Skip to content

Lewyn Addresses America

A little politics, a little urbanism- I also blog 100 percent on urbanism at and

The debate is here.   My notes:

Opening statments- Dietl is shouty man.  Malliotakis focuses adequately on DiBlasio’s weaknesses (subways, homeless) and DiBlasio on the city’s strengths (crime).

On homelessness- non incumbents complain about status quo.  (I like Dietl’s line praising pre-K spending under DiBlasio).  Malliotakis goes with laundry list strategy, sounding “inside the Beltway.” DiBlasio brags about 900 homeless off the street, which doesn’t seem like a lot.   He also emphasizes legal services to fight evictions- but if you make it harder to evict, doesn’t that impose costs on landlords that might be reflected in higher rents?

After an exchange on inequality, DiBlasio lists key achievements: pre-K, low crime, declining poverty.  Hits Malliotakis on minimum wage.  Malliotakis shifts debate to schools, campaign contributions from developer.   Seems like both candidates evading each other’s attacks.

DiBlasio gets question about 20 percent increase in city spending.  Responds by saying city reserves high, lists good things he’s done with money.   When asked about history of nonpayment of taxes, Dietl sounds slightly unhinged.

When asked about how to cut spending, Malliotakis talks about how she has brought spending home to her district in Albany (not exactly an answer).   Ultimately she does answer by answering a question with a question.  Not her strongest answer.

On transit, Dietl incoherent.  Malliotakis calls for more MTA spending, points out that the city appoints people to the MTA board.  DiBlasio blames the state.

On crime, basic exchange is as follows: DiBlasio says “crime down”, everyone else says “is not.”   Facts are here.

Malliotakis comes out against closing Rikers – why not fix what we have rather than building a bunch of new jails? Also, a jail on an island inherently a good idea- people can’t escape as easily.   DiBlasio pivots to “we’re doing more on rehabilitation”.

DiBlasio asks others: did you really think Trump would be better? I’m not sure Malliotakis says she’s answered the question in other places.

When asked about segregated schools, DiBlasio a bit vague.  Other candidates don’t really address this issue, and focus on education generally.

Moderator asks “who will control developers from gentrifying the city?”  (Stupid question- assumes new housing is bad unless its government-subsidized).  Dietl calls for extorting money out of developers.  Malliotakis focuses on giving stuff to nonprofits.   Complains about campaign contributions to developers.  Both too far left for me on this issue.   This is an area where we really could have used a Libertarian in the race.

Debate finishes with some accusations about immigration, not much of which I understood.

Winner:  Not Dietl.







%d bloggers like this: