On Primary Day, you want to know "who is winning?" Leading up to the general election, "What will the candidate be able to accomplish or block" needs to be among the questions posed. That means taking the Council into account.
“Will the candidate have enough Council support to back his initiatives and to block measures he wants stopped?”
A large percentage of municipalities in Westchester and Nassau Counties — two of the beating hearts of exclusionary zoning in the New York City metropolitan area — are saying in effect, “No, thank you, we like our exclusion just the way we have it.” The lack of progress is especially apparent in municipalities with the lowest percentages of non-Hispanic Black residents.
What was striking last night was how many candidates didn't have the substance to fill even 30 seconds, or revealed in that time an under-appreciation of the problems that are going on. I remain convinced that candidates still treat a host of school-related issues as taboo.
There's a lot that doesn't add up, at least if voters want to be able to make informed choices. Many substantive issues remain unexplored or underexplored, and the rhetoric often doesn't match what the winning candidate would be able to do as mayor.
“If it can be successfully done 20, 30, 35 years down the road, then I don't see a reason why it couldn't be done and set up from the onset.”
Legislation recently enacted by New York State as part of its budget process directly offers the prospect of preserving several thousand affordable housing units at risk for losing their tenant protections, and indirectly raises the question of why an obvious set of tools aren’t being used to change the day-to-day reality of luxury condominium buildings being developed with zero percent affordable units included.
Most of the candidates running for mayor of New York City have explicitly described the Trump administration as creating an emergency for the city, including in their assessments the prospect of reduced federal funding. But it is unclear how much they appreciate fully the impact of what is likely coming. They do, however, appear to be united in not admitting that emergencies require sacrifice.
“What is clear is that they do not want to tell the voting public that emergencies often have deeply unpleasant consequences, not all of which can be warded off.”
Well, 50 actually (not including subparts). With a bunch of "why?" and "why nots?" Taboo breakers, too. Don't worry, though: I've thrown in some easy ones!
Well, 50 actually (not including subparts). With a bunch of "why?" and "why nots?" Taboo breakers, too. Don't worry, though: I've thrown in some easy ones!
Wants re-expansion of segregation-perpetuating outsider-restriction policy in affordable-housing lotteries after nine-year battle limited it. Panders to neo-segregationists despite knowing that court order has already ruled out changed based on his rationales.
How hard should it be to get broad agreement on “unless and until you get the rules changed, follow them”? Not very. But achieving that consensus sometimes seems an impossible dream in New York City, a place where you’re generally not doing your rule-breaking in splendid isolation but rather in ways that have real impacts on others.
“Romanticizing and idealizing (go-to indulgences on the left) and grievance and demonization (animating principles on the right) are no small part of the problem.”
Get updates
The latest on original reporting, data visualization, interviews, and more!
