The following is a list of endorsements for C. Virginia Fields for the Democratic nomination for mayor of New York City from newspapers, civic groups, unions and other labor organizations, and politicians. It was culled from her Web site and from newspaper accounts and Internet searches. It is not intended to be comprehensive. This is also a work in progress. If you know of any additional endorsements, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
Amsterdam News
"Ms. Fields has been a hard-working, articulate spokesperson for the people of Manhattan and has done her best to spread her wings across the city in terms of her cooperation with presidents of other boroughs in making the citizens of each borough feel special. She is smart, fair and open …. She has done much to bring the Black and Jewish communities of her borough together, often withstanding anger and criticism from both sides of that divide."
Citizens Union
"It was Virginia's passion for the job, her extensive record of public service, her ability to work with many different communities all across this great city and her willingness to find new ways to involve citizens in how the city operates that won us over."
National Organization for Women New York City
Women Building for the Future
A committee developed by African-American women to support progressive African-American women candidates at the federal, state, and local level.
Women's Campaign Fund
A nonpartisan political action committee thatworks to elect pro-choice women.
Representative Charles Rangel
State Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson
State Assemblymember Annette Robinson
City Councilmember Charles Barron
City Councilmember YvetteClarke
Jeanne Shaheen, former governor of New Hampshire and Kerry-Edwards campaign chairwoman
If one defines a politician, as the dictionary does, as "someone actively involved in politics," Fields also has the endorsement of: Robin Chandler Duke, former president National Abortion Rights Action League; Hazel Dukes, former president New York NAACP; and Faye Wattleton, former president Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Â
The following is a list of endorsements for A. Gifford Miller for the Democratic nomination for mayor of New York City from newspapers, civic groups, unions and other labor organizations and politicians. It was culled largely from his Web site and also from newspaper accounts and Internet searches. This is not intended to be comprehensive. It is also a work in progress. If you know of any additional endorsements, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
Democracy for America (liberal group formed out of the Dean campaign)
Democracy for NYC (the local affiliate; has endorsed in several races)
Empire State Pride Agenda
The state's largest lesbian, gay. Bisexual and transgender civil rights organization. The group's executive director Alan Van Capelle said, Never in the history of New York have we had a Speaker as supportive as Gifford Miller. The number of LGBT bills and issues coming before the City Council during his tenure is unprecedented."
Tenants Political Action Committee
City Traffic Agents
(Communications Workers Union Local 1182)
Former City Employees
(District Council 37 Retirees Association)
Supermarket and food-store workers
(United Food and Commercial Workers 342
United Food and Commercial Works 1500)
Teamsters Local 237
Represents 24,000 public employees in New York City, including public school safety agents and public housing employees
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) Region 9A
Diverse union representing, among other, college teachers, hospital workers and people providing legal services
Former Council Speaker Peter Vallone
"He's the only one who has the experience in City Hall to run City Hall. When you're the speaker, you're in the foxhole, literally. The question is, who's best to run the war? I don't see how you could get any better than the field commander."
Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz
Queens Borough President Helen Marshall
Representative Carolyn Maloney
Miller began his political career as an aide to Maloney.
Former Representative Thomas Manton
State Senator Martin Malave Dilan
State Senator Thomas Duane
State Senator Liz Krueger
State Senator George Onorato
State Senator Diane Savino
State Senator Eric Schneiderman
State Senator Ada Smith
State Senator TobyStavisky
State Assemblymember PeterJ. Abbate Jr.
State Assemblymember William Boyland Jr.
State Assemblymember Ann MargaretCarrozza
State Assemblymember Adele Cohen
State Assemblymember Vivian Cook
State Assemblymember Steven Cymbrowitz
State Assemblymember Michael Ginaris
State Assemblymember A. Pete Grannis
State Assemblymember Andy Hevesi
State Assemblymember Rhoda Jacobs
State Assemblymember Joseph Lentol
State Assemblymember Vito Lopez
State Assemblymember Margaret Markey
State Assemblymember Nettie Mayersohn
State Assemblymember Joan Millman
State Assemblymember Clarence Norman
State Assemblymember Daniel O'Donnell
State Assemblymember Audrey Pheffer
State Assemblymember William Scarborough
State Assemblymember Frank Seddio
State Assemblymember Anthony Seminario
State Assemblymember Mark Weprin
City Councilmember Joseph Addabbo
City Councilmember Tracy Boyland
City Councilmember Gale Brewer
City Councilmember Erik Martin Dilan
City Councilmember Leroy Comrie
City Councilmember Vincent Gentile
City Councilmember James Gennaro
City Councilmember Eric Gioia
City Councilmember Melinda Katz
City Councilmember G. Oliver Koppell
City Councilmember John Liu
City Councilmember Michael McMahon
City Councilmember Michael Nelson
City Councilmember Christine Quinn
City Councilmember Dominic Recchia
City Councilmember Diana Reyna
City Councilmember Philip Reed
City Councilmember LarrySeabrook
City Councilmember Helen Sears
City Councilmember Kendall Stewart
City Councilmember DavidWeprin
City Councilmember PeterVallone Jr.
City Councilmember AlbertVann
City Councilmember David Yassky
Â
The following is a list of endorsements for Anthony Weiner for the Democratic endorsement for mayor of New York City from newspapers, civic groups, unions and other labor organizations and politicians. It was culled from his Web site and from newspaper accounts and Internet searches. This is not intended to be comprehensive. It is also a work in progress. If you know of any additional endorsements, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
Queens Chronicle
The Wave Weiner... is the “Energizer Bunny,” always on the go, always trying to ameliorate the impact of “Manhattan-based thinking” on the outer boroughs such as Queens. Has he always brought home the bacon for Rockaway? Not by a long shot, but he has always been in there swinging against the federal bureaucracy and, on the whole, has served Rockaway well.
Uniformed Firefighters Association
Mechanics and Transporation Workers (District 15 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers)
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union
"He stood up to Wal-Mart and helped stop that low-road, anti-worker retailer from opening in Rego Park, Queens. He has been steadfast in his support to bring a fair and decent contract to the workers at Duane Reade. No one will fight harder for the working men and women of New York City than Anthony Weiner."
StateAssemblymember William Colton.
State Assemblymember Michael Cusick
StateAssemblmember JeffreyDinowitz
"When the mayor turned his back on our community and tried to put a mammoth water filtration plant in Van Cortlandt Park, Anthony Weiner stood with us and fought back. He's standing with us in the fight to make sure meals-on-wheels works for our homebound seniors. He's standing with us in the fight to expand senior hours on our express buses. Unions and other Labor Groups
Â
The following is a list of endorsements to re-elect Bloomberg as mayor of New York City from newspapers, civic groups, unions and other labor organizations and politicians. It was culled from his Web site and from newspaper accounts and Internet searches. This is not intended to be comprehensive. It is also a work in progress. If you know of any additional endorsements, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
Ecua Times
(in pdf format; in Spanish)
(newspaper for the Ecuadoran community)
Ecuador Times
Sing Tao
(Chinese-language newspaper)
Haitian-American Alliance for Progress
Independence Party
Latina Political Action Committee
New York League of Conservation Voters
"The New York League of Conservation Voters' endorsement of Mayor Bloomberg for re-election recognizes his outstanding record in protecting clean air, clean water, parks and solid waste," said Charles S. Warren, chairperson of the group's board.
NARAL Pro-Choice New York
National Latino Peace Officers Association
UNITE Here
Represents apparel, textile and laundry workers
Building and Construction Trades Council
(Represents 60 labor unions with a combined membership of roughly 100,000)
Building workers and security guards
(Service Employees International Union 32BJ)
Carpenters
NYC District Council of Carpenters
City Mechanics (Local 246)
District Council 37
(The largest municipal employees union)
Day Care Workers
(District Council 1707)
Doctor's Council-SEIU
Fire Alarm Dispatchers Benevolent Association
Laborers
New York State Laborers Union
Electricians
Local Union Number 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
New York Police Department Hispanic Society
New York State Court Officers Association
Painters, District Council s
Paramedics
Uniformed EMTs and Paramedics - FDNY
Taxi Drivers
(NYS Federation of Taxi Drivers)
Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
Former Mayor Ed Koch
Former Representative Herman Badillo
Westchester District Attorney and Republican Senate candidate Jeanine Pirro
State Assemblymember Dov Hikind
"I'm a proud Democrat, but as we get closer to November, more and more Democrats are saying that the future of New York City is more important than party labels. I'm supporting the best candidate
Councilmember Simcha Felder
Â
The following is the text of a debate between the Democratic candidates for mayor of New York City: Fernando Ferrer, a former Bronx borough president; C. Virginia Field, the Manhattan borough president; Representative Anthony D. Weiner; and City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, moderated by Andrew Kirtzman of WCBS-TV.
Q. Good morning, I’m Andrew Kirtzman, moderator for today’s program. This debate will feature few rules and many opportunities for the candidates to engage one another. After each question any candidate will be free to jump in on the issue. Without further delay, the participating candidates are: the Manhattan Borough President, C. Virginia Fields; representing Brooklyn and Queens, Congressman Anthony Weiner; the speaker of the City Council, Gifford Miller, and former-Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer. Questioning the candidates with me this morning are WCBS-TV political reporter Marsha Kramer and The New York Times City Hall bureau chief Jim Rutenberg. Now, after a brief opening statement by each candidate, we will get right to the question and go on with just one break. The first statement will be given by Ms. Fields.
C. VIRGINIA FIELDS. Thank you. My vision for this city and my passion to serve comes out of my life experiences as a civil rights activist, community leader, social worker and elected official. And as mayor, I would draw upon these valuable experiences to make sure that New York City is the best place to raise a child, to live, to work and to grow old with dignity and security. So I ask for your vote.
Q. O.K. Anthony Weiner.
ANTHONY WEINER. Well, good morning and thanks, CBS and The New York Times, for having this. This is a great opportunity for me to become a little better known, perhaps the least well-known of the candidates. Let me tell you a little bit about who I am. I grew up in a middle-class family in Brooklyn, represent Brooklyn and Queens in Congress, after I worked for my mentor, Chuck Schumer, for years. You know, I have a different perspective in this race. I think we need to work very hard to let the middle class know we understand the challenge they face. That’s why I have a specific plan to provide a 10-percent tax cut for anyone making less than $150,000 a year, to cut waste and to give teachers, like my mother, who is a 31-year school teacher, a raise.
Q. Thank you.
WEINER. This is my chance and I hope that you’ll listen to what I have to say.
Q. O.K., Gifford Miller.
GIFFORD MILLER. Well, good morning. I’m running for mayor because right now we have a caretaker mayor who’s out of ideas and has no vision of where he wants to take the city over the next four years. In fact he actually said this on Friday. When asked what he wanted to do with the next four years he said, well, I’ll tell you what, I’ll tell you in January. I don’t think that’s good enough. And I do have a plan of where I want to take this city. I want to lower class sizes, fix the guts of our subway system, get our fair share from Washington and Albany, and make sure we both preserve and create more affordable housing. And I have a record of real results for people in this city. And that’s why I’m running for mayor.
Q. Thank you very much. Fernando Ferrer.
FERNANDO FERRER. Mike Bloomberg spent three and a half years trying to build a football stadium for his wealthy developer friend, but what about the New Yorker who can’t afford a multi-million dollar condo or to send his or her child to private school? I’m running for mayor because I want to resolve the crisis of dropouts in our public school system, the crisis of affordability in housing, the crisis of high unemployment among African-American and Latino men that brings our entire city down. Now, my argument isn’t with any of my Democratic colleagues, but with Mike Bloomberg for having turned his back on those three crises. —
Q. Thank you.
FERRER. I’m running for mayor to make New York make New York work better for every New Yorker, not just some of them.
Q. All right, thank you very much, Fernando Ferrer. We now move on to our questions. We have asked the candidates to keep their answers relatively brief. And once again, I want to stress we’re going to keep this as conversational as possible, very few rules this morning. So let’s get started. Marsha Kramer.
Q. Madame Borough President, The Daily News last week called your debate lackluster and described the four of you, as I quote, the Ferrer-Miller-Weiner-Fields blob. It’s said that you describe a city that’s afire but your solutions are only squirt gun solutions. So I’d like you to name one thing that you would do differently from Mayor Bloomberg that proves The Daily News wrong and shows that instead of a squirt gun you’ve got a bazooka.
FIELDS. You know, there are a number of priorities that affect our lives in this city that this mayor simply has not addressed. Let’s start with the issue of affordable housing. We still have one our of five New Yorkers, especially those at the low-income level, who are paying more than 50 percent of their income, total income, for rent. And on a national level, if a household is paying 30 percent or less, that is considered affordable. So this mayor has not addressed that and every time I’m out in the communities talking with people, that is their No. 1 concern that I am always confronted with. And I say, you know, we need a mayor who not only has built affordable president, as borough president, I have brought on line in excess of 2,000 units in one community.
Q. So your solution is —
FIELDS. My solution is —
Q. Affordable housing.
FIELDS. — to get it done. To get it done, we must do public investment in terms of building affordable housing —
Q. I think we’ve got to let the other candidates —
FIELDS. — as well as other incentives.
MILLER. I’ll draw a strong contrast for you, Marsha. Mike Bloomberg seems to be satisfied with 550,000 kids failing in our schools. And his solution is more and more test preparation and more tests. Mine is smaller class sizes and I have a specific plan in order to accomplish it: cancel a tax cut that’s coming January 1 for people making more than $500,000 a year; put that $400 million immediately towards lowering class sizes right now to 17 kids in a class for kindergarten through third grade, 20 kids for fourth and fifth, and 23 kids for sixth through eighth. I spent a year teaching once a week in an eighth-grade social studies class in Long Island City and I saw kids that just aren’t prepared. If we want to change that, we should lower class sizes. That’s a positive education —
Q. With all due respect to all the candidates, all of whom have very thoughtful ideas, these proposals that we’re hearing this morning have been articulated over and over again, and yet once again many Democrats feel as though they’re not kind of adding up to anything larger. Why might that be, Fernando Ferrer?
FERRER. Well, let me get right to it, Andrew. That same editorial pointed out that my housing proposal, to build and maintain the affordability of 167,000 units of housing in this city, was a serious plan. And the fact is Mike Bloomberg has turned his back on the housing affordability crisis in the city. When you have apartments in Manhattan going for $1.3 million and more, where are every-day New Yorkers going to live? My plan deals with that.
Q. Anthony Weiner?
WEINER. You know, to some degree I empathize with people who say that Democrats have been going in the wrong direction. You know, we’ve lost three straight municipal elections and we’re not going to win unless we articulate a slightly different vision than we have in the past. And I think what’s important is that we acknowledge — middle-class New Yorkers are wondering what the Democratic Party stands for. And in my view, we have to articulate the idea their taxes are not too low, as Mike Bloomberg has implied; they’re too high. We need to have a specific plan for how we give teachers a raise and, also, how we pay for those raises. But I think that it’s — I’m always puzzled by, in the context of a debate, people talk about — questions like yours come up: Well, how come we’re not talking about issues? Well, that’s why we’re here, we’re here to talk about the substantive difference. And I hope after this primary, I have a chance to debate Mike Bloomberg on a couple of things, debate Mike Bloomberg on the idea that health care is fine in this city when 1.8 million are uninsured, that everything is fine when over 500,000 children went hungry last year, had to turn to a soup kitchen for a meal. I think New Yorkers don’t think that everything is rosy and they want a real debate about these issues.
FIELDS. But I also just want to point out that there are a lot of people who are left out. Let’s look at minority and women business entrepreneurs. Absolutely nothing is being done to expand contracts that allow them to grow jobs and to be able to invest in neighborhoods and communities.
Q. O.K., Jim Rutenberg.
Q. This one’s for the congressman. Crime continues to drop, unemployment’s at its lowest level since 9/11. Many top Democrats are getting behind this mayor. We’ve already started to go into some of the issues here that I think you’re coming into more here, but how are you going to make a case that Mayor Bloomberg should be fired and is that case hard in light of these statistics?
WEINER. Well, let me say, you know, one of the things I’m going to say to my Democratic brothers and sisters who say in these polls, well, Mike Bloomberg isn’t so terrible: I say, first of all, you know, campaign 2006 — 2008 starts today. We have to start articulating what the vision of our party is and we have to be a party of ideas. And I think that I presented some of these ideas. You know this notion that everything is fine — ask — I’d like to have this debate with Mike Bloomberg. I want to ask him whether he thinks schools are going in the right direction when so many parents, particularly middle-class parents, are taking their kids out of public schools; whether he thinks that it’s O.K. that for almost three years now teachers have been without a contract; whether he thinks it’s O.K. that — Mike Bloomberg once said that the poor get better health care in this city than the well-to-do do. I think that we need a different vision.
And I do agree with one thing: It is not just enough to say, I’m a Democrat, therefore vote for me. Or I’m not Mike Bloomberg or I’m not George Bush. We do have to articulate a view and, hopefully, we’ll have a chance once we get done with the process questions to talk about my specific views on how, for example —
Q. Let me try —
MILLER. Can I just say something —
Q. Well, let me ask a question. C. Virginia Fields, let me try it this way. Name one policy proposal you have that is not supported by all the traditional Democratic interest groups.
FIELDS. One of the things I’ve talked about is how we will reshape our schools. Yes, we are in agreement that smaller class size: important; recruiting and retaining teachers: important. I would focus on getting back to some very basic math —
Q. Just what is the — just give us the No. 1 —
FIELDS. — and science.
Q. — issue that you have that’s not —
FIELDS. The No. 1 issue in terms of —
Q. — supported by all the traditional Democratic groups.
FIELDS. — in terms of priority: excellence in our schools.
Q. Everyone —
FIELDS. I would increase — no, no, no, listen to me.
Q. But everybody says — everybody.
FIELDS. You haven’t heard me, you haven’t heard me.
Q. O.K., go ahead.
FIELDS. Expanding on math and science so that we can better prepare our students for the next generation of students.
Q. But what is it — you’re not answering the question.
FIELDS. Expanding in technology and —
Q. What we’re looking for is a fresh idea.
FIELDS. — vocational schools.
MILLER. Can I jump in here?
Q. Yes.
FIELDS. Not any of my other opponents have said —
Q. Gifford Miller.
FIELDS. — that that’s what they would do. And I think that is important —
Q. Gifford Miller.
FIELDS. — because we’re not preparing our students in order to move forward.
Q. Gifford Miller.
MILLER. I’ll overhaul that teachers’ contract so that you can’t make tenure until you can actually prove that, with real results, that you can teach while making sure that we have a contract for teachers that pays competitively because, for the most part, we need to attract and retain quality teachers. That means paying more competitively, paying teachers more to teach in low-performing, high-needs schools because right now we put our most junior people into our most challenging assignments.
But let me say something to Jim’s question, which is, look, what I’m concerned about here is that I think New Yorkers want something better and they want to know what’s going to happen the next four years. We should not be in the position that we’re trying to convince New Yorkers that the city’s fallen apart over the last four years — it hasn’t fallen apart over the last four years. The question is: Who is going to build a better city over the next four? And the point here is that Mike Bloomberg has no real ideas, he’s run out of them completely. And what I think all the candidates here are offering are ways to fix our schools, and they’re unacceptable.
[all speaking at once]
Q. Anthony Weiner.
WEINER. I’m actually going to answer the question what I would do different from the Democratic orthodoxy. I’d proposal several things. One, I’ve said that we, as Democrats, have to get back to the place where we embrace organizations of faith to help us solve some of these problems. No discrimination, of course, but we have to use them.
Secondly, I have said over and over again, we have to fight to preserve Catholic schools and Yeshivas, as well as our public schools, something Democrats should be in the position of.
And listen, there’s a disagreement at this table about whether or not we should cut taxes like I want to do. So I think there are many ways that I have said that I’m different than Democrats and I think we do have to go in a different direction. We have lost three straight municipal elections. The same old rhetoric will not work.
FERRER. Let’s face at least two things here. First of all, education and public schools in particular present to us two crises that we have to resolve: One, the mayor seems to think or is oblivious to the fact that more than 50 percent of our kids are dropping out. Now, we all know where they end up — on some street corner, out of a job, out of luck. We only manage, according to Harvard University, to graduate 38 percent of our kids on time with all the tools they need either to go on to a skilled job or a college education. And the simple fact is we do even worse with African-American and Latino kids. I’m not —
Q. Fernando Ferrer —
FERRER. — content to not face these crises head on.
Q. But do me a favor, address my question head on, if you could, which was name me the top issue that you have that is not supported by all the familiar Democratic interest groups.
FERRER. You know, I just did, Andrew.
Q. Which one?
FERRER. Most people are concerned about the fact that our public schools are failing too many of our kids and most of the interest groups and most of the people, most of the polling, most of the politicians say, it’s terrific that we have rising test scores in the early grades, especially in an election year. But the simple fact is it’s unacceptable to have a 50-percent dropout rate.
WEINER. Yeah, before we move on, let’s remember something: I’m proud of my Democratic lineage, I’m proud of the fact that we’re espousing Democratic ideals. Somehow a litmus test should be, well, how do you disagree with your party? You know, there are certain basic values. I would ask my Democratic friends to look at Mike Bloomberg and see how he fights for George Bush and say, is that a Democratic value? Is that a New York City value?
Q. Can I break in here? Mr. Bloomberg has a rap as somewhat of a Democrat in a Republican’s clothing. How — what policies has he enacted locally that are very Republican or mirror those of the Republican Party?
MILLER. Well, I’ll give you that. He vetoed legislation to provide equal benefits to New Yorkers on the basis of their sexual orientation. He vetoed legislation to provide emergency contraception to sexual assault victims in emergency rooms in this city. This is a mayor who failed to provide food stamps to hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who would otherwise — who would otherwise be eligible.
But let me just say something on what the congressman said earlier. He said there’s a difference of opinion about whether or not to provide tax cuts to the middle class on this issue. I agree, we need to provide tax cuts to the middle class. I’ve proposed a doubling of the earned income tax credit, I’ve proposed a renter’s tax credit for people making up to $100,000. But I don’t think that the way to do that is to propose a tax cut that you can’t really pay for and the congressman’s cut is, frankly, paid for by gimmicks: $500 million of proposed financing is from the capital budget, and you know you can’t finance a capital — a budget cut with —
WEINER. Gifford, waste is waste. If it’s — waste on any side of the budget, we should cut it out. And this is the problem with the status quo of our party. If you think we can’t cut out waste, at least 5 percent like I proposed, you shouldn’t be mayor because there’s at least 5 percent of waste in every single budget and we have to find it, whether it’s capital budget, expense budget, raised from private sources. Wherever it is, Gifford, this is the problem. So many Democrats say, oh, you want to cut waste. We can’t do that. Yes, we can. Make Anthony Weiner mayor, you’re going to see how much we can cut.
FIELDS. What I would also like to point out in terms of different things that this mayor has done —
Q. O.K., but let Mr. Miller respond and then you can go, Ms. Fields.
FIELDS. O.K.
MILLER. I agree that we do have to cut waste. I’ve actually presided over four tough budgets in which I’ve cut more than $3 billion out of the budget. And I do think we need to do more to cut more waste. We could reduce our energy bills, we could cut our overtime savings. We could do a lot more to — waste, but when you come up with a list of $1.7 billion, $925 million of which is Medicaid fraud savings overnight and then $500 million of it is not refinanceable even though you’re trying to finance it for an ongoing $1.7-billion cut, what I’m saying is give us your ideas, the real ideas.
WEINER. I don’t want to belabor the point here, but the idea that —
FIELDS. I want to get into the conversation.
WEINER. I understand, I understand. But I just want to respond here. The idea that proposing savings in Medicaid by eliminating fraud is so offensive to your sensibilities shows why we need a change in our party. We need to reduce waste and I’m committed to doing it and every New Yorker watching this should say that the Democratic —
Q. Mrs. Fields.
FIELDS. And I believe, you know what —
WEINER. — nominee —
FIELDS. — Andrew, that each one of us will be committed to eliminating waste because we have some serious budget problems facing us over the next fiscal years. But this is a mayor, also, who closed firehouses. And we have seen response time increase. Safety and security is extremely important.
Q. So what would you do about it? Response times have actually gone up 20 seconds in the last fiscal year. What would you do about it?
FIELDS. Time makes a difference.
Q. What would you do about it? If you were mayor —
FIELDS. As a priority —
Q. — what would you do about it?
FIELDS. — as a priority, I would reopen firehouses because in those communities where residential development is moving, businesses are growing, safety and security —
Q. Mr. Miller, do you agree with that?
FIELDS. — must be protected.
MILLER. I do, I’ve been very clear. I think that closing those firehouses was a terrible mistake —
Q. But the thing is that you promised three times to put money in the budget to save the firehouses and to reopen the firehouses and you never did it.
MILLER. No, no, I never promised to reopen the firehouses because the City Council doesn’t have the power.
Q. You said you would fund it. You didn’t do it.
MILLER. I said I would fund it.
Q. And you never did.
MILLER. Well, unfortunately, the mayor made very clear that if we put the money in the budget, that he would not spend it and he would not reopen the firehouses. We did force two of those firehouses to remain open.
Q. Don’t you look on that as a broken promise?
MILLER. No, because, unfortunately, I don’t have the power to do this. My making good on that promise is running for mayor, and when I’m mayor I will reopen those firehouses. And I will overhaul the Department of Homeland Security and create it and so that we can actually have a real readiness that we do not have right now and which we’re endangering our uniformed workers by putting them in joint commands without a way of resolving disputes — with the citywide incident management system is a mistake —
Q. Jim Rutenberg.
MILLER. — and I would make very clear that we need a —
Q. Mr. Weiner is shaking his head.
Q. Oh good, go ahead.
Q. Mr. Weiner is shaking his head. Mr. Weiner.
WEINER. No, I just — look, it’s very difficult being the speaker of the City Council, it’s a difficult job. But you can’t in the same campaign say, I passed these tough budgets but I’m not accountable for the bad things in them. You know, frankly, the firehouses were closed under your watch. They should not have been and they should be opened immediately.
FERRER. You know, I’d like to try to answer the question you posed three minutes ago. Mike Bloomberg is a Republican. He stood by while his Republican colleagues in the United States Senate were debating two alternative amendments on homeland security — one based on pork barrel politics, the other based on real risk. He took a day off, he managed to sign a generic letter with the city’s support. By contrast, the newly elected mayor of Los Angeles gets on a plane, goes to D.C. and fights for his city. Mike Bloomberg should have done that. A Mayor Ferrer will do that.
Q. But with all due respect, Mr. Ferrer, the last three and a half years have seen very little of you and the people have kind of been wondering why you weren’t on the front lines fighting against George W. Bush or, for that matter, Michael Bloomberg. Where were you?
FERRER. Well, you know I was out of public office from the end of 2001, Andrew, but that didn’t silence my voice. That didn’t silence my voice talking about the things that I think are important: social and economic mobility —
Q. I saw a column in The Daily News —
FERRER. — social and economic justice.
Q. — but not so much more. Did you —
FERRER. Did you like my columns in The Daily News?
Q. Sometimes.
FERRER. Thank you.
Q. Did you decide to take a lower profile deliberately because you weren’t in the public eye?
FERRER. I wasn’t in public office, but that didn’t mean I was silent on the issues of importance: housing, health care, education. And you know that, Andrew, New Yorkers know that because they’ve seen my voice over and over again.
MILLER. Can I just point out, Andrew, on that point that this is a difference. I was in there every single day fighting the fights against this Republican mayor. And people don’t have to wonder where my priorities are going to lie in the future. I put education first, I already saved senior centers and other types of cuts — library closures, other things. I’ve made clear
Q. We’d like to move —
MILLER. — where my priorities are and —
Q. Great. Jim Rutenberg.
MILLER. — I will make clear where they are —
Q. Mr. Ferrer, we’re going to take a veer off — a new subject here. In 1997, you called the procedure known as late-term abortion barbaric. In 2001, you said you supported the procedure. How did your view come to evolve and where do you stand now?
FERRER. Late-term abortion is supported by law in New York State, as you know. And I support a woman’s right to seek an abortion that should be safe, legal and rare. But the simple fact is that people across the board have not only recognized my record — as a member of the Council and as borough president, a member of the Board of Estimate for three years — on that consistent strong record. In fact, it’s been recognized by Kate Michelman, who used to head NARAL America, who supports my candidacy for mayor.
Q. But did you view evolve because you did use the term barbaric and clearly you don’t think that now? So was it education? How did you come to change —
FERRER. That was in response to a politically-charged term, and everybody knows that. My view on abortion has remained unchanged: safe, legal and rare.
Q. But did you think it was barbaric at the time and now you don’t? And was that —
FERRER. I’ve just told you that my response was in — my word was in response to that politically-charged question.
Q. So was it —
FERRER. Again, I say — No, again I say abortion should always be safe, legal and rare. I have record, by the way, that supports that well before any of this discussion ever took place, from 1982 going forward.
Q. Are the three of you satisfied with that answer?
WEINER. I’ve spent my years in Congress on the Judiciary Committee fighting the incrementalism of people trying to take away women’s rights to their own reproductive health and I believe that efforts to restrict late-term abortion undermines women’s health and I fought against it all the way along. I’ve been 100 percent pro-choice, unwavering, unequivocal since the —
[all speaking]
Q. Everyone at this table is pro-choice
MILLER. What I want to know, Andrew, is why the mayor gets away with vetoing legislation here to provide emergency contraception to women in the City of New York, then when the governor vetoes it during an election year for the mayor, he just says, you know what, I’m very disappointed in the governor’s decision. And then how is he not called for account for the hypocrisy of supporting —
WEINER. I couldn’t agree more with Speaker Miller.
Q. Was NARAL pro-choice, then, misguided in its endorsement of the mayor?
MILLER. Yes, they were wrong. This is a mayor who vetoed emergency contraception legislation here. When the governor does it, NARAL goes nuts, sends out letters and has the mayor say it’s disappointing, and completely ignores the fact that this is a mayor who not only vetoed it, but since we passed that legislation he’s done nothing to enforce it. One-quarter of the pharmacies in the City of New York —
FIELDS. This is an incredibly important issue and each one of us has an obligation and responsibility to just be absolutely clear. I am pro-choice and it is —
Q. All right, everyone’s pro-choice at this table.
FIELDS. Absolutely.
Q. Marsha Kramer.
Q. Mr. Miller, the new police contract gives trainees only $25,000. It’s a major issue in terms of recruiting, especially in these times in New York City where we have the threat of terrorism. I wonder, if you were mayor, would you be willing to ignore the collective bargaining agreement, come up with more money for the recruits and, if so, how much?
MILLER. Well, I wouldn’t ignore the collective bargaining agreement. What I would do is go collectively bargain, which is a distinction that this mayor has missed. The point here is that this mayor has allowed a provision in that contract which really undermines our public safety. There is no question that you are going to have a serious problem recruiting police officers when you’re having to tell them that they start out at $25,000 a year.
Q. So how do you come up with the money?
MILLER. You have to go and negotiate. Look, the Police Department — the Police unions want something better than that. You go and say, look, I’d like to give you something better. I need a little here, I need a little there. But we’re going to do better than $25,000 a year.
FERRER. Let me try to add something there. Mike Bloomberg’s principal failure is having failed to sit at the table and negotiate this contract. He let an independent state board decide 5 percent and 5 percent, and the unconscionably low entry-level pay for police officers. Now, think about this a second: A police officer is married, two small kids, will make a few dollars more than the cutoff for food stamps. That’s wrong.
Q. What would you do about that? What would you do about that?
FERRER. I would have sat at the table and negotiated a different contract.
Q. Yeah, but where are you going to get the money and how much would you spend?
WEINER. Marsha, you asked a question that is the defining difference between the candidates here. You know, we all want to increase pay for teachers, for police officers. I’ve have a proposal on how to do it and it doesn’t involve raising taxes, it does involve eliminating waste — something both of — two of my opponents to my left —
Q. So how would you raise money? How much would you give to the new recruits —
WEINER. Here’s what I’d say: I’m committed — I’m committed to reducing waste 5 percent in this city. I’m committed to a 10-percent tax cut of the middle class. And one of the ways —
Q. But that doesn’t answer the question about the police.
WEINER. It actually does. My financial plan provides enough for teacher —
Q. Will you ignore the collective bargaining agreement and give more money to the cops on your mayoral budge —
WEINER. The answer is I’m going to negotiate a higher salary for police officers. But let me answer your question, specifically where you get the money from. I’ve proposed a 10-percent tax cut on anyone making less than $150,000 a year. I pay for it by having a 5-percent reduction in waste. Jack Welch[sp?] model — things that are less efficient we eliminate. And the third thing that we’re going to do is we’re going to add a seventh tax bracket to those making more than $1 million a year to make the tax code more progressive. That’s how I pay for it. I don’t raise taxes, I do cut waste. This is a difference in our party and I think it’s an important difference.
FIELDS. Let me just — let me just comment on that, Gifford, at this point, too —
MILLER. Sure.
FIELDS. — is that I think it is important that we increase the starting salary beyond $25,000 because we are not going to be able to recruit the caliber of people and we understand that. And that is a negotiation process.
Q. So what do you do? How do you get the money?
FIELDS. But you know, the question is often asked how do you get money —
Q. I mean these people are going to come into the academy now.
FIELDS. — and I just want to point out: Budgets reflect priorities of any mayor who sets them.
Q. Ms. Fields, where —
FIELDS. And as a priority —
Q. — where do you get the money for this?
FIELDS. As a priority within the existing budget.
WEINER. But where? Virginia, where do you get the money?
FIELDS. Anthony, you get it out of the budget, that’s where you get it from. We have a $50-billion budget.
WEINER. But this is money you’re adding to the budget. Where do you get the added money?
FIELDS. You can reorder priorities within a budget.
WEINER. This is what’s wrong. O.K.
FIELDS. It is not what is wrong. As a Council member —
WEINER. And the difference between me and the other candidates here —
FIELDS. No, no, listen, as a former Council member, Gifford, who also was a member of the finance committee for seven years, negotiated budgets for seven years, priorities are —
Q. Anthony Weiner, what do you mean —
FIELDS. — often, you know, redirected.
Q. This is what’s wrong?
WEINER. Look, we’ve lost —
FIELDS. And so I want that to be a part of the discussion.
Q. Anthony Weiner.
WEINER. We’ve lost three straight municipal elections. And one of the reasons is I think we’ve lost sight of the fact that middle-class New Yorkers, those striving to get into the middle class, they’re looking for specific ideas on how you’re going to fund your priorities. It is not enough just to say, get it where we can get it or try to find it later on or raise taxes or don’t cut waste. I think we need to have —
MILLER. No, no, no. —
WEINER. — alternatives.
FIELDS. It is not enough to —
MILLER. Just a second. Just one second —
FIELDS. — put forward —
MILLER. — because I did not say that we shouldn’t cut waste. I’ve actually cut waste. What I said is just that there’s nothing new about making a bunch of promises that you can’t keep that aren’t painful to anybody. That’s the oldest trick in the book. And saying that you’re going to come up with $925 worth of tax fraud from Medicaid sounds great, but where? And what I’ve actually done is pass legislation to require the whistleblowers get something back from Medicaid tax fraud. I’ve actually done something on this subject. And the congressman has just come up with a — oh, sure, let’s come up with $925 —
WEINER. One-point-seven billion dollars in specific cuts. Let me talk to you about Medicaid —
MILLER. — or 1.3 —
WEINER. — let me talk to you about —
[all talking]
WEINER. Let me talk to you about this Medicaid —
MILLER. That’s just a gimmick, Anthony.
Q. Quick response, Anthony Weiner.
WEINER. Well, I just think that Mr. Miller seems so incredulous you can get savings from Medicaid. Let me tell you what you can do. The New York Times computerized all of the records of Medicaid over the last several years and found so much waste it filled up a whole front page story. Why haven’t we done it? Because the City Council and the mayor have refused to have computerized intake of Medicaid forms. That’s something that would save an enormous amount of money. If The New York Times can do it, why couldn’t the City Council do it?
Q. Fernando Ferrer.
MILLER. Well, the City Council has nothing to do with the computerization of Medicaid forms and you know it, you were on the City Council, Anthony.
WEINER. Listen, listen — in a democracy —
MILLER. You also know that you can’t finance a tax cut on the expense budget off of the capital budget because —
FERRER. Mr. Miller, you —
MILLER. — as you know, Anthony, the —
FIELDS. I think all of it is political.
MILLER. The gimmicks are not the solution. What is the solution is offering real solutions to cut —
Q. Freddy Ferrer.
MILLER. — middle-class taxes — payers. And that’s what I’ve done. I am committed to that and I will do that.
Q. Freddy Ferrer.
FERRER. With all due respect, there are three crises facing this city: high dropout rate, affordability in housing, unconscionably high unemployment rate, especially among African-American and Latino males. And with all due respect, again, this isn’t the time for baby steps. This is the time for bold solutions. We’ve got to put forward —
WEINER. Not bold tax increases, Freddy.
FERRER. — we’ve got to put forward solutions that deal with these crises. And if you don’t think that high dropout rate — more than 50 percent — brings this city down —
Q. Well, let’s stay with this —
FERRER. — then we do have a difference of opinion.
Q. — let’s stay on this issue. Let’s stay with this issue —
WEINER. A big tax increase does not — I don’t consider a big tax increase to solve education, especially a stock-transfer tax from the 1970’s isn’t a bold idea, it is a bad idea. And that’s what this debate should be about, not whether we solve problems —
FERRER. Let’s discuss that —
WEINER. — it’s whether or not we do it —
FERRER. — let’s discuss that.
WEINER. — in a smart way that makes our party the electable party for the generation moving forward.
FERRER. — because, Congressman, you keep on, time after time, confusing a mom-and-pop investor with the global investment community. But here’s the question: Ask any one of those mom-and-pop investors, would you rather pay a half a penny a share —
WEINER. But not people who work on Wall Street.
FERRER. Excuse me a second. Excuse me a second, I didn’t interrupt you, Anthony.
WEINER. Oh, I’m sorry. You were the only one who hadn’t interrupted today, you’re right.
FERRER. Thank you. Here’s the question: Ask any one of them, would you rather pay a half a penny a share, a transaction or would you rather pay thousands of dollars a year in tuition to a private school? I think I know the answer —
WEINER. Freddy, you know who I agree with on this?
FERRER. — because I’ve asked them.
WEINER. I agree with you, who said it wasn’t the greatest idea in the world. I agree with your supporter, Eliot Spitzer, who reportedly said it was crazy. I agree with people who say that taxing —
FERRER. You can’t make things up, Anthony. Come on.
WEINER. — Wall Street is like someone in Wisconsin proposing a dairy tax. It hurts everyone —
FERRER. Anthony, it’s not about baby steps, it’s about bold solutions.
FIELDS. Andrew, ultimately — Andrew and Marsha, ultimately, the way we pay for all of this, and that is my focus — through growth. We must create jobs in this city. We must put on a faster pace. A number of these economic development initiatives like the Javits Center, we must expand that in order to bring resources into this city. Job growth —
Q. We need to take a —
FIELDS. — is the focus that I have.
Q. — a break for a —
MILLER. When we come back, I get a shot at it?
Q. — commercial. You’ll all get a shot.
MILLER. Oh, great.
Q. Thank you all very much. It’s a very lively debate. You are watching the Democratic mayoral candidates debate. We will be back in a moment.
[break for commercials]
Q. Welcome back to our debate among the four Democratic candidates for mayor. I want to turn to Marsha Kramer to resume the questioning. Marsha.
Q. You know, Mr. Ferrer, when we left the last segment we were talking about your proposal for stock transfer tax and there was a discussion about who it would effected — But what you left out was it also affects the businesses, a very big business in New York, the financial industry. Aren’t you afraid by proposing a stock transfer tax that the financial industry will take some of their business and go to New Jersey and have their back offices in New Jersey because they don’t want to pay this tax?
FERRER. Marsha, my school investment plan is one that not only sunsets after four years —
Q. Yeah, but that’s four years where people could move.
FERRER. Excuse me. And not only provides a quarter of a billion dollars to help the Stock Exchange move in an accelerated way to a hybrid trading platform, but does something else. I make the argument that if we don’t graduate more kids with all the tools they need either for a skilled job or a college education, businesses will leave because we’re not producing qualified, trained and ready workers for them. And that’s the future of this city, making an investment in the future of this city that pays big dividends. As the financial community and every New Yorker knows, in the future of these kids and the future of business in this city.
Q. So you don’t care that it’s perceived as an anti-business tax.
FERRER. You know something, the last time the Stock Exchange threatened to move was because, you recall they put forward a plan to get $1 billion worth of combined city and state subsidies. They didn’t get the subsidies and they didn’t move.
Q. Mr. Miller, you’re shaking your head.
MILLER. Well, I just — look, I agree with Anthony, and have consistently said from Day 1, that I think the stock transfer tax is a bad idea. But I do think that Freddy deserves some credit for at least honestly saying how he would pay for the improvements to schools.
I’ve laid out a serious proposal that is very clear on how we would pay for — canceling a tax cut, not raising anyone’s taxes but canceling a coming tax cut for people making more than $500,000 a year and, also, a plan to cut taxes for small businesses going forward, which is financed, honestly, by making sure that insurance companies, which are the only corporation in the entire city of New York — the only set of corporations pay no corporate taxes. If we taxed insurance companies, we could finance serious deep cuts for small businesses —
Q. Anthony Weiner.
MILLER. — which create the growth in this city.
WEINER. Could I just correct one misconception left by Mr. Ferrer’s description? You know, Wall Street jobs are not robber baron jobs, they’re not just rich people jobs. The guy that runs the catering cart, the guy who’s a trader on the floor, these are middle-class New York jobs that we have to desperately try to protect. If we start hemorrhaging support, if we start hemorrhaging by this big tax —
FERRER. And, Anthony, they’re also paying thousands of dollars —
WEINER. — where are the first jobs that are going to go?
FERRER. — of tuition to private schools.
WEINER. The first job —
FERRER. What do you do about that?
WEINER. — the first job that we have to do is protect middle-class New Yorkers in this city, Freddy, and this is a tax that are going to drive their jobs away. I’m not the only one to say, it’s virtual consensus, and, frankly, even your supporters —
FERRER. You know something —
WEINER. — like Carl McCall, say it.
FERRER. You know something, Anthony, again, you shouldn’t really make things up. Here’s the problem —
WEINER. Which part did I make up, Mr. Ferrer?
FERRER. Eliot Spitzer calling it crazy? You made that up, come on.
WEINER. That’s what was reported in The Daily News and I believe what I read in The Daily News.
MILLER. But Eliot Spitzer does, in fact —
FERRER. Anthony, here —
MILLER. — every time, I just want to say that.
FERRER. — Anthony, look, let me be clear. And my argument is —
WEINER. Mr. Spitzer —
FERRER. — my argument isn’t with you, nor with any of my Democratic colleagues up here. Let me tell you what it is with — it’s with a mayor who turns his back on a crisis in our public schools. And if we don’t do anything to resolve it — look, I put forward a plan to deal with it, I put forward a plan to pay for it. But even more specifically and more fundamentally, I understand the value of a good education because, were it not for that, somebody else would be answering this question right now. We owe this to 1.1 million kids and you can’t tell those kids —
Q. Jim Rutenberg.
FERRER. — a generation of whom we’re losing, that we have no plan for them.
FIELDS. But, Andrew — Marsha, rather, in response to your question. One point that —
Q. I really wanted to get — I’m sorry.
FIELDS. — the one point that, I think, each of the two candidates continue to miss and that is as mayor, we should be pressuring Albany for moneys from the campaign for fiscal equity. That is where the courts decided the decision should be made. This mayor has not done one thing in terms of public pressure and as mayor, that is where I will begin in terms of getting the moneys —
Q. C. Virginia Fields, you were so quiet throughout three and a half years as Manhattan Borough president when it came to issues involving Mayor Bloomberg. I can’t remember one time where I saw you get up on the steps of City Hall and come out nearly as strongly as you’ve come out against in this campaign. Are you just kind of a new convert to this idea?
FIELDS. Not at all. Standing on the steps of City Hall is not the only way that one can fight. Working to insure that we have more computer labs, science labs, math labs and libraries in our schools, that is where I’ve taken my fight — having allocated over $20 million as borough president to make it so, working to make sure that a school like Lou Peron[sp?] gets a permanent place so that the students there can continue to grow. So it’s been about doing work and getting things done. Standing on the steps of City Hall, for me, is not the way in terms I sought to achieve —
Q. I’m just wondering why your tone —
FIELDS. — make a —
Q. — became much more negative once you started running for mayor.
FIELDS. It’s not negative, it’s pointing out the things that I have done and the things that must be done to address the priorities that affect the daily lives of New Yorkers.
Q. O.K. Jim Rutenberg.
Q. O.K. Mr. Speaker, your City Council office sent mailing prominently featuring your photograph and promoting your budget priorities earlier this year. Amid criticism that these appear to promoting your candidacy, your office had said they had cost just $37,000. But after being pressed by reporters, your office came back a few weeks later and said, in fact, they were $1.6 million. How do you account for the discrepancy and has this raised serious issues about your office’s credibility or your own?
MILLER. Well, look, obviously, it was a mistake that was made. I think the fact that it was so obviously wrong shows that there was no intent to mislead. And the reality is that these mailings were in line with the mailings that were done by previous councils. Reporting to constituents is what elected officials do. And the important point here is that I was going to report to New Yorkers about a $50-billion budget in which the mayor was proposing to end day care slots, go to four-day library service, cut college scholarships. And I’m proud of the overall record that I have as speaker of the Council and I certainly encourage new Yorkers to judge me on it. I’ve spent the last four years on the steps of City Hall fighting this mayor, day in-day out, to protect those budget priorities and I’m not shy to telling people about it.
Q. But you yourself had stiffened the rules making it harder to send such mailing out before an election.
MILLER. That’s correct.
Q. So what is the difference between these mailings and the sorts you were trying to prohibit? Or at least take away the electoral —
MILLER. No, there is no difference. What we were trying to do was to move these mailings away from the election. And I did, you’re right, strengthen the law so that they were 90 days instead of 30 days because it’s appropriate for us to make sure that the ordinary communication that goes on between elected officials and their constituents is removed from an election. And we complied with those tougher regulations that I wrote.
Q. Ms. Fields, are you satisfied with his answer? You yourself had filed a complaint about those mailings.
FIELDS. I know that $1.8 million would have gone a long way in terms of providing over 30,000 meals for seniors, a program that I have consistently supported, fought for to continue in the budget. And as borough president, when efforts were made to reduce it, I know that over $100,000 would have gone to keep the lead-safe house operating, which I created and the City Council failed to fund. So when I look at priorities and needs and the use of that $1.8 million, better use certainly could have been made.
Q. O.K.
MILLER. Can I have a chance? I just would say —
FERRER. May I . . . that —
Q. Sure.
FERRER. Jim, we’re not focused on mailings, for God’s sake. There was crises facing people in this city, regular people, every-day New Yorkers in this city that we’ve got to resolve, serious people have to resolve them in a serious way. Baby steps won’t do here.
Q. Freddy Ferrer, in the 2001 campaign you called for a 30-percent hike in teachers’ salaries. Now you’re not. What happened?
FERRER. Well, you also know, I think, Andrew, that the full story was I proposed a 30-percent hike and also very substantial work rule changes, changes in the contract. The times have changed since 2001 —
Q. In what way?
FERRER. — and 2005. First of all, the teachers’ union itself put a proposal on the table to go to a simple contract in a 100 of the toughest schools in this city. In fact, that was a groundbreaking proposal that I’m, frankly, shocked — excuse me — I’m, frankly, shocked that the chancellor and the mayor didn’t jump on immediately.
Q. Why a 30-percent teacher salary hike then and not now?
FERRER. As I told you, the conditions have changed. Well, first of all —
Q. You told me about the work rule conditions, but I didn’t hear anything about teacher salaries.
FERRER. Well, first of all, Mike Bloomberg, his first contract with the teachers gave them 22 percent. That has changed as well. Now what we’ve got to do is begin to look at what the suburban school systems give their — that’s why I put forward a plan to not only improve our schools but a way to pay for it, a way to deal with some of the crises of losing our teachers to suburban school systems because they pay more because they’ve been more richly funded.
Q. It’s an interesting fact you raise. And I guess the knock on you from critics for a while has been that you’ve kind of changed your stripes with each election. And I’m trying to get a sense from you about how your policy positions have evolved over the years. But let’s —
FERRER. Let me answer.
Q. — we’ll talk about that. Well, let me give you another specific, if you can, and I’ll give you plenty of time to answer it.
FERRER. Sure.
Q. The last time you ran for mayor, you wanted to keep a tax that was about to expire from expiring and pay for after-school programs. You said it would just cost a couple of pennies for each taxpayer.
FERRER. That’s right.
Q. You’re no longer doing that. Now you want a tax on stock transfers and you’re using —
FERRER. A half a penny.
Q. — almost the same kind of rhetoric, saying it’ll just cost a couple of pennies. Shouldn’t a voter be a little worried that if you got to City Hall, you would just be raising taxes left and right?
FERRER. You know something, Andrew, a voter should be reassured by not only my more than 25-year career in public service standing up for social and economic justice, but even more — standing up for social and economic mobility in this city. I’m running for mayor because I want to make this city work better for every New Yorker, not just some of them.
Q. Taxes, why the different proposals to keep raising different taxes?
FERRER. Well, you mean worse than Mike Bloomberg in his first year of taking $1.7 billion in a property tax hike? Where my tax on land speculators and land bankers would raise a fraction of that over 10 years, is that what you mean?
Q. I’m still not getting the answer that I’m going for. But let’s move this along —
FERRER. I’m sure you weren’t.
Q. — Virginia Fields, whatever you believe about the stock transfer tax proposal from Fernando Ferrer and others that you’ve heard, they are at least putting forward proposals to pay for the grandiose programs that they want. Where does the money come from for some of the programs you want?
FIELDS. My approach is not in terms of increasing taxes, but it is to look at growth, creating jobs so that we can create a tax base in order to pay for more of the services. My focus is on restoring services, not taking taxes or revenue out of the budget —
Q. And until you —
FIELDS. — in order to do that.
Q. — as you’re aware, the budget deficit for the next several years is astronomical. We’re talking about $3 billion, $4 billion in budget deficits —
FIELDS. And immediately —
Q. — so what you’re saying, if I hear you right, is I’m going to enact these slew of programs and how that we grow the economy to pay for them. But first you’ve got to deal with the budget deficit.
FIELDS. No, you’re not hearing me —
Q. O.K.
FIELDS. — if that is all that you hear. Immediately as mayor, of course, I would immediately instruct my commissioners to begin to identify savings. As a matter of fact, on Nov. 8, as the winner of the — for the mayoral — I would ask the mayor to begin, his commissioners, beginning in November, so that we can identify savings — begin to look at productivity savings, procurement savings, increase our strength and our finance committee to make sure that we are identifying all of the revenues that we can bring in. Obviously we will have to work with the state and the federal government, but increasing taxes is not the way that I would approach growing the economy at this time.
MILLER. You’re going to ask this mayor to give you a set of cuts for when you’re mayor? I’ve already —
FIELDS. Because he will no longer be mayor, Gifford —
MILLER. — seen his. Yeah, but —
FIELDS. — on Nov. 9. And it would be the responsible thing for him to do, too, recognizing that he has not addressed —
MILLER. I know that.
FIELDS. — the deficit that we’re looking at in the next fiscal year. By using a surplus, they have been masked. And you know that, too.
MILLER. Well, yeah, I do, I’ve seen his set of cuts and they’re not very good. That’s what I’ve spent the last four years fighting against —
FIELDS. No, I’m saying in terms of using the surplus —
MILLER. — so I don’t know that —
FIELDS. — to mask the cuts and the debts.
Q. Anthony —
WEINER. Can I please have one concluding point? I think we should have consensus among Democrats. The middle class are overtaxed in this city. They’ve had taxes go up about 40 percent in property in the Bloomberg administration. We have to have a plan that includes cutting taxes if we want to win this election. My plan would cut 10 percent in income taxes for anyone making less than $150,000 a year. I would urge all of my friends here in the Democratic Party, we have to acknowledge that or we are going to lose.
Q. Mr. Weiner, I want to ask you a question because you’re talking about taxes and the deficit. Mayor Bloomberg says that the deficit is basically caused, in large part, by increased pension costs so I would ask you the following questions: Would you support reducing the pensions for all new hires? Would you support asking retirees to pay 50 percent of their health care costs? Would you support increasing the retirement age to 67? All of these things would reduce the city’s pension costs and the out-year budget gaps.
WEINER. Well, let me tell you, first of all, I think pensioners are, by and large, middle-class New Yorkers and money going to them is money that I want to go to them. But there are two other ways structurally that we’re struggling. One is Medicaid and I have a specific plan on how to reduce the costs of Medicaid.
Q. So you’re saying no to all of those things.
WEINER. I’m saying no to reductions in pension but let me tell you where I will save the money structurally. One, we’ve got to reduce Medicaid costs. I have a specific plan on how to do that including how to cover the 1.8 uninsured[as spoken] New Yorkers in the city. And secondly, debt: You know, we finished this year with a $3.5-billion surplus? Did my friends on the City Council, did the mayor use that money to pay down some of the debt we built up the last few years? No. We have to do that, our debt payments are getting bigger and bigger. If the one thing we learned, we can’t do the Republican model of keep larding more and more debt onto the budget because that’s the least efficient spending we have is interest on debt. It doesn’t buy us a school class, it doesn’t buy us another meal for a child, it doesn’t buy us any health care.
Q. Mr. Weiner, you keep talking about the forgotten middle class in the outer boroughs. Some people would regard that as racially polarizing, class polarizing. I wonder if you see it that way.
WEINER. You know what, I think the one thing that unifies our party and unifies our city is we all see ourselves as middle class or striving to get there. You know, this has been a city that has always worshipped the hard work of New Yorkers. I’m going to have an administration that does that, as well.
You know, we are gradually becoming a city of kind of — of two service economies: one of the very well-to-do and one of the people who are less able to do well. And the middle class is getting caught more and more. We need to keep our focus like a laser beam on that group. And that transcends race, it transcends geography. If you’re in the middle class or struggling to make it there, Anthony Weiner is your candidate.
MILLER. But I also — let me just say, I agree we need to give relief to the middle class. It just needs to be realistic relief, not promising things we can’t keep.
Q. What about the pension?
MILLER. And on the pensions — look, people that work their entire lives for the City of New York should know that the commitment —
Q. I’m talking about new hires.
MILLER. New hires? We should be negotiating, of course. When I’m mayor, I’m going to negotiate as strongly as I can for the best interests of the City of New York, but the bottom line is people that devote their entire lives to working for the City of New York deserve to know that when they get there, they’re going to get a pension.
But I have — one thing we need to address, in terms of the middle class in this city, is millions of New Yorkers live in rental apartments. And I am the only candidate here who has a proposal to bring a 3-percent tax credit for people’s rent, for people making up to $100,000. We have to give relief. Rents hit the highest point ever this year.
FERRER. Marsha, Mike Bloomberg is saying that that’s the reason why we have budget deficits. He either is not paying attention or is not telling the truth. Here it is. And I think Anthony Weiner is right in acknowledging the very fine investigative series that The Times did on waste, fraud, abuse and leakage in the Medicaid system. The simple fact is this mayor hasn’t been doing a thing about it, and, since then, supporting his Republican colleague George Pataki’s efforts to close hospitals and throw women and children — Child Health Plus — instead of using — you know, the city pays 25 percent of the bill, instead of using our own resources to get the waste, fraud, leakage and abuse out.
Q. All right, let’s turn to education, if we could. Well —
FIELDS. Before we turn to that, I just want to make a comment —
Q. O.K., quickly.
FIELDS. — on Medicaid because I was the first, of course, candidate, as the congressman knows, to put forth a plan to reduce Medicaid, first of all, by trying to keep seniors out of long-term care. We pay over $100,000 annually when seniors are in long-term care. So by strengthening the resources, expanding resources to keep them in their home, we can reduce it.
In addition to that, I have set that a goal of $2.4 billion reducing debt service over a four-year period by using any surpluses that probably won’t be there, but you have to begin to work on it. And I think that’s why —
Q. O.K., let’s turn to —
FIELDS. — Citizens Union also endorsed me because of my plans in that regard.
Q. — we’ve got a lot of ground to cover. O.K., fair enough, we’ve got a lot of ground to cover. Let’s talk about education, if we could. Gifford Miller, everyone here says that social promotion in the schools is a bad thing. So let’s take it for granted you all oppose social promotion. Mayor Bloomberg has enacted a series of tests through the public school which would serve as a gateway to prevent kids from advancing if they don’t pass the test. So my question is, yes or no, do you favor —
MILLER. Back to the yes and no. I love it, give it to me.
Q. All right, we’re going to keep it on issues this time.
MILLER. O.K.
Q. Yes or no, do you favor a roll back of Bloomberg’s hold-back policies, those tests? Yes or no?
MILLER. Yes. I do and I’ll tell you why. Because you can’t find an educator in this country that thinks it’s a good idea to tell 8-year-olds they get one chance with a bunch of bubbles to determine whether or not they’re succeeding and because, Andrew, it’s not a vision for transforming our schools.
Q. O.K., I want to — let’s try to get quick answers, if we could, with all due respect. Freddy Ferrer, do we abolish those tests?
FERRER. Look, standardized tests, one day, one test, rises in the early elections. In an election year, do nothing about the unconscionably high drop-out rate we have.
Q. Is that a yes? Do you want to abolish those tests?
FERRER. No. The tests are right now the law of the land. And Anthony Weiner knows that, having voted for the bill in Congress. But here’s the problem: the problem is when we have more than half of our kids dropping out of high school, when we can only manage to graduate 38 percent on time with all the tools they need for a job or to go on to a higher education, that’s the crisis.
MILLER. I think you mean — what you mean, Andrew, is not abolish the tests because, clearly, we’re going to give the third-grade test and the fourth-grade test. It’s a good way of assessing where we are. But you mean is abolishing the policy of having it be testing alone, with the appeal —
Q. Well, that’s not true. Mayor Bloomberg says it’s not just testing alone that’s causing it. So my question is will you abolish his hold-back policies, yes or no?
FERRER. Oh, you’re talking about something different now, Andrew. You’re talking about social promotion. No one at this table is in favor of social promotion.
Q. All right, so you’d all keep the tests? You’d all keep the tests?
MILLER. No. I would keep the tests but not the testing policy that holds kids back on the basis —
Q. O.K., understood.
MILLER. — of that one text.
Q. Understood. Do you all agree with Mr. Miller?
WEINER. Yeah, but I’m going to say, yes, I will keep the tests. I don’t understand why it’s so complicated to answer that simple question.
MILLER. You’re going to hold back 8-year-olds on one test?
FIELDS. Yes, keep the tests, but massive interventions to help the students prepare. And you’re not simply cramming to take a standardized test. And you’re not evaluating a student’s performance just on the basis of that test.
MILLER. So are you going to hold 8-year-olds back on the basis of that test or not?
FIELDS. I am going to —
MILLER. Or is it going to be on something else?
FIELDS. I am going to educate 8-year-olds and they will be able to take the test and pass.
Q. So you’re not going to hold them back?
FIELDS. They will pass the test.
MILLER. Everybody’s going to pass the test?
Q. And if they don’t pass the test, what will you do with those who don’t pass the test?
FIELDS. Then we will continue to invest in them in that grade.
Q. So you’ll hold them back?
FIELDS. They will remain in that grade, yes.
MILLER. I didn’t understand are you going to hold back the 8-year-olds?
WEINER. You know, I’ve got to tell you something. I’ve got to tell you something. I’m going to vote — if you guys don’t nominate me, I’m going to vote for you over Mike Bloomberg, but I don’t know what you’re talking about. This is a simple yes or no question: Are tests important? Should we keep them? Yes, we should them.
FIELDS. Yes.
MILLER. But that wasn’t the question — just to be fair, because I answered the question the way you asked it. The question was not are we going to continue to test kids in our school system. The question was are we going to continue the mayor’s particular effort at ending social promotion, which is through a —
Q. O.K., let’s move on.
MILLER — through a sole testing —
Q. Jim Rutenberg —
MILLER. Of course I want to keep tests. I’m just [having?] them being the sole arbiter.
FIELDS. And you’re not asking the question.[all speaking]
MILLER — and I’m not understanding what your answer is.
Q. O.K., we’re going to go back to another subject that came up that we need some clarification on or want some clarification on. At Tuesday’s debate, the subject of congestion pricing came up. And, Ms. Fields, you said that you were the most open to the idea of congestion pricing. But then you said you were against tolling the East River bridges. So, again, if you could keep it concise, time is running short, what sorts of congestion pricing do you propose then, if not on the bridges?
FIELDS. When — making it more expensive for drivers to come in at certain hours and if they are part of more in one car, as opposed to a single person coming in, they would have to pay more.
Q. So discounts on car pooling and —
FIELDS. Yes.
Q. — increases on the existing tolls. O.K.
Q. So I have a question for each of you: What do you think the best thing that Mayor Bloomberg has done in his four-year term?
MILLER. Get control of the schools. The best thing that he did was to provide real political leadership behind a serious problem. In his first year he said, I’m going to get control of the schools and I’m going to be held accountable. And he created the opportunity for real change in our schools.
The problem is he’s confused that opportunity for an accomplishment in and of itself. He has now taken that control and focused solely on testing policies, on teaching to tests, without transforming our schools themselves. And he doesn’t seem to recognize that 550,000 kids are failing, and we need to lower class sizes, improve teacher quality, make every school safe and have universal —
Q. Let’s get an answer from each of the candidates —
MILLER. — after-school programs.
Q. — on that question. Best thing Mayor Bloomberg’s done?
FERRER. Best thing he did was promise to build 65,000 units of affordable housing. So he says on his campaign literature. The worst thing: only delivering on slightly over 10,000 of them to date.
Q. Anthony Weiner.
WEINER. I think Mike Bloomberg’s a good man, I don’t dislike him personally. I think the way he’s reduced racial tension in this city’s commendable in a post-Giuliani era. And we should honor him for that.
FIELDS. I would say the control of schools. I think mayoral control is extremely important. But the way in which he has set it up, in terms of governance, is not working. Taking responsibility away from principals and teachers in the schools, that is not the way to reform our schools.
Q. At the last debate, last Tuesday night, you were all asked whether you would seek out Al Sharpton’s support. And all of you answered yes, you most emphatically, Virginia Fields. Let’s ask you, has Al Sharpton been a cause for good in this city or not?
FIELDS. Al Sharpton is a leader in this city and, indeed, has been involved with a number of very important issues, and I would endorse — I would accept his endorsement if offered.
Q. Has he been a source of good or not so good in this city?
FIELDS. He has been a source of good.
Q. Do you agree, Anthony Weiner?
WEINER. I think all of us have in our background times that are brighter and times that are dimmer. I say in response to that question, in the past I probably would have said no to his endorsement and today I would say yes. Look, he is someone that has, like so many of us, been an active part of trying to solve problems in the city. I got to watch first-hand when there was recently a racial incident in my district in Howard Beach. I think that Al Sharpton is a leader in this city and he’s someone I hope to work with closely in my first four years as mayor.
Q. Has he been a force for good, Gifford Miller?
MILLER. I think he’s certainly done some good things, highlighting issues that are important. We have 39 percent unemployment among African-American men in the city. He certainly talks about that and has helped make sure that other people talk about it. He recently has engaged in an effort to force communities to focus on H.I.V. and AIDS in communities of color, and homophobia. So I think he’s been a force for good. I certainly thought he gave a great speech at the Democratic National Convention.
Q. You agree, Fernando Ferrer?
FERRER. Yes, I do.
Q. All right. We are out of time. Thank you all very much for a spirited debate. I’d like to thank the four candidates for taking the time to participate in this CBS-2 New York Times debate. Thanks also to Jim Rutenberg and Marsha Kramer. We will be back next Sunday morning with “Kirtzman and Company” and “Sunday Edition with Marsha Kramer.” I’m Andrew Kirtzman. Have a great day.
Â
ARTS
-Freedom Center
Arts advocates are concerned with a slew of issues - including low city funding for non-profit arts organizations; too few arts programs in the schools; lack of support for individual artists; lack of access for the public - but the only arts-connected issue that has gotten any attention in the campaign is the latest battle in the culture wars. This time, it is happening at Ground Zero.
Two cultural institutions had been invited to be part of the new World Trade Center complex. One, the Drawing Center, is a small downtown museum founded in 1977. The other, the International Freedom Center, was conceived for the site. Critics, including a few family members of 9/11 victims, started labeling past Drawing Center exhibitions as anti-American, and expressed their suspicion that future Freedom Center exhibitions would be as well. They also said that it would not be appropriate to have anything on the site that was not about September 11th, 2001.
The governor sided with the critics, demanding an "absolute guarantee" that no future exhibition or lecture would be anti-American or offend anyone, and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation gave in effect an ultimatum that the two cultural institutions had to work out a plan for any future content with the 9/11 families who had objected.
The Drawing Center found this condition unacceptable and withdrew. The Freedom Center has until September 23rd to come to an agreement.
At a forum of the Democratic mayoral candidates held on August 16th, 2005 at Jazz at Lincoln Center, when asked about the controversy, they gave vague answers (three mentioned the word "diversity") or truncated answers (two quickly changed the subject) that seemed to indicate a tilt towards allowing the critics to determine the contents of future lectures and exhibitions at the Freedom Center.
When asked about the Freedom Center, Ferrer said; "I think there should be a diversity of views, exhibits, and activities in the Freedom Center. But I think that they have to be guided by a sense that we lost 3,000 people and families and this entire city have been deeply affected."
When asked about the Freedom Center, Fields said; "Diversity of culture. Diversity that represents this great city. And clearly a memorial that reflects what happened there, keeping in the forefront of all our minds. And working with the families to decide all those details."
When asked about the Freedom Center, Miller said; "I think clearly there needs to be more done to make sure we are reaching out to the families. I think what really ought to be part of the Freedom Center is the Freedom Tower. And we ought to be rebuilding lower Manhattan. It is national disgrace how little has been done to rebuild, not just the memorial, but to rebuild in terms of the businesses and the heart of the plan to re-energize lower Manhattan."
When asked about the Freedom Center, Weiner said; "Three and a half years ago, Mike Bloomberg was sworn in near the still smoking wreckage of Ground Zero and said he would rebuild it. He hasn't done it. We should be talking about a Freedom Center that represents a diversity of views. But we have to keep a close eye for the victims for whom that area is a shrine."
Bloomberg objected to the actions of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation in regards to the Freedom Center and the Drawing Center, saying that, while he was "sympathetic" to the loss of life, "the question is what is the best memorial to them, whether you build something to the future or something that looks back. I always thought we should do both... If we are a democracy and we are going to have an inclusive process, we should stick with inclusive processes."
Related Articles
Long-Term Issues Facing The Arts In NYC
Arguments pro and con for The International Freedom Center from the Wall Street Journal
Daily News editorial calling for "oversight mechanism that would monitor the suitability of all exhibits in the future."
NY Times editorial blasting Governor Pataki for failing to stand up for "the quintessentially American principle of free speech and the role of culture, in this most cultural of cities, in helping us understand 9/11."
If the candidates for public office in New York City are ignoring the arts this year -- as usual -- history will very likely exact a precise revenge. The world knows all about Michelangelo and Mozart; can anybody say who was mayor of Florence or Vienna at the time these artists lived there, or even if those cities had mayors then?
Many more New Yorkers visit the Metropolitan Museum of Art than City Hall; more go to a show than vote; ask anybody the world over (including New Yorkers and people who want to move to New York) what New York City conjures up for them, and most will surely put some of the city's many cultural offerings -- Broadway, MOMA, SoHo, Lincoln Center, (for the hipper, it might be P.S. 1, BAM, CBGBs) etc. etc. -- near the top of the list.
Yet ask advocates for the arts how city officials treat those same cultural offerings, and they will say (albeit requesting anonymity) that the arts are
Surely, few public officials lack an understanding of culture's central place in New York City. It is more likely that these officials sense that the arts do not need a high level of government attention in the face of what they see as more pressing concerns.
Arts advocates view it differently, some worrying that the city's cultural prominence is already eroding. They believe City Hall needs a comprehensive arts policy, a concrete strategy to maintain the city's position as cultural capital and to take it further.
Their concerns are virtually the same as four years ago, before the current mayor took charge. Yes, Michael Bloomberg seems to "get" the arts. He has promoted public art, has a large art collection himself, and he contributes heavily from his private wealth to various arts groups; his company Bloomberg LP is also a visible sponsor of cultural events, especially lately. But his support as mayor falls short of what most arts advocates had expected. (Ironically, according to a recent article by the Associated Press, his personal donations "help those organizations absorb cuts made by his administration.")
One clear-cut difference from his predecessor is a respite from the culture wars, but that pause might be coming to an end. (See below).
The Alliance for the Arts recently handed out a five-question questionnaire on the arts to most candidates for public office in the city; their responses have been posted here. Those who wind up being elected this year can make a difference by paying attention to the following half-dozen issues in the arts.
The complicated system of city funding for non-profit arts organizations has its supporters, and a much greater number of detractors, who complain that the process is too inflexible, piecemeal and political. But nearly everybody in the arts resents the budget ballet that occurs each year at City Hall, when the mayor threatens cuts to arts funding below the level of the previous year, and the members of the City Council fight to restore those cuts. Bloomberg is not the mayor who began this unseemly game, but he did not end it either.
The city's funding for the arts this fiscal year, at about $132 million, is a paltry one quarter of one percent of the city's operating budget – and, while the amount is an increase from the past couple of years, it is in fact some $7 million less ($20 million less in real dollars because of inflation, according to the Alliance for the Arts) than it was during the final fiscal year that began under former Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Also of concern is the capital budget, which funds long-term projects such as renovations and building expansions, and which in fact has increased considerably during the Bloomberg administration; the latest four-year capital plan includes $836 million for 161 non-profit cultural organizations, which officials from the Department of Cultural Affairs say is almost double the number of institutions getting such funding when Bloomberg took office.
One of the questions to the candidates by the Alliance for the Arts is: "Would you support increasing the budget at least to its historic high?"
Any number of reports over the past several years -- Culture Counts from the New York Foundation for the Arts and The Creative Engine from the Center for an Urban Future, to name two -- have established that the arts are of great benefit to the city's economy, and offer tremendous opportunities for economic growth in individual neighborhoods as well. Indeed, the single mention of the arts discernible in the Bloomberg campaign is the "tax credit package" the administration put together to encourage the creation of Steiner Studios, a movie production facility in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, which the campaign touts as part of the administration’s vision for economic development in the boroughs.
"I think this administration has been more open to the idea of arts and culture as an economic engine than previous administrations," said Robin Keegan of the Center for an Urban Future. "They have made it a component in planning everything from Ground Zero to the redevelopment of Fulton Street to the redesign of the [former site of the] Fulton Fish Market and of the High Line."
But she and others think that more could be done to treat the various cultural organizations (whether non-profit or for-profit) as businesses, the vast army of creative workers as entrepreneurs, and the arts as a valuable industry in need of nurturing.
Specific needs include help in getting affordable space for both work and exhibition, and the coordination of marketing and planning.
Marketing is especially important as a way to increase cultural tourism. Some 40 million tourists are coming to New York City each year from elsewhere in the United States, and 40 percent of them say that culture is their primary activity when they’re here. Studies have shown that these visitors tend to spend both more time and more money here than the average tourist. The hope is both to increase their number and to entice them into going to more than just the most familiar institutions.
All of the city's direct funding for the arts goes to non-profit organizations, not individual artists. (Some of the groups that the city funds do give grants to individual artists). But the problems facing these individuals would not be solved by a few grants alone. As with many other residents, both "emerging" artists and "mature" artists are finding it too expensive to stay in the city, especially because of the lack of affordable housing; there is evidence that the city is losing its artists as a result, offering the prospect that the center of culture will shift elsewhere.
Many creative workers - not all of them artists as that term is commonly defined (they also include graphic designers, advertising copywriters, etc.) - support themselves as freelancers, which means they often have no health insurance and other employment benefits.
A particular problem is a lack of sufficient workspace -- this is true for individual artists as well as for arts groups. It is the hunt for such space that has put artists at the vanguard of transforming old decaying manufacturing areas in the city into hot new places to live and play -- after which the artists get kicked out by the increasing cost of living in the neighborhoods they helped revive. Among the solutions advocates are kicking around are tax breaks for landlords who rent at below market prices to the non-profit arts groups, and some adjustments to the zoning code to protect artists.
The city’s fiscal crisis three decades ago led to an elimination of most arts programs -- and arts teachers -- from the city's schools. “The school system has never quite recovered," says Richard Kessler of the Center for Arts Education. The lack of support for the arts in the schools is not just a question of inadequate funding. "Though there is a range of ways that the arts supports the whole child - music helps with numbers; dance with spatial intelligence; the arts inspire collaboration and creativity and an understanding of many cultures -- arts education has a long way to go in many circles to be considered important," Kessler says.
Arts education has been making something of a comeback. For the first time in perhaps half a century, the school system is developing a uniform curriculum in the arts, with its "blueprint for the arts" guidelines grade by grade in four areas - visual arts, music, theater, and dance -- overseen by a newly-created Office of Arts and Special Projects.
However, the city is still out of compliance with state requirements in arts education (number of hours of instruction per week, etc.), and there is great inequity in the system; many schools offer no arts programs at all. An irony of the mayor's and chancellor's priority on improving reading and math scores is that some schools got rid of their arts programs as a way of marshalling their resources.
Though every major mayoral candidate offers a plan for education, Fernando Ferrer is the only one who explicitly mentions arts education, promising to expand classes and after-school programs in music and art.
Many New Yorkers participate in the arts in one way or another, according to a 2001 survey, which found that in the previous 12 months almost half of the adults had attended musical performances, museums and the like; a third had gone to the theater; and more than half reported doing some creative work of their own.
But more than 70 percent of these New Yorkers surveyed said they would go to musical performances and the theater more frequently if tickets were cheaper.
Cost is one of the main barriers to New Yorkers’ participation in the arts, but it is not the only one. There are physical barriers that discourage the disabled. There are language barriers, a lack of information about cultural offerings, and, according to one report a lack of “cultural literacy.”
Some government policies favor corporations and the affluent over the regular ticket-buying public. Senior citizens and children from lower-income families were found to be especially shut out from cultural offerings.
This is one area in which a comprehensive policy might make the most difference, and a commitment to arts education that goes beyond primary and second schools.
When Rudy Giuliani completed his tenure as mayor, he left behind a "Decency Commission," (officially the Cultural Affairs Advisory Commission), a legacy of his effort to shut down the Brooklyn Museum for presenting "Sensation," an exhibition of over-the-edge art by young artists from England.
Bloomberg effectively ended the Decency Commission, appointing new members of the Cultural Affairs Advisory Commission and redirecting them towards such non-controversial tasks as organizing seminars and handing out awards for distinction in the arts.
But the culture wars seem to be coming back to New York. This time, the fight is at Ground Zero. A couple of months ago, a woman named Debra Burlingame, a relative of a 9/11 victim, launched a campaign against two of the cultural institutions that had been invited to be part of the new World Trade Center complex, one, The Drawing Center, a 28-year-old downtown museum, the other, the International Freedom Center, conceived for the site. Critics started labeling past Drawing Center exhibitions as anti-American, and expressed suspicion that future Freedom Center exhibitions would be as well, and in any case questioned the appropriateness of the two institutions for a site that should be focused on the events of September 11th. Defenders disagreed, pointing out that both another museum on the site and a memorial will amply tell the story of September 11th, and asking what more appropriate place is there to have people learning and thinking about freedom. (See pro and con arguments in two articles from the Wall Street Journal).
Governor George Pataki sided with the critics, asking for "an absolute guarantee" that no future exhibition or lecture could be deemed anti-American or offend anyone. The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation in effect pushed out the Drawing Center, and gave the Freedom Center until September 23 to work it out with 9/11 families. An editorial in the Daily News said the action was overdue and advised the director of the Freedom Center “to create an oversight mechanism that would monitor the suitability of all exhibits in the future.” An editorial in the New York Times, in contrast, blasted the governor for failing to stand up for "the quintessentially American principle of free speech and the role of culture, in this most cultural of cities, in helping us understand 9/11."
Bloomberg objected to the agency's actions, saying that, while he was "sympathetic" to the loss of life, "the question is what is the best memorial to them, whether you build something to the future or something that looks back. I always thought we should do both... If we are a democracy and we are going to have an inclusive process, we should stick with inclusive processes.”
As mild as this may sound, it was the strongest stand of any of the candidates. Asked about the controversy at the end of the first official debate sponsored by the Campaign Finance Board, three of the four Democratic challengers included in their answers a mention of the word "diversity," but Fernando Ferrer then said the focus should be on the victims of 9/11, Gifford Miller and Anthony Weiner quickly changed the subject to an attack on the pace of rebuilding, and Virginia Fields said the Freedom Center should work with the families "to decide all those details."
Â
QUESTION:
The Freedom Center at Ground Zero, as proposed, is very controversial. The center includes exhibits on various human rights issues and space for seminars on freedom related topics. Some of the family members of the 9/11 victims are opposed to it. They fear it could be used as a forum for anti-American values. What do you think should be part of the Freedom Center?
Fernando Ferrer:
I think there should be a diversity of views, exhibits, and activities in the Freedom Center. But I think that they have to be guided by a sense that we lost 3,000 people and families and this entire city have been deeply affected.
Gifford Miller:
I think clearly there needs to be more done to make sure we are reaching out to the families. I think what really ought to be part of the Freedom Center is the Freedom Tower. And we ought to be rebuilding lower Manhattan. It is national disgrace how little has been done to rebuild, not just the memorial, but to rebuild in terms of the businesses and the heart of the plan to re-energize lower Manhattan.
Anthony Weiner:
Three and a half years ago, Mike Bloomberg was sworn in near the still smoking wreckage of Ground Zero and said he would rebuild it. He hasn't done it. We should be talking about a Freedom Center that represents a diversity of views. But we have to keep a close eye for the victims for whom that area is a shrine.
C. Virginia Fields:
Diversity of culture. Diversity that represents this great city. And clearly a memorial that reflects what happened there, keeping in the forefront of all our minds. And working with the families to decide all those details.
Â
The following is the transcript of a debate between the Democratic candidates for mayor of New York City: former Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer, Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields, Congressman Anthony Weiner and City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, moderated by Dominic Carter of New York 1 and held on August 16th, 2005 at Jazz at Lincoln Center:
DOMINIC CARTER. Good evening and welcome to the first official Democratic debate of the mayor's race. I'm Dominic Carter of New York 1 News coming to you live from Jazz at Lincoln Center. Tonight we are making history. This debate is being brought to you live in English on New York 1 and on WNYC-Radio AM820, but also in Spanish on New York 1 Noticias and in Mandarin on New Tang Dynasty Television and tomorrow it will air in Korean on the Korean Channel and in Cantonese on the New Tang Dynasty Television.
Before we begin, I should say a few words about the organization sanctioning tonight's event, the City's Campaign Finance Board. The board is an independent, nonpartisan city agency, which administers the campaign finance program and publishes the New York City Voter Guide as well as administers debates. This program gives public matching funds to candidates for city office who agree to limit contributions and spending and provide full disclosure of their finances. To qualify for public matching funds citywide candidates must have a minimum level of public support and by law participate in debates, which are sponsored by media outlets selected by the board.
Tonight's debate is being sponsored by New York 1, New York 1 Noticias, New York City Newsday and WNYC-Radio. The second Democratic primary election debate will be held on Wednesday, Sept. 7 at 7 p.m. on Channel 4, WNBC.
Now our panelists and I, who will question the candidates, are Dan Janison of New York City Newsday, Andrea Bernstein of WNYC-Radio, Rita Nissan of New York 1 and Juan Manuel Benitez of New York 1 Noticias.
We will now introduce the four candidates. The order in which they will stand and be speaking was randomly selected earlier today. We welcome former Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer, City Council speaker Gifford Miller, Congressman Anthony Weiner and Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields.
Good evening, everyone. The format of tonight's debate is as follows: Starting with Dan Janison, our panelists will directly ask one candidate a question. The candidate will have 90 seconds to respond. The other three candidates will then each have 60-second rebuttals. And, finally, the first candidate will then be allowed to have a 30-second response. The panelists and myself have the right to follow up on any of our questions. And if any of us is speaking, that is the panelist, that will not count against the candidates allotted time. Following our first round of questions from the panel, the candidates will each be allowed to ask one of their opponents a question. And after that we'll return to more from our panel for additional questions. And then near the conclusion of our 90-minute debate, we'll have a lightning round of yes or no questions for the candidates. We'll wrap things up with closing remarks.
And now for round No. 1, we begin with the first question tonight from Dan Janison.
Q. Hi, anyone who has followed the primary race so far may think that the defining moments have been the fiascos. Speaker Miller took heat over the million-and-a-half dollars in recent public mailings; Congressman Weiner faces questions over use of party resources; Mrs. Fields had problems with flyers and misplaced e-mails; and you, Mr. Ferrer, took a lot of heat for statements on the Diallo case. This is your chance, one chance, to tell us what these gaffes mean if anything in your case. And what they mean in terms of what your rivals have done?
FERRER. Well first I want to thank NY1, NY1 Noticias, Newsday and WNYC for hosting this important debate. I'm glad to be here.
It's a shame that a campaign about the future of this city defines itself on gaffes. But that's the way it is sometimes. And in my case, I defined something carelessly and I took responsibility for that. But at the end of the day this is a debate about the future of this city. This is a debate about not only how we create a police department and sustain a police department that not only does its job in keeping us safe from domestic crime as well as international crime but inspires the trust and confidence and support of every New Yorker.
It's also about how we deal with the crisis of affordable housing, how we deal with the high school dropout rate of over 50 percent.
Q. . . . matter in terms of your opponents?
FERRER. No.
Q. Would you consider anything that your opponents do fodder for argument or -
FERRER. Let's be very clear, New Yorkers, especially the voters in the Democratic primary, expect all of us to speak to the issues that are important to them, that'll make a difference in their lives. Let's not sell the intelligence of voters short. They expect us to offer real solutions about how to deal with affordable housing and the crisis of finding it in this city, about failing high schools and middle schools, about 40 percent of African-American men and nearly a third of Latino men out of a job, out of luck and out of hope. They expect us to come up with not small solutions but big and bold ones.
Q. Mr. Miller, do you consider that an answer to the question? And would you answer it the same way?
MILLER. Well, I've got to say that this is not a question that I get when I'm out there visiting New Yorkers and talking to them about the future of our city. I've spent the last several months visiting hundreds of neighborhoods across this city, as I've spent the last four years fighting for all New Yorkers, and I don't get this question. The questions I get are: How are you going to make our schools work for our kids? How are you going to make it possible for me to get to work without my blood pressure reaching such enormous levels that I'm not able to survive in this city anymore? How are you going to make it possible for us to pay taxes and get the sorts of services that we want and deserve? And how are we going to be able to afford housing in this city?
Those are the questions I get. And I think this campaign will be defined by which one of us and whether or not the mayor can do a good job of convincing New Yorkers that if you elect us we're going to make a difference for people in their lives. I have positive plans to address them. That's what people ask me about. And that's what I hope we're going to spend the next hour and a half talking about.
Q. Does it matter if the other candidates screw up a little?
MILLER. Look, I think that what matters is our ideas and what is it that we're going to do to take the city in a new direction. I'm going to lower class sizes, and I'm going to do it now. I'm going to fix the guts of our system and actually fund the expansion of our subways, and I'm going to do it now. I'm going to make sure that we can actually have New Yorkers who can afford rent in this city. You know rent was up 6 percent last year and we hit the highest point ever in the history of our City of New York? And I'm the candidate with a plan for a renters' tax credit to address [a] 3 percent cut for renters in this city.
We want to know what our ideas are. We want to be able to talk about them. And I think that's what's important.
Q. Mr. Weiner, on the gaffe issue, if you will.
WEINER. Well, first of all, I want to express my gratitude for you all for holding this debate. Since the very beginning I have argued that we, as Democrats, don't deserve to win unless we talk about real ideas moving forward, that we don't deserve to win after three straight losses in municipal elections for Democrats unless we talk about how to address the challenges facing the middle class and those trying to get into the middle class.
It's perfectly reasonable for people to judge us based on the way we run our campaigns and how we deal with rough patches. But I have to tell you that that family that sits each morning trying to figure out how to make a go of it in New York, they realize what we sometimes forget in this business. This campaign isn't about the four of us. It's not about the great journalists that cover it. This campaign is about the idea that... each generation makes life a little bit better for the one that passed. And they do it by working hard, by rolling up their sleeves. Those voices deserve to be heard in this debate. They want to hear, for example, how you plan to bring down taxes. That's why I propose a 10 percent tax cut - anyone making less than $150,000 a year.
Q. So stumbles will not matter?
WEINER. No, I don't think - look, I don't think that stumbles are irrelevant. They should be covered and I think that how we deal with them should be covered as well. But I think we all have -
Q. Any examples?
WEINER. I think that we have to focus like a laser beam not on what someone does with a flyer or what someone does with a gaffe, but what they're going to do with the future of this city. That's what this debate should be about and I want to thank you, hopefully, for getting the process part of this discussion out of the way early so we can focus on things like how we pay teachers more, like my mother -
Q. O.K., Mrs. Fields, your philosophy on the matter of mistakes on the campaign trail.
C. VIRGINIA FIELDS. They should be covered, but certainly not for two full weeks on a photo.
Q. How much do you think today's e-mail will get?
FIELDS. That should have been a one-day story to point out what happened. And, indeed, I took decisive actions immediately. And, despite that, it went forward.
However, I do believe it is important that we talk to voters about what we will do as a mayor. Not one person out in the general public has asked me a question about a photo. In fact they have been turned off by the fact that it has been covered for such a long period of time...They do want to know how will we put the chronically unemployed back to work. They do want to know how are we going to provide housing for seniors and increase opportunities for our students.
Q. You did take a shot at Mr. Ferrer regarding his slip up, as I recall.
FIELDS. Again, when asked the question about the flaps, obviously we do answer. And I had a different point of view from Freddy Ferrer with respect to the killing, the death of Amadou Diallo. And I did respond. But beyond that, I do not believe that the gaffes, the misstatements should define the campaign so much so that other issues are not addressed, and that is what has happened.
Q. Mr. Ferrer, would you like 30 seconds to respond to the others?
FERRER. In all due respect, this isn't about getting into an argument with my Democratic colleagues. Our argument is with Mike Bloomberg. Our argument is a fundamental difference with the way we look at this city as Democrats and the way he looks at this city... Let's keep our minds focused on that, shall we?
Q. And thank you very much, Mr. Ferrer. Our next question is from Andrea.
Q. Speaker Miller, the median family income in this area is about $63,000. But recent studies show the average home in Manhattan costs $1.3 million and the other boroughs are not far behind. To ease this demand, do you support requiring developers to set aside a percentage of newly constructed units for middle-income housing? And given the fact that you've accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from real estate interests, why should middle-class New Yorkers trust that you'll stand up for their interests?
MILLER. Well middle-class New Yorkers should trust that I'm going to stand up for their interests because that's precisely what I've been doing for my entire career on the City Council and the last four years as speaker of the council.
As speaker of the council I have been the most pro-tenant leader that this city has seen, in a long time at least. As speaker of the council I have passed legislation. In fact tomorrow we'll be overriding the mayor's veto of legislation to protect Mitchell-Lama and Section Eight tenants. I passed the first Urstadt Law repeal in the history of our City Council, demanding that New York City have the right to regulate our own rents and make these decisions. And it's why I've been supported by Tenant-PAC, the largest and most reputable and respected tenant voice in the City of New York, for my record.
Q. What about the issue of setting aside a certain percentage of newly constructed units? Would you support that as mayor?
MILLER. I support voluntary inclusionary zoning. And not only do I support it, I've actually gone the extra mile and made it happen. But I think that we should do -
Q. What's wrong with mandatory?
MILLER. What's wrong with mandatory is that if it's voluntary and it works, if the incentives are great enough so that people will take advantage of it -- it makes sense for them in terms of the profit -- they'll take advantage of it. If you set the set-asides too high in a mandatory what happens is that nobody builds at all. So there really isn't a difference between an effective voluntary plan and an effective mandatory plan, because if the percentages work on the dollars for people then they'll take advantage of them. And my point is that what we have to do in order to address affordable housing in New York, we have to absolutely use tools like inclusionary zoning. We also have to use tools like protecting what affordable housing we have today. This mayor has presided over tens of thousands of units leaving our system every year. And what's he doing? He's vetoing legislation to address Mitchell-Lama and Section Eight, which we will override tomorrow.
Q. Thank you, Speaker Miller.
MILLER. Thank you.
Q. Congressman Weiner, your housing plan speaks to the issue of rising housing costs in the city and yet one of your major ways of solving it is through a middle-class tax cut, which would give even the highest earning families that would get the cut not quite $2 a day. How would that help them buy new apartments in this housing market? And where do you stand on requiring developers to set aside a percentage of their housing?
WEINER. Andrea, here's what I believe. I believe that this city has recently - the D.N.A. has changed to be a city that stopped focusing on the middle class, on those struggling to make it into the middle class, on value and work and energy, to we now worship, it seems, at the altar of every big developer that comes through town. We have to change that ethos. We have to get back to the place that we realize, you know what, a developer that used to have trouble making it with an 80-20 formula - 80 of market-rate housing, 20 for low-income. They can make a very healthy profit with a 60-20-20 - 60 percent at market rate, 20 percent for middle-income families like mine and 20 percent for those making somewhat less.
Q. So is that what you support?
WEINER. I support -
Q. Requiring developers to do that?
WEINER. If I could just finish, yes. I believe that what we should be doing is, in addition to giving a 10 percent tax cut to anyone making less than $150,000 a year, we should require that anyone that gets a variance of a building a certain size, there has to be a public benefit return.
You know, on Queens Boulevard, not far from where I live in Queens, there's a giant new high-rise going into place. They got a rather substantial variance from the city to allow them to build so high. Do you know how many middle-class units are going to be in there? How many low-income units are going to be in there? Absolutely none.
I don't believe that we're at that point now that developers are taking such a great chance. When you invest in New York in real estate, you're doing very, very well for yourself.
Q. Thank you, Congressman Weiner.
WEINER. All we're saying is help give the middle class a break as well.
Q. Borough President Fields, do you support requiring developers to set aside a certain percentage of newly constructed units? And if so, what percentage?
FIELDS. You know, I think we all recognize that the problem of affordable housing is the No. 1 problem in this city. And in order to build affordable housing for middle-class as well as low-income residents we are going to have to subsidize it. And in subsidizing it, we're giving developers tremendous subsidies and support including vacant land. So I do support mandatory inclusionary zoning because -
Q. What percentage do you support? How high should it be?
FIELDS. I've looked at it from several perspectives. In some instances 30 percent, 25 percent. I think it depends on the neighborhood because in some communities where I called for mandatory inclusionary zoning the percentage might not be, in terms of need, as high as other areas. So I have supported it in some communities as high as 30 percent.
But, given the fact that the city must invest in order to build affordable housing, then my plan for affordable housing calls for those investments. Using Battery Park City dollars; continuing with the $100-million commitment to the Housing Development Corporation now, continuing with that amount; using a portion of revenue from tax lien sales.
Q. Thank you.
FIELDS. So all of these are public dollars and for that developers must give something back and make it mandatory -
Q. Thank you, thank you, Borough President Fields. Mr. Ferrer, where do you stand on mandatory inclusionary zoning? And do you think New Yorkers should trust Mr. Miller given the hundreds of thousands of dollars he's taken from real estate interests?
FERRER. I'll answer the first part of your question - only. First of all, I do, and I want to tell you why. Look, I grew up in a five-story walkup that didn't always have heat and hot water in the wintertime. My mother had to work from time to time two jobs just to be able to afford that.
As borough president of the Bronx I worked with two mayors and scores of community organizations to see the construction of 66,000 homes and apartments, affordable homes and apartments. And that had a transforming difference in the lives of families, whole neighborhoods and the whole borough.
Q. Should you take credit for that or should Ed Koch, the former mayor Ed Koch?
FERRER. I just told you - I just told you that I worked with two mayors and scores of community organizations. No one did that alone. As I was saying, I support 30 percent mandatory inclusionary zoning. But much more than that I put forward a plan to build and maintain the affordability of 167,000 units of housing with a mix of inclusionary zoning, closing the loopholes of tax incentives that have left millions of dollars worth of development value on the table. We're building luxury housing in every corner of this city, but not enough affordable housing in every corner of this city.
Q. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Ferrer. Mr. Miller, did you want to make a 30 second rebuttal?
MILLER. Yeah, I would like to. First of all, let me just say that it's great to talk about making set-asides happen. I actually have a record of making that happen. Over the last eight months alone in the rezonings that have come before the council we've forced almost 8,000 units of affordable housing through those kinds of set-asides. And this administration started out opposing them and I've forced them to give in and make it happen.
And secondly, let me just note I've received contributions from more than 5,000 individual donors. And I won't apologize for raising the money that's necessary to be competitive in this race with somebody who's going to spend $100 million. But the question is not whether you trust me or my record, the question is what is my record and who are independent people and what are they looking at? And Tenant-PAC having endorsed my candidacy I think speaks volumes about the fact that I have a record of standing up and fighting for tenants and people in this city. And that's what really counts in this race.
Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. And thank you Andrea. And now we turn to Rita Nissanfor the next question. Rita?
Q. Thanks, Dominic. This question goes to Congressman Weiner. Congressman, there has been no terrorist attack in New York City for nearly four years. Is that because the terrorists are not trying or because the Police Department has done a good job preventing one?
WEINER. Well, I have to tell you something. We should be very proud of the fact that our Police Department, the best anywhere, has done a remarkable job. Frankly, they have done a remarkable job despite some of the challenges that they faced. You know, we have a 13-percent reduction in the number of the police officers today than we had in 2001? That is a result, in part, because President Bush and his Republican cronies have eliminated the COPS program. Do you know they won't allow us in the federal government Department of Homeland Security to pay for overtime funds that we need for the New York City Police Department? Do you know that the M.T.A. has been sitting on $600 million of security funds and not spending it?
Part of the reason I believe we need to have a fighter back in City Hall is that, you know, this is a choice between an active model and a passive model. Mike Bloomberg has been passive. Mike Bloomberg has sat back - you know, can you imagine the difference if he stood on the stage at Madison Square Garden welcoming his Republican brothers and sisters during the convention and excoriated them for not giving us the sufficient funds for homeland security?
Q. So Congressman, given these lapses, though, that you say the mayor has, then do you feel, then, under the mayor's leadership that another terrorist attack is inevitable?
WEINER. Oh, certainly not. But I'll tell you what I don't believe. I don't believe that safety is something that starts and stops. You can't say, we're safe. Safety is a continuum. This is why I support raising the number of police back to the 2001 levels. That's why I'm the sponsor of the COPS program in Washington, get the federal government off the sideline. This is why I was the person that put out a specific plan for making our subway safer. You know, safety is a continuum.
Mike Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly, every man and woman in the Police Department deserve credit for keeping us safe, but we also have to realize we have to constantly be fighting to do more. Washington. George Bush, the Republicans in Washington and his Republican friend here at City Hall has made us less safe, not more.
Q. Thank you, Congressman. Madame Borough President, your response.
FIELDS. I think it's fair to say that not any of us can determine when terrorists groups will attack. So whether we have safety measures in place or not, that is not the determining factor with respect to actions taken by terrorists. But what is important is to make sure that we have safety and security plans in place that are comprehensive. And that is why I have called on the M.T.A. and the mayor, working together, to develop comprehensive plans for our mass transit system. That will include expanded surveillance cameras. It will also include improved signal system, but, equally as important, training of transit workers, better informing of the public through the -
Q. Madame -
FIELDS. - public service announcement system.
Q. All of those things your talking about take a lot of money. Where does that money come from?
FIELDS. We have $600 million that have not been used over the past year that could have been used for safety. And what did the M.T.A. do with it? They used $30 million of it for consultants. And the mayor denounced them for that. No, Mr. Mayor, let's put forth a concrete plan and use those dollars for the safety of citizens and others in this city and we will be better prepared to address terrorist acts.
Q. Thank you. Mr. Ferrer, your response.
FERRER. Well, first I say thank God we haven't had another terrorist attack since 2001 because it took an awful toll on the spirit of this city, on the economy of this city and on the families of 3,000 people who perished in those attacks. And let's understand that since 2001, our police department has had to do two important jobs: keep us safe from domestic crime and from international crime, as well - and they're doing that with more than 3,000 fewer officers today than we had at the end of 2001 at all ranks. That's why I put forward a plan to get 1,000 more cops on the streets and in our mass transit system immediately by civilianizing those cops, taking them out from behind desks and putting civilians to do their work; fighting for homeland security funds so that we can get those 900 police that the COPS program used to pay for back on our streets, and, more than that. The M.T.A. has four appointees that are appointed by the mayor. But they're not just any four appointees. They're high ranking members of Mike Bloomberg's administration. They failed to spend $390 million of allocated funds to keep our mass transit system safe. I say, why didn't they know, why didn't they do anything about it and why didn't Mike Bloomberg do anything about it?
Q. Speaker Miller, you're up.
MILLER. Well I agree that the police department has done a terrific job in preventing an attack and they deserve credit for it. And I also agree with my colleagues here and have said for months that we need to hire more police officers in order to make sure that we can have the sort of presence that we had, frankly after the London bombings, in our subways and on our buses. We should have that every day and not just in reaction.
Q. But as your role as speaker of the City Council you do negotiate the budget, you do have the power to add those additional officers. Why didn't you push for that in this year's budget?
MILLER. Well, I did push for it in this year's budget.
Q. Why isn't it in this year's budget?
MILLER. Because in the end this is not really about money spending, it's about management. We can hire thousands more police officers without spending any more money because we spend so much on overtime that we can actually hire the police officers and save money, particularly in the long run because of the pension costs.
The other problem, frankly, is that the mayor allowed a contract to go forward in which police officers are going to get paid $25,000 starting salary. You know what that means? That means that a police officer with a family will be on food stamps when he or she starts in our police department. That's wrong. And we need to change that and change it now.
But beyond that, we also need to do a much better job of being prepared for an attack when it occurs. This administration has presided over the evisceration of the Office of Emergency Management, which no longer manages anything. And that's why I'm the only candidate up here to call for a new department of homeland security with one person in charge 24/7 of coordinating every agency, civilian and noncivilian. Because we have real challenges that aren't being met right now -
Q. Thank you, Speaker.
MILLER. And we need to change that.
Q. Congressman Weiner, you have a 30-second rebuttal. Do you think Speaker Miller has done all that he could to get more police officers, more money in the budget for that?
WEINER. No. But let me tell you what I believe, also. I believe that when Borough President Ferrer talks about the M.T.A., he's exactly right, that there's accountability that has to stop at Mike Bloomberg's door.
But something further: Why is it that we don't have control over the M.T.A. board? Why have we internalized the idea that the suburbs, that upstate, that the governor is going to have more appointments than the mayor of the City of New York?
One of the things that I'm going to do in my campaign and my four years as mayor is I'm going to constantly be challenging the presumption that Albany should be running our lives. We're perfectly capable of putting 91 percent of the fare box - you know, they rely upon us for 91 percent of the fare box. We only get about 70 percent of the funds back. So I'm not going to point fingers when there are track fires, when security money isn't being spent, when fares go up. I'm going to fight to get control of the M.T.A. board, get at least a majority vote and, frankly, I question the need for these authorities at all. These authorities are about politicians avoiding responsibility and avoiding accountability. That won't be the hallmark of my administration. I'm going to fight for more responsibility and more accountability.
Q. Thank you, Congressman.
Q. And thank you, Rita. And now we go to Juan Manuel for his question. Juan, go right ahead.
Q. Thank you, Dominic. This question is for Borough President Fields and last night we learned there won't be social promotion for seventh graders. They join third and fifth graders of the New York City School System. If elected, would you restore social promotion for the students and why?
FIELDS. I think that no one supports social promotion, and I certainly do not support social promotion, which means passing a child along when they have not learned. However, focusing on social promotion is not the approach that, as mayor, I would take.
I would take the approach of massive intervention very early on, beginning at pre-K, to make sure that we are putting the resources in our schools, assessing our students, providing them with the resources in every step along the way. We are investing in their academics and we can expect a greater performance overall.
Q. But, Borough President, if you were elected mayor of the city, would you restore social promotion for third, fifth and seventh graders?
FIELDS. I would invest in those students who are coming into the system. And, as a result, we will not need... to repeal social promotion because our students will be learning -
Q. So you won't restore it.
FIELDS. I will invest. I want you to understand this because I think it's absolutely clear, I mean important to be understood, that when we invest in students with the right teachers, the right resources, give them the resources and the help that they need, children learn. And we do not have to be faced with issues of social promotion. This mayor has made social promotion a hallmark of his educational program - third grade, fifth grade, seventh grade. What about investing the necessary resources - literacy program, support, working with the parents so that more help can be provided to these students.
Q. Thank you, borough president. Mr. Ferrer, would you restore social promotion for third-, fifth- and seventh-graders?
FERRER. Let's be really clear, I don't support social promotion, the policy of moving a child up simply because of advancing age in any grade.
But that's not the problem in our school system. You know it and everyone in this audience knows it. The problem in our school system is while the mayor is obsessing about some test score increases in the early grades, we're forgetting about collapsing scores in middle school and a dropout crisis - a level of dropouts of 50 percent and more in our high school grades. We're only graduating 38 percent of our kids on time. Only 18 percent get Regents diplomas. And you know what happens, they know what happens when a child drops out of school -
Q. So you wouldn't restore it?
FERRER. As I was saying, they know what happens when a child drops out of high school - they're out of a job, they're out of luck, they're out of hope. That's why I put forward a plan to restore the supports we used to have and to give our kids everything the suburban school systems give their kids: an education in their lives.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Ferrer.
FERRER. An education, a good education in their lives means that one of them one day might be at this podium or even on your side of the table.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Ferrer. Speaker Miller, let me rephrase the question. For the last couple of years there's one more grade in the city school system that goes without social promotion. Would you restore it or would you go on with other grades?
MILLER. Let me get right to the point of your question, which I think the confusion here is that there's a difference between opposing social promotion and saying that having an 8-year-old take one test and that having that be essentially the sole arbiter of whether or not that 8-year-old is ready to move on, that's a different thing. And I do not support giving 8-year-olds one test and telling them, you know what, this is it. In fact, I know 8-year-olds who have had to go home physically ill because of the pressure that's been placed on the 8-year-olds. And I don't think that's actually transforming our schools.
Giving tests does not transform our schools. What transforms our schools is lowering class sizes. It's making sure we have a quality teacher in every classroom. And make sure that every school and not just 17 of them are safe. And it's making sure that every child has a strong after-school program. And I have a record already of making a commitment to all of those issues. Just in this past year alone I forced this mayor to put back $1.3 billion worth of new school construction that he tried to cut when he wanted to walk away from our promise to our kids. We have to -
Q. So you wouldn't restore it, you would keep things that way.
MILLER. Particularly at the third and fifth grade level, I think single high stakes tests for children that young don't transform education. And in fact that's why the mayor had to replace his entire educational policy panel, because he couldn't find a single educator in the country that said they thought it was a good idea. It isn't a good idea. What is a good idea is fixing the schools. Test preparation is not an educational vision.
Q. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker Miller. Congressman Weiner, would you restore social promotion?
WEINER. No, I wouldn't. I oppose social promotion. I support having students graduate and go to the next grade because they're smarter, not just because they're older.
But I'll tell you what else I believe. I believe that having a test substitute for a good teacher or having a test substitute for a reasonable debate in this city is just wrong. You know, I desperately want that third grader to pass but I also want that fourth grader who's an average student to become a great student. I want that seventh grader who's a great student to go on to become a scholar, to go on to Harvard and Yale and the other great institutions. This is what we should be focusing on.
And I'll tell you where I derive these beliefs. You know, I went to public schools my whole life - P.S. 39, Junior High School 51, Brooklyn Tech. My mother recently retired after teaching in the schools for 31 years. If we want to make the schools better, we have to pay teachers more, we have to really have some discipline in the schools, we have to have a curriculum that let's people - let's teachers teach and let's principals govern their schools. These are the things.
I have to be honest with you. Right now Mike Bloomberg's administration has been governed by gimmicks: the gimmick of a $400 check, the gimmick of social promotion -
Q. Thank you, Congressman Weiner.
WEINER. The time for gimmickry should be over.
Q. Thank you so much. Thank you. Borough President Fields, you want to use your 30-second rebuttal?
FIELDS. We have a tremendous opportunity here in this city to make real reforms in our school, as a result of mayoral control. This mayor has focused on third grade, fifth grade, seventh grade social promotion. My plan will be to reduce class size, massive interventions, but also to expand opportunities for those students to provide excellence with math classes, science classes; expand opportunities to prevent dropout by vocational and training programs; grabbing the interest of those students who are looking to drop out, to make sure that we keep them in our schools.
Q. Thank you so much.
FIELDS. So this is my plan for expanding opportunities, giving those students exactly what they need. And you know what? They will pass those exams.
Q. Thank you, borough president. Now it's time - we want to mix things up, to give the candidates a chance to ask a question of one of his or her opponents. Now the answers will be limited to 90 seconds and there will be no rebuttals. We will begin the questions with you, Mr. Ferrer, and who would you like to address your question to?
FERRER. I have a question of my colleague, Gifford Miller. As you know, Mike Bloomberg promised the construction of 65,000 units of affordable housing in the city to meet a housing crisis. To date, he's only built slightly over 10,000 of them. Now I've put forward a plan to build and keep affordable 167,000 units of housing. What's your plan to do that and how will you pay for it?
MILLER. Well, I think what we need - Thank you for the question. Affordable housing is, I agree with you and I think all my colleagues here, a terrible crisis. When we have a quarter of New Yorkers who are paying more than half of their incomes for housing we have a serious crisis that's growing worse. And as I mentioned earlier, rents hit an all-time high this year, up 6 percent.
Any plan to deal with this needs to be a comprehensive plan. And it needs to start with the preservation of existing affordable housing. It's one thing to build 10,000 units and then if you're presiding over the departure of tens of thousands additional more affordable housing units, you're not moving in the right direction. And this city isn't. And that's why I've fought to protect rent control and rent stabilization. And tomorrow we'll pass legislation over the mayor's veto to protect Mitchell-Lama and Section Eight.
Second, we need to do something about rents in this city. And I have a specific plan to cut, provide a renters' tax credit for people up to $100,000 income in the City of New York - 3 percent of their rents - the first tax credit for rentals in the history of our city, which is amazing considering that millions of New Yorkers live in rental apartments.
Third, we need to devote more money towards the construction of housing. I've done this as speaker in the council, adding tens of millions of dollars to our capital budget. And when I'm mayor I'll continue that by drawing down funds like the Battery Park City trust fund.
But fourth, we also need to use tools like the set-asides that Andrea asked about, which I have effectively done as speaker of the council and I will expand when I'm mayor of the City of New York. We have to make a difference on this issue because people are struggling. And I agree, we need a comprehensive plan to address it.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Miller. And now it's your opportunity to ask a question. Who would you like to address it to?
MILLER. Well, I'll ask Freddy a question. You know that thousands of sexual assaults occur in this city every year. And yet emergency contraception is not available in 25 percent of our pharmacies and even in some of our hospital emergency rooms. The New York City Council under my leadership passed pieces of legislation to address those problems, which the mayor vetoed. And then he had the temerity to, this past couple of weeks, criticize Governor Pataki for vetoing legislation to protect emergency contraception for all women in the State of New York.
So my question is this: First, do you think that was hypocritical of the mayor? And secondly, what do you think we need to do in order to make emergency contraception available to every woman in the City of New York?
FERRER. Why yes, Gifford, I do. And thank you for the question.
But the second answer, you know the second part of that question is important as well. The governor should have signed that piece of legislation. This is one of the few things he could have done to have proven that he really did want to make the right kinds of health choices for women and wanted to give women the right kinds of tools to make those health choices for themselves.
Q. O.K. Thank you, Mr. Ferrer. And now we turn to you, Mr. Weiner.
WEINER. I, too, have a question for former Borough President Ferrer. Mr. Ferrer, you and I have had a public disagreement about the role of taxes in our relative plans, and I have said, repeatedly, that I think if we want to move our party in the direction where we start winning some of these municipal elections, that we need to offer some new solutions. Yesterday, as part of my financial plan, I put out a list representing about a 5-percent reduction in what I think are wasteful programs in the city. Can you name three specific programs in the city budget that you would cut?
FERRER. Well, first, Anthony, I'm glad you're feeling better. And, second, I don't think we have a disagreement at all. And that's because what you have characterized as my housing plan, for example, is not a tax on the middle class and you know that. I've pointed that out to you before. What I've talked about in my education plan, the way to fund it - because I don't think it's right to propose a plan and not propose a way to fund it. Ask the global investment community, that is investors from Tokyo to Boulder, Colo. to make a penny's worth investment in the future of our kids and the economic future of this city.
But let's be really specific. And here's where I think, again, you and I will agree. Mike Bloomberg has been absolutely silent on the issues of Medicaid reform while George Pataki wants to throw women and children off of Child and Health Plus and Family Health Plus, and close hospitals. We should be talking about going after the waste, fraud, leakage and duplication in that system because savings of that magnitude would almost literally wipe out our structural deficit. This is a case of a mayor who's [playing ball] for all of his Republican friends in Washington and in Albany, and forgetting that he works for 8.1 million people in this city - not a Republican president, not a Republican Congress and, certainly, not a Republican governor.
Q. Thank you, Congressman Weiner. And now Borough President - well, just for the record, before we continue, you said you're glad that Mr. Weiner's feeling better. Just can you tell us what happened earlier today as it relates to your health.
WEINER. Well, every candidate has their pre-debate ritual. Mine is to visit my neighborhood emergency room on the way to the debate. And I just want to say to all the folks at Parkside Hospital, they're doing a terrific job.
Q. Thank you.
MILLER. And I just want to note that I was at home at the time. I had nothing to do with it.
WEINER. But the Freddy Ferrer Ouija board works better than I thought, frankly.
Q. O.K. Borough President?
FIELDS. And, indeed, we're all very happy that the congressman is here with us. Well, I guess Freddy is the man tonight because my question is going to Freddy. Freddy, it has been reported on different times that you've taken different positions on the matter of choice and death penalty. And I'd like for you to clarify for everyone tonight what is your position on choice and the death penalty.
FERRER. Certainly, Virginia. You know, in the course of a 25-year public career I've taken stands on a great number of issues. On choice it's very simple: Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. On the issue of the death penalty, I believe in the moratorium, given the differences in the representation of defendants, prosecutorial abuses, the suppression of exculpatory evidence.
But let's go to the heart of the matter. I've also taken positions on some important issues like when Rudy Giuliani tried to insert himself into the mayoralty for 90 more days. I took a position that said, no, we have to respect our constitutional traditions and the tradition of the orderly transfer of power.
And you know, in some cases, I've expressed those words clumsily and badly. Like all of us, I'm a human being. But like all of us who've been in public life a long time, you answer questions that are put to you and you do the best you can. Over 25 years I think I have a pretty good batting average.
Q. Thank you, candidates. Now we return to our panel and we'll begin with Andrea.
Q. I, too, have a question for Mr. Ferrer. Former-Borough President Ferrer, the mayor of London not too long ago launched a program charging every vehicle that enters that city's center about $10 during peak times. It has widely been seen as a great success at easing traffic congestion. Early in his administration Mayor Bloomberg considered a similar idea for tolls on the East River bridges but never pursued it. Good government groups say such tolls would be an important new revenue source and would also help solve Manhattan's traffic problems. Has the time for so-called congestion pricing arrived in New York City? And if so, what's your plan? If not, why not?
FERRER. Well, there are some dissimilarities between London and New York City. The obvious one is that they drive on the wrong side of the street. The other obvious one is it's not as big as New York City, not as complex as New York City.
Now look, I'd like to get more cars off the roads of Manhattan, especially off of cross-town traffic, where it's quicker to get cross town walking slowly than by car -
Q. It sounds to me like you're saying the time for congestion pricing has not arrived in New York. Why is that?
FERRER. No. No. I think asking for higher tolls on bridges and tunnels, as the M.T.A. has begun to do, is the appropriate thing to do. But putting tolls on the East River bridges, even Mike Bloomberg walked away from that because he knows one other thing: There are people in this city who work hard every day who depend on their vehicles to make deliveries or get in to work. We've got to find a way to get them to use mass transit. But I'm not going to be the one to say they can't earn a living in New York City.
Q. Mr. Miller, where do you stand on so-called congestion pricing. Do you think it's a good idea to reduce traffic in Manhattan? And if you don't think it's a good idea, what do you think is the way to reduce traffic in Manhattan?
MILLER. Well we have some congestion pricing, as you know Andrea, by encouraging E-ZPass and making it a slightly less expensive way to come across our bridges. And I think that we should be looking at those sorts of incentives for trucks and for other kinds of traffic. But in the end I don't think we should put tolls on our East River bridges.
And I think the real solution is to fix our subways. You know, this is an administration that has been silent about this issue, completely silent. We have signals in our system that are from the Prohibition Era. And the M.T.A. plans to fix them by 2030. Don't worry, 25 years from now you'll get good service. This is a serious crisis that the mayor has to address. And I'm the only candidate up here who has said exactly how I would fix the guts of our system and pay for the expansion: by bringing back an expansive commuter tax on people that work in New York City but don't live in New York City, and devoting that money directly to fixing our subways and our buses and making them run once again. I can't tell you how many people come up to me every day and say: Just get me to work on time. That's it. Just get me to work on time.
That's what a mayor's supposed to do and that's what I'll do when I'm mayor.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Congressmember Weiner, why is it fair that people from Brooklyn and Queens should get to avoid paying tolls, while people from Staten Island and people from New Jersey should have to pay tolls?
WEINER. Well why is it fair that every time there's a challenge in this city people want to raise taxes on the middle class? That's what this would be: a regressive tax on middle-class New Yorkers in Brooklyn and Queens and Staten Island and, frankly, in Long Island and everywhere else.
If you want to reduce congestion in the City of New York, I have a plan. First, we are a city of remarkable capabilities. And we're also surrounded by water. Yet compared to other major cities we don't use ferry service. We have fantastic ferry service to one community of Staten Island and none anywhere else. Well I'm fighting to change that. I'm buying the city ferries with federal transportation dollars to try to remove some of the cars off the Belt Parkway, off the Grand Central, off the L.I.E.
Secondly, I don't have any problem with trying to reduce the amount of truck traffic in Manhattan by incentivizing deliveries at night. You know, Joe's Pizzeria on Seventh Avenue can't get a flour delivery at night, but you know Macy's probably could in the City of New York. We have to have more New Yorkers, and frankly the entire City of New York, do what I did, which is buy a hybrid car. You know, we should reduce the amount of environmental toxins being dumped into the air as well. The idea that the only solution to New York's problems is to levy another tax on the middle class will not be the path that I follow. The middle class in New York are taxed high enough. That's why I want to give them a 10-percent tax cut on their income.
Q. Borough President Fields, congestion pricing once again has worked well in London and many businesses like it because it's very easy to get around during the day on buses and taxis. London is not a city which is surrounded by water, as is the island of Manhattan. Why should congestion pricing not come to New York City?
FIELDS. Actually, I'm open to it. I'm open to the idea of congestion pricing because it will reduce traffic at certain times of the day and it will, of course, increase revenue that can go toward...enabling our mass transit to be improved.
I am opposed to charging tolls for East River bridges. I think that it would be strictly unfair to people who live in this city and have to pay from Brooklyn just to come into Manhattan or from other areas. And I don't think that that is the way that we should look to improve our transportation system.
We must improve our mass transportation system by investing in it. The city has not invested its share in our mass transit system since about 1993. When we do not invest, we cannot modernize the system; we cannot make the necessary improvements.
So, as mayor, I will prioritize investing so that we can make the necessary improvements.
And by the way, our speaker said he's the only one who has called for reinstatement of a commuter tax. I, too, have called for the reinstatement of a commuter tax but at 1 percent and to have that 1 percent designated specifically toward the improvement of our mass transit system.
There are some other things that we can do -
Q. Thank you, Borough President Fields. Mr. Ferrer, do you have a 30-second rebuttal?
FERRER. Yes. Let's get to the heart of the matter. Everybody says we want a safe, reliable and affordable mass transit system. But the question is: What's Mike Bloomberg willing to do about it?
Look, he's spared no effort to try to get the M.T.A. board to preside over a sweetheart deal for the sale of the development rights over the Hudson Yards. And he still has yet to weigh in on the development rights over the Atlantic Yards. Getting full market value for both will ensure that the straphangers of this city don't have to take a subway system that strands them by the hundreds of thousands every couple of days, and remain affordable.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Ferrer.
Q. Our next question now comes from Rita Nissan. Rita.
Q. Speaker Miller, this question is for you. We have seen major unions and advocacy groups that typically back Democratic candidates cross party lines to endorse Mayor Bloomberg, including Local 32BJ, representing building maintenance workers; the abortion rights group, NARAL, pro-choice, and the list goes on and on. Why has Mayor Bloomberg been so successful in getting their endorsements and why did you lose the support of these groups?
MILLER. Well, look - [to a heckler] you want to come on down?
I don't worry about what other people get in terms of endorsements. I worry about what my campaign has accomplished and what I'm talking to New Yorkers about. And I'm very proud of the fact that I've received endorsements from everybody from the United Auto Workers to the Empire State Pride Agenda, built a campaign that brought in 158,000 signatures to put my name on the ballot for the Democratic line. And I did that because I have a proven record of results in which I have spent the last four years fighting for New Yorkers, to really put education first and make sure we build affordable housing.
Q. Then are all of these groups that are supporting the mayor, are all of them misguided?
MILLER. Yes, you're darn right they're misguided. They should be supporting me. But I'll tell you what else. I believe that the rank and file of those unions are going to vote for the Democratic candidate because the four people on this stage represent an opportunity to take our city in a new direction. And I know that they're going to support my candidacy because I've spent time talking with them about my specific positive plans to make this city a better place and my record of accomplishment.
But I believe that when the voters take a look at our records, that they're going to make sure that we take the city in a new direction, that we tackle lowering class sizes and do it now, that we fix our subways, that we get our fair share from Washington and Albany, and that we don't accept these excuses about why we have to wait longer for these kinds of results.
Q. Congressman Weiner, the mayor must be doing something right to land these massive endorsements.
WEINER. Well, I have to tell you, these labor leaders should hang their head in shame. They should hang their head in shame because they have turned their back on the values that made the labor movement so powerful in this city. They're supporting a candidate who feels warmly towards Wal-Mart and abandons small business. They support a candidate who raises gobs and gobs of money for Republicans who then turn their back on us rather than supporting progressive Democrats through this country. They are supporting a candidate that in 2004 allowed there to be 500,000 children in this city that had to turn to a soup kitchen or a church basement for a meal. This is the candidate that they are supporting. They are supporting a candidate who stood up at Madison Square Garden and urged everyone to vote for George Bush, saying that he was the best candidate for New York. The heads of these unions should hang their head in shame.
But I have to tell you something else should happen. Every one of their rank and file members that have been abandoned by their leadership should walk away from these union leaders and vote for one of these candidates up here.
Q. Madame Borough President, these groups offer significant [reacting to applause] I think you have a lot of D.C. 37 members here tonight.... Madame Borough President, these groups offer considerable voter outreach that would benefit any of you. Given the fact that you're struggling, raising money, wouldn't you have liked to court these voters? Did you not court them hard enough?
FIELDS. I would love to have had the support of all of these unions. And I'm very pleased -
Q. Then why didn't you get it?
FIELDS. They gave it to Michael Bloomberg. Big mistake, but that's what they did. I have the support of a number of the members of D.C. 37 and I'm very happy to have that support. I have the support of many of the members of 32 B.J. and I am happy to have that support. The fact that the leadership decided to support Mayor Michael Bloomberg is really a mistake and I agree with the congressman in terms of the values of the Democratic Party, in terms of the support and the work that we do every day in addressing issues of trying to get fair contracts, making sure that the concerns of labor are addressed by the council members, by borough president. So do I regret it? I do. But it will not stop me from working to ensure that the members of these different labor organizations who have endorsed the mayor will not be left behind in a Fields administration. I will work to negotiate contracts in a timely manner. I will respect the role of labor, as I always have, because coming out of labor, I know the value of having a mayor who is sensitive, who respects and who works with labor.
Q. Thank you.
FIELDS. And this mayor has not done that, especially with D.C. 37.
Q. Thank you.
FIELDS. So is it regrettable? Absolutely. But that does not stop me from working with the members and getting ...
Q. Thank you. Mr. Ferrer, Mr. Ferrer, how did you feel when you found out you were not getting the endorsements and the backings of these important organizations?
FERRER. Let's be clear about this as well. I'm not focused on making New York work better for some union presidents. I'm focused on making New York work better for the rank and file of those unions.
Q. But did you court these union presidents during the campaign?
FERRER. Excuse me. I am asking everybody.
Q. Did you ever have conversations with them?
FERRER. I am asking everybody for support. But at the end of the day, Rita, the people who are going to respond to a vision of this city that says, I want to make it easier to find a decent place to live at a price that you can afford. I want to make it better so you can send your child to learn in an excellent school in your own neighborhood. I want to make it better so that when I'm mayor, I'll negotiate a fair contract with you because your contract shouldn't wait, as your bills do not wait, for three years.
So I've got to tell you something: I'm focused on the rank and file of these unions because it is the rank and file who will not only decide the future of this city; it is the rank and file, after all, who form the base, the heart and soul, of the Democratic voters of this city and the voters who believe that we need a different vision from Mike Bloomberg's obsessive vision with building stadiums for billionaire N.F.L. team owners.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Ferrer. Thank you. Speaker Miller, you have 30-second rebuttal if you'd like it.
MILLER. Well I just want to note again that I'm very proud of the fact that I have the support of the United Auto Workers, C.W.A. 1182, U.F.C.W. In fact, just yesterday the D.C. 37 retirees endorsed my campaign.
But look, let's be realistic and real about this. What's really happening here is that these unions aren't engaged in Mike Bloomberg's campaign. He's spending $100 million and creating his own apparatus. And the leadership of these unions can't get their membership engaged in -
Q. So are the leaders of these unions being bought then by the mayor?
MILLER. No, what I'm saying is that they are not engaged in Mike Bloomberg's campaign. And I'm running a very different kind of campaign. My campaign has been reaching out to people. That's why 158,000 people signed signatures to put my name on the ballot. That's why we've been building and organizing block by block and neighborhood by neighborhood. Because in the end, Mike Bloomberg spending $100 million on this campaign is not going to make the difference in this election; what's going to make the difference is when people realize that they have the opportunity to take control of the future of our city and to take our city in a new direction that tackles the tough issues in their lives.
Q. Speaker Miller, thank you.
MILLER. Thank you.
Q. And thank you, Rita. And now we turn to Juan Manuel.
Q. Thank you, Dominic. For Congressman Weiner, day laborers are a really important part of the city's economy. And I want to focus on the women. On any given day thousands of mostly undocumented women gather in different points of the city waiting for someone to drive them to a job. What kind of assistance would you be willing to offer these women, not only to help them earn a consistent wage but also to ensure their security?
WEINER. Well a couple of things I would do. First, I would do everything that I could to work with the labor unions in this city to make sure that these people could organize to defend their rights. I would turn my back on the wrong-headed policies coming out of Washington that see immigration as some kind of a great threat to our country, and see it for what it is in the City of New York, which is our No. 1 energizer and engine for economic development.
I would make sure that there are centers set up so that they aren't strewn across the streets, hovering around cars - that they can deal with this transaction with some level of dignity.
But let's remember what this is also about. What this is about is the fact that, frankly, despite the fact that we hear about the great economic boom in New York City, real wages outside of Manhattan are flat. We have a tax burden going up on middle-class and working people, we have public schools that are failing them. You know, the economy - when Mike Bloomberg practically dislocates his shoulder patting himself on the back about how great the economy is, he forgets that [in] the broad swaths of this country people are getting left behind and we have to provide services for them. That's I why, you know, I mentioned earlier in passing, you know, over 500,000 children in this city had to turn to the city or church kitchens for a meal. Children. Why is that?
One of the reasons is we are one of the only major cities that requires a mother trying to feed their child to get fingerprinted before they get food stamps. Why do we treat them with that level of indignity? Why do we do that? Because Mike Bloomberg wants to brag to his Republican brothers and sisters how tough he is on the poor. That's outrageous.
Q. Thank you. Borough President Fields, would you also support the creation of centers for these women?
FIELDS. It was very disheartening to see the pictures of the women standing on the corners, standing on the streets simply trying to get a day job in order to feed themselves and their families.
As mayor, I would reach out to that community, to those women and to provide help through community-based organizations, provide training, provide job placement opportunities, because it is a matter of safety as well as providing opportunities for them to work to be able to feed their families.
I think that this city has a responsibility for all of us who live here. And it is not acceptable for any mayor to see the pictures of immigrants so determined to make sure that they, too, are a part of this city and not act. So through community-based organizations and various other support systems, I would reach out and provide help right now.
Q. Thank you, Borough President. Mr. Ferrer, your response.
FERRER. Day laborers in this city, women and men - let's face it - are being exploited. They're being exploited in terms of pay and working conditions.
I not only want to see centers for day laborers created in these communities, but I want to work with labor unions to organize them. The only way we're going to make sure that they get adequate pay, that they get health insurance for themselves and for their families - and let's understand something, they're working hard just to put food on the table for their kids. They deserve an opportunity to work in safety, to work in dignity. It's more than just a paycheck, it's about dignity. And we owe, in this city, an opportunity for them to be safe, work for decent wages, work for reputable people, not be exploited and work in the kind of dignity that their families deserve.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Ferrer. Speaker Miller?
MILLER. Well, this is a serious crisis and the reality is that New York City is a city that has been - prospered over the last 350 years because we're a city of immigrants. And we need to welcome immigrants and give them real opportunities. And we, sadly, don't do that in every case.
So before I tell you what I'll do, let me tell you what I've done. As speaker of the Council, I led the Council in creating the first immigrant opportunities initiative to provide legal services to immigrants and English as a second language training. I led the Council in passing the first long-term structural unemployment initiative to attack structural long-term unemployment in communities of color. I led the Council in passing the first earned-income tax credit in the history of our city, and the first real living wage law.
Q. Yes, but about these women -
MILLER. - 50,000 people.
Q. - that we're talking about.
MILLER. For these women, here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to expand the immigrant opportunities initiatives so we can provide more legal services to them so they know their rights. And secondly, I'm going to double, again, the earned-income tax credit so that low-income working people in the city actually can realize the fruits of their labor and still be able to put food on their children's table.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Miller. And do you want to use your 30-second rebuttal, Congressman Weiner?
WEINER. Well, I would. I'd like to say a word or two to those that are watching this that think this isn't their problem, say, you know, I'm not a day laborer, I'm not someone who lives in a community where they are. You know, we have 1.8 million New Yorkers uninsured in this city, 900,000 of them have 40-hour-a-week jobs. Fully employed with no health insurance. But we are all paying the bill when so many people are without care. When someone walks into a hospital emergency room or a child shows up at school with tuberculosis, we all suffer.
We have to stop having it reinforced by our Republican friends that this isn't your problem, that you're doing O.K., you can just turn your back on problems. None of us can get too far ahead if any of us are left behind. And this is a classic case where Mike Bloomberg is letting too many people get left behind.
Q. Thank you so much.
Q. Thank you, Juan Manuel. And now it's Dan Janison's turn to ask a question. Dan, go right ahead.
Q. O.K., Borough President Fields, as you know, public safety experts disagree on how best to organize city agencies for big emergencies. In 2001, the voters created an emergency management department to lead the way, but Mayor Bloomberg believes his police commissioner should take charge if there's any hint of a terrorist act - a different approach. Personalities aside and leaving aside who you would appoint, which command structure would you choose?
FIELDS. First of all, I think we must recognize the fact that safety and security are important issues to everyone who lives and comes and visits this city. And it is important that we have a plan in place that is understood and a very comprehensive plan in place that is understood and a very comprehensive plan to provide safety and security.
I believe that the Fire Department - and I'm going to answer your question perhaps more directly than you ever expected - but I believe that the Fire Department really should have continued with the responsibility, one, that they have been doing it, they have more trained personnel there, they have the equipment there. We do not -
Q. You mean for hazardous materials.
FIELDS. With the hazardous materials, right. I don't think that we should have created the kind of situation that has been created in this city now, where there is a lack of confidence among citizens in terms of the fight that is publicly being played out between the Fire Department and the Police Department. So I believe it should have stayed where the resources are, where the training already exists - build on that training and bring the Police Department in as a support, as opposed to giving the first responsibility to the Police Department, who are now training and equipment needs have to be purchased.
So it was a mistake -
Q. Sounds like you're more of a supporter of the O.E.M.[Office of Emergency Management] model.
FIELDS. Yes.
Q. O.K. Mr. Ferrer?
FERRER. Dan, I'm glad you mentioned the fact that the voters of this city, in a referendum, passed the O.E.M. model.
Let me tell you why I think it's so important. Look, the Police Department does a terrific job in responding to emergencies. They handle policing issues extraordinarily well. The Fire Department handles their issues extraordinarily well. I think it's a shame when anyone in this city has to read a newspaper account of a battle of the badges. It's wrong. That's why the voters of this city, in their wisdom, passed the O.E.M. model, because there should be one person who works for the mayor who says, this is your job, get it done. We have an emergency, we have no time for bickering between departments. We have no time for battle of the badges. The only thing we have time for is saving lives and preventing further damage.
Q. Speaker Miller, it sounds like the Department of Homeland Security that you propose on a local level grows out of the O.E.M. Could you explain that?
MILLER. Yeah, that's right. I think we need to get back to the O.E.M. model that we had under Mayor Giuliani. And in fact I would elevate it to a Department of Homeland Security with the director of homeland security responsible, 24/7, for our preparedness and for making sure that agencies are actually being coordinated. Right now, we have joint commands at many different emergencies, which work fine when the Police Department and the Fire Department agree about the right thing to do. But amazingly, if they don't agree, there is no method for resolving that disagreement. Literally. That is not only unsafe, it's wrong; it's crazy. And we ought to have the director of homeland security, or at least the Office of Emergency Management, able to break those ties. I've forced the situation into the open, as speaker of the council, holding hearings on this subject, said very clearly what I thought was the right thing to do at that time about making sure we had the O.E.M. break these ties. And more than that, Dan, we have to go beyond just preparing ourselves for the police and fire department. You know that we have no surge capacity in our hospitals in this city? There are only 66 burn beds in the city of New York to prepare us for an attack. And amazingly, we've only trained several hundred people as part of neighborhood response time. San Francisco, by contrast, has trained 11,000. They're one-eighth our size. We have to change that and we have to make a commitment to doing it now.
Q. Thank you. Congressman Weiner, is Mayor Bloomberg completely off-base by saying we live in the age of terrorism; I've got a great police commissioner, Ray Kelly. He should really have all the latitude he should get. What's your take?
WEINER. No, he isn't completely off-base. But I can tell you that when you have the chief of the Fire Department that was in the North Tower on Sept. 11 saying that if you had this command structure on Sept. 11, you would have had real problems, I think it needs some minor tweaks. And let me just predicate this by saying that, you know, I think the battle of the badge is wildly overstated in this city. For the most part, every single day, a great Police Department and a fantastic Fire Department work together. But I do believe that hazardous materials cases should be handled first and foremost by the Fire Department. You know, there are other agencies of government that do this very well. When, tragically, Flight 587 crashed in my district in Rockaway, it was remarkable: the F.B.I. came and they controlled the scene for about 30 minutes. They determined there was no crime that had been committed there and immediately the N.T.S.B. came in and took over smoothly, without much transition problems. Every commissioner who is a commissioner in my administration is going to have to understand that I'm going to settle these disputes on the merits. I'm not just going to settle them based on what's the easiest way to do it. And when the chief that was in the North Tower says this is a flawed plan, believe me, you should listen to him.
Q. Thank you. Borough President Fields, would you like to rebut for 30 seconds?
FIELDS. We have a system that works. Our emergency management system works. It should not have been put in the situation of battling between the police department and the fire. Mayor Bloomberg made a terrible mistake when he allowed this to happen. And now to allow it to be played out publicly between both commissioners is absolutely wrong.
Q. Is he too police oriented in this particular situation?
FIELDS. He's showed favoritism in this situation that has created a lack of confidence among citizens in a way that is absolutely unnecessary. And the mayor needs to correct it at this point. The mayor needs to step forward and say to the general public: This is the plan, this is how we have changed it - and communicate more fully than what I believe the public really understands about this plan.
Q. Thank you.
Q. Thank you, borough president. And thank you, Dan. And we are running short on time but we are going to try and get in one more question. But first, before we do that, we are now going to go to the lightning round. But we're going to try and make this as interesting as possible, I can promise you that much - where I will ask questions that can only be answered, even for politicians, with the words yes or no. The four of you will be required to answer the question. And the first one goes to Mr. Ferrer. We'll just go down the table until we get to the second question. Is Michael Bloomberg a better mayor than Rudy Giuliani?
FERRER. Oh, yeah.
MILLER. Yes.
WEINER. No.
FIELDS. Yes.
Q. Mr. Speaker?
MILLER. Yes.
Q. And you do have school-age children. If you are elected mayor, will you send them to New York City public schools through high school?
MILLER. I don't know. My kids are too young. We have -
Q. Yes or no.
MILLER. Pam? Pam, I'd - we haven't made that decision. I don't know the answer to that question. My kids are 4 and 3. Look, let me tell you what I'm not going to do. I'm not going to give you a yes-or-no question to the question of where my children are going to spend the next 18 years of their education before I have a chance to look at every school. You're going to ask me a yes-or-no question about my children before they're of the age and I haven't had a chance to look at those schools? That's ridiculous, Dominic, it's ridiculous.
Q. Fair enough. Mr. Weiner?
WEINER. Yes, but I need a wife first.
FIELDS. Doesn't apply, but yes.
Q. What was that, Borough President?
FIELDS. Doesn't apply, but yes.
Q. I won't ask why. And Mr. Ferrer?
FERRER. My daughter already did graduate from public schools and she has two little sons who also go to public schools.
Q. Mr. Weiner, beginning with you, you folks talk a lot about the mayor's money. If you had Mayor Bloomberg's financing, his money, would you spend any of it on your campaign?
WEINER. Oh, if I only were a rich man. No.
FIELDS. No.
FERRER. No.
MILLER. No.
Q. Borough President Fields? And I believe this individual is with us tonight. This is a question for the four of you: Do you want Al Sharpton's endorsement?
FIELDS. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
FERRER. Yes.
MILLER. Sure.
Q. What was that?
MILLER. I said, sure, yes, yes.
WEINER. I used to say no. Now I say yes.
Q. This question is for you Mr. Ferrer. If you are elected, would you take the subway to work on a daily basis?
FERRER. Yes.
MILLER. You know, it's a long walk from Gracie Mansion. No, I wouldn't.
WEINER. Yes.
FIELDS. No.
Q. For Mr. Miller, and here's a tricky one here: Do you like the Yankees more than the Mets?
MILLER. Yes.
WEINER. No way.
FIELDS. No.
FERRER. Only in the American League.
Q. Yes or no.
FERRER. Ah, you beat it out of me - yes.
Q. I believe we're up to you, Mr. Weiner. The next question is, and this is a topic that's near and dear to the mayor, the current mayor of the city, would you reverse the mayor's smoking ban?
WEINER. No.
FIELDS. No.
FERRER. No.
MILLER. No.
Q. Borough President Fields, if you had the power, would you grant amnesty for undocumented immigrants?
FIELDS. Yes.
FERRER. Yes.
MILLER. Yes.
WEINER. Not all.
Q. That's a no?
WEINER. Sure, if that's the only choice I have.
Q. Mr. Ferrer, and I believe this applies to you to a degree in terms of the answer is yes, but here's the question: Can you imagine in the future - we know in the past you've done this - getting arrested as an act of civil disobedience?
FERRER. Yes.
MILLER. Yes.
WEINER. I'm going to run the Police Department - No.
FIELDS. Yes. Yes.
Q. O.K. Next question: Mr. Miller, would you sign into law the education equity act which would provide translation and interpretation services in schools for immigrant parents?
MILLER. I plan to pass it, so yes.
WEINER. Yes.
FIELDS. Yes.
FERRER. Absolutely yes.
Q. We have two last questions, Mr. Weiner -
WEINER. Wait a minute, wait a minute, I've got to get one break here. Can she go first?
Q. Oh, borough president, thank you. Have you ever crossed party lines and not voted for a Democrat in an election?
FIELDS. Never have, never will.
FERRER. Never.
MILLER. Nope.
WEINER. Nope.
Q. Final question is for you, Mr. Ferrer, and we think this is a good one.
FERRER. I'll be the judge of that.
Q. Are we here in New York City, New Yorkers, are we better off today compared to four years ago?
FERRER. In most ways, no.
MILLER. Yes.
WEINER. Yes.
FIELDS. No.
Q. O.K. Well that completes our lightning round of questions. And I hope our crowd found that entertaining. And so we have reached a point where I'm going to try - We have about a minute before closing statements. And if Rita has a quick question we will try and get this in. Go ahead, Rita.
Q. This question goes to Mr. Ferrer, I believe. About the Freedom Center at Ground Zero, as proposed it's very controversial. The center includes exhibits on various human rights issues and space for seminars on freedom-related topics - 9/11 family members, some of them are opposed. They fear that it could be used as a forum for anti-American values. Just quickly, what do you think should be part of the Freedom Center?
Q. Very quickly, please.
FERRER. I think there should be a diversity of views and exhibits in the Freedom Center, activities in the Freedom Center. But I think they have to be guided by a sense that we lost 3,000 people and families in this entire city have been deeply affected.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Ferrer. Quickly down the line, please, response to the question.
MILLER. I think that there clearly needs to be more done to make sure that we're reaching out to the families. But I think what really ought to be part of the Freedom Center is Freedom Tower. And we ought to be actually rebuilding what's happened down there in Lower Manhattan. It is just [a] national disgrace how little has been done to rebuild, not just a memorial, but to rebuild in terms of the businesses, in terms of the heart of the plans to re-energize Lower Manhattan.
Q. Mr. Weiner?
WEINER. More than three and a half years ago, Mike Bloomberg was sworn in near the still-smoking embers of ground zero and said he was going to rebuild it. He hasn't done it. We should be talking about a Freedom Center that represents a diversity of views. But we have to keep first and closest to our heart the views of the victims for whom that area is a living shrine.
Q. Borough president?
FIELDS. Diversity of culture, diversity that represents this great city, and clearly a memorial that reflects what happened there keeping in the forefront of all of our minds - and working with the families to decide all of those details.
Q. Thank you very much. It is now time for the closing remarks by the candidates. You will have 60 seconds, give or take - perhaps a little less time. And we begin with Mr. Ferrer. Mr. Ferrer, you're up.
FERRER. Thanks. Look, I grew up in the Bronx, raised by my mother and grandmother. My first job was shining shoes. Two scholarships let me go to N.Y.U., so I think I know something about working hard, paying a mortgage and working with my wife to raise a terrific daughter.
Now, Mike Bloomberg, on the other hand, understands big business. But you've got to wonder whether he understands the needs of everyday New Yorkers, New Yorkers who wonder about a mayor who spent three and a half obsessed years trying to build a football stadium for a billionaire N.F.L. team owner.
But what's he done for someone who can't afford a multimillion-dollar condo or to send his or her child to a public school? I'm running for mayor because I want to build a city that works better for every New Yorker.
Now, I know, of course, a mayor's got to make the tough decisions. He's also got to make the right decisions. And he's also got to make the kind of decisions that give us hope - hope that we can get a decent place to live, hope we can send our child to learn in a great school right in our own neighborhood. That's the kind of mayor I want to be. With your help, that's the kind of mayor I will be.
Thanks for inviting me.
Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Ferrer. Mr. Miller?
MILLER. Well, Dominic, you know I spent last year teaching once a week in an eighth grade social studies class in Long Island City. And what I saw there were the problems that have resulted in 550,000 kids failing in our schools every day - overcrowded classrooms, kids that weren't ready to learn. And I've spent the last several months traveling in neighborhoods all over this city talking with New Yorkers who are struggling to find housing that they can afford, to find jobs that provide for their families and to grow old with dignity and respect in this city.
And, you know, I feel a tremendous sense of urgency about solving these problems. I know we can do better and that's why I'm running for mayor. And I have a proven record of results. If we're going to hire a mayor to tackle these tough problems, then what we ought to do is hire somebody with a proven record of delivering results.
As speaker of the council, I brought together the most diverse legislature, in some ways, in the country, to pass living wage laws and earned-income tax credits and make a difference for New Yorkers. And I want to just say this: I know I'm not asking for a small thing. I'm asking for the opportunity to be mayor of the City of New York. And if you give me that chance, I will not let you down.
Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. Mr. Weiner.
WEINER. Thank you very much. Let me tell you a little bit about who I am and what I plan to do as your mayor. Who I am is the child of a middle-class family in Brooklyn. My mother was a school teacher for 31 years, my father a neighborhood attorney who literally hung a shingle outside our home. I went to public schools my entire life, had the great honor of working for Chuck Schumer for six years as my entree into politics; served in the city council. And then I've had the high honor of representing the people of Brooklyn and Queens in the United States House of Representatives. That's a little bit about who I am. But let me tell you specifically what I plan to do. I'm going to make you two promises. One, I'm always going to come at problems with real ideas: a 10 percent tax cut on anyone making less than $150,000 a year paid for by reducing waste by 5 percent. Paying teachers more and making it easier to get the worst teachers out of our schools. But I'll tell you something else: I may be moving into Gracie Mansion in a few months but I'm never going to forget where I came from. And where I came from is a middle-class hardworking family from Brooklyn and Queens. That's who I'm going to be looking out for every single day as your mayor. My name is Anthony Weiner.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Weiner. Borough President Fields?
FIELDS. Thank you, Dominic. My life experiences have been about doing things that make a difference in the lives of people, starting very early, as I grew up in the segregated South of Birmingham, Ala., in a working-class family. Father, a laborer, died of cancer when I was 12; mother struggled to make sure that the youngest of five children were able to get a good education. And at the age of 17, I made a decision to march with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., knowing that I would be arrested, spent six days in jail, but that began to help me take my stand against fighting for - fighting against racial injustices. That's the kind of background out of which I came.
And as a civil rights activist, as a social worker, as an elected official, all of this has helped to shape my vision, my views and my passion to serve. That is why I focus on jobs - jobs for the chronically unemployed - services for our seniors, affordable housing.
As your mayor, I can do so much more. I ask for your vote -
Q. Thank you.
FIELDS. And I ask you to join me, to let this - have this city move in a different direction: opportunities for more rather than a few.
Q. Thank you, Borough President.
FIELDS. Thank you.
Q. Thank you very much. Now that concludes tonight's debate. On behalf of New York 1, I'd like to thank tonight's co-sponsors: New York 1 Noticias, New York City Newsday, WNYC-Radio and, of course, the City Campaign Finance Board. I'd also like to thank the candidates tonight for attempting to answer all of our questions. And, of course, we'd like to thank Jazz at Lincoln Center for allowing us to use their beautiful facilities. Again, thank you and good night.
Â
Every two weeks the New York City Council meets for its Stated Meeting to introduce and pass legislation. Gotham Gazette covers these meetings and posts a summary of the bills passed.
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
"Government bureaucracy gives compassion a bad name." - Councilmember Eric Gioia arguing that New Yorkers should be allowed to apply for food stamps online and by fax.
MEETING SUMMARY:
HEALTH CARE SECURITY ACT
Calling health care coverage a "moral responsibility," the New York City Council passed a bill that requires employers in the grocery and food industry to pay their workers' medical costs.
The legislation ( Intro 468-A) dubbed the "Health Care Security Act," requires grocery stores with more than 35 employees to contribute $2.50 toward health care for each hour an employee works, or $5,000 a year for a full-time employee.
Employers can pay the money into an insurance plan or reimburse workers for medical bills. Those that fail to comply face fines equal to the amount of health coverage.
The council estimates that the legislation will apply to 300 grocery stores and ensure health care coverage for 27,000 workers. It also applies to large chain stores - like Wal-Mart - that dedicate more than 10,000 square feet of their buildings to food.
"For a hard day's work, you should get the health care you deserve," said Councilmember Christine Quinn, who helped draft the bill.
The council argues that the measure will save taxpayers money because uninsured workers will no longer have to enroll in government programs or use emergency rooms as their only option for medical care.
The bill has support from companies like Fairway, Gristedes, D’Agostinos, Key Food, and Pathmark, as well as many local unions.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg opposes the measure, arguing that it violates the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which limits state and local government involvement in employee benefits. He also says it unfairly targets the grocery industry, and he has vowed to veto the measure.
The measure passed the council by a vote of 46 to 1; only Republican Councilmember Andrew Lanza voted "no." The council only needs 34 votes to override a mayoral veto.
Supporters of the bill see it as a pilot program and would like to extend the same regulations to building service employers, construction companies, and the hotel industry in the future.
FOOD STAMPS
The council also overrode a series of vetoes from Mayor Bloomberg.
Three of the bills aim at expanding the city's food stamp program. The council argues that 500,000 New Yorkers who are eligible for the federally funded program do not receive them because regulations are too cumbersome.
"Government bureaucracy gives compassion a bad name," said Councilmember Eric Gioia, who promised the measures would make it easier for needy families and their children to get the food.
Intro 593-A allows people to submit food stamp applications online.
Intro 594-A ensures that food stamp applications are available in city-funded food pantries and shelters.
And Intro 615-A will require the city to accept food stamp applications by fax and allow applicants to skip in-person interviews in cases of hardship.
Critics - including Mayor Bloomberg - say the measures open up the system to fraud. Supporter say that if more people are enrolled in the program the city will get hundreds of millions in federal aid that will be spent in local stores and bodegas.
The council overrode the mayor's veto by a vote of 43 to 4. Three Republican Councilmembers Dennis Gallagher, Andrew Lanza, and James Oddo and Democrat Madeline Provenzano voted "no." (Councilmember Peter Vallone, Jr. abstained from votes on Intro 594-A and 615-A).
TENANT EMPOWERMENT ACT
The council also overrode the mayor's veto of Intro 186-A, known as the "Tenant Empowerment Act." The legislation would give tenants of subsidized housing the right to purchase a building if the owner tries to sell it.
Under the bill, if the owner of a building in the Mitchell-Lama program or with a significant population of Section 8 tenants wants to sell a property, they must give residents 12 months notice. The tenants would then have the "first rights" to purchase the building at a fair-market value.
"If we do not pass this, we will evict tens of thousands of New Yorkers,” said Councilmember Alan Gerson who drafted the measure. “We will never be able to make up for the affordable housing that is lost."
The mayor argues that it puts an unfair burden on property owners.
The council overrode the veto by a vote of 44 to 3. Republicans Dennis Gallagher, Andrew Lanza, and James Oddo voted "no."
WETLAND PROTECTION
In an effort to save the city's wetlands - fragile bay area ecosystems that house plant, bird, and aquatic life - the council voted to create a task force which will look into transferring city-owned land to the parks department.
The measure (Intro 566-A) creates a seven-member panel –- with three members appointed by the Speaker of the Council and four appointed by the mayor –- to make recommendations on which city-owned wetlands would be better protected by the parks department.
"The city has lost more than 85 percent of its wetlands and continues to lose them at a great rate," said Councilmember James Gennaro.
The measure passed unanimously.
SIDEWALK FOOD VENDORS
The most vigorous debate of the council meeting was not over health care, food stamps, or housing, but over the city's sidewalks and how they are used.
The council voted on a bill (Intro 699-A) that bars permits for so-called "stoop-line" stands - sidewalk stands for fruits, vegetables, candy, ice cream or soft drinks - unless the city's Department of Transportation certifies that they will not block pedestrian traffic.
Councilmember John Liu, who drafted the legislation, said that such regulations already exist, but that the city does not enforce them. As a result, pedestrians are too often blocked from walking down the sidewalk.
"The sidewalks of New York City are meant for people to walk safely," said Liu.
However, several council members raised questions about the bill, arguing that it will hurt vendors, particularly immigrants.
"These are small merchants, many of them don't know the language well," said Councilmember Oliver Koppell. "We are placing impediments on them to earn a livelihood."
Others raised questions about the process, asking why the bill, which had just one hearing earlier in the morning, was moved onto the council's schedule for a vote, while other bills languish for months or years.
"I know that it's the political season and it's important for people to get bills passed, but we owe it to ourselves and our constituents to do better," said Councilmember Simcha Felder.
After much debate, the bill passed by a vote of 36 to 9 with two abstentions.
Tony Avella, Erik Dilan, Simcha Felder, Oliver Koppell, Margarita Lopez, Michael Nelson, Madeline Provenzano, Hiram Monserrate, and David Yassky voted "no." Charles Barron and Tish James abstained.
Councilmember Maria Baez, Allan Jennings, Anabel Palma, and Phil Reed were absent.
The meeting was the last before the Primary Election Day. The next City Council Stated Meeting is scheduled for September 15, 2005.
Â