Scoopy’s notebook, Week of Feb. 7, 2013

Showing the love for Jon Geballe, center, after his win in last week’s County Committee election for district leader were, from left, Brad Hoylman, Keen Berger, Deborah Glick and Tony Hoffman.

Showing the love for Jon Geballe, center, after his win in last week’s County Committee election for district leader were, from left, Brad Hoylman, Keen Berger, Deborah Glick and Tony Hoffman.

GEBALLE WINS ROUND 1: After all the buildup, the district leader election at last Thursday’s convention of the local County Committee for the 64th Assembly District, Part A, turned out to be a blowout. Jon Geballe, former president of Village Independent Democrats, won with 55 votes to Arthur Schwartz’s four and Deley Gazinelli’s two. Schwartz is hoping to recapture the district leadership, which Brad Hoylman took over from him six years ago. “We knew that we were going to win, but we didn’t know it would be by this much,” Tony Hoffman, current V.I.D. president, said after last week’s vote. Geballe was backed by Hoylman and Assemblymember Deborah Glick, and Congressmember Jerrold Nadler also threw in his endorsement just hours before the election. However, Schwartz vowed to run in the upcoming primary election, no matter what. But he’ll be facing an organized opposition, just as he did in last week’s County Committee election, which was held to fill the seat until the primary. “We’ve been working on this ever since Brad resigned” as district leader to become state senator, Hoffman noted. “I don’t think Arthur’s mailings — without any support from elected officials, without any grassroots support — can beat our grassroots support.” While Schwartz was able to rebound from losing the district leadership to knock off incumbent State Committeeman Larry Moss six years ago, Hoffman scoffed that was only because Moss ran a limp campaign. Geballe, in his allotted three minutes of comments to the County Committee before the vote, pointedly remarked that, if elected, he would stand with Glick to “protect the waterfront” from overdevelopment — referring to proposals for residential housing at Pier 40 being pushed by the local youth sports leagues and the Hudson River Park Trust. Noted Hoffman, “Arthur has a very different vision of the waterfront than the activists do — he supports development. Arthur’s and Deborah’s vision of the waterfront are 180 degrees opposite. The V.I.D. and most of the people in the West Village support Deborah Glick’s vision of the waterfront.” Of the four people who voted for Schwartz, one was notably Rich Caccappolo, a former president of Greenwich Village Little League who recently took over from Schwartz as chairperson of Community Board 2’s Parks and Waterfront Committee. Also on the waterfront, Hoffman added that Geballe is one of the pro-bono attorneys fighting the Spectra gas pipeline at Gansevoort Peninsula. “Basically, there was an extremely well-organized effort,” Schwartz conceded after his pummeling. “Tony Hoffman is a very good organizer — he was a district leader for 10 years. He had all his ducks lined up. My hat’s off to him.” He also accused Hoylman and District Leader Keen Berger of packing the County Committee with “friends.” Speaking of Berger, Schwartz intimated that she may face a challenge. “I may have a female candidate,” he noted. “I can’t say yet. But I would say that having two straight district leaders would be inappropriate for the Village.” Geballe, Berger and Schwartz are all straight. Hoylman, Berger’s former co-district leader, is openly gay. Hmm, would Schwartz enlist his former co-district leader, Aubrey Lees, with whom he publicly feuded ferociously? “Yeah, right!” he laughed at our suggestion. We told Schwartz that Hoffman guaranteed their grassroots effort will trounce him, and it sounded like the longtime waterfront activist bristled a bit. “O.K., and my response to Tony is when he ran for Assembly he came in fourth with his grassroots effort, against Deborah Glick in 1990,” he noted, “which is why he disappeared for 20 years. Now, he says he’s back.” Schwartz said he’s running on his record of activism in the community, and that his record beats Geballe’s by a long shot. As for the waterfront, Schwartz said, frankly, he doesn’t believe there’s that much opposition out there to the residential plan — save for the same few activists from decades ago who turn up at meetings on the issue, like Ben Green and Marcy Benstock. For her part, Berger is happy Geballe won. “I am very excited to be working with Jonathan,” she said. “I am so glad that I have a district leader that I will be able to consider a partner in this difficult Assembly district.” To Schwartz’s threat to run a lesbian against her, Berger replied, “I believe that I am a good district leader for everyone — that’s my goal. I do represent everyone, of every sexual orientation, of every age, of every economic background. To choose someone specifically because of these particular qualities — it’s just not what the Village needs.” When we spoke to the winner, Geballe, this week, he reiterated his strong position on the waterfront. “I will be standing with Deborah,” he said, “and like Deborah, I feel that residential development on the waterfront is not the way to go for the community. The Pier 40 Champions plan — to the extent that it has residential on the waterfront — is not the way to go. The Durst plan, for adaptive reuse and mixed use, seems to be much more the way the community should be going,” he added, referring to the office space-and-retail plan, without residential housing, for Pier 40 being promoted by developer Douglas Durst. “I certainly want the kids to have enough field space,” Geballe said. “But putting residential on the waterfront ignores the fact that we’ve had two hurricanes in two years.” Ironically, while it was Maria Passannante-Derr who nominated Schwartz for district leader at the County Committee election, the president of the Village Reform Democratic Club, Schwartz’s home club, didn’t vote for him, and, in fact, most V.R.D.C. members also went for Geballe. Asked to explain that discrepancy, Derr told us, “I nominated Arthur Schwartz to remind people that he has a progressive record of community advocacy. However, we disagree on his pro-residential development of the waterfront. I voted for Jon Geballe because, he has stated, on several occasions, that he is committed to park development options other than residential.”

The Villager encourages readers to share articles:

Comments are often moderated.

We appreciate your comments and ask that you keep to the subject at hand, refrain from use of profanity and maintain a respectful tone to both the subject at hand and other readers who also post here. We reserve the right to delete your comment.

4 Responses to Scoopy’s notebook, Week of Feb. 7, 2013

  1. Yes,the Durst Plan proposes to "adaptively reuse" the pier…but unfortunately by converting the wonderful courtyard space at Pier 40 into a massive new parking garage. There will be no park space on the pier. Sports fields will be relegated to "publicly accessible private space" on the roof of a massive commercial development.

    The Durst Plan depends on $65 per square foot for 400,000 square feet of offices, while rents in the sought-after and convenient Chelsea and Hudson Square areas, with good transportation and lots of places to lunch, are 20 percent less. So when office tenants at these rents are not available, developers will have to bring in the same kinds of massive destination retail projects that have been rejected by our community twice before.

    The Pier 40 Champions' idea is offered by groups in your neighborhoods that provide sports activities for more than 5000 children. It is not a developer's proposal, but an effort to start the conversation about the opportunities of this 15-acre treasure: to protect and grow the space for youth sports; to designate at least 60 percent of the pier for park use only; to open up river views and access; and to minimize the impacts of commercial uses. Your opinion is important. Please take a very careful look at what people are proposing before you form yours.

  2. The park should be a park. Pier 40 is part of the park. If it can't be park, then save us the millions of $ and sink the pier. It will make a nice estuary for wildlife. And… a N.I.D. is definitely NOT the answer.

    • Sink Pier 40 into a fast moving, working river? Does the sink the pier crowd have any realistic idea of how and where estuaries actually work, and the power of the Hudson flow? You say "sink the pier", your neighbors hear "take away public park". And if you say "the park should be a park", what is your solution for the repair, and park construction? The happy thoughts of the "parks are created with money that falls from the heavens" crowd once again duly noted.

  3. It seems unfair to characterize Arthur Schwartz' position on Pier 40 as "pro-residential". It seems to me more "frustrated with the continued stalemate and let's just get the thing done already". He accepts that the pier is in actual danger, which to me screams voice of reason. He seems to be one of the few taking the potential loss of Pier 40 seriously. Saying you are anti-housing on Pier 40 is easy. Coming up with a solution is hard, and right now ABSOLUTELY non-existent on the political side. We're all frustrated with the abundant political rhetoric, but the dearth of solutions. Still no answer from Glick on this one, so what is Jon Geballe's architectural and financial plan for Pier 40? Details please, time is running out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

+ three = 10

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>