From kitchen at hellskitchen.net Sat Nov 19 22:16:05 2005 From: kitchen at hellskitchen.net (Kitchen) Date: Sat Nov 19 22:16:34 2005 Subject: [HK-Online] Hell's Kitchen Online election picks (from 9/12/05) Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20051119221603.02ba2100@hellskitchen.net> Hell's Kitchen Online 9/12/05 http://hellskitchen.net "All the News the Times Won't Print" ============================================================ We had hoped to provide a more in-depth analysis of candidates running for political office in tomorrow's primary election, but technical problems made it near impossible. 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. COUNCIL DISTRICT 3 (Chelsea, Clinton, West Village) Christine Quinn does not have a challenger in the primary -- which is a shame as her record leaves a lot to be desired. 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 kitchen at hellskitchen.net Sat Nov 19 22:17:49 2005 From: kitchen at hellskitchen.net (Kitchen) Date: Sat Nov 19 22:19:30 2005 Subject: [HK-Online] Hell's Kitchen picks - Manh. Borough President (from 9/12/05) Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20051119221728.02b3f3e8@hellskitchen.net> Hell's Kitchen Online 9/12/05 http://hellskitchen.net "All the News the Times Won't Print" ============================================================ This is a follow-up to our earlier newsletter on tomorrow's primary election. Westsiders will pick candidates for the November general election for Mayor, Public Advocate and District Attorney. As far as we know, Council District 3 (Chelsea, Clinton and the West Village) does not have a primary. But 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 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. 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. From kitchen at hellskitchen.net Sat Nov 19 22:18:37 2005 From: kitchen at hellskitchen.net (Kitchen) Date: Sat Nov 19 22:19:38 2005 Subject: [HK-Online] Hell's Kitchen Election Eve Picks (from 11/7/05) Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20051119221823.02b10e70@hellskitchen.net> Hell's Kitchen Online 11/7/05 http://hellskitchen.net "All the News the Times Won't Print" ============================================================ Tomorrow is Election Day and the polls are open from 6 AM to 9 PM. Vote. SEE BELOW FOR OUR PICKS FOR OTHER OFFICES AND REFERENDUMS So if we had our druthers, we would vote for Jimmy McMillan of the Rent is Too Damn High Party. Go to http://rentistoodamnhigh.org/ It would be so easy to send out our Election Eve email with the message "Vote for Ferrer" because "he will protect tenants and do another 101 things we would like to see." It's not that simple and we can't really say that. While the public may not pay attention until a week or two before an election, we lived this campaign for the last year to see where the candidates will take the city and especially protections for tenants and sustainable neighborhoods. We believe Michael Bloomberg has been -- absent Rudy's mean streak -- as horrible a Mayor as Giuliani, taking the city in the wrong direction. He does not support tenants rights. His claim of affordable housing is fake and he's bent on destroying many of NYC's finest neighborhoods. Even if his housing initiatives reach the stated goals, most of it is luxury housing, gives developers enormous tax breaks and tears apart neighborhoods. If you want to live in Disneyland, vote for Bloomberg. If you want to hold onto your neighborhoods, consider Fernando Ferrer. You might have a chance. For more information on Bloomberg's REAL RECORD, go to http://mikebloombergsrecord.com Bloomberg's campaign spending -- estimated to reach $100 million -- is obscene, but not as obscene as the Demapublicans who allowed themselves to be bought off by Bloomberg's millions. (we're not members of any political party, but we do feel the Democrats ought to have some principles). We can't say that Fernando Ferrer is the anti-Bloomberg. In the last debate, Ferrer quoted his grandmother, "tell me who you walk with and I'll tell you who you are." Many of the people Ferrer "walks with" are old-guard Democratic hacks who have screwed up the city, and who allowed the kingdoms of Rudy and Mike to rule for the last twelve years. He walks with Bertha Lewis of Acorn and the Wrecking Families Party (AKA Working Families) - who is advocating neighborhood destruction in Brooklyn. He walks with the law firm Wachtel & Masyr, which represents Steve Ross of Related Co. (landlord, developer, friend and former business partner of Dan Doctoroff). Today he's walking with Christine Quinn who sold out her West Side constituents to further her ambition to be City Council Speaker. The list goes on. While any major mayoral candidate takes money from the real estate industry, that in itself can be somewhat understood given the need to raise large amounts of money for a campaign. But Ferrer doesn't "get" that which concerns people the most. It was only in the last two weeks that he returned to his "two New Yorks" theme from his 2001 campaign, and unfortunately the slogans now seem void of substance. If you listen carefully, Ferrer did NOT say he was against the Atlantic Yards plan in Brooklyn that would displace and bulldoze Brooklyn neighborhoods. He said his would halt it for further review. He says he likes the alleged 50% affordable apartments, but the so-called Community Benefits Agreement was with groups financed by the developer! While he was against the Jets Stadium, he has not come out against Hudson Yards or the West Chelsea Plan on Manhattan's West Side that would bulldoze Hell's Kitchen and Chelsea. He's signaled support of creating 24 skyscrapers in low-rise neighborhoods. That too was "arranged" by Bloomberg and Quinn using groups financed by developer banks. He's said nothing about livable neighborhoods, holding on to small local "mom and pop" stores in the face of real estate pressures putting many of these stores out of business and replaced by noisy bars with drunken patron until 4 AM. On the good side, he has said he would support the elimination of the Urstadt Law that keeps tenants from having local control of the rent laws. But he has not said he would do anything about cleaning-up the landlord-controlled Housing Court or DHCR corruption. While he said he would arrange for a tax rebate for renters, the amount of money isn't very much and would depend on Albany. It's a gimmick given the need to protect the affordable housing we have. He supports Inclusionary Zoning, but that is very dangerous and creates a net loss of affordable housing, rewards poverty pimps like Bertha Lewis's Acorn and creates huge skyscrapers. Obviously we're not enamored by Ferrer. But consider another four years of Bloomberg and the choice is clear. It's a matter of degree. We don't think Ferrer's agenda would be as bold as Bloomberg's plan to tear down large parts of the city. He has some appreciation of tenants' rights. Even if it is wanting, there's room for some education ... we hope. So we are urging our readers to vote for Ferrer in tomorrow's general election. He was the best of the four person Democratic primary. Fields, Miller and Weiner would have been worse. (despite his last-minutes surge, Weiner is a mini-Chuck Schumer who -- other than some noise in Washington -- is as bought-and-sold by landlords and developers as anyone else). HERE'S SOME OTHER RACES TO CONSIDER: COMPTROLLER: Bill Thompson has no serious opposition PUBLIC ADVOCATE Betsy Gotbaum is an embarrassment and supported the Mayor's West Side plan. We urge a write-in protest vote. Consider Abe Hirschfeld (who died a few months ago). Vote for a Ham Sandwich. MANHATTAN BOROUGH PRESIDENT Scott Stringer won the Democratic Primary and faces only token opposition. He may easily win, but his commitment to tenants and neighborhoods is in question. COUNCIL DISTRICT 3 Christine Quinn has no opposition. We suggest the Ham Sandwich write-in. BALLOT PROPOSALS New York State Ballot Proposal #1 -- which would give the legislature greater power in the state budget process. We urge a NO vote. While some of the opposition comes from those who would lose power (the Governor and his likely successor Elliot Spitzer), we see no need to give greater power to legislators who every year show us how irresponsible they are. Which is worse is hard to tell. New York State Ballot Proposal #2 == the MTA Bond Act that would create $2.9 BILLION of new debt. While the bond act is being touted as a way to pay for mass transit, highways and improvements such as the Second Avenue Subway, we see if differently. The $2.9 billion bond would be a small part of the overall MTA capital budget of $39 billion. The MTA is an agency that has wasted billions and ramped up huge debt already. Its downtown headquarters at 2 Broadway went from $150 million to over $500 million amid cost overruns, construction delays and corruption charges. This is the agency that took the low bid for the Hudson Rail Yards while hitting commuters with subway fare increases. More recently it took the low bid for the Atlantic Rail Yards. In our opinion, the bonds are not for the 2nd Avenue Subway (and would pay for only a small part of it anyway), but to cover the shift for the money the MTA is spending on the No. 7 line to the Javits Center. Supposedly the city is paying for the No. 7 extension, but if the Hudson Yards bonds go belly-up (which there's a good chance that will happen) then the MTA would probably be stick with the cost. The MTA is using large amounts of agency resources (personnel, equipment, etc.) for the No. 7. While the city has money in the MTA Capital budget plan promised for the No. 7, that is masked by the city's reduction in contributions to the MTA from a high of $500 million/year in the 1990's to now around $70 million. Many of those in favor of the MTA bond act are ... developers and landlords. The state debt burden is floating around 20 cents on the dollar, the highest in the nation. New York does not need, and cannot afford this additional debt. HOW TO WRITE IN CANDIDATES You can write in at every voting booth in New York. There is no special line or special form. Bring these instructions with you in case your polling site personnel don't know how to assist you with a write-in vote. Stand facing the ballot and look to your LEFT. You will see an unlabeled silver button. When you push that button, it releases the slats below. There is a slat that corresponds to each office on the ballot. Depress the button and, while holding it in, open the slot(s) for the office(s) for which you wish to write in a candidate's name. Also on the left is a box that contains a small pencil which you can use to write in your selection. You may want to bring your own writing instrument, just to be sure. You may write in for as many offices as you like.