May 30, 2003

By James Eugene*

THE UNMAKING OF A MAYOR.

Dateline: November 2, 2005.

Comptroller William Thompson defeated Mayor Michael Bloomberg today to become the Mayor of the City of New York. With all precincts reporting, Thompson led Bloomberg by 55% to 45% in a margin that was stunning for its size. Pundits were calling it the All Saints Day Massacre.

Thompson found himself winning among almost all segments of the population, losing only narrowly among white Catholic voters and Jewish voters. But even among Jewish voters, Thompson made impressive inroads. Thompson also won every county except Staten Island where Bloomberg's margin was less than expected.

Thompson overcame a Bloomberg campaign that spent a massive $125 million, a record for any election in the United States outside of the Presidency. Thompson, who spent just one eighth of that total, was magnanimous in victory, thanking Bloomberg for leading the City in the difficult budget years after 9-11, helping to improve City schools and keeping crime low. Yet, despite these achievements in difficult fiscal times, the Billionaire Mayor was rebuffed in his efforts to win a second term, confounding the political experts who said the Mayor had met his main goals for the City and was a lock for re-election.

Thompson, after only one term as Comptroller, ran on a simple campaign theme, arguing that the City was no longer "likable" and placing the blame for that on the Mayor. Thompson hit upon this amorphous theme, he said, after talking to many City residents, who felt that they were "at war" with their government. "New Yorkers have always demanded that their government existed for their benefit," he said, "but all too often during the past few years, we have felt as if we existed for the government. It is time to take back our government and make sure it understands what we want. Our government must understand that we are of the people, by the people, and for the people. When you lose that understanding, you lose your legitimacy."

Many pundits ridiculed Thompson when he started his campaign using these themes. But the candidate obviously hit a nerve with the population. Thompson was constantly noting that people were annoyed with a government that seemed to serve the whims of a billionaire. A government that relied on annoying its population and businesses in a blitz of tickets. A government that while raising taxes was drastically reducing spending. A government that failed to understand that after a tragedy such as 9-11 certain symbols needed to be maintained. One homeowner in Brooklyn summed it up very simply, "I kept getting tax increases and fewer services, I kept getting tickets for things that I never faced before and those tickets were for significant amounts. It got so I felt that I couldn't breath without facing a ticket. I paid the higher taxes, yet my son's schools and libraries faced cuts, and my garbage pick up was reduced. I even had to start paying sales tax on clothes again, but what did I gain by doing that? What was I paying higher taxes for if not to maintain those services?"

The municipal unions also had little sympathy for the Mayor. Throughout his tenure they refused his pleas of givebacks. Said one union executive, "we never got a feel for how to deal with this Administration. It was like we were little children and here was this great business leader trying to tell us what to do and if we did not, we would be sent to bed without supper. He started out so wonderfully and then was so paternalistic. We needed a leader, not a school master."

Aides to the Mayor said that he was extremely disappointed and one aide characterized him as bitter about the loss. Coming into office, they said, he felt that he faced three main challenges: the budget, the schools and public safety. The Mayor felt that he had met all three challenges. Yet, Thompson was able to deflect all three accomplishments often noting that a balanced budget was a requirement, not a goal; that the teachers and students deserve the credit for improved scores because the Mayor does not take any of the tests; and that public safety's improvement trends predated the current Administration.

But in the end, it may have been the feeling that while taxes were going, services were being cut to the bone as well. Said a Thompson aide, "people are willing to sacrifice, but the Mayor made it seem as if he was the one doing the sacrificing by risking political capital, not the public by paying higher taxes and getting lower services. After 9-11. you needed an early edition Koch, rallying the City, telling them WE could do it together. You wound up with a late edition Koch, thinking he was the City. In this climate, that was not going to work."

It didn't.

As someone who works around government, I get to deal with many second and third tier level agency officials. I asked some of them about the HDC firings that were discussed in the last column. None of them worked at HDC. Each of them reacted intensely, stating that they noted the firings and were not happy, agreeing with me that the Mayor had overreacted.

And this stuff has repercussions. One high level bureaucrat worried that a recent order from her boss might be misconstrued if it came public (and result in her firing) was busy late last week covering her ass. She stated to me that she was concerned that if the proverbial cow manure hit the fan, she would take the fall, even though she protested the order.

Is this any way to run a bureaucracy?

One of the biggest service items that City residents enjoy is its public library. However, since the most recent budget cuts, the Queens Public Library has seen fit to drop Saturday service (other counties have done so as well). This is unimaginative and disappointing.

Not for profit organizations have become particularly stubborn and political when it comes to budget cuts. For example, Saturday library service could have been maintained by rearranging hours and days. During the last fiscal crisis, Queens kept its Saturday hours using a number of different methods. For example, it sometimes eliminated a day at one library during the week, while keeping the Saturday service. Other times, it shortened the day at a branch and then had Saturday half-day service on a rotating basis between two branches in close proximity.

Simply put, the Queens system was looking to annoy its patrons on the hope that the patrons may annoy the politicians and get their budget restored. But I am not buying this. I blame the management of the library system for attempting to manipulate me so I would write to politicians and complain. Instead, I am complaining about it. I give the Queens Public Library system a Bronx cheer for its poor management and lack of imagination. Shame on you.

* James Eugene is the pseudonym of a veteran of NYC government affairs. Inside The Big Apple will appear exclusively on the Empire Page. If you want to send tips or column ideas to James Eugene, email them to jameseugene@empirepage.com.