Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Much of nyc financial mess started under wagner and later passed on to lindsay and thenvpassed on to beame and on to koch. The city was still a mess under koch and much of tje bronx, east brooklyn and harlem remained waistlands for years to come.
I don't doubt what you're saying, but it was during Koch's tenure that the city started rebuilding alot of these blighted areas. He allocated hundreds of millions of $ to cleaning up areas where it was needed. Example: Charlotte Street, which for years was regarded as the worst of the worst, finally got cleaned up in 1983 when they replaced the charred tenement buildings with single-family houses. This is just one example of how things started to change. I agree with you that there were many areas even when he left that were still terrible, but he's the one who really initiated the change.
I noticed that the police under Giuliani rarely gave protest permits. Almost every protest permit was rejected, citing safety and security. And it's worth noting that every time the city was taken to court over this, it lost!
I don't doubt what you're saying, but it was during Koch's tenure that the city started rebuilding alot of these blighted areas. He allocated hundreds of millions of $ to cleaning up areas where it was needed. Example: Charlotte Street, which for years was regarded as the worst of the worst, finally got cleaned up in 1983 when they replaced the charred tenement buildings with single-family houses. This is just one example of how things started to change. I agree with you that there were many areas even when he left that were still terrible, but he's the one who really initiated the change.
Under Dinkins term 1990-1993 more housing rehabilitated than Giuliani did in two terms, and under Dinkins last year the crime had started to drop dramatically. Giuliani was just lucky to be elected mayor when the distribution of crack was plummeting.
Yes, Koch was mayor when the first prefabricated houses arrived on Charlotte St. in December 1983 but that was almost the only major revitalization he did (most of South Bronx still looked like a warzone whe he left office) except boarding up the tenement windows with pictures of flowers, window shades and curtains to give a false impression for those who travelled to the suburbs on Deegan, Bruckner and Cross Bronx. But in the end I agree he initiated some change.
Last edited by Northwindsforever; 11-22-2011 at 04:23 PM..
Under Dinkins term 1990-1993 more housing rehabilitated than Giuliani did in two terms, and under Dinkins last year the crime had started to drop dramatically. Giuliani was just lucky to be elected mayor when the distribution of crack was plummeting.
Yes, Koch was mayor when the first prefabricated houses arrived on Charlotte St. in December 1983 but that was almost the only major revitalization he did (most of South Bronx still looked like a warzone whe he left office) except boarding up the tenement windows with pictures of flowers, window shades and curtains to give a false impression for those who travelled to the suburbs on Deegan, Bruckner and Cross Bronx. But in the end I agree he initiated some change.
Wait a minute, please don't tell me you think incompentant Dinkins was a better mayor or even a good mayor at that. He was a horrible mayor, a 1 term mayor that didn't even deserve to be a mayor in the first place. Really hope you were joking.
I agree he didn't "get it all together". But the 2 things I pointed out about Dinkins are facts, and when Giuliani entered office the crack era had come to an end which I believe made the reducing of crime significantly easier.
I agree he didn't "get it all together". But the 2 things I pointed out about Dinkins are facts, and when Giuliani entered office the crack era had come to an end which I believe made the reducing of crime significantly easier.
Giuliano was a good mayor if the best mayor NY had because didn't give a f and didn't cater to liberal policies that made NY the trashy city it was. He is solely responsible for revitalizing time square via rezoning and removing all the trashy porn shops and peep shows then convincing disney to open shop which other big chain stores followed suit.
He was also very aggressive against crime and didn' t play around.
Wait a minute, please don't tell me you think incompentant Dinkins was a better mayor or even a good mayor at that. He was a horrible mayor, a 1 term mayor that didn't even deserve to be a mayor in the first place. Really hope you were joking.
The facts are the facts, crime peaked when Dinkin's term had just began in its first year, a byproduct of the crack era, not to mention the national recession at the time. He put in alot of austerity measures and basically continued most of what Koch already had going on. Out of the three previous mayors, only Koch had crime rise under his watch, and it was mostly due to things out of his control. Crime did begin to fall during Dinkin's term, though not as dramatically as it would later on. I can't say whether he was a good or a bad mayor, he didn't really get to do much of anything. The one thing I do think he could've handled better was the Crown Heights Riots, which ultimately lost him re-election.
If you understand politics, you would know that without cooperation on the federal or state level, there is not much a mayor can do, aside from cut back on everything, which is what Koch did in the 70's. However, as I stated before, Giuliani came in at a very fortunate time, had he been mayor in the late 70's or 80's and tried to do the same things he did in the 90's, with the same fiscal issues of the 70's and 80's? He would've had riots, not a riot, but riots after riots on his hands had he tried to approach everything in his same Draconian style. Previous Mayors just didn't have those resources at their disposal, not even the money for the existing officers' overtime, never mind trying to hire more.
The facts are the facts, crime peaked when Dinkin's term had just began in its first year, a byproduct of the crack era, not to mention the national recession at the time. He put in alot of austerity measures and basically continued most of what Koch already had going on. Out of the three previous mayors, only Koch had crime rise under his watch, and it was mostly due to things out of his control. Crime did begin to fall during Dinkin's term, though not as dramatically as it would later on. I can't say whether he was a good or a bad mayor, he didn't really get to do much of anything. The one thing I do think he could've handled better was the Crown Heights Riots, which ultimately lost him re-election.
If you understand politics, you would know that without cooperation on the federal or state level, there is not much a mayor can do, aside from cut back on everything, which is what Koch did in the 70's. However, as I stated before, Giuliani came in at a very fortunate time, had he been mayor in the late 70's or 80's and tried to do the same things he did in the 90's, with the same fiscal issues of the 70's and 80's? He would've had riots, not a riot, but riots after riots on his hands had he tried to approach everything in his same Draconian style. Previous Mayors just didn't have those resources at their disposal, not even the money for the existing officers' overtime, never mind trying to hire more.
Beyond crime, Giuliani did things like rezoning times square among other things that reshaped and improved NY. His policies were better than the previous mayors and these policies have nothing to do with crime. Its about having a vision and the GUTS to do it and that's what separates him from Dinkins and the rest. On a crime level, Giuliani went after the littlest of the crimes, something that Dinkins and others didn't do and let slide. That had a huge effect on dropping the crime rate as from little crime rises bigger crime. He nipped it in the bud. He wasn't play around when it came to crime and as a result he changed NY for the better. May liberals knocked him for being to forceful or too "bossy" but thats how you have to be to get results.
Just like liberals knock NJ governor Christy for being a no nonsense, bossy governor, is the same situation Giuliani faced. And Christy by far is a way better governor than liberal ponzi scheme mastermind Corzine (hope he goes to prison).
Ultimately its about having a vision how the city should be and changing policies to make your vision come true. You attack the problem from a different angle and don't stick to the same cookie cutter appraoch many democrats like to use (giving hand-outs and providing useless social programs at the working tax payer's expense) Remember, don't give a man fish, TEACH him how to fish and he will never starve. Social programs GIVES people fish instead of TEACHING them how to fish. Its a disservice and keeps people DUMB and supressive. This is why NYC needs Republican leadership as all things bad happened under democratic leadership and all good things to NYC happened under Republican leadership (Giuliani/Pataki).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
