Eric Adams' gaffe exposes media hypocrisy

Surely by now you all have heard about the controversial remarks that Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams made on MLK Day about wealthy white transplants. If not, here's a summary:

Now, of course, Adams was going to feel blowback from this, and it has gone on for a week now. But for the wrong reason! As my friend Miss Heather succinctly pointed out:

Now THIS is what the media should have been focusing on in their criticism. Instead, they tried to make the issue about foreign immigration and people coming here for work, which is not who Adams was talking about. We have all been affected by the latest trend of prom queens and bros that have infiltrated NYC and turned it into chain store heaven. These folks leave lily-white suburbs and come here to remake NYC into an urban version of what is familiar to them, and do it with general disdain for the people who were born and raised here. They don't contribute anything to the city's culture except upzonings, gentrification, virtue signaling politics and shitty, overpriced pizza.

So why has the media gone so apeshit over Adams' comments? Well, if you recall, back in 2009, the newspapers were tripping over themselves to endorse - for money - billionaire media mogul Michael Bloomberg for a third mayoral term, aka the grand wizard of forced gentrification and pimp daddy of corporate welfare for real estate companies. So the reaction from the press now is pure defense. They helped gentrify this city with not only this, but by framing any and all opposition as kooks standing in the way of progress and basically printing developer press releases word for word. Can't piss off your advertisers!

Check out this "rebuttal" opinion piece in today's Daily News:

I loved my childhood here but also see again reflected in my kids’ eyes what a profoundly unnatural place it is to grow up in. It’s a way station for people and money coming in or out of America, and everyone building a life in the midst of the tumult and transit and trade knows it.

Hmm. It may be a way station for some people. But everyone reading this knows scores of native New Yorkers who don't feel this way. If this reflects the media's opinion of NYC, then it's no wonder they cover it the way they do, like everything politicians propose is inevitable. Sad. Just sad.

Yes, Adams deserves criticism for his remarks because of his hypocrisy, but the media deserves the same. And that's a big reason why this blog and others, like Jeremiah's Vanishing New York, exist. - QC


And mine too,
JQ LLC ,Impunity City

The shoe is on the other foot

From Crains:

Mayor Bill de Blasio is preparing a revised plan to raise money for the troubled New York City Housing Authority by working with private property managers and developers. And a major change to the blueprint involves trimming the amount of affordable housing that will be created—something that would have been anathema to the mayor just three years ago.

The city's plan, which officials said will be released by the end of the year, will be called Nycha 2.0 and will consist of increasing the number of developments managed by private companies, selling air rights and building new apartment towers on vacant or underused land, according to Politico New York, which first reported the initiative. Officials believe they can raise nearly $22 billion, which would take out a significant chunk of the authority's current $32 billion capital needs.

One key element of the plan is developing new apartments on Nycha-owned land that would generate income for the agency, something that was first proposed under the Bloomberg administration. Under that initiative, the buildings would have been 80% market-rate and 20% affordable.

"The idea was to generate money to repair the existing buildings and create significant new affordable housing, though the buildings would not have been 100% affordable," said Fred Harris, a former Nycha executive who helped draft the plan.

However, de Blasio criticized the Bloomberg plan as "a pure giveaway to wealthy elites" and in his NextGen plan proposed buildings that would be entirely affordable or split evenly between affordable and market rate.

Partying like it's 1975

From Crains:

Mayor Bill de Blasio portrays his preliminary $89 billion budget as a fiscally responsible plan to make the city a fairer place—his No. 1 priority—and to meet the demands of the city’s growth (the very first chart in his budget summary shows the increase in the city’s population, which reached 8.5 million in 2016).

He certainly has spent a lot of money in pursuit of those goals.

The $89 billion figure represents an increase of $16.5 billion from the last Bloomberg budget, according to figures from the Citizens Budget Commission that adjust the numbers for the rollover of surpluses, intergovernment transfers and reserves. The percentage increase is 22.7%, which is more than double the rate of inflation during the period. If he had merely kept pace with inflation, the budget would be a little over $80 billion—a big difference.

The Citizens Budget Commission and others have criticized the mayor for not protecting the city from the three major threats it faces: the prospect of significant budget cuts from the federal government, which sends the city something on the order of $7 billion a year; the potential loss of millionaire taxpayers to other states because of the impact of the Republican tax bill; and the fact that the city’s amazing economic boom, which next month will set a modern record for its length, will come to an end sooner rather than later.

De Blasio thinks he's doing more than Bloomberg did

From CBS 2:

Mayor Bill de Blasio has touched off a battle royal with former Mayor Michael Bloomberg over who is the biggest workaholic.

As CBS2 Political Reporter Marcia Kramer reported, it began with de Blasio insisting that he needs way more top-dollar special assistants because his agenda is bigger.

“It’s about getting the work done,” de Blasio said.

De Blasio was just back from vacation Monday and apparently feeling pugilistic, as he metaphorically bopped former Mayor Bloomberg on the noggin.

De Blasio was defending is decision to hire nearly three times more high-priced special assistants than Bloomberg had. The current mayor laid down the gauntlet, challenging Bloomberg on his work ethic.

“We’re trying to do a lot,” de Blasio said. “I can’t tell you all the intricacies of the Bloomberg administration. I can tell you in this administration, we’ve put together very ambitious goals.”

Bloomberg had 109 special assistants, while de Blasio has 298.

“I can say on a number of items, we’re trying to do things on a bigger scale,” de Blasio said. “We’re running this government very differently, and we’re doing a number of things that weren’t touched at all in those years, and we’ve got to have the personnel to make it work.”

But former Bloomberg director of communications Bill Cunningham was quick to fire back.

“It’ a joke, right?” Cunningham said. “He’s trying to fill in for Jerry Lewis and Dick Gregory since they passed away.”

Water's Edge development is falling apart

From The Wave:

On Friday, Jan. 13, owners of the condominiums, Water’s Edge in Arverne stood in front of their ‘shoddily constructed’ city-financed dream of first-time homeownership for low and moderate income people and proclaimed it a nightmare.

Council Member Donovan Richards stood in solidarity with the homeowners, asking the Briarwood Organization for one simple thing.

“Just do the right thing,” said Richards. “One of the many dreams we have in life is to become the owner of our very own home. Many people, particularly in our city, never get that opportunity, never mind an affordable home. Unfortunately, for many of the residents here, that dream turned into a reality and then a nightmare. Briarwood needs to make this right and if they don’t, we are calling on HPD to refuse to work with their organization on any subsidized projects.”

On Sept. 1, 2016, the condominium board sued the Briarwood Organization Arverne /Briarwood II, LLC, its principals, Vincent L. Riso, Raymond Riso, James Riso, Howard Goodman, and Briarwood Properties, Inc. who built the 130-unit complex consisting of 65 two-story buildings, with a condo unit on each floor after winning the bid of the Request For Proposal (RFP) issued by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) during the Bloomberg administration.

7 train extension still not open

From AM-NY:

The No. 7 train will finally begin running on the far West Side in September, the MTA said Monday.

A new, $2.4 billion subway stop on 34th Street and 11th Avenue will open by Sept. 13, officials said. It could open earlier that month, but is unlikely to open in August.

The city-funded extension from the Times Square station was set originally to open in December 2013. Former Mayor Bloomberg took a ceremonial subway run to 11th Avenue that month, but the station's opening has been snagged for years.

Telling it like it is on Willets Point

Letter to the Editor of the Queens Chronicle:

An apathetic public is a hack politician’s best friend. That cannot be said of a group of concerned citizens who took on former Mayor Bloomberg, the City Council, the City Planning Commission, former Queens Borough President Helen Marshall, the Wilpons of the Mets ballclub and their affiliates Sterling Equities and Related Companies, who are for all practical purposes a cabal trying to usurp a large portion of Flushing Meadows Corona parkland that houses a parking field so private developers can construct a 1.4 million-square-foot shopping mall. The Appellate Division: First Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in a unanimous decision, hit a home run in holding the proposed development was not sanctioned by law.

In heralding the court’s decision, the Queens Chronicle’s July 9 editorial, “A major victory, just outside Citi Field,” pointed out the developers’ claim that the 1961 law that allowed the construction of Shea Stadium also authorized the mega-mall was nonsense, as indeed it was.

Equally nonsensical were the claims by the developers that they could not proceed with the 2008 Willets Point plan without the mega-mall to generate the necessary money. The developers are billionaires, and the claim they needed a mall to make money is the height of absurdity. While accepting the 2008 plan, it is evident they never had any intention to pursue it, but only to use it as a wedge for other purposes.

Not only did Bloomberg, the City Council, the City Planning Commission and Marshall approve this charade, but they rewarded the developers with the property for $1, millions in taxpayer subsidies and the right to forfeit $34 million and walk away from any obligation to construct affordable housing, which was the lynchpin in the 2008 plan to begin with. $34 million dollars for these billionaire developers is tantamount to the tip one gives the youngster who delivers your groceries. Make no mistake once they had a mega mall, they would walk. Equally outrageous was Bloomberg’s saying Willets Point was a blight and had to go, when it was the city that caused the blight, collecting sewer rent when there were no sewers and letting the infrastructure fail.

These officials’ complicity in this sordid municipal episode would cause the infamous Boss Tweed to tip his hat in admiration. Mayor de Blasio has remained silent on the subject. There now exists a good opportunity for him to demonstrate to the public whether there be any real difference between himself and Bloomberg.

Benjamin M. Haber
Flushing

Developers buying land promised for park

From Crains:

A partnership between the real estate investment groups Midtown Equities and East End Capital has secured an option to purchase the most closely watched development site in Brooklyn, according to sources.

The two firms have signed a contract to acquire CitiStorage, an 11-acre parcel on the Williamsburg waterfront where they can build retail and office space. It wasn't immediately clear what the two firms are negotiating to pay. Norman Brodsky, who owns the land and built the warehouses on it, told Crain's earlier this year that he had received offers for more than $250 million for the site.

Reached on Friday, Mr. Brodsky said he could not comment on the contract. Midtown Equities and East End Capital could not immediately be reached for comment.

Though CitiStorage has attracted some of the city's largest developers, many have backed away from its sizable hurdles. The site was initially promised by former Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration in 2005 as a key piece of Bushwick Inlet Park. But the city hasn't yet moved to acquire the site and spent far more than was originally budgeted for the park, acquiring neighboring parcels as property values have soared. However, after a fire at the end of January burned down one of the site's two large document-storage warehouses, neighborhood activists and Councilman Stephen Levin renewed their demands that the city fulfill its pledge to purchase the site and incorporate it into the park.

Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration is said to favor a plan in which a private developer covers the cost of acquiring the site and converts a portion of it into parkland in exchange for the right to build high-priced residential towers with affordable housing on the remainder. Advocates of the park, including Mr. Levin, have rejected such a compromise.

Why is de Blasio sending the homeless to NYCHA less often?

From the Daily News:

Homeless New Yorkers are getting a smaller share of Housing Authority apartments under Mayor de Blasio than under previous administrations, a report to be released Tuesday found.

De Blasio, who is grappling with record-high numbers of homeless people needing shelter, has pledged 750 NYCHA apartments a year for homeless New Yorkers, about 12% of the total NYCHA placements available.

That’s a sharp decrease from the number of units provided in prior administrations, when fewer New Yorkers were homeless, according to the Homes for Every New Yorker coalition report.

Former Mayor David Dinkins prioritized an average of 1,215 NYCHA units annually for homeless families, at a time when fewer than 25,000 New Yorkers were living in shelters nightly — as compared with 60,000 people today.

Under Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the shelter census was at about 30,000 a night, and the city set aside an average of 854 NYCHA units a year for the homeless, according to the report.

In his first term, ex-Mayor Michael Bloomberg continued with the practice of placing thousands of homeless in NYCHA apartments, averaging about 1,662 public housing placements a year through 2005. But he completely stopped giving homeless families priority, saying in 2004 that doing so creating an incentive for families to go to shelters.

Overall, there are about 270,000 New Yorkers on the NYCHA waitlist.

The report, to be released Tuesday, urges de Blasio to increase the number of homeless placements in NYCHA apartments to 2,550 a year.

Bloomberg considers London mayoral run

From New York:

In the 15 months since he ceased to be New York City's chief executive, Michael Bloomberg has made it quite clear he does not intend to spend the rest of his life doing free consulting work, lobbying for gun control, and perfecting his golf game. After Bill de Blasio took over City Hall, Bloomberg reinserted himself into the day-to-day operations of the company he founded, Bloomberg LP, despite having said that he had no intention of doing so. And, earlier this year, New York's Gabriel Sherman reported that the billionaire was interested in buying the New York Times. Now the United Kingdom's Sunday Times claims that his ambition has outgrown New York altogether. According to the paper, Bloomberg is "considering" running for mayor of London in 2016.

Sunnyside Railyard plan a disaster

(with permission from the Woodside Herald)
Please Don't Build Over Sunnyside Yards
Op Ed By Patricia Dorfman

The Mayor has discarded the wishes of the electorate in his enthusiastic speech about his Yards development plan, which seems to favor giant real estate interests and construction workers who do not live here (East Side Access workers live in onsite dormitories). This disconnect from actual human beings who have chosen our lives in Western Queens, who believe we live in a democracy, look to him as our Mayor, not the Mayor of only people who live elsewhere or who have not yet moved to NYC, is a shock.

A "Sunnyside Starrett City" being featured so lavishly as a centerpiece of his February 2 speech, when one has yet to find one resident in favor not connected to current government or special interests, gives the appearance that the entire project is one crafted by rich, powerful people that Mayor deBlasio has accepted dutifully. He gets to let giant financial firms make millions, gets to please the unions and others giving huge donations to the party, and can call it “affordable housing,” as though it is a kindness to the needy.

If affordable housing, whatever that means, is wanted, why not immediately buy five vacant small lots in Sunnyside Woodside here, and get started, for a fraction of the billions this will cost us taxpayers? In two years, something real can happen. The hole in the ground at Sunnyside center where Dae Dong burned down has been ready for 14 years.

If the Yards are built over as he projects, that would mean that there seems to be a frightening marriage of political, economic, and organized labor at a national, state and local level which is not by the consent or in the interest of local voters, taxpayers and residents. The words used by his aides, that the Yards are an “ugly scar,” and we residents are clamoring for decking, sounds like heartless people looking down upon us from on high.

Many in the Queens are shocked at the mayor's lack of interest in the welfare and wishes of actual residents and small businesses. Mitch Waxman, Astoria resident who reports and photographs for NewtownPentacle.com and Brownstoner.com, says, "I find it surprising that the self-proclaimed progressive mayor of New York City has so thoroughly embraced the plan of Michael Bloomberg's former Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff. (Doctoroff was CEO of Bloomberg LLC.)

We live in a one party system out here, with so much power in the hands of elected officials to dispense patronage favors, that sometimes the party itself has become a kind of company, which runs for itself. That might be occurring in the larger picture now. We ask the Mayor and City Hall to care about us above all and not read the “party memo” which will forever change our lives for the worse.

And for those who want to have an open “discussion” about how to use some of the Sunnyside Yards for anything other than a giant park (hey, billionaires Bloomberg and Doctoroff, buy us a park, that will change all of our lives instantly and make you our heroes) means that once any building is done, the rest is up for grabs. We cannot build on just part of it.

Please do not build over Sunnyside Yards. If "Sunnyside Starrett City" comes to pass, it means we no longer have any say about our city. It means that all rezoning of the past 20 years of Queens is calculated to line the pockets of the rich, displace the working class and small businesses who would not be afford the new rents, is paid for by the taxpayer, and is now described as “affordable housing,” as though it is a noble goal, to crush our lifestyles, wishes, hopes and dreams. Developing over the Yards will extend Manhattan over us like serfs on their land.

(The author is a registered Democrat, union member, and lives in Sunnyside.)
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/124/232/303/please-do-not-build-over-the-sunnyside-yards/

Is this the way to reform workfare?

From the NY Times:

Mayor Bill de Blasio is revamping the city’s welfare program, vowing to dismantle what was once the largest workfare program in the nation and to embrace new strategies for moving thousands of people off the welfare rolls and into jobs.

Workfare? Do you remember workfare? It is the program that ballooned during the administration of Rudolph W. Giuliani, with 36,224 people working in it or assigned to it by the year 2000.

The program mostly dropped out of the headlines after Mr. Giuliani, a Republican, left office, but his work-first ethos still prevails: In April, 9,194 welfare recipients participated in or were assigned to workfare, and thousands more were required to engage in job-search programs that de Blasio administration officials have described as largely unsuccessful.

Now, Mr. de Blasio says, it is time for change.

Mr. de Blasio, a Democrat, plans to prioritize education and training for able-bodied welfare recipients instead of automatically assigning them to workfare positions — cleaning parks and subway platforms and performing clerical duties — that have been described as dead ends by advocates for impoverished families.

Over the next two years, city officials say, those workfare jobs will vanish completely and be replaced by transitional employment programs, internships and community service positions in growing sectors of the economy to ensure that more welfare recipients find paying jobs.

Research shows that programs heavily focused on education and training have been less successful than others at moving welfare recipients into the workplace. And somewhere out there, Mr. Giuliani must be wagging his finger, warning of the dangers ahead.

DeBlasio will continue to rely on the rich

From the Daily News:

Mayor de Blasio has his work cut out for him if he really wants to end New York’s “tale of two cities.” Gotham has become the American capital of a national and even international trend toward greater income inequality and declining social mobility.

There are things the new mayor can do to help, but the early signs aren’t promising that he will be able to reverse 30 years of the hollowing out of the city’s once vibrant middle class.

As the cost of living has skyrocketed while pay has stagnated except for those at the very top, New York has shifted from a place people go to make it to a place for those who already have it made, or whose families have.

And once here, the rich are indeed getting richer even as the rest of the city is barely holding on.

Between 1990 and 2010, the city’s 1% saw their median income shoot up from $452,415 to $716,625 in 2010 dollars, even as the bottom 60% hardly saw their incomes budge at all, according to a recent City University study. The trend precedes Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire mayor who envisioned New York as a “luxury city,” and it won’t be easy for de Blasio to reverse — especially as he rolls out pricey new public-employee contracts and programs like universal pre-K that further expand the city’s dependence on its wealthiest citizens.

Rather than forge a more upwardly mobile society, New York epitomizes what Citigroup researchers have labeled a “plutonomy,” an economy and society driven largely by the investment behavior and spending of the uber-rich. This creates great demand for low-end service workers — dog-walkers, baristas and waiters — but not much for New York’s middle or aspiring middle class.

Adjusting for the cost of living here, the average paycheck in New York is one of the lowest of any major metropolitan area. Put otherwise, working New Yorkers pay a huge premium to live in the five boroughs, one that repels middle-class individuals and families who aren’t compelled to be here.

The exodus of the middle class has been ongoing for 30 years, with New York by one measure now having the second lowest share of middle-income neighborhoods of America’s 100 largest cities.As the middle class has waned, even exemplars of the celebrated creative class — musicians, artists, writers — find the going increasingly rough, and unrewarding. Laments rock icon Patti Smith: “New York has closed itself off to the young and the struggling. New York City has been taken away from you.”

Certainly some middle class jobs could be created by boosting such things as the port and logistics, resuscitating industries such as food processing and specialized household goods, and rolling out policies that encourage, rather than overregulate, smaller firms in the business-service industry.

But de Blasio’s press to bring in more tax revenue to pay for ambitious new programs, more generous social services and new contracts for city workers have the perverse effect of doubling down on Bloomberg’s bet on the wealthy.

His ambitious ramping up of green-energy policy could be the straw that breaks the back of what remains of the logistics and manufacturing industries in New York, something that has already occurred in California.

And his kowtowing to the teachers union and attempted assaults on charter schools threaten to further undermine the effectiveness of public education, something vital to middle and working class residents.

In fact, the effect of de Blasio’s policies may turn out to be more neo-Victorian than progressive. Rather than new homeowners, the city may see a greater concentration of people dependent on government largesse.

Crazy cost associated with 911 system

From the Daily News:

The city's 911 system still isn’t fixed and the costs are soaring out of control.

Problems with the Fire Department’s dispatch desk outlined in a city investigation Tuesday are just one flaw in the convoluted 911 emergency response system that officials have been trying to fix for years.

Back in 2004 the Bloomberg administration announced ambitious plans to modernize 911 by linking police, fire and EMS systems in one well-coordinated computerized network. The choreography soon fell apart, and a system that was supposed to cost $1.3 billion and be finished by 2009 is now expected to cost $2.03 billion and won’t be finished until August 2016.

In May, Mayor de Blasio froze the city’s 911 upgrade project and ordered a 60-day review. In August, his administration outlined what he called the “root causes” of delays, including the city’s overreliance on outside consultants and lousy communications between city agencies. De Blasio cut back on consultants and put just one agency — the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications — in charge.

The Fire Department, meanwhile, made temporary fixes to streamline communications and will soon request more money for upgrades so EMS will be automatically notified of all “active fire” calls.

Even more homeless shelters for Queens!

From the Daily News:

The city is planning to open more emergency homeless shelters in Queens in the coming months, including one in Far Rockaway.

That news brought an outcry from leaders in Rockaway, where the city recently converted the former DayTop center in Arverne into a homeless shelter.

"Whenever the city has a problem they sent it to Rockaway," said Jonathan Gaska, district manager of Community Board 14. "It's a matter of fairness."

More than 100 adult men are slated to move into the former Rockaway Manor on Beach 8 St., which was severely damaged two years ago during Hurricane Sandy.

Officials from the Department of Homeless Services met with legislators from across the borough last Thursday to let them know their districts were being scoped out for possible shelter sites.

But no specifics were given during the pow-wow at the Overlook in Forest Park, which has led to a borough-wide guessing game.

One of the targeted districts, represented by Assemblywoman Nily Rozic, includes Fresh Meadows and Bayside which currently have no homeless shelters.

City Councilwoman Elizabeth Crowley and Assemblywoman Cathy Nolan, who both represent Ridgewood, were also notified. There are rumors a shelter is planned for that neighborhood.

Other districts under consideration include ones represented by Assemblymembers Jose Peralta (D-East Elmhurst), Jeffron Aubrey (D-Corona)and Andrew Hevesi (D-Forest Hills).

And do you know why this is happening? DeBlasio loosened the criteria for acceptance into the homeless system, which benefits the fat cats (campaign donors) who have contracts with the city to warehouse the homeless.

Where Bloomberg offered shelter to roughly 40% of applicants, de Blasio’s team boosted the acceptance rate to 49% or more, hitting a high of nearly 57% in March.

Heard about the skel that beat his stepdaughter to death this weekend in a shelter? This was in the Times:

The shelter on Cooper Street is managed by Housing Bridge, a nonprofit group under contract to the Department of Homeless Services to provide transitional housing and social services to homeless families. Housing Bridge, which was established in 2006, manages 1,000 transitional housing units for families and adults in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens, according to a spokesman. Its founder and chief executive, Isaac Leshinsky, is a longtime supporter of Mr. de Blasio, and contributed to his mayoral run last year.

This actually smells like a scandal and you'd think the papers would report it as such instead of demonizing the residents who don't want these human warehouses in their neighborhoods.

Bill is turning into Bloomberg

From the NY Times:

To Mayor Bill de Blasio, the recent commotion over Rachel Noerdlinger, his wife’s top aide — who failed to disclose during a background check that she lives with a boyfriend who has a serious criminal history — is a tabloid-fueled personal attack that merits no further discussion.

“Case closed,” the mayor said this week, adopting the move-it-along-folks attitude that has quickly become a de Blasio signature during his first nine months in office.

It is not unusual for mayors to want irritating story lines to go away. But the Noerdlinger episode has fueled a broader question about Mr. de Blasio and the values of his young administration: how a onetime champion of transparency and accountability can square those ideals with the newfound power — and frustrations — of his office.

As a candidate, Mr. de Blasio pledged an ask-me-anything era at City Hall, promoting himself as a different, friendlier breed of political leader. And as public advocate, he frequently assailed former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg for standing by senior aides, such as the former schools chief Cathleen P. Black, who had found themselves under fire.

Now, experiencing some of the same difficulties faced by his predecessors, Mr. de Blasio is responding with the same sort of peevishness and obfuscation he once bemoaned.

The mayor has shut down questions about why he phoned a high-ranking police official after the arrest of a campaign supporter, telling reporters, “That’s the end of the story.” Told by a television reporter that New Yorkers wanted to know why his police-issued S.U.V. was speeding on residential streets in Queens, the mayor replied, “I’m not interested in the construct of what you as an individual think many New Yorkers think.”

Even lighthearted queries can prompt a stony response. Last month, Mr. de Blasio refused to say how he felt after learning of the death of Staten Island Chuck, the groundhog who fell from his arms in a ceremonial mishap. “Talk to the Staten Island Zoo,” the mayor said, mirthlessly.

Determined not to let critics or news coverage set their agenda, Mr. de Blasio and his City Hall advisers have taken to ignoring inquiries on matters that displease them. His communications team believes strongly that most negative stories will disappear, or at least be forgotten by the time Mr. de Blasio’s re-election effort rolls around in 2017.

I think a bigger question is why a first lady needs a chief of staff.

Protecting and polishing the Bloomberg legacy

From the NY Times:

When the de Blasio administration unveiled a promotional video this summer in its bid to lure the Democratic National Convention to Brooklyn in 2016, most viewers saw a slick, breezy collage of a pulsing New York City — schoolchildren and Citi Bikes, culinary wonders and brochure-worthy parks.

Veterans of the previous administration saw something else: a rare, if silent, affirmation of the Bloomberg age from the successors who have sharply criticized it.

“V impressed w #DNCNYC video,” Howard Wolfson, the former deputy mayor under Michael R. Bloomberg, wrote on Twitter last month, ticking off six Bloomberg-era changes, like green taxis and pedestrian plazas, highlighted on screen. “Lots of great selling points!”

Asked about Mr. Wolfson’s message, Peter Ragone, senior adviser to Mayor Bill de Blasio, emailed a smiley face.

The relationship between successive administrations is rarely uncomplicated. Perceived digs fester. Legacies wax and wane. And that magic date — the point at which a mayor is expected to cease criticisms of his predecessor — is never universally agreed upon.

Yet in the more than eight months since Mr. de Blasio’s inauguration — an event at which a number of speakers, though not Mr. de Blasio, assailed the former mayor — an entirely peaceful transfer of power has proved particularly elusive. After a stinging critique of Mr. Bloomberg’s tenure helped propel Mr. de Blasio to victory last year, the mayor and his surrogates have continued to issue pointed barbs at times, while appearing less eager to highlight Mr. Bloomberg’s contributions to some well-regarded policies that have been continued or expanded.

In recent weeks, as Mr. Bloomberg’s reign has faced withering criticism over the handling of disaster relief after Hurricane Sandy and oversight at Rikers Island, among other issues, former Bloomberg administration officials have increasingly moved to defend their former (and, in many cases, current) boss.

911 call system was blown by Bloomberg

From NY1:

As promised, the de Blasio administration on Wednesday released a review of the city's new 911 call-taking system, and two other government watchdogs are sounding an alarm over how the project was managed. NY1's Courtney Gross filed the following report.

Three reviews of the city's long-delayed and over-budget 911 system were released all in one day Wednesday.

"We brought all of the agencies involved together, had a very intense 60-day process, as we promised, and restructured every aspect of this project," said First Deputy Mayor Anthony Shorris.

"The people who were in charge of this system truly blew it," said City Comptroller Scott Stringer.

"That is government malpractice at best," said Mark Peters, commissioner of the city's Department of Investigation.

Essentially, all of the reports claim the Bloomberg administration was asleep at the switch.

Donald got a real sweetheart deal

From the Daily News:

Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg apparently wasn’t satisfied with simply handing Donald Trump control over one of the most expensive public golf courses ever built in this country – the new $236 million, 18-hole Parks Department course scheduled to open next spring at Ferry Point Park in the Bronx.

Bloomberg’s aides quietly added a slew of financial giveaways in the 2012 deal with The Donald that no other city golf course concessionaire enjoys, a Daily News review of Parks Department golf contracts has found.

Those giveaways include: no concession fees for four years; then decades of extraordinarily low revenue-sharing with the city; tens of millions of gallons of free water annually; even a five-year delay for Trump to build a $10 million clubhouse, his only major capital investment in the project.

Start with the greens fees, the basic charge for a round of golf; virtually all of the city’s existing 13 public golf courses charge $48 per person during weekend peak hours, higher for non-city residents.

But the new Trump National Golf Course at Ferry Point plans to charge nearly three times as much — $125 per person.

Trump’s split of revenues with the city, however, will be far less than all other courses.

Promises broken at Astoria Cove

From the Daily News:

A developer in need of a zoning change in order to build a sleek residential complex in Astoria has quietly downgraded the number of affordable units the building would offer.

Alma Realty originally promised “a minimum” of 340 units of affordable housing at Astoria Cove, a complex of five buildings that could tower up to 32 stories high.

But that number dropped to 295 in an official application filed with the city in March.

Housing advocates worry that the reduced number could float under the radar when a city review begins this month to rezone a handful of prime waterfront blocks from industrial to residential.

But Astoria Cove, which will include space for a public school and retail use, was developed during the Bloomberg administration and therefore should be treated to the former mayor’s more development-friendly rules, the developer’s lawyer argued.