Just Say No to Bloomberg's Megalomania

Eight years ago, Michael Bloomberg emerged onto the political landscape, promising to be the anti-politician. His assent to the mayoral post was marked by promises of bringing a no-nonsense business mentality to City Hall, one that would cut through the red tape and politics as usual that had marred city government for so long.

However, even at that time, Bloomberg was already exhibiting some of the traits of a slick and extremely seasoned politician.

By switching his party affiliation from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party before the mayoral election of 2001, Bloomberg was able to avoid a primary election against a crowded field of Democratic candidates that year. And, in the aftermath of 9/11, being associated with the same party as Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (who was basking in his post-9/11 popularity) helped propel Bloomberg, who had been trailing by as much as 20 points in the polls, to a mayoral victory.

That, and some $70 million of his own monies (and I do mean monies…Bloomberg never seems to use the singular “money,” perhaps because he has so much of it that it has become pluralized in his mind).

Flash forward to 2008. With Bloomberg’s second term as Mayor winding down and a presidential election looming, there is much talk of Bloomberg launching a potential third-party run for the presidency. While this ultimately did not materialize, Bloomberg did take a step in that direction, changing his party affiliation once more, this time to “independent.”

Looking back, it just seems so convenient of Bloomberg to change his party “affiliation” on a whim, as he has twice already. While some might see this as a willingness to cross party lines and work both sides of the aisle, I see this merely as pure, unbridled, and very political opportunism. By switching parties, Bloomberg has put himself in an opportunity to gain—and retain—power.

Therefore, it came as no surprise today when news emerged of Bloomberg’s apparent desire to change the city charter and run for a third term as Mayor.

Proponents of this move will point to his current (inexplicably) high approval ratings—hovering over 70%—and the Bloomberg camp is also citing the extraordinary times that this city and country are facing as a result of the ongoing and deep financial crisis; a crisis which requires a leader with a strong financial background, like Bloomberg’s, at the helm.

However, when looking at the accomplishments of the Bloomberg administration, one has to wonder what the source of his high approval ratings are. Consider the following:

- While the Bloomberg administration did balance the city’s budget, predictions for future fiscal years, even before the most recent crisis in the credit markets and the longer-term economic crisis nationwide, were indicating multi-billion dollar deficits and the need for more budget cuts, in addition to cuts that city agencies and services have repeatedly faced since Bloomberg took office.

- In the meantime, Bloomberg has provided multi-billion dollar tax breaks to corporations such as Goldman Sachs, in an effort to lure them back to New York City after 9/11…tax money the city desperately needs (see deficits, above).

- Bloomberg has rigorously opposed increasing salaries for the NYPD and FDNY, salaries which are abysmally low.

- Bloomberg did wrestle control of public schools away from the bloated bureaucracy of the Board of Education, however, city students continue to underperform, particularly in low-income neighborhoods.

- Like a true career politician, Bloomberg has flip-flopped on a number of issues, such as taxes. Before Bloomberg was for tax increases (18 percent property tax hike, increases in the cigarette tax, etc.), he was against tax increases: “Taxes are not good things, but if you want services, somebody's got to pay for them, so they're a necessary evil." After increasing property taxes by 18 percent, he proposed decreasing them 5 percent, but is now proposing an increase in property taxes once again! Additionally, after the initial property tax increase, homeowners in New York City were then mailed a rebate, as a result of the city’s budget surplus, even with projections for deficits in future fiscal years. Couldn’t that money have been used for essential city services instead (services which have instead been cut)? Bloomberg’s tax-collecting zeal has even extended to tracking down the identities of New Yorkers who purchased cigarettes online, and sending them tax bills in the mail! Orwell couldn’t have imagined it more vividly.

- Bloomberg outrageously sided with Con Edison and against the citizens and businesses of Astoria, Queens, after residents of that neighborhood had to endure as much as nine days without electricity, during a summer heat wave!

- Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan (which, thankfully, did not pass) would have done nothing to ease congestion in the four outer boroughs (remember those, Mr. Bloomberg?). It did not reflect the many realities of New York City’s road and mass transit networks, which are Manhattan-centric, did not address the fact that much traffic would have been redirected to areas outside of the “congestion zone” (including many low-income neighborhoods currently suffering from high levels of respiratory ailments such as asthma), and did not provide a clear-cut plan on building transportation alternatives, such as increased bus service, new transit lines, etc. that would truly help ease congestion. The plan would, however, have made money for the city, a pattern that many of Bloomberg’s proposals seem to follow (read more below).

- On the topic of mass transit, New York City has seen fare increases and reduced service on its bus and train lines. The only real expansion that has taken place is work on the Second Avenue Subway, which has finally begun after numerous decades (but which was slated to occur with or without congestion pricing also in place). Especially in the outer boroughs, bus and train service remains abysmal in many places.

- Bloomberg showed his true colors when he vetoed a bill that would have forced electronics manufacturers to accept old electronic appliances for recycling for free. Apparently, Bloomberg felt that the public should shoulder the cost of electronics recycling, and at the same time, that it should be mandatory, with fines for those who refuse to recycle their old appliances and electronic devices. It seems that in Michael Gloom…I mean Bloomberg’s world, one can only be “environmentally friendly” if you can also find a way to write more tickets and meet more quotas.

- Speaking of quotas, the army of meter maids that is on the streets of the city (including the outer boroughs, which Bloomberg seems to have remembered for the purpose of writing tickets!), has reached absurd proportions. Despite the denial of the existence of “quotas,” it is pretty obvious that such a system (described by Bloomberg as “performance standards”) exists, and meter maids have no qualms of issuing even the most dubious of tickets, forcing numerous New Yorkers to cough up parking fines for violations that may not even have occurred, or to lose time from work to fight these tickets. The evident and well-documented double-standard that also exists, with meter maids, traffic enforcement agents, as well as police officers and other city officials abusing city parking privileges and violating the very same traffic laws with impunity that an “average Joe” would be summonsed for, is nothing short of infuriating. One also has to wonder how much this army of meter maids is costing the city and taxpayers.

- One would think that a mayor who claims to be pro-environment and sensitive to its issues would favor alternative means of transportation, like bicycles. Yet, as the bicyclists who have taken part in Critical Mass events and others can attest, this is absolutely not the case. Harassing and arresting cyclists has instead been this administration’s policy, and the Mayor has shown no compassion, restraint or understanding of the issue. I guess things would be different, however, if the city found a way to charge cyclists for parking, tolls, and issue tickets just as they do with motorists.

- The mayor’s lack of compassion, restraint and understanding was also clearly evident in 2004, during the Republican National Convention in New York City, where literally thousands of people, most of whom were protesting peacefully or who were innocent bystanders or passers-by who were not even taking part in the rallies, were arrested and detained under deplorable conditions for the entire duration of the convention, all apparently with the mayor’s knowledge and support. Of course, this should not come as much of a surprise, as the mayor has come out in support of the Patriot Act and a federal ID database.

- For all of Bloomberg’s talk about preserving public health, many of those measures are insignificant at best. Many New Yorkers are still without any form of health insurance. Offering free nicotine patches (whose efficacy is disputable) and “banning” trans fats (which are actually not banned at all, ingredients with up to 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving are still perfectly legal) are ultimately largely insignificant and hollow measures to take that fail to address the myriad health care issues facing New Yorkers. The Mayor’s most recent initiative, to combat and reduce the amount of homeless persons on the streets of New York, has also thus far not produced any significant progress.

- Indeed, many of the mayor’s “initiatives” reek more of publicity stunts and ways to get his name in the press as an apparent “advocate” for causes such as public health, nutrition or quality of life, without actually doing much at all to tangibly combat those issues. Take the labyrinth that is 311, a fantastic idea on paper, but an ineffective extra layer of bureaucracy instead. Or Bloomberg’s supposed “commute” via subway each morning, which actually only occurs once or twice per week, and before which he is driven to the 59th Street station, instead of the station nearest to his residence, so he can catch the express to City Hall (without having to change trains within the station). There’s a man of the people, one who is environmentally sensitive, for you!

- Finally, take a look around the city: Roads are crumbling. Garbage is everywhere. Weeds are growing from cracked sidewalks (except in areas that have reaped the fruits of gentrification, of course), and a drive on city streets is akin to a government-sponsored massage, thanks to the countless bumps and potholes. But, if you allow a neighborhood to become blighted enough, if you deprive just enough services, as is the case with Willets Point, then you can turn around and tab that area for “redevelopment” via the use of eminent domain proceedings, which Bloomberg champions. It’s laughable to see the city (and previous mayors are to blame for this as well) completely deprive an area of basic municipal services such as sewers, paved roads, sidewalks, street lights, etc., then turn around, claim the area is blighted, and attempt to condemn it and take it over, in order to bring in more big-box retailers and obscenely overpriced condominiums (at the expense of the many small business owners currently located in that area). All with Bloomberg’s blessings, of course. In the meantime, just a short distance away, Flushing Bay literally puts the “Flush” in Flush-ing, a problem which has existed for years and which seemingly goes unnoticed and unsolved. Ever get a whiff during low tide?

Returning to Bloomberg’s bid for a third term, it is an absolutely ludicrous assertion that Bloomberg is the “only” leader and the “only” financial mind capable of guiding New York City through the current financial crisis. Bloomberg will be in office until January 2010. That is 16 months away, and in the financial world, quite a lot can happen by then. It is far too early to say whether or not the city and the country will still be experiencing a financial crisis by then, and even if that is the case, Bloomberg is far from the only person who has the requisite financial expertise and capabilities and who would be eligible for the job.

Most importantly, Bloomberg’s desire to change city law and run for a third term of Mayor flies in the face of principles of fairness and leadership. It is a corrupt, unbridled and antidemocratic power grab, an extreme case of megalomania, from a man whose ego and desire to be in control and at the center of attention is insatiable. It is evident that Bloomberg’s foremost interest is furthering his own power, his own agenda and his own career, putting himself and his vast ego above the law, enacted twice via referendum, which explicitly limits mayors to two consecutive terms in office.

Some people are citing the need for an “exception” to be made, just this once, but there should be no exceptions made for anybody, not even if that somebody is a billionaire. No one should be above the law, and no elected official should be allowed to change the laws to benefit their own career and extend their term of office. Such maneuverings are more reminiscent of Vladimir Putin’s rule in Russia, than of a supposedly free and democratic society such as ours. An “exception” also creates a dangerous precedent for future abuses of power and violations of the law.

Furthermore, in yet another genuine political flip-flop, Bloomberg is once again going back on his word: in 2002, he vetoed a bill that would have extended term limits for some elected positions, stating that the law was wrong because it amounted to changing the rules for personal political gain. And yet, that is exactly what Bloomberg is currently proposing, with the main beneficiary being himself. It should also be noted that term limits have been upheld by the citizens of New York City by referendum, and that by making the announcement this late in his term and only a month before Election Day 2008, there is no time to place this matter on the ballot for a new referendum, which means that any potential changes to the city charter will have to result from legislation, leaving the public out of this process.

The irony of this situation is that, in the aftermath of 9/11, there were many who entertained the idea of extending Rudy Giuliani’s term by an extra three months, including Giuliani himself. This was due to a different set of extraordinary circumstances at the time: the recovery of the city after the attacks. Ultimately, this did not materialize, and Bloomberg was inaugurated in January 2002.

Bloomberg is apparently prepared to spend $100 million of his own monies to buy the election. In times of economic trouble and hardship for both the corporate world and so many New Yorkers and Americans, perhaps Bloomberg would be better served to put his tremendous ego in check and to use part of his fortune to directly benefit others through acts of philanthropy, rather than to benefit his own insatiable thirst for power and control. However, this is probably just wishful thinking: Bloomberg is a short man with a short fuse; a man who, for an “independent,” is remarkably intolerant of dissent, disagreement, or compromise.

Through his attempts to remain mayor for another term through legislative fiat, Bloomberg’s true colors have shown. Hopefully, come January 2010, Bloomberg will not have another opportunity to display those true colors as Mayor of New York City.