How LaGuardia Made NYC Great

If you want to know more about the legacy of Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, go to the the Mr NYC about him here.

A Commie by any other name ... like LaGuardia

As we head into the last two months of the NYC mayor's race, the media and his opponents keep calling Assemblyman and current frontrunner Zohran Mamdani a "communist."

The Republicans, the media and so-called "centrist" Democrats (they're all the same thing really) love calling regular Democrats communists. They've been doing it for decades. Quite frankly, it's boring and unoriginal -- and, if Democrats really were Communists, then the GOP/media/centrist Dems would have suffered the same fate as the Romanovs whenever Clinton or Obama or Biden got into power.

But if Zohran is a Communist, then he's in good company.

I'm currently reading a book about Fiorello LaGuardia, widely regarded as the greatest NYC mayor of all time. And whaddya know -- in reading about the 1933 campaign, the year LaGuardia was elected, the Heart media and Tammany Hall CALLED LAGUARDIA A COMMUNIST! 

Take a look at the excerpt below: "... the little red flower of Communism ..." and so much more. So when you keep hearing this crap about Zohran, just say "Well, they said the same thing about Fiorello and he turned out to be pretty great." 

A Commie by any other name ...

Fiorello La Guardia: America's Favorite Mayor

Here's a really good short video bio of 1930s/1940s NYC Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, often considered the greatest mayor the city ever had. It's a good summary of his life, his transformational mayoralty, and his rambuctious, wild personality. 

Here is the complete Mr NYC Laguardia archive and below a discussion about the primary election being held tomorrow for all those aspiring to follow in his footsteps here in the 21st century:

Review: "Fame" (1980) and Its Legacy

Warning: This movie review has a tiny plot twist all its own at the end. Read on!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This summer I finally got around to seeing a movie that had been on my "When I get around to it" list for literally decades -- the original 1980 classic Fame.

The late great movie critic Robert Ebert wrote a review of Fame when it was originally released that is so good, so beautifully descriptive, that I'll quote part of it here (I certainly can't write anything better):

    "Fame" is a genuine treasure, moving and entertaining, a movie that                 understands being a teen-ager as well as Breaking Away did, but studies its      characters in a completely different milieu. It's the other side of the coin: A        big-city, aggressive, cranked-up movie to play against the quieter traditions of     Breaking Away's small Indiana college town. Fame is all New York City. It's    populated by rich kids, ghetto kids, kids with real talent, and kids with mothers     who think they have real talent. They all go into the hopper, into a high school    of kids who are worked harder because they're "special" -- even if they're secretly not so sure they're so special.

Fame centers around a bunch of kids over their four years at the High School of the Performing Arts, otherwise known as "LaGuardia." On the one hand they are regular high school kids, blossoming teenagers with all the regular wants and fears and academic pressures, but, in addition to their studies, they are also training to become actors, dancers, and musicians. Drawn to the school from all walks of life, from across all five boroughs -- rich and poor, black and white, very talented to barely talented -- they work hard, dream hard, and experience numerous joys and heartbreaks. The movie centers around Montgomery, an actor and closeted homosexual; Lisa, a dancer who becomes an actor; Coco -- a dancer and singer; LeRoy, a dancer who is as troubled as he is talented; Ralph, an actor and aspiring comedian, along with Doris, a shy fellow actor who falls in love with him; Bruno, a brilliant musician; and Hillary, a wise-cracking dancer who falls in love with LeRoy. The movie does not have a simple, straightforward plot but, instead, shows a series of interlinking stories, following the characters as their lives change and evolve over their four years together.

Released in May 1980, Fame became a sensation, a surprise box office hit considering that it had no famous stars, no simple or traditional plot, and was about, of all things, a bunch of odd-looking teenagers at a performing arts high school in NYC. It came at a pivotal moment for both New York City and America: NYC was still recovering from its mid-1970s almost-bankruptcy, and was still plagued with its "Fear City" moniker; culturally, however, it was thriving -- "Saturday Night Live" was the hottest thing on TV, Woody Allen was at the height of his career, Studio 54 was raging, and Broadway had big shows like "A Chorus Line" and "Annie" running. And then here comes along this little gem of a movie about a bunch of ragtag NYC kids trying to make it through high school while starting a career in the arts -- and audiences loved it.

America, on the other hand, was changing -- Ronald Reagan and the triumph of cultural and economic conservative was months away, and the country seemed more than ready to rid itself of the tumult of the 1960s and '70s. Fame, in some ways, was a last hurrah of that era, a paean to a time that was troubled but also creatively alive and exciting, a celebration of the arts and artists, and a love letter to NYC, a city that the rest of the country loved to hate. It was an early middle-finger to the political and cultural world to come -- but also, ironically, the unofficial beginning of the 1980s teen movie crazy.

Even though the movie is called Fame, it could also have been called "Sweaty" -- the students literally sweat for their art (especially the dancers) as much as they are sweating about their futures of making it in showbusiness. There are many uncomfortable scenes where the characters face the limitations of their talents, their relationships, their aspirations, their place in this crazy world of the arts. While this movie is a celebration of the artistic spirit, it's not sentimental in any way -- it brutally shows you the grimy, often sleazy showbiz world these kids inhabit, without sugarcoating it.

In that way, it's a real NYC movie.

As you might imagine, Fame is full of amazing acting, dancing and music. There are beautiful scenes of dancers moving gracefully, of musicians giving their all to make the best sounds they're capable of, of actors trying to nail a scene, and also wonderful show-stopping songs. These include the Oscar-winning title song "Fame (I'm Gonna Live Forever)", "Out Here on My Own", "Hot Lunch", and the amazing final number "I Sing the Body Electric" that is performed in rousing spirit at graduation. Everyone in the whole movie sings, "And in time, and in time, we will all ... be ... stars!" Most of them, of course, will never become stars -- but they can and should always dream.

And that's what this movie is all about -- always dreaming, never giving up, even when the world tells you that you should.

Fame has had a surprising after-life since it came out over 42 years ago. In 1982, it became a TV show that ran for five years, with some of the movie's actors joining the show along with a whole new cast of characters and stories. In the late 1990s there was a second, short-running series called "Fame: LA" with all new characters and stories set on the West Coast. And then, in 2009, there was a remake called, unimaginatively, Fame that the critics hated but had some box office success (Kelsey Grammer was in it if you can believe it). Fame was a forerunner to other "I wanna be in showbusiness" projects like Smash or Glee or even The Marvelous Mrs Maisel. In seems, in this era of a million TV shows, like the Fame property or IP or whatever is just ripe for a comeback -- heck, if they can bring back Full House and Quantum Leap, why not Fame?

A few ironies about this movie and my review of it:

First, the director. Even though Fame is a down-and-dirty NYC movie, it was directed by a British guy -- Alan Parker -- whose previous film had been the intense, Oscar-winning, Turkish-set triller, Midnight Express. Fame was obviously a big change of pace, and he would go on to direct other arts-centric movies like The Commitments and other intense movies like Mississippi Burning. A great talent, he died in 2020.

Second, Irene Cara. Oh, how I loved her! I was already planning to write this review before I learned, just days ago, that Irene Cara who played Coco in "Fame" had died at the age of 63. She is amazing in this movie, and performs its most brutal, emotionally intense scene. She also sings most of the songs, luminously, and, if someone became a big star out of "Fame", it was her. Three years later she would win an Oscar and a Grammy for writing and singing the song "Flashdance ... What a Feeling!", easily the best dance pop song ever. She was an amazing talent whose career and life ended far too early -- but her songs will truly "live forever."

Third, and finally, my "history" (of sorts) with Antonia Franceschi, who plays the funny, horny, and super-talented dancer Hillary in Fame. Antonia was a young aspiring dancer at the School of American Ballet when she was cast in Fame and, interestingly enough, even though the movie became a huge hit, Antonia eschewed an acting career to spend the next twelve years as a dancer at the New York City Ballet before embarking on a long career as a choreographer. Very recently, I contacted her to see if she would do an interview for this blog but it didn't quite work out, even though she was very polite and informative in her replies.

But here is the plot twist (of sorts) that was promised ... drum roll ...

I've blogged about how, back in the mid-1980s, I appeared in "The Nutcracker" at the New York City Ballet. Well, I recently went back to look at one of the old programs I saved for my run in "The Nutcracker" and guess who appeared with me (and many others) in the opening party-scene -- that's right, Antonia Franceschi! So yours truly, Mr NYC, has performed on stage with a cast member from Fame! How cool is that?

Fame is truly a classic, a movie that may be decades old but that feels so fresh, so alive, so true-to-life that it never gets old, never gets boring, never feels outdated.

It's a must-watch for anyone whoever was young, whoever loved the arts, and whoever loved NYC.

Mayor LaGuardia: The Greatest Drama

Primary Day in NYC

It's Primary Day! Today is the last day for registered party voters to decide who will be the candidates for mayor, comptroller, public advocates, the borough presidents, all 51 city council seat, as well as the District Attorneys, in the November general elections.

All of these elected offices are important but the two most important races are for mayor (obviously) and for Manhattan District Attorney. They easily wield the most power, the most influence, over the city, and their policy and prosecutorial decisions can have ramifications for years -- even decades -- to come.

The next mayor will determine how this city is policed, how the public schools are run, what gets built or doesn't, how legislation from the city council gets signed-off on, and how basic services are delivered. The NYC mayoralty used to attract big personalities like LaGuardia, Koch and Giuliani but are two most-recent Boston-born mayors have been much more low-key and some, like the author of this article, bemoan this fact that even if, in my opinion, blowhard chief executives are a nightmare that we're well rid off. 

But Manhattan DA is just as powerful but nowhere near as high profile. That said, the current Manhattan DA refused to prosecute the Trump family for their corruption or Harvey Weinstein for his predations years ago when he had the chanc. Imagine if he had? Much of recent history would be very different. And while mayors come and come every 4, 8, or 12 years, DAs can stay in office for decades (and most do). Manhattan has only had three elected District Attorneys for the last ... drum-roll ... 80 years! Frank Hogan, Robert Morgenthau, Cy Vance Jr. Whoever wins this race today will probably be in this office for a very long time and determine how criminals are prosecuted for decades. This will shape and influence prosecutorial law for the whole country -- the stakes couldn't be higher.

History has its eyes on us.

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.

Review: "Times Square" (1980)

The 1980s remains the Golden Age of "teen flicks" -- movies like Fast Times at Ridgemont High, 16 Candles, The Breakfast Club, Back to the Future, Weird Science, Pretty in Pink, Heathers, Say Anything ... and many others defined what it meant to be a teenager in the Age of Reagan. These movies remain classics for those of us kids raised in that decade, time capsules of youth in a time before the Internet, smartphones, and social media.

My personal favorite is Pump Up the Volume which came out in 1990. The story of an angry, depressed teen who broadcasts a pirate radio show from his bedroom was, in many ways, a perfect ending, a coda, for the '80s teen flicks era. Ironically Pump Up the Volume was directed by Allan Moyle who, in many ways, kicked off the decade of teen flicks ten years earlier with Times Square, his 1980 debut about two teenage runaways in NYC.  

Starring Trini Alvarado and an actress named Robin Johnson (who had a brief career in the '80s before vanishing completely), Times Square is about a rebellious teenager named Nicky (Johnson) who winds up in a mental hospital with another teenager girl named Pamela (Alvarado). Nicky appears to be an orphan but Pamela is the daughter of a wealthy commissioner who is trying to gentrify Times Square. Together they escape the hospital and begin raising hell around the city, calling themselves the Sleaze Sisters. They throw TVs out of windows onto the the street, they steal, they work and perform music in a strip club, and they just act crazy. A nighttime DJ named Johnny LaGuardia, played by the brilliant Tim Curry, follows their exploits on air and discovers that one of them is the same person, Zombie Girl, who used to send him letters about how miserable she was. Johnny tracks them down, as Pamela's father desperately tries to find his daughter as well. Eventually, after several twists and turns, the Sleaze Sisters wind up performing a concert above a marquee in Times Square for their fellow teenage misfits, their rebellion embraced by the whole city. 

Times Square is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a great movie. It's not even really a good one. But it has a great spirit, a lot of life to it. The performances are raw, intense, the characters believable. Johnson is really good, and Alvarado is good as a good girl gone bad. The biggest problem is Tim Curry as the DJ -- he's not in a lot of the movie which is a shame since Curry is such a great actor, and LaGuardia is a compelling character. 

Also, as you might imagine, it's a lot of fun to see a movie set largely on the street of NYC forty years ago. It really was a different city back then -- it looked different, it felt different, it's totally uncognizable from today.

But the angst, the emotion, the rebelliousness of Times Square -- and what it means to be a teenager -- remains quite relevant today. 

NYC Imposes the First Curfew since 1943

The last time we had a curfew, more than 77 years ago, was also in response to race riots, after a black WWII veteran was killed in Harlem. LaGuardia thought it was a good idea then, and De Blasio thinks its a good idea now.

Plus ca change ...

Cities of the Dead

There are many cities within NYC -- the public housing projects, jails, hospitals, public schools, ports, airports -- that, along with NYC's 300 neighborhoods, make you realize that we are many cities joined and commingling together.

But there's one city within NYC teaming with residents that they literally do not live in -- the cemeteries.

The five boroughs are replete with them. Every borough is full of dead bodies under the ground or within the tombs of these places. There's even a big article and new book about these "cities of the dead" in NYC -- and the fascinating stories these corpses tell, the history of their lives, the places they lived, and their final resting places. These people may be dead, they may populate the cemeteries across the city, but their history and impact and legacies are very much alive and well in NYC today.  

At the moment the cemeteries of NYC are getting a great deal of attention -- but the dead have always been with us and always will be. 

And the dead don't "only know Brooklyn" -- they also know the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island. Each borough has multiple cemeteries with a large number of people permanently taking up valuable NYC real estate -- forever. Here's a list of NYC's cemeteries and some of the notable people who are resting for eternity here.

In fact, if there's one borough that the dead probably "know" best, it's the Bronx. Woodlawn Cemetary is practically a rioutous party scene of famous dead people, a green carpet for deceased celebrities throughout history -- Herman Melville, Irving Berline, George M. Cohan, Fiorello LaGuardia, Robert Moses, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, Lionel Hampton, Max Roach, Charles Evan Hughes, Joseph Pulitzer, FW Woolworth, and many more. 

They, and everyone buried in NYC, are all equal now. 

Studio 360 New York Icons

The great cultural radio show Studio 360 (hosted by Mr NYC interviewee Kurt Anderson) has a recurring segment called American Icons that reviews important works from our nation's culture. These include things like the classic novels The Great Gatsby and Moby Dick, special moments like Jimmy Hendrix's performance of the "Star Spangled Banner" at Woodstock, the Harley Davidson motorcycle, even the old TV soap Dallas. The segments look at why these various creations, from different points in American history and in radically different art forms, made a lasting impact on not only American culture but also the American psyche. These American Icon segments are some of my favorite things to listen to.

But wait, 'dere's more!

Recently Studio 360 launched a new New York Icons series that does the same thing for distinctly NYC-centric works. So far: the classic salsa album Siembra, Sylvia Plath's "The Bell Jar", and the musical West Side Story. There are lots of classic movies and books and shows that could qualify as New York Icons, as well as moments like 1951 "Shot Heard 'Round the World", or Mayor LaGuardia reading the comics on WNYC radio, or Studio 54.

The possibilities are endless.

May I make one suggestion to the creators of the New York Icons series? Maybe you should include blogs. And, if you're including blogs, maybe you could include, oh, I don't know, Mr NYC!

Public Servants Make the NYC Go 'Round

The legendary Norman Goodman, the county clerk of Manhattan, whose name appeared on between 11 to 12 million jury duty notifications (I got a few back in the day), has died at age 95.  He had an amazing career, serving this city faithfully and diligently for 45 years. 

I remember one time at jury duty, the guy overseeing the pool said, "You are the thin line between civilization and anarchy" (getting a big laugh) -- and Norman Goodman kept that line in existence.

We should obviously appreciate guys like him today when, as I type these words, flights to and from LaGuardia are currently GROUNDED thanks to the government shutdown. The big orange menace in the White House is now making travel in this country impossible because he's shafting government employees like air traffic controllers over his big dumb wall that no one wants and won't work to keep illegal immigration down.

At this point, as Howard Stern said not long ago, I want the wall to get build so I can go and bash my head against it, this situation is just so dumb and frustration. Guys like Norman Goodman, and air traffic controllers, are real public servants -- sadly, their boss (at the moment) is not. 

Kevin Smith @ LaGuardia: A Celebrity Sighting and a Thought

On Friday morning I was at LaGuardia airport, waiting outside for my traveling companion to arrive (turned out I was at the wrong terminal, but that's another story) when a big black SUV pulled up and out popped a man in a hockey jersey. 

The driver came out, helped the man in the hockey jersey take his bags out of the trunk, and then the man in the hockey jersey gave the driver a hefty tip, a "bro" handshake, said "Thanks Man", and ambled into the terminal. As I was waiting there, noticing this, I thought, "Is that Kevin Smith, the famous director, who made Clerks and Chasing Amy, two of my favorite movies ever?" 

Turned out it was: besides his recognizable voice and beard, his hockey jersey said "SMITH" on the back so I safely determined that it was the great man himself. 

I was impressed. Here was a big celebrity being kind and respectful to a humble driver when he didn't think or know that anyone else was looking. I've noticed people a lot less successful than Kevin Smith treat such workers like dirt but there was Kevin Smith being a decent guy just because ... well, that's who he is.

As you probably know, there's a huge storm swirling right now about Harvey Weinstein, the movie mogul, who was responsible for producing lots of great movies and boosting many careers (turns out Mr. Weinstein isn't such a kind, decent guy). One of those careers he boosted was Kevin Smith's who has express grief at the situation. But I don't believe in guilt by association, people should be judged by their actions alone, and the kind, decent behavior I saw from Mr. Smith, in my opinion, speaks for itself. 

In this age of "Grab 'em" Trump and "toxic masculinity", there's an understandable, cynical urge to look at all famous and powerful men as potential monsters. Many of them doubtless are. So that's why it was so great to see a famous, powerful guy act like a mensch and decent human being -- and it gave me a sliver of hope for humanity.  

Btw, Kevin Smith has a great Twitter which you might enjoy. 

The Facelifts of NYC

The definition of plastic surgery is, "the process of reconstructing or repairing parts of the body ... either in the treatment of injury or for cosmetic reasons."

As this definition indicates, sometimes plastic surgery is necessary -- when people get disfigured, it helps them restore their appearance and improve their lives. But most of the time, plastic surgery is just tinkering, an attempt by people to "improve" their appearance even if they look fine to begin with. And, of course, the fact that it's plastic surgery means that they look less than natural, their appearance is no longer organic. The reality is that people who get plastic surgery usually look worse than they did originally. Most people who get plastic surgery do so because they want to look younger than they are -- but, in reality, they don't look younger, just weirder.

NYC has never been this boring -- or this weird. 

Boring, because the city is getting gutted and homogenized, the businesses and buildings that made them unique are being destroyed and replaced by mega chains and uninteresting glass constructions. Weird, because there's something unnatural about this transformation, about how the city no longer feels like a special place but some kind of McCity. We talk a lot about "gentrification" but really, in my mind, it's the equivalent of urban plastic surgery -- tinkering with the face of NYC in an attempt to improve it but that really just ruins it.

And there's a reason for this beyond the usual complaint about gentrification -- tourism. As this exhaustive article from VICE indicates, the bending over backwards to tourists in NYC is one of the reasons why this city feels less and less like it belongs to the people who actually live here.

Of course, the face of NYC has always been changing -- just in a more organic way.

Once upon a time, on Riverside Drive, there used to be amazing mansions lining this most beautiful of boulevards. However, as these mansions became more and more expensive for their residents to maintain, and as the demands for housing exploded, these mansions were torn down and made way for apartment buildings (the building I grew up in used to be the site of an old mansion). This article is about one of those mansions that, before it was destroyed, was touted to become the official residence for the Mayor of New York City (the plan fell through when Mayor LaGuardia quashed it and, instead, Gracie Mansion was chosen). So the face of NYC has always changed -- but it used to be for the benefit of the people, not the visitors.

That said, some wrinkles of the past still appear on the face of NYC today. Take, for instance, the Ear Inn, the watering hole in Lower Manhattan. It's over 200 years old and still in business. I recently went there with a friend and it's still a vibrant, busy place. We quite enjoyed ourselves and felt, for once, at home in our hometown.

As long as we preserve some aspects of the past, NYC won't be entirely plastic -- and its soul will never die.

The WNYC Municipal Archives

If you want to know what NYC looked like in earlier eras, there are countless photos you can find online and elsewhere of the city in the 19th and 20th century. You can see pictures of workers building the subways and the city's famous buildings, you can see the old-fashioned streets and lamp posts and street cars, you can see the old storefront signs and billboards, you can see famous New Yorkers of the past like Fiorello LaGuardia or Robert Moses, you can even watch old TV shows set in NYC like the original Tonight Show. When it comes to NYC's past, its visual legacy is secure. 

But what about the sounds? Old pictures can show was what the city looked like but what did it sound like?  

Well, WNYC has the answer. You can check out its amazing vault of radio broadcasts from the 1920s to today. You can hear famous New Yorkers giving speeches, getting interviewed, debating, and so much more. Listen to William F. Buckley debate Ramsay Clark. Listen to Ed Koch host a forum on drugs in 1969, long before he was mayor. Listen to a broadcast from January 1, 1950, where people wonder what the next 50 years of the 20th century will be like. Listen to a pastor bemoan the tawdry state of Times Square.

It's all here at the WNYC Municipal Archives website. Listen to the past, then contemplate our future.  

A new LaGuardia Airport is coming!

Soul of a City Defined

It can become tiresome to hear New Yorkers, like yours truly, always moan and complain about how NYC is changing for the worse, how the "soul of New York" is being destroyed by money, how "this city ain't what it used to be" -- etc. etc., on and on, ad infinitum. But, as even paranoids sometimes have enemies, sometimes us complainers actually have a point.

Namely, the closure of neighborhood businesses.

Last week, Pearl Paint, the legendary Canal Street art supply store, closed. It had been in business for eighty years -- yes, 80 years! Eight-Oh! Actually, I'm wrong -- it had been in business 81 years, since it first opened in 1933.

To put that into historical perspective, when Pearl Paint opened, FDR was in his first year as president, Hitler was coming into power in Germany, Winston Churchill was still "in the wilderness", Fiorello LaGuardia had not yet been elected mayor, segregation was still legal in much of the country, and television was still two decades in the future. Countless numbers of NYC artists shopped there, including some legends like Julian Schnabel. Now its gone -- a piece of NYC history eradicated. We are a poorer city today because Pearl Paint is gone -- and the legendary downtown art scene has taken a big blow.

And this has happened as neighborhood restaurants have begun to disappear. In Manhattan, it's getting harder and harder to find a nice, funky, relative cheap restaurants with good foods that have a friendly neighborhood vibe. Places like Rocco's and El Faro's in Greenwich Village. Even diners are disappearing in Queens! Without neighborhood restaurants that regular people can afford, where are people in the neighborhood going to congregate? Not everyone wants to go to a bar. Our communities suffer as a result.

Cities aren't real places. 

Cities are neighborhoods -- a collection of neighborhoods, some different, some the same, but all unique. NYC is blessed to have 300 great neighborhoods. But, as local businesses close and are replaced by chain stores, expensive gourmet restaurants, and boutiques, they lose their identities. They stop being unique. There souls are gone. And our city suffers.

Where have you gone, Tammany Hall?

In American politics today, the most common complaint is, why can't politicians get anything done?

Of course, our political system of checks and balances was intentionally set up to make it difficult to govern, lest we slide into tyranny. However, in recent years, it seems like our politicians have gone from governing and legislating into simply engaging in deliberate gridlock. It does "We the people" no good.

The people, of course, are at the heart of any democracy -- because here the people rule. At least, in theory. In practice, of course, people powered government is rough and messy business, much like the people themselves. That is why political parties came into existence, as a way for people and groups with similar interests to organize and claim power. It's always why the engines of political parties, i.e. "machines", became so vital in the 19th and 20th centuries: they helped people claim power and use the government to improve their lives.

A machine works like this: the people who work and vote for or finance the dominate political party in their respective city or state get benefits when the politicians they support get into the power. This can be a job or social services or various government favors. It's very much a transactional, back scratching way of governing. It is the "business" side of politics and government. 

Political machines, of course, have long been derided as sources of corruption since they can warp the machinery and priorities of government and leads to bad policies. Government ceases to function properly when instead of being used an instrument to help the population at large it is used simply to benefit the people who run and support it. However, political machines were not always sources of patronage and corruption. Instead, they were mechanisms to help the poor and dispossessed grab away the levers of government from the rich and connected. 

Here in NYC, from the early nineteenth to the mid-twentieth centuries, Tammany Hall was the most powerful and notorious political machine in America. Tammany Hall ran NYC like the Vatican runs the Catholic Church: absolutely. The "bosses" of Tammany, like the infamous Boss Tweed and later people like Carmine DeSapio, would handpick candidates for mayor and other municipal offices and they were almost guarenteed victory on election day. At its height, Tammany's power reached to Albany, with even governors needed the backing of the powerful organization to get elected. But Tammany was not just a cease pool of power and corruption. In its early days, before the government granted social services, it was also a place where poor people and immigrants could go to get a job, food, shelter, even winter clothes. It helped the people at a time when the government and the wealthy didn't, and all it wanted in exchange was a vote. For many New Yorkers at the time, this was a great deal. 

In many ways, Tammany became a victim of its own success and power. By the mid-twentieth century, many of the politicians it had supported, like Governor Al Smith, had instituted social welfare programs in New York State that made the services Tammany used to provide people irrelevant. In the 1930s, the New Deal and the election of Fiorello LaGuardia as mayor made Tammany both irrellevant and, for the first time, politically weak. And, of course, corruption went from the "honest graft" of the 19th century, when politicians and bosses helped the people and themselves, into the vile corruption of Mayor Jimmy Walker -- who spent his days and nights drinking and chasing women while his city fell apart, thanks to the Great Depression and incompetency of City Hall. 

By the 1960s, Tammany Hall was dead. Many said and would say today good riddance. But is the city better off because of it? At its height, Tammany Hall was a strong advocate for New Yorkers who had no other. It truly cared and helped everyone. Today, who does that? Unions? The rich? Ha! And when you see ineffective the city, state and federal governments have became at truly improving the lives of ordinary people, Tammany Hall in its glory years seems truly glorious indeed. 

There is a new book that looks to reexamine the legacy of Tammany Hall. Perhaps, it argues, Tammany Hall has been unfairly condemned. And perhaps the people of our city would do better if another Tammany Hall could rise, a political organization that simply looked out for everyone without regards to wealth or connections. 

P.S. Where was Tammany Hall? It was originally located right off Union Square on East 14th street. The original building was demolished in 1927 but then moved to East 17th. 

Gracie Mansion Blues

Shortly before taking office, Mayor Bill DeBlasio announced that he and his family would move from Park Slope, Brooklyn to the official mayoral residence of Gracie Mansion, nestled in Carl Schurz Park on the Upper East Side. This has re-ignited a mini-debate as to whether or not mayors should actually live in the official residence -- is it a tax-payer funded luxury crash pad or a proper home befitting the CEO of the nation's biggest city?

This is one of those issues where both sides of the debate are right and wrong.

During his decade-plus time in office, Mayor Bloomberg made a big deal about not living in Gracie Mansion -- he thought if mayors lived there it would cost taxpayers too much and reduce the usability of the house for official functions. But others have said that the mayor should have a home, that the mayor needs to place to live and have his and his family's everyday needs catered to while he runs a city bigger than most states and many countries.

Of course, we are now living in troubled economic, cash-strapped times. Other cities have mayoral residences and their citizens are balking at paying the bill when budgets for vital city services are being cut. Some mayors of other cities are making a big show of not moving into the mansions which begs the question: has the time of official mayoral residences now passed?

P.S. What's interesting is that NYC mayors didn't have an official residence until 1942 when Robert Moses convinced Mayor LaGuardia to move into Gracie Mansion. This fascinating story provides the history of how the official mayoral residence came to be (it was a rare instance of Robert Moses actually engaging in an act of preservation). 

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.