Similarly, Brooklynites know who “Marty” is and teachers know who “Randi” is. Their fans and foes alike generally refer to them by their first names.

I know “Janette” is not there yet in terms of name recognition, but isn’t a “Watch” intended for insider types, rather than for the broader public? Isn’t this different than, for example, using her first name in a press release headline?

Clarence, although I agree with you that there are other factors involved, familiarity and status are the most important. I must not be as politically connected as you, because most of the people I know don’t even know who Adrian Benepe is, and would understand “Schumer” but not “Chuck.” I’m guessing that a lot of the people you’re talking about have actually met Schumer or Benepe.

In circles where there’s a lot of familiarity with the DOT, I’m sure you find people talking about “Janette,” “Judith,” “Iris,” and in the past “Chris” and “Lee.” I’m sure a fair number of the readers of this blog fall into that category. But there’s also a wider audience who are going to see you referring to “Janette,” and think that you’re not taking her seriously.

I’ll chime in: I’ll concede I think Angus is right if you look at it as a historical whole, but I also think that is changing. In many cases it depends on the first and last name, how they sound, which name is less common, the person and their personality, and many other intangibles. I almost always hear Adrian Benepe referred to as Adrian. And I know when people are talking about politics and they say Chuck it means Chuck Schumer.

Confession: I once wrote a letter addressed to Mayor Mike at City Hall. It got to him.

Sincerely yours,

Mr. Eckerson (but please call me Clarence)

i’m just sayin’.

It took me a while to think of who “Randi” might be, but I’m guessing Weingarten. “Marty” and “Chuck” are Markowitz and Schumer, probably, but I’ve never heard them referred to by first name alone. Giuliani is an exception, because a lot of people seem to feel particularly close to him. Clinton proves my point: when someone says “Hillary” in a political context you know exactly who they mean, but if they say “Bill” without any previous clues you might be floundering for a while. (And I’m honored to say that I know Clarence personally.)

It’s true there are some big-name politicians who get (and often seek) first-name recognition, like Giuliani and Clinton. But Sadik-Khan is not a big-name politician; she’s an incoming department commissioner. What other city commissioners, or even deputy mayors, have been referred to on a first-name basis? Tom? Matt? Jeanne? Adrian? Ray? Nick? Dan?

Aaron may in fact know Sadik-Khan well enough to be on a first-name basis with her, or he may do it because he feels that she’s practically “one of us.” I’m not questioning his right to refer to her as he chooses, I’m arguing that in a public context it can create an image of her as a lightweight among politicians, bureaucrats and the press.

Finally, Aaron, wouldn’t “Mike Watch” have sounded better than “Horodniceanu Watch”?

[And, of course,"Clarence"]

Sadik-Khan is a woman, she’s young (for a city commissioner), and she’s an academic instead of a traffic engineer. She’s taking over a department full of traffic engineers that have shown themselves to be arrogant and resistant to change. From what I’ve read, she sounds like she’s strong enough to control the department, but she’ll get a lot of resistance. Referring to her by first name on this blog will only make it harder.

But as always actions speak louder than words. She’s got a lot to do in just about 2 years and hopefully is popular and productive enough to survive to the next administration.

Good luck Janette!

Okay. I feel better.