To the Republican party leadership, New York's 13th District (composed of Staten Island and the outer Brooklyn neighborhoods of Bay Ridge and Bensonhurst) is money in the bank. Literally.
Having raised a mammoth war chest with the help of Vice President Dick Cheney (whose 2005 visit to an island fund-raiser helped pry open local wallets), incumbent Congressman Vito Fossella is all but assured a smooth ride into the November polls.
That said, Democratic challenger Steven Harrison is certainly making things interesting. Having climbed his way up to the top of Community Board 10 on the other side of the Narrows, Harrison is attempting the ultimate Hail Mary play: jumping over a half-dozen better-situated (not to mention elected) Democrats and taking on a man considered by many to be the island's No. 1 power broker.
Harrison's optimism is built on the recent success of fellow upstart candidates such as Ned Lamont of Connecticut. It's also built on campaign trail feedback and polling data which suggest that Republican candidates have gone an Election Day too far with Iraq as the centerpiece in the war on terrorism. Looking closer to home, Harrison also sees a chance for local issues such as traffic and overdevelopment to bring change-hungry voters to the polls. Add it all up and you have the possibility, however slim, of an upset victory come November 7, 2006.
Recently, Looking North took a few moments to talk wtih Steven Harrison about his campaign and his formidable opponent.
Looking North: In your speech you mentioned that you see potential for left/right unity on the issue of alternative energy. What other issues do you see potential for a left/right consensus.
Steve Harrison: Well, I'm hoping we'll eventually see it in the war. I think we're going to have to get past this election before we see the Republicans come on board, but I am seeing some cracks in cracks in Congress and here. I think you're going to see that afterwards. Aside from that, I'm not seeing a lot of unity right now in the Democrats as well as within the Republican party.
I see some Staten Island issues. I think there's a lot of unity on the North Shore Railway. Those issues are always a little easier to come together on. Once you agree on how to move traffic, that seems to work real well.
LN: You're out of Brooklyn.
SH: Yes.
LN: Which part?
SH: I live in Bay Ridge. The [13th] District includes all of Staten Island, Bay Ridge, Dyker Heights, Bensonhurst and parts of Gravesend. I live in the Bay Ridge section. My mother lives on Staten Island, and my sister and her family live on Staten Island. So I have a pretty big emotional investment over here as well as there.
LN: As a Brooklynite, what do you see as the big issues facing Staten Island?
SH: Oddly enough, as a Brooklynite, I see Staten Island as exactly the same. That probably comes from the fact that the classic migration, particular since the Verrazzano Narrows Bridge building, so many people came from Brooklyn. It seems almost everybody has roots over there, except for the natives.
The common issues are traffic and, oddly enough, there are few issues that pop up on both sides. One of them would be eliminating the toll on the Verrazzano Narrows Bridge, which I think can be done. [It's] something I proposed, because this is all one Congressional district. A $9 toll prevents the district from meeting the "three c's": contiguous, compact and convenient. And $9 prevents the interflow of transactions between both sides of the bridge. Because of that, I think it may be illegal to have a district that is broken like ours is.The best way to handle that is -- there's really no way for Staten Island; it's an island it has to be connected to somebody -- and for logical reasons it can't be connect to New Jersey. So it's either got to be Manhattan or it's got to be Brooklyn. I think that we are certainly a better choice for cultural similarities, so there's a good shot that we can turn [the toll] off.
LN: You mean have the fare completely eliminated?!?
SH: No, only for the people in the district.
LN: Similar to EZ Pass.
SH: Very similar to what you have right now, where you have discounts. But, of course, this would be a total discount.
I also believe there should be a high speed EZ Pass that we should return to two ways. The complaint that originally caused [one way tolls] was that there was a huge backup of the traffic into Staten Island would be eliminated, because the vast majority of people were just going back and forth very rapidly. That would also bring a big infusion of money into the city, because right now a lot of truckers avoid that extra fare, that extra toll by going back out the Holland Tunnel.
LN: You mentioned the traffic issue. That's the big one in our neighborhood. How is that something the federal government impacts? It seems such a local issue.
SH: It is a local issue, but the Staten Island Expressway is a federal interstate.
LN: [Interstate] 278.
SH: Monies that go in there, much of it comes from the federal government. Oddly enough, when I made this proposal, Vito Fossella had indicated that the federal government did not have jurisdiction over the tolls. I did check it out, and the federal government clearly has jurisdiction over the tolls, so that's something that can be done.
[Looking North note: Harrison appears to have struck a nerve with this one. I just received a "push poll" [?] phone call Wednesday night, asking me whether I welcomed the "traffic nightmare" Harrison's plan would cause. For more on the tolls issue, including Congressman Fossella's side of the story, check out the Aug. 31 Advance story that triggered the rumble.]
The other area that, oddly enough, would help a lot of Staten Islanders, is we have the Gowanus Expressway on the Brooklyn side. That, of course, is the path many Staten Islanders take to get from Staten Island into the city. It's an extremely important highway not only to Brooklyn but also to Staten Island. I've always supported making a tunnel where it is right now. It would take many years of investment, but it would be well worth it for a variety of reasons and would certainly move traffic a lot faster.
LN: I know during the mayoral campaign there was a discussion about a railway link from Brooklyn to New Jersey that would relieve much of the congestion on the BQE.
SH: The railway link is actually one that's being pushed very heavily by Congressman Jerry Nadler, one of my supporters. What Jerry is asking for is to put the railway, freight rail not passenger, under the harbor. That would take an enormous amount of trucks off the highways which would certainly open up and make the highways move a lot faster.
LN: You also mentioned development. You see the same type of development in the parts of Brooklyn you'd represent as you do over here on Staten Island. What's the common factor?
SH: It's slightly different, but the common factor is zoning.
LN: It also seems to be a density issue.
SH: It's a huge density issue. If you take a look at my background, it's how I got here. It actually came from zoning and from the overdevelopment of the Bay Ridge section of Brooklyn. I became the chairman of the community board [10] and the result of my efforts was the largest rezoning in the history of Brooklyn. Downzoning took place in my community board. I'm still the chairman of the planning and land use committee and as a result of further efforts, we will see what I believe will be the largst rezoning in the history of New York, other than the original zoning effort.
What was happening in the places we were zoning is that we were getting beautiful old Victorian homes that would be on half-acre zoning. One family would live there and have maybe one car. The house would be sold, but the underlying zone was such that it would benefit a developer to knock it down and put up 15-20 condos, each of which would add one or two cars and many of those cars would have to be parked on the street. It was absolutely stressing the infrastructure of the community.
The same thing's happening around here on Staten Island. There are a number of things I've proposed. And even though, as a member of Congress, it's not really in my bailiwick, I believe that with the credibility I have in terms of planning would add greatly as to what can be done on Staten Island.
I know that one of the problems is that they did do a rezoning a number of years ago, but it obviously hasn't held everybody off. It's continuing, particularly on the South Shore with the developments. That has to be looked at very carefully and that's one area of expertise it has.
LN: Development taxes the existing infrastructure, but it also brings in new residents who, just from my perspective, stand to remake the island political structure. If you look at these townhouse residents, many have a pile of grievances themselves -- issues ranging from predatory lending to unclear title and certificates of occupancy. There's just a lot of quick and dirty business activity going into the construction of these units. It seems like that is a very large potential Democratic voting base -- people who are disgruntled over the way they've been treated.
SH: Zoning, whether it's downzoning or just people getting ripped off by developers who are misusing the downzoning, tends to create potential Democrats, because we're the ones that tend to take care of the individual. It's still my position, though, that while it may be wonderful to cram everybody in there from a voter's point of view, that's not what it's about. We're here to help the people of Staten Island, help them maintain their neighborhoods and keep the character of the island. The character of where we live is extremely important to the quality of our lives.
Just to give you and idea of what I mean, many people don't understand zoning. What happened with zoning is that it was actually created in 1916 in the state of New York. Staten Island and Brooklyn and all of New York City were under what was called the Developmental [unclear]. The zoning was intended to encourage people to build in these areas. Because there were outlying areas, people would build in the area, but they would never go for the total zone. The reason for that is because if you went there it was almost a summer home. People built large homes, but they could've built their homes a lot larger. People saw these neighborhoods as a place to get away from the city, so they wanted to preserve that sense of space within each lot.
Well, when it got to the point that it became a mature urban community, the developers came back and they looked and said "Where can we build?" They couldn't build any more homes in the existing style, so they did what we call infill zoning. So what happened is you had a relatively well defined community -- if this was England or France, they never would have allowed these houses to be torn down -- we had a well-defined community, but because it was used housing stock, we now started to get teardowns. The same thing is happening over here. What happens is when you get a defined community, there should be a mechanism to make officially defined. At that point, development shifts to a preservation model. That's not landmarking. It's saying that if you have a one family house and you choose to knock it down, you have to build a one family house in its place. Because that's what you had. If the old house was dilapitated, sure, you can update it. We're not so worried about preserving the structure. We're worried about preserving the character of the community.
LN: One downside with downzoning is that it seems like you're trying to freeze a community in a state where people can say "It's just like it was in the old days." As we're seeing on the north shore, there's a sizable number of residents and business owners who'd like to see the neighborhood become more like the newer, revitalized neighborhoods you encounter in north Brooklyn and Long Island City. You've got the development down by the ferry and the proposed redevelopment of the Stapleton Waterfront looking to follow the Battery Park City model of high density, integrated development. I'm wondering if downzoning can cooperate or even coexist with that parallel phenonomon.
SH: It should. First of all, I want to give a lot of credit to the Dept. of City Planning. When they do it, they do not allow it to occur to the extent that now it is frozen as you're talking about. There's always flexibility for what's being done. You always have to be careful that you're not overstretching your infrastructure. That does bring in destabilizing pressures. Also, you have to be very careful that you don't misunderstand that residential downzoning is not the same as commercial downzoning. You still have to support the communities. You still need development and a construction base. What you need most of all is quality.
LN: OK, I'm going to shift to the guns issue, seeing a that seems to be one that still rings up as a major issue on the northern part of the island. It seems the Congressman Fossella has been playing both sides of the political fence on guns. He was a member of the solid Republican bloc that back in 2004 chose to let the Assault Weapons Ban expire without a renewal vote. More recently, he took credit for fighting the White House on a plan to cut federal funding for the NYPD's kevlar vests. Given that we had two police officers murdered in Tompkinsville on a gun buying sting three years ago, it seems we have a little bit of a disconnect going on here. What mystifies me is why Fossella, who represents a city where you can't even buy a handgun, much less an assault weapon, didn't take a a more visible dissenting stand against his party back in 2004.
SH: I'll go one step further. Why, in the largest port in the United States, does Vito Fossella vote for only five percent of the containers being scanned for radioactive materials when every other congressman in the vicinity votes for 100 percent scans, all of which is expected to be feasible and affordable? The answer is that his campaign contributions come from Wal-Mart, which is one of the largest shippers in the United States and which does not want to pay the extra cost of scanning and sealing. It's only a matter of $50 [per containter], but they don't want to pay. They'd rather pay $5,000 to Vito's campaign. You'll find the same thing with the [National Rifle Association]. They just upped Vito Fossella's rating from B+ to A-. That can tell you right there why he gets campaign contributions from the NRA.
LN: But can it really be that direct? If Wal-Mart withdrew its $5,000 campaign contribution, I'm sure somebody on the island would step forward to fill the gap. All you'd need is three people to contribute the $2,000 maximum and you've exceeded Wal-Mart's contribution right there.
SH: I don't think it works that way. I'm in this game, and I'll tell you right now: Every single [contributor] is someone that counts. If somebody else was able to step up like that, they would have stepped up already. I believe that campaign contributions -- large or small -- make a big difference. We find that with the oil lobby all the time. I believe [Fossella] has received $63,000 from the oil lobby [Looking North note: Open Secrets says $32,100 and $29,500 from the Energy/Natural Resources sector over the last two election cycles] which has received tax cuts as a result. Campaign money is extremely powerful, and Vito does have a tendency not to vote with New Yorkers. The guns issue is a perfect example. He votes with Texas rather than with Staten Island. There is a disconnect. I feel like the bullet proof vests were almost an apology for voting for the guns. Either that or it was an excuse so he can get out there and say to police officers, "Hey, guys, I got you the bullet proof vests."
What he's not saying, however, is that he's voting in favor of keeping the guns on the street. I personally feel we'd be a lot better off getting rid of the guns. Sure, you give the police the vests in case, but I'd rather be moving in a direction where someday they don't need the vests at all.
LN: It seems like the whole theme this year is that the Republican leadership, recognizing the president's weak approval rating, is giving party members the freedom to break away from the White House on major issues, most notably immigration. Fossella seems to be one of the many House members taking advantage of that signal, judging by his campaign slogan this year: "An Independent Fighter" for Staten Island.
SH: And yet his grade from the N.R.A. went from a B+ to an A-. Makes you wonder.
I'll tell you this. When I work the ferries, the singlemost pressing question is "What are you going to do about guns?" I get that one all the time.
LN: Maybe because Staten Island is the first place they get sold, where they come into the city.
SH: It is somewhat confusing, but it is what's happening.
LN: Another issue in which the Republicans all voted in lockstep was the Bankruptcy Act of 2005. What was going on with that bill?
SH: That's basically the Mastercard bill? It was intended to make sure that everybody was required to pay off their credit card. It used to be that the idea behind bankruptcy was that you got momentary relief from your debts and you got a fresh start. To me, the disconnect is this: You've got a middle class, a blue collar community that is being encouraged consistently to spend. People are barraged with credit cards left and right. They're encouraged to spend, until something happens to interrupt the income stream, a health care crisis for example, and they get into trouble. Under the old law, they go to the courts for temporary relief from their credit card payments. The banks don't want that happen, so Vito votes for the banks and against the interests of his own constituency. This is, to me, absolutely unconscionable.
LN: This goes back to something you mentioned in your speech. You noted that people on the left want to see more use of alternative energy for environmental reasons and people on the right want to see more use of alternative energy for foreign policy reasons and yet the current makeup of Congress forbids this kind of a coalition. There seems to be a similar situation with the credit card companies. The harshest criticism of the Bankruptcy Act I saw last year came from right wing bloggers who saw it as a stealth subsidy for the banking industry. It seems like the votes are there if that issue can just work its way to the top of the political discussion.
SH: That's precisely correct -- if you're talking about the votes from people who go to the polls. As long as campaign money is a factor, however, we're not going to see a repeal with the current Congress. The credit card companies, by definition, have a lot of money to spend on this issue, and Vito Fossella is one of the people who has taken their money.
LN: Last question: When you look at the north shore, as some one coming from Brooklyn, what do you see?
SH: It's interesting. When I came over here, I was told by many people that the north shore was Democrat and the south shore was blue collar Republican and there was a total disconnect between the two. I was told that you come down [to the south shore] and they would be hostile. I haven't found that at all. I've found them to be extremely cordial and nice people. I've found them to be people who listen very, very carefully. What they do is they vote who they are. But I think this year we're seeing a change. And that's why I'm being accepted. People are not happy with the way Vito is voting. They're not happy with their tax circumstances. They're not happy seeing their wages diminished. They're not happy seeing Vito voting against the minimum wage laws. They're not happy seeing their jobs shipped overeas. They're not happy seeing illegal immigrants coming in and taking their jobs. Interestingly enough, I also find them to be very upset with the war. Because if anybody from the island sends people to that war, it's from the south shore. So all told, I'm finding the dissatisfaction with the war and the uncomfortableness with Vito is something that translates into a victory for Steve Harrison.
| S.W. |
|