New York

Editor’s Note: Entrepreneur Media is an investor and partner with Alley, a co-working space in New York City. 

When we started Alley in 2012, we called it “the most badass co-working space on the planet.”

As the years have gone by, the ecosystem has rapidly evolved. We now refer to Alley as an entrepreneurial  and a platform for growth, because the value proposition at Alley is not just a cool place to work. Rather, the value of our membership is to be part of a thriving and vibrant, diverse community of tastemakers, thinkers and doers. As we all know, you need to make the right connections with the right people at the right time to grow your business – and we want to be there to help.

Keeping our community thriving and relevant means we can never stop creating new channels of communication with different communities. This is why we’ve entered into a unique collaboration with .

Related: 

We believe our collaboration with NYU Steinhardt marks the first time a company like ours will have a presence inside the campus of a major university.

Earlier this week we began managing a space on NYU’s Washington Square campus dedicated to NYU Steinhardt’s initiatives to support education entrepreneurship and education technologies. The space was opened to NYU faculty and students, as well as nine companies selected for .

Each of these nine companies will receive up to $170,000 in funding and participate in an intensive three-month mentor-led accelerator program dedicated to education entrepreneurship. The program culminates in a demo day when the companies present their business plans to a network of angel and venture capital investors in education.

We’re developing a series of programs and events for the startups, students, and faculty involved in the Edtech Incubator and Accelerator. We’ll also provide the nine startups with complimentary access to Alley’s technology dashboard that facilitates event management and booking space in the Incubator.

Related: 

“We want to empower education entrepreneurs by bringing them together with our researchers, students, teachers, school administrators, policymakers, and leaders in finance to develop breakthrough ideas that measurably improve learning outcomes for all students,” Dominic Brewer, the Gale and Ira Drukier Dean of NYU Steinhardt told me. “In an effort to build this community, it was natural for us to want to work with Alley to bring our incubator space to life, given Alley’s track record of creating similar communities of  — spaces that are so much more than just work spaces.”

These startups will also have about three dozen of the edtech industry’s most respected leaders in the education and technology fields as mentors and advisors. I’m one of them. The others include CEOs and founders of successful edtech startups, active edtech venture capitalists and angel investors, leaders of the largest educational publishers, technology enablers and functional specialists from the largest technology firms and education researchers and policy experts.

And this doesn’t even count the broader Alley entrepreneurial community, starting with the hundreds of member companies using Alley space in Chelsea and Midtown Manhattan.

Related: 

We’re excited about supporting this effort because it’s a continuation of Alley’s commitment to nurturing startups in the edtech space and of our expansion of the Alley community into schools of higher , where many entrepreneurs are working on the next big thing.

At Alley, we’ve partnered with many leading accelerators from the start, such as , one of the most successful startup accelerators in the world, and (ERA) which takes place at one of Alley’s Midtown spaces.

We’ve also partnered with Columbia Business School to create programming that will engage the Columbia community and the community at Alley and just last month powered the New York demo day for MIT’s premier student accelerator.

Related: 

New York is the home to the largest K-12 public school system in the country and the largest urban public university system. The Northeast is home to over 800 educational startups. This makes New York City “the natural epicenter for education,” as Dean Brewer puts it.

But, again, the number-one reason I’m pumped about working with NYU is because it’s a huge opportunity to expand the Alley community.

To remain relevant and vibrant, we need to expand our entrepreneurial community both to forward-thinking schools like NYU, where the next generation is creating the next big thing and to seasoned entrepreneurs and large companies keen to tap into the ethos of startup culture to spur their own innovations.

This is why our collaboration with NYU Steinhardt is one of our most powerful to date.

The Future of the New York Times In my opinion there should not be a “trade-off between the company philosophy and the core goals of sustainability, profitability, and growth”. The goal of any company and organization is to survive. Companies and organizations create mission statements and set forth goals. Pearce and Robinson (2013) states “the unique purpose that sets a company apart from others of its type and identifies the scope of its operations in product, market, and technology terms” (pg. 3). The mission statement or philosophy that is a distinguishing factor of differences between companies, helping to set for the company’s operations and ethics for their products, as well as for their place in the market, as well as in the community. With the New York Times, the message given (mission) is to deliver responsive and accurate “journalism” to their customers, as well as to areas outside of New York.

The New York Times has lived up to its mission, by adhering to its ideals; the New York Times has foregone being profitable, as well as sacrificing growth. In the article we read,” The constancy of their commitment to high-cost journalism has put the Sulzberger family in an increasingly contrarian position…the Sulzberger’s have subsidized the Times in valuing good journalism and the prestige it confers over profits and the wealth it creates…for much of its history, the Times barely broke even” (Bianco, 2005, p. 65).

How a company image is portrayed to the world is a crucial factor and element of their values, ethical standards, mission and goals. The New York Times, without the Sulzberger’s wealth, would have failed years ago with its current stated mission and goals. The New York Times needs to take a step back and examine where they started, where they have been, where they are now and where they want to go, as well at taking a good look at today’s world and begin to benchmark their competitors and creating a new vision for the New York Times.

The Sulzberger’s and Bill Keller are giving the impression that they are endeavoring to changes in order and moving away from their belief “that quality journalism pays in the long run” (Bianco, 2005), it’s hard to change 100 plus years of business strategy. In all companies, not just the New York Times, the image portrayed is important and may also determine a company’s credibility, as well as its future. The value system, including its mission and goals will set the direction of the company.

The ethic’s which are portrayed daily need to be consistent with the direction that the company has set from the top (President & CEO and Board of Directors) on down to each and every employee. Years of hard work in preserving a company’s image and place in the community can be lost in a single failure or lack of foresight. References Bianco, A. , Rossant, J. , & Gard, L. (2005). The future of the new york times. Businessweek, 3916, 64-72. Pearce, J. A. , & Robinson, R. B. (2013). Strategic

Airbnb has filed suit against the state of New York after Gov. Mario Cuomo signed into law a bill that restricts how Airbnb hosts can operate in the region.

New York law already bans rentals of 30 days or less if the owner of the property is not present. The  signed by Gov. Cuomo, from Democratic Assembly member Linda B. Rosenthal, goes one step further and bans New York homeowners from advertising such rentals on Airbnb’s website. Those who do so risk fines of $1,000 for the first violation, $5,000 for a second violation and $7,500 if caught a third time.

“Now, we have strong laws on the books to protect affordable housing and tenant’s rights,” Rosenthal said in a  posted to Facebook.

Supporters argue that homeowners are flipping what used to be permanent rental properties into short-term Airbnb rentals or unregulated hotels, thereby reducing rental inventory in cities already in the midst of a housing crunch and forcing full-time residents to live next to a revolving door of travelers.

Airbnb says the bill is nothing more than a handout to the hotel industry.

“In typical fashion, Albany back-room dealing rewarded a special interest — the price-gouging hotel industry — and ignored the voices of tens of thousands of New Yorkers,” Airbnb said in a statement. “A majority of New Yorkers have embraced home sharing, and we will continue to fight for a smart policy solution that works for the the people, not the powerful.”

The company said it would file suit in New York on Friday afternoon.

Prior to Gov. Cuomo signing the legislation, Airbnb’s head of public policy, Chris Lehane,  in the New York Daily News that proposed “a comprehensive set of clear, fair rules for home-sharing in New York City to serve as the framework for new legislation.”

At the heart of Airbnb’s plan is a provision that Lehane says will limit renters to leasing a single home within New York’s five boroughs. Lehane also backed a registration system for short-term rental hosts — similar to the online program it recently created in Chicago — as well as a “three strikes” policy that would bar hosts from the service after repeatedly breaking the rules.

Cuomo, however, ultimately backed Rosenthal’s bill. “This is an issue that was given careful, deliberate consideration, but ultimately these activities are already expressly prohibited by law,” a spokesman for the governor .

NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who has  on this issue for several years, said in a  that “The law signed today will provide vital protections for New York tenants and help prevent the continued proliferation of illegal, unregulated hotels and we will defend it. Airbnb can’t have it both ways: it must either police illegal activity on its own site — or government will act to protect New Yorkers, as the State just did.”

According to Airbnb’s suit, the bill signed by Gov. Cuomo violates the Federal Communications Decency Act, the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution and the home rule clause of the New York State Constitution. “The bill bears a striking resemblance to a similar ordinance banning advertising in Anaheim, CA; we filed suit against the city of Anaheim and the city immediately  any of the provisions aimed at platforms, recognizing that its ordinance violated the” Communications Decency Act, Airbnb says.

Fast-food restaurants in New York may soon be increasing employee pay – even if the statewide minimum wage doesn’t increase.

On Monday, a panel organized by the New York state government to study fast-food wages revealed plans to recommend a substantial increase in worker pay to the state’s Department of Labor.

The three members of the panel said research and public meetings led them to conclude that a change is necessary, though they are not yet prepared to make a full recommendation to the State Labor Department. Possible ideas suggested include raising minimum wage for fast-food workers to $15 an hour and creating a higher minimum wage for part-time workers to incentivize the hiring of full-time employees, reports the .

Related: 

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo directed the Department of Labor to establish a wage board to examine raising the minimum wage for fast-food workers in May. The panel stated that New York chose to focus on the fast-food industry due to an imbalance in what fast-food workers are paid, citing statistics such as the fact that 60 percent of fast-food workers in the state are enrolled in at least one public assistance program.

Meanwhile, the restaurant and wider franchise industry have opposed efforts to raise minimum wage that single out the fast-food industry.

“New York State can raise its minimum wage if it wants to. But it should not pick off one industry at a time,” International Franchise Association President Steve Caldeira said in a statement on the issue in May. “Doing so would echo the ill-conceived action of the City of Seattle, which is being sued because it designed an unconstitutional minimum wage that rises faster for franchise businesses than other types of businesses.”

The board’s final recommendation is expected to be announced .

Related: 

The Causes and Effects of Popularity of Fast Food Restaurants Essay

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City

438 U.S. 104

            At the time this case arose, New York City had a law meant to protect and preserve historical landmarks. Once a building or area was deemed a landmark, if an owner wished to make changes or additions to it, those changes had to be approved by the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission. Such changes could be approved by any of three certificates: a certificate of no effect, one of appropriateness, or insufficient returns. Penn Central Transportation Company owned a significant historic New York City landmark, the Grand Central Terminal. Penn Central decided to construct a multi story office building atop the landmark, with the promise of substantial profit, and submitted two plans to the commission for approval.

The commission then refused their request, denying certificates for the addition claiming that it would overwhelm the landmark itself and destroy the views of the terminal. Penn Central had the option of judicial review of the commission’s decision, but did not seek such a review. Rather, it asserted that by applying the Landmark Law, New York City had taken its property.

            The issue brought before the Court was therefore, whether New York City and its Landmark Preservation Law had unconstitutionally “taken” the land where the Terminal stood owned by Penn Central, in violation of the 5th Amendment.

            In reaching its decision, the Court had to address three factors: the monetary impact of the Landmark Law on Penn Central, how greatly the law had affected Penn Central’s investment backed expectations, and if the law unjustly effected Penn Central more than other landmark owners in the city. The Court relied heavily on past cases such as Maher v. New Orleans, 516 F. 2d 1051, Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272, and Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394, each with similar aspects as the case at hand.

            The Court cited Maher v. New Orleans to demonstrate that neither a decreased property value, as asserted by Penn Central, nor the refusal to allow an owner to do certain things to their property constitute a taking of such property. Furthermore, since Penn Central did still own the terminal, the Landmark Law in no way prevented them from making a profit off of the property. In fact, Penn Central already profited from the lease of the offices inside of the terminal at the time, and there was no reason to assume that this profit was not Penn Central’s initial expectation at the time when they decided to purchase the property. Finally citing Miller v. Schoene and Hadacheck v. Sebastian, the Court determined that the law was not discriminatory. Just because it affected Penn Central more than some other landmark owners, it did not illustrate that New York City had taken their property in violation of the Constitution.

            The Court held that by upholding the New York City Landmark Law, New York had not taken Penn Central’s property.

Resources

The United States Supreme Court, “Syllabus Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York.”

            Cornell University Law School. n.d.. Cornell University Law School. 11 May 2008

            <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0438_0104_ZS.html>.

Brennan, “Opinion Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York.” Cornell University Law

            School. n.d.. Cornell University Law School. 11 May 2008

            <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0438_0104_ZO.html>.

Document: Herbert Hoover’s “New York City Speech” (1928) 1. What type of document is this? (Ex. Newspaper, telegram, map, letter, memorandum, congressional record) This document must have been excerpt from a record of Hoover’s Speech,”New York City,” in The New Day: Campaign Speeches of Herbert Hoover, 1928. This speech was published in Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1928), pp. 149-76. 2. For what audience was the document written? Herbert Hoover is speaking to the general population of the United States and given in New York. 3.

What do you find interesting or important about this document? The main concept of the speech is the United States has its own unique social/ government system known as liberalism. That liberalism allows us citizens’ freedom, equality, and opportunity. 4. Is there a particular phrase or section that you find particularly meaningful or surprising? Quote, “If anyone will study the causes of retarded recuperation in Europe, he will find much of it due to the stifling of private initiative on one hand, and overloading of the Government with business on the other. This phrase uses the word retarded out of all the other word choices out there. I believe Hoover used “retarded” to relate to the audience and catch their attention. 5. What does this document tell you about life in this culture at the time it was written? This document provides certain aspects of the culture around 1928. War was justified but feared because it could have the potential to destroy America’s system and freedom.

Allison Hwang Swanson 10:30 11/16/2012 Reconstruction’s Failure Although the Civil War finally managed to come to a close, the end of the war wasn’t exactly met with celebration. Instead, the Civil War brought up many new problems that were left unresolved. In order to solve these problems, the congress took responsibility and worked its way to “reconstruct” our nation. The main purpose of the “Congressional Reconstruction” was to ‘establish and protect the citizenship rights of the freedmen’.

However, the Congress’ Reconstruction efforts did not last too long and came to an end by the year of 1877. The main reasons for the failure of the reconstruction efforts were due to the conflicting views and factors upon the purpose of reconstruction. There were much political opposition from the north and the south as well as from the republicans and the democrats, the entire nation was facing economic hardships, and the attempt to place the freedmen in the same social level as the white southerners caused so much tension that the efforts of the Congress’ Reconstruction gradually failed.

Even though the 13th and the 14th Amendments were ratified in 1866, which ensured equal rights of all citizens, many of the white population continued to treat the former slaves with inequality. Ignorance was one of the biggest factors that led to the failure of the efforts of the congress reconstruction. Although the former slaves were not granted liberty and freedom, they were still treated with inequality because many of the white men continued to believe that the black men should not have the equal rights as the white men. Pennsylvania Congressman Benjamin Boyer, a Democrat, said, “it is not the complexion of the negro that degrades him…. race by nature inferior in mental caliber…the negroes are not the equals of white Americans, and are not entitled…to participate in the Government of this country…” In his speech, Congressman Boyer basically denies the right of the African Americans to vote simply due to his belief that black men falls short of the white and that they aren’t smart enough. In the excerpt in the New York Times it reads, “‘Ku Klux Klan’ …its grand purpose being to establish a nucleus around which ‘the adherents of the late rebellion might safely rally. ” The Ku Klux Klan was an organization that was formed in order to go against the purpose of the congress and lynch black men. Such activities were racially and violently performed, which undermined the Congress’ efforts to ensure equal rights to freedmen. In the excerpts from the editorial, Atlanta News, it says, “If the white democrats of the North are men, they will not stand idly by and see us borne down by northern radicals and half-barbarous Negroes. But no matter what they may do, it is time for us to organize. ” This editorial displays the racism that was demonstrated during the 1870s.

The editorial is advocating the southern and the democratic whites to come together to stop the black. It refers to the black men as “half-barbarous negroes” which racially displays the belief of the whites of how the black men are far inferior compared to them. Racism was one of the big factors that led to the failure of the reconstruction. Another main factor that played a key role in the downfall of the congress reconstruction was the political opposition from the north and the south as well as against the democrats and the republicans. In an excerpt from The Era of Reconstruction it reads, “In May 1872….

Congress passed a general amnesty act which restored the right of office holding [and voting] to the vast majority of those who had been disqualified. ” The restoration of the voting rights to the white Southerners undermined the efforts to preserve and protect the voting rights of the freedmen. This was so because when they gave back the rights to vote to the white southerners, the Congress increased the number of white voters. Thus these voters took more political positions away from the freedmen. Also in November 1974, the headline text from the New York Times read, “DEMOCRATIC VICTORY; CONGRESS TO BE DEMOCRATIC. The victory of the Democratic only further affected the downfall of the efforts of the congress’ reconstructions. Their victory helped undermine the Congress’ efforts to help the freedmen because the democrats were simply against the reconstruction. The opposing political viewpoints amongst the nation only further adds to why the Congress’ Reconstruction efforts to ensure equal rights to the freedmen failed. The final main factor that played a big role in the downfall of the Congress’ Reconstruction was the economic hardships that both the north and the south had to face after the Civil War.

The civil war left the nation in ruins as far as being economically devastated. Although the slaves were finally granted their freedom after over 200 years of fighting, they did not know what to do the moment they actually achieved their freedom. Although some blacks took advantage and became successful, there were many others who were left on the streets with no source of income to fend for themselves. In an excerpt from a book written by Dr. W. E. E. DuBois it reads, “But the decisive influence was the systematic and overwhelming economic pressure.

Negroes who wanted work must not dabble in politics… in order to earn a living, the American Negro was compelled to give up his political power. ” According to Dubois, the freedmen were “convinced” to stop voting or taking part in political events because they were under economic pressure. They weren’t to “dabble in politics” if they wanted to increase their income and to earn a living. The economic pressure of the slaves could also be seen in an interview with a man named John McCoy. He was born in 1838 and had lived 27 years as a slave in Texas.

In the interview he says, “Freedom wasn’t no different I knows of. I works for Marse John just the same for a long time. He say one morning, “…. I’ll feed you and give you clothes but can’t pay you no money. I ain’t got none. ” Humph, I didn’t know nothing what money was, nohow, but I knows I’ll git plenty victuals to eat, so I stays…” This recollection by John McCoy displays the idea that the slaves may have even been better off to actually stay with their owners who will feed them and clothe them. This goes against the whole idea and purpose of the entire Civil War and the Congress’ Reconstruction.

Due to the economic hardships during the 1870s, John decided to stay with his owner despite being granted his freedom because he did not even have knowledge as to what money was and was simply grateful for the food and the clothing that his owner would provide for him in exchange for labor. There were a lot of different reasons that led to the failure of the efforts of the Congress’ Reconstruction to ensure equal rights to the freedmen. The three main reasons that affected the Congress’ Reconstruction efforts the most were political oppositions, economic hardships, and racial differences.

The constant conflicts between the different viewpoints of the democrats and the republicans undermined the purpose of the Reconstruction efforts. Racism played a big role in that the white men continued to look down on the black men and always felt superior compared to them. Economic hardships were also very important in the failure of the reconstruction efforts in that some slaves felt as though staying with their owners despite their gained freedom was better than fighting for survival alone on the streets. In the end, despite all the efforts of the congress, the reconstruction came to an end in 1877.