Gothamist: Democratic Mayoral Debate 2: W/ More Arguing Power!

Blike Moomberg

Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:48:34 -0500

The high housing prices are caused by a lack of supply that isn't ample enough to match the demand, not whether people are "fleeing the city" en masse.

King Hippo

Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:56:39 -0500

Dave H makes sense. Isn't declining housing prices a sign that you're in a recession and/or people are fleeing the city?

Dave H.

Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:18:39 -0500

Actually, the rising cost of rent in the city of NYC is Bloomberg's greatest advertisement. High rent is a direct indicator of the desirability of living in the city, despite onerous taxes and restrictive business regulations. No doubt, it sucks for residents who've weathered less attractive times, but the market is indicating that NYC is someplace where people want to be and are willing to pay for it. High rents may serve as a qualitative indicator that things in NY may be changing for the worse, but quantitatively, all data points to Bloomberg doing a good job. PS I hate Bloomberg.

Blike Moomberg

Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:52:54 -0500

Bloomberg really hasn't done as much for the city as he claims. Go to his site, to the "accomplishments" section. Read his section on housing, for example. His wording is "tricky," and is designed to be misleading. Read between the lines--he says "proposed" (which actually means it did not happen), "will create [in upcoming years]", "sent legislation" (doesn't mean it went through), and "introduced" (means it didn't happen yet). Also, take a look at your last invoice for your apartment. Still high-priced, right? Apartment prices have not gone down at all since Bloomberg came to office. Period. In fact, they have risen to the highest levels in the entire history of the city of New York. Nearly every Democratic candidate has proposed in some form or another a real means of making housing more affordable (not just projects for poor people, but regular apartments for average earners like you and me). What more do you want? This whole "electable" thing is a load of hot air. People frankly don't follow up on the issues when they choose who to vote for. They don't pay attention an analyse to the misleading claims Bloomberg states in his ads. They don't bother going to the other candidates' websites to do some side-by-side comparison. Advertising works. And since Bloomberg is spending a whole lot of money on advertisments, that's all he needs to win.

Dave H.

Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:30:59 -0500

I do! I do! Seriously, this is a good example of the intellectual austerity of the Democratic party lately. Weiner has a good point in saying (give or take) "I'm not Bloomberg, I'm not Bush" is not enough. Can you get more blue state than NY or NYC? Hardly. Yet, NYC's had a Republican mayor for the past decade+ and will probably go for another 4 years soon. And New York State's hasn't had a Democratic governor since when, the 80s? Until the Democrats can muster up a candidate that's electable in true blue NY, they're dreaming if they think they can come up with someone that will be appealing to a country-wide electorate. Partisans like to proclaim that New York and NYC aren't really part of the prevailing political environment in the USA, but if the Dems can't elect officials in their friendliest environment, why do they think they can do better in more hostile territories? NYC should be the canary in Democrats' coal mine: why do we suck so bad? What will it take for us to win?

BrianVan

Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:30:05 -0500

Who wants a moustache ride?