The fact that my house, practically on the shores of the Gowanus Canal, shares a councilman with Greenpoint is not, in and of itself, proof that the lines for Brooklyn City Council districts are preposterous. Districts have to end somewhere and, even under the fairest of plans, some neighborhood is going to get split in a manner which will seem unfair to those so victimized.
That being said the lines are ridiculous. Given the Voting Rights Act (VRA), and geography, it is not per se preposterous that Park Slope would share a Councilman with Borough Park, or Brooklyn Heights with Greenpoint.
But the 1991 political need of Kensington resident Steve Dibrienza to have Carroll Gardens in his district, while still accommodating a Latino district based in Sunset Park, produced three atrocities of mapmaking (which the clueless press, including the NY Times, attributed entirely to the requirements of the VRA), which were improved in 2003, by reducing the atrocities to two and eliminating a few, but not all, of their most outrageous features.
Almost all of my neighborhood is in one council district, while my house is in another. The result for me has been a choice between candidates (some of high quality) with only a tangential concern about my local issues. As such, the 39th Councilmanic, which features a pack of candidates who are talking about my concerns, is of far more personal interest to me.
Take the Gowanus Canal. At a local debate, someone asked the candidates in my councilmanic about Lavender Lake, only to have the moderator say that so little of the Canal was in the district that it really was not a concern.
As someone who put all the money he married into what ¾ of a million will buy in Brownstone Brooklyn (an ugly shotgun shack with an indoor pool every time it rains), I cannot say I was delighted by having a Superfund site declared in my neighborhood. If my son has been exposed to toxins, it is probably already too late to correct it. It was hard to see an upside.
“But think about the long run,” said one pro-Superfund contender in the 39th.
I’m 51, at least 20 pounds overweight and drink far too much. The cleanup process may take 25 years. For me, there likely is no long run.
Many in my neighborhood who share my lack of delight now oppose the Superfund; they are utterly clueless.
The Federal Government has now declared the Canal a site worthy of a toxic waste cleanup. Do Superfund opponents actually believe this assault upon their property values will be remediated by stopping the Superfund process? Imagine the impact on property values of a site declared worthy of the Superfund, which will never be addressed in that manner.
Are they nuts?
At his point, the smart move for property owners is to acknowledge the bad news, move forward with the Superfund, but monitor the damned thing, and try to get the Feds to allow some of the less heroic efforts to improve in the Canal to continue in the meantime.
Those who think stopping the Superfund process from going forward will protect their precious development projects and the profits they hope to yield from them are probably smoking crack, but they’ve been blessed with two candidates. have two candidates.
The relatively honest one is John Heyer. The stealth one is Brad Lander. Heyer gets point for honesty. Lander, whose former employer, the Fifth Avenue Committee, was selected to develop a large parcel on the Canal–plans which the Superfund may kill or delay–says he supports the Superfund, but attaches conditions which have never been met anywhere in the country.
The other candidates, Josh Skaller, Bob Zuckerman and Gary Reilly, support the Superfund. Of them, it is Zuckerman who has the most sophisticated analysis and understands best that going forward is not a victory, but the beginning of a long difficult process.
A similar dichotomy exists on development. John Heyer, an employee of Marty Markowitz, occasionally genuflects in the direction of opposing development, but invariably comes down in its favor, give or take a meaningless quibble. By contrast, John Skaller and Gary Reilly seem invariably to oppose any development project which has attracted even the faintest whiff of controversy.
Lander and Zuckerman take a more case by case approach, but their methods of analysis are starkly different. Lander supports the ACORN/WFP model of evaluating development , which might as well be called “PROGRESSIVE EXTORTION.”
Just yesterday, I posted a piece about this model, and thus do need not describe it further here; despite the sarcastic name I’ve just attached to “Progressive Extortion,” I actually find much to recommend it in theory. However, I also find that (a) it is often distressing in actual practice, and (b) goes at least one bridge too far in its seeking to game not just developers, but the evaluation of such project by supposedly neutral government entities which are supposed to judge such projects according to empirical standards. This alone should probably disqualify Lander from further consideration.
Lander has even defended the hate-baiting tactics of ACORN/WFP leader Bertha Lewis, who has essentially labeled all Brownstone Brooklyn white liberals as selfish, parochial racists.
By contrast, Zuckerman’s approach to development seems the most rational; consider each and every development project on its own merits without procrustean prejudgment.
Sadly, on Atlantic Yards, all of the candidates fail the test. Heyer essentially supports it; while the others mindlessly oppose it without nuance. The one candidate who actually put forth a rational critique (Lander) has since repudiated it out of political expedience. On social issues, all except
Heyer are reliable liberals, though Lander has shown a disturbing tendency to confuse outreach with those whose positions differ (a good thing) with pandering (not so good). Election of a candidate such as Heyer in Bensonhurst, where Heyer would actually be at the liberal end of the spectrum, would not be an awful prospect; it might even be the preferable choice in some races.
But election of such a candidate in a liberal constituency would be taken by the political world as a defeat for the social vision most of us share. Specifically, it would a setback to the cause of marital equality–if such a district can elect an opponent of same sex marriage, what will those sitting on the fence think concerning their own constituencies?
Then there is education. As a parent of a school-age child, I have a natural tendency to lean towards a candidate facing the same issues. Currently, only Lander and Skaller do.
Lander has bragged about sending his kids to a public school. Some may consider this evidence of nobility, but as Amy Sohn’s “Prospect Park West” makes clear, it really ain’t no sacrifice to send your kid to PS 321, though it may entail sacrifices to be able to afford to live in that school’s zone.
Moreover, Lander shows continuous evidence that he lacks sensitivity towards others who do not share his good fortune.
Community Leader Candace Carponter has described an encounter with Lander in front of PS 321 where she’d been handing out Skaller leaflets. Lander “came rushing up” to her and, without a hello, asked if the flier mentioned that Skaller’s son goes to private school.
Wolf Skaller is a child with special needs. As the parent of a special needs child, I can tell you that decisions concerning how best to address a child’s issues are among the most difficult personal decisions one can make. At great sacrifice, and without regard to the obvious political implications, the Skallers made the decision they thought best addressed their son’s needs. And they did so without asking for a handout in the form of a tax credit; if anything, Skaller’s experience seems to have made him more intent upon working to make sure that other parents do not have to make the same choices he does.
By contrast, Lander has shown a continuing insensitivity to parents who merely want the best for their children. Here’s an excerpt from a letter Lander once sent to the paper before he became a candidate:
“Our public schools have the potential to play a central role in creating genuine equal opportunity, addressing race discrimination, and narrowing the gap between rich and poor. Unfortunately, some parents from "affluent enclaves" — predominantly white, wealthy neighborhoods — seem to believe that the role for NYC's taxpayer-funded public schools is to reproduce the ongoing privilege of their children…
…While 75% of NYC public school students are black or Latino, 80-90% of students at selective public high schools is white. Yet Upper East Side parents who find "diversity … in many guises" don't seem to mind if their own children's success is premised on the further segregation of low-income students and students of color into failing schools. They appear unconcerned about where students now attending schools in their neighborhood will go, or the success of those schools. Their own "need" for a neighborhood school to "prepare our children to go the superior colleges they are qualified to attend" makes them frighteningly comfortable with the concept of birthright.”
So smug for someone whose kid is zoned for the top-scoring, overwhelmingly white non-Hispanic PS 321, instead of, say, PS 32. And I say that even as I concede that Lander’s letter is not without a point.
Nonetheless, it raises alarms for me. Although my son receives therapy in school for OT, PT and speech, his real special need is that he’s gifted. He attends what Mr. Lander calls a “selective” program which allows his needs to be met; he might have been attending a “selective” school if the Department of Education was willing to provide transportation across borough lines. Many gifted children, and certainly ours, who has no tolerance for boredom, would flounder in an environment where they were not constantly challenged.
I know, your heart bleeds borsht. We should all be blessed with such miseries.
There is no other interpretation I could put to Lander’s letter (and the fact that his campaign is the cause celebre of anti-gifted education activist Dorothy Siegel), but that Lander would view the special needs of my child, as well as the concerns of many of his other potential constituents, as the special pleadings of rich whiteys with an overdeveloped sense of entitlement (he also seemed to initially show at least some measure of similar disdain for opponents of Atlantic Yards), even though we tend to think of ourselves as struggling New Yorkers barely keeping our heads above water in a City which does everything it can to drive us into the suburbs.
Lander may be right; but certainly someone who holds us in such disdain is not entitled to our votes. Poor people have the right to electeds who look after the needs of their neighborhoods, but, so do those members of the apparent gentry who have $200 left in their checking accounts every month after the bills are paid. Let the Mayor tell us we are spoiled; he may be right–but own Councilmember should be someone who does not hold us in such contempt.
On the basis of education, I also could not vote for John Heyer who pretends to be a friend of public education in Park Slope, while calling for tuition tax credits in Borough Park (though Lander also loses points from both sides for implying in Borough Park, falsely, that he shares Heyer’s position).
But there is more to an election than issues. What we are really trying to do is predict how a Councilmember will act on their feet when something new and unexpected comes up. That is why even issues which seem irrelevant, like same-sex marriage, abortion and even the Middle East, sometimes prove useful in judging a candidate’s character, intellect and values.
Which candidate has the capacity to respond to new situations?
On the ideas front, Heyer though shrewd, has again and again proven himself an intellectual lightweight. Skaller, though smart, has not thought outside his particular box in any noteworthy manner. Lander comes with formidable credentials in the field of urban planning and clearly has a gift for analysis, but his ideas rarely venture into the realm of innovation. He is almost literally a WFP party-line apparatchik.
By contrast, Reilly and Zuckerman seem to have a gift of thinking outside their respective boxes. In fact, Zuckerman’s ability to go where others haven’t even conceptualize is such that it even attracted the favorable attention of Room 8 skeptic Larry Littlefield.
Then there is the matter of character.
Skaller, Zuckerman and especially Reilly all seem as about as sincere as one can ever expect from a politician. I might actually trust any of them to hold my watch and wallet during a bar fight.
Despite being a charming young man, John Heyer‘s campaign has been about cultural divide and conquer (possibly based upon the Republican model of “The New Tolerant Intolerance”) and the preservation of an existing social order most of his district has been working to move beyond. He is not worthy of consideration.
But, even he shines in comparison with Brad Lander. John Heyer sometimes uses a bit of fog to present himself differently to different people; Lander is a veritable Jekyll and Hyde. As I’ve outlined in far more detail elsewhere, Lander has continuously lied about his positions on even the most tangential matters, and has presented several radically different persona. This climaxed with the Lander’s campaign’s ad in a Yiddish language Ultra-Orthodox newspaper, condemning homosexuality as an abomination. Though I do not believe Lander had personal knowledge before the fact, the ad was consistent with Lander’s campaign strategy of trying to confuse Borough Park as to who is the campaign’s genuine social conservative. Moreover,
it is clear who the malefactor is within Lander’s campaign.
His name is Rabbi Yitzchok Fleisher.
Despite my dislike for Lander, when this incident first erupted, I was willing to give Mr. Lander the benefit of the doubt. I stated that if he really had nothing to do with contents of that ad, he needed to dismiss Rabbi Fleisher from his campaign immediately and condemn him in the strongest terms using words like “bigotry” and “hate speech.”
Dismissing Fleisher in such a manner might not have proven Lander’s innocence, but his not having done so has proven that, even if Lander was ignorant of Fleisher’s actions (as I believe he is), he still facilitated and continues to facilitate them. Moreover, his failure to dismiss Fleisher sends a message that such actions are essentially going to be winked at.
Lander sent the wrong message. If he’d sent the right one, by dismissing Fleisher, it would have been such a boost to the quality of our local body politic that in respect of the cojones it would have taken, I would not be endorsing in this race.
But having failed to undertake such a course, Lander’s defeat has become a moral imperative, if only to show the world that our communities will not tolerate the exploitation of bigotry for political gain.
With all my heart I would like to be able to recommend a vote for Bob Zuckerman. From all of the foregoing, I think it is clear he is the best most thoughtful candidate (he is also the funniest). Moreover, defeating Mr. Lander with an openly gay candidate would be sending the best, most powerful message.
Like his dad, my dad, Philip Roth and Roth’s own Zuckerman, Bob was born in the now non-existent Jewish part of Newark New Jersey. As a Jersey boychick myself, I would have been glad to vote for Bob even if her were not the best candidate.
And he is the best candidate.
But it is not merely a moral imperative to vote against Brad Lander; it is a moral imperative to beat him. And, based upon numerous consultations with local observers, as well as my own observations, I do not believe that Bob is capable of doing so; only one of the acceptable candidates is.
Sadly, Bob’s campaign has been plagued by one back-stabbing bastard after another slipping in the knife; it pains me to join in this parade.
Moreover, I am not overjoyed at who I am urging a vote for. I like Josh Skaller; he is a smart and good and decent man who will do his job with diligence and tenacity. To vote for Josh Skaller is not to vote for the lesser of the evils, but the lesser of the goods.
But, Josh’s worldview is not my own, and Josh’s supporters, who include Chris and Major Owens, Steve Harrison, the Daily Gotham’s Rosalie (hi, Rosie) Mole333 and Michael Bouldin, DDDB’s Lucy Koteen and (GACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Kevin Powell, are like a Madame Tussaud’s gallery of Gatemouth’s worst nightmares.
Josh Skaller and I do not play on the same team , and likely we never will.
But, sometimes doing the right thing means swallowing hard. And, in this election, voting for Josh Skaller is the right thing to do.
On Tuesday, I urge all voters in the 39th Councilmanic District to run, not walk, to the polls and vote early and often for Josh Skaller for City Council.