Eric Adams: The Secrets of His Success

The vision-less, incompetent mayoralty of Eric Adams is now getting more and more attention from what some might call the "elite" media -- specifically, The New Yorker, whose big new article on him, "Eric Adams' Administration of Bluster", goes into a mayoralty that's long on narcissism, short on accomplishment. The New York Times has run a few articles on his empty yet braggadocious tenure -- as well as the fact that, while many want to see him defeated for reelection in 2025, who the Adams-slayer might be remains frustratingly unclear. 

And that, in fact, has been the secret to Adams' mayoral success thus far -- a total lack of credible challengers, a strong alternative to him.

Even though he almost lost the 2021 Democratic mayoral primary, Adams' main challengers were the smart but politically inexperienced Kathryn Garcia, the "entrepreneur"/former presidential candidate/con-man Andrew Yang, and others who were either unknown or unimpressive. In the general election, his Republican opponent was Curtis Sliwa who was, and is, in short, insane. The NYC political reporter -- and three-time Mr NYC interviewee -- Ross Barkan asks in one of his latest articles, "How did New York get Eric Adams?" and then answers it in the same vein -- Adams was the best of a very bad bunch, the strongest in a very weak field; in short, he became mayor almost by default, thanks to a process of elimination where he was viewed as the "least-worst" option.

Unlike the big-time media, this blog and Ross have been covering the oddness and misgovernance of Eric Adams ever since he took office. This is yet another example of how Mr NYC has been "ahead of his time."

And, looking ahead, it's important to remember one big thing: political survival comes down to, at the end of the day, who supports you. Political survival, sadly, is not about how good a job politicians are doing, not about whether or not they're delivering good policies or tangible benefits for the public, but whether or not they have the support for the powerful forces that can keep them in office. Besides weak or non-existent political opposition, Adams has had and retains strong support among black and Hispanic voters, the business community, Jewish voters, police and the tabloid press. These are the same constituencies (saving the black and Hispanic communities) who strongly supported Koch, Giuliani and Bloomberg back in the day, and who violently opposed Dinkins and DeBlasio -- and it's why those former three mayors remained popular despite their plutocratic and corrupt mayoralties and the latter two became hated.

Eric Adams is mayor -- and may very well continue as mayor until January 1st, 2030 -- since he has probably the most powerful aforementioned group of supporters that any mayor has ever had, he has (for now) no potent opposition, the daily horror show and threat that Donald Trump poses continues to overwhelm and distract the public from Adams's failings, plus the sharp decline in local reporting has reduced the scrutiny that NYC mayors have gotten in the past. 

Adams doesn't really have any secret to his political success, he's no genius or playing some great game, some kind of multi-dimensional chess -- he's just been lucky (so far). He's been luckier than his opponents who are either dumber or weaker or crazier than he is; and if, in 2025 and beyond, his luck holds and his opponents remain imponent and he doesn't end up getting indicted (and it wouldn't shock me if he is), Adams may be able to retire from politics on January 1st, 2030 with NYC thinking he was a successful mayor.    

It will be classic case of failing upwards. 

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. 

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!

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. 

For City & Country

What's the difference between a city and a country? The answer to this question is obvious -- and not. Both are places of some geographic size with boundaries (either natural or not) where people live. The main difference is that a city is an urban, somewhat-to-very densely populated area that usually is no more than several miles from end to end while countries are (or can be)  vastly larger spaces with various and multiple geographies and populations living in it.

A lot of this affects how they're governed. Cities are usually run by mayors, people who run their governments to deliver basic services to their populations, a day-to-day manager who keeps a going-concern going (some cities don't even have mayors, they have "city managers"). Countries, on the other hand, are led by people for whom the day-to-day delivery of services of part of the job but mostly a county's leader is to shape its future and establish its place in the world. In short, mayors play small ball but a country's leaders necessarily play large ball. Small picture vs. big picture, mirco vs. macro, etc. you get the idea.

So what happens when a man with a small ball, small picture, micro mentality assumes the leadership of the greatest nation in the world?

That brings us, inevitably and depressingly, to Donald Trump, currently inhabiting the White House as the 45th President of the United States. As this article notes, Trump is not treating the White House and the Presidency with the reverence and sense of overarching mission that most presidents do -- he's treating it like a jumped up City Hall.

In order to assert their authority and get stuff done, mayors spend a lot of time, as we in NYC politely put it,  "breaking balls" -- of the press, of political opponents, of the bureaucracy, of anyone holding up, or making the business of, the city more difficult. Presidents, on the other hand, leave the ball breaking to others and spend their time leading the government and the people into a vision of progress.

If you look at a mayor like Ed Koch, he was effective because he constantly broke balls. But could you have imagined him the White House? Would you want to? Similarly, presidents like Reagan or Obama successfully inspired and led their nations -- but could you imagine them dealing with the day-to-day nastiness of leading NYC? Me neither. Don't think so.

Trump is a very bad president because he thinks that he can somehow lead the government and his country by breaking balls, like he's the mayor of a city of 300+ million people -- and this just doesn't work. Never has. Think of the presidents who inspired America, like FDR and Reagan, and how effectively they motivated and led the nation. Then think of someone like Rudy Giuliani, who broke balls constantly as mayor and was effective at it but failed to translate that into the presidency. The job of mayor and president are very, very different, and Trump just doesn't seem to understand that.

There's a reason why we want our presidents to be "presidential", why we hold them to a higher standard in terms of comportment, why their vision and leadership is so important -- it's about our future as a nation and our role in the world. Mayors aren't expected to do that or be like this; if anything, we like that they're people on the ground who get us through the day -- and hey, if they gotta crack a few skulls, so be it.

But there's another very interesting thing in this article comparing the Trump presidency to a mayoralty. Unlike previous presidents, mayors in the past have had no problem being, like Trump, openly racist, hate-mongering vulgarians who sparked division and fostered an atmosphere of ethnic tension. Ethnic politics, after all, has been the staple of city politics since the beginning of time but presidents have, mostly, avoided ethnic politics. But Trump doubles down on white racist ethnic politics.

Why?

Because, in the past, Trump-like mayors usually exposed the death-rattle of white ethnic dominance. In the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, cities like LA, Chicago, Philadelphia and, of course, NYC, had openly racist, hate-mongering vulgar mayors like Sam Yorty, Frank Rizzo and our own Ed Koch and Rudy Giuliani. In their day, they represented and governed in the interest of white voters who were petrified that their cities were "changing" i.e. becoming less white, more tolerant, more progressive, etc. etc. etc. These racist mayors aimed to protect the white population and spent all their time talking about "fighting crime" (i.e. arresting blacks), "ending dependency" (i.e. welfare for blacks), "restoring order" (i.e. more arresting blacks), trashing the media (i.e. Jews), protecting our neighborhoods (i.e. keeping non-white people out) -- you get the idea.

This kind of politics worked for a while but, in the end, it failed. As the saying goes, demographics is destiny. These mayors went away and  were replaced either by black mayors or by a new generation of white mayors governing in very different cities in very different times and in very different (i.e. less racist) ways. The cities changed and the politics followed. Today, in big cities, white ethnics are still around, they still make noise, they vote, but they simply don't have power they once did because they are outnumbered by non-white (I'm a white guy in NYC so I know). Most big cities are majority-minority now. Bloomberg and De Blasio, as different as they may be, simply could not be the same kind of hate-mongers like Koch and Giuliani were and expect to stay in office. The USA is expected to be a majority-minority in the next few decades so, one day, a president like Trump will be impossible. He'll simply be a curiosity of history, a to another time and place, a man of the past who fought but ultimately lost the battle to keep the future away.

P.S. Here's another great article about that time and place where Trump came from, namely the NYC of the 1970s and 80s.  

KIDS @ 20

Twenty years ago this summer a low-budget movie about teenagers hanging out in Manhattan hit theaters. The movie had no stars and was shot in a documentary, cinema verite style (basically it was a 1990s American version of an Italian neo-realist film). It also had an unassumingly simple title: KIDS.

But oh ... the kids in this flick were doing very un-kid like things. Oh my, they were hardly paragons of youthful innocence. They were doing very nasty and quite disturbing things, like having sexual intercourse, and consuming drugs, and getting into street fights, and even skateboarding in a very dangerous manner. It was an expose, a "shocking" look at young'uns in America (or at least NYC) gone wrong. It was, as one reviewer at the time put it, "a wake up call to the world."

Yes, right under our noses and on our streets and in our buildings, teenagers were behaving very badly.

The "plot" of this film concerns a teenager named Telly who likes having sex with virgin girls when he's not hanging out with his friend Casper whose main interests are drinking 40 ounces of malt liquor and sticking tampons up his nose. Together, they spend a day "cold chillin'" in NYC with various friends. Meanwhile, a girl named Jenny that Telly previously de-flowered discovers that she has HIV -- and that means Telly, her only sexual conquest, was the culprit. She spends her time during this day trying to find him but can she do so before the self-described "virgin surgeon" strikes again? Oh my indeed.

One thing that's interesting to see in this movie, and what makes it something of an historical document, is that cell phones/smart phones and social media are totally absent in it. They didn't exist yet. Heck, these kids don't even have beepers! (Remember them?). Remember, this movie came out in the mid-1990s so Jenny actually had to track down Telly in person to inform him of her (really their) plight. Doubtless, today, Jenny would call or text Telly (assuming she had his number or knew someone who did) or she'd just go on Facebook and flame "THAT TELLY MUTHAFUCKA GAVE ME AIDS!"

I remember when this movie came out in '95. It was the summer I went to college. The movie was very controversial and very much discussed in the press. And then it was pretty much forgotten about. After all, once the shock value wore off, people were just left with watching a rather gross, tedious movie. That said, the movie had its virtues. KIDS did not moralize. It didn't claim to have any answers about the youth crises in America. It was just a look at a bunch of teenagers living lives of boredom in despair in the richest most powerful nation in history ever to bestride the face of the earth. It reflected the mirror to nature, made us look at the world we had created. And it sucked.

However, now that the film is older than most of the actors who were in it, those of us who were teenagers back then seem to be remembering it. Here's one article that is a retrospective of KIDS, of what it meant to American society and popular culture at the time, and its legacy today. And here's another one about many of the locations in NYC that appear in the film (it was shot in 1994) and what they look like today.

One thing about this movie that really dates it: the teenagers in it are clearly lower-middle class kids, kids who aren't academic geniuses or great athletes, kids whose futures seem very bleak. Today, in post-Bloomberg NYC, there are barely any lower middle class people in Manhattan anymore. If this movie was being made today, these kids would probably be hanging out in some of the rougher parts of the outer boroughs. KIDS takes place in the era when the great bad old days in NYC were ending and the Comeback city was emerging. Take, for instance, Washington Square park. Back then, it was a run-down haven for young people and the disaffected to hang out, do drugs, and get into trouble (in this movie, a scene in Washington Square park turns into a violent melee). But today, the park is ... bucolic ... serene ... a friendly place for families and NYU students alike. Today, if a bunch of kids beat someone up there in broad daylight, they would be arrested and booked within seconds.

In many ways KIDS is ... old.

The crime is gone. The AIDS crises has largely receded. Teenagers are having less sex and pot use is virtually legal. The city has changed. Now being a non-having sex, book loving, computer using nerd is considered cool, even sexy. Being a druggie loser has lost its appeal for many young people. But in looking back at this movie and at the time and place and issues of the day it addresses, you have to wonder, won't kids always be kids?

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. 

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.

Judgment Day!

No, I'm not talking about the supposed end of the world which, according to that crazy preacher guy, is supposed to happen this Friday (I think it was supposed to happen a few months ago but didn't. Considering this guy's track record, I'm not holding my breath).

No, I'm talking about judgment day for John Haggerty, the Republican Bloomberg aid who provided "ballot security" (otherwise known as voter suppression) in order to help Hizzoner secure his third term. While providing this valuable public service, Mr. Haggerty allegedly stole $1 million of Bloomy's filthy lucre for himself. This has led to a widely publicize trial of Mr. Haggerty as well as a trial by press coverage of the very unethical way that the 2009 election was won. Now the trial is over -- and Mr. Haggerty's judgement day awaits.

While this trial hasn't turned out to be a New York City Watergate -- a full blown scandal that brings down a powerful leader -- it has, like Watergate, exposed the sleazy way that Bloomberg -- that billionaire  "I'm not a politician" man of the people -- has gone about acquiring power.

Voter suppression. Money laundering. Legal loopholes. Free lunches to "supporters" to turn out at public hearings about extending term limits. Bribery.

No matter if this guy is convicted or not, it will be a judgment day for Bloomberg of sorts. How his money has corrupted the civic and political life of this town -- and if it will ever be the same again. 

The Arrogance of Power

Mayor Bloomberg has managed to avoid most of the ugly, petty scandals that dog so many politicians. His money and popularity, for years, kept him above reproach. But his popularity has plummeted and his share of problems have increased (Cathie Black, the snowstorm, City Time, etc.). Now, for the first time in his decade in power, Bloomberg's has been revealed to be just another politician.

Last month, Deputy Mayor Stephen Goldsmith resigned, allegedly because he wanted to go back into the private sector and because he was ill-suited for the job. He is widely blamed for screwing up the December snowstorm response and he seemed more interested in fancy ideas instead of the nuts and bolts of governing. So when he resigned it was shrugged off by Bloomberg and the press as, "Oh well, it seemed like a good idea at the time but it just didn't work out."

But that wasn't true. 

Turns out, Goldsmith resigned because he was arrested in DC in July for domestic violence. Now that's bad but what made it worse was that Bloomberg covered it up! He lied to the public at the time, said basically, "The guy's resigning because he's unhappy in the job and we don't like him anymore." Bloomberg NEVER revealed the real reason and it dribbled out in the most sleazy manor.

And what's Bloomberg's response now that scandal has been revealed? Total indifference. He basically says "Oh, I didn't want to embarrass the guy so that's why I didn't reveal it. But I liked him and would have kept him in the job anyway." Bloomberg flunked the basic lesson of Political Scandal 101: it's not the crime but the cover-up. Had he just said at the time the real reason why Goldsmith resigned, then there would be no scandal. It would be out he goes and that's the end of it. Shameful.

This shows you who Mike Bloomberg really is at his core. He is supremely arrogant man. And this is the arrogance of power in action: protecting your friends, and yourself by extension, by deceiving everyone else. It's wrong -- and our mayor should be ashamed of himself.    

Bloomberg Blues

Mike Bloomberg has been mayor of NYC for almost a decade. That's a long time. He's been mayor so long that it can truly be called an era. And there's two-and-a-half years to go!

But exhaustion as set in. 

Mayor Mike appears to be just going through the motions now in his bought-and-paid-for third term. Remember how incredibly important it was for him to serve again that the city council flouted the public will and voted to let him run again? Well, now that he has t his extra term, what exactly has he done with it? Mike seems tired of the job that he paid more than $200 million to get. And even his strongest allies, the press, and many of his past supporters seem to be getting bored with him. As for the rest of us regular folks: we're like hostages in solitary confinement, marking the days off on the wall, waiting for that blessed day when Mike will be Mayor no more. 

This is a vampire mayoralty now, dead but still walking around, sucking every one's metaphorical blood out in order to survive. 

Yet make no mistake about it: we're still living in Bloomberg's NYC. His money and power remain, even if his public support does not. He has squeezed middle class NYC to the breaking point, the poor are truly poorer and the gap between rich and poor has never been wider. But it has never been a better time to be rich in NYC. After all, they have a mayor who caters to their every whim, their every desire. The rest of us shlubs? We're just trying to survive.

Scandal City!

This seems to be the summer of scandal: Anthony Weiner! DSK! Rupert Murdoch!

And they all seem to be happening here in NYC -- well, the Murdoch thing may be coming to NYC and he does live here (even if the crimes were committed in England).

You must read this great James Wolcott piece from Vanity Fair about the DSK situation. We writes about how this scandal is a made for the media, made for NYC spectacle. He also illustrates how this scandal says a lot about the culture of modern day, Bloomberg NYC. Rather succintly, Wolcott brilliantly explains how totally bizarre and outlandish our city's media/economic/social environment has gotten:

"... So much of the populist outrage in the press reeked of bad faith ... The same press that indulges in a storm-the-palace fit over D.S.K.’s V.I.P. treatment lavishes worshipful attention on ultra-wealth, revels in extravagance, fawns over preening moguls (complicit for decades with the dirigible inflation of Donald Trump’s ego and acumen), paints Paris Hilton’s toenails a lovely coral, and fetishizes the sky-high price of square-footage in Manhattan, elevating real-estate porn into Byzantine splendor. Manhattan under Mayor Bloomberg has become a billionaire’s playpen, the middle class has become pressed duck, and class warfare is conducted in fits of pique and facile comparisons, like a retired boxer throwing left jabs in his sleep."

NYC in the 21st century is a schizophrenic place: we love/hate money, power and celebrity, we love pointing out how awful and out of touch thse people are while, at the same time, wishing we all could be like them.

There really is no class or cultural warfare anymore. Instead, in NYC today, there is a class and cultural identity crises. As people's economic status becomes more and more insecure, as the cost of living escalates, middle class New Yorkers both despise the rich while desperately wanting (and still holding out hope) that, somewhere down the line, they may join their ranks. After all, in this age, anyone can be famous and, if they find the right hustle, get a big pay day. And then they'll go from peons to penthouses. 

We have met the real scandal and he is us.  

A Happy New Year

It's been a tough week here in NYC, as 2010 segued into 2011. A snowstorm hit our town pretty hard and made the last week of last year a rough one. Mayor Bloomberg got something he's rarely used to -- bad press -- for his administration's mishandling of what was, in many respects, a pretty ordinary blizzard. Now there accusations and counter-accusations of whether it was official incompetence or some kind of intentional sanitation worker slowdown that caused the mess. Whatever the reason, it was a bummer.

But there's some good news emerging from the melting snow.

President Obama was finally able to sign the Zadroga bill, the legislation which will cover the health care costs for 9/11 rescue workers. This bill took a torturous route to passage as Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, as well as Congresspeople Maloney and Nadler, heroically pushed it through relentless Republican opposition. It's unbelievable that a political party that has so ruthlessly and cynically used 9/11 for their own political gain would deny the people cleaning up the worst terrorist attack in American history health care -- but they sure as hell tried. Fortunately a few (very few) Republicans in Congress had blood flowing through their calloused hearts and voted for the bill in the end. While it's sad that this bill which should have passed overwhelmingly barely squeaked through, at least it did and now our workers will get the care they deserve.

And last week, amidst the tumult of the blizzard, Old New York society made a rare appearance. The 56th International Debutante Ball was held at the Waldorf-Astoria and the Observer has a great piece about it. Young women from around the country, immaculately dressed and coiffed, are accompanied by two escorts -- a civilian and a cadet from one of the service academies -- to this soiree that marks the end of the Deb season. There is dinner, dancing, and the formal entrance into Society for these young ladies -- as well as reminder that the finer things in life like class and poise and manners are still relevant in this world of Jersey Shore. Call it snobbishness, call it classism, call it elitism or whatever you will, it's nice to know that, under the radar, refinery still rules somewhere in this town.   

When Outsourcing Goes Wrong

In the never ending quest to commercialize government (the free market, we've been told countless times, is perfect in every way), over the last few decades many government functions have been outsourced to private companies. The most infamous case is that of Blackwater, the private army hired by the Pentagon that fought large parts of the war (badly) in Iraq. Blackwater caused all sorts of problems over there (as if there weren't enough already) including cowboy-like contractors with guns getting drunk and blowing way Iraqi civilians. 

There is very little oversight and transparency with these government contracts. Taxpayer dollars go into the coffers of these private companies while providing services of dubious quality. Needless to say, a lot of this outsourcing of government leads to outright corruption. 

And you don't have to look to Iraq or even Washington, DC for examples of this. Here in NYC, the city government has been rocked by revelations that CityTime, a program hired to automate the city's payroll, has been just one big cesspool of thievery. Apparently a consultant working on CityTime somehow snookered the city government into giving contracts with private shell companies controlled by his cronies and ripped off the city to the tune of some $600 million. This has been going on since 2005 and today several people involved in this scam were indicated. About time.

What fascinates me about this is the politics of it all. Mayor Bloomberg, naturally, is expressing outrage but under whose watch was this disaster hatched? Needless to say the press and political class in this town isn't in anyway linking Hizzoner to this scandal even though its his administration that spearheaded this program. Imagine if this had gone on during a Democratic mayor? Right now all the papers would be calling for his resignation. But the standards are always somehow different when it comes to Mike.

Thankfully the person who has taken the lead in trying to salvage and get to the bottom of this mess is City Comptroller John Liu. His office is going into this and spare no one with his investigation. Mayor Mike, on the other hand, appears to be doing nothing.

This scandal just goes to show that the outsourcing of government and the belief that the free private sector is always superior to government is false. The free market is just organized greed and, if the dire straits of our current economy proves anything, its that greed always gets out of hand and leads to ruinous consequences.

Just ask Mark Madoff. Oh wait, sorry, he's dead.

 

Who is Robert Steel?

He's the new deputy mayor for economic development, that's who. Mayor Bloomberg appointed him to the job on Monday. Naturally the press and the powers-that-be are cheerleading the appointment, saying he's a great choice. Oh, he has glittering credentials, one of those smartest guys in the room types.

I'll admit that I know nothing about this guy. Problem is, neither does anyone else.

But there are two things on his resume that I find highly disturbing. First, he used to be a top guy at Goldman Sachs, the company that Matt Taibbi so brilliantly described as a "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity." He wrote of the company in 2009: "...the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates ... The bank's unprecedented reach and power have enabled it to turn all of America into a giant pump-and-dump scam, manipulating whole economic sectors for years at a time, moving the dice game as this or that market collapses, and all the time gorging itself on the unseen costs that are breaking families everywhere — high gas prices, rising consumer credit rates, half-eaten pension funds, mass layoffs, future taxes to pay off bailouts. All that money that you're losing, it's going somewhere, and in both a literal and a figurative sense, Goldman Sachs is where it's going."

Second (as if that wasn't bad enough), Mr. Streel was also an undersecretary for domestic finance in the Bush administration. You know, the same administration that exploded the national debt, bogged us down in two unwinnable wars, corrupted the Justice Department, ignore Hurricane Katrina, and oversaw this country's collapse into the greatest economic crises since the Great Depression?

Yes, that administration. This Steel guy worked for a company and an administration that, in their various slimy ways, destroyed the nation's economy in order to benefit the wealthy. And now, apparently, he's coming to NYC to do the same thing to all of us.

Happy happy joy joy!

Only a pompous, out-of-touch elitist like Bloomberg could think this guy is a good choice to run the city's economy. In my opinion, guys like Steel should be in jail, not serving in government.

Be afraid NYC. Be very, very afraid.

A Tale of Two Chiefs

In NYC, like any big city, the second most prominent and powerful official after the mayor is the police chief. Since their one and only duty is to fight crime and not beg for votes, many police chiefs become more popular than the mayors they serve.

This is certainly the case with our current police chief, Ray Kelly. He first served in this post under Mayor Dinkins and then was brought back by Mayor Bloomberg. Kelly has served in the job since 2002, almost a decade, and has an approval rating of 70%, almost ten points higher than Bloomberg himself. Kelly is given kudos for the city's ever plummeting crime rate. Whether he really deserves all this credit is a matter for debate -- Kelly is not without since critics. Some say he fudges the numbers. Some say he's just good at PR and manipulates the press. Some say he dispenses with things like civil liberties and engages in overly aggressive tactics. The man himself seems not to care a whit. In Kelly's mind, so long as crime stays low and New Yorkers are happy with his job performance, any tactics are fine.

End of story.

And Kelly's story is profiled this week in an extensive New York magazine article that takes you into the man's mind and life. It's an interesting read. You have to admire his intense discipline and creating thinking in fighting crime. At the same time, you can't help but be a little disturbed by his dictatorial attitude, his hardcore authoritarian streak. Also, it appears that he abuses the privileges of his office somewhat. He uses his job to enjoy a black tie, red carpet, celebrity lifestyle. And apparently the cops have been known to drive his wife around to collect his dry-cleaning and other stuff, using public resources for private purposes.

Hmmm? Last time we had a situation like this, with former State Comptroller Alan Hevesi having his sick wife chauffeured by state drivers, he was forced to resign and cop to a felony. But Kelly gets away with it. His popularity and the nature of his job permit it. It shows you the double-standard in politics that allows certain individuals to get away with stuff that others can't. Kelly is riding high ... and is apparently in no danger of falling off any time soon. As one of his defenders says in the piece, "Let's not break his balls."

Well, okay then.

Talking about balls, one NYC police chief who is most definitely not riding high tonight is Bernie Kerik. The erstwhile "hero of 9/11," Kelly's immediate predecessor, has officially started his four year prison sentence. He accepted illegal gifts and lied to the White House during his vetting for Homeland Security chief (which mercifully fell through). Kerik's story is really a Shakespearean tragedy of man who came from nothing to scale the greatest heights only to fail spectacularly. He's a reminder of the dangers of ego and hubris run amok, of letting power and its privileges taint your judgement and leading one to become the very thing one hates. Sad. I imagine that for the next four years, Bernie's gonna be getting his balls broke every friggin' day.

Bloomberg Bombshell!

Being a billionaire, our Mayor Mike constantly insists that we can't tax the rich more because "They'll leave! They can afford to leave! They create jobs!" Yada yada yada.

So basically, in Bloomberg's mind, we have to cater to the rich and not make them pay more taxes because, if we don't, they'll move their money out of NYC and the rest of us will be screwed even more. How convenient for these super-rich people ... like him.

But guess what?! They're already moving their money out of NYC! Ever heard of off-shore tax shelters? Creepy little countries in the Caribbean and Europe where people can hide their money and pay no taxes? Ever heard of laundering money through non-profits and so-called charities and foundations?

Nearly every rich person in this city and country has some of their money off-shore or in some questionable tax-free organization. Including Mike Bloomberg! The New York Observer has an amazing story today called Bloomberg's Offshore Millions. Yes, that's right, our dear, incorruptible mayor shifts hundreds of millions of dollars of his money to accounts in the Cayman Islands as well as his charitble foundation.

This is really outrageous. Bloomberg keeps insisting that the rich are good for NYC because they pour their money into the city's economy. But just how good are they when literally hundreds of millions of dollars -- from this one New Yorker along who also happens to be the richest and most powerful person in town -- aren't going into the city's coffers or economy but literally out of the country? Why do we keep pandering to these people to the point of exhortation? I guess it's Mike Bloomberg and the rich people's city, we just live (or barely survive) in it.

This article is a quintessential example of why it's so vital that we have a free, robust press. Thanks to The New York Observer for doing this really important investigation and shedding light on this truly scandalous situation. This is reporting at its very best: afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted.

Interview: Suzannah B. Troy

If anyone is Jane Jacob's 21st-century, digitally-savvy successor, it would be Suzannah B. Troy -- the most outspoken political activist in NYC.

On YouTube, on her blog, and in the streets, Suzannah shines a bright light on things that the powers-that-be in this town would prefer you not notice: community destroying development, the vanishing middle class, official negligence, and the political cronyism that enables it.

Needless to say, the big media in NYC does its best to ignore people like Suzannah so Mr NYC decided to see if Suzannah would share her thoughts on these topics and she happily obliged. The interview is below:

You're an artist and outspoken political activist. Tell us a little about yourself and what fuels your art and activism.

I found the "on switch" when NYU targeted St. Ann's at 120 East 12th Street. I urge people to pass by and see the new hideous mega dorm. The facade from 1847 is still there fronting yet another zone busting mega-dorm. NYU mega-dormed the East Village to death.

I got the Parks department to return bathroom doors to the women's bathroom in Tompkins and DOT wrote me in response to passionate letters and a drawing of Alfredo Feliciano asking for two speed bumps for schools on the Lower East Side. A public member of the community board told me I would never get them. I have a letter from DOT stating they are coming and thanking me for caring about school safety.

Bottom line: write the city directly, write the newspapers, make YouTubes and band together.

I am part of a group Fed Up New Yorkers that fought Bloomberg and we wanted to hire a bus and drive from borough to borough protesting no third term. Judging by how close the election was I am sad we never got the bus!

Bloomberg's soul crushing tsunami of community crushing development really got me started using the term activist and take action.

How long have you lived in NYC and what makes you take such a big interest in the city's fate?

A big part of my family was born here including my maternal Grandfather on Ludlow Street in 1904. To have me they moved across the border to NJ and I moved back to the city in 1984. I have lived the most years of my life here. When I was six weeks old we moved to England for a year. I've lived there two years.

My first apt was an illegal sublet on Carmine St. Her rent was 100 dollars and she charged me 350.

I picked the Village because there were very few tall buildings and the light was spectacular. I loved how it was truly a village. I love the buildings, even the trees and nature seem beautiful and rebellious. I love the NY character and characters. I am one and I am sure you are. I love the passion.

Like you, I'm concerned that NYC is turning into a bland playground for the rich, squeezing out the middle and working classes. What do you think can be done to turn this around?

Bloomberg and socialite mega-millionaire city planner Amanda the peoples' Burden have crushed this city with reckless development fueled by the very same stupidity and greed that brought down this city.

It truly may take a revolution to turn this city around. If not a revolution than new dynamic leaders that truly care about the people. Benjamin Lesser of The New York Daily News wrote some articles that exposed city council members including Christine Quinn getting kickbacks aka campaign donations from developers.

New leadership, reform or a revolution...

You're a ubiquitous presence on the web and YouTube. Tell us how many blogs, websites, and YouTube videos you have, and how you use digital technology in your art and activism.

Short answer: a lot. All 334 YouTubes were removed before the election or theft of a third term by king Mike for 28 hours. Many activists spoke up on my behalf and Norman Siegel represented me.

Google wrote me an apology.

I use my IPhone and film as events unfold and post immediately to YouTube from the street.

The Villager and NYU hosted the debate between Christine Quinn and her opponents. Somehow magically Quinn's people all got to the front of the line and in. The Villager turned away the press including NY1. They told NY1 you had to stand in line with everyone else. I caught [them] turning away a senior citizen, long term community member who made an Olympic effort to get there in a wheel chair. Norman Siegel, I and some really dynamic activists fought hard and eventually we got him in. Huffington ran a piece on it. The IPhone described in the article as NYU's public relation nightmare is mine.

The associate editor Lincoln Anderson of The Villager sent me all these emails harassing me. I had told him to leave me alone and he didn't. I filed an aggravated harassment complaint.

The Villager and NYU backed Quinn who sold out to developers and Mike Bloomberg. John Sexton of NYU ran down to testify [that] Mike Bloomberg must have a third term. Sure, Mike and Amanda Burden care more about students than they do about New Yorkers.

The voters sent a message to Mike. The most humiliating and expensive win. It was proof we can't rely on newspapers and we have to take to the streets with video, go to churches, community centers, make YouTubes, blog because the media, even most little rags, are owned by developers or mega rich in bed with Bloomberg.

The night of the election they finally had to go off script and report the truth ... the election was too close to call.

Could you imagine is the press had given protesters some coverage, ditto for Tony Avella and Bill Thompson?

Mike Bloomberg barely won. The next morning I was receiving calls congratulating me.

You protested at Mayor Bloomberg's latest inauguration. What other kinds of protests and activity have you done and what advice can you give to other aspiring political activists?

I answered some of this already like getting bumps that DOT has promised to install by two schools not that far from where the tenement house were my Grandfather was born.

I have been urged to keep making my YouTubes even though I have to admit I am exhausted. My newest slams Mike for burdening tax payers to what The New York Post estimates is 2 million dollars to hire his campaign staff when he should and could have payed out of pocket. It is criminal to do vanity hires for his legacy when he is closing homeless shelters, firehouses, libraries, schools and laying off people! So I got on YouTube and made a series.

Many New Yorkers don't have computers so you have to get out on the streets to get your message out.

The city has a tremendously rich history of dynamic activists using every way possible to protest and I am sure the future will bring more ways that maybe we haven't begun to even fathom.

I am moved by how many hip New Yorkers bring their kids to protest. We had a stunning girl holding a protest sign at the mass eviction at 47 East 3rd Street. She is our future.

My advice is be passionate as if today is your last day on Earth because it just might be. Hold on to your passion!

What are your favorite things about NYC and your favorite places in the city?

I love what is left of the historic buildings, culture and history. I love the energy and the diverse mosaic of people. I will be in the subway crushed together with the broadest range of people, all colors, mixes, ages and I think wow they are beautiful and you won't find this mosaic in LA, Tokyo, anywhere.

Tell us something about yourself and NYC that most of us don't know.

Short answer: I did grunt work on the film Wall Street. That was not the original ending which was darker. Oliver res-hot the end which I thought was a mistake.

Long answer: after Sept 11 I can't express the pain, upset and grief but anyone here, anyone who lost someone knows the feelings.

At some point later I met this fireman that was clearly shaken. I think he had spent too much time digging in the rubble. I remember when Rudy tried to tell the FDNY they could no longer take the trucks down to pick up their guys if and when they were lucky enough to find the DNA. Of course they did go down.

He was huge! He looked like he walked out of a photo of New York firemen from the turn of the century. He was divorced, maybe six foot five and I call him Mr Heaven on Earth.

We were so sad and a service was coming up to honor a hero at St Patrick's we both knew. This guy did CPR on my soul. I am still in shock about Sept. 11 and I can't believe it happened. He was this one positive light.

I voted for Bloomberg twice and I would never vote for him again. He destroyed the city pushing massive displacement and pushing all these sky piecing mirrored buildings reflecting a history destroyed and communities no longer welcome.

I ask myself if this is another horrifying bad dream like 9-11 that I can't wake up from. I look around the city and I am shocked. It is unrecognizable, soulless, so many empty store fronts ... People have been forced out.

I do think about leaving. Reuniting with Mr Heaven on Earth or someone like him and finding some more Heaven outside NY.

I know whether I stay or go so many dynamic activists will keep on keeping on as they have before me and will after I am gone. I think of the kids that showed up with their parents to protest and truly I think a revolution maybe needed to bring change.

Thanks so much for taking the time to interview me.

Thanks! After this interview, Suzannah sent a couple of short notes which I'm happy to include here:

The air sale over St. Ann's by the USPS to NYU was illegal because the USPS never notified the State of New York as legally obligated. I called Environmental Crimes at the State Attorney General Offices and had him talk with Andrew Berman of Greenwich Village Society of Historic Preservation. He said we had a case. I gathered we needed as much money as NYU and the USPS to go after them. But still make the phone calls, leave a paper trial and blog on.

I would advise activists to seek out lawyers. Norman Siegel has been critical to me. I even discussed the law re: putting up my Mike Bloomberg King of New York Poster. I wanted to put the poster on every empty store front to highlight Mike's new NY but Norman said I could get ticketed so I turned to YouTube.

Thanks again!