The other day a friend wrote and observed that I didn’t like Mike Bloomberg. I replied that this was not actually the case, only an effect of writing about him as pertains to only a single issue, the West Side Stadium (which, at the pace we are moving, will be termed the ‘Third Rail of City Development’ in no time flat). I was coincidentally at the Crain’s breakfast forum that very day (no, not because I am that obsessed with the stadium, but because most of the day people think I am a reasonable and even-tempered person, and my attendance was a consequence of those activities), and what I saw was a textbook example of my point: as long as the word stadium didn’t leave his mouth, all that he did say was, on balance, the most I could hope from a mayor in this city.
He spoke very bluntly about the need for investment in services to insure that the city remains a popular destination for long- and short-term visitors; he spoke of the need to reduce the city’s dependency on Wall Street for tax revenue; he wished he could pay city employees more, and he underscored the role of New York as an exceptional destination, one that is made so by the strength of our cultural institutions and diversity, and those exceptional characteristics place a premium on residents and companies that want to be part of it. And he said what I’ve never heard a public official say: namely, that companies don’t have much choice but to locate here, because the best and the brightest flock here, and the companies must follow, should they want to be competitive — though he stopped short of saying we should exert more leverage as a result, he also did not pander to the call to lower their taxes.
None of these are small points. The inane cudgel of taxes has blinded people to the notion of a social contract. Perhaps it has worked so well that the entitlement we have provided a portion of our population empowers them to think they are actually responsible for their success, even as most of their personal decisions belie this logic. Without a vigorous support of taxes and the resulting city services and, yes, direct subsidy (one way or another — grant-making, rent stabilization, graduated taxation) they provide, we cannot hope to continue to have the city we do. It’s not so much that New York is unique — even as we all believe it to be — but that we carry an ideal, one that is remarkably consistent, considering the large number of people who contribute to it, and that ideal is not self-sustaining.
Given his relatively clear-eyed assessment of the struggles the city faces — and if he were a better orator, he would have been able to better shame the Crain’s hack, who clearly longs to run the Chamber of Congress in Peoria, for asking flat-out stupid questions — his continued support of the stadium is puzzling. One possible answer is he believes it to be a prudent fiscal investment. But given the history of the process, lacking competitive bidding or a reasonable effort to solicit a variety of development plans, there is no indication this was the case.
Two recent events have not helped his cause — the introduction of legislation by Clifford Miller that may take away his power to assign city revenue to the project, and two separate studies: one, whispered about by the IOC, indicates that less people support bringing the Olympics here than in the other host cities (which, as a matter of pride, we should note is exactly how New Yorkers would respond), and one, by Quinnipiac, that indicates that a majority of residents do not support the stadium, Olympics or not.
As he protested that he is tin-eared when it comes to politics and will not abandon his convictions to pander, that Bloomberg isn’t backing down makes sense. At the same time, a relatively small minority also said that his stance will effect their support. So his Quixotic pursuit may actually be winning him some respect — at the very least, it is not noticeably diminishing his prospects. And it isn’t with me. Unless Freddie Ferrer manages some sea change over the next six months (or, at the very least, distances himself from the machine that holds jobs open for people when they are convicted of defrauding the city), I fully intend of pull the lever for Bloomberg this fall. Between now and then, though, he can expect a vigorous fight from me, and many others, on the foolish stadium — a fight that only a year ago seemed hopeless, but now looks to be winnable. Viva la France!
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
I like Mike.
The other day a friend wrote and observed that I didn’t like Mike Bloomberg. I replied that this was not actually the case, only an effect of writing about him as pertains to only a single issue, the West Side Stadium (which, at the pace we are moving, will be termed the ‘Third Rail of City Development’ in no time flat). I was coincidentally at the Crain’s breakfast forum that very day (no, not because I am that obsessed with the stadium, but because most of the day people think I am a reasonable and even-tempered person, and my attendance was a consequence of those activities), and what I saw was a textbook example of my point: as long as the word stadium didn’t leave his mouth, all that he did say was, on balance, the most I could hope from a mayor in this city.
He spoke very bluntly about the need for investment in services to insure that the city remains a popular destination for long- and short-term visitors; he spoke of the need to reduce the city’s dependency on Wall Street for tax revenue; he wished he could pay city employees more, and he underscored the role of New York as an exceptional destination, one that is made so by the strength of our cultural institutions and diversity, and those exceptional characteristics place a premium on residents and companies that want to be part of it. And he said what I’ve never heard a public official say: namely, that companies don’t have much choice but to locate here, because the best and the brightest flock here, and the companies must follow, should they want to be competitive — though he stopped short of saying we should exert more leverage as a result, he also did not pander to the call to lower their taxes.
None of these are small points. The inane cudgel of taxes has blinded people to the notion of a social contract. Perhaps it has worked so well that the entitlement we have provided a portion of our population empowers them to think they are actually responsible for their success, even as most of their personal decisions belie this logic. Without a vigorous support of taxes and the resulting city services and, yes, direct subsidy (one way or another — grant-making, rent stabilization, graduated taxation) they provide, we cannot hope to continue to have the city we do. It’s not so much that New York is unique — even as we all believe it to be — but that we carry an ideal, one that is remarkably consistent, considering the large number of people who contribute to it, and that ideal is not self-sustaining.
Given his relatively clear-eyed assessment of the struggles the city faces — and if he were a better orator, he would have been able to better shame the Crain’s hack, who clearly longs to run the Chamber of Congress in Peoria, for asking flat-out stupid questions — his continued support of the stadium is puzzling. One possible answer is he believes it to be a prudent fiscal investment. But given the history of the process, lacking competitive bidding or a reasonable effort to solicit a variety of development plans, there is no indication this was the case.
Two recent events have not helped his cause — the introduction of legislation by Clifford Miller that may take away his power to assign city revenue to the project, and two separate studies: one, whispered about by the IOC, indicates that less people support bringing the Olympics here than in the other host cities (which, as a matter of pride, we should note is exactly how New Yorkers would respond), and one, by Quinnipiac, that indicates that a majority of residents do not support the stadium, Olympics or not.
As he protested that he is tin-eared when it comes to politics and will not abandon his convictions to pander, that Bloomberg isn’t backing down makes sense. At the same time, a relatively small minority also said that his stance will effect their support. So his Quixotic pursuit may actually be winning him some respect — at the very least, it is not noticeably diminishing his prospects. And it isn’t with me. Unless Freddie Ferrer manages some sea change over the next six months (or, at the very least, distances himself from the machine that holds jobs open for people when they are convicted of defrauding the city), I fully intend of pull the lever for Bloomberg this fall. Between now and then, though, he can expect a vigorous fight from me, and many others, on the foolish stadium — a fight that only a year ago seemed hopeless, but now looks to be winnable. Viva la France!