Tuesday, November 29th the American Library Association sent out an “Advocacy Alert” from about “a massive privacy threat,” the proposed and pending (“Rule 41”) grant to federal law enforcement authorities of“sweeping new powers to remotely hack into computers or computer systems,” including they advised everyone to worry possibly “your library's.”

November 29th American Library Association “Advocacy Alert” about "a massive privacy threat” affecting libraries

New NYPL "Privacy Policy"

Early the next morning, Wednesday, Nov 30, 2016, the New York Public Library distributed to its list of library users and patrons its new updated privacy policy.

The NYPL’s new policy, about a year and a half in the making, and taking effect the day of its promulgation, was adopted by its board of trustees on November 16, 2016.  That was about two weeks after Noticing New York ran an article about how the private spy company Booz Allen Hamilton, regarded by experts as an "arm of the [United States] intelligence community,". . .  "with the "federal government as practically its sole client" was hired by the NYPL to overhaul its most important libraries in a scheme that entailed the sale and destruction of the Donnell, Mid-Mahattan and SIBL libraries and the central research stacks of the 42nd Street Central Research Library.  See: Sunday, October 30, 2016, Snowden, Booz and the Dismantling of Libraries As We Know Them: Why Was A Private Government Spy Agency Hired to Take Apart New York's Most Important Libraries And Turn Them Into Something Else?

That NYPL trustees meeting was the same day as the publication of another article in Noticing New York following up on the subject of Booz Allen Hamilton's connection with the NYP, and its plans.  See: Wednesday, November 16, 2016, Too Close For Comfort? Real Estate Addresses- Blackstone, Booz Allen Hamilton, The Libraries & Bryant Park.

Should NYPL library users be assured by the NYPL’s distribution the new privacy policy via an email that the new policy “protects our users, increasing trust and transparency between the Library and the community we serve,” albeit encouraging users to “read the full text” of the policy to understand it?  The policy itself opens with some reassuringly axiomatic words most would find easy to agree with:

 Privacy is essential to the exercise of free speech, free thought, and free association.

The policy tells us that the NYPL “is committed to protecting your privacy, whether you are a user, visitor, and/or donor” and the policy even self-reflexively asserts that it was written drawing “upon industry best practices and national standards for privacy.”

NYPL November 16, 2016 Trustees meeting where new privacy policy was adopted

Bringing Up Privacy In Visit With NYPL Officials and Policy Makers About Future

As it happens, on the very day the NYPL was issuing its new privacy policy, a number of members of the Committee to Save the New York Public Library met with a group of senior NYPL policy and administration officials about their shaping of plans to keep increasingly fewer books at the library while relying on digital access and retrieval of books more or less by default.  I am a member of CSNYPL and was part of the meeting.  (I am also a co-founder of Citizens Defending Libraries.)

At the meeting, I managed to slightly embarrass myself by asking if I could get a copy of the new privacy policy as I overlooked my morning email telling me it was now online.  I was, however, up-to-date enough to ask our host NYPL officials where they were with respect to the American Library Association’s “Advocacy Alert” regarding “a massive privacy threat” to libraries computers from “Rule 41.”  As they were unaware of the issue I forwarded the ALA alert afterwards.  Also, not presuming, I’ve asked whether the NYPL is a member of the ALA.  The ALA has in the past taken a proactive stance agitating for the protection of library privacy, its council adopting, January 29, 2003, a Resolution on the USA Patriot Act and Related Measures That Infringe on the Rights of Library Users.

If you want to watch something even more prescient, in 2002, the Ad Council ran a 30 second public interest spot about library privacy and the preservation of American freedom.  The advertisement really ought still to be running today.  The advertisement asked the question “What if America wasn’t America?” darkly envisioning a dystopian future with government surveillance agents in the library and it ends instructively with the admonition: “Freedom- Appreciate It. Cherish It. Protect It.” (Citizens Defending Libraries included it as a “commercial break” as part of our October 2015 evening of library theater and comedy.)

At our meeting with the NYPL officials, I asked about the effect of their shift to digital approach on privacy specifically including the effect of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) which I noted was something the NYPL board had discussed.  There was no recognition of what the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act was or its effect and it was suggested this could be discussed separately afterward with one of the administrators there at the table responsible.  That official has now given me the name of another NYPL official, the Director of Privacy and Compliance, to follow up with.

Expansion of CALEA And Library Privacy Fights Preceding NYPL's Engagement of Booz Allen Hamilton

When I wrote about the NYPL’s 2007 engagement of the private United States spy firm Booz Allen Hamilton for its reorganizational shedding of its books and physical library resources like the real estate that houses the books I observed the coincidence that the hiring of Booz came not long after it was revealed (May of 2006) that librarians had been fighting the federal government's overreach of secretly taking PATRIOT Act surveillance into the libraries.

The Connecticut librarians involved in that fight were subject to a perpetual gag order by the U.S. government so that it took years before what was going on was finally revealed to the public, and it was finally revealed to the public that May (and thus to others in the library world) only because the Connecticut librarians had finally won their fight.  Might one assume that the revelations must have been big news in the library world at the time with major implications respecting the future of privacy in libraries and the fight to preserve it?

It occurred to me to review NYPL minutes to see what had been observed about this revelation and discussed by the board about preserving library privacy at that time.  Somewhat surprisingly, I found nothing in the NYPL minutes of that time that mentioned the Connecticut librarians fight for privacy or victory.  I did find something else contemporaneous and related, something ominous with respect to preservation of library privacy, and it can be found in minutes just before the revelations respecting the Connecticut librarians secretly fought fight.

February 8, 2008 NYPL minutes: CALEA) may “require” the NYPL “to reengineer their Internet service facilities to enhance law enforcement’s ability to monitor and intercept communications”

The minutes of the February 8, 2008 NYPL trustees meeting reveal that new rules under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) may “require” the NYPL and other educational institutions “to reengineer their Internet service facilities to enhance law enforcement’s ability to monitor and intercept communications including e-mail and Voice Over Internet Protocol.” 

The minutes note that “groups, including the American Library Association” (the minutes do not say including the NYPL) were seeking a clarification that the new rules would “not apply to certain libraries,” and challenging the extension of CALEA “to services other than communications.”  February 8, 2006 is the same meeting where NYPL financial officer David Offensend advises the trustees of a Bloomberg administration initiative to strip down the capital funds the NYPL had on hand.  A need to augment NYPL capital funds would not long thereafter be cited as a rationale for plans Offensend would implement to sell off the Donnell Library, and the NYPL Central Library Plan involving a consolidating shrinkage, disposing of the central destination Mid-Manhattan Library, the 34th Street Science, Industry and Business Library and the destruction of the research book stacks at the 42nd Street Central Reference Library.

May 3, 2006 Minutes: CALEA (requirement to reengineer the NYPL’s Internet  for enhanced law enforcement monitoring & interception of communication) plus Google digitizing books, eBooks, relocation of the Library’s data center and webcasting.

May 3, 2006 the trustees again discussed, with no further amplification noted in the minutes, the proposed CALEA requirement to reengineer the NYPL’s Internet service facilities for enhanced law enforcement monitoring and interception of communication and also discussed other technological issues: the Google project to digitize its books, eBooks, relocation of the Library’s data center and webcasting of programs.

Although the news would have been out by then, the June 7, 2006 NYPL Executive Committee minutes do not mention revelation of the Connecticut librarians privacy battle.  Neither do the minutes of the first meeting of the full NYPL board after that held on September 9, 2006.

September 9, 2009 minutes: "Guidance" on CALEA monitoring and interception of communication via the NYPL's Internet provider, not the library itself

The minutes of the September 9, 2009 trustees meeting do, however, return to a related subject, the privacy encroachment on library privacy via the expanded CALEA rules.  The co-chair of the board’s Committee on technology advised the NYPL trustees that “the library has now received guidance that its Internet Service Provider, and not the Library itself, will be required to comply with” the recently expanded CALEA rules for federal law enforcement monitoring and communication interception. . .

. . . And apparently there was increasingly more to monitor: Discussing information concerning user patterns and the library's website and its redesign it was noted that the NYPL website had “received over 20 million electronic visits during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006, as compared to about 14 million in person visits to the Library’s physical facilities.”  (Even if you are going physically to a library to get a physical book there are increasingly reasons to check online ahead of time about whether you are likely to find the book there, whether the library will be open, etc.)

What was not noted in those September minutes is that the “guidance” given to the trustees about how the recently expanded CALEA rules for federal law enforcement monitoring and communication interception were going to be complied with almost certainly flowed from and was shaped taking into account a June 9, 2006 loss respecting the fight for library privacy.  On that date, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided against a group of higher education and library organizations led by the American Council on Education that had challenged the monitoring and interceptions as unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment prohibitions on unreasonable search and seizures.  (See: Washington Post- Appeals Court Sides With White House on Wiretaps, by Kim Hart, June 10, 2006.) As the case itself was not as a matter of record mentioned to the trustees one might suspect that the NYPL was not one of the litigant challengers, something I haven’t been able to determine yet.

The ruling in the case, American Council on Education v. Federal Communications Commission, United States of America, Verizon Telephone Companies et al. speaks in language paralleling the guidance to the trustees.  It considered the argument that institutions like libraries were exempt from CALEA (the “information-services exclusion”) “insofar as they are engaged in providing information services.”   But the court upheld the FCC interpretation that providing “information services” did not constitute an outright exclusion to the extent that, hybrid fashion, communication services were also being provided, if they were being provided outside of an entirely private network.  The hookups to communicate with the public outside of the private network are what allow the expanded CALEA monitoring and interception under the FCC’s rule.  As the court expressed it to the extent “these private networks are interconnected with a public network, either the[public voice network] or the Internet, providers of the facilities that support the connection of the private network to a public network are subject to CALEA.”

The Shell of NYPL Privacy Policy Protections- "Legal Requests"

The new NYPL privacy policy advises, under a section titled “Legal Requests,” that “sometimes the law requires” the NYPL to share patron information “such as if we receive a valid subpoena, warrant, or court order” and that the NYPL may share information “if our careful review leads us to believe that the law, including state privacy law applicable to Library Records, requires us to do so.”  The section doesn’t warn library users that the modern day version of wiretapping, the reengineering of “Internet service facilities to enhance law enforcement’s ability to monitor and intercept communications” under CALEA’s expanded rules would happen through compliance by the NYPL’s “Internet Service Provider, and not the Library itself.”

The NYPL policy doesn’t suggest that if, in the very likely event subpoenas go to the NYPL’s “Internet Service Provider” instead of the NYPL, the NYPL is then itself quite unlikely to see any such subpoenas or `carefully review’ them at all.  Nor, does the policy suggest how often information is obtained these days without interested parties ever seeing subpoenas, warrants, or court orders.   Probably what “careful review” tells anyone these days about what “the law” can require is that, no matter what you have formally received from the government, little should be assumed about the privacy of any exchanges on the Internet.

There is one section of the NYPL’s privacy policy that warns that the NYPL uses “third-party library service providers and technologies to help deliver some of our services” and may share information with them for which the NYPL doesn’t assure privacy, but this doesn’t seem to be a warning about the NYPL’s internet provider(s) or CALEA monitoring or interceptions.

It reads:

      2. Third-Party Library Services Providers.  We use third-party library service providers and technologies to help deliver some of our services to you.  If and when you choose to use such services, we may share your information with these third parties, but only as necessary for them to provide services to NYPL.  We may also display links to third-party services or content. By following links, you may be providing information (including, but not limited to Personal Information) directly to a third party, to us, or to both. You acknowledge and agree that NYPL is not responsible for how those third parties collect or use your information.  Third parties must either agree to adhere to strict confidentiality obligations in a way that is consistent with this Privacy Policy and the agreements we enter into with them or we require them to post their own privacy policy.  We encourage you to review the privacy policies of every third-party website or service that you visit or use, including those third parties with whom you interact with through our Library services.

Perhaps, as you read this, you feel like you’d need a lawyer to understand whether your privacy as a NYPL users is in any way assured.  I happen to be a lawyer myself and find the laws that have expanded surveillance in our country since 9/11 far from readily understandable except to know that those laws are not very limiting to the government and that, even to the extent that they have been, it does not appear they have always been complied with.

A Federal Judiciary Grapples With Protecting Privacy

It is therefore interesting that at the NYPL’s last trustee meeting, the November 16th meeting where the board approved the new privacy policy, one of the two new trustees the NYPL appointed to its board that day was Judge Robert A. Katzmann (the other was Tony Yoseloff).  Judge Katzmann is Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Although Judge Katzmann was not one of the three judges deciding the case, it was in his Second Circuit Court of Appeals that it was ruled, May 7, 2015, in American Civil Liberties Union v. James Clapper, that the bulk data collection of Americans' phone records by the National Security Agency was illegal.  See New York Times: N.S.A. Collection of Bulk Call Data Is Ruled Illegal, by Charlie Savage and Jonathan Weisman, May 7, 2015.  (As Chief Judge, you can see Judge Katzmann’s name alongside the clerk of the court’s on the “Bill of Costs Instructions” pages of the decision.)

The May 2015 Clapper decision was decided by Second Circuit Court of Appeals partly in the more informed light and public awareness following the 2013 Edward Snowden disclosures about the extent of massive domestic surveillance exceeding what had been represented to the public to actually be happening.

In finding that the surveillance was unpermitted the court said that Congress had never intended to authorize such a far-reaching and unprecedented program, that it was a “a far stretch” to assert “that Congress was aware of” the “legal interpretation” being used for the dragnet collection of personal data,  that the statutes which the government suggested provided equivalent precedents had “never been interpreted to authorize anything approaching the breadth of the sweeping surveillance at issue here.”   The court said that the massive collections of data were untethered from the pursuit of actual investigations and that the “expansive development of government repositories of formerly private records would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans.”

What happened with respect to the May 7, 2015 Clapper decision afterward is somewhat complex: Congress, which the court thought had not actually authorized the program and its practices, acted to replace it with another program that, putting the responsibility for data collection initially in private party hands, theoretically has more protections for the public, but on August 28, 2015 the May decision was overturned by the Court of Appeals, the practical effect of that Court of Appeals decision being more limited by virtue of the congressional change.

One line of reasoning offered to allow persistence of the various sweeping data surveillance and collection programs by the federal government is the promise that the federal government won’t look at the data collected unless or until it develops an investigative interest in knowing more about targeted individuals it identifies to whom that data relates.

Protecting Freedom of Thought: How Things Can Change, Including Politically

Snowden appearing in "Vice" episode

The United State President currently in office, Obama, is low key, mild mannered, thoughtfully measured and, if you put out of your mind such things as his drone attacks, he gives the impression of generous good will towards most human beings.  No doubt many have not been frightened to think of surveillance tools as being under his control and direction even if they are virtually unlimited in their power.  Notwithstanding, months ago Edward Snowden, being interviewed on an episode of “Vice” explicated his warning about “turn-key tyranny”:

Even if you trust the government today, what happens when it changes?  In our democracy we’re never more than eight years away from a total change of government.  Suddenly, everyone’s vulnerable to this individual and the systems are already in place.  What happens tomorrow, in a year, in five years, in ten years, when eventually we get an individual who says, “You know what? Let’s flip that switch and use the absolute full extent of our technological capabilities to ensure the political stability of this new administration”?

. .  He was speaking in the abstract at the time, not about Trump.

Political cultures and environments can change rapidly, sometimes with calculating help from those who have ascended to power.  The Nazi era in Germany and the countries Germany occupied provide examples of how completely countries can change faster than residents could recognize the dire threat they faced in time to flee and save their lives.

Our own country has had its own very recent periods where, with intense monitoring, we have sought to tightly constrain, criminalize and penalize unpermitted political thinking.

New plaque outside my Brooklyn Heights building.  We revere Arthur Miller as a great mind and writer, but also because he refused to "name names" when, only recently in this country, that was an act of incredible courage.  You can watch the video of the plaque dedication ceremony to learn more about Miller's courage with comment about how that relates to today.

Outside the building where I live in Brooklyn Heights we just put up a plaque commemorating the fact that Arthur Miller (October 17, 1915 - February 10, 2005), the celebrated Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright who authored “The Crucible,” “Death of A Salesman,” “A View From the Bridge” and many other great works once lived in the building.  The plaque reads in part:

In 1956, Miller refused to name names when he was subpoenaed by the House Un-American activities Committee.

Throughout the decades that Jane Jacobs was known to the world as a celebrated urbanist thinker she assiduously avoided being pigeon-holed has a Republican, Democrat, Liberal or Conservative.  I am now reading Robert Kanigel’s new biographer of her life, “Eyes on the Street: The Life of Jane Jacobs,” and have been surprised to learn that in 1952 (the year I was born) Jacobs, threatened with the loss of her government job, was forced to defend herself against suspicions that her independence of thought made her immoral and disloyal to the United States.  That was despite that fact she had a proven record of writing some very effective “propaganda” on the Unite States Government’s behalf.

Jacobs’ eight-thousand-word defense in response to the accusations of suspicion included:

It still shocks me, although we should all be used to it by this time, to realize that Americans can be officially questioned on their union membership, political beliefs, reading matter and the like.  I do not like this, and I like still less the fear that arises from it. . .

I was brought up to believe that there is no virtue in conforming meekly to the dominant opinion of the moment.  I was encouraged to believe that simple conformity results in stagnation for a society, and that American progress has been largely owing to the opportunity for experimentation, the leeway given initiative, and to a gusto and freedom for chewing over odd ideas.

She had much more to say, of course, including about her abhorrence of the “political tyranny” of the Soviet system of government taking on as its mission “the molding of people into a ‘specific kid os man,’ i.e. ‘Soviet Man,’” that it practiced and extolled “a conception of the state as ‘control from above and support from below’; that controls the work of artists, musicians, architects and scientists; that controls what people read and attempts to control what people think.”  Notice her stress on the relationship between freedom to read and freedom of thought.


Federal Judiciary In Residence at the NYPL Amongst The Trustees

Was any particular purpose intended to be served by the NYPL’s appointment of Judge Robert A. Katzmann as a new trustee?  When it comes to certain of the NYPL’s goals, does this unfold resources for the NYPL to navigate better through the overlapping welter of broad surveillance laws virtually none of us can fully comprehend and quite frequently can’t find out much about?  Does it put the NYPL in a better position to try to protect the privacy of patrons using the library? Conversely, does it create conflicts of interests for the judge if he now hears related surveillance cases?

Interestingly, as previously noted here in Noticing New York, on September 19, 2007, the NYPL trustees were previously advised, that another federal judge in the Southern Circuit who was similarly an NYPL trustee at that time, Judge Victor Marrero, handed down "an important opinion on the USA PATRIOT Act"(September 7th) ordering the FBI to stop its wide use of warrantless, secret "national security letters" (NSLs) to demand e-mail and telephone data from private companies, saying in his opinion:

The risk of investing the FBI with unchecked discretion to restrict such speech is that government agents, based on their own self-certification, may limit speech that does not pose a significant threat to national security or other compelling government interest

“Rule 41”: Another Library Privacy Battle Lost Last Friday, December 1st 


Coverage in The Hill of the more recent proposed “Rule 41” change about which the American Library Association sent out its Advocacy Alert last week explained, “The Department of Justice’s alterations to the rule would allow law enforcement to use a single warrant to hack multiple devices beyond the jurisdiction that the warrant was issued in.”   Opposition to the change was expressed in a letter signed by a long list of organizations (23 in all) that included American Civil Liberties Union, Google, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and two library organizations additional to the American Library Association, American Association of Law Libraries and Association of Research Libraries.  The letter stated the rule change could be “abused to obtain a single warrant to search millions of targets, raising a host of constitutional concerns” and “would permit law enforcement to search the computers of hundreds of entirely innocent crime victims without their consent.”

The letter which also described the “unique harms” of hacking that could also flow out to third parties stated the “consequences of this rule change are far from clear, and could be deleterious to security as well as to Fourth Amendment privacy rights. Government hacking, like wiretapping, can be much more privacy invasive than traditional searches. . .  because judges often authorize these warrants without requiring the government to specify the tactics and techniques that will be used, we simply do not know the full extent of the government’s searches.”  A statement from Robyn Greene, who handles policy counsel and government affairs at New America’s Open Technology Institute, said “This rule change is far too complex and raises too many privacy and cybersecurity concerns for Congress to let the rule go into effect without conducting any oversight whatsoever.”

Unfortunately for us and apparently for our libraries, despite the ALA Advocacy Alert, “Rule 41” took effect December 1st.  Edward Snowden weighed in about it on Twitter: “Without a debate or any new law, the rights of every American -- and basic privacy of people around the world -- have been narrowed.”  And also: “The DOJ's claims are dishonest: #Rule41 substantively changes the limits on the government's powers. The FBI's hacking was just legalized.”

Snowden's "Rule 41" Tweets

Its Policy Notwithstanding, Is Privacy At NYPL's Digital Libraries Assured?

So last week the NYPL sent out to its users the reassuring email that it has a “privacy policy,” and that, with its revisions, the policy along with its `protection’ of library users will increase “trust and transparency between the Library and the community we serve,” telling users that if they read the policy, they will “understand what data we collect and how we use it.”  But is it fair to say that by reading the policy library users will understand what sort of data will be collected when they visit the library electronically or make use of its many increasing electronic features and portholes to access its resources and books?

Is it fair to think there will be privacy in our libraries if efforts to oppose the curtailment of library privacy by rule expansions like the CALEA expansion or “Rule 41” change keep getting defeated?  Is it fair to think that the NYPL's privacy policy assures any privacy if it's actually the NYPL’s “Internet Service Provider, and not the Library itself” that complies with CALEA’s data collection . .  therefore operating outside the circumscribed shell of the NYPL’s privacy policy?

Let's expand these questions to ask big picture: Should we be assured that we will find privacy at the library when the NYPL hired Booz Allen Hamilton, the biggest private spy firm in the nation working for the U.S. Government, as its consultant to structure its reorganizational shedding of its books and physical library resources like the real estate that housing them?  Let’s remember again that the NYPL hired Booz Allen not very long after its board was advised of the expectation that CALEA might “require” the NYPL and “to reengineer their Internet service facilities to enhance law enforcement’s ability to monitor and intercept communications.”

Certainly, Booz Allen, the firm where Edward Snowden once worked, would have possessed extremely relevant and tailored expertise in navigating responses through changing surveillance laws and the practices that implement them, but is it to be legitimately hoped that Booz would use that expertise to enhance and secure library privacy, or ought we instead entertain suspicions about the reverse?

Suffice it to say, that if you visited NYPL libraries like Mid-Manhattan, SIBL, the 42nd Street Central Reference Library or the now destroyed Donnell Library to access books that were then readily available to you on premises (and did not need to be electronically accessed) you were afforded a real and practical assurance of privacy that does not now apply with the various means of accessing books digitally, including connecting through the Internet that you must use now in the wake of changes made with Booz's consulting guidance.

Sacrifice of the Traditional Library on the Altar of Digital Nirvana

At our meeting last week with NYPL library officials we expressed concern about how NYPL library book shelves now sit, apparently unnecessarily, devoid of books.  Through most of the meeting, we heard a lot from the NYPL officials about the glorious benefits of digitizing the availability of books.  Similarly, we were told about what goes along with this, the benefits centralizing the availability of books with the elimination of  “duplicates” of these printed repositories of knowledge- except that it had to be conceded that such cost-reducing cutbacks for libraries also defund publishers and authors.

We were told, however, that the glories of digitization demand sacrifice.   Bill Kelly (William P. Kelly), the NYPL’s Andrew W. Mellon Director of the Research Libraries, told us:

I think it will come as no news to anyone at this table that expenses in the world of libraries as we try to do both print and digital forms become increasingly more expensive.  I would argue that they are not sustainable across time.  This is not an unusual position.  This is one shared across the library terrain.  I’ve talked with Carla Hayden [head of the Library of Congress] about it, I’ve talked with librarians at Cambridge and Oxford, I’ve talked with people in Chicago and California . . . The notion that one library can do all things is no longer a sustainable one . . The task of being able to maintain digital and print material at the same time- That horse left the barn a long time ago.

In other words, if we accept this, those of us who thought that digital tools might make things more affordable so that more becomes possible, and society’s wealth can increase, were wrong:  Digitaltechnology makes libraries as we have known them unsustainable.

I could not listen to Mr. Kelly without remembering that there is a history of previous civilizations collapsing when those now dead-and-buried civilizations decided that their libraries were unsustainable and not worth keeping.  Of course, back then, the libraries that were being abandoned by these declining civilizations were libraries as we have traditionally known them and as they served us over the centuries, not the kind of hi-tech digital operations we are developing now than can do double duty to surveil us as we read.

It’s like those Frankenstein meets the Wolfman horror movie mash ups that came out of the Universal Studios in the days of yore: Donald Trump, the self-styled `real estate mogul’ whose son-in-law was a principal financial beneficiary of the sudden and secretive sale of the Donnell Library for a pittance meets up with library-destroying Stephen A. Schwarzman, head of Blackstone, the world’s largest real estate investment firm (among other things), the NYPL trustee who helped push the Donnell real estate deal out the door to Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and was even rumored to be personally involved in the deal through his own companies beforehand.

CNBC has reported that president-elect Trump has announced who he will be meeting with frequently as president.   Blackstone CEO Schwarzman (of all people) is to chair a strategic and policy forum for Trump that will be comprised of “heads of some of the largest financial, industrial and media companies in the United States,”selected by Schwarzman.  See: MSNBC- Trump to meet 'frequently' with Blackstone's Schwarzman, other business titans to discuss policy, by Jacob Pramuk, Friday, 2 Dec 2016.
  
One can understand why appointing Schwarzman to such a position and meeting with him frequently would seem juicy in terms of opportunity to Trump given that, as just mentioned,  Schwarzman is the head of the world’s largest real estate investment company.  Think how resplendent and limitless that makes the business possibilities, although that’s not why Trump is supposed to be meeting with people as president.

The fact that Schwarzamn is involved in all or nearly all of the following seven lines of business should have significant attractions to Trump from a business point of view:

    •    private equity
    •    hedge fund
    •    real estate
    •    a large credit business that does highly leveraged credit,
    •    a mergers and acquisition group
    •    a troubled company restructuring business
    •    Raising money for other people in the alternative asset classes from institutional investors

When has the situation even been so ripe for turning a position in government into a money-making profit center?
There is a theory everyone is talking about concerning how we are not supposed to be “normalizing” all of the Trump excesses and the current far-ranging departures from precedent and what was previously viewed as good behavior and proper lawful comportment.  So you have to wonder when the New York Times, looking ahead to the Trump administration, writes an article finding possible precedent for what they foresee in the mega-conflict-of-interest scandals of the eight years that businessman Silvio Berlusconi was prime minister of Italy. . . And, it’s not just business; in the case of each man there have been legal proceedings to deal with charges of their illegally having sex with underage women.  (See: Trump's Potential Conflicts Have a Precedent: Berlusconi's Italy, by James B. Stewart, December 1, 2016.)

In what is possibly a somewhat “normalizing” comparison, the Times article says that Mr. Berlusconi's conflicts were “more blatant than Mr. Trump's potential conflicts, because he owned so much of the Italian media,” while neglecting to point out that there has already been talk about Trump starting his own television network.  Are we sure that’s no longer being thought about, because it’s certainly something that Trump’s campaign advisor, Roger Ailes, exiled from Fox News for sexual harassment, and Trump’s chief White House strategist, Steve Bannon, out of Breitbart News, would probably both love.  (Ailes and Trump were both in the news simultaneously for respective reports of sexual harassment, even as they worked together on the campaign.)

Unfortunately, a great deal of the “precedent” the Times challenged itself to go abroad to find in Italy with Mr. Berlusconi had already had groundbreaking precedent laid for Mr. Trump by Michael Bloomberg as mayor in New York City.  Some years ago Noticing New York wrote about the similarities between Bloomberg and Berlusconi, including the fact that they had neighboring homes in Bermuda.  Both Bloomberg and Berlusconi significantly repositioned where they stood on the charts of financial recognition while they held political office, racking up significant extra billions to inflate their wealth.  Bloomberg, like Berlusconi also had some media muscle to flex, including Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Radio on a local radio station he acquired, and Bloomberg cable television (even as the New York City was regulating cable companies).

The Donnell and other library-shrinking sell-offs were initiated in New York City under Bloomberg as mayor (although de Blasio, breaching the promises of his campaign, has continued pursuing them.)

During the campaign, several variations of a gimmick used by Trump emerged.  It cropped up with Trump’s side-stepping of federal income tax payments and his quid-pro-quo payments of elected officials (“When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do”): He asserted that because he had participated so heavily and successfully in a “rigged system” he was the one who knew best and was the best choice to “fix it,” including telling potential voters that  "Our campaign is about breaking up the special interest monopoly.”

There is actually some precedent in the way we recount history that might make such promises sound less absurd: When Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed Joseph Kennedy as the first head of the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1934 there were gasps about the fox guarding the henhouse, as Kennedy was known for sharp deals taking advantage of insider trading and market manipulation.  Kennedy “knew all the fraudulent, questionable backroom ways of stuffing the pockets of finance’s fattest fat cats.”  Nevertheless, it is generally credited that Kennedy, because he knew so well how the system could be abused, knew how best to root out its problems and reform it and actually did exactly that.

There is hardly any reason to now believe that is where we are headed with Trump. Where is Trump headed? . .

. .   Because Trump, routinely self-contradictory and perpetually caught in lies, can’t be depended on to actually tell us where he is headed, we are supposed to now cultivate a talent for listening through his “cacophony of lies. . [and] nonsense” to hear what he is actually, bigger picture, saying, which according to Masha Gessen, among other things involves the message that he is powerful enough to lie without consequence, something our previous politicians pushing the envelope of false political promise have never before been so immoderate about.

Firmer ground to fall back to is the “pay attention to what I do, not what I say” rule, but that inevitably leaves one playing catch-up.

While it may be that rooting problems out of the system could involve at least a certain amount of stealth (to avoid being too obvious about too soon?), it doesn’t look from any of Trump’s appointments that he is surrounding himself with any allies who would assist in pursuing any kind of reform.

Trump may once have spoken about “draining the swamp” when he was elected while excoriating Goldman Sachs (and Hillary’s Goldman $peechs), but now people perceive that he’s actually `filling the swamp with alligators,’ including multiple Goldman appointments, even to the extent that it might even start causing succession problems back at Goldman.

Trump biographer Pulitzer Prize-wining David Cay Johnston is something of a self-proclaimed expert on Trump, having reported about Trump since the early 1980s.  If you believe Johnston, Trump’s specialty is ensuring he makes a personal profit no matter what does (even making money just campaigning for president) and very typically leaving other people worse off, short-changed as he exits, for instance through bankruptcy.  According to Johnston (better audio if you go to WBAI):

what Donald is a master at is finding a way to extract money from something, make a deal, get an enterprise, pull all the money he can out of it.  This is not a man who creates wealth.  This is not a man with a long-term viewpoint.  He is simply someone who, like a leach, sucks the lifeblood out of a business for himself, and then moves on.

With a huge dossier of back-up files, Johnston says that Donald “has for his entire life embraced con artists, swindlers, violent felons” with the very troublesome involvement of organized crime figures to boot.   David Cay Johnston has been writing for a while about increasing wealth inequality with books like “Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)” (2008) and says that government policy now (and this was before it was known that Trump was headed to the White House) is “to take from the many to further enrich the few.”

Ergo, with what the corporations have been doing to us, extracting from the many to further enrich the few, it is perfect that Trump is teaming up with Stephen Schwarzman to chair a group of business leaders to set national policy that can proliferate such approaches throughout the economy.  That is Stephen Schwarzman, who, with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner participating, extracted value from the many for the few with the sale of the Donnell Library.  It is already worried by those looking ahead at these things that when it comes to all the publicly-owned assets of the nation’s infrastructure Trump’s plans will be a “full-on privatization assault,” a “privatization fire sale” ensuring “that private, not common, interests determine where funding is focused.”

The whole situation is rife with possibilities for crony capitalism: Before even assuming office Trump and Vice-President Elect Mike Pence just gave tons of tax-payer money and exemptions from regulatory protections for the public to Carrier, a company that is moving 1,300 jobs from Indiana to Mexico (while, supposedly in return for that government `generosity' keeping just 800 jobs here- another 300 jobs weren't ever possibly going to be moved), while, at the same time, other companies all around Carrier are also moving jobs to Mexico.

No, the signs are terrible.  The fossil fuel extraction industry that profits when it destroys the environment that the rest of us depend on to live will have a climate change denier presiding at the head of Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency.  And since climate change destroys the entire planet there is no place to move.

In fact, another reason we need to stay here in this country to fix things, deal with these devils we are getting to know here, is that similar things are happening around the world.

Just as the invaluable Donnell Library was plundered in a shrink-and-sink sale so that a luxury hotel and condominium tower could be built on its site (with Trump’s son-in-law a principal financial beneficiary), so too is the Sheffield Library in England threatened with sale so it can be turned into a luxury “five-star hotel.”   The luxury hotel at the site of the former Donnell was sold to Chinese investors for a record-setting amount (none of this money ever went NYC libraries).  The Sheffield Library is similarly proposed to be sold to Chinese investors.

One floor of the building now housing the Sheffield Library houses the Graves art gallery, an art museum opened by wealthy businessman man John George Graves in 1934 dedicated to ‘the service of knowledge and art.’  While the library would be moved away, the Graves art museum would remain in the building with the luxury hotel presumably enhancing the hotelier’s business prospects.  That sounds rather like what happened with Donnell which was, before it was banished, in a valuable location for a cultural library, across the street from the Museum of Modern Art.   Now it’s the patrons of the luxury Baccarat Hotel that benefit from such convenient access to the museum.

Coverage from the Guardian and the Sheffield Star

Sale of the Sheffield library is vehemently being opposed, by, among others, actor Michael Palin, of Monty Python’s Flying Circus fame, who “has described the proposals as an embarrassment for the city of his birth.”

In a letter to the Sheffield Star Palin wrote:

The Sheffield Central Library embodies the very best aspects of civic pride. It's a fine building, built to give education and literacy a prominent place at the very heart of the city.

That a building, seeking to improve the lot of all Sheffielders, should end up as a hotel for the rich and privileged, seems a sad reflection on how little the city cares for its public service legacy.

There is a quote from Palin on display on the first floor in the library:

There is no institution I value more in this country than libraries.

In its day, Monty Python with Mr. Palin contributing brilliantly, brought us far-fetched laughable conceptions such as the government’s “Ministry of Silly Walks.”  Unfortunately, we are succumbing to much more far-fetched tragedies.  It looks like under Trump we will, in essence, have a new department of the government, headed up by Mr. Schwarzman: “The Ministry of Silly Ideas To Sell off Valuable Public Properties.”

Disclosure: I am a co-founder of Citizens Defending Libraries and on the board of the Committee to Save the New York Public Library.

From our Thursday, December 24, 2009, A Christmas Eve Story of Alternative Realities: The Fight Not To Go To Pottersville (Or Ratnerville),

On this cusp of a new year, as Noticing New York returns here today to its annual tradition of offering a seasonal reflection on the world around us, this year seems a little different.

Our practice of, year to year, of presenting something clever involving traditional tales of seasonal spirit and aspiration to make the point how out-of whack what actually surrounds is, strikes us as weakly redundant of what is obvious, especially with what we now see going on nationally.

What seems more important right now is to offer: "We will all get through this."  . .

Union Square Subway Station: The messages of protest wall that sprang up after the November election.

 . . .   Maybe we say that partly as a prayer or expression of hope, but also because, if we don't, there is no first step to getting through this. . . . The winter solstice has arrived and it marks the return of the sun, which with Yuletide, and in a few days, New Year's, we will lead us to proclaim the start of the new year that leads into spring.  Even today, the sun is already setting about five minutes later in the evening, extending the day, than just days ago.

The truth is we can do what we need to do with a sense fun at the same time we pursue purpose.  Our Citizens Defending Libraries (I am a co-founder of CDL) meeting/holiday celebration this year (video shared on Facebook) was such an event.

CLICK TO ENLARGE (something you can't do with a library)- A gift to developer David Kramer (in suit) under the Brooklyn Heights Promenade XMass tree this year, the Brooklyn Heights Library, sold for less than the price of a vacant lot, courtesy of Mayor Bill de Blasio, The Brooklyn Heights Association, and Councilman Steve Levin.  Others were involved pushing for this sale, like Saint Ann's.  Kramer here was getting some elf-help from the construction union whom he has never treated well.  The union reversed positions of the public good of the sale when Kramer made some feeble work place safety concessions, sad for them and unwise in that unions wanting to reverse waning support from the public should seek to do so by supporting the public.

Last, year at this time Mayor de Blasio gave a Christmas present to developer David Kramer handing off to him the shrink-and-sale of the Brooklyn Heights central destination library, the second biggest most important library in Brooklyn, for a minuscule fraction of its value to the public.  Now, that deal is the subject of a criminal pay-to-play investigation by Preet Bharara.  If luck wends in the direction of protecting the public, the matters going to the grand jury respecting de Blasio will halt this sale. . .

. . .  Notwithstanding, this year de Blasio is giving permission to the developers to wreck and demolish the library while it is still city owned.

The shrink-and-sink sale of the library means goes along with a huge reduction in available books

The work has been done so carelessly, with so little regard for the public, that shards of loose construction debris have been allowed to fly dangerously off the roof and around the neighborhood.

Flying shards: Story about dangerous construction debris here.

Citizens Defending Libraries outside: Municipal Art Society's Summit on "Public Assets": Who Gets to Decide What They Are & Whether They Matter, Featuring Goldman Sachs and A Library-Shrinking Developer David Kramer

Meanwhile, and this again pertains importantly to what is happening on the national scene, we are focusing more on the subject of surveillance in our New York City libraries, why spy-firm Booz Allen Hamilton was hired in connection with the shrinking sale of our libraries, the elimination of books and the introduction of  more electronics into our reading.  That's something I have testified about this December season before City Council as co-founder of Citizens Defending Libraries with Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer saying that he is quite familiar with the PATRIOT Act, understands the concern we raised, but disagrees with us.
 As mentioned by Van Bramer, if he agreed with us, the concerns we raise would, among other things, affect "hundreds of thousands, if not millions of undocumented folks."  Yes, with national changes there is a lot of thought being given to things like this and related issues, like whether "sanctuary cities" are viable protections.

One thing to realize is that what is going on nationally that now seams so threatening is all related to the kinds of things we have been fighting locally.  In that regard it is ironic that the president-elect that has so many of us legitimately concerned is nominally a New York real estate developer.   . . (BTW: One good turn of events to note this year is that Bruce Ratner has been kicked off the board of his own company, even if his spirit lives on.)

. . .  The other thing to realize about national events is how little we may actually know or understand what really happened, or, in that regard, that we are probably not a nation as "divided"as some some people are telling us right now.

Here are links to the prior Noticing New York ventures into seasonal reflection where you can read (and find some pleasurable visuals- including the de Blasio Grincy-morph-face) about Mayor de Balsio as a Grinch, Bruce Ratner as the grasping Henry Potter in "It's a Wonderful Life" or similar fun comparisons respecting Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol":

•    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?.,

Wednesday, December 24, 2014, Seasonal Reflections: No Matter How Fortunate or Not, We Are All Equal, Sharing a Common Journey

•    Thursday, December 24, 2015, Seasonal Reflection: Mayor de Blasio, His Heart Squeezed Grinch-Small, Starts Gifting Stolen Libraries To Developers For The Holidays

On December 14th senior NYPL officials (lower right) testified before the City Council Library Committee (upper left) and did not mention that in a few days they were selling SIBL (lower left)- read for more surprises

Wednesday, December 14th senior NYPL officials, President Tony Marx, COO Iris Weinshall- Senator Schumer’s wife- and Chief Branch Library Officer Christopher Platt, were presenting pretty pictures to City Council library committee members of the proposed redoing of the Mid-Manhattan Library (that the NYPL is now calling a “campus”).   What they neglected to mention to the City Council members they addressed was that if any of those City Council members were readers of the real estate press they were almost immediately about to hear, reported in the Real Deal (December 28, 2016), about the NYPL’s rush to immediately sell SIBL, the NYPL’s 34th Street Science, Industry and Business Library. . . .

. .  And the Science, Industry and Business Library is being sold, at what could be criticized as a suspiciously low price, to the kind of tycoon who could easily hold his own if slipped into a James Bond script.    

This library sale is woeful indeed.  One thing that the NYPL officials were telling the City Council members was that SIBL, already an exceptionally well-used central library, was, with the Mid-Manhattan renovation, about to get a slew of new patrons who will appreciate just how marvelous a library it is.  It’s getting those patrons because the NYPL is choosing to renovate Mid-Manhattan by closing it down entirely for a period of years even though the central destination Mid-Manhattan is its most used circulating library in Manhattan . . . . NYPL officials say they think it is actually the largest circulating library in the country. Mid-Manhattan will be closed, however long it takes to renovate, with or without construction delays.  The NYPL currently expects, without delays, that period of closure to be two years.  And all those library patrons who use it will have to go someplace.  SIBL, in the former B. Altman department store building, is only a six block walk down Fifth Avenue from Mid-Manhattan.

SIBL, the state of-the-art "Library of the future" completed in 1996 at a cost of $100 million

To spend time at SIBL is to love it.  SIBL’s increased use for this extended period of time is virtually certain to further build up the constituency dedicated to preserving SIBL and to heighten awareness as New Yorkers seek to hold accountable any elected officials willing to participate in the folly of selling it.  That folly includes the NYPL’s intention to do away entirely with the science library SIBL now houses (notwithstanding that the 'business' portion of SIBL would theoretically `continue' consolidated with Mid-Manhattan).

Is this increase of love inevitably destined to come from the public the twisted reason for the NYPL’s rush to sell SIBL?  The NYPL is selling it quite awkwardly, years before the as yet unpredictable date when it can deliver possession to a buyer. And what comment might have ensued if the NYPL had more transparently spoken of the imminent sale to the City Council members or to the public in the room that day?

If you want to read about the real estate deal that sells SIBL and get into some juicy analysis about whether the price received was too low, skip to the second section of this article.  If you want to savor in near disbelief biographical details that would make it easy for the gentleman who has turned up as SIBL's buyer to be interpolated into a secret agent adventure story, skip to the third and last section of this article.  If you want to read about the reason those things are coming to pass, the NYPL’s background plan for an architectural book-shedding redesign of Mid-Manhattan in a consolidating shrinkage that gets rid of SIBL, you can proceed reading right away below.

The NYPL Plan To Renovate Mid-Manhattan

To be fair, the NYPL’s plans for Mid-Manhattan are not all that bad if you don’t mind expensive and you don’t mind getting rid of books.  You also have to not mind scrunching in after getting rid of a lot of library space, and not mind getting rid entirely of the science library housed at SIBL along with the NYPL’s cessation of its collection of science books.  (This is at the very same time that there is consternation that the incoming Trump administration may purge archives of federal agency science data, e.g “temperature of the planet from weather stations, from satellites, from ocean buoys” and other information, especially if there is not a robust “environment that supports libraries.”) Lastly, you have to not be bothered by concerns about how the switch over from readily available physical books to an introduced interface of library electronics brings to the fore recurring concerns about surveillance and the elimination of libraries as private spaces for freedom of thought.

As for not minding expensive, you have to not mind spending a currently estimated $265 million (as of the date of the hearing) on this Mid-Manhattan fix-up it at a time when the city’s library administration officials are crying poverty and citing underfunding as a reason to sell major libraries. That $265 million number is, according to COO Iris Weinshall, for “the entire Midtown Campus,” out of which she told the council members they were “pretty confident” they could do the Mid-Manhattan building renovation for $200 million, what the Wall Street Journal and Times reported, and the NYPL trustees were told November 16th when they were told the renovation budget was coming out to $855.6 p/s/f.  That’s despite construction increases in the past.

NYPL Trustees November meeting meeting where Mid-Manhattan designs were presented before they went on to City Council

The higher $265 million figure involved also covers additional expenses for concurrently handled and related changes for the 42nd Street Central Reference Library.  Nevertheless, Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer began the hearing referring to the overall project as “a $300 million project” where “we want to see the funds spent correctly.”  The NYPL’s website also refers to the overall “Midtown plan” as costing “$300 million,” that final $35 million difference apparently involving expenditures on other libraries (perhaps even SIBL before it is sold) affected by the plan and picking up the slack for Mid-Manhattan’s multi-year shutdown.

Click to enlarge- NYPL's website: "The Midtown plan is a $300 million project to completely renovate and update the Mid-Manhattan Library, and to create increased public space, including for researchers and for exhibitions, at the iconic Stephen A. Schwarzman Building on 42nd Street."

Overall, in line with my testimony given at the hearing as co-founder on behalf of Citizens Defending Libraries at the City Council hearing, the plan can be looked at as a very expensive way to get rid of SIBL and get rid of books.  And the drive to get rid of books has to be looked at as suspect, and as an experiment that may not work out.

The NYPL has been unwilling to say precisely how many books are disappearing which would require a census going back before the plans were concocted and before book eliminations commenced.  We know that, just at SIBL, over one million books have been banished.  When the NYPL presented its plans to the public the night before going to City Council, its officials were unwilling to say how many books would be in the renovated Mid-Manhattan versus what had been available previously.  The renovated Mid-Manhattan is to be a consolidation of itself, SIBL (without the Science Library) and the erstwhile Donnell Library.  The next day when City Councilman Daniel Garodnick probed about the book number, the NYPL said they couldn’t be exact, but would get exact information in the future while giving numbers that hovered around 400,000.  The Wall Street Journal article on the new design reported that Mid-Manhattan would hold 400,000 books and other circulating materials.

Click to enlarge- Two views of the special five floors of book shelves reached by walking aerially through the atrium.  On right: at the far left of cross section view.  And on the left.  The shelves would be at the widest part of the library, using a soft of "leg" that juts off to go all the way through the block, from 40th to 39th street.

One of the clever aspects of the new Mid-Manhattan design is that, in order to house at least the reduced number of books that the NYPL hopes to in such a greatly contracted amount of space, a limited portion of the library, an area where most of the books will be, will be built specially much like the brilliantly designed research stacks of the 42nd Street Library under the famous Rose Reading Room, which were designed for maximum efficiency in getting requested books up to the readers.  Mid-Manhattan have is to have five floors of these stacks, which because of their shortened height would replace what would normally be three regular floors. . . (There are seven floors of stacks, now empty, under the Rose Reading Room that cover a vastly larger area and intended to hold three million research books.)

Don't like having books?  Architect from the Mecanoo firm presenting to the NYPL trustees at their board meeting tells them of the library's book shelves (pointed to): “They are not structural, the shelves, you can take it away later if you want.”

. . . But if you are worried that there already too few books going to be housed at Mid-Manhattan by virtue of this arrangement, consider what the Mecanoo architect for the plan said when she was presenting the Mid-Manhattan stack design to the NYPL trustees: Sounding as if she was nervously alluding  to some sort of difference of opinion, she told them: “They are not structural, the shelves, you can take it away later if you want.”

So the bookshelves are regarded as possibly just temporary?

However clever the creation of this special section for books in the library might be, it has the flaw of not integrating the books with the population using the libraries.  The books would be reached by walking gangplanks crossing intervening atrium space allowing for the grade change.   Making the most of the light in the atrium (or teasing the lightheadedness of those prone to vertigo) the ramps across would have clear glass bannisters.  The books set aside in the book section are meant to be “browsable,” but if in browsing you discover certain books you want to spend a few extra minutes studying there won’t be a nearby table to lay them out for closer inspection and you may feel hemmed in among the shelves unless you traverse back across the gangplanks.

The new Mid-Manhattan plan is clearly better and less expensive than the $500+ million Central Library Plan that preceded it.  That ill-conceived plan was derailed by the opposition of book lovers and activists opposing it, including Citizens Defending Libraries, which was a plaintiff in two of the lawsuits that helped stop it.  Helping to prove the proposition that the more you shrink libraries the more it costs to do so, the Central Library Plan would, at far greater cost than the current Mid-Manhattan plan, have shrunk library space even more drastically, extending to the total elimination of Mid-Manhattan as well as SIBL.  Headstones for those libraries could then have been set up in the library graveyard next to Donnell’s.

Otherwise, short on space with the shrinkage from the discard of SIBL, the new Mid-Manhattan plan conscripts basement space for public use that was previously not public. The underground is where the plan will put the teenagers in a teen center and younger children architecturally cordoned off from each other `because they don’t like to be together.’  Outfitting the basement for public use is not such a bad idea if you think of it as adding to the above-ground space at the Mid-Manhattan library which is not shrinking like the plans driving replacement literary space underground with the Donnell and Brooklyn Heights library sales.

If, instead, you think of the underground space as replacing SIBL’s spaces it is maybe not such a great substitute.  Moreover, this midtown teen center is not actually a new teen center, but, when it opens (projected now for the beginning of 2020) will be the long-awaited replacement of the teen center that was at Donnell, closed in the spring of 2008.  That Donnell teen center, newly renovated when the library closed, was not underground.  Previously, the underground space in the Mid-Manhattan basement was ancillary book-supporting space, so that is lost too.

When NYPL representatives presented the plans January 5th to Manhattan Community Board 5's Budget, Education and City Services committee, the community board members were told that the plan was giving the NYPL “35% more public space.”  But that is only approaches a vague level of `truthiness’ if you totally disregard elimination of SIBL (and Donnell before that).

When the community board members asked about what was being given up by the plan, “what are you giving up, what is not included in this new plan that is in existence now?” the NYPL representative told them “currently we are not giving anything up. . . there didn’t need to be any sacrifices.”   The NYPL’s representatives simply skipped over the fact that SIBL was being sacrificed, its whole science library component eliminated.  Nor did they mention the NYPL’s recent rush to sell the vast amount of public space at SIBL, all of it in pristine condition because it was so recently built.

Saying that nothing would be lost, The NYPL representatives `explained’ that the new plan would result in “way more technology,” without noting how technology already abounds at SIBL at a level the Mid-Manhattan plan is unlikely to recoup.  Extolling the virtues of the Mid-Manhattan Plan for a “dynamic state of the art library,”Elizabeth R. Leber, the architect from Beyer Blinder and Belle (Beyer and Mecanoo are the two firms working together on this) presenting the plan to CB5 members made much of the creation of “consultation rooms where you have one-on-one or two-on-two meetings, group sessions, working groups.”   Not mentioned is that these “consultation rooms” and “meeting rooms” are abundant at SIBL together with auditoriums and public presentation spaces, spaces the NYPL is pretty  keeps under wraps now.

Above and below, floor plans for SIBL: Tons of conference room, meeting room and auditorium space

When SIBL opened in 1996 it was written about as the “library of the future” and the “library of the 21st century” with the New York Times proclaiming that “even the smell of the place. .  emanates `future.`”

Similarly, even though queried, these NYPL representatives did not inform the CB5 members about, or in any way acknowledge, the drastic reduction in the number of books.  The NYPL representatives also did not want to address the interrelated question about electronic surveillance in reformulated libraries (they said they didn't understand the question).

From the NYPL CGI video of the new design, views of the envisioned roof deck

The new Mid-Manhattan plan makes a gracious gesture of opening up at the top of the building a new roof deck for public use, something that oughtn’t to be too expensive.  It should help counterbalance any feelings of campedness, while simultaneously addressing an obvious priority for libraries (just kidding about that concluding phrase).  Meanwhile, this gives the library some space to rent out for private social functions, something that has become a new priority at the NYPL with the NYPL regularly hosting high-society weddings across the street.  Asked by CB5 members about “revenue opportunities” by virtue of the changes being made, George D. Mihaltses, the NYPL Vice President for Government and Community Affairs, explained that the roof deck would likely have a café for dining, but then said he didn’t “want it to appear that space was being created for dinner events, that’s not the purpose of the space; the primary purpose of the space is to serve the public. .  but when that space is not being used we have the opportunity to rent it out.”

Above, -click to enlarge- from the NYPL's online page inviting weddings, “The New York Public Library’s Stephen A. Schwarzman Building is rated Best of Weddings Venue by The Knot magazine.- Office of Special Events  212.930.0730 -  spev@nypl.org” overlaid with two images with which the NYPL is touting the creation of the roof garden with overhangs so it is enjoyable no matter what the weather.

The CB5 committee voted to issue its general approval of the proposed Mid-Manhattan plan and figure out its problems with the plan afterward.  The reasoning for the vote was partly because the plan is considered an obvious improvement over the absurd Central Library Plan that the committee and CB5 had voted to endorse previously.

Click to enlarge- Presentation of NYPL Mid-Manhattan Plan being made to Community Board 5 committee

The NYPL is hawking its plan with new CGI video of how good the renovated library will look with the freshness of spotlessly new CGI generated carpet, glistening new surfaces still pristine bedecked in their first coats of paint, new CGI furniture perfectly arranged as only computer conceptualization can manage.  Imagined patrons walk about in dark, fashionable suits looking like those boutique hotel doormen whose dark suits are their uniforms (or maybe Neo in “The Matrix”).  The envisioning does not neglect to include a patron in a wheelchair on the roof deck talking (maybe?) to someone on a cell phone.

The renovation means that there will be an overdue cleaning of what everyone agrees is the building’s beautiful facade (covered by scaffolding until recently).  The building, once the Arnold Constable department store (1914), is roughly contemporaneous with the architecturally renowned 42nd Street reference library (1911) sitting kitty-corner across the intersection.  It is also roughly contemporaneous with the former flagship B. Altman department store (1906) that SIBL inhabits.

If we have the money, the Mid-Manhattan building facade should be cleaned. Fresh carpet and fresh paint are worthwhile expenses too.  The lack of timely and suitable basic maintenance tries the public’s patience. If we have the money to spend, our libraries should be gorgeous as well as functional. Hopefully, if Mid-Manhattan is renovated it will be maintained better in the future than it has been of late. As the committee closed on in its vote for the plan, one of the CB5 board members reasoned why she favored that vote, saying of the Mid-Manhattan building as presently maintained, “it just doesn’t have that spark.” Similarly, in connection with its vote, the CB5 committee head Layla Law-Gisiko said of the current Mid-Manhattan, “it’s a sad building, it’s an overused building.”  (emphasis supplied)

"Overused"?  As already noted, NYPL officials are saying it is the most used circulating library in Manhattan, and, they think, in terms of circulation, the largest circulating library in the country. . .

. . . A huge increase in use is projected.  The senior NYPL officials presenting the reasons the City Council members (and CB5 committee) should favor the plan predicted a significant escalation of use of Mid-Manhattan library after the renovation, citing as examples greatly escalated use of three libraries after other NYPL renovations: Washington Heights (visits up 47%, circulation up 46%), Stapleton Library on Staten Island (visits up 33%, circulation up 51%), and Kingsbridge Library (visits up 80%, circulation up 76%).  (Note the circulation increasing is made up of mostly physical books.)  If Mid-Manhattan’s visits can be be expected to increase shortly after renovations anywhere from 33% to 80%, (probably more with the demise of the well-used SIBL), the theoretical “35% more public space” and “extra seating” in Mid-Manhattan is likely to prove cold comfort.

If, sadly, Mid-Manhattan is already“overused,” should we be selling SIBL and, with a substantial decrease in library space and resources, increasing the problem of that already recognized `overuse’?

Selling SIBL In a Rush and For a Suspiciously Low Price

What is the NYPL getting for giving up SIBL, a library which without any renovation, is already in perfect shape, already looking as purdy as some of the glossy sketches the NYPL is flagging for its Mid-Manhattan plans?  That’s something that really needs to be examined.

First, to be clear, the current rush to sell SIBL is a second rush by the NYPL to sell the remainder of SIBL.  The NYPL’s  first rush was in June of 2012 (the Bloomberg era) when, without prior public notice or fanfare, virtually without mentioning it all, the NYPL sold the part of SIBL that the public doesn’t see.  From a technical standpoint of just square footage it was the greater portion and it was sold for what then seemed like a low price.  Nevertheless, it wasn’t the space occupied by the public patrons of the library, and wasn’t, on a square footage basis, the most valuable portion of the space.

The first rushed sale, was in anticipation of and, indeed, a partial execution of the NYPL’s Central Library Plan, a plan that because it was then scrapped for its preposterousness two years later, May of 2014, never came to fulfillment at all.  One other foolish rush was involved, the foolish rush to banish more than a million books from SIBL which is what allowed the space holding most of those books, along with some administrative space to be sold.

Although SIBL has cost the public $100 million to put in place as a brand new state-of-the-art library in 1996, and although midtown real estate prices were making dramatic increases, five floors, a substantial majority of a “seven-floor” library (sometimes variously described as "eight" floors) was sold for a mere $60.8 million.  The 2012 transaction and that seemingly low price was discussed at length by in Noticing New York here: SIBL, NYPL's Science, Industry and Business Library Sold At An Unreported Loss To The Public (And an Elucidating Sideways Look At The BAM South Library Real Estate Games), June 15, 2013.

When NYPL president Tony Marx excused what seemed like that very low sales price of most of the SIBL space, that book shelf space and some administrative space, in 2012, he predicted that the sale of the remaining space would close the gap to make up for it.  That prediction was based on the fact that remaining space to be sold was very valuable retail space accessed by the public at street level. 

Now with the Real Deal announcing the sale of that retail space, reportedly “roughly 100,000 square feet” for $93 million, we finally know all the figures and can calculate exactly what the public is getting financially in exchange for its loss.

    Total 1996 all-in cost for SIBL $100 million

    Total 2012 sale price $60.8 million- $41.55 in 1996 dollars

    Total 2016 sale price $93 million- $63.55 in 1996 dollars

That's $105.1 million for this sale in adjusted for inflation 1996 dollars, meaning the NYPL came out just about even, a few pennies more (maybe enough to cover transaction costs).  It's not such a blatant squandering that the NYPL can be criticized it for unless you realize how much more than that the Manhattan real estate market has gone up in the intervening 20 year period.  Of course, rightfully, you'd have to consider writing off the costs of the improvements that where particular for making this a worthwhile library.  (Or, maybe not, as we will get to.)

Not adjusted for inflation, the combined sales were $153.8 million for an asset that originally cost $100 million, a 53% increase without adjustment for inflation.

According to the index for NYC condos the index was 268.2 in the fall of 2016 and 73.31 in May of 1996.  In other words those real estate values (not adjusted for inflation) went up 266% in those twenty years.

Here is a hard-to-read graph on Manhattan Luxury housing prices from Bloomberg for roughly the same period.
Here is an article with graphs from "Real Clear Markets" with similar findings - Not surprisingly, as density and building continue the value of land escalates faster than the value of condos within buildings on the land.


This year we have in the New York Times:  A Record-Setting Year in City Home Sales, by Vivian Marino, December 23, 2016

The average sales price of those properties - all apartments, co-ops and condominiums sold in Manhattan this year - reached a record $2.2 million, or $1,886 a square foot, according to a year-end market report by CityRealty, which tracks apartment sales. The previous record, set last year, was $1.9 million, or $1,735 a square foot.  [emphasis supplied]

(That links to a chart showing average p/s/f sales going from a starting point of 2003 Q1 of 551 p/s/f to 2016 Q4 1,845 p/s/f, a 235% increase.)
 In 1996 we have the Times reporting: Co-op Sales Rise In Manhattan, September 8, 1996:

At the same time, the overall median price for co-ops decreased significantly, to $298,500, compared with $372,500 in the second quarter of 1995, according to the report. While the impetus for the drop in median price was increased sales of studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments, prices for units of three bedrooms or more increased.

In other words from 1996 to 2016 the average price of a co-op in Manhattan went up 637% from $298.500 to $2.2 million.

This latest reporting on the space involved accentuatesquestions about what the original size of SIBL actually was and what portion of that each of these sales represents.  In April 24, 1996 the Times (Adopting Branch Libraries) reported that SIBL was “roughly 160,000 square feet in the former B. Altman building.”  But, in August 24, 1996, (Fire on 34th Street Snarls Traffic and Shuts Library), the Times reported “The Science, Industry and Business Library of the New York Public Library occupies nearly 200,000 square feet on the eastern end of the building.”  August 6, 1995, describing the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York bond issue financing the sale, the figure was stated by the Times to be still larger (plus, at least prospectively, adding an eighth floor): “in 213,000 square feet on the lower eight floors of the Madison wing.”  (emphasis supplied)

None of these figures is sufficiently large to encompass what the new sale of SIBL to Vulcan (“roughly 100,000 square feet” or $930 per square foot) plus the previous 2012 sale to the Pension Fund (“140,000 square feet and only the fifth floor is currently occupied” according to the Real deal- $434.23 p/s/f) would total out to: i.e. 240,000 square feet.  Perhaps the main significance of how large the SIBL square footage is calculated to be is to make clear how much library space is being lost.  Another side of the equation: The greater the amount of space being sold, the lower the p/s/f figure the library appears to be getting. . . . From either standpoint, it wouldn't seem to be in the PR spinning interest of the NYPL to exaggerate the amount of space involved at this point.

Retail Condo prices currently (looking at the Real Deal):

•    Zara's set a record for SoHo with a $20,588 p/s/f deal, $280 million for 13,600-square-foot ground floor of a newly created retail condo at 503 Broadway.

•    At 670 Columbus Avenue, located between West 92nd and 93rd streets at combination, ground floor unit plus 31,000-square-foot parking garage went for $1,728.57 p/s/f (retail space or )- a 36,000-square-foot retail condominium for $60.5 million.

•    At 147 East Houston Street- 1,105.77 p/s/f- a 5,200-square-foot retail condo for $5.75 million.

•    1273-1281 Madison Avenue, also known as 47 East 91st Street- 3,750 p/s/f - $30 million for 8,000-square-foot space (The condo last sold for $20.3 million in 2013)

•    Three retail condominiums just south of the World Trade Center (at 120 Greenwich Street at Albany Street) for 6,401 p/s/f - $35.5 million for 4,683 square feet of ground floor space and 863 feet on the lower level.

•    2460 Broadway, also known as 215 West 91st Street at $1,511 p/s/f-  $13 million for 8,600-square-foot space.

•    868 Broadway (currently leased by British footwear brand Dr. Martens) for $3,970.59 p/s/f- $13.5 million for a 3,400-square-foot space.

•    145 Greene Street, at Houston Street, $4,000 per square foot- $9.75 million for the nearly 3,000-square-foot property - "well above the median price for commercial condos in the area, which is $1,824 per square foot, according to PropertyShark." (I don't pay $70 per month to subscribe to PropertyShark so I haven't duplicate the median price info this Real Deal article supplied.)

•    2008 Broadway near West 68th Street, Lincoln Square- 37-year master lease interest $70 for $2,160 p/s/f-  million for 32,400-square-foot commercial condo, 22,000 square feet of selling space with rest of the property's square footage housing storage space in the basement and mechanical equipment in the mezzanine level.

•    465 Sixth Avenue near West 12th Street - 46-year ground lease- for maybe $2,307 p/s/f for a 13,000-square-foot retail condo rumored to be in contract with another buyer for more than $30 million.

•    132 Mulberry Street, north of Canal Street in Little Italy for 1,049.22 p/s/f - $17.5 million for the 16,679-square-foot space (Which levels besides the ground floor of the six-story building are included in the sale was not immediately clear.)

To reiterate, the NYPL is selling the SIBL retail ground floor access condo for $930 per square foot.

A Very Interesting Buyer: Vulcan Development’s Paul G. Allen 

Above: A real James Bond movie yacht first owned by Adnan Khashoggi and used (as in the foreground) in the film "Never Say Never," the Sean Connery remake of "Thunderball"  This 85 m, 281-foot, 5-deck yacht was later the "Trump Princess" until the one-day-to-be- president-elect lost it as the result of one of his bankruptcies.  You want to call that a Jame Bond "yacht"?  See below.

I said at the outset that the new buyer of SIBL’s magnificent space is a mogul intriguing enough to provide spice if included tales of panoramic international mystery.

If inserted into a James Bond movie, maybe the character would be like the “Willard Whyte” character in “Diamonds Are Forever” (1971), obviously modeled after Howard Hughes.  To say that Vulcan Development’s Paul Allen owns a specially outfitted (and almost immediately refitted) $250 million yacht that is the 14th largest in the world (126 m, 414-foot yacht, 8 levels, two helicopters, two submarines, one for ten people, an remotely operated underwater vehicle, “ROV,” a glass-bottomed swimming pool, a music recording studio and a basketball court, with a staff of 60), may not sound too impressive.  It is probably better to speak of his ownership of a fleet of three mega-yachts, more than one of which is among the world’s hundred biggest.

The Octopus via Wikipedia- By Metallion - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

A never-filmed, earlier-conceived ending of “Diamonds Are Forever” involved a climactic yacht chase, billionaires chasing billionaires in their yachts.  Too expensive and challenging to film?  Paul Gardner Allen could have supplied, no sweat, all the resources needed, forget about having to resort to cheesy CGI.

Allen’s largest yacht is the Octopus, which name might bring to mind the name of the 1983 James Bond film, “Octopussy” with a floating palace as one of its plot points.  Octopus was the world's biggest yacht when Allen bought it.  Does the fact that this yacht built in 2003 has already worked its way so far down the gigantitude list say more about the racing income inequality in our time or how yacht-building technology is racing ahead?

The Tatoosh via Wikipedia- By Intersofia - Own work, Public Domain, Link

Allen’s second biggest yacht is the $160 million, 92 m, 303 foot Tatoosh.  He just recently sold his third yacht, the 60m yacht Meduse, and a couple of years before that sold a fourth from his fleet, the 46.9m Charade.  Along with the yachts, Allen was one of the wealthy who owned a private island, accessible only by private transportation which he just sold, “Allen Island,” actually already named after someone else when he bought it.  How many James Bond films, beginning with the first, “Dr. No,” have private islands in them?  At least four and more if you want to consider mid-ocean oil drilling platforms an equivalent.  “Thunderball” was filmed on a private island, but that doesn’t count.

Allen’s private island was a 292-acre island in the San Juans off the coast of Washington state.  He traded it in for a 387-acre peninsula site on another nearby island.

Above on left,from the Smithsonian, SpaceShipOne.  On the left, via Wikipedia, a more conventional aircraft to own, a Boing 757.- Konstantin von Wedelstaedtderivative work: Altair78 - This file was derived from  Icelandair Boeing 757-200 Wedelstaedt.jpg: , GFDL 1.2, Link

Along with the fleet of ships go some serious flying machines.  There’d be air cover in the event of a war! (Your fleet should never be without it.) Private jets have included a Boeing 757 he sold to Donald Trump, our president elect. The fictional Willard Whyte in “Diamonds Are Forever” has his space toys, launching satellites and, by virtue of an almost impossible-to-explain plot point, even had a “moon buggy” on the premises.  Paul Allen is an investor, joint venturing with what is now a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman, in SpaceShipOne, the first private spacecraft, a vehicle capable of  suborbital flights into outer space 62 miles (100 kilometers) above Earth, attaining extraordinary speeds and then landing again on a runway after reentering the earth’s atmosphere. .

. .  Now, with his own aeronautics company, Vulcan Aerospace, he has been secretly building the world's largest airplane, a twin-fuselage Goliath as wide as a football field and bigger than Howard Hughes's famous Spruce Goose.  This is likewise a bid to be able to get into outer space more routinely and less expensively with rockets “air-launched” from the plane at 35,000 feet.   Allen owns Captain Kirk’s chair from the original “Star Trek” series.

Flying Heritage Collection website

Allen also curates and oversees a collection of restored WWII war planes (including a Curtiss Tomahawk, a Messerschmitt 109, a Grumman Hellcat and a Spitfire), all in working order, at his Flying Heritage Collection in Everett, Wash. Also in terms of boy-toys, he owns several professional sports teams.

Paul Allen’s money, is rooted in his history as co-founder of Microsoft.  He has a multibillion-dollar investment portfolio including technology and media companies, with Forbes recently ranking him as #21 on its Forbes 400 list of richest Americans with an estimated $19.2 billion in wealth.  He pursues an interest in artificial intelligence and holds a number of patents.

Paul Allen might be acquiring the SIBL retail condominium through his Vulcan Development as just another real estate investment, planning to gut it and build something from scratch, but it's almost more consistent to imagine his acquisition of an entire science library with auditoriums and meeting spaces as the acquisition of one more fabulous toy.  Wouldn't the convenience of a sparkling venue dead-center in midtown Manhattan venue provide a superior lure, at least occasionally, for the upper echelons and celebrities he wants to attend his frequent parties who now, instead, have to helicopter off to his yachts?  (Allen may be feeling a tad depressed down right now with the death of Carrie Fisher because she was reportedly the one introducing him to the members of the Hollywood set he invited.)

Such parties held at SIBL might shroud it in mystery to which it has previously been unaccustomed: Allen is "so obsessively private" that "guests to his famously lavish parties have to sign non-disclosure agreements."  That's according to a caustic Daily Mail article that came out in 2011 when Mr. Allen published his autobiographical memoir:"Idea Man: A Memoir by the Cofounder of Microsoft"that describes Allen as a"Gatsby-esque recluse"for the 20 years prior.  He was described in a blurb by a Time editor for another biography of him (Laura Rich's 2003 one below) as"the Loch Ness Monster of the internet age.”  . . 

. . . Although all recently checked out, there are three copies of Allen's "Idea Man" (a New York Times bestseller) that sometimes become available at SIBL.  A single reference copy of another biography of Allen, "The Accidental Zillionaire: Demystifying Paul Allen," by Laura Rich is available at SIBL for in library use.  The Daily Mail article notes another "sobriquet" in the U.S. press "the bitter billionaire," because of Allen's complaints about Bill Gates respecting what led to the breakup of their years together at Microsoft.

Wouldn't you think that more music recordings could get made at the convenient location of SIBL in NYC than the recordings Mick Jagger or the Beastie Boys have made on Allen's Octopus?  (Usher, Dave Stewart, U2, and Johnny Cash are supposed to have performed, not recorded the on the yacht.)  Allen loves music, socializing with invited musicians, and plays guitar and writes songs himself.  And SIBL ought to be so much more economical?  Octopus is estimated to cost $384,000 a week ($20 million a year) to operate.

But wouldn't SIBL, continuing its emphasis on science and even continuing as a library (it is still in a space where the CUNY graduate center library in the same building is supposed to act synergisticly on this basis), be a spectacular place for Allen to bring people together to discuss and explore the important ideas of science?  According to the Daily Mail article Allen once had a heart-to-heart with author Douglas Adams about exactly such a possible use of his money, bringing together "a group of 'brilliant thinkers' to dream up some great philanthropic endeavour." Allen had confessed to Adams that he felt frustrated with his wealth ("I've spent money on jets, boats. I don't know what to do next")  . .
 
. .  Allen's personal website, describing him as an "entrepreneur and philanthropist" says that he is "still exploring the frontiers of technology and human knowledge, and working to change the future" and that he is "working to save endangered species, improve ocean health, tackle contagious diseases, research the human brain and build sustainable communities."

Although Allen's various exploits assume command of many verging technologies, his focus seems to be steered by interests other than making money for money's sake.  It has been suggested that his "many millions"put into"more than 50 companies" have only dragged him down the rich list and that other investments would have been more lucrative.  Does that make him something of an altruist?  In 2015 he was given the Carnegie Medal for philanthropic efforts and"as a signer of The Giving Pledge, he has committed to giving away the majority of his fortune."  (As of now he has never been married.)

But here is what might be an even better, more stunning idea: What if Allen simply gave SIBL back to the public as a library, maybe calling on his friends to help replenish the books eradicated by the NYPL. If he returned it to the NYPL he could do so with an iron-clad stipulation that the NYPL maintain and not sell it off again, and to boot, that the NYPL stop turning its libraries into real estate deals impoverishing the public.  He could have an army of well-paid lawyers standing by ready to enforce those terms.

It would cost him comparatively little, just the sacrifice of his $93 million purchase price, insignificant compared to his $250 million Octopus, his $160 million Tatoosh, or the $20 million every year he is spending to operate the Octopus.  It would be 00.4% of the $19.2 billion fortune he has committed to giving away.

Why would Mr. Allen do this to benefit the public? . .

. .  Allen is the founder of Allen Institute for Brain Scienceestablished (2003)"to accelerate understanding of the human brain in health and disease."  From this, he is likely to understand the science surveyed by Scientific American, and written about on the front page of the New York Times specifically with respect to children, about how the brain learns better with physical vs. digital books.  That's notwithstanding how this institute's tackling of projects at the leading edge of science respecting the intersection of biology and technology may have something to do (in a very HBO-"Westworld" way) with Allen's also founding the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (AI2) to achieve breakthroughs in the ability of computers to reason, learn and read.  (AI2 was founded in the beginning of 2014, but Allen has been backing various AI ventures since 2001)

. . Allen is another one of the remarkable people in the world (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jane Jacobs being others) who has achieved what he has without a college degree; he dropped out of college.  Understanding what it is to be an autodidact Allen should appreciate all that libraries provide to those who teach themselves and set off in singular self-motivated directions of discovery.  More so, according to the Verge's reporting (when he launched AI2) of what is in his biography, Allen's father worked at a library and Allen marveled about libraries in his youth:  "He would tag along to his father's job at the library, overwhelmed by the information, and daydream about 'the sci-fi theme of a dying or threatened civilization that saves itself by finding a trove of knowledge.'"

. . Allen may also, because of his expressed interest in saving the environment and achieving sustainability, recognize that the solutions to problems like climate change and ocean acidification are not likely to come in the form of a “silver bullet” handed out “top down,” but from“myriad of approaches locally tailored and designed” with everyone participating in which resources  for discovery and self-education like libraries will be important.
     
Allen could even, possibly, make some money returning the library to the public. . .  This past July, Nick Pinto writing in the Village Voice wrote about how Google and a consortium of companies led by Daniel Doctoroff, Bloomberg's erstwhile deputy mayor in charge of real estate development, have been installing internet kiosks around the city seemingly for free, but Pinto warned, "Be Suspicious of Anything Free in New York City."  Pinto explained how the consortium would expect to make money from its product monetizing the data collected from the kiosk users.  Said Pinto: "as the old internet saw goes: If you're not paying for the product, you are the product."Allen could open up a library and then similarly collect all the data from the people using the library. . .


. .  But that privatizing effort, yet one more of so many multiplying encroachments of the public commons, would get away from the idea of libraries as we have classically esteemed them, places that should be zones of privacy where freedom of thought is protected.

Where do we go from here?

Biography page of Paul Allen's website: "Paul Allen has a question. And if you ever meet him, you'll hear him ask it more than once. What should exist?"- click to enlarge

Prominently on the bio page of Paul Allen's website it says:

Paul Allen has a question. And if you ever meet him, you'll hear him ask it more than once.

What should exist?

Here's the important answer we can deliver to to that question:  SIBL should exist!

But Mr. Allen is a man who has always been dedicated to looking into the future.  How easy it would be for him to be ahead of us already.  . . .

. . . Certainly, he is likely, longer than any of us, to have had his eye on SIBL, christened, from its inception, as the "library of the future." And isn't he likely to have been thinking about SIBL's future in the context of what he thought about libraries as a child?: how libraries, collecting troves of knowledge, can save "dying or threatened" civilizations?  Maybe giving SIBL back to he public is precisely the reason Mr. Allen is buying it in the first place.  Wouldn't supplying the public with a real working library that serves and takes our civilization on a more secure, clear-headed path into the future as we confront the unfolding vast mysteries of science be an even better trophy than owning Captain Kirk's chair from the bridge of the fictional Enterprise?

If the system is rigged, where do you fit in on the spectrum. You can take the poll down below and find out how other people are answering the question.

If “the system is rigged,” what do you do about it?  There is a range of responses people might have.

First: “Is the system rigged”?. . . Is that something people now believe, and what might we mean by that?

A good indicator that many people now believe the system is rigged is how many candidates that ran for office in the recent presidential race (pretty much all the candidates of significance), Jeb Bush, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were chasing votes by saying the system is rigged.

What were they meaning by that?  Probably pretty much the same thing, but for simplicity’s sake let’s take Hillary’s featured statement in the video that officially launched her campaign: the deck is “stacked in favor of those at the top.”

This rigging is no doubt about income inequality and it’s also about power inequality with power resting securely with the people who are at the very top, an increasingly thin sliver, who make society’s most meaningful decisions paying little heed to the needs or concerns of the majority. (Among those decisions the U.S. is making as a society is a steadfast neglect of the imperative of tackling global warming as an issue.)

There is the sense, borne out by much empirical evidence, that no matter what efforts you as a typical citizen undertake to change things you won’t have an effect.  Go out to work for Bernie, give him money?: The corporately-owned mainstream media will refuse to cover Bernie’s campaign and will side-step talking about the issues he presses.  Mobilize your New York City neighborhoods to testifyoverwhelminglyagainst the sale of public assets like libraries?: The politicians you worked to elect while they proclaimed they would protect these public properties will blithely and deaf to the public hand the real estate industry exactly what it wants.

Does it make you feel neutralized?  Do you feel like you are expected to surrender to the preordained decisions made by the powers that be?

Locally in New York City, the crushing and relentless power of the real estate industry, with plans contrived secretly in backrooms years in advance, is experienced as something that goes way beyond mere “influence.”  On the national level there is the Scylla and Charybdis of our Republican/Democrat duopoly that (with cultural issues often a distracting sideshow) very dependably gives the corporations what they want at the expense of the public.  More recently, we see coming out of the shadows, reported with increasing frequency as an acknowledged real thing, stories about the control of the “deep state.”

Given the “deep state’s” status as officially secret, its entrenched strategies of deception generally acknowledged to be its standard M.O., and that it is unaccountable and doesn’t give official interviews, who can reliably say what the “deep state” wants or where it steers us?  We can only guess.  If it were not for the recently emerged narrative of Donald Trump as a “disruptor” at odds with the “deep state,” it would be easy to imagine the “deep state,” whatever its intentions, is in firm control by those powers that be.  This is not to say that things aren’t odd right now.  The current narrative of Trump as president at loggerheads with the “deep state” has floated the idea that the “deep state” could be praised as a sort of naturally intended fifth estate protective of our balance of powers, virtually an essential ingredient of a functioning democracy, while, at the same time, the far right wing is styling the “deep state” as creation of the “progressive left” rather than the generally accepted notion that it’s an extension of the military-industrial-surveillance complex.

Enough: We digress too much.  Different people have different ideas of the exact structures that rig the system.  Generally it is a follow-the-money proposition. . . . In this city, for Noticing New York purposes, that’s a path that takes you to the real estate industry’s doorstep (and for all the furious distractions of Mr. Trump at the national level, the real estate industry is still in charge in NYC, probably even more firmly, while we are still destroying the world’s climate with global warming and concurrently sleep-walking through the longest, most expensive wars in the nation’s history). . .

The question here presented for this simple post is: How do we react when the system is rigged?

What are the possible reactions when you conclude that the system has been formidably rigged, that it is set up to only to serve those rigging it at the expense of everyone else?  There is a spectrum.  If the system is rigged where might you fall?  Here are possibilities and to make it fun, we have set this up as a poll that our readers may take . .

. . .Where do I fall on the spectrum if the system is rigged?:

•    Already a rigger.I am already in on the rigging behind the scenes.
•    Looking to get in the action.Knowing the system is rigged, I’d like to get in on the action and benefit from the rigging myself.
•    Just want to fit in somewhere.The system being rigged, I’ll take the world as I necessarily find it and just figure out where I fit in.
•    Looking for separate corners.  I’ll strive to separate myself and ignore the rigging while seeking to do peripheral good things the rigging won’t prevent (or maybe I’ll run my own separate racket in the shadows of the bigger ones).
•    Didn’t Even Realize.I don’t even realize the system is rigged (and, frankly, when my salary or my status in the world depends on believing it isn’t, such blissful ignorance may be my preferred state.)
•    Fighting the rigging.I’ll fight the injustice of the system being rigged.

Take survey here

Take survey here

As you take this poll, answering the question for yourself, you might also speculate where you think our New York City (and maybe our New York State) elected officials fit in on this spectrum, what answers they would give about the choices they have made if they were answering honestly.

The architectural question in a nutshell: With good design, how much space do people really need to live well?

It’s big news about the value that can be crammed into the what’s small.  Saying that good things can come in small packages is a teeny-weeny, really shrunken-down understatement when good creative design is unleashed to run rampant in terms of what it can accomplish.

Coverage of shrinking Micro-Units and their future from Curbed

Bold new design concepts the de Blasio administration is endorsing for adoption via new NYC Department of City Planning regulatory changes will, as a furthering step, grow the micro-apartment initiative launched by the Bloomberg administration that started back in 2013.  Many will remember how good tiny (“squeezy living”) apartment design was being studied by the Bloomberg administration when Mayor Bloomberg, vying with global warming champion David Koch for the title of wealthiest New Yorker, paced off, with uber-wealthy city planning commissioner Amanda Burden, the smallest space that economically challenged New Yorkers looking to be thrifty could live in.

Why wealthy City Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden and mega-billionaire Mayor Michal Bloomberg even have room for company as they searchingly examine to consider the tiniest apartment size fellow New Yorkers might live in.

A design competition held by Bloomberg’s administration led to micro-apartments that have already been built (Monadnock Development’s “Carmel Place”) to receive rave reviews by real estate industry press.   Special permission was given to have apartments of just 275 to 300 square feet ignore what were obviously outmoded tenement-banishing city rules that previously required new apartments built to exceed 400 square feet.  While that was first a trial exception its has been formalized as a new standard.
But shrinking apartments down to 275 or 300 square feet was obviously wasting space when good design can make apartments that are far smaller great fun to occupy while showing off one’s inventiveness.  Having started by thinking of small apartments that were 275 or 300 square feet as the new frontier, officials in the de Blasio administration were profoundly embarrassed to be confronted by the startling elegance of a Paris apartment that was garnering social media attention. That apartment was 8 square meters. . . or, converting from the metric system, it was, in square foot terms, an 86 square foot apartment, not even a third the size of what the Bloomberg set as its goal for what would be a supposedly “micro-apartment.” 

From the viral video of the Paris apartment.  Click if you want to try to enlarge.  It has captions- "Several ways to use the space are possible depending on different needs.""Easy to access"  for the bed in the top cupboard. "Proof that a small space doesn't have to necessarily mean a poor space."

That Paris apartment showed how versatility and good organization can ensure that space that could seem cramped seems humongous instead.  Another advantage: New Yorkers living modern lives and looking to frugally save their money have found that a smart crafty move in many respects is to own less "stuff."

When good design gets unleashed everything with respect to size is relative.  As Shakespear’s Hamlet once told companions Rosencrantz and Guildenstern: “I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space.”  Just as the superb ingenuity of the Paris apartment enlarged and made the Paris apartment hugely magnified and spacious, distilled inventiveness the de Blasio administration is fostering is making it possible to make even less space than that seem and and actually be utilized as if it as bigger.

The de Blasio administration decided to advance the achievements of the micro-unit program after the warm reception and good press coverage it got for its continuation of Bloomberg’s shrink-and-sink program for reducing the size of New York City libraries.  That program lets real estate developers willing to work with the de Blasio administration get the benefits of owning most of the real estate previously entrusted to the city for public library use.

Once upon a time, candidate de Blasio running for the office of mayor decried these Bloomberg administration sell offs saying: “once again we see, lurking right behind the curtain, real estate developers who are very anxious to get their hands on these valuable properties.”  More recently, de Blasio has been amplifying his thoughts expressed then saying: “When you think `curtains,' you think theater.  The city is an expectant audience.  What we are doing is raising the curtain dramatically so that the real estate industry can take center stage for us and deliver benefits the way that only the real estate industry can!” 

While these new "minimus-micro-units" will be slightly less expensive than larger apartments, they will, on a square foot basis, charge much higher rents than the higher rents per square foot rents that are being charged for the first micro-units constructed in the city, just as those pioneering small units, charged far higher rents, on a per square foot basis, than for typical larger apartments.  That's partly because the units are, on a square foot basis, more expensive to construct since the reduced general living space, means there is a proportionately higher amount of expensive building infrastructure; HVAC, piping, heating, etc.  However, on the flip side, there will be additional simultaneously costs-saving amenities: Tenants will all have easy access to sumptuous and exquisitely furnished common areas including bathrooms and kitchens with multiple hotplates and microwave ovens.

Fred Astaire in "Royal Wedding"- You get the idea: The trick was that the room rotated, which meant that the cealing and walls became more dance floor space for him for his talented footsteps to multiple over.

There is every reason for renters of the new minimus-micro-units to feel “royal” as they occupy them.  The break through enabling their leap forward in fitting people into space came from an architect working at the Marvel Architects firm, Isadore Doonaut Squrlay.  Until recently, working at SHoP Architects, another firm getting a lot of city project related business, Mr. Squrlay signs his correspondence and memos “Izzy,” but is generally referred to around the office as “I.D.”  “I call it my `Royal” idea” said Mr. Squrlay, “because I got my idea from Fred Astaire, more specifically Fred Astaire in `Royal Wedding.’  Probably everybody remembers the famous scene where Fred Astaire dances around a room, first up the walls and then on the ceiling.  Well I was watching that scene and I realized how every which way it flipped the rooms seemed like a different rooms with a whole lot more space we usually don’t think of using.  And I thought: `Why not do this for real? People could be climbing the walls for real!’”

Either Rosencrantz or Guildenstern could come visit Hamlet.

The round rooms unlock and rotate as desired, shifting based on a person’s weight, rolling on ball bearings, “brass balls,” says Mr. Squrlay, “you really have to have brass balls to do something like this.”

Allowing the units this 360 degree flexibility allows for a incredible versatility.  A ceiling becomes a bed, a few angles over it it's a recliner or props you up to read in bed.  If the rotation is left unlocked occupants can get far more (maximus, maximus) exercise walking miles and miles without stopping, never even needing to change the direction of their tread, although that's possible too; you can tread these miles in either direction.  When walking these miles the storage seats become steps like in a step class making the walk a little like the step classes normally available in ritzy gyms.
With the two storage units that also serve as chairs, the denizens of these units can also have visitors although if Hamlet wanted his school chums Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to visit it would probably be best if they came one at a time.  
 
The units will be prefab and easy to produce.  Like the units in the first micro-apartment building launched under Bloomberg those prefab units will be built in the Brooklyn Navy Yard and then stacked by crane at the site.   The round design of the units makes this exceptionally easy, the exact opposite of the problems encountered by Forest City Ratner stacking prefab units to build what was to be its first building at Atlantic Yards (now going by its new alias of “Pacific Park”) where alignment difficulties caused huge problems, interminable construction delays and huge cost overruns.

Because the units are round they can just be dropped into place and then they naturally align taking on a natural hexagonal formation much like a beehive.  “Humans have a lot to learn from nature and the way the insects like bees have organized their living arrangements,” said Mayor Bill de Blasio adding, “It’s no accident that we admiringly refer these as `social insects’.”

Natural hexagonal pattern- Seen in beehive at the right

The units are all required to be precision crafted to uniform size to achieve this perfect hexagonal alignment intended by nature.  That means that different units won't be different sizes for different people, something that has been under discussion as an additional space saver.  In the future different size units could used on an building by building basis, with buildings customized to house differing populations sorted based on the differing stature of individuals in the population.

Units configure an align themselves in a natural pattern

Purnima Kapur, Executive Director of the Department of City Planning, said that the new design presented an intriguing question about calculating the FAR (Floor To Area Ratio) that ordinarily limits building in New York City.  Because the circularity of the units mean that the units technically have no true floor (everything that might be considered floor is also wall and ceiling too) her City Planning department will be able to interpret the regulations that none of these new units need to be counted as using up any of the permitted FAR that normally puts a maximum cap on development although Ms. Kapur did avow that after a period of experiment the department will come up with some restrictions on the maximum size of buildings than can be built containing these units.  Ms. Kapur said that the department’s regulation that the units don’t count against permitted FAR will be a “circular reasoning” regulation.  By the same reasoning, no new laws will be required to launch the program because any laws subjecting units to measurement restrictions don't apply to units that can't be measured (except perhaps by reference to pi- A sort of "pi in the sky program"?).

The city is launching the program with the building of the units in a long list of buildings destined to replace the city’s libraries in all five boroughs. The city’s issuance of Request For Proposals from developers, with specs all detailed by I.D. Squrlay, was issued today, April 1, 2017.

When Trump's visit to the Saudis wound up with Blackstone's Stephen Schwarzman walking away with a huge benefit for Wall Street plutocrats, a number of other deals detrimental to the public were struck at the same time.

Blackstone head Stephen A. Schwarzman is notorious for pocketing the most income of anyone in the world.  So you may very well find it annoyingly disproportionate that in 2016 it was reported that Mr. Schwarzman’s take home for the year in 2015 was $810.6 million.  That’s if that kind of extreme disproportion bothers you.

And if you are already unsettled by that information, consider that huge portions of Mr. Schwarzman’s income are taxed at less than half the usual rate, just 15%, because of the carried interest loophole that he lobbies hard to keep in place for his continued benefit.

Now consider this, which you can learn from Jane Mayer’s 2016 book, “Dark Money, (The Hidden History of the Billionaire Behind the Rise of the Radical Right)”: When asked whether his own taxes should be raised given the dire state of the economy, Mr. Schwarzman said, to the contrary, the poor are the ones needing to pay more in taxes.

Wth a huge part of his $810m 2015 income taxed at less than 1/2 the usual rate Stephen Schwarzman says poor should pay more taxes, not he.- Jane Mayer's "Dark Money."

There is even more to annoy you if you want to acquaint yourself with some of the ways that Mr. Schwarzman reportedly earns his money.

How is it that this man who believes we should take from the poor while simultaneously privileging the rich with such special and unequal advantage should have been given a key role in saying that our NYC libraries should be sold and shrunk, the books banished?  Should we add details about how the wealthy were benefitted by these library sales at the expense of the rest of us?

War as busine$$ tied to $$ flow to Ivanka (like HRC & Clinton foundation) and Schwarzman's Blackstone.

Now consider this about Mr. Schwarzman . . .  it’s news concerning the jeopardy other of our national public assets are likely to be prey to. . . Did you note what was reported when Donald Trump visited Saudi Arabia on weekend late this May?  Deals were made. .

    •    Trump signed arms deals to provide the Saudis a record $110 billion in arms (expected to total more than $350 billion over the next 10 years), which will, among other things help support Saudi Arabia’s continued bombing and decimation of Yemen.

    •    The Saudis pledged:

    •        a $100 million donation—made along with the United Arab Emirates—to a new foundation being proposed by Trump’s daughter Ivanka, a World Bank fund for women, (Does that sound too much like nepotistic crony capitalism an therefore antithetical to the public interest the way that it also sounded when the day that Trump and Ivanka dined with the Chinese President Xi Jinping at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Florida resort, the Chinese government awarded Ivanka three new exclusive trademarks for her brand of jewelry, bags and spa services - with China, in the background, also granting preliminary approval for another 38 Trump name trademarks?  Or what about the way the China has now locked up three people who were arrested while they were investigating labor conditions at a factory manufacturing Ivanka Trump brand shoes?  Does it also sound uncomfortably like the Saudi donations to the Clinton Foundation that Donald Trump excoriated during the campaign?) AND 

    •        a $20 billion investment in Schwarzman’s private equity firm Blackstone Group firm (along with investment is some other U.S. Companies not apparently worth much mention) that is planned to be used as “cornerstone” seed money for privatizing U.S. infrastructure.

And there are those who believe that it's evident that there was yet one more qui-pro-quo sell out of the public interest was part of the bartering during the visit, another Trump give to the Saudis:

    •        The June 1st Rose Garden announcement by Trump that he was withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Accord.

The thinking on this as explained by oil and energy journalist Antonia Juhasz is that (while also pleasing the Russian petrostate):

Saudi Arabia has desperately been trying to stop the climate accord process for years, and does not want, for very obvious reasons, the world to declare its lack of an intent to continue to use carbon-based fuels. And Trump came back from Saudi Arabia and announced that the United States would be eliminating its commitments and pulling out of the Paris climate accord.

Mr. Schwarzman is also the head of Trump’s business advisory group, which the New York Times notes“lists infrastructure work as one of its topics for discussion.”  (He also sat beside Trump for the fanfare when Trump announced that he was deregulating Wall Street.)

The White House has been promoting this past week as “infrastructure week,” some say partly as a hoped for distraction from the James Comey testimony.  But the promotion of the pending infrastructure deals has been criticized for `baffling everybody with the total lack of details.'

The privatization of what are normally publicly owned assets and infrastructure often involves straight out transfer of legal title and ownership of public property into private ownership (sometimes it is a murkier transfer of sets of rights, licenses or leases), but the fashion among those promoting these deals is to call them "partnerships," and increasingly they are now being referred to by the jazzy initials "PPPs" as if they are something new; they are not (their promoters have had soem of their plans in the works for decades).

The Wall Street PR is that "PPP" stands for "Public-Private Partnerships."  Those who understand better what the 'arrangements mean from the standpoint of public benefit are more inclined to reverse that and call them "Private-Public Partnerships" because of what happens when the private sector is put in the driver's seat to structure these deals in the way that most benefits the private sector.  "PPP" may also be thought of as standing for "Profit Producing Product": Unless you can contort these deals into producing profit (and immediate extra cost to the public) the private sector walks away from them.  If a deal involves a heavy-lifting challenge, government will be left to do it alone.

"PPP" could also easily mean "Profit Pitted against the Public" or "Profit Pummels the Public."

Private profit and public benefit tend to be focused on different goals and agenda, as apt to be at loggerheads than conveniently aligned for `partnership.'  Exactly who uses a certain road or certain public asset, at what time of day, day of the week or at what costs and with what ease of access and why they do so, is apt to involve all sorts of external public benefit calculations, but for the private sector seeking profit only one bottom-line objective controls: Pleasing the stockholders, building up their bank accounts.

Many, including the New York Times with a requisite quote from an expert in the field, warn that one problem with assuring the public interest is properly balanced and against the private sector’s greed when these deals are struck is that “public officials negotiating these arrangements sometimes lack the financial sophistication and advice to fully understand the deals.”  What is probably the far greater concern is that with all the pay-offs to public officials that come with crony capitalism, those same public officials are heavily pressured to at least pretend they don’t understand the harms to the public or excess benefit to the private sector.

It was unforgivable to make Stephen A. Schwarzman a decision-maker about selling and shrinking our NYC libraries given his expressed priority of soaking the poor while ensuring that his obscenely unfair  collection wealth continues full tilt.  It is highly instructive to see how those kinds of priorities played out with the sale of the Donnell Library, the first major library (a beloved central destination library in Manhattan) sold as an example of one of these "Private-Public Partnership"  See: Priorities To Be Replicated?: Private Luxury Now Abounding Where Former Donnell Library Stood, A "Replacement" Library Is Nowhere In Sight, Saturday, November 7, 2015.

Notably, one of the principal financial private sector beneficiaries of the Donnell Library sale was Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law, Ivanka's husband, and now a key advisor/deal maker for Donald Trump as president.  Schwarzman was on one side of the deal pushing the library out of public ownership: Kushner was on the side that benefitted. . .

. . . All of this is worth remembering when we ask what is in store for us as the Saudis put billions of seed money into Schwarzman's hands intended to prime the pump for a wholesale sell off of American public assets to the private sector.

Center: film maker Frederick Wiseman being interviewed at the NYPL by Errol Morris.  Upper left and counterclockwise from there: Erroll Morris commenting on what was "risky" to say at the library, "Fred" Wiseman as guest of honor at NYPL trustee meeting, Wiseman with NYPL president Tony Marx after Errol Morris interview, Wiseman's camera filming NYPL trustees in November 2015 as they meet in a room lined by empty book shelves two-flights high.

Frederick Wiseman is esteemed as a maker of documentary films.  He has a new product out showing at the Film Forum in New York City.  As it was partly financed by PBS, we may soon see it on TV in a while too.

The film is being fervently embraced by its titular subject, the New York Public Library: In the Film Forum’s theater lobby you cannot only buy DVDs of other Frederick Wiseman films, you can buy an NYPL tote bag and other merchandise to support and help fund the NYPL. . . .

. . . One must wonder then whether Wiseman’s latest product is a documentary or a public relations document.  If it is a documentary then it is desperately in need of a considered review because at 3 hours and 17 minutes it is a substantial commitment for any moviegoer to decide to see.  If it is a public relations product then . .  what sort of consideration does it deserve and what warning signs perhaps need to be posted?

It’s probably a cruel question to ask if Frederick Wiseman’s  “Ex Libris: New York Public Library” is actually a documentary?  My instinct is to go easy on Mr. Wiseman and not criticize him too much.  Wiseman is a prepossessing fellow.  There is something impish and almost instantly endearing about him as a human being.  The quality, no doubt, helped him along in his career.  And there are additional things that prejudice me towards him, that he’s a pack rat who hates to leave anything on the cutting room floor, his love of sustained observation, including of human foible, and the way he seems to see everything as interconnected . . . he appears to care about liberal values, if viewed through a jaundiced eye.

I will endeavor therefore to review “Ex Libris” as a documentary which offers rich detail to tell us how wonderful libraries in New York are, but at the same time I’ll point out it’s central failings, which means posting those warning signs about the film’s tendency to masquerade as a misleading PR exercise.

Did you know that there is enormous scandal about how the NYPL management has been working at selling libraries, turning them into real estate deals that benefit real estate developers, not the public, eliminating books and librarians in consolidating shrinkages?  If you don’t know this walking into “Ex Libris,” you are not going to walk out of the film being informed of it either.

Interestingly, however, if you are sufficiently armed with the facts, the film’s amplitude and what may be Wiseman’s perhaps surreptitious satire probably undermine the film’s trustworthiness as truly dependable PR.-

No matter, as there are few who will actually go to see such a long documentary about a deceptively benign subject, there are few who will realize or note in passing regarding the film that anything lurks about it that is negative concerning the NYPL or its management.  That’s the secret sauce for success in the tactically tight embrace of this film by NYPL’s management as a `positive' message, . .  and it’s what you’ll glean from most of the other reviews of this film.  It’s also what your takeaway would be from the film’s 2:23-minute trailer, which with thousands of views already, probably many more people by far are going to see.  The trailer, the failings of which are far worse than the film, comes across as pure saccharin propaganda and it ends insidiously with a hinted endorsement for the NYPL’s ongoing elimination of books: An NYPL hired architect (from Mecanoo) working on the consolidated shrinkage of the Mid-Manhattan Library explains in a likely focus-tested phrase intended to support selling library real estate:

“For me libraries are not about books.  As a lot of people think they are a storage space for books: No, libraries are about people.”

Before I get into a more thorough assessment of “Ex Libris,” a few caveats.  While I have devoured perhaps more than my fair share of documentaries, until now I’ve been largely unacquainted with Mr. Wiseman’s volume of work, over forty films since, 1967.  And with some of Mr. Wiseman’s films running very long (“Near Death” six hours, “Belfast, Maine” four plus hours, “Public Housing” almost four, “High School II” and “State Legislature” both over three and a half, “National Gallery” three hours), that is a deficit that I am not quickly going to make up. .

. . .  I will fill in to an extent with things I learned about Mr. Wiseman when I went to watch him chat, interviewed by fellow-documentary maker Errol Lewis.  Where was that?  At the 42nd Street Library, where he was introduced NYPL president Tony Marx lauding his “amazing film” as heartily as if it were a promotional release, not the documentary he was introducing it as.

Bottom line, my defect is I come to Mr. Wiseman’s films knowing very little about his previous movie making, but knowing a lot, through my own intent observation, about the subject of his latest, “Ex Libris: New York Public Library.”  In fact, I am so close to the subject of the film that in one scene I caught a few glimpses of myself, intently observing the same NYPL board of trustees meeting that Mr. Wiseman was at that moment focusing on.

The film is not just about today's NYPL; it is also obviously intended to be about the NYPL’s possible  future, where it is headed, how it is steering there.  That is very much what I am interested in too.

Mr. Wiseman came to the NYPL as his subject at a particularly tumultuous time.  He was filming for 12 weeks in 2015, September through December.  It was just months after Scott Sherman published his book savaging of the NYPL’s management and direction with its much decried Central Library Plan implosion (assisted by public activists including myself and Citizens Defending Libraries of which I am a co-founder): “Patience and Fortitude- Power, Real Estate, and the Fight to Save a Public Library.”  The book consummated a devastating critique of how off-course the NYPL had veered for which Sherman got huge attention beginning when he wrote a series of articles for the “The Nation.” And Sherman’s was far from a lone voice.

In addition, although the film somehow avoids noting it, the filming was during the extended period the iconic Rose Reading Room was closed following an reported accident with a chunk of ceiling falling just days after the Central Library Plan was derailed.  Visually, other spaces in the 42nd Street library have to substitute in the film to suggest the grandness of that space.

Wiseman’s apparently adulatory film doesn’t contain the even faintest whiff of what was up that allowed a thorough lambasting of the NYPL by Sherman and others. You’d never ever know from the film.  But Wiseman knew about Sherman’s book.

On Twitter it was recently wondered why Wiseman took “a swipe” at “Scott Sherman's excellent book when asked about NYPL trustees'transparency?” What Wiseman said about Sherman, published in an interview about the film Vanity Fair, was:

I didn't start with a thesis. I wanted to learn something about the library. In one sense, what I learned about the library is what you see in the film. And if I could say it in 25 words or less, I shouldn't have made the movie. Scott Sherman started out with a thesis about the library, and that's not my cup of tea.

It sounds pretty awful for Wiseman to say that.  The only thing that defuses the remark and makes it less of an indictment leveled specifically at Sherman is to know that the 87-year-old Wiseman has sort of a personal thing, a point of pride, about not having “a thesis” when he, himself, works. . . .   Last November in his acceptance speech for his Oscar, an Honorary Award at the 2016 Governors Award ceremony, Wiseman spoke of his method this way:

Making a movie is always an adventure.  I usually know nothing about the subject before I start, and I know there are those who feel I know nothing about it when it’s finished.  I never start with a point of view about the subject or a thesis that I want to prove.  I also don’t do any research in advance of the shooting.  I usually don’t know, in advance, what’s going to be shot, or what I am going to stumble across in any day, or any moment of any day.

(The night he got his Oscar Wiseman was the subject of kind and laudatory words from Ben Kingsley, Don Cheadle, and Rory Kennedy.)

Not having “a thesis” when he works is not a casual, recent thing for Wiseman: If you go back to 1998, you can find Wiseman telling a journalist writing for Current this:

I'm pleased that people refer to the literary quality of the films. I think it's because I reject the idea of simple, didactic, thesis-oriented films. I'm interested in complexity and ambiguity, not in simplifying the subject in the service of any particular ideology.  I hope that when someone sees my movies he knows what my views are. But if I could summarize my views in 25 words or less, I shouldn't have made the movie, I should have written the 25 words.

This Wiseman tic may have been one of the reasons Wiseman chose to include in his film a sequence where, in October of 2015, Elvis Costello was being interviewed by Paul Holdengräber about his memoir “Unfaithful Music & Disappearing Ink.”  Discussing Costello’s political opinions and activism, Holdengräber asks Costello about a characterization of him by professor Greil Marcus concerning the vehemence of his feelings and predilection to sing “songs of revenge and guilt.”  Not eager to be pigeonholed himself, Costello responds somewhat dismissively about Marcus writing “long and intricate books” saying:

    Professor Marcus's-you know, it's his job to create a thesis like that. That's what he does.

Certainly, narrow pigeonholing should be dismissed as all too facile and not conducive to thought.  Nevertheless, Wiseman’s suggestion that the reason Sherman painted such a different picture when he wrote about an area substantially overlapping with the subject of Wiseman’s own film implies derogatorily, that Sherman proceeded with a lack of investigative curiosity and open-mindedness while it exalts Wiseman’s own approach as a superior, more neutral, patient and inquisitive search for the truth.

But is that the case?  Scott Sherman wrote his first article for The Nation about how the NYPL was pursuing scarily expensive off-course plans eliminating books and straying from its traditional and core mission as a library in November of 2011.  If you follow the course of his subsequent articles for The Nation culminating in the writing of his 2015 book, you can see Sherman’s thinking evolve as researching, he delves further into the subject, among other things, obtaining and reading minutes of NYPL trustees meetings.  It’s that exploratory evolution that leads Sherman to zero in on how real estate interests factored into what he first observed about the undermining of the NYPL mission.  And, in the end, it is clear how Sherman is driven to find out more about his subjects, as he evaluates in his progress of exploration what he is discovering to be important.

By contrast, Wiseman’s films, at least this latest one, may be deceptively less inquisitive, and less neutral.  The effect may be insidious.  The notion that what you are seeing in a Wiseman film is captured randomly is an illusion that unites with other aspects of Wiseman’s adopted style, the absence of any narration and the absence of any commentary or interjection of identifying labels: It gives the viewer the feeling that Wiseman isn’t exercising control or influencing the viewer’s conclusions.

But Wiseman likes control.  He is meticulous in his editing.  He takes maybe eight months to a year to cut down the footage ultimately using perhaps only 1/25th of what he shoots, compressing an hour of real-time film into five minutes “to make the sequence appear that it took place in the way it's being shown.”  He says, he approaches his editing “just like someone writing a novel: the events are not staged, of course, but the way I condense and rearrange them is not the same as in real life. I call my work reality fiction.”  He also edits so that the way that individual sequences relate to each other provide a structure for the film.  His television contracts dictate that there is to be no reediting of his work.-   “It's the only area of my life I'm meticulous about,” he says, but that is unlikely the case.  He also exercises control by serving as his own producer, director, editor, and sound technician on location and then distributing his work.

There is also the sort of editing that occurs, on the scene, before anything is filmed as Wiseman chooses what to shoot and which way to point the camera.  During his discussion with Errol Morris he explained about how with the opening of his film“Welfare” he was “playing against cliche,”the cliche that welfare recipients were black (which he said wasn’t his experience when there), and how, for one scene he used very near the beginning of the film he had “deliberately picked” and “decided to follow” a Caucasian couple to film their hardship interview because his “impression was that the majority of people at the center were all white” and he “liked the way they looked, or the way they looked amused me.”

In other words, hardly random, Wiseman’s films are heavily freighted with the influence of his choices.  Paradoxically, that influence is probably strengthened by the way that Wiseman pulls back. hiding himself, leaving the viewer to conclude they, themselves, are finding their way to their own interpretations while, with no open announcement about his intentions, Wiseman escapes accountability to debate or defend them.  Subtlety such as this likely flies below the radar screen of media literacy most people have usually acquired.

Accordingly, Wiseman’s responsibility for what he shoots and how he comes to shoot it is an issue.

Wiseman, cheek sunk into his palm, is introduced as guest of honor at NYPL trustees meeting the day “Ex Libris” opened.  NYPL president Marx is on far left. This is not the trustees' usual tapestry-festooned meeting room.

Credits for “Ex Libris” give extensive thanks to the management of the NYPL naming a list of those running the show at this powerful organization.  September 13th, the day that “Ex Libris” opened was, perhaps by coincidence, the day of the NYPL’s board of trustees meetings.  Mr. Wiseman was introduced there as an honored guest.  The trustees were told his “must see movie” is “an absolute love letter to the libraries” and Mr. Wiseman, (“Fred” to them) was described as a “renowned film-maker” who “became part of the NYPL family in 2015.”  The trustees viewed and applauded the trailer for the film as part of their official meeting.

Mr. Wiseman then thanked the trustees, advising them:

It was a great privilege for me to get permission to make the film and I was pleased that when I approached Tony [Marx, NYPL president], he said OK, although I guess with some trepidation. . . I want to thank Tony and Carrie [Welch, the NYPL’s head of External Relations] was particularly helpful as my consigliere giving me good advice all the way through the filming.  I want to thank the board for also giving me permission and hope you all get a chance to see it.

Did the NYPL regard consigliereCarrie Welch as “Fred’s” handler when he was there? Ms. Welch oversees the NYPL’s “Development and Communications & Marketing groups.”

Wiseman’s Academy Award acceptance boast that he doesn’t “do any research in advance of the shooting” or more importantly his assertion that “The shooting of the film is the research” along with his preference to know very little about what he is shooting before he shoots it makes the question of access and how it steers him, highly disconcerting, especially when he tells you that during the shooting the NYPL’s top officer overseeing its public relations was giving him “good advice all the way through the filming.”- It undermines Wiseman’s Academy Award acceptance claim that what he shoots is just what he is “going to stumble across in any day, or any moment of any day.”

Whatever serendipity does still infuse “Ex Libris,” it must be asked with respect to each and every scene: Was this scene filmed for reasons entirely random, or because the NYPL’s publicity department thought it would be good for “Fred” to film?  The same must be asked about the scenes that don’t appear.

From the trailer for the film, NYPL hired architect Francine Houben: “For me libraries are not about books.  As a lot of people think they are a storage space for books: No, libraries are about people.”

For instance, in one segment Francine Houben, an architect the NYPL hired from the firm of Mecanoo of the Netherlands, presents plans for the consolidating shrinkage of the Mid-Manhattan Library at what was public auditorium space in Mid-Manhattan (gone now with its closure).  That renovation will involve a huge elimination of books.  The scene is key because it contains Houben’s (I said this before) probably focus-session-tested pronouncement, which is also strategically placed in the trailer, that `libraries are not about books, or their storage, but about people.’

The Macanoo firm is promoting“Ex Libris,” and particularly this scene and this statement by Houben on its website.  Houben and the Macanoo architects have several times since been careful to emphasis to the NYPL trustees that the plans for the Mid-Manhattan renovation address the future with the intentionally flexibility that many more books can be removed from the library in years hence than might be removed initially.
 
By contrast, what doesn’t appear in the film is another contemporaneous evening during the period Wiseman was filming, December 10, 2015, in the exact same Mid-Manhattan space when Houben again presented these plans, but this time with the public present.  There was a Q&A following during which a cadre of dedicated library defenders from the Committee to Save the New York Public Library (I am also a member of that group) with other members of the public joining raised alarm and complained about the disappearance of books in the libraries.  Library Defenders from Citizens Defending Libraries were absent because they were responding to the fact that, at the same time, the City Council was pushing forward with votes to sell the second biggest library in Brooklyn, the central destination Brooklyn Heights Library in Downtown Brooklyn.

In her introduction of the presentation that evening of December 10th, the NYPL Chief Operating Officer (who we will name and talk about in a minute), referred to the planned redesign of the Mid-Manhattan Library as "the library of the future," with apparently no self awareness of the irony that previously SIBL, the Science, Industry and Business Library, the central destination library completed at a cost of $100 million in 1996 that is being done away with as part of the MML renovation, had also been referred to as "the library of the future."  In the sequence in the Wiseman film where the NYPL Chief Operating Officer introduces Francine Houben, the COO speaks to Wiseman’s camera’s about the 'transparency' of the design process.  At the parallel presentation on that December 10th evening the Chief Operating Officer tactfully adapted her remarks to avoid such a brag: If on that open-to-the-public evening she’d attempted such a claim and Wiseman had been filming his sound track would undoubtedly have picked up guffaws from the audience.

Whatever it results from, the absence of context debilitates Wiseman’s “Ex Libris” severely.  That is unless you bring along your own insider knowledge. . .

 . .   A central figure in the film is the NYPL’s Chief Operating Officer. She is one of the many people in power thanked by Wiseman in the credits at the end of the film.  If you are astute and knowledgeable you might pick up in those credit thanking her at the end of the film that her name is Iris Weinshall.  Knowing this might then lead you to know that she is the wife of Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader in the U.S. senate.  You’ll note in the film that 42nd Street Central reference Library is now named the "Stephen A. Schwarzman Building" after a billionaire of rather nefarious reputation, but you won’t note that Stephen Schwarzman and his Blackstone Group make major contributions to Senator Schumer (making Schumer in 2014 the #1 Blackstone-supported politician in New York State and the #4 Blackstone supported politician nationwide).

. .  At the time of the filming Ms. Weinshall was newly in her job having stepped in to replace David Offensend, who came to the library from Evercore, a Blackstone spin-off, and stepped down from his library position after his unpopular association with the sale of the Donnell Library and the real estate sales of the discredited Central Library Plan.  Weinshall would push forward with implementation of the Offensend-initiated SIBL sale and work with the city to start the sale of the Inwood Library for redevelopment.  (Neither the extraordinary central destination SIBL, nor the Inwood Library is in the film.)  Before arriving at the NYPL Weinshall was engaged in similar work with respect to real estate assets of CUNY.  Because Wiseman doesn’t use any title cards or provide any labeling information, none of this is known to the average viewer.

When you know who Ms. Weinshall is you may hear her words in the film differently when, in a senior staff meeting, they are discussing circulation and she is urging more focus on (more expensive for the library) digital books.  An interesting side-light on this (I will emulate Wiseman style here, opting for inclusion what might deceptively seem not very relevant).  At the last NYPL trustees, the one where Wiseman was lauded, NYPL president Tony Marx told the trustees this about his start as NYPL president:

When I walked in the door I asked people: So what is the metric of success? And the answer was “circulation,” that I got from scholars.  And I thought to myself, well that’s interesting, if that were true, then we could close every branch, we could close every building, and spend every dollar we have on the latest bestseller and lend them for free.  And they would fly out of the building and our metrics would soar.  You see I was a college president: I understand the whole metrics thing and how metrics can be played.*  That’s crazy.

(* Read chapter 3, “Arms Race- Going To College,” in Cathy O’Neil’s “Weapons of Math Destruction.”)

Another example of significant information lurking in the film that is discernible only to the cognoscenti, is a staff meeting exchange where it is suggested that “CUF” could be “commissioned” to do some work to help support and get the NYPL’s desired message out on a certain subject to deal with politicians and the public.  It will be a very rare film viewer who knows what “CUF” is, but, for those who know, the off-handedness with which it is suggested that CUF will do the NYPL’s bidding and carry its water is startling.

“CUF” is the “Center for an Urban Future,” an organization that has been heavily involved in helping push forward sale of New York City libraries, including writing and placing a number of Op-Ed articles arguing for the conversation of libraries into real estate transactions (for instance two similarly tracking Op-ed’s by David Giles and Jonathan Bowles).  The latest of these Op-eds, by Cuff’s current policy director, Matt Chaban, appeared in the New York Times the Monday following the opening of “Ex Libris”: Libraries Can Be More Than Just Books, September 18, 2017.  That article incredulously claimed that the replacement for the once-famed Donnell Library, “opened beneath a luxury hotel to largely positive reviews.”

The NYPL has a weird flip-floppy approach in terms of acknowledging the awfulness of what it did in terms of its shrink-and-sink sale disposal of the beloved Donnell.  There have been times when it has necessarily acknowledged its Donnell deal was a debacle, something never to be repeated.  Other times, the NYPL has reversed itself and, as if hoping that people are ready to forget history, tries to burnish the deal that created a luxury tower as a success.  Reversals that involve forgetting actual fact and history this way are more easily done if an organization like CUF, an apparently independent third-party, lays the groundwork.

Another test for the exceptionally knowledgeable attending the film is the briefest glimpse of Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer sitting alone towards the end of an NYPL gala for the wealthy; the brief flash on the screen seemingly intended to convey some fish-out-of-water incongruity.  There is, in fact, incongruity beyond the visual: Brewer who rose as a politician and protector of the public interest on Manhattan’s the West Side has become a supporter of library sales, supporting, in her borough, the sale of SIBL, Inwood and having her representative on the City Planning Commission, Anna Hayes Levin, vote for the shrink-and-sink sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library being replaced by a luxury tower.

An axiom often applied to elected and public officials is “watch what they do, not what they say.”  With organizations like CUF operative, maybe its not just a question of what the NYPL says, but also what CUF says while floating NYPL's arguments into the public discourse.

Wiseman’s films involve an almost obsessive documentation of what people say.   Wiseman may or may not be a skeptical listener when it comes to what people say in this film.  I can’t judge the earlier Wiseman films I haven’t seen, but one discussion from 1989, respecting a book about the Wiseman films then extant, generated this assessment from a reviewer:

Whatever setting he visits . . . he carries the same basic interests : a concern for power, authority, and control and the way institutions shape both the people they serve and those who administer them. Though he finds occasional moments of competence and courage, mostly he records frustration, callousness, suffering and indifference. For all the thousands of feet of film he shoots, he repeatedly shows us the same kind of behavior: bureaucratic doubletalk, the debasement of language, hypocrisy, the dehumanizing effects of bureaucracy and what he calls the "surrealism of the normal."

As a co-founder and leader of Citizens Defending Libraries I have spent a lot of time striving, in defense of libraries, to communicate what is great and superlative about libraries, the value inherent in them that is critical to preserved.  But that by itself cannot be the sole reason for Citizens Defending Libraries to exist or its primary goal.  I suspect that if we could perfect exactly what we had to say about what is special and essential concerning the libraries, that no matter how we honed our eloquence there would never be anything to prevent our message from being adopted and restated, polished with even more glittering rhetorical flourish by the NYPL's high-paid PR professionals. .

 . . For instance, at the last NYPL trustees meeting President Tony Marx said this (after Wiseman departed), and I could not help feeling as if he was quoting ideas of my own about how libraries so are valuably bottom-up, not top-down in what they provide.  Marx seemed to be taking words virtually out of my mouth, while perhaps expressing them better- Marx was riffing to explain speak about the NYPL’s new motto “More People Reading More”:

This institution is the holder of the history, culture of humanity and we need to share that corpus with more of our fellow citizens.  We need to inform them with quality information.  We are also unique in another way, because we will meet anyone wherever they start and take them further; so whether you walk in illiterate, or walk in as a Nobel Prize winner we’ll take you and get you what you need so you can go further.  We have no requirements.  We have no certification.  We have no curriculum.  We have no `expectations,’ except that you will come, read, learn, and contribute.  We have an undying commitment to serve everyone, to meet them where they are, and to move them forward.  And it is that commitment, your commitment, this institution’s commitment that led us to the notion of “More People Reading More.”

One might wonder whether this paragraph of very fitting words was first generated with a thought that they might be used in conjunction communicating about the release of Wiseman’s film.  At the Trustees meeting Marx actually stirred them in to a smorgasbord of concepts that other trustees might better respond to including metrics.

Bottom line the message that libraries of New York are extraordinary institutions serving democracy from top to bottom in every aspect is of extraordinary importance.  That's whether expressed by NYPL management as in the above paragraph, by Wiseman in his film, or by me and Citizens Defending Libraries.  We are all on the same page when we express it.   It’s also a very attractive message to adopt.  When Wiseman spoke with Morris he spoke of his current appreciation for positive messages:

I think it is just as important for documentary film makers to make films that show people being kind and decent and generous as it is to show absurdity. . . I really think that documentary film makers who only make exposé movies are missing out on lots of great subjects. . . .You have to acknowledge that goodness does exit from time to time.

Where we differ and what I find far more urgent to communicate about is how selling libraries for a pittance while eliminating books and librarians is at odds with these ideals.  And, turned around, isn't really Wiseman, placidly shunning an exposé, who is missing out on a great subject?

While one may agree with the NYPL that Wiseman’s new film is, in fact, a “love letter to the libraries,” that does not necessarily mean Wiseman is, per se, 100% in the business of selling conclusions in “Ex Libris.” 

Wiseman has a reputation for ambiguity.  It’s been asserted that an “element of ambiguity” is in all of his films.  As quoted in the beginning of this piece Wiseman says he is “interested in complexity and ambiguity, not in simplifying the subject in the service of any particular ideology.”

He has propounded his “horror of didacticism, I don't like to be told what to think. Many of the events in these films are complicated and ambiguous, and I like the idea of films being complicated and ambiguous.”

Embrace of ambiguity may help account for the different reactions it has been noted that Wiseman’s films elicit.  Mary Hawthorne interviewing Wiseman for the New Yorker in 2011 suggested he presents something of “a Rorschach test” because everybody has “something different” to say about his films:

David Denby describes you as "an ardent crusader for reform," Catherine Samie as "a predator of humanity," both "virginal and diabolical," and Errol Morris as "the undisputed king of misanthropic cinema."

Within that scope of reactions, Wiseman has been described, at least with respect to his early films, as a “muckraker”(“in the business of handing out `searing indictments’”), so much so that Wiseman took time to refute the description as a “misconception” when being interviewed about “National Gallery” in 2015, saying that he didn’t think he was.

Ambiguity, and Wiseman’s almost mischievous diffidence in indicating where he might be coming from are likely ingredients in Wiseman’s formula for obtaining access to get the footage he wants.  The film that put Wiseman on the map was his first, “Titicut Follies” a film about the Bridgewater State Hospital for the Criminally Insane.  By all accounts “Follies” it is a pretty good candidate for anyone’s muckrakingexposé list.  It shows guards herding and taunting naked patients through a desolate setting.  Amazingly, according to Wiseman the “super-intendent of Bridgewater . . . loved the film when he saw it, and he thought it fulfilled all his hopes in helping me get permission. But when his job was in jeopardy because of how the film was received, he turned against it.”

Wiseman, however, equivocates now about the film’s negativity: “I think the guards, in their own rough-and-ready way, were more tuned into the needs of the patients than the so-called helping middle-class professionals, the psychiatrists and the social workers. I have always been as interested in showing people doing decent and kind things as horrible things.”

As a continually prolific autuer Wiseman must inevitably be preoccupied with the questions of access and where his next footage will come from.  That’s especially certain since, even as “Titicut Follies” was the film that established his reputation, it was tied up for decades in litigation restricting and limiting its viewability.  The litigation, brought by the state of Massachusetts, was based on the lack of permitted access.  What’s more, Wiseman is a lawyer equipped to mull on these intricacies.

For Wiseman the sweet spot must be the point at which he can get his footage and yet his scenes will still yield meaningful insight consistent with what people expect from him.  If he is lucky, his subjects may self-satirize themselves with a seeming unwitting lack of self awareness.

There is, for instance, one scene in “Ex Libris” that I do believe was included for comic relief and to emphasize that the intellectual exercises that occur at the library are not guaranteed to be always on target.  It occurs in the same now closed Mid-Manhattan Library auditorium room where the scene with NYPL's architect occurred.  In it, there is a slide show presentation by someone who is apparently the author of a book who, with great passion, propounds how the history of the Jewish delicatessen is imbued with essential-to-recognize sexual symbolism.  Pans by the camera directed out to show the audience, suggest that those listening are not buying such mishegoss no matter the gusto with which the excited author is selling it.  The device of providing commentary by showing the reactions of others is one Wiseman seems to use frequently.

An early scene in “Ex Libris” shows NYPL president Tony Marx addressing NYPL staff exuberantly giving a spiel that he hearkens back to several times elsewhere in the film about the glories of public private partnerships and their key to future success of the libraries.  The camera pans over the glum nonreactive faces of the librarians in the audience.  If you are picking up on the relationship you may realize that because of a disequilibrium of power with their employment hanging in the balance the audience is not at liberty to respond with more overt displays of disapproval.

The scene is subtle.  Perhaps a decade hence, after our nerves have rubbed raw watching long fights play out about privatizing all the public property in post-Maria Puerto Rico (another example of a disaster capitalism scenario) we will be more starkly, acutely aware of the need to be wary of the glorification of "PPPs' (Wall Street lingo for "Public-Private Partnerships"), the `partnering' with private wealth.  Today, however, I believe that this concern is apt to sail over the heads of those who traipse in to see a film about how great libraries are.

The New York Times review that will send a lot of people to see the film observed that the film doesn’t “overtly” address the NYPL’s “scuttled” Central Library Plan (overtly”?), but notes that “Big money is a thread running through the movie, including in meetings with Anthony W. Marx, the president of the library, and other senior staff members.”  The Times review also goes outside the four corners of the film to comment for the record on the incongruous oddity of the NYPL selling to Mr. Schwarzman, a “private equity executive,” the right to have his name on that library “alongside quotations from immortals like Jorge Luis Borges and Thomas Jefferson” for a transfer of $100 million.

The Times review is also the one that calls the library “the democratic ideal incarnate,” a phrase Tony Marx quickly seized upon to introduce the film to the NYPL trustees and then again to attendees of the Wiseman Morris discussion.  The Times assertion, however, that Wiseman in his film “lays bare” the NYPL organism is highly questionable.

November 16, 2015 NYPL trustees meeting not, as usual, in the ornate tapestry-festooned trustees room, but in another room of the library with empty book shelves two-flights high.

How does “Ex Libris” take up the theme of “big money”?   There is a lot in the film that juxtaposes differences in class, as well as issues concerning race in the library.  There is one scene that covers a November 16, 2015 NYPL trustees meeting, and its aftermath, the annual photographing of the NYPL trustees as a group for the NYPL annual report.

Annual photographing of the NYPL trustees: Wiseman's camera man and probably Wiseman in foreground filming

I know the exact date of the trustees meeting because I was there.  I can be seen right after flattering closeup of another library defender in the public audience, Christabel Gough: Although she is unidentified and the film makes no mention of it, Ms. Gough, a critic of the NYP, was absolutely key in multiple ways to launching the lawsuits that helped scuttle the Central Library Plan.

November 16, 2015: Another room, empty of books, the NYPL trustees passed by to have their picture taken

Wiseman camera filming trustees

Interestingly, the trustees did not hold this meeting in their usual grand space a room with huge antique tapestries on the walls.  Only if you truly pay attention will you realize that the room where they met instead was once completely line with books that, now gone, has left an expanse of empty shelves.

The trustees meeting does not show the trustees at work.  Instead it shows the trustees at the end of their meeting.  Most meetings end incorporating a regular tradition of providing the trustees with some kind of intellectual candy for dessert, special access to particular treasures of the library that help them feel more erudite and connected with the library’s mission.

In a glass case, Phillis Wheatley artifacts brought from Schomberg collection the for delectation by the NYPL trustee at their meeting.

In this case the treasure, from the Schomberg collection, was a selection of works by Phillis Wheatley, “the first African American poet to be published in this country,” collected by Arthur Schomberg himself.  The articles of interest were presented and explained to the rest of the trustees by fellow trustee British-born Ghanaian-American Kwame Anthony Appiah. who, `volunteering’ for the job, told them of Ms. Wheatley’s history writing her poems as a slave before she was freed, including reactions of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington to Ms. Wheatley’s poetry.

Errol Morris asserted that all of Mr. Wiseman’s films have “cringe-worthy” scenes.  The history of slavery is problematic in this country and desperately problematic in a world where the effects of slavery persist with effects that are clearly also topics of touched on several ways in the film.  There is perhaps something “cringe-worthy” about this presentation to the wealthy trustees who include Wall Street and real estate moguls, and even a genuine princess.

A "likeness" of Phillis Wheatley

Following suit to once again emulate Mr. Wiseman’s predilection for reaching to include the seemingly extraneous and often lengthy I will tell you that as I sat in the trustees meeting listening to Mr. Appiah speak about Wheatley, I knew of my own family records concerning a branch of the family related to some ancestral Stratfords who acquired and owned Ms. Wheatley as a slave. It reads as follows:

In or about the year 1761, a slave ship arrived in Boston Harbour with a cargo of slaves; As I have before stated in these pages, slavery existed in the North (however their sense of right and justice forbade the perpetuation of it) and was present in Grandfather's family, so it was found in other branches of it.

Mother tells me of a Mr. Wheatly who married an Aunt of ours, whom I have heard her make honorable mention of. On a certain occasion, while looking over her time honored books, I found a volume of Poems ascribed to Phyllis Wheatly embellished with a likeness of a female African; I asked Mother who she was, when she gave me the following history.

Aunt Wheatly was in want of a domestic, on hearing of the arrival of a slaver, she went on board to purchase, in looking through the ships company of living freight, her attention was drawn to that of a slender frail female child crouched down upon the ships deck, which at once enlisted her sympathies; now Mrs. Wheatly was one of those women cast in a fine mould (so to speak) she was all Soul! and although she could, agreeable to the prevailing custom of the times, buy and own human beings; yet she could treat them as such, not as cattle.

Owing to the frailty of the child, she procured her for a trifle, as the Captain had fears of her dropping off his hands without emolument by death.

Mrs. Wheatly at once set herself about reinstating the child's health and constitution; first of all she must have a name.  She gave her that of Phillis, and as was the custom, they generally took that of the owner as an affix, thus she became known as Phillis Wheatly.

Well, here she was ignorant of the English language which must be learnt, and Aunt thought, that she must educate her, thus they became at once, teacher and pupil; she proved very attractive, and made great proficiency; as soon as she could read well, she began to make rhymes, that step by step, she showed a genius for composition.

Aunt being an educated lady, appreciating her talent, gave Phillis full scope for her generous; the result was that she became a favourite, not only in the family but with literary men and women of those times; Aunt clothed her in good apparel, and made her an inmate of her sitting room yet Phillis had the good sense to withdraw when company came, unless particularly desired to remain, as they often came to have and interview with her.
   
Her poems were published both here and in England, which country she visited in 1773 and was cordially received by persons of high distinction.

In Mother's volume there was a correct likeness of Phillis. After the decease of Mrs. Wheatly she married, which proved an unfortunate affair, for up to the time of her marriage, she had lived a life of ease, and very probably was not much accustomed to domestic duties.

N.B.    New York March 1866.  In a fruitless search to obtain a copy of her poems, I learnt that a stray copy brought $15.00 under the hammer, that of mother's cost perhaps 25C.--

Perhaps polite and politically correct in the time it was written (in the 1800s), but this certainly induces cringes when it strays so far from the politically correct we are now used to. Nevertheless, it’s history.

The NYPL trustees, a self-appointing board, are not all just the wealthy, powerful and connected: There is another bunch of trustees consisting of celebrity artists like Calvin Trillin and Ethan Hawke, that are perhaps less inclined to show up for meetings.  How would you categorize George Stephanopoulos a trustee who does show up?

Vested, sitting before empty bookshelves, trustee Kwame Anthony Appiah,at the NYPL trustee meeting where he volunteered for the presentation Wiseman caught on film of the Phillis Wheatley artifacts.

Trustee Kwame Anthony Appiah, who volunteered to present information about the Phillis Wheatley artifacts is a novelist and cultural theorist with a particular interest in the subject of morality.  New Yorkers viewing “Ex Libris” are unlikely to recognize him during the film for how they know him best, the current author of the New York Times weekly “The Ethicist” where he offers his solemn advice on what is the moral thing to do, responding to letters posing quandaries.

When Appiah launched his stint as Times Ethicist (September. 30, 2015, two months before you see him on film) he began with a column answering a question from a librarian asking whether she should act as a whistle-blower about the “serious damage” posed by a “poorly planned” radically downsizing of the library’s collection with the discard “straight to the trash-hauling bin” of a huge number of books.  The librarian thought that  “If local researchers knew the scope of devastation underway, they would have strong objections.” The librarian says that she is already “in hot water” with her administrators.  

Appiah’s response was to tell the inquiring librarian to give it a rest, to let her administrators proceed, and that it was probably “a little overblown” to call this “whistle-blowing’’ assuring the librarian (and his readers) that the decisions made:

don’t sound morally wrong. They reflect a judgment at odds with your own; they don’t reflect corruption, abuse or a total abandonment of the institution’s purposes.

At no time writing back does Appiah disclose that he is a trustee of the NYPL, a member of the decision-making board criticized for exactly the same kind “serious damage” to public assets do to book destruction and a “poorly planned” radically downsizing of the libraries.  In essence he is just providing his own self justification for some very questionable actions he himself is partaking in.  He is saying, listen to the people in power, they know best and are not improperly motivated..  Is that ethical? . . .

 . . . Well as it’s his first column Appiah poses to himself the question: “Is there anything I should let readers know?”  His answer?: That he’s fallible.  But now, because you read it here, you also know that he’s a trustee.

“Ex Libris” has a fascinating scene that takes place in the Greenwich Village Jefferson Market Library where the economic and social theories of antebellum southern ideologues, particularly George Fitzhugh, justifying slavery, are juxtaposed with the those of slavery-opposing Karl Marx and his pen-pal on such subjects, President Abraham Lincoln.  Fitzhugh, we learn, thought that slave society is better than a free society because it solves conflict between capital and labor while freeing up and giving time to an aristocratic leisure class that can then do the productive and worthwhile things in the world like run the political system.  To Fitzhugh slave society is better because “the idea of free society is a failure,” and because slave owners take better care of their workers than the factory owners of the north. . . . So, let us have a world of masters who make decisions and run the world because they will know better, and let those that are slaves rest assured that these masters will take good care of them.

Another scene in the film incorporates a discussion about the bowdlerization of history books to refer to African American blacks first coming to this country "immigrating" here as "workers."


What meaning do juxtapositions create?  Can anyone really guess what Wiseman is intending by the juxtapositions his film includes?   Similarly, can anyone really guess what he intends, by what he leaves out by either design or by accident that could create even more arresting juxtapositions?  One library defender who rushed out to see the film immediately and was irritated by what it didn’t convey about the current crisis of management described the film as “lazy.”

From "Ex Libris," a digital library sequence with two contrasting scenes: On left a digitizer carefully sorting vintage photographs, and on the right the hi-speed factory sorting of books delivered to libraries from off-site

In one sequence, (which you can see as a clip Errol Morris selected for their discussion- it's at exactly the one-hour mark), one experiences the extended deep quiet and slow process of digitizing parts of the library’s collection punctuated by the occasional click of impressively expensive machines and lighting equipment.  This is immediately followed by a switch to the load clatter of the NYPL Long Island City, Queens book-sorting “BookOps” operation as books whiz by at phenomenal speed making it barely even possible to recognize what they are or that many of them are indeed books at all (some aren’t).  Again, the machinery is impressive and evidently expensive, but here the books are not so reverently handled.

As you watch books and photographs being digitized they are handled with care respectful of their delicate three-dimensional physicality reminding you how digitization must ultimately fall short of completely preserving their messy, musty essence.  In the contrasting BookOps scene, documenting a new system where books kept off-site from the libraries will be obtained by digital request, you recognize that this is not your father’s library and while you may be stunned by the gee-whiz future aspect of it, you may also yearn nostalgically of the more personally interactive relationship previously standard in delivering library books to the patrons looking to find them.

Morris’ reaction to the scene selection was to be struck by “really well-to-do college kids copying photographs” (they are well dressed) contrasted with the black workers (in T-shirts and baseball caps, some wearing earphones listening to music) mechanically sorting books.  Wiseman already cat-and-mouse about his intentions and how the scene spoke for itself said, “I don’t think that’s quite fair to the library,” and went on to make the case that to see such racial or economic overtones in the clip or how the NYPL was depicted library generally, was not a “fair analysis” because, after all, the book-sorting provided “jobs” while the digitizers were probably `trained.’  Just before playing the Clip Morris had joked with Wiseman about whether it was"risky"to criticize the library on its turf at event hosted by it.

Although it doesn’t sound from the exchange above that Wiseman, protective of the NYPL, was grappling with ambiguity or nuance, it is probably fair to say that Wiseman often presents for interpretation by his audiences what he, himself is grappling with ambivalently, that he may actually be entreating the mixed reactions of his audience as late step in formulating his own thinking. . .

. . . Christo famously considers the artworks he produces with wife Jeanne-Claude to consist not just of the physical art produced, but also of the public’s reaction including during the process of making the art and getting permissions for it.  Is it possible to think that when Wiseman refuses to give answers about what he is doing he is actually including the ranging reactions and debate of his audiences as a part of his product?  If so, then this review, with its quarrel pointing out all that the film is missing, should be considered a naturally invited extension of the film itself.

At an initial showing of the film at Film Forum the same night as the Errol Morris discussion was followed by a Q&A with Wiseman.  Library defenders who were worried about the management of the libraries and its banishment of books were there.  Unfortunately, when one library defenders asked about this during the Q&A the microphone was seized from her before she could complete her question.  Wiseman avoided an extended response and countered simply that with respect to the "some 5.2 million books" not now at the 42nd Street Library that he was being asked about, "They are stored in New Jersey" (some sixty miles away and not necessarily all of them).

On another day the Film Forum’s Q&A after the film was with Michele Mayes the NYPL’s General Counsel.

Does anyone expect that General Counsel Mayes' interactions with a Film Forum audience would be anything other than a close hewing to a set of scripted PR talking points?   The same must be asked of all the time that other NYPL executives got extended screen time in the film. . .

. . . There is a scene in Wiseman’s 1969  “Law and Order” where a police officer is choking a prostitute during an arrest. The Harvard Gazzette says that“Wiseman, alert to ambiguities, refused to condemn him,” and the scene, Wiseman said, is proof a camera does not change behavior, and that “most of us think our behavior is appropriate for the situation we are in.” Introducing Wiseman before talk with Morris, NYPL President Marx says of Wiseman: “He was everywhere. and as you’ll see we forgot that he was here.”

Most viewers of the “Ex Libris” are likely going to come away with the distinct impression of Marx as the consummate showman.  It is doubtful though that people who give it considered thought will conclude that Marx ever felt like he was stepping off stage or that he or the senator’s wife ever forgot that there was a camera trained on them as they spoke.

Wiseman asserting his dedicated appreciation for complexity has said, “You have to discard your simple-minded notions, otherwise you are doing propaganda.”  Was Wiseman willing to embrace complexity in this film? “Ex Libris,” certainly poses the question of whether Wiseman, shooting scenes getting “good advice all the way through the filming” from the NYPL’s top PR officer, passed his own test of avoiding doing simple-minded propaganda. . .

No doubt people will come away from this film with a renewed and deeper appreciation of the value of libraries, but the "every thing is fine here" message they are likely to take away together with Wiseman's perhaps deliberate failure to sound an alarm, means that the libraries that this film is  "an absolute love letter" to will be exposed and unprotected from the attacks that now threaten them. . .

. . Still, what can you rightfully expect from a documentary?  Or is the question, more properly, what do you expect of a promotional film?

PS: The Film Forum is not selling Scott Sherman's “Patience and Fortitude- Power, Real Estate, and the Fight to Save a Public Library” (now in paperback) in the lobby. 

If you have been catching up with the news recently you know about the scandals involving Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance.  . .

Vance's office was ready in 2012 to prosecute Ivanka, the daughter of Donald Trump and her husband Jared Kushner for real estate fraud, “allegedly duping prospective buyers in a failed Manhattan project dubbed Trump Soho” (a violation of the Martin Act).  Reportedly, against his staff's recommendations (and despite some damn good email evidence), Vance did not prosecute.  His receipt of campaign contributions was involved. . .   Now under the spotlight, Vance just gave back money, a $31,000 donation from Father (Donald) Trump's lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, he took in 2013 after dropping the case.  Another $9,000 from employees at Kasowitz’s law firm and $9,000 more raised at a breakfast hosted by Kasowitz was not returned.

That's one scandal!

Then there is the case of movie production mogul Harvey Weinstein whom a slew of women have now accused of sexual assault and harassment.  Vance made a decision not to prosecute Weinstein in 2015.  His decision not to prosecute was despite an very damning police sting audio tape that documented his harassment of an Filipina-Italian model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez in a Manhattan hotel.

Again, Vance's receipt of campaign contributions was involved.  . . The lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz, who helped Harvey Weinstein avoid charges (Vance's former law partner) reportedly donated $26,550 in campaign cash to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. (including $2,100 after Vance let Weinstein walk) plus, according to campaign finance records, his law firm gave Vance another $11,500, before Vance's Weinstein decision.

That failure to prosecute is scandal number two!

The media is beginning to notice and connect the two because of the similar behaviors on Vance's part.  The New York Times editorial board issued an editorial saying: "that eyebrows understandably soar skyward when a district attorney pockets cash from a lawyer who may have a client facing charges that could send that client to Attica.. . .  As lawyers might say, res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself."

Is there one more? 
. . . Now you might remember that until recently Cyrus Vance was working with US. Attorney Preet Bharara to investigate pay-to-play deals by Mayor Bill de Blasio.  And you may remember that one of those pay-to-play deals was the sale of the Brooklyn Heights Library.  Then Donald Trump fired Preet  (March 11, 2013) and just a few days later (March 16, 2013) all these investigations were dropped. . .  And?  We'd love to know more about what was involved.

Preet Bharara has since lifted the curtain to say that he believes that before he Trump fired him Trump was trying to “cultivate” a relationship with him where he'd be asked by Trump to do the wrong thing.

How hard do you think it would be to trace aspects of the Brooklyn Heights Library and other pay-to-play deals being investigated back to campaign contributions to Vance from those close to de Blasio or Democratic party operatives or involved developers wanting de Blasio's real estate favoring reign to continue undisturbed?:  The Times editorial noted that the list of Vance's donor's "is strewn with law firms and individual lawyers"some of whom"may have unsavory motives when they open their wallets."

But we don't even have to get to that kind of extensive cross-checking to bring us full circle to the Vance contributions we have already discussed.  We need only note that the Brooklyn Heights shrink-and-sink-a-public-library scheme replicated the previously executed Donnell shrink-and-sink-a-library and replace it with a luxury tower scheme.  That Donnell deal also involved a woefully lacking excuse for a valid "bid."  For both deals there was a significant overlap of people involved behind the scenes.  And, if you could have flipped people to get them talking, the trail led back to Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner as a principal financial beneficiary from the sale of Donnell . .

. . . It's probably not exactly what Trump supposedly had in mind when trying to "cultivate" a relationship with Bharara unless you want to think generally in terms of privilege exercised by a well-connected elite prone to take advantage of the commoners.

It's been suggested that an excuse for Vance's decision not to prosecute is that it is waste of his office's resources to prosecute the powerful who can fight back and bollix up prosecutions by hiring expensive lawyers and pay for 14 carat obfuscatory PR maneuvers regular folk can't afford.  (Similar to the Weinstein case, in 2011, Vance abandoned a sexual-assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former managing director of the International Monetary Fund.). . .

. . .  On the other hand, shouldn't our first priority be to prosecute the powerful whose conduct entrenches corruption at the core of our system and warps our most important institutions?

Coincidentally or not, The New Yorker magazine got the ball rolling with major stories it respectively ran about both the Kushner/Ivanaka Trump and Weinstein failures to prosecute. . .

. . . We could hope that another New Yorker story might get the ball rolling on a third such story about the non-prosecution of de Blasio.  Maybe not: David Remnick, the New Yorker's editor is a trustee of the New York Public Library and investigating the Donnell Library sale or anything leading back to it would be unconformable for the NYPL trustees (and perhaps particularly Trump buddy Stephen Schwarzman).

Or we could hope that another prosecutor with power and authority, most obviously New York State Attorney General Eric Schniederman, could pick up the scent . . . But maybe not: It has been noted that Schneiderman also takes political donations from those he could or should be investigating-  How was it that the Times editorial put it about eyebrows understandably soaring skyward when a prosecutor  pockets cash from a lawyer who may have a client facing charges that could send that client to Attica?

Vance is running for office unopposed in the November 7th election.

Outside after Friday, the 20th Appellate Court argument: Center background in suit and blue shirt Hank Gutman member of the defendant Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation, Center in trench coat Otis Pratt Pearsall who sought protection for views from the Promenade, foreground in red tie Steven Guterman who started plaintiff Save The View Now organization to object to view-blocking Pierhouse hotel/residential complex being oversized.

Friday, the 20th, there was an Appellate Court argument on Monroe Place about whether the already mostly constructed “bulky Pierhouse hotel/residential complex in Brooklyn Bridge Park” should be reduced in size because it is 30 feet taller than the view plane height limit negotiated with the community in 2005.   Technically, the hearing was about whether the community group Save The View Now was within the statute of limitations when it brought its lawsuit.  In bigger picture terms, the discussion and questions being asked by the judges involved who knew what when in terms of protecting the community from the encroachment that now blocks the iconic view of the Brooklyn Bridge the public previously enjoyed when visiting the Brooklyn Heights Promenade.

It was explained to the court by a lawyer defending the development and the quasi-governmental Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation that oversaw it that there were decisions to alter the building by putting additional (view-blocking) mechanical equipment on top of it because of Hurricane Sandy, which hit New York City as Superstorm Sandy October 29, 2012.

When after that was it that, the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation made the decision and was the building’s taller height ever made official with any sort of publicly released and available approval document?  That did not appear clear from any response to the judge’s questions.  And, presuming something like that actually happened, when it was incumbent upon members of the public to notice that the assured height limit negotiated in 2005 was being cast aside so that the public needed to take action to protect itself.

One thing I found particularly interesting during the hearing arguments of the lawyers for the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation and the developer (Toll Brothers) was to watch Hank Gutman (Henry B. Gutman).  Although sitting in the audience, Hank Gutman tends to be very much a central player:

    •    Mr. Gutman is on the board of the  Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation, which, with him there, has been promoting maximum development within the “park” for some time now.

    •    Mr. Gutman is also a trustee on the Brooklyn Public Library board, which has been promoting sale of its libraries to turn them into redevelopment projects, like the Brooklyn Heights Library sale benefitting developer David Kramer and his Hudson Companies (plus also benefitting Kramer’s architect, Marvel Architects, the same firm working on and doing the calculations determining how tall the Pierhouse Building would be.)

    •    Mr. Gutman was also on the board of the Brooklyn Heights Association (having also been an officer there too) until the beginning of 2011 when he resigned in protest over a lawsuit the neighborhood brought against improper development in Brooklyn Bridge Park.

    •    Lastly, Mr. Gutman (along with a fellow BBPC trustee also involved in pushing library sales, David Offensend) was one of the first to buy condos in the extra-tall Pierhouse building that was the subject of the litigation.  In theory, any applicable law was interpreted such that the trustees’ purchase of apartments was not considered a breach of ethics.

What was interesting to watch about Mr. Gutman was the way he was nodding his head affirmatively to help communicate to the court that everyone knew that the building was going to be extra tall, so much taller than originally expected.  `Did the community know?’  Gutman nodded his head.  `The Brooklyn Heights Association knew?’: This was when the fellow in the chair immediately in front of Gutman swiveled around happily excited to confer with the nodding Gutman.  That man looked like a lawyer; you know, the briefcase, the suit, the haircut, etc.  Gutman is a lawyer too.

Nodding Mr. Gutman was first out of the court house.

The nodding, or subtle gestures to hopefully communicate with the court, is typical and permitted courtroom decorum.  Members of the audience are not supposed to actually talk or be disruptive, but, like a public hearing, you sort of hope that maybe you’ll have a lot of people on your side of the case in the court room and that subtle facial expressions during the arguments will get picked up upon. . . .  Then there is the subject of chuckling (sometimes absurdities will provoke that reaction in you if you don’t want to actually cry): The United States Justice Department is prosecuting a woman who chuckled during a United States Senate hearing when it was asserted that the record of racial discrimination by Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions was a “clear and well-documented” record of “treating all Americans equally under the law.”  Senator Elizabeth Warren was silenced and kicked out of the Senate Chamber for attempting to introduce facts that would have set the record on this straight.

I was fascinated by how firm and opinionated Mr. Gutman seemed to be about how everybody knew what they supposedly knew.  I remember back to February 3, 2015 when the there was a vote by the Brooklyn Bridge Park Community Advisory Committee (CAC) calling for a halt to the building’s construction.  The CAC is supposed to be comprised of members from the community to represent it and is supposed to exist to help keep track of what is happening with respect to Brooklyn Bridge Park.  The CAC that night voted for a halt in construction partly based on the fact that the CAC had not been informed of how the building would be extra tall blocking the views that were supposed to be protected.  The CAC may have no actual powers, but at the meeting the BBPC described the CAC as the “primary vehicle for communicating with the public.”

Brooklyn Eagle coverage of the CAC vote meeting attended by a public very upset about the oversized development.

At the meeting the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation representatives provided their explanation of how the building had become so extra tall.  What I remember asking myself and listening carefully for at that meeting was what the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation board knew and approved.  That’s the BBPC board that Mr. Gutman is on.  It seemed to me that violating the agreed upon view protections, something so important to the community, something giving so much extra benefit to the developer in terms of extra building rights, was something that the BBPC board should have approved. . . What did the BBPC board know and when?  - It would seem that in a rational world the board should have had to debate and formally approve it.  I didn’t hear anything about that.

Instead, I heard the most obfuscatory explanations about how the much bigger building just sort of happened at staff level, ostensibly for a conglomeration of strange and obscure technical reasons.  I quote:

When you are dealing with height, height should be a very easy thing to understand, but when you are dealing with a building’s it’s more complicated to understand, which involves a question of where are you measuring from and where are you measuring to?  One of the questions I like to bring up on that is with respect to One Freedom Tower and, is it the tallest building in America or not.  Do you count the spire as height?  There are a lot of questions. . . .[the public audience got impatient at this point and started complaining volubly] . .

     . .  So we got questions from developers about where do you start counting from and where do you count to?  And we went to the ESDC [the Empire State Development Corporation, the nominal state authority parent of the city-controlled BBPC, an obscure quasi-governmental authority famous for having the freedom from being exempt from rules and getting to make them up instead.  The exemption enjoyed by ESDC and BBPC as its nominal subsidiary includes exemption from the standards of NYC zoning and NYC’s normally applicable ULURP process for public review]  A construct that ESDC uses for a lot of project plans is that whenever you have project plan those project plans are specific, and then you have a design attached to them. The general plan you have for Brooklyn Bridge Park, as you saw, is actually very general, and people have had problems with people asking questions that are not covered in the general project plan.  And what they have done in order to deal with that discrepancy is that in those cases they would defer to the local zoning plan [from which they are exempt].  The project plan does not actually say what the hundred feet is or where you measure it to.  Let’s look at how the New York City zoning code answers those two questions, and then the New York City zoning code there is a height restriction and there are lots of ways to calculate . . 

One would think that in order to implement the agreement with the community about preserving views, one would naturally look first and foremost to the BBPC's overall basic project plan for the building.  That plan had no need to be subject to any limiting constraints, but the BBPC representative went on to explain how BBPC instead chose to go outside the project plan to refer to NYC zoning (to which it was not subject) to pick a higher-up starting point to measure the building (referring to the floodplain calculations) and also allow things like “basically mechanical things, back of generators, HVAC equipment, elevator overrides, things like that . . to exceed height restrictions.”  He said, they then told developers they could exceed the height limitations these ways, “having got that instruction from ESDC.”

Thereafter when Superstorm Sandy happened, the BBPC representative said things got even worse for the community in terms of the building’s extra height.  The representative explained, floodplain elevations were changed to raise the building up higher “and that changed all the math that was involved.”  That extra elevation for the starting point at the bottom of the building was additional to the other changes blamed on Sandy at the court hearing about moving view-blocking mechanicals to the roof to make it taller at its top.  Naomi Klein warns us about “disaster capitalism”: When disasters strike, the monied interests take advantage of those disasters in self-serving ways.

The logic of these calculations didn’t go by unchallenged when they were explained at that February 3, 2014 CAC meeting: Local community activist Tony Manheim said that given that the BBPC project plans "trump" New York City zoning when desired, “It’s a little bit disingenuous to take advantage of avoiding New York City zoning when it’s convenient to do so and then cherry pick zoning practices to allow the exceeding of height limitations by bulkheads which somehow seem to also include a bar and café.”

The Sandy related changes that made the building still bigger were, according to the ESDC representative, being made until September 2013.  If construction of the building started in summer of 2013 as was stated at the court hearing, that would mean that Sandy related design changes were being made even after construction started.  At the hearing it was discussed that people in the community were first beginning to notice that the building was getting too tall in September 2014.  The plaintiff organization Save the View Now was formed because of this in December of 2014.

Mr. Gutman’s nodding of his head doesn’t necessarily indicate anything beyond that fact that he wanted the court to rule that the community knew and that Brooklyn Heights Association knew about the extra large size of the building at times early enough to cause the statute of limitation impediments the team of development supporting attorneys were arguing should defeat the case.  It doesn’t necessarily mean that Mr. Gutman (a BBPC board member), or the BBPC board knew at these or these (or other even earlier) times of the building’s extra large size.  (Rather than it being just the BBPC staff engaging in technical interpretation somersaults).  But it makes me wonder and sort of gives me that feeling that this was pretty much the case. . . .

. . . And if that is so, I have to ask: Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation is a governmental entity endowed with enormous governmental power- Doesn’t it thereby stand to reason that it owes a responsibility to the public to be absolutely clear, and should clearly alert the public when it is not planning to honor an agreement about protecting an important identified and agreed to public interest?  Is the BBPC entitled to play cat and mouse games about what it is doing?

Notwithstanding Mr. Gutman’s head nodding, it was not until very late in the game that public really figured out or knew what was going on.

At the hearing the development defending attorneys argued that the community reacted to the size of the building with “Rip Van Winkle” tardiness.  It was asserted that community had “inquiry” notice, “constructive” notice, and “actual” notice of the bigger building and the mechanicals “above the roof of the building.”  Leave it to lawyers to come up with assertions involving such parsed out multiplicities.   There was no assertion of “information gotten by pulling teeth” notice, “cat and mouse game triumph” notice, or “able to decipher technological gobbledygook” notice.  I also heard no direct explanation of what notice the Community Advisory Committee, the BBPC’s “ the “primary vehicle for communicating with the public,” got when it believes it got no notice and that instead the BBPC “dribbled out” information in a way that was deliberately intended to be uninformative.

It was even hinted that maybe notice letting the public know didn’t even matter: A development lawyer made the dodgy assertion that the “view was improved” by the project.  It was affirmatively asserted there was no stealth or concealment on the part of BBPC.

Respecting the Brooklyn Heights Association the argument was particularly interesting.  The lawyers defending the development’s size argued that by virtue of a December 2011* letter from BHA President Jane McGroarty that referred to an acceptable height for the building that was “exclusive of mechanical equipment” the record showed that Brooklyn Heights Association, the “the dominant civic organization” of a community of what was “not a bashful community,” had notice and was aware and was not objecting to the ultimate height of the building.

    (* Hank Gutman had left the BHA board earlier that year.)

Really?  Is that a good argument?  December 2011 was nearly a year before Superstorm Sandy and the cascade of rejiggering alterations with all the “math” involved changing (concluding September 2013) that, among other things, put an unexpected and atypical amount of extra stuff on the building’s roof making it taller.

There is other stuff we could brawl about here like what people are referring to the “bulkheads” being permitted on top building.  If you think you know buildings “bulkheads” might sound relatively innocuous and if you Google images of “bulkheads” for examples, the small slant-roofed minimalist protrusions you’ll see are not likely to suggest to you what has been constructed atop this building under the “bulkhead” rubric. .  including, as Tony Manheim put it, “a bar and café” ?

Crowd lingers to analyze after the hearing. Plaintiff attorney Jeff Baker on highest steps.

 This article is not intended to parse the exact legal arguments that forayed into the field at the Friday appellate court hearing, nor analyze the relative strength of the arguments and why certain arguments should perhaps logically prevail.  This musing over the situation is more for the purpose of giving a general feel for what is happening and the overall context in which it is taking place.

Closer up: Plaintiff attorney Jeff Baker on steps, Steve Guterman in red tie.

Will the appellate judges issue an order that could result in 30 feet being removed from the top of the unexpectedly tall view-blocking building?  People find that outcome startling to imagine, but it is absolutely within the judges' power to do so, although situations of this type presenting precedent are rare.  And, as counsel for the plaintiffs told the court, the defendants knowingly proceeded to build at their own risk.

The judges by their tone and skepticism seemed to at least consider that the community was likely treated badly.  But when do judges these days ever decide against the money?  One thing we might expect is something we have seen before in these situations: An opinion that scolds the BBPC and public development officials (including its board?), but then protects the monied interests from lose of their ill gotten gains despite such a judicial upbraiding.

This was in the first posting of Save The View Now December 31, 2015 to alert the community about the building's height.

From our Thursday, December 24, 2009, A Christmas Eve Story of Alternative Realities: The Fight Not To Go To Pottersville (Or Ratnerville),

Every year since 2009 Noticing New York has engaged in the tradition of a seasonal reflection post as we reach the cusp of the new year.

The theme, borrowed from "Its' a Wonderful Life," has been that if enough is not done to oppose greed and the usurpation of our public commons and community we wind up living in "Pottersville," the fictional dystopian town that Bedford Falls became when the selfish banker Henry Potter (not Harry Potter) took it over when men who could not keep their spirit and will to fight alive let the greed triumph.

The theme has been that in the real world the fictional "Pottersville" is an all too real "Ratnerville."  That's "Ratnerville," as in Forest City Bruce Ratner taking over the entirety of a neighborhood for a monopolistically controlled megadevelopment.  Or you may recognize it equally well today as "Jared-Kushnerville" another New York City Developer, or recognize it by the name of Kushner's father-in-law, Donald Trump the nation's Distractor In Chief who also fledged in this city's real estate industry: That would make it "Trumpville."  Indeed, isn't that what we have as every wish and every good instinct of the public is ignored so that the greedy can grab more for themselves?

Isn't that exactly what he have when among the self-serving deals Trump put in his basket visiting Saudi Arabia this year was $20 billion to be invested with Stephen Schwarzman's Blackstone Group for privatizing America's public assets?

As we commiserate about what is happening nationally, commiserate that it has been a terrible year of seizures, it is important to remember how interconnected what happens on the national level is with what is happening here locally in New York City, how much of what is national was nurtured to awful fullness by this city's real estate industry.  A review of Noticing New York's seasonal reelections of years past reflects this.

Among other things, Jared Kushner and Stephen Schwarzman (aside from other deals they have been involved in together) have both been involved in selling off our New York City libraries.  That too has implications building upon implications, including national ones.

As for keeping our spirits up and keeping up the fight?:  One thing that involves is staying informed plus making sure that others can stay and get informed, and that is one reason fighting to save our public libraries is a critical fight that will give us leverage to win more of these fights to regain our beloved figurative Bedford Falls in the future.   If you click and use the link available here to visit Citizens Defending Libraries you will be one of the first to visit the new Citizens Defending Libraries main web page.  It's subject to some refinement and upgrading that you'll see in over the next days, but it is a good way to start the new year.  It may also be surprising to read there about how interconnected the library fight is to everything else we may be thinking about in term of regaining Bedford Falls.
 
Here are links to the prior Noticing New York ventures into seasonal reflection where you can read:

•    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?.,

Wednesday, December 24, 2014, Seasonal Reflections: No Matter How Fortunate or Not, We Are All Equal, Sharing a Common Journey

•    Thursday, December 24, 2015, Seasonal Reflection: Mayor de Blasio, His Heart Squeezed Grinch-Small, Starts Gifting Stolen Libraries To Developers For The Holidays

•    Saturday, December 24, 2016, Noticing New York's Annual Seasonal Reflection

One must keep one's fighting spirit up.      

Stephen Schwarzman and Jared Kushner captured in black tie together in 2007 around the time the Donnell Library sale was being concocted.  Schwarzman with Trump running his economic forum where the public infrastructure he wants to privatize was discussed.  Graph information about the benefit Schwarzman's Blackstone is getting from a Kushner-negotiated deal with Saudi Arabia for selling American infrastructure and where public employee pension fund money is being taken from to benefit the Trump family.  New York Magazine dubs Kushner the nepotistic "President-In-Law."

Last August when the New York Times reported on the economic benefits of being politically connected to Donald Trump as president (The Benefits of Standing by the President, by Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Ben Protess and Michael Corkery, August 19, 2017) it came up with an impressive seemingly one-stop-shopping list of real estate deal connections between presidential son-in-law/advisor Jared Kushner and presidential advisor Stephen A. Schwarzman, the head of the Blackstone Group.  Of course, the bigger topic lurking was conflicts of interest.

As impressive as the list was when compiled, the question is what did it still leave out?  One thing it left out was the a library shrink-and-sink deal, the sale of the Donnell Library once owned by the NYPL, for a minuscule fraction of its value in what was essentially a no-bid transaction arranged in secret.

Here are the Kushner/Schwarzman transactions the New York Times listed in their article that day: 

•    In 2013, (before Mr. Trump was a candidate), Blackstone financed the purchase of warehouses and industrial buildings by Mr. Kushner’s family company.

•    Blackstone also made a loan, which has since been paid off, to Kushner Companies on a Rector Street property (2 Rector Street) in Manhattan.

•    In the summer of 2016, an entity controlled by Blackstone lent $376 million to Mr. Kushner’s company to purchase a large property in Brooklyn that the Jehovah’s Witnesses had operated for many years.

•    Separately, Mr. Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, invested up to $500,000 in a fund that Blackstone manages.

•    Mr. Kushner urged the staff at his Commercial Observer newspaper, to place Jon Gray, the senior Blackstone executive at Blackstone who runs Blackstone’s real estate business, higher on its list of “Power 100” real estate executives and in 2016, Mr. Gray was No. 1 on that list.  (Blackstone is the largest commercial real estate investor in the world.)

And adding context, consider which is most important:

•    Mr. Kushner and his wife, Ivanka, attended what many described as the obscenely lavish 70th birthday party Mr. Schwarzman held for himself in February 2017 at his home in Palm Beach, Fla., near Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

•    Mr. Schwarzman speaks with Mr. Trump as much as once a week, typically (the Times tells us) “about the economy though also about social policy.”

•    When the national economic policy forum that Trump had created and put Schwarzman in charge of imploded following Trump's embarrassing racist Charlottesvillecomments, Schwarzman called Jared Kushner to give Trump a heads-up. Then, with the panel not yet announcing it was disbanding, Trump tried to claim it was his initiative.  (Infrastructure had been a key topic for the forum's moguls.)

A few months before the Times article, Bloomberg News zeroed in on the Kushner Schwarzman connections.  See: Kushners' Blackstone Connection Put on Display in Saudi Arabia, by Caleb Melby and Hui-yong Yu, May 25, 2017.

The Bloomberg article was far more direct in how it linked a $20 billion Saudi investment in Schwarzman’s Blackstone not just to Trump, but specifically to Jared Kushner and to a $110-billion arms sale to the country Kushner concurrently negotiated to the country noting that Schwarzman was with Kushner and Trump in Arabia when these deals were negotiated:

When Saudi Arabia announced last week a $20-billion investment in a U.S. infrastructure fund managed by Blackstone Group LP, many noticed that it came shortly after presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner personally negotiated a $110-billion arms sale to the country. What went unnoticed -- and is largely unknown -- is how important Blackstone is to the Kushner family company.

Since 2013, Blackstone has loaned more than $400 million to finance four Kushner Cos. deals -- two of which have not been reported -- making it one of the business’s largest lenders. And their ties go beyond the loans. Stephen Schwarzman, Blackstone’s co-founder and chief executive officer, heads Trump’s business-advisory council and was in Riyadh with the president and Kushner. The Saudi promise to invest in Blackstone’s fund drove the firm’s stock up more than 8 percent.

The Bloomberg article thoughtfully included a chart to make explicit how much Blackstone stock had gone up when Blackstone nailed, as the Times described it, “one of the biggest deals on Wall Street this year.”
By contrast to the earlier Bloomberg article, the triple-bylined Times article somehow neglected to mention the stunningly huge Kushner-negotiated arms deal at all, a deal which has all sort of implications given that Saudi Arabia is currently busily using its U.S. supplied arms to bomb and cut off food and water to the people of Yemen.  It’s not exactly fair to think that this arms deal is even hinted at by Times statements that, “Other deals involving chief executives with ties to Mr. Trump were announced during his visit to Saudi Arabia” or “In all, there were more than 40 signed agreements between Saudi Arabia and largely American corporations, including General Electric and the defense contractor Lockheed Martin.”  Nor should we be expected to cleverly discern the information when being told that the “guest list” for the business meeting that the “Saudis scrambled to put together . .  on the same weekend as Mr. Trump’s visit” included “an oil executive, defense contractors and a college president.” 

Given that the Bloomberg article had let the cat out of the bag covering the major points of the Kushner/Schwarzman real estate relations in May, the toned-down write up by the Times of essentially the same facts in August almost comes across as damage control together with a dutiful  checking of the box for the paper of record obligated to cover what is obviously major news.  Much of the Times article equivocally explained that there may or may not be indications of quid pro quo in Schwarzman’s and Kushner’s dealings and it almost sounds like an apology for Mr. Schwarzman being in Riyadh to say that:

Dozens of chief executives from across the United States faced pressure over the meeting. Some of them, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they had felt they had no choice but to go if they wanted to do business in Saudi Arabia.

The Times article takes a sort of have your cake and eat it too approach, one that’s almost schizoid, about whether it is truly suggesting to its readers that there is anything bad about economic benefits that flow from being politically close to Trump and Kushner.  (With multiple bylines pastiched did some reporters have cake while others ate it?)  The article quotes  Schwarzman furnishing this profundity: “Public service is a core value for people of my generation . . . It’s a great privilege to be asked to help the country — even if it occasionally comes with some degree of criticism.”

The article also includes comments about Mr. Schwarzman from Kathryn S. Wylde, the president of the Partnership for New York City, a regular go-to person for quotes who can be depended upon to say nice things about powerful people.  Sinking any last possibility that the article’s ambiguity doesn’t do its job the article contains this direct statement: “There is no suggestion that Blackstone did anything wrong.”
                   
Nevertheless, the Times probably figured that they were leaving a sufficient trail of crumbs for any readers priding themselves on being astute about such things to read between the lines and between the ambiguity and the denials.  That includes those readers who would intuit the sort quid pro quo they consider abominable, as well as those eager to know what Mr. Kushner and Mr. Schwarzman are up to so that they can keep up with the competition and abreast of the latest tactics and status of what people can get away with.

The Bloomberg article writing about how “the sequence of the deals and the intertwined personal relationships of the principals raise concerns about conflicts of interest” is also different from the Times in that the Bloomberg article reported on the lack of transparency.  It said that of the “$400 million to finance four Kushner Cos. deals” that Blackstone has loaned since 2013, two “have not been reported.”  More specifically, that Blackstone “was quietly financing two Kushner endeavors,” that although documents didn’t show it, Blackstone was among the project lenders giving Kushner an “$88 million loan for the property at 2 Rector St.,” and that a “similar arrangement enabled Kushner Cos.’ purchase of five Jehovah’s Witnesses warehouse and printing buildings” and “again, Blackstone was among the undisclosed partners.”

This lack of transparency is an essential ingredient of the story.  It should not be glossed over.  It was wrong for the Times to neglect to mention it.

In May the Wall Street Journal reported how Kushner improperly didn’t disclose (just forgot to?) business ties and $1 billion in loans he owed with “personal guarantees to pay more than $300 million of that.”  (See: Trump Adviser Kushner’s Undisclosed Partners Include Goldman and Soros- Investments show ties to major finance and technology names, by Jean Eaglesham, Juliet Chung and Lisa Schwartz, May 3, 2017)

More specifically (and the list below includes Blackstone declining to comment):

Lenders to Mr. Kushner, either directly or via properties he co-owns, include Bank of America Corp. , Blackstone Group LP, Citigroup Inc., UBS Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG and Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC. Royal Bank of Scotland didn’t respond to requests for comment; representatives of the other firms declined to comment.

The Times did eventually report separately about Kushner’s lack of disclosure (separately is not such a good thing), but in another example of the Times lagging months behind, it was finally reporting only in November about non-disclosures previously reported by others. 

The potential conflicts extend from the cabinet to the West Wing. Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, an adviser whose portfolio ranges from Middle Eastern peace to government technology, revealed over the summer that he had failed to disclose dozens of assets on his initial government ethics forms.

    “It is precisely because we have extraordinarily wealthy individuals running the government that we have no way of knowing what the conflicts of interest really are,” said Gary Kalman, executive director of the FACT Coalition, a network of anti-corruption groups. “They use complex structures to hide their money, both domestically and abroad.”

See:  Too Rich for Conflicts? Trump Appointees May Have Many, Seen and Unseen, by Nicholas Confessore, November 10, 2017.

Another layer texturing the information about the $20 billion Saudi investment in Blackstone is that the money is seed money for deals to privatize American public assets.  So you can bet that $20 Billion will be generating scads of spin-off deals.  Those deals may not benefit the American public, in fact you can expect them to diminish the public domain and the wealth of what is publicly owned, but beneficiaries like Jared Kushner are not likely to be far away.  The sale of the Donnell Library in which Kushner and Schwarzman each participated on opposite ends of the transaction, was essentially a prototype for the kind of selling off of public property that we ought to anticipate Saudi/Blackstone funds will be used for.  The Blackstone fund is looking to mobilize“more than $100 billion of purchasing power for infrastructure projects.”

There is more texturing to the Blackstone/Kushner/Saudi/Military arms deals to consider if you think about that how tight the behind-the-scenesalliancehas been between the Saudis and the Israelis.  The same trip Trump and Kushner took in May going to Saudi Arabia also involved flying directly to stop in Israel next.  The Times noted more recently about that stop in Israel:

Last May, Jared Kushner accompanied President Trump, his father-in-law, on the pair’s first diplomatic trip to Israel, part of Mr. Kushner’s White House assignment to achieve peace in the Middle East.

Shortly before, his family real estate company received a roughly $30 million investment from Menora Mivtachim, an insurer that is one of Israel’s largest financial institutions, according to a Menora executive.

The deal, which was not made public, pumped significant new equity into 10 Maryland apartment complexes controlled by Mr. Kushner’s firm.

(See: Kushner’s Financial Ties to Israel Deepen Even With Mideast Diplomatic Role, by Jesse Drucker, January 7, 2018.)

When the New York Times finally got around to reporting about the nondisclosure of potential conflicts of interest by Kushner on his ethics forms and other Trump advisor/associate ’s business engagements that are generating potential conflicts of interest, it reported that among the investments Mr. Kushner initially failed to publicly disclose was a real estate technology start-up called Cadre.

According to PR published on the web, Ryan Williams, the “co-founder” and face of Cadre, a young (29-year-old) black fellow from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, who came from Goldman Sachs, had just recently started working at Blackstone’s real estate private equity group when he started “thinking about a new endeavor — disrupting the real estate industry at large,” i.e. starting Cadre.  He says that Blackstone had “approached him about working in their real estate group given his technology experience.”  (See: How this 50-person startup is planning to completely transform the real estate industry, by Taylor Majewski, April 5, 2017.)

As “Thrive Capital” Jared Kushner and his brother Joshua Kushner are backers and strategic advisers to Cadre.  Cadre’s offices are in the Kushner owned Puck Building.  In other words they are very much involved.

In a March 1, 2017 Real Deal article (Trump assumed the presidency January 2017) Ryan Williams explained his closeness with the Kushner brothers, styling himself as a metaphorical third brother:

Every day, I speak with Josh Kushner. Josh, an investor through Thrive Capital, brings his tech domain expertise. He played an incredible role early on helping to seed us and give us the capital to build the business. Josh and Jared are both like brothers to me. Jared was an adviser and not involved operationally day to day. He was always a great sounding board for us.

Assessing this undisclosed close business relationship that Jared has with his brother Josh, it is worth bearing in mind that when Jared Kushner wanted to contend that he was taking appropriate steps to deal with his conflicts of interest he transferred some of his questionable assets to  brother Joshua and to a trust overseen by his mother. Such laughably useless gestures are the family M.O. when it comes to ‘resolving’ conflicts of interest with Donald Trump putting his own business interests in the hands of his sons, Eric and Donald Trump Jr.  Ivanka, Trump’s daughter and Jared’s wife, similarly retains the benefits of her business “empire” through such trust and close family relationships.

The Times has editorially worried that the Saudi Arabian government might try to exercise influence over Donald Trump through companies that Trump Organization recently established in that country wanting to do real estate deals there.  Meanwhile, one of the Trump Saudi trip deals, unveiled concurrently with the Schwarzman infrastructure privatization investment and the arming of the Saudis, was for the Saudis to put $100 million into the hands of Ivanka for a “new foundation” she was proposing.

When quid pro quo arrangements (possibly illegal) are bilateral, i.e. people connected by being each on one side of a single transaction, it is easier to conceptualize, comprehend and identify them. When organizations are huge, diffuse and ubiquitous, identifying problematic conflicts of interest can be much more challenging. Some people think it’s sufficient to conclude that the system is defective if you know powerful players view themselves as all being in the same club looking out for each other.  Maybe so, but with multiple players and possible combination there are a lot of variations in between the simple bilateral and the `we are all in the same club' mentality.  They can be very hard to spot. 

When Connecticut Governor John Rowland resigned in 2004 in a bribery scandal one of the bribery schemes that was uncovered was an exceedingly difficult to detect three-way: Bribing the governor by having an antiques dealer pay him nearly twice the legitimate value when purchasing a condominium from him, while one step removed, that overpayment was funded and reimbursed by a business man who had the real interest in bribing the governor buying antiques from the dealer at an inflated price.

How do you spot these things, or know with any certainty when they have or have not happened?

Back in May WNYC’s Andrea Bernstein and Ilya Marritz produced a story alerting the public to another business deal partner quietly helping to fund Jared Kushner projects, an outfit called CIM Group, a private equity company based in Los Angeles.  (See: Trump and Kushner’s Little-Known Business Partner, May 25, 2017)

The story told how “CIM has done at least seven real estate deals that have benefited Trump and the people around him, including Kushner.”  These include:

    •    Kushner’s $340 million purchase of the Jehovah’s Witnesses Watchtower (“one of the biggest real estate transactions in Brooklyn history”).

    •    The trouble plagued Trump SoHo that could have gotten Trump family members criminally indicted that CIM rescued with “a reported $85 million lifeline.”  (Family investors include Donald Trump and his children Ivanka, Eric, and Donald Jr.)

    •    200 Lafayette Street, an office building.

    •    2 Rector Street, an office building.

    •    85 Jay Street, a parking lot in Brooklyn, (“for an eye-popping $345 million.”) 

The story raises a slew of concerns about CIM’s trustworthiness and its interest in influencing politicians including with donation of “tens of thousands of dollars to a series of statewide political action committees.”  It quotes Konrad Putzier, a reporter for the Real Deal magazine saying that “CIM stands out as being very secretive.”  It quotes Laurent Morali, the present president of the Kushner Companies saying of CIM that they “can work through complicated situations, are thorough and strategic.”

The story sniffs around for the traditional bilateral sort of quid-pro-quo concerns saying that the “full extent of CIM’s government ties is not known,” while telling us that public disclosure documents show that CIM “received annualized rent of $37.7 million from the General Services Administration and other federal agencies” and that it has “pursued an array of lucrative government contracts, pension investments, lobbying interests, and a global infrastructure fund, all of whose fortunes could benefit from a Trump presidency.”

And the article reports that CIM has gotten a great deal of its money from public pension funds.  This, with concerns of pay-to-play overtones when political donations are made, is something that Schwarzman’s Blackstone has also been involved in.  WYNC links to the information that public employee pension funds in at least seven states (California, New York, Texas, Arizona, Montana, Michigan and Missouri) have invested in a CIM fund benefitting Trump and his family.

From Reuters, the seven states where the money from public employee pension funds is going to help the Trump family.

As noted, WNYC was sniffing for problematic overly-cozy bilateral arrangements.

Here is something more to think about-  Schwarzman’s Blackstone also does business with CIM.  Blackstone did the following two deals (reported in 2017) with the CIM Group that could be viewed as infusing cash into the business:

    •    Blackstone Real Estate Partners bought 211 Main Street, an office building in San Francisco from CIM for $312.9 million or $750 per square foot, according to sources that were aware of the sale.  CIM reportedly acquired the property in 2009 for $113 million. (“Blackstone declined to comment when contacted for this story.”  March 29, 2017)

    •    The Blackstone Group provided a $360 million loan to CIM Group to finance 1440 Broadway according to a December 21, 2017 article in the Real Deal.

Conflicts of interest in government are a diminishment of the public realm because they mean, by definition, that decisions being made are slanted to be more beneficial to private interests than to the public whom government officials are supposedly in office to serve.  The idea that the public realm is susceptible to being sold off is what then makes infrastructure deals, selling off publicly owned American infrastructure, just as Schwarzman’s fund is setting up to do, such juicy attractions for the greedy.  The private plundering of the Donnell Library with Kushner on one side and, on the other, Schwarzman in a position of public trust as an NYPL trustee, is a prime example of just how heinously detrimental to the public the looting of its assets can be. . .  But we are increasingly at the mercy of those in power who would seek to enrich themselves by diminishing the public realm, claiming its various dismantled parts as their own territory.

One final symbolic irony, perhaps even an irony that’s forcefully intended: In 2011 a new slogan was raised, a cry adopted and resonating across the country, recognizing the public as the “the 99%” while power and  wealth were being wielded with increasing destructiveness by the “1%.”  It was raised by Occupy Wall Street a protest movement that took to the street and seized Zucotti Park in New York City in order to be publicly heard and seen.  Zucotti Park was once named Liberty Plaza Park, before it was renamed in honor of a real estate lawyer. . .

I’ve written previously in Noticing New York about how Zucotti Park and its occupation directly raised the question of the public realm and how we are shrinking the public domains both physical and cultural that the public is still permitted to occupy.

Although Zucotti Park is dedicated and supposed to be for the public, it is technically privately owned by an adjacent property that got zoning bonuses for providing the public with the park.  Ever since Occupy Wall Street was forcible evicted from the park, tight private ownership control has been exercised over the park to ensure that such meaningfully expressive protests don’t erupt there again.  The latest news about Zucotti: Schwarzman’s Blackstone acquired 49% ownership* of it and the adjacent building.  A trophy intended to be symbolic of someone’s victory?

(* NOTE: If you know real estate, you know the various structures whereby 49% can be actual control.)

Come on everybody: The New York Times just ran an article about"extreme ideas" for solving housing crisis problems that suggests people take up compact living in drainpipes . . . . .

. . . . Didn't people read our Noticing New York article done for last April 1st?

See: A Giant Leap Forward Into Tiny Benefits: Bloomberg Micro-Apartment Initiative Shrinkage Grows Under de Blasio, Saturday, April 1, 2017.

At this rate what the heck are people going to be able to produce for April Fools' Day that will safely constitute genuine satire without the truth catching up too fast?

"Major" changes are coming to Brooklyn's Gran Army Plaza Library with name changes to reflect the future and sponsorship

Do you know about the “Major” changes they are making to our libraries, perhaps particularly as exemplified by the changes in the works at Brooklyn’s last central destination the library, known up to this point in time as the Grand Army Plaza (“GAP”) Library?  The changes being made are so extensive that everything is getting renamed.  The library won’t be called a “library” anymore, but an “Information Center.” Inside, all the rooms will be renamed after a hedge funder acclaimed for creating value through corporate restructurings who may yet run again successfully for president.

But first, speaking of holding elected office, did you know that Brooklyn Public Library is making a big thing about its announcement via BPL president Linda Johnson that the GAP Library is being renamed after Major R. Owens a librarian who went on to become a prominent, revered black congressman representing Brooklyn.  Major Owens died in 2013.  That was that the year that the BPL announced that it was starting to sell shrink and sacrifice libraries for real estate deals, “the most valuable ones first,” like the Pacific Street Library next to Forest City Ratner’s Atlantic Yards and Brooklyn’s second-biggest library the central destination Brooklyn Height Library in Downtown Brooklyn also adjacent to Forest City Ratner's property.
The changes being made at the formerly named GAP Library and the plans to now name it after Major Owens are the reason that the New York Times just ran an article descriptive of many of the changes (In Brooklyn, Modernizing a Library for Downloads and Robots, by James Barron, March 25, 2018) that begins by recounting a dream Major Owens is said to have once had:

Major R. Owens once dreamed that an alien spaceship had landed and that the creature that clambered out told the first person it encountered, “Take me to your librarian.”  When the alien was brought to the library [“information center”?], his human guide pointed up and said, “look up in the sky, it’s a librarian, it’s a robot, it’s a . . . 

Why should a dream about librarian-seeking aliens and robots commence a New York Times article about the how libraries are changing?  It may seem far out, but good explanations will come to those who wait.

First, let’s talk about the rest of the visionary renaming of the spaces within the library.  Lest the Major Owens renaming seem too populist or bookish, other spaces in the library will be renamed for achievements that more customarily get recognition in our society.  The 42nd Street Library has now been renamed by the NYPL the “Stephen A. Schwarzman Building” (or the sassy sounding “SASB” for short).  Mr. Schwarzman, still very much alive, is for anyone who doesn’t know, the head of the Blackstone Group and now the first Corporate CEO to pull in an annual income exceeding $1 billion.  Naming the “building” after Mr. Schwarzman is not only good for the burnishment of his brand, it inspires democracy by helping to encourage everyone else to follow in his footsteps in being alert for ways to achieve similar wealth . .  . And so that they too may have their exploits chronicled by the likes of such famous authors as Jane Mayer.

The sassy SASB is the central jewel of the NYPL system.  The renaming of the spaces at the BPL’s central jewel, spaces at the GAP Library will be in a similar vein and may help another recognized financial wizard to burnish his brand, which means perhaps also helping him politically in the future.  The name change will also help the BPL get across what it has to offer and the message it intends to send to its clients.

The BPL is focused on how to repurpose its library spaces for the 21st Century and the 22nd Century.  “We are looking to the future,” says BPL president Ms. Johnson hardly suppressing her glee as she borrows the Buzz Lightyear phrase to say that with our library information centers we are headed “To Infinity and Beyond!”  What does this mean?  It means the new repurposed spaces will all meet the standards of what is called in the new jargon for transforming libraries, “Makerspaces.”
                         
Here is more to let you know how exciting information center makerspaces can be if they are for young adults (from the Young Adult Library Services Association):

Makerspaces, sometimes also referred to as hackerspaces, hackspaces, and fablabs are creative, DIY [“Do It Yourself”- exciting!] spaces where people can gather to create, invent, and learn. The focus, actually, is on the type of learning that goes on, not the stuff.  Making is about learning that is: interest-driven and hands-on and often supported by peer-to-peer learning.  This is often referred to as connected learning.  Also, you don’t need a set space to facilitate this type of learning.  You can have pop up makerspaces at various library branches, afterschool programs, community centers, etc.  Or you can set up a ‘maker cart’ that can travel anywhere in the library.  Perhaps what your teens need most are maker backpacks that are stuffed with resources and activities they can do at home.*

(* NOTE:"At home"- No expensive library space needed!)

Of course, makerspaces are flexiblespaces so they can be a lot of things, and they don’t have to be for the youth.  They are also intended for adults.  Going back a few years, the BPL has already converted much of its space at the future Major R. Owens Information Center (MROIC “pronounce it `More-ick’,” suggests BPL PR officer  David Woloch) into conference rooms that can be used by “makers” starting new businesses or needing “gateways to technological tinkering” for their work.

“There was one problem with our makerspace efforts,” said Ms. Johnson, “but we have the solution now.  The term `makerspace’ has been around far too long, since 2006 when we were first telling the public of big changes for our libraries.  The term has lost its pizzazz.  We like to keep mixing up the terminology so when we use so it always sounds fresh and convincing when we say we are doing future oriented things nobody has yet been able to conceptually grasp.  `Makerspaces’ was the term back when we first introduced in alongside `STEM’ education. For excitement purposes we now often mix it up now by referring to `STEM’ a lot of the time to ‘STEAM’ education.”

Ms. Johnson then presented her big news: “We have a brand new name for these makerspaces, and we do mean `brand.’  We will now be calling them `Romney spaces.’  That is honor of Mitt Romney when he was a presidential candidate so memorably differentiating for us that our society is composed of `makers’ and ‘takers.’” Ms. Johnson continued on to say that they had further refined to term that would usually be used to clearly indicate that upscale clientele they hoped to attract to the spaces should have fun in them by calling the spaces: “Romney Romping Rooms.”

Ms. Johnson explained that affixing the Romney name to these spaces to highlight the maker/taker dichotomy would help her and the library in its mission a great deal.  For instance, Johnson said that people often reacted negatively when articles like the one in the Times wrote sentences like“among many other things, the plan for the central library calls for replacing two levels of old-fashioned `stacks,’” Ms. Johnson said that if she could just more succinctly say they were doing away with all the “taker” spaces in the library she would get a better reaction.  Henceforth all the space in the library not devoted to the Romney Romping Rooms will be designated and described as “taker” spaces.

Similarly, while doing a presentation for Open House New York the other day, architect Francine Houben, working for the NYPL to remove books from both the 42nd Street Central SASB library and the Mid-Manhattan Library (in a consolidating shrinkage) got flack for saying that “stacks” that could not be easily removed from the libraries and done away with at the whim of the trustees were “problematic.”  Not surprisingly, the NYPL, in sync with the BPL and Queens Library, will also be dividing up their spaces into Romping Room spaces and “taker” spaces.
Much of the former GAP Library will be closed for many years to create the Romney Romping Rooms, but the BPL already has plans to ensure that they are a success when they open.  The BPL will open them with a special overnight event.  The BPL has already had several all night 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM nights of “Philosophy and Ideas.”  Repeating this wonderful idea, the “makers” of Brooklyn will be invited to fill the Romney Romping Rooms for an all night inauguration.

Coverage of a previous BPL philosophy night when attendees were not required to walk the tightrope of Bain Capital's prescribed philosophy

“Previously, we didn’t steer the ideas under discussion so much,” said BPL spokesperson David Woloch, “but in honor of bequeathment of the Romney name we will provide a focus this time.”  Mr. Woloch said that libraries are about “information,” and that being “a `maker’ in a DIY, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps society is about capitalism” so that putting the two together the focus for the evening would be virtues of “information capitalism.”

Click to enlarge

Mitt Romney’s own Bain Capital has been gathering together some of the suggested reading material.  Included is a selection from John E. Buschman’s“Dismantling the Public Sphere- Situating and Sustaining Librarianship In the Age of the New Public Philosophy” where he summarizes an overview of thinking from Frank Webster setting forth what he sees as the tenets of “Information Capitalism.”  Although what was presented was intended by both those authors to be a critique of “Information Capitalism,” the executives at Bain thought it was a spectacularly well put description of what they believed in and ought to promulgate.  Those tenets were summarized as follows:   

    •    The ability to pay is now a major criterion determining provision of high-quality information.
    •    Provision is made on the basis of private rather than public supply.
    •    Market criteria are the primary factors in deciding what is made available.
    •    Competition for funding (as opposed to a steady tax or tuition basis) is coming to be regarded as the appropriate mechanism for organizing the economics of librarianship.
    •    Commodification of information is the norm.
    •    Private information vs. public is favored.

Makers coming to spend the night to discuss “information capitalism” will be invited to bring and change into their pajamas.  “We think this will help us corral a lot more young people,” says Woloch, “something that’s very important to us.”   In addition, following its new principles the BPL now holds no events without partnering with private sector partners.  In this case it will be partnering with Victoria's Secret and Flap Happy, another pajama manufacturer.  Models from  Victoria's Secret will stroll through the Romping Rooms modeling night lingerie, “which should certainly help with our young male attendance” says Woloch.  The BPL is not breaking any new ground here: Britney Spears unveiled her new lingerie collection in the Celeste Bartos Forum of the NYPL’s sassy SASB in 2014.

In 2014 Britney Spears howed off her new lingerie (right) in the Celeste Bartos Forum of the NYPL’s sassy SASB (center) while the SASB stacks (left) were empty of books

Flap Happy will be donating free pajamas for those who don’t bring their own.  What kind? Rompers with feet of course.  The Rompers will have the Bain Capital Logo embroidered above a (not so vintage?) Romney presidential campaign buttons.  Bain is also partnering in the event and Flap Happy is one of the companies, now manufacturing in China, that has been through a Bain restructuring that stripped out excess value.

“We expect we may start implementing modest charges to use the Romney Romping Rooms,” confessed Ms. Johnson. “Modest charges are a way of testing whether makers are really and truly real makers. . . plus it will serve to reduce the absurd cost and burden on society of maintaining libraries.”  Ms. Johnson says the charges, the kind of thing that was previewed by the BPL when it was turning over library space free of charge to Spaceworks, a private company with good intentions like Bain, “does not mean that we are privatizing the space.”

“Our libraries have always been a public commons,” says Ms. Johnson, “but we are talking about ushering in the future and while the libraries continue as a commons in that future we understand that commons in terms of having evolved and kept pace with the future to become the neo-commons that makes sense today.”

The Times article about the changes in the library tells us that Congressman and former librarian Major Owens was always referred to the “Librarian in Congress” a play on the “Library of Congress.”  The BPL’s David Woloch is frank when he is asked about why the library is being named after Major Owens:

Several reasons: There is the fact that Major Owens was black and we have to cover over and divert attention from how harmful what we are doing to the libraries is, most particularly to people of color and those who are not so very wealthy.  Then there is the felicity of the name `Major.’  When you are consolidating and shrinkinglibraries it makes those libraries seem bigger if you can call them `Major.’  In fact, where we used to call this particular library the `central’ library, we are revising it to call it the system’s `major’ library, so it will be a `Major Major Library.’

“I know that’s sort of Hellerish thing to do,” Woloch told the Times reporter making sure reporter was “Catch 22ing” that he was making a “literary allusion.”

Chris Owens, son of Major Owens, a musician, singer-song-writer, politically active as a District Leader, former candidate for political office himself, and an activist who fought Atlantic Yards says he is not going to be fooled by the BPL naming anything after his father.  He says:  

Anyone who accepts what they are doing to the libraries by turning them into real estate deals and eliminating books with space conversions is getting `booby prizes.’  It’s unacceptable.  My father was Democrat and nobody is going to allow his name to be wrapped around a bunch of Romney Romping Rooms named after a Republican looking to fleece the public.  Now that the BPL has announced the intention to use my father’s name they’ve booby-trapped this for themselves because come time to cut ceremonial ribbons we will call them out on this.

Chris Owens went on to link it into the Atlantic Yards fight:

We fought Atlantic Yards and we fought Bruce Ratner.  We know that the first two most valuable libraries the BPL wanted to sell, Pacific and Brooklyn Heights were both adjacent to Ratner’s Forest City sites.  We know that the person who prioritized those libraries for the BPL’s sale came from Forest City Ratner. We are not going along with any of this cover-up.

So why did the Times begin its article about what the modernization of a library by recounting a dream about librarian-seeking aliens and robots?  Why were “Robots” referred to in the Times headline for the article?

BPL robot librarians

It was possible to refer to “Robots” in the headline because the article explained how the library makerspaces could now be used by makers to build robots.  The BPL’s Woloch also bluntly explains there was another reason: “We asked the Times to put `robots’ in the title of their article. People were regularly Googling to find a Noticing New York article about how the BPL is on the cutting edge of introducing robot librarians to replace the real ones.  Putting`robots’ in the title of the Times article helps divert attention when people are looking to find out how soon we might really be shifting to robots librarians.”

But to be fair, there is real talk about using library `Romping’ spaces for various sorts of robots to roam.   Architect Francine Houben, working for the NYPL, has suggested that the new central atrium of the soon to be renovated Mid-Manhattan Library will be an excellent place to test fly robotic drones before procuring a license to fly them outside, especially if sight lines are improved by the oft suggested removal of bookstacks.  Such robot drone flying includes test flying swarms of new nano-robotic bees.

New Mid-Manhattan atrium space- According to architect Architect Francine Houben a perfect place to fly drones, even better if the book stacks are removed as suggested.

Yes, it is possible to imagine a future where, when you visit a library, you will be met by a flying drone and, surprise, it will be your librarian ready to serve you.  (Such flying robotic librarians would also solve surveillance challenges in keeping track of what patrons read.)

But why aliens?  Does it seem creepy that everyone these days is suddenly always bringing up extraterrestrial aliens?  Fox News, New York Magazine, Saturday Night Live, even on the front page of the New York Times?  Is everyone having the same dream?  Like in “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”?

Here is the creepy thing.  The NYPL is selling the biggest science library in New York City (SIBL, the Science, Industry and Business Library) to the son of a librarian, a man who became wealthy beyond belief through his knowledge of science.  The man leads a life like he is hell-bent desperate to be written into a James Bond novel, a feet of the world’s largest yachts, a fleet of vintage warplanes, building the largest airplane in the world, building a plane to go into space.  His name is Paul Allen.  Mr. Allen also had a sci-fi sort of dream that could relate to what a landing alien in the future might find if they land: A dying or threatened civilization that can only save itself t it can find the trove of knowledge it needs.

What, additionally, is Mr. Allen spending his money on now besides privately acquiring NYC’s biggest science library?  He is spending muti-millions of dollars on trying to discover the extraterrestrial aliens out there!  And now, just so you know, that is absolutely true, notwithstanding that this article has been an April Fool’s article written satirically for your amusement even as it riffs off far too much else that is unfortunately too, too true.  (If you want to know how real such threats truly are to our libraries, go to Citizens Defending Libraries, of which I am a co-founder, and there you will find facts galore.)
Something more that is true: At the last Brooklyn Public Library trustees meeting on February 27, 2018, where trustees were given copies of the NYPL's the BPL's updated "strategic plan", the creatively titled (but hard to type) "Now➔ Next."   At the same time, the trustees were told that a substantial portion of the Grand Army Plaza, Brooklyn’s biggest library would be closed for a long while the library is “modernized” and, as described by the Times, its stacks eliminated.  What’s more, as was clear with what else the trustees were told the meeting there will be other libraries concurrently off-line: The central downtown Brooklyn Heights Library, once Brooklyn’s second biggest library and the only other central destination library is closed and now a hole in the ground as it is substantially shrunk, pushed more underground and its books largely eliminated as it is replaced by a supertall luxury tower (its Business, Career and Education Library has virtually disappeared), the Sunset Park Library will be shut down as it becomes a real estate project, construction will similarly put the Brower Park Library into the Children’s museum in another consolidating shrinkage, the Greenpoint Library too is getting `modernizing' construction.  Creation of a DUMBO library as an experiment in teeny-weenyness was supposed to pick up some slack, but the trustees were told they haven't yet found the teeny-weeny space for it.  This will be as Mid-Manhattan the city’s largest circulating library is closed for book-eliminating“modernization,” the 42nd Street Central Library where books have been eliminated undergoes work and, as mentioned, SIBL, the city’s largest science library is sold to Mr. Allen, its science library eliminated.

That said, in the spirit of April 1st let’s put just a few more last words in the mouth of BPL spokesperson David Woloch:

In today’s day and age of the internet, the inconvenience of temporarily closed libraries matters less and we’ve steadily removed a lot of the books from the shelves ahead of time in tests that proved our conclusion about this to be true.  These extended concurrent closures of library space will also help people forget what libraries were in the past while letting them get used to not having libraries in the present so that in the 21st Century future people won’t even know what they are missing when we reopen our doors of those spaces we have, for the time being, still kept, to experience our fabulous Romney Romping Rooms.  Besides, in the interim, we are partnering to send our library patrons off to city museums with a new “One-Pass” or "NYC culture Pass" Museum visit program.  This is great because Museums are themselves partnering with profit making partners seeking attention with sensational blockbuster shows.  Moreover, in the future, for greater efficiency and cost reduction we may further meld our infotainment institutions, so who knows what we will then be asking people to get used to or to do without.

For real: Linda John before the BPL trustees on February 27th ad they are told about a "culture pass" to send patrons to museums.

It was front page news in the Times, but the Times did not report events leading up to it as they unfolded.

This is about a major local and national news story that the New York Times didn’t cover as it unfolded . . .

Wednesday, the day after the primary elections it was on the front page of the New York Times: Democratic Power Broker, Once a Possible House Leader, Loses Primary.  (On the Times website the article’s print headline is now: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Defeats Joseph Crowley in Major Democratic House Upset.)  The opening paragraph reads:

Representative Joseph Crowley of New York, once seen as a possible successor to Nancy Pelosi as Democratic leader of the House, suffered a shocking primary defeat on Tuesday, the most significant loss for a Democratic incumbent in more than a decade, and one that will reverberate across the party and the country.

The article also lets you know the election was not exactly a squeaker:

The race was not close. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez had more than 57 percent of the vote [57.5 actually- a 15% double digit lead], with almost all precincts reporting.*

(* 15,897 to 11,761 when 98% of the districts reported.)

Ocasio-Cortez did it with people power, defeating the money.  Crowley outspent Ocasio-Cortez significantly, by perhaps more than 8 times, with a recent set of tallies from Politico for April through June 6th giving Crowley expenditures of $1.1 million versus $128,140 for Ocasio-Cortez.

I heard on the Jimmy Dore show after the election (June 28th- June 30th) that the New York Times never covered the campaign of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez before she won.  Could this be true?  I checked it out: It is basically true, plus the Times never ran a picture of her as candidate either.

How did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez win the election if her campaign wasn’t being reported on by mainstream media and the paper of record, the New York Times, the principal newspaper for her hometown of New York City?  The Jimmy Dore Show offered the satirical suggestion the voters got into the voting booth and just made a lucky guess.

By contrast, The Jimmy Dore show proudly crowed that it covered Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as an insurgent candidate worth paying attention to a year ago.

Some things worth knowing about Ms. Ocasio-Cortez: She is frequently referred to as a "progressive," sometimes as a "grassroots progressive," to distinguish her from the faux-mantel progressives (or "fauxmanteau progessives"), corporate democrats dominating the Democratic party like NYC mayor Bill de Balsio or councilman Brad Lander (locally) who inoffensively give largely safe lip service to certain social ideas, but stow away any principled response when confronting money and establishment power (aligning with such power to sell off public assets like libraries).  Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, like Bernie Sanders the man she previously campaigned and organized for, refers to herself as a "Democratic Socialist."  She is for single-payer universal health care, government-funded higher education, the abolition of ICE (a post 9/11 agency founded in 2003), and she seeks justice for Puerto Rico now targeted in a brazen privatizing attempt to transfer the island from its people to wealthy profit seekers.  This means she is considerably to the left of the New York Times and the usual establishment interests that Democratic and Republican parties serve.     

As for verification of the assertion on the Jimmy Dore Show that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign was not covered by the Times before her win turned the world of mainstream media political coverage upside-down, if you go to the New York Times site and do a date restricted search to discover mentions of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign you find mentions of it in just five articles, and essentially no coverage that would tell you who she was or what she stood for as a candidate or indicating the strength and attraction of her campaign or what her win would signify.

Just five articles mentioning the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez before the election.

Hilariously, the New York Times has subsequently treated her win as so important that if you search its site without date restrictions you now get lost in a sea of more than 60 headlines (so far) virtually all published in just a few day's time.

If you search the Times now, you will get lost there are so many articles about Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, more than 60 mentioning her since her primary win.

Here, in date order, are the few words the Times offered about Ms. Ocasio-Cortez during her campaign to defeat Mr. Crowley in those five Times articles that mentioned her:

Stacey Abrams Didn’t Play It Safe. Neither Do These Female Candidates, by Susan Chira and Matt Flegenheimer, May 29, 2018.

The question went out late one night on a private message chain of insurgent female candidates for Congress: Do you really attack a fellow Democrat?

“I feel like I’ve been pulling punches,” wrote Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is challenging a longtime Democratic incumbent, Joe Crowley of New York, in a primary. “Do you ever get any pushback from voters, or those who don’t want ‘party infighting?’”

Within the hour, peers from Texas, Washington State and North Carolina had weighed in: Keep up the fight.

“We’re not trying to ask permission to get in the door,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old organizer on Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, said in an interview.

Opinion: Adem Bunkeddeko in the Ninth District, by The Editorial Board, June 14, 2018.

In the 14th Congressional District, which spans Queens and the Bronx, Representative Joseph Crowley is defending his seat against an insurgent campaign from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a former campaign organizer for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Mr. Crowley, the Queens Democratic leader, has ambitions of succeeding Representative Nancy Pelosi as the House Democratic leader that could redound to the city’s benefit. But Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, 28, has won an impressive measure of support, casting herself as a grass-roots alternative to an incumbent with deep sway in local politics.

New York Today: Primary Races to Watch, By Jonathan Wolfe, June 19, 2018.

Democratic upstarts in the city. A group of incumbent Democrats in New York are facing primary challengers, many of whom are first-time candidates under the age of 35. Representative Joseph Crowley, who some see as possibly replacing Nancy Pelosi as the head of the House Democrats, is being challenged for the first time since 2004, by the progressive candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Representatives Carolyn Maloney (Manhattan’s East Side and parts of Queens), Eliot Engel (the Bronx), Yvette Clarke (central Brooklyn) and Gregory W. Meeks (southern Queens) are also facing insurgents within their party.

Opinion: If You Want to Be Speaker, Mr. Crowley, Don’t Take Voters for Granted, by The Editorial Board, June 19, 2018.

. . Indeed, the snubs should be galling not only to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and Mr. Crowley’s constituents in New York’s 14th Congressional District, in Queens and the Bronx, but also to anyone who cares about the democratic process.

Mr. Crowley, 56, is a powerful congressman who leads the Queens County Democratic Party. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, 28, has presented him his first major primary challenge in years. Despite long odds, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, a former Bernie Sanders campaign organizer, has garnered significant support, waging a high-energy campaign and positioning herself as a grass-roots alternative to Mr. Crowley.

The candidates have met once, in a Spectrum News NY1 debate last week at which both candidates held their own.

* * * *

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter after the debate that in sending Ms. Palma, Mr. Crowley chose “a woman with slight resemblance to me” as his surrogate. Both Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and Ms. Palma are Latina.

For Democrats Challenging Party Incumbents, Insurgency Has Its Limits, By Shane Goldmacher and Jeffery C. Mays, June 21, 2018.

For Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, challenging Representative Joseph Crowley has meant watching local Democratic officials bolt the other way from her at parades, wary of appearing too close to her. Some have agreed to meetings, but behind closed doors — no cellphones allowed.

Mr. Patel, 34, and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, 28, are among a group of energetic Democratic insurgents across the country, many of them young or female or people of color, who are seeking to knock off some of Congress’s most tenured Democrats.

* * * *

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign, in particular, has become a cause célèbre for some on the left who seem set to put a scare into Mr. Crowley, the head of the Queens Democratic Party, one of the last and most powerful political machines remaining in New York. MoveOn.org and Our Revolution, an outgrowth of the Sanders campaign, both endorsed her, and the news site The Intercept has generated a drumbeat of negative stories on Mr. Crowley.

Earlier this week, she showed up to debate Mr. Crowley, the potential future leader of House Democrats in Washington — only to discover that he was a no-show, a Latina surrogate sent in his place. (Mr. Crowley had debated her earlier this month.)

“We have a political culture of intimidation, of favoring, of patronage and of fear and that is no way for a community to be governed,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said.

* * *
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said there is “camaraderie” among congressional challengers, and that she’s spoken with Mr. Bunkeddeko and Mr. Patel to “share best practices in dismantling this calcified machine.”

By contrast to those paltry five articles before the election, in the few days since, the Times has run more than three score articles where mention of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez factors in.  There are pictures of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez galore and video to boot, a positive glut, surely enough to surfeit the most avid fans.  Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is not the main subject of each and every one of these articles, but she is a central subject of a very respectable number of them.  Since, along with its own by-lined stories,  the Times also runs stories by-lined by the Associated Press and Reuters this jump up in number is also a window into their coverage.

Sometimes the biggest news stories are what is not being covered in the mainstream press.  I guess that's one reason I am getting more and more of my news from sources like the Jimmy Dore Show.

Here, to conclude this article, are links to 62 articles in the Times in which Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has been mentioned since the Tuesday June 26th primary through today, Friday June 30th.  Enjoy perusing just the headlines.  They will give you a sense of what's covered.  I can't think who would dare to read all the articles themselves.  It's enough to make a media hound like Senator Chuck Schumer extremely jealous.  Enjoy:

Elections- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Celebrates Victory in the Bronx (Video) June 28, 2018.

New York - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: A 28-Year-Old Democratic Giant Slayer, By Vivian Wang, June 27, 2018.

Politics- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: I’m ‘Unapologetic About What I Believe’(Video), June 29, 2018.

Opinion: What Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Victory Means, by The Editorial Board, June 27, 2018.

Briefing- Supreme Court, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, World Cup: Your Wednesday Briefing, By Chris Stanford, June 27, 2018.

New York- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Emerges as a Political Star, by Andy Newman, Vivian Wang and Luis Ferré-Sadurní, June 27, 2018.

New York- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Defeats Joseph Crowley in Major Democratic House Upset, by Shane Goldmacher and Jonathan Martin, June 26, 2018.

New York- What Does Ocasio-Cortez’s Win Mean for Cynthia Nixon? By Jesse McKinley, June 27, 2018.

Opinion- The Lessons of a Stunning New York Primary, by Frank Bruni, June 27, 2018.

Letters- New York Primary Shocker, June 27, 2018.

Opinion- Primary Turmoil Visits the Democrats, by David Leonhardt, June 27, 2018.

New York- An Upset in the Making: Why Joe Crowley Never Saw Defeat Coming, by Shane Goldmacher, June 27, 2018.

New York- Ocasio-Cortez Toppled a Giant. Are These N.Y. Democrats Next?  By Shane Goldmacher, June 28, 2018.

Politics- Will a Shocker in New York Have a Ripple Effect in Massachusetts? By Katharine Q. Seelye and Astead W. Herndon, June 28, 2018.

New York/Big City- Lesson of the Blue Wave Primaries? We’re All Struggling Now, By Ginia Bellafante, June 28, 2018.

Politics- Top Democrat’s Defeat Throws Party Leadership Into Turmoil, by Jonathan Martin and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, June 27, 2018.

Politics- 4 Takeaways From Tuesday’s Primary Elections, by Alexander Burns, Jonathan Martin and Matt Flegenheimer, June 27, 2018.

Politics- Here Are the Biggest Stories in American Politics This Week, by Emily Cochrane,  June 29, 2018.

U.S.- Facing Cuomo, Nixon Looks to Ocasio-Cortez Win, by The Associated Press, June 28, 2018.

U.S.- Political Novice Ocasio-Cortez Scores for Progressives in NY, by The Associated Press, June 26, 2018.

U.S.-  Political Star Ocasio-Cortez Appears on TV's 'The View,' by The Associated Press, June 29, 2018.

U.S.-  Shock, Then Ambition: Ocasio-Cortez Hopes to Shake Up House, by The Associated Press, June 27, 2018.

Television/Best of Late Night- Ocasio-Cortez Tells Colbert: ‘We Changed Who Turns Out’, by Giovanni Russonello, June 29, 2018.

Politics- Democrat Joseph Crowley Loses Bid for 11th Term, by Reuters, June 27, 2018.

Arts- Guest Lineups for the Sunday News Shows, by The Associated Press, June 29, 2018.

Politics- Pelosi Doesn't See Party Shift to Left in Crowley Defeat, by The Associated Press, June 27, 2018.

Politics- Is This the Year Women Break the Rules and Win? By Kate Zernike, June 29, 2018.

Politics- Stunning Defeat Emboldens Left as Dems Eye New Identity, by The Associated Press, June 27, 2018.

Opinion- The Millennial Socialists Are Coming, by Michelle Goldberg, June 30, 2018.

Television/Best of Late Night- Seth Meyers Tries to Persuade Kennedy to Stay on Supreme Court, by Giovanni Russonello, June 28, 2018.

Politics- How ‘Abolish ICE’ Went From Social Media to Progressive Candidates’ Rallying Cry, by Sydney Ember and Astead W. Herndon, June 29, 2018.

Reader Center- Bulletin board- From New York’s Primary Upset to Polling Data, How The Times Is Covering the Elections, By The New York Times, June 28, 2018.

Politics- Democratic Heavyweight Loses in New York as Trump Picks Win, by The Associated Press, June 26, 2018.

Politics- Democrats Reading Tea Leaves After U.S. Congressman's Upset, by Reuters, June 27, 2018.

Politics- Trump Celebrates Victories for 3 Endorsed Candidates, by The Associated Press, June 27, 2018.

Politics- High-Ranking House Democrat Dealt Surprise Defeat at Polls, by Reuters, June 26, 2018.

Politics- The Latest: In Oklahoma, Republicans Ousted Over Teacher Pay, by The Associated Press, June 26, 2018.

Briefing- News Quiz: Test Your Knowledge of the Week’s Headlines, by Chris Stanford and Anna Schavverien, June 29, 2018.   

U.S.- 10 Things to Know for Today, by The Associated Press, June 27, 2018.

New York- Crowley’s Loss Heralds an ‘End of an Era’: Last of the Party Bosses, by J. David Goodman, June 28, 2018.

Politics- Primary Takeaways: A Liberal Newcomer Ousts Top Dem Leader, by The Associated Press, June 27, 2018.

Politics- Agents Seek to Dissolve ICE in Immigration Policy Backlash, By Ron Nixon, June 28, 2018.

Politics- Ben Jealous ‘Just Climbed K2’ in Maryland Governor’s Race. Next Is Everest. By Daniel Victor, June 27, 2018.

Politics- Hundreds Arrested in DC Protesting Trump Immigration Policy, by The Associated Press, June 28, 2018.

Politics- Trump's on a Hot Streak: Court Rulings, Vacancy, Summit Plan, by The Associated Press, June 29, 2018.

New York- New York Today: Who Won the Primaries, by Jonathan Wolfe, June 27, 2018.

New York- New York Today: Where the Corpse Flowers Bloom, by Jonathan Wolfe, June 28, 2018.

Briefing- Asia and Australia Edition/China, South Korea, Najib Razak: Your Thursday Briefing, by Inyoung Kang, June 27, 2018.

New York- Dan Donovan, Aided by Trump, Holds Off Michael Grimm in G.O.P. Primary, by Shane Goldmacher, June 26, 2018.

Briefing- Maryland, Supreme Court, Russia: Your Thursday Evening Briefing, by Joumana Khatib and Marcus Payadue, June 28, 2018.

Student Opinion- Summer Reading Contest, Week 3: What Interested You Most in The Times This Week? By The Learning Network, June 29, 2018.

U.S.- Trump Dubs Heitkamp a 'Liberal Democrat,' Urges Her Defeat, by The Associated Press, June 27, 2018.

Briefing- Supreme Court, Disney, Unions: Your Wednesday Evening Briefing, by Joumana Khatib and Marcus Payadue, June 27, 2018.

Briefing- Anthony Kennedy, Immigration, World Cup: Your Thursday Briefing, By Chris Stanford, June 28, 2018.

U.S.- All Over U.S., Local Officials Cancel Deals to Detain Immigrants, By Simon Romero, June 28, 2018.

U.S. Gender Letter: What Should Women Sound Like? By Jessica Bennett, June 29, 2018.

Briefing- Europe Edition- Supreme Court, Migration, Poland: Your Thursday Briefing, by Dan Levin and Matthew Sedacca, June 27, 2018.

Briefing- Supreme Court, Capital Gazette, ‘Sicario’: Your Friday Briefing, by Chris Stanford, June 29, 2018.

Politics- Trump Helps Boost Two Preferred Candidates While Progressive Democrats Gain, by Jonathan Martin, June 26, 2018.

New York- New York Today: Where to Cheer, or Cry, During the World Cup, by Jonathan Wolfe, June 29, 2018.

Politics- The Latest: ACLU Says Government Wrong to Detain Families, by The Associated Press, June 29, 2018.

Elections- New York Primary Election Results, by The New York Times, June 28, 2018.

The adviceon how to vote on three proposal to change the NYC Charter sent out by two activist coalitions (above) is pretty similar and largely negative about the proposals.

The short answer is—

Vote NO on #1
Vote NO on #2
On #3?: Think about it, only MAYBE? YES.

In other words on the three proposals to change the New York Cit Charter that are on Tuesday’s ballot (all that “flip the ballot” stuff you have been hearing about that sounds oddly, perhaps intentionally, reminiscent of “Flip the Congress”) here is how it is recommended that informed, community activist-minded voters vote:

1.    On “Campaign Finance Reform- Reducing the amount of contributions to politician’s campaigns and increasing the amount of matching funds.”  VOTE NO.

2.    On “Creation of New Community Engagement Agency.”   VOTE NO.

3.    On “Term Limits on Community Boards.”  MAYBE VOTE YES (but THINK ABOUT IT!!- see below)

We are shortcutting this process and not doing all our own thinking on it.  Instead, having reviewed them, we present here the consonant recommendations, with some very validly expressed reasoning of both MTOPP (The Movement To Protect The People) and The New Yorkers For A Human-Scale City Alliance, two activist group coalitions vigorously fighting for more responsible, less destructive development (with less displacement) that will better reflect the wishes of New Yorkers.
 
First off, as you can glean from the title of this post, to call something a “reform” doesn’t mean that it actually is validly and unquestionably a “reform”; some changes labeled “reforms” actually make things worse for most of use while shifting more power, benefit and control to the powerful (think Trump’s “Tax Code Reform”).  Next, the way that revisions to the City Charter get proposed and put before the voters makes it likely that proposed changes will benefit those already powerful and controlling the process and not those wanting to challenge power.  This will likely hold as the general reality of things unless and until strong, broad based populist efforts seize the initiative and coordinate for proposals that effect true reform.  That is not exactly true of the mostly below-the-radar way that the current proposals were cooked and served up.

Here is some background on what happened as described by The New Yorkers For A Human-Scale City Alliance.

The Mayor created a Charter Review Commission last spring, shoved it through with little advertising or public debate, and that Commission came up with three ballot proposals that you will encounter when you go to vote next week.  Most voters had no idea it was happening.  We testified at one of their hearings about campaign finance and community board reform.

The City Council, not to be outdone, created its own Charter Review Commission, which, I am told, is preparing another round of hearings this winter. We testified at the first round of their hearings and will be testifying again this winter and spring.

The composition of both Commissions is not encouraging (too many people who reflect the views of Big Real Estate and the Mayor), but the presence of campaign finance reform advocate Sal Albanese on the Council's commission is a hopeful sign that the Council's Commission will continue to address that particular issue this winter and we could get better reform ideas out of them that with the bad ideas the Mayor's team has come up with.  Here is what is on the ballot (to see more detail, go to Ballotopedia here.)

Remember that every ballot proposal is worded by the people who want to see it enacted and is thus worded with the hope of enticing people to vote for it.

One thing that is highly discouraging is that, as City and State observes in its reporting: “The measures from de Blasio’s commission . . have drawn overwhelming approval from the city’s Democratic lawmakers.”  Proposals that please "Big Real Estate and the Mayor"?  This is another example of how the Democratic machine in New York City continues to work against the most fundamental interests of the public while nominally working for the public dressing up, without significant challenge from the press, in fauxmanteau progressivism.  That’s why, to get some genuine reforms, this city needs to institute instant run-off voting and start growing third party generated alternatives for the voters to vote for.

Below are the proposals worded as you will see them on Tuesday’s ballot followed, in each case respectively by the analysis and recommendations of MTOPP and The New Yorkers For A Human-Scale City Alliance.  Interjected in brackets is some of my own Noticing New York thinking about the composition of community boards.
  
Question #1: Campaign Finance

This proposal would amend the City Charter to lower the amount a candidate for City elected office may accept from a contributor. It would also increase the public funding used to match a portion of the contributions received by a candidate who participates in the City’s public financing program.

In addition, the proposal would make public matching funds available earlier in the election year to participating candidates who can demonstrate need for the funds. It would also ease a requirement that candidates for Mayor, Comptroller, or Public Advocate must meet to qualify for matching funds.

The amendments would apply to participating candidates who choose to have the amendments apply to their campaigns beginning with the 2021 primary election, and would then apply to all candidates beginning in 2022.

Shall this proposal be adopted?

MTOP’s Recommendation to vote NO:

Campaign Finance Reform- Reducing the amount of contributions to politician’s campaigns and increasing the amount of matching funds.

First you have to keep in mind that there are a lot of laws on the books that allow Politicians to get large sums of money from various sources.  For example, campaigning and collecting funds when you are not facing an opponent!  This allows existing elected officials to create large war chests that they can use later, if a challenger does come a few years down the line.

Thus the reducing of the contributions will only benefit the large, well machined candidates who have the real estate industry working behind them exercising all of those other loopholes.  Whereas the small candidates who truly must rely upon small contributions will be further hurt. 

For example, in the election campaign against Councilwoman Laurie Cumbo, she had three campaigns working for her. Her own, the Mayor’s and the Hotel Industry!!!  So a reduction in contributions to her campaign would not have made much of a difference, but with Ede, who was running against her, it would have been large since she had only one campaign!

MTOPP's  Position:
MTOPP says no.  If real voting reform is wanted (and it is not) then all of these loopholes need to be eliminated not just campaign contributions.

The New Yorkers For A Human-Scale City Alliance’s Recommendation to vote NO:

Proposal 1:  Vote No.  Lowers the maximum campaign contribution in the City's Campaign Finance Law (not the state law) from $5,000 to $2,000.
Vote NO.

Why vote no?  Think about it. Can you afford to give $2,000 to a politician?  This is a fake fix to the campaign finance system and all the politicians know it.  It won't stop the dependence of politicians on the wealthy or on big real estate, nor does it even address the issue we have been raising for a year about loopholes big as trucks that allow big real estate to get around the rules that are part of this law. This isn't a even an improvement - it's a pretend fix, an actual insult to good government groups and to the public. Don't let any politician get away with the claim that they "improved" the system with this one. It would be a shameful lie on their part.  Vote NO.

* * * *
Question #2: Civic Engagement Commission

This proposal would amend the City Charter to:

Create a Civic Engagement Commission that would implement, no later than the City Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2020, a Citywide participatory budgeting program established by the Mayor to promote participation by City residents in making recommendations for projects in their communities;

Require the Commission to partner with community based organizations and civic leaders, as well as other City agencies, to support and encourage civic engagement efforts;

Require the Commission to establish a program to provide language interpreters at City poll sites, to be implemented for the general election in 2020;

Permit the Mayor to assign relevant powers and duties of certain other City agencies to the Commission;

Provide that the Civic Engagement Commission would have 15 members, with 8 members appointed by the Mayor, 2 members by the City Council Speaker and 1 member by each Borough President; and

Provide for one of the Mayor’s appointees to be Commission Chair and for the Chair to employ and direct Commission staff.

Shall this proposal be adopted?

MTOP’s Recommendation to vote NO:

Creation of New Community Engagement Agency.

This is suppose to be a government agency that will encourage more community engagement, foster more participation in elections and provide Community Boards with City Planners, (professionals who are suppose to know all about the rezoning laws etc..)

Now isn’t the community board suppose to be the place for community engagement? And why would you need a completely new government agency just to provide the community boards with planners?

The answer is simple.  If you empowered community boards to hire their own planners, then the planners would be beholden to the community board and have their best interest at heart.

However, if you allow another agency to do the hiring then those being hired would be beholden to that agency’s directives.  The Department of City Planning has such a bad reputation in communities all over the city that they are no longer trusted and in some community boards are told to get the hell out!   Now this new agency who’s leaders will be hired by the Mayor, will hire and then lend City Planners to community boards.

The rational is that the only reason community boards are saying no to all of these rezonings is because of ignorance. If they just understood all the benefits that would be gained from all the developments being proposed Community Boards would be more willing to agree to them.

For example, when the City Planning Commission was reviewing the Brooklyn Botanic Garden rezoning to increase the heights on land that was downzone to protect the garden, the Department of City Planning blamed the no vote that  Community Board 9 gave because CB9 didn’t have a planner! 

But we we did.  We had Richard Birack, Borough President Eric Adams's planner, at every meeting, “giving” his expert opinion, that sometimes amounted to pure lies and half truths. But the proof is in the pudding, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the devastating effects of rezoning, not when there are so many examples out in the world, including how the Department of City Planning will simply ignore all suggestions from the community despite all of those so called “community engagement” sessions!!!

The New Yorkers For A Human-Scale City Alliance’s Recommendation to vote NO:

Proposal 2:  Vote No. Creates a Civic Engagement Commission dominated by Mayoral Appointees who then get to mess around with so-called participatory budgeting and community boards land-use work. 
Vote NO.

Why vote no?  This is a blatant attempt to create even more power for a despotic Mayor who already has way too much power in our Charter. It also makes some of us laugh.  Our Mayor won't even take petitions or respond to petitions that neighborhood groups send him, and he wants a Civic Engagement Commission? Worse, those who came up with this idea seem to think civic engagement just means controlling community boards on land use and pretending to give us a say in budgeting. Ugh. This is an Orwellian proposal.  Vote no.

 * * * *

Question #3: Community Boards

This proposal would amend the City Charter to:

Impose term limits of a maximum of four consecutive full two-year terms for community board members with certain exceptions for the initial transition to the new term limits system;

Require Borough Presidents to seek out persons of diverse backgrounds in making appointments to community boards. The proposal would also add new application and reporting requirements related to these appointments; and

If Question 2, “Civic Engagement Commission,” is approved, require the proposed Civic Engagement Commission to provide resources, assistance, and training related to land use and other matters to community boards.

Shall this proposal be adopted?

[Noticing New York Thinking:

As can be seen from the analysis of MTOPP and The Human Scale New York coalition below, there are huge problems with the current composition of the city's local community boards, including that they are often rife with conflicts of interest and accountable on very short leashes to the Borough Presidents.  We have seen the composition of such boards punishingly changed by Borough Presidents when they represented the community in their votes.  We have also seen the calculated re-composition of the boards and their committees in advance to prepare for and ensure the vote results the real estate industry wants in instances such as the proposed sale of public libraries for real estate deals.  But does the institution of term limits ensure any improvement with respect to what needs to be fixed?: Only sometimes in some particular instances, and other times it can have the opposite result.

In general, the Noticing New York thinking is to favor term limits for powerful executive positions like the President of the United States or the Mayor of the City of New York because they wield such power of office that, together with the bully pulpit keeping them in the spotlight, the power of their incumbency undermines accountability.  In the case of others operating as part of communal bodies that need to be strengthened in standing up to those powerful executives, it is likely a different story.  Term limits mean that those who have increased their power and influence by becoming knowledgeable (and appropriately skeptical?) learning how to represent the public are turned out of office, their resources lost even when the public needs and wants them.  Term limits can make office holders think short term and in terms of their next office, not their current one, which may not mean representing their current constituents' priorities.   Term limits were introduced to New York City by big money interests and when offices change hands big money has an extra out-sized influence when voters need to familiarize themselves with entirely new faces and dig down below a public relations blitz veneer (case in point- Councilmember Laurie Cumbo who obtained office by virtue of REBNY money and proved to be outrageously opposite to her the promises of her innocuous, reassuring campaign platitudes.)

The question is how to make community boards more accountable to and representative of the community.  More transparency with stricter conflict of interest controls would help a lot.  Should community board members be elected directly by the public?:  The problems with that, as with electing school board members and judges, is that it is too much for the average voter to catch up with by the time they get into the voting booth.  That opens the door for other inside powers to have too much influence.

What community boards and other New York City boards of influence (the Landmarks Commission, City Planning Commission, boards of the three city public library systems) might benefit from is diffusing the appointments to those boards among more elected officials who the public is likely to be able to identify and hold accountable when their interests don't get represented.  One of the benefits of all the myriad appointments to boards and commissions now made by the New York City mayor is that the public knows who the mayor is and, as such, can more easily hold him or her accountable.  What the mayor does is more likely to be written about and covered by the press.  But one individual having all the power involves no checks and balances and sets up just one easy target for the powerful influencers like the real estate industry.  Others who could be making appointments include, as the case may be: The New York Public Advocate (giving that office more of the power it should have), The City (and perhaps sometimes State) Comptroller, local City Councilmen, perhaps in some cases the City Council as a body, Borough Presidents (offices that also currently have scant power).

If nothing else, more diffused power means that when moneyed interests want to put the fix in they have more elected officials to corral and buy off and it is harder for them to operate for long stretches in secret.  It is also likely to provoke a few more real open debates on a few more things before votes rather than discussions before votes being as scripted as they almost always are now.

Maybe, rather than succumbing to the eyewash and pretending that there is any worthwhile  "reform" here, all of three of these proposals should just be short down together.]      

MTOP’s Recommendation to vote (a “hard one”- That is not very clear) YES:

Term Limits on Community Boards
There are two points of view: The Upper White Middle Class Community Boards and the Community of Color Community Boards.

As has been the case since the inception of Community Boards and their empowerment in 1974, community boards have fared a lot better in white upper middle class neighborhoods than in communities of color.

White Upper Middle Class Community Boards

Community Board members in white upper class community boards are knowledgeable, know their stuff, have been around the block and have been a thorn in the real estate industry side, because of their unwillingness to let anything slide by them.

These board members are very strong and Borough Presidents have been unwilling to let them go because of the political consequences.  However, if term limits are introduced, then the Borough Presidents can not be blamed and then they will get to put who they want in, who will be beholden to their goals and not necessarily the goals of the community.

Thus term limits in White middle class communities may weaken these boards!

Communities of Color

What about communities of color, who’s boards are already weakened?  There have been countless complaints against these community boards and their members.  Serious violations of the law are done openly and no one does anything about it.  For the most part the board behaves like a private club with a few people running the whole thing for years, at the expense of the rest of the community.

These open violations are tolerated by the City and Borough Presidents, to enable the political structure to get what they want from the board when they need it, i.e. rezoning requests.

In these communities people see term limits as a great opportunity to get rid of these long standing board members and to attempt to integrate and to diversify.  However based upon the experience of a Community Board (CB9) who had a major change in their members over the past four years ago, this may not be the answer, especially if the Borough President has his eyes on that community for rezonings.

An Example of Changing the Guard at a Community Board

In Community Board 9, (CB9)  Borough President Eric Adams, in 2014,  removed the long standing (30 years or more) board members (Jewish and White men),  and replaced them with Black folks who had the same agenda and motive - to rezone the community. However, not all of the new board members were apart of that intention and thus we have been successful at least of not having another rezoning request materialize at CB9, despite certain members of CB9 working all kinds of tricks to do so.

But our struggle hasn’t been easy, we have had to file at least seven lawsuits, we have demonstrated, we have filed complaints, we have been arrested and have decided to dedicate our entire lives to protecting this community against certain Community Board members who’s intention it is to fulfill Borough Hall’s mandate of rezoning for the real estate industry.

In fact, we lost one of our strongest allies, who was the first vice-chair of CB9 because she was a strong opponent against a massive rezoning.  She was removed off the board despite being an officer of the board, after only two years of service, whereas there were other board members who had been on the board for over 30 years, still there.

That means that even if community boards members are replaced, a lot of how that board will function will be determined by the Borough President and his/her agenda,

MTOPP Position

MTOPP Says Yes. This was a hard one, because we don't want to see community boards weaken, but  if this city wanted true diversity then they would diversify who can place members on the Board. Right now all of the board members are placed there by the Borough President with only the City Council members making recommendations. Having City Council people make those appointments as well as the Borough President could go a long way to diversifying and ensuring that it is not just the Borough President’s agenda that will be followed.

What we know however is that true diversity can not happen when only one person is allowed to appoint and remove board members off of community boards and this is not going to change unless people really fight and demand it.

In the case of CB9 we do believe that having representatives that are on the board who reflect the majority of the residents in the community has empowered us to at least prevent a massive rezoning, where as if the board was still in the hands of those few we might be writing a different story.

The New Yorkers For A Human-Scale City Alliance’s Recommendation to vote YES:

Proposal 3:  Vote Yes. Term Limits for Community Boards
Vote YES!

Why vote this way?  Well, to start with, Community Boards are, in the words of Councilmember Reynoso, "political cesspools", meaning that since they are unelected, they get filled with an even worse stew of unregulated conflicts of interest, lobbyists, political sycophancy, and executive teams of Democratic Party Political Clubs. They are the fiefdoms of Borough Presidents who appoint them and who control them tightly (ex: warning people who speak in ways they don't like to be quiet or get lost or just mass firing them as has happened in the Bronx).  The Community Board system desperately needs four reforms:

1.    term limits (and hey, if we need the institutional memory of the old-timers, they can always serve as non-voting public members);
2.    to be elected by neighborhood voters, we don't need a Borough President choosing who represents us, like a one-person Electoral College - we know how not to vote for lobbyists or real estate developers.
3.    much stricter conflict-of-interest rules to rid the boards of lobbyists;
4.    and a new mission and mandate to actually do something relevant to neighborhoods.

We see term limits as a good start and we can have them without the creepy civic engagement commission the Mayor wants.  We need more reforms as well, but this is one of them. We demand term limits from our elected politicians, why not term limits for our unelected neighbors who pretend to be looking after our interests? Vote YES!

The hard choices facing society: You could have your $1,500 ice cream sundae (left) or you five-story Donnell Library (right)

It’s a not so pretty please with a cherry on top . . .

. . . A $1,500 ice cream sundae–  And it’s plain vanilla!  OK, so it’s not supposed to be just “plain” vanilla; it’s supposed to be Madagascar vanilla.

Where do you get this expensive sundae?  At the Baccarat Hotel, which sits where the beloved central destination Donnell Library once stood in Manhattan, across from the Museum of Modern Art.

In November 2015, I wrote here in Noticing New York about the skewed priorities of selling that very substantial and important library for a pittance in a shrink-and-sink deal to replace it with a luxury hotel, luxury restaurants and luxury condominiums– See: Priorities To Be Replicated?: Private Luxury Now Abounding Where Former Donnell Library Stood, A "Replacement" Library Is Nowhere In Sight.  (The article was written on the 8th anniversary of the library’s sale.)

And the priorities at the time were very evidently those things that catered to the wealthy: The luxury hotel, the luxury condominium building, the luxury restaurant replacing the Donnell Library all opened more than year before the “replacement” library opened, that was a replacement the NYPL was too embarrassed to call Donnell as promised.  That replacement library opened almost nine years after the library’s sale.

If you want to see images, of the old Donnell vs. the “replacement” see Citizens Defending Libraries (I am a co-founder): Images and Links- The 53rd Street "replacement " for the Donnell Library to be opened Monday and What We Lost.

The luxury hotel in the building replacing the library is the Baccarat Hotel.  In the November Noticing New York article about these topsy-turvy priorities we wrote about the expensive dining to be had  the hotel’s Grand Salon whilst sitting on “coyote” pelt upholstered chairs.  The inadequate replacement for Donnell opened in June of 2016. . .

. . . That June is just when New York Magazine was advising readers they could blow their rent checks “on a single cocktail” by ordering a the new $500 Le Roi cocktail at the Baccarat hotel.  See also the $450 Sidecar Royal served in the Hotel’s Les Boissons bar (“The opulent New York City property is sticking to its roots with this new ultra-luxe libation”– what, it’s roots as a library?).

Previously, how very little the Library was sold for could be measured against what apartments in the luxury tower were selling for: The $60 million asking price for the penthouse was almost three times what the NYPL netted to sell the five-story, recently renovated, 97,000 square foot Donnell Library.  Other apartments were selling for close to exactly what the NYPL netted on its sale.  With “Le Roi” cocktails going for $500, it seems that the perhaps $23 million netted by the NYPL could be measured by multiples of the cocktail price.
Well, to keep up to date with extravagance, a new article in USA Today now advises us that you can get a $1,500 vanilla sundae at the hotel too!  See: USA Today: Gold popcorn and a $2,000 frittata: Five of the most expensive meals money can buy, by Rasha Ali, December 11, 2018.

The article provides us with a list of the most expensive (though simple) foods the wealthiest of us can foolishly spend their money on: a $5,000 burger, a $2,700 pizza pie, $2,500 for popcorn (a 6.5 gallon tin), and a $2,000 frittata.

Yes, from USA Today, that's a picture of a $1,500 ice cream sundae you can get where one upon a time there was a grand public library.

About the $1,500 ice cream sundae it says:

It's literally just vanilla bean ice cream, dressed up in fancy accessories. The ice cream is served at the Baccarat Hotel New York and is made with vanilla imported from Madagascar (fancy).

It's also served with black truffle crumble with dark chocolate, hibiscus champagne sauce and donned in an edible gold leaf, then served in a $1,200 crystal bear.  The ice cream alone costs $300, but if you want the whole ensemble, it'll cost you $1,500.

The last visit to the 53rd Street Library that “replaced” Donnell this is what we noticed: The architect had designed the front entrance with two separate doors, one east, one west, for library patrons to enter before they descended to the library’s mostly underground space–   One of those doors, the west one, was closed off so that library patrons didn’t come too close to rubbing shoulders with those well heeled chums and chumettes visiting the luxury portions of the building for $1,500 ice cream sundaes.

I remember the young and tender age I was when I was horrified to have explained to me the concept of “the company store,” the store in the company-owned town, which was the only place to buy things, where those things were priced at a price you couldn’t really quite afford so you were perpetually in debt to the company, which was the only employer in town, that didn’t pay very much so that you could never earn enough to leave town. . .   Peonage!  My mind boggled at the concept— to be so unfree, cut off from any choice!   Could such inconceivable traps have ever existed?

Symbolizing how absolutely closed the system was, some companies even issued their own currencies, their own “money” or company “script” to pay workers’ salaries that they would have to spend at the company store.   Safely in the past?: Just a few years ago, a division of Walmart (Wal-Mart de Mexico or Walmex) was doing this with its Mexican workers paying workers with vouchers, in lieu of cash, redeemable at its outlets until the Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled this violated the Mexican constitution.
       
Imagine the way that a private corporation could once take over and become everything!

These days Amazon, famous for paying its workers low wages, has just become the second biggest U.S. Company as of September 2018.  We think of Amazon as having low prices, unlike the prices of the company store that were always too high, but it is becoming increasing hard to shop elsewhere and the real price we are ultimately paying may be an illusion as Amazon is allowed to run rampant as a predatory monopoly putting all other competition out of business.

Amazon’s inescapability will be brought home for New Yorkers in another, yet more intense way now that Amazon is landing a “headquarters” in Queens’ in Long Island City.  Flexing the musculature of its enormous bigness quite openly, we see Amazon being allowed to take over our city’s governance with New York state powers be turned over as well.  City and state officials are aiding and abetting Amazon in the process are letting Amazon do that.  That is thanks principally to Bill de Blasio as New York City's mayor and Andrew Cuomo as New York State's governor.

State and City Subsidizes For Amazon- A Popular Topic

The first thing you hear about Amazon’s plan to land a “headquarters” in Long Island City is that in exchange, to “lure” Amazon here, it will be getting an amazing glut of subsides including tax exemptions, from both the city and state plus the federal government as well.  How much?: It’s clear that the amounts can only be spoken of in terms of more than a billion+ dollars multiplied by what?  The estimates of the total subsidies (which we will have to come back to) range.  As they were calculated and negotiated in secret and have not been thoroughly or openly vetted by any economists, we should not make the mistake others may make of pretending that we truly know much about this deal so soon after its revelation.  There are even nondisclosure agreements about making much of this information public that apply to the future.

The most fitting quick observation about these massive subsidies is that other tech giants, Google, Facebook and Twitter, all have very sizable presences in New York City with none of them receiving such subsidies.

Amazon "Give Backs"?/Sizable Acreage

The next thing I heard (on the radio- perhaps a WNYC radio excited announcement of the deal?) was how Amazon was expected to be “give back,” or might “give back” in things in return. . . .  It’s said that Amazon with its development partners will“build a 600-seat public school, affordable space for manufacturers, arts groups and early-stage tech companies, and a 3.5-acre waterfront esplanade and park” while building “1.15 million square feet of office space” Anable Basin properties are part of the more than one million square feet of property Amazon is expected to take over.  (One million square feet is 22.9 acres, comparable to the Atlantic Yards site excluding the additional eight acres owned by developer Forest City Ratner before that Ratner mega-project was launched.  Last year, a plan to rezone 15-acres in the basin area was being spearheaded by a family-owned plastics factory (That company is Plaxall) that controlled 12.6 of those acres.  Amazon’s plan involves taking over the bulk of that land– but not all the family-own acres– plus obviously more elsewhere.)

New York Times architectural critic Michael Kimmelman, who sometimes splits the baby trying to make happy both activists and the powers-that-be, made the embarrassing suggestion that rectification could be made with respect to Amazon’s arrival if Amazon invested in NYC’s “public libraries” and “local school programs.”  See: Michael Kimmelman’s Unfortunate Suggestion That Amazon Invest In NYC’s Public libraries (per Eric Klinenberg)- See: “Amazon’s HQ2 Will Benefit From New York City. But What Does New York Get?” -  Kimmelman balanced his essay's seeming enthusiasm for Amazon's arrival in this respect slightly: He contrapuntally glowered about the Amazon giant’s plunking down here and the “insularity” and libertarianism of the tech industry in general.

Do we really want“gifts” or “give-backs,” from giant mega-monopolies, so labeled in intentionally confusing narratives as we allow such entities to take over sections of the city supplanting government, and doing so in the name of `private/public partnerships'?  We’ve seen this before. For instance, when the MTA, sending its head Joe Lhota to a ribbon cutting was promoting a “$76 million Barclays Center subway station” as a `gift' from Atlantic Yards developer Forest City Ratner. The notion gets pushed with the too-good-to-be-true con that “not a cent of it came from taxpayers’ pockets,” despite the fact that, all told, Forest City Ratner was walking away with overall project subsidies totaling $2 - $3 billion.

Last week there was a NYC Public Advocate Candidates Forum in Brooklyn Heights.  Sixteen self-proclaimed candidates for that city-wide elected office took part in panel discussion (and a few additional candidates who have thrown their hat into the ring weren't there).  Amazon was naturally discussed.  It was discomfiting to hear how many of those candidates thought that Amazon's arrival in Queens should simply be accepted as a given and that all that needed to be discussed was what Amazon would "give back,"as if this was the way that government should work.  The candidates are too numerous to inventory their Amazon positions here, right now.

Rethinking So-called "Charity" As Wealth Concentrates In Those With Agendas

The unbelievable math, simply ignoring the facts to parade, as window-dressing these ersatz “gifts,” brings to mind conversations now being had advising us to reexamine and not be taken at face value the theoretical benefits of the so-called “giving” by the wealthiest in our nation.   Anand Giridharadas who has addressed the subject in a new book “Winners Take All- The Elite Charade of Changing the World” has questioned the ethos where “The winners of our age must be challenged to do more good, but never, ever tell them to do less harm.”

More succinctly, Mr. Giridharadas has said that while “giving back” sounds nice, its not the same as “taking less.”

Furthermore, given the difficulty of “looking a gift horse in the mouth,” such private sector “gifts” are harder to criticize than what is provided by elected officials.  That sadly is the case even when such “gifts” reflect an agenda on the part of the wealthy donors and an effort to shape the world as they would like to see it shaped.  Take, for instance, this undemocratic result: how a school district can wind up with less funds for what the public wants funded when the (Bill and Melinda) Gates Foundation pays the school district on condition that it divert its available funds away from other expenditures that were the district's priorities; instead the funds go to a questionable pet project the foundation is promoting.  Or very similarly, consider the funds that get advanced to pay for schools to be converted into private charters?

Under those circumstances, do we want our public schools furnished as gifts from the private sector?  Isn't it preferable to have public services provided by our own elected governments whom we can ultimately hold to account?  (If we don't want our schools taken over by the private sector, what about our libraries?)  But what is, in fact, happening in this day and age is that we are more and more, in all sorts of ways, turning our governance over to private corporations like Amazon.

David Callahan whose new book is “The Givers: Wealth, Power and Philanthropy in a New Gilded Age,”writes how, as government is starved and retreats while the influence of the superwealthy increases, the new `philanthropies’ have become “a much stronger power center,” that “in some areas, is set to surpass government in its ability to shape society’s agenda.” Callahan has also previously pointed out that this “growing say over central areas of civic life like education and public parks . . is often wielded against a backdrop of secrecy.”  As that shift in influence occurs, it is often with the superwealthy like Bezos, the world’s richest man, contributing to that starvation of government as, for example, he sidesteps payment of sales tax.

Not Playing Fair Amazon Takes More, Never Less

Let’s be clear, despite some similarities in the eyewash aspects of it, Amazon’s dealings with respect to coming to Long Island City were not an example of such `philanthropic’ equations: What transpired, with respect to Queens was supposedly in `negotiations,’ supposedly adversarial.  However, with it being mostly all in secret, it was apparently mostly about the government’s surrendering of governance decisions and the norms of government supremacy to give Amazon things it was demanding, things there is little reason to believe Amazon deserved or should have been given.

It can be readily argued that Amazon has never been about playing fair, that its extraordinary growth (while paying shareholders little) has been about benefitting from a tilted playing field, not paying sales taxes, taking advantage of its monopoly status to squelch competition.  It's resulted in a huge amount of value others have created in the economy being reshuffled to wind up in the Amazon/Jeff Bezos coffers.

It is not in Amazon’s nature to “take less.”  When Seattle passed a small tax on businesses making more than $20 million in gross revenue in order to address its homeless crisis (greatly acerbated by skyrocketing rents), Jeff Bezos and his Amazon, Seattle’s biggest employer and the second biggest company in the United States, used their political heft to crush the tax, getting it repealed.  That was the absurdity even though Jeff Bezos as the world’s richest man has been calculated to be making “roughly $191,000 per minute” while the median Amazon employee’s salary is just $28,000 and many of Amazon’s workers, impoverished by the low wages the monopoly pays, collect food stamps.

Amazon's "Headquarters" Bidding War Fake Out

The huge subsidies that Amazon is to get coming to New York are because Amazon used its monopoly hugeness to announce that it was holding “an auction” amongst American cities to locate its “second” (“HQ2") headquarters.  That proved to be a giant fake-out: Amazon is not delivering its end of what it advertised; its so-called “second headquarters” will just be some, maybe not all, of its current growth and expansion at two locations, New York City and Crystal City, Virginia just outside of Washington, D. C. and only a “stone’s throw away from the Pentagon.”  (So recycling these hyped up baloney terms is NYC getting "H2Q/2" or maybe "H2Q3"?)

In other words, unconstrained by anything that was "bargained for," Amazon is simply following through on what it likely wanted to do anyway, have a major presence, and therefore influence, in the nation’s political capital and in its financial capital, the nation’s two major power centers.  Ask yourself why you think Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post; it's for the very same reason.  This division putting some of the Amazon offices in a separate location near the Pentagon will probably also help Amazon manage the flow of those of its workers needing security clearances to do the military work Amazon does for the Pentagon and CIA.

The deception of the “auction” was exquisitely characterized by New York State Assemblyman Ron Kim (also one of the announced candidates running for Public Advocate) who wrote an pre-announcement opinion piece opposing Amazon’s Long Island City arrival with law professor and sometimes political candidate Zephyr Teachout.  Ms. Teachout, an expert and activist with respect to corruption, has been an alert critic of the way that monopolies are taking over our economy together with the opposing American tradition that says they shouldn’t, because monopolies make slaves of us.  In 2015 she gave an address at Cooper Union: “The Monopoly Moment: The New Anti-Trust Paradox.”  Assemblyman Kim and Ms. Teachout wrote (in part):

 . .  this whole tournament has been a sham. There is no HQ2. Instead, Amazon is expected to announce a fairly routine expansion, adding new satellites in Queens and in Northern Virginia. The countless hours spent courting Amazon were undoubtedly valuable for Amazon: the company gained free media coverage and untold amounts of economic data from each bidding city. But it has been a terrible waste for those cities and states whose public servants labored to win a prize that would never materialize. Even for the biggest Amazon boosters, such casual dishonesty should be cause for consternation. It’s like getting a marriage offer along with a confession of infidelity.

    * * *

 If Amazon indeed locates a substantial part of its business in New York, serfdom is the style of “partnership” the city should expect. Despite the familiar promises, Amazon is not a good partner. Not for the cities it occupies, not for the merchants who depend on it, not for the workers it employs. The company does not seek partnership; it seeks control.

See: Opinion- New York Should Say No to Amazon- A city that thrives on the energy of its neighborhood merchants should not offer incentives and giveaways to an internet giant known for squashing small businesses, November 9, 2018.

Government's Surrender of Its Real Estate Tax Power

One of the fundamental government powers that will be surrendered in the Amazon deal is that Amazon will notpay real estate taxes.  Instead, the Amazon section of the city, carved out from the rest of the city will make payments in lieu of taxes pursuant to a “PILOT” agreement.  All the reasons this will be attractive to Amazon are reasons it will not be good for the public, that includes things like suspicions about the amounts paid, inability to challenge and rethink them going forward, and, like the increasing patchwork of other areas affected by such PILOTs (Brooklyn Bridge Park, parts of Atlantic yards/”Pacific Park”), being cut off from the vicissitudes of the city and communal obligations of all New Yorkers to address them.

Government's Surrender of Land Use and Zoning Powers

Another of the fundamentals of local governance surrendered to Amazon will be zoning and land use controls.  Density and how the land will be used will not be subject to the normal way such controls are supposed to be thought through and established with the normal City Council and community reviews.  Just one way this is showing up is that Jeff Bezos has been promised his Amazon site will come equipped with a helicopter landing pad.   Helicopter landing sites are a serious land use issue.   Helicopters are dangerous, which is why, after a 1977 accident, the helicopter pad atop the MetLife building, formerly the PanAm Building is no longer active.   Helicopters are also extremely noisy, not to mention, as anyone who has been around a landing site knows, their fuel has a pronounced unhealthy stink to it.

One Way Government Power Is Lost: Regulatory Capture

The surrendering of these governmental powers results from the involvement of the state’s Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC or ESD), a quasi-governmental, unaccountable public benefit corporation that is notorious for its being subject to “regulatory capture,” which is to say that rather than being careful to ensure that public benefits are achieved, the agency answers to its private developer clients (in the case it will be Amazon and its agent developers) to give them what they want.

Privatizing Government's Power of Eminent Domain (To Push out Competing Economic Life)

Another power that ESDC has is the power of eminent domain, the power to condemn and take property from other private landowners for “public use.”  In recent years, as with Atlantic Yards, that “public use” has meant giving land or property over to another more favored private developer.  In the case of Atlantic Yards it was used to acquire land to build a private arena (infamously named "Barclays").  That use of eminent domain may not have been actually necessary given that Forest City already owned other adjacent property.  Eminent domain was also used to a very large extent push out the competition of other developers building in the Atlantic Yards vicinity. . .  Oh, wait– pushing out the competition?– Exercising of that superpower of government sounds like a perfect match for our Amazonian outfit.

. . . Before government steps in to pick the winner, people should stop and think.  Such shoving aside of other economic life for the promises that a property owner/developer with the political heft theoretical offers when asking that these powers exercised on its behalf often doesn’t go very well at all.  When the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Kelo v. City of New London case validated such shenanigans in New London, Connecticut, a huge swath of land was cleared to be turned over to Pfizer.  The land, all other properties removed from it, wound up as an abandoned, empty grassy field.

Forest City Ratner, taking over with eminent domain the 22 acres that is formally considered Atlantic Yards project (distractingly renamed "Pacific Park" out of embarrassment and to side-step bad press), has probably slowed the development in the area where it supplanted its competitors.  Forest City Ratner (its heirs and assigns including the Chinese government) has kept few of the promises Forest City Ratner made in connection with everything it was given by government officials on a preferential, essentially no-bid basis.  That mega-project, once projected to be complete in 2013, is years, perhaps decades away from completion.  At one point the revised estimate of the then head of ESDC was that it could take perhaps 40 years in all to complete.  Meanwhile the developer has destroyed affordable housing it will never replace.
 
Because ESDC’s powers are so phenomenal, its procedures require that it only come in to exercise its powers in an area if there is a letter from the locality (in the case New York City) inviting it in to supersede local laws.  In this case that letter is probably being delivered by Mayor de Blasio.  However, perhaps to give de Blasio cover, there was another letter signed by a slew of local electeds, city council members, saying that they wanted Amazon to come to New York.  These city council members are now, en mass, disavowing what they previously signed.  Time will tell whether their display of this announced change of heart will evolve into effective action.

Supplanting Other Economic Life With Subsidies And Preferences (Falling Short of Eminent Domain)

Whether or not ESDC actually exercises its condemnation powers in any respect, the preferences and subsidies that are to be given Amazon will have an exiling effect pushing out others.   Maybe the Amazon plan will ultimately provide “600-seat public school, affordable space for manufacturers, arts groups and early-stage tech companies,” but at a Department of Education building at 44-36 Vernon Boulevard, approximately 1,000 staff will be kicked out of the area.  The cost for them to pull up stakes and rebuild is probably not being calculated.  Further, with the redirection of two sites intended for residential development to Amazon, those sites will not produce the approximately 1,500 units of affordable housing that was in the works.   So that lost housing must be considered as another cost.

All of the preferences and subsidies for Amazon will serve to push out, displace and deprive of opportunity other economic activity that would be looking to have a place in Long Island City’s relatively hot and active real estate market.  There is a flip side too: Those pushed-out competitor businesses will also be unhappily affected by diminished city services with Amazon-occupied properties subtracted from the tax base.

Our Government's Bet on Amazon Could Align New York With Amazon's Policies

When the government is incurring so many costs on behalf of Amazon, when it is putting so many eggs in the Amazon basket, it can affect long term alignments. . . . When I was at the state finance agencies we bonded out the state’s settlement income that resulted from successfully suing the tobacco companies, when New York State joined as plaintiff with other states around the union represented by their attorneys general.  What this meant was that the annual amounts that the tobacco companies had agreed to pay New York State as damages for dissemination of false and misleading information about cigarettes plus the consequent harm to the health of citizens and increased medical costs to the state were collected up front by the state through our issuance of billions of dollars in bonds, which were to be paid off over time from the payments the tobacco companies were obligated to make under the settlement.

Given the bonds were supporting the tobacco companies’ payments, I remember being personally worried that the state, wanting its bonds not to default, might acquire a vested interest in the continued financial health of the creditor tobacco companies through the issuance of the bonds.  I worried that the state might therefore want company cigarette sales to do well so the companies would always be able to make the payments unhampered by declining consumption.  But, for the very reason that the states had sued the tobacco companies, the state still needed to pursue health, safety and welfare goals; it still needed to continue to exercise its police powers to cut down on smoking and run tobacco consumption prevention programs.  In the case of our New York State bonds, that likely conflict of interest was forestalled through the purchase of bond insurance: If defaulting tobacco companies didn’t make their payments the bond insurer would have been left holding the bag after paying off the bond holders; it would be the state's problem.

Quite surely, one reason Amazon is moving here to the financial capital is to more closely align itself with the powers here.  But New York, as a policy matter, has to think about whether it will want to endorse Amazon’s monopoly practices.  It will also need to sort through its position on Amazon’s involvement and roots in the military, Amazon’s relationship with the CIA and the general ongoing implications respecting surveillance as the tech sector of the economy evolves.  It is worth remembering that once upon a time New York, a financial capital in the 1800s, was a northern city, but because of New York banks investing the cotton trade and plantations long after the legality of the slave trade itself was ended in the United States in 1807, New Yorkers were complicit in the perpetuation of slavery.
                                               
It’s easier to allege what you are that you are acting in a morally neutral way, that what you are doing is “just business,” if you don’t have sunk costs invested someone else's enterprise.  If your investment means that you have essentially become their partner, you will be quite reluctant to see their business succumb.

Does Alliance Between Government and Monopoly Produce Fascism?

Law professor Tim Wu, who ran for the Lieutenant Governor slot on the ticket with Zephyr Teachout when she was running for governor of New York State has his own anti-monopoly ideas.

He warns of a link between monopoly control and the rise of fascism and totalitarianism. 

Mr. Wu who has already written two excellent books, one “The Master Switch” helped earn him the title as “father of the concept of net neutrality.”  He has a new book out:  “The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age.”   He recently adapted his book into an op-ed for the New York Times Sunday Review section: Be Afraid of Economic ‘Bigness.’ Be Very Afraid.-
In the 1930s it contributed to the rise of fascism. Alarmingly, we are experimenting again with a monopolized economy.  November 10, 2018.

Explaining how control by monopolies contributed to the rise of fascism in the 1930s, particularly in Nazi Germany, Wu explains that “extreme economic concentration” creates economic conditions ripe for dictatorships when “democratic accountability” is avoided as loyal alliances are formed between those in power and large enterprises that then feel themselves to be above the law.  He points out how there is “there is a direct link between” such concentration “and the distortion of democratic process” given the escalating imbalance of power as huge corporations pursue their political goals.

In order to flat out reject it, Mr. Wu alludes to a line of thought, championed Robert Bork (of Saturday Night Massacre and rejected-supreme-court-nominee fame) and the “Chicago school” of law and economics.  Bork and the Chicago school argued to change antitrust law by saying that antitrust law should not concern itself with the political implications of concentrated economic power.  Wu concludes, rejecting that notion as false, saying:

We have forgotten that antitrust law had more than an economic goal, that it was meant fundamentally as a kind of constitutional safeguard, a check against the political dangers of unaccountable private power.

As the lawyer and consumer advocate Robert Pitofsky warned in 1979, we must not forget the economic origins of totalitarianism, that “massively concentrated economic power, or state intervention induced by that level of concentration, is incompatible with liberal, constitutional democracy.”

It is probably worthwhile to remember that one of the sometimes used definitions of "fascism" is an alignment that merges government and corporate power.

Will Alignment With Government Allow Amazon To Write The Rules of The Market Place? 

Earlier this year Stacy Mitchell, wrote a cover story for The Nation titled “Amazon Doesn’t Just Want to Dominate the Market—It Wants to Become the Market.– The company is a radically new kind of monopoly with ambitions that dwarf those of earlier empires.” February 15, 2018.

Speaking about Amazon on Democracy Now after the HQ2 deals were announced, Ms. Mitchell said that Amazon, increasingly the gatekeeper, was essentially “privatizing” what should be an open market where the rules that govern the buying and selling of goods are set by the public and open to view.  Instead, Amazon is making commerce its own private arena where Amazon, in control, “sets the terms of trade” and “basically creates the rules and regulations by which other companies and other participants are allowed to operate” rigging things to increasingly pick “the winners and losers,” and it using that “power to push others out of the marketplace and to gain more power for itself.”

She painted the picture saying, in part:

Amazon is so dominant in so many areas. It’s now capturing one out of every two dollars that Americans spend online. . .   it controls the underlying infrastructure for a lot of the internet—you know, over 40 percent of the world’s cloud computing capacity. It’s increasingly moving into shipping and package delivery. It’s taking on UPS and the Postal Service. It has the largest market share in home voice systems, through Alexa. And on and on it goes.

But I think, rather than think about Amazon as being dominant in any of these markets, the way to understand what this company is all about is that Amazon is about controlling the essential infrastructure that other companies need to use in order to reach the market. Its online platform, more than half of all product searches online now start at Amazon’s website. And what that means is that if you’re any company producing or retailing anything, increasingly, if you want to be able to reach consumers, you have to become a seller on Amazon’s platform. And what that means is that Amazon now controls your business. They have the ability to gather data on what you’re doing, to use that data to compete against you. They can levy a kind of tax on your trade. They can demote you in the search results. They can retaliate against you if you complain.

Remembering how Amazon is a giant information vacuum, sucking up tons of detailed information about its consumers and about the retailers selling to them through Amazon, allows you to understand the worries some have about how Amazon, with its "auction" ploy, managed to induce almost all the major cities in the country, all the economic centers, to collect, organize and supply to it vast amounts of confidential data about local economic activity.  Then think about Amazon's disposition to use information that only it is privy to tilt the playing field in its direction.  Now realize what an advantage the information Amazon now has in deploying its resources in terms of real estate investment and economic planning.

Amazon's Potential To Control Public Discourse

In her Nation cover story Mitchell noted that as it “inevitably transfers wealth to the few” the Amazon setup is also turning over to that lucky elite even the ability to regulate public discourse, plus much more, endowing them with:

the power over such crucial questions as which books and ideas get published and promoted, who may ply a trade and on what terms, and whether given communities will succeed or fail.

Her article points out that Amazon having aggressively sold books and other items below cost shutting down bookstores “in droves,” today “nearly half of all books, both print and digital, are sold by Amazon.”  Mitchell does not take next step of noting that, for a company with such significant CIA and military connections, that’s so dedicated to, and expert at, data collection and consumer profiling, the implications are enormous.

There is a lot to be thought about in this regard, including how Amazon chose to start its business with books, drove the industry and public toward digital books, and now also has extraordinary control other content, particularly the digitally supplied video and film, that is such an important part of the overall milieu for thought and discourse.

Robotic and Remote, Amazon Is Likely Civically Unhealthy and May Quash Innovation

On Democracy now Mitchell also said “our calculations suggest that we’re losing about two retail jobs for every one job created in an Amazon warehouse.”  The hemorrhaging of these jobs may be accompanied by a quashing of future innovation throughout the United States.  In her Nation article, Mitchell cites studies starting with work based on observations of paired cities by C. Wright Mills and economist Melville J. Ulmer that cities with locally owned businesses and local economic power are more economically robust and civically healthy, with a greater variety of jobs and residents more involved in community affairs, more investment in public infrastructure and better at problem solving.

But, probably more important. . .  Amazon’s total control and top-down robotic streamlining of everything it does, might be thought of as benefitting the public with a cost-saving efficiency that justifies all its aggressive usurpations, but near the end of her Nation article Mitchell reminds us that history tell us that “a surge of innovation and start-up activity” followed in the wake of the Federal antitrust actions against, AT&T, IBM, and Microsoft.  That's exactly the same point that Tim Wu made exploring this subject in “The Master Switch,” which also included his exploration of the creativity unleashed in the film industry when its vertical integration, and the related censorship affecting it, was broken up. Thereafter we saw the flourishing of “the new Hollywood era” (late 1960s to early 1980s) with more idiosyncratic, experimental films made with greater license that were more cerebral, edgier, more defiant, moodier, and more erotically explicit.

Jane Jacobs thought along similar lines when she explored where economic vitality and innovation flows from.   In her first, groundbreaking book, “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” (1961), Jane Jacobs celebrated the dynamism, vitality and benefits of diversity in American cities.  She was rejecting the cookie cutter, centrally-produced, sterile monotony, albeit efficiency, of programs like Robert Moses’ exercises in “Urban Renewal.”  Jacobs, in her later books extended these concepts exploring granular examples of what brings vitality, dynamism, innovation and sustainability to national and city economies.

It’s too far afield to go deeply into all of Jacobs' ideas on the subject, but suffice it to say that, in Jacobs’ view, its not the efficiency of centralized planning that generates economic life and vitality; it’s quite the opposite— It’s the very messiness of a lack of centralized planning, and it’s a diverse environment where innovations are generated bottom-up, the result of serendipitous collisions of variety.  To add one more consideration: No doubt the multiplication of conscious observing human minds is certainly another essential part of the equation. . . That’s whatever stock you place in the future of A.I. ("Artificial Intelligence").

To Jacobs the economic monoculture of a car manufacturing city like Detroit, albeit however efficient as a passing phase, was a recipe for future economic stagnation.

The sometimes presumed efficiency of consolidation with top down and centralized control has its defenders.  It was one of the rationales resorted to by the gilded age robber barons of the nineteenth century to defend their aggregating empires.  Such a style of management known as “Weber-Taylor bureaucracy” or “Taylorism” was favored during the era of the Junker Aristocracy and in the Weimar Republic in Germany in the time that led into Hitler's era and was, as Ed D’Angelo (writing about libraries) noted, emulated by Vladimir Lenin who imported it to the Soviet Union.  It also, at that time, influenced the style of management in the United States, “Henry Ford and John D. Rockefeller admired* the German model”

(* Some of the admiration flowed mutually: Hitler had a life-size, full-length portrait of Henry Ford on his office wall in Munich; the Germans awarded Ford and he accepted the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, in 1938, that nation's highest decoration for foreigners; and Ford subsidiaries busily manufactured armaments that the Nazis used against the U.S., trucks and planes.)

Does, such a consolidating, concentrated top down management approach help an economy and  civilization advance long term?  Did it help the Soviets catch up and advance into the modern era?  The Amazon created science fiction series "The Man in the High Castle," which speculatively posits a future that never happened, envisions that if Germany had won World War II to take over much of the United States, German efficiency would have led in short order to a range of technological advances . . .Humm: Maybe--  Or is Jane Jacobs right: Does such the kind of monoculture and lack of variety such as we are getting with Amazon's relentless march of takeovers lead, in the longer term, to stagnation?

Consumerism As The Trap

Why do we let Amazon get away with such bad behavior, especially if it is, in so many ways, so bad for our economic, civic and political health?   In an eloquent sermon at the First Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Brooklyn, Reverend Ana Levy-Lyons, responding to the news of Amazon's arrival and dealing with a number of these issues, suggests that we are trapped by consumerism and the pay-off of what seem to be cheap purchases.

Reverend Levy-Lyons suggested that the way the Amazon world redefines us and appeals to us as just mere consumers flattens our dimensionality as human beings, so that we thus lack the “larger, fuller expressions of our selfhood,” winding up reduced to the part of us that just “takes from the world.”  Her verdict was that it results in a sort of  de-spiritualization and that, for example, as “consumers we want to buy books and music as cheaply as possible,” but as full-fledged “spiritual beings having a human experience on this earth . .  what we may really want is for writers and musicians to be able to make a living.”

The way out is not simple.  Economist John Maynard Keynes described a conundrum, the paradox of thrift, a sort of "prisoner's dilemma" proposition, that if everyone responded to a slow and uncertain economy by acting in their individual self interest to increase their rate of savings to be safe, then everybody would be hurt more as the economy was slowed down even further and made more uncertain as a result.  The Keynesian solution was governmental pump-priming, a sort of resort to collective action. . .

. . . When the question is what to do about Amazon, we may not realize it, but the solution is somewhat similar.  We might not quickly realize the similarity because, instead of thinking about prompting more spending overall, we are thinking about how to refrain from spending that goes to the big giant.  But the answer is again to view the situation in terms of what is best for everyone collectively, and, as Reverend Levy-Lyons suggests in her sermon, to act collectively to deal with it.  This may involve uniting into groups as Reverend Levy-Lyons gives the example of a collective of antiquarian book sellers that acted together in concert to protect one of their group when Amazon was victimizing them. . .

More likely, what is going to be more effective in terms of organizing collective action is for government to do its job in confronting Amazon as the monopoly it is and reining it in, in the ways it needs to be restrained.  That is why it is so unfortunate to see government instead aligning with Amazon and turning the powers of government over to Amazon.

Stalked Like Gazelles

Without collective action, separated from the rest of our herd, Amazon hunts us down like gazelles: Reverend Lev-Lyons began her sermon with a vivid description of how Amazon making “no effort to hide their tactics” during `negotiations' with companies about prices would stalk them“the way a cheetah would pursue a sickly gazelle”: In fact, she pointed out that “the Gazelle Project” is “what Amazon called a new initiative to work out contracts with small publishers,” and that involved simply making those companies it was `negotiating' with disappear from its internet universe when it wanted to show them they had no negotiating power.  Disappearing from that universe now means companies can't survive.

It may be testament to Amazon’s ubiquity that there is more than one “gazelle” story to tell about Amazon.  In her cover story for The Nation, Stacy Mitchell told a story about the trauma that a sporting goods company, coincidentally (?) named Gazelle Sports, making running shoes, had in dealing with Amazon.  Once popular and highly rated, the company suffered a downturn as more of its shoppers ever more reflexively did more and more of their overall shopping at Amazon. Ultimately:

Gazelle Sports would join Amazon Marketplace, becoming a third-party seller on the digital giant’s platform. “If the customer is on Amazon, as a small business you have to say, ‘That is where I have to go,’” [The founder of the company] explains. “Otherwise, we are going to close our doors.”

Amazon Prime - Amazon Videos

We previously mentioned in passing, "The Man in the High Castle."  That's just one example of a made for internet streaming that is available to be watched free by Amazon Prime members.  Another that you'll hear a lot about is "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel," that swept up a lot of Emmy Awards while also getting a couple of Golden Globes awards.  You can watch these series for free if you are an Amazon Prime member, which means that you have already pre-paid for Amazon accelerated shipping as an inducement to do all your shopping there.   

One thing that has so far gone unmentioned is that the Amazon Long Island City waterfront site would be just blocks, only a few minutes away, from Silvercup Studios, that's one of the city's very important film studios where, for example, HBO once filmed "The Sopranos."  Specifically, Amazon's offices would be just a fifteen minute walk to the existing studio facilities and perhaps just half that to the plannedSilvercup Studios West expansion planned for the waterfront just below the 59th Street Queensborough Bridge.  With Amazon almost singlehandedly replacing all the video stores of the days of yore, being the only source for many films once obtainable there, and now expensively investing in its own video shows, films and content, this should not go unnoticed.

Amazon will have a headquarters in the political capital of the United States and here in the financial capital as well: Maybe Amazon will never need to open another headquarters (HQ4?) in Hollywood, as the entertainment capital of the country.

We Don't Really Know What's Coming

Norman Order, the city’s foremost expert on the Atlantic Yard mega-project and its dealings with ESDC and local elected officials, wrote an analysis based on that history cautioning how little we can be sure of what to expect based on what we know or is promised now: “Atlantic Yards within a few years changed significantly.”  See:  For Amazon HQ2 deal, Atlantic Yards serves as a warning, November 15, 2018 By Norman Oder.

Oder stresses the vagueness of the elusive subsidy calculations and the supposed benefit they generate, plus the lack of transparency that can be expected going forward, the probable lack of enforceablity along with a disinclination to enforce agreements: “If Atlantic Yards is a guide, ESD will be quite accommodating to Amazon, willing to revise agreements and evade transparency.”

What might be coming?  Be open to thinking big--  Previous to the announcement of Amazon’s interest, what is slated to become the Amazon site, land along the 1000 foot long artificially created shoreline inlet known as Anabel basin, was being covered more innocuously as another planned rezoning and real estate development. .  That might involve the tallest building outside of Manhattan, a 700 foot tower.

Calculations of How Hugh The Subsidies?: An Afterthought

Given all of the above, the question of Amazon huge subsidies and just how much they are should be an absurd afterthought.  The New York Times editorialized that Amazon shouldn’t be getting the subsidies calculating those subsidies at $1.5 billion.  See: Opinion-New York’s Amazon Deal Is a Bad Bargain- The city has what the company wants, talent. Why pay them $1.5 billion to come? By The Editorial Board, November 14, 2018.  Another Times article says $1.7 billion.

Good Jobs First,  the watchdog group on economic development incentives, calculates:

The taxpayer costs of these two deals is high, both in absolute terms and on a per-job basis, contrary to Amazon’s artful spin. Together, we believe they exceed $4.6 billion and the cost per job in New York is at least $112,000, not the $48,000 the company used in a selective and incomplete press release calculation. (11/14/18)

Good Jobs First calculates the subsidies of both the New York and Virginia deals as exceeding $4.6 billion and says that separately, just New York State’s award under the Excelsior program is projected at $1.525 to $1.7 billion.   Greg Leroy executive director of Good Jobs First discussed the subsidies along with others on Democracy Now on November 14. 2018 and at 7:30 AM was also on the air on WBAI’s Morning Show that same morning.

Peter Rugh writing in the Indypenent, like many others puts the total subsidies in the $3 billion range, $1.7 billion in subsidies from the state and another $1.3 billion from the city.  He observes that the “state legislature could put a cap on the governor’s Excelsior tax credit program but many in Albany are ready to roll out the Amazon welcome mat.”

On top of this there will probably be other subsidies piled, like perhaps Federal EB 5 program  for financing. One day perhaps we'll see.

Mr. Oder notes at the end of his article, that when Governor Andrew Cuomo was asked;

why the New York incentive package was worth twice as much per employee compared with the one in Virginia, where taxes are lower, Cuomo said he didn’t know how it was calculated. “There’s all sorts of ways to work these numbers,” he said.

That’s for sure. Ultimately, neither he nor de Blasio will be around to do that math, while future governors will have ESD at his or her disposal.

* * *

When, in my tender youth, I heard about the horrors of the trap of "the company store," its seemed almost like an impossible fiction from the past.  Now-a-days, it is remarkable what we seem to take pretty much in stride coming from Amazon . . .  even as, like things once were in those days or yore, Amazon is so all enveloping that it is everything.  Like in those days, it even seems to have become the government.  Meanwhile, "The Company Store"?  We seem to know that now as a clever marketing name that was adopted for a retail outlet .  . . .

. . . Not surprisingly, they too sell through Amazon.    

From our Thursday, December 24, 2009, A Christmas Eve Story of Alternative Realities: The Fight Not To Go To Pottersville (Or Ratnerville),

It seems almost as if we are back again where we started.  That's not because history repeats itself, but because history, as they say, rhymes. 

Every year since 2009 Noticing New York has engaged in the tradition of a seasonal reflection post as we reach the cusp of the new year.

When I first started, we took the example in "Its' a Wonderful Life," of what could happen if one greedy man, the banker in that story, Henry Potter, took over and owned everything in the town of Bedford Falls.  That was to compare how everything in Brooklyn was being handed over to Forest City Ratner in Brooklyn (hence the visual above).  It was only a small town in that fictional story.  And it was only the Borough of Brooklyn in our comparison. . .

. . . Now, similarly, with much of the mechanisms repeating, Amazon is set to take over a swath of Queens.  See: Amazon Headquarters Lands In Long Island City: What Happens When Our Elected Officials Hand The Task of Governing Over To A Private Sector Corporation, Monday, December 23, 2018.

But that story has broader swath.  Amazon is taking over everything, and it is doing so nationally.  It probably is never more evident than during this season when the packages pile in to everybody's lobby.  But if you read the article linked to above, there are free speech and preservation of public discourse concerns that accompany that Amazon takeover.

Sermon about Amazon at First Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Brooklyn

A recent sermon at the First Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Brooklyn by Minister Ana Levy-Lyons was about what it means for Amazon to be taking over.  Last night we watched "A Christmas Carol" again, the definitive classic version with Alistair Sim.  "A Christmas Carol" is among the several classic seasonal tales I've written about this time of year in these reflections.  They are all thematically related, like the Grinch tale.  Reverend Levy-Lyons' sermon echoed the lessons that we heard all over again as the spirits teach Scrooge in their visitations; the lessons that human beings and the value of life is rich and multi-dimensional, and that we are not fully human if we allow ourselves to be a hammered down to the thinness that, in the Amazon, world defines us as merely consumers looking for bargains at the cheapest possible price.  Its confusing: The pre-transformation Scrooge was abstemious. . .  And what are we supposed to be doing when confronted by Amazon?:  Meditate on this and it might become clear– It has to do with our connection to other people, our connection to the general community and its welfare.        

Corner of Monroe and Pierrepont- The luxury tower replacing the library, no about two-third complete, is rising up as seen behind the First Unitarian Universalist Church.

What else is going on this season?   The luxury tower that is replacing the Business, Career and Education Brooklyn Heights Library, the central destination federal depository library in downtown Brooklyn is going up now.  At two-thirds complete it is getting to be evident how readily it will be seen from many parts of the neighborhood, like, for instance, it is now visible from the corner or Monroe and Pierrepont streets.  Monroe Street was a focal point from which the push to sell the library emanated.  Meanwhile, we held community meetings at each end of Monroe to prevent that sell off.

View from DUMBO waterfront of the luxury condo replacing the library, now tall enough to be seen above the nearby elevated roadway.

As of this of this solstice, the semi-complete building was also casting long shadows onto Cadman Plaza Park.  See: In This Winter Solstice Season, Long Shadows Being Cast By The Not-Yet-Complete Luxury Tower Replacing Brooklyn Central Destination Library. 

Just weeks ago we lost a library defender who fought along side us to prevent the destruction of that library, Justine Swartz, also known as Ambrosia.  See: A Beloved Library Defender Is Gone, But Not Forgotten: Justine Swartz, Our Ambrosia.

Christmas Day 2015, we ran into Ambrosia (in the seat of honor) on Montague Street.

Another concern that is very present this year is an accelerating censorship and control of information.  I had a chance to start writing about it here in October:  On The Media Interview With Dean Starkman: The Difference Between "Access Reporting" and "Accountability Reporting" Explains How Very Important Things DON'T Get Reported- Plus Consider The Censorship Crisis, October 4, 2018.

But, I have not been writing fast enough to keep up to write yet about Facebook's more recent censorship binge done coordinating with Twitter.  So much censorship like that and suppression of information in our society suppresses the things that are anti-war, critical of the military and that might lead us in the direction of greater world peace. . .  It's something to think about especially in this season when we sign cards to each other about "peace on earth."

Since censorship is about control of information there is one part of this story that is huge in a meta-way, and that is how the Facebook censorship binge, abetted by the actions of other social media giants, has, itself, gone largely unreported or misrepresented, especially in terms of the censoring of anti-war and anti-authoritarian sources of information (including police violence accountability sites).


That brings us around again to the subject of Amazon and the frightening thought that Amazon, with its origins in and ongoing ties to the military and CIA, now sells about half of all the books in this country, plus it is taking over as a key supplier of all the old and classic films we once rented from video stores.  It's also scary how much Amazon, busily collecting data, knows about each of us, plus scary how little we, conversely, know about Amazon.

Here are links to the prior Noticing New York ventures into seasonal reflection where you can read:

•    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?.,

Wednesday, December 24, 2014, Seasonal Reflections: No Matter How Fortunate or Not, We Are All Equal, Sharing a Common Journey

•    Thursday, December 24, 2015, Seasonal Reflection: Mayor de Blasio, His Heart Squeezed Grinch-Small, Starts Gifting Stolen Libraries To Developers For The Holidays

•    Saturday, December 24, 2016, Noticing New York's Annual Seasonal Reflection

•    Sunday, December 24, 2017, This Year’s Seasonal Reflection: Yes We Are Now Living In Ratnerville, Locally and Nationally, And Yet We Hope And Work Towards Something Different

The corner of Montague and Henry Streets: On left, the current problematic vista; On right, the view as some Brooklyn Heights Association trustees may hope that it will be approved, restoring the neighborhood's historic flavor. (Click to enlarge for better consideration)  Note: The rendering of this proposal triples the office real estate brokerage space of Brown Harris Stevens, a not unlikely result of the addition of this much real estate to the neighborhood.

Nothing is official or publicly disclosed yet, but rumors are out that there is dissension and disagreement at the Brooklyn Heights Association as a result of an idea proposed by an emergent faction of the board that is raising hackles with the others.  It all stems from the fact that there is a sense that the Brooklyn Heights neighborhood, the first neighborhood in New York City to be designated an historic district, has fast been losing its historic character.  - Oh for history’s sake!

How can Brooklyn Heights regain, restore and reestablish the historic flavor and character that has made it so deliciously revered as one of the city’s most special areas to stroll through and that invariably attracts and is recommended to tourists and to visitors coming from everywhere?

Brooklyn Heights historic area boundaries.

The reason the question has presented itself in a nagging way that is far from easy to sidestep is because of the visual intrusions of the tall glass towers shrieking modernity that have recently been built ringing the perimeter of what is officially the protected historic part of the neighborhood.  The protected part of the neighborhood is actually smaller than many presume, ending, for example on Montague Street at the boundary of Clinton Street. The poster child for such “back to the impending future” intrusions is the super-tall luxury condominium tower, replacing what was once Brooklyn's second most important library at the corner of Tillary and Clinton where they intersect at Cadman Plaza West.

That tower, developed by David Kramer and his Hudson Companies, was endorsed and promoted by the Brooklyn Heights Association.  Destruction of the public library to create the tower also created a financial windfall for the neighborhood’s elite Saint Ann’s School, which was, no doubt, influential in the politics that sent the tower soaring up to dominate the skies of the historic neighborhood from all sorts of vantages.  It is possible that when the BHA endorsed the luxury tower they never realized just how visually dominant it would be in so much of the neighborhood.

But now, according to the rumors, one emerging faction of the Heights Association is pointing out that, while the tower is seen looming from many of the key streets and intersections of Brooklyn Heights, there are places where it can’t be seen because view of it is still blocked by the older historic buildings making up the fabric of the neighborhood since it was officially designated historic by the Landmarks Commission on November 23, 1965.  The same faction of the BHA (basically the core group that lobbied to sell the library) are pointing out that the visual intrusions of the tower are not always that bad, and are they are saying that there is, in this observation, the seeds of a solution to make the unsightly tower less “sightly” . . . Or, if you will, make the tower less Brooklyn Heights Historic District “sitely.”

Other candidates for “historical enlargement”: At left, the creamy white Supreme Court Appellate Division building on Pierrepont and Monroe Streets; and, at right, a series of townhouses on Monroe Street that no longer feel cloistered away from the bustle of the moderns age. ( The Supreme Court building attracted film crews for many an episode “Law and Order.”  If the success of “Law and Order” can result in six spin-off series, which it did, why can’t recognition of the attractiveness of the Supreme Court building equally justify addition of another half dozen similarly beautiful floors?  The demand will be to fill those extra floors with condos, not more justice manufacturing.)

The answer being proposed is to bring greater density to the Brooklyn Heights and allow the truly historic buildings of Brooklyn Heights to express their historic influence more fully by building extra floors matching and multiplying the same historic flavor those buildings contribute to the neighborhood now.  If those buildings rise up enough extra floors they can blot out the visibility of Kramer's One Clinton luxury condo tower and perhaps also diminish the conspicuousness of the other glass-glazed luxury hulks that have bounded up into the skies elsewhere on the neighborhood’s periphery.

With nobody currently on the board of the BHA officially talking, the internal politics and arguments being exchanged are, as yet a little unclear.  However, Hank (Henry) Gutman, a former BHA board member and currently on the board of the Brooklyn Bridge Park corporation and on the board of the Brooklyn Public Library that sold the Business, Career and Education federal depository library to create Kramer's luxury tower, seems to have an inside line on the development oriented thinking that is behind the proposal.  Gutman says “allowing the extra density unlocks the real estate value historic neighborhood designations invariable trap unused in their neighborhoods, and that unlocking of value will serve as an engine for quick restorative development that will assist the Heights neighborhood to regain its historic flavor.”

Gutman said that, if the Heights Association proposes this solution, he strongly believes the de Blasio administration will accede and work with the BHA to implement it.  Among other things, says Gutman:

This is consistent with other goals of the city.  The city needs to grow and become more dense.  It’s a city policy to add density along subway lines and at the transit hubs where those lines converge.  Right now Brooklyn Heights, sitting atop the convergence of a huge proportion of the city’s subway lines, is hogging our subway lines without giving any density back.  It’s time for the neighborhood to give back! 

Gutman is hopeful about the future of similar proposals in the future: “If implemented successfully in Brooklyn Heights, I am sure it’s the kind of thing that can be programmatically replicated in other neighborhoods throughout the city,” says Gutman.

Another thing to think about says Gutman is how this would address what he considers the almost inherently elitist nature of historic neighborhoods.  “Nobody is making historic neighborhoods anymore,” says Gutman, “yet, given the crap people are building these days [Gutman wouldn’t comment on Kramer’s work], everybody wants to live in them.   Given the automatic scarcity that results, the neighborhoods become enclaves for the wealthy who outbid everyone else.” . .

. . . “This is the solution,” says Gutman, “now, by adding greater density, we will be building more historic places where people can live.”  . . . . And, says Gutman,it sort of goes along with something else he has always liked to say, which is“if you know how to create history, you'll be a winner when it's all said and done.”

Is this a proposal that the Brooklyn Heights Association will be promoting?  As far as anyone knows, it’s only being discussed at this point, but what may the clincher for endorsement by the BHA is another related proposal that would be combined with it . . .

. . .  The extra density to hide modern towers proposal would create multiple extra tall buildings of a historic character throughout the Heights neighborhood.  They would all have additional steel columns to ensure support for the extra floors, and could perhaps also have more.  There is a feeling that, if done right, the new taller-than-average historic character towers scattered throughout the neighborhood could also become the supports upon which to rest a new, but temporary overhead bypass for the BQE to allow the repairs to the BQE's existing structure without tearing down the promenade.  That would substitute for the Department of Transportation’s (hard to believe) plan for repair and modification of the Brooklyn Heights Promenade that involves six years during which a six-lane highway would run along the Heights in place of the promenade.

A red line tracks how a BQE bypass over taller "extra historical" buildings could cut through the historic district to save the promenade from the DOT plan.  Once upon a time, Robert Moses wanted to run the BQE through the middle of Brooklyn Heights which would have involved tearing down much of historic Brooklyn Heights.  In contradistinction, this plan, with a similar BQE route, builds up and creates more of the historic district.

The BHA has said it very much opposes the reviled DOT plan.  Gutman thinks the historic towers supporting a bypass would be a much better plan.  And City Councilman Steve Levin, who usually keeps his constituents guessing about his actually stance on development issues until the very last minute (and who says he opposes the DOT promenade plan) has, in this case, already said, it's“exactly the plan to replace the DOT plan” that he has been “on the look out for.”

I wanted to get this article out as soon as possible to let New Yorkers know what is being considered as soon as possible, but this publication may be a little premature.  Gutman thinks the BHA factions are about to resolve their differences and says he thinks the BHA may come out to announce a more definitive proposal, as soon as today, April 1st.

Example of how "extra historical" buildings could support BQE bypass.