Someone sent me an earlier version of a smear being done by City Council candidate Doug Biviano, but I chose to ignore it. I don't like jumping on people at the first chance. I like to give them a chance. In Doug Biviano's case I particularly wanted to give him a chance because I had met him and he seemed a genuinely decent person, if rather inexperienced. But now Biviano is making a habit of outright lies in his long-shot (to put it mildly) for the City Council. This time it is in a mailing I received today where he is trying to paint ALL his opponents as pawns of corrupt Party Boss Vito Lopez. And this is just plain bullshit.

I first met Biviano at an IND meeting before IND imploded and I took a possibly permanent leave of absense from their board. Doug was very earnest, thoughtful and seemed very honest and decent. Past times I wrote about Biviano I emphasized that he has little chance, but that I wanted to see him stay in local politics and that he may well have a good future. Now he is starting to use smear tactics and lies that could actually alienate some of the people he might like to have on his side in later years.

My earlier rundown of this race left Biviano out because he hadn't entered the race yet. I called my piece "City Council Race in Brooklyn's 33rd District: Two Party Hacks, Three Reformers, and a Satmar." In retrospect I believe that piece was a bit harsh on Evan Thies and I was told I was too kind to Ken Baer, but otherwise I think it was a pretty accurate piece.

Today, Doug Biviano's mailing has several blatant lies, but they all boil down to claiming that ALL his opponents are anti-reform while he is the ONLY reform candidate.

Now, Biviano and I agree on ONE and only one of his opponents. Here is what Bivano's mailing says about Steve Levin:

"Steve Levin has spent his entire career as notorious Brooklyn Democratic boss Vito Lopez's right-hand man."

This, though it would be more accurate if it said "...Levin has spent his entire POLITICAL career as...boss Vito Lopez's right-hand man," is basically true. Here is how I put it in my previous rundown of this race:

Which brings us to Vito's little boy, Steve Levin. Levin's only claim to fame is that he is Vito's little boy. My one observation of Mr. Levin was at the CBID annual dinner, and what I personally saw from across the room was Mr. Levin behaving like a naughty little boy who was bored and cranky. I was not impressed, to put it mildly. Does he have anything else going for him other than the support of the corrupt Party Boss?

I should add that I have run into Levin since then and found that the petulent scene I saw may not be typical. Unlike Brad Lander in the 39th City Council district who seemed nice at first but has repeatedly shown a petulent side that has many disliking him, Levin seems quite nice even if he is tied to some of Brooklyn's most corrupt politicians. But Biviano and I are basically in agreement that Levin is the corrupt machine's candidate.

With Evan Thies Biviano makes an accusation that I have no information on. This is what Biviano has to say:

Evan Thies quit the Community Board to avoid voting "NO" to the special-interest-giveaway Broadway Triangle development Plan.

I personally don't know Evan's motivation for quitting the Community Board and wonder why he wouldn't have just called in sick that meeting. I think many, including me, have merely assumed Thies is tainted by his ties to Yassky, whose sleaze may not match Vito Lopez's, but still is considerable, including corrupt bargains with a Bruce Ratner front group and involvemet in the DiBrienza scandal. But whatever ties with Yassky Thies may have had seem severed by the fact that Yassky refused to endorse him. I actually find this a plus for Thies. But bottom line is I do not know enough about Thies to judge Biviano's accusation.

Then we come to the bald faced lie Biviano makes about district leader Jo Anne Simon. He says:

Jo Anne Simon divided the opposition against the Atlantic Yards project and refused to stand up against the Brooklyn political machine.

I know people who were not happy with Jo Anne Simon's somewhat hesitant opposition to Atlantic Yards, but to me she HAS been an opponent of Ratner's and she brought in some into the opposition who might have been resistant to the stronger opposition provided by others. I should also note that Jo Anne Simon has been endorsed by the Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats, State Senators Eric Adams and Velmanette Montgomery and Councilwoman Tish James, all of whom are opponents of Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards scheme. This does not sound like she has divided the opposition but more like the opposition has to some degree united behind her. But there is some arguement to claiming she split the opposition at least early on.

To claim that she has refused to stand up against the Brooklyn political machine is complete bullshit. Jo Anne Simon has been one of maybe FOUR district leaders in Brooklyn who have most often and doggedly stood up against Vito Lopez's machine. There have been a few times I wished she'd stand up even more, but it has often been Jo Anne Simon and Alan Fleishman were the core of any opposition to the machine. Furthermore, Jo Anne Simon has been endorsed by the main reform clubs (Lambda Independent Democrats and Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats) as well as Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez, the Congresswoman Vito Lopez hates the most and who I saw Steve Levin being uncharacteristically petulent about at the CBID dinner.

Jo Anne Simon isn't the only reform candidate in the race, but she is DEFINITELY a reform candidate and Biviano is disgracing himself by claiming otherwise.

Biviano also ignores the presence of Ken Diamondstone in the race. Ken is also definitely a reform candidate. In fact he arguably is the most reform of them, but he has been unable to unite the reform movement behind his candidacy. In fact, Jo Anne Simon is the one who has united the reform movement behind HER candidacy. Not Diamondstone and not Biviano. Had Diamondstone won the CBID and LID endorsements, I'd say he had a shot. But they both went for Simon as did most other reformers. As far as I know, no major figures in the reform movement has endorsed Biviano. Since Biviano is a relative newcomer to the scene, he may not want to insult the reform movement that has largely united behind Simon. And let's face it, if they hadn't united behind Simon, it would definitely be Diamondstone, NOT Biviano who would be their next choice.

So honestly, if Doug Biviano wants a career in reform politics in Brooklyn, he may want to apologize for lying about Jo Anne Simon and ignoring Diamondstone's ample reform credentials.

As to that Satmar candidate, well one has to admit that Isaac Abraham, for all his many faults, is certainly opposed to Vito Lopez. So Biviano's attempt to claim the anti-Vito credentials all to himself fall flat even in the case of Isaac Abraham. By the way, I got a little private criticism for saying in my earlier piece that I disagreed with those who said Abraham wouldn't even make the ballot. I thought he would. And he did. That will split the Hasid vote between Levin (because of the Lopez connections there) and Abraham.

So Biviano, it's time to put an end to the nonsense from your campaign. Make your case, but do it without lying and alienating the very people who are most likely to side with you in the future.