By Ann Cooper
When West Side Rag wrote this week that outgoing State Assemblymember Danny O’Donnell had endorsed Eli Northrup, a public defender, to replace him, Rag commenters sounded underwhelmed. Who cares about endorsements, some said? We want to know what Northrup (and the four other Democrats vying for the nomination) stands for.
John
I have the same question as Carlos, first comment. What are their policies? Crime, business, mental health, reduce red tape to build housing supply, actually improving the neighborhood? Yes, good to focus on LGBTQ+ rights but in today’s NYC that is far from the top priority. This disconnection from reality is fostering Trump and co.
Most of the issues commenters clamored to hear about were already on the Rag’s list of questions for the candidates, which reporter Gus Saltonstall posed to them in lengthy phone interviews. On Thursday, we published the responses of three of the candidates for the Democratic nomination to represent the 69th District – Northrup, Micah Lasher, and Melissa Rosenberg. Interviews with the other two candidates, Carmen Quinones and Dr. Jack Kellner, will be published next week.
The 69th District that each seeks to represent stretches from West 80th to 125th Streets. It includes large sections of Riverside and Central Parks, and Columbia University is a big institutional force (and landlord) in the district. But to the extent that the interviews inspired comments, the biggest commenter debate was on what causes long-term commercial vacancies in the city.
The candidate interviews were long, broad-ranging, and offered a mix of general responses and specific public-policy solutions. Yet none of them seemed to generate voter enthusiasm from the (admittedly unrepresentative) audience of WSR commenters.
Joe from the UWS
On public safety, the responses from all of the interviewed candidates are uninformed at best, and manipulative at worst.
None of them call for fixes to sentencing or bail laws. None of them acknowledge a small group of people commit a majority of the crimes. None of them acknowledge the danger faced disproportionately by Asian Americans.
Instead; they lecture us about poverty and mental health.
It’s outrageous.
Perhaps the most surprising thing was how few comments, and relatively few page views, each interview received. That might reflect a long-term trend toward relatively low voter turnout in local elections. Perhaps that will change as we move closer to primary election day June 25.
Finally, it’s important to add the usual caveat about comments: they are not a public opinion poll. One commenter last Saturday offered a reminder of that:
UWS Dad
I’ve found it instructive to look at how the WSR comments line up with results of local elections, especially Brewer v Di Stasio in 2023, the comments were largely pro Di Stasio yet Brewer won in a landslide with 80% of the vote.
So while the WSR comment section is a lot of fun, let’s not be under any illusions that the comments are representative of the neighborhood.
UWS Dad has a good memory. Last September, when we ran a Q and A with Diane di Stasio, the Republican challenger to veteran Upper West Side City Councilmember Gale Brewer, a large majority of the 96 comments posted on the story insisted Brewer had been in office too long and di Stasio would be a worthy replacement for her. Yet Brewer won another term in a landslide.
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here.
I appreciate your reporting on the reporting; sad that interest and turnout is so low. People love complaining but they don’t show up and vote.
sadly true.
The three candidates profiled are all political hacks and lobbyists with identical far left agendas.
Many of their proposals are ridiculous. Northrup, in particular, displayed a comical level of ignorance with his vow to end “tax write-offs” for landlords with empty retail space.
There’s not much to get excited about. No matter who wins, the neighborhood loses.
@Otis: I really dislike the term “political hacks.” You have the right, of course, to like, dislike, prefer, or reject their positions, but ask yourself, would you want your child to be taught by an experienced teacher, or a neophyte with no training in education? Would you rather be rescued by an experienced firefighter, or by somone untrained, though well-intentioned?
Learning the ropes in politics takes time. The experience gained over the years can be invaluable. Political neophytes have litte or no knowledge of the ins and outs of government bureaucracy. To get things done, you have to manipulate a system whose inner workings and weaknesses you understand, and that understanding comes only with experience. Gale Brewer knows the system; that’s how she can get things done. Same thing goes for Congressman Nadler. He started out as a reformer: district leader working with the F.D.R. Woodrow Wilson Reform Democrats during a time when corruption ran rampant in the city and in Congress. From there he was elected to the State Assembly, and was then appointed to Congress upon the death of Congressman Ted Weiss, and has stood for re-election successfully many times since then. His legislative victories are legion and the country is the richer for them. In short, reformers have to know the system’s weaknesses to change it. Don’t denigrate them with that hideous label of “political hack.” Better “knowledgable and effective representative of the voters.”
Nadler was not appointed to Congress when Weiss died. Representatives, unlike Senators, cannot be appointed to complete others’ terms.
Nadler was designated by the Democratic Party in September 1992 to fill Weiss’s line on the upcoming November 1992 ballot. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/24/nyregion/manhattan-democrats-select-assemblyman-for-weiss-seat.html
Since designation by the Democratic Party in Manhattan is tantamount to being appointed to the position, your objection, while technically accurate, is a meaningless quibble.
The saddest part is that there is a significant number of voters who actually believe the landlords get such tax write-offs.
Unfortunately it will take this city to hit rock bottom before anything changes. We all see these candidates as more of the same so no one cares anymore. No Republican will even run because they know it’s a waste of time.
So more of the same until we are at rock bottom as a city. Then people will care and the comments WILL represent public opinion. It’s a shame it will have to come to that,
Unlike many of the commenters I really enjoy my days in the city now. It’s vibrant, with booksellers and local people unafraid to hang out outside and play dominoes, listen to music, and chat. It reminds me of the old days. If there’s any hope that the city will become less of a brand and stop luring kids from the Midwest with hopes of being the new Carrie Bradshaw, maybe it can return to a place where generational New Yorkers can live in peace. As dark as the COVID days were, I really enjoyed the serenity and calm of the months tourism was on pause.
Cosign all of that.
Wow. I’m not a native New Yorker, and moved here for a job in finance. There aren’t many finance jobs in the small town where I’m from, you see. Not a fan of Carrie Bradshaw or high heels, and I’m pretty sure I contribute way more in taxes than she would have on a journalist’s salary. Not every woman who relocates to this city is so frivolous
Glad you were serene and calm while the City shut down, but NYC can’t sustain itself without large-scale tourism. Tourism has historically declined during times that NYC was viewed as dangerous. I hope those aren’t the old days that you wish for.
For the most part, I still enjoy living in NYC and on the UWS. I was glad to see Northrup acknowledge some quality of life problems like the excessive volume of ambulance sirens. I am not enthusiastic about even him, though, since as others noted, he seems a proponent of “decarceration” without facing head-on the effects of repeated crimes committed by repeat offenders. I wonder how many crimes have been committed by the guy who ran his motorcycle into a police officer telling him to exit Central Park, and then physically attacked the officer? Clearly people like that feel they can get away with lots of stuff.
There were so few comments because all three candidates offered nothing more than anodyne talking points designed to appeal the UWS voter who wants to feel morally justified .
Essentially, blah, blah, and blah sprinkled with virtue signaling blah blah.
Beyond that, we all know that an assembly seat is so inconsequential that unless the holder becomes one of Albany’s “three people in the room” their impact is minimal.
Why bother?
You might not be well informed on the effects that members of the State legislature can have on the standard of living of those living in their districts. Haven’t you heard of the Mitchell-Lama Housing program? The program was sponsored by New York State Senator MacNeil Mitchell and Assemblyman Alfred Lama. Neither man belonged to “The three people in the room.” The Mitchell-Lama program brought affordable housing (both rentals and
co-ops) to many city and state neighborhoods. The program turned the crime-infested, slum-ridden Upper West Side into the middle-income-friendly neighborhood that it morphed into in the 70’s and 80’s and changed the area to such an extent that it is now one of the most attractive and popular neighborhoods in the City. Issues involving education, municipal services, finance, and many more all come before the state legislature and can be influenced by experienced members who understand the workings of government. Our job is to make sure that the best qualified candidates are chosen to guide the state as its legislators. Don’t discount their importance and the role their experience and expertise will play in ensuring their effectiveness on our behalf.
You keep promoting the continued election of career politicians who know how to hack through the bureaucracy. Maybe we need to eliminate the bureaucracy so that newcomers can be effective. Your view should be turned upside down so that we don’t keep recycling the same legislators in lifetime jobs.
Seriously? You’re citing a program that was signed into law in 1955 as an example of effectiveness of an assembly person? (Mitchell was a state senator BTW) Mitchell Lama did not turn around the UWS or the city on its own. There were countless other programs, laws, initiatives, tax breaks, migration that got NYC out of the “slum-ridden” and “crime-infested era.
My point is that all three candidates interviewed offered, in essence, the same empty talking points with no idea, or possibility, of having any of what they “will fight for” becoming law.
Sorry for my cynicism, but the assembly position holds very little influence or power unless you’re one of the three people in the room. It’s for this reason that it’s so confussing why it seems to be such a pitched battle for this seat of small consequence.
I just want to commend the WSR for these articles about the comments. I genuinely think this is a cool journalism innovation to get a pulse from a subset of your readers and acknowledge and respond to the feedback. Kudos.
the candidates have stated their intentions, but as far as i know, none have stated their accomplishments. What have they done in the past that backs up what they say? the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I read the Rag’s stories about the candidates carefully, and I thought your questions were well-thought-out. New York is an ever-changing international city with a lengthy list of issues, and one Assemblyperson can only do so much. They all sounded intelligent, informed, and caring, but until they get into office it will be difficult to measure their influence and efficacy. I appreciate the Rag’s coverage – and I need to say that in these comments more often – and read it faithfully.
The comment by UWS Dad needs to be addressed. Yes Brewer won 80% of those who voted. But only 7% of the voters showed up. So the comments from pro di Stasio people may very well have been representative. Republican candidates who took to the streets received a lot of positive feedback from voters yet that did not result in winning. It’s not that these people said they liked you and voted for the other guy. They didn’t show up. Part of the reason for Democrat success is that they have an army of union workers getting out the vote. But with that army, only 7% showed up to vote. With the 2024 election being a presidential election, more people will vote, but the Republican leadership has to put far more effort in getting out the vote. Something to consider, Donald Trump received a very good reaction from his hometown crowd in Crotona Park. I don’t know if increased effort by Republicans will do much, it can’t hurt. New Yorkers have to go out and vote, especially for the local offices. The Democrats are anti-police and anti-bail reform. Make them pay. Next year, vote for law and order district attorneys. A no show results in the same old thing.
My reply function seems to not be working but:
@Frustrated NYC is still on the upswing from Covid so you may be waiting a long time for this ‘rock bottom’ that will have everyone come around to your views.
@Bob sure turnout is low but it’s awfully presumptuous of you to assume these non voters are in your camp. You could look at the recent governors election & see similar results. Plus todays republicans aren’t exactly the law and order type….
It’s fine to have unpopular opinions (I have some myself) but let’s just be honest with ourselves about what the UWS supports.
The city hit rock bottom once before and gee, a Republican (of all things!) was in office for 20 years. How did that happen? People finally went out to vote with some common sense instead keeping their blinders on in a state of denial.
We are in this status quo because people are either too unmotivated or even afraid to vote because radical left made a point to make moderates fell like MAGA. Not to mention that actual conservatives still have a right to vote but are considered a “basket of deplorables”.
Considering all this, mostly super progressives show up, a good percentage of them from their rent-stabilized apartments.
Congrats DM – winner winner, chicken dinner, for perhaps the most uninformed, silly statement on here today!
Perhaps Gail won because A) she does a great job and B) many people shudder at the word “Republican”… Candidate might be super but the risk of them ‘falling in line’ is too great – as we see evidenced by their leadership.
Gale does not do a great job. She only got in because she is living off her past reputation. She is just here for a paycheck and to pad her social security. That is the vibe I get from her today.