This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Dist 39 CITY COUNCIL RACE general discussion - Page 2 — Brooklynian

Dist 39 CITY COUNCIL RACE general discussion

2

Comments

  • henrycurtis
    henrycurtis
    It's not true.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    henrycurtis wrote: It's not true.
    Do you have any evidence of that besides your assertion?
  • witch-king
    witch-king
    "I complained about the excessive campaigning of you and your fellow candidates..."

    Excessive campaigning? I guess democracy is annoying.
  • zakafon
    zakafon
    Carnivore wrote: [quote=henrycurtis]It's not true.
    Do you have any evidence of that besides your assertion?

    As opposed to the clear-cut evidence of an anecdote from an interaction with a Skaller volunteer?

    I'd suggest reviewing expenditures at the Campaign Finance Board if you want to know the facts.
  • henrycurtis
    henrycurtis
    It isn't an important enough issue to me for me to verify it. What i do have tangible evidence of, though, is the smear campaign brochure from the Skaller camp that I got in the mail yesterday. I'm not a huge fan of negative ads and the race had been pretty clean to date. It is a sign of weak character, in my eyes, that Skallet has gone negative. I'll vote Lander.
  • pokersloper
    pokersloper

    Subject: Brooklyn Paper endorses John Heyer for City Council

    Brooklyn Paper endorses John Heyer for City Council

    http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/32/35/32_35_district_39_endorsement.html
  • pitu
    pitu
    Brooklyn Paper wrote: Some say he’s too conservative for the district.
    yeah, I'll say.
    fer instance, anti-abortion? Maybe I'd vote for him over, say . . . Pedro Espada, but jeebus! Not in this race, not in this district. Bklyn Paper gives alot of love to the other candidates...
    Brooklyn Paper wrote: Democratic voters in Park Slope, Windsor Terrace, Carroll Gardens and other parts of the 39th Council District have four extremely qualified candidates for the nomination to succeed Councilman Bill DeBlasio.

    • Brad Lander, the former head of the Pratt Center for Community Development and the Fifth Avenue Committee, is a talented community activist and affordable housing developer. None of the others can match Lander’s resume or compare with him on how many fights he’s taken on. Whenever there’s a local problem, Lander is the guy with the five-point plan.

    • Josh Skaller is the candidate with whom you want to have a beer. But he’s not just likable; he’s is a true progressive who would make his council office a bullhorn on many issues, such as global warming, national health care, the economy and taxes.

    • Bob Zuckerman, the former head of the Gowanus Canal Local Development Corporation, is the most liberal of the candidates, supporting a single-payer health care system, more arts funding, gay marriage, and a Park Slope Food Co-op-style requirement for parent involvement in the schools. And he once led the Greenwich Village-Chelsea Chamber of Commerce, which gives him a small business perspective important to Brooklyn’s identity.
    BTW, this thread will probably be combined with the existing one on this council race.
  • pokersloper
    pokersloper
    I thought about putting this in the existing thread, but a somewhat surprising endorsement from a somewhat influential paper seemed to me to be 'new topic worthy'. We shall see.
  • booklaw
    booklaw
    It's pretty clear to me that the Brooklyn Paper's endorsement stems from Heyer's pro-Atlantic Yards stance. That's enough to rule him out for me!
  • pitu
    pitu
    hee hee, I wouldn't call Brooklyn Paper "influential"
    more like "free" and "the paper people love to hate for all the creepy sh*t they pull"
    :mrgreen:
  • pokersloper
    pokersloper
    "somewhat influential"

    We are talking about it after all.
  • brooklynjack
    brooklynjack

    Subject: Re: Brooklyn Paper endorses John Heyer for City Council

    pokersloper wrote: Brooklyn Paper endorses John Heyer for City Council

    http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/32/35/32_35_district_39_endorsement.html
    What a surprise from Rupert Murdoch
  • booklaw
    booklaw
    No, Pokersloper. We are not talking about it. You are talking about it. That does not make it either "influential" or "somewhat influential".
  • livetotravel
    livetotravel
    I've decided to vote for Lander's wife - the Brennen Center rocks!
  • pokersloper
    pokersloper
    Booklaw,

    I see many people with the Brooklyn Paper at my gym, on the subway, etc. That makes it somewhat influential whether you like my posts or not.

    And, it makes me want to know a little bit more about this other fellow. That is somewhat influential as well.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    Brooklyn Paper wasn't influential enough to keep Elementi in business when their reviewer's opinion was counter to most people here's opinion of it, and it won't be influential enough to get a pro-lifer elected in the area either.
  • pokersloper
    pokersloper
    with 5 candidates running for a single seat, anything is possible and every vote and article counts. Not everyone votes using the pro-choice litmus test either. I certainly don't.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    pokersloper wrote: with 5 candidates running for a single seat, anything is possible and every vote and article counts. Not everyone votes using the pro-choice litmus test either. I certainly don't.
    Right, because you use a special education litmus test.
  • pokersloper
    pokersloper
    Carnivore,

    I just happen to know that being pro choice or pro life in our district in Brooklyn is a pretty minor issue. Abortion law will not change a hair because of this race. However, a city council member that advocates for public education and special education could make a real difference. My "litmus test" directly effects people, your litmus test effects no one and, is in my opinion, selfish.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    pokersloper wrote: Carnivore,

    I just happen to know that being pro choice or pro life in our district in Brooklyn is a pretty minor issue. Abortion law will not change a hair because of this race. However, a city council member that advocates for public education and special education could make a real difference. My "litmus test" directly effects people, your litmus test effects no one and, is in my opinion, selfish.
    I disagree. I think one's stance on choice is a surrogate marker for one's general attitudes about many issues, and someone who is against a woman's right to choose is probably someone who I disagree with on more than that single issue. Whereas special education is a niche issue that isn't particularly tied to other issues or a more general political view.

    How is that more "selfish" than basing your entire vote on one small issue that happens to affect you personally?
  • livetotravel
    livetotravel
    I beg to differ with pokersloper on the question of choice - I work for a major reproductive health non-profit who also has a political arm that endorses in Council races. Choice is always an issue - and it has nothing to do specifically with the provision of abortion services, with which Council members have little influence - but it does have to do with dozens of other "choice" issues that impact the lives of the women and staff who access and work in health centers throughout the city. The "Clinic Access Bill" passed by the Council is just one example. Education about, awareness of, and access to Emergency Contraception is another.

    I find it impossible to believe that any avowedly anti-choice candidate could or would win in PS or most of the other Council districts in NYC. If a serious pro-choice candidate wanted to make choice an issue in his or her race it would doom the anit-choicer, believe me.

    We didn't endorse in the 39th because all the serious Democratic candidates are 100% on our questionnaire. The Republicans didn't return the questionnaire.
  • brooklynteacher
    brooklynteacher
    A few weeks ago, a Lander canvasser knocked on my door. HE brought up the fact that Lander is the only candidate whose child attends public school. We had a long chat, in which I explained to him why that was NOT a selling point.
    I explained that another candidate might be childless, or might be looking forward to becoming a parent or a grandparent, or might be the parent of a two year old, and was looking ahead to the day his child entered preschool. I’ve known many people who did not have children of their own who are very interested in public education.
    I also told the canvasser that SOMETIMES people who are “connected” in the community manage to get special privileges for their own children in public school, and that I have seen this with my own eyes.
    So I concluded that where a candidate’s child attends school should NOT be part of the campaign.
    About a week AFTER that, Josh Skaller’s wife sent out an email . She felt compelled to RESPOND because Lander was making an issue of where her son went to school. Now pokersloper CLAIMS that Ms. Skaller brought this up first. Pokersloper is either mistaken or lying.
    I also asked the Lander canvasser if he was being paid, and he told me he was. So I do not know how henrycurtis decided that all of Lander’s canvassers were volunteers. And I don’t see how Skaller could possibly afford to pay his canvassers, as henrycurtis claims, since Skaller is the only candidate that has NOT accepted money from developers. But it doesn’t matter whose canvassers are paid or volunteers. It matters that the other candidates are obligated to the developers who donated to their campaigns, and that Skaller has no obligation, because he never accepted money from them.
  • witch-king
    witch-king

    Subject: Re: Brooklyn Paper endorses John Heyer for City Council

    BrooklynJack wrote: [quote=pokersloper]Brooklyn Paper endorses John Heyer for City Council

    http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/32/35/32_35_district_39_endorsement.html
    What a surprise from Rupert Murdoch

    I don't think Gersh takes orders on such matters from Murdoch. Still Gersh wrote a pro Atlantic Yards editorial (If I'm not mistaken).
  • pitu
    pitu
    Brooklynteacher wrote: A few weeks ago, a Lander canvasser knocked on my door. HE brought up the fact that Lander is the only candidate whose child attends public school. We had a long chat, in which I explained to him why that was NOT a selling point.
    I explained that another candidate might be childless, or might be looking forward to becoming a parent or a grandparent, or might be the parent of a two year old, and was looking ahead to the day his child entered preschool. I’ve known many people who did not have children of their own who are very interested in public education.
    I also told the canvasser that SOMETIMES people who are “connected” in the community manage to get special privileges for their own children in public school, and that I have seen this with my own eyes.
    So I concluded that where a candidate’s child attends school should NOT be part of the campaign.
    About a week AFTER that, Josh Skaller’s wife sent out an email . She felt compelled to RESPOND because Lander was making an issue of where her son went to school. Now pokersloper CLAIMS that Ms. Skaller brought this up first. Pokersloper is either mistaken or lying.
    I also asked the Lander canvasser if he was being paid, and he told me he was. So I do not know how henrycurtis decided that all of Lander’s canvassers were volunteers. And I don’t see how Skaller could possibly afford to pay his canvassers, as henrycurtis claims, since Skaller is the only candidate that has NOT accepted money from developers. But it doesn’t matter whose canvassers are paid or volunteers. It matters that the other candidates are obligated to the developers who donated to their campaigns, and that Skaller has no obligation, because he never accepted money from them.
    thx for posting, Brooklynteacher

    Everybody posts for the first time here at least once (ha) -- and it's usually because a topic is compelling enough to get them to join the conversation. This doesn't come off as shilly to me, pokersloper. We need more voices in this conversation - please don't try to cut people off or monopolize.
  • brooklynteacher
    brooklynteacher
    To Pokersloper:
    No, I’m not part of the Skaller campaign, although at this point I feel a little guilty, as though I should have volunteered during the summer. I did meet Skaller in person in June. He was ‘presented’ during the intermission at the Brooklyn Women’s Chorus concert. He made a brief speech, and then walked off to the side. Several people came over to ask him questions. I came over and just listened. I liked what I heard. Aside from that, I’ve just followed the campaign by reading the literature I’ve been getting, and the local newspapers. I have some health issues which I’ve been dealing with, and this takes priority over active campaigning.
    A relative of mine has done very part time UNPAID work for the Skaller campaign in the past two or three weeks. He began volunteering after the Lander canvasser came to my door. He told me about this message board which he heard about in Skaller‘s office, and I decided to look at it. What I read compelled me to respond.

    To The New York Times:
    Regarding Overdevelopment in Brooklyn, your paper has at best been neutral. Bruce Ratner, and the Atlantic Yards, Thor Equities and the destruction of Coney Island as we know it, have NOT been a concern of yours. But these are concerns to those of us who value the neighborhood feeling within Brooklyn, who see the value in historic landmarks, and who are saddened as tenants and homeowners are kicked out of their homes so that rich developers can become even richer.
    I read your paper regularly, and know that these have not been concerns for you. If they were, then you would have endorsed Josh Skaller for City Council in District 39. He is the only candidate who has not taken money from developers, and has no obligations to them.
  • brooklynteacher
    brooklynteacher
    News 12 Brooklyn is airing a debate of these candidates right now!
  • brooklynjack
    brooklynjack
    What channel is that on TW
  • brooklynteacher
    brooklynteacher
    To BrooklynJack
    News 12 Brooklyn is on Channel 156 on Time Warner Cable. Sorry I didn’t return to my computer in time to see your question while the debate was still being aired. But you should check out channel 156. I think their slogan is “as local as local news gets .”
    I hope they show the debate again. If you’ve been keeping track of this message board, you know that I strongly support Josh Skaller .
    Primary Day is this Tuesday. Check out what you can about the candidates and vote.
  • snarkslope
    snarkslope
    I will not vote for Josh Skaller because, in my view, his wife's email to supporters accusing Lander of injecting their son into the race was disingenuous at best and an aggressive smear at worst. At no time did any of Skaller's opponents single him out or discuss his son. Lander simply said that he was proud to send his kids to 107. Ms. Skaller's subsequent defensive rant, from her hospital bed no less, was designed to spark outrage and sympathy and as such, has brought tons more attention to her son than ever would have been the case.

    I also dislike her use of "special needs" because it is such a powerful buzz phrase that can be exploited for sympathy but which covers a huge spectrum. My daughter and her son are the same age and I often saw them at activities in the neighborhood when the kids were younger. He seems like a bright, sweet, engaged kid. I am not arguing that he does not have a learning disability, etc., just that "special needs" to describe, say, trouble with reading is a bit much. Especially post-Sarah Palin and her incessant exploitation of her son. In the national consciousness, I believe that "special needs" = "Downs Syndrome."

    I find Skaller's presumed approval of his wife's message repugnant and an interesting insight into his judgment as a potential leader.
  • raulism
    raulism
    Here are some interesting articles about Brad Lander:

    http://www.r8ny.com/blog/mole333/my_brad_lander_problems.html

    Also, a blogger named Gatemouth, who I would expect would support Zuckerman, came out with this surprising endorsement:

    http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/zuckerman_unbound_a_story_with_an_o_henry_twist.html

    The biggest scandal in the election is the illegal spending by WFP. See this recent article:

    http://www.cityhallnews.com/news/132/ARTICLE/2113/2009-09-02.html

    Finally, here's news about the homophobic ad(s) printed by Heyer and Lander in Boro Park:

    http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/the_toeivah_contnues_brad_lander_icht_nisht_a_mensch.html

    http://thepoweronline.org/blog/?p=965

    Finally, one of Park Slope's most prolific bloggers, mole333, an outspoken Skaller supporter, has this rundown of the race:

    http://dailygotham.com/mole333/blog/anupdatedrundownofthe39thcitycouncilcandidates
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories