Harold Ford is the next hot thing in New York politics. He is young, telegenic, slick, rich, personable and with a good political pedigree. Like many New York Democrats, I hoped he would become a Senator from Tennessee and were dismayed by the smear campaign against him. However, as he mulls a campaign against Senator Kirsten Gillibrand it is clear he is the wrong person to represent New York in the Senate.  Gillibrand was criticized for stances on gun control and immigration when she was appointed to the but her views on these issues have evolved and  she has a very progressive record in the Senate on issues ranging from labor to health care.

For a Democrat, Harold Ford has a very conservative record and views.  Beyond his well documented NRA membership and pro-life views, Ford is currently showing himself to be a creature of Wall Street and is the Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council which pushes a conservative Democratic agenda. In the Times he said he strongly supported the no strings Wall Street bailout since he is “a capitalist.” As bankers prepare to gorge themselves on bonuses based on a government bailout, without changing their habits, it is clear that the old rules of capitalism must be changed and we need  a Senator who will push for that, not one who is the Vice Chairman of Merrill Lynch.

Like Mike Bloomberg, Ford will try to position himself as an independent running against the political establishment. However, it needs to be firmly stated that he is a part of the establishment in New York. The people that really pull the strings in the financial and real estate industries know they will have a friend in the Senate with Ford. On the conservative stands Gillibrand was criticized for, there is very little difference with Ford. However, there is a world of difference between them on the progressive stands Gillibrand has taken.  Ford’s “independence” should not fool anyone into thinking he is truly on the side of most New Yorkers or in line with our beliefs. He is not. We need and deserve a Senator who will promote the values of New York, not Tennessee.

Governor Paterson has stated that we should be happy that Wall Streeters are getting large bonuses, because the State needs the money. In the short run he is correct. New York is facing a catastrohic budget shortfall and the tax revenues brought in by Wall Street bonuses are essential revenue to help our State. The Governor is wrong that we should not be critical of the excesses  Wall Street has shown.  The long term question is that the furor caused by the excessive bonuses shows we have become way too dependent on Wall Street.  In the financial good times, Wall Street leaders managed other people’s money to pay their own bonuses and the result was our financial meltdown.  Criticism for this behavior is well deserved and the recent decisions to continue to pay record bonuses after federal bailouts shows that this bad behavior continues. Wall Street excesses have resulted in a record gap between the richest New Yorkers and all others as too much money is concentrated at the top of the income scale.

So yes, as the  Governor says, we need the money and let us not look a gift horse in the mouth. Times are tough and we should take the money where we can get it. You can’t say all this money is deserved and the fact that we need the money so much shows how dependent we have become on Wall Street. Our economy needs to diversify so we can stop the Wall Street dependence. New industries that develop businesses throughout the state need to be actively encouraged. We should not need to worry that if Wall Street is investigated that our whole economic base is threatened. Tax and economic policies have long catered to the Finance and Real Estate industries, thinking they would carry us forward. This year they are threatening to take us down with them.

Like many New Yorkers, I was appalled that the MTA threatened get rid free bus and subway fares for school children. Little could run more contrary to our goals as a society. Anything that makes it harder for kids to attend school and get the education they need is against the interests of this State. However, this is completely consistent witht the practices of the MTA.

Whenever the MTA faces a budget deficit they consistently cry for more state aid over the threat of service cuts and fare increases. This year it is student passes and the terminating some subway lines in other years its other cuts. However while the State aid and short term cuts may be necessary, the MTA never discusses management reform or finding away to rein in runaway contractor costs. The list of capital projects that have run hundreds of millions of dollars over budget is legendary. That speaks to managers who cannot accurately forecast costs and to contractors that are constantly allowed to break budgets. The savings from management and contractor reform alone could make many of the threatened costs unnecessary.

This had been continuously ignored as the only costs the MTA hopes to contain are the hard won annual salary increases for their working class employees. You never hear the MTA seriously talk about ways to maintain cost overruns. It is unfair to put such a burden on workers to solve a budget deficit, while contractors get rich.

There have been positive signs as the current MTA Director Jay Walder seems to recognize the problem. He has gone on public record recognizing the MTA’s inefficiency’s and wanting to implement wholesale changes. Before giving the MTA any money, the State should hold Mr. Walder to his words. At a minimum any State funds should be tied to management reforms. A plan should be presented  for management reforms along with cost savings with a schedule for implementation before the State releases a cent.

For too long, New Yorkers have had to deal with the MTA’s budget dance. Drastic service cuts are threatened unless State Aid is delivered, but no long term management reforms are delivered. It is time for this to end and New Yorkers to get the bus and train service we deserve from a well run authority.

Over the past few election cycles New York Democrats have put extensive financial and personal resources behind efforts to elect Democrats to Congress.  In doing so, we thought we would get reliable Democratic votes when we needed them, even if we disagreed with the candidates on some issue. In the last two election cycles we won three big races, Eric Massa, Michael McMahon, and Scott Murphy were all elected in previously Republican Districts. Democrats from throughout New York State gave money, made phone calls and helped in many other ways to get them elected.

We invested these resources in what we expected would be good Democrats. Yet what happened in one of the first major votes of their terms, the vote to support the President and pass health care reform, all three of our new Democrats voted no.  If ever there was a bill where party loyalty was important this was it.  Health Care reform is the signature issue of the Obama administration and a 39 vote Democratic majority in the House should have made passage easy. Yet the House Leadership had to count votes in the end and compromise with the anti-abortion forces in order get the bill passed. The votes of Massa, McMahon and Murphy could have made the margin larger and compromise unecessary. While I know that all three are in districts that either marginally voted for Obama or voted for McCain, voting no on health care reform better reflects conservative districts in the South, not New York. As I have mentioned New York Democrats did not expect to agree with every vote these Congressmen made and would have given them a pass on other ones, but voting no on health care reform?? Aside from being a centerpiece of Obama’s Presidency it is also morally the right thing to do and is supported by a majority of Americans. Massa, McMahon, and Murphy need to explain their votes if they want New York Democrats to support them strongly in 2010 to give them the support they need to win.

The titans of Wall Street have rewarded themselves with nearly record bonuses this year.  They almost managed us into a depression, their banks were bailed out by the government, lending has not increased and they are fighting all legislative attempts to reform their bad practices, yet they felt they were entitled to their large bonuses. Yes these are the banks that were able to pay off their bailouts but there is no doubt the bailouts and other government interventions saved them from collapse.  While they have taken advantage of artificially low prices to make profits, why do they think they are entitled to not only the bonuses like having their country club dues and their taxes paid for. All this while the country that bailed them out continues to suffer throught the recession they created.  The leaders of  Wall Street continue to live like high times are still with us.  It is truly one set of rules for them and another for the rest of us.

Like his Wall Street buddies, Mike Bloomberg lives by his own set of rules. Like them, he feels that he is so special that only he can lead the City and he is entitled to do so for a third term. Why else would he go back on his word and defy the will of the voters by pushing through term limits extension after New Yorkers had twice approved two terms for our elected officials. Why else would he feel that it is ok to spend an obscene amount of money on the race virtually negating the chance of any possible challenger. Just like his friends the Wall Street executives he feels entitled to his bonus and will do what it takes to get. However, the mayoralty is not an entitlement and you have to be responsive to the will of the people, not just ignore it when it suits your purposes.

If you’re a New Yorker who is outraged at the bonuses on that Wall Street executives feel they are entitled to, also be outraged the Wall Street Mayor and deny him the third term he feels he is entitled to.

In the wake of the New York City Democratic Primary, much has been written about the influence of the Working Families Party. Their endorsed candidates, John Liu and Bill De Blasio were both convincing winners in September 29th runoff and are virtual shoo-ins to be elected in November. In a low turnout election, it is assumed that the Get Out The Vote work by the WFP proved to be the difference. Whether or not this is true, both candidates had a broad range of support outside of the WFP, the WFP is getting a lot more scrutiny.

Much of the writing has been worries from entrenched members of the New York establishment (see Ed Koch and David Yassky’s column in the Daily News) on how the WFP is giving unions and other progressives too big a voice in City government. Unions though represent working New Yorkers, whose voice has been underrepresented for a long time. Over the past decades the financial, real estate and other business interests have developed and infrastructure to ensure their issues get representation.  Policy, particularly in the last 20 years, has favored these interests while working people have gotten the short end of the stick. This is one reason why we have such a large gulf between the rich and the poor and a disappearing middle class. So having a political party formed that represents the interests of working New Yorkers, can put a scare into the establishment.

Remembering our history, the WFP came into existence after the Liberal Party sold its soul for patronage in the Giuliani administration. As we have recently seen this lead to corruption on a vast scale. There was no voice on the left to put pressure on us Democrats when we strayed from our ideals. A bunch of progressives came together to give voice to their concerns. This included a lot of people from organized labor whose combined organizing strength has lead to the success of the WFP. The WFP mostly endorses Democratic candidates and its endorsement is seen as a progressive seal of approval, much as the Liberal Party’s endorsement once did.

Now I am not one to say that labor is right on every issue but for the most part they give a much needed voice to those who are traditionally underrepresented. Those that say that labor demands are bankrupting the City need only look to the give aways given to business over the past decades, to know that all sectors share the blame. It scares the old special interests to see a new power broker, as they are of the WFP. As I saw the WFP’s City Councilmember Tish James leading a tenant press conference the other day, I thought that  if the WFP helps make people who have traditionally been shut out part of the dialogue then it is all the better for New York.

Mayor Mike Bloomberg has contiuously represented himself as being independent from the”special interests.” Because the Mayor works for a dollar a year and can self- finance his own campaign that he is completely independent and immune to the political pressures of different interest groups. However, if you think about how he got to this point you can see what a misconception this independence is and how he really represents this City’s most powerful interest group.

The Mayor can work for $1 a year and not take campaign contributions because he is the richest person in New York City and where do his riches come from, Wall Street.  There is no group more invested in City government than the financial industry.  These are the Mayor’s colleagues friends and confidates, so it would be natural that he would consistently act in their interest. This would explain giveaways to companies like Goldman Sachs. Years on Wall Street shaped how the Mayor sees the world. Wall Streeters believe in the infallibility of the marker and feel the market can be a solution to any problem. This clouds even good policies in the shadow of needing an expanding market and economy to succeed. This market-based philosophy can preclude bold actions in times like these.  President Obama has seen the light on this for the country by instituting measures to make up for market failures.

Bloomberg’s philosophy also favors high level managers and consultants over rank and file workers. His agencies, particularly the Department of Education, are loaded with high level managers  and consultants. More and more work is contracted out to private contractors while employees basic human needs get squeezed. This bias shows that computer consultants making more than the Chancellor, while Pre-school kindergartens get closed and massive overcrowding in schools continues. He lacks the common touch to understand how some of his policies affect everyday New Yorkers. Bloomberg’s style is top down government and while we need strong leaders, people need to know that they too can participate in their government.

And the “special” interests Bloomberg claims that he, among all politicians, is immune from because of his money. Well they are unions representing working New Yorkers and groups representing parents and the poor and others in deep need of City services. Billionaires representing the special interest of Wall Street are disconnected from these people and see them mostly as impediments to functioning markets. New York needs someone who is connected to the New Yorkers who need the City government most, this is the special interest that really matters.

For the past few years the residents of Park West Village on Manhattan’s Upper West Side have become accoustomed to the lack of consideration showed by the Chetrit Organization which is developing the tall buildings of Columbus Square in the middle of the complex. The buildings were too tall and took up treasured open space, there was no meaningful effort to contain the dust which caused illness to residents during excavation,  and having one existing building  in danger of collapse because of lack care of supports at the construction site were just a few of what Park West Village residents endured due to this project and Chetrit showed little care for their needs. But as the first building was completed and Park West Village residents were resigned to the development being completed Chetrit had one more trick up its sleeve.

One of the last remaining open spaces was reserved for community use was by the parking lot on the northern end of the complex. In plans and renderings this was shown to be for a playground or other recreational use. Unbeknownst to any other stakeholders, Chetrit traded the development rights for this site for the rights the Jewish Home and Hospital for the Aged has on top of its building at 106th Street.  This means the community facility will be a planned 22 story building for the Jewish Home while Chetrit will be able to build a large building on 106th street. This is a backhanded deal of of the worst kind, particularly because when 97-110th street was downzoned, the Jewish Home got a last minute cut-outs after making a number of promises on size and cooperation with the community.

It has not taken long for the community to mobilize against this backroom deal. Within two days of hearing of the deal, Councilmember Melissa Mark Viverito and other elected officials and community leaders held a press conference denouncing it. A few days after that hundreds attended a town hall meeting called by the Councilmember and attended by her Senator Bill Perkins, Borough President Scott Stringer and others. Plans to fight the land swap on a number of fronts have begun to take shape and the community is mobilized. 

While we all respect the work the Jewish Home does for seniors, they already got a concession to allowed to develop a building on their site higher than what is currently allowed in the surrounding neighborhood, breaking its word and betraying the trust of the neighborhood is unacceptable. Chetrit has shown itself to be the least concerned type of developer and it is an imporant example to show to the City as a whole that the rights of residents cannot be trampled on and that developers cannot do anything they please.