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.
Many of the programs Guiliani took credit for during his mayoral tenure were in fact the work of Dinkins, who is consistently rated the worst mayor of all time by many posters on this board. It doesn't surprise me. NYC politics is a microcosm of the U.S. as a whole — and most local political systems are predicated on the preferences of the country in which they are established. Generally, whoever is loudest about taking credit for positive results is remembered for them, facts be damned.
Clinton used many of the same tactics, but in reverse. His time in office left us with a complete breakdown of the banking system that eventually gave way to the 2008 crisis, the modern for-profit prison pipeline and its attendant "3 strikes, you're out" rules, and a "reform" of welfare that threw even more people into irreversible poverty to the point that half of our nation is currently in such a state. But he had a slick act, he "felt your pain," and has continued to lead people to believe that he was singlehandedly responsible for the dropping crime and rising prosperity of the mid- to late-1990s.
Guiliani won the 1993 mayoral election using similar tactics, and is fondly remembered to this day for policies that were actually the work of his much-maligned predecessor. I, too, though Guiliani was the miracle worker he was always made out to be, but my NYC-born and raised wife set me straight rather quickly. She, too, is a minority in her POV, and I very much doubt this will change. In the same manner, a certain number of people will continue to blame low-income, severely indebted 20-somethings for the work of a 3-term mayor who they voted for thrice, and who gave away their city to the billionaire class. It hurts less to blame people like you, and so people do. I doubt that will change either, unless the pain gets too bad.
The Clinton administration funded the expansion of police hiring in big cities. Both Dinkins and Giuliani used federal funds to hire more cops.
The high rates of people on welfare in some prime locations was part of the reason for the high crime rates. The Clinton administration along with the Republican Congress cut welfare. They also gave major companies huge tax credits for operating in big cities and for urban renewal/development. Pre Clinton there was huge urban disinvestment in the US. Bush and Obama continued to encourage urban development.
So a federally encouraged gentrification took place under Giuliani and Bloomberg and NYC went from being broke to having lots of cash.
Walked from Fordham near Lincoln Center across 10th Avenue along 60th Street towards Columbus Circle around 11PM last week. Could not get over the number of homeless camped out along 60th Street. Right across from the Mandarin Oriental hotel looked like the Bowery of old.
Can the problem be solved by firehosing the pavement and all sidewalks with raw bleach?
Many of the programs Guiliani took credit for during his mayoral tenure were in fact the work of Dinkins, who is consistently rated the worst mayor of all time by many posters on this board. It doesn't surprise me. NYC politics is a microcosm of the U.S. as a whole — and most local political systems are predicated on the preferences of the country in which they are established. Generally, whoever is loudest about taking credit for positive results is remembered for them, facts be damned.
Clinton used many of the same tactics, but in reverse. His time in office left us with a complete breakdown of the banking system that eventually gave way to the 2008 crisis, the modern for-profit prison pipeline and its attendant "3 strikes, you're out" rules, and a "reform" of welfare that threw even more people into irreversible poverty to the point that half of our nation is currently in such a state. But he had a slick act, he "felt your pain," and has continued to lead people to believe that he was singlehandedly responsible for the dropping crime and rising prosperity of the mid- to late-1990s.
Guiliani won the 1993 mayoral election using similar tactics, and is fondly remembered to this day for policies that were actually the work of his much-maligned predecessor. I, too, though Guiliani was the miracle worker he was always made out to be, but my NYC-born and raised wife set me straight rather quickly. She, too, is a minority in her POV, and I very much doubt this will change. In the same manner, a certain number of people will continue to blame low-income, severely indebted 20-somethings for the work of a 3-term mayor who they voted for thrice, and who gave away their city to the billionaire class. It hurts less to blame people like you, and so people do. I doubt that will change either, unless the pain gets too bad.
Agree, except that people will smarten up when the pain gets bad.
It is more likely that most will move along the path of brain-deadness already taken, and/or commit yet more odd and random acts of violence. Both overt and covert.
But this idea that somehow Guliani and Bloomberg did absolutley nothing is just partisanship at it's worst. If we're going to be honest, let look at the fact that while other cities are slowly backsliding on the progress they've made on crime and fiscal matters while NYC has been chugging along quite nicely. If there was 20 years of do-nothingness at City Hall pre-Deblasio this would not be the case.
Criticism of those mayors' actions =/= "they did absolutely nothing," and for the record, I'm not the biggest fan of the current mayor, either. On the matter of partisanship, city-data as a whole is an excellent example of it, and I approach discussions forum-wide with no expectation of nuance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
The Clinton administration funded the expansion of police hiring in big cities. Both Dinkins and Giuliani used federal funds to hire more cops.
[...]
NYC went from being broke to having lots of cash.
I believe we'll have to agree to disagree on the merits of Clinton's approach to criminal/social justice, policing, etc. — as well as its efficacy, and not just in this city, but across the nation as a whole. The same applies to the availability of funding, and how effectively it is distributed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlem resident
Agree, except that people will smarten up when the pain gets bad.
I often have to force myself to be hopeful in order to get through the day, but I've historically shared your cynicism. American politics as a whole is an excellent study in cause and effect, specifically the effect of sustained messaging about the efficacy of awarding the global 0.1% and corporations special, additional rights over ordinary human beings as the route to a sustainable society. History also tends to repeat itself, and that is just as quickly forgotten.
Mr. Mayor has a problem; he made lots of promises to his peeps in order to win the election, but then came the hard part, keeping all those promises.
From the mess that was Long Island College Hospital and all since has proven de Boob is out of his depth and doesn't have a clue. He keeps making promises to the poor or whatever not realizing the more he talks it just increases the numbers of persons asking. People are getting on buses like that trans from last week's NYT piece to soak up the "welfare" money this mayor and CC are handing out by the shovels full.
Rudy G. and Bloomberg at least understood you have to draw a line somewhere; otherwise an unending stream of woe and misery will line up at various NYC social services doors for a touch.
Sadly or happily (whichever way you look at it) the City is flush with cash thanks mostly to the booming RE market. When (not if) that comes to an end what will happen? Where is the money going to come from to pay for all these "affordable", "veterans", "supportive housing", sex changes and God only knows what else?
At what point will most nyc residents be asked to pay higher taxes?
Long as the real estate market remains burning hot there won't be any need for increased taxes/spending cuts. Peeps moan about all the luxury housing and so forth but sales of those units generate hefty taxes (just ask the MTA). Then there are the property taxes and what have you.
Next thing to watch is Wall Street (Citibank just announced a major round of layoffs), but any crash there while painful may not be as bad as in previous years. The tech sector (Goggle et al) is generating lots of cash for NYC which will help take any edge of a slacking Financial Sector.
Probably the biggest thing to watch is what is going on abroad. Asian and other international money is pouring into NYC. If that spigot is reduced or cut off, then all bets are off as well.
Mr. Mayor has a problem; he made lots of promises to his peeps in order to win the election, but then came the hard part, keeping all those promises.
From the mess that was Long Island College Hospital and all since has proven de Boob is out of his depth and doesn't have a clue. He keeps making promises to the poor or whatever not realizing the more he talks it just increases the numbers of persons asking. People are getting on buses like that trans from last week's NYT piece to soak up the "welfare" money this mayor and CC are handing out by the shovels full.
Rudy G. and Bloomberg at least understood you have to draw a line somewhere; otherwise an unending stream of woe and misery will line up at various NYC social services doors for a touch.
Sadly or happily (whichever way you look at it) the City is flush with cash thanks mostly to the booming RE market. When (not if) that comes to an end what will happen? Where is the money going to come from to pay for all these "affordable", "veterans", "supportive housing", sex changes and God only knows what else?
Veterans have always gotten excellent benefits. Cheap mortgages, free healthcare, free tuition from school, among other benefits. It's partially why people ENLIST in the ARMED forces, knowing they could be killed. Survivors do indeed deserve excellent benefits and they get them ALL over the NATION.
As for the "affordable" housing, it's nothing more than a scam. Poor people continue to be priced out of NYC, and if de Blasio gets reelected you will still have poor people being priced out of NYC in his second term. Tax credits are given to developers, bankers, etc to renovate busted up properties. Politically it's unpopular to say this is all for the benefit of either wealthy or upper middle class people. So they throw a bone and claim to have affordable housing.
Take Stuytown. 55% of the units are market rate. De Blasio preserved nearly 45% of the units as "affordable". The rent for an "affordable" two bedroom apartment is 3k per month. Meaning to live in Stuytown with the 40 times one month formula one must make 120k.
De Blasio is not a departure from Giuliani or Bloomberg. Only in the most superficial sense. It's an old trick in the book to claim to care for the poor!
The city under de Blasio is now talking about the gentrification of Jamaica and East New York. After de Blasio is a mayor NYC will still be expensive and pro development.
Sadly or happily (whichever way you look at it) the City is flush with cash thanks mostly to the booming RE market. When (not if) that comes to an end what will happen? Where is the money going to come from to pay for all these "affordable", "veterans", "supportive housing", sex changes and God only knows what else?
From those amassing the cash during the RE boom, from a WEALTH TAX.
Willie Sutton, Why do you rob banks? “I rob banks because that’s where the money is,”
So the answer to "where will the money come from?" has to be always "From where the money IS!"
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.
