SHEEPSHEAD BAY'S ONLY INDEPENDENT NEWS BLOG

Futurama?

This was one of the most interesting debates I have ever seen.

I had prepared a horse-race, ahem, detailed commentary, but alas, it got lost in some electronic error involving a backspace key and one very fast pinky finger. So, for now, I have this to say: Watch this debate.

Arthur, my Futurama research paper will be upcoming in the future.

Lew, it's time to go. You are out of touch with lots of us.
Most of your constituents will vote for Bloomberg.

Well, Alex, we'll see. And we'll see if most of my consitutents feel that I am out of touch or not.

And I want to thank Ned, Ray and others for their hard work on putting this together and apparently their harder work in getting it posted.
Lew from Brooklyn

Hello Voters:

Thanks for watching. I wish I could have been more articulate in my words and had more time to prepare my responses. I want to add a few more remarks after having thought about the conversation topics a bit more.

1. On compensation. How much a legislator or anyone gets paid ought not be determined by his or her personal financial preferences. It should depend on how much he or she is WORTH. It doesn't seem right that elected officials have a hand in setting their own salary. At the very least, any wage increases should be widely publicized and should NEVER TAKE EFFECT UNTIL AFTER THE NEXT ELECTION.

2. I find it VERY interesting that Mr. Fidler can struggle to make ends meet with two six-figure salaries, but he CAN'T UNDERSTAND how his legislation creates severe hardship for those people who make less than ONE TENTH of his income and who must struggle to earn a few dollars doing extra work.

I too want to thank everyone involved in the debate, including my adversaries. SheepsheadBites and GerritsenBeach.net deserve a whole lot of credit for putting this together. They have taken a HUGE step into what I believe is an emerging world of citizen journalism that should be respected by mainstream media.

I welcome any and all feedback, and look forward to the conversation to come on here and on GB.net.

Derek,
I do not have two six figure salaries. The forms you refer to I am sure, since I doubt you have seen my tax form, are foms that purport to represent your assets, not income. In my case, as i told the NY Post, the forms are misleading in that they use "ranges for asset value". My actual value of assets were worth less than one eighth of the top of the range, and I offered to show the ACTUAL statements to the Post reporter who wrote on this.

The facts are that I live in a modest one family fully attached brick houe in Sheepshead Bay. In order to pay for my children's higher education, I did in fact have to re-finance my home after having struggled like everyone else over the years to have almost paid it off. I drive a seven year old car. I live a relatively modest lifestyle, though I recognize absolutely that I have it better than many...and not as good as many others do.

Like you, I recognize the value of doing something with your life other than serving in public office. It keeps you in touch with the real world, and in fact, I credit my small legal practice work with making me see sooner than anyone else that the foreclosure crisis was coming.

I resent remarks like the one made by the Mayor when he proposed congestion pricing..."Get over it, it's only $8, it costs twelve bucks to go to the movies." My response was that I have constituents who don't go to the movies because they are $8. I don't think I have lost touch with the reality of the less fortunate.

Also, please see the series of hearings that I have done on the very least fortunate among us: runaway and homeless children. It is the work that I am the most proud of.

There were many points that were there to be made that none of us had the time under the rules to get to. We talked for a minute a piece about education. There was nary a word about affordibility in this City, or the use of ticketing to raise revenues instead of their intended purpose which is to maintain the quality of life.

So many things we could have talked about.

I insisted that you be included in this debate because I wanted you to have a fair shot at voicing your views. I think and I hope that the three of us have had our say.

Now its up to the voters. Again, please please please vote on Tuesday, November 3rd.

Thanks.
Lew from Brooklyn

And what legislation are you talking about Derek? What hardship?
You made that remark during the debate but I did not get the chance to ask that question?
Lew from Brooklyn

Would any of you three be willing to tell me what you plan to do about Police Quotas?

Today I was waiting for a client in front of 1213 U (I realize it's not your area but I'm curious anyway). I was parked as close to the parked cars as possible to allow traffic to pass by me easily. A Police AUX Van pulled up next to me and the officers therin waved for me to move. I tried to explain to them I was waiting for my client who was about to exit the lawyers office but they insisted I move. I was actually ABOUT to move when my client came outside, ON CRUTCHES. I couldn't very well pull away when my client was 5 feet away, on crutches. As he reached my car and opened the door an officer hopped out of the van which simultaneously pulled ahead of me to prevent me from leaving and the bastard wrote me a ticket for double parking.

This is ridiculous behavior from police. Aux Police should not be preying on people in the community this way to increase the city coffers. If the car was unattended, or if I wasn't a clearly labeled Car Service then maybe the ticket would be justified, but the entire van full of those pigs, *ahem* officers, excuse me, clearly saw a handicapped person hobbling to my car and STILL gave me a ticket.

So, whichever one of you gets elected, I'm really curious, what will you and the City Council do about this unspoken policy of ticketing everyone on sight even if the tickets never should have been given. Tickets that are notoriously impossible to defeat. Ask any driver in the city. When it comes to tickets we're guilty till proven innocent, even if we have evidence proving otherwise.

I think Mr. Sacerdote did well to shine a light on the struggles of some of the people in the 46th, even if I don't agree with his solutions. (And, I have a feeling many of those struggling would not agree with his, fairly Libertarian, antidotes) Oh, and if any of his students read this - your teacher is doing you proud by trying to make a difference in the community. That's something we should all respect.

What struck me most about the debate, however, was how much more familiar with the issues and the district Mr. Fidler appeared to be. Yes, part of this is because of how many years he has spent in the Council. But, it seems to me like he spent those years really learning this district and the issues that matter to most of us (education, property tax calculation, dollar vans, . And with Mr. Fidler's attendance record, that Mr. Broadhead mentioned, at the Gerritsen Beach Property Owner's Association, I can see how Mr. Fidler did it. Like how Mr. Sacerdote said that teaching helps him stay grounded, it seems Mr. Fidler has found a way to stay grounded in the community - by attending local meetings and really learning about our concerns.

For Mr. Berardelli, while I understand (for practical reasons) your positions on issues like term limits, I couldn't really get behind other ideas like the suggestion that 311 is the solution to local issues like street repair. I think we turn to our local council people so often because of 311's shortcomings. And, with all due respect, Mr. Berardelli's closing speech was pretty cliche-filled.

Incidentally, what's with all the Cherry Hill talk? That's a Sheepshead Bay issue, sure, but not a 46th District issue.

I wrote something earlier which was insightful and brilliant and my computer ate it. So I suppose this will have to do.

This was a better debate than most. Most people running for office posture, and spend more time asserting that their opponent would totally ruin the country, state or city. While there was a little of that the dialogue was most one of information. For that I thank all three.

This debate needs to be seen by residents who will vote on Tuesday. So spread the word. I am assuming that Vimeo is actually hosting the file, so there won't be a bandwidth issue for Ned and Dan. At least I hope so.

Those who put this together deserves thanks. As do the three candidates who have given voters in a local election an opportunity to make a more informed decision on Tuesday.

Dear Lew and 'BMB'

Thank you for your comments.
I am referring to two VERY specific pieces of legislation:

1. An amendment to NYC Sanitation Code which increased the fine for "Stealing" recyclable trash from the curb from (I believe) $100 to $2000. The amendment also authorized the Department of Sanitation to impound vehicles in order to extract payment. The second "offense" raises the fine to $5000. This amendment was sponsored by Councilman Fidler and several other local Brooklyn members, to whom I had written in outrage several years ago. Out of everyone, the only member (other than Councilman Fidler) who felt compelled to respond was Councilman Gentile, who explained to me that the City partly funds the recycling program by selling recyclables.

After further research, I unearthed the legal premise that trash becomes city property the moment it is placed on the curb. I wrote to Councilman Fidler several times, indicating that collection of scrap is a mainstay of some people's income (largely poor, minority, and non-english speaking), many of whom either are not otherwise employed or who need supplemental income. He continued to use the word "STEALING" in all correspondence, despite how offensive the word was to me and to those to whom I related it. As I see it, people are being prohibited from doing something efficiently and profitably, in order that others can do it, less efficiently, at our expense.

A "libertarian solution" would turn the entire recycling issue on its head. Rather than coercing and threatening people into it, we can send the message that recycling makes simple dollar sense. Instead of searching our garbage and fining us for packing it improperly, spread the word that all recyclables: paper, plastic, glass, and metal, can be sold for profit, and publicize the recycing centers. People would be saving and recycling at a much higher rate. I daresay that you might eventually need fewer pickups in certain neighborhoods.

2. I also referred to a piece of legislation which increased the fine for "illegal posting" to $150 and authorized the department of sanitation to use telephone records to hunt people down and give people fines. I will admit that my tutoring business was largely built by posting paper signs on cars (which was legal at the time) telephone poles, and putting stickers on parking meters. To a teacher who barely qualified for a home loan, despite teaching summer school and night school, newspaper ads were pretty much out of the question. I had scarcely finished posting for one night when a good samaritan called and warned me that she had been fined $80 per sign for doing something similar. I had begun to increasingly see the City as a greedy impediment to our progress.

This "quality of life" issue has been supported by the City Council and other locals like State Senator Carl Kruger. To this day, I have NEVER encountered a regular civilian who told me that advertisements on poles (be they paper or plastic) seriously infringe upon their quality of life. I happen to see lamppost advertising as capitalism at its best, and the only option for those trying to start a new small business. They are also ideal for political and social networking. I used to enjoy walking on 7th AVenue in Park slope because of all the interesting postings at every corner. Gone.

These are the kind of issues which galvanized my decision to run in the first place.
With regard to your other comments:

These past six months, I have had a largely positive response, though it should be obvious to most viewers that I spend most of my time in Canarsie, East Flatbush, and Mill Basin north of Avenue L. Most people think I'm "joking" when I tell them about some of the above legislation. Many of my students, neighbors, and colleagues regularly ride "dollar vans" and would choose them over an MTA bus in a heartbeat, despite often exaggerated accounts of reckless driving and lack of insurance. So I don't think many of the working people in the district would necessarily reject Libertarian solutions. Rather, most are so convinced of the false dichotomy of the two-party system that they are enlightened to hear that there are other options.

The City Council, as you know, votes on city-wide issues. So a member from the Bronx certainly could cast a vote on an issue which primarily affects Staten Island. It is perfectly appropriate, in my estimation, to offer opinions on any city issues, and not detach myself from something like Cherry Hill, which lies perhaps ten blocks into an adjacent district. All City Council members, though tempted to play Santa Claus to their district, are to an extent answerable to all residents of the city, even those who did not support them.

As far as the salary issue goes, I wish I recall the website that cited Councilman Fidler as among the members with the highest outside income. The site quoted an estimated income range from a legal practice which was more than double the City Council income (post-raise). I apologize if my information was not correct.

Thank you 'BMB' for your praise. It has not been easy to keep up a campaign in which I am officially campaign manager, treasurer and author of all literature, flyers and posters, while starting a new job at Kurt Hahn last month, a small High School within Tilden Campus, where I have worked since 1998.

Thank you Lew, for speaking up for my inclusion. You are not the first Democrat to help me out, perhaps due to a kind of kinship that comes from use of the word "Tilden." My final thought is this: THIS ONLINE CONVERSATION between elected officials and constituents should be a NORMAL PART OF GOVERNING, not a freak event in the days before an election. It is something which should be ongoing and publicized on multiple forums, such as facebook and twitter, for example. I approached blogs months ago with the idea, but no bites. People are not enthusiastic because it isn't being done. More people need, like Ned and Daniel, to take the leap and make it happen.

To Derek and Arthur,

Derek, thank you for acknowledging thatyour info gleaned from a website about my income might not be accurate. I can assure you that if you were elected and kept your teacher's job as you said you would, your income would be no higher than mine. A good living for sure, but not millionaire status.

The issue of "stealing" scrap seems silly until you know why. Taxpayers pay for recycling programs. And if they did not come close to generating the cost of recycling itself in scrap costs, they would be a huge economic burden to taxpayers even with the environmental benefit. In Manhattan, trucks are coming over the bridge from NJ and "stealing" the huge recyclings tonnage that is left out in Manhattan. We aren't talking about folks who come and pick thru the garbage in our neighboorhoods...we are talking about people who make this a commercial venture. If they are not stopped, you, me, our neighbors will have to make the choice between kicking in about a million dollars or two...or worse, cutting the recycling program. I hope you understand the full nature of the issue, Libertarian solutions notwithstanding.

We are of a different mind as to illegal postings.They tend to run down a neighborhood visually. In the rain and the wind, they then tend to become street litter. Given how widespread they are now with it being illegal, just imagine how prevalent it would be were it legal. I am sorry, I just disagree with you on this.

Final note to you Derek, you say that this kind f dialogue ought to go on on the web all the time and not just election time. As I am sure Ned, Dan and others can attest, I am one of the few elected oficials who DOES engage people on issues on the internet and have been doing so for some time.

Arthur, several years ago, together with southern Brooklyn's other Councilmembers, we held a town meeting on the subject of unfair tickets and excessive ticketing. It was widely advertised, particularly to the folks that I had been writing support letters for who were fighting their tickets, and was held at Kingsboro College. We had the Sanitation Police there....and I flat out told him that no one in this room believed that there weren't quotas. He denied it. However, I then asked him what they would do with an enforcement agent who typically wrote half the tickets that other agents wrote. He said that I could figure that out...and I said to him that this was an ADMISSION of quotas.

I also took on the Mayor's Director of the Office of Management and Budget regarding their "estimates" of revenue from ticketing, which always are put in the budget at about 40% beneath what they wind up being. This was covered, I believe it was a year ago from last June by the Daily News' Adam Lissberg. Probably can find it by googling.

I have in fact been outspoken about the use of tickets for raising revenue and harassing people instead of for preserving quality of life. And I co-sponsored Councilman Felder's bill that would require ticketing agents to give a 5 minute leeway period at all parking meters and for alternate side parking before they could issue a ticket.

We need to change the psychology around here about ticketing and I have said so publicly and repeatedly.

Lew from Brooklyn

Dear Arthur:

You must be talking about the quota system which, according to the NYPD, does not exist. This is in complete contradiction to what I have been told by police officers who are not in the process of writing me a ticket.

The Parking Violations Bureau is one of the most egregrious sources of disproportionate penalties (AKA extra taxes) in the entire city. To be honest with you, it is my belief, however, that double parking is probably the primary violation which ought to be enforced because it is the only one that really slows down traffic. Clearly, your circumstances are extreme and basic human decency should have warranted an exception.

One day, years ago, I was on the subway with a bicycle, and saw a man sitting down with an "Administrative Law Judge" badge on. I asked him if he adjuducated parking tickets and he said that he did. I told him that I had lost many appeals over the years (though I had won many as well) and he made a comment, gesturing to my bicycle, that "this" was the overall goal. I took that to mean that parking violations are used by the city to manipulate our behavior through crippling fines and inconvenience.

Short of giving meter maids an iota of conscience, the most pragmatic solution, would be, given the tradition of ultraspecific legislation required to eliminate the necessity of thinking, to create an exception to double parking regulations in cases of picking up or discharging invalids.

Lew:

Point taken, however the department of sanitation has no difficulty enforcing the $2000 penalty and impound on otherwise unemployed people driving beat-up vans which may be their only transportation, and whose entire "take" is less than $50.

Derek:

It shouldn't even be an issue of who I'm picking up. TLC Licensed FHV Vehicles and Car Services like mine are prohibited from picking up people on the street. Our exclusive source of income, by LAW, is servicing customers that call the car service and request door to door service. By design my only choice when picking up a passenger is to pull over at their address and wait for them to come out. We can't simply keep circling the block. That creates more traffic and more pollution.

They were wrong for asking me to move, they were wrong for giving me a ticket, they were EXTRA WRONG for giving me one when I'm picking up a disabled passenger. I'm fairly sure that the Traffic Sam column in the daily news has covered this issue before. I wasn't legally double parked.

That officer ticketed me out of spite because instead of taking his orders and moving I tried to explain what I was doing there and he didn't want to hear it. It's wrong. On every level imaginable.

This isint even the only one. Two years ago I got a ticket for running a stop sign. (East 28th and Gravesend Neck Road). Obviously I didn't run the sign. I had proof showing that the officer could not have possible seen me run that stop sign, he had an obstructed view. The stop sign on that block is obscured by an unusually high corner fence and the stop sign is set to far from the curb. The judge wouldn't even look at it.

More recently I got a ticket for talking on the phone while driving, I was actually talking on my car radio. Our car radios arent covered by the cellphone law. I'm legally allowed to use the radio, while the car is in motion. The radio is even attached by a thick wire. Of course the judge wouldn't hear of it. The cop that pulled me over wouldn't even let him show me my recent calls list (which is very detailed on the iphone) which would have shown the last time I made a call was more then 30 minutes prior. Of course I lost that case too.

Eventually some enterprising indivudual is going to find some way to document this stuff and find some solid proof of collusion in city government and when they sue the city it will lose millions.

This crap has got to end.

*sigh*

Sorry for yammering on. I'm very agitated today.

I seemed to miss a lot of back and forth, but I'll try to catch up a little bit.

BMB: 311 is an example of progress made in order for citizens to address local issues like street repair - it is not a new solution. I simply think that the squeakiest wheel gets the grease and that our neighbors have to stop accepting the way things are and to complain to 311, the council office, the community board and every outlet imaginable.

As far as a cliche-filled ending - you're right. No excuses. I had, as we all did, a lot more to say and very little time to say it. Overall, it was a good experience. I knew that compared to the Councilman's 8 year head start on issues and presentation, I'd have an uphill climb. Could I have done better? Absolutely. I think we all could have. That said, I can live with the results and leave it to the voters to take in the past few months and cast their vote.

***

As far as Lew insisting that Derek Sacerdote be included in the debate, I sincerely thought that went without saying. He is a candidate, after all, and people deserve to hear all points of view. No insisting was required. As exhibited here and at the debate, Derek has much to offer this discourse.

***

Arthur: Your ticket story sounds like abuse of discretion to me.

Tickets should not be a solution for budgetary crisis. A study is needed to show that "ticket blitzes" do indeed occur. If proven, action must be taken within the Police Department to discourage the practice.

On the other end of things, fighting a ticket shouldn't mean days lost from work. Let's look into automated processes that can be done over the Internet to contest tickets, allowing for submission of evidence and electronic filing. If lawyers can e-file certain cases, why can't the public do so for moving violations? Ease of access to government should be a goal in all areas.

Arthur and Gene:

I agree 100%. TLC can not possibly be bound by the same parking rules as "regular" drivers. Certainly there should be a "time limit" added to the definition of "expeditiously picking up and discharging passesengers," which could distinguish between a pickup and someone waiting while a passenger to do some shopping and causing congestion all the while.

Furthermore, online defenses should be available, as they are in many smaller cities. This goes for ECB violations as well. Those are the $100 fines they tape to your door while you are at work because there is a store flyer on your front walk or a napkin on the sidewalk. I have been fighting one such ticket since the spring. So far it has required about 5 mailings back and forth, three phone calls, and 8 notarizations. The office which handles appeals has no direct phone number. I wonder why. Ya think they just want me to drop it?

With regard to the traffic offenses, these are adjudicated by the state, and those judges are brash, rude, long overdue for judicial review (and probably retirement). It is well known that the testimony of a police officer is worth that of at least two "regular human beings" in traffic court.

Hi Derek, several points.

First, postering is annoying. A couple of weeks ago I spent an inordinate amount of time removing the ads from local telephone poles. Why? Because they are simply disgusting.. Someone has a moving company. They put a poster up on a telephone pole. Another person, with a competing company, puts a poster up over that one, a third does the same. They ensure that their signs stay up by covering them with tape which encircles the poles. It's not a pretty sight.

I understand the the libertarian ideal is to encourage free enterprise and free expression with little restriction. The ideal fails because eventually society requires limitations.

Chaos is not tolerated for long periods of time. Irresponsible behavior can not be ignored forever.

Like our Red Fish Smoking poster.

http://www.sheepsheadbites.com/2009/07/redfish-...

Movers who wish to advertise can find more conventional and aesthetically pleasing ways of doing so. As for our Red Fish Smoking friend, well, in one's face postering of great proportion is annoying to an extreme to many.

Now as to the other matter........

Every time garbage is collected I see perfectly good items placed on the street for collection. I have photographed many such things. Reducing a usable radio to scrap merely because it contain a few ounces of copper wire is waste. A refrigerator that could be repaired and donated to a poor family, bigger waste.

But you are essentially correct in that the economic gain is small for such endeavors.

I suppose that next they will be harassing those who remove the returnable bottles and cans from the trash. Technically they are in violation of the same law. And some create difficulties for sanitation workers by failed to properly close bags after they have removed the returnables from them.

I do wonder how much real money the city can make from recyclable trash, as compared to the costs. While I understand that the ratio has improved, it's still not going to diminish our sanitation costs significantly. Even if we curtailed the activities of those who remove items from the trash to earn some income.

It does seem more like class warfare to me than real concern amount theft of income to the city.

You did a good job in the debate. You made your positions clear in a succinct fashion. No need to apologize at all for your presentation, it accomplished the purpose of letting voters know your opinions on the matters discussed.

Arthur:

Why I am here at all is because it is the most forceful way I can show outrage about the kind of things you are talking about. My frustration for years was how useless it was to send angry letters and emails. This last few months as a candidate, I met plenty of people who agreed with me on most issues, but who admitted that they didn't vote. I met other people who were very forceful about their viewpoints and I asked them to appear in my videos. They refused.

People are scared, frustrated, disenfranchised, and for whatever reason, JUST DON'T FOLLOW THROUGH. Politicians would respond if people massively took their anger to their offices, and to the streets, in a loud visible way. Councilman Fidler said it: voter turnout is very, very, low.

Whatever happens Tuesday, I will continue to make as much noise as I can on behalf of people who feel shafted by the City. But I'd be FAR more effective with an active, vocal group of people who feel the same way.