Bloomberg Tied to the Mob!

Today's New York Times has a story about how the mafia has corrupted the city's Department of Buildings. Members of the Luchese crime family got jobs as building inspectors and, as the indictments indicate, there was a vast array of bribes, overlooked violations, false safety reports, siphoning of public funds, just vile stuff. This has been going on for years!

Remember those crane collapses which resulted in several deaths? That was due to false safety reports and bumbling by the DOB. Apparently the Bloomberg Department of Buildings is a cesspool of corruption.

However, what's most amazing about this is that Mayor Bloomberg has not been questioned or grilled by the press about any of this. The press has been totally docile and quiet. For some reason, Teflon Mike has avoided scrutiny or any fallout from this scandal. It's only coming out now because the Manhattan DA handed down indictments (thanks to Bob Morganthau, at least we still have one honest broker in this town. You'll be missed!)

But I'm wondering something: after all the big crane collapses last year, did the press do any in-depth investigative reports about the problems at DOB -- and what caused people to die? Did they try to hold the mayor accountable for what happened on his watch?

No!

The press can't hold him accountable even when a major scandal hits.

This was the headline of the story today: "Mob Infiltration Is Seen in New York City Agency." What a disgraceful use of the passive voice! Who was editing this story? Mob infiltration "is seen"? Is seen? What kind of sloppy, badly written headline is this? This is supposed to be The New York Times for cryin' out loud!

Now if the press wasn't trying to protect the Bloomberg administration and guarentee his re-election, I'm sure the headline for this story would be very different.

Certainly this story would be big news and treated much more sensationally if we had a Democratic mayor. For example, if we had a Democrat as mayor, let's call him Mayor D, all of the newspaper around town would scream today "Mayor D Tied to the Mob!" And there'd be story after story asking what the mayor knew and when did he know it, why didn't he try to stop it, why did he let a major government department in this town put New Yorkers' lives in danger, and on and on and on. If this was happening under a Democratic Mayor who wasn't worth billions of dollars, believe me, the press would be all over this asking questions. It'd be cheap suit time. This would be a full blown scandal! Which it is!

But it's not.

Mayor Mike escapes any and all culpability. This story mentions the Bloomberg administration once ... and it doesn't mention the mayor by name. Clearly, as far as the press is concerned, Teflon Mike couldn't have anything to do with this sordidness. He's too honest, too principled, too good a Mayor.

And maybe he's not corrupt. Maybe he's just a detached mayor who doesn't know what's going on at his own DOB. Hmmmm ... maybe Mayor Mike isn't quite as competent as everyone thinks he is? Maybe he shouldn't get a third term. Oh wait, of course he should. After all, he's rich!

I'll give the Times some credit: they at least reported this story. The Daily News and the Post, from what I can see on their websites today, have ignored it completely. Hopefully they will cover it soon and ask Bloomberg tough questions about it but I won't hold my breath.

This is just a perfect example of press hypocrisy in this town -- and how it goes out of its way to protect the powerful, wealthy, connected, and Republican. The New York City press went into hysterics over the City Council "slush fund" story, they covered Eliot Spitzer's hooker problem like it was Watergate, the flailed away at ACORN -- basically, any time a Democrat or progressive person or group anywhere puts a foot wrong, it becomes blaring front page news, a "scandal", an "outrage", yada, yada, yada.

But a major department in an administration run by a wealthy Republican is infiltrated by the mob and possibly results in multiple deaths and the press ... doesn't consider it a major story ... doesn't have the time to cover it ... it just doesn't rate as important. Just shrugs its collective shoulders and ... moves on.

So what's the point of really caring?

It's not like my little blog post is going to change anything. The poor stay poor and the rich get rich. But actually it's deeper than that: the rich continue to consolidate their power and face no consequences and the rest of us continue to be punished (and sometimes even killed) for not being rich. And I'm sure that in the minds of Bloomberg and his cronies and most of the press, that's just fine and how it should be and serves us right.

What Makes a Mayor?

New York City will be electing a whole new swath of municipal office-holders next year, thanks to term limits. Most of the city council, the borough presidents, and the city-wide office holders will change -- including, first and formost, the mayor.

The mayor of any city is a real-life human being and human beings, as we know, aren't perfect. Yet New Yorkers love the idea of a "perfect mayor", someone who not only runs the city but also embodies it.

The mayor of New York City is expected to be many things: a day-to-day manager ensuring the smooth delivery of government services as well as taking charge in an emergency; a long-term visionary and leader who moves the city into a better place (less crime, more affordable housing, better schools, cleaner streets, etc., anything that improves the quality life and experience of living here); an advocate and cheerleader who promotes the city's image and interests to the rest of the country and the world; and a big personality, a larger-than-life character who is as much a showman (or showwoman), a performer, as much as a politician or a leader. 

The qualities that New Yorkers want in mayor are many -- it's a tall order to be come Hizzoner. The perfect mayoral DNA hasn't been generated yet. 

Fiorello LaGuardia is, for many, the model of a modern NYC mayor and many of his successors (like Koch and Giuliani) have aped his big personality style if not his decency and competence. Others have been a conscious reaction to that type of mayor -- Lindsay, Dinkins, and, in their way, Bloomberg and De Blasio have shown that this city can sometimes elect a more genteel and down-to-earth mayor. 

It's also axiomatic that mayors are destined never to rise to higher office (governor, senate, president) and that they better not show that they are anything less than 200% focused on just being mayor (leaving town, running for another office, brings mayors a cropper).

It's impossible to tell what makes for a successful mayor because the times they govern in, and the challanges they face, are so different. But it's almost inevitable that, after years of controversy, tough decisions, bad luck, whatever, NYC mayors often leave office unpopular. History can sometimes, however, be much kinder to them in the long run. And their personality, their mascot role, become less important -- it's what they left their successors to build on that's deemed most important.

The recent death of Mayor David Dinkins is a huge case in point. When he left office in 1993, and for years afterwards, the common wisdom is that he left the city crime-ridden broken down mess that Rudy Giuliani came in and fixed. But a closer look at the record shows that Dinkins bequeathed the man destined to become an adulterous, bankrupt, impeached one-term loser president's lawyer a much stronger city than was previously appreciated: under Dinkins the police force increased, crime was actually falling greatly, Times Square was alreay changing, the city was improving. But the perception of it hadn't yet changed, and Rudy sucked up all the credit.

Thus it has been and will always be so. Life isn't fair, politics is less than fair, and being mayor of this town is both the greatest honor and one of the most unfair jobs any New Yorker can possibly get.

The New York City Charter

The whole hubbub about whether or not Governor Paterson can appoint a Lieutenant Governor made me wonder: what if the Mayor's office fell vacate? Who takes over then? What's the deal?

From what I understand, the first in line is the Public Advocate. If the Mayor dies, resigns, is removed, or becomes incapacitated at any point during the first three years of a term, the PA takes over for 60 days until a special election can be held. Whoever wins then finishes that term. However, if the Mayor's job is vacated in the fourth year of a term, the PA serves as acting Mayor until the end of that year and term (there's no special election since in that year there's already a regularly scheduled Mayoral election). Also, an acting Mayor does not have the full powers of an elected Mayor (can't appoint or fire people, can't sign bills, etc.). Got it?

However, I took a quick look at the City Charter today and found a confusing clause: apparently, it doesn't have to be the PA who necessarily takes over. It can also be the Comptroller or some other unspecified official. There's all kind of clauses and rules and confusing jargon in here that makes it unclear precisely who becomes acting Mayor and for how long. There's paragraphs of stuff about succession upon a vacancy and a lot of it is contradictory. It's very odd.

To me this seems ridiculous and dangerous since it can create a vacuum and battle for power. Also, holding a special election 60 days after a vacancy creates unneeded political turmoil and makes a proper and smooth transition problematic.

I think this is dumb.

We should revise the City Charter and make it clear: one person, one elected city official (either the PA or Comptroller) should become Mayor upon a vacancy. That person should then complete the end of that term with full mayoral authority.

Either that or a Deputy Mayor should be elected with the Mayor like a VP is with the President or an LG is with the Governor. That way there doesn't have to be an uncomfortable or confusing political situation - for example, if a Democratic PA succeeds a Republican Mayor, the new Dem Mayor might have different policies than the old GOP Mayor. Seems smart to me.

Making of the Mayor 2025

This blog has existed for two decades under three different NYC mayors. Unsurprisingly I have a blogged from time to time about the mayors and the elections that make them.

You can read that archive here. 

Currently there is a very crowded Democratic primary for mayor that includes a Muslim Socialist, a disgraced ex-Governor (and they're the frontrunners), yet another doomed Comptroller, and a bunch of Others. In some ways this primary resembles the 1977 mayoral election -- an unpopular, failed mayor who has become so irrelevant that the question isn't should he be replaced but by who, and lots of people are running to be that replacement.

And one of them might be a guy named Cuomo. 

Recently there was a contentious debate amongst the candidates, and it's clear how high the stakes are for each of them -- and the city.

But the bigger, more unanswerable question is "what makes a good mayor?" 

Elections and campaigns are all about who is the best, most appealing candidate but, sadly, that doesn't always translate into doing the best job. And as this article states, most of all, New Yorkers think being a good mayor means being a good manager. They think the mayor should essentially be a great COO, making sure that city services are delivered consistently and well, keeping the metaphorical trains running, supervising the machinery of government and ensuring its smooth operation.

Here's the dirty secret: managing the city isn't really the job of the mayor.

Part of the job of the mayor is appointing the people who manage the city, and then appointing the people who manage the managers. The real job of the mayor is to make policy, to sign or veto laws passed by the City Council, to work with the state and federal goverment to get the city money and laws favorable to it, to be the city's main cheerleader and public spokesperson -- and to handle all of the politics that flow from all that.

In short, the job of the mayor is not to manage the city on a daily basis -- it's to determine the course of its history for years and decades to come. Mayors need to be big picture thinkers, visionaries, conducting the great orchestra of city government, policy, politics, and media -- not just be its manager. 

Sadly whoever becomes the next mayor will be not have the same kind of robust local reporters covering them. For example, the great NYC muckraker Tom Robbins has died. He wrote, on and off, for the Village Voice for decades, and who lifted the stones and looked underneath what was going on in this city for decades. His kind are becoming obsolete and this city, no matter who runs it, will be all the poorer for it. 

 

The Mayor Adams Style

Eric Adams has been Mayor of NYC for almost three months now and it's been ... interesting.

He's made it very clear that he wants to be tough on crime which, for a mayor, is de rigueur. He's targeting bail reform and bringing back the "anti-crime" unit for the NYPD (which I don't entirely understand since I thought the police's whole job was anti-crime but nevermind). He's also issued some business-friendly executive orders, encouraged remote workers to return to their offices, and is advocating for the state legislature to extend mayoral control of the public schools through 2026 (i.e. the remainder of his term and then some). Otherwise, policy-wise, he hasn't done much -- no big intiatives, no clear vision for the city -- but it's early days yet.

However, when it comes to style, he's done a lot. 

Adams talks a lot about bringing back "swagger" to the city, and loves to swagger himself. He goes to nightclubs, pops up all over city at any given hour, performs vegan-friendly cooking demonstrations, posts pictures on social media of him on his exercise bike while he holds online meetings, and he talks about sheep for some reason a lot. He clearly revels in being the town's #1 guy. This is probably what accounts for his (for now) high approval rating of 61%.

Adams' approval rating is all the more remarkable for the number of odd and, one would think, politically harmful unforced errors he's made -- appointing his brother and unapologetic homophobes to his administration, insulting low-skilled workers, and lying about being a vegan while eating fish. One might think that this kind of insensitivity, dishonesty, and tunnel-vision might harm a mayor's approval ratings but this is clearly not the case. (In case you haven't been paying attention, we are living in the era of shame-free politics). 

I think the reason all of this nonsense hasn't hurt Adams (so far) is that he loves being mayor -- that's very clear. New Yorkers generally like a mayor who enjoys leading the city, at least the mascot aspect of the job. Koch, Giuliani, and Bloomberg, all in their different ways, loved being mayor as well, and it showed -- no matter how divisive, controversial, or elitist they were. And New Yorkers, at the time, gave them a thumbs up for it. Adams has clearly learned this lesson from his predecessors but his love for the job is also obviously genuine.

But what's depressing about this is that it proves that styles matters over substance -- in politics and as in so much of life. For example, Mayor De Blasio had many accomplishments with extending sick leave, universal pre-K, expanding ferry service, more affordable housing, and keeping crime low. He also handled COVID well (not perfectly but then who did?). Not to mention that, during his tenure, the city's population absolutely exploded. De Blasio was re-elected in a landslide so his efforts weren't entirely unappreciated, but he became hated, especially by the press, because he didn't seem to love the job or the people and the city he governed. (Did he really have to openly root for the Boston Red Sox?) De Blasio did the job, and did it well -- that's the most important thing after all -- but his mayoralty had no style, no "swagger", he didn't seem care at all about being the city's #1 person, and it eventually generated public derision. (Especially his also arriving late for events.)

You gotta sell 'em the sizzle more than the steak.

This extensive profile on Mayor Adams and his early days as mayor looks at the man and his mayoral style -- but it also shows so much how image, how flash, how interesting quotes (like this really weird sheep obsession he has), and most of all how a combination of political shamelessness and policy vagueness overrides actually delivering good policies. The press is responsible for much of this -- they care more about the personality of politicians and their various conflicts instead of their policies and the impacts they have on people's lives. Adams and politicians like him play along because they understand the rules of the game. It's not enough for a politician to say "Here's my record, it's helped a lot of people, please like me for it" --  no, they need to feed the media beast with good optics and quotes and an appearance of non-stop energy. The public can understand the flashy side to politicians since the policy part is, ya know, boring. 

Style over substance is the Mayor Adams style -- perhaps that will change, perhaps his popularity won't last, perhaps more substance will be forthcoming -- but it's a telling sign of the NYC and American political culture that playing a politician is more important than actually delivering beneficial policies. 

The Making of the Mayor 2021

Mayor De Blasio is less than two months into his second four-year term and already his would-be successors are circling the throne. The mayor is term-limited so, barring a catastrophe, De Blasio will be leaving office at the end of the 2021 and a new mayor will be elected to take his place.

Who will it be?

On the one hand, it's far too early to speculate -- after all, we're still almost three years away from the 2020 presidential election, who's thinking about the 2021 mayoral race? -- but, if you want to be mayor, it's never too early. In fact, as previous mayors and candidates indicate, it takes years to pull together a credible campaign, raise the necessary money, and position oneself to have a legitimate shot. The next mayor is out there, somewhere, planning his or her run.

Here are some of the rumored contenders thus far: 

City Comptroller Scott Stringer (D)

Public Advocate Tish James (D)

Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz (D)

Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams (D)

Queens Borough President Melinda Katz (D)

City Councilman Eric Adams (R)

Of course, some of them might not run -- or run for other offices (I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of the borough presidents go for Public Advocate or Comptroller instead, like Stringer did). Some of them might get lucky and win a congressional seat or get a high-level appointment. Some of them (naturally) might be felled by scandal. And, of course, all of them might get swept away by another Bloomberg-like candidate, a super-rich outsider who essentially outspends and outsells himself/herself to the public (and does the whole "I'm a rich outsider who's beholden to no-one and can fix it" blah blah blah -- it worked out with Mayor Bloomberg but not so much with the current POTUS).

Four years is many eternities in politics so don't be shocked if some (or all) of the above comes true. But I'll be interested, in 2021, after we elect a new mayor, to see which one of these aspirants become part of history -- and who else is destined to be forgotten.

Wag the (Ex) Mayor

The sleaze of former Mayor Eric Adams, cleaning up the trail of slime he left behind from his four years in City Hall, is apparently something that Mayor Z's administration is doing, to varied success.

In his last days in office, Adams moved around a lot of his cronies in his administration to obscure city jobs so that he could continue to have a toehold in city government. The new mayor is trying to find and fire as many of them as possible but it's not always that clear cut. Just a reminder of the disaster we got rid of as mayor, and how lucky we are to have someone like Mayor Z in charge now.

But don't worry, Adams is fine -- he just became a citizen of Albania because, ya' know, that's not weird.

In the 1997 classic movie Wag the Dog the president's advisors create a fake war with Albania to help distract from a scandal and win an election. In this case, 30 years later, a very real scandalous mayor is actually going to Albanian and becoming a citizen! Wag the Mayor I guess. Dear God. 

Please, Mr. Adams, please stay there!

The Silly Season

Every four years this country goes through the misery of a presidential election. The only good thing about them is that they usually produce some very interesting books (The Making of the President, The Boys on the Bus, Game Change, etc.), giving us naifs the behind the scenes drama of the campaigns and putting them into some kind of social/historical context.

There are still two months to go until the primaries, and four months until the general election, but I certainly hope that some ambitious journalist will produce a book about the 2013 NYC elections -- 'cause they're wild!

In a way, it was always destined to be so.
 

In 2005, virtually every incumbent was re-elected. In 2009, there were low-key elections for comptroller and public advocate but the public paid them very little attention and, of course (thanks to the outrageous term-limits change), the mayor and virtually every other city office holder was re-elected.

This year, however, the mayor and most other incumbents are term-limited so it has set-off a mad dash for the various public offices that govern NYC. We are poised to elect a new mayor, new public advocate, new comptroller, new borough presidents for Staten Island, Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens, as well as a chunk of the city council. And it has invited a new slew of candidates, including some very controversial ones.

 

But more on that later.

 

First, the mayor's race.  Both the Democrats and Republicans are having some brutal primaries and it's very unclear who will win either.

 

Republican Mayoral Primary

 

This race is between Joe Lohta (former MTA chairman, former Deputy Mayor under Rudy), John Catsimatidis (a.k.a Johnny C., owner of the Griestedes supermarket chain), and George McDonald, founder of the Doe Fund. McDonald is pretty much a non-entity in this race but the contest between Lohta and Johnny C. is intense. Lohta has the resume and institutional support (Rudy backs him, most Republicans in NYC back him) but Johnny has money -- lots of it -- and he's already running TV commercials. Plus he can argue that his business background makes him more like Bloomberg than the others.

This primary is reminiscent of the 1989 Republican primary that pitted Rudy vs. billionaire Ronald Lauder. Rudy had just left his job as US Attorney and had almost 100% Republican establishment support. However, Lauder spent $11 million in the primary and made it competitive. Rudy still beat Lauder but, many believe, the primary hobbled Rudy in the general election against Dinkins. Rudy had no significant primary in 1993 when he finally won the mayoralty.

 

The big question mark over the 2013 Republican primary is: will Johnny C.'s money overwhelm Lohta establishment support? Most Republican primary voters will probably vote for Lohta since they know he's Rudy's guy. But Johnny C.'s money gives him the advantage of doing an early, full-court press on these voters and it might help him with them. Also, McDonald could prove to be a spoiler. Some Republican primary voters might not want to vote for Lohta since, as head of the MTA, he oversaw toll increases. But they might not know or trust Johnny C. So McDonald might do better than expected and even force a run-off. This primary is almost impossible to predict but it will result in the first Republican candidate for mayor in more than two decades whose last name isn't either Giuliani or Bloomberg. And either he will follow in their footsteps or fail.

 

Democratic Mayoral Primary

 

This primary is, on the other hand, a zoo.

As usual, the other city-wide elected officials, the Comptroller (John Liu), the Public Advocate (Bill De Blasio) and the City Council Speaker (Christine Quinn) are running as well as the former Comptroller (Bill Thompson) who came within 4% points of beating Bloomberg in 2009. There are also a few minor candidates: a former city councilman who's been out of office for more than ten years, plus a church pastor and a comedian. But, of course, this primary was shaken up recently by the entry of Anthony Weiner, the former congressman who was forced to resign two years ago for Tweeting naughty pictures of himself.

For a while, Christine Quinn was easily leading the primary field in the polls but then a few things happened: Weiner entered the race and, shockingly, vaulted to the top of the polls; then Bill Thompson gained unexpected support in endorsements and money. Meanwhile, the anti-Christine Quinn forces have run TV ads against her, and her poll numbers have fallen badly. So, for the moment, Quinn and Weiner are tied in the polls with Thompson in third place. De Blasio is doing his best to gain more support but, so far, hasn't. John Liu would probably have been a leading player but, a few months ago, his campaign treasurer and one of his former fundraisers were both convicted of fraud so his candidacy has gone nowhere.

 

Because there are so many candidates, the primary field seems very fluid -- anyone of them could rise or fall quickly. At the moment, I would put my money on Quinn going into a run-off against either Thompson or Weiner. If it's Thompson, I think he will win the run-off since the people who hate Quinn really hate her and Thompson would be an acceptable alternative. But if she ends up in a run-off against Weiner, then she will probably end up winning because of Mr. Weiner's scandal. This will be especially interesting to watch.

 

Comptroller

 

Until recently, this was a sleepy race. The Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer was the only Democratic candidate and it looked like he would avoid a primary. But then, just days ago, the hooker-loving former Governor Elliot Spitzer jumped into the race and suddenly an election that wasn't even getting any attention in NYC was getting international coverage. And now Spitzer is leading in the polls!

 

There's also a Republican candidate named John Burnett (who's also black!) so this race has suddenly gone from sleepy to wide awake.

 

Public Advocate

 

This is the probably the least exciting of the big time elections in NYC. This race is refreshingly scandal free, and all of the candidates are certainly qualified for this job that requires so few qualifications.

 

There are four major candidates in the Democratic primary: State Senator Dan Squadron, Councilwoman Tish James, former Deputy Public Advocate Resha Saujani and a college professor named Cathy Guerriero.  Squadron is a young guy who has been in the state senate for four years and seems like the hyper-ambitious type who probably views this job as stepping stone to the mayoralty and beyond (I'm sure he has dreams of being president, he seems like that type). Tish James is from Brooklyn and used to actually work for Elliot Spitzer when he was Attorney General. Saujani is best known for her disastrous congressional run in 2010 and for her work in the PA's office under De Blasio -- as well as for her connections to Wall Street and the tech sector. Ms. Geurriero is the only totally fresh political newcomer; in addition to teaching, she successfully coordinated former Pope Benedict's trip to NYC in 2008.

 

There hasn't been much polling in this race, although I saw one where Ms. James and Ms. Geurriero were effectively tied. As a black woman with high name recognition in Brooklyn, James is probably getting a lot of support from minority and Brooklyn voters. Ms. Geurriero's last name has apparently garnered her support from white ethnics in the outer boroughs. So, at the moment, it looks like it's a race between these two ladies but I'd put my money on Tish James, since she's getting all of the establishment support and has the strongest qualifications.

 

Borough Presidents

 

There are competitive races in each borough except for the Bronx, where Ruben Diaz Jr. is up for reelection. As usual, each of the races in Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Staten Island has tons of candidates. Whichever candidates are lucky enough to win the coveted New York Times endorsements will probably win their primaries and general elections (i.e. whoever wins the Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn Democratic primaries will win the general and whoever wins the Staten Island Republican primary will win the general -- although a New York Times endorsement will probably mean very little in that race).

 

Don't know much else about these elections. Don't much care either, since the borough presidents have virtually no power.

 

City Council

 

There are fifty-one races. In about forty-five of them, whoever wins the Democratic primaries will win the general elections and, in two of them, whoever wins the Republican primaries will win the general elections. There are about four competitive races -- both in primaries and/or general elections -- out in Queens but I don't know much about them and can't, at the moment, find much info to share.  

 

Mr NYC's Analysis

 

As indicated numerous times above, the polls in these various races are unclear and anything can happen. But, to me at least, looking at the dynamics and potential dynamics of this election, a few things are becoming clearer.

 

In the mayor's race, the Republican candidate will be either Lohta or Johnny C. While neither is as formidable or rich as either Giuliani or Bloomberg were, they are both potentially very strong candidates who could appeal to the Giuliani/Bloomberg coalition that has kept Democrats out of the mayor's office for twenty years. Lohta can claim to have been part of the 1990s turnaround of NYC. Johnny C. can claim to be an unbought, skilled manager like Bloomberg. Both candidates have committed gaffes recently (Lohta compared Port Authority cops to mall cops; Johnny C. compared taxing rich people to the Holocaust); also, as first time candidates, either might wilt under the spotlight of a general election. But, assuming neither doesn't, either one is well positioned to keep the mayor's job away from a Democrat.

 

Right now, it looks like the Democratic mayoral candidate will be either Quinn, Thompson or Weiner -- unless De Blasio or Liu suddenly surges. Either Quinn or Thompson would be strong in a general election: they are respected, have solid records in public service, and are progressive but acceptable to the business community. Should De Blasio suddenly do well, he could be strong in a general election as well.

 

Weiner, on the other, is detested by just about everyone except for a core of the Democratic primary electorate. He may have enough support to get into a run-off but it's difficult to imagine him winning it.

 

Gaming out various general elections scenarios is hard but certain scenarios seem clear.

 

Quinn or Thompson could probably defeat either Lohta or Johnny C. in a general election. Without an incumbent mayor running, Democrats have a natural home field advantage. Also, unlike 1993 (with high crime) or 2001 (with the recent horror of 9/11), at the moment it doesn't look like this election will be taking place in an atmosphere of crises  -- unless another crises suddenly emerges like it did twelve years ago. No crises and no incumbent means that most Democratic voters will probably gravitate towards the Democratic candidate. Crime and terrorism are no longer the urgent problems they were, but the cost of living and a declining middle class are -- and this makes the climate more favorable for the Democratic candidate.  

 

But ... if Weiner were somehow to emerge as the Democratic candidate in the general election ... then it's very possible that we will have our third Republican mayor in row. It seems impossible to me that a majority of New Yorkers will vote for this guy. While NYC is a Democratic town, NYC voters have become comfortable voting for non-crazy Republicans for mayor. And if Democrats end up nominating a toxic candidate like Weiner, either Mr. Lohta or Johnny C. can win.

 

Liu's problems make him basically unelectable, either in the primary or general election, but at the moment it looks unlikely that he'll even make it into a primary runoff.

 

This "toxic" problem extends to the comptroller's race as well. I recently saw a disturbing poll that put Spitzer ahead of Scott Stringer in the Democratic primary. If Spitzer gets through the primary, then the Democrats will have nominated for city-wide office an admitted whore-monger who was forced to resign his job as governor in disgrace. Suddenly, the Republican candidate might become a whole lot stronger in the general election. Voters will say "Spitzer? Ew! I might vote actually vote for the Republican."  Usually the winner of the Democratic primary wins the general election easily -- and this will happen with Stringer -- but if it's Spitzer ... then NYC might have a second competitive city-wide general election and might have it's first non-Democratic comptroller in 70 years.

 

You can be excused for shooting yourself in the foot once, but not twice.

 

Imagine: two disgraced former politicians at the top of the city-wide Democratic ticket. If this happens, I predict that the general election will be a disaster -- and the opportunity our city has to finally have a real progressive mayor in decades will be shamefully and inexcusably lost.

And it'll go deeper than just losing the mayoral and comptroller's race. NYC voters will think, rightfully, that Democrats have lost their minds and may start voting Republican in the competitive city council races and even for public advocate (I don't know who the Republican public advocate candidate is -- or if there even is one -- but who knows?). The trickle-down effect of nominating these guys could be horrible.

Then, in 2014, instead of finally having a mayor who cares about the middle class, we will have another plutocrat mayor -- plus a plutocrat ally in the comptroller's office -- who will do everything in their power to cater to the rich, hurt working people, cripple unions, allow "developers" to destroy neighborhoods, and continue with the economic regression that has been plaguing this town for decades.

The stakes for this election are incredible high. This is a "hinge of history" election where either our city will start address its social and economic problems -- or let them get worse. 

To be continued.

Making a Modern NYC: Bill De Blasio for Mayor

"Modern" is a word that gets thrown around a lot and yet, when asked to define it, most people would probably be stumped to say what it is exactly. Dictionary.com defines modern as:

1. of or pertaining to present and recent time; not ancient or remote: modern city life.

2.  characteristic of present and recent time; contemporary; not antiquated or obsolete: modern viewpoints.

3. of or pertaining to the historical period following the Middle Ages: modern European history.

4. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of contemporary styles of art, literature, music, etc., that reject traditionally accepted or sanctioned forms and emphasize individual experimentation and sensibility. 

So, basically, something modern is anything that relates to today.

Which begs another question: what makes NYC a modern city? In the past, NYC was the modern city of its times. It was always the city of today -- and tomorrow. But will it always be so?

Before contemplating the future, let's look to the past. This recent segment from WNYC recounted the history of how two men in the 1930s helped to shape modern New York: Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. These two titans of their era used the power of government to re-build a decaying city and drastically improve the lives of its citizens. They had a progressive vision: clean and affordable housing, good jobs with safe working conditions, health care, and education. These services were provided and improved in order to empower people in their lives and to help them to contribute to the life of the city. FDR and LaGuardia saw progressive policies not only as compassionate and moral but as smart and necessary -- they helped people help society. Because of these two leaders, NYC emerged from the Great Depression and World War II to be the most powerful city in the most powerful nation on earth -- the very zenith, the very cusp of modernity.  

Now, almost a century later, the city is again looking to the future -- and trying to define its modern identity. 

Increasingly, we've become a city of rich and poor with a dying middle class. If you're rich in this town, times have never been better. But if you're not, they've never been this tough. If you can afford it, there's never been more luxury housing available. If you're can't, there's never been less affordable housing available. Schools are great -- if you can afford good private ones or live in the right neighborhoods. If you don't, you're condemned to failing schools. These have been great times for the rich, lucky and connected -- and terrible for everyone else. 

For Mayor Bloomberg, he has worked very hard to regulate how much soda you drink but not how much you pay in rent. He has tried to make NYC a "luxury product" and not a city for all. Basically, he wants NYC to be Bergdorf Goodmans and, if you can't afford it, you can go shop at Target for all he cares. 

To me, this is an unacceptable future for NYC. 

So what will the future of NYC in the 21st century be like? Is our city going to go the way of Ancien France or Tsarist Russia? Or can we make a change? Can we recapture the same progressive spirit that saved this city almost a century ago?

We can't be a modern, progressive city without investing in our people. We can't have a city of rich and poor, squeezing everyone else out. A brain drain from NYC would be a disaster. As Lena Dunham, creator of the HBO show Girls and a lifelong New Yorker put it: "We can't have our generation's Patti Smith moving to Tampa."

That's why we need to elect Bill De Blasio as our next mayor. He's the best progressive we can elect to fashion a modern New York that closes the gap between rich and poor. He has a simple, straightforward agenda that would go a long way to closing this gap: impose a tax surcharge of .04 to 1% on incomes over half a million dollars, universal pre-K, reform "stop and frisk", support a living wage, and build affordable housing. Sounds like a good plan to me. A 21st century progressive plan that a leading American economist, Jeffrey Sachs, strongly endorses. And believe me, very few people are smarter than him. 

Sounds good to you, right? I would hope so.

But not to some people -- like our current mayor or the 1%. If De Blasio wins the Democratic primary -- as it looks increasingly likely that he will -- it'll be a battle royale between him and the Republican candidate.   

Oh yes, there will be a lot of fear mongering. "Oh no! If we elect De Blasio mayor, it'll be like the 1970s again: high crime, fiscal crises, white flight!" Those arguments are crap: this isn't the 1970s anymore, we have new accounting rules that don't allow a fiscal crises to emerge, and crime has fallen so low that I don't think that a mayor, any mayor, could just somehow make it flare up again. No, the city is facing new a crises: affordability, quality of life, fairness, justice. Without these, NYC can't be a truly modern city.  

The last presidential election showed that American is moving in a more progressive direction. With Obama in the White House, America is moving forward. Does NYC want to be left behind?  

If we are to truly be a modern city, we need to move in a more progressive direction and, for that, we need progressive leadership. For mayor, De Blasio is the way to go.

Betting Mayors

Tomorrow's Jets vs. Steelers game is shaping up to be a huge game. Whoever wins gets to go to the Superbowl. Imagine: after tomorrow, after more than 40 years, the Jets may be in the Big Game. Makes you glad you've lived this long.

So when a big championship game shapes up, the Mayors of the respective cities makes bets with each other. The rewards have usually been the losing Mayor sending the winning Mayor foods items distinctive of their cities. Or it can involve the losing Mayor wearing the jersey of the winning team at a public event. Something silly like that. 

This year the Mayor of Pittsburgh and our own Mayor have come up with an interesting bet: the losing mayor will wear the jersey of the winning team while preparing care packages for the returning soldiers from the winning city. If the Jets win tomorrow, I can't think of a better way for them to be ushered into their first Superbowl in almost half a century, then for the Mayor of Pittsburgh helping out the soldiers of NYC.

New York City's Next Steps

The COVID-19 pandemic has raged for a year. While we're by no means out of the tunnel yet, the light at the end of it is getting brighter. Vaccination rates are soaring and infection rates are dropping (although, here in NYC we've seen some regression in infection rates which will hopefully end soon). But one day, if all goes right, in the next year or so, this thing will be over and we'll all go back to -- well, no ... we won't -- we won't go back to "normal." First, "normal" was never normal to begin with. Second, whatever comes next will be a "new normal", an aftermath, as we deal with the social, economic, political, and human impact fallout of the pandemic.

Here in NYC this is already happening -- we're already thinking about the city's future and the next steps it will be taking to get there.

For many, as this heartrendering article demonstrates in several personal stories, the city will never be the same. There lives have changed and their place in the city has changed, both personally and professionally. Jobs are lost and gone forever, some still have jobs but the nature and demands of them have changed, friends and family members have died, and relationships have been permanently altered, for better or worse. Their NYC is not the old one and never will be again.

Then there's the city's economic future. The pandemic hammered businesses and the tourism industry that the city depends on for tax revenue. The fiscal situation is dire. But two things will improve this -- and soon. First, as more people get vaccinated, more businesses will open up and more tourists will visit and tax collections will increase. Second, the last election yielded a president and a congress that, unusually, actually cares about NYC. Lots of stimulus money is headed our way! So the city's economy will recover but it will take almost five years until the city gets back to the employment and economic level it had before the pandemic. We're working hard to get back simply to where we were.

Finally, there's the matter of who will actually be overseeing the city's recovery from COVID-19. This is a big election year in NYC, with a new mayor, comptroller, several borough presidents, and a city council to be chosen. The class of '21 taking control of NYC will have a big, tough job ahead of it -- sorting out the finances and managing a strained and exhausted government. Much like Michael Bloomberg was elected twenty-years ago on the heels of 9/11, with this first term defined by handling the fallout from it, the new mayor's term will be defined by how the city recovers from the pandemic. There are some good candidates running -- former Housing and Sanitation Commissioners Shaun Donovan and Kathryn Garcia, Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, and City Comptroller Scott Stinger. There are also some really lousy ones ...

... and this is where I get scared. Andrew Yang, for reasons that defy logic, is currently leading in the polls and has a good (certainly not bulletproof, but good enough) chance of getting elected mayor. As I've blogged about before, he is totally unqualified to be mayor -- not only has he never served in government, either in elected or appointed office, but he hasn't even voted in past mayoral elections! Unlike Bloomberg, who built a Fortune 500 company, Yang's biggest acoomplishment was running a non-profit. That's it. His policy ideas are shallow and meaningless -- like a $1,000 basic universal income and a casino on Governor's Island, totally unserious proposals. Appparently, his lack of seriousness is what's charming the press into giving him good coverage and getting him ahead in the polls. He plays basketball with the press! He releaeses rap videos! He performs stunts when handing in his petitions! He knows how to play the PR game but HE. IS. NOT. QUALIFIED. TO. BE. MAYOR. I'm scared that this totally unqualified guy will wind up as mayor at a time when we need a very smart, very competent, and very skilled political and governmental operator to help the city recover. We had an unqualified and unserious president for the last four years -- and we saw how that turned out. Just because Yang isn't as personally vile as Trump doesn't mean he'd be a much better as mayor as Trump was as president. 

Please, NYC, choose wisely. The next steps into the future for a better city depends on it!

Curse of the Comptroller

In the final season of The Crown, Prince Charles ruminates: "To be Prince of Wales is not a position -- it's a predicament." 

The same is true of the American Vice-Presidency. Much like the Prince of Wales, the job is mainly just to exist, to be ... there ... until the top job opens up ... or not.

Right now the American Vice-Presidency is under a microscope -- as President Biden steps aside, his Vice-President, Kamala Harris, is being vaulted to become the 2024 Democratic nominee for President (and, God willing, will be elected President in November). And President Biden, of course, was Vice-President just a few years ago.

And, yes, two years ago Prince Charles in real life became King Charles. 

Eventually the predicament of being #2, the understudy waiting in the wings, comes to an end, one way or another (for the previous Vice-President, Mike Pence, it almost ended when his President, Donald Trump, sent a violent mob to attack him).

As the 2024 presidential race gets hotter and wilder, the 2025 NYC Mayor's race is being quietly talked about. Mayor Eric Adams is not popular and several people are being spoken about challenging him next year. Amongst the rumored candidates are Scott Stringer and Brad Lander, the former and current Comptrollers of NYC. 

Much like the Prince of Wales or Vice-President, the NYC Comptroller is also a predicament. Now, unlike those jobs, it does have some real substance to it -- the Comptroller is the Chief Fiscal Officer of the city, overseeing the city's accounts, running audits of city agencies, managing the pension system, issuing bonds, reviewing and approving city contracts, etc. It's a very important position, and it's overall job is to make sure NYC tax dollars are spent legally, ethically, and transparently.

However, what makes the job a predicament is that it simply doesn't have the powers or glamour of the mayoralty -- the Comptroller is the CFO, not the CEO of the city, doesn't get to sign or veto legislation, doesn't get to set government policy, doesn't appoint agency heads, and doesn't get to live rent-free in a mansion. It's a job that's so close and yet so far from the top job, existing across a chasm that's a foot wide and a million feet deep.

On paper, the Comptrollership should be the perfect launching pad for the mayoralty. It's a citywide elected position, it has real power, and the comptroller's name is often in the media. And yet the last NYC Comptroller to be elected mayor was Abe Beame back in 1973 -- since then, almost every single Comptroller has run for mayor and lost, often badly. For more than half a century the #2 job, the job that seems like the perfect political stepping-stone to #1, has instead proven to be a political banana peal. 

Not for nothing, NYC political wags have come to believe in "the curse of the comptroller." 

Of course, in every election, there have been various, often forgotten reasons, why these Comptrollers have never become mayor. But it will very interesting to see if, next year, two Comptrollers run and if either of them can actually topple Adams and become mayor. 

If so, then the "curse of the comptroller" will be lifted. If not, it will be doubled. 

The Lady Who Might Be Mayor

Since I'm a man (at least the last time I checked) I don't do things like read Elle magazine. It's a "chick mag", for and about glamorous chicks, who live busy lives of being glamorous and famous and better than the rest of us. Usually articles in magazines like this are about actresses, models, singers, ya know, glamorous broads. But recently this magazine did a profile on someone who might not be that glamorous but is -- and could get even more -- powerful.

NYC's own Christine Quinn.

She's the Speaker of the City Council, the second most powerful person in town, and is considered a strong candidate for mayor in 2013. In her position as speaker, municipal legislation only gets introduced and passed if she wants it to be. She acts (or can) as a counterweight to Mayor Bloomberg, she can (if she wants to) act as his check and balance. Christine Quinn is one of the very few people in city government who Bloomberg can't directly control. 

Of course, one of the complaints about her is that she doesn't act as an effective enough counterweight, that she goes along with the Bloomberg corporatist agenda hook, line, and sinker, and that he does to some extent control her. Quinn obviously wants to be mayor very badly, and many think she's qualified. And the fact that she's a lesbian, even engaged to a woman who she's been with for ten years, makes her all the more interesting.

Christine Quinn is the very model of a modern 21st century NYC politician.

But as glowing and reverential as this Elle profile is, as much as it makes her possible elevation to mayor seem like a great leap for womankind, this glossy article glosses over some of Quinn's real liabilities going into 2013. Namely, a lot of liberal Democrats, her natural constituency, don't like her. She's continually sidelined progressive legislation like the living wage. She totally ignored OWS. She's made herself Wall Street and big business's best friend. She's done nothing to stick up for teacher's while Bloomberg and his allies have declared war on them. She's done from being a progressive activist to a business as usual politician.

Quinn is so obsessed with being viewed as "moderate" or "centrist" Democrat that she is losing the very Democrats she'll need to win a mayoral primary. 

One of the things that's interesting about this article is how clueless the author of it is about NYC politics or about NYC in general (even though the author lives here, she admits that she's never been to Staten Island or the Bronx). Part of the problem with the media is how little they understand the underlying dynamics of politics, how it works, and why people win or don't win elections. And if Quinn doesn't become mayor, the author of this article would be smart to find out why.

Mike & The Media

C'est tres gauche to declare yourself ahead of your time but goshdarnit if Mr NYC wasn't ahead of his time in calling out how the media covered Mike Bloomberg during his 12 years as mayor.

As the former mayor and current multi-billionaire campaigns for president, breaking all spending records in the process, his time as mayor is coming under scrutiny. This is only fair for someone who governed -- really ruled -- the nation's biggest city for more than a decade and is now asking to be promoted to the nation's highest office. Certainly, if Bloomberg wins the nomination as president, I'll vote for him but cannot say I'm excited at the process.

But what's also coming under scrutiny is how Bloomberg was able to shut down the ususal media barrage of criticism and complaints and "disses" that every mayor and public official has to deal with. With his money, he basically bought off special interest groups that would otherwise break his balls and he intimidated the press into giving him glowing coverage. Now he's trying to do the same thing at the national level -- but it isn't working.

Perfect example of how Bloomberg was covered vs. De Blasio, his successor: whenever De Blasio goes to the gym to work out for an hour, the media slams him. When Bloomberg flew to Bermuda on his private plane every weekend, the media said nothing. 

Read this big article about how Bloomberg "owned" the NYC media as mayor and then read some of blog posts from 2007-2013 -- and you'll see how prescient yours truly was in seeing how this mayor and possible president operated then -- and now. 

Mr NYC Ahead of His Time -- Also, Mr NYC Corrects the Record

Currently there is a swirl of buzz in the NYC media world about the corruption investigation into Mayor Eric Adams -- and whether or not it might lead to his resignation (including the idea that former Governor Andrew Cuomo might run to replace him, that'd be wild).

Anyway, this morning I came across this article from City and State NY with this headline: "No NYC mayor has resigned Since 1932. But here's what would happen if they did."

Now let's not get to hung up on the grammer of this headline ("No mayor" is singular, "they" is plural), and the article does a fine job explaining how the line of succession works per the city charter --- but the headline is just flat-out, historically wrong.

While a mayor, Jimmy Walker, did resign in 1932 another mayor also resigned in 1950 -- William O'Dwyer. I even did a blog post in 2019 about the special election of 1950. I even wrote a blog post about the mayor who was elected in that special election -- Vincent Impelliteri -- all the way back in 2007!  

So the record now stands corrected!

The People Who Will Be Mayor

In this consequential year for our city, twelve people are currently running to be our next mayor. Twelve! That's a quite a lot. If each one of them were an ice cream flavor, they could open a store. Anyway, this election has become a circus, as I have previously written about, and, if you want more musings about it and various scandals attendant to it, you won't get it here.

What you will get, however, is a serious look at what's at stake for our future. This big article in The New York Times Magazine does a good job looking at what one of these twelve people will inherit on January 1st, 2014:

"New York City stands at a crossroads. Things are good for many, but not for all. The balance      between the positives and the hazards could swing either way. In the first couple of years after the Great Recession, the economy’s growth, nearly 3 percent per year, outpaced the rise in national G.D.P. In 2011, 6.6 percent of the city’s households had income greater than $200,000 a year, while a third of the city’s population survives on Medicaid. Manhattan has become a tech rival to Silicon Valley, and bike lanes have come to Brownsville — a Brooklyn neighborhood where 4 out of 10 residents live below the poverty line. Wall Street, Midtown and the N.Y.P.D. are happy. Crime continues to decline: only one precinct, in East New York, has more violent crime than the Upper East Side faced two decades ago. And the population is growing. For all the fears of jihad, the end of capitalism and the advent of superstorms, the years since 9/11 have witnessed the arrival of a new generation. Perhaps as many as a third of the city’s residents did not live here a decade ago. And all those newcomers have contributed to the prize of this electoral season: the minority majority ... The list is long and growing: the public-employee unions — 147 bargaining units — working without contracts and hungering for retroactive pay; the rise in city pensions and health care payouts (pension obligations are projected to be more than $8 billion a year — more than the city’s combined operating budget for police, fire and corrections annually); the mayor’s plan to rezone East Midtown (among other things, opening up 73 blocks around Grand Central to super-skyscrapers); the first phase of the emergency measures needed to harden the city ahead of the next Sandy (projected cost: $20 billion); the mess that is public housing (approximately 400,000 New Yorkers trying to survive in 334 developments, another 225,000 in Section 8 housing and the all-but-orphaned-by-Washington New York City Housing Authority, which has a backlog of 220,000 repairs and faces $6 billion in unmet capital needs, a black hole expected to more than double in five years). " 

Riding on Rudy's 9/11 coattails, along with several hundred million dollars to boot and lots of racist fear mongering, Michael Bloomberg has basically anestitized the political culture in NYC for more than a decade. Democrats and other would be political opponents have barely stood up to him, either because they are afraid of his money or because they've been bought off. The press has given this mayor a major free pass, giving him barely any critical coverage or linking him to any of the scandals in city government (the corrupt housing department, for example) because, again they fear him -- and any reporter who dares cross him knows that his or her future employment opportunities may be few. Let's not forget, he isn't even supposed to be mayor any more, he was supposed to have left office in 2009. But Bloomberg used his power and, along with an equally power hungry city council, extended term limits. Under Bloomberg, the arrogance of power has never been more raw or on full display. He has made this a city of rich and poor, of insiders and outsiders, of those who can afford the "luxury product" of NYC and those who merely serve them. 

The next mayor will either continue these policies or give us a fresh start. And them's the stakes. 

Memo to the Mayor-elect

Eight days after his election, Mayor-elect Bill De Blasio is getting down to the unglamorous work of the transition. He's hiring staffers and administration officials, setting policy priorities, working on his inaugural speech, and contemplating a move to Gracie Mansion.

Lots to do with the clock is ticking towards midnight January 1st 2014!

You don't get to become the mayor of this town without being a pretty bright guy, and nearly everyone agrees that De Blasio is plenty smart. But, this being NYC, we're literally crowded with smart people, including captains of industry, other politicians, and celebrities of every stripe. All of them probably think they'd be a great mayor and have lots of advice to offer the soon-to-be 109th Hizzoner. 

This slide show article has lots of people offering advice and it is telling. Most of them want De Blasio to craft policies that will benefit their businesses and industries. Others offer platitudes: better schools! lower crime! more affordable housing! improve transportation! None of them are offering advice on how he would actually pay for and implement any of this stuff. They just want him to do it.

Now I'm not a leader of anything or a celebrity so certainly my advice to the mayor-elect is even less important. Unlike these people and most people in this town, I don't think I'm the smartest person in the history of creation. In fact, I'm 99.999999999999999999999% sure I'm not.

But I'll give it a try nonetheless. 

  Dear Mr. Mayor: please keep your promises, do your best, and don't listen to the critics. Don't forget the people who supported you and ignore the people who didn't. Don't take any attack lying down. Raise taxes on the rich, provide universal pre-K, provide job training programs, and build more affordable housing. And be straight with the people about how you're going to pay for it.

That's it. That's my advice. Hope he follows it. Then again, remember, I don't claim to be that smart. 

The Case of the Missing NYC Mayor

When Zohran Mamdani was elected mayor last November, it was declared that he would be the 111th mayor of New York City. 

But ... not so fast.

A deep-dive into the municipal archives reveals that -- in the 17th century -- when NYC was a new city and the mayors were appointed by the British government -- a man named Matthias Nicolls in 1674 briefly served as the city's chief executive. 

Nicolls had been mayor before, then left office, but it appears that he was reappointed as mayor before departing quickly again. So Mamdani will technically be the 112th mayor.

It appears that there was no nefarious reason for this oversight -- it was simply a slip of the historical record. 

Just another example of how the history of NYC is forever fascinating.