City Council to kill plan for 2,200 Bronx jobs

My bet would be that Related really didnt want this deal, but who knows?

The only positive part to this is that unions F*ed other unions. Nothing better than when they start going at each other...

btw, ruben diaz, the guy who led this, is also the guy who F*ed the gays, too, right?

gay marriage, that is...

"What's been lost in all the noise is that the community board representing the neighborhood most affected by the project actually supported it."

Pathetic.

Our wonderful democratic leadership in city and state government disgusts me. Everyone wants it... except for the union that bought these politicians.

Diaz and his crew are scum.

You'd think what they'd want most is jobs.

In the 70's there was a movement in NYC to pay everyone a "living wage," which was THEN calculated at about $25,000 for a family of 4. Which would be $98,975.55 in today's money, using 1975 as a basis.

Okay fine. Each according to his need. I need a new plasma TV. I only have 4 already.

$11.50 per hour (without benefits) is all they were asking for, and STILL they were shot down? SERIOUSLY??

That's $23,920 per year. Assuming, of course, a 40-hour workweek (which virtually NO retailers offer to a vast majority of their employees). For a family of four, the poverty threshold is $26,138.

The Times article included the following:

They wanted Related to pledge that every job at the mall would pay at least $10 an hour, arguing that the company was set to receive more than $50 million in tax credits and exemptions. Many cities across the country have similar requirements for projects built using public money.

Crains quotes Joan Byron regarding the "enormous public subsidies" funding the project and then fails to report the actual number for its readers.

Does that change your opinion of the project?

"$11.50 per hour (without benefits) is all they were asking for, and STILL they were shot down? SERIOUSLY??"

seriously, you don't understand this? SERIOUSLY?

Lets see... a law saying ANY tenant has to pay the kid running the sunglasses cart at least $11.50, when it generates $5 an hour.

You really have no idea how commerce works.

If you tell a business that if it moves to your mall, their labor costs go up 30% by law, THEY AREN'T GOING TO OPEN UP A STORE.

> have similar requirements for projects built using public money

Of course, this wasn't a funding vote.

This was a zoning vote.

The community said it needed it, and it wanted it... this was about whether or not it would be allowed at all, no matter who pays for it.

This wasn't the subsidy vote (if there are in fact any).

"Lets see... a law saying ANY tenant has to pay the kid running the sunglasses cart at least $11.50, when it generates $5 an hour."

I call bullshit on the $5/hour.

matt, if thats the only thing you got out of the post, you clearly didn't understand it. Try reading it again.

In the end, if two re sources are similar, and one has a $7 salary minimum and another has an $11, guess which mall isn't getting the tenants?

Do we need to explain free markets to you?