Some of you don’t. It’s a thing now – to avoid reading the comments, for a variety of reasons. Instead, I’ll promote a few so that you will see them. I used to do this somewhat regularly, so there’s a precedent for it.
1. On September 24th, I wrote a piece about the aftermath of this year’s primary races, entitled “A Confluence of Horrible Politics“. It was mostly in response to a recent interview that political bad actor Steve Pigeon had given the Buffalo News. I concluded with,
The way in which New York conducts its elections is horrible, rife with opportunities for bad people to do questionable and corrupt things. PACs can spend unlimited money and its campaign advertising doesn’t need to disclose the source. Electoral fusion allows our system to be more about dealmaking with otherwise irrelevant minor “parties” and does nothing to enhance electoral democracy. Ballot access is unreasonably complicated and rife with traps for the unwary, and should be simplified. Money flowing to and from PACs – which are not even formally recognized under state law – should be accounted-for, disclosed, and limited to prevent monied interests from stealing elections.
The problem now is whether money in politics will prevent the needed reforms from being openly discussed and implemented.
Anyone who’s read me for any significant time knows that I’ve singled out electoral fusion as being the root of most of our procedural evils in New York. Sometime Artvoice contributor, attorney, and Pigeon associate Peter Reese took some time out from his busy schedule lauding the character of convicted extortionists to write this, (my responses in italics):
Ignoring all of the ubiquitous Bedenko venom and invective, let’s cut to the conclusions:
– “The way in which New York conducts is elections is horrible, rife with opportunities for bad people to do questionable and corrupt things.” This has always been true of every election involving human beings. See Athens, Greece, 5th century BCE. What new laws will change human nature?
So, don’t do anything about it? Greek elections were run exactly like New York’s? What are you trying to say, except “do nothing, everything’s fine”?
– “PACs can spend unlimited money and its campaign advertising doesn’t need to disclose the source.” True. See Bukley v Valeo, the US Bill of Rights and NYS Election Law. Who’s for repealing the First Amendment?
If there’s a way to limit individual contributions to campaigns, I’m sure there’s a constitutional way to limit committee contributions to campaigns.
– “Electoral fusion allows our system to be more about dealmaking with otherwise irrelevant minor “parties” and does nothing to enhance electoral democracy.” Agreed. What’s your proposal? Politicians can run in all primaries (Cuomo proposal) or an Open Primary, single combined primary for all parties (California, Washington, Louisiana)? (That pesky old
Bill of Rights will make it difficult to outlaw minor political parties.)
Abolish electoral fusion and abolish Wilson-Pakula. If you want to run for office on a particular party line, you have to be a member of that party. No one’s ever suggested “outlaw[ing] minor parties.”
– “Ballot access is unreasonably complicated and rife with traps for the unwary, and should be simplified.” This has been true all your life, what are your proposals? BTW, this concept
extends to the entirety of the Election Law, which is a minefield of quirks and gotchas.
You said in 1, supra, that the system is just fine, so it follows that you like the minefield, too. In my opinion, ballot access should be a payment of $1,000 for statewide office, $500 for a county / judicial office, and $200 for a local or municipal race.
– “Money flowing to and from PACs – which are not even formally recognized under state law – should be accounted-for, disclosed, and limited to prevent monied interests from stealing elections.” PACs are recognized. See generally Election Law, Article 14 and Regulations 6200.xx.
“Election Law 14-100
The acronym “PAC” does not exist in the Election Law. They’re independent committees.
Once again that troublesome old First Amendment gets in the way of our attempts to limit core political free speech by those we don’t agree with. Mandatory accounting and disclosure are permitted, limits probably not
About those disclosures…
So, got any real ideas, or just going to continue to rant and spew sour grapes? And, BTW, do any of your adoring anonymous followers actually exist or are they all your own multiple disguised identity?
1. There are your ideas.
2. You have a login and you can search as easily as I and determine that I don’t use sock puppets on my own blog. If you’re computer-literate enough to attempt it, that is.
Apparently, the “computer literate” crack was spot on, because he replied thusly:
Why can’t you answer my questions? Questions aren’t answers. Just keep on bitching and moaning.
If you see my response in the thread, you’ll see that it prompts the reader to click “see more” to see more. I asked Mr. Reese which questions he thought I hadn’t answered, yet this was met with silence. So, I asked him on his Facebook page. He was very responsive, bravely deleting my question:
So, there you have it. When a commenter asks me questions, I will often answer them point-by-point, even when the commenter is personally rude to me. There are your answers, Pete. I know you were genuinely interested in my answers, and that deleting my question on Facebook must have just been an oversight. It wasn’t off-topic, because ultimately it all has to do with your pathological animus against Len Lenihan and Jeremy Zellner because arglebargle.
2. Earlier this week, I had a few criticisms of a new Buffalove video about Buffalo as the “best designed city” because it has a street grid, Olmsted parks, and because all of its socioeconomic problems stem from the 198 and the Kensington and the Skyway and the 190, and if we just eliminate all those roads, Buffalo’s path to prosperity will be clear. Did you know it was put together as a promotion for a new urbanism symposium coming to Buffalo next June? Neither did I. It’s not mentioned anywhere in the video.
On Twitter, Buffalo ex-pat and Associate Editor for Atlantic Cities Mark Byrnes noted that:
Your city would be more unique if it *didn’t* have an Olmsted-designed something. http://t.co/hXeg52J0L6
— Mark Byrnes (@markbyrnes525) October 4, 2013
Interesting, right? Buffalo Rising contributor Hey Ra Cha Cha wrote,
— Ra Cha Cha (@HeyRaChaCha) October 3, 2013
Then, in comments, this:
I wonder if they consulted any real planners about the claim that Buffalo is “America’s best designed city”. There’s many aspects of Buffalo’s built environment that are considered the antithesis of both classical and contemporary best planning principles. Among them are:
* Extremely long blocks, up to a half mile in some cases. (660 feet is considered ideal.)
* Undergrounding most of the city’s streams and creeks.
* Railroads mincing the city’s street grid into much smaller and more separated parts than almost any other city in the country. The “Chinese Wall” effect from railroads criss-crossing and looping around the city far exceeds the damage caused by the Kensington Expressway.
* Thanks to the railroads and a lack of zoning before 1920, heavy industry became more widely distributed throughout Buffalo, compared to peer cities.
* Devoting almost all of the city’s waterfront — Lake Erie, the Niagara River, and most of the Buffalo River — to heavy industry.
* Despite the Olmsted system, Buffalo has far less land devoted to parks than peer cities. Distribution of non-Olmsted parks is erratic, and siting and design poor.
* A street grid that offered many radial and north-south connections, but relatively few unbroken east-west connections.
* Very few alleys, resulting in a streetscape that, even in residential areas, is interrupted by driveways every 30 to 40 feet. The lack of rear access to many lots also rendered much of the city’s housing functionally obsolete when cars became prevalent; there was no place to add off-street parking or a garage when houses are just five or 10 feet apart, like much of the East Side.
* The lack of a citywide masonry building code, resulting in a housing stock dominated by frame telescopers, semi-bungalows, and two-flats. Frame houses were more susceptible to fire (anyone remember Eyewitness News in the 1980s?) and insensitive alterations than those constructed of brick.
While you’re busy reading that, I’m poring over maps with my kids, trying to find the best street grid and radial system to visit on our next vacation. Because streets.