From tenant at tenant.net Mon Sep 12 09:06:03 2005 From: tenant at tenant.net (Tenant) Date: Mon Sep 12 09:07:01 2005 Subject: [NYtenants-online] TenantNet's election picks Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20051120090544.03ece378@tenant.net> NYtenants Online/TenantNet 9/12/05 ================================================================= IT'S THAT SILLY SEASON AGAIN We had hoped to provide a more in-depth analysis of candidates running for political office in tomorrow's primary election, but severe technical problems made it near impossible. For those of you just starting to look at the candidates, we ask for your pity as we've been listening to the lies and pandering since January, reading between lines, looking at candidates' records and trying to get a sense of their character. Bottom line is: they all suck. But someone will be elected to each office. We put less emphasis on promises and platforms. Invariably promises get broken. We want to know if a candidate that says they love tenants will say the same thing once they get into office. For that, look at their principles and character. In this newsletter, we look at candidates for District Attorney, Public Advocate and Mayor. If we get the time, we'll send out a follow-up on the candidates for Manhattan Borough President and some Council races. SHORT SUMMARY - Manhattan District Attorney: Robert Morgenthau - Public Advocate: Norman Siegel - Mayor: Freddy Ferrer MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY At 86, Robert Morgenthau's age and ability to perform the job is certainly an issue. We are bothered by the near unilateral support for him by many Democratic politicians (many of those should be indicted themselves for incompetence and misleading their constituents) and his over-prosecution of peaceful political protestors. But the candidacy of Leslie Crocker Snyder disturbs us from her support for the death penalty. Perhaps better alternatives to Morganthau will emerge four years from now. PUBLIC ADVOCATE Betsy Gotbaum has spent four years doing absolutely nothing. She's been an embarrassment in office and in her debates, she didn't even know about the use of Eminent Domain in the Ratner Arena plan for Brooklyn. While claiming to be against the West Side stadium, she bent over backwards to shout her support for skyscrapers and displacement (including Eminent Domain) in the surrounding West Side Clinton and Chelsea neighborhoods. Jay Golub, a dentist from Queens is a former Republican and while couching his campaign as one of ambiguous "new ideas," clearly supports a right-wing agenda. Andrew Raseij, a promoter of noisy nightclubs, is a one issue candidate - promoting WI-FI computer access across New York City. A good idea for sure, but not the job of the Public Advocate. He has nothing else to offer. Norman Siegel has been a fighter for civil rights and formerly headed the New York Civil Liberties Union. Four years ago, when he narrowly lost to Gotbaum, our support for him was strong. This time around Siegel has lost some of his senses by supporting noisy nightclubs in residential neighborhoods and Inclusionary Zoning plans that lead to displacement of tenants. Siegel has the best chance to retire Gotbaum and we recommend a vote for him, hoping that once silly season is over, he will be open to taking a more equitable approach to housing and quality-of-life issues. We have more to gain from a Norman Siegel Public Advocate than four more years of Gotbaum. MAYOR Our view of the Mayor's race does consider who is best capable of beating MICHAEL BLOOMBERG. The Mayor has done nothing for tenants and has spent his tenure pursuing rezonings that will drive people and small businesses out of their homes. While he currently looks unbeatable, a lot can happen between now and November. There is no question that C. VIRGINIA FIELDS is the worst imaginable candidate. While much has been made over Photo-gate, where her campaign superimposed the faces of two Asians over two white individuals, underneath she has been a horrible Borough President, completely bought by landlords and developers. She decimated Manhattan community boards where they now represent more [bad] business interests than community interests. The myth that she's nice, or that she listens, or that she's inclusive, merely masks her true nature. Because of her record, we are involved in the www.virginiafields.com website exposing Virginia Fields as a sham. Likewise, GIFFORD MILLER has lied on almost everything he has put his hands on. He was supporting the stadium until that last possible moment. His campaign spent $1.6 million on political mailings while telling the public it was only $37,000 and related to ongoing budget negotiations. Lately, he tried an end-run around the Campaign Finance rules claiming huge exemptions to his spending limit. Luckily the Campaign Finance Board saw through his ruse and disallowed it. As Speaker, Miller had an opportunity to help tenants. For the most part he failed. Sure, he allowed the Lead Paint law to be passed. But that was only after tenants felt obliged to picket his office. He appointed Madeleine Provenzano as Chair of the Housing and Buildings committee -- about as friendly to landlords as one could get. Moreover, he has absolutely lied about his tenant support. Claiming the support of TenantPac as the "largest" tenant group in New York State, the group is really about five people under Michael McKee (who allowed the legislature to gut tenant protections in 1997). No one candidate has unilateral tenant support. We have increasing concerns over ANTHONY WEINER'S candidacy. He's young, lean, attractive and a good debater. But he's not telling the truth. His 10% tax cut for the middle class is something that falls under Albany's control, not the Mayor's control. He's appealing to the white Giuliani Democrats -- outer-borough conservative Archie Bunkers and conservative Jews. He doesn't even hide it that much when he speaks of "people like us." Moreover, he's a protege of Senator Charles Schumer, who himself is bought by landlords, developers and bankers. When he was in City Council, Weiner's record on tenant issues was not one of which to be proud. That leaves us with FREDDY (FERNANDO) FERRER. Understand ... ALL of the Democratic candidates are flawed for one reason or another and ALL are taking landlord and developer money. Whoever wins the primary will come back to voters for support in the general election ... and at the same time they will go to developers and landlords for money. We have serious apprehensions regarding Ferrer's use of Inclusionary Zoning as a basis for a housing platform (which the other candidates also promote). Ferrer seems too willing to go with the ideological mantra of groups like Acorn (poverty pimps), the Working Families party (new clothing for the Lieberman Democratic Leadership Council) and Housing First (developers and bankers masquerading as housing groups), which would lead to large-scale displacement and destabilization of NYC neighborhoods in return for groups like Acorn to acquire management contracts. For example, one West Side group -- Housing Conservation Coordinators -- got a nice $50,000 to stay quiet about all the Hudson Yards skyscrapers and to shill for Christine Quinn's ambition tour. They are still in denial as to the harm they inflicted on Hell's Kitchen. While Ferrer was the first to oppose the West Side stadium (despite Weiner's claim), Ferrer has not expressed alarm or opposition of concurrent projects like Hudson Yards. Indeed, he appears to be embracing it. His record on tenant issues -- mostly falling in line with the pack -- has little to get excited about. When the NY Post recently reported he had taken $26,000 from the landlord lawyer eviction mill Borah Goldstein, his spokesperson stated, "People who care about cracking down on slumlords and building affordable housing know that Freddy Ferrer's record and commitment is unmatched." Well, we do not know his entire record or that his commitment is unmatched. Tenant opinion of Ferrer is mixed. We inquired from many other tenant activists their opinion and in many cases they could not (or would not) provide examples of "anti-tenant" evidence in his record. But nothing stands out either. To the contrary, Miller and Fields have gone out of their way to hurt tenants and neighborhoods. We are troubled over Ferrer's continuing failure to deal with the Diallo remarks controversy. It's not so much a litmus test whether it was a crime or not, but it's an insight into his character as to how he deals with problems after what was -- by all accounts -- a gaffe. Time (and campaign focus) may heal the wounds of those remarks for some, but his handling of the matter is flawed. We should not buy the excuses from Ferrer as we would not from Fields or Miller. In 2001, we wrote, "Ferrer's divide is not racial; it's economic. Those who were left behind in the booming economy, who were trampled by others in the gold rush of dotcoms, those who no longer have any quality of life in the new Disney-ized suburban Manhattan, those residents and small businesses who have been subjected to eviction and displacement pressures -- are all part of Ferrer's other New York." The "two-cities" Ferrer of 2001 seems to be gone. We wonder if there is still any fire in his belly about economic inequity. Some would say there's no there there. We wonder where is the Democrat in this Democrat in 2005. However, given the above cautions, we see Ferrer as the only viable candidate to defeat Bloomberg - if possible at all. Neither Fields or Miller are capable of doing that. Weiner might force a runoff depending on how the undecided voters break. Then neither could beat Bloomberg if things became divisive. With caution and hesitation, we recommend a vote for Ferrer in tomorrow's primary. From tenant at tenant.net Mon Sep 12 09:06:31 2005 From: tenant at tenant.net (Tenant) Date: Mon Sep 12 09:24:19 2005 Subject: [NYtenants-online] TenantNet election picks - Manh. Borough President Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20051120090609.02cb7c10@tenant.net> NYtenants Online/TenantNet 9/12/05 ================================================================= This is a follow-up to our earlier newsletter on tomorrow's primary election. Tenants will pick candidates for the November general election for Mayor, Public Advocate and District Attorney. If you live in Manhattan, you will also pick a primary winner for Manhattan Borough President. This has been the hardest choice to make of all the races. It seems like this race was designed to attract as much political drek that Gotham can muster. So what IS a Borough President? It's a holdover from the Board of Estimate (abolished in 1989) and from years ago when the five boroughs had more power. The Borough President: 1. Appoints community board members. There are twelve community boards in Manhattan with up to 50 members each. The myth is that these volunteer bodies are small-town democracies in action. The reality is that they are used to justify bad decisions of Council Members and Borough Presidents who appoint the members. While there are a few good members left, Virginia Fields has left Manhattan Community Boards resembling the toxic water from New Orleans, appointing landlords, developers, noisy bar owners, political hacks and generally people who like to take naps during meetings. It's not a place for the hardworking and industrious. Perhaps T.S. Eliot was prescient when he wrote of the April surprise (referring to when new community board members are appointed). 2. Occasionally has a non-binding but political 'cover-your-ass' vote on land use issues as part of the Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP). 3. is a stepping-stone to higher office (or a holding pattern for City Council members term-limited out of City Hall). 4. has a discretionary percentage of the City budget, so they can feed some money to not-for-profit groups in return for political support. Open the library for another hour and the not-for-profits will support that skyscraper. 5. has the ability to get some press (It's what lazy reporters from Room 9 cover when they're on vacation). With that in mind and given the field of nine, the better question is which candidate will help the Mayor and City Council to weaken tenant protections, bull-doze your neighborhood or open up that nightclub across the street. First, anyone thinking of voting for CARLOS MANZANO should have their head examined. It's a vanity candidacy for the corrupt West Side McManus Democratic (some would say Republican) Club. Manzano has no experience and exudes incompetence. In political circles, he's the joke candidate. Look beyond his "new ideas" and you see Joe Lieberman and every right-wing Democrat out there. The McManus Club (of which he's the President as long as Jimmy McManus finds him in favor [sic]), supported the Jets stadium. He held a separate fund raiser for landlord attorneys on August 17th and maintain two landlord attorneys to prey on unsuspecting tenants who go to the club for help. STANLEY MICHELS, former City Council Member from Northern Manhattan, has little support and might be looking for his last hurrah. He supported the 8th Avenue rezoning in 1997 that would have made it even easier for skyscrapers on the West Side of 8th Avenue north of 42nd Street. While some saw him as fairly good on tenant issues, when push came to shove, when Peter Vallone gutted tenant protections, Michels was nowhere to be seen. KEITH WRIGHT, Assembly Member from Harlem, supported the stadium. Some see his candidacy as a stalking horse put up by Congressman Charles Rangel to torpedo the candidacy of Bill Perkins (see below) by splitting the black vote. Stay away. MARGARITA LOPEZ, Council Member of the Lower East Side, once had promise and we supported her in 1997. Since then she has squandered many opportunities, becoming chummy with Peter Vallone and Michael Bloomberg. Some say that she might get a commissioner position from Bloomberg if he wins a second term. She's been a friend to developers (Cooper Union) and bar owners. Lately she's been accused of taking political campaign donations from members of the Church of Scientology in exchange for her directing city budget dollars to a church program. She may split the Latino vote with Adriano Espaillot and Carlos Manzano and the gay vote with Brian Ellner. When we approached her office to oppose the stadium in 2002, the response was, "what stadium?" (that was after she stood on the steps of City Hall in 2000 to oppose the stadium). In 2004 she ended up supporting the stadium, then tried to back away from that stand in 2005. Conviction and principle do not seem to be Lopez's strong points and she seems oblivious to legitimate criticism. ADRIANO ESPAILLOT is an uptown Assembly Member, but his campaign seems to have no spark. This is unfortunate as he has said some very good things. But we know little of his record or character. BRIAN ELLNER never has held public office and seems to be basing his candidacy on his being gay. We've seen nothing else. The Borough President does not represent just the gays. Although his commercial where he acknowledged his partner was outstanding, as a candidate we find him severely wanting. BILL PERKINS, a term-limited Council Member from Harlem has done some very good work when it came to the Lead Paint bill or more recently with an effort to gain control over the Landmarks process. While seen as a strong candidate (and he opposed the West Side stadium), he supported the Hudson Yards rezoning that stands to displace many residents and small businesses. From we can tell he also supports Inclusionary Zoning which creates a net LOSS of affordable housing. There are concerns that his ties to Virginia Fields could result in a continuance of the horrible policies of Virginia Fields. It's ironic that some downtown tenant groups support Perkins, but if you ask some of his constituents, you get a report card that is much less glowing. People said he ignores his constituents and is very arrogant. His recent endorsement by Michael McKee raises serious questions of his true support for tenants and neighborhoods. "Don't get Mad, Get Eva" might be a slogan that overshadows what many of her constituents call her ("Evil Moskowitz") referring to EVA MOSKOWITZ'S reported no-show constituent support. While we're not that familiar with her record other than her giving the teacher's union apoplexy, she was part of the 2001 Council Pac that helped Gifford Miller attain the Council Speakership (and the subsequent harm to tenants). Along with Miller and Chris Quinn, the trio collected money and spread it around to other Council Members for their votes for Miller. (Quinn is doing the same thing this year). While Moskowitz is seen as a strong candidate, we've seen little to be impressed. Like Lopez and Perkins, she supported Hudson Yards. Lately she's complaining -- perhaps with good reason -- of unfounded attacks by Scott Stringer and the Working Families Party (i.e., Wrecking Families Party). SCOTT STRINGER appears to be the strongest candidate. The West Side Assembly Member has done good work in the past, but he is not the reformer he would like the voters to think that he is. He's as much a part of the Albany machine as is Sheldon Silver. In the last few years though, Stringer has moved to the right, become more developer-friendly and supported the Hudson Yards plan for 24+ skyscrapers in the midst of Clinton/Hell's Kitchen and Chelsea neighborhoods. He was part of the subterfuge created by Christine Quinn, supporting the groups that misled the public. Earlier, he released a report calling into question the political corruption of Manhattan community boards (a swipe at Virginia Fields and Margarita Lopez), but he failed to raise issues of corruption from Boards 4 and 7 (which his district covers) and his being endorsed by Walter Mankoff, former Chair of Board 4 -- undoubtedly the worst of Manhattan's 12 community boards. So here's the rub: with nine candidates and no runoff, a candidate could emerge the winner with as little as 20-25% of the vote. That is scary. We do not find any of these candidates attractive and worthy of support. But one will win. Activists around town have been calling and emailing each other expressing angst over which candidate to support. While it seems Stringer has the political support to win, he is potentially the most dangerous of all the candidates. He's an operator and he's smart. He has the ability to do exactly what Quinn did: give developers everything they want and convince the public he's in their corner. We have little cheer over. If you want a strong candidate, then perhaps Stringer is your choice. That would help communities ONLY of he had a meaningful agenda to help neighborhoods against a City Planning Department, City Council and Mayor all of whom seem to nothing more than heap more and more corporate welfare on landlords and developers. He would help tenants ONLY if he had a meaningful agenda to stand up to Sheldon Silver and Vito Lopez - who together have allowed both parties to gut tenant protections. If his agenda is anything less than that, than the public will have a hard road to follow. If Stringer's not to your liking, consider Ellner or Espaillot. They may not be as invested in NYC political corruption; both are unknown commodities. So is a Ham Sandwich.