This weeks issue of
The Villager features a debate between eight Council candidates for District 2 that was held on Monday at the Village Reform Democratic Club. Since I'm not running as a Democrat and not invited to these wonderful parties, I'll give my answers to some of the questions featured in the piece.
Issue One. Converting CHARAS/El Bohio/PS 64 building into a dormitory.
Seven to One oppose such a plan. The topic has been getting a lot of local attention and was featured in the Villager back in a
February issue. This building is almost right around the corner from me. The old PS 64 building is a beautifully built school that is falling apart since it closed after being purchased by developer, Gregg Singer.
The libertarian in me supports the free-market and understands that change comes to neighborhoods every month and every year. I can see how an influx of over 220 students could generate economic growth in the local restaurants, laundrymats, cafes, small shops and this could greatly benefit the area.
The concerned resident in me sees there could be an increase to noise, property damage, rubbish and lack of respect to the community. In the ten-plus years I've been frequenting Alphabet City on a regular basis (and being a resident myself for the past five years), the neighborhood is not in need of increased traffic by young university students who are out to spend their money. It's already evident that the Village has its fair share of foot traffic and does well enough economically.
The Republican in me sees this as an opportunity to fight for renovating a building once used for educational reasons and to return to its original purpose. Is there room for economic development? Of course. Alphabet City has been growing since the Guiliani Revolution and it continues to grow. But the concerns from the residents far outweigh the benefits from a libertarian position. To say, as Rev. Brightharp states, that these college kids don't have enough housing is silly, in my opinion. I'm more concerned about providing enough classrooms for New York's elementary students who need an education over out of town college students who need housing. This building could be used for students who require special education so their needs are met or it could be used in expanding the charter school program, which as noted in this same issue, was just expanded into
Alphabet City.
Now I know District 2 is not suffering from the problems that burden other districts. However, I do feel District 2 can provide its advantages in helping the NYC Public School System if buildings and class space are used as they were intended.
Issue Two (or really just a comment in the debate) Con Ed Power Plant.
Mildred Martinez brings up high rates of breast cancer because of the Con Ed power plant, which is not based on any hard facts, since countless studies on this issue are still inconclusive and for the most part haven't shown any increase in cancer among those living near power plants. There will always be concerns with living near power plants, but those concerns are the threat of terrorism and the threat of stray voltage running underground. District 2 needs a representitive that will work with Con Ed in protecting it from terrorism and supplying safe power to its designated zone. Darren Bloch says he has experience with Con Ed, which could benefit his candidacy. That is definitely a plus, but I know someone who works for Con Ed and I feel I can work just as closely with the power company.
Issue Three PS 122 - Performing Arts Ctr vs CLD.
Children's Liberation Daycare shares PS 122 with the performance & arts center and it's in danger of being forced out of the building. There is no real disagreement on this situation in that anyone who is the next councilor can be active in voicing concerns with a compromise. However, if CLD is forced out, I will do everything in my power to relocate it in the district.
Issue Four Career Politicians.
Michael Lopez, who most likely doesn't have a shot winning, uses his private citizenship as a reason to vote for him. Everyone else has, in some way, been involved in the political machine and Mr. Lopez says in a way, that the district needs an outsider to be a representitive for our communities. This is something I agree with. I'm not a politician and never have been. I don't plan to be a career politician. I've always worked in the private sector and don't get paid with the taxpayer's money. I think, to best represent the common person of the district would be to run as one of them. A taxpayer. A person working hard to pay his bills and a person trying to make a difference in the same way they would. I am not wealthy and have not been able to give back to the community in a way that I would like. If I am fortunate to win the votes to be elected, I will work my hardest to give back to the community by being a part of the city legislature.
Issue Five Community Boards. Bars. Liquor Licenses.
Brian Kavanagh suggests that Liquor use & control should be a local issue and not a state issue. This is a very good point. NYC has community boards so they can discuss what establishments will open in their area, but they do not have control over who can apply for a liquor license. Giving control of licenses to the mayor or borough presidents could greatly increase local involvement in our communities. Local involvement and local control is clearly a smaller government and republican philosophy. Get big brother off the backs of our neighborhoods.
Issue Six Smoking Ban.
The debate on whether this hurts business or not is still up for grabs. What it has clearly done, though, is increased the noise pollution on local streets as packs of people stand outside smoking cigarettes and talking, yelling and banging on street signs. I think, if a bar has to apply for different licenses, a liquor, jukebox, cabaret or whatever it is, you can always add smoking. Not every bar will apply to pay for a smoking license if there are certain restrictions on which venues can apply. Not every bar has lost business since the smoking ban has been instituted. But business owners, if they comply with certain restrictions, should have the right to choose who they want as patrons. Mayoral candidate Steve Shaw has suggested a 70/30 rule which could be explored, too.
As far as taking campaign funds from bar owners, I see nothing wrong with it. These are businesses. They are part of the constituency. They pay rent, they pay taxes, they provide jobs to bartenders and bouncers and wait staff. If they are complying with the law and being good local businesses, what's the problem if they are interested in supporting a candidate?
Issue Seven Environmental concerns.
The first president to institute major environmental policy was Theodore Roosevelt. A Republican. The president to give environmental policy modern form was Richard Nixon. A Republican. Just because I'm not going to be a democratic candidate for city council, doesn't mean I won't fight for environmental issues for my district and for this great city.
Issue Eight & Nine Residency & the West Side Stadium.
Anyone living in New York City can run for office to represent the communtiy they reside in, if they so choose. If you become politically active, you have a right to campaign and seek office. A few weeks ago, the NY Times had a piece stating many people my age feel they have outgrown the district. If you are not a life long resident already raising a family or if you're not a young 20-something trend setter, you will feel like an outcast in the East Village. I do not see how tenure in an area, whether it's two years or twenty, makes a huge difference on how effective you will be as a councilor.
The West Side Stadium is treated as a big issue and it's not in District 2. From what I've heard, it will certainly provide many jobs for construction workers. This is bad? Once it's built, it'll employee many new workers for football games and special events. And when something is being held at the stadium, the local businesses will see an increase in traffic. As for paying for it with taxpayer's money, this can be seen as a concern, but I think it's not something that is as big as it should be. With the amount of money NYC spends annually, having a budget around $50 Billion, a hundred times more than the cost of the stadium (which is only a one-time bill), the cost seems insignificant. We lose roughly $14 billion dollars in spending from the federal government in return for the billions in taxes we pay. On the State level, we lose roughly $10 billion. Mayor Bloomberg has been vocal about this and so has Public Advocate candidate, Jay Golub. Unfortunately, too many councilors, office holders and candidates just argue they need more money to get things done. We are talkinig billions of dollars here and democrats are arguing over something in the millions of dollars. For a lay person like you and me, yes, millions of dollars is a lot of money. But as for New York City? A few hundred million here is really just chump change.
