[NYtenants-online] TenantNet's election picks

[Tenant]

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.