Scoopy’s, Week of Aug. 22, 2013

B.P. candidates face off at N.Y.U. — and about N.Y.U.: “Education, jobs, affordable housing” was the mantra that the candidates for Manhattan borough president stuck to at debate earlier this month on New York University’s campus. All four Democratic candidates appeared to be in a place of strength at the Aug. 7 event, settling in for what one of the candidates called their “538th debate” leading up to the Sept. 10 Democratic primary.

Limiting development also seemed to be an underlying current throughout much of the debate.

Councilmember Gale Brewer added building libraries and parks to the list of necessary amenities that should be included with schools to combat overcrowding. Brewer noted that she has been listed by The New York Times as one of the top five city officials championing parks in New York City.

Councilmember Robert Jackson, who co-chairs the City Council’s Black, Latino and Asian Caucus, focused on job creation. As a representative of the upper reaches of Manhattan’s West Side, which has some of the highest unemployment rates in the borough, Jackson said he was committed to ensuring “that Manhattan stays affordable.”

“What I would like to do is very simple,” Councilmember Jessica Lappin said, “fight for middle-class and working people in this borough, with a special emphasis on tenants and seniors.”

Lappin mentioned using the 197-a rezoning process to employ “bottom-up planning” to look at things 10 to 15 years down the road to build necessary infrastructure to keep up with development.

Former Community Board 1 Chairperson Julie Menin repeatedly came back to her idea for a “comprehensive, boroughwide master plan” throughout the debate as a panacea for Manhattan’s troubles, since, it would mandate specific infrastructure and funding contributions for all new development, including schools and affordable housing. (However, the borough president’s land use recommendations are currently advisory only.)

“I am running for borough president because I believe we need to completely reform our land use review process,” Menin said in her opening statement, sparking the first spontaneous applause at the session.

The most lively audience participation cropped up around the topic of N.Y.U. expansion and the City Council’s 2012 vote to approve it. The subject came up during a question that encompassed the candidates’ views on both N.Y.U. and the city’s fast-tracked proposal to encourage development of new skyscrapers in East Midtown.

The debate, organized by Citizens Union, a government watchdog group, and NYC Community Media, the parent company of The Villager, was held at N.Y.U.’s Center for Spiritual Life in Greenwich Village.

“We’re sitting in a neighborhood where the City Council and the mayor approved rezoning,” said Citizens Union’s Dick Dadey, who co-chaired the debate with Paul Schindler, the editor of Gay City News, The Villager’s sister paper.

The question prompted a round of finger-pointing as the three Councilmembers tried to distance themselves from the final deal. Brewer reminded the audience that everyone on the Council except Charles Barron voted for the N.Y.U. mega-development plan in the end. Brewer then went on to say she did not agree with the terms set, and would behave differently if she became borough president.

“And you should know it’s not an open and transparent process because negotiations don’t take place in public, they happen in private,” said Jackson, who then squarely pointed his finger at fellow Councilmember Margaret Chin, who acted as the Council’s chief negotiator for the N.Y.U. proposal, since the university’s superblocks are in her district.

Lappin also turned the blame on Chin, saying, “I was not the prime negotiator. I think I would have done a better job; I would’ve handled it differently, I would have worked with the local elected officials, for example. But in the end, I voted as the current borough president [Scott Stringer] suggested, I voted in favor of the plan.”

Menin spoke about lobbying N.Y.U. to expand into Tower 5 of the World Trade Center site. She also used the expansion as an example of why the land-use process needs to be reformed with her master plan.

Candidates got to ratchet up the pressure another notch when they were given the opportunity to ask one question of a randomly selected opponent.

Jackson was asked by Menin about the City Council’s vote to overturn term limits, giving both himself and Mayor Bloomberg eligibility for a third term despite prior voter referendums in support of term limits. But Jackson was quick to point out that in Manhattan, unlike the rest of the city, the tallies showed that more people were in favor of the extension. He also cited the lack of voter turnout saying, “I didn’t cut the deal. The people of New York voted, 1.5 million voted, out of 4 million. Those people that did not vote gave Mayor Bloomberg another term, not me.”

Menin had the tables turned on her when Lappin asked why she “chose to become a Republican during George W. Bush’s term.”

Menin, who changed political parties between 2001 and 2003, said that after 9/11, “I would do whatever I could to work for the community and make sure the community had a voice at the table,” adding that at the time, she was working closely with Governor Pataki’s Republican administration. She said she has always been a progressive, however.

Jackson was more lenient, perhaps unintentionally, when he asked Brewer about her position on small businesses, a question that she said she “loved” because of legislation she got approved for her Upper West Side Council district that restricts the store-front size of incoming banks in an effort to preserve space for mom-and-pop shops.

Brewer passed on the love to Lappin, her seatmate in the City Council and also apparently her gossip buddy, who was simply asked to elaborate on her experience. Lappin used it as an opportunity to talk about 15 years of experience in city government, the first half as a staff member of former Council Speaker Gifford Miller.

“I made a decision when I graduated college, that making money was not as important as making a difference” Lappin said.

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, Week of Aug. 22, 2013

  1. You know Chin is bad when her own council colleagues and peers point the finger at her"
    "“And you should know it’s not an open and transparent process because negotiations don’t take place in public, they happen in private,” said Jackson, who then squarely pointed his finger at fellow Councilmember Margaret Chin, who acted as the Council’s chief negotiator for the N.Y.U. proposal, since the university’s superblocks are in her district.
    Lappin also turned the blame on Chin, saying, “I was not the prime negotiator. I think I would have done a better job; I would’ve handled it differently,"

    Isn't a disgrace that so many other local politicians are endorsing Chin, solely because she is an incumbent, despite her dismal record. They know who they are and they and their staffers read Scoopy's.

    It's like the joke about the politician at the beach swimming and a shark approaches. Everyone else runs out of the water, but the politican just stays there. The shark turns from the politician and heads back: Professional Courtesy.

  2. Now, even articles like this about the Boro Prez position are blasting Chin. And her own collegues no less. I'm sorry to say that I voted for her last time, but I wont make that mistake again.

  3. So now that old lawyer joke [about the shark] has been recycled into a politician joke. As a lawyer, I suppose I should be relieved. However, as a friend of several politicians, I am ambivalent.

  4. At least Chin has a sense of humor: She claims her "Chief of Staff" is a landmarking expert, and that he knew better than the panel of professionals at the Landmarks Commission about the historical & cultural value of the 1835 house at 135 Bowery that is now a big hole in the ground. Ha ha.

    Oh wait, the joke is on us.

    Chin's supposed Land Use Expert is nothing more than a proven tool for dishonest real estate interests (in this case the First American International Bank, which lied about its intentions). After Chin & crew got done with flip-flopping on 135 Bowery, the bank turned around and sold the site. And Chin has pocketed thousand$ in campaign donations from the same bunch, almost none of which are in her district.

    The Joke is Over. Get Rid of Chin.

    Vote for Jenifer Rajkumar on September 10th.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


× 7 = forty two

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>