Brad Lander
At Monday night's Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Association's Council District Candidate Forum, I felt like Goldilocks.
One candidate was too angry (Republican Nardiello)
one was too smooth ( Democrat Lander)
and one was just right ( Green Pechefsky)
With the election just two weeks away, the three 39th District Council candidates answered questions on economic development, education, health, transportation and our budget during the present difficult financial times. The candidates each had two minutes to answer the questions. Glenn Kelly served as the night's moderator.one was too smooth ( Democrat Lander)
and one was just right ( Green Pechefsky)
The audience had a chance to ask questions at the end.
Though the answers given by the candidates were all rather predictable, it became clear that the Republican candidate Nardiello tried to be forceful right from the beginning, calling himself an independent and "a blue collar man in a white shirt". His attacks against the establishment would probably have had more impact, if he had offered a clearer outline of how he himself would fix the city's problems. He attacked Democrat Brad Lander several times. He pointed out Brad Lander's association with the Working Family Party and with present Councilman, Bill de Blasio, telling the audience: "You are looking at a third term of Bill De Blasio in Brad Lander."
Brad Lander, on the other hand, was smooth, maybe just a bit too smooth. After winning the Democratic primary in September, Lander is the front runner in this race. He came across as very confident, having had plenty of time to rehearse his answers to the more divisive issues.
He vowed to bring "real honesty and transparency" to the City Council. In answer to Nardiello's attack that his tenure as Councilman would be too much like Councilman de Blasio's, Lander reminded everyone that he differed with De Blasio on Atlantic Yards (Lander is against) and the Gowanus Superfund designation (Lander is for).
Sandwiched at the table between Lander and Nardiello, David Pechefsky came across as the non-politician. Actually, it was very refreshing. He told the audience that he felt the need to run for office after Mayor Bloomberg's shameless disregard for term limits. "It was a pivotal moment" he said and he wondered "Where is our democracy? Someone has to stand up to Mayor Bloomberg !" Pechefsky also feels that true reform in the NY City Council will only be achieved when the power held by the Council Speaker is curbed. He feels that current Speaker Christine Quinn has undue influence. "Our local government does not work for us because there is a disconnect to our elected officials."
Whichever one of the three candidates will be our next councilman, the community wants to " see an improvement over the last 8 years" under Bill de Blasio.
How much change we can expect remains to be seen.
6 comments:
Thanks for the update for those who couldn't make it!
Jim
---
twitter.com/277president
277president.com
Good update Katia, but why the preference for someone who can not win, and, if they would win, is "not a politician"?
Not that I love politicians, but in the current set up, with the current power structure, I would much prefer a forceful, powerful politician to represent our neighborhood than someone whose campaign platform seems to be railing against the most powerful politician in the city!
Hi Batman,
City Council is currently full of "forceful, powerful politicians" who seem to forget that they are representing constituents.
Maybe its time to think differently.
Unfortunately, City Council is largely neutered and under the thumb of a Speaker once thought progressive -- this is what identity politics gets you; her being an out lesbian, or Barack Obama being a black man, for that matter, is great symbolism, but symbolism isn't even half the battle of politics; politics is about power and the contesting for it -- and Quinn is under the thumb of the guy who's going to bankroll her retirement (some faculty position? some cushy non-profit? Whatver, Bloomie will buy it).
It would be great if EVERYONE changed. This is akin to the Tragedy of the Commons; it is not in our (the subject here being all city residents) best collective interests to have a council filled with powerful, forceful politicians beating their chests and competing for corporate donations, but until such time as the rest of the council is not filled with such, it IS in Carroll Gardens (and Park Slope and further afield) best interests to have the most forceful, powerful politician possible.
A very game theory notion, in that we have a decision that, with everyone acting in their own best interests, sacrifices the collective good.
I'm not condoning the system by any means, I just think that Brad has the best chance to "bring home the bacon" (horrible phrase, to be sure) for our neck of the woods.
Batman,
Most democrats can't vote Republican - regardless of who the person is.
So instead of electing someone who will be held accountable, they vote for the green party to feel good about not voting for the smooth talking Democrat. The bottom line is the Green candidate always finishes last with Republicans second.
Once the Democrat is elected, it's eight years of do-nothing service (DiBlasio). At least a Republican would not be re-elected after doing nothing! WE might actually get representation?
It's scary to vote Republican but at least Joe will be held accountable?
Post a Comment