Outside, in the sharp wintry light that makes you squint when the No. 1 train pops out of the tunnel past 122nd Street, the banners were still flying high. Among them was the one that reads, “Stop Columbia! We Won’t Be Pushed Out!”
Inside, in the softer, dimmer light of an office that has 10 lights in the ceiling but no windows, Nicholas Sprayregen was working his way through an in-box suddenly filled with e-mail messages from people he did not know. “Thank you for standing up and fighting to keep the American dream alive,” one wrote. Another said, “It’s like David versus Goliath, and you’re David.”
Mr. Sprayregen, the self-storage impresario who has been fighting Columbia University’s expansion plan, spent much of Friday reveling in a court ruling that had gone his way. It said that New York State could not use eminent domain on Columbia’s behalf to clear parcels along Broadway that Mr. Sprayregen owns.
So, after a five-year fight that he said had cost him more than $2 million, was he celebrating?
“I wouldn’t say it’s a victory dance,” said Mr. Sprayregen, 47, who runs self-storage warehouses in squat brick buildings where Columbia wants to build shiny new high rises. “It’s more a big sigh of relief.”
The ruling by a panel of the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, released Thursday, said the state’s condemnation procedure in taking land for the Columbia project, in the Manhattanville neighborhood, was unconstitutional. Justice James M. Catterson, who wrote the majority opinion, was withering in his criticism of way the state agency that approved the use of eminent domain had reached its decision.
The agency, the Empire State Development Corporation, said it would appeal the ruling to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals. Mr. Sprayregen said that no matter who won there, the case would almost certainly go to the United States Supreme Court.
Two weeks ago, the Court of Appeals ruled that the state had the power to use eminent domain in taking private property on behalf of the developer behind the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn.
In Manhattanville, Columbia, which owns or controls 61 of the 67 parcels on the 17 acres it wants to build on, issued a statement Friday saying it was going ahead with the project. It said demolition and “other preconstruction work has already begun and can continue.”
Mr. Sprayregen spends his days a stone’s throw from the Columbia campus, but has no old-school ties. He did his undergraduate work at Union College in Schenectady, N.Y., earned an M.B.A. from New York University and spent a year at the London School of Economics. He took over his father’s storage business in 1990.
He said the first he heard of the expansion plan was in the summer of 2004, when Columbia officials invited him to lunch.
“It was a pleasant meeting,” he said, “but a little strange: ‘Are you interested in selling your buildings?’ ” (Columbia officials noted that the first public announcement had been 18 months earlier, and that by the summer of 2004 the plan had gone before Community Board 9.)
“They were going around trying to buy buildings,” he said, “and before long the offer changed: ‘If you don’t sell, you’ll face condemnation.’ I looked on that as offensive, coming from an institution as large and powerful as Columbia.”
He said he had offered to trade property he owned on one side of Broadway for property Columbia owned on the other. “I said, ‘Why don’t we do a swap?’ ” he recalled. “That went absolutely nowhere with the school.”
He pulled out a copy of the inaugural address by Columbia’s president, Lee C. Bollinger, in 2002, and read several passages. In one, Mr. Bollinger described the university’s need to expand and said, “I will do everything in my power to build this new Columbia.”
“That almost sounds like it’s coming from a religious figure,” Mr. Sprayregen said. “Do they think this is fallow land with no one on it, and they’re settlers and there are a bunch of illiterate Indians here and it’s their God-given responsibility to tame us and take control?”
So how much money would he have taken from Columbia?
“I never really got that far,” he said. “The point was, I attempted to compromise. I didn’t want to succumb to eminent domain abuse for the benefit of a private institution.”
Mr. Sprayregen has made his position loudly and clearly for several years in the banners he has hung on the faces of his buildings along Broadway. He said Friday that he was well aware that the Court of Appeals had ruled the other way in the Atlantic Yards case. But judges have been known to catch people off guard. “I didn’t necessarily think,” he said, “that we were going to win at this level.”
News Source: nytimes.com
Help Need
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
Prosecutors investigated Rajaratnam a decade ago: report
Federal prosecutors investigated Galleon Group hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam on suspicions of insider trading more than a decade before he was charged with securities fraud, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing legal filings.
However, the prosecutors were unable to prove their suspicions, the paper said.
The investigation stemmed from suspicions that arose in the 1990s within chip maker Intel Corp that Rajaratnam was receiving tips from an Intel insider.
Intel could not immediately be reached for comment by Reuters outside regular U.S. business hours.
The Sri Lankan-born billionaire was arrested on October 16 and accused by prosecutors of generating millions of dollars of illegal profits in the largest U.S. hedge fund insider trading case on record.
Rajaratnam has denied the charges.
News Source: reuters.com
Help Need
However, the prosecutors were unable to prove their suspicions, the paper said.
The investigation stemmed from suspicions that arose in the 1990s within chip maker Intel Corp that Rajaratnam was receiving tips from an Intel insider.
Intel could not immediately be reached for comment by Reuters outside regular U.S. business hours.
The Sri Lankan-born billionaire was arrested on October 16 and accused by prosecutors of generating millions of dollars of illegal profits in the largest U.S. hedge fund insider trading case on record.
Rajaratnam has denied the charges.
News Source: reuters.com
Help Need
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Analysis: Afghanistan pullout date not definite
WASHINGTON — So much for the deadline.
President Barack Obama started the clock on the U.S. war in Afghanistan this week, announcing that the beginning of the end would come in July 2011 even as he massively expanded the war by ordering 30,000 new U.S. forces into the fray.
Selling that mixed message to Congress just hours later, Obama's three chief war managers promptly put the countdown on hold. The exit strategy isn't absolute, they said, disappointing Democrats for whom the July 2011 date was meant as an olive branch from a Democratic president bearing bad news.
No, said Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the United States wouldn't pack its bags before the Afghan security forces are ready to pick up the job.
"We're not just going to throw these guys into the swimming pool and walk away," the defense chief said during a daylong promotional tour on Capitol Hill. In the course of Obama's long deliberations about the strategy announced Tuesday, Gates went on record as saying that deadlines are a foolhardy exercise and that the duration of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan is an unfathomable mystery.
But back to Capitol Hill, where Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said no, the United States isn't bound to a calendar for the war.
"I do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving," Clinton said. "It is the best assessment of our military experts ... that by July 2011 there can be the beginning of a responsible transition that will of course be based on conditions."
And no, said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the commander in chief hasn't necessarily said his last word on the subject.
"The president has choices as the president," Mullen said, looking a bit glum.
The military certainly doesn't want an open-ended war, having already fought in Afghanistan for more than eight years with little to show for it, but Mullen didn't want to be the guy putting Obama on the spot.
The Obama administration says July 2011 is a "transition point," a time to begin turning over authority to Afghan security forces that have proved themselves up to the task. It would be a responsible handover, Obama said.
The squishy terminology didn't please Democrats even before Wednesday's all-day testimony, during which Gates and the rest made clear that Obama wants to hold to the exit plan if he can. They just wouldn't commit.
That pleased no one.
Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, told the trio they had the math backward: It should be one U.S. soldier to every three Afghans, not the five Americans for every Afghan recruit currently in the crucial Taliban bastion of Helmand province.
"I would like to see an endpoint," Sen. James Webb, D-Va., said. "And this is something that you can expect to hear more from our perspective on over the coming months. What exactly is going to bring about the conditions under which we can end our involvement?"
Republicans have backed the troop surge since the war's commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, proposed it last summer and wanted the three witnesses at the hearing to do away with the deadline window-dressing altogether. That provided better theater than the Democrats' reluctant discontent.
Republicans got Gates to say that the July 2011 date is intended to mean different things to different audiences.
To the Afghan government, it's a prod to improve and a reminder that the United States won't be its policeman forever, Gates said. To Americans sick of the war, it pledges that the United States won't be in Afghanistan for another decade, he also said.
"I would just like to remind everyone there is another audience that wasn't mentioned by Secretary Gates," growled Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "It's the enemy. They have a vote in this war."
Republicans also pounced on Gates' reference to a review he said the administration will do a year from now, with six months to run on the surge. At that point, the president could order adjustments if he needs to, Gates said.
"We're going to look throughout the process, particularly in December 2010, and make a decision then as to whether we should withdraw at a certain pace or not withdraw at all?" Graham asked.
"I guess the way I would phrase it is that ... it is our plan to begin this transition process in July of 2011 if circumstances dictate in December," Gates replied.
"So his statement last night did not bind him to start withdrawing in 2011? That's the understanding of this panel?"
News Source: The Associated Press
Help Need
President Barack Obama started the clock on the U.S. war in Afghanistan this week, announcing that the beginning of the end would come in July 2011 even as he massively expanded the war by ordering 30,000 new U.S. forces into the fray.
Selling that mixed message to Congress just hours later, Obama's three chief war managers promptly put the countdown on hold. The exit strategy isn't absolute, they said, disappointing Democrats for whom the July 2011 date was meant as an olive branch from a Democratic president bearing bad news.
No, said Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the United States wouldn't pack its bags before the Afghan security forces are ready to pick up the job.
"We're not just going to throw these guys into the swimming pool and walk away," the defense chief said during a daylong promotional tour on Capitol Hill. In the course of Obama's long deliberations about the strategy announced Tuesday, Gates went on record as saying that deadlines are a foolhardy exercise and that the duration of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan is an unfathomable mystery.
But back to Capitol Hill, where Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said no, the United States isn't bound to a calendar for the war.
"I do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving," Clinton said. "It is the best assessment of our military experts ... that by July 2011 there can be the beginning of a responsible transition that will of course be based on conditions."
And no, said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the commander in chief hasn't necessarily said his last word on the subject.
"The president has choices as the president," Mullen said, looking a bit glum.
The military certainly doesn't want an open-ended war, having already fought in Afghanistan for more than eight years with little to show for it, but Mullen didn't want to be the guy putting Obama on the spot.
The Obama administration says July 2011 is a "transition point," a time to begin turning over authority to Afghan security forces that have proved themselves up to the task. It would be a responsible handover, Obama said.
The squishy terminology didn't please Democrats even before Wednesday's all-day testimony, during which Gates and the rest made clear that Obama wants to hold to the exit plan if he can. They just wouldn't commit.
That pleased no one.
Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, told the trio they had the math backward: It should be one U.S. soldier to every three Afghans, not the five Americans for every Afghan recruit currently in the crucial Taliban bastion of Helmand province.
"I would like to see an endpoint," Sen. James Webb, D-Va., said. "And this is something that you can expect to hear more from our perspective on over the coming months. What exactly is going to bring about the conditions under which we can end our involvement?"
Republicans have backed the troop surge since the war's commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, proposed it last summer and wanted the three witnesses at the hearing to do away with the deadline window-dressing altogether. That provided better theater than the Democrats' reluctant discontent.
Republicans got Gates to say that the July 2011 date is intended to mean different things to different audiences.
To the Afghan government, it's a prod to improve and a reminder that the United States won't be its policeman forever, Gates said. To Americans sick of the war, it pledges that the United States won't be in Afghanistan for another decade, he also said.
"I would just like to remind everyone there is another audience that wasn't mentioned by Secretary Gates," growled Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "It's the enemy. They have a vote in this war."
Republicans also pounced on Gates' reference to a review he said the administration will do a year from now, with six months to run on the surge. At that point, the president could order adjustments if he needs to, Gates said.
"We're going to look throughout the process, particularly in December 2010, and make a decision then as to whether we should withdraw at a certain pace or not withdraw at all?" Graham asked.
"I guess the way I would phrase it is that ... it is our plan to begin this transition process in July of 2011 if circumstances dictate in December," Gates replied.
"So his statement last night did not bind him to start withdrawing in 2011? That's the understanding of this panel?"
News Source: The Associated Press
Help Need
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Obama orders 30,000-troop boost in Afghanistan
WEST POINT, N.Y. - Declaring "our security is at stake," President Barack Obama ordered an additional 30,000 U.S. troops into the long war in Afghanistan Tuesday night, nearly tripling the force he inherited as commander in chief. He promised an impatient public he would begin bringing units home in 18 months.
The buildup to about 100,000 troops will begin almost immediately , the first Marines will be in place by Christmas , and will cost $30 billion for the first year alone.
In a prime-time speech at the U.S. Military Academy, the president told the nation his new policy was designed to "bring this war to a successful conclusion," though he made no mention of defeating Taliban insurgents or capturing al-Qaida terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.
"We must deny al-Qaida a safe haven," Obama said in spelling out U.S. military goals for a war that has dragged on for eight years. "We must reverse the Taliban's momentum. ... And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government."
The president said the additional forces would be deployed at "the fastest pace possible so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers."
Their destination: "the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaida."
"It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak," the president said.
It marked the second time in his young presidency that Obama has added to the American force in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has recently made significant advances. When he became president last January, there were roughly 34,000 troops on the ground; there now are 71,000.
After the speech, cadets in the audience , some of whom could end up in combat because of Obama's decision , climbed over chairs to shake hands with their commander in chief and take his picture.
Obama's announcement drew less-wholehearted support from congressional Democrats. Many of them favor a quick withdrawal, but others have already proposed higher taxes to pay for the fighting.
Republicans reacted warily, as well. Officials said Sen. John McCain, who was Obama's Republican opponent in last year's presidential campaign, told Obama at an early evening meeting attended by numerous lawmakers that declaring a timetable for a withdrawal would merely send the Taliban underground until the Americans began to leave.
As a candidate, Obama called Afghanistan a war worth fighting, as opposed to Iraq, a conflict he opposed and has since begun easing out of.
A new survey by the Gallup organization, released Tuesday, showed only 35 percent of Americans now approve of Obama's handling of the war; 55 percent disapprove.
He made no direct reference to public opinion Tuesday night, although he seemed to touch on it when he said, "The American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home."
"After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home," he said flatly.
In eight years of war, 849 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan and neighboring Uzbekistan, according to the Pentagon.
In addition to beefing up the U.S. presence, Obama has asked NATO allies to commit between 5,000 and 10,000 additional troops. The war has even less support in Europe than in the United States, and the NATO allies and other countries currently have about 40,000 troops on the ground.
He said he was counting on Afghanistan eventually taking over its own security, and he warned, "The days of providing a blank check are over." He said the United States would support Afghan ministries that combat corruption and "deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable."
As for neighboring Pakistan, the president said that country and the United States "share a common enemy" in Islamic terrorists. "We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border."
The speech before an audience of cadets at the military academy ended a three-month review of the war, triggered by a request from the commanding general, Stanley McChrystal, for as many as 40,000 more troops. Without them, he warned, the U.S. risked failure.
The speech was still under way when the general issued a statement from Kabul. "The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the president has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task," it said. McChrystal is expected to testify before congressional committees in the next several days.
Obama referred to a deteriorating military environment, but said, "Afghanistan is not lost."
The length of the presidential review drew mild rebukes from normally amiable NATO allies. There was sharper criticism from Republicans led by former Vice President Dick Cheney, who said the president was dithering rather than deciding.
Obama rebutted forcefully.
"Let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war," he told his audience of more than 4,000 cadets seated in Eisenhower Hall.
Most of the new forces will be combat troops. Military officials said the Army brigades were most likely to be sent from Fort Drum in New York and Fort Campbell in Kentucky; and Marines primarily from Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.
Officials said the additional 30,000 troops included about 5,000 dedicated trainers, underscoring the president's emphasis on preparing Afghans to take over their own security.
These aides said that by announcing a date for beginning a withdrawal, the president was not setting an end date for the war.
But that was a point on which McCain chose to engage the president at a pre-speech meeting with lawmakers before Obama departed for West Point. "The way that you win wars is to break the enemy's will, not to announce dates that you are leaving," McCain said later.
Obama's address represents the beginning of a sales job to restore support for the war effort among an American public grown increasingly pessimistic about success , and among some fellow Democrats in Congress wary of or even opposed to spending billions more dollars and putting tens of thousands more U.S. soldiers and Marines in harm's way.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and liberal House Democrats threatened to try to block funding for the troop increase.
Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who chairs a military oversight panel, said he didn't think Democrats would yank funding for the troops or try to force Obama's hand to pull them out faster. But Democrats will be looking for ways to pay for the additional troops, he said, including a tax increase on the wealthy although that hike is already being eyed to pay for health care costs. Another possibility is imposing a small gasoline tax that would be phased out if gas prices go up, he said.
The United States went to war in Afghanistan shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaida terrorist attacks on the United States.
Bin Laden and key members of the terrorist organization were headquartered in Afghanistan at the time, taking advantage of sanctuary afforded by the Taliban government that ran the mountainous and isolated country.
Taliban forces were quickly driven from power, while bin Laden and his top deputies were believed to have fled through towering mountains into neighboring Pakistan. While the al-Qaida leadership appears to be bottled up in Pakistan's largely ungoverned tribal regions, the U.S. military strategy of targeted missile attacks from unmanned drone aircraft has yet to flush bin Laden and his cohorts from hiding.
News Source: philly.com
Help Need
The buildup to about 100,000 troops will begin almost immediately , the first Marines will be in place by Christmas , and will cost $30 billion for the first year alone.
In a prime-time speech at the U.S. Military Academy, the president told the nation his new policy was designed to "bring this war to a successful conclusion," though he made no mention of defeating Taliban insurgents or capturing al-Qaida terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.
"We must deny al-Qaida a safe haven," Obama said in spelling out U.S. military goals for a war that has dragged on for eight years. "We must reverse the Taliban's momentum. ... And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government."
The president said the additional forces would be deployed at "the fastest pace possible so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers."
Their destination: "the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaida."
"It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak," the president said.
It marked the second time in his young presidency that Obama has added to the American force in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has recently made significant advances. When he became president last January, there were roughly 34,000 troops on the ground; there now are 71,000.
After the speech, cadets in the audience , some of whom could end up in combat because of Obama's decision , climbed over chairs to shake hands with their commander in chief and take his picture.
Obama's announcement drew less-wholehearted support from congressional Democrats. Many of them favor a quick withdrawal, but others have already proposed higher taxes to pay for the fighting.
Republicans reacted warily, as well. Officials said Sen. John McCain, who was Obama's Republican opponent in last year's presidential campaign, told Obama at an early evening meeting attended by numerous lawmakers that declaring a timetable for a withdrawal would merely send the Taliban underground until the Americans began to leave.
As a candidate, Obama called Afghanistan a war worth fighting, as opposed to Iraq, a conflict he opposed and has since begun easing out of.
A new survey by the Gallup organization, released Tuesday, showed only 35 percent of Americans now approve of Obama's handling of the war; 55 percent disapprove.
He made no direct reference to public opinion Tuesday night, although he seemed to touch on it when he said, "The American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home."
"After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home," he said flatly.
In eight years of war, 849 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan and neighboring Uzbekistan, according to the Pentagon.
In addition to beefing up the U.S. presence, Obama has asked NATO allies to commit between 5,000 and 10,000 additional troops. The war has even less support in Europe than in the United States, and the NATO allies and other countries currently have about 40,000 troops on the ground.
He said he was counting on Afghanistan eventually taking over its own security, and he warned, "The days of providing a blank check are over." He said the United States would support Afghan ministries that combat corruption and "deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable."
As for neighboring Pakistan, the president said that country and the United States "share a common enemy" in Islamic terrorists. "We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border."
The speech before an audience of cadets at the military academy ended a three-month review of the war, triggered by a request from the commanding general, Stanley McChrystal, for as many as 40,000 more troops. Without them, he warned, the U.S. risked failure.
The speech was still under way when the general issued a statement from Kabul. "The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the president has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task," it said. McChrystal is expected to testify before congressional committees in the next several days.
Obama referred to a deteriorating military environment, but said, "Afghanistan is not lost."
The length of the presidential review drew mild rebukes from normally amiable NATO allies. There was sharper criticism from Republicans led by former Vice President Dick Cheney, who said the president was dithering rather than deciding.
Obama rebutted forcefully.
"Let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war," he told his audience of more than 4,000 cadets seated in Eisenhower Hall.
Most of the new forces will be combat troops. Military officials said the Army brigades were most likely to be sent from Fort Drum in New York and Fort Campbell in Kentucky; and Marines primarily from Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.
Officials said the additional 30,000 troops included about 5,000 dedicated trainers, underscoring the president's emphasis on preparing Afghans to take over their own security.
These aides said that by announcing a date for beginning a withdrawal, the president was not setting an end date for the war.
But that was a point on which McCain chose to engage the president at a pre-speech meeting with lawmakers before Obama departed for West Point. "The way that you win wars is to break the enemy's will, not to announce dates that you are leaving," McCain said later.
Obama's address represents the beginning of a sales job to restore support for the war effort among an American public grown increasingly pessimistic about success , and among some fellow Democrats in Congress wary of or even opposed to spending billions more dollars and putting tens of thousands more U.S. soldiers and Marines in harm's way.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and liberal House Democrats threatened to try to block funding for the troop increase.
Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who chairs a military oversight panel, said he didn't think Democrats would yank funding for the troops or try to force Obama's hand to pull them out faster. But Democrats will be looking for ways to pay for the additional troops, he said, including a tax increase on the wealthy although that hike is already being eyed to pay for health care costs. Another possibility is imposing a small gasoline tax that would be phased out if gas prices go up, he said.
The United States went to war in Afghanistan shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaida terrorist attacks on the United States.
Bin Laden and key members of the terrorist organization were headquartered in Afghanistan at the time, taking advantage of sanctuary afforded by the Taliban government that ran the mountainous and isolated country.
Taliban forces were quickly driven from power, while bin Laden and his top deputies were believed to have fled through towering mountains into neighboring Pakistan. While the al-Qaida leadership appears to be bottled up in Pakistan's largely ungoverned tribal regions, the U.S. military strategy of targeted missile attacks from unmanned drone aircraft has yet to flush bin Laden and his cohorts from hiding.
News Source: philly.com
Help Need
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)