NYC mayoral race
July 7, 2021 5:07 PM   Subscribe

Eric Adams is the Democratic candidate for the mayor of NYC, defeating Kathryn Garcia and Maya Wiley. In Machine Man, David Schleicher describes Adams's theory of politics as based on coalition-building, rather than ideology or personality.

Schleicher describes both the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios:
And this could be just what New York City needs. As Esther Fuchs argued in her classic book “Mayors and Money,” New York City’s fiscal crisis in the 1970s was caused in part by the demise of the old Tammany Hall machine. Suddenly, each political group and special interest demanded new programs, and there was no one with enough political power to say no. The city ended up paying for more than it could afford because every group got what it wanted.

Today, we see the same thing with land use and development. Every neighborhood, at the margin, wants less new housing and development than the market would provide, generally citing particularistic complaints about highly localized impacts regardless of the broader implications for citywide affordability or economic growth. Without strong leadership, the City Council defaults to “councilmanic privilege,” letting each member of the City Council block developments in her district. The result is no growth. New York City adds new housing on a per-capita basis at about half the rate of famously-development-shy San Francisco. The city’s slow growth and housing crisis are a direct result of this political stalemate. ...

The optimistic case for Adams is that he will centralize local politics, telling Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) types, ideological outliers, and groups outside his coalition to go stuff it.

... But there’s also the possibility that neo-machine politics could go horribly awry. If he’s elected mayor, he will need to tend to the interests that make up his machine. Adams does not have a clear ideological vision, so his mayoralty might descend into corruption, or worse, aimlessness.
Alex Yablon on homeowners as Adams's base: Renters, Owners, and the New York City Left's Mayoral Ennui.

Schleicher is the author of the long article Stuck! The Law and Economics of Residential Stagnation.
posted by russilwvong (29 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite
 
And this could be just what New York City needs. As Esther Fuchs argued in her classic book “Mayors and Money,” New York City’s fiscal crisis in the 1970s was caused in part by the demise of the old Tammany Hall machine. Suddenly, each political group and special interest demanded new programs, and there was no one with enough political power to say no. The city ended up paying for more than it could afford because every group got what it wanted.

No. It's not what the city needs. The NYPD is at war with the proletariat and Adams is going to run cover. After all, why should he give a shit? He doesn't even live in NYC.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:20 PM on July 7, 2021 [34 favorites]


Why is aimlessness is worse than corruption?
posted by kristi at 5:25 PM on July 7, 2021 [6 favorites]


Machine's gonna machine.

The map of first round tallies of this primary shows a lot of regional blocs tied strongly to both class & ethnic group.

There has been a lot written about the coalition that got Adams through; the class- and race based affinity shown above, his plain language, as well as appealing to the "toughoncrime" lot. Despite all the heat about this primary, the fact that only 26% of eligible voters voted sure was good for machine politicians.

I'm sympathetic to the critique that many lower + middle class POC voters "see through" progressives like Maya Wiley (who I ranked #1!) and want to choose someone who has worked within the system - they are all too familiar with the contours of power and the limits of idealism.

But I wish it wasn't someone who appears to be an utterly meh ex-cop (at best) and and (at worst) a straight up old skool pay-for-play bend-like-a-reed-in-the-wind machine politician.

I hope he walks his talk about inequality effectively.

I don't think he's up to that job or the many other challenges that are coming down the pike.

I hope I'm wrong.
posted by lalochezia at 5:51 PM on July 7, 2021 [4 favorites]


What, no link to the ear piercing tweet?
posted by evidenceofabsence at 7:26 PM on July 7, 2021 [3 favorites]


Without strong leadership, the City Council defaults to “councilmanic privilege,” letting each member of the City Council block developments in her district. The result is no growth. New York City adds new housing on a per-capita basis at about half the rate of famously-development-shy San Francisco. The city’s slow growth and housing crisis are a direct result of this political stalemate.

Something seems really off about this. For one thing, does it make sense to compare housing growth in NYC to SF on a per capita basis? My impression of NYC pre-pandemic was of pretty intense growth. I can't think of a neighborhood that hasn't seen insane building in the last 10 years. In Manhattan, certainly, most of what got built was sold as investment properties and not used to house actual people. Small businesses see their rents go up 10-fold, forcing them out, and then the storefronts either go empty as tax dodges or are rented out as ATMs.

Developers have shown for YEARS that all they really care about is the luxury market. They've played this song and dance about slow growth for YEARS. They've been given massive incentives for YEARS and are still not building actual housing for the people who actually are in crisis.
posted by maggiemaggie at 7:26 PM on July 7, 2021 [9 favorites]


To be clear, nobody's worried about Curtis Sliwa, right? I mean, people laughed, but I remember the last time I laughed about a D-list huckster from the '80s going into politics.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:43 PM on July 7, 2021 [8 favorites]


In terms of the article, I'm not sure what "neo-machine" means. It's the same old machine that can trace its lineage right back to Tammany. There's nothing neo about it.

Adams took over $300k from real estate developers and he's going to do whatever they want. In the meantime, vacant units will continue to be warehoused, NYCHA will remain underfunded, and solutions like social housing, SROs, and good cause eviction will continue to be ignored. (To be fair, most of that needs to happen at the legislative level anyway.)

And then there's the police. It's hard to imagine Adams doing much to reinvest in mental health outreach and other services that should be handled by basically anyone other than the NYPD. Maybe there's a magical world in which Adams's credibility as a former officer and his work with 100 Blacks In Law Enforcement That Care translates into him being able to bring about genuine change, but I don't think that's the world we're living in.

On the bright side, maybe there will at least be less slap-fighting with Cuomo. That would be nice. If nothing else, they appear to have piercing in common?

In the meantime, I'm a little worried about Sliwa. It's highly unlikely that he gets anywhere, but he's a truly awful human being and I kind of wish he could find a rock big enough to crawl under. His 15 cats deserve better and so do we.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 7:51 PM on July 7, 2021 [5 favorites]


Schleicher describes both the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios:
...New York City’s fiscal crisis in the 1970s was caused in part by the demise of the old Tammany Hall machine....Today, we see the same thing with land use and development...The optimistic case for Adams is that he will centralize local politics, telling Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) types, ideological outliers, and groups outside his coalition to go stuff it.

bend-like-a-reed-in-the-wind


The framing of the OP and the early discussion here is totally baffling to me.

Saying the City's 70s fiscal crisis was related to machine politics is like saying Oil politics has to do with sand. Like, sure, sand is visible in some wide lens view of causality, but it really has nothing to do with the real levers of what's going on.

And saying he might 'bend' to the 'wind' concedes an orders of magnitude underappreciation for the cyclone that is capital interest in the NYC region.

Of course, the 'optics' of some candidate are material in terms of getting you in the door and maybe past the first round or two. But make no mistake: in 21st century American politics, it will be dark money capital that gets you across the finish line and then rides you rough for the victory lap.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 8:00 PM on July 7, 2021 [4 favorites]


Something seems really off about this.

NYC's population grew by 2.2% from 2010-2019, per the census.

The net number of housing units went up by 6% from 2010-2020, per NYC's Department of City Planning.

Rent went up by 34.4% from 2010-2020, per HUD.

Housing grew at a significantly greater rate than the population, but prices skyrocketed anyway, probably because the market is complex and supply is far from the only factor involved.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 8:06 PM on July 7, 2021 [13 favorites]


In the meantime, I'm a little worried about Sliwa.

I wouldn't be. Adams' first round vote tally--arguably a motivated core voter constituency--was 4 times higher than the entirety of the Republican primary vote. 260,455 to 59,825. With Adams being able to cut off typical Republican voter bases via his coalition building and police background, the numbers just aren't there for a Republican win.
posted by greenland at 8:21 PM on July 7, 2021 [1 favorite]


evidenceofabsence: The usual measurement of housing construction appears to be housing starts per capita. Data on housing starts per 1000 people for 2016, from Alon Levy:
San Francisco: 5.2
Orange County: 3.8
Santa Clara County: 3.1
San Diego County: 3
New York City: 2.4 (in 2015)
Los Angeles County: 2
For state-by-state data, see the charts on page 39. Vancouver's rate is a little over 10. Tokyo's is 26.
posted by russilwvong at 8:29 PM on July 7, 2021


maggiemaggie: My impression of NYC pre-pandemic was of pretty intense growth. I can't think of a neighborhood that hasn't seen insane building in the last 10 years.

Really? According to Alon Levy, the NYC population is shrinking because of limited housing growth and high rents.
The US Census Bureau has just released 2019 population estimates by county. Metro New York, after slowly rising for decades more than making up the 1970s losses, went down by 60,000 people, or 0.3% of the population. The city is down 53,000 people.

... In the 1970s, the city was losing an average of 80,000 people per year, but the situation now is profoundly different. Incomes are up: the metro area’s per capita income as a proportion of the US average went from 126% in 1970 to 118% in 1980; but more recently it went from 135% in 2010-5 to 141% in 2018, the last year for which the BEA has data. Crime is down, the murder rate falling below the national average starting in 2013. Rent is up, sending a strong signal: more people want to live here.

But the entire political constellation of the city chooses not to grow. Housing growth is anemic, permits averaging around 21,000 per year in 2010-9, maybe 2.6 per 1,000 New York residents. It accelerated over the decade but not by much, reaching 26,500 in 2019, or 3.2/1,000. In the in-state suburbs, growth is even lower, less than 1 unit per 1,000 in each of Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties. New Jersey has somewhat higher growth rate, around 4/1,000, thanks to the Mount Laurel doctrine requiring high-cost municipalities to approve some affordable housing, which they typically do in the most out-of-the-way place they can find. The metro area overall approves about the same amount of housing as the city proper, around 2.5/1,000.
He notes that Seoul (like Vancouver) approves about 10/1000 dwellings per year.
posted by russilwvong at 8:42 PM on July 7, 2021 [1 favorite]


Housing starts only looks at new housing development, so it seems to omit public housing development and other units that come on the market, let alone factors not related to development. It's part of the picture, but not the whole picture.

According to Alon Levy, the NYC population is shrinking
He's citing figures for metro New York, which isn't the same thing as NYC and is mostly outside of the purview of the mayor's office. It covers multiple municipalities and jurisdictions across three states; the census article Levy links to describes the metro area as "New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA."

Either way, I'm not sure how a shrinking population is an argument in favor of accelerating development.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 9:08 PM on July 7, 2021


I did not expect him to win, but Yang did so poorly that I gotta ask if NYC actually stands for "No Yang's Considered"?
posted by FJT at 9:17 PM on July 7, 2021 [2 favorites]


evidenceofabsence: Housing starts ... seems to omit public housing development

Not as far as I know.

He's citing figures for metro New York

He cites figures for both metro New York and the city.

Either way, I'm not sure how a shrinking population is an argument in favor of accelerating development.

maggiemaggie was saying that the city was experiencing intense growth, when the population is actually shrinking because of high rents.

Before about 1960, when there was an economic boom, you'd get a housing boom, and house prices would stay more or less stable. As the number of homeowners has increased, there's a lot more resistance to building. (A dramatic example: The Battle of Carnegie Hill.) When there's an economic boom and limited housing supply, what happens is rents go up and lower-income renters are pushed out. In other words, population is shrinking (and becoming richer) because of limited housing.

In places where it's easier to build, you get a lot of five-over-one buildings, because they're cheapest to build. In places where it's harder to build, anything that does get built is probably going to be super-expensive - that's where you can make the most profit.
posted by russilwvong at 9:40 PM on July 7, 2021 [2 favorites]


as a non NYC denizen, i'm curious: why did the more left candidates lose? i've read that the more progressive candidates who were in the race werent even those that the left in NY preferred. if true, why?

i mean the complaining about adams winning sounds a lot to me like the complaining when bernie lost in 2020. a lot of hand wringing, but very little coming to grips with why the most left candidate lost.

i am not trying to be obnoxious or facetious or to start a fight. genuinely curious.
posted by wibari at 9:58 PM on July 7, 2021 [2 favorites]


The progressive mayoral candidates were a mixed bag. There was Scott Stringer, who came up through the Democratic machine and seemed to feel entitled to be mayor, and then several women came forward alleging that he had committed misconduct, which cost him the election even though apparently a whole lot of people voted for him anyway. Diane Morales was the left-most of the leading candidates, but she’s also a nonprofit executive who earns over $300k a year and whose housing org. has evicted tenants, making her a poor fit for endorsement by a lot of the left. Oh, and then her campaign imploded spectacularly right at the end, which somehow involved staffers trying to unionize and getting fired? Maya Wiley looked good on paper policy-wise but was also kind of an establishment candidate since she had come out of the mayor’s office, but everyone hates the mayor, a progressive who got into office and then kissed the NYPD’s ass for eight years. I feel like Wiley came off as the most centrist and least fiery of the three progressives.

In the meantime, there was the pandemic, which limited campaign operations, and everyone was stumbling through NYC’s first citywide ranked-choice primary. DSA didn’t endorse in the mayoral election because none of the candidates were a good fit. WFP initially endorsed all three progressives but later backtracked as shit got weird. The Times enforced Garcia, which almost certainly cost Wiley the race.

Which brings me to a bigger point: as with most things, there’s a whole tangled mess of factors at play. I do not trust any analysis of my city that takes, as its starting point, the idea that in every city there are two and only two wolves, one YIMBY and one NIMBY, and they are locked in eternal battle. Cities are lousy with all kinds of wolves. Some of the wolves are Democratic Party bosses, and some of them are construction unions, and some are parents of school-aged children, and some of the wolves live in public housing, and some are newspapers, and some are democratic socialists, and some are religious voting blocs, and some are cops, and some are police abolitionists, and some are people who are worried about gun violence, and at least one wolf is a Black vegan ex-cop presumptive mayor who may or may not live in New Jersey and now has an earring because a(n apocryphal?) teenager dared him to, and I may not be looking forward to his reign but I respect the fact that he seems like a genuine weirdo.

Cities contain complex webs of power and competing interests. The story of Adams’s ascendancy isn’t a simple tale about coalition building or renters vs. buyers. I don’t think anyone has a sense of what his mayoralty is going to look like in earnest, but given there hasn’t been any real shift in power dynamics, chances are that there will be a fair amount of more of the same.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 10:47 PM on July 7, 2021 [19 favorites]


Alon Levy uses they/them pronouns, by the way.

I don't know what the solution is on housing, although I tend to agree with people like Aaron Carr of HRI that we need vastly expanded and enforced renter protections and increased supply at every income level (how to make that happen, though...). I don't think the REBNY candidate is going to make either of those things happen for us, though. I'm not optimistic about Adams' policies on active transport or climate considering he compared the twitter account documenting his placard abuse on Cadman Plaza to a Klansman.
posted by threementholsandafuneral at 3:36 AM on July 8, 2021 [1 favorite]


Listen i know the housing market in new york is difficult but surely there are easier ways to move from jersey to manhattan than becoming mayor of new york
posted by dis_integration at 5:33 AM on July 8, 2021 [12 favorites]


maggiemaggie was saying that the city was experiencing intense growth, when the population is actually shrinking because of high rents.

Sorry, I was thinking of growth in this context meaning growth in housing units.
posted by maggiemaggie at 5:59 AM on July 8, 2021


Also, I think the "Councilmanic privilege" aspect of city government is going to intensify, especially since the new City Council membership is going to be more progressive than Adams has sold himself to be. I'm looking forward to my new City Council person, Crystal Hudson, who has an ambitious housing policy of her own.
posted by maggiemaggie at 6:04 AM on July 8, 2021 [1 favorite]


as a non NYC denizen, i'm curious: why did the more left candidates lose?

My take is that the left candidates split the vote too much and that Eric Adams just ran a really strong campaign and had good name recognition from being Brooklyn Borough President (although name recognition did not help Yang in the end). All the stores in my neighborhood had signs for Adams way back in early spring, although they mostly took them out after the first debate.

But I don't know why anyone would want to be mayor of NYC, they all end up being completely hated by everyone with their political careers destroyed.
posted by maggiemaggie at 6:18 AM on July 8, 2021 [1 favorite]


Being mayor of NYC could be a great gig if you have a humiliation fetish and no ambitions to go any further in politics.
posted by threementholsandafuneral at 7:04 AM on July 8, 2021 [3 favorites]


Sorry, I was thinking of growth in this context meaning growth in housing units.
The rents are rising because the growth you see is unimpressive for a metro the size of NYC.
And that number of permits most certainly does include public housing, not that enough is built anywhere in the US to even statistically matter.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:20 AM on July 8, 2021


Adams does not have a clear ideological vision, so his mayoralty might descend into corruption, or worse, aimlessness.
'cause nobody who campaigns with an explicit, ideological vision has descended into corruption? "Not awful" is actually pretty good for mayor of my city, or NYC. Someday we'll get that here. I continue to believe. I'd love to have an aimless mayor, rather than one actively brutal and hostile to the people in their city.
posted by eotvos at 8:48 AM on July 8, 2021


threementholsandafuneral: Alon Levy uses they/them pronouns, by the way.

Oops, thanks for pointing that out!
posted by russilwvong at 9:23 AM on July 8, 2021 [1 favorite]


It is my opinion that the more left candidates did not win and Adams did win because Adams was the only one who was willing to talk tough about criminals. In the neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Da Bronx and Queens, the residents want to be safe from petty crime (and major crime). Gun violence has been steadily increasing. Wiley calling to defund the police while her spouse was secrectly paying into a pool for private security on her block exposed the hypocritical aspects of the progressives. Garcia is a very good administrator, but failed to project a vision for the city. Adams, a former NYPD officer, ran a campaign that put together a coalition across the boroughs that recognized that crime was a big issue in this campaign as deBlaz was seen as weak on crime and ineffective as an administrator. Wiley and to a lesser extent Garcia sounded too much like deBlaz. Adams was able to convince voters that he was at once both a liberal democrat and tough on crime/criminals.

And, although it is pure speculation, I think Garcia and Wiley split the women's vote. I think a lot of people voted for Adams because he is a male. Stringer seemed to think the job was owed to him and then he was accused of sexual harassment or worse.

Also, a lot of what drives a NYC primary is the unions and their ability to get out the vote. Adams got material endorsements.

As for the general election, Sliwa is a loser, stuck in the 80s. He has no real chance. I am not even sure the betting sites will give you odds he will win.
posted by AugustWest at 9:37 AM on July 8, 2021 [1 favorite]


as a non NYC denizen, i'm curious: why did the more left candidates lose?

The main thing is that there were three or four other salient dimensions in play in addition to ideology. And really, the ranking system did a pretty good job reflecting the complex ways voters combine these features in their preferences. A bare majority preferred a more known centrist machine-politics Black man to a less known, center-left, competence-politics white woman. Each of those candidates mixed about four different salient categories in one bundle, only one of which was traditional left-right ideology -- and even then, both were fairly similar (on the scale of the US) ideologically. Voters also slightly preferred the less known, center-left, competence-politics white woman to the better-known, progressive-left, media-politics Black woman. And they preferred all three of these to the well-known centrist outsider (Yang) and the tainted farther-left candidates (Stringer, Morales).

And if you know NYC well, the map posted above shows pretty clearly how different voter demographics mapped onto each these candidates that each bundled together a bunch of different features, most notably (IMHO) the interactions between race and ideology. For instance, had Wiley been white but (somehow) otherwise the same, we would probably see more of her orange replaced with Adams's green in the Bronx and Queens, and more of Garcia's Manhattan purple replaced with Wiley's orange. Which would arguably have resulted in a bigger Adams win after Wiley beat Garcia.
posted by chortly at 10:00 AM on July 8, 2021 [5 favorites]


As much of a mess as it was (and as much as we need to tear down the Board of Elections and start over), I feel like ranked-choice voting ultimately worked out pretty well?

I'm sure that might change over time as people figure out how to better game the system, but for now, it does seem to be enabling broader fields of viable candidates.

I didn't end up voting for five candidates in any one race, but I got to rank two solid options for City Council, which was pretty cool.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 11:03 AM on July 8, 2021 [3 favorites]


« Older Queer readings of The Lord of the Rings are not...   |   the genderfluid couch looks like the map at the... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments