Letters to the Editor, Sept. 19

Why Quinn, Thompson, Liu and Weiner lost

The following letter was originally published as a comment on the Town & Village Blog in response to the story, “Residents choose de Blasio,” T&V, Sept. 12.

The lesson from this primary election is that our politicians need to take care of their constituents, because if they take their base for granted they will pay the price. Also, any narcissism will be severely punished on Election Day.

Chris Quinn lost Greenwich Village and Chelsea by 15 points to de Blasio because she assumed her own district would vote for her, in spite of St. Vincent’s closing, her crush on Bloomberg and many other quality of life issues she neglected to address. In the end even the gay vote wasn’t there for her because she wasn’t there for them. She narcissistically assumed she could do whatever she pleased and her base would follow. They followed de Blasio instead.

Bill Thompson lost Harlem by 10 points and the total black vote citywide to de Blasio because he spent the last four years between elections actually acting a lot like Bloomberg; becoming an investment banker, summering in the Hamptons and eating at his favorite sushi restaurant on Irving Place. Even though his daughter lives in Stuy Town he could no longer connect with middle class people, and he just assumed his base would be there for him. It is telling that his biggest support was in the white portions of Staten Island, so maybe it’s time for him to change parties.

John Liu won the Asian vote in Elmhurst and Chinatown and everywhere else, because he paid attention to his base and was always there for them. Hopefully he will use his skills to broaden his appeal in the future, if so he will be the one to watch next time around.

Anthony Weiner proved that narcissism is not an endearing quality, and being a lying, perverted, unhinged narcissist is even less attractive. He was the biggest loser as he went from the early frontrunner to the punchline of a joke no one is laughing about anymore. He didn’t need an election as much as he needed a marriage counselor. Like many, I was willing to forgive and support him at first, but his atrocious handling of his personal affairs and his arrogant treatment of the press reminded me more of a Tea Party candidate than the progressive he used to be.

In the end Bill de Blasio was the only one who got it, on stop and frisk, on affordable housing, on our Bloomberg fatigue and on taxing the rich to fund our schools. Bloomberg thinks the solution to all our problems is more Russian billionaires, and that higher taxes will just scare them away. As if the rich have ever been scared away by the high price of living that they themselves helped create.

Are the rich really going to leave NYC and the multi-million dollar condo they just bought over a few thousand dollars in extra taxes? Where are they going to go, back to Russia? Or New Jersey? How’s the view of Central Park from over there?

Bill de Blasio won because he gives us hope for a fairer city, with his smart interracial family, and with his progressive agenda, which is why he won big on his opponent’s turf.

But he also won because of his stark contrast with another narcissist named Michael Bloomberg.

Bloomberg’s last gasp insult of accusing de Blasio of racism for using his son Dante in the best campaign ad in decades reminded us all why we are tired of the billionaire who thinks he knows better than everyone just because he has more money. Democracy isn’t about telling people what to do, it’s about honest representation of the people, listening and caring about them and imposing their will on society and not your own. That’s why de Blasio won this round and will be the next Mayor of NYC.

John Small, EMP

Time to take out the trash

Sept12 overflowing trash

To the Editor:

This photo demonstrates what is now happening in Stuyvesant Town every weekend and during the week. What was a family environment has turned into a party atmosphere. Advertised as a luxury residence, it now looks like party central.

Where is security to police this and take names and addresses? This is Playground #3 in Stuyvesant Town but could be anywhere.

The maintenance staff works hard but shouldn’t have to clean up after these people. Twenty years ago these people would have been asked to leave the community.

Are you listening, management?

Don Burkett, ST

Stuy Town re-visited

On my way to my camp’s 50th reunion in Massachusetts, I managed to spend two hours in my beloved Stuy Town for the first time since 1995.  What I saw and experienced was staggering and eye opening and I’m not just talking about the many physical changes since 1995 (when it was still as it was originally built). I will say that it was obvious it was a place being prepared for “conversion” to condos or co-ops, which is not why ST/PCV was built.

Richard Luksin,
Minneapolis, MN

4 thoughts on “Letters to the Editor, Sept. 19

  1. You know that a pizza party could have easily have been a bunch of 7-year-olds at the playground having a birthday party as it might have been yuppies with an appetite.

    PARTY MADNESS! Stop these “parties” before they ruin the fabric of our society! The horror!

    • So, supposing it was a pizza party of 7 year olds, there should have been an adult present to make the little piglets pick up after themselves! There is never any excuse for that kind of slob behavior.

      • I agree that there’s no excuse for slob behavior.

        But I think there is an atmosphere of annoyance targeting everyone between 20-40 in the community. It’s true that a lot of the people at the younger end of that age range show an alarming lack of maturity, but that’s not justification for extensive age bias in the community.

Leave a Reply to Frances Clarke Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.