de Blasio con't, con't.

A continuation of recent posts. I couldn't simply reply because I used to many words!

And again, we are most likely talking past one another and in general agreement. Its odd that often times a critique can immediately be misconstrued as opposition.

I was indeed critical of Mayor de Blasio’s morning-after-the-storm news conference performance even though, in actuality, he did manage to make it to Woodside Queens for the news conference part thereby diluting my complaint of its Brooklyn theme. This critical outburst on my part does not mean I stand in opposition to his policy and yet that was the assumption made by those who responded.  One newscaster remarked about the same morning that it was such a stark change from a “just the facts ma’am” socially tin-eared Bloomberg, to a folksy, I-shoveled-my-own-driveway-just-in-case-you-wanted-to-know de Blasio that we all took notice. Another said, after hearing de Blasio’s comment that he rose at 4AM to have a phone conference with the schools chancellor, and so was the most informed New Yorker about the snowstorm, “well you ought to be”.

Your list of Bloomberg’s failures in leadership cannot be argued with except to say that his imperial style and overall effectiveness in getting something done does not fairly earn him a ‘lack of leadership’ award but rather demonstrates a leadership in directions other than your preferences. He was no wallflower nor no ineffectual. Some of the results of his tenure I continue to appreciate are more green space (especially the work done on Manhattan’s Hudson shoreline), a robust parks department, bike lanes, the city bike program, and the return of architecture. That last is such nourishment to my esthetic soul.

Yes, I was aware of Bloomberg’s property tax increases. That it holds a record of being the largest in New York City history ever, I would love to see substantiated. Certainly in the 1800’s when there was no income tax, save during the years of the civil war, and tariffs and property taxes were the primary source of local income, there must have been some increases to match, no? Hyperbole or fact? Interesting. Regardless, a major reason for the size of the increases was to put back in place the large cuts Giuliani enacted, throwing the city into a downward spiral, which led to continuing deficits. Besides, I’m not understanding your larger point. Mayor de Blasio will be relying on increased taxation for his purposes. Bloomberg relied on increased taxation to close the budget gap and to fuel his purposes. Doesn’t that at least align their funding tactics if not their agendas? You may have assigned to my trepidation as to how to handle more taxes the weight of an argument against more taxes. As I said amidst complaining, de Blasio is probably right to revisit property tax hikes, its just tough on the budget.

Progress and Poverty by Henry George 1879. I haven’t read it cover to cover and its remedies are based on a society long gone, but its just one random title to demonstrate that the inequality argument currently grabbing headlines has simply resurfaced. This observation is not meant to diminish your points in the least. I agree that this widening gap is deadly. But I do not believe that any politician or set of policies or party platform can sufficiently alter the inequities of American society. In fact it has been my long held belief that it cannot be corrected but by the demise of capitalism itself.  And this is where your attempts to label me may fall into disarray. You see I am essentially a fiscal socialist. I do not hold out any hope however that the necessary changes to correct the excesses of capitalism can come about without violence. It need not be an armed violence but the tensions of what capitalism naturally creates, haves and have not’s, needs must rise to the level of revolt. Only then will there be sufficient motive for the wealthy and powerful to change, for they will have no alternative, it will be perforce. I hope not to be alive then because it will be a very difficult time. I believe there is a natural economic progression through capitalism to something more egalitarian and sustainable.

Nature might also force the issue by its inevitable sloughing off of our overpopulated species, a more likely scenario given our capacity to procrastinate. When draught and melting ice caps and rising sea levels and weather extremes have had their way in one hundred or two hundred years, those left may find it beneficial to rethink how they form economic systems. Until then I will enjoy the parks and architecture and be quietly thankful that I don’t have to keep up with the decaying educational system.

Now I have put some cards on the table. Now I am open to labeling and criticism. Enjoy.