Rotten tomatoes? (Getty)

Walmart is in a pickle, and not the kind that can be found in the canned goods aisle. Following the Mexican bribery scandal, pols high and low have reaffirmed their opposition to the store. But they are not the only ones. Even some of the big box retailers staunchest supporters have come out against the company, namely Greg David.

The Crain’s columnist and former editor for three decades of the influential business weekly is a big believer in capitalism and its important role in shaping the city—he just wrote a book about it. To that end, he has long supported Walmart’s efforts to open a store in the five boroughs (14 times at last count). Yet now, in light of the scandal, even Greg David doubts Walmart will ever open in New York. And he believes this is all Walmart’s fault.

For the past three years, ever since the mayor announced his support for Walmart during the 2009 mayoral race, it looked like the company might actually worm its way into the city, following previous setbacks and roadblocks pushed by labor unions and the City Council. It would build as-of-right and with popular and political support. But as the economy turned, the company dithered, and now the political math is no longer adding up, Mr. David argues.

Walmart squandered all that momentum by not announcing a plan to open stores. It is true that giant companies like Walmart march to their own beat, but the months of silence have clearly eroded its position.

The Mexican scandal hurts in two ways. It obviously means any move in New York will need to be delayed until the publicity dies down. More importantly, The New York Times story suggests current CEO Mike Duke, the driving force behind the effort to move into New York, could be implicated.

With the clock ticking toward a new mayor, Walmart may have just blown it.

Still, all is not lost. Mayor Bloomberg, supporter of all things free market and soulless, told reporters they should not rush to judgment on the retailer, according to Capital New York.

“No, I’ve not been a big supporter of Walmart," said the mayor. "I’ve been a big supporter of government not telling people whether they can do business here. I think you let the market decide whether people want jobs or not, whether people want to buy products at given price ranges for different types, and I think that that’s exactly what this is all about. I have no idea what Walmart did in Mexico, whether any of that stuff’s true or not. We’ll have to see. There’s one story in the paper."

There is more than a year until the mayor leaves office, plenty of time for Walmart to try and get things done. And really, how many Walmart shoppers read The New York Times?

Still, the stain of bribery gives the project's opponents ample opportunity to spread the word against the company, as they did at a rally on the steps of City Hall this afternoon. No sooner did the events begin at 2 p.m. than a statement popped up in our inbox, reaffirming the Walmart march continues.

“Our track record as a good corporate citizen is well known and in large cities like New York, residents continue to choose to shop and work at Walmart," company spokesman Steve Restivo said. "As a result, we continue to evaluate opportunities here to make access to our stores more convenient for customers."

The fighting has been heady so far, but if it continues, expect things to heat up on both sides.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

It’s likely, if not unavoidable, that whoever is mayor over the next four years will have to raise taxes or fees, since he’ll be faced with a multi-billion-dollar deficit and little hope of getting help from Albany or Washington. As mayor, Bloomberg has already been forced to find unpopular ways to generate revenue (property, sales and water rates, to name a few).

But last night, each of the candidates made the prospect of new taxes into a boogie man hiding in the other person’s closet, just waiting to turn the city into the nineth layer of hell.

“My opponent has proposed something over $5 billion in expenses which would be required to be paid for with job-killing taxes,” said Bloomberg. “And that would just make this city so much more affordable. Either he’s going to drive out the small business people we need to keep their jobs here, or he’s going to make everybody else who has trouble making their payments every day--we all are struggling with this kind of economy--they’re the ones who are going to have to reach into their pocket and pay for those job-killing taxes.”

Bloomberg, on a roll, added, “He said he wants a broad-based tax, and then he said a millionaire’s tax. He said so many things I can’t keep straight who he wants to tax, but he is going to tax somebody.”

Hearing this, anybody would be forgiven for thinking Bloomberg had ruled out such a move himself.

Thompson, after a moment, said, “Mike, when you first became mayor you increased taxes on those making one-hundred thousand dollars a year, or more.” And, “You supported a millionaires’ tax in the past. You helped put that in place."

Later, in response to a question from a viewer who asked about the possibility of raising taxes or cutting services, Thompson said, plainly, “No, I would not raise taxes. First, you need to start looking at the $9 billion in services that are contracted out each and every year by the city of New York. That’s a great place to start.”

Thompson also said the city needs to “close some of those tax breaks that are out there,” like the one Cablevision has for Madison Square Garden.

What cuts, specifically?

“I’m talking about the Department of Education,” he said, where there are no-bid contracts.

Cutting waste at the Department of Education may be part of the answer, but it is a very, very small part.

Bloomberg, when asked about raising taxes or cutting services, was frustratingly short on specifics.

“We, number one, cannot cut essential services. That’s a mistake that was made in the 70s,” the mayor said. “Number two, we certainly cannot raise taxes. We shouldn’t. We have no plans to do so. And unless there was something like Albany going bankrupt, we will not do that.”

On this issue, Bloomberg was more candid last week, when, in response to a question from Crain’s editor Greg David, Bloomberg said, “Nobody can ever promise for sure that they can’t raise taxes.”

“[I]t’s very difficult to walk in, look a commissioner in the eye and say, ‘You know, you have done great things, you’ve worked hard, you’ve done everything we’ve asked you. But it’s time to go.’ But that is what you have to do,” said Bloomberg. “That’s what management is all about.”

“If we were to replace 15 out of 40, you know, that’s not an unreasonable amount of turnover after eight years,” Bloomberg said.

The only commissioner he mentioned by name was John Mattingly, at the Administration for Children Services, whom the mayor said was doing well, despite the enormous challenges.

On the issue of taxes, Bloomberg was asked about why he hit his opponent, Bill Thompson, for flip-flopping on wanting a millionaire’s tax during an earlier speech Crain’s hosted, when Bloomberg himself did something similar.

“You know, it’s almost eight years to the day that you came to this forum and promised not to raise taxes in the aftermath of September 11th, and then pushed through the largest real estate property tax in the history of the city,” said Crain’s editor Greg David. “And in addition, you raised the real estate tax [and] the sales tax. I mean, it sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black here.”

“No, I don’t think so,” replied Bloomberg. “Nobody can ever promise for sure that they can’t raise taxes.” Bloomberg went to say that in his “heart of hearts” he believes the city can get through the next fiscal year without raising taxes.

Later, Bloomberg walked away from the praise he had heaped onto his Democratic rival during a speech a 2007 speech at Tufts, when the mayor said Thompson—a Tufts alum—may go down as one of the best comptroller’s in the city’s history.

During the campaign, Bloomberg has accused Thompson of steering pension fund money to people that contributed to his campaigns, resulting in a pension fund that underperformed expectations.

At the Crain’s event this morning, Bloomberg said the praise he gave Thompson during that Tufts speech was pro forma.

“I don’t apologize for being polite,” Bloomberg told the audience at Crain’s, to some laughter. Then, he explained the remarks at Tufts was “a commencement speech. What do you expect me to say?”

Thompson said he’d “eliminate[e] those programs that don’t work,” bring home more money from Washington and Albany, and specifically, he’d urge for the reinstatement of the commuter tax.

The editor, Greg David, wasn’t impressed, and asked for specific programs Thompson would cut.

Thompson said he’d end “no-bid” contracts at the Board of Education and reduce overruns in construction costs at the Department of Environmental Protection.

Later, when Thompson said he’d grow the economy by focusing on protecting manufacturing jobs by having a moratorium on rezoning them, David asked why he'd bother, and said that five previous mayors promised to protect manufacturing only to see those jobs disappear anyway. David suggested the next mayor should focus on emerging job sectors like tourism. Thompson replied by saying he could do that and spur manufacturing jobs at the same time.

In a scrum with reporters afterward, Thompson said he would not rule out reducing the size of the city’s workforce, saying you “don’t want to take anything off the table.” But, he said, “that’s not where you want to start. You want to start with eliminating waste in government.”

“I didn’t hear a realistic plan to close the $5 billion budget deficit today, no,” David said afterward.

But at a debate in midtown this morning, the four Democrats running to replace Thompson as city comptroller were split on whether to oust Klein. (Thompson called yesterday for Klein to be fired.)

While David Weprin and John Liu both called for Klein's removal, David Yassky said "absolutely not," while Melinda Katz's nuanced answer left the debate moderator to categorize her as a "no comment." After the event, she told me she would not remove Klein now, saying that other, more important changes are needed.

Also worth noting was the slight bit of education criticism from Yassky, who is generally considered an ally of Bloomberg and even employs one of his political consultants, Josh Isay of Knickerbocker SKD. When answering the question about Klein, Yassky also took the opportunity to say, “Graduation improvement is overstated; however, it’s real.”

The event was organized by Crain's, and its editor, Greg David, moderated along with City Hall Bureau Chief David Seifman of the New York Post.

The four Democrats were asked by Seifman if they’d set up a separate office to “monitor City Council spending.” The question was prefaced by the observation that the Council’s system of allocating discretionary funds is currently being probed and has already led to the resignation of one member, Miguel Martinez of Manhattan.

Yassky said yes, and that he’d “go further” than setting up an office to monitor Council spending. He said he’ll continue his call for an “end to virtual all earmarks,” which he did in an op-ed in the New York Post earlier. The upshot, Yassky said was that without haggling over that relatively small pool of money, members could really start "get into the meat" of the $60 billion budget.

Katz said "maybe" another office was needed, but stressed she’d work cooperatively with others to find a solution. She said a solution was need “if for nothing else, simply so that people have faith in their elected officials.”

Liu said he would create a “special unit” to probe that money, but said “to stop with 'the City Council is shortsighted.' It’s easy to have headlines about council members giving out member items. The fact of the matter is the no-bid contracts put out by the City Council are a small fraction of the totality of no-bid contracts in the city.”

Weprin said he was unsure if a whole other office was needed, but said he would conduct more audits. Weprin also took a shot at Yassky, saying, “It’s one thing to write an op-ed piece and to criticize them and at the same time, take them and use them for local groups in his district.”

Later, Yassky said it would be “irresponsible” for his constituents not to get available funding because of his objection to the overall system.

But when it came to reducing commercial rental rates, Quinn said, “I’ll be honest, we haven’t found a real solution yet.”

When asked by the event’s moderator, Crain’s editor Greg David, if there were a way for the city to lower commercial rents without getting into some form of a commercial rent-regulation system, Quinn, a former housing advocate, said, “To be very honest, I don’t have the answer to that.”

(David prefaced his question by saying commercial rental rates were "rapidly" dropping, because of the economic downturn. "It has to be on some level," Quinn said, but "it doesn't seem to be happening.")

“It’s one of the things I most want to have an answer to,” she said. “One of the most important things I want to say this morning” is “we know there is a problem. We know we need to get an answer and we would love the help of everyone in this room to help us get an answer.”

After the event, I asked her why she would have a problem with regulating commercial rents if she believe in regulating residential rents.

“It’s a different structure,” she said. “We have to find a way to find a legal mechanism we can put in place that is fair that will work. There are some real legal questions that have been raised around how you would put this into place.”

Quinn said rent regulations for residential tenants are allowed because there is a “state of housing emergency,” as defined by the state, which “has never fallen out of existence.”

“There are challenges as to how you would create a parallel legal concept,” Quinn said. “So we need to find a workable solution that’s fair and that’s legal. We don’t have it today, but we’re going to get it.”

The crux of Weiner’s speech, at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Manhattan, focused on job development. He did not rule out raising taxes, but did say that high taxes stymie job development. He defended the policy that prevents Wal-Mart (but not other big box stores), from coming into the city because it does not pay adequate wages. And he said that the city has to do a better job of offering incentives to keep business in New York City, since New Jersey has lower business taxes and can still access the city's workforce.

Weiner has previously outlined most of the policies he addressed today, but what stood out to some people in the audience was the (extremely) measured way in which he attempted to distinguish himself from the man he hopes to follow.

“Let me just say a word how I believe this approach meshes with Mike Bloomberg’s way of governing,” Weiner said. “Although we have some differences in policy, I want to make it clear I appreciate the way Mike Bloomberg governs.”

Weiner went on, “I do believe that the end of the day the question for the next mayor is, ‘Are you to keep that spirit of innovation alive, are you going to approach problems to solve them and do you have a vision for the city that looks at its overall best interests.’”

One person at the event said it sounded like Weiner wanted to run for Bloomberg's third term. A reporter standing next to me asked, "When did Anthony Weiner become Michael Bloomberg?"

Asked by Crain'smoderator Greg David at one point about powerful elected officials using rent-stabilized apartments, Weiner jokingly asked, “To whom are you referring?”

“The governor and Congressman Rangel,” David said.

“I was hoping there was a slim chance you were referring to someone else,” Weiner replied, smiling a little painfully, but eliciting laughter from the audience.

Then he essentially passed on the question, saying, “No one should be above the law. Everyone should follow the law.”

Weiner added, “I think both of them have spoken extensively about the situation there and I think that they should not be above the law, and if they’re following the law it’s up to them to describe the circumstances."

During a panel discussion later, Daily News City Hall bureau chief Adam Lisberg asked Weiner about his management skills, noting that he had "a reputation of running through staff.”

Arms folded, Weiner said, “I think I’m tough but I’m fair. I don’t think anybody works harder than me. And I’m cheap.”

He has not opened a campaign account, nor begun fund-raising, and has returned all checks he has received in support of his re-election. The filing in January will show his account has no money.

At a business breakfast at the Grand Hyatt, he also fielded a question that referred to a Joe Bruno quote in a recent New Yorker article when Greg David, editor of Crain's asked, "Is Shelly Silver really the biggest wimp in town?"

"Speaker Silver is anything but that word," DiNapoli said from the podium. "He's a very, very strong individual."

DiNapoli, who was an assemblyman for 20 years, also said that the financial shortfalls the state faces next year will help bring people in Albany together.

On the substance, the most striking point was his apparent retreat from his sweeping opposition to emininent domain at the Manhattan Institute not long ago. There, he framed his opposition to the Kelo decision as broad, and not limited to its endorsement of the role of a private developer:

"The fundamental problem with Kelo is that it represents statist central planning. The government decided that it wanted new real estate projects, and then let a private entity effectuate a transfer of wealth."

But asked about the details by Crain’s Greg David, he said he supported the Atlantic Yards project becuase it’s "imbued with public interest." He has mixed feelings about Columbia’s expansion into Morningside Heights. And he doesn’t want to demolish "a whole neighborhood" to build affordable housing.

Oh, and semi-relatedly, he’s all for the West Side Stadium. Doctoroff’s presentation was, he said, "completely persusive." He even wore his Olympics tie.

So it’s unclear if he actually opposes government planning as it’s actually been practiced in New York State since Jane Jacobs basically won the debate decades ago.

[Today we add a new feature to the Politicker, a daily calendar of events. Please email event listings to me at nbrydson (at) observer.com. Also, name our new calendar by posting your suggestions in the comments section and win...err.. nothing but bragging rights, but that's enough, right?]

Tomorrow morning at the Sheraton, Crain's hosts a breakfast with Tom Suozzi, who will be questioned by editor Greg David, beginning at 8 am. (Note, you must be pre-registered to attend.)

Later, at 8pm, the Three Parks Democratic Club will be hosting an Attorney General Forum with Richard Brodsky, Andrew Cuomo, Mark Green, Charlie King, Sean Patrick Maloney, and Denise O'Donnell (all confirmed). Each candidate will be allotted up to fifteen minutes to make their presentation and answer questions at Hostelling International New York, 891 Amsterdam Avenue at 103rd Street.

—Nicole Brydson