Diary

MOSQUE MADNESS: "Nanny" Bloomberg just can't intervene? (plus Landmarks, Borough President hypocrisy)

The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission has unanimously ruled that the building site of the proposed “Ground Zero Mosque” is not a landmark. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer have both issued statements. I ran for Manhattan Borough President (on Bloomberg’s ticket) against Stringer in 2005. Let’s outline the official hypocrisy.

HYPOCRISY OF NEW YORK CITY MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG (“TAX HIKE MIKE” & “THE NANNY”)
The video of today’s remarks from the mayor can be found at NYC.gov here. Here’s the text:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PR- 337-10
August 3, 2010
MAYOR BLOOMBERG DISCUSSES THE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION VOTE on 45-47 Park Place
The following are Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s remarks as delivered on Governors Island:

“We have come here to Governors Island to stand where the earliest settlers first set foot in New Amsterdam, and where the seeds of religious tolerance were first planted. We’ve come here to see the inspiring symbol of liberty that, more than 250 years later, would greet millions of immigrants in the harbor, and we come here to state as strongly as ever – this is the freest City in the world.”

You’re against the “Ground Zero Mosque”? You must also be against the Statue of Liberty! (That was also a proposed target, Mr. Mayor.)

“New York City was built by immigrants, and it is sustained by immigrants – by people from more than a hundred different countries speaking more than two hundred different languages and professing every faith. And whether your parents were born here, or you came yesterday, you are a New Yorker.”

The Islamic terrorists weren’t New York City immigrants. They came to murder in the name of Islam. And yes, New York is a “sanctuary city,” and if you came yesterday, you’re a New Yorker.

““We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors.”

No, I don’t agree with Islamic terrorism. He is going to say “Islamic terrorism” or “jihadist,” isn’t he?

““On that day, 3,000 people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn’t want us to enjoy the freedom to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams and to live our own lives.”

Murderous fanatics? Say it! “ISLAMIC TERRORISTS!” We can’t even say it!

“The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.”

Bloomberg is suddenly interested in private property rights? Bloomberg? Nanny Bloomberg? (I’m gonna blow a gasket!)

New York City–the worst abuser of eminent domain in the country–is interested in private property rights?

New York City, who sided with Columbia University (a privately owned educational institution) to use the state’s power of eminent domain to help the powerful crush the weak? New York City, who also used eminent domain in Brooklyn for a privately owned professional basketball arena for the New Jersey Nets, again siding with the powerful against the weak? New York City, who also used eminent domain against the property owners of WIllets Point to clean up the area for the New York Mets (a privately owned baseball team)?

Bloomberg doesn’t give a damn about private property rights that don’t suit his needs.

Wanna build a sex shop next to a school? Wanna build a McDonald’s restaurant next to a school? Wanna build a bar next to a school? The community board won’t go for that. There are laws against some of that. The fact that there’s no law against a gigantic Islamic Center overlooking Ground Zero ( a unique act of terrorism) doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. The community boards hear noise complaints against bars and discuss where bars can open all the time. The community boards overlook the forest for the legal trees.

“Nanny” Bloomberg can tell you where to smoke. He can take away your guins. He can tell you what goes into your french fries. He’s now regulating salt. He can take your property. He can say that global warming is murder. But now, when it comes to Islamic terrorism, he draws the line.

“The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? “

Do you know that New Yorkers voted for two-terms-and you’re-out in the 1990s? Then, when asked again, New Yorkers voted for term limits again? Do you know that Bloomberg said no-no-no, I won’t overturn term limits that the people have voted for twice? Do you know that Bloomberg gave goodies to city council members, and they overturned term limits without a vote of the people? Do you know that Bloomberg spent over $100 million of his own money to beat the usual Democrat hack candidate by a mere five points in 2009?

Bloomberg suddenly cares about the Constitution?

““Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans.”

Did CAIR write this?

“Of course, it is fair to ask the organizers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation – and in fact, their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community.”

The organizers are radicals. (See Family Security Matters, among many other websites.) Bloomberg b.s. never stops.

Salon telles me again why I don’t read Salon:

Tuesday, Aug 3, 2010 14:20 ET
War Room Michael Bloomberg delivers stirring defense of mosque
By Justin Elliott

HYPOCRISY OF MANHATTAN BOROUGH PRESIDENT SCOTT STRINGER
Scott Stringer might be known to you for this May 2010 YouTube radio tussle with Steve Malzberg. It took him just a few seconds to bring up “tea party” and “Hitler”:

Manhattan Borough President Defends Likening Tea Party Express Leader to Hitler

Scott Stringer’s statement:

Statement From The Manhattan Borough President Re: Landmarks Preservation Commission Decision On 45-47 Park Place
This morning the Landmarks Preservation Commission ruled against designating 45-47 Park Place as an individual New York City landmark. I support its decision.

From the racist rants of a discredited Tea Party leader to the cynical posturing of a floundering gubernatorial candidate, this process has been manipulated by those looking to get headlines and score political points. We reject their divisive tactics. What we really need is a dialogue that facilitates community healing. Real New Yorkers need to be consulted as this project moves forward, and that includes families who lost their loved ones on 9/11.

“Cynical posturing of a floundering gubernatorial candidate.” (Not named, and isn’t this campaigning using government funds– B.P.) When I ran for Manhattan Borough President in 2005, I met Stringer campaigning in the street, introduced myself, and we shook hands. A week later, he won the Democrat BP primary (with the help of the corrupt Working Families Party) and Stringer appeared on the influential NYC all-news station, NY1. Stringer was asked who his Republican opponent was. “I don’t know! I just know he’s a Republican!” Stringer said. He knew my name.

I wrote in to NY1 and demanded equal time. I also said that I’m the NYC historian who solved the origin of “the Big Apple,” and NY1 might want to cover my work of 15 years ago. No one replied. I wrote in again–I would like a response from someone. My opponent was on your show and he lied! I wasn’t worthy of any reply. I have other stories of what’s it’s like to run as a Republican in Manhattan, and the stories never get any happier.

Here’s Stringer bending over backward to unindicted co-conspirator CAIR:

CAIR-NY Co-Sponsors Manhattan Borough President Iftar
(NEW YORK, NY, 9/3/09) – Some 350 people turned out yesterday for the second annual iftar (Ramadan fast-breaking) dinner hosted by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer at the Malcolm X and Dr. Betty Shabazz Memorial & Educational Center in Manhattan, N.Y.

Councilmember and Comptroller candidate John Li, Public Advocate candidate Norman Siegal, and the daughter of Malcolm X, Ilyasah Shabazz, attended the dinner, which was co-sponsored by CAIR-NY, the Council of Peoples Organization, Dalia Mahmoud, the Islamic Cultural Center of NY, Islamic Relief, Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood, Muslim Bar Association of NY, Muslim Consultative Network, Muslim Day Parade, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and Women in Islam, Inc.

He’s done much more of this, pandering to the worst of the worst.

HYPOCRISY OF NEW YORK CITY’S LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
I agree with the LPC that the proposed “Ground Zero Mosque” building shouldn’t be a landmark. The problem is that the LPC is completely political and makes arbitrary decisions. Overlandmarking has run amuck for too many years.

THe LPC was created in 1965, after the destruction of the famed Pennsylvania Station. According to this recent LPC press release, New York City has over 27,000 landmarked buildings and over 100 landmarked historic districts. There are rules upon rules. If you want to do anything to your landmarked building==say, improve it–you’ve got to fill out a government form and wait.

Are there really so many memorable buildings in New York City?

One of the most memorable New York City buildings was Yankee Stadium. It was not designated as a landmark, so it was destroyed when a new stadium was recently built. I agree that an empty stadium shouldn’t sit around without any use simply because it’s old, but are there really 27,000 more memorable buildings in New York City than Yankee Stadium?

From the New York Times:

Landmark in Hearts and Minds, Not in Fact
By RICHARD SANDOMIR
Published: September 20, 2008
If historical significance is a measure of a landmark, why has Yankee Stadium never been designated one by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission?

There was plenty of architectural significance in the original version.

More than enough history was made in the Stadium before and after its renovation.

And if the commission was willing to make the old Milk-Bone dog treat factory on the Lower East Side a landmark, as it did last week, what has kept it from seriously considering the House that Ruth Built all these years?

The first request to landmark the renovated Stadium came in 1998 from Jeffrey D. Klein, then a state assemblyman from the Bronx.

“You can just feel the history there,” Klein, a Democrat who is now a state senator, said on Friday. “It certainly has tremendous significance.”

Of course Yankee Stadium had tremendous historical significance, but let’s be real. Government finds what it wants to find. If it wants to take over your land with eminent domain, it finds the firm that will condemn the property. If Scotland wants to release the Lockerbie bomber, it consults the non-toxicologist about toxicology. If Lehman Brothers want to sell preferred stock, it goes to the rating agency that will give it an A+. You think merit means a damn?

“The renovation stripped it of all its historic features,” said Elisabeth de Bourbon, the director of communications for the commission. The rooftop frieze and columns were gone, the playing field had been lowered, the seating configuration changed.

She said the requests to landmark the Stadium never reached a hearing before the 11 commissioners; they were rejected by the agency’s staff.

“The substantial changes made to it had rendered it ineligible,” she said.

Yankee Stadium is less memorable than the Milk-Bone dog treat factory? And if the “memorable” parts of Yankee Stadium were destroyed during the 1975 renovation, where was everybody at the LPC? They never looked at the plans? Sure, they did!

Landmarking usually goes like this. Owner wants to destroy or change the building. Tenants say “no” and an architect is hired. Architect determines that the building was designed by so-and-so and is a rare example of so-and-so. New York just wouldn’t ever be the same without this building. Many residents protest against just one evil landlord. The tenants win.

So, while Landmarks made the correct decision with regard to this building, the entire agency does work of questionable value to New York City’s future.

HYPOCRISY FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Barack “The police acted stupidly” Obama has an opinion of everything, except this. From Hot Air:

Gibbs on Ground Zero mosque: I’m not going to meddle in local decisions
posted at 8:03 pm on August 3, 2010 by Allahpundit

SUMMARY
Hypocrsiy from the community board, hypocrisy from the Landmarks Preservation Commission, hypocrisy from the Manhattan borough president, hypocrisy from the mayor, and hypocrisy from the U.S. president.

The system worked.

I moved to Texas in 2006.