I often wind up being focused on Brooklyn over development schemes, fighting such excessive plans as Atlantic Yards. But we have to remember that the entire city is plagued with these excessive development plans that destroy whole neighborhoods and benefit wealthy develpers more than communities. And, more often than not, they are shoved down our throats practically by force...or at least using the threat of eviction.

Harlem is another neighborhood threatened by overdevelopment that could destroy its historic character. As with Atlantic Yards, the Harlem development plan will displace lower and middle income families, driving them from the center of NYC and replacing them largely with luxury high rises.

VOTE People is a community organization that, in its own words:

...works to manifest the needs and intent of the people of communities in which policy and legal reform is proposed, through a holistic approach including legal and political advocacy and social and cultural movements.

I am going on record as saying that my favorite NY newspaper is The Daily News. I read it I've never been too keen on Michael Goodwin. I am more of a EC Schipp kind of gal; although I also enjoy Michael Daly, Juan Gonzalez, Stanley Crouch, Errol Louis along with ... gasp! ... Gatecrasher. I mean, who doesn't love their gossip, right?

So Bob Fertik's email about boycotting New York City's newspaper of record came as a surprise. Here's what I got from Democrats.com :

When you read about the Jena 6, it feels like you must be reading about something that happened more than 50 years ago before the Civil Rights Movement. It's hard to believe that it is happening in 2007.

There is some good news, but the battle is not over yet.

Background Info for those of you not yet familiar with the Jena 6

The Jena 6 incident started at Jena High School when some black students sat under a tree that had been traditionally reserved the white students. The next day, nooses painted with the school colors were hung from the tree. The students responsible for hanging the nooses were expelled but the School Superintendent later reversed their expulsions referring to the noose hangings as a “prank.”

[Editor's Note: while I am on vacation I am reposting stuff. As far as I know, this was the first public statement saying Norm Siegel really is running. I will add that fundraising has started and I chipped in my contribution to the man who should be our Public Advocate. I hope you will as well.]

After years with, effectively, no Public Advocate in NYC, 2009 will be the year we will elect someone to replace Betsy Who?, our current occupant of that position.

Many people are speculating who is going to be running. Names I have heard kicked around include Chris Owens (now eyeing Brooklyn BP), David Yassky (who really should run for Marty Connor's senate seat, many believe), and Marty Markowitz (who some people say should just give up the facade and go on Bruce Ratner's payroll).

Rock Hackshaw has a piece on marriage equality up, here, that I'm going to have to comment on. He's wrong, in my considered opinion, but wrong in a way that is instructive.

First, we need to acknowledge that the opposition to marriage equality is not even, in that sense, about marriage. It is about the acceptance of gays and lesbians in our society. That's the often enough unspoken context of this debate; one eschewed by advocates, who prefer to merely address the charges made by opponents, and by the opponents themselves, who often enough make their case not with actual gays and lesbians, but with the depraved hordes that they believe lie in wait beyond our ranks: the polygamists, the bestialists, and so on.

So it is in this case as well. I'll say to the charge that marriage equality opens the floodgates to polygamy and what not else simply this: show me the people who are demanding that. Then demonstrate to me that marriage equality will have the consequences you point to. You won't be able to, for one very simple reason: there is no constituency arguing on behalf of, say, bestiality, and your argument essentially comes down to the assertion, unproven and unprovable, that any change in the institution of marriage will destroy it. That's a non-sensical claim; the institution will be strengthened, not weakened, when a new class of citizens joins it. Marriage has undergone significant shifts over the past century, beginning with the end of the idea of marriage as a life-long contract. Whether that's good or not is another subject; but the institution's continued vitality is demonstrated, I think, by the fact that gays and lesbians care enough about it to want to join in its practice.

After years with, effectively, no Public Advocate in NYC, 2009 will be the year we will elect someone to replace Betsy Who?, our current occupant of that position.

Many people are speculating who is going to be running. Names I have heard kicked around include Chris Owens (now eyeing Brooklyn BP), David Yassky (who really should run for Marty Connor's senate seat, many believe), and Marty Markowitz (who some people say should just give up the facade and go on Bruce Ratner's payroll).

But the name that most who really care about civil liberties are waiting to hear is Norm Siegel. Norm has run twice in the past. I have met him both times and found him to be the ideal man for the job. In fact, he has been our real public advocate for decades. He was Executive Director of the NY Civil Liberties union for 15 years. Since then, according to Democracy for NYC, he has done the following for New Yorkers:

Norman has advocated for and represented myriad groups including:

* the newly created Association of New York City Education Councils

Two months into New Jersey's civil unions law, and over 200 same-sex couples now enjoy benefits equal to those of their married hetero--

Hold the phone!

According to the NY Times, many civilly united couples are being denied health insurance. In the case of one female couple, one of them may be denied coverage for a mammogram, because the insurance company won't list both partners as female.

This could have been predicted. In fact, it was predicted by many people. Even I predicted it last December on my own blog when I wrote:

The only way to eliminate discrimination in our laws against members of the LGBT community must include opening marriage to any two adults. Anything less denies the right to divorce, full child custody, and a host of other rights based solely on sexual or gender identity.

To all the legislators in New Jersey, I hate to say, "I told you so," but...

In honor of the suppression of an art exhibition right here in New York where a crucified Jesus made of chocolate was found to be offensive, I present the lyrics to Tom Waits' song, Chocolate Jesus:

Dont go to church on sunday
Dont get on my knees to pray
Dont memorize the books of the bible
I got my own special way
Bit I know jesus loves me
Maybe just a little bit more

I fall on my knees every sunday
At zerelda lees candy store

Well its got to be a chocolate jesus
Make me feel good inside
Got to be a chocolate jesus
Keep me satisfied

Well I dont want no anna zabba
Dont want no almond joy

Clyde Haberman gets it. In a good interview with a few of the Billionaires for Bush, Haberman points out what Mayor Bloomberg's office is unwilling to admit:

The spied-upon included many groups that, agree with their views or not, engaged purely in political activity; they had no history of violence and no agenda other than a constitutional right to oppose the government. The Billionaires are a good example. The only bomb that they’ve been known to throw is a joke that falls flat.

Nobody is disputing that the police had a right and a responsibility to make effective security plans for the RNC. But it seems the NYPD acted recklessly in engaging in widespread spying that failed to make a distinction between legitimate political speech and conspiracy to commit violence - between Billionaires and bombers. As Haberman quotes one Billionaire, New York's authorities may "suffer from a post-9/11 case of 'not knowing when to stop.'"

Haberman puts it into perspective:

It isn’t as if New York hasn’t rethought other policies that were deemed absolutely essential in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks. With municipal blessing, hideous concrete barriers rose in front of one building after another across town. In recent months, most have finally been torn down — recognition that Fortress New York doesn’t cut it.

Similar questions have been raised about the refusal of the National Park Service, in the name of security, to allow tourists to climb to the crown of the Statue of Liberty. Such a restriction at this potent symbol of American freedom has been strongly criticized by the likes of Senator Charles E. Schumer and Representative Anthony D. Weiner, who hardly see themselves as soft-on-terror types.

Likewise, respect for freedom of speech is not a concession to terror. Many New Yorkers would feel more secure if their mayor would acknowledge that.

We still don't know the extent of the spying program and how far it went across the line. We don't know whether the program's defenders have any basis for their arguments. We won't know until the city agrees to release the surveillance records. So: what are you afraid of, Mayor Bloomberg?