War on rats gets ugly as hundreds of ‘eyesore' Empire Bins gobble up parking spaces in Harlem
These drivers are in for rat-ical change.
West Harlem has become the first neighborhood in the United States to have all of its trash containerized in order to squash uptown rats' curbside trash feasts, City Hall officials said Monday – but the hundreds of UFO-like 'Empire Bins' are now permanently taking some coveted parking spots, The Post has learned.
Advertisement
4 West Harlem has become the first neighborhood in the United States to have all of its trash containerized in an attempt to squash uptown rats' curbside trash feasts.
Gregory P. Mango
The latest cohort of European-style bins, which are mandatory for all residential properties with more than 30 units, were installed over the weekend — and have gobbled up about 4% of parking spaces in the neighborhood overnight, a city sanitation department rep told The Post.
'It takes up parking spots that were already hard to find,' said Harlem resident Erica Lamont, who claims she circled the blocks of Broadway and West 149th Street for a half-hour on Tuesday morning.
Advertisement
'The bins are the size of small cars and when you put two and three on a residential street, you are ultimately forcing people to force blocks away,' Lamont, 46, said.
'It's not placed in no standing or truck loading zones – they are placed in the few actual parking spots that residents could get,' said Michelle R., a 40-year-old dog sitter in the neighborhood. 'I like the garbage cans, but I feel bad for the people that normally park their cars there.'
Other locals, like Harlem resident David Jones, simply blasted the bizarre look of the gargantuan containers.
'It's an eyesore,' said Jones, 40. 'It's right there in front of your face. I'm neutral. If it does the job then let's applaud it — If it doesn't, then let's get rid of them and come up with something else.'
Advertisement
4 The latest cohort of European-style bins, which are mandatory for all residential properties with more than 30 units, were installed over the weekend, the city said.
Gregory P. Mango
Some locals previously told The Post the massive receptacles clash with the neighborhood's aesthetic, even though they may be needed to scare away rats.
The pilot program, which spans Manhattan's Community Board 9, includes 1,100 on-street containers for about 29,000 residents living in properties with over 30 units, as well as about half of properties with 10 to 30 units that opted to use the bins.
The locked bins are accessible to building staff and waste managers via 'access cards,' and have been serviced by automated side-loading trucks since Monday.
Advertisement
'Rat sightings in NYC are down six months in a row,' a DSNY rep told The Post. 'This is the exact same period that residential bin requirements have been in effect. Containerization WORKS, and there is no reason that other cities can have it and New York can't.'
4 The pilot program, which spans Manhattan's Community Board 9, includes 1,100 on-street containers for about 29,000 residents.
Gregory P. Mango
But while citywide rat sightings are down, Manhattan's Community Board 9 has seen a 7.8% jump in rat sightings compared to this time last year, according to a Post analysis of 311 data.
Still, City Hall hopes the new bins will end the curbside rat buffet fueled by garbage bags lingering on residential streets — which uptown residents say have made it nearly impossible to walk on some streets at night.
'When there's trash on the sidewalk, there's rats—plain and simple. And yet for years, City Hall acted like trash cans were some sort of sci-fi/fantasy invention,' said Council Member Shaun Abreu, Chair of the Committee on Sanitation and Solid Waste Management.
'Now with full containerization in West Harlem and Morningside Heights, we've got clean bins, no more sidewalk piles, and fewer rats. We fought like hell to make this happen, and now we're proving it works.'
Harlem resident Rick M. said he hopes the new containers are effective as residents have historically had to move quickly past piles of street side trash 'because you don't know what may run out.
'I've seen rats run from one big pile to another so it's nice to not have to walk by piles of trash,' the 30-year-old said.
Advertisement
4 Harlem resident Wise Grant, 64, warns the containers are only as effective as those who use them.
Steven Vago/NY Post
'The rat problem was so bad here that humans couldn't be living here — they'd be attacking you right here,' lifelong Harlem resident Shanice Day told The Post at Morningside Avenue and 124th Street.
Day, 39, recalls rats as big as cats 'like Master Splinter rats from Ninja Turtles' that would chew wires off people's cars — and attributes the Empire Bins to a rapid decrease in rodent sightings.
'What I can honestly say is we are almost rat free,' she added. 'If people are upset about the bins they're crazy, because they are a big help.'
Advertisement
But Harlem resident Wise Grant, 64, warns the containers are only as effective as those who use them.
'It slows them down but it's not a way to get rid of them,' the retired voting machine technician said. 'It's up to the individual people. People throw food on the floor and it feeds them.'
'That's what people do on the streets. They don't care … They have to care about where they live.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
No, this likely isn't the start of WWIII. But here's what to watch next and how it all can impact you.
Here's a clear-eyed look at where things stand now, what to watch for, and how this moment could matter to your daily life. Advertisement So, World War III didn't just begin? All signs say it has not. Saturday night's attacks may be the most aggressive — and possibly final — step the United States takes in this conflict. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up World wars are typically defined by the involvement of multiple great powers on both sides, spanning continents, and with global stakes. That is not the case here. This is a bilateral conflict (Israel vs. Iran) with few signs it will draw in the world's major militaries. On Israel's side, no major powers are lining up to join the fight. The major European powers, Canada, Australia, Japan, and others are all calling for de-escalation. Even the United States now appears focused on restraint: Asked on Sunday news shows whether the U.S. is at war with Iran, both Advertisement Iran, meanwhile, is learning just how few real allies it has. While Tehran maintains a loose alignment with Russia, China, and North Korea, there is no mutual defense pact or formal military commitment among them. This is not NATO. Russia and China have both called for calm and show no appetite for military involvement. Russia, preoccupied with its war in Ukraine, also has a long, complicated — sometimes cooperative — relationship with Israel. Consider: While Iran began supplying drones to Russia for use in Ukraine starting in 2022, Russia's initial response to Hamas's October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel was sympathetic to Israel. That said, Russia still maintains diplomatic ties with Hamas and casts itself as a mediator in Gaza and not an Iranian partisan. China, for its part, avoids direct military conflicts. Its support tends to come in the form of economic investment or rhetorical backing. China views Iran as a key energy partner, but it notably did not condemn Israel's preemptive strikes and quickly called for de-escalation following the US attack. All signs suggest that, even if this becomes a prolonged conflict, it is likely to remain limited to Israel and Iran. What's next? While a long-term war may stay confined to Israel and Iran, the short-term still holds real risk, especially for further Iranian retaliation involving the United States. Iran will almost certainly respond in some form. On Sunday, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations told the Advertisement Here are four: 1. Target US troops in the region Roughly 40,000 American troops are stationed within missile range of Iran across Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, and Oman. When President Trump ordered the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020, Iran responded with missile strikes on US bases in Iraq, resulting in over 100 traumatic brain injuries but no deaths. This time, the U.S. has reportedly warned Iran that any attack on American personnel will trigger additional consequences. And it's worth noting: there's no confirmed evidence that any Iranians were killed in the US strikes on Saturday, which occurred around 2:30 a.m. local time. 2. Disrupt the Strait of Hormuz This narrow waterway — just 90 miles wide at its tightest — is a vital artery for global oil transport. About a quarter of the world's exported oil passes through it. Iran's navy has the ability to mine the strait, disrupting global markets and potentially trapping American destroyers in the upper Gulf. But doing so would hurt Iran's own economy and threaten China's oil supply, up to 40 percent of which comes from Iran via the strait. 3. Launch a cyberattack, possibly with North Korean help North Korea is one of the world's most capable cyber warfare actors and a quiet ally of Iran. A coordinated cyberattack could target US infrastructure, disrupt financial markets, or even knock out power grids or internet access in parts of the country. That may be a more attractive option for Iran than a conventional military response. Advertisement 4. Use terrorist proxies to strike inside the United States The most dangerous — and perhaps most tempting — option for Iran would be to activate terrorist networks it funds to launch an attack on US soil. Iran could deny involvement, preserving plausible deniability. If it openly claimed responsibility, a NATO-backed military response could follow, potentially leading to regime change in Iran. How this affects you Polling shows Americans across the political spectrum are deeply wary of another Middle East war. The current administration seems to share that sentiment, in spite of these recent actions. Like President Biden's stance on Ukraine, leaders have clearly stated there will be no deployment of US troops on the ground. If that holds, there's little risk of mass deployments or a draft. Yes, the threat of terrorism or cyberattacks is real, but it has been for decades. A large-scale cyberattack could disrupt your ability to access bank accounts or make credit card purchases, but such risks already exist and are monitored closely by US intelligence. The most direct impact would be economic: If Iran disrupts the Strait of Hormuz, even briefly, gas prices could surge. That would ripple through the economy, increasing costs across the board. The guiding principle at the moment: keep calm and fill up the gas tank. James Pindell is a Globe political reporter who reports and analyzes American politics, especially in New England.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Project 2025 Coauthor: Trump Tariffs Could Endanger Health Care
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump is right to play hardball on trade with Europe. The European Union targets leading American companies with rules, fines, and other punitive actions that undermine their ability to do business in EU countries and deliver technologies to their citizens and small businesses. However, there are some lines that we should not cross in response to trade tensions—like the tariffs President Trump is expected to impose on imported medicines any day now. The president can levy so-called Section 232 tariffs on imports deemed a threat to national security. While that rationale may apply to medicines from China, imports from Europe and Japan pose no such threat. Tariffs on European and Japanese medicines would harm Americans who rely on prescription drugs. They would disrupt the small firms that underpin our health care system—disproportionately hurting early-stage biotech startups, specialized manufacturers, and independent pharmacies, especially in rural communities. These companies operate lean and are laser-focused. Most emerging biotechs, in fact, revolve around a single drug candidate. They have small teams, tight budgets, and years of regulatory hurdles ahead. Many rely on active pharmaceutical ingredients sourced from Europe to develop their therapies. Tariffs on those imports wouldn't just slow medical progress—they could stop it in its tracks. That's because small firms aren't on the sidelines of drug development. They are the front line. In 2024, nearly two-thirds of all U.S. clinical trials were launched by emerging biopharma companies. Last year, small businesses developed 85 percent of newly approved drugs and brought more than half to market on their own. Breakthroughs require reliable, affordable inputs. A full one-third of the active pharmaceutical ingredients in Americans' medicines come from Europe. Building new U.S. pharmaceutical plants can take up to a decade and cost $2 billion. Waiting that long isn't an option for a startup betting everything on one product. Even established manufacturers aren't immune. Many of America's nearly 1,600 domestic facilities—which produce approximately one-half of U.S. medicines—still depend on European ingredients. Tariffs would spike their costs and strain an already fragile supply chain. Some may be forced to pull workers off the factory floor. WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 02: U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during a 'Make America Wealthy Again' trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2,... WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 02: U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during a 'Make America Wealthy Again' trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025 in Washington, DC. MoreThen there are the pharmacies. Unlike big chains, independent pharmacies often can't negotiate bulk deals or absorb sudden price hikes. A steep tariff could erase already thin margins, forcing many to shut their doors, including in underserved and rural communities that already lack sufficient access to pharmacies. In 2023 alone, the U.S. imported close to $130 billion in pharmaceutical products from Europe. A tariff, of 25 percent for instance, could translate to tens of billions in new costs for our health care system. Those dollars won't just hit corporate balance sheets. They'll show up in Medicare and Medicaid budgets, insurance premiums, and out-of-pocket costs for seniors and working families. Placing tariffs on medicines is not like taxing handbags or hubcaps. There's often no clear "substitute" for the medicine that works best for a particular patient. If a treatment is made in Ireland or Switzerland, a tariff doesn't create a U.S. version. It creates delay, financial strain, or worse—outright loss of access. Developed countries have long treated medicines as off-limits in trade disputes for one simple reason: patients' lives should never be used as leverage in a trade war. If President Trump's goal is to keep America from relying on adversaries like China for key medicines, life-saving European drugs shouldn't be caught in the crossfire. Entrepreneurs and small business owners are not asking for special favors. They merely want predictability, light government intervention, access to markets, and a fair shot. Drug tariffs will inject turmoil into a sector that needs stability. For biotech startups and other small businesses, these tariffs aren't just a cost increase—they are an existential threat. President Trump is right to confront trade inequities, intellectual property theft, and other countries' lack of compliance with previous trade deals. But when it comes to medicines, tariffs will cause broad-based harm. Practically speaking, tariffs will not build domestic capacity any time soon and they will not protect American innovation. Medicines must remain exempt from tariff actions against allies like Europe and Japan. American patients and the small businesses powering our health care system need this stability and assurance. Karen Kerrigan is president and CEO of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council ( in Washington, D.C. She was the author of Project 2025's chapter on the Small Business Administration. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communique — a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs — would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance like Belgium, Canada, France and Italy that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars. On Friday, Trump insisted the U.S. has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada 'a low payer.' NATO's new spending goals The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2%, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5% would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks and preparing societies for future conflict. The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5% on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender. Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros ($920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022. Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election. Why the spending increase is needed There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3%, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned 'capability targets' to play its part. Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that 'the debate must be not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain 'can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1%.' Countries much closer to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Setting a deadline It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2% target that they agreed in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years. The U.S. insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said. ___ Suman Naishadham in Madrid contributed to this report.
