1. How can a charity that worked with a big chunk of public funding, run up 1 BILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT that rendered it insolvent and incapable of fulfilling the public duty we paid them to deliver with our taxes? From Crain's:
   

   The bankruptcy documents for Saint Vincent Catholic Medical Centers list many reasons for its financial failure. Some of the financial travails are shared by all New York City hospitals. But others were clearly the result of poor decisions by SVCMC's leadership.

   The documents trace the roots of the current bankruptcy to the previous one. The system's leadership signed off on a reorganization plan in August 2007 that was unworkable.

   “Despite a long Chapter 11 process,” writes chief restructuring officer Mark Toney in his affidavit, SVCMC “emerged from Chapter 11 with a complex capital structure consisting of various layers of secured debt, as well as substantial unsecured liabilities, totaling over $1 billion.”

   But SVCMC filed for bankruptcy protection in July 2005 with $1.1 billion in liabilities—the same amount as when it emerged. Why did the board and management sign off on such a plan, SVCMC critics have long wondered.

   Even after it had restructured, SVCMC couldn't pay off $1 billion in post-bankruptcy debt from its ongoing operations. The new bankruptcy filing on Wednesday states that its “operating revenues have remained relatively constant.” It had operating losses of $43 million in 2008 and $64 million in 2009. St. Vincent's Hospital itself generated $81 million in losses in 2008 and $107 million in 2009.

2. Why weren't the state and city comptrollers on the ass of the Catholic Church back in 2005 when the hospital first declared bankruptcy for such a staggering amoung of money?


 read more »

There is a new and expanding scandal in town. And I am realizing it reaches through many aspects of NYC government...and is a further illustration of what is wrong with NYC.

I recently had a dust up here on DG about developer money in City Council elections centering on a candidate named Brad Lander. In resulting discussions both on and off line, I realized how in people's blind focus on developers, either pro- or anti-, what is ignored is the massive conflict of interest that permeates NYC politics where corporate interests (developers and others) donate so much money to politicians that it often determines who wins, and those very same corporate interests get major favors from politicians.  read more »

"Developer" is an oft cited bogeyman in NYC politics. I cite it often myself. But recent discussions I have had make me realize that focusing on developers can miss some critical points as to why developer money is such a problem and why developers are often political donors not to be trusted.

Development per se is not bad. It can be bad or good depending on how it is done. I remember when I was living in San Diego there was a huge controversy over the revitalization of downtown. Ultimately what they did with the downtown seems excellent to me. Similarly, redevelopment of downtown Los Angeles seems ultimately to have been done well. There are always problems about gentrification, changing historic communities, balancing profit and community benefit. If done right, with a strong local government calling the shots, development can be good. But if developers call all the shots, as they do in NYC, the results are disastrous for the community.  read more »