The Herd for the 33rd Debate – Live Blogging!

well we now know that joanne who up until tonight was for housing in brooklyn birge park is a liar and that that doug fellow is mean spirited

NOW you’re getting somewhere Nicky. Dick totally was dissing everyone but his pets – Simon and Levin.

Yes Simon is an empty suit. She is not a leader and would make no real difference as an elected

In the Heights:

I don’t think that anyone believes Biviano is mean. But he seems to talk in disconnected platitudes that really don’t give answers to the questions being asked. He is against war, lack of health care and for a commuter tax. Unfortunately, that is all stuff beyond the purview of the City Council.

As for not being afraid to call out the machine candidates, you are right on that score. But again, his brush is a bit too wide. Levin…by all means. Simon…fair as well. She’s a District Leader with no record of effective reform in the Party despite her claims to the contrary. But Thies? There are legitimate gripes with him. Yet he seems to be catching the Machine charge unfairly. The Machine (Lopez) is keeping Yassky from giving Thies an endorsement in return for Lopez backing Yassky’s comptroller bid. How does getting squeezed out of an endorsement by machine politics make Thies part of the machine? Seems like a Biviano disconnect.

Real Reform Brooklyn

Jerry:

Good comments. But we think that criticism, while deserved to some degree, is a little misplaced. Going back to 2005, the Greenpoint-Williamsburg rezoning was greeted positively by many. True many did not like the height & bulk on the waterfront. But people thought that the 33% affordable housing was a win. For example, Brad Lander stated in the New York Times “The communities of Williamsburg and Greenpoint win because today there is a guarantee of new and permanently affordable housing, instead of a virtual guarantee that new development would price residents out of their homes.”http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/03/nyregion/03brooklyn.html?pagewanted=2&sq=greenpoint%20rezoning&st=cse&scp=16.

The place for fair criticism though is with the follow up. Yassky certainly dropped the ball in pressing the City to live up to its commitments on open space — especially the MTA bus depot at the very northern tip of the district. Thies has to own this issue to some degree. Although ultimately, the buck needs to stop with Yassky who has made a habit of running for other offices rather than tending to the 33rd (e.g. DA race, Congressional race, Comptroller race). Who knows what Yassky’s true motives were for not pressing harder on requiring the City to keep its rezoning commitments…or giving Thies free reign to do the same.

As for the CB1 vote, that is a red herring. The healthy majority of CB1 is controlled by UJO’s Rabbi Niederman and people who answer to Lopez. E.g., the new chair, Christopher Olechowski, runs a social services agency providing home-based nursing to the elderly that thrives on State money. (Sound remotely familiar to Ridgewood Bushwick?) Bottom Line: Thies stepping down from CB1 did not make any difference. The votes were in the bag for Broadway Triangle and there was nothing Thies could do to stop that train.

“We” think it is misplaced criticism, do “we”? You work for Thies, I take it?

I’m not squabbling with the affordable housing percentages, or anything on the technical end – I’m sure those promises you speak of were all well and good. The issue I had was that the infrastructure to accommodate all that development was just that – promises. Any time you’re overhauling a section of the community and giving free reign to development there has to be a commitment up front from the city and the developers to incorporate the transportation, schools, etc. upgrades into the cost structure of that development at the front end. And judging by the lack of progress up in that area, those requirements were simply not part of the “first phase” plans, but were rather backloaded. And Thies has to assume some of the criticism for that, because as Yassky’s chief of staff he had a hand in hammering out those agreements. It just stinks of bad policy to me, and a bad precident for how he’d approach development going forward.

As for the CB1 vote, I don’t think it’s a red herring at all. It’s not a question of Thies being some kind of savior and tipping that vote. Believe me, I understand we’re talking about a stacked deck of Vito’s people on that CB. It’s more a question of taking a stand; if he IS a “real reformer” he uses that vote as a platform to rail against the corrupt process, challenge Vito’s people, and declare that he’ll fight to break the back of this kind of railroad process when he’s in the City Council. Instead he quit, and whether it was a pre-determined date to step down or not, the timing reeks of political convenience.

I dunno Reform, I dig a lot of what you say on your blog, and I’m tired of the “machine” types as well, I just don’t buy that Thies is going to be the guy to stand up and change things for the better.

Jerry:

We are not working for Thies. We are just trying to point out what we see in an accurate, truthful way. That is why we have been critical of him as well. Frankly, we have some issue with all the candidates. But far more with Levin and Simon than anyone. Also, thanks for the cuddos on the blog.

As for Thies and CB1, we have a legitimate difference of opinion. Thies has stated his opposition to Broadway Triangle openly, publicly and repeatedly. Are you really taking issue with the fact that he didn’t stay on CB1 long-enough to grandstand and showboat it when his vote did not matter? We are sure he regrets that missed opportunity to appear before the press and public. But don’t read more into it than is really there.

As for the rezoning, you are right about the need for more consideration on infrastructure as general proposition. Thies has proposed something called “360 Degree Planning.” https://evanthies.com/the-issues/development/ There is definitely a need to look at cumulative impact of multiple developments and environmental issues affecting any community. Simon’s website has no proposals whatsoever. http://www.joanneforcouncil.com/issues/ She does claim to have “organized with neighborhoods and spearheaded efforts to bring the community to the table on issues such as…Greenpoint-Williamsburg rezoning….” In fact, all she ever did was submit testimony on the Greenpoint-Williamsburg rezoning and nothing more. She certainly did not organize or spearhead any effort on behalf of that community. Levin? He thinks that the Greenpoint-Williamsburg rezoning is a good example of “contextual rezoning” and argues that we should have a “Good Growth Standard” but provides no detail. http://www.levin2009.com/?page_id=10 We think it is just fluff.

For the record, the northern part of the district has low classroom percentages. The “L” and “G” do need more capacity. But no one has been specific about what infrastructure has really broken down under the rezoning. We understand that the City just broke ground on a new $40 million Park’s facility and waterfront soccer venue, and $50 million is going into the rehabilitation of the McCarren Park Pool. Are we missing something? Let us know.

Thanks again,

Real Reform Brooklyn

Real Reform Brooklyn

Real Reform Brooklyn