Bloomberg: He isn't just bad on education!
I hadn't intended my previous diary to become such a discussion! It was meant to be an action alert to try and make Bloomberg actually put our tax money where his mouth is on education rather than underfunding our schools while he wants to fund big development projects. But some folks took the opportunity to discuss Bloomberg as a mayor. Good for them! In their honor I want to open up a more general discussion of Bloomberg.
First off, I do not want to sound like I am placing Bloomberg in the same catagory as Bush. Bush is so extremist, many Republicans I know can't stand him. Bloomberg is, in essence, a more old-school Republican with some influences from the Dems. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But when push comes to shove, I think Bloomberg has failed NYC big time.
Let me count the ways!
First of all, I will never forgive him for pissing on our civil rights. Not only did he use our tax money to restrict our freedoms so he could host Bush's convention, but even now he is persecuting Critical Mass in retaliation for their role in the anti-RNC protests (notice he ignored them before then!) and he is trying to prevent New Yorkers from protesting in general--in essence trying to take away our freedom of assembly. During the RNC he actually called the protesters (which inclued myself and my 8 months pregnant wife) terrorists. I do not approve of someone who accuses Americans who are simply exercising their Constitutional rights of being terrorists. That smacks of Bush America! He also violated the rights of protestors who were arrested by holding them longer that the legal limit before they were processed. So he gets an "F" in my book for his opposition to Civil Liberties and that alone turned me against him.
Then there is development. He and his buddy Ratner have a vision for NYC--it involves more and more skyscrapers, the destruction of NY's unique neighborhoods, Wal-Marts and high priced sadiums and arenas without due consideration for open space, affordable housing, parking, subways, schools, etc. I am not anti-development. I am for sane development that ADDS to a neighborhood rather than destroys it. I am most familiar with his plans for Atlantic Yards and I think it is exactly what Brooklyn does NOT need. In many of the neighborhoods where Bloomberg wants to put up luxury hotels, expensive housing and arenas, there are rival neighborhood plans that are much more reasonable. But Bloomberg, in his dictatorial way, dismisses the neighborhood plans unless forced to pay attention to them by either courts or the city council. For Atlantic Yards, the rival plan is partly the vision of Letitia James (WFP City Councilwoman). You can find out about how crazy Bloomberg's plan is and how much mroe reasonable the neighborhood plan is by going to Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn. There is also Park Slope Neighbors. Atlantic Yards is only one example of how out of touch Bloomberg is with NYC neighborhoods. There is also Willamsburg/Greenpoint. And many other neighborhoods that Bloomberg is threatening. Bloomberg gets maybe a "D" in my book for his development ideas for NYC.
Then there his inability to be an advocate for NYC at the state and federal level. Pataki refuses to give NYC the funds it is entitled to for education and for subways. Yes he has pursued the lawsuit for the education funds, but why hasn't he taken Pataki aside and said, "look, you want to help Republicans in NYC, give us these funds and both you and I look good." He also failed to get the money Bush promised for rebuilding after 9/11. Why isn't Bloomberg speaking out each and every day against Pataki and Bush for stiffing NYC? Instead he hosted their convention...which lost the city money. I'll give him a "C" on this issue because he HAS pursued the lawsuits, but he hasn't actually gotten us all these funds.
Then there are priorities. He always seems to have money for his development schemes. Build a stadium? SURE! Let's do it. But when it comes to firefighters, cops, teachers, nurses, infrastructure, open space, schools, etc...nope. We don't have enough money. Let's CLOSE firehouses, let's make kids take their own toilet paper to school, let's not give city employees contracts. What message does this give our teachers, firefighters, nurses and cops? It tells them that they are less important than the Jets. It tells the city that developers are more important than our children, our firefighters, our cops, etc. I give Bloomberg a "D" for his priorities.
Wal-Mart and Ratner seem to be Bloomberg's demographic. Not the average joe New Yorker. I want a mayor who represents you and me and our children not Ratner and Wal-Mart.
Now what about the Dems? None of them stand out as being the perfect mayor. Each of them has flaws. BUT, overall they all are good candidates and, potentially, good mayors. Miller may be too close to developers, but overall he is excellent. Wiener has little name recognition and is more a legislator than an executive right now, but he also is excellent. Fields is smart and popular in Manhattan and, as long as she is good overall, I am all for NYC having a black woman as mayor. Ferrer may be the toughest of the lot, and NYC needs a tough mayor. I have a hard time forgiving him and Green for their fiasco last time around, but that aside, Ferrer represents the outer borroughs, who are underrepresented in NYC and I am all for having an outer borrough mayor.
For those who in my previous diary accused me of repeating Gifford Miller mailers, well, I haven't actually seen those mailers. Instead I have heard him speak, met him and questioned him. Same with the other Dem candidates other than Fields, who has not been at any of the events I have gone to (not her fault...I am limited where I can go). I do lean towards Miller, but am open to all the other Dems. Bloomberg I liked at first, but by now he has so completely lost my support that he would have to do some pretty drastic things to get my confidence back.
For those (Dems, Reps and Inds) who want to find out more about why Bloomberg sucks as mayor, and who want to find out about ALL his opponants (not just the Dems), check out BOOT Bloomberg out of Town, a non-partisan anti-Bloomberg group set up by a liberal Dem and a pro-Bush Repub.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Mayor | Politics | New York City
Not true, really
Submitted by mole333 on 22 June 2005 - 3:23pm.
First of all there is the misuse of eminant domain. That isn't just capitalism--it is the mayor misusing the law to help developers:
Eminent Domain Abuse
13 acres of the 24-acre site would be acquired through eminent domain or through the threat of eminent domain, whereby private property will be condemned, seized and transferred, by the government, to a private developer. Due to public outcry, some property owners have been offered lucrative deals to sell out, while some have been left out in the cold. Those who want to keep their homes or businesses and fight the project are told that if they do not sell, they will be condemned. Homeowners and property owners are terrified and by using only hearsay and rumor in the Press, Ratner is successfully having many people living on more than 2 blocks run to him and ask him to buy their property even before the project has been officially announced! This points to how much power this one man has over homeowners who have such little faith in the government to protect their 5th Amendment rights. This use of condemnation through eminent domain, taking private property and giving it to a private entity is abusive, unconstitutional and has nothing to do with the original intention of the law. Keep an eye on the US Supreme Court which may hear an appeal of a similar case
Second there is the fact that Bloomberg has wanted to use city funds. Check out Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn. They have a pretty good rundown on it.
"Other than zoning"?
Submitted by brooklynben on 22 June 2005 - 11:53pm.
While I agree with you that development is a function of capitalism, you can't just step around zoning issues. Zoning is how a city controls growth and how things actually get made. Bad zoning means sprawl or worse.
What's been particularly distressing is how the mayor has acted (or failed to react) to development and zoning. Atlantic Yards probably won't get built for the reasons you state, but it would be nice to have a mayor who took into account what the community wants. The same goes for his stadium deal. Or the Williamsburg re-zoning that just went through. (The Williamsburg comprise--whether you like it or hate it--did not come from the mayor's office.) While none of us will liekly argue that NYC doesn't need more housing, the question becomes what kind of housing will be built: Luxury high-rises or affordable housing up-and-down the spectrun.
No, development is not "pure capitalism" when it comes to Bloomberg. For Bloomberg it's ego. He wants to leave his mark. And I doubt he will ever get over the stadium.
bloomberg?! Unions?! Prosperity and Lower Crime?!
Submitted by abraham on 22 June 2005 - 5:26pm.
OK. I am also glad that we can talk about Bloomberg and the state of the city, but Mole333 you are ignoring huge and amazing things Bloomberg has done in the city. Do you remember NYC in the 1970's, 1980's and early to mid 90's? Crime was up, the economy was down. The NYC of today is a completly different place. Bloomberg is not perfect but he has the interests on the citizens in mind. But we get caught up in this, what I would call, extreeme rhetoric and we loose sight of the forest for the trees. Bloomberg is not infringing on our civil liberties. I don't agree with the RNC or the convention, but come on!
Bloomberg is not "buddies" with Ratner. I also live near by and I am not happy about the construction and the stadium there too, but I know that I do not want to see NYC return the the debt-ridden, crime infested days of not too long ago! Let's not fall into the trap of being divided by the polticial parties and let's try and talk rationally about policies and direction.
Check out this report, it is anti-stadium but lists the things Bloomberg has done for the OVERALL economic health of the city.
http://www.nycfuture.org/content/reports/report_view.cfm?repkey=157&sear...
We pulled out of the 9/11 economic and (dare I say) spiritual slump and I think Bloomberg was a good part of why. Let's not forget that.
Miller, Fields, and Ferrer all come out of machine politics and I think they would be HORRIBLE for this city.
Also, let's talk about the municipal unions. Are they a good thing? I am all for collective bargaining, but the Unions have the city and the politicians and the budget by the balls (pardon the expression). In NYC, they have way too much say over things--look at the recent backing off of the campaign finance board on campaign contributions from unions.
The 80's then and labor now
Submitted by Liza Sabater on 22 June 2005 - 10:55pm.
Is the suburbanization of NYC and an obscenely over-priced real estate market really that good? Is calling pissing on a tree a crime really that good? Is paying 40%+ in income taxes really that great?
I know that I do not want to see NYC return the the debt-ridden, crime infested days of not too long ago!
The debt of your city of yore has been passed on directly to the citizens in the guise of Fees.
As to the economic slump we pulled out from, may I dare ask what exactly do you work in? Because for my husband and I --and we both do web and software work--, we were brutalized economically until, literally after the elections; when basically people reckoned we were gonna have Bush for another 4 years so might as well get those contracts going anyway.
As to the unions, we may have something in common here, BUT, I think unions are important and the work that Andrew Stern is doing is absolutely fascinating to watch. He is right about the way he is fighting the AFL-CIO and the fact that service workers are part of the new labor force. What I have not heard him address directly (although I've gotten this from the way he speaks) is how there is a new manufacturing and dare I say manual labor class that is developing and that is the software workers. Not data entry people but actual software developers.
The barrier to entry into soft/dev is going to drop drastically in the next few years if the people of Sun have anything to do with it. The CEO has pledged to get 10 million more Java coders in the next 10 years (starting last year). This means that a lot of effort is being put into creating software that will help people create other software. It will also mean that the time for development with be cut and companies will be able to keep the same number of workers, even at a lower pay (with newbies coming into the scene) and get more custom software done for them.
This is going to have a huge impact in labor. Animation & CGI programmers will probably be the first ones to organize. Why? Because of the better paying situation of voice-over actors thanks to their unions, SAG and AFTRA. It'll be labor organizing by association.
Next up? Cell phone software makers. Why? Because a lot of them are running on Java programs. Get the pattern here? As more and more businesses shift from hardware to software and as it becomes cheaper to make, the salaries will decline and having a job in soft/dev won't be as cushy anymore.
This is going to come, no doubt. Which is why what Stern is doing is fun to watch. He is re-defining labor, I am sure with his eye on the new manufacturing labor class that will be coming with it.
The "spiritual slump" of 9/11?
Submitted by brooklynben on 23 June 2005 - 11:07am.
I disagree with Bloomberg pulling NYC out of the "spiritual slump" of 9/11. I think NYers did that by ourselves. Everyone was kinder, more supportive, and better after that.
I would like a mayor, though, who would stand up against Republicans exploiting and distorting 9/11 for their political gain. Just yesterday, Karl Rove came to Manhattan to exploit 9/11 and badmouth the very "liberals" who live (and died!) here. (See here)
If Bloomberg doesn't speak out against this (and he hasn't in 24 hours!), how can we keep him around?
This is key!!!
Submitted by mole333 on 23 June 2005 - 11:18am.
Bloomberg does not stand up for New York against Republicans. Karl Rove, right here in NYC, basically said that Democrats betray the memory of those who died in 9/11. Well, MOST NEW YORKERS ARE DEMOCRATS, so that means a hell of a lot of those who died on 9/11 were liberals. But Bloomberg doesn't go beyond his new party loyalty and speak out against Karl Rove. I want a mayor who will get up and positively TEAR KARL ROVE APART for those statements. I want a mayor who will say to Karl Rove "you are not welcome in my city anymore because you are spitting on my fellow New Yorkers."
But Bloomberg fails to do that most of the time. He fails to stand up for New Yorkers. Instead he remains quiet, presumably out of party loyalty.
can you front page this?
Submitted by Liza Sabater on 23 June 2005 - 12:32pm.
please, please, pretty pleeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaase
Well
Submitted by mole333 on 22 June 2005 - 7:55pm.
I was earlier accused of spouting Miller propoganda. I think you may have absorbed too much of the Bloomberg propoganda. Sorry, Bloomberg is just plain bad for the city. If anything you are giving him credit for things that Gulianni did (not that I was a huge fan of him, but he did do real things things like get the mob out of the garbage collection industry). Bloomberg certainly didn't do jack for the city after 9/11. Did he speak out when Bush poisoned our firefighters by telling them that it was okay to breathe the WTC fumes? Did he get all the money Bush promised? No. He was adequate after 9/11, no more. He did do some things that were needed and at the time I was ready to stick by him. But since then he has been LESS than adequate for the city.
As to machine politics, yes there are machines in NYC. Big surprise. But you make it sound like a.) that there is ONE machine that dominates everything and b.) that no good candidate can come from the machine. As to the former, there are several machines, at least Brooklyn has its own (and I am fighting it!). As to the latter, certainly some machine candidates are good. Your rapid dismissal of Miller, who is pretty damned good, really makes me discount much of what you say. I know less about Fields and Ferrer (who clearly are products of VERY different machines!) but your easy dismissal of them dismisses the fact that they are VERY popular among their constituencies. That can't be so easily discounted.
You don't say so much bad about Wiener. Well, when I am not leaning towards Miller, I lean towards Wiener. He seems pretty solid. But realisticaly speaking, I think Miller, Fields and Ferrer have a better shot at taking down the CEO Bloomberg.
the crucible of debate
Submitted by abraham on 23 June 2005 - 10:39am.
First of all, thank you for the crucible of debate. It is very nice to listen/read your different points of veiw on the state/direction of the city.
Mole333, yes, you noticed my lack of negativity towards Weiner. Rep. Weiner is feisty and smart. If anything, before going for Miller please at least have a look at Weiner. He's a reform minded, independent, liberal democrat. Of all the Dem options, I think we worth checking out. That being said, I still think Bloomberg is the best man/woman for the of governing this difficult city.
Blogdive, I don't know much about the software/web business but I would imagine that many in that field are freelance? If so, what do you do for health insurance? Is that an issue among software people?
What do you have against Miller?
Submitted by brooklynben on 23 June 2005 - 11:03am.
I'm still unclear of why you like Republican gladhander Bloomberg against someone like Giff Miller? I like Wiener too, but you've trashed Miller in several comments and I was wondering why.
Health Care Coverage is the #1 issue for freelancers is NYC
Submitted by Liza Sabater on 23 June 2005 - 11:07am.
No question about it!
The assumption is that most freelancers are single or DWINKS (double income, no kids). But more than half of the parental units I know are working as freelancers.
Our demographics get screwed royally in the job market : highly skilled, married, with kids, and over 35. Very few people want to hire skilled workers of a certain age. Which is why, especially with women, a lot of my peers are working freelance. Nobody wants to foot the benefits bills.
FYI
Submitted by mole333 on 23 June 2005 - 11:26am.
As a favor to a friend I am actually doing some petitioning for Wiener. In fact I signed said petition to get Wiener on the ballot. My wife signed for Miller. We figure that way we are supporting our two favorite candidates.
As said earlier, if Bloomberg ever showed real spine at standing up for NYC against the Republicans, I'd think better of him. If he wasn't so anti-civil liberties, I'd think better of him. And if he wasn't so blindly in favor of big-ticket development ideas that will ruin unique NYC neighborhoods and ruin small businesses, then I'd think better of him. But he is a wimp against the Republicans who screw NYC and who use 9/11 for their own benefit, he does all he can to restrict the civil liberties of New Yorkers (if Bloomberg wins reelection, I sure as hell hope we get Norm Siegel as Public Advocate...we will need him!) and he supports every single bad development plan that is put in front of him without regard for the wishes of the people who live there. So I don't think very highly of him.
I do think it is important to hear your views. I know some pretty solidly liberal folks (DFA types) who lean towards Bloomberg. I don't think this says anything positive about Bloomberg (they don't like him that much) but more speaks to the fact that the dem candidates haven't yet reached the hearts of the voters.
freelancers should be unionized
Submitted by our gal in brooklyn on 24 June 2005 - 2:53pm.
you raised one of my fave issues abraham-- the myth that freelancers can't be unionized. Well the guys working in the building trades are often freelance-- ie work job to job and the members of the Musicians Union (www.local802afm.org) are also freelancers AND union members.
There are ways to make that system work.
employers contribute a percentage towards health insurance and even pension that is proportional to the number of hours the employee works.
i hope that the labor movement has a chance to take on the problems of organizing freelancers because its a fight I know we can win.
companies keep making everyone freelance (even if you've been there for years they'll call you that) just to shirk there responsiblity to their workers. If we make sure that companies contribute a proportional ammount towards the benefits of their employees we can stop the destabilization of the workforce and people's lives.
i was born into the freelance generation. i never wanted to be. healthcare is a necessity for me and I'm young and have no children.
if anyone has any questions about the unionization of freelance workers or other "white collar" workers-- you know where to find me!
No Miller No!
Submitted by abraham on 23 June 2005 - 3:38pm.
OK. I consider myself a staunch Liberal and Democrat (donating, registered and active). AND YET, I am for Bloomberg (unless Weiner wins the primary then I will have to reevaluate).
First of all I am anti-Miller because he exhibits the worst traits of a politician. I do not see MIller as having a clear vision for the direction of this city, and I see Miller as too easily influenced by special interests. Look at the Solid Waste plan that Miller tried to sink. The way it is now, minority and poor neighborhoods shoulder disproportionately shoulder the burden of the city's trash. That needed to change. Miller was against it because it places a transfer station in his neighborhood on the upper east side. OK, i can understand fighting for your neighborhood, but being mayor means working in the interests of the city as a whole. Miller, it seems, cannot do that. Miller is young, but he plays old-time politics.
Now, Bloomberg...Did you see him present the executive budget? That is some complex finance going on, and Bloomberg knows it inside and out. Bloomberg is not necesarilly inspiring, but he is not divisive. We have a great city with relatively little racial conflict. Bloomberg is part of that. He was a Democrat until the year before he ran for office. Bloom is a Dem in there. He has done alot on the affordable housing and on welfare. Many who represent those areas are for Bloom. Why?
Disagree
Submitted by mole333 on 24 June 2005 - 7:11am.
I have met Miller three times now. I am not in his neighborhood. He spoke to me and he did so with clear details. I have to completely disagree with your evaluation.
Again, Wiener is great too. I go back and forth. But I consider Miller an excellent candidate.
On Development...
I'm not going to defend Bloomberg's actions during the convention. They were horrible, but in the grand scheme of civil rights violations that take place in this country every day, they are rather tame. It was a strange time and the police overreacted, but I wont tie my vote to that alone. I care more about how the city's budget is being handled, and the other stuff local government should be doing...keeping the city safe and clean, keeping the traffic moving, etc. Those are all things to pin on the Mayor.
But you can't blame the Mayor for Atlantic Yards Development isn't controlled by the Mayor, other than zoning. Development is organic and market based. Developers can not build were zoning doesn't permit a particular use, but actual development is pure captialism. If there is demand, developers will want to build, and banks will provide financing. If there is no demand for various reasons (bad location, not enough infrastructure, wrong price points etc) even if a developer wants to build, no bank will provide financing and projects wont get built. Conversely, if there is actual demand, isn't the Mayor doing what the population wants?
Personally, I don't see Atlantic Yards ever being built. Business conditions do not work - there is not enough demand for all the housing at market rate, there are no available subsidies for that degree of affordable housing, and no demand at all for the office space. I don't know about the fate of the arena, but the rest seems DOA.
Besides, Ratner isn't Bloomberg's budy. Ratner's current patron is Pataki - they went to Law School together.