It seemed to me that you could barely tell there was an election going on. Turns out most people think the Bloomberg campaign’s ubiquity has crossed from being vaguely unseemly to gratuitous in its disproportionate advantage. I’m not one of those people, but only because I don’t know what they are talking about. Likely the evidence is broadcast television, but I’m one of those superior liberal types that doesn’t have one, so until the news articles started appearing about the discrepancy, I was under the impression that no one even noticed there was an election upcoming.
With some reports indicating a 30 percent gap between the candidates, it could be argued that there isn’t. Since this is concise operation, there is little need for the formalities of an endorsement: I’m voting for Bloomberg, on the Independence line (in and of itself a challenging decision, but recent efforts at the state level to remove the ‘colorful’ Fulani faction should attenuate these concerns somewhat).
It’s hard to draw apples-to-apples comparisons between the candidates. Borough President is a manifestly different role in the city from other positions of power (Council Speaker, Mayor, etc.). Ferrer, to his credit, toes an impressive line when it comes to ‘traditional’ liberal causes. His speech on housing is an impressive outline of issues facing the city, and it is filled with commitments to respond. But his criticisms of Bloomberg are a little over-drawn (the Mayor committed to 65,000 new units in five years; 40% of the way, he has delivered only 20% of the units — a gap possibly a result of the ramp-up to getting projects on line, and resulting in the bulk coming in later years), and he isn’t actually promising much more (his 175,000 number is drawn from both new projects and protecting existing programs — which Bloomberg is committed to as well).
But it’s pretty easy to look good on housing; the situation is so abysmal, you can manufacture talking points of the air, and they all look good. So what are some of the other issues that this site focuses on where one might find demonstrable differences between the two?
There has been plenty of discussion and criticism of the Mayor regarding large-scale development in the city. There is little to be found of Bloomberg’s excellence in delegation and bureaucratic wrangling when it comes to city planning, the appointment of Amanda Burden notwithstanding. The Hudson Yards and Atlantic Yards proposals, while nominally the work of the MTA, are clearly identified with the Mayor, and have next to no vision beyond bland, large-scale developer-friendly lots and prototypes. A likely defensive need to pander made Bloomberg suddenly reverse his position on the Cross-Harbor Tunnel project. The brightest spot of late, coming out in favor removing Silverstein from the WTC rebuilding process, backfired because it was politically naïve (the centerpiece of his alternative — housing — is next to impossible under current conditions).
So are we to conclude that Bloomberg can only hit sour notes when he reaches for the crescendo? Maybe, maybe not. The smoking ban is one of the most dramatic public life policy decisions to happen in a generation. Even though he hasn’t done anything particularly positive for nightlife culture, there is a palpable détente. And Bloomberg is an ardent supporter of the arts. While none of these positions are particularly progressive, they are also a welcome revision from the previous administration.
Bloomberg the bureaucrat would tell you we aren’t out of the woods yet. We are still decades from resolving long-term pension obligations (and that doesn’t mean jettisoning our duties to public employees, but instead finding ways to make the system sustainable, likely through defined contribution plans, not defined benefits, which will have everyone working in this town in ten years wanting to scrap the whole system), burdened by massive mandates for health-care, and have an increasingly monolithic economic base. None of these make for exciting policy speeches, and the attention they require leave you open to attacks of being unsympathetic to the difficulties of the working class or worse.
I can’t provide any masterstroke of logic. But in a town where every public position is for the taking by Democrats, that they haven’t fielded an inspiring candidate is no different than the far-left argument against Al Gore (that if you couldn’t handily find a way to beat a favored son of Texas who managed to lose money in the oil business, you deserve whatever you get). Perhaps that sense of entitlement is what led us to where we are today: making pragmatic decisions that rankle the sense that we shouldn’t suffer excuses or balkanized petty chiefs.
But whatever you do, make sure to vote, and make sure to support the MTA. The MTA is a stupendously mismanaged entity much of the time, but withholding funding won’t resolve that problem. Reserve that anger for the next governor’s election. Vote Yes on 2. Yes on 2. Yes on 2. Second Avenue Subway=2 (more or less, but think “Two for Two”). Yes. Do it.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
Vote or Walk.
It seemed to me that you could barely tell there was an election going on. Turns out most people think the Bloomberg campaign’s ubiquity has crossed from being vaguely unseemly to gratuitous in its disproportionate advantage. I’m not one of those people, but only because I don’t know what they are talking about. Likely the evidence is broadcast television, but I’m one of those superior liberal types that doesn’t have one, so until the news articles started appearing about the discrepancy, I was under the impression that no one even noticed there was an election upcoming.
With some reports indicating a 30 percent gap between the candidates, it could be argued that there isn’t. Since this is concise operation, there is little need for the formalities of an endorsement: I’m voting for Bloomberg, on the Independence line (in and of itself a challenging decision, but recent efforts at the state level to remove the ‘colorful’ Fulani faction should attenuate these concerns somewhat). It’s hard to draw apples-to-apples comparisons between the candidates. Borough President is a manifestly different role in the city from other positions of power (Council Speaker, Mayor, etc.). Ferrer, to his credit, toes an impressive line when it comes to ‘traditional’ liberal causes. His speech on housing is an impressive outline of issues facing the city, and it is filled with commitments to respond. But his criticisms of Bloomberg are a little over-drawn (the Mayor committed to 65,000 new units in five years; 40% of the way, he has delivered only 20% of the units — a gap possibly a result of the ramp-up to getting projects on line, and resulting in the bulk coming in later years), and he isn’t actually promising much more (his 175,000 number is drawn from both new projects and protecting existing programs — which Bloomberg is committed to as well). But it’s pretty easy to look good on housing; the situation is so abysmal, you can manufacture talking points of the air, and they all look good. So what are some of the other issues that this site focuses on where one might find demonstrable differences between the two? There has been plenty of discussion and criticism of the Mayor regarding large-scale development in the city. There is little to be found of Bloomberg’s excellence in delegation and bureaucratic wrangling when it comes to city planning, the appointment of Amanda Burden notwithstanding. The Hudson Yards and Atlantic Yards proposals, while nominally the work of the MTA, are clearly identified with the Mayor, and have next to no vision beyond bland, large-scale developer-friendly lots and prototypes. A likely defensive need to pander made Bloomberg suddenly reverse his position on the Cross-Harbor Tunnel project. The brightest spot of late, coming out in favor removing Silverstein from the WTC rebuilding process, backfired because it was politically naïve (the centerpiece of his alternative — housing — is next to impossible under current conditions). So are we to conclude that Bloomberg can only hit sour notes when he reaches for the crescendo? Maybe, maybe not. The smoking ban is one of the most dramatic public life policy decisions to happen in a generation. Even though he hasn’t done anything particularly positive for nightlife culture, there is a palpable détente. And Bloomberg is an ardent supporter of the arts. While none of these positions are particularly progressive, they are also a welcome revision from the previous administration. Bloomberg the bureaucrat would tell you we aren’t out of the woods yet. We are still decades from resolving long-term pension obligations (and that doesn’t mean jettisoning our duties to public employees, but instead finding ways to make the system sustainable, likely through defined contribution plans, not defined benefits, which will have everyone working in this town in ten years wanting to scrap the whole system), burdened by massive mandates for health-care, and have an increasingly monolithic economic base. None of these make for exciting policy speeches, and the attention they require leave you open to attacks of being unsympathetic to the difficulties of the working class or worse. I can’t provide any masterstroke of logic. But in a town where every public position is for the taking by Democrats, that they haven’t fielded an inspiring candidate is no different than the far-left argument against Al Gore (that if you couldn’t handily find a way to beat a favored son of Texas who managed to lose money in the oil business, you deserve whatever you get). Perhaps that sense of entitlement is what led us to where we are today: making pragmatic decisions that rankle the sense that we shouldn’t suffer excuses or balkanized petty chiefs. But whatever you do, make sure to vote, and make sure to support the MTA. The MTA is a stupendously mismanaged entity much of the time, but withholding funding won’t resolve that problem. Reserve that anger for the next governor’s election. Vote Yes on 2. Yes on 2. Yes on 2. Second Avenue Subway=2 (more or less, but think “Two for Two”). Yes. Do it.