Gothamist: How Much Political Capital Can a Mayor Risk in Budget Fixes?

blablanyc

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:53:14 -0500

Ides - I'm right there with you. Corruption and favoritism is a big problem in NYC. I believe term limits help stave off corruption. Term limits definitely improved on increasing the number minorities in the Council. If the city is in such economic trouble, why does the city need to spend $400 million on Willets Point? Shouldn't that money be prioritized accordingly during a financial crisis and directed to budgetary areas in need?

ides_of_march

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 11:44:39 -0500

I'll vote for the first candidate that promises to go after corruption, fraud and plain old wasteful spending. I know I'm fantasizing here but I'd say both the city and state could survive on half what they get in taxes now if corruption, fraud, patronage jobs etc were taken out of the equation.

iralarry

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:10:49 -0500

This is more of a political move than it appears. He is how I came to this conclusion. Bloomberg sets in motion some very unpopular financial remedies which make the city council look bad when they are forced to concede to his proposals. If they don't, Mayor looks bad but everyone knows there is no getting around this issue. The city is broken financially. The City Council will look even worse when in the short run up to the election, news looks even more dire in the face of rejection of Bloomberg's proposals. Everyone blames the City Council, Bloomberg gets elected, 90% of the Council gets kicked to the curb. Even if they agree with Bloomberg, the financial solutions hurt, council is to blame for voting with him on this, council gets kicked to the curb, Bloomberg wins reelection. Only the voters can damage both the Mayor and the City Council but, realizing that the actions of the Mayor are already set in motion, disrupting them, given the very thin evidence that they might actually work, just around election time, the people acquiesce and vote in Bloomberg and the Council gets kicked to the curb because the people have to hurt someone for hurting them. For Bloomberg, it is win-win-win. Get it-three wins...???

Jerky

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:07:44 -0500

I just love that some people are calling the nixing of the property tax rebate a "tax increase". Maybe they do not understand the concept of a rebate?? The reason the rebates started in 2004 was because of budget surpluses, with the obvious option of taking it back when needed. That why it was a "REBATE" and not a reduction in property taxes. Anyone who plans their finances around money which they do not have yet, nor can 100% expect to receive, is an idiot.

HUGO_MEGO

Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:21:02 -0500

Bloomberg is a total asshole.

blablanyc

Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:04:50 -0500

Bloomberg's constituents are only the top 1% of NYC's population. The rest of us can rot in Bloomberg's eyes.