Related already has one mall in the Bronx, why is the city giving it another one? Smells like a monopoly suit to me.

As for Bloomy, instead of being a dick, he should listen to the council and start searching for another developer.

Don't worry about reality:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/12/04/black-youths-miss-out-on-good-jobs-news/

I'm sure this has nothing to do with "a living wage."

can this motherf'er stop transferring all the precious nyc tax money into useless developments to make himself and his developer pals fatter? i mean.. when does it end?? how could one of the biggest cities in america be run by such a dirtbag white collar criminal?

Wouldn't this be ironic and poetic justice if for the next four years, the City Council votes exactly opposite what Bloomberg wants and overrides all his vetoes? Bloomberg could have the most ineffectual mayoral term in recent history. He wouldn't be a lame duck. He'd be foie gras. Well, I can dream, can't I?

Just to clarify my comment above because I read it again I'm not sure I worded it clearly:

The council voted to KILL the plan. They didn't fail to vote to approve it.

The motion to kill the development passed, so that motion could be vetoed. However, Bloomberg actually has said he will not veto it; all of the above links are at least a day old.

here's a lot of resentment against Related over how the city seemingly has lain down and rolled over for the developer, with folks pointing to the close relationship between now former Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Dan Doctoroff and his former boss Steve Ross at Related. Doctoroff also shepherded for Related that diabetic sweetheart deal on the Gateway Center mall at the former Bronx Terminal Market.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/bronx/2009/12/15/2009-12-15_winners__losers_in_that_armory_fight.html?page=1#ixzz0ZtFzUpTO

who was the lone dick vote?

and please with the now there are no jobs excuse. oh, thank you massa bloomie fo givin us jobs.

there's been double digit unemployment in the bronx for decades.

Helen Sears, she is gone next year :D

that's interesting, I wonder why?

even quinn voted against this project. I didn't see Sears mentioned in the Times article but did see it's the bronx who has the highest unemployment in the city.

Quinn needs the Bronx Machine on her side to win Speaker next year. AS soon as she is reelected Speaker again, the Mayor will have his self rule again as well. Quinn is just pretending to listen to the community. I don't understand Sears, never did. She always seem batty to me. Meet her a few times and she looks like she's missing a link.

"Bronx residents are asking themselves whether it would have been better to have 1,200 low-paying jobs than no jobs at all."

Exactly. Next year when there's still double-diget unemployment and still no signs of improvement for average workers, they'll be pissed. And good luck finding a developer willing to put that knid of money into the area again with a council known to demand such caveats on projects.

the company was set to receive more than $50 million in tax credits and exemptions, the developers weren't in it for the community but for themselves.

That doesn't mean that the community can't benefit from the development by getting jobs.

I know that the guy who owns the company I work for is in it for himself and not for me, but I still get a paycheck from his venture.

Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Dan Doctoroff also worked for Related. If the private entities wants to be subsidized by the public for this project then they must give in return. 50 million can be used instead to finance more small businesses in NYC.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but how can Bloomberg veto something that was voted down? The mayor can only veto something that the Council passes and submits for his signature.

Simple, actually: it was a motion to disapprove the plan. A "Yes" vote meant no such develop, a "No" vote meant the plan went on.

The motion passed; the mayor can veto it.

But this is yesterday's news -- check the dates on the links above. Today's news is that Bloomberg says he will not intervene.

A veto is just an executive override to the decision of a legislative body. It doesn't matter what the decision was, the veto just means it will go the other way.

No. If the Congress votes to not pass a bill the president can't then turn around and veto the no vote in order to enact the legislation himself. The president can only veto legislation that's been passed, and Congress can then override that refusal.

More likely, the City Council voted yes to legislation that would ban the project, or that would require a $10 minimum wage at any proposed mall (or something like that), and now the mayor can veto that. Which the Council will override, giving them at least three overrides in the last week. Not good for Bloomie.

yeah can somebody please clear this up?

The Times story says it was part of the ULURP process, so maybe any vote either up or down under ULURP needs mayoral approval. Must be a ULURP thing.