“My dad did not... seek to marry a black woman to put on display."
September 7, 2013 5:20 PM   Subscribe

In the final days before the New York City mayoral primary on September 10th, current mayor Michael Bloomberg is coming under attack for an article published this week in New York Magazine in which he criticizes frontrunner Bill de Blasio for running a“class-warfare and racist” campaign because of the way in which he has used “his family to gain support."

Mr. de Blasio's wife, Chirlaine McCray, became a topic of press attention when an article surfaced that she wrote for Essence magazine in 1979 about being out and proud as a young, single lesbian woman. The de Blasio children, Chiara and Dante have both hit the campaign trail for their dad, talking about such issues as ending the NYPD policy of "stop and frisk."

Meanwhile, Bloomberg's heir-apparent, Christine Quinn (Previously) has slipped into third place in some polls, perhaps, in large part, due to a grassroots activist group called Anybody But Quinn.

de Blasio would need to take 40% of the Democratic electorate to avoid a run-off on October 1st.

The day after the primary, of course, New York will commemorate the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which took place the morning of the 2001 mayoral primary.
posted by roomthreeseventeen (181 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite
 
I was actually thinking about voting for Quinn in the upcoming primary >_>;;;

bad idea?
posted by yeoz at 5:36 PM on September 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


My favorite part of this interview:
But [Bill de Blasio's] whole campaign is that there are two different cities here. And I’ve never liked that kind of division. The way to help those who are less fortunate is, number one, to attract more very fortunate people. They are the ones that pay the bills. The people that would get very badly hurt here if you drive out the very wealthy are the people he professes to try to help. Tearing people apart with this “two cities” thing doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s a destructive strategy for those you want to help the most. He’s a very populist, very left-wing guy, but this city is not two groups, and if to some extent it is, it’s one group paying for services for the other.
Yep. He hates class war. But if he has to pick, of course, he'll choose the billionaires, because they are better human beings than the poor.
posted by koeselitz at 5:47 PM on September 7, 2013 [65 favorites]


Interviewer: "Then there’s Bill de Blasio, who’s become the Democratic front-runner. He has in some ways been running a class-warfare campaign—"

Bloomberg: "Class-warfare and racist."

"Racist?"

"Well, no, no, I mean he’s making an appeal using his family to gain support. "


That's some fast thinking there. He formulates an answer, realizes how it sounds, and starts back pedaling before the interviewer has actually finished the question.
posted by justkevin at 5:48 PM on September 7, 2013 [5 favorites]


koeselitz: "But if he has to pick, of course, he'll choose the billionaires, because they are better human beings than the poor."

I think you should read the interview. I don't think he feels billionaires are better people, and he shows some clear understanding about how the modern knowledge economy is wiping away jobs that are not being replaced, and there are insurmountable challenges in managing a city like New York in those circumstances.

Bloomberg was a good mayor. The next mayor will be a lesser one.
posted by gertzedek at 5:55 PM on September 7, 2013 [9 favorites]


This is weird. It is like no one has ever used their family in a political campaign before. Surely de Blasio will be remembered as a brave pioneer for doing something that no candidate ever thought of doing.
posted by Kitteh at 5:57 PM on September 7, 2013 [9 favorites]


I guess this is essentially what he is talking about.

A lot of people want to pretend the "standing up for us" part is racist.

It is kinda odd that I don't know anything about Bloomberg's family at all, it is like he emerged fully formed out of Bonfire of the Vanities or something. All I know is he got fired once, and the first thing he did was buy his wife a fur coat. Second thing he did was make a couple billion.
posted by Ad hominem at 6:01 PM on September 7, 2013 [5 favorites]


Bloomberg was a good mayor. The next mayor will be a lesser one.

I agree with the second sentence, and disagree with the first.

Bloomberg has basically allowed the financial sector to run riot so long as it funds a bike sharing program and renovates a few parks here and there. Bloomberg has basically said "hey everyone, who needs government when you have a bunch of rich people who are willing to build the stuff that you weren't even aware you needed?"

Why not tax them instead of relying on their cyclical bouts of generosity?
posted by anewnadir at 6:03 PM on September 7, 2013 [38 favorites]


gertzedek: “I think you should read the interview. I don't think he feels billionaires are better people...”

I've read it three times today. He doesn't seem to think billionaires are better people, per se – they're just better to have in a city. And his response to the question of his inane and ridiculous and frankly repressive nanny-state policies is laughable: a claim that he has literally saved everyone's life.
When you’re criticized for imposing a “nanny state”—

Oh, come on! Everybody loves it! Graydon Carter wrote the nastiest editor’s letter—now he will tell you I saved his life. Literally. His wife thinks I saved his life. Fran Lebowitz is probably the only person whose life I haven’t saved.
That's right – everybody loves it. No one is upset about it, and if they are, it's because they're ingrates who should be thankful that they aren't dead. After all, we'd all be dead if Bloomberg hadn't banned dying.

It's very hard not to see this as the height of haughtiness. This and the stop-and-frisk thing – these are real issues, and Bloomberg has done nothing but ignore them and dismiss them as if they don't matter at all.
posted by koeselitz at 6:07 PM on September 7, 2013 [29 favorites]


Racist against white people? I'll take my chances.

Bill's making me sorry I ever called him De Blandsio. He really stepped up the past few weeks. He looks mayoral while everyone else seems either bonkers or reactionary. His campaign really sold the voters on true progressive policies. I tip my hat to that strategy and hope that he is decent mayor. Cuz I wouldn't bet against him winning next week, definitively.

(and his family is awesome and loves to support him, that's just what political families do).
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:07 PM on September 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


As a side note, I met Mr. de Blasio the other night when he was at my subway station greeting people. I asked him a VERY specific question about funding for housing for people living with HIV and AIDS, and he had a great, detailed answer. So, I'm a fan.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:09 PM on September 7, 2013 [47 favorites]


anewnadir: "Bloomberg has basically allowed the financial sector to run riot"

I don't understand the allegation. He's the mayor, he's not the Fed. He can't pass financial regulation. Also, you may dislike the billionaires, but they are the tax base. Tax them? New Yorkers pay more taxes than anyone in the country already - state AND city.
posted by gertzedek at 6:11 PM on September 7, 2013 [9 favorites]


But [Bill de Blasio's] whole campaign is that there are two different cities here. And I’ve never liked that kind of division.

I hate this framing. Acknowledging something exists is not the same as creating a division.
posted by rtha at 6:15 PM on September 7, 2013 [33 favorites]


koeselitz: "No one is upset about it, and if they are, it's because they're ingrates who should be thankful that they aren't dead."

Jokes aside, does anyone really want to go back to pre-Bloomberg public smoking rules?
posted by gertzedek at 6:15 PM on September 7, 2013 [8 favorites]


He can't pass financial regulation.

That's true, but Bloomberg did allow elite real estate developers to infest Manhattan development with luxury high rises and crafted many of his polices towards attracting more tech and finance corporations to move it and more hospitals and poor people to move out.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:16 PM on September 7, 2013 [8 favorites]


De Blasio supports all of Bloomberg's nanny state policies by the way, including the Big Gulp rules.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:17 PM on September 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


Bloomberg was a good mayor.

For millionaires. He also made some bike paths.
posted by to sir with millipedes at 6:17 PM on September 7, 2013 [13 favorites]


Cops might stop and frisk white kids. Can't have that.

If I was a cop I would totally target Columbia kids, probably make my quota first week of the month. Last night these kids standing outside a bar actually shouted to a group of girls "we have ecstasy.....the drug" as if the hundreds of people nearby weren't hip to the lingo.

Jokes aside, does anyone really want to go back to pre-Bloomberg public smoking rules?

Only kinda. I'd like to smoke in a bar every once in a while.
posted by Ad hominem at 6:19 PM on September 7, 2013 [7 favorites]


Jokes aside, does anyone really want to go back to pre-Bloomberg public smoking rules?

Jesus christ no.

Bloomberg was a good mayor. The next mayor will be a lesser one.

I agree. The only question is how much worse the next mayor will be.
posted by 2bucksplus at 6:23 PM on September 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


We're going to get a Mayor with "true progressive policies", who's going to do nothing about the public pension problem that's going to bankrupt the city. And when we're all living in Detroit 2.0, because the tax base of the city that's paying those pensions has moved somewhere else, I'll bet I'll read here on Metafilter how the whole thing was Bloomberg's fault.
posted by gertzedek at 6:26 PM on September 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


Yeah yeah Dinkens 2.0! Drive out the job creators so we can live in the husks and raise artisanal goats on the FDR! Devil's Night! Let's burn the rich Whooo whoooo!

Or, like, you know, not that.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:29 PM on September 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


gertzedek: We're going to get a Mayor with "true progressive policies", who's going to do nothing about the public pension problem that's going to bankrupt the city. And when we're all living in Detroit 2.0, because the tax base of the city that's paying those pensions has moved somewhere else, I'll bet I'll read here on Metafilter how the whole thing was Bloomberg's fault.

Great! Maybe then I'll be able to afford an apartment of my own!
posted by anewnadir at 6:31 PM on September 7, 2013 [7 favorites]


Wow, that escalated to newspaper comment level scare tactics fairly quickly. As long as NYC remains the nation's banking center (which it will because that decision dates back to Alexander Hamilton) it will never become "Detroit 2.0".

The waxing and waning of the fortunes of major U.S. cities over the past 50's were largely the result of the rise and fall of various industries and the trend first towards suburbanization and then back towards urbanization.

Nice try though.
posted by eagles123 at 6:32 PM on September 7, 2013 [34 favorites]


I dunno, I really miss Devil's Night. Did Bill de Blasio say he's bringing it back? First thing I'm going to do is drink a 64 ounce Mountain Dew, then smoke within 20 feet of a building.
posted by Ad hominem at 6:33 PM on September 7, 2013 [8 favorites]


Warriors, come out and play

Clink Clink
posted by eagles123 at 6:33 PM on September 7, 2013 [12 favorites]


it will never become "Detroit 2.0".

While probably true, my husband remembers when our Upper West Side neighborhood was called Needle Park.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:35 PM on September 7, 2013 [5 favorites]


I recall the Economist saying that the reason for Detroit's troubles is down to both mismanagement and a tax base that almost wholly consisted of automobile manufacturers. I can see the logic to the argument that a progressive agenda will scare away the very people who will fund said agenda. However, saying that New York is going to be the next Detroit if we don't continue down the golden path of service economy growth is the rhetorical equivalent of saying that Billionaires are the problem and that if only their heads were on pikes everything would be a-OK.
posted by anewnadir at 6:35 PM on September 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


Well if The Warriors is going to come up, I'm going to link to my favorite piece of writing on that film, which destroyed it before I ever saw it.
posted by mkb at 6:36 PM on September 7, 2013


Potomac Avenue: "Yeah yeah Dinkens 2.0!"

Dinkins was mayor 23 years ago. The New York City of today has more retired cops than active ones and $70 Billion in pension liabilities. Dismiss the problem all you want, doesn't make it less real.
posted by gertzedek at 6:37 PM on September 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yeah, I'll take my chances with Progressive Politics, thanks.

Maybe the city could be run for the benefit of all its citizens, not just the real estate developers.
posted by maggiemaggie at 6:38 PM on September 7, 2013 [10 favorites]


maggiemaggie: but don't you realize that the city is being run for your benefit!? They build those tall buildings so the crumbs can fall further afield!
posted by anewnadir at 6:39 PM on September 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


I remember Needle Park era too. But I always thought it was because the park at 72nd and Broadway was long and thin like a needle. At least that is what my parents told me.
posted by Ad hominem at 6:42 PM on September 7, 2013 [9 favorites]


Oh sure, like Bloomberg didn't use his height to cater to the Lollipop Guild and Lullaby League interests.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 6:43 PM on September 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


anewnadir: "Great! Maybe then I'll be able to afford an apartment of my own!"

I would really like to have an apartment in Manhattan too. A nice two bedroom with a washer and drier, maybe in the Upper West Side. But somehow I don't feel like I'm entitled to one.
posted by gertzedek at 6:44 PM on September 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


anewnadir: you're right, I'm being ungrateful. Bloomberg did save my life after all, by banning smoking in bars.
posted by maggiemaggie at 6:45 PM on September 7, 2013


when you adjust for inflation, median rent in Manhattan is down. makes sense, since one big accomplishment of Bloomberg's was substantially adding to housing stock through rezoning.

link
posted by jpe at 6:46 PM on September 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


gertzedek, in all seriousness, affordability is a huge problem in NYC, and it is probably the number one reason Bloomberg and, as a consequence, Quinn, are so unpopular. Most people I know are in a panic about it, and forget about millionaires leaving because the taxes are too high -- people are leaving NY because they just can't afford it.

I've leaved here most of my life, and I have definitely been thinking about where I should go, but I have a good job here, my professional network is here, why would I go somewhere else? But it looks like the rest of Brooklyn is going to go the way of Williamsburg aka Miami.

I could move to Philadelphia and have a two-hour commute both ways and pay my taxes there.
posted by maggiemaggie at 6:53 PM on September 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


Yep. Apt prices are basically a huge function of interest rates. Of course the duration of the pension liabilities is also very long, so six of one...

I loathe Quinn tho. She's everything I dislike about Bloomberg and nothing I like about him.
posted by JPD at 6:53 PM on September 7, 2013


@ maggiemaggie: you'd still pay NY tax on your wages (but not NYC tax).

FWIW, I left because the cost was too much.
posted by jpe at 7:00 PM on September 7, 2013


I would guess Bloomberg knows a thing or two about racism.

Bye bye!
posted by Ironmouth at 7:00 PM on September 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


who's going to do nothing about the public pension problem that's going to bankrupt the city.

You mean that pension problem that has nothing to do with any progressive at all? What happened to the last 20 years of GOP and "independent" mayors? Because you, know, progressives balance budgets and conservatives run huge deficits.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:05 PM on September 7, 2013 [24 favorites]


gertzedek: "I would really like to have an apartment in Manhattan too. A nice two bedroom with a washer and drier, maybe in the Upper West Side. But somehow I don't feel like I'm entitled to one."

If every person who owned an apartment in Manhattan got it by working hard and saving, I'd be right there with you denouncing the scroungers and leaches demanding apartments of their own for nothing in return. The problem is, I've met enough of the people who actually own apartments in New York City to know that ownership only occasionally reflects the fruits of hard work and thrift. All too often, it's your parents or oil money wot got it for you.

I do feel entitled to an affordable home. That's why I don't live in New York City and won't be moving back anytime soon. Of course, if you want to give me a job as an i-Banker or lawyer, I'd be willing to reconsider. But wait! I don't deserve one of those, because every i-Banker and every lawyer in New York City got that job through liberal application of elbow grease, certainly not by family connections.

In all seriousness, I think your basic assumption is that America is fundamentally fair, and that whoever is in the position to pay all the taxes and own all the land is there for a good reason. I disagree with your premise, but I understand some very smart people (Rand, Greenspan, etc.) are on your side so I won't begrudge you that view.
posted by anewnadir at 7:07 PM on September 7, 2013 [18 favorites]


Detroit declined because a) the manufacturing industries that made up its tax base declined, contracted, and moved overseas b) national policy after WWII encouraged people to move out of cities and into the suburbs, and c) the city experienced major, major racial turmoil that contributed to its mismanagement and split it from its suburban neighbors. Many industrial cities in the Midwest experienced similar declines, Detroit is just the most prominent example.

Starting in the 90's urban areas in the U.S. began to experience a revival driven by immigration from overseas and the beginnings of a reversal in the U.S. trend towards suburbanization. This trend was magnified in NYC by the explosive growth in the financial services industry over the past 30 years. The growth of the financial services industry was focused in NYC because it was decided at the time of this nation's founding that the NYC was to be the financial center. Suggesting that a progressive mayor would change this is simply ludicrous.

Detroit, for its part, didn't have any industries to fall back on after automobile manufacturing declined. It didn't even have a strong core of "eds and meds" (institutions of higher education and medicine) that cities like Boston, Philadelphia, and even Pittsburgh had. That, combined with the racial animosity, contributed to the "fall" of the city proper. The overall Detroit metro area is still doing fairly well though.
posted by eagles123 at 7:07 PM on September 7, 2013 [6 favorites]


maggiemaggie: "gertzedek, in all seriousness, affordability is a huge problem in NYC"

Affordability is due to a market condition. Here's a fact: EVERYBODY WANTS TO LIVE IN NEW YORK. This is the reality. If New York were magically made more affordable, an increased influx of newcomers would bring prices back to where they were.
posted by gertzedek at 7:12 PM on September 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


The way in which Bloomberg manages time and time again to demonstrate how bizarrely out of touch with how most New Yorkers live never ceases to amaze me. We get it, dude, you're the richest guy here. I appreciate that he's willing to put his money where his mouth is as far as improving our city goes (his private philanthropy is widespread, he's done a lot of good there), but I'm definitely ready for a mayor who can't just buy everything he wants.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:16 PM on September 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


Affordability is due to a market condition. Here's a fact: EVERYBODY WANTS TO LIVE IN NEW YORK. This is the reality. If New York were magically made more affordable, an increased influx of newcomers would bring prices back to where they were.

This isn't new. People have always wanted to live in NYC. Difference is, more people than just millionaires used to be able to afford to.
posted by rtha at 7:20 PM on September 7, 2013 [19 favorites]


Wait, so we're not for billionaires heads on pikes now?
posted by evilDoug at 7:22 PM on September 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


evilDoug: "Wait, so we're not for billionaires heads on pikes now?"

No no no--I was just trying to persuade everyone that we really do want billionaires' heads on pikes using reverse psychology.
posted by anewnadir at 7:25 PM on September 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


Affordability is due to a market condition. Here's a fact: EVERYBODY WANTS TO LIVE IN NEW YORK. This is the reality. If New York were magically made more affordable, an increased influx of newcomers would bring prices back to where they were.

I don't want to live in New York. I do like to visit. And some of my best friends are New Yorkers.
posted by birdherder at 7:32 PM on September 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


The housing prices thing is a red herring. Yes, it's more expensive to live in Manhattan than it was when I moved here 25 years ago. But 25 years ago, large swaths of Manhattan were complete shitholes and those were the inexpensive places to live. The nice places? They have always been expensive. Back in the early 90s you could live cheap in Alphabet City because it was riddled with heroin dealers and all the buildings were falling apart. I've lived in the low 100s on the Upper West Side for 20+ years. Sure it's a pretty expensive place now, sure there is a great bakery and good middlebrow restaurants around the corner, sure there are well-to-do couples out pushing around strollers every where you look. And yet, the first thing that happened to me when I moved up here in 1991 was that I witnessed a murder directly in front of my building, and people used to literally line up in plain view to buy crack in front of the elementary school down the block. There may not be as many cheap neighborhoods on Manhattan today as there were 25 years ago, but there are still plenty of them. You just have to be willing to live in a shitty neighborhood... just like we were back in the "good old days." Blaming Bloomberg for the fact that you can't afford to live in the West Village is nonsense.
posted by slkinsey at 7:34 PM on September 7, 2013 [15 favorites]


How are we going to have a functional city if you must make a minimum of 50K/yr to live here? I hope all those bankers can figure out how to manage their own infrastructure. Cook their own food. Make their own art. Watch their own kids, god forbid. Answer their own phones.

A city without affordable housing isnt a city, it's a theme park for rich people.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:35 PM on September 7, 2013 [35 favorites]


Why all this talk assuming people want to live in the West Village?

I've lived in Brooklyn for the last 20 years. I lived on the lower east side in the 80s, so I know about cheap rent and the crack dealers that go with it.

I'd imagine that a liveable city was one with decent, affordable neighborhoods that weren't hellholes.
posted by maggiemaggie at 7:37 PM on September 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


the public pension problem that's going to bankrupt the city

So here's a question: Did the City continue to fund the pension, like it was supposed to? Or did it stop funding the pension for a period of time (or perhaps entirely), relying instead on magical thinking about how "the market" was going to take care of its future pension liabilities? Because it seems like most of the time when I hear crying about egregious pension liabilities, it turns out that no contributions had been made to the pension fund for years and years. Cities are especially notorious for doing this.
posted by slkinsey at 7:40 PM on September 7, 2013 [6 favorites]


It isn't as dire as it seems.

I been here a long time and know people from all walks of life, not everyone I grew up with managed to become a banker and they still live here. I know people that don't even have bank accounts that live here.

Are there even any genuine hellholes left? I haven't seen a crack vial on the sidewalk in probably 15 years.

I'm usually the one that gets bent out of shape about gentrification, quit stealing my schtick.
posted by Ad hominem at 7:42 PM on September 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'd imagine that a liveable city was one with decent, affordable neighborhoods that weren't hellholes.

So, when was this ever the case in Manhattan? Or, rather, are you asserting that there aren't perfectly reasonably-priced, non-hellhole neighborhoods in the boroughs? Because that just isn't true. I have plenty of friends who live in them. They're just not "cool" places to live.
posted by slkinsey at 7:43 PM on September 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


The pension issue is also very much a function of how actuarial assumptions work. It's underfunded but by a lot less than the scary numbers. It's underfunded because the city never puts enough money away which is suboptimal but not really problematic as long as the city is stable or slowly growing. It becomes a huge problem if the city tax revenues structurally shrink.

And yes. A huge part of what's happened in Manhattan and Brownstone Brooklyn is that a cohort that in prior generations moved to the burbs is now staying in the city creating demand. Prices are also exacerbated by crazy low mortgage rates.
posted by JPD at 7:50 PM on September 7, 2013


anewnadir: "No no no--I was just trying to persuade everyone that we really do want billionaires' heads on pikes using reverse psychology."

How the hell are supposed to afford pikes? I haven't even made rent for August yet.
posted by koeselitz at 7:50 PM on September 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


So, lately I've been looking at relocating to a city, as per my recent AskMe, and as part of that I've been looking at various different places. I'm in a different place than a lot of people, admittedly, but I found perfectly affordable places in Queens that have 90+ walk scores. Of course, there are also other cities; Philadelphia looks very affordable, for example (even outside the terrible areas). I don't necessarily think "affordable housing" in a place that's already by far the most densely populated in the US is something that is going to happen.
posted by sonic meat machine at 7:51 PM on September 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


Shit, maybe I should move to make room for a hungry up and comer who just wants to move to the big city and make it.

I could live in the suburbs if I learned to drive.
posted by Ad hominem at 7:54 PM on September 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


Ad hominem: "Shit, maybe I should move to make room for a hungry up and comer who just wants to move to the big city and make it."

On behalf of the Bloomberg administration, I beg you to reconsider your decision. We desperately need honest taxpayers like you in order to make sure our pioneering social engineer-erm social services programs stay afloat. It may say "citi" on the bike, but it's honest, hard-working New Yorkers like yourself who don't throw those bikes into the East River out of spite who make it work.

Whatever your choice, please stand clear of the closing doors.
posted by anewnadir at 7:58 PM on September 7, 2013 [2 favorites]


It's not a question of moving for someone except yourself, and you don't have to be doomed to suburbia. The reason I'm considering moving to Queens, Philadelphia, or somewhere larger is specifically so that I can stop driving everywhere; my point is that, although Manhattan obviously is the densest place in the country, there are other areas where you can live a reasonable urban lifestyle without paying Manhattan prices. It may not have the cachet of Manhattan, but you can also rent a 2 bedroom apartment in Queens for less than $2000. Less than $1500 in Philly.
posted by sonic meat machine at 7:59 PM on September 7, 2013


slkinsey, that was in answer to your comment "You just have to be willing to live in a shitty neighborhood"

And I absolutely have no interest whatsoever in living in Manhattan (or other hot neighborhoods like Williamsburg).

I'm kind of surprised at the tone of this thread, only because most of the people I talk to are overwhelmed by the pace of real estate development in NY and don't like it.
posted by maggiemaggie at 8:03 PM on September 7, 2013


The issue w bberg isn't the amount of development. It is the type of development
posted by JPD at 8:05 PM on September 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


Michael Who?
New What Where?
posted by lampshade at 8:08 PM on September 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


To be fair, a lot of the issues around affordable housing really are outside of a mayor's control or the control of any city government. City governments can encourage the development of new housing stock, enact social programs to alleviate the expenses of the non-rich in other areas, and try to develop transit infrastructure to help move people around efficiently so it is less important to be located in any one central area (although this is also dependent on state and federal funding). Outside of those measures, housing affordability is really a function of issues affecting the larger economy (i.e. economic inequality, the breakdown of the post-war social contract between capital and labor ect.) and economic policies set at the national level (i.e. interest rates, regulations, tax rates, fiscal policy ect.). Housing affordability is really a problem pretty much nationwide. The only question is to what extent.
posted by eagles123 at 8:09 PM on September 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


Seriously....let's let ole Bloomie fade away. He had is run. He did a few cool things. Then he reverted back to his entitled-faux-liberal-bullshit-I-have-shitloads-of-money-so-I-can-think-this-way-stupidity and forgot the rest of us. GO away BloomTurd and take your Morning-Joe-Brzezinski Anti-Sugar-Shit-For-Brains-Concern-Troll-Campaign(s) with you.

We don’t like you. Go fly away to your Caribbean vacation wonderland in your Lear Jet. You will not be missed. Stop pretending like you give a shit about people. Because you don’t. You care about you. And we know that about you.

The world will do fine without your stewardship. Go the fuck away you insignificant little entitled shit-for-brains.


btw....when exactly is this fecal matter's last day in office? I will ceremoniously flush my toilet that day.
posted by lampshade at 8:47 PM on September 7, 2013 [4 favorites]


I was all set to vote de Blasio, but lord his performance in the debate was terrifying! Whenever anyone asked how he intended to get his tax plan through Albany, and he said "If the people demand it, Albany will have no choice," I started whimpering. Is he actually that dumb? He can't be! Which means he's lying. Which sucks.
I like Liu, though, That dude's scrappy!
Also, it is odd to have a primary where the African-American is the only one who wouldn't be a "First ______ Mayor".
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 9:24 PM on September 7, 2013


I wouldn't worry about the housing situation. With the recent revelations about the NSA compromising internet security, the financial sector is bound to move en mass to other countries. As a result, rents in NY will be equivalent to those in Detroit. Unfortunately, everything else will be equivalent to Detroit as well. The 70s and 80s will look like paradise in comparison.
posted by happyroach at 9:30 PM on September 7, 2013 [1 favorite]


The New York City of today has more retired cops than active ones and $70 Billion in pension liabilities. Dismiss the problem all you want, doesn't make it less real.

Dismantle the nany state & all the pensioners will die off from lung cancer & diabetes. Problem solved!
posted by Devils Rancher at 9:46 PM on September 7, 2013


The pension fund is only a problem if every cop decided to retire right now. This happens all the time, so be sure to stoke this really plausible nightmare hellscape.
posted by Brocktoon at 10:17 PM on September 7, 2013 [5 favorites]


And just to add, the political arm of the 1% LOVE that people are worried about the greedy unions and their pensions. They love to see the 99% bicker with each other. Look over there, not over here! As they say.
posted by Brocktoon at 10:20 PM on September 7, 2013 [16 favorites]


A city without affordable housing isnt a city, it's a theme park for rich people.

Hear hear. Fucking A.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 10:26 PM on September 7, 2013 [3 favorites]


The day after the primary, of course, New York will commemorate the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which took place the morning of the 2001 mayoral primary.

Of course. Thanks NYC for finding a way to link any event to 9/11 so it might garner some, what, sympathy? I watched the fireballs (actually the second) from my roof in Brooklyn that day. It is so comforting to know it is now a part of the political stupidity landscape.

I am so touched. I heart NY! Thanks for the memories of that beautiful blue sky day.

Memories
posted by lampshade at 11:05 PM on September 7, 2013


Like Bloomberg, some of the posters in this thread have a bit of a deaf ear with regard to housing prices. It is a problem that the merely super-rich are being priced out of many Manattan and Brooklyn neighborhoods by the ultra-rich, because those moves make fewer options available to the middle class, working class, and so forth.

I keep hearing, "Supply and demand, dude, deal with it." I would prefer not to, thank you very much. Supply and demand is not like gravity. Though I agree, it's a national issue, its not like there are no ways to influence the availability of affordable housing locally.

The pretense that higher taxes will chase the rich out and that we should be afraid to tax them is just silly. And the idea that nothing can be done to force developers, kicking and screaming, to build somewhat affordable housing for the rest of us is also pretty dumb and defeatist.

And the idea that NYC rents are becoming more affordable is just--great! I'll be sure and tell the Russian oil billionaire across the street. But it just seems like he's not around that much...
posted by lackutrol at 11:48 PM on September 7, 2013 [8 favorites]


Supply and demand is not like gravity.

I'm kind of hot on changing over to a lottery system. Property would be priced uniformly by the square foot and a random draw would be used to pick which of the interested buyers gets to live on a plot. You'd have trailer parks next to mansions on the waterfont. Chickens running around in the penthouse. It would be awesome.
posted by klanawa at 12:22 AM on September 8, 2013 [3 favorites]


Well, TBH I was trying to give it a rest for once but we can get into it.

Calling neighborhoods "hell holes" or "sketchy" is just incredibly insensitive, and I know you ain't talking about Brooklyn Hights here. They may be beneath metafilter standards but they are home to millions of people who been here longer than any of us.

It isn't the uber rich or the super rich that pushed people into those neighborhoods, it was the ordinary middle class. People chose to move here by the millions.

More recently, How many über rich are there that they could remake and entire Borough. I don't see hundreds of thousands of $10m luxury condos going up in the middle of Brooklyn.It isn't like the Vandebilts are driving up prices in Brownsville or Red Hook.
posted by Ad hominem at 12:40 AM on September 8, 2013 [7 favorites]


I remember Needle Park era too. But I always thought it was because the park at 72nd and Broadway was long and thin like a needle.

First NYT citation is 1966, when Frank D. O'Connor used the park as a platform for assailing Rockefeller's narcotics policies. In 1971, the name was immortalized by the drug addiction film Panic in Needle Park.

It's easy to forget, now, that Lincoln Center was built as urban renewal.

As for the NYC pension system, according to a 2009 Pew study, New York was 70% funded against future liabilities, which placed it pretty much at the median among major US cities (61 studied). With the city at a record population of 8.3M, about 10% higher than 50 years ago, not to mention the aforementioned record real estate prices, it's hardly a situation comparable to Detroit, which has lost about 60% of its population with a stunning 25% drop in the previous decade alone, and with it much of its tax base.
posted by dhartung at 1:15 AM on September 8, 2013 [4 favorites]


What a weird-ass thing to say.
posted by Fists O'Fury at 3:38 AM on September 8, 2013


I live in Brooklyn in a 1 bedroom. In 2010, my rent was $1700.

Last year, my landlord raised it to $1900.

This year, he will raise it to $2200, and I will be leaving. He said to me "You're a nice guy - a good tenant. But I can get so much more for this place than you can afford. You understand."
posted by to sir with millipedes at 4:20 AM on September 8, 2013 [18 favorites]


As long as NYC remains the nation's banking center (which it will because that decision dates back to Alexander Hamilton) it will never become "Detroit 2.0".

Was NYC the nation's banking center in the 1970's, when the city was bankrupt and was rescued from becoming Detroit 1.0 by the "New York City Seasonal Financing Act of 1975 which extended $2.3 billion worth of federal loans to the city for three years"?

Anything is possible. There are no gaurantees for NYC or any place else.
posted by Seymour Zamboni at 4:46 AM on September 8, 2013 [4 favorites]


This year, he will raise it to $2200

That's obscene. NY rents are out of control.

From 1988 to 1995 I lived on the 2nd floor of a brownstone-type building, on Fulton St. in Ft. Greene, Brooklyn. It was the block between S. Portland and S. Oxford. It had high ceilings, a large combination living room/kitchen, two good-sized bedrooms and a third smallish room still big enough for a bed and a couple of chairs. The ceilings were high enough so that I could put a loft bed in one bedroom and a loft storage area in the small room.

Not only was it a LOT of space, it was convenient as hell: a two minute walk to Atlantic Avenue station and right next door to the Lafayette (A train) station. Furthermore, I used to rehearse a four piece band there once a week, like clockwork. Drum kit, electric bass, electric guitar... you could hear us all up and down the block. Never had a neighbor complain, not once.

One of my neighbors a couple doors down was a crack supplier (she supplied the corner kids). She was a middle aged lady, sweet as could be. We used to hang out on the block and she'd regale me with stories of her partying days of youth. There were some empty crack vials crunching underfoot in the gutter sometimes, and you didn't want to go out for strolls in the nabe after midnight and all, but, hey, it was a great pad, I had friendly neighbors (and not all of them in the drug trade) and, like I said, I could rehearse a goddamn BAND there.

The building had been bought (as a shell) and renovated by a guy from the Caribbean, and he didn't use an agency to rent out the apartments: he preferred to deal with the tenants himself. He used to let me go up to 3 or 4 or, once, even 6 months late with the rent. I'd tell him I was going for a Europe tour (did a lot of that in those days, and it paid a lot of bills) and when I got back, I'd hand over three or four months rent. He trusted me, we had a great relationship

So, what did I pay? The rent started out at $750 a month (not including heat, which bills I had to pay myself). After 2 or 3 years, he brought the rent up to $800. Couple years after that, it went to $850. Then one year I talked him back down to $800, cause I told him times were tough. He agreed.

Now kids, y'all might not believe all this, but it's the god's honest truth. That was MY New York, goddammit, and I just thank my lucky stars that at the very moment when it all started to crumble for a poor musician like me, I was able to move to Tokyo and start a new life here. Again, one that I could afford.

The economic forces that prevailed in NY just didn't really allow for people like me to stay there. Now it's been a good six years since I've been back for a visit, but I'll be in NY this fall, staying with some friends who live a stone's throw from my beloved old pad in Ft. Greene (friends with seriously good paying jobs!), and I'll be eager to see how things have changed. I don't think I'll *like* how they've changed, though. I feel like I caught the tail end of the good old days for artists and musicians in that town.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:50 AM on September 8, 2013 [14 favorites]


But somehow I don't feel like I'm entitled to one.

I'm beginning to think that word deserves its own Godwin rule. It always pops up in discussions like this, and it's always an indicator of a whole fleet of familiar and tired attitudes. The only problem with Godwinning it is that rich people actually do feel entitled.


EVERYBODY WANTS TO LIVE IN NEW YORK

Hahahaha. No, we do not. Speaking for myself, you'd have to pay me to live there. You like it; that's fine, but projecting your preferences onto EVERYBODY and proclaiming that it's "a fact" is ... a mistake.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:57 AM on September 8, 2013 [8 favorites]


Bloomberg was a good mayor. The next mayor will be a lesser one.

As a New Yorker I could not agree less.
posted by spitbull at 4:59 AM on September 8, 2013 [3 favorites]


I was able to move to Tokyo and start a new life here. Again, one that I could afford.

I thought Tokyo has always been one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in????
posted by Seymour Zamboni at 5:00 AM on September 8, 2013


Y'all don't know how many of us New Yorkers now live in Philly 'cause we couldn't afford it. When we meet each other, we shake our heads sadly.

Koch is the one who tied the fate of NYC to the financial industry, I believe. Bloomberg is like a natural outgrowth of that plus no smokes or Big Gulps.
posted by angrycat at 5:04 AM on September 8, 2013


Also, it is fucked up when Park Slope is less hippie and more supermodel. It should be against the law.
posted by angrycat at 5:06 AM on September 8, 2013


I thought Tokyo has always been one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in????

Personal circumstances have resulted in this being a relatively inexpensive town to live in.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:06 AM on September 8, 2013


Whatever you think about Bloomberg he is not an idiot. He doesn't say this kind of thing just before a democratic primary because it is what he "really" thinks. This is a calculated move- whether out of desperation or disloyalty I can't say. But if you are reacting with outrage/suspicion I'm almost sure that is the reaction Bloomberg intended
posted by Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory at 5:09 AM on September 8, 2013


Well, Flapjax, it wasn't even like this when I moved here in 2005. My first apartment was a 2 bedroom shotgun in Crown Heights for $1100. My second was a newly renovated 1 bedroom in a brownstone in Bed Stuy for $1200. It was affordable not that long ago. Heck, given the location and the apartment itself, $1700 seemed reasonable. But in just the past 18 months, it's gone insane. I know there are people in this building living in apartments with the same layout as ours paying $2400. So I guess we're lucky?
posted by to sir with millipedes at 5:24 AM on September 8, 2013


Wait til Flapjax finds out about the bedbugs. WTF Bloomberg?
posted by R. Mutt at 5:35 AM on September 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


Wait. How are the bedbugs Bloomberg's fault? Do they come in on CitiBikes?
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:53 AM on September 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


EVERYBODY WANTS TO LIVE IN NEW YORK

No because it's just too expensive to live there. I have no desire to give up my $200k townhouse in a safe friendly neighborhood that's a ten minute walk from my office for a $2200/month apartment in NYC. Seriously, there is a world outside of New York, you don't have to put up with it if you don't want to.
posted by octothorpe at 5:56 AM on September 8, 2013 [3 favorites]


I'm from New York (UES), and while I romanticize it all out of proportion like Ike Davis, I would never want to live there again. I don't really love visiting, to be honest. I don't know whether it's because NYC has changed, or whether it's me, or both. But it's too much, too rich, too different from the town I grew up in.

I voted for and liked Bloomberg.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 6:08 AM on September 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


EVERYBODY WANTS TO LIVE IN NEW YORK


I'm sure that's a joke, but I also can't be sure.
posted by Fists O'Fury at 6:36 AM on September 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


octothorpe: "No because it's just too expensive to live there."

WHICH IS MY POINT EXACTLY.
posted by gertzedek at 6:53 AM on September 8, 2013


Wait. How are the bedbugs Bloomberg's fault?

Bloomberg, the 20 foot tapeworm, has just crawled out of your ass and said that the problem with NYC is that it doesn't have enough parasites.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:54 AM on September 8, 2013


latest like Terminux study has Cincinnati #1 for bedbugs, Philly at #2, BTW.
posted by angrycat at 7:10 AM on September 8, 2013


The thing to remember about Michael Bloomberg is his unwavering support of Ray Kelly in general and Stop and Frisk in specific. That the man who oversees and endorses the largest militarized and systemically racist police department in the country could call ANYONE a racist is galling. If Bill de Blasio wants to foreground his family as a means to underscore his commitment to ending the horrific (and ineffective, as if that were the point) shaking down of every available black and bown person in the city, then good on him. This is just some last ditch bellyaching over the fact that his anointed successor is going to lose.

Now, there is maybe a conversation to be had about why de Blasio is leading Thompson in the polls (who, lest we forget, nearly beat Bloomberg last time purely on the strength of being Not Bloomberg), but I suspect that is not what Mike is taking issue with.
posted by StopMakingSense at 7:13 AM on September 8, 2013 [11 favorites]


Try this:
compile a list of those cities, worldwide, that are usually considered too expensive to live in:
Begin with San Francisco, then try Venice etc etc
posted by Postroad at 7:15 AM on September 8, 2013


London. Berlin works though.
posted by R. Mutt at 7:16 AM on September 8, 2013


DiBlasio's tax increase plans are a non-starter. His housing proposals offer zero benefit to the middle class, who will continue to commute from their market rate housing in the outer boroughs and suburbs as aways; they will simply allow a few more people to jump on the welfare-and-subsidized housing and health care gravy train. His education plans wholly ignore what actually works in NYC public schools, which is test-selected gifted and talented programs, and, to a much lesser extent, charter schools. His criminal justice sentiments probably won't be allowed to do any damage in midtown or nice residential neighborhoods, but are scary as hell if you live in a marginal neighborhood. Being a suburban homeowner it might even benefit me, but it sucks to see the greatest city at risk of going backwards.
posted by MattD at 7:20 AM on September 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


Bloomberg should just appoint himself Mayor for life like he bought himself a third term. Then New York wouldnt have to worry about 'going backwards'.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:25 AM on September 8, 2013


Ouch

In its first week on sale, Ms. Quinn’s 240-page memoir, “With Patience and Fortitude,” sold about 100 print copies, according to Nielsen BookScan, which measures book sales.

The anemic sales figures have left executives at HarperCollins, Ms. Quinn’s publisher, cringing at what is already known in the publishing house to be a big flop, even by the standards of a struggling book industry.

posted by R. Mutt at 7:30 AM on September 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


Here's a fact: EVERYBODY WANTS TO LIVE IN NEW YORK.


Nope. Nopenopenope.

Y'all fight over tiny apartments and pay thousands for them if you like. Mine has two bedrooms and access to not only a swimming pool but the biggest daggone fig tree you ever saw with tasty, tasty figs in season.

New York is fun to visit, I'm sure. Lots of restaurants, museums, night life, etcetera etcetera and so forth. But there is more to life than that.

Not to mention that no one down here is telling us how much soda we can buy at one time. I like that, even though I haven't had a soda in nearly two years. Freedom just feels good.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:36 AM on September 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


There is more freedom then in any third world dictatorship, where you are free to buy all the lead and arsenic soda you want. Even in Mexico no one prevents you from buying cotton candy colored with lead.
posted by Doroteo Arango II at 7:46 AM on September 8, 2013 [3 favorites]


[Bloomberg] doesn't say this kind of thing just before a democratic primary because it is what he "really" thinks. This is a calculated move- whether out of desperation or disloyalty I can't say.

I entertained the same thoughts- maybe this is his way of getting people to vote for De Blasio through reverse psychology. But I doubt it; I think the man honestly just says whatever the hell he wants with no thoughts about consequences. When you have the kind of money he has, your whole life can be a giant Fuck You to the world.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:51 AM on September 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


I don't want to live in New York and I know plenty of people who share my sentiments. I love the public transit and all the cool stuff to eat, but I'm much happier in my small, polite, slow-paced southern city.

As for Bloomberg's accusation that deBlasio is running a racist campaign, I don't remember hearing anyone say that McCain allowing his daughter to blog the whole campaign made his campaign sexist. In fact, it would be sexist for someone to say that the only reason a candidate would allow a female relative to be active in the campaign was to play on people's sexist prejudices. As though a woman couldn't actually say anything substantial, first of all, and second, that the women who were persuaded to vote only did so because there was a woman associated with the campaign. It's insulting.

The same applies to Bloomberg's racism accusation. Of course biracial kids don't have anything worthwhile to say. And then black people will only vote for deBlasio, not because they respect his plans or policies, but because he's part of a biracial family.

Give me a break.
posted by andsometimestea at 7:54 AM on September 8, 2013


Obviously, it's not true that "everyone" wants to live in NYC. But a whole lot of people do, and that's why rents go up. Offer an apartment for rent, or even a sublet, and you will get hundreds of calls within an hour. That means prices will go up. Supply and demand isn't like gravity only because we know *why* it works.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 7:58 AM on September 8, 2013 [3 favorites]


Ouch

It definitely seemed like Quinn was pegged to be next mayor by everyone, perhaps even on a path laid out for an even higher position, afterwards. Certainly, there has been a bit of a media push even outside of NYC, which I found interesting — it leads one to ask why people outside NYC were being kept up-to-date on one of the high-profile NYC mayoral prospects.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:00 AM on September 8, 2013


The mayor of new york city the most powerful local politician in the country, and possibly the world (London/Toronto perhaps). Bloomberg, when choosing Quinn to succeed him, forgot the LOCAL part of the equation.

As to Bill's policies, I leave that to more sophisticated economic experts (heretofore not present itt) to predict whether they will doom or cure us all, though I suspect it's somewhere in between. He's not some earplug Occcupier, he's an accomplished politician in the Clintonian mode. He's a regular guy who lifted himself out of his ordinary circumstances with his cleverness and compassion (and skill at displaying compassion). It's not unreasonable to hope that he will improve some aspects of our lives here, while surely disappointing us, as they all do.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:17 AM on September 8, 2013


I K
posted by prefpara at 8:40 AM on September 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


Sorry, keymashed by accident.

I know this is an ignorant question, but why is there so much hate for Quinn? In what ways is she likely to harm the city or be a bad mayor?
posted by prefpara at 8:41 AM on September 8, 2013


The money thing aside, I do sort of enjoy living somewhere where basic tasks like catching a cab from the airport or getting a landlord to fix a broken hot water heater are not transformed into Kafkaesque object lessons in the futility of the human individual.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 8:42 AM on September 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


why is there so much hate for Quinn?

She's supported Bloomberg in every way, including defending Stop & Frisk and allowing hospitals to close in her district, and a bunch of other petty stuff that people freak out about. The hate does seem a little over the top though, probably from a combination of her smugness and generic sexist bs that gets directed at women in positions of power.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:54 AM on September 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


Nobody goes there anymore because it's too crowded.
posted by kyrademon at 8:54 AM on September 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


IMO Quinn is Bloomberg if Bloomberg actually behaved like a typical politician.

That and she's laughably hypocritical. See the St Vincent's issue of late ( where ironically I agree with the decision to let it close but enjoy laughing at Quinn claiming not to have been pro-closure). That and well let's just say its amusing that Bloomberg accuses DiBlasio of pandering to a community when you read the descriptive blurb Quinn's campaign uses

She fails on both substantiative issues and personality issues.

DiBlasio's platform is pretty milquetoast even on the L&O stuff it's basically "end stop and frisk but add cops and cameras". Most of the other things are marginal.
posted by JPD at 8:55 AM on September 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


She's supported Bloomberg in every way, including defending Stop & Frisk and allowing hospitals to close in her district, and a bunch of other petty stuff that people freak out about

What? Defending stop and frisk and allowing hospitals to close is petty?
posted by sweetkid at 8:58 AM on September 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


I'd chalk that up to unclear writing.
posted by JPD at 8:59 AM on September 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


Btw I don't think the Quinn hate is sexist in the least. The "Anybody but Quinn" PAC is like a big group of the city's more progressive dems.

I'm sure sure sure tho Quinn would like you to think it is tho.
posted by JPD at 9:01 AM on September 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


The issue is constantly reduced to oh noes the rich have to/ought to subsidize the poors.

Except in NYC your poors include a big swath of the educated, professional, creative class that provides a workforce for all those corporations that build high rises and trade billions and treat the sick and educate children and cook food and transport it and on and on.

Good luck running a city without a middle class professional layer.
posted by spitbull at 9:24 AM on September 8, 2013


I don't disagree but I sort of think what is happening in NYC is what has happened in other mature world cities - Paris London Tokyo Large swathes of the inner city controlled by the very rich, the middle class on the periphery of the center city and then a swathe of the poorest neighborhoods in place those other two groups never pass through. The decreased suburban migration on the last 20 years is a manifestation of that. In other word it's not clear to me it has that much to do with mayoral policies unless you had mayor willing to upzone all of Manhattan and Brownstone Brooklyn.
posted by JPD at 9:30 AM on September 8, 2013 [3 favorites]


I'm still a little uncertain about what Quinn should have done, personally, to keep St. Vincent's from closing, which seems to be a surprisingly big part of the opposition against her (it was even cited in the celebrity endorsement video of DiBlasio's).
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:41 AM on September 8, 2013


Well the St Vincent's thing is just a blend of rank hypocrasy across a broad swath of interested party. It's come down particularly hard of late on Quinn because she's trying to pretend she didn't support the closure a re zoning. But in reality St Vincent's as it existed was non viable as a general hospital. It was basically a needed emergency room bolted to an albatross. If even half of the "save st Vincent's" crowd actually used its non emergency services then it would have been a viable entity. On the flip side the condos that replaced were the worst sort of bloombergian development done by a big Quinn donor. The flip side is that if you actually tried to do income limited housing on that plot people would have gone crazy in one of the biggest dem donor areas of the city. It was basically heads you win tails you lose. The only winners were the developers really.
posted by JPD at 9:55 AM on September 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


>Was NYC the nation's banking center in the 1970's, when the city was bankrupt and was >rescued from becoming Detroit 1.0 by the "New York City Seasonal Financing Act of 1975 >which extended $2.3 billion worth of federal loans to the city for three years"?

>Anything is possible. There are no gaurantees for NYC or any place else.

Way to completely miss the rest of my description of the rest of the forces that led to the decline of Detroit and make comparisons to New York City foolish. Did you miss the part where I talked about the growth (for better or worse) of the financial services in the past 30 years - so, not the 1970's. There were clear changes in federal economic policies starting in the early 80's, and accelerating the in the late 90's, that led to this growth. Now yes, those policies could change. Hell, it might be better for all cities in the United States that are not New York City if those policies changed. However, that does not look likely to happen in the near future.

Even then, that still leaves the rest of my points about the nationwide cycle of movement to the suburbs, then back into the cities, as well as the recent influx of immigrants, unaddressed. It also leaves unaddressed that fact that Detroit was essentially a factory town for a single industry, automobile manufacturing, so when that industry declined and left, there wasn't really anything to replace it. New York City, in contrast, is a global center of trade, media, industry, medicine. and education, among many other assets. The situations of the two cities simply aren't comparable. Hell Detroit isn't even comparable to a city like Pittsburgh.

About the only points of comparison between New York City and Detroit are that they are both major cities, and they were both once caught in the cycle of urban and industrial decline that afflicted the Northern and Midwestern states of the U.S. in the postwar period. New York City was able to survive this period and emerge a major world city. Detroit was not.
posted by eagles123 at 9:58 AM on September 8, 2013


However, saying that New York is going to be the next Detroit if we don't continue down the golden path of service economy growth is the rhetorical equivalent of saying that Billionaires are the problem and that if only their heads were on pikes everything would be a-OK.

To be fair, we haven't tried it yet.
posted by vitabellosi at 10:36 AM on September 8, 2013 [3 favorites]


It may not have the cachet of Manhattan, but you can also rent a 2 bedroom apartment in Queens for less than $2000.

Yeah, and to afford $2K a month in rent you've got to be bringing in $80-$100K a year. I haven't looked it up but I'm pretty sure that is not the average household income in Queens.
posted by junco at 10:42 AM on September 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


On the flip side the condos that replaced were the worst sort of bloombergian development done by a big Quinn donor

Yeah, we walked by the site just yesterday. The advertising on the site makes it sounds like it's just 5 houses, which was making me really sick until I saw that there are apartment buildings, too- total of 200 units. Good thing I'm feeling better since I don't think I can get healthcare in a townhouse!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:21 AM on September 8, 2013


Yeah, and to afford $2K a month in rent you've got to be bringing in $80-$100K a year. I haven't looked it up but I'm pretty sure that is not the average household income in Queens.

Well, I was looking at things that would preserve some of the amenity access that someone moving from Manhattan would expect. If you're willing to live in a worse area, you can rent a 2BR for less than $1200. That's getting into the same range as Podunk, NC.
posted by sonic meat machine at 11:23 AM on September 8, 2013


The hate does seem a little over the top though, probably from a combination of her smugness and generic sexist bs that gets directed at women in positions of power.

Being lesbian probably isn't helping Quinn in many circles, either. But I don't find it hard to believe that the anti-Quinn stuff is driven mostly by her politics, including not only not supporting a paid sick leave bill but actively blocking it from coming up for a vote for years after it was clear it would pass with a veto-proof majority of the city's elected council members.

That's really, really hard to overcome. She eventually let it come to a vote (it passed) when the pressure from her own supporters got to be too much. I wouldn't vote for her after that. Ever.
posted by mediareport at 11:50 AM on September 8, 2013 [4 favorites]


Actually, let me correct that last part:

In March, after council members hatched a plan to force a floor vote on the bill, a move that would have undermined Ms. Quinn’s authority, she reached a compromise with the bill’s advocates.

Disgusting.
posted by mediareport at 11:54 AM on September 8, 2013


you can rent a 2BR for less than $1200. That's getting into the same range as Podunk, NC.

Try almost half that. Of course I have no idea what they charge in Raleigh.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 1:53 PM on September 8, 2013


you can rent a 2BR for less than $1200. That's getting into the same range as Podunk, NC.

You can't be serious. My friend rents a two-story, two-bedroom house with a huge backyard in Greensboro, NC- not exactly podunk. She's paying something like $800-$900 for the entire thing.
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:15 PM on September 8, 2013


More recently, How many über rich are there that they could remake and entire Borough. I don't see hundreds of thousands of $10m luxury condos going up in the middle of Brooklyn.It isn't like the Vandebilts are driving up prices in Brownsville or Red Hook.

You're totally wrong about this. No, of course rich people aren't moving to Red Hook. They're simply pushing out upper-middle class people, who move to, say, Brooklyn Heights and Park Slope and Williamsburg. And then middle-middle class people move from those places to other places, displacing lower-middle-class people, who displace working-class people, who displace even poorer people... so yes, "The Vanderbilts" are ABSOLUTELY driving up prices in Red Hook.
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:18 PM on September 8, 2013 [10 favorites]


Sorry I was unclear earlier, I was trying in my hungover way to say that the Quinn hate seems to me to be motivated by both policy and personal factors. Read some comments on the daily news if you don't think that a least some of the vitriol is gender-bias!
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:04 PM on September 8, 2013


so yes, "The Vanderbilts" are ABSOLUTELY driving up prices in Red Hook.

Someone smarter than me can figure this out from census data but.

Median family income in Brooklyn was 48k in 2009. There are only 30 thousand people making over 200k but 110 thousand making less than 10k.

There are only something like 30 thousand people with a net worth of more than 30 million in. North America. There are a finite amount of uber rich, they would all have already moved here by now.

I don't think it is the uber rich, but people with just enough more money.
posted by Ad hominem at 4:14 PM on September 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


You can't be serious. My friend rents a two-story, two-bedroom house with a huge backyard in Greensboro, NC- not exactly podunk. She's paying something like $800-$900 for the entire thing.

That's impressive. Last time I was renting, I was paying about $1050 for a 3BR apartment in Winston-Salem. I've definitely seen rents well above that, too, for more desirable locations in Winston. In Charlotte the rents are a bit nuts (a condo downtown is over $2000/mo. for a 2BR).
posted by sonic meat machine at 4:18 PM on September 8, 2013


Being lesbian probably isn't helping Quinn in many circles, either.

In NYC politics, I'd say being lesbian is the only thing that's kept her from cratering completely. I've spoken to a lot of people who say they'd love to vote for a lesbian, but can't vote for a supporter of Bloomberg.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 9:15 PM on September 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


I don't want to live in New York and I know plenty of people who share my sentiments. I love the public transit and all the cool stuff to eat, but I'm much happier in my small, polite, slow-paced southern city.

Small, slow-paced, no, but NYC is incredibly polite.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:49 PM on September 8, 2013 [2 favorites]


The racism thing seems tricky. Would he (or his campaign advisers) have done the exact same commercials if his kid didn't have brown skin? If yes, then it's not racism. If not, then there is some racism going on. Perhaps excusable, definitely unprovable, but still there.
posted by gjc at 4:40 AM on September 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


New York Is Killing Me
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:11 AM on September 9, 2013


So, when was this ever the case in Manhattan? Or, rather, are you asserting that there aren't perfectly reasonably-priced, non-hellhole neighborhoods in the boroughs? Because that just isn't true. I have plenty of friends who live in them. They're just not "cool" places to live.

Yeah, this.

You know where there's affordable housing prices in great neighborhoods in New York City? Staten fucking Island. But nobody wants to live there, because omg, Republicans live there! And there's single family houses all over the place that you can rent for the cost of a tiny shithole apartment in Brooklyn and somehow that's bad! And there's parks and fresh air and somehow that means it's not NYC! And no trendy bars that you read about in a magazine!
posted by corb at 5:24 AM on September 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


But nobody wants to live there, because YOU HAVE TO TAKE A FUCKING BOAT TO GET THERE. Let's not be disingenuous.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:46 AM on September 9, 2013 [5 favorites]


You don't have to take a boat to get there. There are buses that go over the bridges. And the commute is sometimes exactly the same as it would be from some places in Brooklyn.

Even if you did have to take the boat, it's 25 minutes. Is it somehow worse than a 25 minute subway ride with a change because you get to breath fresh sea air?
posted by corb at 5:48 AM on September 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


It's not because l'm scared of republicans that I don't live in Staten Island, it's because when you live in a neighborhood where it's much less dense and you pretty much need a car to get around, whatever you save in rent is made up by the car, gas, insurance, repairs, parking.

(Also my commute would involve three bus transfers)
posted by Jeanne at 5:59 AM on September 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


Corb, dude, we cool, but the reason I don't live in Staten Island is because it would be astonishingly inconvenient. I actually seriously considered it and then realized that it would basically ruin my life. You need a car to live almost everywhere, and the places you don't, are just as expensive as many other parts of NYC. If youMre in walking or easy train distance of the boat, you don't save much money at all. But more importantly, I am often out at night, when the boat runs once per HOUR. So if I'm coming home from a bar and my train is a little slow, my whole commute home might wind up taking a total of about three hours. It is NOT because of Republicans.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:05 AM on September 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


Commutes cost money and time (which costs money), and quality of life. Sure Staten Island is still better than living in Herdon VA and driving 3.5 hours a day to downtown DC, but since New York has the best public transport system in the US your example of the most disconnected borough does make it difficult to agree with you.

Corb I think Woodside, Washington Heights and Hoboken are better examples of places that are a lot more convenient and cheaper than Greenpoint but avoided by young aspiring affluent folks because they don't have enough [insert dismissive cultural reference eg vegan yoga studios or something].

Anyway since Marisa Tomei has now joined the DeBandswagon, I think that puts a pretty solid lock on the short, bald, annoying, Costanza-vote.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 6:49 AM on September 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


And there is the proof: people want to live in locations that are convenient for their lifestyles. Places where a lot of people want to live are going to be expensive.
posted by gjc at 7:18 AM on September 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


It was still a desirable place to live 15 years ago, though, and the rents weren't nearly as high, even, yes, adjusted for inflation.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:33 AM on September 9, 2013


living in Herdon VA and driving 3.5 hours a day to downtown DC

Oh god my mother (well, both parents) lives in Herndon VA and commutes less than that to her job (back in the 90s it was about an hour, now a little hour plus, though she doesn't work the typical 9-5 so that might be part of it. 3.5 hours what? Damn speaking of everyone wanting to live someplace.
posted by sweetkid at 7:35 AM on September 9, 2013


It was still a desirable place to live 15 years ago

Not nearly as desirable.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 7:38 AM on September 9, 2013


Yeah, I think it's important to note, in terms of why people with money are moving into certain neighborhoods, is actually that crime is on the downturn and a lot more amenities and safety are being offered in those neighborhoods (the link TFB posted shows vehicle theft, for example, down to a fifth to a ninth of what it formerly was in the nineties. People with money generally don't want to spend it in high-crime neighborhoods. So unfortunately, as the neighborhoods improve, they tend to push out those who could only afford the neighborhoods when they were less safe or attractive.
posted by corb at 7:44 AM on September 9, 2013


well, I feel like instead of pushing people out of certain neighborhoods, we could be doing more with social services, affordable housing and small businesses in order to keep poor/lower working class people where they are and where they have built communities rather than shoving them into shantytowns so we can have more Whole Foods.

And I say that as someone who has contributed from the shoving and the Whole Foods to a large degree.
posted by sweetkid at 8:23 AM on September 9, 2013 [2 favorites]


Staten Island is everything annoying about living in an outerborough combined with everything annoying about living in the suburbs at a higher price and a longer commute than a lot of decent suburban towns.
posted by JPD at 8:25 AM on September 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


I don't really see what's wrong with wanting to be able to walk to restaurants and bars and stuff.
posted by naoko at 2:40 PM on September 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


From 1988 to 1995 I lived on the 2nd floor of a brownstone-type building, on Fulton St. in Ft. Greene, Brooklyn. It was the block between S. Portland and S. Oxford. It had high ceilings, a large combination living room/kitchen, two good-sized bedrooms and a third smallish room still big enough for a bed and a couple of chairs. The ceilings were high enough so that I could put a loft bed in one bedroom and a loft storage area in the small room. ... So, what did I pay? The rent started out at $750 a month (not including heat, which bills I had to pay myself). After 2 or 3 years, he brought the rent up to $800. Couple years after that, it went to $850. Then one year I talked him back down to $800, cause I told him times were tough. He agreed.

I'm aware this article is about NYC, but NYC is simply the most obvious and ergregious(and, imo, most juicy to write about and get pageviews) example of this. It's really happening in every major coastal city. I'm sure you could get people in here who could write the same stories about austin, portland, the bay area, plenty of places on the east coast.

I watched the exact same thing play out in seattle. it feels just as extreme here honestly, and almost as if we're trying to play catchup to vancouver, NYC, and the bay area.

In the late 90s i lived in an apartment with my parents in what's not a very yuppified part of town(Fremont, which was "up and coming" at the time and was still full of weird burnouts and artists, and ramshackle apartment complexes and falling down houses). A two bedroom like you were describing with a bit lower ceilings was $550. When the building sold to be converted to condos in the mid 2000s the rent was $1200. The place really isn't that much nicer now, and each unit is $$$$$$. My first apartment in capitol hill(one of the "cool" parts of town) was a bit over a grand. Now it's $1800. That time frame was late 2009 to early 2013 for an 80% increase. what. I had some great times in that place quite like you did. Practicing, writing songs, recording, all in my living room and no one ever complained. We had a full sized PA in there. Dunno where i'll ever get away with that again.

It poses a similar question for me here, as i watch it happen, that i've always had about NYC even in the outer boroughs. A few years ago you could be a musician/artist/writer/generally someone who contributed content to society as their primary endeavor and work a pretty lax service industry job and still have a studio, or possibly even a one bedroom. It was imminently possible to tend bar a couple nights at a week at two different places and have a small apartment in a decent part of town and split a practice space with some friends, or have a small art studio in a building that did monthly artwalks and get regular eyeballs on your stuff, etc. Now people are paying $6-800 often plus utilities to live in a junky rental house or apartment with a bunch of roommates on the fringes of town.

So my question is, where do the artists actually live nowadays in NYC, and how do they actually even survive without their fucking souls snapping in two? Everyone i know who went there to pursue some dream is working as much as they possibly can, barely scraping by, and barely even has any free time they're not working to really put in to their craft if they want to sleep. Much less show off their work somewhere and maybe sneak a fuck or a drink in there. And they're all living in goddamn shitholes usually and 2-3 up in a studio or something.

The working class making less than 50k that makes the city actually function has been brought up. My question now is what the hell the artists, musicians, writers, and generally artsy people who are a major part of NYCs image of being a "tier 1 city for the arts from fine to culinary" are supposed to do. Because how is the place supposed to maintain not only that image and cachet but the actual media to back it up if none of those people can afford to live there? Is it just going to become trust fund babies and kids with rich parents going to the new school only, others need not apply? The cheap parts of town will only stay cheap for so long.

Because the answer to that question over here pretty much seems to be "go to school and get a real job hippie". No one who actually has any real power seems to care that all those people are getting pushed out, and all the spaces and places they used to congregate are being plowed under or priced out.
posted by emptythought at 2:46 PM on September 9, 2013 [4 favorites]


It seems to me that it would help to build (a lot) more lower-cost, non-luxury housing-- but any time someone proposes to do so, they're taken to task for "taking advantage of the poor" or "destroying the neighborhood" or something like that.

I mean, everyone's in favor of affordable housing, but if you were a developer committed to building affordable housing, how would you actually do it? You've spent some amount of money on a lot-- now how do you minimize the cost per unit of your project?

You can skip the parking garage, which is a pretty big expense, and may not be worth it to the future residents-- but then you'll be accused of trying to poach the neighbors' free street parking, or of abusing the future residents by denying them the right to have cars.

You can minimize the sizes of units, but you'll be accused of cramming too many people in, of punishing families, of changing the character of the neighborhood, etc.

You can build tall, or build on a greater portion of the lot than is typical, but again you have "character of the neighborhood" plus shadows and blocked views.

In short, it seems to me that people are all in favor of creating affordable housing-- they're just not willing to make any of the concessions that might lead to it. It has to be spacious, have parking, have decent views and direct sunlight; it has to be similar to the rest of the neighborhood (even if the rest of the neighborhood is priced out of the stratosphere); and it even has to be exclusive, with a limited number of residents.

City policy reflects this. Cities may pay lip service to affordable housing, but I think most people believe that cities' much more important role is to "preserve home values" and make sure that existing residents are not negatively affected by any changes. In other words, make sure that housing costs never fall. Indeed, in San Francisco, when there is a large empty lot for whatever reason, the discussion usually centers around how the city will buy it to convert to a park or "open space"-- nice, to be sure, but it's pretty clear that doing so will help drive the cost of housing further up, not down.

So what could the answer be? One idea: what about cooperatives? If new housing developments were constructed by cooperatives, where the future residents were also the investors and had input on the design, maybe it would be easier to get existing residents to approve of more economical housing, especially if many of the investors/future residents came from the neighborhood itself, and could help gather support from their neighbors.
posted by alexei at 4:53 PM on September 9, 2013 [3 favorites]


I'm no realestste or urban planning expert but among other things we have 80/20 housing where we give developers tax breaks to build buildings where 20 of the apartments are for low income families, and section 8 housing which are just subsidized apartments.

Of course, this leads to situations where luxury buildings have a poor people entrance.

I think they are lottery based, I'd have to call my mom to find out more really, she signed up periodically.

I think we will do just about anything before we build new projects.
posted by Ad hominem at 5:24 PM on September 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


So my question is, where do the artists actually live nowadays in NYC, and how do they actually even survive without their fucking souls snapping in two?

The American city being affordable for poor artists might have been a half-century anomaly. Now that suburban flight has reversed, jobs have returned and industrial spaces have been torn down or repurposed, cities are expensive again.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 6:34 PM on September 9, 2013


I've never really understood the unhappiness about luxury buildings having a poor people entrance. 70% of what you pay for in a NY apartment is location. So if you're living a smaller apartment, with a crappier entrance, in the same location as the rich people, for a small fraction of the price, you've done very well. Meantime, the rich people need to have something better to convince them that it's worth spending all the money that's subsidizing the poor people, and a schmancy entrance seems like the least harmful concession imaginable.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 7:07 PM on September 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


One example I read about was a building with a grand entrance on the west side, and a regular entrance (with a different address) for the subsidized apartments on the east side. It's not like the door is marked "for poors". Hotel/condos have a similar setup.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 7:16 PM on September 9, 2013


Meantime, the rich people need to have something better to convince them that it's worth spending all the money that's subsidizing the poor people,

Thats funny. My NYC and NYS tax pays for the tax breaks.

If they don't want poor people don't take the tax breaks.

It's not like the door is marked "for poors"

True, at least it isn't marked.


Anyway, I'll tell you guys the real reason, IMO. They don't want people speaking spanish near them because who knows what they are saying about the riches.
posted by Ad hominem at 8:03 PM on September 9, 2013


That doesn't make sense. It's Manhattan, not a gated suburban community.

The two-entrance setup is functionally like two buildings next door to each other.
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 8:54 PM on September 9, 2013


It makes as much sense any anything else to me because I can't figure out any legit reason that isn't simply not wanting share an elevator with a poor person.

Most buildings, including my own I'm kind of chagrined to say, staff isn't allowed to speak Spanish even on break. So obviously it is an issue for some.

My girlfriend has complained to me a couple times that tenants give her strange looks. The doormen always make her wait in the lobby while they buzz me but they send all my white friends right up.

It's even happened to me. A tenant recently stopped me and tried to hand me a takeout menu and asked me to stop leaving them and I'm just slightly disreputable looking sometimes.

It may be just me though, I think like 70% of everything is somehow racist.
posted by Ad hominem at 9:19 PM on September 9, 2013 [1 favorite]


In short, it seems to me that people are all in favor of creating affordable housing-- they're just not willing to make any of the concessions that might lead to it. It has to be spacious, have parking, have decent views and direct sunlight; it has to be similar to the rest of the neighborhood (even if the rest of the neighborhood is priced out of the stratosphere); and it even has to be exclusive, with a limited number of residents.

Jesus, yea, this.

In one neighborhood here there's buildings being fought against because they're too tall/big/the character thing, but down the block they're fighting a company that wants to build an admittedly shitty pharmacy with surface parking that's only one story, but with a two story facade.

I thought that's what you wanted? seeing as how you rail against anything that actually increases density. There's the exact same neighborhood groups and such arguing that they should come back with a proposed structure that has several floors of apartments and underground parking.

...when thats the exact kind of fucking thing the same people were jackhammering against for years, and even pretty much concurrently.

I'd laugh, if it wasn't my city being ruined.
posted by emptythought at 11:37 PM on September 9, 2013


Thats funny. My NYC and NYS tax pays for the tax breaks.

Oh god. No. No, your tax does not pay for tax breaks. This is the worst thing and it always gets brought up. Nobody fucking pays for tax breaks. The government just gets less money, which it was in no way somehow entitled by divine right to in the first place. The only reason people think tax breaks cost money is because they look at shifty budget numbers, where previous tax figures are counted as existing money and the difference between the previous taxes and the current taxes are "subtracted" as though that money was being given by the government to people. Instead, it simply was never collected in the first place. (And before someone talks about tax withholding, tax withholding is a convenience for you that actually isn't a convenience once you get above a certain figure, and you can choose to alter it.)
posted by corb at 3:45 AM on September 10, 2013


The ballot machines may be fucked up in some places, according to some caller to WNYC. He claimed the ballot doesn't line up with something something something.

Also, if I were there I would vote for the 'racist' guy so go him.

Also, I guess I do not understand how tax breaks would constitute a plus to the budget, which is maybe why it is often brought up, that is I don't understand the above woo-woo logic when it comes to tax breaks. Except there's something about the divine right to not have to pay taxes? Okay.
posted by angrycat at 7:34 AM on September 10, 2013


No, they're definitely not a plus to the budget. I don't think tax breaks fix the economy or cause it to grow or blah blah. I just happen to like them because I don't like paying taxes. :)

But thanks for reminding me about the primary! I totally forgot.
posted by corb at 7:37 AM on September 10, 2013


The American city being affordable for poor artists might have been a half-century anomaly. Now that suburban flight has reversed, jobs have returned and industrial spaces have been torn down or repurposed, cities are expensive again.

So for most of human history, artists didn't live in cities? It was just a brief American fluke to have large cities with poor people in them?
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:16 AM on September 10, 2013 [3 favorites]


lollll Bill Deblasio: "I guess."
posted by Potomac Avenue at 10:01 AM on September 10, 2013


BALLOT REPORT: I didn't really know much about races other than mayor so I just voted for women and/or people of color just cuz fuck it. And in the comptroller race I voted for Spiderman. I think he'd do a great job and doesn't afraid of anything.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 10:07 AM on September 10, 2013


My registration was screwy so I had to do a provisional ballot. I actually researched everyone this time too! Damn.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:16 AM on September 10, 2013


So for most of human history, artists didn't live in cities? It was just a brief American fluke to have large cities with poor people in them?

You're right, my comment doesn't completely make sense.

Most American cities had a period of post-war population decline, and a surplus of places, often with history and character, to rent. I guess my point is, that era is probably coming to a close in the coastal cities. Of course there are cities where that isn't true: Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Buffalo, ...
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 10:44 AM on September 10, 2013






40.2 percent of the vote, with 98% of precincts reporting? This is so nerve-wracking... but hey, even if De Blasio doesn't avoid a runoff, IT AIN'T QUINN!
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:21 AM on September 11, 2013


Oh my god, from that article: "In a tear-filled concession speech, in which his wife Huma Abedin was notable by her absence, [Weiner] said: "We had the best ideas. Sadly I was an imperfect messenger." He left in a flurry, and was pictured giving a one-fingered gesture of insult to reporters as he was driven away." Keep it classy, Anthony
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:24 AM on September 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


Potomac Avenue: "Lol @ these voting machines y'all use up here also."

Oh, I miss those machines. They got rid of them here about five years ago because they couldn't get parts any more but I loved voting in them. Pulling that lever to close the curtain and then pulling it back when you were done to record the votes and open the curtain all felt so solid and real. Tapping icons on a touch screen on a little tiny kiosk feels so like you aren't really doing anything (and you may not be).
posted by octothorpe at 7:43 AM on September 11, 2013 [1 favorite]


For the LOLers, it was a story that we were just now bringing them back this year.
posted by sweetkid at 8:24 AM on September 11, 2013


I'm kind of hot on changing over to a lottery system. Property would be priced uniformly by the square foot and a random draw would be used to pick which of the interested buyers gets to live on a plot. You'd have trailer parks next to mansions on the waterfont. Chickens running around in the penthouse. It would be awesome.

America already has a Houston, and you can take that as you please.
posted by psoas at 9:56 AM on September 11, 2013




You know, I hate Bloomberg like it's going out of style, but I actually find the modern insistence on reading people's email a little creepy. This is an entirely new ultra-transparency - before, conversations were often conducted in person or via the phone, and those weren't preserved. I'm not sure a new technology means everything should be public.
posted by corb at 6:01 AM on October 4, 2013


All large organizations but especially governments should be subject to oversight, which includes giving courts, and whenever possible journalists, access to their internal conversations.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:31 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]


« Older 1836 Manhattan vs today's Manhattan   |   Soviet Storm Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments