when the Saint Ann’s and unused Ratner rights are transferred in.
Developer David Kramer of the Hudson Companies speaking at the CAC meeting
Here is exactly what the developer said about how the building could be just about any size or shape when was asked about how tall, how many stories the luxury building would actually be.
So we’re sort of starting from scratch and trying to figure it out.  And you know we have different options.  You can have a taller slender building.  You can have a shorter squatter building.  Uhm, and so we are going to look at different options.  So, right now, we’re sort of. . uhm,. .. we’re just beginning.  We have scratch paper and we haven’t finalized uhm, either the floor to floor height for any individual apartment or the shape of the building.

And, in fact, you know an interesting dynamic is we can now shamelessly steal from all our competitors.  There were fourteen proposals and seven finalists.  I got to see six other designs.  Some of them are good friends of mine and I asked if I could go, you know, take a look at their proposal and they greet my request with a combination of anger and (laugh) friendship, uhm . . .and uhm. .  the BHA had good and bad things to say about those seven proposal and we sort of want to, uhm. . . you now, think about it, and see what people like, and what we like, and you know-   You don’t want to have it designed too much by committee, a camel as the joke goes,  . . . But, uhm, we want to. uhm, take a little time to figure it out.
Here is Citizens Defending Libraries YouTube of the developer's statement:

 

Hudson Companies on Library Tower: What Design? We Have Scratch Paper.  (Click through to YouTube for best viewing.)

The Brooklyn Heights Blog has recently covered the proposed Brooklyn Heights Library sale and shrinkage in a series of longer-form articles that are more detailed, considered and informative than is often typical for coverage of such matters.  Nevertheless, covering the CAC meeting it intemperately offered the assessment that:
  . . .  the evening's presentation confirmed that BPL has crafted a well-thought out and realistic proposal to replace an aging but extremely popular local library at one of Brooklyn's most expensive real estate addresses.
(See: BPL's Johnson Holds Her Own Against Opponents of Heights Library Plan; Smorgasburg and Brooklyn Roasting Company Named as Retail Tenants, by Michael Randazzo on October 8, 2014.)

My comment to the blog article (emphasis supplied):
How can there be any confirmation that the “BPL has crafted a well-thought out and realistic proposal” when the developer said that now that he has been selected he will “start from scratch?” Further, how can the BPL size a drastically shrunken library and then decide what the design will be and ask for public input afterward?
Better cover of the CAC meeting appeared in the Brooklyn Brief: Further Details (and Concerns) Emerge at Heights Library Community Council Meeting, Matthew Taub, October 8, 2014

The Known Unknowns About the Library
Above- The existing two-story Brooklyn Heights Library overlaid on the real estate parcel (with boundaries indicated) on which it sits.  That portion highlighted in brighter orange would be the amount of similar above-ground space the proposed "replacement" library would take up.  Hardly enough to be functional, certainly not functional as the central, destination library it has been since it was built. (More here.)
Just as what luxury tower we will get is a black box perfectly set up for bait-and-switches, we similarly know nothing about the library sale, shrinkage and so-called ”replacement” except for the exact size down to which the library is supposed to be shrunk, 21,000 square feet with 15,000 square feet above ground, down from a total 63,000 square feet of space owned and available to the public. . .

. . .  We don’t know:
    •    What assets we are giving up in terms of the existing library and the associated real estate or the value thereof.  A large portion of what we are giving up has only been identified under the treacherously vague rubric of space `not currently accessible to the public’ with no identification of what actual and specific space is being referred to or even how that space was determined as somehow being `not accessible to the public’  or possible not valuable to the public.  As one can see from the visual, the BPL has inexplicably  managed to conclude that the majority of above-ground space at the Brooklyn Heights Library is space ‘not accessible to the public.’

    •    What the BPL would net (if anything) in terms of available proceeds from the library sale (or in terms of overall value in the exchange).  Might there even be losses?

    •    What the “replacement” library would consist of.  At the CAC meeting Linda Johnson was telling individuals attending: “I hope that you will actually participate in the workshop [to conceptualize, design and configure the replacement library].  It sounds like you have ideas about what the library should contain and we’d really like you to be there.”
I asked at the CAC meeting for details about the first two unknowns bulleted above, but Ms. Johnson and the BPL did not provide that information for which Citizens Defending Libraries (of which I am a co-founder) has made the following outstanding request: Open Letter To Brooklyn Public Library President Linda Johnson.

It says something about the abject imbalance of the BPL’s  public priorities that while we as yet don’t knowhow big the developer’s luxury tower is, the one thing we do knowis exactly how small a space the library would be shrink down to, even before consideration of what we will try to include in that space or carry over  from what is presently publicly owned.
In simple bar graph form- The BPL is proposing to drastically shrink the size of the publicly owned space in the Brooklyn Heights Library from 63,000 feet (blue) to just 21,000 square feet (on left) of which just 15,000 square feet would be above ground.  For more visuals that look more directly at the existing building and property to explore what the public would lose at the site in terms of the benefits it is familiar go HERE.
Just 15,000 square feet of above-ground library space?  The Brooklyn Heights Library is a central destination library, at least the second-most-important library in the borough, serving the downtown, and accessible to all residents of the borough, all residents of the city, in fact, at the borough’s most important mass transit hub for both subways and buses.  The last time the BPL was going to create a new, central, destination library, in 2005 before the current library-shrinking and selling regime was instituted, it planned that a new Visual and Performing Arts Library across from BAM would be 150,000 square feet, ten times the size of what the BPL plans as the above-ground replacement library in the Heights.  That’s extremely telling even if that 2005 plan might have sported some of its own boondoggle aspects.

Absence of physical books in the libraries
A mezzanine of entirely empty bookshelves at the BPL's Williamsburg  Library where patron complain there are too few books and the BPL is also shrinkingthe library by giving away an entire additional floor to the private Spaceworks firm.  (Williamsburg is another library in city Councilman Steve Levin's district.)
Set aside the BPL’s suspicious `not accessible to the public’ space calculations: The BPL’s premises for shrinking down the Brooklyn Heights Library and others, selling off their space, is really based largely on the idea of getting rid of physical books.  Physical books take up real estate the BPL wants to sell.

There are two ways in which the BPL is proposing to banish physical books from the libraries:
    •    The library would no longer endeavor to have robust browsable collections of physical books available to the public visiting libraries.  Instead, a reduced collection of physical books, a “floating collection” would be available elsewhere, upon request.

    •    The library will provide books that are digital (many books simply aren’t digitally available), while forcibly weaning patrons away from what it refers to internally as “old-school type analogue books.”
Doreen Gallo of the DUMBO Neighborhood Association is a member of the Community Advisory Committee, and was particularly eloquent about a number of matters during the evening’s meeting, including how, due to prior vetting, members of the CAC did not represent the community or its viewpoints.  Gallo, herself, is an exception to that general observation.

Ms. Gallo zeroed in on the disappearance of books from the libraries, noting how other libraries loved their books, and complaining about the absence of books from the library.  She cited her visits to the Heights library with her daughter (written about in her open letter to Borough President Eric Adams) where it had taken nine to eleven days to obtain a books that they would originally have expected to find at the library when they went and, most recently, how requested books missing from the library had taken three weeks to obtain.

Ms. Johnson's explanation and information about the books that were not at the libraries was as follows.  The BPL is not maintaining book collections at individual libraries the way it used to.  Instead she explained that it has (a smaller) collection of books that “floats” among libraries (likely being where they were last requested) and that these books could be obtained by request. She said that books not at visited libraries “are somewhere else.”  She said that she thought that “nine to eleven” days seemed like "a long time" for it to take to obtain such books and that three weeks “was unacceptable.”

Then she said that the BPL was “monitoring this closely,” maintaining statistics about how long it took to get books and asked an assistant present (Sheila), “responsible for our neighborhood libraries,”  to say a few words about how long its takes to get requested books.  Her assistant said that for patrons requesting books not at libraries there was “usually a week’s turnaround” involved (that sounds like an `average of seven days’ to me, pretty close to the nine days Johnson said was a "long Time") although books could “sometimes” be available in (emphasis supplied) even two days.”
  
Ms. Johnson, apparently unhappy with the answer her assistant statistic-tracker had given, then stepped in to inaccurately restate the information just provided as follows: “If you reserve a book that’s not in your local library it’s usually between two days and a week to show up in the branch where you want it to be.” (Implying an `average of 4.5 days?’not 7.)

Of course, no matter how long it takes to fulfill a request, the valuable “browsing experience” is eliminated.

Later on in the meeting Johnson was criticized for not being a librarian and not having a respect for books.  Indeed, Ms. Johnson talking about "crestfallen" librarians and book lovers has often been quoted in the press talking about how she sees the future of the BPL’s libraries as being largely bookless although she was previously advertising that books stored off-site would be available in "24 hours."  When Jim Vogel, representing state senator Velmanette Montgomery, confronted Ms. Johnson about the absence of physical books Ms. Johnson offered somewhat lamely, "we can get very philosophical here about what it means to be a library"and said that she was sorry if people found her alternative vision for the library "mind-boggling."

It's is sad to see the children’s section of the Brooklyn Heights Library with empty shelves as a result of Ms. Johnson work and alternative vision.
Front page article in the New York Times: “reading to a child from an electronic device undercuts the dynamic that drives language development.”
As fate would have it, the next Sunday, New York Times ran a story on its front page about new studies “that reading to a child from an electronic device undercuts the dynamic that drives language development.”  See: New York Times: Is E-Reading to Your Toddler Story Time, or Simply Screen Time?, by Douglas Quenqua, October 11, 2014.- That’s basically in line with what a survey of the literature published in Scientific American was showing: The Reading Brain in the Digital Age-  Why Paper Still Beats Screens (Why the Brain Prefers Paper), by Ferris Jabr, November 2013.

Smaller Library to Have Fewer Librarians

Along with less space and far fewer books, the "replacement" library would, according to Ms. Johnson, have fewer librarians and a smaller staff.  Ms. Johnson was asked whether the downsizing of the library would result in a reduction in the staff assigned at that location to serve the public.  It was not surprising to learn from Ms. Johnson that a far smaller library would involve staff being cut.  Ms. Johnson said that she did not know "the exact answer" to the question about how many people would be hired at the smaller library, that “the numbers have yet to be determined," but that her hope was that when built the"new building will be a model of efficiency"with a reduced staff that would not have to compensate for the drawbacks of dealing with a library that was of an "improperly" large size.

Ms. Johnson almost made her less-is-more argument sound credible unless you stop to wonder whether libraries as places of exploration and discovery are really meant to to thrive on pared down efficiency.  Is efficiency really always good and how much is it just another pretextual euphemism in this context?

Community Reaction

Pretty much across the board the proposal to sell and shrink the library was not well received.  The opposition to the sale was not informed in advance that there would be an opportunity for the public to say anything or ask questions.   In addition to direct opposition, concerns were expressed about the paucity of dwindling public assets in the neighborhood, so that perhaps a shrinkage of the library would remove one more asset while PS8, the local public school, was still struggling to keep pace with too little space.  The developer's proposal would benefit Saint Ann's, a private school, but not the public school.  The developer said he hadn't been asked to benefit the public in this way, and that if he were required to do anything more to benefit the public he would have wanted to pay less for the property.
Monday, October 6th, the Saint Ann's faculty was getting another briefing about the benefit to the private school of the library being sold and shrunk
Reactions to the proposed sale and shrinkage were not universally, negative.  There was an interesting scattering of individuals who maybe didn't use the library but had decided to come out that night ready to express their enthusiasm for civicly engaging in the workshops to design its replacement that Ms. Johnson was extolling, a replacement they were somehow already sure would be an improvement.  At least one of these individuals wouldn't give her name afterward to an inquisitive reporter.

Certainly, all of the people that got up to speak at the meeting are real people with real lives, but one wonders what to make of remarks made by some of them.  One father who told a story about how his five daughters, hungry to read books from the library, reached the age of nine and then didn't want to go to the very "unappealing" library anymore so that as their father now, beseeched by them, had to run solitary, derring-do errand runs to fetch books.  Speaking derisively of the library, he bet aloud to those assembled that nobody could name another building designed by its architect.  I was standing behind him and named the Grand Army Plaza Library, also designed by Francis Keally.  The BPL places no information about this up on its site, but Ms. Johnson then wanted to quibble about whether both libraries were designed by the same architect or only by his architectural firm.  When others in the audience contradicted this speaker, saying that the library is, in fact, attractive the defended himself by saying, "not according to the library." 

There is a lot to be learned when we communally share our libraries as common assets.  One fellow commented quizzically about the pronunciation of "Llama" he heard used at the library when "Llama Llama Red Pajama"(drawn and written by by Anna Dewdney) by was being read to children at the library.  Llamas are domesticated animals in south America in countries where Spanish is spoken.  This fellow heard the word Llama being pronounced with its original Spanish pronunciation ([ˈʎama]locally: [ˈʝama]or[ˈʒama]).

Need to "Activate" Clinton Street?

There is probably more to say, but maybe it is sufficient to conclude this report of the CAC meeting with one last thing that may have gone unobserved.

The developer, promoting his development, said that Clinton Street, where the library is located, needed to be “activated,” asserting that this is something he knows because he walked his dog there four days a week and because it was something the Brooklyn Heights Association was calling for.  He said his project would activate Clinton Street by having on either side of the entrance to the luxury residential tower “two small retail spaces”: a coffee shop and a space curated by “Smorgasbord” that would have rotating food vendors.

Several incensed members of the community begged to differ about whether they believed this block of Clinton Street in fact needed to be "activated" or was actually better off the way it is now.  Who knows, but certainly it must be in the developer’s mind that Jonathan Butler of the real estate blog Brownstoneris the Brooklyn Flea, isSmorgasbord, and that promoting Smorgasbord and giving it space could likely improve the press Mr. Kramer and his Hudson Companies development firm get in Brownstoner for all the projects Mr. Kramer wishes to push through in the future . . . .

. . .  Which is to say, that when it comes to real estate development in New York City don't expect people in the industry to miss a trick- Something to remember whenever people in power are proposing that we should sell off our public assets.

Plutocratic Class Warrior Stephen A. Schwarzman: Public Impoverishment When Such An Individual Gains The Economic and Political Upper Hand?

$
0
0
Stephen A. Schwarzman sees himself on one side of a class war, where when it come to protecting the preferential tax breaks he receives the rest of us are like Hitler.
Stephen A. Schwarzman, head of the Blackstone Group, has already been prominently cited in two columns by Paul Krugman, the Nobel prizewinning economist and New York Times opinion page columnist, as an example of a plutocratic class warrior who believes that the 1% must retain their supremacy over the rest of society, winning at any cost. (See: Plutocrats Feeling Persecuted, September 26, 2013 and Paranoia of the Plutocrats, January 26, 2014.)

Similarly, a recent short piece in the The New Yorker, Moaning Moguls, by James Surowiecki, July 7, 2014, focused in on the way a complaining and financially aloof Schwarzman aligns himself, class-wise, according to a we/they perception of the world:
You wouldn't think [Schwarzman would] have much to complain about. But, to hear him tell it, he's beset by a meddlesome, tax-happy government and a whiny, envious populace. He recently grumbled that the U.S. middle class has taken to "blaming wealthy people" for its problems. Previously, he has said that it might be good to raise income taxes on the poor so they had "skin in the game," and that proposals to repeal the carried-interest tax loophole-from which he personally benefits-were akin to the German invasion of Poland.
Is the bottom line that the wealthiest in society like Schwarzman should be living in fear that the political upper hand will be seized by those who will tax the rich (or simply eliminate the loopholes by which Schwarzman pays his income taxes at a preferential lower rate) to dispense largess to the poor or other strata of our society?  Au contraire!   While class warfare is real, is not a matter of what the wealthy might fear from the rest of us, but what the rest of us have to fear in the way of predation from the likes of Schwarzman: What do individuals such as Schwarzman do when they have the political and the economic upper hand?

Schwarzman, who has focused on profiting from buying homes of owners defaulting in the face of economic downturn, has in his role as New York Public Library trustee pushed for the selling and shrinkage of New York City's libraries, he has enthusiastically promoted investment in the environmentally costly practice of hydro-fracking with all its global-warming implications, he has invested in privatizing prisons and now, as is getting attention, we find that he has in a major, very nontransparent way been taking advantage of pension funds, including those of public employees.  Some of the pension fund handed over to Schwarzman's Blackstone were set up for the benefit of New York City and New York State employees.

Raiding Pension Funds

In Wall Street,” the 1987 film famous for its “Greed is good” Gordan Gekko character played by Michael Douglas, a key part of the plot is the disclosure of the unscrupulous lengths to which Gekko will go in dismantling an airline company, putting its employees out of work, in order to raid its pension fund.  The mindset epitomized thereby: An economic framework that works for and benefits a larger segment of society is up for grabs to be destroyed by monied interests playing an insider game to pile up ever greater wealth.  That was the 1980s.

Stealing from pension funds?  Is it worse when the pension funds that get hit are those of public employees?  And if you are a New Yorker paying New York taxes, what if those pension funds are for New York public employees?  The politically connected Stephen Schwarzman who keeps photographs of George W. and Laura Bush and Michael Bloomberg on his office desk has, Gordan Gekko style, been accused of robbing public pension funds, to build up his own personal wealth.  The accusations are worthy of consideration for all they imply.  See Zero Hedge’s Leaked Documents Show How Blackstone Fleeces, Taxpayers Via Public Pension Funds, by Tyler Durden, May 5, 2014 passing along an article by David Sirota at Pandodaily, LEAKED: Docs obtained by Pando show how a Wall Street giant is guaranteed huge fees from taxpayers on risky pension investments, May 5, 2014

Here’s some of the Zero Hedge summing up of the situation:
The following story by David Sirota at PandoDaily is simply excellent. It zeros in on the secretive and rapidly expanding relationship between private equity firms and the public pensions that invest in them. It shows a crony capitalist love affair greased by lobbyist influence peddlers known as "placement agents", as well as non-public agreements between PE firms and public pensions chock full of conflicts of interest, extremely high fees and underperformance. Unbelievably, in many instances the trustees of the public pensions are not allowed to know what funds the "fund of funds" invest in. This makes due diligence impossible, and in one particularly egregious example it led the Kentucky Retirement Systems to unknowingly invest in SAC Capital despite the fact it was under SEC investigation at the time.

Furthermore, with the Wall Street Journal reporting back in 2011 that $37 of every $100 dollars invested in Blackstone's investment pool comes from state and local pension plans, it appears that taxpayers are once again being fleeced by the financial oligarch class.

    * * *

The chief villain in this article will be no stranger to readers of this site. It is Blackstone . .
The main point of the PandoDaily article:
An increasing number of those pension funds are being stealthily diverted into high-fee, high-risk "alternative investments" that deliver spectacular rewards for the Wall Street firms paid to manage them - but not such great returns for pensioners and taxpayers.
According to the analysis of the leaked documents obtained:   
Taken together, the documents raise serious questions about whether the government employees, trustees and politicians overseeing major public pension funds are shirking their fiduciary responsibilities under the law when they are cementing "alternative" investment deals.
Fees Sapping Fund's Prospects of Investment Growth

These pension fund investments were not performing well because of the debilitating effect of high fees. Around the beginning of 2008 Blackstone launched its hedge funds; with a “fund of funds” approach where it steered clients’ money into other hedge funds in return for an additional fee.

When the Kentucky Retirement System was looking to invest about $400 million in Blackstone's Alternative Asset Management Fund (BAAM), which is a so-called “fund of hedge funds” the PandoDaily article says the leaked documents showed:
Blackstone was guaranteed whopping fees of 50 basis points plus 10 percent of any overall profits on retirees' money. In addition, the memo estimates 1.62 percent management fees and 19.78% incentive fees to be paid on top of the Blackstone fees to the underlying (and undisclosed) individual hedge fund managers in the "fund of funds."
And:
Pension officials made the decision to invest in the fund despite Blackstone then reportedly being under SEC investigation.
The Sunday’s New York Times Business Section of a week ago featured, front page, above-the-fold, a comprehensive article that, in just slightly more tempered New York Timesian business lingo, covered much of the same ground, with a few additions, as the Pando and Zero Hedge articles from last May. See: Behind Private Equity’s Curtain, by Gretchen Morgenson, October 18, 2014.

We’ll come back to ways in which that article, illustrated with a photo of New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer and featuring a quote from him, brings the question of these investments closer to home for New York taxpayers.

First, it would be worthwhile to note the way the compounding effect of `fees,’especially any accumulating proliferation of them, work to seriously gut an intended building up of retirement investments.  To say that “fees” are being charged might imply that valuable services are delivered in exchange, but, bottom line, one ought to suspect and fear the opposite.  PBS’s Frontline covered this point well in “The Retirement Gamble” (transcript is available).
If you Google images for “retirement three legged stool”
U.S. citizens have frequently been described as relying on a “three-legged stool” for their retirement, 1.) social security, 2.) presumably secure pensions, and 3.) invested personal savings that can also include 401(k) and IRAs.  Frontline covered how there has been a shift away from pensions (that covered 42% of Americans in 1972) largely to 401(k)s, originally “a corporate tax dodge” for high earners that “Nobody ever thought that this was going to apply to the rest of us.”
From Frontline's  “The Retirement Gamble”
Frontline explained the effect of fees in the context of the third category, invested personal savings that can also include 401(k) and IRAs.  One expert asserts that Americans don't know the price, quality or risk of what they are paying for when buying 401(k) retirement investments.  To lay it all out, Frontline correspondent Martin Smith talked with Jack Bogle, the founder of Vanguard, a company that offers some of the lowest-fee products on the market. Bogle succintly offers the advice “that if you want to improve your retirement outcome, make sure to minimize Wall Street's take.” * (Starting at 23:40 on the video- ignore the investment company promo ironically inserted at the very beginning of the PBS video.):
(* If social security is ever privatized as has been proposed all these considerations will come into play with respect to social security too.)
    MARTIN SMITH: Bogle gave me an example. Assume you're invested in a fund that is earning a gross annual return of 7 percent. They charge you a 2 percent annual fee. Over 50 years, the difference between your net of 5 percent - the red line - and what you would have made without fees - the green line - is staggering.

    Bogle says you've lost almost two thirds of what you would have had.

    JOHN BOGLE: What happens in the fund business is the magic of compound returns is overwhelmed by the tyranny of compounding costs. It's a mathematical fact. There's no getting around it. The fact that we don't look at it- too bad for us.

    MARTIN SMITH: [on camera] What I have a hard time understanding is that 2 percent fee that I might pay to an actively managed mutual fund is going to really have a great impact on my future retirement savings.

    JOHN BOGLE: Well, you have to rely on somebody to get out a compound interest table and look at the impact over an investment lifetime. Do you really want to invest in a system where you put up 100 percent of the capital, you the mutual fund shareholder, you take 100 percent of the risk and you get 30 percent of the return?
Again, from Frontline's  “The Retirement Gamble”- Results of a 7% return vs. a 5% return
These same mathematical investment facts also apply to pensions of private companies and public employees although the risks and responsibilities for management of them and the costs have not been shifted over from the employers to the employers in the same way.  These mathematical investment facts apply to Blackstone and in the case of public employee pension funds, it's our elected officials like our state and city comptrollers who are responsible for making the decisions about what fees like this are to be paid to companies like Blackstone.

On the Political Inside- "Pay to Play"

That’s why it’s a problem when Blackstone and firms like it are making campaign contributions to the very same officials making those decisions.  You have heard of "pay-to-play"?  See: Do campaign contributions help win pension fund deals?,  8/28/2009.  Here from that article:
More than two dozen firms that have surfaced in a broad corruption investigation of public pension funds gave at least $1.97 million in campaign contributions to officials with potential influence over the funds' investments, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The givers included private-equity giants such as the Blackstone Group, the Carlyle Group and the Quadrangle Group, the firm founded by Steven Rattner, who in July resigned as the White House point man for the auto industry rescue. The contributions are legal, and the firms haven't been accused of wrongdoing related to the giving.

    * * *

Officials of the Blackstone Group have similarly contributed to pension fund incumbents and candidates. The firm's chairman is co-founder Stephen Schwarzman, a former Lehman Bros. executive. Co-founder Peter Peterson retired as Blackstone's senior chairman in 2008.

Campaign finance records show Schwarzman; his wife, Christine; and Peterson gave a combined $30,000 to three candidates who ran in 2002 to succeed H. Carl McCall as state comptroller. Hevesi, the winner, got the most, $21,000. Separately, McCall received $25,000 from Christine Schwarzman for his unsuccessful bid for governor.

Blackstone has received about $1.74 billion in private equity- and real estate-related investments from the New York pension fund since 1993 and has been paid about $20 million in fees, said Whalen, the state comptroller's spokesman.

The firm has not been accused in the New York investigation.
See also Crains New York Business: Private equity donations to politicians uncovered- Staffers of firms gave money to officials with power to steer pension funds to range of investment advisors, by Hilary Potkewitz, August 28, 2009.
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has been investigating pay-to-play accusations involving the state's pension plan and various investment funds, including Carlyle, for the past year. In June, the Carlyle Group agreed to pay a $20 million settlement, and change company policy to limit employee political contributions to $300.

Blackstone has not been accused of anything as a result of Mr. Cuomo's investigations. A Blackstone spokeswoman said that since at least 2006, the company has had a policy prohibiting employees from donating to campaigns for offices with direct oversight of public pension funds. That policy also requires approval from its general counsel for any campaign contributions.
And see, Final Alternatives Hedge Fund and Private Equity News: Ex-Blackstone Employee Pleads Guilty In N.Y. Kickback Scandal, May 13 2009.
A former employee of a placement agent now owned by the Blackstone Group has pleaded guilty to securities fraud as part of the widening kickback scandal at a New York State pension fund.
Putting this again in the context of the debilitating fees already discussed, we come across this article from the New York Post that ran four years ago during the last election for state comptroller.  Harry Wilson, the Republican candidate running for office against Democrat Thomas DiNapoli (who won and is now running again) likely knew what he was talking about because he was a former Blackstone principal.  See: A pension to slash, by Josh Kosman, August 1, 2010.
The former Blackstone Group principal who is the Republican candidate for New York State Comptroller believes the state should consider decreasing its allocation to private equity in its pension funds.

Most PE firms, he said, do not outperform the S&P 500 after fees.

"I'm not a big believer in alternatives," Wilson told The Post. "I don't own a lot of alternatives in my portfolio."

"To outperform the markets is hard and then when you charge large fees on top of that it is really hard."
The article points out that:
The state as of March 31 had 9.3 percent of its $133 billion invested in private-equity funds, and another 9 percent in other "alternative investments" like real estate and hedge funds.
Idea That Pension Benefits Are Too Generous Anyway Finds Home at Schwarzman's Blackstone

Maybe candidate Wilson had a change of heart after leaving Blackstone but indications are that for those at Blackstone their heart is not in benefitting the pensioners; the job they are being paid enormous fees to do.

Blackstone’s Byron Wien, vice chairman of New York-based Blackstone's advisory group, said retiree benefits were "too generous."
"The retirement benefits for state workers, really not only in New York, California and New Jersey but throughout the country, are very generous, too generous," Wien said in response to a question about U.S. state budget deficits during a Jan. 5 presentation of his forecast, according to a transcript. "We literally can't afford the benefits we have given our retirees in state and local governments and we have to change that."
(See: Blackstone Seeks to Appease New York City Pensions After Wien's Comments, by Cristina Alesci and Jason Kelly, May 26, 2010.)

Wein’s remarks sound very much like Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein when he said that the public was going to have to lower its expectations about “entitlements and what people think that they're going to get.  Because they're not going to get it.”  It has been suggested that Mr. Blankfein should, like Mr. Schwarzman, be made one of the trustees to whom we entrust the care of our New York City libraries.  

What did Stephen Schwarzman say in response to Mr. Byron’s remarks and the objections that consequently arose?
"Byron will play a central and invaluable role in providing direction and guidance,"
While Mr. Wien's heart doesn’t seem to be in helping pensioners, he may also lack the talent that would entitle him to take fees to do so.  See:  Byron Wien's Atrocious "Forecasting" May Have Cost Blackstone Hundreds Of Millions, by Tyler Durden on 01/06/2011.

Another Level of Asset Stripping: Pension Funded Job Losses Through Blackstone

While politically luring public pension funds into underperforming high-fee investments is one form of public asset stripping, New York’s pensioners may also be chagrined to learn that the funds they had invested with Blackstone entailed another layer of public loss, one that U.S. Senator Charles Schumer was duty bound to complain about when it came to light.  During the Democratic Convention in the 2012 presidential race Bain Capital was excoriated for jobs it was said to have destroyed in corporate takeovers.

Blackstone engages in the same sort of dismantling of jobs and companies so, by investing in Blackstone, New York’ pension funds (two New York State public employee pension funds and four New York City pension funds) were causing jobs to be lost in Fulton, New York.  A Birds Eye Foods factory was ultimately closed by Blackstone's subsidiary after the union’s and Senator Schumer’s fruitless protests.  See Bloomberg’s: Pensions Find Private Equity Bites as Blackstone Cuts Job, by William Selway and Martin Z. Braun, February 23, 2012 and the very similar, slightly truncated Pension and Investments: NY pension funds find private equity controversy as Blackstone cuts jobs, by Bloomberg, February 23, 2012.
The new owners, Pinnacle Foods Group LLC, a company held by the private equity firm Blackstone Group LP (BX), [“the world's largest buyout firm”] closed the factory and fired 270 workers. Kimber, 64, got eight weeks severance for her 12 years on the job and lives with her 37-year-old unemployed daughter in the rust-belt town of about 12,000, northwest of Syracuse.

“They just used us. That’s exactly what they did,” Kimber said. “And then they kicked us to the curb.”

    * * *
Private equity executives, including Blackstone managing director and Pinnacle Foods director Prakash Melwani, have helped stock Romney's campaign war chests.
    * * *

New York Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, the sole trustee of New York's $140 billion retirement fund, declined to comment. New York City Comptroller John Liu declined to comment. John Cardillo, a spokesman for New York state's Teachers' Retirement System, declined to comment.

    * * *

In January 2010, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat, held a press conference with workers in Fulton, saying he would keep pressuring the company until all the jobs were safe. Schumer said he called Stephen Schwarzman, Blackstone's chairman and co-founder, and asked him to spare the factory.
Ironically, Charles Schumer’s wife, Iris Weinshall, has now taken the position of Chief Operating Officer at the New York Public Library, where, because Schwarzman is a trustee there, she, in a sense works for him as one of her bosses.  She replaced Chief Operating Officer David Offensend who came to that position from Evercore, LLP another private equity and hedge fund firm that was spun off from Blackstone.  The universe of those exercising influence and power is remarkably small.  (So small, in fact, that Offensend's wife, Janet, wound up as a key trustee at the Brooklyn Public Library while it implemented plans tracking the NYPL's similarly selling and shrinking Brooklyn's libraries.)

As the articles note, while New York City Comptroller John Liu did not comment on this factory closing, in another situation where another private equity firm was involved in closing a factory in Cleveland over the objections of investing pension funds whose monies were being used, Liu wrote:
New York's pension funds do not wish to be investing in job loss or in a global `race to the bottom.
Fulton’s Republican Mayor Ronald Woodward, gets the concluding word in the article, putting it terms of class:
"What you're doing by doing that -- you are systematically eliminating the middle class," he said. "You're going to be rich or you're going to be poor. There's no in between."
Placement Agent Fees

Blackstone, and especially Schwarzman, was also openly going after and championing yet another level of fees that would sap pension fund investments, “placement agent fees.”  When I was in government with the state finance agencies we were confronted by firms that, with political introductions, proposed that they should be inserted as a new level of intermediary between the finance agencies and the investments they made, getting yet another set of fee for its `advice’ or `guidance.' Unable to discern any value to the proposal or actual expertise being offered we turned them away.

“Placement Agent Fees,” paid by pension funds generated considerable controversy and a challenge from the SEC.

The New York Times stepped into the fray with a business section editorial criticizing New York City Comptroller John Liu for wanting to ease a ban on placement agents.  See: Editorial: Bringing Back the Fixers, by Dealbook, February 22, 2010.  The editorial observed:
For years, the easiest way companies could get contracts to manage billions of dollars for the pension funds for either New York City or New York State was to go through the local influence peddler. It was a recipe for big corruption, especially in Albany.

Both the city and state stopped using placement agents last April after two top advisers to Alan Hevesi, the former state comptroller, were charged with corruption and violation of federal securities law relating to their "private" work as placement agents. The two pleaded not guilty and are expected to go on trial soon.

Another four fixers from the Hevesi era have pleaded guilty to securities fraud. And a California manager of a venture capital fund pleaded guilty in December to giving out nearly $1 million in illegal gifts to New York State officials to get contracts with the state pension fund.

State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli said Thursday that the ban on placement agents is working well in Albany. He said it had made the investment process more transparent and helped new and smaller firms compete.

So, The Times asks, why is Mr. Liu going in the opposite direction?
Not quite two weeks later, Schwarzman was granted space in the Times to personally respond to the editorial.  He was arguing to support the position that Comptroller Liu has taken, that placement agents should be regulated, not banned, a position that would permit Blackstone to continue to ply its trade with New York pension funds as one of the four largest placement agents. See: Another View: In Defense of Placement Agents, By Stephen A. Schwarzman, March 4, 2010.
The four largest placement agents are part of major financial institutions in New York - Credit Suisse, UBS, Lazard and the Blackstone Group - and the professionals are federally registered and the firms themselves are heavily regulated. We do extensive due diligence on any manager we seek to represent (Blackstone's Park Hill Group takes as clients about 5 percent of the managers who come to it). We also prepare marketing materials and then take them before the major sources of investment capital - private, state and local pension plans; university and foundation endowments; sovereign wealth funds; etc. - to make the case as to why these managers warrant an investment. Most of these managers could not get a start in business without placement agents.
It is probably not to Comptroller Liu’s credit that he aligned with Schwarzman on this issue.  The alignment may have also put Liu in an interesting position when, three years later in the spring of 2013, Liu stepped up to oppose the sale and shrinkage of libraries with their attendant questionable real estate deals that Schwarzman was pushing for as a trustee of the NYPL.

When he wrote his Times rebuttal Schwarzman was already on record fighting against any bans on placement agents:
The SEC in May 2009 proposed the outright banning of placement agents , which in New York, California, New Mexico and Kentucky, were the conduit for corruption in those states' public pensions. However, the Private Equity industry was able to kill this SEC proposal, I believe by getting the Obama administration to pressure the SEC to water down this ban.

Blackstone's billionaire founder, Stephen Schwarzman, personally sent a letter to the SEC opposing a placement agent ban.
(See: Feds indict public pension placement agent, By Chris Tobe, March 20, 2013.)

A Hidden World, Where With a Lack of TransparencyPension Investors Take Hit for Fund Manager Wrongdoing
Photo used by the Times to emphasize Comptroller Scott Stringer's quote objecting to pension investors being saddled with the legal loss incurred from the settlement of the charges of improper conduct on the part of the fund managers
The recent article in the Sunday New York Times business section about the inappropriateness of pension funds investing in private equity funds focused mostly on the lack of transparency with respect to those funds and how that lack of transparency can conceal conflicts of interest that benefit the fund managers at the expense of the public investors.  Case in point, the quote featured from Comptroller Stringer was his objection to the fact that there had been a legal settlement respecting alleged misconduct of fund managers where the losses incurred with the settlement were passed along to be paid by the public pensioner investors, not the managers.  Given the lack of transparency of the private equity funds the public pensioners were probably in the dark that they are responsible for these costs, because according to the Times:
Their legal obligations are detailed in private equity documents that are confidential and off limits to pensioners and others interested in seeing them.
Notwithstanding, Comptroller Stringer said that forcing the pensioners to take the loss: "violates the spirit of the indemnification clause of our contract.”
Times reporting on the $325 million settlement to which Blackstone was a party
The comptroller was speaking of a settlement of a lawsuit against Carlyle Group and a number of other equity firms, (Bain, etc.), the Blackstone Group included, accused of colluding and market manipulations to drive down the prices of corporate takeover targets.  Blackstone, K.K.R. and TPG agreed to pay a combined $325 million to settle the accusations, the amount to be divided up between them in a manner unspecified t the public (K.K.R., Blackstone and TPG Private Equity Firms Agree to Settle Lawsuit on Collusion, by William Alden, August 7, 2014) and the Carlyle Group subsequently agreed to pay another $115 million in its own settlement.  Total, all of the firm settlements reportedly tallied $590.5 million (Carlyle Deal Concludes a Lawsuit Against Private Equity, by William Alden, September 8, 2014.)

The Sunday Times article makes it clear that Carlyle passed this loss along to New York City pensioners and that Comptroller Stringer's remark applies to them. When I asked whether the Blackstone was, or might be similarly passing its loss along to New York City pensioners I was quickly informed that the investigation is ongoing so that this information could not be furnished.  I put this question to the State Comptroller’s office at the same time and have yet to receive a response.
The Times article was front page and above-the-fold of the Sunday Business section
The Times article noted more on the absence of transparency:
"Hundreds of billions of public pension dollars have essentially been moved into secrecy accounts," said Edward A.H. Siedle, a former lawyer for the Securities and Exchange Commission who, through his Benchmark Financial Services firm in Ocean Ridge, Fla., investigates money managers. "These documents are basically legal boilerplate, but it's very damning legal boilerplate that sums up the fact that they are the highest-risk, highest-fee products ever devised by Wall Street."

Retirees whose pension funds invest in private equity funds are being harmed by this secrecy, Mr. Siedle said. By keeping these agreements under wraps, pensioners cannot know some important facts - for example, that a private equity firm may not always operate as a fiduciary on their behalf. Also hidden is the full panoply of fees that investors are actually paying as well as the terms dictating how much they are to receive after a fund closes down.

A full airing of private equity agreements and their effects on pensioners is past due, some state officials contend. The urgency increased this year, these officials say, after the S.E.C. began speaking out about improper practices and fees it had uncovered at many private equity firms.
The explanation from Blackstone and companies like it for the lack of transparency?:
Private equity giants like the Blackstone Group, TPG and Carlyle say that divulging the details of their agreements with investors would reveal trade secrets. Pension funds also refuse to disclose these documents, saying that if they were to release them, private equity firms would bar them from future investment opportunities.
Public Officials Don't Bargain?

On the very questionable absence of oversight by the public's elected officials making these investments the article quotes attorney Karl Olson, a partner at Ram Olson Cereghino & Kopczynski, who has sued he California Public Employees' Retirement System, to disclose fees paid to hedge fund, venture capital and private equity managers.
"I think it is unseemly and counterintuitive that these state officials who have billions of dollars to invest don't drive a harder bargain with the private equity folks," he said. "A lot of pension funds have the attitude that they are lucky to be able to give their money to these folks, which strikes me as bizarre and certainly not acting as prudent stewards of the public's money."
Conflicts of Interest?

On the subject of conflicts of interest that hide behind the lack of transparency the Times writes:
Regulations require that registered investment advisers put their clients' interests ahead of their own and that they operate under what is also known as a fiduciary duty. This protects investors from potential conflicts of interest and self-dealing by those managers. This is true of mutual funds, which are also required to make public disclosures detailing their practices.

But, as a lawsuit against Kohlberg Kravis Roberts shows, private equity managers can try to exempt themselves from operating as a fiduciary.
Abuse and the Breaking of Laws

It quotes another attorney in the area as follows:
"On one hand they say they don't owe you the duty," she said, "but everything is so confidential with these investments that without a court order, you don't have any idea what they're doing. It's not open and transparent, and that's the kind of structure to me that's ripe for abuse."
How ripe for abuse?  With this total lack of transparency and diligent review and bargaining how quickly would we know, for instance, if there was another Madoff in this thicket?  The Times reported that although private equity firms got off to a better start in their initial years, more recently:
. .  a simple investment in the broad stock market trounced private equity. For the five years through March, for example, private equity funds returned 14.7 percent, annualized, compared with 21.2 percent for the S.&.P. 500. One-year and three-year returns in private equity have also lagged.
And given the complicated calculations about who gets what monies in transactions, with the managers first in line, the investors always waiting to find out what they finally get, how late in the game after final reckonings would one know how bad, bad news is?  You can’t always get out of a hedge fund investment exactly when you’d like and when funds face liquidity problems they sometimes restrict withdrawals.

Madoff, of course, broke laws and a fairly high proportion of his victims were wealthy.  However, as must be noted with increasing frequency in our society, when it comes to the ways that the wealthiest use tilted playing fields to their advantage at the expense of others, the crime is not what activities are against the law, the crime is what is legal.  That’s the context in which this nation’s “plutocracy” is better understood as a "kleptocracy."

Laws can change.  Practices described here are in many ways similar and analogous to the kinds of abuses with respect to credit card and consumer lending, tricks and traps that Elizabeth Warren and new consumer regulations are working to proscribe.

Even by the relatively weak standards of what currently isn’t outlawed, it seems that legal lines are still crossed far too often.  According to the Los Angeles Times:
In a report on the SEC's findings after a preliminary round of examinations, agency official Andrew J. Bowden described what he called a "remarkable" level of lawbreaking and cheating among the 150 private equity advisory firms inspected so far. Bowden delivered his report directly to the lions in their den, speaking at a May 6 private equity conference.

"A private equity adviser is faced with temptations and conflicts with which most other advisers do not contend," Bowden stated. "We have seen that these temptations and conflicts are real and significant."

The most striking statistic: Half of all examinations uncovered "what we believe are violations of law or material weaknesses in controls."
(See:  SEC peeks under private equity rug, finds 'remarkable' corruption, by Michael Hiltzik- May 13, 2013.)

Rebates - Fluid Rules?

The New York Times article about high fees was preceded by several months by a thorough article addressing the subject that appeared in the Financial Times apparently sparked by the SEC investigation: Private equity: A fee too far- Regulators are probing conflicts of interest and high fees charged by fund managers to the companies they own, by Anne-Sylvaine Chassany and Henny Sender, July 13, 2014.

According to the article, one thing that is happening as investors and their advisors react to fees that “pump substance out of portfolio companies. . . the sort of greed you would typically see in investment banking"(quote from one advisor) is that investors are demanding, and getting, rebates of fees, on the order of 80%.  Such after-the-fact rejiggeing of the rules to fatten up a scrawny and inadequate return sounds faintly Ponzi-ish, though a crossing of that line has not been alleged on the part of any of the funds.*
(* In some fascinating articles however, questions have been raised about how, on the state official side of things, the state of New Jersey did poorly channeling monies into underperforming private equity funds,  Blackstone being one of the firms investments were handed off to, tripling fees being paid under Governor Christie while turning New Jersey into one of the nation's largest investors in hedge funds and then, and is now apparently trying to cover up "suddenly reporting higher results" . .  "a full 1% higher than previously announced".  "as if no one would notice the change."  See: New Jersey Funneling Pension Fund Cash to Wall Street Investment Managers, by David Dayen August 26, 2014 and Is New Jersey Fudging Its Pension Fund Results to Defuse a Christie Scandal? by Yves Smith, September 13, 2014.)
From the Financial Times article:
Even though these fees are increasingly refunded to investors, prominent institutions including some top university endowments are reluctant to back the most high-charging fund managers. "They have come up with a formula to enrich themselves more than their investors," says the chief of one leading US endowment.
The Financial Times article also examines ways that tax considerations contort private equity practices and funnel preferential benefits, another reason to close the kinds of loopholes that Schwarzman so watchfully protects.

Things may be coming home to roost, and there is one more sign that institutional investors, as the Times reports, are walking away from these deals more often: At the September 17, 2014 NYPL trustees meeting, home turf for Schwarzman, the trustees were told that the NYPL was implementing a shift in the last couple of years to take risk out of the portfolio, simplify and reduce fees.  Nevertheless, with 72% of its portfolio in public common stocks it still has 15% invested in alternative investments like hedge funds and 10% in private equity and real estate.

A Designated Villain?
Stephen A. Schwarzman leaving an NYPL trustees meeting March 12th outside of which demonstrators gathered to oppose the sale, shrinkage and deliberate underfunding of libraries.  Photo by Jonathan Barkey.
Are we being too hard on Mr. Schwarzman?  Are we asking too many hard, too many unfair questions?  Should we take less of a cue from, put less stock in how ostentatiously Mr. Schwarzman, himself, has declared himself to be antagonistically on one side of a class divide?

Is it just that Mr. Schwarzman sets himself up as too much of a target when he proclaims himself in superlatives, saying that Blackstone is, among other things, the world's largest real estate investment firm, the largest owner of houses in the United States, one of the "four largest placement agents," the world's largest investor in hedge funds, the "world's largest manager" (with $88 billion in 2008 and $200 billion in 2013) of "so-called alternative assets, such as private-equity, real-estate, and hedge funds-esoteric vehicles"mostly on behalf of "corporate and public pension funds, endowments of universities and other nonprofit institutions, insurance companies" with investors that included "Dartmouth College, Indiana University, the University of Texas, the University of Illinois, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and the Ohio Public Employee Retirement System."?
This 2008 New Yorker article's title reference's Wall Street Journal coverage of a birthday party Mr. Schwarzman threw for himself that garnered negative attention for its ultra-lavishness  
How much of Mr. Schwarzman's being such a conspicuously large target accounts for a 2008 New Yorker story commencing with an evaluation that, with a sort of Gordon Gekko emblematic emphasis, Mr. Schwarzman:
. . had become the designated villain of an era on Wall Street-an era of rapacious capitalists and heedless self-indulgence that had driven the Dow Jones Industrial Average to new highs, along with the prices of luxury real estate and contemporary art, while the incomes of ordinary Americans stagnated or fell.
(See: The Birthday Party- How Stephen Schwarzman became private equity’s designated villain, By James B. Stewart, February 11, 2008.)

Are there lines that just shouldn't be crossed when making making money?  For instance, even if we believe that virtually, by definition, prisons should never be privatized and subjected to the profit-making motivations of incarcerating more people longer and for lesser infractions,* if prisons are privatized should it be off limits to invest in them?
(* Michael Moore had some ghastly fun with this in his "Capitalism: A Love Story"documentary segment running through unfortunately true facts about private prison operators kicking back money to judges to keep children in prison, the "kids for cash scandal".)
Are we too quick to hold NYPL trustee Schwarzman accountable for the debacle that was the sale of the Donnell Library or for the push for even more library sell-offs and shrinkage with the NYPL's Central Library Plan that, although the NYPL did not publicize it, would have involved public expenditures of over half a billion dollars?  Mid-Manhattan and the 34th Street Science, Industry and Business libraries were to be sold while the research stacks of the Central Reference Library holding three million books were to be destroyed.

Is it within bounds to observe that pulling back on resources like libraries helps send more people to prison?  According to Neil Gaiman:
I was once in New York, and I listened to a talk about the building of private prisons - a huge growth industry in America. The prison industry needs to plan its future growth - how many cells are they going to need? How many prisoners are there going to be, 15 years from now? And they found they could predict it very easily, using a pretty simple algorithm, based on asking what percentage of 10 and 11-year-olds couldn't read. And certainly couldn't read for pleasure.
(See: The Guardian- Why our future depends on libraries, reading and daydreaming, October 15, 2013.)

Mr. Schwarzman is not the only plutocrat who invests in such anti-social, currently money-making activities as hydro-fracking, with all its myriad long-term pollutions, toxins, water usurpation, radioactivity, earthquakes . .   When it comes to the ravaging the entire planet for the benefit of a few with the promotion of more fossil fuel use that will significantly bump up the effects of global warming, Schwarzman isn't likely to catch with the Kochs brothers, or even just David.  Brother David lives in the same building as Schwarzman, 740 Park Avenue, now an infamous symbol of wealth, income and political inequality with assists from Alex Gibney's documentary “Park Avenue: Money, Power & the American Dream”* and the book that preceded it, "740 Park: The Story of the World's Richest Apartment Building," by Michael Gross.
(*  The film targets New York Senator Charles E. Schumer as "a chief culprit" in protecting the "tax break benefiting hedge-fund moguls" including Schwarzman.)
David Koch who, with his brother Charles have also been attacking universal national healthcare, seems to has his name ubiquitously on everything these days despite such other anti-social activities as financing climate science denial.  Why should we then care or consider it inappropriate that Mr. Schwarzman's name should have appeared on the NYPL's 42nd Street Central Reference Library that would have been so ruined by the real estate deal oriented shrinkage plans he supported?

I think the answer is that it isn't just Mr. Schwarzman and his activities we should be objecting to and even though we are not, per se, talking the 1%, (actually the top tenth of 1%, .01% of all Americans) where an increasing imbalance of wealth is piling up, there are multiple other individuals we should be concerned about in that elite and exclusive group. . .

. . . Maybe it can be argued that putting David H. Koch's name on ballet theaters, NOVA Science episodes, hospital centers, or new oil-black public fountains outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art (weren't we better off with the old fountains and plaza?) somehow ameliorates the fact that we are trading in our environment, probably together with the planet's future, by letting Charles and David pursue ever greater wealth in whatever manner they choose.  Maybe it can also be argued that, in this besieged world where the middle class is already being squeezed out of existence with the spoils divided up, pension funds are best off partaking in dismantling the jobs of other workers in their state to curtail losses.  (That argument is suspect, however, if these equity funds don't even keep pace with the broader stock market). . . .

. . .  Nevertheless, does it make sense for us as a society to be signing on to losing propositions that shuffle wealth upwards and then content ourselves with these booby prizes as consolation?  Unless we are all in abject surrender mode, isn't it time to remove David H. Koch's name from all those public properties to which he has affixed it and remove Stephen A. Schwarzman's name from the NYPL's 42nd Street Central Reference Library?  Thereafter shouldn't we put a halt to the anti-social activities that have financed such ill-advised public honorings whether they be Mr. Koch's, Mr. Schwarzman's or anyone else setting such lamentable examples?

Is Forest City Ratner, As Victor, Writing Our History?- WNYC's Press Release on Appointing Forest City Ratner's MaryAnne Gilmartin to Its Board of Trustees

$
0
0
“History is written by the victors.”   That's certainly the old adage that reflexively gets accepted as true by so many of us even without knowing who first said it.

But first the victor must wrest the pen that writes history into its own grasp. . .  That’s what Forest City Ratner seems to be trying to do when it comes to Atlantic Yards and its exploits in New York City.

In October Forest City Ratner’s Chief Executive Officer MaryAnne Gilmartin was appointed to the board of trustees of the board of New York Public Radio, better known as WNYC and its sister station WQXR, according to the press release appointing Gilmartin, “America's most listened-to AM/FM news and talk public radio stations.”  How did that happen?. . .

. . . Certainly not without a lot of maneuvering and purposeful intent on the part of Forest City Ratner.

The WNYC public radio stations are not are not only the “most listened-to” stations; there is also an implicit agreement with their listeners that, because they are listener financed, they can be trusted as a much more reliable source of earnest news reporting, an alternative free from the corrupting influence that saturates commercially owned and operated news media.  Accordingly, for instance, the idea that the WNYC family of stations provides in-depth news and information that is vastly superior to the kind of press release-conduit journalism that commercial stations put out was propounded again and in the sales pitches made during WNYC’s last fund-raising drive, just as that idea has been highlighted in the many years of fund-raisers before.  This most recent WNYC fund-raiser was subsequent to Ms. Gilmartin’s appointment to the WNYC board.

Ms. Gilmartin’s arrival at her policy-making trustee’s position on the WNYC board is reminiscent of another board’s takeover and ensuing 180-degree policy changes seen most clearly with respect to Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards: That of the once venerated Municipal Art Society.

The Municipal Art Society was once thought of as representing the public and standing up to developers in the face of abusive development.  Kent Barwick, when he was the head of MAS, called Atlantic Yards “the poster child for what goes wrong when process is ignored. . . a poorly designed project that has polarized the community and that squanders both opportunity and public trust.”   Not so long ago, MAS had scores of forums about development in the city invoking the name and principles of Jane Jacobs in which, while the moderators kept civil order, the Atlantic Yards mega-monopoly was excoriated by expert panelists and attending public alike, for a zillion villainous transgressions against the public interest.
  
More recently, after an orchestrated reconstituting of the board, essentially, as it was disclosed to me, happening as something of a coup, MAS has reversed itself to the extent that many no longer regard it as representing the public.  This new version of MAS has given not one, but two, awards the to the Atlantic Yards mega-development, essentially praising Forest City Ratner for the kind of neighborhood destruction that was previously decried, an absurdity that’s siren for satire, essentially an award for “preserving a swath of Prospect Heights by tearing it down to build the Ratner Prokhorov Barclays arena while letting the rest of the destroyed neighborhood acreage lie fallow for a few decades.”   (See: Monday, June 16, 2014, Ratner, Gilmartin & the MAS Onassis Medal: selective memory, glitzy gala, and enduring dismay.)

Just a few days ago I ran into a woman who was a new resident of New York who, without knowing any of the history of how MAS’s mission has been recently redirected, told me that she had attended a MAS event and unexpectedly found it an almost unbelievably depressing pro-development spectacle.  I don’t know. .  I wasn’t there, but I do know that there has been a massive exile of those who used to be involved with MAS, including its former president, Kent Barwick, to resurrect The City Club of New York.  What’s left of the former Municipal Art Society seems to have gobs of money, but its soul is and moral compass are lost.  In its place, the new, leaner City Club is shaping up credibly to fill in the void of what MAS once was.

There are, of course, other well-worn sayings about history.  One of the best known is George Santayana’s “When experience (which is history) is not retained...infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” which may be viewed as something of a retread of Cicero’s “Those who have no knowledge of what has gone before them must forever remain children.”  Malcolm X took a crack at essentially the same sentiment with: “History is a people's memory, and without a memory man is demoted to the lower animals.”

It provokes thought and fright to consider that when history is written by the victors it will be rewritten so that those things that should never have happened in the first place will happen again virtually by design.  In other words George Orwell’s, “Whoever controls the past controls the future.” 

This brings to mind another adage about victors and victory: “To the victor go the spoils.”  Getting to write history, the ability to control the past and thereby own the future too, may be viewed as just a subset of the spoils that the victors get to walk away with.

It is not then surprising that at the groundbreaking for the Ratner Atlantic Yards arena, Ratner and Atlantic Yards supporter Mayor Michael Bloomberg seemed to focus wishfully about his expectation of public forgetfulness to cement the highly controversial victories: “nobody's going to remember how long it took. They're only going to look and see that it was done.”  Such ablution via deficient memory extends to the cleansing almost any means-to-an-end in public debate and governance if only results matter.”  

The sad thing, if Forest City Ratner gets to write the history of Atlantic Yards, is that such writing of our history will not just be the consequence of victory, but another victory unto itself.  Although Forest City Ratner overpowered the public interest and the community to achieve many things it ought never to have achieved, I think it is quite fair to say that the community won a good share of the battles.  The most important was the laying bare of Forest City Ratner’s deceptive practices. That's more important even than the successful adjudication respecting such practices when the community won its environmental lawsuit.  These victories helped ensconce a public understanding of the abuses in the competing narratives of what happened.  In this way, the predatory Forest City Ratner cat was belled to warn those mice who might appeal to the cat as its future meals.

Evisceration of WNYC and the Municipal Art Society is a way of silencing that bell on the cat.  The “Braveheart” quote about writing history, put in the mouth of Robert the Bruce, is “history is written by those who have hanged heroes” with a concordant implication that those dead heroes and their deeds are then written out of our pasts.  That saps the spirit of resistance even further.  The heroes of the Atlantic Yards fight and other community battles may now be largely exhausted, having worked unpaid against well-financed minions.  They may have paid the price of many wounds, made many sacrifices.  We may even now think of some of them as the equivalent of the dead on the battlefield, but it’s truly grievous to think that all their hard work and truth that was brought to light by, for instance, the “No Land Grab” team or the “Battle For Brooklyn” documentary would be forgotten.

Maybe history will be rewritten so that WNYC’s future listeners or those going to next year’s MAS functions devolve, uninformed, into the feckless, perpetual infants or children of Cicero’s and Santayana’s admonitions, but on its own side of the fence Forest City Ratner is not going to forget its perfected playbook.  Similarly, other developers seeing what Ratner got away with will remember and emulate.  Which is to say that whatever battles have been won or lost it is still an ongoing war.

That brings us to what should be a number of critical realizations about the road we are not yet at the end of.  Yes, there is a question as to whether other developers will use, throughout the city, tactics Forest City Ratner used with respect to Atlantic Yards and its other New York City exploits going back to at least 2002, and there is the likelihood that Forest City Ratner’s tactics on future projects will resemble those its used on Atlantic Yards, but. . . .

. . .  Anyone who thinks that Forest City Ratner has won the Atlantic Yards war thinks in very circumscribed terms.

Completion of the Atlantic Yards mega-development from this point on could still take as much as another forty years.*  Even now, twelve years after Forest City Ratner started moving in to take over a swath of Prospect Heights with the threat of eminent domain, it has built only the arena (that's not even technically finished at this point as a corrective new secondary green roof is being built).  It has not built any housing.  It has not replaced any of the residential units it destroyed, including the low-income units it will never actually replace.  It has not replaced the businesses it evicted.  The one attempt Ratner has made to build a residential building stands halted, mired in a lawsuit about incompetence and may have to be torn down to be built again from scratch, its original estimated cost of $155 millionnow rising to perhaps $215 million or even $265 million.
(*  Even though the new, most recent, contractual deadline now theoretically stands as 2025, with the deal subject to perpetual negotiation with Forest City Ratner in the position of a politically muscular monopoly, no future terms can be assured.)
Forty years, or however many decades it actually takes to complete Atlantic Yards, affords ample opportunity for the community, albeit exhausted, to insist, as it should, that the mega-project be divided up and bid out to multiple developers, restoring the streets, sidewalks and avenues that Forest City Ratner has privatized.  Conversely, it affords opportunities galore for Forest City Ratner to reenact more times than we will be able to count what it has done at juncture after juncture, renegotiate repeatedly the terms of its monopoly to shift benefits increasingly in its favor.

In fact, as an example of how easily things can go one way or another, just recently in June, hardly anytime at all before the residential constructions problems and ensuing litigation about it was to be disclosed in August, something that would have made Ratner extremely vulnerable to finally losing monopoly control over the project especially given the community's litigation victory, Ratner slickly maneuvered, taking advantage of a new administration under the incoming mayor to renegotiate new terms for its deal (and more subsidy), once again more to its advantage.  Not knowing how how income eligibility bands were being rejiggered in the background, the representatives who ventured to negotiate for the community were snookered in the deal they'd probably have been better off never making no matter how good it was made to sound. Without cinching this deal, Ratner might have failed in his desperate deal selling a portion of the mega-project to the Chinese government. 

Consequently, Forest City Ratner is not presently the victor seeking to write history.  Still not yet the victor, it is simply doing what it has done from the start, seeking control of the news media and those who write the news in order control the narrative, in order to be the victor when all is said and done. . . .

If ever a definitive tale is told about the still-ongoing Atlantic Yards saga it is virtually certain to be in the form of the book on the subject that Norman Oder is writing.  Mr. Oder writes Atlantic Yards Report (currently retitled “Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park Report” in view of the fact that the Ratner firm euphemistically rechristened its project to divorce its self from years of bad press).  Atlantic Yards Report originally began as the “Times Ratner Report” much of its earliest focus being about how irresponsible and misleading the coverage of Atlantic Yards by the New York Times was. 

Conception of the Atlantic Yards project goes back to the summer of 2002.  In February of 2001 an eminent domain land deal was reached that turned Forest City Ratner into a real estate partner with the New York Times to construct its new headquarters.  For more about how the questionable reporting by the Times undoubtedly assisted Ratner’s Atlantic Yards to advance and ultimately succeed as far as it has, see:  Sunday, June 26, 2011, “Page One: Inside the New York Times” Reviewed; Plus The “New York Times Effect” on New York’s Biggest Real Estate Development Swindle.

This means that rather than being anything new, Forest City Ratner's encroachment into the theoretical bastion of public radio and public broadcasting is just a shifting of the previous line of influence, a pushing forward to dominate more completely by extending tactics previously used successfully by Ratner.  In fact, while public radio has done better in the past to escape the influence of Ratner and the real estate industry, the same cannot be said of New York City’s WNET public television station where criticism of the city’s real estate is never heard, but Forest City Ratner has gotten great promotion on Charlie Rose.  (See:  Monday, April 2, 2012, Charlie Rose Does Infomercial For Forest City Ratner and Tuesday, April 3, 2012, Channel 13, New York's Premier Public Television Station, Provides Promotion For The Ratner/Prokhorov Barclays Basketball Arena: What To Do About It?)

Ratner is also well infiltrated into the Brooklyn Academy of Music and the Brooklyn Museum.

Ms. Gilmartin’s first WNYC trustees meeting is scheduled to be Wednesday, December 3, 2014.  Before that, Tuesday November 18, 2014, the WNYC Community Advisory Board is meeting at 7:00 PM at St. Francis College in Brooklyn Heights.  The Community Advisory Board is supposed to take comment from the public about the station’s operations.  At their last meeting the CAB groused that far too few members of the public come to their meetings.  (With Gilmartin's appointment  they may be on the verge of ironic solution.) 

The WNYC Community Advisory Board was established to comply with the Public Telecommunications Act the purpose of which extends to providing “a source of alternative telecommunications” that will be “responsive to the interests of people.”  To receive public funds public broadcasters must have Community Advisory Boards to review the “programming goals established by the station, the service provided by the station, and the significant policy decisions rendered by the station.”  (emphasis supplied)

Under that rubric, it would seem that Ms. Gilmartin’s appointment to her policy-setting position on the WNYC board should be of vital concern to the CAB.  To argue, contrarily, that it is only a board appointment and that the CAB should wait and be concerned only when station policy actually changes after enough board members of Ms. Gilmartin’s ilk have been appointed would be to say the CAB should react to close the barn door only after there has already been an irreversible escape of the horse.

CAB members face a conundrum in regard to whether they will screw their courage to the sticking point and object to Ms. Gilmartin’s appointment.  According to the by-laws of the Community Advisory Board: “CAB members are subject to the approval of the [WNYC Board of Trustees] or its designees, including members re-nominated for a second term.”- . . .

. . . . That means that, by getting appointed to the WNYC Board of Trustees, Forest City Ratner head MaryAnne Gilmartin now has a say-so about who is on the Community Advisory Board supposedly watch-dogging her implementation of station policy.

Although the Community Advisory Board should probably be recommending Gilmartin's removal from the board and holding up her appointment as an example of what never ought to be done again, if they do, it could subject their members to her vengeance.

Although WNYC is keeping confidential more specifics and the deliberations that were involved, we know that the Trusteeship Committee (comprised of the following Trustees: Tom Bernstein, Martha Fleischman, Anton Levy, Herb Scannell, Lauren Seikaly, Peter Shapiro, Susan Solomon, Nicki Tanner, Andrea Taylor, Keith Thomas, Cynthia King Vance, Laura Walker and Alan Weiler) nominated Forest City Ratner CEO MaryAnne Gilmartin for trusteeship after an evaluation they were supposed to make of her qualifications and suitability for service and probably someone on the committee identified Ms. Gilmartin as a potential candidate for trustee.

Since WNYC is not telling us we have to guess while noting that it could even have been WNYC president Laura Walker who pushed Gilmartin's nomination forward.

A hint that Ms. Gilmartin might have been coming to the WNYC board involved her bizarre appearance back in July accompanied by WNYC president Laura Walker fluffing up a Brian Lehrer show segment about how to get `a good night’s sleep,' something, as commented by me at the time, it's questionable that Ms. Gilmartin actually deserves.  Giving a burnishing heft to Ms. Gilmartin's credentials though not necessarily making her being there seem less odd, Arianna Huffington was also a part of this surreal segment. Oh, Oh, WNYC!  Oh Brian!  See: Wednesday, July 16, 2014, On Brian Lehrer, FCR's Gilmartin reports on CEO Sleep Experiment.

If and when WNYC policies begin to change subsequent to this Gilmartin appointment it is doubtful that we see that change manifest in Brian Lehrer losing his prominent morning slot in the near future: He is expert at what he does, beloved by his audience, young enough to be around for a long time and, although moderating with reasonable fairness, he has never expressed hostility toward Atlantic Yards.  We would be more likely to see change creep in with a replacement of a retiring Leonard Lopate, an older broadcaster who has more regularly acknowledged the legitimate basis for the community's dissatisfactions with the megadevelopment.  It would be nice if Mr. Lopate were around to interview Mr. Oder when his awaited book comes out, but who knows when that will be as the Atlantic Yards saga continues to lumber forward in surprising ways frustratingly postponing any neat point at which to wrap up.  Mr. Lopate could likely be replaced by someone who, on the spectrum, is more more likely to be confused with a corporate lapdog than Brian Lehrer, perhaps friendlier to developers like Ratner than even Charlie Rose.

In pertinent part the press release announcing the appointment of Ms. Gilmartin to its board reads in cheery PR speak as follows:
NEW YORK PUBLIC RADIO ANNOUNCES FOUR ADDITIONS TO ITS BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Richard Brail, MaryAnne Gilmartin, Loretta Brennan Glucksman, and Brad Whitman Named to the New York Public Radio Board of Trustees

(New York, NY – October 9, 2014)– New York Public Radio today announced that Richard Brail, Managing Director and Head of the Media, Entertainment, Communications and Technology Group at Peter J. Solomon Company, and MaryAnne Gilmartin, President and CEO of Forest City Ratner Companies, have been elected to its Board of Trustees. Loretta Brennan Glucksman, Chairman Emeritus of the American Ireland Fund, and Brad Whitman, Vice Chairman in the Financial Institutions Group at Morgan Stanley, were also recently elected to the Board at the Spring meeting of the Board of Trustees.
As a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, New York Public Radio is governed by an independent Board of Trustees that meets regularly throughout the year. There are currently 35 NYPR Trustees, headed by Cynthia King Vance, Chair. Information on all Trustees can be found here.

“Rich, MaryAnne, Loretta, and Brad bring vast experience in business, media and non-profit governance that will advance both the work of the Board and the mission of New York Public Radio,” said Laura R. Walker, President and CEO, New York Public Radio.“I look forward to collaborating with them to keep New York Public Radio at the forefront of digital innovation, award-winning content creation and enterprise journalism that enriches the lives of New Yorkers and audiences around the world.”

“I am delighted to welcome Rich, MaryAnne, Loretta, and Brad to New York Public Radio’s Board of Trustees,” said Cynthia King Vance, Chair, Board of Trustees, New York Public Radio.“These accomplished leaders bring a passion for public radio and new and valuable perspectives to a highly engaged Board of Trustees. We are lucky to have them join us as we reach for even more ambitious heights at New York Public Radio.”

* * * *

MaryAnne Gilmartin is President and Chief Executive Officer of Forest City Ratner Companies. She has been point person in the development of some of the most high-profile real estate projects in New York City. Ms. Gilmartin led the efforts to build Barclays Center and Pacific Park Brooklyn, a 22-acre mixed-use development. Ms. Gilmartin also oversaw the development of The New York Times Building, designed by Renzo Piano and New York by Gehry, the tallest residential building in the Western Hemisphere, designed by Frank Gehry. In addition to these projects, Ms. Gilmartin has managed the commercial portfolio at MetroTech Center in Downtown Brooklyn, which consists of 6.7 million square feet of Class A office space. Ms. Gilmartin served proudly for over 7 years on the New York City Ballet Advisory Board. Currently, Ms. Gilmartin serves as a Board Trustee for the Brooklyn Academy of Music (BAM); a Member of the Board of Governors of the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY); and as a Member of the Industry Advisory Board of the MS Real Estate Development Program at Columbia University.

* * * *

New York Public Radio is New York’s premier public radio franchise, comprising WNYC, WQXR, The Jerome L. Greene Performance Space, and New Jersey Public Radio, as well as www.wnyc.org, www.wqxr.org, www.thegreenespace.org, and www.njpublicradio.org. As America's most listened-to AM/FM news and talk public radio stations, WNYC extends New York City's cultural riches to the entire country on-air and online, produces award-winning programming for local and national audiences, and curates the best offerings from networks NPR, Public Radio International, American Public Media, and the British Broadcasting Company. WQXR is New York City's sole 24-hour classical music station, presenting new and landmark classical recordings as well as live concerts from the Metropolitan Opera, the New York Philharmonic, and Carnegie Hall, among other New York City venues, immersing listeners in the city's rich musical life. In addition to its audio content, WNYC and WQXR produce content for live, radio and web audiences from The Jerome L. Greene Performance Space, the station's street-level multipurpose, multiplatform broadcast studio and performance space. New Jersey Public Radio extends WNYC’s reach and service more deeply into New Jersey. For more information about New York Public Radio, visit www.nypublicradio.org.

# # #   
Press release about Gilmartin appointment, page one, click to enlarge
Press release about Gilmartin appointment, page two, click to enlarge
Ms. Gilmartin brings a "passion for public radio and new and valuable perspectives to a highly engaged Board of Trustees"?  And, we are lucky to have Ms. Gilmartin join WNYC "as we reach for even more ambitious heights at New York Public Radio.”  Really?  Plus there's that cleverly oblique reference that Ms. Gilmartin has been the "point person in the development of some of the most high-profile real estate projects in New York City."*
(*  Commenting on this article Norman Oder in Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park Report post 11/18/2014 writes: "Forest City has a passion for shaping perception--such as the erasing-history effort to rename Atlantic Yards as Pacific Park. - So even the capsule biography of Gilmartin,surely supplied by her office for the press release, is part of that effort [incorporated in the WNYC Press Release!]. According to the press release, Gilmartin `led the efforts to build Barclays Center and Pacific Park Brooklyn, a 22-acre mixed-use development.'- Actually, Pacific Park Brooklyn hasn't been built yet. The first tower is stalled. The second break ground next month.")
Another item in the press release that's probably of interest in this context is that Brad Whitman also being appointed to the board, although now with Morgan Stanley, came from Barclays Bank just months before where he was head of mergers for financial institutions.  Barclays is the bank whose name is on the Ratner arena. That prominent public spot was sold to it as advertising, confusing what the public should think about its misconduct.  The world is too entirely too small, isn't it?
(click to enlarge) The kind of public interest advertising we might see in the subway if the public were coming up with funds for what's posted there.  Instead, the recidivist Barclays has the subway station and publicly paid for arena named after it to wash away thoughts of its misdeeds.
Forest City Ratner has never done a project without deep publicly paid for subsidy and it has never done a project where it was selected by competitive bid.  Its modus operandi in pursuing its usually large scale crony capitalistic deals is to get on the political inside, buying elected officials with campaign contributions and then misrepresent what is going on, that which the public is getting and what the public is losing. 

For a little more background on this and Ms. Gilmartin's appointment, see: Saturday, October 11, 2014, The Forest City Ratner Cafe, at the Brooklyn Children's Museum, and Gilmartin's new role on WNYC board, Atlantic Yards Report- Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park Report- Atlantic Yards, Pacific Park, and the Culture of Cheating, Tuesday, December 1, 2009, Unfair Substitution of Fiction For Fact in the Atlantic Yards Dialogue and Wednesday, July 18, 2012, Noticing New York's Hearing Testimony Re New York City Housing Development Corporation's Subsidization of Ratner's Atlantic Yards Mega-Monopoly.

Am I being too inhospitable, too unwelcoming to Ms. Gilmartin's arrival at WNYC?  Should one's attitude be more of a civilized "live and let live" approach where commercial and noncommercial interests could cohabit in the public broadcasting space, exchanging ideas with he-said/she-said balances?  Would that be the right resolution?  Could we expect that cohabiting commercial interests in public broadcasting would restrain themselves and not use the usual tactics of superior financial resources to overwhelm? . .

. . I don't think so.   Public broadcasting is supposed to be the alternative to other broadcasting already steeped in and motivated by commercialism (dubbed the "vast wasteland" when public broadcasting was conceived- "endlessly screaming, cajoling commercials"), not another sandbox where commercialism can play in a different guise getting elevated to equal footing with the public interest and that which the public wants to pay for.

There are those reading what I write here who will say that public broadcasting is already too infected by and susceptible to the influences of commercialism.  Environmental Action has a current campaign against what are essentially bought and paid for pro-fracking advertisements on public radio:
"NPR has been accepting millions of dollars in "sponsorship" from the fracking front-group known as ANGA. In exchange for their support, NPR hosts like Steve Inskeep, Melissa Block and Audie Cornish routinely read messages that blatantly misrepresent the dangers of fracking to our planet and people.
(See: Fracking the signal.)
Indeed, too often NPR and APR's MarketPlace (we won't review the complicated pluralistic structure of public broadcasters here) have run one-sided stories about how good fracking will be for the economy that appear to have come straight from that industry's press department representatives.  But the fact that these inroads have been made is not a reason to let there be more.

No, Forest City Ratner and MaryAnne Gilmartin don't cohabit nicely in the sandbox with others and they don't share toys.  When they want the property that you have they take it for themselves by eminent domain, stealth, cheating, and dirty and brute politics.  And that is why MaryAnne Gilmartin should not be on the board of New York Public Radio setting policy, including news reporting and public dialogue policy, for the WNYC family of radio stations.

BPL’s Bklyn BookMatch- A Match For The Human Race’s Book Future?: Electronic Books and Robot Librarians?

$
0
0
Brooklyn Public Library president Linda E. Johnson envisions staff reductions if her idea of a “new” state-of-the-art Brooklyn Library is ever built, not surprising since the “new” library she wants to “replace” the exiting one would be a mere fraction of the current library’s size.  Such staff reductions would follow on the heels of staff reductions at the BPL and a switching away from professional library staff that has been going on for a long time now. Librarians who once ran libraries have been replaced with “site managers” which sounds more like a real estate term. The BPL has also shifted away, in general, from hiring professional trained librarians, replacing them with lower-level clerks.

Ms. Johnson said that she did not know exactly how many fewer librarians would work at a smaller Brooklyn Heights Library in Downtown Brooklyn, that “the numbers have yet to be determined," but that her hope is that when built the "new building will be a model of efficiency" with a reduced staff that would not have to compensate for the drawbacks of dealing with a library that was of an "improperly" large size.

But does Ms. Johnson (problematically not a librarian herself) even know what a librarian should be, what functions they perform by being on site?  At the BPL’s September 16, 2014 trustees meeting, Ms. Johnson and her staff proudly unveiled a way to replace on-site reference librarians with an electronic service substitute, a sort of virtual reference librarian system that can respond to a patron's inquiry, and by virtue of calculating "appeal factors" (BPL’s terminology to describe the service) will tell e-mailers what books they want to read with a week's turnaround time.

Here is a quote from the presentation given the trustees:
You don't usually get this chance to have such a conversation with someone at the reference library desk.
Of course, as you are not face to face with a live person this won't be exactly such a chance either, but it goes along with how we shrink libraries for real estate deals.  The  BPL says it's recommended that the responding e-librarians try to make these responses "as personable as possible."

How will this work?  You might stroll into your local library to begin this computerized interaction to help find and discover what books you want to read.  Linda Johnson’s vision of any library into which you might stroll is a place from which physical books will soon almost entirely disappear. Books take up space and, when they disappear, libraries can be made much smaller, facilitating selling off their real estate, like with the Brooklyn Heights Library, the Donnell Library or the NYPL’s Central Library Plan (derailed at the moment).

If you stroll into a bookless library for your computerized interaction you won’t have the other ways of selecting books available to you.  You won’t be able to browse the shelves or discover that a book you really want but didn’t know about is adjacent to the book you thought you wanted to find (“it’s never the book you want, it’s the book beside the book.”). You won’t find the book you didn’t yet know you wanted because it luckily attracted your attention by being  unusually and promisingly fat sitting on the shelf, because it was unusually thin, because it was lovingly worn out, and unusually old.  You won't find it because it was in sparkling just-arrived condition, or because it caught your eye on the reshelving cart or as a librarian reshelved it because somebody else hot on the trail of the same kinds of things you might be looking for might just have used it.  You won’t start up a conversation because you have bumped into someone else with your interests wandering in the same section.  There will be none of this kind of `serendipity’ (if that’s what one should call it). And it's unlikely you’ll take home a book home from that bookless library that same day.

You might not choose to go into the library at all for your computerized interaction, the benefit of ever visiting that physical library perhaps being minimal, unless you are one of the 27% of New Yorkers that the NYPL estimates are currently on the other side of the digital divide and are without broadband internet access.  If you don't have your own internet access you may still be impelled to visit a physical library.

But where does this vaporous e-relationship go from here (even as we might have to struggle to describe what “here” is):
    •    Maybe, the beginning is that the e-responding “reference librarian” is in some (central?) Brooklyn location from which all such inquiries from Brooklynites get answered.
    •    The three New York City library systems, the BPL covering Brooklyn, the Queens Library covering Queens, and the NYPL covering Manhattan the Bronx and Staten Island too, have been in talks to coordinate and consolidate operations.  Would this electronic service not seem a service high on the list for such consolidation of operations?  Where will the e-responses be generated from then?
    •    At the BPL trustees meeting it was noted that the BPL was only one such library in the country launching such a system now, that other library systems are doing similar things.  Maybe then, very soon, all these systems can consolidate.  Then the e-responses to Brooklynites can come from someplace in the Mid-West where the cost of living is cheaper and salaries lower.
     •    But we have seen such out-sourcing in the past and what has ultimately happened often is that the work has been outsourced to foreign countries like India where, while many people still speak and read English, the salaries are still even markedly lower.
     •    But, would our libraries still want to continue to run these contracted-out services themselves at all?  The New York City’s library system administrators are clearly bowing to the influence of money and money-influenced politics and elected officials when they plan to sell public libraries to benefit private real estate developers.  Isn't it likely that library system administrators of such a mind set would be convinced to simply contract out these services to the private sector?  Doesn’t Amazon have an an algorithmic advice infrastructure already set up to assist people in deciding what they want to read?  Wouldn’t Amazon be the perfect candidate to take over the whole system?  If that happened, the Washington Post, now owned by Amazon owner Jeff Bezos, who acquired that newspaper at a premium, could then write in the paper's style section a clever and cheeky little article about how state-of-the art and efficient this new Amazon service was.  Truly, mightn't Amazon know best that “Customers Who Read This Item Also Read. . . .”
     •      New York library administrators continue to push to overcome public resistance as they seek to shift patrons away from physical books and over to the electronic books.  Amazon can supply those books and that way Amazon can keep track of each page you read on your Kindle and how long you spend reading it and. . . . that way Amazon can make very good recommendations.
   •    Will it be actual professional reference librarians who provide these services in the future?   . . . Or will there be shortcuts?  Maybe even the obvious ultimate shortcut: Perhaps, after the system has made do for a time with workers in India (that did or, like Ms. Johnson, didn’t spend time in school to claim library degrees), the system will progress to what could be the inevitable next step. . .  the e-responders need not be human beings at all!  With a few of those Amazon-copyrighted algorithms mashed up with some Artificial Intelligence programs there could be a set-up that works beautifully with the “bots” that these days roam our virtual universe without our being able to tell the difference.
Is there anything wrong with all this?  Can’t we simply hail it as the marvel of efficiency that it probably and most certainly is?

The book collections of New York’s libraries used to be curated by librarians assigned to the different area libraries who got to know their communities and would attend book-fair events to assess, based on their familiarity with their patrons, what books should be added to that particular library’s collection.  More recently, decisions about what books will be made available in local libraries around the city are being made more `efficiently’ from a central administrative location. It's done based on call slip data that can be aggregated and then the frequency with which a book is borrowed stands in for its value.

When City Council member Ben Kallos met with Citizens Defending Libraries (as a co-founder of Citizens Defending Libraries I was part of that meeting) he identified a pitfall with this approach: At one point he had been involved in efforts to substantially augment the supply of Japanese language books in the Roosevelt Island Library.  The library administration officials soon wanted to get rid of the books again. . .  Because there were nocall slips showing that the community was borrowing the books.  The books were, in fact, being used, Kallos explained, but due to cultural difference they were being used by patrons visiting the library and reshelving the books after reading them, not thinking in terms of taking them out of the library.  The library was regarded as the place to do one’s reading of library books.

In what is now known as the slow food movement we speak increasingly and ever more universally of the importance of food being grown locally and as having a “terroir,” a term once more often used narrowly to describe how the taste of wine reflected the special characteristics infused by where the grapes used to make a wine were grown.  Is it possible that when it comes to the brain food of books and libraries that this concept applies as well? Could it apply to an even greater degree?   Or is the importance of `locality'reserved for other things?  As far as I know, location, location, location is still the motto of the real estate industry 

Let me drum up some gloom.

A couple of weeks ago I went to the first day of a two-day conference held at Cooper Union on the dystopian aspects and perfidious promises of technology (Techno-Utopianism and the Fate of the Earth).  The conference organizers managed to put together an impressive 24 hours worth of speakers (Bill McKibben and Ralph Nader were featured Saturday night) on subjects that were individually highly fascinating, but in the aggregate bleakly depressing, especially given the warnings being dispensed about everything from Monsanto’s Genetically Modified Organism strategies, to synthetic biology, to the Genetic Redesign of Human Beings. . 

.  Some of the themes and insights discussed were how techo-fixes are destined to disappoint and lead ever onward to the need for more techo-fixes (Michael Huesemann), and how illusory technicalprogress” has substituted as a distraction for what once was the goal of social progress (John M. Greer).

Many of the speakers came back to certain common refrains like how technology can lead to massive and rapid societal dislocations (corporate land grabs in Africa and third world countries- Anuradha Mittal- or replacing dairy farmers with factories that produce synthetic milk from vats of genetically altered yogurt- Jim Thomas) and how those in control and already at the pinnacles of power regularly forerun the game, steering the promise of technology (or often just masquerades of its promise- GMO’s that don’t really produce more food or are not close to being off the drawing board, “yellow rice” that does not actually supply vitamins better than alternatives) to seize and redistribute even more power and wealth to themselves.*  These two things, dislocations and increased imbalances of wealth and power, are often related.
(*  It is interesting to note that, according to one speaker at the conference, Clive Hamilton, the same companies that spend to heavily sponsor climate science denial are also investing in and promoting “geoengineering” schemes to artificially cool down a warmed-up planet like pumping sulfur into the upper atmosphere. . . Talk about the your techno-fixes coming with awful downsides and unforeseeable ramifications!-  You mean it's not just satire?)
The comparative superiority and reliability of the natural and organically evolved existing order of things was also frequently mentioned, together with observations of how technicians tend to ignore such superiorities with anthropocentric hubris.  Efforts to de-extinct the Passenger Pigeon, likely to be futile, are phenomenally expensive and resource-absorbing compared to preserving existing threatened species (David Ehrenfeld) . . .  Aquanautic swarming robots designed to chop up jellyfish that clog and shut down nuclear power plants around the world (Eileen Crist) are a side-show compared to the global warming and overfishing that cause these exploding populations that some fear may soon take over the oceans entirely.

As we ascend into the techosphere of an ethereal ethernet existence does the concept of place, physical existence and physical interactions fall by the wayside, no longer important?  That’s a hard question.

Last month I attended WNYC/WQXR’s Community Advisory Board meeting and Graham Parker, General Manager and Vice President of WQXR, spoke about his goal for WQXR, the New York classical music radio station, to succeed as a worldwide radio station:.  He referred to “grand ambitions” to be “the Number One brand in classical music” with many listeners already in Ireland, Japan, Korea and China.  He cited a recent 19% growth in international listeners, and a 34% growth in national users.  This is an example of “placelessness,” of, as Mr. Parker put it, succeeding “way beyond our terrestrial borders.” At the same time Mr. Parker expressed optimism about fulfilling that ambition because, based in New York (an example of “placeness”), WQXR was well-situated to do so:   "New York is the best place to launch yourself from, into a national or international market.  We’ve got the best of everything in this city, and we’ve got the access to it."
    
For better or worse, another aspect of this is that WQXR views itself as competing with every other classical music station in the world.  That competition may make for better quality and increase the variety of high-quality offerings that listeners who are able to roam an entire globe of offerings can choose from, but, conversely, it also can ultimately diminish who, on the other side of this equation, gets to participate in accessing the global audiences.  A classical listener listening to another classical music station is not listening to WQXR and, vice versa, a listener to WQXR elsewhere on some far away spot of the globe is not listening to their local station.

It is akin to the situation with what have been termed "Massive Open Online Courses" or "MOOCs"  These can be viewed as a tool for democratizing higher education, making the instruction of excellent university professors available to multitudes world-wide at little or virtually no seeming cost to the immediate beneficiaries.  But in “Who Owns the Future?” author Jaron Lanier raises concerns.  There are“qualms about mono-culture” tied in with the fact that you are playing a high-stakes winner-take-all star system game.  He also wonders whether:
. . .on-line efforts of this sort could create siren servers, even nonprofit ones, which could end up undermining the finances and security of academics. . .

. . .  Students at colleges ranked lower than Stanford would tune in to Stanford seminars, and gradually wonder why they’re paying their local, lower-ranked academics at all.  If locals are to remain valuable once a globalized star system comes into being over the ‘net, it can only be because they are present and interactive.

But online experts can also be made virtually present and interactive. . .  Artificial intelligence can animate a simulated tutor. . .
Why should we keep on paying for colleges?  Why pay [to support] a privileged class of middle-class people? . .
* * * * 
This is a pattern we’ll see over and over again. . . You get an incredible bargain up front. . , but in the long term you also face reduced job prospects.  In this case. .  fewer academic jobs. .
. . .Get educated for free. . But don’t plan on a job as an educator.
He also observes: "digital networks have thus far been mostly applied to reduce [the] benefits of locality," the ability to be a"local star"knowing, and locally serving with particularity a local neighborhood.


Notwithstanding, I have a certain love of technology so I don't want to be overly negative.

And It would be unfair of me to present theories about where the future of electronically accessed off-site reference librarians might take us without first finding out the experience that this service presents now.  Accordingly, I decided to try it out.

The Bklyn BookMatch site presents a form with the questions (bolded below) to which I responded as set forth below:
Are you looking for any specific reading recommendations? If so, please explain below. Otherwise, please share the titles, authors and/or types of books you enjoy, and why: *

I have found extremely enlightening books about how we collectively create value in society, culturally, economically, technologically, and politically, largely through what we share and the ways we interact, how the multiplicity and variety of those interactions accelerate and contribute to advancement, essentially why "civilization" and "city" as words share the same route.

I seek out books for insight about the world that will, hopefully, improve my instincts (escaping or countering pulls in wrong directions) and equip me with tools for my own participation in that dynamic, hopefully responsibly and justly. Reiterating somewhat, I am attracted to ideas about the importance of the public realm, the public commons, the need to respect and protect it, and the rules humankind makes up, democracy included, in efforts to shape our shared society even as the world organically self-organizes itself.

Though civilization may represent what humankind complexly unites to create, I have found terrifically consonant edification in books reminding us that the natural realm is foundationally shared too, communally by all the planet's species, with convincing analysis that economics and ecology, functioning with similar overlapping principles, ultimately meld to erase dividing lines when it comes to establishing the interactive balances essential to thrive or survive.

Topics of particular interest: Communications industry, concepts of property and forms of ownership, money in politics and reforms to address it, organic development, and checks and balances on power, hubris and imbalanced dominions.

        Titles and authors I enjoy:

"The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires," by Tim Wu. I enjoy its brilliant illustration of how, without corrective intervention, the communications industries bend toward monopoly or monopsony with probably detrimental cultural, political and societal consequence.

"Common as Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership," by Lewis Hyde. It convincingly makes the case for the societal advancement and organic benefits that derive from knowledge that's shared as part of a broad and extensive commons.

All of Jane Jacobs' books, including the most obscure, "The Question of Separatism: Quebec and the Struggle over Sovereignty." Jacobs is more famous for a single book, "The Death and Life of Great American Cities," but I especially like most of her more developed work: "The Economy of Cities,""Cities and the Wealth of Nations,""Systems of Survival" and "The Nature of Economies." I enjoy Jacobs' rigor and preference to learn from the closely observed rather than through the received prisms of the theories of experts.

As more elucidation about Jacobs, I enjoyed the book by Jacobs' protege, Roberta Brandes Gratz: "The Battle for Gotham: New York in the Shadow of Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs."

"The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York," by Robert A. Caro. Caro's perpetual preoccupation with the intricate working of power was first addressed to this era of urban change.

"Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898 (The History of New York City)," by Mike Wallace. I live in New York, so knowing about its history informs what I observe around me.

"The Federalist Papers," by assorted Founding Fathers, John Jay, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton. How important the understanding and thinking about the need for checks and balances on human faults and frailty and what mechanisms will work.

"Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It," by Lawrence Lessig. A study of how money in politics delivers bad decisions and outcomes and how the problem of that money can be counteracted.

"Who Owns the Future?" By Jaron Lanier. This book fascinatingly grapples with the anomaly of how wealth in the technological era is created, in a broad-based way, via the contributions of all of us, and yet technology concentrates wealth in a few, economically squeezing the middle class to an ever greater degree economically and in humanistic terms.

Examples: Accelerating technological improvements mean "that more and more things can be done practically for free . . . When machines get incredible cheep to run, people seem correspondingly expensive." and "If observation of you yields data that makes it easier for a robot to seem [like you and replace you] then you ought to be owed money for [that]. This is such a simple starting point that I find it credible, and I hope to persuade you about that as well."

"The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution," by Francis Fukuyama. Looking at how we evolve better, stable governance.

"The Wealth of Nations," by Adam Smith. A seminal work on how capitalism works all on its own and, also, how it doesn't.

"The Uses of Disorder: Personal Identity and City," by Richard Sennett. Sennett builds on Jane Jacobs' theme that humankind's attraction to ordering the world can be unhealthy and stifle growth.

I also like books that provide insight into real people exercising important influences today, often finding them of increased interest when they are older and overlooked, perhaps written for a different intended purpose. In that category I would put-

"Bloomberg by Bloomberg," by Michael R. Bloomberg with help from Matthew Winkler. The book, released as Bloomberg prepared to launch into politics, contains an intriguing admission that when giving money to "charities" Bloomberg always considered what he was getting back in exchange.

"More Than They Bargained For- The Rise and Fall of Korvettes," by Isadore Barmash. A postmortem of how the once-successful Korvettes' chain devolved into the failure of a sell off of its substantial well-located real estate assets. Important because one of the characters in the saga is Marshal Rose, current NYC real estate magnate and simultaneously a trustee of the NYPL that is now looking to sell-off and shrink libraries as real estate deals.

Are there any authors and/or types of books that you don't like? Why?

“Robert Moses and the Modern City: The Transformation of New York,” by Hilary Ballon.  This “reexamination of Moses” comes across as too conveniently aligned with a suspect agenda to justify a return to large scale top-down planning.*

(*  Submitting this particular response was difficult.  The answer to the question had to be limited in length and I kept getting back messages I had to shorten it to be under the "maximum 255 characters long" even when I was under that character.  When I got down to 196 characters the program accepted my answer.)
Here is the response I got from the electronically available reference librarian.  Portions of it, as you likely can tell, were cut and pasted from elsewhere (usually text available in multiple locations on the internet including publishers websites) and I have highlighted those sections hyper-linking back to such other locations where the text can be found. Only one book description could not be found on Amazon, the one about U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor.  Amazon's description was, in this case, a somewhat customized version.  I did not, as predicted, have to wait a whole week to get my response back from email address: `AskALibrarian@oclc.org'.  I sent in my request middle of the day Friday and the response came back to me at the end of the day the following Monday.
Greetings from Brooklyn Public Library

Dear Mr. White,

Thank you for using Bklyn BookMatch! Based on your interests, I’ve created a customized reading list for you. The books I've selected cover a wide range of topics and interests, much like your impeccable reading taste.  In the list below you will find titles focused on technology, economics, the natural world, and more.  Please feel free to respond with any feedback.  Enjoy!
Based on your interest in economics and politics:

1.  Capitalism: A Ghost Story by Arundhati Roy
Based on your interest in economics and technology:
2.  Too Big To Know by David Weinberger
Based on your interest in important people and their impact in today's world:
3.  My Beloved World by Sonia Sotomayor

With startling candor and intimacy, Sonia Sotomayor recounts her life from a Bronx housing project to the federal bench, a progress that is testament to her extraordinary determination and the power of believing in oneself. She writes of her precarious childhood and the refuge she took with her passionately spirited paternal grandmother. She describes her resolve as a young girl to become a lawyer, and how she made this dream become reality: valedictorian of her high school class, summa cum laude at Princeton, Yale Law, prosecutor in the Manhattan D.A.'s office, private practice, federal district judge before the age of forty. She writes about her deeply valued mentors, about her failed marriage, about her cherished family of friends. Through her still-astonished eyes, America's infinite possibilities are envisioned anew in this warm and honest book, destined to become a classic of self-discovery and self-invention, alongside Barack Obama's Dreams from My Father.
Based on your interest in economics and technology:
4.  Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy by Lawrence Lessig
Based on your interest in the natural world and its connection to man and humankind:
5.  The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primatesby Frans de Waal
In this lively and illuminating discussion of his landmark research, esteemed primatologist Frans de Waal argues that human morality is not imposed from above but instead comes from within. Moral behavior does not begin and end with religion but is in fact a product of evolution...Rich with cultural references and anecdotes of primate behavior, The Bonobo and the Atheist engagingly builds a unique argument grounded in evolutionary biology and moral philosophy. Ever a pioneering thinker, de Waal delivers a heartening and inclusive new perspective on human nature and our struggle to find purpose in our lives.

I've also made a booklist for you in our online catalog: http://bit.ly/1xy8Zek.  You'll notice a few more titles not mentioned above - these are just a few more recommendations.  Once you sign in to your account, you can easily place holds on any or all of these books. 

Please don't hesitate to reply to this message letting us know what you think about my suggestions and this service. Happy reading!
My response?  It's below.  I had to be honest:
I love these recommendations.  Thank you.

Interestingly, Sonya Sotomayor was a board member at one of the government agencies where I once worked, and, at one point, I wrote an article in the form of an "open letter" to her about eminent domain abuse.

As for the bonobos, that is relevant to some of Francis Fukuyama's discussion.  I recall, we currently believe that chimps and bonobos are both more closely related to humans than they are to each other-  Hmm.  Figure that out.  (Link below.) Francis Fukuyama focused in on the behavior of chimps and might have gone in a somewhat different direction in his thoughts if he'd focused on bonobos.
This librarian sounds like a nice and interesting person.  Wouldn't you like to meet her in person?
The email I got back gave her name and specified her title as "Librarian, Brooklyn Public Library."  Here are some other things I learned about her.  Her email told me something that I had not gleaned from BPL president Linda Johnson's presentation to the BPL trustees: She was responding using an OCLC ("Online Computer Library Center, Inc.") email address, not a BPL email address.  On the web page that popped up for OCLC it says about OCLC: "The world's libraries connected. . . . OCLC members make a collective impact, worldwide."

Disappointed, I thought that maybe my friendly assigned reference librarian wasn't a New Yorker and didn't work for the BPL.  But on Facebook I learned hearteningly that she lives in New York City (likely even in Brooklyn!- Williamsburg to be exact), came from Chicago, Illinois after studying Library Science at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  From Twitter I learned she is a poet.  A real person living in my city doing real things!  She is even a trained librarian working as a librarian, but apparently she doesn't work on staff for the BPL.  She works at Teachers College, Columbia University.  Maybe my quick response from her was by reason of her weekend moonlighting.

In promoting a just announced (but, like many others, very long in the works) plan to to redevelop the Sunset Park Branch Library into a "Mixed Use Real Estate Opportunity" the BPL is having conversations directed at the local community promoting this proposed redevelopment by telling people, in part, that the the development can be viewed as a jobs program (30-35 construction jobs during an estimated two years of construction) because construction means jobs.  But, think, if the administration of libraries can be conceived as a jobs program as the BPL was making the case, why not consider that the jobs that librarians do are important jobs to keep and provide. . . worth publicly paying for even when that means setting aside worship of technical efficiencies?

During the Great Depression the WPA (the Works Progress Administration) hired artists and theatrical performers to ply their trade, essentially almost to be themselves.  Mightn't it, in this day's challenging economy, make sense for the government to hire and pay people just to be smart, well read, informed and, without an agenda, informatively out and about and intermingling with our local communities, particularly with the goal of being in service to others, those most intent on self-educating themselves?

Would it be important to insist that these people focus on being "efficient" in their interactions, doing as much as possible with as few bodies as possibe?  Did we/should we have demanded this of the WPA artists and performers?

`Efficiency' may not be all that it's cracked up to be.  The great urbanist thinker Jane Jacobs, a proponent of the benefits if diverse, differentiating and naturally evolving development in books like "The Nature of Economies" looked askance at the "supposed efficiency" of monopolies and, with Detriot being one of her examples, she denounced specialized efficiency at the expense of diversity, considering it a prelude to economic stagnation.  Economies that sacrifice ample diversity, like ecosystems that do so, are less adaptable, less stable, less resourceful, less able to improvise, less able to develop and evolve.  To Jacobs, an economy with few sorts of niches for people's different skills, however efficient, is one that suffers impoverishment.

The proposed redevelopment of the Sunset Park Library weeks ago is the first time such an announced redevelopment of a library by the BPL has involved a proposed increase of library space rather than another shrinkage since Citizens Defending Libraries has been on the scene shedding light on the BPL's real estate ambitions.  It would be flattering to think that the increase in size as part of the proposal is even a reaction to knowing that Citizens Defending Libraries is on the scene.

Ironically, the BPL is hinting that it may give the Sunset Park community what it wants, a library that might well wind up being larger than the small size down to which the BPL is concurrently proposing to shrink the central destination Brooklyn Heights Library.  The Sunset Park community wants a new library that is two stories above ground, and for that space to be more than the 17,000 square feet the BPL initially proposed.  The folks in Sunset Park say they miss the two-story, above-ground Carnegie library the neighborhood once had that was larger than the box that has replaced it there now.  The BPL is responding that it sees the sense of what the community is requesting and is looking to accede if it can secure some increased funds.  By contrast the BPL is planning that the Brooklyn Heights Library would consist of only 15,000 square feet of such above-ground space with 6,000 square of ancillary below-ground space.

While the Sunset Park library is proposed to have more space, the BPL has not fully updated its sales pitch and is using many of the same words to describe why its hurried priority must be redevelopment of the Sunset Park library to make it `work better.'  (The BPL currently now rents out space in the library to Workforce1 that it could easily reclaim to expand without redevelopment.)   If you know the code words, the same words and overlapping phrases may hint at the same kind of staff and librarian reductions for Sunset Park as the BPL envisions for Brooklyn Heights:  "probably the most important issue . . .  this current layout. .  is not adequate to the services that are needed in the community today. . .  we need more technology."  The BPL spokesperson also again referred cryptically to existing space that "is not usable."  That phrase, used quite frequently in PR promotions for shrinking libraries, seems to refer often to space used by librarians and for them to exist in.

Said BPLs spokesperson to the community (emphasis supplied):
This branch isn't laid out in an ideal fashion.  I don't want to. . .  [He then named two Librarians by name], they deserve lot's of space, but unfortunately, in this branch right now, there's probably more staff space than is ideal.  So if we can start from scratch we can get that mixture, that balance of staff space and public space.  We can probably get a little closer to where we should be.  Again, we have the opportunity to create a modern, technology rich and welcoming library.
Well now that I have my book recommendations from my email pen pal of a librarian I'll have to plan to get the books.  But since books, like librarians, are disappearing from the library and are not available at the library until ordered (like Amazon), I'll have to order them to come in to my library from where the BPL now keeps its much smaller collection that mysteriously `floats.'  The BPL administration says the `floating' books not at the libraries you visit can be available with “usually a week’s turnaround”  (that's a week after the previous week's expected turnaround with the email reference librarian).  The time might even be less, but reports are coming in that it often takes nine to eleven days to get ordered books.

I'll try to wait as efficiently as possible.

With Big Bucks Out To Hijack Truth and Broadcasting Integrity- The Daily Show and Bill Moyers Set Models for WNYC Radio

$
0
0
October 29, 2014, Jon Stewart takes on the Koch's when they advertise on his show.
This October when the Koch Brothers ponied up $$$$ to muscle in on the Daily Show (broadcast on a commercial network- Comedy Central) to gain influence through paid-for advertising spots, Jon Stewart pushed back scathingly with a brilliant “adjusted” version of the Koch's own commercial, torpedoing the Koch ad by sinking it in proper context, i.e. the pertinent facts of what the Koch’s are actually up to.  (See: Democalypse 2014 - South by South Mess: Ad of Brothers, October 29, 2014.)

Bravo!

A Model for Public Broadcasters, Maybe WNYC Public Radio?

That raises the question of what happens when similarly objectionable sponsors hope their money plus messages will hijack the public’s reliance on the integrity that people expect from public broadcasting, integrity we expect partly because so many of us ante up our own contributions so that such broadcasting will be paid for largely by our own listener dollars.. . .   The fracking industry has been paying public radio to run its pro-fracking “think about it”campaign. David H. Koch, a heavy funder of climate science denial, sponsors, with mysterious intention ,“Nova,” a premier PBS science program. And David Koch has been put on public broadcasting boards!  Where is Stewart’s spirited, contextual, integrity-regaining push-back against such sponsorships on these non-commercial public networks?

Similarly, what does public radio station WNYC do when $$$$$ is flashed by an objectionable and powerful entity intent on selling fictions about itself?  Do they perhaps put that entity’s Chief Operating Officer on its policy-setting board and send out a press release that spiffs up that CEO’s reputation, if that, in fact, is the very least they do?  (Would that be a poor attempt to follow in the steps of the Daily Show to evoke laughter?). . .

. . .  At least $$$$$$ is the presumed reason that people believe that MaryAnne Gillmartin, the CEO of our local real-estate-subsidy-pursuer Forest City Ratner, was recently appointed as a WNYC trustee, because people can see no other explicable reason for her appointment other than $$$$$ and see lots a reasons why she should definitely not have been appointed to such a position.   See: Sunday, November 16, 2014, Is Forest City Ratner, As Victor, Writing Our History?- WNYC's Press Release on Appointing Forest City Ratner's MaryAnne Gilmartin to Its Board of Trustees and  Tuesday, November 18, 2014, Was Forest City's Gilmartin appointed to WNYC board because of "passion for public radio" or fundraising help?

The Message to Send Back

How does one push back effectively?


For the Daily Show the vehicle was humorous satire, but the“adjusted” Koch brothers commercial the Daily Show crew created provides a model for what to do when someone comes knocking at your door seeking to buy what will be perceived as true.  Such a response doesn’t necessarily have to be couched in satire. . . . And the essence of the Daily Show’s tactical response applies quite well to the ways that Forest City Ratner can be outed when it lies about itself.

The `adjusted’ Koch brothers commercial, with some helping emphasis from Stewart’s bantering introduction to it, let us know:
    •    Who the Kochs are really are behind this offered veil, a not so friendly giant that’s far too eagerly controlling far too many aspects of our environment.
    •    That their commercial is the facile purchase of a cheerily false veneer of happiness, a virtual “smile factory” to generate a “how bad could they bemessage.
    •    That, in a shadowy way, they deploy a spider web of dark money that buys our elections and politicians.
    •    That the ad is far more important for what it leaves out than for what it includes.
    •    The ad has a 180 degree from the truth message: We are making your (the listeners’) lives better, instead of, in actuality, destroying much of the essential environment and natural ecosystem around you.
    •    There is a scary ubiquity, omnipresence, inescapable dominance on the part of the sponsor, relegating or exiling the rest of us to potential non-entity status.
    •    That even our thoughts and basic understanding of the truth is at risk as these entities work to indoctrinate all, even our innocent children, to believe their manufactured falsehoods and seek to commandeer and rewrite our sources of knowledge.
    •    That, in their view, everything, every aspect of us, is up for their monetizing grabs.
    •    That they are unfair to the average worker they employ, offering low wage jobs.
    •    That they are: “The next generation of robber barons bending the democratic process to our will.”
(While the description above is generated from viewing the Daily Show segment about the Kochs, the hyperlinks are all set up to document the similarities to the Forest City Ratner organization.)

Another Choice Video, Another Model for WNYC


(Above: Democalypse 2014 - South by South Mess: Ad of Brothers, October 29, 2014, click through to Daily Show for best viewing).

If you haven't already watched this four-minute Daily Show segment I highly recommend that you do and I don't think that my analytic summary above will subtract from your chortles or appreciation of what an exquisitely structured piece it is.  . . .

I have another choice segment of exquisitely constructed video, 22 minutes, that I am going to urge you to watch that I will discuss here as a second model for where WNYC should want to head in dealing with Forest City Ratner and the New York City real estate industry in general.  This one is from another broadcaster, Bill Moyers.  I specifically cited it as such an example in an email I sent to WNYC president Laura Walker in follow-up to talking with her after the last WNYC trustees meeting.



(Above: Full Show: The Long, Dark Shadows of Plutocracy, November 28, 2014- transcript available at this link- click through to Moyers & Company for optimal viewing.)
 
First let me set the scene a bit.

WNYC Community Advisory Board Meetings
November 18, 2014 WNYC Community Advisory Board meeting.  Attendance of New Tech City's  Manoush Zomorodi (facing, far right) was featured.
Some of us who considered absurdity together with danger to be inherent in Ms. Gilmartin’s appointment to WNYC’s policy-setting board went to the last two WNYC Community Advisory Board meetings (October 20, 2014 and November 18, 2014) to comment and object.  By the second of these two meetings the advisory board was beginning to weigh and think about our objections.  Unfortunately, the advisory board is no more than advisory; it doesn’t run things and can only relay to the board of trustees that does run things the feedback gotten from the public.  Unfortunately, the Community Advisory Board’s reports to the WNYC trustees board are only annual.   The next report including these objections won't go to the trustees until October of 2015!
At the October 20, 2014 Community Advisory Board meeting there was a presentation about sister station WQXR's aspirations/ambitions
December 3, 2014 WNYC Trustees Meeting
December 3, 2014 WNYC Trustees Meeting
No matter, some of us then went to the December 3, 2014 WNYC trustees meeting, the first trustees meeting held since Ms. Gilmartin was placed on the board. Ms. Gilmartin sat in a seeming position of honor right next to Laura R. Walker, board member, President & CEO of WNYC who conducted most of the meeting.  Ms. Gilmartin sat somewhat sullenly without speaking, probably aware that objections had been raised about her appointment.  When I spoke with President Walker afterwards she said that, because seating at the meeting was not assigned, nothing should be inferred from who was sitting where, but she refused to say who sat next to whom first respecting Ms. Gilmartin and herself.
Second and third from left, Walker and Gilmartin seated next to each other
While the WNYC board apparently hadn’t heard from the Community Advisory Board, a number of the members, Ms. Walker included, were expecting us and knew why we were there.  Even so, apparently not all the members were similarly aware and the Noticing New York’s article about Ms. Walker’s appointment had not been distributed to all the trustees.

An opportunity for public comment was not part of the meeting, but Ms. Walker noted that the public could approach and speak with the trustees who lingered after the meeting's executive session (during which the public had to exit the room).  Returning afterwards is when I spoke with Ms. Walker and an assisting staff member.

I was told that Ms. Gilmartin’s appointment had been in the works for more than a year.  Although I pressed for an answer, Ms. Walker would not say whether anyone had raised the obvious likely objections to Ms. Gilmartin’s appointment other than to let me understand that there had been discussions about Ms. Gilmartin's qualifications.  I asked, and Ms. Walker said that she had known Ms. Gilmartin for a number of years.

At the meeting, and outside of it afterwards, there was discussion about a gala (including what to wear) and, outside the board meeting room, there was also some discussion about how there was a lot of money in the borough of Queens, as in Flushing, that was not and ought to be represented on the NYC board.  As we were there to say that representation of actual people and listeners ought to be represented in the composition of WNYC’s board, not Forest City Ratner’s money, I was sensitive to the phraseology that there was “money” in New York City that needed to be represented on the board.

This dispersal of board members after the meeting was rapid.  I did not get to have much in the way of conversation with very many, but one of the board members who said he was aware of the controversy about the Gilmartin appointment said that he did not have any problem with it because he thought that Ms. Gilmartin and her interests should be represented on the board as part of representing the interests of “all New Yorkers.”

My Noticing New York point of view is that WNYC and public broadcasting is intended to be an alternativeto the relentless expression of commercial speech and is not supposed to be setting up a he-said/she-said balance on its board between all of the city’s commercial interests and those of the public.  There is also concern that with any such `balance' it will shift inexorably in the direction of the commercial interests represented.

Kurt Andersen Interview of  Cultural Affairs Commissioner Tom Finkelpearl

Left Cultural Affairs Commissioner Tom Finkelpearl.  Right Studio 360's Kurt Andersen
As if to emphasize the intersection of NYC's coverage of news and culture in New York with governance and politics, a centerpiece of the publicly held  portion of the trustees meeting was a half hour interview of NYC Cultural Affairs Commissioner Tom Finkelpearl.  He was interviewed by Kurt Andersen, known for his "Studio 360"program broadcast in prime slots in the station's line up.  Andersen quipped that without the editing and typical winnowing of a typical "Studio 360" interview (talking for an hour but getting the best ten minutes) he and Mr. Finkelpearl were not going to sound nearly as good as what usually goes out on the air.  It was, indeed, odd to hear Mr. Andersen's familiar voice associated with a face I might not have guessed went with it.  Present in the room with him, he didn't sound quite so perky.  If you'd like to listen to Mr. Andersen, "Studio 360" did an absolutely brilliant, recently rebroadcast, 2013 hour about the Disney Company parks that included discussion of urban planning issues, but not in ways that would relate those issues obviously to NYC.
Agenda for Trustees meeting
Commissioner Finkelpearl, a pleasant, erudite fellow may be familiar to our readers as he has gone to bat several times to speak on behalf of "Spaceworks."  Noticing New York views the Spaceworks very differently since the private Spaceworks firm, formed at the end of the Bloomberg administration (and not covered by WNYC yet) albeit "nonprofit," seems to have a decided real estate bent and has declared as one of its primary missions the acquisition and shrinkage of New York City Library space as "underutilized."

The Finkelpearl/Andersen interview discussing how culture and economics interrelate generally got around to discussing real estate, specifically Hudson Yards, which, as it is a thematic sister to Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards, should have been reason for Ms. Gilmartin's ears to perk up.  Conversely, might Mr. Finkelpearl's perception of Ms. Gilmartin have gotten an adjustment from sitting across from her that morning?  Hudson Yards is fewer acres and in many ways not as bad as Atlantic Yards, but similar vintage, both being mega, single developer projects sired under Bloomberg.

The discussion of Hudson Yards came up in the context of the millions of dollars the city is spending in terms of "partnerships" with cultural institutions and how culture, in the likely form of a governmentally assisted institution ($75 million), could be integral to moving the huge, single-developer Hudson Yards project along.

Back to David Koch

Concluding the Finkelpearl session, trustees were able to put their own questions to the Commissioner and the first as about whether Mayor de Blasio cares sufficiently about the Metropolitan Museum of Art.  Mr. Finkelpearl said this was not true, recounting that the department was actively involved with the Met and that he police commissioner had gotten involved with the issue of food cart vendors outside of the Met.  The issue has been exacerbated by the opening of the new (publicly protested) David H. Koch plaza outside the Met and is one that David Koch, living nearby, is speculated to be one he takes a personal interest in. Koch thought the old fountains outside the Met were "crummy" and  says of the replacement scheme"I suggested the whole project," reportedly getting into the "micro-details" of it.  We heard Mr. Finkelpearl explain that the Met gets $24 million a year from Cultural Affairs plus often getting "large capital investments."  City schools get $22 million yearly from the department.

Mention here of David Koch provides an opportune segue to discuss the Bill Moyers segment I recommend and the email I sent about it to Ms. Walker.

The Koch brothers represent the essential epitome of the fossil fuel industry and its outsized power.  In my email communication to Laura Walker about omissions that weaken WNYC’s coverage I cited, by example (you see how I detailed this in the actual email I sent below), the new episode of Moyers & Company that addressed itself to the outsized power of the real estate industry in New York City.  One point made during the Moyers show was the equivalency of the real estate industry  vis-à-vis New York City to the overbearing influence of the oil and fossil fuel industry nationally.

Putting Ms. Walker on the Spot
Compensation information for WNYC president Laura Walker from station's 2012 990 IRS filing
You may perhaps observe that my questions in my email below put Ms. Walker very firmly on the spot.  Before feeling too sorry for her consider that she is paid big bucks for these decisions and presumably to take the heat for it.  WNYC’s most recent IRS 990 forms on file with the Guidestar service (signed 05/14/2014) show that Ms. Walker’s reportable compensation for 2012 was $559,838 in addition to which she received from WNYC that year another $98,178 in the category of deferred compensation and non taxable benefits, for a total compensation package back in 2012 of $658,016 for her estimated 35.5 hours of work per week.  (Her salary, $486,688 in June 2007, was last noticed by Gawker in 2009, so it’s been going up a bit.)


In point of reference, talk show host mainstays Leonard Lopate and Brian Lehrer were paid for that reported year, $236,211 and $287,084, respectively (plus, respectively, $25,219 and $31,900 in the category of deferred compensation and non-taxable benefits).

My Followup Email to Ms. Walker
From Noticing New York's December 24, 2013 coverage (like Moyers) of the plutocratic towers casting shadows on Central Park- Slide promoting Skyscraper Museum Show-"View of Central Park from One57"
Here is my email to Ms. Walker:
Dear Ms. Walker,

When we talked after the WNYC board meeting yesterday you said that if there were ways I thought that WNYC could be doing a better job covering and addressing issues that I believe need to be addressed in this city I should let you know and that you would relay my thoughts to the WNYC editorial board assuring me that, notwithstanding the recent appointment of Forest City Ratner CEO MaryAnne Gilmartin as a trustee to WNYC's policy-setting board, that the listeners of WNYC will get the coverage of important issues that is deserved.

In that regard, I call to your attention a new episode of Moyers & Company: The Long, Dark Shadows of Plutocracy, Aired: 11/28/2014.

Although Moyers & Company is an independently produced nationally syndicated program that deals with issues of national importance I think you will observe that the entirety of this particular 22-minute program focuses on a series of connected concerns that are all local New York City issues, the kind that it would be the natural province of WNYC, our city public radio station, to cover.

This Moyers & Company episode, in a connecting-the-dots fashion showing the interrelationships, zeros in and seamlessly addressees all of the following issues:
    •    Increasing wealth inequality in NYC with the ascension of a privileged elite buying power to create an increasingly unlevel playing field that's being taken advantage of to create more power and wealth inequality.  (i.e. the  "dark shadow of plutocracy")
    •    The invasion of a significant public commons with its sacrifice to privileged private interests.  In this case that public commons is specifically, but also somewhat symbolically, the example of Central Park.  It is important to remember that WNYC similarly represents a significant public commons.
    •    Reminders of how our collectively shared commons represent the experience of democracy and its effective functioning.
    •    An elucidating equation of the power of the real estate industry in NYC with the all too influential national oil industry centered in Texas.
    •    How this disequilibrium translates into bad urban design and degraded living conditions for the average New Yorker with developer greed driving that detriment.
    •    An analysis of how the "Swiss bank account money" fueling these subtractions from the public good (per New York Magazine's "Stash Pad" cover story) likely doesn't pull its weight in contributing to the local economy, notwithstanding former Mayor Michael Bloomberg's defense of the super-rich and his political urging that the NYC economy be channeled in this direction.
    •    That, because of political machinations and dodgy deals in Albany linked to questionable campaign contributions, democracy and the public interest is being sold out in these regards, which means that these wealthy luxury apartment owners who very frequently don't pay local income taxes also very dramatically escape a proper shouldering of their fair share of real estate taxes.
    •    How the Moreland Commission, set up to investigate abuse and corruption in Albany politics, was focusing on these exact city real estate industry issues when it was dismantled by Governor Andrew Cuomo as it got too close to his own conduct in regard to these particulars.
    •    How the imbalances in the way we are managing our public resources is resulting in a less diverse, increasingly exclusive city with the needs of significant sectors of the population being insufficiently or completely unsupported.
    •    Some thought about what makes for effective public protest and countering political actions in the face of these things.
I doubt that you would disagree that all of these concerns plus the way that they are interconnected are of vital interest to New York City's populace and WNYC's listeners.  I therefore invite you to submit this Moyers episode to your editorial board and ask them when WNYC has covered these issues and their interrelation with similar comprehension and vigor.  I also ask you and the editorial board to identify when WNYC has subjected the Forest City Ratner organization and its activities that very much affect the city to the same kind of careful scrutiny.

I recognize that pieces of much of the above have been covered in fits and starts from time to time by various WNYC programs.

Brian Lehrer, for example, has (almost unavoidably) independently covered such topics as "stash pads" and the luxury towers casting shadows into Central Park, and has also had some excellent discussion about Governor Andrew Cuomo's dissolution of the Moreland Commission. Still, given that WNYC intends to be a station that prides itself on long-format, in-depth and analytical, in-context reporting, where is the kind of in depth reporting from WNYC that, like the Moyers story, pulls these things together, interrelating them for the kind of comprehensive overview that begs to be made?

I've covered much of what the Moyers episode addresses in Noticing New York, routinely making most of the same connections, and I do so because it has been my priority to deal with what I believe is most critically in need of being addressed in terms of New York City development, governance and politics.  That NNY coverage has been possible despite the fact that financially Noticing New York is essentially a shoestring, zero-budget operation.  So it doesn't take money.

Yesterday I repeated to you the suggestion made by one of the public attendees at the last WNYC Community Advisory Board meeting, that if comes to a question money (one of the CAB members suggested money was at the root of certain practices in question) that WNYC should simply consider "doing less with greater integrity."
A side note before concluding:  I realize that in holding out to you the Moyers work as an example, I may be undermining arguments I have recently been making because: 1.) It involves commendable actions recently taken by the Municipal Art Society although I have criticized MAS to the extent to which they, with board changes of their own, have abdicated- or reversed- much of the core mission MAS once pursued, and 2.) the broadcast came to New Yorkers via WNET Public television which I have criticized for not covering the the real estate industry issues that beset the city.  Quite true, but: A.) MAS could hardly ignore the magnitude of the issue (even if it is interesting that after the 1980s TimeWarner building construction battle precursing this more recent tower shadows issue was not completely won, MAS appointed that questionable building's architect as its board chair), and B.) As a nationally syndicated program the Moyers show bypassed the local editorial board, and was not a product of it.
I am thankful for WNYC's coverage of such local development issues and associated politics whenever it is clearly good, which it can be, but I am taking you up on your offer to communicate what needs and ought to be better, gaps that need to be filled.   Please let me know and direct my attention accordingly, if I have overlooked WNYC coverage that would match up to the story that Moyers & Company just produced.  Likewise, do let me know if you think that there has been rigorous coverage of Forest City Ratner that is comparable.  If that's not the case, I'd be delighted to hear that you are communicating to the WNYC editorial board that there are standards toward which they yet need to strive with the expectation of beneficial results to follow.

Thank you for your attention.
Above and below from the Moyers report

 "Masculine" vs. "Feminine" News, What's Most Important To Cover

Years ago, I heard on public radio (I was traveling and I am not sure it was WNYC and cannot retrieve more facts) a fascinating speech by a prominent national female news anchor of the time.  I am guessing that the speaker might have been Diane Sawyer and that this was in the 1990s.  She spoke about what is perceived as  “male” or “masculine” news, which was considered “hard” news and more important than what was considered “female” or “feminine” news.  Political news was generally viewed as falling into the “masculine” news category that also frequently preoccupied itself with headlines about crises that might be covered with relatively short spans of attention from the media.  Conversely, “female” or “soft” news, often dismissively viewed, tended to focus on the very intricate texture and meaning of our daily lives, often in ways that might help foreshadow or help us comprehend and prevent crises.

I remember coming away from hearing the speech with a very deep respect for the importance of this deeper, more contextual, background kind of news often viewed as “feminine” and inferior.

Fluffy News to Put You to Sleep?

That being said, I am beginning to wonder whether there has been a programming shift at WNYC to the less substantial, less meaningful, the kind of stuff that life-style commercial networks already cover with more than sufficient adequacy.  I asked Ms. Walker what she thought the purpose was of including Ms. Gilmartin in a July 15, 2014 Brian Lehrer segment about how to get a better nights sleep.  At the time that of that broadcast Ms. Walker and her board were obviously, based on what she said, considering honoring Ms. Gilmartin with an appointment to the WNYC board.  Ms. Walker did not really have an adequate answer, except to say that Ms. Gilmartin was just there as another female executive although I pointed out that her appearance in that segment alongside Arianna Huffington, head of the Huffington Post and AOL was obviously burnishing for Gilmartin’s reputation.

Background IS Indeed Important News

I actually view politics as being deeply imbued in the fabric, texture and background of our lives, what might be considered the feminine, often dismissed side of the news cycle.  Ergo, Ms. Gilmartin’s appearance in the context of that segment has political meaning.  Similarly, the background urban environment in which we live and the meaning it gives our lives is important, part of what we pay attention to and the decisions we must make when we govern ourselves.  For instance: Aren’t landmarks an important part of the way we feel and emotionally connect to the city in which we live?  It appeared the real estate industry had inveigled the de Blasio administration to do a massive, wholesale “de-calendering” of all of the landmarks now before the city Landmarks Commission to preserve, a total of about 100, jettisoning years of work by preservationists. . . New York Times architectural critic Michael Kimmelman posted to Facebook that it was “a sop to the real estate industry and the opposite of transparent, especially without a public hearing.”  

Indeed, done en masse under the vague “housekeeping” rubric, attested to an intention to hide exactly who was intended to be benefitted by whatever the juiciest handouts were in the group, but it was a safe bet that there were at least several really juicy ones, one of them perhaps the intention to build yet one more in the parade of supper tall towers south of the park at the site of the 57th and 5th Avenue’s Bergdorf Goodman!

. . . The Brian Lehrer show didn’t get around to covering the potential disaster but, thankfully, the plan was set aside after massive opposition anyway.  The Leonard Lopate show got around to it after the fact, almost too late.

Moyers Watching Stewart
Moyers commenting favorably on Stewart's treatment of his Koch sponsors
Will Jon Stewart’s bite the hand that sponsors you by assembling appropriate truth-telling adjustments catch on with public media?  Stewart’s push-back apparently did catch the eye of one public broadcasting veteran, none other than Bill Moyers himself.  Days after the Daily Show segment aired, the Billmoyers.com website put up a post with a link back to the Daily Show observing how Stewart had meted out his  honest helping of justice for the Kochs’ “series of treacly, feel-good commercials touting all the wonderful things the company does to make our lives better.”
The Goldman Sachs commercial that pops up links to more video promotion for Goldman, including its involvement with huge real estate projects in New York City.
There’s work for Moyers to do in this regard because the efforts of $$$$$ to encroach are everywhere. . .  It’s ironic, but when I clicked to watch “The Long, Dark Shadows of Plutocracy” what I got first before it started to play was a “treacly, feel-good commercial” for Goldman Sachs and company “touting all the wonderful things the company does to make our lives better.”   As written about previously here in Noticing New York, Goldman, including a subsidy-abusive real estate manipulation to build its own NYC office tower, was squarely targeted by Moyers in at least one previous Moyers broadcast.

Does this go in the “you just can’t win” category?  I’d like to think that Moyers has dished out far better than he has been subjected to, that his integrity is as mightily intact as it appears to be, and that at this point he is miles ahead of those who spend to piggy-back on his message, hoping to neuter the truth he offers. . .  That he, like Jon Stewart, may still be thought of as setting a good example for WNYC.
PS:  Something for Noticing New York to do next?:  Look more carefully at the composition of the rest of the WNYC board to consider whether we can expect there to be adequate checks and balances to the kind of influences that come with appointments like Ms. Gilmartin's.

Seasonal Reflections: No Matter How Fortunate or Not, We Are All Equal, Sharing a Common Journey

$
0
0
Photobucket
The cusp of a new year and the winter solstice have arrived and it is again that time when, Noticing New York returns to its now annual tradition.  Since 2009, Noticing New York has annually offered a stocktaking of the decisions we are making in the public sphere that make it appear that we are veering off to a reality where a select few of our population revering money and accumulating “wealth” count for almost everything while the rest of us are treated with increasingly less regard.  I’ve done this in the context of two traditional Yuletide tales, both taking place in critical part on Christmas Eve, and both essentially the same story in many respects: Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” about the reformation of the miser Scrooge and Frank Capra’s “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Both these stories frame the importance of free will and choice in terms of alternative possible realities, in order to contrast decisions about the bunching up of wealth and treasure with the benefit and spirit of shared community and giving.
(* You can find out prior annual essays here: Thursday, December 24, 2009, A Christmas Eve Story of Alternative Realities: The Fight Not To Go To Pottersville (Or Ratnerville), Friday, December 24, 2010, Revisiting a Classic Seasonal Tale: Ratnerville, Saturday, December 24, 2011, Traditional Christmas Eve Revisit of a Classic Seasonal Tale: Ratnerville, the Real Life Incarnation of the Abhorred Pottersville, Monday, December 24, 2012, While I Tell of Yuletide Treasure, Tuesday, December 24, 2013, A Seasonal Reflection: Assessing Aspirations Toward Alternate Realities- 'Tis A Tale of Two Alternate Cities?)
With the arrival of the solstice hope is kindled during these longest nights of the year by noting that we have reached a turning point with light beginning to return.  In the darkest of days it is always important to give thanks for all that’s good and all that we have been able to achieve.  This 2014 there has been some good news to lift our spirits . . . . 

. . . .Governor Cuomo just recently announced that hydro-fracking is being banned in New York State.  That is a big win bringing what may be the end to a long fight and it prevents the ravaging of the environment belonging commonly to all of us for the financial benefit of only a few.

. . .  There were victories also in the fight to save our public libraries from sale and shrinkage for the sake of creating real estate deals, another struggles where the public commons has been in jeopardy, again for just a few benefit at the expense of the many.  The biggest of these successes this year was the defeat this spring of NYPL’s Central Library Plan that would have squandered more than $500 million of the public’s money and resources, the full extent of that loss being announced only belatedly after the plan was officially derailed.
Above and below from the Moyers report
. . . . The New York City real estate industry is increasingly recognized as increasing the city’s wealth and power inequalities and destructive of the public’s interests.  Just around Thanksgiving a Bill Moyers & Company report devoted to this theme made such points clear sounding very much like Noticing New York and a number of its articles.  In fact, that report started with and was keyed off a reflection of the damage to the city, Central Park another critical public commons being done by the series of super-tall towers at the park’s south end casting shadows across it.  That is exactly what Noticing New York’s annual seasonal reflection focused on this time last year.

But, not all is improving and there is much that remains to be done as some things get even worse.
In "It's a Wonderful Life": on left Lionel Barrymore (who played Scrooge in annual radio broadcasts) playing the Scrooge-like Henry Potter and on right Jimmy Stewart playing George Bailey, the banker with friends who fends off succumbing to the Potter world
One matter these annual reflections have always tuned to is the way that Forest City Ratner’s takeover of a swath of Brooklyn constitutes a concentration of wealth and control that’s analogous to the way that in “It’s a Wonderful Life” the communally shared town of Bedford Falls became Pottersville in the alternate reality where unchallenged power was allowed to accumulate in the hands of Henry F. Potter, the bad town banker.  The unfortunate news to report this year with respect to Forest City Ratner is that its spreading power and influence in New York is continuing to grow like Potter’s did in that alternate reality. . .

George Bailey, the good banker of the "Wonderful Life" story, gets to see what the world would be like had he never been born, counterbalancing to make it better: everywhere he turns Potter's negative the influence of doing things only to dominate and make money pervades.
Just months ago the head and Chief Executive Officer of Forest City Ratner, MayAnne Gilmartin, was appointed to the board of WNYC, the city’s highly influential public radio station.  See:  Sunday, November 16, 2014, Is Forest City Ratner, As Victor, Writing Our History?- WNYC's Press Release on Appointing Forest City Ratner's MaryAnne Gilmartin to Its Board of Trustees, and Monday, December 8, 2014, With Big Bucks Out To Hijack Truth and Broadcasting Integrity- The Daily Show and Bill Moyers Set Models for WNYC Radio.

Does WNYC know better? 

Oddly, WNYC has its own annual yuletide tradition that ought to teach it better.  Every year the station broadcasts a radio play version of  “A Christmas Carol” in which the familiar radio personalities of WNYC appear performing roles.

This year, as I listened, I heard the principle declared that, however fortunate or relatively unfortunate any of us are, we are all equals, “one in the same.”  I believe that, but is that the message we would glean from the Ms. Gilmartin’s appointment to the WNYC board?  Would those who would and could truly represent the interests of the general public in fashioinging the public radio station's mission have as equal a chance of being appointed to its board has as equal a chance of being appointed to the board?
Basil Rathbone on leftplaying the ghost of Jacob Marley, Scrooge's deceased partner, essentially a version of Scrooge  who doesn't get to reform and on right in another production playing Scrooge who does eventually reform  
Here is the portion of the of the WNYC play (by Written by Arthur Yorinks) where that point is made as Scrooge debates with his nephew what Christmas means, what its value is:
    Scrooge (To his nephew Fred): You keep Christmas in your own way let me keep it in mine.

    Nephew:But you don't keep it!
   
    Scrooge:Let me leave it alone then: Much good it has ever done you!

    Nephew:Oh I think there are many things from which I've derived some good, by which I have not profited financially, I dare say. There is more in life than money, Uncle.

    Scrooge:Humbug to that!  More in life than money!  Humbug!

    Nephew:And I've always thought of Christmas time is a good time, a kind, forgiving and charitable time when men and women seem to open their shut-up hearts freely, and think of people not as fortunate in life as their equals, for they very well are equals.  We're all one in the same.  And therefore uncle, although it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket I believe Christmas has done me good, and will do me good but I say God bless it.

    Cratchit (Scrooge’s cleark):  Well put Fred!
In the Dickens’ book Cratchit’s approval is actually silent, something hard to convey in a radio play.  In fact, in Dickens’ book the concept is not, per se, `equality,’ but “fellow-passengers to the grave” and fellow members of the same race:
"Keep it!" repeated Scrooge's nephew. "But you don't keep it,"

"Let me leave it alone, then," said Scrooge. "Much good may it do you! Much good it has ever done you!"

"There are many things from which I might have derived good, by which I have not profited, I dare say," returned the nephew. "Christmas among the rest. But I am sure I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round-apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that-as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys. And therefore, uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it!"
The message, of course, is also that much of the good in the world simply can’t be measured in dollars.  That’s bad news for those who relentlessly look to “monetize” all and sundry and consider subjecting everything to the constricted and constricting measures of the Wall Street mentality.
Alistair Sim, perhaps the very best ever to play Scrooge.  On left, Scrooge the epitome of a miser at the outset of the film.  On right, the reformed Scrooge now a model of kindness and generosity.
Viewing all 153 articles
Browse latest View live