- See more at: http://blogtimenow.com/blogging/automatically-redirect-blogger-blog-another-blog-website/#sthash.Q6qPkwFC.dpuf Kingsbridge Armory Battle Inspires Citywide Living Wage Bill | Bronx News Networkbronx

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Kingsbridge Armory Battle Inspires Citywide Living Wage Bill

Two Bronx politicians are picking up the torch from the living wage campaign that was at the heart of last year's battle over the Kingsbridge Armory.

City Council members Oliver Koppell and Annabel Palma introduced a bill yesterday, dubbed the Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act, that would require all development projects that receive public subsidies from the city to pay workers eventually employed there a living wage--$10 an hour with benefits or $11.50 an hour without.                                                                                      
Living wage--just $2.75 more than the mandated minimum wage of $7.25, and adding up to about $18,000 a year, according to Koppell--was a hot button topic last year during the redevelopment of the Kingsbridge Armory. The City Council voted down plans for a shopping mall at the hulking Bronx building in December because Related Companies, the developer, would not agree to a living wage provision for workers there, despite the fact that the group would be getting millions of dollars in taxpayer funded credits.

"Today, we're showing everyone that this debate is not just about one parochial section of the Bronx. This is a citywide debate," said Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr., who joined a bevy of Bronx pols and leaders--and those from other boroughs--on the steps of City Hall yesterday to show their support of the bill.

The new legislation, if passed, would require all projects across the city that receive more than $100,000 in city funds to provide living wage jobs.

"This bill simply requires developers who want to come into our communities agree to give back to our communities," Palma said.

A similar bill was introduced by Council Member Melissa Mark-Viverito in February--the so-called "Good Jobs" bill  that would guarantee good wages and benefits to workers in city-subsidized buildings.

"Everything that the city gives, we want a return back for our people," said Council Member Fernando Cabrera, who attended Tuesday's rally. "These properties belong to the people."

Koppell and Palma say they've garnered the support of 20 other Council Members so far, as well as the backing of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) and a number of community organizations, including the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition, which was instrumental in last year's Armory battle. State Senate hopeful Desiree-Pilgrim Hunter, who served as a leader for the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance and a strong proponent for living wages, also attended yesterday.

At one point, Mayor Bloomberg--who opposed the living wage campaign at the Armory and is expected to show little support for this bill--returned to City Hall and was greeted with boos and chants from the crowd. Opponents of the bill argue that it could halt or impede development projects and economic growth. But supporters scoffed at the idea.

"There is no evidence, scientific or otherswise, that requiring a living wage law kills development projects," said Diaz, Jr.

Debra Smith, a union worker from Concourse Village who attended the rally, says she'd like to see workers like her daughter--a cashier at JC Penney who barely makes ends meet with her minimum wage job--get a fair pay.

"If you want people to do the job, you have to pay them what they deserve," she said. "And I think they deserve more than $7 an hour."


  1. To what does this $18,000/year mentioned refer?

    If we assume 40/hrs week and 52 weeks in the year, none of the numbers adds up to "about $18,000 a year."

    $11.50/hr = $23,920/year

    $10/hr = $20,800/year

    $7.25/year = $15,080/year

    "just $2.75 more"/hr = $5,720/year

    Someone needs to ask Ollie how he ran his numbers.

  2. Perhaps we could focus this same vigor and passion to ensure that the masses are educated enough to receive wages indicative of skill. We're talking about public assistance 2.0 here...not that there is anything wrong with that, but let's not throw around euphenisms...that's exactly what it is. If we wan't "living" or "fair" wages, let's throw money and subsidies at ensuring that we get living and fair education.

  3. If you can't pay a living wage, you're not really running a business. Instead, you're being subsidized by taxpayers while playing business-man. If you can't pay a living wage, you should be a worker, not an employer.

  4. Give this a little more thought Hilary. These are just tired slogans.

    There are certainly people out there who work jobs for supplementary income, and don't require a full living wage. This includes retirees with pensions, high school kids, some parents who want to work part-time and have a full-time spouse. There easily could be some businesses who employ these people and provide useful services to a community.

    Are there people who exploit their workers? Absolutely! Maybe there are ways to both protect workers and provide opportunities for other workers who don't need to support their family but still want to work. You need to be careful about oversimplifications, especially when you start getting all self righteous!


Bronx News Network reserves the right to remove comments that include personal attacks, name calling, foul language, commercial advertisements, spam, or any language that might be considered threatening, libelous or inciting hate.

User comments are reviewed by BxNN staff and may be included or excluded at our discretion.

If what you have to say is unrelated to this particular post, please visit our readers' forum.