#nycelections

Oh yes, y’all, strap in. Another long one awaits. I am not weighing in on every race here; there’s too much for me to keep track of and there’s a lot I don’t know. Especially in city council races, it’s so local that it’s hard to keep track if you’re too far away. It’s also true that a lot of these races aren’t that contested (have you changed your party affiliation?), so there isn’t much to say. In races where there is a clear front runner, even if I kind of hate them, I’m not bothering to weigh in. 

I also am noticing two things about these endorsements: one, that there are two places where I recommend a male upstart over an existing female candidate; two, that I am clearly biased against incumbents. I’m not quite sure what to do with either of those things, but I wanted to name them as important. The city council stands to lose several women this time around, and while my feminism isn’t as simplistic as “women are automatically the best candidate,” I am still unsure what role misogyny is playing here, especially when incumbency means you have more to be hated for.

Want to know who’s on your ballot? Go here. Want to know where you vote? Go here. Polls are open 6am to 9pm so you really have no excuse.

Finally: when in doubt, write in Beyoncé. 

Mayor: Write in Beyoncé I can’t in good faith say vote for Bill de Blasio. He just hasn’t done enough good. The approval of the Bedford Armory redevelopment is just the latest fuckery in his “affordable housing” plan; he has the stank of corruption around him. He’s done some cool things but a lot of those cool things were already in process. Short of some kind of freak occurrence, he’s going to win (I’m not even going to bother looking up the correct spelling of his GOP opponent’s last name, it’s like that) and so you might as well write someone in. Beyoncé gets shit done. She would be ruthlessly effective and the longer she goes the more politicized she becomes. If we’re going to live in an oligarchy, I want my billionaire overlord to be the one that sunk a police car in a music video.

Public Advocate: Team Tish! I like what Tish James has done for us. I feel like I am waiting for the romance to be over and it’s possible I’ve missed some things. But she’s been a good public advocate, has stuck up for people, and I feel an overall sense of goodwill about her. The Public Advocate job is a weird one – tasked with advocating for the public – and I think necessarily this requires about some grandstanding as well as actually resolving complaints. It seems like she’s done good work so far, has the work to back up the grandstanding, and she’s definitely the best of the options.

Comptroller: Oh whatever, just go for Scott Stringer, or Beyoncé He’s better than the other guy, I think.

Manhattan DA: Write in Marc Fliedner. Remember the Brooklyn DA primary? With 500 people lining up around the block to be the most progressive? Marc Fliedner was one of those. He actually got ranked the best by the 5 Boro Defenders, a largely POC group of public defenders in the city. I ended up going for Anne Swern by a hair; Marc would have also been a good choice. Now he’s running in Manhattan as a write-in against Cy Vance, the sitting DA who is recently best known as declining to prosecute people who contributed to his campaign. (de Blasio, the Kushners, Harvey Weinstein). I feel great endorsing Marc as a write-in. Tell your friends!

District 1: Christopher Marte, I think I don’t know a lot about the long-term context of this race. I know that Margaret Chin is one of these funny third-term council members, a long-time incumbent. It’s hard to tell what her district thinks of her. I can’t find a good reason she gives for not doing participatory budgeting and it seems like there’s a lot of rage in the neighborhood around her work to preserve affordable housing, especially around the Two Bridges development. I’m a pragmatic guy at heart and her answers were, well, pragmatic; however, they’re a lot of that weird “people don’t really know what went into making these deals, we really tried” without actually telling people what went into making the deals and what she tried. Christopher Marte is from the neighborhood, evidently very involved, but in the way where it’s hard to know if what he does is as important as it looks on paper. He has the League of Independent Theaters’ endorsement, which also matters to me, although Chin’s overall list is much longer and includes Make the Road NYC and Planned Parenthood. She’s squarely in the middle of the City and State NY’s ranking of city council members. I read both of their responses to the Citizens Union survey about open government and found his more compelling. So vote Christopher Marte, I think, but I’m willing to be wrong about this one.

District 35: Jabari Brisport Laurie Cumbo sold out her district to the Bedford Armory. She has repeatedly bowed to developer pressure and the people just don’t like her. She attracted primary pressure, but the power of incumbency propelled her; luckily, people are still running. His Citizens Unite survey is full of the kind of truisms about government you get from the idealistic left, but what the eff, he’ll be a strong member of the progressive caucus. It’s a shame Ede Fox didn’t beat Cumbo in the primary, but I am happy to open the door to Brisport. I don’t think Cumbo is bad – she’s actually very highly ranked as a councilmember in responsiveness to her constituents, and she’s been the prime sponsor on a lot of bills about things that I think matter (% for arts reporting, public art, sex ed, multilingual information on housing.) Butttt…..I’m leaning Brisport. By a hair.

District 40: Brian Cunningham, Brian Cunningham, Brian Cunningham Mathieu Eugene has been a trash councilman. He has been the lead sponsor on only 7 bills in 10 years. He can’t even get a crosswalk made for a school. He might not even live in the district. Cunningham is young, he’s full of energy, he’s from the neighborhood, he’s worked with youth, and even if he ends out to be no good he’ll be no good in a new, better way. Cunningham is endorsed by the Working Families Party, the Stonewall Democrats, Planned Parenthood, TenantsPAC, and the Brooklyn Independent Democrats (we like them! They’re not the IDC!) 60% of the district voted for someone other than Eugene in the Democratic primary, but the vote split; Cunningham had the Reform endorsement which meant he could be on the general ballot on their line. He’s got good ideas about housing and more than that seems to actually care about what he does. You’re going to have to go to the Reform Party line to vote for him – he got the WFP endorsement too late to be on the ballot with them – so scoot that pencil to the right column and fill in that box. (Full disclosure: I’ve been volunteering with them.)

Prop 1: The Con Con:……no, but I hate myself a little and I might change my mind. Oh, the Con Con. I have been wrestling with this one and frankly it’s part of why this is coming out only one day before the election. There is so much good that could come from this, and so much bad that could come from it. The right says it’s a bad idea because the left would control the agenda; the left says it’s a bad idea because the right would control the agenda. Public unions are against it because of the risk to pensions. It’ll cost so much! (Will it cost so much?) It’s the only way to make change aside from our dysfunctional system! (Is it the only way to make change aside from our dysfunctional system?) The last one did nothing in the end! The one before that did so much! Most of our progressive laws come from constitutional conventions! The Koch brothers would take it over! NYCLU is against it; Citizens Union is for it. Unions are against it; progressive politicians are for it. The New York Times is against it; Newsday Long Island is for it. I have been watching debates and reading articles and it is one giant, messy ball.

The fact of the matter is this: no one knows what will happen because everything goes up for grabs. Everyone agrees on this. The pro side is arguing this presents an enormous opportunity for change: home rule for cities! Gender expression could be a protected class! Early voting! Legislative term limits! A unicameral legislature! The con side is basically making the same argument, only the bad side: loss of union pensions! Rolling back of the right to shelter! Gerrymandered senate districts leading to a conservative delegate base! The pro side says this is a chance for the government to truly be shaped by the people; the con side says the process will be hopelessly corrupt and just cost people money.

Voting yes hits all my love of sweeping action and big change. Past conventions are what have given us many of the things that already make New York relatively progressive: the “forever wild” land preserve, the right to welfare, expansion of voting rights. It’s a seductive argument. How often do we as progressives get a chance to build something from the ground up?

And yet. You might have noticed this isn’t a great time for progressives at the ballot box. One of the few things that I have not heard countered by the pro side is the fact that the statewide left is weak; Democrats aren’t even organized enough to get rid of the IDC, let alone a statewide progressive caucus. The unions are against it because they don’t feel they can guarantee a progressive outcome, and to me when someone publicly says they aren’t sure how powerful they are, you listen. That gerrymandering is real, and while a majority of the state senate districts went for Clinton over Trump, the state Senate is split more or less evenly. 

How all that translates to a vote really boils down to this: are you a pragmatist or are you an idealist? Are you a risktaker or do we play it safe? In my heart of hearts, I want to believe in the con con. I want to believe we can do something great. But…I just can’t get over the feeling in my gut that this is not the moment. Politics worldwide don’t look good for progressive, expansive views, and especially in the United States it’s a moment for the left to be very careful with the risks we take. So I say vote no, but grudgingly, and I reserve the right to change my mind at the last minute in the voting box and make an idealistic, possibly reckless vote.

Prop 2: Cut Pensions for Public Officials Convicted of Corruption Yes really. It’s a question. FOR GOODNESS SAKE’S VOTE YES. It doesn’t even automatically cut these pensions. It just makes it an option for judges when the circumstances warrant it. VOTE YES. I’m not even giving you a link; if you vote against this, just go home.

Prop 3: Land Bank for Modifications for Forever Wild This is one of those upstate questions that we down here don’t really think about. Basically, it comes down to this: right now, the “forever wild” lands upstate can’t be developed for any reason. This seems good until you realize, say, a bridge needs to be repaired, only it can’t be repaired without a constitutional amendment because the repair would need to use some small corner of the forever wild land. This proposition would create a bank wherein the state would buy 250 acres of new forever wild land and then make the same amount of land available for projects like bridges and internet cables. This makes sense and is endorsed by the Nature Conservancy as well as a broad coalition of preservation groups for both the Adirondacks and the Catskills, which is good enough for me. 

Ok, if you made it to the end, one more thing: this ad for Kalman Yeger in Boro Park. That race is its own hot ticket - Yoni Hikind, Dov Hikind’s son, against Kalman Yeger. The Forward goes into the underground heat, but I just want to give Kalman Yeger an award for the jingle of the election (and for all I know, this is a dis track, but I don’t know enough Yiddish to figure it out):