Tuesday night’s runoff election debate between public advocate candidates state Sen. Daniel Squadron (D-Brooklyn, Manhattan) and City Council Member Letitia James (D-Brooklyn) was a spirited and often contentious affair that, at times, seemed to turn more on the unpopularity of Mayor Bloomberg than a serious discussion on the qualifications for the office they hope to hold.
The debate, moderated by NY1’s Errol Louis and WNYC’s Brian Lehrer, was held Tuesday night, just a week before the scheduled runoff election on Oct. 1. The runoff is mandated by state law because neither candidate was able to get at least 40 percent of the vote in the primary earlier this month.
Political experts predict voter turnout will be exceptionally low because the public advocate will be the only race on the ballot combined with the fact that many New Yorkers are woefully ignorant of the function of public advocate, which is essentially an ombudsman and watchdog charged with helping residents in all five boroughs on a variety of issues from housing to employment.
During the course of the hour-long debate, the candidates took turns sparring with each other on everything from voting too often with the mayor and taking corporate money from developers and political action committees (PACs) to living off a trust fund.
James, who called the public advocate basically a “system of checks and balances on the mayor,” reiterated how she challenged the Bloomberg Administration on issues such as term limits, the soda ban, economic policies which don’t pay people a living wage as well as the lack of affordable housing.
A recurring James’ theme was also how the council member has repeatedly “stood-up to powerful interests in the city,” while she attempted to paint Squadron as a Bloomberg ally at best and lackey at worst, accusing him on more than one occasion of “carrying the mayor’s water in Albany.”
In countering James’ assertions that he’s in lockstep with Bloomberg policies, Squadron said that James has voted “with Bloomberg 159 times in the city council,” and has agreed with mayoral bills about 98 percent of the time.
Squadron also accused James of taking corporate contributions from Coca-Cola while publicly attacking the mayor’s soda ban. He said that “raises a real concern,” adding that the public advocate has to be independent and free of conflicts of interest.
He also touted the fact that he hasn’t taken any contributions from PACs.
“The job of the public advocate,” said Squadron, “isn’t about being a thorn in the side of the mayor it’s to take on issues for people who don’t have anyone or anyplace else to turn to.”
Acknowledging the heated nature of campaigning, James said, “I know this is a political season and I know that the attacks are going to come,” but she added that no one has ever questioned her integrity, and high-standards during her more than 20 year career in both city government and as a former public defender with Legal Aid.
She then proceeded to accuse Squadron of being “silent on term limits and not endorsing Bill Thompson,” the Democratic mayoral candidate who challenged Bloomberg in 2008.
Each candidate, alternately, accused the other of being too close to the mayor and his “failed” policies.
In hammering home issues of transparency, which Squadron said was “crucial” to the office of public advocate, he asked why James didn’t disclose rental income from a brownstone she owns as well as not disclosing her tax returns.
“In office, it’s all about transparency,” Squadron said. “Shouldn’t these issues raise questions about whether or not people can trust you?” he asked.
Squadron then asked James to release her tax returns, as she had promised to do earlier in the campaign.
James quickly agreed but not before accusing Squadron of living off a much publicized “trust fund.”
Squadron called the “trust fund” issue a personal attack and innuendo.
When pressed by Lehrer on the trust fund issue, Squadron responded, “I don’t have a trust fund.”
Asked about legislation they were each particularly proud of, Squadron pointed to his work in passing an assault weapons ban and in securing $75 million to help repair public housing projects.
James said she was most proud of passing a tenant safety act in the city, mandating that repairs be completed in a timely fashion.
Noting that the runoff election will cost taxpayers roughly $13 million, Louis asked each candidate their views on instant runoff voting, which would save taxpayers both time and money by determining winners based upon orders of preference.
James said that much good could be done with the $13 million, such as hiring teachers, fire fighters, etc. She added that runoffs should only be reserved for the mayor.
Squadron, while noting the expense of the runoffs, said that legislation should be passed to allow the city to move to instant runoffs.
And, while the candidates were far apart on most issues, they did concur on some.
When asked if they were interested in using the public advocate position as a springboard to mayor, as Bill de Blasio has seemingly done, both were adamant they were not interested in the office.
In addition, both candidates also agreed on curtailing or reforming the NYPD’s controversial stop-and-frisk policy, extending casino gambling in the state, and supporting the passage of legislation allowing the use of medical marijuana.
Both candidates also said they were against the NYPD’s unlawful surveillance of the Muslim community.
In closing arguments, Squadron again raised questions on James’ integrity, regarding contributions from prominent real estate developers. “It all goes to issues of transparency,” he said.
For her part, James once again linked Squadron to the mayor’s “12 years of failed policies.”
By Alan Krawitz
