« Wednesday Links Open Thread »

September 16, 2009

Democratic Primary Results

The Democratic primary, held yesterday, was, in many ways, about Democratic Party leader Vito Lopez—whether his hand-picked candidates would get pushed through to run for City Council on the party ticket. Steve Levin, from team Lopez, won in the 33rd District with 33.7 percent of the vote (Jo Anne Simon was his closest competitor, with 20.2 percent); Maritza Davila, endorsed by Lopez, lost in the 34th District to Diana Reyna, a former Lopez staffer who fell out with the party boss. Incumbent Letitia James won in the 35th District with 81.2 percent of the vote, and Brad Lander took the 39th District with 41.1 percent due to, he told The Brooklyn Paper, his stances on "affordable housing, livable communities, jobs, and good schools." In the race for comptroller, Councilman John Liu of Queens came out 8 points ahead of Brooklyn Councilman David Yassky, but with 38 percent of the vote, did not have the 40 percent required to win outright. Thus there will be a runoff election held September 29. For more primary results, check out the Eagle's coverage of the State Senate race.
33rd District: Levin Wins Handily [Brooklyn Paper]
35th District: James Steamrolls Yards-loving Foe [Brooklyn Paper]
39th District: Lander Crushes Four Rivals [Brooklyn Paper]
Liu and Yassky Headed for Runoff [NY Times]
State Senate Primary Results [Brooklyn Eagle]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11459

Comments

Worthless Al Vann wins in the 36th.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 16, 2009 9:12 AM

I wasn't totally excited about my choices, but just the chance to vote against anti-development, ultra-NIMBY Josh Skaller was still satisfying. Go Nets!

Posted by: Rookie at September 16, 2009 9:16 AM

Yes- but Mark Griffiths was very close and if you tallied up the votes of all the other candidates - an overwhelming majority did NOT vote for Al Vann . If only there weren't so many of them in the primary Mark would have won. I'm hoping he runs on the independent Party line. this was the tally last night:
Name Party Votes Vote %
Vann, Albert(i) Dem 2,685 30%
Griffith, Mark Dem 2,051 23%
Jones, Saquan Dem 886 10%
Wright,Tremaine Dem 806 9%
Grinage, David Dem 799 9%
Straker, Adrian Dem 669 7%
Cornegy, Robert Dem 630 7%
Carrington, Wm Dem 455 5%

6296 voted against him (4245 without Mark's count).

Posted by: bxgrl at September 16, 2009 9:19 AM

So as I'm infering that citywide races need 40% to avoid runoff..but in district races just need to be on top?
Will be glad to go again in 2 weeks and vote against special term limits extender Yassky. He failed the people.

Posted by: Petebklyn at September 16, 2009 9:21 AM

The 3 most important results of the primary should be:

(1) less junk mail in my mail box

(2) fewer infuriating phone calls from robots while I'm eating dinner

(3) no more people courting a quick and painful death by buzzing my apartment to bother me about politics 2 minutes after I FINALLY got my son down for a nap on a Saturday afternoon.

I have no idea who was running and what their point was, but I know I hate them all.

Posted by: northsloperenter at September 16, 2009 9:22 AM

Hopefully, Mark Griffiths will run under another party's endorsement. If you add up all of the votes divided between the other 7 people who ran, a single candidate would have won, as they got more votes than Vann(ished). There is obviously great displeasure with Vann(ished). Unfortunately, he's been there so long, and is remembered by older Bed Stuyers, who make up a majority of primary voters, as the firebrand of his/their youth, they go on autopilot when they enter the voting booth.

Dammit, he would have been termed out, but he was one of the many city council people who voted to keep themselves in.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 16, 2009 9:22 AM

Will he run as an Independent, bxgrl??

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 16, 2009 9:23 AM

I see bxgrl is up and beat me to it. Well, I'm still hoping Mark runs anyway. Four more years of nothing just isn't right.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 16, 2009 9:24 AM

Are robot calls the new way to go? I got a ton of them, and I have an unlisted number. I was thrilled (NOT), Al Sharpton and Charles Barron called me twice each! Unfortunately, I am not in the district for either of the candidates they were endorsing. Great - robocalls are bad enough, inaccurate ones are even worse.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 16, 2009 9:31 AM

*SOB!!* They didn't call me!!! :-P

Posted by: bxgrl at September 16, 2009 9:35 AM

dibs- I don't know. I emailed his campaign this morning and I have someone I can ask. If enough people tell him too I think he will.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 16, 2009 9:51 AM

I know...I know...I've been M.I.A., but how the hell did Al Vann win again. Sugar, Honey, Ice, Tea

Posted by: faithful at September 16, 2009 9:59 AM

I don't want to sound like a nag, but as a homeowner, local politicians have far more influence on your day-to-day life than, say, President Obama. That you can own a house in BK and not care who your city councilman is is a little surprising to me.

Oh - and Did I mention how happy I am that Skaller lost? Go Nets!

Posted by: Rookie at September 16, 2009 10:09 AM

How can the media ignore the fact that Thompson only won 70% of the vote...considering he ran more or less unopposed, the fact that 30% voted for someone else shows that he has no shot

Posted by: fsrg at September 16, 2009 10:11 AM

If just two of the other candidates had dropped out Mark could have one handily! What a missed opportunity to finally get the leadership we need in this district. I also hope Mark will be on the ballot in Nov. Meanwhile we need some unification of all those other forces against vann(ished).

Posted by: bedstuygirl at September 16, 2009 10:41 AM

Well. The real new council member for the 33rd is someone unelected, unaccountable, and often accused of corruption: Vito Lopez. This is the dark side of term limits.

Posted by: Brooklyn Chicken at September 16, 2009 10:48 AM

fsrq,
I was lukewarm on Thomspon as I don't find him very compelling but planned to vote for him in November. Thompson did give an excellent speech last night and I was pleasantly surprised. I hope he keeps this up. Myself and others I know voted for Tony Avella knowing he wouldn't win but we like him and appreciate his integrity. Those votes will most likely go to Thompson in November.

I almost voted for the "rent's to damn high guy" because his platform amused me.

Posted by: gowanusdog at September 16, 2009 10:50 AM

gowanusog - but you are only talking about primary voters (which are very few) - if Thompson can't generate enthusiasm among the base (primary voters) - what chance does he have with the general electorate...

Btw - it is fine by me - I think Bloomberg will go down as the greatest Mayor in NYC history....but I dont understand how the press ignores these realities.

Posted by: fsrg at September 16, 2009 11:00 AM

Thompson would destroy the progress NYC has made since 9/11.

His speech was primarily an attack on the "term limits" issue. He also complained a lot about Bloomberg only caring about the rich, and complained that Bloomberg appointees on the Rent Guidelines Board increased rents for rent stabilized apartment too much, even though the increases have been tiny over the last decade. (My rent stabilized rents average $750/mo, less than half of market rents.)

Watching Thompson's speech, he seemed to me to be an angry person who blames other people instead of solving problems himself. Thankfully, this little angry man has almost no chance at all of being elected.

Posted by: IronBalls at September 16, 2009 11:14 AM

Bill de Blaba (whose pockets are lined with money from 4th Ave developers) hopefully will lose big in the run-off for public advocate. This man has no business advocating for anyone except himself and the crazy wife in the ads.

Posted by: bupe at September 16, 2009 11:44 AM

"Unfortunately, he's been there so long, and is remembered by older Bed Stuyers, who make up a majority of primary voters, as the firebrand of his/their youth, they go on autopilot when they enter the voting booth."

Vann also had strong support from municipal unions, including the teacher's union. The other candidates will have to work harder to attract this type of support the next time around.

Posted by: East New York at September 16, 2009 11:47 AM

I agree with you bupe except for the crazy wife part.

Posted by: gowanusdog at September 16, 2009 11:48 AM

I'm sorry, but Bill Thompson is not the Antichrist.

I'm not negating Bloomberg's many accomplishments, but let's face it, he does not have the common touch. He's also filthy rich, and since he doesn't have to answer to anyone, he's a wild card, which can be both good and bad. He's also an elitist, a control freak and very Manhattan (below 110th St) centric. I think he's going to find out that 3 times is not the charm. Every politician who overstays their welcome, think Ed Koch, for example, finds that the good will and popularity they enjoyed before, evaporates fast.

There are a lot of people who are not happy with Hizzoner. He can be very Robert Moses-like in his high handed treatment of those who are not rich and powerful, or well connected. He is stubborn, and doesn't listen to opposing points of view unless they are accompanied by loud, expensive lawsuits. He's also a sore loser.

He's also done some great things for the city, and is probably the right man for right now, and of course, would win against anyone running against him, unless that person was perhaps Derek Jeter. That doesn't mean Thompson shouldn't give it a shot, and shouldn't be given the respect he deserves. He's much more than just a "little angry man."

Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 16, 2009 11:49 AM

Apathy. I am amazed that so few people votes. less than 350,000. You wonder why we get so poor politicians? Look in a mirror sometime....

Posted by: smeyer418 at September 16, 2009 11:56 AM

First, the last article linked above is from last year (September 2008).

Second, if you don't want robocalls register as a Republican, no one calls us outside of Presidential election years.

Third, Vann has been a waste of space for years. His agreement to swap his Assembly seat with the person holding the city council seat as a way to get around term limits was all but ignored by the media and his constituents when it happened. He's basically trying to pad his pension numbers at this point. Showing up for anything is beneath him, and his staff is a joke. But yet again, he gets elected. Which is a sign that those in the know in the district are all about looking out for themselves and have no interest in what is truly best for the community.

Posted by: LC Arnett at September 16, 2009 11:58 AM

Oh dear, and I thought it couldn’t get much worse than Yassky. Brooklyn Chicken is on the mark - the real winner in the 33rd is someone venal and retaliatory who is focused on absolute power. It's telling that Levin (read Lopez) didn't even bother to answer the HDC/League of Preservation Voter’s questionnaire – much less show up for many of the public debates. The only consolation this morning is the opportunity to vote against Yassky again in the runoff. I really think the Levin win is scarier than an absent councilmember.

Posted by: Brooklyn Red at September 16, 2009 11:59 AM

"There are a lot of people who are not happy with Hizzoner. He can be very Robert Moses-like in his high handed treatment of those who are not rich and powerful, or well connected. He is stubborn, and doesn't listen to opposing points of view unless they are accompanied by loud, expensive lawsuits. He's also a sore loser."

A-men. He's certainly done some good things for the city (311 and traffic-calming initiatives come to mind), but he's definitely overstayed his welcome in my opinion. The disingenuous term-limits fiasco was the last straw for me. MM is right about Koch - he was extremely popular with NYers the first two times around, but completely lost that status in his last try. I can only hope Bloomberg experiences the same fate. Too bad Jeter isn't running!

Posted by: East New York at September 16, 2009 12:07 PM

Al Vannished didn't bother to show up for the candidate debate though all the others did. However he did have the chutzpah to have his people in Al Vann tee shirts stand outside and hand out flyers. If people still vote for him after that kind of disrespect, they're morons.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 16, 2009 12:07 PM

"if you don't want robocalls register as a Republican"

I'm not registered with any party.

Sadly my wife is registered as a Democrat so that seems to give them the freedom to harass us at home with impunity and smug self righteousness when we are both very very busy and we and the kid have been fairly sick.

Not, you understand, that the weasels walking around with clipboards and ringing doorbells give a crap about that.

I'm pretty sure after the last two weeks, I've convinced her to drop her affiliation with the party.

Rule 1 of getting people to support you: Don't piss them off.

Posted by: northsloperenter at September 16, 2009 12:13 PM

"I'm not negating Bloomberg's many accomplishments,"

But isnt that the most important thing- by far?

"but let's face it, he does not have the common touch."

So what - and does Bill Thompson? Bill is hardly came up the hardscrable way...

"He's also filthy rich,"

So? he earned it, doesnt that show his competence? and given his self-made status, I fail to see whats "filthy" about it

"and since he doesn't have to answer to anyone, he's a wild card"

Wild card? - he's been in office for 8yrs - I think we pretty much know what we are going to get. And personally I'd rather have someone answerable to no one than to the Democratic machine that essentially made Bill Thompson

" He's also an elitist,"

how? I mean in practice?

" a control freak"

Based on what? and compared to who - seems like its working- NYC municipal Government has never been better in my lifetime (albeit a low bar)

"and very Manhattan (below 110th St) centric."

Again based on what? (policy wise)

"I think he's going to find out that 3 times is not the charm. Every politician who overstays their welcome, think Ed Koch, for example, finds that the good will and popularity they enjoyed before, evaporates fast."

Likely true - but that may say more about the electorate than the candidate.

If a democratic mayoral candidate could simply cite the Mayor's education results (whether you beleive them or not) they would be re-elected in a landslide
Same for the crime reduction or Waste Management plan, or relative fiscal health given Wall St collapse, or the dozens of other accomplishments that he's had.

Posted by: fsrg at September 16, 2009 12:15 PM

Yeah, the crazy wife part is just based on a bad personal experience...

But Bill De Bla Bla (if he wins) will have bought that position with very unsavory corporate donations from developers in his district.

Posted by: bupe at September 16, 2009 12:17 PM

Fsrg, I'm don't have the time or the energy to go point to point with you. If I said the sky was blue, you'd be there to point out that today it looks a whitish grey.

I don't have to justify my criticisms of Bloomberg. I never said he was the Antichrist, either. There are legitimate issues many people have with the man, legitimate enough to make many believe that for all the good he's done, it's time to sing the last aria, and get off the stage. Bill Thompson is not the strongest candidate in the world, no doubt about it. But he is what we got, and I give him his props for winning the primary.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 16, 2009 12:30 PM

NYC is pretty much a democratic town but if anyone thinks the Republicans don't make robocalls, you are delusional. Think back to the robocall fiascos of the campaign run by Republicans. Everyone makes robocalls. Everyone. I've gotten tons of them from Bloomberg and I am sure as hell not a Republican.

fsrg- c'mon! Bloomberg is without a doubt a good mayor in many respects but he is high handed. That term limits thing was disgusting- especially after all the lip service he gave it when he first ran and won. Remember Guiliani trying to hang on by his fingernails? Who kicked him off the mayoral ledge? Mike.

Voters voted twice to retain term limits- what does that tell you when a sitting mayor decides to get it overturned? What it doesn't tell me is that he really cares about what the voters think unless its to keep him in office. That was the clearest, most concise means he could have used to show how elitist he is. And yes- Manhattan centric. From closing firehouses to spending big bucks on Manhattan services- Manhattan below 110th is all he cares about because he doesn't consider the other boroughs to be anything more than a suburb of Manhattan.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 16, 2009 12:32 PM

Wasn't crazy about WTs speach last night. Seems to be more I'm not bloomberg so give me a chance. The devil you know....and while the eight is enough chant is catchy I wouldn't build a platform on it.

Posted by: DeLepp at September 16, 2009 12:47 PM

" He's also an elitist,"

how? I mean in practice?

"and very Manhattan (below 110th St) centric."

Again based on what? (policy wise)

Posted by: fsrg at September 16, 2009 12:15 PM

1. He's seeking to close the primary Manhattan homeless intake shelter and through a less-than-transparent process push the people into the armory in Crown Heights.

2. He's displayed his elitist attitude in many ways, fsrg. I recall two winters ago when frozen snow and ice encased thousands of NYC cars, which were ticketed. When thousands of NYers complained that the cars were virtually unmoveable, he accused them of being lazy. He reversed his decision and rescinded the tickets the next day after some reasonable person in his office let him know the mistake he was making. He's also defended Con Edison after that poorly performing utility blew up a few people in Midtown, electrocuted a number of ordinary NYers and their dogs. He also makes a big deal about how "green" he is and how he takes the subway to work, but he was BUSTED by the press taking his SUV to the subway! He also engineered the term-limits reversal after earlier campaigning on the basis that he's independent and "different" from the usual politicians. I could go on. I agree you on some things fsrg but on this it seems we totally disagree. I've had enough of this guy.

Posted by: East New York at September 16, 2009 12:48 PM

MM- You posted on a message board, of course you dont have to respond to my questioning of your point but since your post was simply conclusions, your point would be better made by pointing out specifics (like BxGrl did).

Bxgrl - I'll give you the term limits thing - very high handed for sure, but I dont see that the firehouse issue (which certainly hasnt seen to be a major issue in terms of public saftey) proves him to be manhattan centric, nor do I see that he directs city services to below 110st.

IMO People dislike Bloomberg simply because he is rich, white and doesnt run on the democratic line.

His accomplishments are stunning

Education, Crime, Garbage, 311, race relations, 2d ave subway begun, fiscal stability, parks, smoking ban, health dept (restaurant inspections & flu crisis), tourism/convention biz, etc, etc, - Virtually anyone of these would be grounds for relection if he wasnt Bloomberg (and the term limits thing) - Dinkins almost won a second term and I cant think of a single accomplishment of his administration.

And lets not forget that he did this in some not so easy times - Post 9/11, Dot Com/1st Wall St crash, Blackout (crime free BTW), 2nd Financial collapse.....

Posted by: fsrg at September 16, 2009 12:50 PM

What exactly has Michael Bloomberg done to improve - or even impact - race relations? For that matter, how has he improved waste handling (garbage)?

Posted by: East New York at September 16, 2009 12:55 PM

"He also makes a big deal about how "green" he is and how he takes the subway to work, but he was BUSTED by the press taking his SUV to the subway!"

Who cares, he still on the subway from 59th street to brooklyn bridge.

Posted by: DeLepp at September 16, 2009 12:58 PM

"Who cares, he still on the subway from 59th street to brooklyn bridge."

I care. Why doesn't he walk to the subway? Look, if wants to drive that's his business. But or him to promote he notion that he's an environmentally sensitive, everyday subway rider is disingenuous.

Posted by: East New York at September 16, 2009 1:01 PM

disingenuous? He's a politician.

Posted by: DeLepp at September 16, 2009 1:03 PM

sorry ENY but I think your citations are a little picayune in the context of a mayor running a city of 8M over the last 8 years.

The fact that he doesnt take the subway the whole ride seems silly (you are aware that Bill thompson has been chauffered around the city for the last 8yrs and before that as President of Board of Ed?)

As for race relations - I cant cite a policy but clearly he has done something, because besides garnering considerable support in the Black community in his last re-election bid, and significant praise from the likes of Al Sharpton etc....I note that unlike prior administations, black and white - we do not see virtually every racially tinged incident erupting into major confrontations and worse.

As for Garbage - in 2001 Guilliani shut down Fresh Kills - -which was nice for SI but he left no plan for how to handle the massive amount of Garbage that NY generates - other than trucking it out of the city (30,000 trips a year with massive pollution). Bloomberg created, proposed and passed a Solid Waste Plan that splits the burden to marine transfer stations in each boro (including 2 highly fought ones in Manhattan) and then ships the waste out of NY by boat - thereby saving $ and TONS of truck trios, traffic and pollution.

Posted by: fsrg at September 16, 2009 1:24 PM

Unlike some people in my circle, I don't think Mike is a racist. He's actually personally funded a lot of good minority causes, and I don't think even his worse policies go out of their way to adversely impact people of color, over white folks.

HOWEVER, many of his policies, such as the Crown Heights/Bedford Armory issue, do adversely impact minorities, because many of us live in communities getting the short end of his policy stick.

I've always thought that Bloomberg is incapable of seeing the trees in the forest, he can't relate to the everyday lives of people who aren't well off. Congestion pricing is a good abstract idea for lessening traffic. It loses its appeal in the practical way of charging a toll, in the possible destruction of property for tollbooth type facilities, or the idea that an EZ pass type system will work 100%, not taking into consideration the large number of workers in vehicles coming to jobs in Manhattan, many of whom do not have bank accounts or charge cards that can be linked to EZ Pass. There would have to be toll booths. He doesn't understand that lots of NYers do not have computers to access some of the (good) programs and resources of the city.

Mike also likes to be uber-daddy. I applaud his campaign to stop smoking in restaurants and buildings, but think it's absurd to ban people from smoking in parks or outdoors, just as it is ridiculous to tell people what to eat. By all means make programs that help people in poor neighborhoods buy fresh produce or learn how to cook and eat more healthily, but don't tell someone it could be illegal to eat fast food, when that could make the difference between eating or not eating at all. It's very easy to eat healthy, eat organic, go to the gym, etc, when you have money. Stretching $5 into a couple of meals by eating rice, starches and fatty cuts of meat is an economic necessity for an awful lot of New Yorkers. $5 wouldn't get you 10 feet into Whole Foods.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 16, 2009 1:32 PM

How many workers who DRIVE into Manhattan (below 86th St) Monday through Friday 6AM-6PM don't have credit cards or bank accounts to link to a EZ Pass (anecdotally I dont know a single person who earns less than $200K that doesnt take mass transit into Manhattan for work) - and besides - you could always offer pre-paid EzPass.

"but don't tell someone it could be illegal to eat fast food,"

When did he do that? - he forced FF restaurants to post their nutritional info, hardly makes Mickey D's illegal.(maybe a bit less fun however)

Posted by: fsrg at September 16, 2009 1:46 PM

"sorry ENY but I think your citations are a little picayune in the context of a mayor running a city of 8M over the last 8 years."

Like I said, we disagree. I think my citations are quite valid, and I will vote on that basis.

Posted by: East New York at September 16, 2009 1:47 PM

"$5 wouldn't get you 10 feet into Whole Foods."

Oh please MM- it would so get you a pack of gum :-)

fsrg- actually it is a safety issue- he also tried to cut down the size of crews from 5 to 4. The past few years have seen an uptick of injuries and deaths. Manhattan companies weren't on the line- but the one Manhattan house he closed was in Harlem. When he closed 212, he closed the only unit with a chemical response apparatus in the area- and that area not only has toxic issues ( the old oil spill, the jet fuel line) but a toxic waste managment company that not only takes care of chemical waste, but nuclear as well.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 16, 2009 1:50 PM

"he also tried to cut down the size of crews from 5 to 4."
Which would have alleviated the need to close any firehouses and which many studies show has no effect on public safety (but does on union membership)

Again I have seen nothing that shows the mayor's actions have led to a reduction in FDNY services in any part of NYC

Posted by: fsrg at September 16, 2009 1:58 PM

"As for race relations - I cant cite a policy"

You can't because he hasn't done particularly noteworthy in this area. That's not inherently bad of course, but you can't give him credit for something he hasn't done.

And, the fact that "we do not see virtually every racially tinged incident erupting into major confrontations and worse" has a lot more to do with our city and society than it does with Michael Bloomberg! Again, he can't take credit here if he hasn't done anything to impact this situation. And he hasn't.

Finally, I don't think Bloomberg is a racist, and I don't "hate" him because he's rich and a Republican. Hell, I VOTED for him the first time around, and I'm a middle class black registered Democrat! I just happen to think he's outlived his usefulness, and it's time to give someone else a try. That's it.

FYI MM and fsrg, the toll system would likely use an electronic plate-scanning system ("Plate Pass") that's currently in use in several other U.S. cities. The city wouldn't have to use EZ pass for this purpose, and there wouldn't need to be toll booths.

Posted by: East New York at September 16, 2009 1:59 PM

This is PATHETIC! Bloomburg and his fiefdom took our votes and shat upon them by repealling what we New Yorkers decided. TERM LIMITS! This is a direct attack on the foundation of our Democracy! We shouldn't be talking about anything else.

Posted by: bedstuygirl at September 16, 2009 2:05 PM

I agree bedstuygirl....We must keep the debate not on whether we think Bloomberg has been good for NYC..but the unforgivable abuse of power by him and the city councilmembers (think Yassky, Quinn, etc). So arrogant, elitist and undemocratic.
If term limits were not voted on by citizens of this city twice I would consider voting for Bloomberg. And I was not even in favor of the term limits.
Shame on Bloomberg and his cronies.

Posted by: Petebklyn at September 16, 2009 2:17 PM

Funny, nobody has had anything good to say about Thompson.

Maybe that's because he hasn't accomplished anything noteworthy?

Posted by: IronBalls at September 16, 2009 2:19 PM

term limits are undemocratic in themselves. You should be able to vote for anyone who puts their hat in the running. Thats why slimos like Sheldon Silver get voted back into office decade after decade. As much as I dislike, his constituents want him and thats that. Limiting weho you can vote for - thats the "direct attack on the foundation of our Democracy"

Posted by: dittoburg at September 16, 2009 2:19 PM

fsrg- sounds like you took that line right out of Bloomberg's brochure. It isn;t a union thing. There is plenty of research to back up the effects of cutting down crews and Bloomberg never promised he would swap smaller crews for firehouse closings. The other point is that the extra firefighter was not going to be fired- there were no salary/pension/benefits savings. It was more smoke an mirrors to get his way.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 16, 2009 2:23 PM

"NYC is pretty much a democratic town but if anyone thinks the Republicans don't make robocalls, you are delusional. Think back to the robocall fiascos of the campaign run by Republicans. Everyone makes robocalls. Everyone. I've gotten tons of them from Bloomberg and I am sure as hell not a Republican."

Bxgrl-

I didn't say Republicans didn't make robocalls. I said that outside of the national elections, registered Republicans in NYC don't RECEIVE robocalls. The bottom line is that Republican candidates know they can't win in NYC by only getting Republican votes. Therefore, they focus on getting moderate Dems to vote for them. Ask any Republicans you know and they'll tell you they don't get calls every week leading up to local elections. No one cares about us.

Republicans in New York City. The lonliest people in the world...

Posted by: LC Arnett at September 16, 2009 2:45 PM

"Bloomberg never promised he would swap smaller crews for firehouse closings."

Not true - if FDNY agreed to 4man crews, Bloomberg said no firehouse closings....and true there were no layoffs associated, the intent was to get costs down through natural attrition.

As for term limits - Bloomberg did it in an underhanded way but its not like he extended his term...if it offends you so much then don't vote for him, its hardly an assault on democracy.

Personally, since on balance I think Bloomberg may be the best mayor ever (certainly within my lifetime) my annoyance about Term Limits (which I oppose for executive positions) isnt going to have any effect on my vote.

Posted by: fsrg at September 16, 2009 2:46 PM

LC Arnett- I care about you guys! *sound of gentle weeping*

I will be more than happy to add you to the robocall list so you too can enjoy the lovely messages from Al and Charles and Chuck and Sheldon and Bill and...and....um Mike. It's a sad day when you can't even get robocalls from other Republicans! :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at September 16, 2009 2:49 PM

Montrose or anyone else: what is the POSITIVE reason to vote for Thompson? (That is, what is it about him or his policies that I should support, as opposed to voting AGAINST Bloomberg)?

I usually vote Democratic but voted Bloomberg last time and so far plan to again, because I don't see Thompson advocating a platform that gives me a reason to choose him over Bloomberg.

Bloomie isn't perfect, but I like that he's a pragmatist and has made a positive difference in the city. I supported congestion pricing (when many establishment Dems were against it). And I think term limits are un-Democratic; I should be able to vote for whom I like, and if you don't like someone, vote against them. And I don't care that Bloomberg is rich.

I'm still open to the reason to vote FOR Thompson--but I don't hear him or anyone else making it.

Posted by: basementalist at September 16, 2009 2:57 PM

so term limit on president of united state is bad thing?
we should amend constitution again, maybe?
or what is good enough for POTUS can't hold for NYC mayor?

Posted by: Petebklyn at September 16, 2009 3:08 PM

FSRG- he said maybe. And if you ask a firefighter, he will tell you exactly why a 4 man crew is less safe for both the public and the firefighters. The union, for what its worth, have been in the forefront of safety issues. And for the record, I have no respect for Steve Cassidy who is pond scum.

I don't think the term limit issue is an assault on democracy so much as an indication of the idea that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It reeks of Bloombergs desperation to stay in power. And that desperation worries me.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 16, 2009 3:16 PM

so term limit on president of united state is bad thing?

IMHO yes

we should amend constitution again, maybe?

or what is good enough for POTUS can't hold for NYC mayor?

A mayor is FAR from the POTUS

Posted by: fsrg at September 16, 2009 3:23 PM

This thread rules.

Posted by: infinitejester at September 16, 2009 3:32 PM

Petebklyn: Yes, I'm against term limits for President too. I'd support getting rid of them.

But even if I were for term limits, I would still want a positive reason to vote for Thompson before I voted for him. I wouldn't vote for someone I believed would be a worse mayor just to spite the other guy.

Posted by: basementalist at September 16, 2009 3:36 PM

Yes we should amend the constitution. Lets start with the second amendment.

Posted by: dittoburg at September 16, 2009 3:36 PM

Bxgrl - http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/mayor_battles_fdny_union_over.html

4man crews or close the firehouses -

" Bloomberg's recent executive budget offers the FDNY a tough choice: Either decrease the staffing at 64 engine companies from five to four firefighters, or the city will close 16 companies permanently, including Engine 161 in South Beach.

The mayor has made it clear he would prefer the former, which he projects would save the city about $17 million through attrition. "

Posted by: fsrg at September 16, 2009 3:39 PM

it does seem to be a common thing in politics to "pick the other guy" when dissatisfied with a candidate rather than actively supporting the person one is voting for. it's like, whomever can sling mud and get more to stick wins. like the chris christie vs jon corzine ads. christie is ahead in the polls, and i'm pretty sure people don't know much about him except that he is a goofy looking slob that ISN'T jon corzine. i feel like people need a better reason than just pick the other guy.

as for term limits, too many instances of shmucks staying in their posts foreeeeever b/c of name recognition. look at all those jagoffs in albany or even closer to home that keep getting re-elected. slap some limits on them and get em out.

Posted by: CG_ups at September 16, 2009 4:01 PM

Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks Bloomberg needs to go.....

September 16, 2009, 3:40 pm
Firefighters’ Union Backs Thompson for Mayor
By Colin Moynihan

Despite negotiating generous contracts with the city under Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, the largest firefighters union on Wednesday endorsed Mr. Bloomberg’s Democratic opponent, Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr., for mayor.

Stephen Cassidy, the president of the Uniformed Firefighters’ Association, which represents 8,900 firefighters, praised Mr. Thompson as “smart, tough and fair’’ and directed harsh criticism at Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta, who was appointed by Mr. Bloomberg.

“The Fire Commissioner of the city of New York has always set accountability for firefighters but not for himself,” Mr. Cassidy said. “Eight years under Mike Bloomberg we’ve heard Nick Scoppetta say, ‘It’s not my fault.’”

Posted by: East New York at September 16, 2009 4:08 PM

CG_ups - I agree thats why I support term limits for legislatures....it is too difficult to determine what, if anything a legislature is doing and the incumbency offers so much power, people can make their own decisions on executive positions because the job is much more defined.

Posted by: fsrg at September 16, 2009 4:08 PM

People often talk about how because he is self-financing his campaign he does not owe any one anything. The problem I see here is that, instead of fundraising, he is giving his throwing his money around in exchange for lack of opposition/support. He has hired every top campaign staffer, many whom behind closed doors admit that they aren't even voting for him but he's not that bad and the money is great so they don't work for Thompson. But, when I talk about buying support, I am not just talking about the however many millions he is spending on his campaign. How many nonprofits doing great work but struggling to meet their budgets have active community leaders that would be active on behalf of Thompson but are staying quiet because of the funding Bloomberg either does provide or they hope might someday provide their organization? I know of more than I care to even think about. His money, or the promise of it, buys loyalty and support. Example - Patty Harris, one of his deputies that had the courage to disagree with him on the term limits extension, was hesitant to leave his administration to go to his campaign. What does Bloomberg do? Donate an exorbitant amount of money to her alma mater and have them name a building after her. Guess what she does? Goes to his campaign. I'm not saying all of his supporters have been bought. But, I am saying that the immeasurable value of donations that he provides (and regularly references his willingness to provide to worthy organizations in the future)undoubtedly taint and skew the perspective of any person or nonprofit that might ever be doing any sort of fundraising, basically anyone that does any government or nonprofit or community advocacy work.
I find that really troubling, almost frightening (a bit too melodramatic of a word but heading that direction). This and his term limits decision show an utter lack of respect for basic principles of democracy. How can we put out trust and elect a leader with such disregard for democracy?

Posted by: aysataba at September 16, 2009 4:37 PM

Hi folks;

It's late here in Milan, and I've got to catch a bus at FOUR AM tomorrow to the airport, so I can only throw in a few points. In addition to what FSRG stated above, let me add three other points in favor of Bloomberg:

a) data-driven accountability. This concept, so basic in business, was never really implemented in NYC to a large degree. It is refreshing to have a leader who thinks in these terms.

This firehouse issue is a perfect example. Folks get all emotional when it comes to trying to allocate resources to these services, and the unions exploit this (he's cutting on vital services!!! He's cutting education for THE CHILDREN). The fact of the matter is that there are far fewer fires these days AND the city's houding stock has been made more fire-proof. Why not allocate precious resources wisely?

b) infrastructure investment. The amount of investment in basic infrastructure has been heartening. This investment has been in all areas: subways, roads, school buildings and others. For the first time in over 60 years, we are actually EXPANDING the subway system. The extension of the 42nd St line was actually financed by the city itself, which is as it should be.

c) revision of the building code. This was a herculean task that many said couldn't be done. The simplification of this code, and making it more in line with the national standard, will help in reducing the cost of housing in the city.

Posted by: benson at September 16, 2009 4:45 PM

Thanks for that post, aysataba. It's quite enlightening!

Posted by: East New York at September 16, 2009 4:46 PM

fsrg- I was talking about the closings several years ago so we were speaking at cross purposes. But my argument remains pretty much the same. 4 man fire crews are dangerous for everyone. It cuts manpower too much. Attrition? 2 things about attrition. Loss of necessary manpower and the loss of experienced men. Since 9-11 the Fire Dept. has lost thousands of its most experienced firefighters. Experienced firefighters pass that knowledge along to rookies- knowledge that saves lives and property.

Bloomberg's thing is to treat the City as a business. That's both good and bad. When it comes to fire safety or Meals on Wheels (another program he wanted to cut, although I am not sure his stance at the present) its very very bad. And I don't like his high handed style of personal involvement. I am happy with the non-smoking rules in restaurants and workplaces. But it is ridiculous to tell people they can't smoke outdoors. That is intrusive and we need a mayor- not a daddy.

I'm a lot less than thrilled with his idea of public transportation and his congestion pricing is an awful plan that lets Manhattanites off the hook while imposing hardship on the outer boroughs. Perhaps we would need cars so much (no- I don't have one) if we had more public transportation. Perhaps if they weren't spending all that money for the new train line on the upper east side?

Less crime? I attribute that more to Kelly and NYPD than to Bloomberg.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 16, 2009 4:50 PM

"This is PATHETIC! Bloomburg and his fiefdom took our votes and shat upon them by repealling what we New Yorkers decided. TERM LIMITS! This is a direct attack on the foundation of our Democracy! We shouldn't be talking about anything else."

Exactly. I think Bloomberg has done (on whole) a commendable job as mayor. And I absolutely will not vote for him, or anyone else seeking a third time. The utter contempt shown toward the voters by these careerists is galling.

The track record on third terms is not good - there seems to be burnout that affects mayors and their top staff. LaGuardia, Wagner, and Koch all had very disappointing third terms.

Posted by: Sparafucile at September 16, 2009 5:01 PM

so is there any website or place to see how voting went for comptroller, pubadvocate, etc by district or area?
You'd think the NYTimes would have it...but they seem less and less interested in new york city.

Posted by: Petebklyn at September 16, 2009 5:03 PM

Petebklyn, try the NYC Board of Elections site.

Posted by: East New York at September 16, 2009 5:09 PM

Here's a link with the preliminary numbers.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19807685/2009-Primary-Results

Once they are verified, they will be posted on the City's Board of Elections website.

Posted by: aysataba at September 16, 2009 5:13 PM

aysataba - I'd rather have Bloomberg buying support with his own money;
then have Bill Thompson do it with our $ (you are aware that Bill took campaign donations from tons of the fund managers who he invested city funds with? - and those funds have significantly underperformed the market & peers. Further former employees of his went out and started their own fund and got Billions of pension funds from Thompson - they contributed to him as well)

Bloomberg is perfect and buying support is unseemly but everything in life is relative, and relatively speaking IMO Bloomberg is far and away the best choice.

Bxgrl - "Less crime? I attribute that more to Kelly and NYPD than to Bloomberg."

Maybe but Thompson has already committed to replacing Kelly - so on that front Bloomberg should also get your support.

Posted by: fsrg at September 16, 2009 5:23 PM

I meant "isnt perfect"

Posted by: fsrg at September 16, 2009 5:24 PM

benson- until you've been in a fire its easy to talk about cutting vital services. Yes newer stock has been made more fireproof- but the majority of building stock in NYC is not new. ANd the Fire Department is an insurance policy, not a matter of supply and demand.The third thing to remember is that fires in hi-rises are much more difficult to battle. In addition, firefighters are highly trained in disaster response (necessary in this day and age, don't you think?), medical emergencies and related technology. I want more of them around, not less.

Expanding the subway system? A short leg on the upper east side? Really- you must be joking.

Posted by: bxgrl at September 16, 2009 5:32 PM

fsrg- why does he want to do that?

Posted by: bxgrl at September 16, 2009 5:55 PM

Listen. The best leaders create and leave behind systems that work long after they are gone. Bloomburg has positives on his record. We thank him. Now, the notion that the City of New York can't get by without him is false, narcissitic and all too familiar. Not to mention that his own personal finances have soared in the worst of economic conditions. Working for a dollar my... He's back in this race to finish the back-room deal for himself and his cronies. You'll see.

Posted by: bedstuygirl at September 16, 2009 6:10 PM

fsrg, I got a good laugh out of your typo! :-)

Look, I get your point about Thompson taking campaign donations from fund managers. I agree that is wrong. I also agree that they City's campaign finance laws are terribly flawed. Not sure that you said that but you certainly seem to imply it.

There is a difference here though. I am not talking about the money Bloomberg (or Thompson) spends for conducting regular campaign functions (TV ads, mailings, etc). That is what the money Thompson is spending is going towards. The paper trails on it are public and out there.

I am talking about the money Bloomberg is spending, completely outside of that being reported as his campaign spending and completely outside of that which goes to function of a campaign, to buy silence and submission. Any elected official or hopeful can and does promise to reward elected officials, community groups and leaders or others with some sway over public opinion that endorse or support their candidacy. This sucks but it’s not unique to anyone and its generally reported on. For example, when DC 37 endorsed Thompson, Bloomberg dismissed it and the press reported it by saying that Thompson probably promised more. Not an impossibility. And if it happened, its certainly not right. But, when Colin Powell endorsed Bloomberg was anything reported pointing out that Bloomberg could have promised Colin Powell fundraising help (his own $ or connecting with his wealthy friends) if he ever intends to run for office? That's something any savvy politician would be angling for. Bloomberg's people know this and are not afraid to make use of it. It’s a possibility at least as likely as the DC37 promise. I don’t know anything about what was behind the Colin Powell endorsement. But, having been actively involved in NYC politics for my entire life, there’s not a potential candidate out there that wouldn’t think about that.

In the last election, when the Bloomberg campaign got word that organizations that received Bloomberg’s philanthropic donations employed people who had donated to his rival’s campaign or were publicly supporting his rival, Bloomberg’s aides actually called the organizations to say the philanthropic (supposedly not political) grants were in jeopardy. After that election, the Times reported this regarding arts and cultural organizations. After the election, his staff also admitted it publicly and on the record with regard to all types of organizations and people. This time around, it’s no wonder he’s gotten countless endorsements and Thompson is having trouble fundraising. Thompson, or any non-billionaire candidate, would never be able to buy support, submission and silence on this scale.

And Bloomberg has the gall to suggest campaign finance reform during campaign season!?!? Campaign finance reform that would further stifle his opponent's ability to fundraise while leaving his silencing of the public to happen without restraint, and without public disclosure. He has done a few great things as mayor but power has corrupted him. He is not above the law. He should not be able to buy his way out of being held to the same standards and criticisms almost all politicians rightly receive.

Posted by: aysataba at September 16, 2009 6:35 PM

None of the folks I know, the majority of whom support Bloomberg, have ever been given a dime by the man.

Advertising only goes so far. Most sane people realize that Bloomberg has been good for out local economy as well as very strong on repairing the infrastructure, not to mention the incredible job he's done with parks on the waterfronts. I personally use them several times a day, and they make my life much much more enjoyable.

We all know most politicians really are scumbags who say one thing and do another. I'm not saying Thompson is necessarily a scumbag, but it's clear that Bloomberg isn't.

Is he perfect? Of course not. But he's obviously incredibly astute, understands not only how to run a large business, but also one of the world's largest cities, and he's incorruptible since he's already a billionaire.

Seriously, what more do you folks want? If the city were a company, who would you hire? It's not even a competition. Hiring Thompson over Bloomberg would be insane.

Posted by: IronBalls at September 17, 2009 9:17 AM

"Seriously, what more do you folks want?"

Somebody who respects the will of the voters when it doesn't suit him as well as when it does.

Term limits were approved by the voters TWICE. Bloomberg, or any other opponent of term limits, had ample time to offer another referendum to overturn them. Instead, the decision was made solely by the group of elected officials who themselves would benefit by repeal. This is a staggering conflict of interest even if Bloomberg and the other third-term aspirants were as saintly as you make them out to be.

Posted by: Sparafucile at September 17, 2009 9:35 AM

everyone citing education reforms: do you have a child in nyc public schools? Lots of smoke and mirrors in the "improvement." Did you see the article in the Times about how 7th graders passed the test with 44 percent of the answers correct?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/education/14scores.html

If you make the test easier every year and require fewer right answers, the scores will go up. Do you really believe that 97 percent of NYC public elementary and middle schools deserve an A or B? I don't! 84 percent got A's! Where's the curve?

Posted by: rf at September 17, 2009 5:19 PM

« Wednesday Links Open Thread »

September 16, 2009

Democratic Primary Results

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions