Comment Policy

All comments to posts have to await approval. Please be aware that, depending on when I'm logged onto the internet, it may take me hours, even longer, to moderate comments, so if they don't turn up in a speedy fashion, they are still in the queue. Comments that cross a line I'm not comfortable with will not get approved. Please note: Posts that overdo their passion and veer into name-calling or that make serious accusations without proof are going to have a hard time getting through.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Dan Garodnick in 2013



In one of my previous comments, I mistakenly stated that Dan Garodnick, because of term limits (flexible term limits according to the dictates of the Mayor and the City Council), wouldn't be able to run again. I was wrong, however. Despite the voters' wishes three times at the ballot box to limit the Mayor and the City Council to two-terms, the powers that be sneaked in a provision in the last vote, in 2010, that would allow the city councilmen/women to go for a third term! (Read about this travesty here.)

That said, it is instructive to take a look at the companies and people who donated to Dan's campaigns in 2005 and 2009 and who are already donating to his as-yet undeclared candidacy in 2013.

You can view the lists here.

You will see investment firms, real estate firm, hedge funds, etc, even the president of the Tenants Association and the heads of Rose Associates donated to the cause of getting Dan elected.* I don't mind the president of the TA or Rose donating, but ask yourselves why are investment/real estate/hedge fund firms donating to a city councilman? (BTW, donations from these firms are not exclusive to Dan; other city councilmen/councilwomen also receive similar donations.) These donations are not of the mom-and-pop type either. Thousands of dollars are being dropped into the coffers for Dan's and other city council members' elections.

The story of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village is just one part of the mosaic of the story of New York City and how the middle class is gradually being squeezed out of Manhattan, to be replaced by the rich and the sons and daughters of the rich. It seems these contributions are being well spent.

This is not to say that Dan Garodnick, or other City Council members, are in the pockets of the people who wish to make a huge profit from the real estate in Manhattan (Dan has fought on the right side in the Roberts decision, for instance), but the infiltration of large sums of investment and real estate money into the City Council is troubling, particularly when it's the City Council that deals with zoning regulations.

*Note: I've been informed that the contributions from a couple of people connected to Rose Associates were because of Dan's support of the Park Avenue Armory, of which Elihu Rose is philanthropically Vice-Chairman. Rose Associates has not donated to Dan's campaign since becoming manager of PC/STV.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Interesting bunch of people. I guess he owes it to Rose not to be too annoying. Even the idiot Stadmeyer is a donor!

Anonymous said...

Super conflict of interest.

Typical politician.



I'm not voting for him again.

Anonymous said...

Me neither. Too many hedge funds, money mongers, real estate interests and lawyers. Yech!
La creme de la crap.

Anonymous said...

You lost my Dan.

Anonymous said...

When did this become the anti-Garodnick blog? He's not the one jamming this place with college kids and installing crappy laundry machines.

BTW, he voted against changing the term limits.

That got him my vote right there.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

It's true that Garodnick voted against term limits, but one has to wonder if he was well aware that the City Council would override term limits and he took the expedient step of voting against that to cover himself. Of course, if he believes in two-term limits, he doesn't have to declare himself a candidate for a third term.

Anonymous said...

STR, your conspiracy theories are running amuck.

So when he does the right thing, it's only for the wrong reasons? You know, sometimes a guy is just honest.

Maybe we can find out when Garodnick came out against changing the term limits?

Anonymous said...

He needs to remember his constituents in Stuyvesant Town and take a stand against the way Rose is making tenants' lives miserable with all these stupid commercial gimmicks. This is supposed to be a residential community, not a fucking amusement park. Playground 10 was used every day by dozens of kids to play ball and run around getting exercise and burning energy and generally having a good time FREE OF CHARGE. This is clearly a diminution of services and it is a slap in the face to those kids and their parents, as well as an unwelcome intrusion into the quiet enjoyment of the homes of those tenants who are unfortunate enough to live near Playground 10. The noise caused by kids running around astro turf is a lot different than that of an ice rink with it's zambonis, hordes of people from outside and whatever crappy music they are bound to play over the loudspeaker system. Garodnick should remember that we didn't vote for him because of his pretty face; we voted for him because we thought he would be the best person to represent our interests. Clearly we were wrong.

Anonymous said...

Yawn. So he got money from real estate or...ooooh, lawyers (he is a lawyer, after all). Has that kept him from calling out every owner and manager we've had? When he quits doing that, THEN he'll lose my support.

Anonymous said...

It's not an anti Garodnick blog.

It's a blog that discusses Dan Garodnick's non-actions and head in the sand attitude toward his constituents in Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village.

Especially Stuyvesant Town.

Anonymous said...

I am admittedly a long-time supporter of Dan's, but I do not understand the vitriol that is being directed to him on this blog. Nobody has been a better supporter of this community than he has. He ran a grass-roots campaign here and knocked on every door in this community when he ran for office. He fought the Tishman Speyer acquisition and spent literally hundreds of hours spearheading an incredibly creative proposal to make this community tenant-owned that came within inches of becoming reality. He was not just an opponent of the term limits extension, but an vocal one -- and there is no reason to suggest that his vote wasn't a principled one. There was a lot of pressure on councilmembers from leadership and the Mayor to get with the program, and Dan didn't. Dan has had no hesitation to buck the Council leadership when he doesn't agree with it. Your complaints on this blog are largely with the management of PCV/ST, and it's simply unfair to suggest that Dan can control them -- although he has been an incredibly effective advocate for residents with them on any number of important issues.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

"spearheading an incredibly creative proposal to make this community tenant-owned that came within inches of becoming reality."

And if that had become a reality, we would have been in the same position as Tishman Speyer found itself. Much like Dan's folly of being for the 2nd Ave Subway, which has devastated small businesses in the area where construction has been taking place, his good intentions are not that well thought out at times.

Regarding term limits, it's very simple. If Dan believes in them, he should not run again for a third term. Now, what are the chances of that happening? (I myself am against term limits, but I am very much for the will of the voter, and that will said clearly, three times: "Yes!" to term limits.)

Anonymous said...

Stuy Town reporter, I have to agree with the previous commenter that this is starting to feel a lot like an anti-Dan Garodnick blog.

"And if that had become a reality, we would have been in the same position as Tishman Speyer found itself."

You're right, if the tenant plan had won out a few years ago, there would have been real trouble -- but because the real estate bubble burst, not because of anything Dan did wrong. Are you taking him to task for not predicting the largest real estate collapse since the Great Depression, that the entire market, and government, failed to predict? Really? The fact is that the tenant plan was one of the most innovative things an local elected official has done in this area -- and all for the purpose of EMPOWERING tenants.

It's really easy to throw stones. I think the record is pretty clear, though, that no matter the owner or manager of Stuy Town, Dan has been an outspoken and reasonable critic when the circumstances have warranted it. I highly doubt that Tishman Speyer or Rose Associates feel like Dan is in their pocket--because he's plainly not.

Anonymous said...

Steve Sanders did more for this community in his tenure than Dan will do in a lifetime. We're sitting here powerless, getting shit on by a landlord who's breaking the law, and our elected representative (who makes and sees to the enforcement of those laws) hands out some pablum to the electorate and slinks back to their office. I'm sick of the inaction and lack of results. If our City Councilman can't help, then who can ?

Anonymous said...

You are damn right about Steve Sanders doing more for us than Garodnick ever could or would. Sanders was always there for us. Even Eva Moskowitz fought for us more during her tenure than Garodnick. I think he is only interested in a TA purchase of the property and everything else means nothing to him.

Anonymous said...

Really? Eva Moskowitz? Really? At first it was funny, now it's just getting loony in here.

This pretty well sums it up: http://www.dailygotham.com/blog/liza_sabater/yes_that_was_me_on_the_11_oclock_news

Eva Moskowitz in her years as city council member did absolutely nothing to ensure the interests of the city were taken at a higher stake than the interests of MetLife. On the contrary, the woman had no understanding whatsoever of the demographic dynmics of the place. To her this was a white, middle class and mostly senior-aged enclave.

Every year she would be up for election, Ms. Moskowitz would park herself at the corner of 16th Street and First Avenue --the only times you'd see her around this part of town.

...I'll take Garodnick any day.

Anonymous said...

"...I'll take Garodnick any day."

You can have him. Any day.