What does he have to hide? A lot, apparently

From DNA Info:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has a private way of discussing city business — using an email account from his company, Bloomberg L.P.

DNAinfo New York has learned of correspondences between Bloomberg and a deputy mayor in which each uses an @bloomberg.net email address to discuss city-related matters.

The identity of the deputy mayor, the dates of the emails and the content of the correspondences are being withheld by DNAinfo to protect the source.

It isn't clear how often the mayor uses a private email account to communicate with his inner circle. But the discovery of the @bloomberg.net correspondences drew concerns from good government groups who see it as a way of avoiding oversight.

“It’s an end run around public access to public documents,” civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel said.

Like most government employees, Bloomberg and his staff have City Hall-issued email accounts. Under state law, the public has the right to see copies of those emails.

Siegel and Bob Freeman, the executive director of the Committee on Open Government, both said that the public also has the right to officials’ personal emails when the correspondences discuss government matters.

However, the public first needs to know the addresses of those personal accounts, Siegel said.

“I do believe that when public officials do public business using their private emails, those emails are subject to the Freedom of Information Law,” Siegel said. “When people resist giving up that information, it’s an end run around. We should criticize that kind of behavior.”

A search of a Bloomberg L.P. terminal shows that at least nine members of the mayor’s inner circle have @bloomberg.net email accounts.

They are: deputy mayors Patty Harris, Cas Holloway and Robert Steel; chief policy adviser John Feinblatt; director of intergovernmental affairs Haeda Mihaltses, Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott; counselor to the mayor Michael Best; senior adviser Shea Fink and mayoral spokesman Marc LaVorgna.

It's amazing what a little money can buy

From The Brooklyn Paper:

The developer behind a plan to build apartments at the former Domino Sugar factory spent at least $100,000 courting Williamsburg community groups that later supported controversial plans to allow residential construction at the industrial site, The Brooklyn Paper has learned.

Community Preservation Corporation Resources — which is fighting to avoid foreclosing on the massive waterfront plot where it hopes to build 2,200 apartments and retail space — doled out donations of between $9,000 and $30,000 to organizations that subsequently backed the Domino project from February 2008 to December 2009, months before its campaign to rezone the site, court filings reveal.

The currently cash-strapped developer says the donations, which it calls “public reputation” money, simply prove that it is invested in the neighborhood. But attorney and civic watchdog Norman Siegel said the donations suggest an instance of quid pro quo.

“If the developer was giving community groups money five or 10 years before their mission, that would be one thing, but if the developer is giving money for the first and perhaps the last time, it raises the question whether the donor is buying recipients support and it raises questions about the community groups themselves,” said Siegel.

Elected officials flunk first amendment test

From the NY Times:

New York, never at a loss for self-congratulatory words, regards itself as the most tolerant of cities, a place where one may express any thought freely. It is true. In New York, one may articulate any idea whatsoever — as long as that idea parallels popular opinion.

Stray too far from generally accepted wisdom, though, and you are asking for trouble.

The latest to discover this reality is a Texas group called Life Always, which bought billboard space in SoHo to deliver an anti-abortion message rooted in recent statistics from the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. They showed that in 2009, 41 percent of all pregnancies here ended in abortion. The abortion rate for black women was even higher, almost 60 percent.

Up went the billboard on a building at the corner of Avenue of the Americas and Watts Street. It showed a black girl with these words above her head: “The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb.”

Was this anti-abortion statement subtle? Hardly. Accurate? Depends on your politics. Offensive? For some people, yes. Out of step with mainstream thought in New York? For sure. And so, a few days ago in this most tolerant of cities, a raft of elected officials wasted no time calling for the billboard’s removal.

Lickety-split, the sign came down...

Some who objected to the sign complained that it was provocative. Of course it was. Since when is the American concept of free speech confined to opinions that are nice and safe and unlikely to cause a ripple?

Some also saw the message as racist. Clearly, it was racial. But racial and racist are not one and the same...

This plain act of censorship was not isolated. Rather, it fit into an established New York pattern of squelching unpopular opinions.

Bill de Blasio, the public advocate and one of the influential figures who demanded removal of the anti-abortion billboard, saw no assault on free speech. There should never be a law prohibiting this sort of sign, Mr. de Blasio said, “but to have a serious debate, to have people express their outrage, and then to have a private owner of the advertising space decide that it was ultimately not appropriate, that to me is a functioning democracy.”

Not quite, said Norman Siegel, a leading civil liberties lawyer. To him, freedom of expression took a hit.

“The principle of free speech is easy when the speech is something that’s popular and noncontroversial,” Mr. Siegel said. “The real test is when you disagree with the content of the speech and you still defend the right of someone to articulate the message.”

The city, he said, just flunked that test.

Looks like Democrats voted for the wrong public advocate candidate. It's wrong when conservatives do it, too. At least the Supreme Court got it right this time.

Threat to Marty's $64M potato chip

From the Daily News:

A battle over a controversial amphitheater project in Coney Island has erupted.

Free concerts by the Beach Boys and Neil Sedaka could be canned if activists and a pair of synagogues battling Borough President Marty Markowitz's planned $64 million concert hall have their way.

The group filed papers in Brooklyn Supreme Court Thursday charging Markowitz's Seaside Summer Concerts - which he's held in a bandshell in Asser Levy Park since 1991 - violate a city law that bans amplified sound within 500 feet of houses of worship holding services.

The synagogues are across the street, and one, the Sea Breeze Jewish Center, holds services three times daily until 10 p.m.

"If we can establish you can't have sound at that site...how can you have sound at the amphitheater?" said the group's lawyer, Norman Siegel.

The two sides are due in court June 30. Markowitz's first concert is July 15, with Neil Sedaka.

Markowitz, who is Jewish, took aim at the synagogues and accused them of "shamefully using religion to hold these concerts hostage," to stop the project.

"They should be ashamed. As we say in Yiddish, it is a shonda," he said.

And we have a response...

Dear Queens Crapper :

Brooklyn Borough President should be very ashamed of himself by saying that it is the Jews fault he's in this pickle. That doesn't cut the mustard.

Mr. Markowitz did not follow the Law with the Sound Permitting process. He never filed for a Sound Permit because he would have to perjure himself when filling out the forms. He would never get a permit. Just go to the Parks Dept. website and look for the PDF file on the Sound Permit. All the information is clearly stated.

It has nothing to do with having no complaints about his concerts. Mr. Markowitz was not in compliance with the Laws of NYC. He's a politician that knows about permits etc. He can't do a run around this issue.

He is also fanning the flames for hatred & bigotry with his over the top remarks blaming the synagogues. If it were Schools, Hospitals, Churches, Mosques etc. this NYC administrative Law would apply. He must now take responsibility, by his remarks, if any hate or bias crime is caused by his outrageous words towards these synagogues or congregants.

In addition part of the Sound Permit state that you also need a Permit from Social Services if you are soliciting funds at a event. You can get a seat for $ 5 or $ 10 dollars depending on the concert which is in kind a donation or soliciting of funds that go towards the expense of running a concert. Furthermore there are volunteers (from the Seaside Concerts) who go around with a 5 gallon pail & Marty has asked for people to put in $ 1, or $ 5 or $10 (what ever you can afford) into the pail as a donation. Where are those permits Marty? If a concert draws 2000 or 5000 or even 10,000 people that's a lot of money to account for Marty.

Who accounts for that money?

In conclusion, Marty you are abusing the community, my neighbors, my friends, my fellow congregants.

You are the Shonda.

Very truly yours;

Jerry

I've identified Marty to not only be a shonda, but also a schmendrick and a shlemiel (and I'm not even Jewish). One of my readers pointed out that he's also a schmuck.

Hiram's got a God complex

From the Daily News:

Convicted girlfriend beater Hiram Monserrate on Sunday compared himself to murdered civil rights workers as he stepped up the fight to keep his state Senate seat.

Claiming he was targeted because he is Latino, Monserrate announced that civil rights lawyers Norman Siegel and Steve Hyman would take his case.

"Students from the college that I went to died to help African-Americans have the right to vote," Monserrate said. "Today, the Senate would seek to push back the clock and discredit the major movement that occurred here in the United States to protect the rights of all Americans."

Monserrate (D-Queens), who last summer likened himself to Jesus Christ, is fighting expulsion from the Senate after his October misdemeanor assault conviction for abusing girlfriend Karla Giraldo.

A Senate committee headed by Sen. Eric Schneiderman (D-Manhattan) found Monserrate unremorseful and recommended the Senate either expel or censure him.

Monserrate has vowed to fight expulsion with a lawsuit.

Appeals court reverses protest ruling

From the Village Voice:

[Norm] Siegel saw taking the protest to the Mayor's doorstep as a milestone. As he told the Voice, "Groups have gotten permission to protest on the south side of 79th Street, across the street from the Mayor's house, but never directly in front of it."

The feeling did not last long. Earlier today, mere hours before the group planned to picket the Mayor, an appeals court overturned their right to do so, relegating Siegel and company back to the south side of the street.

"The Mayor uses his home for official business, but he's decided the public sidewalk outside of it is his private property," said Siegel. In his eight years as Mayor, no group has won the right to picket directly in front of Bloomberg's townhouse.

Looking on the bright side, Siegel wryly noted, "we made incremental progress." Instead of being fully confined to the south sidewalk, they moved slightly more north and were "allowed to protest in the gutter."

The protest was a demonstration against Chancellor Joel Klein's and Mayor Bloomberg's proposal to close large public high schools they deem to be failing. They plan to re-open smaller schools in their place. But advocates charge that the answer is not to replace the large schools with privately run charter schools, or with boutique public schools, but to adequately support the troubled schools.

Judge okays protestors at Bloomie's house

NEW YORK (AP) -- A federal judge has ruled that a protest against the expansion of charter schools can occur outside Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Manhattan residence.

Friday's ruling by Judge Alvin Hellerstein came after a lawsuit was filed by the protesters saying they were being kept across the street from the mayor's 79th Street townhouse.

The Manhattan judge's ruling requires the city to let the demonstrators walk in the pavement along the curb on both sides of the street. Lawyer Norman Siegel said it was a First Amendment victory.

City lawyer Diana Murray said the city will appeal the ruling, though she added that the judge was correct to prevent the protesters from assembling on the sidewalk in front of Bloomberg's residence because of special security concerns.

Another defeat for Bloomberg

From the NY Times:

The Bloomberg administration’s attempt to revive a deal to allow 20 private schools to pay for exclusive use of public athletic fields on Randalls Island has been rejected by a State Supreme Court justice, who characterized the city’s position as “audacious.”

A coalition of public school parents and students, community groups and park advocates had sued the city, arguing that allowing the private schools, which include Buckley, Chapin and Dalton, to pay $45 million to use some of the fields would essentially turn public parkland into a private domain.

In the decision, released on Tuesday, the justice, Marilyn Shafer, rejected a revised deal between the city and the private schools, saying the city sought to “flout and undermine the purpose” of the land use review process and avoid the required community input.

The judge excoriated the Bloomberg administration, saying its arguments demonstrated “more daring than logic.” In an unusual step, she ordered the city to pay the plaintiffs’ legal fees and costs.

It was the second time in two years that the courts have rejected the city’s arrangement, and both rulings used particularly critical language.

“It’s a major win,” said Norman Siegel, who, along with New York Lawyers for the Public Interest and the firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, represented the plan’s opponents. “The city shouldn’t give a priority to people merely because they can pay for the use of public land. That discriminates against those who can’t pay to use the public land.”

City officials disagreed sharply with the decision and said they were “considering all legal options.”

If Bloomberg doesn't like the outcome of the lawsuit, then he should appeal with his own money, not the taxpayers.

Kids to get less parkland out of Yankee deal

From the Village Voice:

The Yankees might just bring the pennant back to the Bronx this year, but they won't be bringing ball fields to the borough for at least another two. The Bronx News Network is reporting that Heritage Field, the last of the replacement parks to be built on the site of the old Yankee Stadium, won't be finished until at least 2011.

There's been no shortage of recreational athletes and teams displaced by the construction of the Bombers' new $1.5 billion home. Macombs Dam Park, which contained baseball fields used by youth leagues in the South Bronx, was one of eight parks demolished when the new Yankee Stadium broke ground.

The Parks Department, whose website makes a " promise to replace every inch of parkland displaced by the construction of the new Yankee Stadium, while also providing additional usable recreational space," originally said seven of those eight parks would be finished by opening day this past
spring.

Alas, it has not gone to schedule. Bronx ball teams played their home games in other boroughs this season. And as for that "additional usable recreational space," the civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel says that when all is said and done, there will be four acres less of parkland than there were before.

Watch the public advocate debate

From NY1:

Watch the 2009 Democratic Public Advocate debate between Mark Green, Bill de Blasio, Eric Gioia, and Norman Siegel, held September 9th in Manhattan. [1 hour]

On August 28th, the candidates debated on ABC. You can watch that debate here:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

3 out of 4 public advocate candidates support eminent domain abuse

From the Times Ledger:

The most heated rhetoric came when the candidates differed on the issue of the massive Willets Point redevelopment and the use of eminent domain, the process by which a government can seize privately owned land for the public good.

De Blasio said he supported eminent domain in “very certain circumstances,” including the Queens project.

“I think it is valid if it creates a substantial number of new jobs and affordable housing, and I think Willets Point does that,” he said.

Gioia called the practice “absolutely wrong.”

“The very presence of it changes the terms of the bargain,” he said, comparing a municipality with eminent domain power to a gun-wielding Al Capone.

Green openly supported the Willets Point redevelopment.

“If it comes to eminent domain, the city should go out of its way to relocate those small businesses within the community, to the extent it can,” he said.

Siegel decried eminent domain abuse and called Willets Point “unconstitutional.”

“The city did not provide services to the businesses out there,” he said.

Sparks flew as the candidates spent some time squabbling over the finer points of the Supreme Court decision that enabled public-private redevelopments via eminent domain.

DeBlasio: How is this a "certain circumstance"? The entire project is uncertain - no developer, no plan, no approval for the highway ramps, the number of jobs keeps shrinking and the affordable housing certainly will too (it always does) and the city is broke.

Gioia: If it is so wrong, why did you vote in favor of it? Not only did the mayor put the gun on the table, but you loaded it for him. Asshole.

Green: "To the extent that it can?" What the hell does that mean? The city can just say, "Well, we tried, I guess we'll just have to send you packing now... As a consolation prize, here's 1/4 of what your property's worth, now get out."

These three want to advocate for us with attitudes like this? Doesn't sound like they'll stand up for private citizens if they stand in the way of despotic development plans.

Looks like there's only one choice.

VOTE FOR NORMAN SIEGEL.

Court fight promised over new building rules

From The Wonkster:

New rules at the Department of Buildings will go into effect Monday that require all zoning diagrams for approved buildings be put online.

But as part of that rule, the public will be limited to comment on those approvals for only 45 days. Public comment is now unlimited.

What the buildings department says is streamlining the development process and will encourage public comment, advocates and elected officials charge that the public’s voice is being silenced.

At a rally this afternoon, mayoral candidate Tony Avella, comptroller candidate John Liu and public advocate candidate Norman Siegel, as well as the Queens Civic Congress and the Historic Districts Council, blasted the administration for the rule change. They urged the department to rescind its plan or to prepare for an arduous court battle.

...advocates say the new rule is obstructionist and could, Siegel hypothesizes, lead to more structurally unsound buildings. They argue a community should be able to raise an unlimited amount of complaints regarding a neighborhood development. The community, they say, are the watchdogs and limiting their comment period is putting developers first.

Doorman still dead last

From the Times Ledger:

A poll released last week by Marist College showed Gioia in for a tough fight after he received only 4 percent in a survey of likely Democratic voters — the lowest of the four Democrats in the race — despite his leading the field in fund−raising.

Green was followed by civil rights attorney Norman Siegel, who also ran for public advocate four years ago, at 15 percent; City Councilman Bill de Blasio (D−Brooklyn) at 9 percent; and Gioia at 4 percent.

Being a native son did not help Gioia in Queens, where he was the choice of 6 percent of respondents, according to the poll. Green received 43 percent in the borough and both de Blasio and Siegel received 10 percent.