BLOG

Now that my free trial period with Bloomberg Law is coming to an end I wanted to share my thoughts. 

Bloomberg has put together a platform that has some innovative features and great design elements. Building a platform from the ground up has allowed them to really make use of the best web technologies, something which both Lexis and Westlaw should consider. Searches are opened in separate tabs so that you can view each case and return to something you have seen without losing your place. Absolutely a great idea. 

Also, Bloomberg has perpetual history, no reason that your history should expire in two weeks, and that makes it somewhat easier to review things you have seen. 

There also is a clever note taking tool that allows you put notes next to cases, so that they will be there when you next look at the case. This is a nice feature to allow you to avoid rereading things you should already remember seeing. 

In general, the interface is quite nice, though there are some aspects that could use refinement. 

In terms of content, however, Bloomberg is way behind the big boys. Secondary content is limited, much of what is available are proprietary journals and not more general interest content.  Most cases have no headnotes or summaries and coverage seems to vary significantly by jurisdiction.  I ran a test search in NJ Cases on Lexis and Bloomberg, and Lexis had many more hits than Bloomberg. Right now, I just was not sure I could trust Bloomberg for my serious research needs. 

Also poorly considered is Bloomberg's pricing, which is one size fits all. I currently have a contract with Lexis that limits me to certain jurisdictions, but that resulted in a much lower price than the $450 a month charge that Bloomberg is seeking. Right now, I just do not see any research service being worth that much, but certainly not Bloomberg. 

New NYC Comptroller wants to control the Community Development Agreements that developers use to convince local politicians to support big projects in the City. This is probably too little too late, but these unregulate agreements over promise and under-deliver, often due to the fecklessness of NYC officials as well as developers. Full story here.

I have a new column up at NewJerseyNewsroom on what to do when you fall behind on your mortgage.  Click here for the full piece.

I am a huge fan of Google Apps, particularly the ability to have full Gmail, contacts and Google Calendar for my own domain.  What was missing was the ability to merge my gmail contacts with those on my domain's contacts list.  This was particularly frustrating because I use Google Voice and it was linked to my personal Gmail.  Thankfully, Soocial.com, a product I have been using to keep Outlook contacts in sync with Gmail, and which is totally free, now allows you to set up multiple Gmail accounts for syncing, including Google Apps accounts.  This will make my life much easier, and makes Google Apps an even better free solution for email. 

Bergen County residents can get a free radon test from the Bergen County Executive.  More information on radon can be found here

The Bergen County Executive issued the following press release:

Bergen County Executive Dennis McNerney and the Department of Health Services (BCDHS) announce free radon test kits will be given on a first come, first serve basis to county residents. Free test kits will be available for Bergen County residents in the lobby of the Bergen County Administration Building, One Bergen County Plaza in Hackensack on Wednesday, February 3, from 10 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Kits are also available by contacting the BCDHS Environmental Program at 201-634-2803. Residents can also obtain a kit in person at 327 E. Ridgewood Avenue, Room 103A in Paramus. After the supply of free kits has been distributed, kits will also be available for purchase for $20. Some home improvement stores sell test kits as well.
__._,_.___

I have written several times at Newjerseynewsroom.com about health care reform, which unfortunately is more about health insurance reform than a full reform of our health care system.  The plan that is emerging is not good, but better than the status quo.  

One aspect of the reform that is quite troubling is the excise tax on "cadillac plans."  Unions strongly oppose this concept because they have traded salary for generous benefits for years and now will be taxed on those plans at 40% (assuming that insurance companies directly pass the 40% tax straight through to customers in their premiums).  This has become a huge political problem for Obama, who most working families now realize is much more conservative than he had seemed to be during the primary campaign.  Unions are the most important aspect of the Democratic Party apparatus and without strong union support, Congressional majorities (not just supermajorities) could be in huge trouble.
 
The political aspects of this are clear, and the excise tax will almost certainly get scaled back before the bill passes the House. But what about the economic justifications for this concept?

Economists state that employer paid insurance premiums come out of salary.  This is true, but causing an increase in premiums will not give indiviudals any greater opportunity to choose plans, or give them a larger salary.  Salaries may eventually catch up to where they would be without generous benefits, but it won't happen instantaneously.  Furthermore, raising the cost of health insurance does not mean that you will force cost controls in health care, which is the ultimate goal. 

The fiction that health insurance and health care are one and the same is one that has gone on for a long time, but it is just that, a fiction.  Health insurance costs have little relationship to what they truly cover and even successfully limiting their rise will not force down payments for actual care.

In addition, the excise tax is going to be imposed nationally, with one threshold, without regard to the fact that certain areas of the country are significantly more expensive than others.  Should you pay a tax because you live in New York or New Jersey? Should you pay a tax because you are at a small company with a relatively old work force, which therefore pays a lot for insurance?

Last week, the New York Times ran a piece discussing how efforts to keep people in their homes by restructuring mortgages were not only failing but detrimental to those people who really should just move out and move on.  This might actually be true to an extent, though the Times primary concern was of course with the state of the banking system (who cares about people when Chase's bottom line is at stake). 

Today, however, in discussing New York City's commercial real estate market, the Times discussed only how complex structured finance deals would make working out the problems at many properties difficult and time consuming.  Of course, if the banking system needs quick foreclosures to right itself (and it might) then it certainly will need that in commercial real estate, which is about as hard hit as any subprime property. What the Times fails to do is point out that structured finance is only complicated when you are worried about the subordinate debt, but the primary mortgage holders can foreclose and should do so (even if securitized, someone services the loan, collects the money and makes decisions about foreclosures and defaults).  Quickly foreclosing on these properties will bring them down to their real worth, which is substantially less than the amount of even the first mortgages on many properties.  In addition, unlike in a residential foreclosure, there is no family to toss out on the street.  The banks can take the properties and rent them out the same way developers do.  

  

Today it appears that the Stuyvesant Town purchase by Tishman Speyer and its partners will go down as one of the biggest real estate flops ever.  The huge residential complex was purchased for $5.4 Billion in 2006, and never really made much sense.  As the New York Times is reporting, Tishman Speyer and Blackrock are planning to default on this months mortgage payment. This deal would have fallen apart even had the economy not tanked, and it would probably be best if the mortgage lenders just foreclosed on the property, wiping out Tishman and most of the debtholders who are holding what seems to be utterly worthless paper at this point.

I have had some interesting responses to my cable tv column at newjerseynewsroom.com. I am hoping to do a followup piece to discuss some of the things people have pointed out to me, so please feel free to email me any comments you might have.

I have a new column up at newjerseynewsroom on the Cablevision/HGTV dispute. Check it out here.