January 13, 2003

THE MONEY TRAIL.

By James Eugene*

While my first few columns have attempted to contain some humor, the humor in this column is limited (hey, no cracks about how the humor in the first few columns was limited too). I want to explore whether the topic I am raising is, in fact, an issue.

And that is, what effect does the fact that Michael Bloomberg is a billionaire impact on City politics and governance? Bloomberg has been in office little over a year, and while I realize that this period is usually a honeymoon period, it just feels as if he has gotten off a little easy. And I am asking myself the question why.

Think back over the past few Mayors. There were groups that thought that Koch, Dinkins and Giuliani were evil. No one says this about Bloomberg. An 18.5% tax increase? Koch and Dinkins would not have even thought about this in the post-fiscal crisis era. Giuliani, for philosophical reasons, would never have even asked for a tax increase. Yet, it was done quickly and neatly without a mess by Bloomberg. And few in the business community complained. A homeless crisis? Not Bloomberg's fault, but the problem of eight, really twelve, years of mismanagement on the issue by Giuliani and before him, Dinkins. (In retrospect, Koch, who was vilified on this issue, looks quite good.) Noise problems (jeez with Bloomberg's attitude on noise, you'd think we lived in Sleepy Hollow, not a city of 8 million strong)? Not much of a peep to his Operation Silent Night… one of the more humorous initiatives in my lifetime. School governance reform, an issue where the polls showed the public divided? After ages of debate and no real shift in public sentiment, Bloomberg gets control.

Have we become a more civilized city or is something else involved? Namely, money. The old expression goes that "Money is the mother's milk of politics." If this is true, then Bloomberg is the political mother of all cows. We know that Bloomberg gave generously to politicians before running for office (first to Democrats and then, after he switched parties to run for Mayor, to the Republicans). We know, with his access to high-powered friends, that he can raise money for others. It is one thing when this type of money is on the outside looking in. But now we have the strange combination of this money on the inside looking in and out.

Think for a second. If you were a politician thinking of higher office, wouldn't you pause before criticizing the Mayor? Go for Bloomberg's jugular and you may annoy some of his friends, who may, in fact, be or could be contributors to your future campaign. Do you want to annoy them? Annoy Bloomberg himself and he may even complain to his friends. But that might be the least of your problems. He also controls the bulk of the City budget and do you want him using that to hurt you? Moreover, if you are nice to him, he might help you both with the City budget and with your fundraising, raising funds among his friends and maybe even throwing some of his own money your way.

And don't think Bloomberg, consciously or subconsciously, does not know that his wealth impresses. The first thing he did with the new Council Members was to invite them to his mansion for an affair. Not the official Mayoral residence, Gracie Mansion, which he does not consider as opulent as his mansion, but to his own home. There, the Council Members got to see the perquisites of power and money, and they, of course, tell stories of this, sufficiently awed by the experience. It is one thing to visit the City's official residence of power. It is quite another to visit the inner sanctum of a place which could be part of the television series, "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous." (Gracie Mansion will not appear on that show, trust me.) It is only human to want to be invited back or to see more. (In fact, I often wonder if Bloomberg did hold a pow-wow for city politicians in the Caribbean, would it be a conflict of interest for those politicians to go? Wrestle with that one, Conflict of Interest Board.)

Even some advocacy groups are muted. Bloomberg, to his credit, has always been generous to charity. But after various budget cuts, rather than raise their voices (one used to hear a joint chorus of advocacy groups and charities complaining about cuts), some not-for-profits remain mute. Some of this is political capital. Bloomberg, these groups surmise, from his years of charitable giving, understands their problems, so if there are cuts, then these charities think it must be for a good reason because Bloomberg would not just cut their budgets. But it is important to realize that Bloomberg would not have this capital if not for years of philanthropy, which is enabled, obviously, by his wealth.

Finally, Bloomberg needs no contributions from anyone. But part of the political process is the giving of money to politicians. If you are independent from everyone, then you may decide to only be dependent on yourself. I had the feeling that with both Operation Silent Night and the Anti-Smoking legislation, Bloomberg wanted the Operation Silent Night because he felt it was so noisy in the City and the anti-smoking bill because he hated smoking. The decisions to move forward with these matters did not sound political, and that can be good, but those decisions did sound personal, and I do not want a politician moving forward entirely on his own personal whim. I want the body politic to count.

Now I am not blaming Bloomberg. I prefer him over, umm, let's just say Mark Green for now. And I do not think this use of money as another tool of power is a calculated move (if so, then Bloomberg's contributions to charity and other politicians had remarkable foresight). But I wonder why these issues are not being raised in the mainstream, or even some of the alternative, media. I could be all wrong. I am sure almost every politician will deny ever having the thoughts raised in this column. But the questions I raise deal with simple human nature and they seem natural to ask. The answers may be no. But the questions should at least be asked so that we can keep ourselves, and the political process, honest.

BET YOU THIS NEVER HAPPENS.

Assemblyman Scott Stringer recently put out a report complaining about unpaid fines within the City's Buildings Department. One of the main complaints about Building and ECB fines that I hear from business owners is the cost and time to fight them. I will bet that it is more common for recipients of unjust violations to pay the fines and not incur the expense to fight them, than it is for just fines to go unpaid. Of course, Stringer will never do a report on this one.

And while we are at it, why is Stringer doing a report on the City's Building Department? Have the State agencies, over which Stringer has direct oversight, all of a sudden started to operate so perfectly that he cannot investigate them because there is nothing to investigate? I mean Stinger must believe that the Pataki Administration has done such a wonderful job on mental health that Stringer's talents are just not needed upstate. Or is the real reason that Stringer came out with the report because Stringer is not interested in topics that impact the entire state and just wishes to concentrate on New York City which is where his district just so happens to be? I think you know the answer.

* 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.