Too many "dreamers" in this forum (Thompson, Portland: wages, living in)

[Guywithacause]

Agreed Moth. Ferrer would have been equally as bad or worse...I am VERY HAPPY that we avoided that fiasco.

[NooYowkur81]

Dinkins was a bad mayor, but I think he gets it too rough from people.

I remember the time, and a lot of people resented him from day one. A lot of people made up their minds about him right away.

If you look back at the stats, crime actually started going down towards the end of his administration.

As for Beame that was before my time, but from what I've learned he served during a very difficult time, and inherited a lot of problems that were beyond his control.

Looking ahead, the next mayoral elections are going to be interesting. Of the rumored candidates no one stands out in particular to me.

[Elvira Black]

All I can say is I love Bloomberg, and loved Guiliani as well.

[Moth]

I remember the time, and a lot of people resented him from day one. A lot of people made up their minds about him right away.

Not I. I preferred him over Rudy the first time around. He soon proved me wrong.

Yes Abe Beam inherited a mess that John Lindsey, another horrible mayor, created.

[Guywithacause]

I do like Bloomberg and I think a businessman, not a politician, is the only way for this city to progress, as there are WAY too many groups and pandering to get anything done. I am not a big fan of Guiliani, however I think he served his purpose, and ultimately he was a necessary evil to bring the city back from the grip of crime, violence, and lawlessness.

[briarwood]

In a way, Dinkins winning was a good thing in the long run. Moderator cut: not appropriate


Bloomberg is an excellent mayor fiscally, but he underpays the NYPD far too little, which is very dangerous in the long run. And progress with the schools is slow.

[Queens2QueenCity]

I think Bloomberg has done a B+ job, much better than Guiliani and Dinkins. Cops should definitely earn much more than they do now. But I see everyone attributing the reduction in crime to Guiliani but wasn't it because Clinton pumped more $$$ nationally into crime fighting and prevention which funded an increase in the size of the police force.

[Miss All City]

I agree......that was a totally offensive comment WOW! I'm new here and I see that some of these comments are prevalent but only stated by a few individuals. I was told by a kind person to take it with a big grain of salt ;-)

[Guywithacause]

Although Briarwood's comment came across to some as offensive, those who were here at that time know that it is true. Many of the city's consituents of color wanted a mayor of color, and Dinkins was as good a choice as any. Unfortunately, he was a poor choice as Mayor, and hopefully we (as a city) have learned that voting by race, color, party lines, or "he/she is like me" should not be the driving force to elect anyone to such a position. I believe the change in voting patterns as a result (Guilian and Bloomberg) have demonstrated that we have as a city learned.

[NooYowkur81]

Of course people of color wanted someone who was qualified and seemed a good candidate to be their mayor, and be the first black mayor of NYC, but to say they were rioting, and to add that they now know what's good for them is just insulting.

Plenty of white people voted for Dinknins as well too, I might add. He was very popular figure in the NYC democratic party.

Dinkins was a guy who had been a figure for some time in NYC politics, he wasn't just some black guy who came out of nowhere and won because Black and Latino people voted him in.

Also, Black and Latino have had their issues getting along in this city in the past, so to make the assumption Latinos voted for him just because he would represent them is ignorant and off-base as well.

If someone like Dinkins ran in the next election, and no one had the foresight to know he would be a bad mayor, he would probably win.