“Many creative writers keep journals; the sociologist’s need for systematic reflection demands it.” -C. Wright Mills

As a community board member, I voted in favor of this project with conditions. Since then, I have watched some of the activists increase the populist anger to the point where no productive solution was likely. (It reminded me of union votes I saw as a kid, when the workers got angry and voted down a decent contract the union leadership had negotiated, only to eventually approve a worse contract after being worn down by a long and bitter strike or lock out…)

Meanwhile, the Mayor’s office seemed particularly slow in recognizing that it should deal more fairly with the city’s workers, rather than negotiating to extract as much revenue as possible for the City’s general fund. By the time they actually made a real attempt, the political climate was decidedly in full-blown slogan-chanting, project-killing mode. I was frankly disgusted by the tactics that essentially intimidated the more moderate voices in the community.

Personally, I was somewhat disappointed with the outcome, too. I felt like there was finally some progress. The proposal appeared to provide a starting point for an ongoing struggle for better pay and conditions for the workers at the Armory, which would begin by getting them in the door with an improve minimum paycheck soon, when their need may be greatest. I can’t shake the feeling that some of the interested parties used this as an opportunity to grandstand at the expense of the workers.

It feels like many residents are growing tired of continually fighting over something that never actually happens. Like the union workers when I was a kid, they might finally approve whatever project is approved next, just to get it over with. Besides, a mediocre project may not be as damaging to the community as the constant internal battles over how good is good enough.

The project did not promise a living wage, but it certainly did not preclude it either. Supermarkets are frequently among the better employers, and it was the prospect of a supermarket that brought out the political leverage to kill the project.

The arguments based on minimum wage jobs were stretched beyond credibility. I had to cringe when a friend of mine who I work with on other community efforts argued with our city councilmember, insisting that ALL the jobs were going to be minimum wage.

Many of the arguments were contradictory. Complaints that new businesses would compete with the existing businesses were given equal weight by these same activists, even though they are very aware that many of those existing businesses have employees off the books who are earning much less even than minimum wage.

I was deeply disturbed that the activist movement was entirely coopted by Morton Williams. Moreover, I have to wonder if their employees felt intimidated. I heard many of them grumble “where is MY living wage?” yet none of them provided public testimony. Instead, Morton Williams printed up t-shirts and bought its workers to disrupt public meetings. The activists embraced this dubious partner…

Councilmember Koppell, who took the brunt of a lot of unfair criticism for trying to have an informed discussion, at least got Morton Williams to state in public that they do not provide the living wage jobs they were demanding for any company competing with them. In fact, one of the owners slipped up and said something like they “respect all the supermarkets in the area.”

Nobody was able to provide a coherent model for how living wages could be a viable requirement on a single, isolated site. There were vague references to places like downtown Los Angeles, but downtown LA has among the highest retail rents in the country. This allows for concessions on the rent that can offset increased labor costs to keep the site competitive. I remain skeptical that the rents on Kingsbridge Road are high enough to provide sufficient concessions to make a deal competitive to a business that might otherwise take advantage of minimum wage labor.

You could reject deals forever when the flaw is structural, rather than project-specific.

I don’t think the community is better off when its interests are subordinated to those of a highly organized set of limited supermarket owners, who very well may be keeping prices high for basic necessities while providing inferior quality. I don’t think the labor market is better off by limiting the competition between employers for compensation, either. I certainly don’t think the community is better off without having a new employment center with labor neutrality provisions that would allow unionization, and hence a path to better wages and benefits.

Tearing the community apart time and again in a cycle of endless fighting while no actual projects are ever completed is only demoralizing. A series of partial-wins that continue to build on one another seems far preferable to me.

They almost explicitly protected the existing non-living wage jobs, including many that are below minimum wage, from new jobs that might have included some at the minimum level.

This article highlights the feeling I had all along about the push against the Armory:

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2009/12/108844.shtml