Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Let's face it -- Bloomberg was a terrible mayor   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 13
    More: Interesting, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, justification for the state, Rudolph Giuliani, Blasio, mayors, installation arts  
•       •       •

1736 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Nov 2013 at 2:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-11-06 02:39:48 PM  
3 votes:
He wasn't trying to be a mayor, he was going for emperor.
2013-11-06 02:30:53 PM  
2 votes:
If you like megalomaniacs with a penchant for parental crusades, you probably loved Bloomberg.
2013-11-06 02:07:23 PM  
2 votes:

bdub77: Is it time to Occupy Wall Street again?


the one big thing that OW did was introduce the idea of the one percent.
2013-11-06 11:00:25 AM  
2 votes:
His racist policies will tarnish his legacy forever.
2013-11-06 10:17:50 AM  
2 votes:

Mrbogey: When you're the mayor of millions of morons who get by because of a sliver of intelligent people, you're going to have lots of problems. Bloomberg was precisely what these folks needed though. With Warren Wilhelm II in charge, it'll be amusing to watch.


Never been to NYC, eh?
2013-11-07 08:30:11 AM  
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: Joe Peanut: Captain Dan:4. He encouraged real estate development.

For the very rich, yes.

I make about 3 times the national average.  I cannot afford to live in Manhattan anywhere south of Harlem, or in any part of the outter boroughs closer to the city.  I'm now in 500 square foot rental in Red Hook, Brooklyn.  Nice area, but a major pain to get to work since the subways don't come by here, and there is only one bus line (B61).  And forget buying.  If you don't have a spare $100k sitting in the bank, you can't even afford the down payment on anything decent.

And before anyone else says it:

What is the remedy for that? Was Bloomberg supposed to make it so unappealing to live below 96th street that prices would drop?

In your position, the best remedy would be to completely eliminate rent control. Let those apartments go on market rents, it would drop the price to a level that you making 3x national average might be able afford something.


How about:

1 - Don't give eminent domain rights to big developers to take over huge chunks of land previously occupied by old, affordable apartment buildings, and replace them with huge glass towers with apartments worth many millions of dollars each.

2 - If you must stop subsidizing affordable middle class developments, allow the current residents to buy them as a coop instead of selling it to the highest bidder.  That's what happened under Bloomberg in Peter Cooper Village, Stuyvesant Town, and many Mitchell Lama developments all over the city.  I used to live in Waterside Plaza.  In 2005 or thereabouts under Mitchell Lama, I was paying $1,200 for a nice 1-bedroom on the 30th floor with all utilities included.  When it was announced that Waterside would no longer be subsidized, the residents got together and offered the city to buy Waterside as a coop.  instead the city sold it to some private developers, which raised the rent to astronomical levels, and started to charge for utilities.  Nearly everyone had to move.  My old apartment now goes for over $3,100/mo.  In Waterside alone, that was over 1,400 middle-class families kicked to the curb to open space for people who can afford $3,100/mo for a 1-bedroom.
2013-11-06 08:13:09 PM  
1 votes:
He will be known for anti-soda and wealthy private police.
2013-11-06 04:52:37 PM  
1 votes:
He's a shiathead, but I love watching the social conservatives freak about petty bullshiat like banning Big Gulps, though.
2013-11-06 04:38:21 PM  
1 votes:

GoldSpider: Captain Dan: 6. He limited people's ability to make dangerous choices (e.g. smoking cigarettes, eating trans fats, drinking soda, owning guns), even though he knew these restrictions would be unpopular.

What a hero.


There's no absolute right to live dangerously and then dump the costs on other people who didn't live dangerously.  That limits other people's liberty, and can easily lead to a net decrease in overall liberty.

Personal freedom is rarely black-and-white.  It usually exists in a trade-off with the freedoms of other people; e.g. if one person is free to dump toxic waste in his backyard, then his neighbors are less free to give birth to non-mutant children.

Reasonable people can disagree over where the lines should be drawn.   As I've said above, I'm not on board with everything Bloomberg proposed.
2013-11-06 01:55:40 PM  
1 votes:
I don't give a shiat what a single New Yorker thinks about who I vote for as the mayor of my town, and I'm sure they feel the same way.
2013-11-06 01:34:20 PM  
1 votes:

bdub77: Is it time to Occupy Wall Street again?


That movement should have been called "Occupy and distract Wall Street protestors with nonsense rhetoric so they don't figure out stock transactions are not taxed."
2013-11-06 09:40:03 AM  
1 votes:

FlashHarry: not if you're insanely wealthy.


Or a Nazi.
2013-11-06 09:37:39 AM  
1 votes:
not if you're insanely wealthy.
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report