By the time we leave New York, probably in 2023, we will have been here ten or eleven years. For the first eighteen months, Michael Bloomberg was mayor. Since then it has been Bill de Blasio. Next week the primaries take place to start the process of choosing our third NYC mayor.
Mayor of the city is quite an influential job, although power in many areas is circumscribed by the state and federal authorities. New Yorkers are obsessed by transport, reasonably enough, and love to blame the mayor for its failings, but in truth that is an area where the state has the power. But there are other fields, notably schooling and housing, where the mayor is an important voice. Further, the mayor controls many agencies and a large budget.
Bloomberg is an interesting character, unappealing in many ways, but he certainly left his mark as mayor. His overriding principle was to make decisions based on data, and that helped him to challenge shibboleths. The establishment did not like him but he got some good things done, including stabilising finances and enabling useful growth. Our expanding skyline, for good and ill, is a Bloomberg legacy.
De Blasio has been a more traditional mayor, and, like most politicians, is coming to the end of his term amid public derision, so much so that all but one candidate to take his job has said they would rather not have his endorsement. I think that judgment is harsh: he has been flawed but can also point to some signature achievements.
On the plus side, De Blasio successfully implemented the signature policy that got him elected, the admirable programme offering universal pre-schooling. Pre-school is a proven long-term driver for reducing poverty, crime and inequality, and NYC will enjoy the benefits of De Blasio’s effort for generations.
The other policy that de Blasio might be remembered for is bail reform. A laudable advocate for improved criminal justice, De Blasio set in place a process that will eventually close the squalid Riker’s Island prison. He also stopped the practice of using slow courts and bail as a way to keep many youths almost permanently on remand there, despite many not being convicted of crimes. It is a good policy, but one that clearly has a downside. Many of these youths are troubled and are habitual criminals, and now they are back on the street. This must be factor in the increase of murders and gun crime since 2020. Many New Yorkers remember when the city was unliveable and fear a return of that.
De Blasio’s long-term solutions for this problem are the right ones, but he has not managed to execute well during his tenure. He placed his wife in charge of an expensive mental health and rehabilitation program, which has so far not yielded results. And he has not had success in reducing homelessness either.
I give De Blasio a similarly mixed performance grade in other areas. Vision Zero for road safety is well chosen but could have been bolder, as were his initiatives to promote cycling and for open streets. During the pandemic he spoke well and showed heart. He avoided the rabbit hole of Trump bashing, but did not manage the same feat with Cuomo – perhaps the governor deserves the most blame for this, but De Blasio has also been naïve and petty. De Blasio was blamed for flip- flopping on school reopening, but on that I thought he was brave to push for a laudable priority, and it was a no-win to take on a public game of bluff with the teachers union.
De Blasio has also bloated the budget and has not succeeded in taking on vested interests. Efficiency and follow through do not seem to be important enough to him. He made a start with the NYPD but backed off, and other public sector workers are as entrenched as ever.
Although I will be glad when all the dull political ads stop on TV after next week, I have enjoyed the Democratic primary. The coverage on New York 1 has been excellent throughout – chapeau to Errol Lewis and his team.
There are some unfortunate quirks to the process. The main problem is that the election itself is in November and will feature a Republican, probably the odious vigilante leader Curtis Sliwa. We should not discount the chance that he might win, should crime get worse before November and if the Democrat is somehow tainted. Surely the Californian system of blended primaries leading to a run off between the two best candidates overall is an improvement.
A consequent problem is that the electorate is pitifully small for such an influential post. Many will vote in November, but in the June primaries only registered party members can vote, and the number of Democrats who will may be as few as 100,000.
Lastly we have the introduction of ranked choice voting. Another laudable initiative, this might have unintended consequences. It might be the reason that we still have such a large and confusing pool of candidates. It also might lead to a result where the driving factor is people trying to block one candidate.
The Democratic candidates are an interesting mix. The good news is that all seem informed and many seemed qualified to be mayor: partly thanks to New York 1, there has been meaningful exposure and debate. The race has ebbed and flowed as more people have tuned in to the candidates.
Eric Adams seems to be the favourite. A black career politician, he seems to have done a reasonable job as Brooklyn borough president, and even more circumscribed position. He comes across as austere, perhaps having had to sell himself for so long as an acceptable African-American. He has skilfully exploited the current fear of crime in the city, posing as a former NYPD officer who understands how to control crime. He lost my support though on the day he told Pat Kiernan on New York 1 that he thought De Blasio had done a good job in managing placard abuse by the NYPD. That laughable claim told me that he was in the pocket of the disgusting Pat Lynch. Police advocates have done a good job at reframing the debate since the left’s unwise slogan of Defund the Police. In reality, the police must be reformed. Adams would not do this.
Andrew Yang started in the lead, but has run a disappointing campaign. It is not enough to smile a lot and run ads enjoying roller coaster rides. Maya Wiley is an accomplished media performer, a true progressive and seemingly intelligent, but was too slow gathering endorsements from AOC and others (were they initially behind Stringer?), and has missed the mood on crime.
A dark horse is Kathryn Garcia, on stage a rather dull manager but someone who everyone seems to admire. Both Adams and Yang declared her their second choice, which may have been a tactical ploy to appear collegiate without feeding a genuine rival. But Garcia has patiently risen through the pack and ranked choice will certainly benefit her, as will her New York Times endorsement.
Scott Stringer was a very credible candidate, and has the best ads too, but lost the race the day a former staffer accused him of inappropriate sexual advances years ago. Sean Donovan is no doubt competent but is also dull, while Ray McGuire may also be competent but has not managed to differentiate himself. Diane Morales has differentiated herself strikingly, but in a bad way, revealing the sadly all-to-common managerial incompetence of the left.
I am not an eligible voter, but if I were I might go for Garcia and then Wiley and Yang, in an attempt to block Adams and his cosy NYPD relationship. Adams will probably win, but a surprise is possible with such a small electorate. In the same way, any of them will probably beat Sliwa, and we must pray that turns out to be the case, or we will have a Trump-like experience on our hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment