I can certainly see "Ferrer isn't all that good" [NB he is the Democrat candidate]. But how can one say "Bloomberg isn't all that bad"? Hasn't he unambiguously pursued municipal neo-liberalism - albeit not the rough edged popularist type of Guliani (which had clearly outlived its usefulness in NYC and led to the widespread unpopularity of Guliani in NYC before 9/11)?
Even the most hard-bitten "pragmatist" will recognize that a place like NYC could do better. Parts of the elite and upper middle class have now become VERY committed to living (and owning assets and making profits) in NYC. So it is quite realistic to charge them a small "solidarity" surcharge for the privilege...or at least ask that they share the load to the degree no less than in previous decades. Instead, Bloomberg continues to argue that NYC has a crisis of "competivity" and that declining standards for the working population are required and that the rich will flee at even a return to the tax levels of the late '90s. And pursues policies accordingly.
Yet the situation of ordinary people in NYC desperately calls for the opposite - they now need government to redress inequality not seen since in NYC since the 1930s. In 1980 the top fifth of Manhattan had 21 times the income of the bottom fifth; in 2000 they had 52 times as much! In other words the bottom fifth made 2 cents for every $1 earned by the top fifth. The Bronx is now the poorest county in the U.S.
Ironically, events could have handed Bloomberg golden political opportunities to mix "kinder, gentler" measures in with his neo-liberalism - and at each turn he has doggedly chosen not to go down an utterly feasible slightly "liberal" path on ANY "money" issue (never mind a "progressive" path). Below, I'll give 10 major examples of Bloomberg's neo-liberal municipal policies -- in EVERY case he has opted for the rich and powerful. I am only speaking of examples where extremely "practical" and politically "realistic" alternatives exist for a NYC mayor, but Bloomberg rejected them. Mostly these were options that would have made him more popular and been politically easier - but he still rejected them. (So to be clear, I am NOT giving examples of noble but politically costly options, never mind the local elements of more transformative and radical proposals that require changing political conditions.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ten Examples
#1 Shifting Budget Burdens to the Poor: There was enormous civic solidarity in NYC post 9/11. So, that winter, when the financial crisis hit Bloomberg could have called for "shared sacrifice" - i.e. a package that included a simple rescindment (even "temporarily") of the Guliani tax-cut for the very richest, along with modest budget cuts, etc that affected everyone else. Bloomberg the billionaire would have been compared to Roosevelt facing a crisis. And what spokesman for the wealthy would have publicly objected at that particular moment? Instead, Bloomberg put almost all the burden on full-scale service reductions and transit fare increases (along with a small tax increase on lower and middle class homeowners focused outside Manhattan!). His rationale: the old ideological chestnut that "the rich would leave" (these Manhattan rich were people that stayed in the 90's when they were paying those same taxes under much worse municipal conditions!).
#2 Not Restoring NYC's Tradition of Quality Public Education For All: There was also a widespread political consensus that something must be done about funding NYC schools. This is one issue where the upper middle class (and even some of the business community) WOULD have readily provided some extra funding. AND the current levels of State and City funding are so low that they were both declared unconstitutional by the highest NYS courts, so a change is inevitable. Instead of seizing an opportunity, Bloomberg (in partnership with the Governor) has stalled for years and sought to divert attention with the usual conservative "No Child Left Behind" strategy -- more testing and fiddling with governance/management/unions.
Worse, Bloomberg has proceeded - more than Guliani dared - to explore and expand measures to segregate the school system by class (tracking more of the better off to "gifted programs" that receive separate or privatized funding; tracking more of the poor to 3rd class Special Ed or Bilingual Programs whose results are not included in the "improvements" shown by the new test scores). He has also adamantly maintained that he is able to "turn around" the school system *without* the increased funding. The two things combined mean that Bloomberg may be robbing NYC schools of their key window of opportunity.
#3 & #4 Transportation Infrastructure and Land Use Policy: There has also been a consensus that the long postponed 2nd Avenue Subway should be built -- restoring service to the South Bronx and to the Lower East Side (as well as parts of East Harlem and the well-off East Side) that was lost in the 1950s and contributed to their near-abandonment during the '60s and '70s. Likewise it has been a national consensus that the massive public infrastructure in lower Manhattan should be protected. The economic viability of the entire business district depends on rapidly renovating the World Trade Center area.
But Bloomberg (along with most of today's Wall Street bankers) had long been cool towards the lower Manhattan "developers" (read landowners) who were "old line" and with old links to the established Democratic Party. He (and Guliani) had a closer relationship with the younger faster Midtown developer crowd, that emerged in the '90s and thrived on blending financial with real estate speculation. And who had also had strong Republican links. Bloomberg made one of these new developer-speculators his principal Deputy Mayor focusing on economic development (the fellow made his millions as a protege and junior partner of Texas billionaire Robert Bass a "Bushie" of long standing). The midtown "new era" real estate speculators cooked a mega-development project on Manhattan's far west midtown involving sweeping and unprecedented rezoning for more new office space than all of Cleveland and of course several billion dollars from the City/State including building the subway to their doorstep (currently there is no subway there which is why they could buy the land cheap). Insuring the public subsidy and serving as an anchor for the new development would be a new football stadium (in Midtown Manhattan!) itself benefiting from over $1 Billion in additional and separate City/State subsidies (the stadium now looks dead).
Embarking on this dream will require some sacrifice. The new proposed subway line (which will mostly only serve the new business district) means that the construction currently underway for the 2nd Avenue subway (which serves neighborhoods) will likely have to be abandoned. Also the stadium was to be partly financed by selling the land (owned by the Transport Authority) at half a billion dollars below value, so the subway fares will have to be raised. The rest will be financed through shadowy bonds paid off against special dedicated future taxes so as not to appear in a budget and hence sure to create havoc with the bond rating monitors (this from the "good management" mayor). Oh, and the vast new office space will swamp any hope of lower Manhattan recovery (never mind that the subway lines there already exist, different people own those buildings).
5. Transportation operational costs: shifting the cost from taxes to fares 6. Rent [In NYC over 1 million apartments have their rent increases decided by a Mayor's panel which, by law, should only grant increases to cover cost increases. Bloomberg has continued Guliani's policy of increasing landlord profits far above the legal guidelines] 7. Parks: privatization and "enclosures" of key parks. 8. Gay marriage 9. Police and Fire: refusal to reinstate "Community Policing". Maintaining police and fire personnel as overwhelmingly white AND mostly from the suburbs (ie not NYC voters); to the point of triggering an investigation by the Ashcroft Justice Department for violation of civil rights. 10. Treatment of demonstrators
Right now, it appears that Boomberg will easily win re-election. But his poll numbers just a few months ago were very low and only rose when people saw what the Democratic Party was putting forward - weak options, without a program.
[Apologies to the vast majority outside NYC, but I think the principles apply to what I understand to be municipal neo-liberalism emerging throughout the country and indeed in other countries.]
Paul