Just when it seemed Bloomberg was the worst...

[PennyQuilts]

Because of family in NYC, I've been watching the Mayor race pretty closely. Early on, he was way back in the pack but the front runners pretty much self destructed. NYC is primarily a dark blue city with areas of red (think Staten Island) - but they were ready for a democrat and de Blasio is an unabashed far left progressive. He used to be a communist but I am not sure if he still is. I kind of doubt it. He's kind of an odd duck and his prior history doesn't include running anything on the scale of NYC. Or close.

The Bloomberg stop and frisk policy of the NYPD made the progressives crazy and he has vowed to get rid of it/limit it. Bloomberg has been having a heart attack over that and there is a huge divide regarding whether stopping/reducing stop and frisk is going to impact the crime rate. The right says it will skyrocket, the left says those concerns are all made up (by rich people who didn't want him elected because he was going to raise their taxes) and that it is just an excuse to let the NYPD violate civil rights.

Bloomberg has been working without union contracts for years. The unions are demanding new contracts that include back pay for the years they've gone without. That is a huge issue and most people are watching to see how de Blasio deals with it. This is big, big money.

De Blasio ran on a platform of seeking social justice. Again, the NYC right is having heart attacks over losing the tax base but the progressives are giddy. Should be interesting. I appreciate that the man isn't mealy mouthed about it. He is out there as a proud progressive and the whole world that is interested in such things is watching.

The NYC school district is awful. Bloomberg championed charter schools because they could get rid of bad teachers. There are a lot of truly horrible union teachers in NYC regular school that are protected. The progressives want to get rid of the charter schools (the argument is that they aren't doing very well) and de Blasio ran on the promise to support the union and trim down away from the charter school program. He just appointed a chancellor for NYC schools that is not, historically, pro charter school. Bottom line, the unions and progressives are thrilled with de Blasio. The right is horrified. Left or right, if you have money, you don't send your kids to NYC public schools in the first place.

Personally, I think this is their business. The country was set up to allow areas to be little laboratories to see what works and what doesn't. If NYC wants to go the big time progressive route, they can do that. I personally think it is insane but I don't see New Yorkers losing any sleep over my concern. De Blasio's initial decision on the horses strikes me as both odd, clueless, ruthless and foolhardy and makes me wonder what in heaven's name he is going to do, next. But at the end of the day, it isn't any of my business. This is just pass the popcorn time.

If I were a progressive who wanted the progressive movement to spread, I would be nervous. The whole country is watching to see how a big city with an unabashed progressive taking over at the helm will manage things. Personally, I would feel better if the progressive in charge wasn't this guy - he strikes me as odd and not the brightest star in the sky.

It might be great, it could leave the city in a smoldering heap - dunno. Time will tell but we can all take some lessons from it. We will be moving from the theoretical to the practical and I am interested in seeing how it turns out. Obviously, I worry about the crime rate escalating, expenses increasing, schools getting worse and taxes going up because I have loved ones there. But, who knows? Maybe the progressive model will work.

[PennyQuilts]

Posts like this always make me laugh.

Why?

[PennyQuilts]

Probably none. Despite Bloomberg's policies, New York real estate never really declined, employment rebounded fairly quickly after the meltdown, and construction and development is huge. People still want to live in and operate businesses in NYC.

But Bloomberg isn't there, now. De Blasio is pretty much his opposite. Although I suspect he would have supported the big soda ban.

[onthestrip]

Why?

Makes me laugh because it's a conservative thing to say, assuming companies will automatically relocate to less taxed and regulated states (even though CT is a high tax state). But this isn't even business regulation, we are talking horse drawn carriages. Doubt any businesses will be moving.

Also doesn't hurt that the former "nanny state" type mayor who tried to ban big gulps also did things like set up a free wifi zone in a huge section of Harlem. Things that new businesses love

[PennyQuilts]

Makes me laugh because it's a conservative thing to say, assuming companies will automatically relocate to less taxed and regulated states (even though CT is a high tax state). But this isn't even business regulation, we are talking horse drawn carriages. Doubt any businesses will be moving.

Also doesn't hurt that the former "nanny state" type mayor who tried to ban big gulps also did things like set up a free wifi zone in a huge section of Harlem. Things that new businesses love

You seem to be trying to equate Bloomberg's "successful" policies with de Blasio. You are missing the point - de Blasio is saying he is going in another direction. He has been extremely critical of the way Bloomberg was pro business (at least pro business as known in NYC land). People who are pro business are concerned about this.

People weren't just talking about the horses - surely you know that. That was just an oddball thing to do that screams - this guy is weird. What people are concerned/interested in is his progressive agenda that involves higher taxes on the wealthy and businesses. If you are saying that won't drive off business, fine, but it is not an unreasonable position to think that would drive off business to the surrounding areas.

[Prunepicker]

Posts like this always make me laugh.

Why is that? Seriously. Businesses fleeing areas that don't support
them is quite common.

[soonerguru]

Why is that? Seriously. Businesses fleeing areas that don't support
them is quite common.

Because I've read stuff like this about NYC and California on Okie message boards for the last decade, and both states are doing just fine. We're doing fine, too, but our state domestic product is infinitely smaller than those states. For some reason, hardcore ideological conservatives love predicting the demise of California and New York. Sorry, it just makes me laugh.

[PennyQuilts]

Because I've read stuff like this about NYC and California on Okie message boards for the last decade, and both states are doing just fine. We're doing fine, too, but our state domestic product is infinitely smaller than those states. For some reason, hardcore ideological conservatives love predicting the demise of California and New York. Sorry, but it makes me laugh.

I find what you are saying very interesting. Have you been following how many California cities are considering bankruptcy and otherwise having difficulty paying their bills? But as far as de Blasio is concerned, this is different. We aren't talking about a blue state led by a liberal state government. We are talking about a huge urban city with an avowed far left progressive taking over. De Blasio isn't just a liberal - he is as progressive as they come. And those aren't the same thing by a long shot.

[soonerguru]

I find what you are saying very interesting. Have you been following how many California cities are considering bankruptcy and otherwise having difficulty paying their bills? But as far as de Blasio is concerned, this is different. We aren't talking about a blue state led by a liberal state government. We are talking about a huge urban city with an avowed far left progressive taking over. De Blasio isn't just a liberal - he is as progressive as they come. And those aren't the same thing by a long shot.

Hopefully he's not a Shadid. But if he is, nothing will get done and everything will just be status quo in NYC.

And yes, there are some California cities that have struggled -- and there are cities in the Midwest, East Coast, and South that have as well. My point is that California's demise has been long predicted and it has like the fifth or sixth highest GDP of any country on earth!

[Prunepicker]

... For some reason, hardcore ideological conservatives love predicting
the demise of California and New York. Sorry, it just makes me laugh.

That clears it. Yes New York and California are on the way down.

[soonerguru]

That clears it. Yes New York and California are on the way down.

OK, then. I'll mark it down. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and every major media organization in the world are GOING DOWN. Cali and NYC are DOOMED. Prunepicker, the great economic oracle, hath spoken. LOL.

[bluedogok]

DeBlasio will probably make Bloomberg look like an anarchist....

[PennyQuilts]

OK, then. I'll mark it down. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and every major media organization in the world are GOING DOWN. Cali and NYC are DOOMED. Prunepicker, the great economic oracle, hath spoken. LOL.

Personally, I find the whole big city far left progressive experiment fascinating. I am a huge states' rights person and being able to watch a new approach from a distance is intriguing. If the housing collapsed from rich guy flight, it could take down the NYC economy but on the other hand, it could open up housing for younger families that are being priced out, right now. Assuming they could find jobs, it would go a long way to bring in a thriving middle class back in instead of the very rich and the subsidized poor. The high housing costs in NYC, IMO, are the biggest driver of the inequality gap.

That being said, whatever happens in terms of tax base their bigger problem, seems to me, is the horrible public schools and the protecting of lousy union teachers who aren't doing right by their kids. I've been poor but in OKC, I could find a modest house close to decent public schools. In contrast, there are whole sections of NYC where poor kids are stuck in horrible schools with no way out because their parents can't afford to live in neighborhoods with decent schools. That is tragic. The progressives claim the charter schools aren't doing very well and certainly not enough to justify undermining union teachers. But then we get to the point that everyone with enough money puts their kids in private schools. NYC is covered with them. When I was there last month, we passed a little private school down the street from one of my kids. I thought it was a kindergarten and pointed it out to my girl. I asked her if my grandbaby would go there in a few years and she said it was a K - 8th grade school with a $28,000.00 annual tuition. I nearly fell over. How do young families afford that???????

Just seems to me that the poor kids are being written off and that sure won't help the next generation - nor will it contribute in any positive way to the social justice sought by de Blasio - at least to the kids. It might keep the union teachers in the middle class but at what cost?

[soonerguru]

Personally, I find the whole big city far left progressive experiment fascinating. I am a huge states' rights person and being able to watch a new approach from a distance is intriguing. If the housing collapsed from rich guy flight, it could take down the NYC economy but on the other hand, it could open up housing for younger families that are being priced out, right now. Assuming they could find jobs, it would go a long way to bring in a thriving middle class back in instead of the very rich and the subsidized poor. The high housing costs in NYC, IMO, are the biggest driver of the inequality gap.

That being said, whatever happens in terms of tax base their bigger problem, seems to me, is the horrible public schools and the protecting of lousy union teachers who aren't doing right by their kids. I've been poor but in OKC, I could find a modest house close to decent public schools. In contrast, there are whole sections of NYC where poor kids are stuck in horrible schools with no way out because their parents can't afford to live in neighborhoods with decent schools. That is tragic. The progressives claim the charter schools aren't doing very well and certainly not enough to justify undermining union teachers. But then we get to the point that everyone with enough money puts their kids in private schools. NYC is covered with them. When I was there last month, we passed a little private school down the street from one of my kids. I thought it was a kindergarten and pointed it out to my girl. I asked her if my grandbaby would go there in a few years and she said it was a K - 8th grade school with a $28,000.00 annual tuition. I nearly fell over. How do young families afford that???????

Just seems to me that the poor kids are being written off and that sure won't help the next generation - nor will it contribute in any positive way to the social justice sought by de Blasio - at least to the kids. It might keep the union teachers in the middle class but at what cost?

You make some good points, but not all of NYC schools are bad. In fact, some of the public schools in Manhattan are highly sought after.

Still, we have different problems here; namely, we do not pay our teachers a living wage. Is that better? At least in New York, teaching is a profession.

We also have strong union membership among our teachers in Oklahoma. But unions like AFT are moving away from protecting bad teachers -- it hurts their profession. I don't know enough about unions in New York to comment but I rarely ever hear a Republican like yourself ever say a nice thing about unions, so I take some of your comments with a grain of salt.

New York City has a huge challenge due to its scarcity of land, making the cost of living extremely high. Guiliani killed rent control, because according to him it was driving up rents. Well, rents still went up after rent control and they're still going up.

The point I was trying to make is not that NYC is an ideal place for a poor person to live (although they offer far better services for their poor than OKC does, including the best public transit arguably on the planet), my point was that a lot of conservatives are always rooting for NYC and California to fail, and predicting failure, and yet, here we are and both places are doing just fine.

So, we have Devon. Great. New York has Goldman Sachs, etc. California has Google.

One thing we could to do improve our situation vis a vis both places is to do a better job educating our citizens. We pretty much suck at that. And maybe we could pay our teachers a living wage. That would be nice. The really good employers we want to recruit to OKC aren't looking to locate where there are a lot of dumb people.

[onthestrip]

Meanwhile, Im sure New York students still score much better than students in Oklahoma.

[PennyQuilts]

Meanwhile, Im sure New York students still score much better than students in Oklahoma.

Have you checked the stats of the NYC public schools (the topic of discussion, not NY state)? Do so. Leave off the private schools to get a feel for it. The stats and the illiteracy rates are gawdawful.

http://nypost.com/2013/12/07/new-yor...duation-rates/

NYC is proud of the 66% graduation rate because that is an improvement from the past. Over two thirds of graduates are not deemed ready for college.

http://www.abetterlifeokc.com/education/public-schools/

I didn't find the ready for college states but most OKC area graduation rates are well into the high 90%.

The notion that NY students likely score "much better" suggests to me a bias rather than any reliance on fact or research, candidly.

And just for giggles, one of the main things creating division in NYC is deBlasio's stated intention to tax the rich to pay for universal kindergarten. We are one of the few states already well down that road. http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/201...an-pre-k/?_r=0

[SoonerDave]

You make some good points, but not all of NYC schools are bad. In fact, some of the public schools in Manhattan are highly sought after.

Still, we have different problems here; namely, we do not pay our teachers a living wage. Is that better? At least in New York, teaching is a profession.

We also have strong union membership among our teachers in Oklahoma. But unions like AFT are moving away from protecting bad teachers -- it hurts their profession. I don't know enough about unions in New York to comment but I rarely ever hear a Republican like yourself ever say a nice thing about unions, so I take some of your comments with a grain of salt.

New York City has a huge challenge due to its scarcity of land, making the cost of living extremely high. Guiliani killed rent control, because according to him it was driving up rents. Well, rents still went up after rent control and they're still going up.

The point I was trying to make is not that NYC is an ideal place for a poor person to live (although they offer far better services for their poor than OKC does, including the best public transit arguably on the planet), my point was that a lot of conservatives are always rooting for NYC and California to fail, and predicting failure, and yet, here we are and both places are doing just fine.

I don't think there's much conventional wisdom these days that doesn't acknowledge NYC's rent control did, in fact, drive up rents. Its abolition was long overdue. As per your own statement, the limit of land in the area will keep supply of housing low, thus pricing is going up by virtue of the market naturally, not via government fiat.

I can't find one conservative, myself among them, "rooting" for California or NYC to fail. What a bigoted statement to make, stuffing conservatives in a barrel and wrapping them up in one intolerant bag and shooting them with "they want NYC and CA to fail!" I have no desire to see any city or state fail. I detest what's happened to Detroit. I hate the economic situation in both NYC and California, but at the same time, I have not the slightest hesitation in pointing out all three examples are virtually all self-imposed. When you tax and regulate the revenue generation sources into oblivion, when you have bankers willingly participating in a virtual ponzi scheme of bad real estate loans through a system that dates back to the very earliest incarnations of what became Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (back as far as the Carter administration), it isn't hard to see the economic problems each will and shall continue to have. And NYC has put in a new "progressive" guy who's all ready to jump on the populist bandwagon of screwing the rich to pay for more government expansion under the name of "universal kindergarten, which up there amounts to little more than glorified day care. Predict their failure? Don't have to. They're already models of what not do to. We need to run, not walk, away from the NYC model and its "progressivist" leadership that has already tried to criminalize your soda and now apparently has its eyes set upon imposing punitive/confiscatory tax rates to perpetuate its dogma.

I'm not world-traveled enough to make any assertions about the relative quality of mass transit in NYC compared to the rest of the world, but I've heard from folks who are that have, over the years, relayed plenty of examples of clean, efficient mass transit systems that look nothing like NYC, and in contrast hold NYC's as a monument to, well, just the opposite.

In contrast, I think OKC has demonstrated itself as a model of reason and compromise. We're trying to build and/or restore an urban option after literally decades of misguided leadership and outright neglect, but we've also tried to work to acknowledge the presence of a substantive element of the citizenry that choose not to exercise the urban option. We're trying to be smart, as best we can, about funding our long-term improvements. I'd like to think that, going forward, despite a few hiccups and bumps in the road, OKC could be seen as a model on how to bridge the gap between urban and suburban, conservative and progressive, that truly does a decent if imperfect job of serving a non-trivial percentage of its residence. These days, considering what's going on in Washington, that's no small achievement. To me, DeBlasio's horse issue (which started this thread, which I guess really should have been in politics - and for that oversight I apologize), to me is a demonstration of the kind of vacant "leadership" we should all work diligently to avoid.

[Garin]

Chuck Schumer Doesn't Endorse Bill De Blasio's Universal Pre-Kindergarten Tax

[MWCGuy]

Based on what's happened here and what's happened here and everywhere else. Going to the extreme left or the extreme right is just a bad idea. The governments in this country work best when we use our heads and use common sense that comes from view points on both sides of the aisle. I think our state and federal leaders need to look to the Oklahoma City Council for guidance when it comes to getting things done and being successful. When your politicians apply commons sense and use judgement that is not tainted by extreme beliefs the people prosper. Oklahoma City is living proof of that. We would not be the city we are today without the leadership we have had past and present over the last 20 years.

[Garin]

Could This Be the Real Reason the New NYC Mayor Vowed to Ban Horse Carriages in NYC? | TheBlaze.com

[PennyQuilts]

I hope that's not the reason - if it was, the corruption would be sickening. I honestly prefer to think it is just being a dumbass.

[Chadanth]

I hope not too, but it's odd that he chose that as a high-profile issue so quickly.

[Garin]

(UPDATED) Could This Be the Real Reason the New NYC Mayor Vowed to Ban Horse Carriages in NYC? | TheBlaze.com

Updated

[ljbab728]

(UPDATED) Could This Be the Real Reason the New NYC Mayor Vowed to Ban Horse Carriages in NYC? | TheBlaze.com

Updated

Maybe you should take this to the politics thread.