So long, it's been good frustrating you. (MVVA)

If they can reach a compromise on Capital Hill, why not on the Brooklyn waterfront?

After years of bickering over Brooklyn Bridge Park, the Bloomberg administration has finally struck a deal with two local pols who opposed plans to erect condos along the park to help pay for its maintenance. Instead of the two new condo towers, along with the hulking One Brooklyn Bridge Park, they have settled on one shorter tower, though maybe still a second one, along with a handful of additional funding mechanisms to make up the difference.

Decades in the making, the park finally took off during the real estate boom, when the idea of condo towers sandwiched between the BQE and the derelict docks no longer seemed absurd. Instead of paying annual real estate taxes, that money would be diverted to maintenance for the park. Some people, who have the audacity to think the public sector and not the private should be responsible for building and maintaining parks, were appalled. The Brooklyn Paper began calling it Brooklyn Bridge "Park" for this very reason, while The Observer prefers the name libertarian parks. Then there were the Brooklyn Heights residents, who feared the views from their multimillion-dollar brownstones would be besmirched.

A committee set-up last year sought to find alternatives that could raise enough money to fund the park without having to build any condos, such as building a parking lot—which is so much better than condos. This proved untenable, at least on its own. As had been the previous hope, a rezoning and air rights sale of the Watchtower properties in Dumbo owned by the Jehovah's Witnesses will go forward, but it will only replace one of the condos, at Atlantic Avenue, and then only if there is enough interest in buying the development rights. The city explains the deal thusly:

Such a rezoning and sale to tax-paying entities would have to take place by December 31, 2013 to be counted as an offset. For each square foot of Watchtower property rezoned and sold, the Pier 6 development sites would then be reduced by 0.30 square feet. Total incremental revenues allocable to the park from these sites would be capped at $6.27 million per fiscal year, escalating at 3 percent per year (or the amount previously anticipated from the Pier 6 Development Site).

People had better hope the market picks up by then. Meanwhile, a tower at John Street remains, but it has been reduced to a height of 140 feet from 170, with 40,000 square feet less of development.

“By reducing or eliminating housing and requiring Watchtower and other alternatives to be used, we have dramatically changed the plan,” State Senator Daniel Squadron said in a release. “We found a path to complete Brooklyn Bridge Park and address long-standing community concerns about housing on the site.

Those other funding mechanisms include increased concessions and new parking fees, which will raise $750,000 per year. So if we won't commercialize the park one way, we will another. “Before investing further City capital to build out the park, it was critical that we come to an agreement on a long-term funding plan for its maintenance so the park would be self-sustaining," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said.

Bad as this may sound to some purists, considering parks are closing around the country, it may not be such a bad deal.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

Around the 6:30 mark, Democratic State Senator Daniel Squadron questions why a series of local bills--ones that extend taxes in areas mostly represented by Republicans--are being sponsored by the Rules Committee, rather than an actual legislator.

"Common practice is that if a senator has a tax-extender in their region, they sponsor the bill," said Squadron. "Why would the senators from this area" not do that?

"I would suggest that you ask the senators, individually," said Committee Chairman, Carl Marcellino, a Republican, who called it a common practice.

"This was done when you were in charge, and done before you were in charge and it's being done now," he said. "This is not an exception."

And the name-avoiding continued.

The committee approved the bills, after they conducted a voice vote, which doesn't leave a paper trail outlining specific senators and how they voted on particular bills.

And yesterday was no exception, as Schumer summoned reporters to an 11 a.m. event in his East Midtown office to announce one of his achievable, inarguable policy goals--calling on the Federal Aviation Administration not to dilute its standards for measuring pilot fatigue.

But if the original idea for the Sunday soiree was to have the Monday news cycle to himself, well, it seems Schumer is getting squeezed by his own success.

Two hours after Schumer's press conference, and just a block down Third Avenue, Kirsten Gillibrand--the junior senator whom Schumer has made a point to mentor--was debuting a new Chuck-like setup inside her own Senate office.

There was the blue cloth blackdrop, and the flags on either side of a podium that proudly displayed the Senate seal.

And while Schumer often speaks of the Baileys--the fictional middle-class family from Long Island that drives his agenda in Washington--on this day, Gillibrand did him one better. She strode into her office with the Lavelles, an actual middle-class family from Staten Island, who praised her bill to allow federal deductions of state property taxes.

"I've seen hard-working New Yorkers pushed to the brink of tears as they talk about how they are going to pay their bills and particularly these rising taxes," said Gillibrand, while the younger of the two Lavelle boys finished a peanut butter and jelly sandwich next to the podium.

The conference got a few television spots, a quick hit in the Daily News and a longer look in Newsday.

An hour earlier, Congressman Anthony Weiner--who served as an aide to Schumer in the 1980s--held his own Sunday presser on the steps of City Hall, with the kind of local angle the senior senator could surely appreciate. Weiner railed against the House Republicans' proposed budget cuts, displaying a handy chart of the millions that would be unfairly stripped from New York City.

"The Republican Congress really does cut the Big Apple to the core when it comes to many of the budget programs we count on," Weiner said. The Post gave it a few inches at the top of page nine.

But the most direct challenge to Schumer's Sunday monopoly was the one that preceded Weiner on the City Hall steps, where a group of state Senate Democrats was calling for new rent regulations at the very same time Schumer was holding court in Midtown. Among the advocates at City Hall was Brooklyn state Senator Daniel Squadron, who co-wrote Schumer's book Positively American: How the Democrats Can Win in 2008.

But neither Squadron nor Schumer could win the news cycle this weekend; both of their pressers got edged out of the Monday morning tabs.

Well, it looks like the proposed tax has been sunk because it would dip into the city's coffers. Local businesses did not seem to appreciate the tax plan much, either.

The most popular alternative remains taxing the non-profit properties owned by the Jehovah's Witnesses and soon bound for sale. An outside consultancy is considering other alternatives, which include, according to the Brooklyn Paper and the Post:

• Advertising or sponsorships
• Additional concessions
• Fee-based recreation
• Special events
• A parking lot
• General fundraising, à la Central Park

Some combination of these plans could be implemented, or the condo plans could simply move forward. Whatever the case, the Bloomberg administration has made clear time and again that the park must be self-sustaining.

Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver, New York City comptroller John Liu, state senator Daniel Squadron, assembly member Grace Meng, council member Margaret Chin were among supporters at a press conference at the Chinese Consolidated Business Association.

"We've all showed up together because that's how important it is to send a message," Squadron said.

In his remarks to the group of a couple of dozen Chinatown locals, DiNapoli  talked up his pension management, his plan for accountability in government, and the importance of entrepreneurship for small businesses. He also stressed the need for Chinese voters to come out on election day as they had for Liu in 2009.

He only talked about his Republican challenger Harry Wilson in response to a question, saying that Wilson does not have the experience or values needed to be a successful comptroller.

"My opponent who has absolutely no experience in government, in running an agency, and in delivering on what government needs to do," DiNapoli said.

"He made millions in a way that hurt too many people," he said in reference to Wilson's companies subprime financial investments. "Those are not the kinds of values that represent the best of Wall St., those are not the kind of values that should be represented in the comptrollers office, where you need to look out for the greatest good for the greatest number of New Yorkers "

DiNapoli emphasized his strong working relationship with Liu, labeling the pair a "dynamic duo".

Silver took exception.

"Margaret Chin really just reminded me long before the two of you got together, Margaret Chin and I were called the dynamic duo," he said.

On his way out, DiNapoli commented that he remains optimistic by poll results, citing a Wednesday Siena poll that placed him leading in all districts and more than 30 points up in New York City.

"Its all going to be about turnout who comes out to vote so we're working very hard all across the state to make sure that there's a strong turn out certainly in Democratic areas but were obviously getting support from Republicans and independents too," he said.

Public Advocate Bill de Blasio thinks the city's latest solution to homelessness might only make things worse. 

The New York Times today painted a pretty grim picture of the city’s struggles with rent subsidies and vouchers, and the public advocate's office told The Observer says the city's newest approach may be counterproductive.

This fall, the city plans to implement stricter requirements that some fear will worsen the cycle of the shelter system. The city, in its Advantage program, will require families to contribute 40 percent of their monthly incomes and have at least one family member working 35 hours each week, in the second year of assistance.

Mr. de Blasio's spokesperson, Matt Wing, emailed over a response today to some of the city's latest proposals, saying that the public advocate wants to be sure that new requirements do not force residents back into the shelter system, financially draining the city and exacerbating the problem. 

“At a time when there is greater need, continued unemployment, and a scarcity of jobs, this approach could very well make a bad problem worse.  Increasing rent contribution levels in the Advantage program will likely lead to more families leaving Advantage and ending up in shelter, which costs the city almost three times as much per family. With record numbers of families already living in shelter this change in policy will hurt struggling New Yorkers and tax the City’s resources," he wrote.

De Blasio has challenged Mr. Bloomberg’s record on homelessness, calling on him to intensify his efforts.

De Blasio had been a staunch critic of requiring rent in shelters, and stood with Bloomberg at a press conference last month when the city announced its pilot program to require shelter residents to put money into a savings account (as an alternative to a rent program).

Mayor Bloomberg’s antipoverty campaign continues to face pressures, The Times says, of unemployment and insufficient affordable housing, and the article analyzes the city’s Advantage program, intended to give homeless families incentive to move into the working world with subsidized rents.  According to the story, many families struggle after one or two years, when they are no longer eligible for the program and face a new rent burden.  

But Department of Homeless Services Commissioner Seth Diamond said that the new policy continues the program's primary focus on work, and said the agency has a "very strong record of moving people out of shelter." According to Diamond, over 90 percent of people who have moved out of shelter under the program have not gone back--a trend that he hopes to continue.

"It's a policy decision to really emphasize work," he said of the changes to the Advantage program. "What has worked well in the prior program is an emphasis on employment and leading people to stability because of work. We want to set people up in the community where they're in a position to continue to succeed when the rent subsidy ends. And you can only do that if you have income."

Diamond also refuted the notion that now might be a particularly difficult time to up the hourly requirements for new workers. "I think that's a little bit of a misunderstanding of the economy. One of the strengths of the city's economy even in these times is the entry-level population," he said. "Despite a very difficult economy, we've had a great increase in the number of people going to work."

Diamond added that the focus on work--even when politicians disagree over how best to implement those policies--represents "a tremendous victory for the administration and its programs."

State Senator Daniel Squadron—who helped craft the savings initiative announced last month—told The Observer that there’s still a long way to go.

“I don’t think anyone’s happy with where we’re at,” he said via phone Tuesday afternoon.

He cast the savings program as a model of successful collaboration—one he hopes to replicate. “I’m hopeful that we can have the same process with Advantage and other innovative processes moving forward.” (The savings initiative was one that “everybody was excited about,” he said).

“I commend the Bloomberg administration for being willing to try new things,” he said.

But Squadron is not convinced that Advantage and some of its new requirements resolve a fundamental question: “Will this have the effect of moving families from shelters into permanent housing?” 

He added though, "No one would say it's an easy problem to solve." 

slevin@observer.com 

[UPDATED: This article has been amended from its original version to include the comments of DHS Commissioner Diamond.]

But then, quietly, something else happened. By a vote of 60 to 1, the State Senate passed a bill that if signed into law will create an entirely new species of company in New York. Sponsored by a state senator named Daniel Squadron, a 30-year-old who beat 30-year incumbent Marty Connor last election, bill No. S7855 makes room in state corporate law for a legal middle ground between nonprofits and ordinary businesses.

It is what's known as a benefit corporation, which, as an idea, has been around for years. But state laws allowing them to be established have been passed only in Maryland and Vermont, and so recently that they haven't yet gone into effect.

"I'm both a member of the New York State Senate and an eternal optimist," a bearded and bespectacled Mr. Squadron said this week. "You have entrepreneurs and investors who want to do good, but also want to do it in the context of all the capital and all the resources in the for-profit world." But the corporate duty to develop shareholder value, he said, doesn't leave room to pay serious attention to missions.

"From a left-wing perspective, you can say it would bring to New York the kind of corporations that care about the environment or reach out to underserved communities," said Andrew Greenblatt, an investor and N.Y.U. public administration professor who worked on the bill. "From a right-wing perspective, what this bill does is, it lessens the regulatory grip that New York State has over corporate purpose by saying you can now create corporations that have missions beyond just profit maximization."

Mr. Greenblatt used to work for Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's, the ice cream company that was taken over a decade ago by Unilever. Both founders have blamed the sale on directors who felt they couldn't turn the conglomerate away. "Right now, the law compels companies to be guided solely and exclusively by company profit. And companies can be sued for veering from that," said Jamie Raskin, the Maryland state senator who sponsored the bill there, and a professor of constitutional law at American University. "We're living in a time where the crises are piling up all around us from corporations that ignore the public interest. We said that we need a new business model that companies can opt for."

According to the New York bill, which could potentially be voted on by the Assembly before its summer break, a benefit corporation's leaders will be allowed-and required-to consider stockholders, employees, suppliers' workforce, customers, communities and the environment when making decisions. The idea, almost quaintly, is for them to make a difference while making money.

MR. GREENBLATT HAPPENS to live in an apartment in Mr. Squadron's downtown district. Two years ago, he got a request from a friend: Would he take the candidate through his Battery Park complex to knock on doors? He didn't know much about the politician, but he also didn't like Mr. Connor, the incumbent.

While they were walking, Mr. Squadron asked what he did for a living. Mr. Greenblatt happened to bring up his qualms with the current concept of fiduciary duty, which binds a company's leaders to the pursuit of profit. Mr. Squadron said it sounded interesting, and that they should talk about it if he got elected. "What a good politician," Mr. Greenblatt thought. "I'm not going to fall for that, but good for him."

A few months later, Mr. Greenblatt happened to spot Mr. Squadron at a fund-raiser for his two kids' public school. "I doubted he would remember me, and if he did, I certainly wasn't going to pester him on my little problem," he said. "He walks right up to me: 'Hi Andrew. How's Miles? How's G.G.?'" His kids had been home when they start knocking on the doors.

He raised the fiduciary problem, which led to phone calls. Eventually, Mr. Greenblatt introduced him to Andrew Kassoy, a former private-equity executive at Credit Suisse and at the billionaire Michael Dell's investment firm. Mr. Kassoy left to start a nonprofit called B Lab with two college friends in 2006, a year after they'd sold their basketball apparel company, And 1. The idea is to unofficially certify companies as benefit corporations: So far they've named more than 300, with combined revenue of $1.1 billion.

This spring, working along with the Philadelphia attorney William H. Clark, Jr., who penned his state's corporation law, they drafted their New York bill. "We're going to have one bad piece of news after the next as long as business is being done by the old rules," Mr. Kassoy said this week. "I think it's pretty clear: Short-term value maximization is a bankrupt strategy."

Actually, the corporate world has been talking about the bigger picture for decades. Goldman senior partner Gus Levy, who died when Gerald Ford was still president, was famous for his mantra of long-term greed. And as The Observer wrote last week, what Wall Street calls its corporate social responsibility, or community reinvestment, or responsible finance, or global citizenship, has been in full effect lately. "I'm glad that people do it, and I think it's a start," Mr. Clark said about C.S.R. programs. "But it's just a step along the road."

LAST WEEK, THE morning after the bill passed, Mr. Greenblatt got in a Zipcar and drove to Albany to start rounding up support in the Assembly, where the bill needs approval before it's signed into law. The one nay in the Senate came from a Republican named Owen H. Johnson, who did not return several messages. Mr. Squadron said he didn't understand that lone vote.

The bill allows a company the option to become a benefit corporation if it can show "material, positive impact on society and the environment." And an existing company can try to be named one after a two-thirds shareholder vote. "I support it because it's an option," said Republican Assemblywoman Jane Corwin, the ranking minority member on the Corporations, Authorities and Commissions Committee, who just signed on to cosponsor the bill.

Mr. Squadron wants a quick Assembly vote before the summer recess, but Ms. Corwin isn't confident. "I don't see this passing immediately," she said. "Right now, I just don't know how much time we have."

The commissions committee chairman, Richard Brodsky, a Democratic candidate for attorney general, sees other problems. "The bill has technical components that need to be fixed," he said this week. For example, he said, it may inadvertently interfere with shareholders' rights to bring lawsuits.

Mr. Squadron said his colleague's issues were fixable. "We're in a race with other large states to be the first to offer this opportunity to entrepreneurs and investors," he said. "Here's the thing: Vermont and Maryland are very important, it's very exciting. But for this to happen in New York is a very big deal."

Mr. Clark said that similar legislation is going to be introduced in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Oregon, Washington and Colorado are interested as well. And California has been dealing with its own version of a benefit corporation statute.

"When we talk about this stuff," said Mr. Kassoy from B Lab, "people say, 'Well you can't start thinking about these issues; companies will take their eye off the ball. It will cause total erosion in profits and margins!' My response to that is the strategy of short-term value maximization eroded a couple trillion dollars of value over the past two years. ... To me, in many ways, it is intuitive that business will be more successful if it actually pays attention to its impact."

Mr. Clark isn't as sure that a benefit corporation's goodness will always be lucrative. "The honest answer is, we don't know. We hope it is. That's one of the things we're going to find out."

mabelson@observer.com

The extension comes at an estimated cost of about $12 million a year to the city in foregone taxes, according to a spokesman for the state Department of Budget (the state budget is not affected).

The extension, pushed by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and State Senator Daniel Squadron, is the latest in a series of added or extended subsidies for Lower Manhattan, a reminder that many of the benefits once billed as temporary are here to stay for a while.

Last year, the Legislature passed a similar bill extending different incentives for the district, costing the city and state about $200 million in uncollected taxes over the life of the extension.

The rationale, pushed by the elected officials and the Downtown Alliance: It's a recession and redevelopment of the World Trade Center and other infrastructure has been slower than imagined, making the subsidies crucial for Lower Manhattan to attract business. "These incentives mean jobs and continued economic development throughout Lower Manhattan and will spur more businesses to relocate, renovate, and expand throughout the area," Mr. Silver said in a statement.

The commercial rent tax abatement—the deadline for which tenants must have signed leases—was due to expire Wednesday, but, under the legislation, the end date would be pushed to 2014. 

ebrown@observer.com

But as the park now begins to open—public officials cut the ribbon on the first section of the park—the controversial plan for housing that was a key element in the plan for a financially self-sustaining park is newly in flux.

In a deal reached this month with the Bloomberg administration to hand the city full control over the project, freshman state Senator Daniel Squadron, long a critic of the planned housing, now will effectively wield veto power over any new housing development in the park (nearly 800 units are planned in a series of buildings). This new twist comes as city officials were intent on taking the reins at the park—it had been sharing control with the state, which was reluctant to put in more money amid strained finances—and had to negotiate the terms of the transfer with Mr. Squadron, who was insistent on trying to change the financing.

The structure that they agreed to pushes any decision on the housing to at least July 1, 2011, and would seem to set up a face-off with the city over how to finance the ongoing maintenance of the park. Based on the agreement, there are three apparent avenues going forward at the park: the Bloomberg administration would agree to an alternative financing scheme; Mr. Squadron would vote for housing; or stalemate would ensue, and the city would not finance additional construction without a financing plan.

A new governing board for the park will have to publicly consider an alternative financing plan for the new housing (which was to have provided more than $7 million a year). Should the board reject that plan and choose to pursue housing, it would need the affirmative votes of both Mr. Squadron and Assemblywoman Joan Millman, a vote that would presumably anger some of Mr. Squadron's political base. Should it not approve the housing or another financing plan, the city has said it would not release additional funds to finish the park. (The board would again have to vote for additional housing by the southern end of the park in 2013.)

"If we were going to have a change in governance, I felt a real obligation to do what I could to ensure that these priorities that I and the community have been pushing were a reality," Mr. Squadron said Friday.

Whether or not there are indeed viable financing alternatives is unclear. Mr. Squadron has proposed a mechanism similar to tax increment financing districts, in which the city would rezone nearby neighborhoods and put the added tax revenue it receives from the rezoning into the park maintenance fund (the city has displayed little public interest in this plan thus far).

Mr. Squadron deferred questions of whether or not he would ultimately vote for housing until alternative plans are created and vetted, saying the new structure "allows for serious consideration of alternatives."

ebrown@observer.com

Now, the move has earned the tentative support of the local state senator, Daniel Squadron, a former aide to Senator Chuck Schumer who rose to office in part by criticizing a plan that put residential and commercial development on the exterior of the new park, set below Brooklyn Heights.

Mr. Squadron and the city are expected at a meeting on Monday night to present their plan, which would also need support from the Paterson administration.

The city is prepared to put in $55 million to the budget of the $350 million project, which is $120 million short. The first phase is currently under way, establishing a new park on a pier with a large former warehouse near the base of the Brooklyn Bridge. Mr. Squadron said he would want the city to take over if it can "allow for meaningful discussions of alternatives to housing."

What does that mean exactly?

Mr. Squadron said he wants the city to agree to hold off on bidding out the development sites, and, if and when the sites are bid out, the bidding would require approval from the Public Authorities Control Board, a board controlled by the governor and the leaders of both the state Senate and Assembly. This would seem to give Mr. Squadron and legislators another bite at the apple, potentially allowing them to block any residential development.

Under the current financing structure, development is needed to fund maintenance of the park (an estimated $16 million annually), a structure that has sparked criticism. Mr. Squadron has proposed something resembling a tax increment financing structure, which would take any added tax revenue created by the park (which would theoretically boost values of nearby properties) and use that to fund maintenance.

The city's contribution comes at a time when budgets are tight, particularly the capital budget, which would be the source of these funds. Previously, the mayor has said that added money for Brooklyn Bridge Park would come from a fund meant to expand the Javits Center.

ebrown@observer.com