New York’s political consideration is riveted on the candidate knife battle over the brand new congressional district overlaying Park Slope, however in COVID-neglected core Manhattan, we’ve got our personal knife battle: the three-way match amongst incumbents Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler and upstart former Obama-administration lawyer Suraj Patel. The NY1/WNYC debate Tuesday evening pointed up large variations — on infrastructure spending, of all issues.
Manhattan has at all times had two congressional reps: one representing the west facet and one the east (suppose John Lindsay’s “silk stocking” Higher East Facet and Bella Abzug’s West Facet district).
Having two reps was good for Manhattan. Representing the nation’s cash middle (the east) and its mental middle (the west) made for 2 highly effective congresspeople who acquired consideration and cash.
Nonetheless, incumbent Democrats this cycle supported a statewide redistricting plan that was so gerrymandered {that a} decide ordered a brand new, objectively created map — and so most of Manhattan is now a giant sq., with the 2 districts folded into one.
This most likely weakens Manhattan’s energy — however we’re caught with what the Dems made.
Maloney and Nadler, with six many years as buddies in Congress between them, are actually cordial enemies. In saying how a lot she regretted having to run in opposition to her outdated “buddy” Nadler, Maloney sounded simply as honest as a Mafia don mournful over axing an uncooperative deputy.
For his half, when referred to as on to ask one other candidate a query, Nadler invited Patel to slam Maloney’s voting document (over her vote for the Iraq Warfare).
On broad insurance policies, the three candidates don’t disagree. All decry the top of Roe v. Wade and wish stricter gun legal guidelines.
Extra stunning, in addition they agree that New York’s public security has deteriorated — and that the state must reform bail legal guidelines in order that judges can take into account a suspect’s hazard to the neighborhood.
They’re reflecting what their liberal constituents suppose — a warning signal for Gov. Kathy Hochul, who received’t take into account a particular session on the matter.
So the place’s the large distinction? Infrastructure.
Maloney is unapologetically a “convey house the bacon” gal. She brags of securing funds for the Second Avenue Subway 20 years in the past and MTA bailout cash throughout COVID. “I’ve by no means been more practical than I’m now,” she mentioned.
Nadler is extra of an beliefs man: He talks extra about impeaching President Donald Trump (twice) than about stable accomplishments.
He needs to construct a freight tunnel between Brooklyn and New Jersey — however he’s been speaking about that for 20 years. “He need[s] to construct a . . . tunnel that’s nonetheless not constructed,” Maloney mentioned.
Patel, however, doesn’t routinely equate cash with outcomes. On the Second Avenue Subway, he famous that New York’s subway-construction prices are eight to 12 occasions these of different developed nations. Paris “simply constructed an automatic state-of-the-art subway line,” he mentioned, for a fraction of the quantity.
That one phrase — “automated” — might not sound like a lot. However in New York special-interest politics, it’s a revolution: a sign that possibly town ought to take into account slicing transit prices, even when it upsets the unions. “We have to reform a few of our pink tape and legal guidelines,” Patel mentioned relating to development prices and delays.
The most important distinction was over Hochul’s Penn Station boondoggle scheme. Maloney and Nadler unabashedly help federal {dollars} to assist the plan to demolish acres of personal property at hand over to at least one politically linked developer and (someway) fund a sort-of renovated Penn Station.
By no means thoughts the small print, they suppose: It’s a giant undertaking, and massive initiatives are at all times good.
Patel has a unique take. Sure, Penn wants a repair, however “that plan isn’t thought up by anybody who’s ever labored within the personal sector,” he mentioned. That’s, federal cash can be subsidizing a unhealthy undertaking — an odd idea. “We’ve got to be good stewards of individuals’s tax {dollars}.”
Manhattan voters need to resolve: Are they that impressed with announcement after announcement that their congressperson has introduced house so many billions for this, so many billions for that — once we get so little for that cash?
It could be an odd factor to vote on. However when three folks agree on nearly the whole lot, the disagreements are necessary.
Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s Metropolis Journal.
