Spitz Personality

also posted at Dope on the Slope.

Eliot Spitzer - Champion of the Little Guy™!
Eliot Spitzer - Exposer of Corporate Corruption!
Eliot Spitzer - Advocate for Truth and Transparency!
Eliot Spitzer - Bane of the Kleptocrat!

Eliot Spitzer - elitist putz.

First, Michael Bloomberg, the man who just a few short months ago was certain to get my vote for mayor, reneged on his promise to "end corporate welfare" by supporting two sweetheart boondoggles - the deal to build the Jets stadium, and the lesser known, Atlantic Yards Project, which includes the construction of a basketball arena for the Nets, and several high rise apartment buildings that will change the Brooklyn skyline forever. The  latter project is the brainchild of megalomaniac developer Bruce Ratner.

The Atlantic Yards proposal is the largest New York development project outside of Manhattan in 25 years! Despite this, the project will have no public oversight, massive taxpayer subsidies, and, worst of all, eminent domain. And all of that for only $1 from Ratner. These sordid details are all covered in this post concerning the recent memorandum of understanding (MOU) announced on March 3. I would have linked to the New York Times stories on this, including their editorials condemning the project,much as they had condemned the Jets arena project. Unfortunately there is scant mention of the project in their pages. Could this be because the New York Times office tower is being developed by none other than Bruce Ratner?

Naaaah. 

But what about Eliot? What has he done to deserve my ire?

Plenty.

I received an e-mail this morning that asked me to call Eliot Spitzer and complain about his recent endorsement of Ratner's sweetheart deal. The e-mail asked that callers "be outraged, but polite."

Why outraged? According to a recent commenter on a Yahoo group for the Brooklyn neighborhood of Boerum Hill, Mr. Spitzer made the following comments in a speech to the New York Building Congress:

"I'm all for the development in Brooklyn, Bruce Ratner's plan, it is a spectacular development, it needs to be built, it should be built quickly, it will revitalize a critically underused portion of Brooklyn, right now, it'll build housing, it will generate jobs, tax revenue. It is a spectacular project and I think we should move forward on it immediately."

My first reaction to this quote was "baloney, Eliot Spitizer said no such thing. He might have talked about the need for affordable housing or jobs, and he might have said the development proposal was interesting or promising, but he would never give it a ringing, urgent endorsement."

I was quite sure of this, so I decided to call Mr. Spitzer's office, and politely ask someone to confirm or deny the quote. Until I knew the facts, outrage was unwarranted.

I dialed 212-416-8040...

(UPDATE: Tell Eliot what you think at his blog's Virtual Townhall Meeting! Several Brooklynites already have.)

RECEPTIONIST 1: Hello,
ME: Hi, I'm looking for Eliot Spitzer's office.
RECEPTIONIST 1: This is his office.
ME: Yes, I'm calling to verify the text of a speech that Mr. Spitzer gave recently. It doesn't sound like him.
RECEPTIONIST 1: Please hold.
RECEPTIONIST 2: Hello?
ME: Yes, I'm calling to verify the text of a speech that Mr. Spitzer gave recently. It doesn't sound like him.
RECEPTIONIST 2: Please hold.
GRUFF VOICE: Press office.
ME: Yes, I'm calling to verify the text of a speech that Mr. Spitzer gave recently.
GRUFF VOICE: Are you from the press?
ME: Uh... no. (damn! I should have said I was with Talon News.)
GRUFF VOICE: Who are you?
ME: I'm [MY NAME].
GRUFF VOICE: Where are you from?
ME: Brooklyn. (that should put him on notice.)
GRUFF VOICE: What's your question?
ME: I'm trying to verify the a speech that Mr. Spitzer gave recently. It doesn't sound like him.
GRUFF VOICE: Whaddya mean it doesn't sound like him?
ME: Well, I got an e-mail saying that he endorsed the Ratner project at a meeting of the New York Building Congress.
GRUFF VOICE: Yes, I think he did endorse it.
ME: Is there a way to get the text of his remarks?
GRUFF VOICE: We don't have the text of the speech.
ME: Thank you.
GRUFF VOICE: Thank you. Bye.

(Note: For the record, everyone was polite and professional. The gruff voice was just the way the guy sounded.)

I was stunned. I couldn't believe that Eliot Spencer, the sworn enemy of cronyism had just given his support to a spectacular example of the same.

I immediately recalled, with the assistance of Google, these words from a Gotham Gazette article:

Public authorities are the Enrons of state government, New York State Attorney General Elliot Spitzer charged in a speech last year, "hiding spots, breeding grounds for inertia, incompetence and, at times, worse."

Surely this isn't the same Eliot Spitzer?

That Eliot Spitzer would not announce his gushing endorsement in an "old boy" venue without first checking with Letitia James, the city council woman whose district would be impacted by the project, to see how her constituents felt about it, would he?

That Eliot Spitzer, a passionate advocate of transparent process and accountability to the public, would never say such things as "it should be built quickly," and "I think we should move forward on it immediately," statements that echo the manufactured sense of urgency favored by snake oil salesmen when they want to bypass public scrutiny, would he?

And who is the "we" that this Eliot Spitzer refers to? It sure as hell isn't the taxpayers and residents of Brooklyn, whom he is essentially excluding by jumping on the Ratner bandwagon so readily. Perhaps this Eliot Spitzer truly believes he knows what's best for the scruffy peasants in Brownstone Brooklyn. He is a man of breeding after all. The Beknighted must look out for the benighted.

And people wonder why New Yorkers are often described as elitist.

Regardless of which Eliot Spitzer he is, neither one of them will get my vote for governor.

Robert Moses must be smiling down (or perhaps up) on his proteges, Ratner, Bloomberg, Pataki, and, now, Spitzer. They're playing his game beautifully.

Comments

[calliope]

Oh, crap, I was hoping Spitzer was the great white hope.

[lobbygow]

Oh, crap, I was hoping Spitzer was the great white hope.

Well, two out of three ain't bad.

Disappointing to be sure. I wonder if he'll register any flak for this? Apparently he's opposed to the Jets stadium. I guess it's wrong when it's his backyard, but the clods in Brooklyn need all the help they can get from the Ruling Class.

Speaking of which, I still haven't guessed this week's film.

[Andy Axel]

Wasn't Spitzer also the guy who, instead of getting to the bottom of the corporate accounting boondoggle, signed on for assessing Jack Grubman with a fine and a consent decree?

I mean, $15M isn't quite a slap on the wrist, until you recall his testimony that his compensation ran upwards of $20M a year while he was running his telco stock boutique with Salomon Smith Barney, and his separation package amounted to $30M.

And they think that keeping him out of the securities business is punishment? Hell, if I had those sorts of resources, you couldn't get me into the damn office.

Oh well. Just some added food for thought there.

[hellbent]

Are you really giving up on the guy completely because of this one disagreement? Is the offense that egregious? Is he whoring himself out for campaign donors? Maybe you could ask his office for a clarification or explanation.

[gypsy frocks]

I went through a bout of Eliot disillusionment a few months ago when he basically said he wasn't going to do any more big white-collar prosecutions. His given reason was that state attorneys general had raised enough stink that the feds were now getting serious and would take over the heavy lifting. Which is a little true -- Spitzer's police work did force the SEC and others to pay a bit more attention, so as not to look like utter boobs. But Spitzer made his announcement the week after he announced his candidacy for governor. He of course said there was no connection, but the message was obvious -- he wasn't about to investigate and prosecute people who he was also going to be asking for campaign support. (If you were really cynical, you could see it as a protection racket -- like, you've seen what I can do; if you don't want more of the same or worse once I'm governor, better pay up now.)

BUT, all that said, this is politics. It's about power and money, and no politician in their right mind is going to double-cross bearers of power and money unless there's an obvious payoff. Most of the state doesn't care about the Brooklyn arena; honestly, most of the city doesn't care about it. And it's in a heavily Democratic area anyway. Whatever votes Spitzer might theoretically lose are negligible compared to the trouble someone like Ratner or even Marty Moskowitz could make for him if he chose. (And Marty might be more the issue than Ratner -- you gotta give party loyalty to get party loyalty.)

AND, all that said, Spitzer's been a hell of an A.G. He's been politically motivated, sure, but find me a good attorney general who isn't. And he'd be about a thousand times better governor than the useless dope we have now. So I feel your pain, but Spitzer's still got my vote.

[lobbygow]

Are you really giving up on the guy completely because of this one disagreement? Is the offense that egregious? Is he whoring himself out for campaign donors?

Yes*. Yes. Yes.

The last part is perhaps more an indictment of "the system" than of Eliot Spitzer personally, but his endorsement was absolutely unnecessary. He could have easily said "I applaud the revitalization currently occuring in Brooklyn, we need new housing and new businesses to further catalyze the economic growth that is occurring there, and I urge all of you to work with the communities to make this happen. There is no reason to wait for things to heat up, the fires have already been lit."

He didn't. Why? I don't know. Laziness? Ignorance? Or...

1) Needs Ratner's support
2) Needs Bloomberg's support
3) Needs Markowitz's support

That last item is a bit laughable. Marty is highly visible, but he is virtually powerless compared to the other two, and he has recently pissed of a lot of neighborhood groups and grass roots organizations over any number of issues. In his zeal to revitalize Brooklyn, he's ignored too many stakeholders. He's a warm fuzzy mascot, but the fur may be flying soon enough. I think I know what the feeling is "on the street," and it is shifting from "aww isn't he cute" to "what a maroon."

And he'd be about a thousand times better governor than the useless dope we have now. So I feel your pain, but Spitzer's still got my vote.

* If I had to choose between (A) an incompetent villain, (B) a competent but amoral climber that had pissed on my shoes with out even realizing it, or (C)Third party choice or abstain, I would probably pick C out of protest if I thought A didn't stand a chance in Hell. If the vote was going to be close, my willingness to select B would depend on how many months had passed since he pissed on my shoes, and what, if any attempts he had made to dry them off.

Make sense?

[lobbygow]

Most of the state doesn't care about the Brooklyn arena; honestly, most of the city doesn't care about it. And it's in a heavily Democratic area anyway.

Agreed. But that last sentence suggests that some Republican will become the target of any ire associated with this project:

Bloomberg.

The olympics bid, Jets stadium and Nets arena will all be tied together during the campaign and some Democratic opponents will try to make it in to an albatross. Just watch.

Also, they don't care because they don't know (thank you NYT). If the media ever decide to report on it in a big way, the dynamics will change. The local Fox news affiliate loves this kind of controversy. Maybe they'll pick up the baton.

Right now it's only being covered in Brooklyn's equivalent of the Halls Shopper.

[gypsy frocks]

Markowitz, not Moskowitz, oops. I met him once, during my usher days. He came to some big gala charity thing. It was a costume party, so all of us ushers had to wear (wait for it) Steve Martin-style arrow-through-the-head things. Rarely have I felt more ridiculous -- in public with a bowtie and an arrow through my head. Anyway, Markowitz came in and one of my co-ushers recognized him and did this whole faux-obsequious "Oh, Mr. Borough President, so good to see you. I live in Brooklyn too!" I don't think Markowitz picked up the fauxness, just shook hands and smiled. Then a few minutes later, one of the women in his entourage came back and told us that hiz preznentness would really like one or two of those arrow-through-the-head things for his grandkids. She didn't have to ask twice -- we both handed ours over, happy to be rid of them. Our boss came by a few minutes later and glared and asked where our arrows were. We shrugged helplessly and said the borough president wanted them and who were we to say no?

[hellbent]

I think my standards are getting really low. Spitzer seems to actually be on the upper half of the honesty curve. Combine that with appearing to also be on the upper half of the competency curve, and you've got a politician worth voting for even if you disagree with him on lots of things.

If I lived in NY, I think I'd vote for him just to up the odds that he could wind up on the good guys' Prez ticket in 2008.

Also, I'm curious whether all anti-corruption crusaders get assassinated, or just some of them. It's been decades since we've tested that hypothesis, not counting Wellstone's plane crash.

[lobbygow]

Also, I'm curious whether all anti-corruption crusaders get assassinated

Not Spitzer. "Anti-corruption Crusader" is part of his "brand," just as "law and order" were part of Giuliani's. It's not part of his make-up. It was just an opportunistic way to make a splash as AG, especially given the doubts and criticism he faced early in his career. People thought he was coasting on his dad's money and reputation.

Sound familiar?

Oh, and guess what business his dad got super-rich in?

You get one guess.

[dilettanteduded]

i still think spitzer is the guy in the white hat (despite a splat of birdshit on it), but here's what i think has happened. i think he has done what a lot of people do when fame goes to their heads - they start to think they are experts on things they know nothing about, simply because people ask them. to give him the benefit of the doubt, i would think it's pretty hard to resist, although he should have.

let's hope spitzer comes to his senses, learns a lesson from this, and decides to stick to what he knows, which is going after greedy assholes with an elephant gun.