Bloomberg illegally starved the housing needs of 400,000 New Yorkers in public housing causing a Federal Court to appoint a monitor. Now it’s costing billions more for housing repair because he failed to keep up maintenance. He made NYC a slumlord. He stopped inspections for lead based paint poisoning our children and fought against a paid sick leave law. Steyer on the other hand is a progressive billionaire with a equally impressive business record.
Let's not forget that Bloomberg's third term was illegal. He wangled it in defiance of the city charter, which limits the mayor to two terms.
After one president who despises the rule of law, do we really need a second?
Under Bloomberg the city ALSO did not become a green city
1
Mayors come and go; NY's single overwhelming liability is that the federal government takes something like 18% of the dollars generated here to redistribute to red states which are anything but grateful. Trump's tax changes have made the situation much worse of course. We need to talk about this constantly -- remind America who pays their bills, us and other net contributors.
That said, we are trapped with a legacy of endemic corruption, let by real estate developers and contractors for public sector work. And yes, we are STILL building Bruckner Boulevard.
2
Bloomberg will NOT be the dem nominee. I suggest you focus your writing on someone else who actually has a shot.
1
@Ray
Bloomberg is running because he thinks that government should be run like a business, by someone who has been successful in business, unlike Mr. Trump. Typical neoliberal POV - reality is business and business is reality.
Like Mitt Romney without the fake populism - trust me, I'm a businessman.
2
Yes, you can have a prosperous, affordable metro area. High-speed commuter rail service can exponentially increase available housing. Long neglected Baltimore is receiving new investment due to convenient rail service to booming DC.
2
Bloomberg turned NYC into a mega for the ultra rich. He changed the landscape which now resembles a giant mall. He did nothing to promote affordable housing. He did nothing to improve social services for those that needed them.
10
Visited NYC recently, where my son attends NYU. As much as I love the place, I am appalled by the tall, slender buildings going up on "billionaire's row." They are a true blight on the skyline, ugly in the extreme, and I'm surprised the city is allowing them to be built. What a shame.
8
@JS And I just read they've filed a permit to tear down the Salisbury Hotel and the church next to it, for yet another supertall on Billionaires Row!
7
@JS the billionaires from China and Russia need some place to park their cash.
8
@bob That's because in a dictatorship, you can lose your wealth in a flash & even go to jail if the dictator has a problem with you. That makes it smart to invest in a country where you can get all the justice you can afford, like the US of A.
This is strictly an academic discussion since Bloomberg's chances of becoming president are only slightly better than DeBlassio.
3
As a teacher of college economics, I need to point out the oxymoron at the foundation of this article. Prosperity can be measured many different ways. For example, where average incomes some would say that the area is prosperous. However, dig in a bit and we see much more going on. Where both average incomes and inequality are high a large majority of residents may in fact be doing rather poorly. And should anyone call a place where most people are seeing declines in measures of well-being, income, health, security, "prosperous"?
6
The NYT should stop floating the names Bloomberg and Clinton are potential 2020 Presidential candidates. Their time has past!
4
It is passed
1
I certainly hope so!
1
Michael Bloomberg will always be a polarizing figure in New York. While he was an excellent manager, he was completely ignorant and tone deaf to the needs and experiences of the poor and minority citizens. His sanctioned policy of stop and frisk and his choice of a woman among his circle of wealthy friends to be school chancellor are just two examples. Frankly higher income white New Yorkers still love him but are generally well insulated from the problems of their less privileged neighbors. Bloomberg is constantly lauded by them in comparison to Di Blasio who has done a much better job in negotiating the different needs and priorities of all the different interest groups in the city as difficult as that is considering that makes him unpopular with just about everyone.
17
Inequity oh the horror! What is the world coming to? People will have to live within their means? And those sponging off the taxpayers (the 50% of us who actually pay federal income taxes) won't be able to live in the most expensive cities in the country - NY, San Fran, Boston, Seattle, Wash, DC etc? Oh no!
Quick call Lizzie Warren she has a plan. She wants open boarders, "free" healthcare for illegal aliens, "free" daycare so people who can't afford kids have them anyway, "free" college (esp. for those who borrowed $200K for degrees in creative writing, womens studies, queer theory, and underwater basket weaving.) Lots of other "free" stuff. Of course until the other peoples' money runs out.
15
@Reader In Wash, DC
The default position is 'justice tempered with mercy'', 'mercy tempered with justice' seems off somehow.
The charitable among us need not disavow it.
There is not universal acceptance of the notion that one may fly as high as he likes, using only his own wings.
4
@Reader In Wash, DC If you hold tight to the position that people with low income jobs should live only where they can make it without taxpayer help - and that won't be in or near the most expensive cities - then you must also take the position that the people who can well afford to live there, and do so, should accept the loss of indispensable non-professional services that followed their providers to communities too far to commute from. Who will be cleaning the CEO's office toilet and penthouse? Who will be sterilizing surgical instruments at Walter Reed and Mount Sinai hospitals? Washing the dishes at the top restaurants? Taking care of the kids when both Mom and Dad are working long lawyers' hours? Many singles in the less lucrative but still critically needed professions would also have trouble affording the housing, especially the younger ones who have yet to climb the salary ladder.
9
The billionaires are not going to run out of money. You don’t have to worry about them.
Warren thinks Americans should have what citizens of every other first world nation on earth have had for decades. And why not invest OUR tax dollars in OUR health care and in OUR children’s education—which would bring far greater dividends to our nation than throwing more trillions at our bloated military industrial complex.
Warren’s programs will bring much needed relief to struggling middle class families.
9
Stop and frisk. Enough said.
9
Oh, a new guy from the Oligarchy Party............
10
@scott t
Somebody's got to replace Howard Shultz.
What is fair in life?
Stop making excuses for what you don't have. The power of your will and spirit can turn any hardship into a dream come true - if you're brave enough to be the real you.
5
@Bruce Savin To pull yourself up by your bootstraps, first you have to have the bootstraps.
14
@Bruce Savin: By characterizing it as complaining, you deny agency to those of us who worry about who will control the future, and that's what democracy is about. Don't worry, the billionaires have it figured out.
It's really about who gets to call the shots and control the future? Who cares if someone has a Bugatti Veyron and some Picasso paintings? If they control the food supply, the places to live, the education and legal systems and the government, maybe that is a problem.
You've repeated a trope that prevents us from doing what is necessary to keep democracy relevant and in so doing, serve the interests of the oligarchy.
5
@Bruce Savin Ah, another comment from the safe perch of white privilege. Dumbfounded by the concept of ghettoes and inherited legacies of poverty. We all love a Horatio Alger story. But America has changed. We live in for all intents and purposes an oligarchy where the very richest men and corporations control the government-and now even with foreign help. They create policies that favor themselves with little concern for the common good and at the expense of the poor. Pure and simple. While it is always advisable to lift oneself up in life, understand that inequality has never been greater or more insidious.
3
Bloomberg as mayor displayed some similar autocratic impulses as Trump does. Case in point: he sought reelection for a third term by extending term limits to three 4-year terms believing himself to be the most qualified candidate to lead during the Wall Street crisis. I found it chilling then and still do.
124
@La Rana
Let's not forget how the Times not only endorsed Bloomberg's illegal third term, it had its thumb on the scale for him. Even Bloomberg's internal polling told him he was in deep trouble and yet the Times continued to present him as invincible, just as they did Clinton in 2016. So much for journalistic integrity,...In the end, Bloomberg squeaked by with a few percent advantage over an underfunded Bill Thompson, after spending over $180 per vote. Do we want another president who believes everything is for sale?
15
@stan continople
We most certainly don't.
8
@stan continople In his third run, Bloomberg win his illegal third term by a squeaker, and in the following election voters wanted an anti-Bloomberg. We can argue till the cows come home over whether De Blasio met that requirement, but that's how he got to be mayor in the first place.
Ten years ago this month, I stood on the steps of City Hall with a group of advocates announcing a lawsuit against the State of New York for extending the build out of the Atlantic Yards project from 10 years to 25 years (a suit we later won). Mayor Bloomberg, on his way out of the building, asked an aide what was going on. When he heard the answer, he shook his head dismissively and said, "Democracy in action."
Bloomberg's progressive views on the environment, transportation and infrastructure are laudable, and he possesses an intellect far superior to Trump's. But as an executive in charge of policy, he is also inclined to govern as an autocrat with an affinity for the wealthy and powerful. It's simply not the future.
207
@Gib Veconi I do believe that Bloomberg's views on the environment, infrastructure, etc. are better than Trump's. However, I could probably say the same for any of the current Democratic candidates. What does Bloomberg actually bring to the table? He's not even the only Dem billionaire running, Steyer already entered the race! Bloomberg simply has nothing unique to offer, and the fact that he's a billionaire is all I need to know to understand that he doesn't have my best interests at heart.
17
How much of the city’s time and money (so: my tax dollars) was spent on this lawsuit?
What exactly was the point of this lawsuit?
Agreed with Bloomberg. I would have rolled my eyes at you, too.
10
@Gib Veconi
Maybe, but Bloomberg will be mighty attractive to Republicans seeking an alternative to President Incredible Fool, & to Democrats seeking an alternative to the far left wing wealth redistributors (Warren, Sanders).
The battleground state voters may in fact see Bloomberg as an ideal answer to what ails the USA.
13
A lot of the projects Bloomberg fostered—the High Line, Brooklyn Bridge Park, the west side waterfront and parks, the bike lanes—are free to one and all and make NYC a better place. Anyone can use them. Even if you cannot afford a condo on the Brooklyn waterfront or near the High Line, you can walk, bike, run along them and enjoy them. Whenever I hear talk of inequality, I think “Yes, life isn’t completely fair but what else is new?” To think government—of all things—can equalize what’s been going on since the dawn of civilization, seems like lunacy.
213
Well, unfortunately, the park and bike are not adequate replacement of affordable renting. Yes, there could not be total equality in outcomes but the Government can and should ensure equality of opportunities and decent living those who are on the bottom.
59
@Pablo - We don't want things to be equal. We just don't want the super rich to have practically all the money. And we don't want them to get an ever increasing percentage of the country's wealth.
You are wrong about whether we can do better. After WWII we has a vastly more equal society from 1946 to 1973. There is a statistic called the Gini Coefficient that is the best single number measure of inequality. If it is 0, everybody earns the same amount. If it is 1, one guy earns all the money. It has almost doubled since 1970. See the graph at https://voxeu.org/article/education-and-inequality-mid-20th-century-united-states
We did it before; we can do it again.
44
Why? It is profusely government equalizing the lack of civilization “since dawn” which gives Europeans universal health care, free college, maternity (AND paternity leave) and affordable housing. Government is not an alien - it is us, all of us.
38
Also I believe it was during Bloomberg's rule that dozens of crucial neighborhood senior citizen centers were de-funded and forced to close, and that the Legal Aid Society serving poor people was de-funded by the city. Good job, Mike! You won my vote! Big heart.
9
A man for our times. Rich neo liberal campaigning against rich, whatever it is that describes Trump. This was pretty well outlined by Thomas Piketty in his excellent book “Capital”, and one more reason we must dismantle both main stream parties, neither of which have represented the other 90% since the Carter days. Bernie and Liz.
4
Stop & Frisk
Disrespecting term limits
Refusing to cancel the marathon after Katrina
Build an Olympic stadium in MIDTOWN Manhattan!
Nearly 80 years old
just a few of the reasons I want Mike to stay retired.
14
Bloomberg is a viable, non-populist. That puts him above every other current candidate on the Democrat side, and Trump. Populism is a scourge, and says nothing about a candidate other than that he/she is an opportunist who will say whatever they want for political gain, and for no other purpose.
When has a populist ever been a good executive (governmental, not corporate)? You need someone who can make tough decisions when they need to be made, and not be given to the most politically convenient course of action.
People need to stop giving their political support to candidates based on what comes out of a candidates mouth, and look to how the candidate has ACTED, BEHAVED, and OPERATED in the past, to evaluate how that person will act in the future. It is a GUARANTEED indicator of how a person will act in the future. Trump is a perfect example. He is a self-centered narcissist, whose every act is motivated by a quest for adulation. In that vein, the means always justify the ends, even if those means defy every commonly held standard of decency and principle.
Bloomberg HAS all the things that Trump’s most ardent, delusionally blind supporters believe Trump has (but doesn’t): success outside of politics, the temperament and prescience of a leader, management abilities, etc.
Also, no successful mayor of NYC has ever done so while keeping everyone happy, (not even LaGuardia). Those who try to please all fail, and they fail spectacularly.
2
@Ben Bloomberg will not win the nomination - but if he does I sit out the election.
3
@APO Same. Me thanks for giving one of the few sane responses to a potential Bloomberg run.
1
Yeah Bloomberg wanted to turn Manhattan into Georgetown and force all the poor people to leave. He allowed huge rent increases for rent-stabilized apartments during his tenure. He sold off the city's biggest affordable housing developments, where many middle class police and firemen lived, Stuy Town and Cooper Village, and allowed rents to soar. That alone was greedy and unforgiveable. Shouldn't the police and firefighters be able to afford to live in the city they protect? Nasty old man even though he grew up poor.
16
@Jeff Barge
"Yeah Bloomberg wanted to turn Manhattan into Georgetown and force all the poor people to leave."
And not Georgetown, Brooklyn either.
That alone was reason enough to vote for De Blasio in both general elections.
The author would have been helpful citing the accomplishments of NYCities more successful Mayors that attracted nation attention. And that’s the problem. The sheer complexities of NYCity and its impressive public works infrastructure are more complex than than many nations. At day’s end NYC was more prosperous with more jobs, especially high paying and with a greater population through his tenure. Compared to virtually all of then Mayor Bloomberg’s predecessors that’s no small achievement. Especially when we compare the NYC at the end of his term to the NYC of today with different leadership. At day’s end NYC remains the world’s most captivating and important City and most observers credit former Mayor Bloomberg with pushing the needle forward. By any fair measure the Mayor of New York City has the most challenging municipal job in our nation. How many of our former Presidents or current candidates could match that resume.
7
The Bloomberg Bike Project is an ongoing waste. Something that at the level of idea sounded progressive, but at the level of fact just doesn't deliver. Between the bike racks and bike lanes, the amount of square footage devoted to this folly, versus the number of users cannot be an efficient use of public space. Most riders are, naturally, young people and as soon as it rains or freezes hardly a soul uses bikes - and remember in NYC there are numbingly cold temperatures during winter. Almost no older New Yorkers are willing to pedal on city streets, the level of risk is too stressful.
A much, much better use of the BBP will be to re-purpose the bike lanes for electric, regular wheeled street cars that anyone can use regardless of weather or age.
7
Ok, boomer
3
@Bad bunny - Glib ageist potshots aren't an argument, try some critical thinking, and give it another shot. Cheers.
6
My 24-year-old son always dreamed of living in New York City. He graduated from college in 2017 and was able to get a decent job, but the cost of living was so high, that it didn't matter. There is absolutely no infrastructure to support working people in NYC. It's all geared toward the rich. He spent countless hours waiting on trains that didn't come, late to work, navigating a city without resources for the middle class. He left last year.
19
@Megson
I have been to New York at least 2 dozen times on family and business trips. I don't get it. Why would an ordinary person want to live there?
2
Because, Peter, we were born here? And the graves of our parents and grandparents are located here? Because despite the hassles, we get pleasure from New York City's cultural institutions, parks, and the sheer familiarity of it? Because wherever we go, we can see the ghosts of our families and former selves?
It always amazes me when commenters tell us to leave, or why we should hate our city.
Admittedly, 50 years of welfare have wreaked devastation on us -- on our social services, schools, and housing. And particularly on working black families who live cheek by jowl with the feral young men shaped by the collapse of an intact family system that has only the number of kids it can support.
Very good intentions that backfired badly.
6
@B. You speak the heart of our city.
2
Do the math: It is impossible to create sustainable affordable housing in a wealthy zone. Such houses may be more affordable at completion, but their value is soon pulled higher by the price gains of not quite so less affordable ones in their midst.
1
@Stanley Jon
That's why the entire city shouldn't be a wealthy zone.
1
Too ego-invested, too Republican, too plutocratic, too arrogant, and--yes--too old. One thing we need even less than Biden is Biden-right.
13
The equality thing is a notion of the elite. When all I have is a half a sandwich and the rich are eating steak, what do I care if they get surf and turf as long as I get a whole sandwich. While you guys argue about what’s fair I’m still hungry. I bet you don’t even know someone that’s gone to bed hungry lately.
7
C'mon you know he's the guy who knows how to get things done. Effective leadership without all the drama . He sets meaningfull goals and completes them. I really believe that people who find him objectionable just can't stand to have a wise father figure in their world. Put away your daddy issues and follow the path of common sense for once.
15
Oh please! Bloomberg only cares about the rich. He is not even curious about how the rest of the world lives. He will never get the nomination.
@kevin Bloomberg may know how to get things done, but he cares to get things done only for the rich.
How is ex Mayor Bloomberg responsible for the inequality? Was the rent too high during his term for the first time?
8
@Girish Kotwal
His appointees to the RGB enacted some of the largest rent hikes in history of rent stabilization.
5
@Girish Kotwal please read Michael Tracy's comment below.
@Girish Kotwal neglect of public housing causing huge issues for those who lived there and the decommission of thousands of apartments, rezoning of neighborhoods pushing out long time mom and pop stores and making way for huge luxury developments....just to name two of the many ways Bloomberg is responsible...
2
Michael Bloomberg was a disaster for NYC, and it started in his first term trying to build an Olympic Stadium right in midtown (Penn Yards) which was absolutely stupid economically. Then his friend Ratner gets a hold of Brooklyn Atlantic Yards with plenty of tax breaks and subsidized bonds.
The homeless crisis that de Blasio has faced from the start is a direct result of 12 years of Bloomberg allowing developers to cater to the oligarchs and forget about affordable housing. On top of that, the deregulated rentals he pushed through Albany only benefited the real estate moguls and developers.
In the 12 years Bloomberg was mayor, my 6 story coop in Chelsea saw its RE taxes go from $95,000 in 2002 to $385,000 in 2011, the years I sold out and moved the the Pacific NW.
For a successful business man, Bloomberg reigned over an ever increasing city government payroll, contract corruption and an ever beleaguered public school system which he answer to that was charter schools!!
And Bloomberg had no respect for democracy when he ran for a 3rd term, against the city-wide vote limiting mayors to 2 terms. By bribing Christine Quinn with hopes of being his replacement, she pushed the City Council to back his power grab.
Bloomberg is an oligarch with a few liberal views, but certainly not a proponent of the middle class and poor. His wealth is only outpaced by his arrogance.
28
Stop and frisk, and a NYPD culture that would choke to death an innocent man in the street (and get away with it,) is all you need to know about his NYC tenure. Oh, and gentrification, and don't drink that big soda. What a giant of a man.
15
I will never vote for Bloomberg
11
@Zejee
Bloomberg's first run was enough to persuade me never to vote for him. He bought up all the advertising time, leaving "politician Msrk Green" with no chance to make his own case. He bought the mayoralty.
I voted for his opponent in all three general elections.
Michael Bloomberg may not win the nomination, but he could hurt the chances of the best Democratic candidate, whoever he or she is.
As for "won't," the election of 2016 has left me unwilling to call any presidential election in advance.
My mind is made up. I am not voting for Mike Bloomberg or any other Democrat. Do not kid yourself. He is a liberal dressed in moderate sheep's clothing.
2
Vote for Mike Bloomberg and make Eva Moskowitz the Secretary of Education. After all, no one adored and enabled Eva Moskowitz to drum out the kids she didn't want to teach more than Mike Bloomberg.
And remember that during Betsy DeVos' confirmation hearings, Mike Bloomberg's favorite educator Eva Moskowitz was demanding that DeVos be confirmed and fighting hard to make sure that DeVos was the secretary of education.
Why the NY Times believes that a Republican whose likely pick for Secretary of Education would be a huge Betsy DeVos fan like Eva Moskowitz should be the Democratic nominee is beyond my understanding.
No thanks. All you have to know about Bloomberg is that he is the one who took resources from the poorest public schools and handed them over to Betsy DeVos' biggest cheerleader.
11
@RJ
And what about that disaster named Cathy Black, for whom he issued a rare apology. She was a socialite who expressed her wish to be Chancellor at a cocktail party no less that Bloomberg was attending.
5
@Patrick
Thank you for reminding us of Cathy Black. She was a corporate CEO who knew zilch about how children learn, but that was fine with Bloomberg, who believes that reality is business and business is reality.
Bloomberg was shamed into considering a real educator in an advisory position to Ms. Black, but the thing about advisors is that those they advise are free to ignore their advice.
NYC has been totally destroyed by greed and money, pop up stores replace real actual stores like canal jean ( remember them?) now it’s citi bikes and 12 dollar fish taco
14
NYC under Bloomberg in a nutshell, you were arrested for drinking beer at Coney Island and protected by the Police while drinking wine in Bryant Park.
14
This essay is a road map for anyone who'd put up obstacles to his getting even within sniffing distance from the Democratic nomination. The party activists -- the most loyal and most likely to vote in primaries -- will have no stomach for a billionaire who catered to big business and the rich while in public office. He'd have a better chance running in a Republican primary against Trump. Mainstream Republicans will find Bloomberg to be a blast of fresh air in these suffocating Trumpian times.
7
How heartening to see so many people across this great nation support and defend the poor, downtrodden billionaire who gave NYC a so-called park on old train tracks (i.e., tufts of greenery interspersed with some rocks). My only consolation is, if Bloomberg enters the race, he’ll take votes away from Biden—and Trump, based on responses here and to other Bloomberg articles.
2
A successful city will always be a place of sharp inequality. It will attract the rich and the very rich for the joy of living there; and it will attract impoverished immigrants, who see in the city's robust economy the opportunity they long for. What's wrong with that?
7
Give it up. Common sense is an under-appreciated commodity nowadays.
3
Thank you for acknowledging towards the end of the article the unavoidable reality of inequality in big cities, of urban prosperity leading to an affordability crisis, of vast new development leading to displacement. That was a surprise. About 3/4s into the article, it appeared that this would simply be an unfair attack on Bloomberg to discourage his run. Perhaps the NYT editors now realize that Bloomberg really does stand the best chance of defeating Trump and want to get out in front of the criticism that he will no doubt receive? I would hope that the sense of fair balance comes earlier in future articles, but this is a good sign. If the NYT really wants Trump to be defeated it should endorse Bloomberg.
4
He worked with Joel Klein to destroy public education in the city with his DUMB small schools concept. Every single top school is a large school.
He worked with Janette Sadik-Kahn to manufacture traffic problems, often in clear violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and supported her efforts to punish the average automobile driver in the city as he flew his helicopter into midtown.
Yes, he did a number of good things, but he also did some very terrible things.
4
As was rhe case during his THREE terms as mayor, the New York Times is ridiculously kind to Bloomberg, whose contempt for the poor destroyef the vibrant NYC we once knew and loved. Homelessness skyrocketed under his watch because of his sadistic policies, and housing program failures, HSP, the advantage debacle and stacking the rent guidelines board with real estate interests all served the purpose of making the city unaffordable which was his goal. I wouldn't vote for him if my life depended on it not even when the alternative is trump.
7
It's very difficult to spend time on these nuances when his potential opponent is so obtuse. Let's give strength to the muscles that can defeat the incumbent.
1
Bloomberg like so many others running for President has one major problem: he is too old! The Democrat party is in serious trouble.
Like Bloomberg, I am also 77 years old. That is too old. All of the front runners are over the hill. Democrats need new blood.
2
@Pepper
Why do yu use "Democrat" as an adjective? Is the other party the Republic Party?
For decades, New York’s success was due to a happy mixture and tension between finance and the arts, uptown and downtown. A core topic the NYTimes has not reported enough on is how, in the Bloomberg area, artists and musicians were driven out of the city because of development. The city may be safer but it lost a lot of its soul, and that is hard to replace.
11
They weren’t driven out. They moved from SoHo to West Chelsea and Bushwick.
3
And out to upstate New York, Pennsylvania and beyond.
1
I wonder if the men who invented Las Vegas knew what a cultural and political reflection and influence it would be to American society. Not only is it a source of constant distraction, perpetual entertainment and virtual enslavement, it also reflects and perpetuates this lottery mythology that millions of Americans subscribe to. There's nothing wrong with respecting and admiring wealthy, successful people; but we take it further: idolizing them, making them into American royalty, regardless of how they made their wealth. Then we think they're qualified to be political leaders. All because we, too, might "hit the jackpot" some day, ignoring the fact that the odds are ALWAYS rigged in favor of the House.
Bloomberg's opposition to paid sick leave for workers is a perfect reflection of his allegiance to the House. It's astonishing how many Americans engage in cognitive dissonance: on the one hand, they see in their everyday lives how inequality is increasing, yet they continue to tell themselves that the same House that got us here is the one that's going to save us from it.
6
The trouble with the rich is that they are prisoners of greed and they are never happy with what they have. They want what you have and think it is theirs for the taking.
1
Inequality does not turn on a dime. It turns by generations. Unfortunately my generation did not do enough. Much of the problem has little to do with insufficient funding, but rather insufficient control over how the money was used and making adjustments accordinglly.
This is largely due to Citizens United and Gerrymandering. Citizens United allowed politicans to ignore drawing up districts that made the most sense geographically and instead carve up voting districts to provide the best opportunity for a party to win a district.
Once the district was gerrymandered policians could ignore what was best for a specific geographic area and instead focus on raising money to retain power.
6
Bloomberg ushered in the REBNY takeover of the city. The developers didn't need all the tax breaks. We didn't have to let the developers rewrite the zoning code. We didn't need all the hotels (and Airbnb) and chain stores. Piede-a-terres have contributed to the decrease of housing supply. Bloomberg remade the city for oligarchs, corporations and tourists. And the magic of the city has eroded, making it more suburban, more like the rest of America "New Yorkers" used to scoff at, but now seem to have embraced.
20
If you would like to see what a city looks like without the leadership of a Bloomberg, come to Los Angeles. Try to avoid tripping over a homeless person. NIMBYism is the order of the day making significant rezoning out of the question.
5
Oh, here we go again...implying that the President of the United States can implement reform, enact legislation, fund programs, change the status quo, etc. Why can't we focus on how a candidate might get things done? Who will bring the best people in to serve? Who will conduct effective foreign policy? Who will fix our broken tax code? Who will listen to opposing viewpoints? Who will put education first?
Anyone who says they will fix healthcare (what about our shortages of medicines?), provide free college tuition, end homelessness, is blowing hot air...The House and the Senate will need to enact legislation...Asking candidates how they are going to get their agenda passed does not produce the sound bites media is after - I am voting for the person who can bring the best, brightest and most diverse minds to bear on our problems, not the person who has made no mistakes or whose ideology exactly matches mine.
12
Let’s come back to reality shall we. I moved here in 99. I lived in the east village when people felt Avenue A was sketchy. The city was changing in a positive way. The end of 2000 I moved to Brooklyn. At this point no one wanted to visit me in brooklyn. 9/11 happens a recession kicks in. 2002 Bloomberg takes over. I watched a city completely transform during his 3 terms. The safety continued with safety comes business, then came more jobs, then came parks, 311, a new subway line, the Highline and a mass rebranding of brooklyn. The film industry exploded. Everyone wanted to move here and every summer I was slammed working for foreigners that wanted Nyc as part of their campaign's. Those that owned property (this includes small landlords and individuals) saw their property values in the outer boroughs sky rocket because this become the most popular city in the world. Did it become more expensive yes. That’s precisely what happens with supply and demand. Yes that proves a massive challenge for the poor. The nycha argument in this article is also not fully true. Debalsio was too ignoring the nycha until the federal gvt stepped in. It’s still a massive problem which leads me to believe corruption is at play. Anyone that understands construction in this city knows there’s massive corruption. The hands go straight into the unions pockets. That’s one of the reasons the nycha isn’t being fixed.
22
The accelerating gap of inequality is indeed a concern that needs to be addressed. It's not the the goal (what), but the methods (how), that people would beg to differ on.
Most in the progressive, far-left camp would blame it on gentrification as the outward sign as social ill and unfairness. But I'd say this: Most (if not all) people would argue against gentrification *IF* they can enjoy it too. And therein lies the convergence of the "how". No one could (or would) argue to keep a place that's high in crime (for example), just so that it continues to remain affordable for the low-income communities. The real question is, how to bring about the benefits from gentrification while still making it affordable?
The solution in America has always market-driven, expecting developers to build mixed-income of market-rate and "affordable" ones. Solution like this will *always* push the properties market ever high; afterall, developers are here to make profits, they are not building for charity. Rent control might benefit some, but ultimately it'll motivate strategy like re-development, in pursuit of profits.
Look at other countries like Singapore, where they have excellent low-cost public housing that is well-managed by government. Yet, in US, we have failed housing projects, one after another, like Cabrini-Green (that had to be demolished eventually). If anyone should care, don't look to markets to solve the problem, it is that, "why can't we do public housing better?"
3
@tiddle
OK tiddle, since you've used the term "far left" to describe some members of the American political mainstream, please name at least four American politicians or opinion leaders who are moderate left. I'll be checking back for an answer.
Growing inequality is a global phenomenon. Trends in NYC and America for that matter simply reflect that. Rich people can tap into global wealth in a way not dreamed of 30 years ago. We can and should demand more from the top 1 percent to solidify our safety net, improve education and health care, but outright cries for redistribution simply won’t work, and won’t help anyone in the long run. Let’s focus more on the quality of life of the middle class and poor, and stop obsessing over how many billionaires there are and how much profits corporations make. We can ensure that they pay their fair share, but also recognize that policies need to help keep the pie growing. As the saying goes, eventually you run out of other people’s money.
5
During the di Blasio years, a number of major problems affecting the poor and middle class in NYC have become crises. Public housing, lack of affordable rentals, the subway, the homeless, and education. All of these issues had been festering for years, and were neglected (with the exception of the schools) during Bloomberg's 12 years as mayor. Meanwhile ultra-expensive condos, many owned by rich absentee investors in Asia and the M.E., kept growing higher and higher south of Central Park.
The rich got richer and everyone else - well not so much.
Mike Bloomberg is infinitely smarter and more principled than Trump, and would be a very capable president. But Democrats need to know what they're getting. He'll do right on climate change, gun control, and women's reproductive rights. He'll try to expand health insurance. All while giving the business class a feeling that one of their own is in charge. Just don't expect income inequality, the second greatest problem after climate change, to improve.
9
As a property owner in the East New York section of Brooklyn, I can tell you unequivocally that he crippled the small landlord. Water, sewer and property taxes saw double digit increases yearly during the Bloomberg. He really hurt the poor and disenfranchised during his tenure as his rich elite friends in Manhattan got tax breaks and incentives. And since the press in NY is Manhattan centric, the poor neighborhoods get and got ignored. Just look at the number as they don’t lie.
26
@Unbelievable not a very smart property owner either. Your bet worth doubled or tripled under Bloomberg and that now spread to East NY under debalsio. Your taxes went up because you’re not worth a darn fortune. If you can’t afford it sell it cash out and move to another city and retire forever. Cry me a river.
1
Gee. An actually successful businessman, an honest politician, a legacy of building.
Who would think he might be more desirable than the bankrupt, amoral, destructive current occupant?
Certainly not Putin.
10
Michael Bloomberg will win cities like San Francisco, Philadelphia, New York, Boston and other liberal places but unlikely rural and middle America. He is just too liberal for these people.
1
Evidently he's not liberal enough for progressives.
6
As if the mayor of a city - NYC included - has his hands on the wheel of who gets what. Liberals fantasize about a world where government makes the economy go.
2
Michael Bloomberg flies around in his private plane while preaching to us about climate change. He bought his third term as mayor which angered many New Yorkers. He has no charisma and lacks personality. He is unlikely to win the presidential nomination less alone the presidency especially against President Trump. Little Michael (President Trump's nickname for him) will not win over our president. Mr. Bloomberg will lose all the debates he engages in with him also. That is President Trump's ace card.
12
Who cares about winning over a Trump. He wasn’t perfect, but overall he was a great mayor.
3
@KMW nope you are dead wrong. The billionaire worth 8x more than trump with a philanthropic network that gives away billions a year will make trump look like a huge oaf. You want a boring no drama cannidate to co against trump. His greatest weakness is that half of his voters like his policy but not his personality. If you put someone in that’s competent that will pay off the debt and keep the economy strong the on their fence republicans will vote for Bloomberg
3
@KMW agreed
A number comes to mind when I think of Mike Bloomberg: 680,000. That's how many stop-and-frisks were performed in only one year at the policy's height. He never admitted the measure was discriminatory and wrong, and he only stopped it after a court found it illegal. Those countless hostile police contacts alienated black and hispanic youths beyond measure. After the policy ended, street crime statistics continued to drop. Bloomberg was the mayor of stop-and-frisk.
Black voters swing the Democratic nomination. No Democrat can win the nomination, much less become president, without them. That's why Bloomberg will never be the Democratic nominee.
12
On Bloomberg and the rich : View from France
Macron , in France, has patiently explained to his electorate that in order for everyone's piece of the pie to increase, the pie itself has to get bigger. And to so requires to work constructively with the rich, as they own the capital needed. Driving capital away, he stated, is not constructive - it will just move where it is welcome more.
Whatever you think about this theory - and Macrons's elimination of the wealth tax to keep capital in France :
France under Macron approach has made economic progress , unemployment is down and the GDP is growing
As has NYC under Bloomberg
7
@Woof
I live in France. Macron's néolibéral policies favor the wealthy at the expense of the average worker. Income inequality has soared in France; this was once unimaginable. The Gilettes Jaune movement is in direct response to the fraying of France’s social and economic fabric. Like Bloomberg, Macron thumbs his nose at the working classes. By the way, I lived in NYC during half of Bloomberg's reign and saw firsthand what his policies did to many poor and working class communities. He made NYC great for the upper middle class and the rich — no doubt about that.
10
The economy rebounded under Bloomberg because he diversified the economy and fostered entrepreneurship
3
@les bleus
At the time that both Trump and Macron won their respective presidential elections, I was happy for the French because they'd dodged a bullet and defeated a fascist. I'm still glad that Marine Le Pen was defeated, but it's still true that Trump, Macron, and Bloomberg were all business leaders without previous political or military experience. From what I hear now, it seems that Le Pen and Trump are the fascists, Macron and Bloomberg the neoliberals. Beware of a race between a fascist and a neoliberal.
Some need to understand that Bloomberg was really a wolf in sheep's clothing when it came to everyone outside the elite. He was known constantly for snubbing them while giving the rich some of the biggest tax breaks the city had. He even made it even harder for middle class people to live outside of the main area by pushing the gentrification wave to pretty much the entire city. Let's not forget that he was known for constantly snubbing the public sector by claiming that there was little to no money to help them while at the same time there seemed to be plenty whenever it came to his pet projects and rich buddies. Let's never forget how he tried to make a push for congestion pricing, which even to this day is hardly opposed yet anti-car fanatics still continued pushing for it and even being relentless. More importantly, he wanted to repeal term limits so that he could get another term. If he had his way, he would claim that he should be mayor for life. BTW, the only reason he won his other terms so easily was mainly because the networks hardly ever showed what his opponents had to say hence making them feel faceless to many. Another thing was that he had a history of only addressing problems after creating them in the first place and then blaming everyone but himself for them hence the Bloomberg Way, which was to get what he wanted. Overall, this man doesn't deserve to be president and his was sort of like Trump for having no political experience before being mayor.
23
@Tal Barzilai As a NYC resident who takes the bus and subway to work , I would love, love to see more cars off the road. We would all get around so much faster.
10
@PhillyExPat
I take it that since you don't drive on a regular basis, you're okay with pricing those that do, which comes at no surprise to me. Even to this day, congestion pricing is still highly opposed yet fanatics such as yourself continue to make a relentless push for it despite that. Maybe it should have been a ballot measure, but I have a feeling that you wouldn't like that if that would mean that it could easily be struck down by votes since you probably know that the majority is probably against it just like how Air BnB lost in Jersey City when voters wanted regulations on short term rentals to not include them. If this was really about having less cars on the roads, there are ways to help them rather than having them feel punished through congestion pricing or closing off certain streets to them, and it can include these things to help them, because as long as they have little to viable alternatives, they will always resort to driving as a result.
1. Getting better travel times wit commuter trains and buses throughout the day and not just during peak hours.
2. Having express buses to and from Manhattan also available throughout the day.
3. Possibly allowing for free transfers between commuter and city transit so that riders using them won't feel as if they have to pay two or three fares.
4. Getting the MTA to build the rest of the IND 2nd System and Triboro RX they were supposed to build decades ago to help the transit deserts that don't have them.
3
@Tal Barzilai
So PhillyExPat wants to see more cars off the road. Is that enough to make him or her a fanatic?
Having totally destroyed their own party, the Republicans have now decided that they can turn their "magic" on the Democrats. No thanks.
18
@theresa IMHO, Bloomberg is a plant to pull down the Democrats. I usually don’t believe in conspiracies, but this looks like a plant, swims like a plant, quacks like a plant, then it probably is a plant. If he had entered at the start, then I would not be thinking this way. Hope he gets quashed immediately.
7
He "tried to improve the public schools." Did he do that by appointing Cathie Black, who knew less than Betsy DeVos, as Chancellor? Did he do it by breaking up comprehensive high schools (which offered clubs, teams and departments with chairpersons) and replacing them with smaller high schools manned by novice principals and teachers? Did he do it by resorting to Fair Student Funding. a euphemism for creating budgets that discriminated against the most experienced teachers? Did he do it by squandering almost $1 billion on the fraudulent CityTime Computer System? Did he do it by using phony data to make he and his administration look good? Lastly, did he do it by favoring grifters like Eva Moskowitz and her charter school network while causing great damage to the last egalitarian institution in this country- public education? This presidential run is all about vanity, arrogance and preserving the plutocracy. Maybe, dictating that size of our sodas is another motivating factor, something the nanny-state mayor did not get away with.
26
I am sure we all remember when he claimed there is no funding to fix potholes in BX but can magically find 1 billion in tax incentives for his pal George Steinbrenner new trophy Yankees Stadium.
28
@morGan those tax incentives already exist and are put aside for any company that qualifies to use the tax credit. Please start reading about how this works.
Mike Bloomberg was the mayor for the 1%. He ran and served as a Republican. Just another billionaire with a gigantic ego and a sense of entitlement.
29
People are no longer able to afford to live in New York and Bloomberg played a big part of that. I think Bloomberg gentrified the city and a lot of city residents loathe Bloomberg for that. But! We dislike Trump more.
24
Who in NY prospered under Bloomberg besides real estate tycoons?
The average person is probably worse off. Not to mention the Black and Latinos in general.
30
@Blunt I did. Anyone that worked in film tv or media did. I was so slammed every summer because every foreign brand fell in love with Nyc. My company exploded. Many others did too which leads me to believe you weren’t paying attention to your own city. Or that you haven’t lived here long enough to remember pre Bloomberg. That’s a shame.
4
@Blunt I'm Latina and have done very well, thank you. And btw, my roots are immigrant and working class. Guess my parents brought me up to believe in myself and to have dreams.
4
“Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
— Lord Acton, 1887
Substitute “wealth” for “power” into Lord Acton’s often quoted adage and the result is equally true.
Michael Bloomberg instituted none of the innumerable flaws in America’s current version of capitalism.
From a humanitarian viewpoint, the twisted nature of our economic system victimizes all of us, rich and poor and folks in the middle.
If you have a longterm acquaintance who’s gained significant wealth during their life, did you notice the effect that the acquisition of lots of money had on their character and behavior? On their values and beliefs?
Were they made a better man or woman?
Having a qualified former big-city mayor throw his hat in the ring (if Mike does) for the Democratic presidential nomination might be a very good turn of events. However, the fact that Mayor Bloomberg has a net worth of fifty-two billion dollars is seriously problematic.
A “good faith” gesture to insure the country of his sincere desire to serve the nation as an honest, untarnished president would be for Bloomberg to dispose of nearly all of his vast fortune in some manner that benefits ALL Americans.
To a significant degree, this would not only level the playing field, it would set an example for other billionaires.
5
Bloomberg is asking us to another New York City billionaire businessman as POTUS (this time a genuine billionaire plutocrat turned politician and not a millionaire grifter pretending to be one). What could possibly go wrong? This guy started off as a Republican and now claims to be a Moderate Democrat (GOP Lite). A predator can't change his stripes he is no friend of labor or the common woman or man.
Bloomberg is a plutocrat and a Member of the Wall Street one percent. He like Bill Gates and the other Billionaires are scared to Death we will elect Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (they will work together) and abolish billionaires and that is what we are going to do. Like the old Union song goes "which side are you on?"
Join "Our Revolution" and bring democratic socialism to the United States! Bernie Sanders is a native New Yorker we can trust. Bernie and Elizabeth will make Mike Bloomberg a former billionaire as well as a former Republican!
27
A lot of us, Democrats and independent, would prefer not to to live in the socialist nirvana that you seem to want- with the government running health care and blowing up health insurance companies, determining what is and isn’t hate speech, precipitously increasing taxes, etc. If the Dems select Warren or Bernie as their nominee, we will have 4 more years of Trump and then 8 years of Pence. People like me, who never voted Republican, will sit out the election. You don’t solve one problem by creating a host of new ones.
11
@Richard From Massachusetts Neither Bloomberg nor Gates are Wall Street. They are technologists and entrepreneurs who pioneered innovative ideas and succeeded. That makes them leaders! I like independently wealthy candidates who are no beholden to any special interests.
10
@mary benson There is not now and never will be any candidate who is not "beholden" to any special interest group. The independent without any obligations to certain groups/interests is a persistent myth in American electoral politics. Money contributions are not the only power levers.
7
Trump is a billionaire so that would put Bloomberg at a disadvantage. Obama was not a billionaire and came from a middle class family and that got him elected, in my opinion.
I don't know anything about Bloomberg except for reading about when he flew, in his private jet, to Queenstown NZ, in winter, and the weather was so bad he more or less said he hated the place and got straight back on his jet and flew somewhere else. He sounds a bit like Trump - not very tactful.
4
@CK NZ? And your are interested in the US elections? Well, here is something to help you learn about the Americans running for US president: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/08/business/bloomberg-wealth/index.html
@CK Obama did NOT come from a middle-class family. He was reared by his grandparents and attended Honolulu's very elite Punahou School (think Andover, albeit non-boarding). Grandmother was a Bank of Hawaii vice president. Obama and his family now live in a very elite residential area of Washington, Kalorama. and just purchased an oceanfront estate on Martha's Vineyard.
2
@Washington Reader
OK, so he's merely rich, not superrich.
Bloomberg does not believe in democracy, because, like Trump, his wealth has made him all knowing, all wise, witness his purchase of an illegal third term.
Eventually, it will come out that the one who was most active in enticing Jeff Bezos to come to LIC was fellow billionaire Bloomberg; Cuomo and de Blasio were just sitting at the kiddies table while negotiations went on between Bloomberg, Bezos, and NYC's real estate goniffs. His developer cronies had been preparing the landing pad for the Amazon mother ship for years in participation. LIC is also situated right across from Bloomberg's tech center on Roosevelt Island. It also helps explain de Blasio's otherwise boneheaded, billion dollar streetcar line to nowhere, along the Brooklyn/Queens waterfront, apparently serving no useful purpose. Had Amazon moved in, it would have been tailor made to transport its workers from Bloomberg's luxury condos along the Brooklyn waterfront to Amazon HQ.
7
Amazon, the condos and the street car line.. All of which have made for a better NYC. The only people opposed are those that are threatened by prosperity. Typically with a sinecure like a muni pension or a stabilized apartment.
4
@stan continople and that would have been awesome considering this city is now going bankrupt and now Medicaid and Medicare are basically unfounded early 2020 becuase it’s over budget by billions. People like you don’t understand how money works. The rich pay almost half the taxes here (payroll property) and those taxes directly affect the poors programs. Even with tax credits amazon would have brought in billions of dollars in tax revenue and while all the rich leave you’re going to see all the taxes go up. Well done!
2
Whoever becomes the Democratic candidate, he or she should have SPECIFIC infrastructure plans for each and every state - e.g., bridges in Michigan, repairing roads in Wisconsin, replacing utility poles with underground conduits in WV, etc, with the warning that elected Senate Republicans will not approve any. Will it happen ? Doubtful. DNC researchers are taking naps.
3
Here's what's sure to make the country a better place, not to mention enthusiastically bring out the voters in PA, MI, WI, etc. - two NYC billionaires fighting for the ability to make the world safer for billionaires from the White House. Rule by oligarchs - what could do more to deal with issues of environment and climate change, inequality etc.?
3
This Times story is breathtaking in its myopia. It focuses on two sides of Bloomberg's record: affordable housing vs gentrification. In 50 years from now, Bloomberg will be remembered for pushing completion of Water Tunnel #3, which languished for decades, and for helping establish the Roosevelt Island tech center under Cornell and Israel's Technion, which, with Columbia' new Morningside campus, (1) makes NYC truly competitive with California for future hitech and biotech jobs while (2) helps diversify the city's economy away from Wall Street. As for housing, for a mayor who is criticized for not caring enough about affordable housing, his record of 165,000 (over 12 years) is pretty good, considering how economically devastated the city was post 911 when he took office. Da Blasio has built/preserved 122,00 in 7 years, but has had the benefit of a strong local economy and tax base, both arguably nurtured by Bloomberg. As a society, we will never be able to do everything required to fix inequality, just like we can never say how high is 'up'. But without a strong tax base, nothing happens -- not better schools, affordable housing, social programs, safer streets. You can either raise taxes repeatedly or broaden the tax base. Bloomberg chose the latter and succeeded. Still, I do not believe he could ever be elected President, but not because of his record as mayor.
6
@Mel Laytner thank you for explaining how money works. I’m always shocked how little the public understands this.
2
Bloomberg refused for ten years to acknowledge that there was a cause and effect relationship between the toxins at Ground Zero and the illnesses that resulted. It took the federal government to provide medical care and compensation for the 90,000 ill New Yorkers. And at the end of his third term — which he essentially brought— every major Union was without a contract for their workers and it’s those same workers — the police, the firefighters, the teachers etc.., — who helped turn the City around and who stepped up in the City’s darkest days after 9/11 and who now can’t afford to live in the City. What would Bloomberg bring to the Federal government? A nationwide stop and frisk policing program? A Hudson Yard in every city?
16
@Tom Ryan let me explain how science works. There’s correlation and causation. It takes years to establish causation. That’s what that was. He did in fact rebuild this city during 9/11. He went to the federal gvt WITH CLINTON to get federal money for Nyc to take care of those during 9/11. This was federal this was a terrorist attack. That’s something you go to the federal gvt for help. He didn’t have union contracts because if you haven’t noticed the unions here are fully corrupt which in fact harms it’s members. In fact we’re having this problem with the homeless. The construction unions want wages the city can no longer afford because right now it’s going broke. It is the job of a politician to ensure tax payers don’t get ripped off. What would he bring? Efficiency, accountability, modernization the three very things that we absolutely are lacking in our gvt. Have you used 311? That’s Bloomberg.
1
I like Bloomberg. He’s knows how to govern to maximize opportunity. And like the article says he’s in tune with the middle class.
5
@Kevin The middle class that makes $500K.
1
"Bloomberg’s New York Prospered, Inequality Flourished Too"
The part of "Bloomberg’s New York [that] prospered" were the uber-rich, real estate developers (including cronies like the Speyers and Ratner (who always seemed to get "great" deals which allowed them to renege on any commitment to build affordable housing en exchange), Wall Street, and investment bankers.
Pretty much anyone and everyone who was NOT rich saw their lives become harder, harsher, and so expensive that many could no longer afford to live a city that'd called home for 20,30, or 40 years!
Basically the so-called "middle class," the "blue-collar working class," and the working poor all became WORSE off during Bloomberg's 12 long years as mayor (including the last 4 where be blatantly circumvented NYC's two-term limit on the mayor's term. Even Guiliani backed away from that profoundly anti-democracy idea after flaoting in in 2001.
"Rising income inequality" is really a euphemistic term for way the incomes of the rich soared in those 12 years, while those of the middle-class stagnated or fell, along with those of the working class and the poor. Essentially the same as they have in Trump's time in office!
Bloomberg has long evinced the SAME disdain for all the "losers" and "complainers!
11
Inequality is a global problem. To suggest it is somehow Bloomberg's fault is absurd.
He didn't want a tax cut, he supports an estate tax, and he is giving 90% of his wealth to charity.
The U.S. would be so lucky as to have this gifted, smart, and PROGRESSIVE person as president.
Bloomberg 2020!
8
Bloomberg came on and took on the near impossible task of saving a dystopian "escale from" NYC, just as Tony Williams did the same in 2000 to save DC. Both mayors did the impossible and deserve endless praise, even though the job is not finished in either city.
4
The crime rate went down drastically on the lower east side of Manhattan under both Guliani and Bloomberg. The middle income coop apartments sales prices whent up dramatically.
1
I like Mayor Bloomberg and believe he would be infinitely better than Trump. Any and every Democratic candidate would.
But Democrats need to pick the best candidate for all Americans.
Politicians in America are running scared of the Electoral College boogyman.
The Electoral College can be neutralized before it is eliminated - giving one person one vote as appropriate.
The GOP-Russian alliance illegitimately elected a man despite a 3 million popular vote deficit by manipulating a bare win of 72,000 votes in the Electoral College.
In 2016 the GOP-Russian alliance stole psychographic data profiles from Facebook and triggered just enough voters in purple states to swing the results of the Electoral College.
In 2020, if Democrats are unarmed and not tactical, Trump could lose by 5 million popular votes and still win the Electoral College.
This cannot happen.
In America, artificial intelligence techniques like machine learning and neural networks can take unstructured social media and other data to build the same psychographic profiles without stealing or working with a foreign entity.
This allows the same targeting of red, blue and purple voters who would go blue - and there are more of them.
Electoral votes of each state are roughly proportionate to their populations. Offsetting Electoral College manipulation with sophisticated AI techniques will neutralize the foreign enemy attacks.
Think tactically and kill the illegal Florida poll tax.
3
The first two questions that Bloomberg must answer are what policies will he propose as to decreasing inequality for all of the rest of us, and decreasing the GOP's runaway deficit after their passage of the 2017 tax act which solely benefitted the wealthy and corporate America , which caused these two problems, without fleecing the rest of us who have been disadvantaged thereby.
2
Was never a fan of Bloomberg, and as many commenters here state, he did not help the working class at all. He did make the city a playground for the rich. But....despite my feelings I would vote for him over trump, I will vote for anyone over trump. Another four years of that nightmare, and this country is down the tubes.
7
@eddie please don’t vote. Those that don’t actually read and digest policy but vote on emotions are not only ignorant but pose an actual threat to others. Anyone that says they will vote for anyone except x speaks volumes about themselves as a person.
@Location01 Voting is the right of every citizen To tell someone not to vote for reasons that don't meet your standard based upon what you define as "emotions" is what you are doing in your reply to Eddie. For the volumes of people who do not vote, are disinterested, disenfranchised, etc. anyone who votes can figure it out and cast their ballot for the individual of their choice for their stated or unstated reasons. I would think such a comment might apply more accurately to Trump who from what has been shared by his WH aides does not read and does not digest policy and has posed himself as an actual threat to others and demonstrated such throughout his tenure in office to date. Isn't that how he has reigned in the GOP as well as maintained his so-called base?
1
Maybe he is a wolf in sheep's clothing and just in the race to divide and weaken the voting system so the wrong person gets elected to represent the Democrats in the next USA election. Or maybe he's entering the race because Republican policies are affecting his business income. Do some factual research by getting copies of his current income and how trumps policies are affecting his business deals and profits to get to the bottom of why he is entering the Presidential race.
1
Bloomberg favored the big real estate developers and initiated rezoning that led to new, high-rent housing throughout the city, eliminating small retail businesses and important neighborhood services. Bloomberg still champions his thoroughly unconstitutional stop and frisk program, which basically amounted to a police occupatiion of low income neighborhoods. Bloomberg ignored the two-term limit on serving as mayor, just like a tinpot dictator would. Bloomberg destroyed the city's high schools. Bloomberg tried to destroy the midtown West Side by erecting a football stadium there. Bloomberg left the city nearly every weekend so he could play golf in Bermuda.
Bloomberg's primary ideological support always came from the racist, classist, exclusionary Manhattan Institute, whose fondest dream is to recrearte the exclusionary city of the 1950s. Bloomberg perfectly fits the profile of an old-fashioned Republican of the Eisenhower era. But he doesn't have the guts to challenge Trump in a primary. Instead, he wants to see if he can pollute the Democratic party.
11
@Alley
1950's, you say? That was when those of modest means coud afford to live here! Even comfortably!
Mike Bloomberg was no friend to labor while he was New York City's mayor. He often forced unions to work years without a contract by offering little or nothing initially and waiting years before entering into serious negotiations which always demanded "give-backs" from the workers. No wonder so many conservatives are anxious to have him enter the race for the Democratic nominee.
10
@Grandpa Bob no one can force a union to work without a contract. Unions (unlike everyone else) have the option of striking. If they choose not to, that is their call.
2
@Jeffrey New York State has the Taylor Law which severely punishes unions and their members who go on strike as the transit workers union, TWU found out during Bloomberg's administration. No municipal unions can't legally strike in New York State.
8
@Jeffrey Sure, public employee unions in New York State can strike, Jeffrey. So long as they're willing to pay the enormous fines the law mandates when they do.
3
Bloomberg attacked public schools.
Bloomberg claimed to be about 'data.' The data says that after parent income and parent education level, the most important indicator of student success is teacher experience. Bloomberg attacked experienced teachers.
One of the first things that Bloomberg did was to change school budgeting, so that instead of a school getting budgeted for a certain number of teachers depending on its population, it got a lump sum to spend on teachers. This means that instead of a school trying to keep experienced teachers as they did under the old system, they could get rid of a high paid experienced teacher and hire two inexperienced teachers.
Soon after they did this, there was a surge of experienced teachers getting written up and removed from the classroom, and over half of the teachers in the "rubber room" were making top pay.
This lowered the experience level of the teaching staff, against the advice of the very data that Bloomberg claimed was so important.
Then, Bloomberg decided that he could weaken the teacher's union by having a bunch of teachers without classes to teach. So he hired more teachers than we needed and had the extra ones floating from school to school, then blamed the unions for it.
Bloomberg was also closing 100 schools every year for years, many replaced by charters.
This firestorm of media coverage of Bloomberg for filing one form in Alabama just proves that corporate media is owned by, for, and of, billionaires to promote them.
30
@McGloin, Bloomberg not only attacked teachers, but parents and children as well. Let's not forget that he brought Klein in as chancellor with his business perspective of creating crisis and chaos in the schools to shake up the status quo, as if our children were widgets to be produced who would not be affected.
I will never forget his words to parents who, after 9/11, wanted our children to be able to have cellphones in their backpacks in case of emergency. "They just want to be able to call home to find out if there's chicken or fish for dinner." My 14-year-old daughter was evacuated on her 4th day of high school a few blocks from ground zero and told to "walk north." A Brooklynite, she had no idea where she was, and neither did we, for hours. Bloomberg is a cruel, elitist, and patronizing man who, like our current president, thinks he knows better than anyone and does not listen to us peasants.
16
He didn’t give you a contract when your union refused to bargain in good faith. He recognized the good results being generated in the charter schools, which in NYC are non-profit. For both those reasons he’s abhorred by teachers but appreciated by the thinking public.
I might add that de Blasios positions are just the opposite. And he is adored by teachers but... well you know where I’m going.
3
@GC As a NYC public school teacher who retired during Dr Blasio's mayoralty, I can assure you that much of the UFT rank and file are extremely displeased by the mayor's lack of support for teachers facing of harassment from administrators empowered to do so beginning during Bloomberg's regime. Teachers got an financially acceptable contract under DeBlasio after Bloomberg left it expired for over four years, but there no rolling back of administrative hostility which commenced under Klein.
6
Bloombergs choice to enter the race is right on target. I liked Warren but she moved to far with fantastical plans for Healthcare and free college plans that would only serve to undermine more centrist appeal later. The same can be said for Biden. He'll be toxic by the time he runs against trump.. Bloomberg has the power and money to be a true centrist and not need money from big donors, another limitation the candidates face. Democrat voters don't want big money influence. Only Bloomberg can offer that.
11
@Art
It's interesting when supposed Americans hate this country so much that they are saying exactly what right wing John Birch Society Republicans said when Harry S. Truman said he was going to offer Medicare to senior citizens.
They said Harry S. Truman was an evil Comfmie and he needed to be defeated so that senior citizens never had Medicare.
Do YOU wish Truman had been defeated so that Medicare wouldn't exist? I bet you do.
If you hate Harry S. Truman, vote for Bloomberg and make the people who tried to stop Medicare for senior citizen very happy.
Why do Republicans hate America so much?
3
@RJ you have no idea what you’re actually saying. If the only system is Medicaid and Medicare every hospital in America and every nursing home will in fact go bankrupt. The payout rates in sanders plan are 40 percent less. Hospitals cannot run under these margins, the unions will take big pay cuts and we will in fact go broke. It scares me how little the average American understands about healthcare. The private companies that all of us hate are in fact subsidizing the wages of these hospital workers and keeps their doors open. Your doctor cannot run on the Medicare for all payouts and now Bloomberg is running to show you this.
There are at least TWO persons I will not/do not vote for:
First is JUDGES. Judges should NOT be elected by a party-driven process but submit their names (or have them submitted) for consideration by a panel of independent lawyers, retired judges, legal scholars & ordinary citizens. Panel members should be anonymous, not selected by political party. Law students should select a track to pursue when starting law school: Either plan to become professional attorneys with clients or plan to become judges. Once they graduate, those from the judge track will apply for civil service status of new judges-in-training & do an apprenticeship of 5 years. They will have employment for as many years as they re-certify by test, demeanor, & trial work to remain in office.
Second is OLIGARCHS - from any party & especially those without any training in political science, government &/or law. They need not be lawyers. But their money &/or their status as business owners should not be what qualifies them to run for office. Such candidates should have studied the US Constitution, been elected or non-elected participants in government or government-related organizations such as local legislative councils or community boards, with enough experience to understand governmental administration. While Bloomberg was mayor for 12 years, he had to learn on the job.
I don't expect someone off the street with a big bankroll to be my MD. Or my president.
17
Only Democrats could come up with the new self defeatist solution, lining up for a firing squad but the chairs are all arranged in a circle.
The GOP never does this and that's why we might suffer 4 more yers of pure hell.
Wake up Bernie Bros.
3
It is called a circular firing squad. And the Republican primary process in 2018 was such a sweet love fest. Laughter.
1
The mayor has relatively little impact on the local economy. NYC's economy reflects the national economy. We do need to address income inequality--but blaming Bloomberg for this situation in New York defies logic. It should be noted that Bloomberg worked his way into being a billionaire. He didn't inherit it. He also has a record of public service. Trump didn't--to state the obvious. Most importantly, it's time to realize that the solution isn't to "give a man a fish" but to "teach a man to fish". The impact of money spent on education is huge. See "As the Future Catches You": https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/46700/as-the-future-catches-you-by-juan-enriquez/9781400047741/. The author notes the dramatic impact on the economy of Taiwan spending on educaton and Mexico's not spending.
4
Reading these comments, it seems that Bloomberg got some big things right and others wrong. He may not be the perfect Democratic candidate. If Obama was running, I'd vote for Obama.
But, the important thing here is which candidate can beat Trump.
My concern is that Biden is sounding too confused, Warren and Bernie too radical and Buttigieg insufficiently experienced.
So, I'm looking for an alternative.
Can Bloomberg win the swing states? Will they accept a 77 year old Jewish former NYC mayor? I'm thinking they might. So, I'm going to be taking a careful look at Bloomberg.
18
After my beloved hometown of Chicago, New York City is my second most favorite American city.
I love Harlem, Bed- Sty and the Bronx. Some of Queens. None of Staten Island but the ferry. I love the museums, theaters and zoos. I love the sights, sounds, smells of the streets and parks. I love the food and music. I love most of the people. I love the NYT.
But I don't know nor care for Michael Bloomberg nor Donald Trump nor Al Sharpton nor Chiuck Schumer nor Anthony Weiner nor Hakeem Jefferies nor NYPD nor the NYC subway nor NYC automobile drivers nor Fox News nor WSJ.
4
Bloomberg is for developers over people. Don’t need public transport; have your chauffeur take you. Problem solved! That’s Bloomberg!
12
I’m no Bloomberg fan and don’t think he should be running for President as an out-of-touch billionaire. In his defense, however, he did take the subway while mayor. He also didn’t live I Gracie Mansion nor take a salary.
3
@Nancy G. I understand he took a limo from his East 79th Street townhouse to the 77th Street subway stop. And I love Gracie Mansion, a beautiful and historic building which is the city's gift to a mayor. I was really offended when Bloomberg turned up his nose at it. However, I understand that as it's city property, you can't use it for political fund-raising parties. That may well be an important reason for Mr. Bloomberg's decision to live elsewhere. Do you suppose he would turn up his nose at the White House, too?
2
@Nancy G. Bloomberg’s choice of residence wasn’t out of principle or for the public good. He lived in his own 5-(?) story Gilded Age townhouse off 5th Ave. As for salary, what’s ~$200k when you’re worth $20 billion (circa 2000s)? That’s 0.00001%.
Spare me.
1
When Bloomberg was a mayor, NYC was safe. Let that sink for a bit
10
Joel Kline, Cathie Black, Dennis Walcott those were the worst picks made by Mayor Mike. Kline went on a spending spree with tax payers money for Charter schools. All that did was pull money from public schools. Kline and Bloomberg made division between principles and teachers. Parental say was blocked and students suffered. Then came Cathie Black
Completely unqualified. Black required a waiver to replace Klein, as she did not possess the education administration experience required by New York State's Education Department. But that was fine with
Mayor Mike. She only lasted 93 days before she quit.
Then came Walcott, another unqualified soul. He too needed a waiver to get the job. Walcott was greatly disliked by teacher and parents. He cut funds. Administered a Byzantine system where no one took responsibility, and where superintendents never met with principles, teachers and parents. Students suffered. Even worse during those years was a drug problem and student sexual harassment which was epidemic. All said Bloomberg was the worst mayor for NYC education. I know. I was there. My children were in the system. We even had to go to court to get justice and we did and we won. Bloomberg is a republican and like a republican he could careless about students and their public education.
13
@Sendan
How was Bloomberg's choice of Cathie Black any better than Trump's of Betsy DeVos? Black's only qualification, they both attended the same cocktail parties. Bloomberg likes to pretend he's a data-driven technocrat, which only means he can produce some numbers when he needs to; otherwise, he's a crony capitalist of the first degree who rules by his divinely inspired wisdom, or "gut" as Trump would style it.
2
I’m not a big fan of Michael Bloomberg, but compared to the current incumbent mayor’s administration, the City was well run and livable during the twelve years Bloomberg was NYC mayor. The socialist policies of Mayor de Blasio are trending New York back to the cesspool it was back in the 1970’s and 1980’s before being cleaned up by Mayor Giuliani.
21
Leave it to the NYT to point out inequalities in New York.
Masters of the obvious.
7
Is this the type of candidate we need now to oppose Trump?
Under Bloomberg, NYC police were assigned to travel to minority N.hoods to meet Stop & Frisk quotas, but they found little evidence of any crime in the thousands of stops/searches they made.
Mayor Bloomie and Police cmsr Kelly pushed S&F despite criticism from many quarters.
They protested when finally the judge ruled it unconstitutional, against the 4th Amendment.
NYT-- "Departing Judge Offers Blunt Defense of Ruling in Stop-and-Frisk Case" May 2, 2016
6
Remember when Mayor Bloomberg proudly hosted the 2004 Republican National Convention and his police proudly rounded up peaceful protestors (and often innocent bystanders) because Bloomberg believed Republicans like Bush and Cheney should never see anyone peacefully protesting their policies?
Why isn't Bloomberg running in the Republican primary? What a coward -- one who was enabled by the fawning coverage the NY Times gave him despite racist policing which never bothered NY Times editors at all.
Why these fawning profiles that don't ask Bloomberg why the guy who proudly hosted the RNC Convention doesn't run as the Republican he is.
15
@RJ Thank you for reminding me of Bloomberg's unconstitutional roundup of protestors at the RNC, I'd forgotten about that imperial move. Enough of these autocratic billionaires with savior complexes, the Democratic Party is no place for Republican Bloomberg, he of the illegal third mayoral term.
3
@RJ The obsequious NYT coverage is expected; what’s surprising (and disheartening) are the enamored commenters lapping it up.
1
I’m no Bloomberg fan but you need to be fair. The are more inequalities under the current socialist mayor than Bloomberg. Look at any deep blue mega city like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, LA, San Fran, or Seattle. There are more inequalities happening on a daily basis from homelessness, poverty, and crime than anything Bloomberg ever did in NY. Until you can prove the lefts policies work by turning a city around, reduce crime, create jobs, reduce homelessness, and balance budgets we will keep you quarantined to the corrupt metropolitan areas you created.
7
@JOSEPH
Just one year after Mayor Bloomberg finally left office, NYC enacted the universal pre-k that serves nearly 70,000 children each and every year.
Bloomberg said he wanted to give that money to his rich friends to set up charter schools that picked the kids they wanted to teach and dumped the rest.
No thanks. Quit telling NYC residents that our low-crime city that stopped the racist stop and frisk policies of Bloomberg is bad.
6
He destroyed the high schools with his asinine small schools unable to offer the wide variety of programs that once were offered. He blamed the teachers and principals for all the problems in education. But most of all, he felt the term limits law twice passed by the citizens with the help of Ms. Quinn did not apply to him. He doesn't deserve to become POTUS.
16
Interesting you don't mention his stop and frisk policies which he still stands by today. That's not going to go over well with blacks and Latinos.
7
They were effective and like the prior mayor who has since lost his mind, combined they saved 1000s of lives and 10,000s victims.
3
According to this article, Bloomberg ought to be held to a higher standard that Jesus Christ. Who, anywhere, at any time, has been able to eradicate poverty, redistribute wealth away from the rich for the poor, resolve housing shortages, end racism and hunger.
No, Bloomberg isn't perfect. Neither has any President or any leader, for that matter. This article appears preordained to be run on the day the former Mayor decided to join the Presidential race, as if the Times were warning its readers: hold on, despite his achievements, Bloomberg is a human being with failures, and you may want to keep that in mind as you evaluate the candidates.
I'm not a New Yorker, but given the choice between NYC Mayor Bloomberg, and NYC fraud and cheat Trump, I like Mike.
8
@PaulB67
Then put him on the Republican primary ticket vs. Trump, it's where he belongs.
1
"Residents dealt with leaks and mold"? Let there be rags and wrenches!
3
Sure Bloomberg will get criticized, but overall the city of NY under his leadership prospered. NYC isn't shangri la, but compared with Detroit, Chicago, or Los Angeles which have huge problems with gangs and homelessness, NYC is Club Med.
9
What utter hogwash, Prof Moss:
“After the attack, people thought New York had no future,” said Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban policy and planning at N.Y.U. “There was a genuine sense that, ‘Who would want to live in New York, who would want to work in New York, who would want to visit New York?’”
8
Bloomberg is the FACE of inequality.
11
Well, Bloomberg grew up poor. Really poor.
Perhaps he is the FACE of studying hard in school, creating a business from scratch, and giving lots of money away as a rich man.
2
I keep reading in all these NYTimes articles from readers in the comment section...that say the same thing as if they all belong to some Bot club...and that is We "the Democrats" are not going to win doing this .....and then they finish with the Important thing is "We beat Trump" Tell that to Wall Street the economy LOVES TRUMP....Tell it to the people who are now not unemployed/ The Workers LOVE TRUMP....tell it to the people who Voted for him to build a Wall and secure the border...thats Right they Love Him for following thur as Well!
2
I think you mean "thru" but wasn't Mexico going to pay for it?
One can't win the Democratic nomination without the support of African Americans and to a lesser extent Hispanics. After "stop and frisk" Bloomberg will never get that support,therefore he can't win!
5
@Bosox rule
College educated woman are still the swing voters, as they were in 2018, especially Indepenents and center left Repulicans in key states.
Looks like Bloomberg is too far to the right for the NYT.
7
@John
Would that he were.
Wow, what a sadly unbalanced and slanted article!
Yes, Bloomberg prevented our town (NYC) from becoming a low-income slum city that we once saw and experienced in the early 70's, and we should be glad of that.
Yes, Bloomberg focused on business and growth as an income-driving/income-opportunity engine, rather on soak-the-rich (most who aren't so rich) policies and gov't handouts.
And yes, maybe he could have done more in the public housing area, but let's face it, we have other gov't bodies that just fell flat on their faces in this area. So "blame-the-major" game is just a political slander.
Sorry, NYT, you can do better.
10
"Bloomberg's New York" is a disingenuous title. New York did not stop and renew itself as a blank slate when this man took office. I am not a New Yorker and have no vested interests- except for articles like this. This could be an article about any mayor-in any-town. But why the obvious down-ward slant? What is the purpose Upshot?
3
@Candlewick If you've read as many of these readers' letters as I have, you'll perhaps be able to see that as far as most people really familiar with New York are concerned, this article was if anything too favorable. Just to take an obvious example: although the overall focus of the story is on housing and real estate, there is no discussion of what happened to rent controls on Bloomberg's watch, and no discussion of what he or didn't do for the apartments in NYCHA owned by the city... two situations that primarily affected the city's less affluent citizens, and that went from bad to worse.....
3
The NYT and its readers reek of ingratitude and jealousy. Bloomberg (and Guiliani before him) resurrected a dystopian, failing metropolis from decades of liberal mismanagement. Those who prefer squalor to splendor will always choose deBlasio over Bloomberg.
10
He will be ridiculed for some of his health initiatives, such as the prohibition of "Big Gulp" containers of soft drinks. He will be called "Mommy in Chief".
1
He might. But the most important thing to do for people’s health is to improve their diets. Maybe the next step is helping people buy fruits and vegetables, kind of a negative tax. May lead the way like the smoking in restaurants.
Much less control than trying to run a 3T industry from the White House.
Bloomberg made New York City so expensive that he pushed the crime, and the poor, out to places like Islip, Bentwood, Central Islip, Wayndanch, and other traditionally poor Suffolk County hamlets. With it, an opioid epidemic and MS-13 gang murders. But, he did clean up Times Square, and gentrified Harlem, the south Bronx, most of Brooklyn, and made Riker's Island a home fro thousands with "stop and frisk". He empowered the police to go after anyone who did not look white enough. Finally, he made Manhattan a place for the wealthy elite, by loosening rent control, and allowing easier conversion of apartments to condos. Also, the Port Authority and MTA got bloated, and have become inefficient agencies rife with over time and disability scandals. And, the 1%, and himself, amassed wealth.
Bloomberg is another Trump, just people do not realize that yet.
17
Bloomberg priced criminals out of the city.
It’s a viable option.
Here in affordable Chicago, we keep struggling with gangs. Of course, we also have Indiana as our nearby weapons supplier, no questions asked.
10
Who would nominate for the Supreme Court?
Doubtful someone who doesn’t want separation of church and state. Maybe garland, Obama?
Say what you want about Bloomberg but Amazon would never walk away from him in a million years.
10
This is an entire country thing, so why would NYC be any different?
1
Was NY better 6 years ago under Bloomberg or now under DiBlasio?
Did Bloomberg drive a balanced budget, eliminate worldwide second hand smoke, and reduce the crime rate?? Yes
13
Sounds like a bunch of sour grapes - Bloomberg was one of the best mayors NYC has seen. Sure unions will always complain about a mayor that doesn’t cave to their demands and - guess what - he never forced a 3rd term on anyone - New Yorkers voted for him!
As for the ‘tail of two cities ‘ DeBlasio - there we have a mayor who has done nothing except being on the cheerleading squad along with AOC that told Amazon with their sorely needed 25,000 jobs to take a hike.
We need more Bloomberg’s and fewer DeBlasio’s and AOC’s ( yes, and fewer Trumps) to help this city and country.
18
Mr. Bloomberg's tenure as mayor of New York will always be scarred by the devastation he inflicted on the housing market -- a solid supporter of the landlords, Mr. Bloomberg pushed 300 square foot pod apartments for the masses and elderly in retirement while he bought up every one of his neighbors houses on Lexington Avenue in Manhattan. 7500 square feet apparently wasn't enough.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/nyregion/25bloomberg.html
5
Let me understand this narrative . If not for Bloomberg NYC would never have recovered from 911 . The City would have stopped being the financial capital , the entertainment capital , the economic engine for millions of residents living as far as Suffolk County , Westchester , Northern New Jersey and even those close enough to commute from Connecticut , and lower NY State ?
Tourism would have continued to decline and there would , r not be much development . Bloomberg saved NYC from certain death ?.
So, first of all the terrible precedent that the Office of Mayor could be bought if you have enough money like he did was a blow to Democracy . Also ignored was the reality that a Billionaire could never relate to what most New Yorkers need and care about . How could they ? Of course his natural focus was business , and the powerful Jewish Base ( another truth never mentioned ) that elected him .
Bloomberg was not the Mayor for most New Yorkers and spent a lot more time in my neighborhood Riverdale in synagogue than he did in Spanish Harlem , Staten Island , and Jamaica Queens . It's likely NYC would have recovered without him and been more responsive to the needs of people too .
8
Why does the Times constantly bad mouth the rich and gentrification as if it’s bad, who do you think pays for everyone else and everything in this city, after all those gift cards and movie tickets to get criminals to show to court are not free. Without the rich or middle class the city would be bankrupt and politicians would be unable to give away the store to people who do not contribute tax dollars. With out gentrification whole neighborhoods would be like they where in the 80s run down and crime ridden. Working hard and earning money is not a bad thing.
12
If Bloomberg sincerely wants to help America, and in the bargain trigger Trump, he should just buy Fox News.
12
I remember that being the .exact same. reasoning for voting for Trump. He’s so wealthy, he will be beyond corruption. He knows how to run a profitable company. Hahahaha! Do you hear yourselves? There is only one candidate who is beyond corruption, who knows how good government is run for the people, not the point zero one percent. Bernie.
6
Only non-New Yorkers thought Trump was beyond corruption.
The wonder is that other Americans were unaware of his bankruptcies, the stiffed contractors and workers, the broken promises.
The power of TV, I guess. All they knew was "The Apprentice."
5
Some of us are so desperate to dump Trump I feel Mr. Bloomberg might be the only electable candidate in the race! I love some of Elizabeth Warren's ideas but not Medicare for all. I work in the insurance industry and feel we still need to have choices to keep private insurance. Trump doing what he does best muddied up Joe Biden and now voters will have doubts about voting for him.
1
I'll take Bloomberg any day over that so called progressive we have in office now. The number of homeless has increased and the city seems to be falling apart. Witness the number of Uber and Lyft cars choking and polluting our streets. Hardly a progressive green idea. But that's our current mayor. Add to that his corruption and handing mental health services to his wife. A total phony. Bloomberg wasn't perfect but he got jobs done.
10
Bloomberg is a Republican and the party that most closely reflects the values he embraces is the Republican party. Bloomberg believes that if he governs for the very rich, it will all trickle down.
Bloomberg's racist stop and frisk policing policies will have great appeal for the typical Republican voter.
Hey, maybe Trump will fire Pence and make Bloomberg his VP.
The fact that the media is taking Bloomberg seriously as a Democrat is exactly why we are in this mess. Fawning coverage of billionaires while REAL Democrats get non-stop dishonest attacks based on right wing propaganda.
16
In this article it says inequality flourished to is a fed flag? I will vote for Joe Biden so the Democratic ballot better keep his name on the ballot. Warren has Wallstreet angry and the billionaires before she even got nominated. What a mess.
1
The best measure of a mans record on income inequality is how well he pays his employees. With an average salary of 120,000 a year according to GlassDoor, this man pays his employees well, and gives generous benefits. He has created tens of thousands of jobs. he is rich, but shares the wealth. He compares very favorably to other rich candidates such as Mitt Romney, whose Bain Capital makes a business of sucking the lifeblood out of existing companies, and causing bankruptcies such as Toys R US , with losses of tens of thousands of jobs.
I often don't agree with his politics, but he is a great manager and an exceptionally ethical billionaire. He is hands down the most talented fellow to run for president in my lifetime.
13
@Eric Karp
So why did all those white women sue Bloomberg industries? I guess sexual assaults and put down should be part of the daily work experience.
Read the Wall Street they interviewed these white women because minorities even with degrees never were even give the opportunity to interview even with great credentials. those white women had nothing better to do than cue poor little Bloomberg.
@Eric Karp
Great manager? When he took over at City Hall he converted the floor plan into an open office (i.e. a fishbowl).
And since I haven't found anything about this later than 2014 in a Web search, I'd like some reporter to ask him:
Is Bloomberg LP a union shop? If not, why not?
According to the Fed, the greatest beneficiaries of Trump's economy have been low wage workers. Trump has done what big government advocates have failed to do. This includes Mike Bloomberg.
4
I was not impressed when Mayor Bloomberg readily accepted the flimsy premise that he could reduce the obesity epidemic by banning certain cup sizes for soft drinks.
The concept smacked of the type of autocratic, ill-conceived solutions so favored by another NY billionaire -- Donald Trump.
2
Winston Churchill said. “You don’t make the poor rich by making the rich poorer.” Bloomberg is a realist who will incrementally make us a fairer nation. He is a true liberal in every sense. But being a successful businessman, Bloomberg does the math. Free stuff for everyone is not on his agenda. I will bet that marginal tax rates are go higher and a public option is added to ACA if the Republican Senate flips.
6
Bloomberg literally transformed New York into a place hostile to families and anyone and everyone not already a member of the economic elite. He destroyed all hope of bridging the gap between the haves and have-nots. He was openly disdainful of the needs of middle class families. He drove them out by design. "Let them eat cake", was his reply. His friends are all criminals. He is oblivious and arrogant at the same time, which perfectly explains his decision to run for President. There is zero chance he will ignite Democratic voters. All he will do is damage the other candidates. He is nothing more than a Republican in sheep's clothing.
16
For New York residents, the framing this article provides is at once profoundly important ... and arguably irrelevant.
The challenges Mike inherited from Rudy are about as different from those he would face as President as could be. Still, the reason for electing (or considering electing) him go to his purported managerial skills.
YES, he identified several goals and moved toward them. In the case of 2 enormous failures - labor relations and education - one can easily argue that even 12 years is not nearly enough. He shared Hillary's trait of thinking (almost CALLING) "the other side" "deplorables."
Education is trickier. Again, the gulf between a 70-something white billionaire and the young (even most parents) people of color who are upwards of 95% of the school population made a tough job much, much tougher. This is NOT a man who got where he was in business by being cuddly, building consensus, etc.
He's not stupid, of course, and I'm sure he tasked some appointees to reach out, but there IS enormous arrogance. Candidly, the only reasons I can think seriously (& comfortably) about a possible candidacy are what I perceive to be his "chances" and the utter pathos of both his opposition & competition.
But the 1% charge - being all about coddling them - really DOES stick. The N. end of Brooklyn Bridge Park is all but spoiled by the real estate component. That's Bloomberg-ism! Maybe, it's even disqualifying - or would be - if everyone else didn't have even worse weaknesses!
3
The verdict on Mayor Bloomberg’s reign is represented by who is now the Mayor; Bill DeBlasio. DeBlasio was elected by the people who felt that Bloomberg was not an advocate for their issues. If DeBlasio’s constituency was happy with Bloomberg, then Christine Quinn would have been Mayor instead.
5
I grew up in the DC area in the 70's. We had a wonderfully "equitable world". 1/3 of the population unemployed, the government the employer for the other 1/3, drugs, terrible services and horrific crime. Today, DC has had a renaissance. It is "inequitable", safe, highly diverse (having displaced much of the poor), wealthy, and a place that anyone would want to live. DeBlasio has systematically dismantled the Bloomberg legacy in name of "inequity". He has raised gov spending by 50%, slathered program after program on the city, created a real estate crisis, the rent control law (Cuomo) lopped 20% off the value of rental units, homeless and turnstile jumper abound. His war on the wealthy ("there is plenty of money out there. The wrong people have it") and Manhattan are the Ghost of Christmas Future under Progressives. Bloomberg 2020!
4
Ridiculous headline. Yes, there was inequality. There is inequality, now. Let's get things right. Bloomberg did not use, like so many demagogues, inequality as either a vehicle to power or to staying in power.
3
All I can say is the stories I read about New York under the current mayor are not good stories. And the terrible visuals of people abusing the police are disgusting. I don't think we saw that under Bloomberg! I hope Bloomberg officially enters the race. We need a businessman in the WH. If Trump taught us anything, it's that pure politicians are s l o w and lack the business acumen needed to run a successful country. None of the other Dem candidates would beat Trump, but Bloomberg stands a good chance. Oh boy...it would be the war of the NY titans.
8
“His administration rezoned about 40 percent of the city, paving the way for increased density...”
Indeed. NYC is practically uninhabitable.
Mr Bloomberg also managed to quadruple his net worth during his first two terms. He seems untouchable, but how does one amass a net worth of $53 billion without crushing some ties? “Bloomberg admits terminal snooping” was covered here several years ago, but there was no follow up.
I wonder how many of Mr Bloomberg’s friends benefitted financially from the aggressive rezoning.The sky is blotted out of long stretches of the west side highway. Prices skyrocketed, driving long time residents and local businesses out of Manhattan altogether while attracting Chinese and Russian investors galore.
Did Mr Bloomberg lift a finger to help the poor? No. Stop and frisk harassed black and brown people and didn’t lower crime one jot. Income inequality soared.
We have never heard this man talk about campaign finance reform, income disparity, citizens united, or anything that might rub against his pocket. He talks about changing policies that don’t affect his net worth: gun control, climate change, smoking and soda bans... all low hanging fruit.
Elizabeth Warren is looking better by the second.
12
Michael Bloomberg did a great job as mayor of New York, he advanced the city as much as any mayor could. It is easy to find fault with the performance of a president or a governor or a mayor, the reason being that anyone in these positions of responsibility must choose between projects and initiatives and goals and objectives, priorities must be set, he/she cannot do everything.
This article is a cheap shot
3
“His administration rezoned about 40 percent of the city, paving the way for increased density...”
Indeed. NYC is practically uninhabitable.
Mr Bloomberg also managed to quadruple his net worth during his first two terms. He seems untouchable, but how does one amass a net worth of $53 billion without crushing some ties? “Bloomberg admits terminal snooping” was covered here several years ago, but there was no follow up.
I wonder how many of Mr Bloomberg’s friends benefitted financially from the aggressive rezoning.The sky is blotted out of long stretches of the west side highway. Prices skyrocketed, driving long time residents and local businesses out of Manhattan altogether while attracting Chinese and Russian investors galore.
Did Mr Bloomberg lift a finger to help the poor? No. Stop and frisk harassed black and brown people and didn’t lower crime one jot. Income inequality soared.
We have never heard this man talk about campaign finance reform, income disparity, citizens united, or anything that might rub against his pocket. He talks about changing policies that don’t affect his net worth: gun control, climate change, smoking and soda bans... all low hanging fruit.
Elizabeth Warren is looking better by the second.
3
He's no better than Bill Gates, crying Leon Cooperman, or any of the others who will do anything to protect their personal piles. Disgusting. And, those "woke Democrats," Mr. Egan? Those are Corporate Democrats, who love this guy, not any of the candidates who actually want to serve the people, but want to preserve the status quo for the well-to-do.
4
Birth control: the great leveler.
The middle class has the number of children they can rear responsibly and independently. While the accidents of life happen, and deaths or divorces or long-held jobs dematerialize, to the detriment of all involved, these are accidents.
Getting an education and getting a job should be priorities for young people -- not baby-making.
3
It took 2 people to write this superficial "analysis" of Bloomberg's mayoralty? Not mentioned is his choice of Ray Kelly, who as police chief militarized an already aggressive police force, sending New York's finest out on racial profiling missions. Stopping "stop and frisk" became an issue in the mayoral campaign in 2008. He bought 3 elections, after going back on his word that he would abide by a 2 term limit passed by the city council with massive popular support of New Yorkers. His successful purchase of a 3rd term was apparently money well spent. He left a legacy of far greater economic disparity than someone who was not a corporation unto himself might have bequeathed the city.
8
In recent years Bloomberg has supported some admirable issues, addressing gun violence and the environment come to mind. That does not erase his actions as mayor of NYC which were aimed at fixing the homeless problem by shipping them out of midtown. Stop and frisk is a part of his legacy that was praised by Trump. That should tell you a lot about him.
I think his candidacy will fail, it will do more damage to Klobuchar and Booker than Warren and Sanders whose support is pretty solid and growing.
Those who want to defeat Trump but are fearful of changing too fast would do well to consider how fast this administration produced unimagined changes. And yet we still stand and are even mounting impeachment proceedings where the evidence of wrongdoing piles up on a daily basis.
I include a link to Charles Pierce’s weekend post which offers food for thought about this second gilded age and the damage caused by putting democracy up for sale. If we continue to be afraid of standing up for it, we will soon have a fire sale on our hands.
https://link.esquire.com/view/5bf578ad24c17c5aa31df43ab1y52.5cg/fd490d17
3
Illegal third mayoral term, sidestepping democracy. Luxury developments, at the expense of local neighborhood affordability and mom & pop character. Stop and frisk. Bermuda while NYC was buried in snow for days. Cathie Black, the Betsy DeVos of NYC and a push for for-profit privatized charter schools at the expense of public education. No more billionaire candidates, out to protect their interests and those of Wall Street — running away from paying a more equitable share of taxes — so accustomed are they to corporate welfare. We have an already crowded field of capable Democratic candidates. Bloomberg has no business running as a Democrat, he's a *Republican* and should run as one vs Trump in the primary if he's intent on improving the country — or place his considerable support behind one of the Democratic candidates already running.
13
In my view focusing too much on financial inequality is not helpful to anyone. If inequality grows but absolute poverty shrinks then that's a good thing. The lefts myopic focus on relative poverty (inequality) as opposed to absolute poverty will not help the poor but make the rich just less rich, thereby achieving a reduction in inequality but adding no value. I guess this is pretty much the difference of classical conservative economics and progressive thinking. Progressives first priority is to minimize relative poverty while classical conservatives first priority is to diminish absolute party. The progressives see the world as a zero sum game while the conservatives believe everyone can be successful if we allow for some financial inequality. China and Vietnam provide good examples of reduction of absolute poverty at the cost of inequality. That people aren't starving to death is a good thing.
@Greg
Read "Capital in the 21st Century" by Thomas Piketty. The absolute amount of wealth gathered in so few hands is not sustainable.
1
This is how bad it's gotten for the Democrat Party.
They need to recruit a Republican to lead their party into the 2020 elections.
Seriously, you can't make this stuff up.
7
Alternatively, you can think even the reasonable Republican candidate would want to enter the democratic primary. He recognizes that that's where the real race is, where real issues are debated and evaluated. this shows how far the Republican party has fallen into the banana republic party.
1
Yes. More inequality. How wonderful. How is this good for Americans? More homeless, more billionaires. You can’t have one without the other!
4
Do we really need another out of touch old white male oligarch for president?
Bloomberg is the man who, when he couldn't push through his massive stadium plan, instead created Hudson Yards, a playground for the rich and well connected.
He is also the man who vastly broadened the scope of Giuliani's notorious Stop & Frisk, which allowed NYPD to violate the constitutional rights of millions of people of color.
Fewer than 10% of those stops resulted in arrests but the white man at the top of the chain kept expanding S&F without regard for the impact on the commoners he supposedly represented.
And, as we know, Bloomberg pushed through NYPD policies that greatly expanded the war on people caught with a joint - an utter waste of time and resources that also ruined some commoners' lives.
And his crackdown on protesters at the 2004 Republican Convention with large orange nets was brutal and totalitarian, with almost 2,000 arrests. Judges later found most of the arrests were illegal. The city paid millions to settle with protesters while Bloomberg insisted it was all good.
Bloomberg also circumvented the will of New Yorkers when he decided he wanted four more years of power to dictate his agenda for the city.
Bloomberg has done some good things too, such as being a proponent for gun control, but at the end of the day, like the Koch Brothers, he's a billionaire philanthropist who wants what he wants but also enjoys throwing crumbs to the commoners when he's in a good mood.
19
@Bill
Well he never investigated the reason on why poor people have guns, he doesnt care. This is all a way for his vanity to be in the news cycle. He cant tell this crop of people who are running for president what to do outside of Corey Booker and Mayor Pete, the seasoned individuals, who are brilliant ie Bernie, Warren dont give a hoot what he and Gates have to say. They have had years of destroying the economic system and we are poorer now than ever. Gates does his little plantation work with Africa, inner city schools and we should all be so grateful. Bloomberg didnt do anything but arrest people of color all the time
Rich white men just buy your own islands and leave us alone. We dont need your message nor your corporations we are doing well without your vanity
@Bill
Being white and male is not the problem; being out of touch is.
I wouldn't want the likes of Betsy De Vos or Clarence Thomas running the country either.
Not doing proper maintenance is the number 1 republican move when they take over. It gives an automatic false sense of saving or profits or having more on hand than one actually does.
Fraudulence in all things is the hallmark of being a republican.
1
All very interesting. I hadn't realized how widespread Bloomberg's impact had been on the real estate situation in NYC. I look for further articles on Bloomberg's relationships (or lack of them) with the city's labor unions, and his relationship (or lack of it) with the African-American community.
One thing i will give him -- he is a master at public relations, and projecting a more positive image than he deserves. But then the best public relations people have always been former journalists, and Bloomberg (to the best of my knowledge) made his billions by building a (business) news-gathering empire.
3
Are we going to simply gloss over term limits? Bloomberg was a destructive mayor who never should have been mayor in the first place. Our elections were canceled because of 9/11. Giuliani anointed him. Real estate developers are the worst and have destroyed a vibrant city leaving us with Starbucks, Chase branches and unaffordable rents. Artists and creative neighbors are gone and we're left with NYU students jogging down the sidewalk until they pack up and move to Austin or Portland.
7
“A mixed picture”, for sure. For all the billions spent to make the city a better place, there were billions unspent to directly better the lives of its residents. Waterfronts are nice but being able to afford your rent is nicer.
5
Mr Bloomberg made NYC a playground for the rich. Inequality is bigger than ever in NYC thanks to Mr Bloomberg. He cares more about stopping you from smoking cigarettes and drinking a Big Gulp than creating economic equality. Now he wants to run for President. It’s all a big political gimmick.
5
@Mike L let me help you here. The mayor cared about smoking and taxing big Agra because they’re contributing to the bankruptcy of Medicaid and Medicare in the state of ny. What sir do you prefer? That Medicare goes broke and the poor and elderly don’t have healthcare or would you rather curb the death rate of preventable illnesses so that this system doesn’t go broke? Smoking rates dropped significantly and life spans WENT UP during his term. These things must be implicated at the federal level to ensure our country can afford healthcare. If you don’t think that doesn’t greatly affect the poor you’re living under a rock.
The physiognomy changed with Bloomberg. He paved the way for the super rich to take over Manhattan and the average person to leave. Hideous skyscrapers are his legacy.
8
Michael Bloomberg singlehandedly destroyed New York City. Beyond housing, he demolished nightlife and replaced it with Urban Scarsdale. He removed all vestiges of creativity and and replaced it with glass towers for the rich. Where once there were bars and nightclubs, there are baby strollers and boring people who have no business setting foot in Manhattan, let alone living there. New York was a city where walking down the street could inspire and energize. Now it's a never ending construction and stress. I never thought I would ever live anywhere else and now I can't be there for two hours without an overwhelming desire to leave. Before Bloomberg every neighborhood was unique. The City never felt large because each little piece was its own enclave. Now, all the neighborhoods are indistinguishable and it just feels like one huge mess. The culmination of this horror is Hudson Yards, a glorified New Jersey mall with offices and apartments. I can barely write coherently I'm so angry even thinking about him. Bloomberg is an elite racist who has no business running anything. He thinks whatever he wants is what everybody should want. The large soda debacle was a microcosm of who he is. He's truly just gross.
8
@Jonny Walker
You can still find vestiges of that uniqueness, for your walking pleasure, in the outer boroughs, or even here and there in Manhattan. I'm continually being surprised. But I'm happy to live in Queens now, even though I grew up in Manhattan. Manhattan has lost its soul, but the outer boroughs - with some exceptions in Brooklyn - are not that far gone.
Really? Is this the plan? Trashing a guy before he's even announced? That's how we can sideline worthy challengers, helping Trump's reelection or, almost as bad, the election of some far-left candidate. Thus would the NYT help do to the nation what it did to the city by cheerleading for the current mayor when he was running. That worked out well!
I an no fan of Michael Bloomberg I have 2 of my 6 letters to the editor in this illystrious paper call him out - as mayor
I don’t like him and his snooty dismissive behaviour
This race isn’t about who i like it’s about who can kick the stuffing out of trump and the GOP
Bloomberg can and will
With caveats in place and agreements with an honourable and trustworthy man ( yes he is) like a progressive running mate and limiting himself to one term ( age) we can return our country to the decency and civility to restore our role as a world leader
Dump trump it’s that simple
Litmus tests feel good and often elect the opposition instead
2
@Adam S Urban Warrior
He wont win but he will keep Biden from securing voted. Minorities all across this country, young people are voting and there is nothing about his platform that will engage people to vote for him. Despite I have taken the oath to vote for the democratic nominee it wont be him.
If it is, with Booker or Harris as the VP then we need to support a third party because this would be the end of the democratic party.
How can he win? He won’t get the Black and Latino vote with his history of Stop and Frisk. He has ZERO personality and thunks he can bypass campaigning. I can’t even imagine him on the debate stage with Bernie, Liz, Kampala and Pete.
2
Unless we make some major changes in this country, the first priorities being affordable healthcare for the love of God, and higher wages and more benefits like those the unions of old days fought for, our middle class is going to be in dire straits. Millennials, the largest population in our country surpassing boomers, are dealing with major health crisis of the mental and physical nature. If this trend continues there goes her middle class and we taxpayers will not be able to afford to pay for the decline in the workforce and their healthcare crises. This country as a whole is declining rapidly when it comes to quality of life. The site FastCompany has a compelling piece on this. It's alarming, and I had no idea this horrendous trend was happening. The United States of America is in trouble. We need someone who can delegate brilliant people to fill their cabinet and fix our government, a person who has a progressive vision and understanding of how things work truly in terms of fiscal issues. I've researched and researched and honestly feel that Elizabeth Warren is the most qualified to get our country functioning again.
8
America does not need a billionaire of any party for president. We need someone who understands how the 90% live and struggle. What are Bloomberg's specific plans to remedy the inequalities in our society? Stay in NYC with the other billionaires in their luxury skyscraper homes. If he's interested in politics, he should consider working to improve the City's infrastructure.
8
@DD
Not the government's role to "remedy" inequities.
1
While the Republicans get behind one another no matter what, Democrats criticize, sabotage, undermine, and undercut one another.
There is no perfect candidate. The important thing at this point in history is to find a candidate who can beat trump. trump doesn't need to do anything but sit back and watch those who won't vote for him fragment and criticize each other.
14
Three time REPUBLICAN Mayor Bloomberg has no business running as a Democrat. As he is supposedly “keeping his options open,” he should challenge Trump directly for the Republican nomination.
23
I’ve lived here for 50 years. Mayor Bloomberg governed during the time of greatest changes in New York in my life. The city transitioned from a melting pot - gritty, dirty, rundown sure, but a place for all kinds from all places - to two cities, one for the wealthy, and the outer boroughs for everyone else, and that change can be traced directly (he brags as much) to Bloomberg’s collaboration with real estate developers. It had its good and bad. We got a new park along the West Side. But we also got unaffordable condos (from tax breaks) blocks away. We got more businesses to stay in midtown. But we got more skyscrapers and more 6- and 7-figure wages for lawyers and bankers to fill those skyscrapers. We got fewer homeless on the subway. But we got more deficient facilities where we stored them, out of sight. At the least, we know what Mayor Bloomberg will bring - government driven by collaboration with the wealthy committed to a benevolent but wholly secondary agenda for everyone else. What will that bring? Ask the garbagemen and superintendents who once lived in the West Village and moved to the Poconos when the rents got too high. Bloomberg will likely deliver an even more divided America than we have now. Though I imagine we’ll get a few parks and tax free development zones along the way.
22
@LongTimeFirstTime
Speak on it my brother, what you say is the truth. Amen
@LongTimeFirstTime
Outer boroughs for everyone else? Under Bloomberg? That's more like NYC in the 80's and 90's, when northern Williamsburg really was a hipster neighborhood. (Southern Williamsburg is where the Satmarer Hasidim live.)
I live in Astoria because I moved here before gentrification began. If I were looking for an apartment now, I'd have to look somewhere else, I don't know where.
"communities who felt ignored and a mayor they believed sided more often with developers."
I live in Seattle and feel that the word "communities" is often a euphemism for the activists industry who are extremely extortionist, open demand blatant racial favoritism, and will constantly complain that nobody's doing anything for them if they're not pacified 24/7. I didn't live in New York when he was mayor but I do like him. I've always voted Democrat and would feel good about voting for somebody who is not always pandering to the activists industry. If somebody like Elizabeth Warren got the nomination, somebody who plays heavily into identity politics and runs around trying to placate the activist industry, I would stay home on election day.
8
You say that Mayor Bloomberg “tried” to improve public schools in NYC. I taught in the Bronx while Mayor Bloomberg was in office, and I am full of admiration for his accomplishments in the field of education. He didn’t just “try.” He did change education for the better , starting with data driven instruction.All I can say now is,”Where do I sign on the dotted line to help him win Florida?” Thank you Mayor Bloomberg for your wise leadership during a very difficult time. You were a tough, but fair, boss.
9
Bloomberg is the best Mayor NYC had. An orderly city where the rule of law was enforced. Bike Lanes, pedestrian plazas, 311, proper development, a safe subway.
Inequality is a fact of life. Even is the Soviet Republic some people were more equal than others.
I hope he does run for president. He'd be a catalist for all the centrists who are as put off by Trump as they are by Sanders and Warren.
9
An item that is seldom or never reported is that Bloomberg stripped prescription drug benefits from retired, disabled NYC non/union employees. My partner now has to spend 1/3 of his NYC pension on life saving medication. Not surprising, I guess, given that Bloomberg isn’t that fond of the disabled — but shows that he is quite cruel to those who are as wealthy as him.
17
It's curious that an editorial would even address Bloomberg's commitment to equality. If he cared, he would support Warren who fights for decreasing the gap between the ultra rich and everyone else, within the capitalist system.
But Bloomberg is running as a centrist and, very possibly, to counter Warren's increasingly popular agenda. He is on record opposing Warren's tax plan, saying it would stifle great fortunes. Yes, that is the point.
As for NYC prospering while inequality increased, isn't that the case with the USA in the past four or five decades. The reason this sounds paradoxical is because we have been assuming prosperity is good for everyone and so we continue to be surprised there are so many poor people. Our GDP is high; therefore we must be rich and there's no need to change course.
We should all read the new school of French economists working to understand economic inequality. Begin with "The Triumph of Injustice; How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay" by Saez and Zucman. The graphs are eye opening and text is in simple English. However, the concepts are complex but good brain candy.
5
The authors of this article accurately peg Bloomberg for what he was--a cutting edge advocate for his class. A full portrait however has to include issues like smoking, trans-fats and oil drum size sodas--the benevolent despot looking over the health of the citizenry or was it the health of the medical insurance companies? Teachers would be forever grateful for his raising salaries, freeing many heads of households from the burden of carrying second and third jobs with no time left at home to mark student papers, plan lessons..or plan strikes. Bloomberg paved the way for the redesigning of our city's streets and thoroughfares, allegedly to make them safe for bicycles but more likely to keep outer borough residents from bringing their cars into the only borough that really matters to the man. Sheldon Silver stood up for the average man against Bloomberg's congestion pricing but the average man lost an advocate in Mr. Silver in the process and acquired the oddball combination of goofy and wily in the next mayor...or is it a capitalist prince in a revolutionary's clothing? (As yesterday's news from the public housing sector's lack of such basics as heat and water demonstrate, DeBlasio has his predecessor's lack of interest in such matters.) It is interesting to imagine a whole country ruled by Bloomberg. Perhaps we would let a thousand skyscrapers bloom?
2
There are important points made in the article and in the comments and Candidate Bloomberg needs to hear and answer them...learning to do so in a way that is not imperial, abrupt and dismissive. These were what I believe were his shortcoming. They do not under cut his achievements, his true love foer a city I love and lived in my whole life and in the popularity to this day as Mayor.
Some truths:
1. NYC did better than almost any other city during this time. And considering 9/11 (and I lived at Ground Zero and left my beloved home there for 6 months), he was the greatest leader we could have had.
2. Ask any New Yorker today do they prefer our "Big-talk, do nothing, take money from the rich and powerful" waste of a Mayor Di Blasio over Bloomberg only the 25% or so that still support Di Blasio would say he's better, but I doubt it.
3. The awful Rudy was in fact who we needed during 9/11, but Bloomberg was absolutely the Mayor we needed for our 3 terms of recovery.
4. Cranes fell, the homeless and poor got somewhat better services and education was revamped from top to bottom, not always successfully.
5. Parks were created/expanded/improved for all, infrastructure attended to, bridges rebuilt, affordable housing built and projects like no smoking and traffic reduction implemented. And those wealthy tower residents helped pay for a lot of it.
6. His mega-bucks go to where his mouth is, unlike the Trumps who line their pockets.
And no, other Dems can't win it!
6
@signmeup
If it weren't for Bloomberg, de Blasio wouldn't be mayor. Turnout was ridiculously low, likely because New Yorkers had enjoyed Bloomberg's solid leadership for so long they didn't feel compelled to show up.
That said, Bloomberg's mix of business experience and interest in progressive causes are not necessarily indicative acumen on the US economy.
I'll take Trump's laser-like focus on jobs and the economy over someone who has other interests to distract him.
1
@AACNY Bloomberg is far more successful than trump. Trump has been bankrupt many times and our deficit is now through the roof. He likely will keep the economy the same humming along. I highly suggest you wait until his platform is released and I encourage you to read about his philanthropic endeavors they’re extremely impressive. Don’t toss him aside yet. He’s extraordinarily well respected for good reason.
Increasing inequality is not limited to NY - it is a world wide phenomena, behind e.g. Brexit and the Yellow Vest movement in France
It's origin is globalization, from whom the trading elites and the owners of capital profited but that left behind those in the exposed to global competition from workers willing to work for less - in Mexico, China - for example. They saw their jobs disappear - or if lucky their wages nailed down
The remedy is to tax the winners and transfer the money to the left behind - as for example done in Sweden. Alas, in the US politicians need campaign money and hence the winners have too much a strangle hold on politics to implement it.
Mr. Bloomberg does not depend on donors, understands the problem, and may be able, therefore, to do more about it than your average politician
3
@Pablo
So, we must just accept civilization's status quo, let the rich and powerful--from the "dawn of civilization"--manage the status quo, and the lesser people do not actually participate in the processes, decisions, and economic allocations of society?
You mean that, yes, "democracy," is not actually a reality?
And Thomas Jefferson and the Founders did not actually believe that "all men [sic] are created equal"?
So, we should just forget about it?
We don't need to improve peoples' opportunities to learn, to create, to live well and possibly thrive?
4
Bloomberg wants to focus on wealth generation and luxurious manifestations in NYC. There is a panic among the wealthy elite that the Dems are going to come after their cornucopia. The fact is that wealth inequality, like global warming, will have dire consequences for the economy as a whole. Its a case of democracy v. capitalism. Voters are losing patience with clichés like the meritocracy and reward of innovators and so forth. Its more a case of access. The poor have zero access, the middle class is losing access and the wealthy magnetize wealth towards themselves. As the country heads to a situation where wealth is about as equality distributed in the US as it was in tsarist Russia Bloomberg has a problem. The electorate is not looking for a battle of the plutocrats.
8
@c harris
What is it now- something like the four or six richest Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 50%? So they should just sit on their billions while everything else crumbles to pieces? Infrastructure, housing, healthcare, climate? If these billionaires are such philanthropists and job creators, let them put their billions towards solving some of these problems. Let Bloomberg fund/leverage a rapid changeover to clean energy if he cares so much (as well as Bezos and the rest). That could create a lot of good paying jobs. Business as usual will not save us at this point. For more info on wealth inequality in the U.S.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/06/25/six-facts-about-wealth-in-the-united-states/
1
Bloomberg was a benevolent dictator. Being self-financed, he didn't owe anyone a patronage job, and was free to hire the best people. For the same reason, lobbyists were less powerful as well, and many decisions were made rationally, based on professional people's judgement (i.e. the public health file).
But there was a major flip side to that. There were times he was wrong or tone deaf, and in those cases nobody could get through to him. It wasn't very democratic.
Also, he did genuinely seem to have contempt for the poor, or for ordinary outer borough people with modest dreams. One of his aides was quoted in the Village Voice saying Mike genuinely believes everyone wants to be rich like him. We may never be able to sort out his share of blame in New York becoming a playground for the rich and for chain stores, but with his attitude, it's safe to say he bore some responsibility.
10
One of the very first questions that must be asked of Bloomberg by the media once he starts his untraditional “I won’t press the flesh” campaigning is whether, like the existing Democratic candidates, he will give immediate priority to the overturning of the scandalous Trump tax legislation largely benefiting the corporate/plutocratic class, furthering the societal scourge of income inequality. Whose “side” are you on Mr. Mayor? And by the way, will you also commit to releasing to the public your federal and state income tax returns?
6
I wish he would run for the Republicans so they have a legit option. No, he was not a perfect mayor. Our city is so much more unequal and housing and schools reflect that inequality.
One of the great things Bloomberg has done through his foundation is work with mayors, learn great ideas and help spread those great ideas, including on climate change.
I am pained by the idea that white rich men, in particular, feel it's their due to be president.
Step back. Help other people.
3
@gracie what does ones race have to do with qualifications? Every American can run for President on whatever ticket they want. It’s called democracy.
Inequality flourished. Very true (I was living in NY). And inequality flourished under Boss Tweed, Jimmy Walker, Bob Wagner, Abe Beame, Ed Koch, etc., etc., etc. It flourished under George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Napoleon, Peter the Great, Charlemagne, Alexander the Great, Tutankhamen, and thousands of others. Companies have bosses and employees - they’re not equal. Armies have officers and soldiers - they’re not equal. Religions have priests and worshippers - they’re not equal. The issue won’t go away, because everyone isn’t equal, just as everyone isn’t the same height. The issue is whether or not people have equal opportunity under the law, whether illegal means are being used to give some people an advantage, and how to try to redress that.
4
Income equality is the pressing of our time. Bloomberg has always been out of touch with it -- and the "people," I think.
7
Excellent article, especially how public housing deteriorated during Bloomberg's mayorality. Now we need an upshot article on Bloomberg's stop and frisk policies, including how ending that policy did not cause an increase in crime as predicted by those who supported that terrible policy.
9
Will Bloomberg's failure to check mold and for lead paint in old buildings tarnish this otherwise mostly forward thinking contender? I don't think so. His record proves his income hasn't interfered with his ability to see evils for what they are. He's a vocal opponent against the NRA and those gobbledegook global warming naysayers who ignore science. Early urban planning gaffs rightly made him some enemies but even those who wanted more from him as mayor must realize this is someone doing his best to fight difficult issues facing all major cities. No free lunch but expect a fair shake.
Bloomberg was a great mayor for NYC -- but would be disaster as President. No matter what his motives, as a billionaire he cannot shake his built in bias and is not the person to level playing field for the rest of us.
3
Bloomberg‘s strategy was continuing New York’s global role in finance and related industries and not addressing labor market inequality. Bloomberg’s development policies refused to ask more of developers unlike Los Angeles which pioneered the use of community benefit agreements in exchange for major development projects.
Democrats now are focused on inequality and improving jobs for the vast majority of workers which was never Bloomberg‘s interest. He was very good on climate issues but otherwise his record is way out of date with what Democrats now want. We would be better off if these billionaires spent money on helping progressive candidates across the country and not on their personal ego trips.
5
I was born and raised in New York City, left for a time and returned and never left again. Some years back, when I finally achieved a six-figure income, I walked past the building in Greenwich Village where I was raised. At the time, my parents had been married just a short time, and my father did not make much money. We lived in a two-bedroom apartment in a nice apartment building. There is no way on earth I could afford to rent that apartment now, despite the fact that I was earning then far more than my father ever did. We can sneer about homelessness nation-wide and how wonderful New York must be if everybody wants to live here. But when a one-bedroom apartment in a run-down apartment building rents for $6,000 a month, something has gone terribly wrong. New York is rapidly losing its middle class, and any sense of neighborhood is long gone. Michael Bloomberg is not the only cause of this tragedy, but he contributed to it greatly. Choosing to run his Department of Education a woman who had never set foot in a pubic school classroom is just one instance of his true view of how to fix things. Running for a third term despite the fact that New Yorkers twice voted for term limits is another. Stop and frisk was adjudged unconstitutional. Dismissing MDA without an alternative tells us clearly how he feels about healthcare as a right and not a privilege. He is a Republican in his soul. Maybe he can lead that party back to health. Democrats deserve better.
19
Advocates were pushing for a multiyear affordable housing plan in the final days of the Giuliani Administration. But after 9/11, the plan was out the window, and City Council leadership (all Dems) informed advocates that there would be no housing commitment. Then, out of the blue and taking everyone in the affordable housing world by surprise, our new GOP Mayor, Bloomberg, announced a massive multiyear commitment to new housing at a level unseen in decades and at a time when NYC was in shambles post 9-11. Did the plan skew middle class and homeownership-focused? yup. And leave out community voices in its creation? yes. But while there should have been much more low-income rental housing in the plan, it was overall a good thing and has little to do with today's housing shortage. Blame that on our state legislature which undercut the state rent laws for decades. Trashing Bloomberg on his housing record is just sacrificing the good for the perfect.
To say that somehow Mike B. "earned" $52 billion flies in the face of the American ethic of reward for hard work. If such were true, single mothers of two children working two jobs would be the richest people in the country.
Our system rewards cleverness, shrewdness, grifting, tooth and claw survivalism - not virtuous hard work.
3
This isn’t a comment about Bloomberg, but in all fairness I don’t want an old oligarch as my next president, I much prefer Warren.
That said, I am white and grew up in a Queens project from 1962-1972. I was a minority there, and learned at a young age what it feels like to be hated and excluded simply because of my skin color. It was a horrible feeling; it felt and was dangerous. As I grew up I came to understand what I see as justified anger, and hope I can serve to heal this horrific injustice as an adult in whatever way that I can.
Fast forward 47 years, I went back to visit the projects recently. There’s less broken glass, more green space, but it’s still full of poor black people. I tried to speak to the people walking about, but I was ignored. I get it; I could get out, but they can’t. The hurt and anger felt even more palpable.
I don’t know if Bloomberg contributed to this, but we must work to end “the other” based hatred. I believe deeply that unless we end bigotry, our democracy is in peril. Russia (or any country with money and ability to hack) uses deep animosities of any kind to sow division. I see this as a great opportunity to lead, however. I don’t see Bloomberg as any kind of a solution to this problem.
10
Bloomberg was a supporter of the stop-and-frisk policy, and actually expanded its practice. Now, there's your middle of the road candidate.
12
Mayors have lots of unsolvable problems and never leave office satisfying everyone. I hope Bloomberg catches on in the Democratic array of vulnerable candidates.
If Mickey Mouse or his spouse ran against Trump, I'd support the challenger.
2
This article tries to imply that the oppression of the poor and working class was an inevitable outcome of "improving" t he city. However, Bloomberg actively moved against the poor and working class with his stop-and-frisk program, his closing of fire companies, his shoveling of large quantities of money to already wealthy developers for luxury housing, and his general failure to enforce basic housing code for both public housing and privately owned multiple dwellings.
He wasn't caught between a rock and a hard place. He really despised people who weren't rich.
15
Bloomberg removed most of the building restrictions that protected the outer boroughs and un-gentrified neighborhoods and he sent a clear message to real estate developers worldwide. Come one, come all! And come they did. After more than a decade of building, entire populations of minorities with generations of families in certain Queens and Brooklyn neighborhoods have been forced to move from their homes due to Bloomberg's real estate development initiatives. Today, neighborhoods like Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Astoria and Long Island City are populated with rich white and Asian residents and the working class people of those neighborhoods have been driven or are in danger of being driven out. Thanks Bloomberg! Working class people can no longer afford the New York-For-the-Rich. And whereas New York City has always had rich people and wealth disparities, Bloomberg added billions of liters of fuel to the fire. Bloomberg murdered the middle class in New York City and, thanks to him, the former working class is now the "New Poor" or they have sought refuge in lower tax Conservative states.
14
Bloomberg saved NYC from the worst effects of the Great Recession, by creating financial reserves that became a buffer when the market crashed. He created parks where there had been rubble. He encouraged development in areas that had fallen into decay.
Yet he did not understand the needs of every day workers, opposing efforts to improve quality of life through union contacts, and vetoing the sick pay legislation. A wealthy, self-made businessman, that was his blind spot. He scanted public housing and the homeless –primarily, he is a builder of businesses, public spaces, and wealth.
Bloomberg’s approach will appeal to many voters whose votes are necessary to defeat Trump. All in all, he was the best mayor of NYC in my lifetime. Moreover, he was a lifelong Democract before registering as a Republican to run for mayor. He understands the need for gun regulation and the dangers we face due to climate change. He supported LBGTQ rights from the start.
I think that, in the areas in which he is shortsighted, Mike Bloomberg is educable. It is a fallacy that ordinary Americans will not vote for a billionaire. Americans love billionaires. They see them as having achieved the dream. Think of the Roosevelts, Kennedys and misplaced adoration of the con man and phony, Trump.
Americans love the socially-responsible wealthy – they hate crooks and exploiters. If Bloomberg shifts his position on labor issues, he has a fighting chance of winning blue collar support where it counts.
1
Republican and Obama-Clinton voter here. IMHO Mike Bloomberg was one of the two best mayors in my lifetime (along with Koch). He brought in first-rate commissioners who weren’t taking the jobs to line their pockets. And he didn’t take the job to feed at the public trough or hit up donors for cash for his next campaign either (sorry Bill). The city was so much better off after his 12 years as mayor by just about every measure. Despite that fact, to my recollection, the Times’ editorial when he left City Hall offered grudging praise at most. But Bloomberg knows how to run sprawling, complex organizations. He’s been doing it for years. He’d be a great candidate.
2
Let's not forget a couple of things. Bloomberg wrecked the public schools. He destroyed the civil service hiring practices by making principals the "CEOs of their schools." That reintroduced patronage, as empowered and often incompetent, authoritarian principals in the richer areas hired cronies and kids of cronies. Also, we can't forget his reign of police terror--how demonstrators were treated--badly--and the widespread use of stop and frisk. He's an authoritarian wannabe monarch who tries to hide it with a few carrots thrown to the people like a park or two.
9
I lived in NYC for three years under Mr. Bloomberg's reign. Originally, I'd bought as loft in Tribeca in the 70s for peanuts when nobody wanted to live there. SoHo was booming, but people were all impatience and no imagination when it came to the Triangle Below Canal Street.
By the time 9/11 happened - eight blocks away - my neighbors were Robert de Niro, Harvey Keitel, and Bette Midler. JFK Junior lived around the corner on Hudson street.
Everything changes and nothing stays the same. And 9/11 shook me up pretty good. But when I left, my neighborhood of refugee artists was full of orthodontists, architects, white-shoe lawyers, and denizens of the Mercantile Exchange and Shearson Lehman.
I won't say how much I sold my 2000 square feet with a view of the Hudson for. That would be bad taste. But it wasn't just the money (which is irresistible). That place had become a haute bourgeoisie wonderland of stay-at-home Moms in their yoga togs jogging behind a $3000 Italian perambulator built for speed with a beautiful kid in tow.
And Michael Bloomberg would feel right at home there.
2
What The Times continues to neglect is that Mayor Bloomberg’s give-always to builders and the real estate industry have come at a huge cost to the city’s infrastructure. With increased density and the already decrepit condition of the subways, roads and bridges throughout the city, builders should have been required to not only provide a significant portion of their properties to lower income residents but to facilitate the rebuilding of roads, subway stations and parks in the areas experiencing construction. His munificence to these industries where the already rich get richer has greatly contributed to the decline of liveability for all but those at the top.
8
Its political hit jobs like this srticle that drives us undecided voters nuts. Would someone please define inequaility with data. What happended to income, transfer payments, taxes, unemployment, education and quality of life in NYC. Of course people in major industries like finance did better than other segments in NYC. Thats what drives the NYC job market and spending.
Income inequality is an extreme disparity of income distributions with a high concentration of income usually in the hands of a small percentage of a population. When income inequality occurs there is a large gap between the WEALTH of one population segment compared to another. The key word is WEALTH. Its more than income and housing! There is a hugh amount of income/wealth transfer to people through federal and state government programs.
But perhaps the most direct way to measure Bloombergs success is the response of NYC voters. Why not ask them weather they prefer Bloomberg or de Blasio as Mayor?
I would take Bloomberg as president over de Blasio and his excutive skills and policies everytime! And so would 70% of New Yorkers!
11
"Bloomberg’s New York Prospered"
If the NYT is implying that Mayor Mike will do this for the nation as a whole - we'll take it.
It's far easier to get needed reforms - health care, college affordability, climate control etc - when there's prosperity around than if the nation is in recession.
And Mayor Mike Mike's got the right mix of success, practicality and compassion to work to effect such reforms.
7
Bloomberg de-regulated - for all practical purposes - rent stabilization in New York City during his tenure. Regulated rents soared during his three-term tenure. He purchased his third term at a price of $72 per voter, and still barely won.
In 2011, during the Occupy Wall Street protests, he sent in the NYPD with bulldozers to chase away the kids protesting in Zuccotti Park. While proclaiming on national television that he was a supporter of the movement. There's plenty of documentary evidence of Bloomberg's handling of Occupy Wall Street and Zuccotti Park. Just search in Google.
The end result of a 2020 Bloomberg run - as a Democrat this time around, he was a Republican during his mayor years - will be the split of the Democratic vote, and that, in turn, will hand over the election to Trump.
And don't think for a second that Bloomberg doesn't know it.
24
@Bob The Builder
"will be the split of the Democratic vote"
Split between whom? Suppose the two candidates are Trump and Bloomberg, are you saying the Dems will split their votes between these two? Some Dem if he/she votes for Trump!
2
@Bob The Builder
Bloomberg wouldn't hand anything over to Trump, who is a minor billionaire based on daddy' money versus the "real, substantial and self made" kind.
And he gives tons of it away and to fund his politics...unless you prefer the Russians and the Mercers to do it like with Trump.
1
@Bob The Builder
If people understand that Bloomberg can defeat Trump and vote for him - he will win. Sadly there is no guarantee that people have the capacity to understand this and if the losers outweigh people with sense then indeed we will get a loser president yet again!
1
The housing squeeze in NYC -- which has spurred "gentrification" in older outer-borough neighborhoods as middle- class people sought more affordable apartments, sqeezing out lower-income folks -'has been largely a function of a burgeoning population. In 1980, about 7 million people lived in NYC. By 2019, there were 8.5 million residents. In a city that was already built to an extraordinary density and where land values and construction costs were sky high, there was -- and is -- no way for private markets to meet the housing needs of the rapidly growing population. Bloomberg did a lot to produce "affordable" housing, but the city alone simply does not have the resources to get the job done, no matter who is mayor. In the past, the federal and state governments contributed the vast sums to build hundreds of thousands of public housing and subsidized middle-income housing units. No more. So don't blame Bloomberg.
18
The brief comment would be that inequality increased while Barack Obama was President. A President has the opportunity to address such an issue. A Governor or Mayor, as a small part of a large economy does not have much if any power of influence.
10
@Greg smith
What if he did proper maintenance on the city housing? Then those folks could have spent money and time on something else and possibly bettered their lives. Or if instead of mega projects he spent that money and effort on making City College cheaper for the poor?
There are a million things he could have done that would have lifted up the poor which did not involve making rich people richer, but he didn't.
The man is a republican through and through.
3
@Greg smith The first point is obviously factually true, and why most readers will ignore it. (I leave aside the issue of whether even Barack Obama had any direct responsibility for a phenomenon affecting the whole West, and how our inequality may be the cost of lifting hundreds of millions of Chinese, Brazilians and others out of poverty during the same period.)
The fact that people make such quick attributions, based on little more than their political leanings, speaks volumes about our democracy.
Can we be frank? All the the negative trends this article cites (income disparity, huge increases in housing prices, lack of affordable housing) happened in major cities in the US and across the globe. Look at London. Look at San Francisco. The cost of housing is dependent on supply and demand. As cities attract high paying businesses like finance, technology, etc., there will be more high income people searching for places to live. You also ignore the historic power of New York’s real estate moguls to manipulate the city’s housing bureaucracy, a problem that will never be solved.
You are blaming Bloomberg for trends which have occurred across the country. Yes, it’s a depressing scenario, but you can’t blame Bloomberg. What has DeBlasio done to remedy the problems you describe in this article? Nothing, because they are beyond his control. If you don’t like Bloomberg, vote for Trump and watch NYC sink under the rising waters of the Atlantic by 2050. Gentrification will not be a problem then.
38
@Bathsheba Robie
True, but the rich and the non-resident rich who fill those mega towers...will have boats and other homes to escape to.
Only the poor and middle class will suffer...but then again, they also contributed to the problem. (I know, no one wants to hear that...)
1
I won't vote for Bloomberg if he is still in at the time of the New York State primary because he cannot win and will only serve to help nominate a far left candidate with the albatross of socialism, Medicare for all around his/her neck and certain defeat in the general. But I think it is unfair to blame him for the wealth disparity in NYC. It's present in San Francisco as well. Diblasio, a progressive if there ever was one, came in with the promise of more affordable housing and an end to " A tale of two cities". We still have two cities and enormous wealth disparities. This is a result of national policies and a legitimate basis for debate in the primaries and general election on tax policy etc. The Mayor of NYC cannot change the nation. He deserves credit for being an excellent Mayor. OK, he's gotten that. Now it's time to stop running, continue to support good causes and know when it's time to quit.
7
@alan brown
It is the entire republican party and what they have done for 50 years that has by design created this "wealth disparity".
The economy did not grow that much they simply rerouted how things work in the economy so that the people lost out on their hard won benefits from the wealth they generated and almost all of it went to the top while they also fraudulently drove up prices.
3
@alan brown
Wow!
If he doesn’t win it’s because people with negative attitudes sit on the sidelines saying “he can’t win, I’m not going to vote for him - thereby ensuring a far left candidate. Trump properly loves these people!
@alan brown
Gee, and I'm convinced none of the other can win, but he can.
At at the end of the day, it's all about DUMP TRUMP to me...
As an educator and now an administrator in NYC for the past 15 years, I can truthfully say Bloomberg was a Let Them Eat Cake mayor and terrible for the working class people across the 5 boroughs of New York. Teachers went without raises for over 5 years because he wouldn’t sit down at the bargaining table to discuss a livable wage that kept pace with inflation. He also wouldn’t play ball with countless other unions across industries. So what that meant is the same stagnant wage for years while the price of everything people need to live and get to work (the subway, grocery stores, medical) kept rising. He is a cold hearted person who with his great wealth could NEVER understand what the average American goes through trying to make a decent living for themselves and their families. I am a moderate Democrat and I will not vote for him because I lived through his “leadership” in New York.
84
@NewYorkCity
So obviously Trump seems to be the lesser of the two evils in your view! Things must be really looking up for educators and administrators in NY. Never mind that DC is in turmoil.
None of the current democratic candidates are capable of defeating Trump! If enough people think like you we can look forward to four more years of hanging our heads in shame under the glorious Trump leadership!
Thanks to
5
@NewYorkCity So you wanted a raise during the severest recession since 1929? Everyone was suffering but you didn't want to do your share?
2
Bloomberg was a driving force for the gentrification which has radically changed the character of neighborhoods in NYC formerly occupied by lower/middle income New Yorkers and forced them out. Further and further out.
Both commercial and residential rents skyrocketed under Bloomberg and his main emphasis was making the city - especially Manhattan - prettier for the well off and super rich who occupied the countless new condos Bloomberg helped developers build for them, resulting in the displacement of those who are NOT well off.
Mom and pop stores were replaced with countless Verizon/T-Mobile/AT&T stores, nail salons, Duane Reade/Rite Aid stores, banks because nobody else can afford the absurdly high rents. One by one the very good affordable restaurants we considered neighborhood jewels - places that had been there for decades - were forced out due to ridiculously high rents. Many new condo buildings were built under Bloomberg in my old neighborhood, all of which require big money to live in.
Though compared to Trump Bloomberg is enlightened and none of the current Democrat candidates are perfect, any/all of them provide a MUCH better option than Bloomberg for POTUS. I don't believe billionaire Bloomberg has the faintest idea what life is like for middle class people, let alone the poor. Based on his record as mayor, I don't think he cares either.
38
As mayor of NYC, Bloomberg was about evenly balanced between doing "good" things and doing "bad" things. But what many of us will never forgive him for is "forcing" himself a third term as mayor, despite the laws against it. One can't help but wonder if he would do the same thing as president. (Yes, I know it would be almost impossible, but he might still try.)
25
I don't know Bloomberg well but his prospects depend more on his leadership qualities than his rezoning projects. As a businessman he has a can-do attitude but also seems techie and dismissive; he might turn people off.
The problem in this country is that minimum wage is half what it used to be in terms of purchasing power, while the cost of college, healthcare, and housing have skyrocketed. Elizabeth Warren understands we need big structural change to build success; does Bloomberg? The fact that he voted against family leave makes me doubtful.
19
@Sherry But Lizzie will never achieve a structural change.
@Sherry
And Trump leaves you feeling reassured?? You really think Warren or Sanders will defeat Trump?? Sigh
Bloomberg wants to head off the turn back to the well regulated capitalism we used to have.
Think of it this way if you took 99% of 1Billion dollars the person would still have $10Million. That is enough money to support your family in upper middle class style for several generations without anyone having to work at anything other than monitoring the investment portfolio.
Our old system let the rich stay rich it simply prevented them from using it to manipulate the system and made them manage more effectively. It also made them create new long term jobs and new products that they built here. It is basically the system Trump claimed he wanted to turn back to but never intended to.
12
@magicisnotreal
I left out a critical aspect of the old system. It prevented walking away from your employees when there was a downturn or if the management had made a mistake. This business with GM who made more than $10B in profit dumping all those workers & closing the whole factory at Lordstown. That would not have been allowed. They would have and still should be made to retool and build something else there.
1
Is anyone happier with the job that the current left wing mayor had done? The city hasn’t looked worse in 30 years. I actually don’t think Bloomberg would make a good president because his technocratIc top down management style doesn’t translate well to national politics. But it was and is exactly what a big city needs.
18
@Todd
Are you kidding me? All the people who Bloomberg demanded be stopped and frisked because they "looked" a certain way are happy Bloomberg's racist police tactics didn't continue. And remember when Bloomberg said he had to do it because white people knew that crime would rise without it -- he was wrong.
Not to mention that Bloomberg adamantly refused to use a single penny to establish universal pre-k -- claiming that was a huge waste of money and he wanted to give it to the private charters his billionaire pals wanted -- you know, the ones that humiliate and punish kids for struggling academically when their inexperienced teachers have no idea how to teach them.
But every year, the parents of the 70,000 kids in the pre-k that Bloomberg didn't care about are happy. After all, why should Bloomberg care when he insisted that parents should pay $20,000/year for their own pre-k just like his rich pals did.
4
@Todd deBasio isn’t left wing; he just plays one on TV. As to development he’s our Bloomberged Bloomberg!
I was born in NYC 1950. Mayor Mike was the best mayor of my lifetime. Yes, he made mistakes, What politician doesn’t? What person doesn’t.
If you total up all the good and bad of his tenure, the good far outweighs the bad.
Sadly, I do not think he has much of a chance in the Dem primary.
25
@Charles I was born in 1949, and lived in NYC from the late 1970s until the early 21st century, and I agree completely that Bloomberg was the best mayor of the city during that time. Whatever one thinks of his current presidential bid (and I have very mixed feelings), his accomplishments as mayor were and are a cause for gratitude. Thank you.
18
@Charles
His intentions are to do damage to Warren and Sanders.
3
@nickd
I really find it hard to understand why people have mixed feelings. Bloomberg or Trump? I don’t care what “mistakes” Bloomberg made - isn’t the most important thing to get the trumpffff out?
Bloomberg is the only candidate strong enough to challenge him.
3
The questions raised in this article are ones that might be raised during a campaign for the nomination. Assuming he became the Dems nominee I think it unlikely they would be a topic of discussion in a campaign against Trump.
3
A major overlooked point in your article - the police state. After 911, NYC became a police state and surveillance Mecca. You cannot discuss the rezonings and subsequent mass evictions without discussing what facilitated this city wide change. In an excuse to protect against terrorism, Bloomberg turned the newly militarized NYC police force against local poor and middle communities. This is why so many affluent lower Manhattanites did not leave the city all together, but simple moved to Brooklyn. Meanwhile, many tenants under housing protections were vacated under the premise of safety conditions. But, it wasn’t until the financial collapse of 2008 when most rents were by that time too high for those who lost their employment that many left the city of their own volition.
12
Having read this article I fear he would just continue focusing on enriching himself, as he did while a NYC mayor. He went from a 5 billion to about 25 billion in the 12 years. He, in my opinion, would not be a President for all, though he would be more subtle and smooth talking than this present President. We wont need another Billionaire. He just fears the more progressives who are running that they may fear increase taxes on the billionaires. Many people liked him as a mayor, and complain about de Blasio, who is trying to correct what Bloomberg ignored. Bloomberg did not care for the poor nor the working class. He displaced them rather than affordable housing in the city, creating more homeless. I still see the after effects. He did nothing about the 120 year old Subway system.
31
It would be helpful to have responses from Bloomberg himself to the concerns raised in this column. Those who worked in his administration aren't the ones who are considering running for president. It seems likely that, as president, Bloomberg would continue to ignore, and possibly exacerbate, the growing income and wealth inequality that are destroying the fabric of our society.
39
Mayor Mike is the ideal model for billionaires. Besides giving away millions to worthy and important causes, he did vastly more good for New York than any mayor in memory. Only Bill Gates compares favorably with Bloomberg for his eleemosynary spirit. I would include the late David Koch for his generous philanthropy if only his politics were not so base and toxic.
9
I keep thinking of a Bloomberg/Warren ticket should both demonstrate substantial support in the upcoming elections for the nomination. It is not merely male/female, New York/Oklahoma or moderate/liberal and the prospect of unifying the nation. Both are self-made Americans. Both bring intellect, expertise, political skill and curiosity as well as integrity, honor, experience and success to the table. In addition, I think both can exchange important ideas with each other about the future of the nation and then act on them. We would truly have the best and the brightest
19
@Elliott Jacobson Change the order - Warren/Bloomberg - and this is something I would look twice at.
1
@Elliott Jacobson
Amen to That!
@Elliott Jacobson you must mean Warren/Bloomberg
How very convenient of these two writers, and who knows how many more contributing, to leave out the effects of the 'Great Depression which took place during the last 5 years of Bloomberg's administration. The writers wanted his administration to take better care of the poor during that period. Is that realistic given the circumstances.
No one says that Bloomberg was a perfect leader of a city in crisis, or even one in great prosperity. All a mayor can do is the best with the materials he has. How about mentioning that housing costs went through the roof because of the massive number of foreigners with money from enterprises overseas (Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Chinese, etc.) coming here and bidding up the prices and then never lived in those homes. In America, anyone can buy anything and never physically show up to take possession. Walk your dog in the area of those massive buildings in Manhattan, or even Forest Hills, Queens, and you'll see buildings with very few lights on after dark, week after week, month after month. Make it illegal for foreigners to own unoccupied property in NYC and watch the prices go down.
You criticize Mike Bloomberg for so many things, but fail to mention that he is entirely self made. He went through the public school system with no help from relatives and made it to the top. Look at what he has spent on promoting gun control or fighting climate change.
Mike Bloomberg is a realist and businessman who can get things done. He will prevail.
115
Just because he is self-made, it doesn't mean that he is care about others and will be a great President. I would like to hear more what he can offer as the President. Rezoning? Stop and frisk? Selling public land to developers?
4
@Joel Friedlander
The decision by the New York Housing Authority to stop checking for lead paint in its units came on Mayor Bloomberg's watch. (See link in the story that NYC stopped checking for lead paint) It predictably led to poisoning of young children.
Shameful.
3
Billionaires often obtain and retain their wealth by giving orders, not taking them. Therefore, perhaps we should ask if public SERVICE is something inherent to their personalities.
Clearly Trump has mostly served himself and his family while in the People's House. I don't think America can survive another "billionaire's term". Billionaires, however, could survive forking over 2% or more of their wealth.
82
Mike Bloomberg has already "forked over" more than that through personal and corporate giving and anonymously.
4
@jynx_infinity
Trump is not a billionaire. Let’s see those tax returns.
Predictably, no empirical analysis of causation. Not even comparisons with other large cities, which would seem a logical necessity in this case.
This is especially troubling here, as inequality grew throughout the US during that period.
You can look at facts like crime, which disproportionately affects minorities and the poor: The minority homicide rate fell 40% in New York City during the Bloomberg years, while the numbers in other major cities across the US shot up.
The bottom line is, the writers are picking up a few random facts and speculating about very broad conclusions. You would not accept that from a doctor or scientist. Doing so in politics allows people like Trump to prevail.
45
@delta blues Inexplicably, the NYT has its claws out for Bloomberg. His candidacy can only be evaluated in light of Trump’s disastrous four years. Nitpicking Bloomberg is frankly unpatriotic.
1
Michael Bloomberg and his network designed programs that facilitated wealthy people to establish businesses where minorities were excluded from its labor force and others formed businesses with a labor force consisted of undocumented immigrants. Their profits averaged 100 times more income than the bottom 90 percent. We are witnessing a very high volume of people suffering from exposure of living in the streets because they lack employment; he rejected the need to allocate resources to help people, what affected the disadvantaged increased exponentially.
33
You can always tell you're reading analysts when the conclusion ends in a relative answer. Inequality got worse under Bloomberg, not better. The absolute value of inequality is irrelevant. The trend is what matters. That's how analysts think.
The trick of course is assigning causality. How much guilt or praise do you assign any person or event when describing a measurable outcome. How much of New York's inequality was the result of Bloomberg's actions versus how much was part of a 40 year local, state, and national trend in rising inequality? The answer is difficult to tease out.
We ambiguously conclude inequality is not all Bloomberg's fault but we can identify some very specific things he did to make inequality worse. Go read the tea leaves on however you want to interpret this information.
Personally, I arrived in New York too young, too poor, and too late to make the city work for me. Williamsburg was already a playground for wealthy trustfund babies. Children of parents who owned property no less. Bushwick was catching the overflow. We opted for relative poverty in a nice neighborhood around Washington Heights.
The writing was already on the wall though. We would never afford a decent quality of life in New York. So we left. Better to get out quick than never. The choice has proven wise. I'm light years ahead of my friends who stayed.
Is that Bloomberg's fault? I'm not sure. But whatever happened in New York over the past 2 decades wasn't a good thing.
62
@Andy I hear you. I was raised in the Bronx, and I have lived in all 5 boroughs. I don't live in NYC anymore, and I miss it all the time. I go back to visit family, so I have seen the changes over the past few decades. The city now seems to be either NYCHA residents, and the wealthy. If a lower middle income person wants to live there, then it's either choose from living with 5 room mates, extended family or in the really sketchy neighborhoods---what's left of them.
I took an unskilled job in a fancy department store right out of high school in the mid 70's, and I was able to afford a place in Brooklyn on my salary. In the following years, I was able to live in what is now Nolita (one of the most expensive areas) on a simple burger joint salary, while I attempted to go to City College at night. It was all so easy back then.
NYC has become even more visibly confusing. Yes, the High Line is special, and the green space has increased. But how much of it is really to keep the working class there? There is not much anymore to keep the working class there. Not at all, and the character of NYC suffers. Reagan had a part also, and I remember the pall that wast cast over the city after the election in 1980. I was a bike messenger then, so I was able to inhale it fully, so I felt it in my bones. It was prophetic.
63
The next president has to make America's economy work for the lower middle class and poor. It's great that Bloomberg was able to make New York more prosperous and a better city for the wealthy and solidly middle class. But can he make our economy work for the bottom two-thirds? One thing that would really help is more dependable and affordable healthcare coverage for those folks. Bloomberg has come out against Warren's plan which, whatever you think of its tax cost, would get every American covered, reduce premiums and out-of-pocket costs to zero, and ensure coverage remains stable even when a person's employment status or income changes. If Bloomberg is not going to support the Warren plan, what's his alternative? And does it solve the problem for the poorer and middle class people Warren's plan would benefit? The answers to those questions will say a lot about whether Bloomberg can be a president for all the people or just for the financially secure.
46
@617to416 Remember however, 60% of American's get their health insurance from their jobs. Yes I know many have high deductibles, etc. However in the very important mid-western states due to the electoral college, workers will not vote for a Medicare for All candidate period. That means if Warren/Sanders are the Dem candidate, Trump will win. I'm from Mi. The auto workers just signed new contracts where they continue to pay 3 % of the costs of their excellent healthcare (with virtually 0 deductible), while the rest of America pays 28%. The narrative that Dems want to give money away to people for doing nothing, and raise taxes prevails sadly. I'm a progressive Dem, that would love to see the US get to Universal Healthcare/Med for All. However the only way to get there is to offer a public option, and gradually more people would choose it. Remember the ads against the ACA. Well imagine the pharma/med industry ads we will face if we run a MFA candidate. The uninformed will fall for this and if Trump wins, we will loose the gains the ACA brought us, as well as the host of other disasters he and his GOP followers would bring. I'm not sure Bloomberg could win, but his moderate financial policies, and liberal social policies could attract the coalition we need to beat Trump. Could Andrew Gilliam/Stacy Abrams be his running mate?
20
@Joyce
I know a lot of Americans think this way, but if we are ever going to effect change we're going to have to stop following the public and begin leading it.
Say what you want about Trump, he didn't follow the crowd to victory. Instead he led it to him.
On healthcare, I understand the challenges well. In fact, much of my career I worked for firms that design health plans for employers—and I have done that work in both the US and Canada, so I know both systems well, too.
I don't think going to a single payer plan is the only approach that can work in the US. I also think some of the continental European systems could work effectively—but only if our legal system would allow the necessary mandates and regulation and if we would agree to the subsidies required.
The so-called public option, however, I think is a nice sounding platitude that does little to address the problem but makes it seem like there is an easy way out. Note that no candidate has presented any detailed plan on how their public option would work or how it would be funded. There's a reason for that. It's either going to have a low tax cost and therefore be expensive to the insured or be inexpensive to the insured and have a high tax cost. The cost is the cost ($3.5 trillion per year right now) regardless of which system we go to. It's all about how the cost is paid and who pays it.
15
@617to416 It’s tough to lead from the sidelines. Unfortunately, the swing state voters are simply not ready to support universal health care. The GOP/Trumplican propaganda machine is eager to focus their vehement 24/7 lie machine on that issue. We MUST DUMP TRUMP in 2020. A one-term Biden or Bloomberg can win; but Warren or Be rinse can’t. Sad but true this time around.
2
The problem with the premise of this article is that it is making a litmus test for Michael Bloomberg on what he did regarding specific items on issues of homelessness and welfare. What needs to be looked at is the relative direction he was taking policy, not absolute moves. Was he pulling back on policies that might have gone too far? It is held in the liberal media that more policies that are "good" for the homeless population are "good", and vice versa. We can see from California and now in NY city that too much policy in one direction can lead to results that are not good.
22
The bottom line is that this country can’t take another four years of Trump. If the choice comes between Bloomberg and Trump, there’s no question as to who gets my vote.
122
That is the main point and we need to stay focused.
The bickering about Bloomberg is pointless — we are in a constitutional crisis and he’s the only candidate that can beat the fraud that’s currently in office.
60
@MM So, what you are suggesting is that only he can fix it? One autocrat for another? Hasn't three years of this type of leadership of the country been enough? No more businessmen in the Oval Office, please! The pesky Constitution of our country always seems to be a hindrance to their type of leadership. And lest you forget (or didn't know), there is a two term limit in NYC for Mayor which Bloomberg conveniently ignored (he ran for and was elected to a third, unfortunately). How does that differ from Trump suggesting he would stay in office as long as necessary?
38
@horsesense he is the only candidate that can beat Trump. That is the only point, and frankly the main point. I don’t see Bloomberg as an autocrat and don’t believe his extended term as mayor makes him one (though I will look up the loophole in the law that allowed for it).
Something negative can be attributed to all the existing candidates; you’re choosing this for Bloomberg — fine.
If it comes down to Trump winning another term against the existing democratic “line-up” or Bloomberg vs Trump, who would you vote for?
We obviously cannot be certain that a traditional democratic nominee could win against Trump, so though it seems like you’d prefer another nominee on the Democratic ticket, what good will that have done if Trump could beat them anyway?
Additionally, I don’t see Bloomberg as a lesser of two evils — but if you saw him and Trump as effectively the same, would you still choose Trump over Bloomberg?
Our questions at this point need to be simpler.
9
I think that this record combines with the fact that although Bloomberg understands how his personal & business finances work, he hasn't the vaguest idea of how the finances of the federal government work to remove him from consideration for the nomination.
Why, he has even repeatedly said M4A will bankrupt the government. This wrong on 2 counts. It is a trivial computation to see that if the present system is retained, we will spend about $50 TRILLION in the next 10 years. No estimate of the 10 year costs of M4A, even those from very conservative sources, is above $35 TRILLION. If M4A will "bankrupt" the country, what will happen if we keep the status quo?
But also and more importantly, Mike does not understand we have fiat money. The federal gov can create as much money as it wants out of thin air. Mike cannot do that personally. His businesses cannot. Even NYC cannot. The last thing we want is for the country to be run like a business.
In line with this, Mike want to pay down the national debt. He obviously does not know or care that all 6 times we paid the debt down more than 10%, we fell into a terrible depression.
He apparently doesn't even know where money comes from, This is the money we need to buy & sell goods & services and banks use as reserves to make loans. Well I'll tell you Mike. It comes from the federal government, & we get it when the government spends more than it taxes.
Let Mike do what he does best. Make Billions off of the poor and middle class.
54
So, basically you'd be advocating for a city that is less prosperous?
Bloomberg oversaw a dramatic expansion in public housing. If more people want to live in NYC it means that the city is succeeding.
21
@Len Charlap
Seriously? Do you think Trump understands any of the issues you raised better than Bloomberg? If the choice came down to these 2 men, you would give a Trump another 4 years?
@Len Charlap
Well said. One thing: he knows exactly where money comes from — he just wants to make sure it ends up in his pocket.
1
If the prime objective is to defeat Trump, Bloomberg's profile of successful private/public enterprise and a law and order persona would be attractive to moderates and disaffected Republicans, as no leftist can. If he has little sympathy for the homeless and poor, that's unfortunately an attitude most voters seem to share. It will do no good to wake up on Nov 4, 2020 and say, "well, we lost but we stuck to our principles." Better to elect him, then pressure him to do good for those most in need.
102
This man had no love for people who made under six-figure salaries. All of the rezoning of neighborhoods in Brooklyn led to hyper-gentrification and displacement. I don't think that I could ever give this man my vote.
171
@Susan
If the choice was between Bloomberg and Trump, I would give Michael my vote in a nanosecond.
20
@Susan So in a choice for Trump or Bloomberg, you would choose Trump or just not show at the polls? Would be a shame not to vote at all.
7
@Susan
Sorry, I would take a Bloomberg over Trump without hesitation.
5