Not really, just kidding.

What I read of your comments was obfuscation, irrelevance, and nothing germane to Glick's record.

How about addressing the issues I raised, not what position(second, fifth, or last) she came in the 1997 BP race(she lost, hello) or if there were three, or five, or fifty candidates in 1991.

Issues Like:
- Her election to public office due to nepotistic efforts on the part of her lover.

- Her lack of any serious skills before becoming Assemblymember (most lawmakers are lawyers, city planners, political science majors, not copy clerks. Again, nepotism works wonders.)

- Her opposition to the Hudson River Park Act that created that wonderful park. The reason:it would bring more 'outsiders' into the West Village.

- Voting against CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR BOND ACT

- Voting against warning labels on booze bottles

- Voting against notifying pediatric doctors if a pregnant woman was HIV+

-Speaking out against installing a toilet in the Hudson River Park, because it was 'development'

-Speaking out against having a one-story wooden shed for FREE kayaking because it was 'development'.

- Not wanting a Recycling Center in her precious district

-"Sleeping" with Boss Silver

- Her ridiculous claim this week that everyone on Streetsblog but you seems to think is absurd, namely: "Glick's worried any work to expand the subways could "negatively impact the air."

Please address these issues, or perhaps you cannot.

As far as praising her for her efforts at stopping inappropriate development, that is a smoke screen. As a NY State official, there is little she can do to pull permits or exert influence against NY City projects, except complain.

She talks anti-development. Meanwhile her district is being inundated with high-rise development. Andrew Berman, a civilian working for a non-profit, has done more to stop development in her district than Glick has.

She opposed a free public toilet on the pier because, quote: "a 6" water main for a toilet soon becomes a 36" water main for a luxury condo" (I couldn't make this nuttiness up.)

So, people have to pee in the street or on themselves, and the Richard Meier towers are going up non-stop on West Street like mushrooms after a rain. What good is she!

Will someone, anyone please challenge her next election. Just to make her do some work for once in 16 years.

But as far as the waste mgmt plan, she and Tom Duane have proposed two alternatives that would be cost-effective and would preserve the Hudson River Park Act's goal of restoring the waterfront as a place for people. Both alternatives would site the transfer station in the district - one using a different pier and one using abandoned rails. Bloomberg/Quinn just won't budge or consider NOT putting the recycling facility in the park. In addition, Sanitation is trying to drop a giant trash facility in Hudson Square at Canal and West St. so that they can hand off land to developers in the W. 30's that has already been approved for the facility.

But that's getting off topic. Deborah, do the right thing for the district, what the community boards and Democratic clubs have endorsed: support congestion pricing.

What a useless sack of rotten potatoes. She needs to go!

I've been a journalist for nearly 20 years, and tho I wasn't acting in that capacity when I called Glick's office, I fully stand by what I reported.

I didn't act as a reporter in part because I was frankly aghast at what Ms. Swidorski said about the negative impacts of expanded subway construction on the air. What I quoted were her words, not mine.

I totally agree with Sheila's comments above that while Glick may be right to stand up for enviro concerns, she is focusing on the trees instead of the forest and failing to show any real leadership here, as are many of the State Democrats.

Sadly, Glick may be parroting the narrowcast line of many in the Green community when it comes to this SEQRA objection.

Someone sent me this letter from Assemblymember William Colton, 47th AD, who is pitching a similar concern about SEQRA.

Obviously there are many reasons not to like Congestion Pricing, not least of which is that it's generally a regressive tax. The problem is, how else are we PRACTICALLY going to reduce traffic in the city and raise revenues for mass transit?

Should we mandate hybrid vehicles? Have license plate rationing as Colton suggests? I'm sure there would be howls about that. How do you pay for the cops or additional cameras and surveillance required to ensure that drivers are carpooling into the city? WOuldn't that entail even further civil liberties encroachments?

Or should we go back to arguing that the federal government really SHOULD be subsidizing greener transit and keep praying for that rainy day to arrive?

Subject: [manhattangreens] Against Congestion Pricing plan (William Colton)
To: BrooklynGreens@yahoogroups.com

From: WILLIAM COLTON

Dear Friend,

I do not support the congestion pricing plan which has been passed by the City Council.

The biggest problem with this congestion pricing proposal is that it
sets a very bad precedent by setting aside the SEQRA requirements for
an environmental impact study before undertaking a major project. The requirement that an Environmental Impact Study be completed before a major project is approved is critical to protecting people from the consequences of bad projects.

I believe the refusal to do such an EIS is because this proposal does
not really achieve a reduction of congestion but rather seeks to
impose a regressive tax on families. It fails to include elements
which might be effective at reducing the environmental impacts of
traffic congestion, such as favoring green low gas and hybrid
vehicles, encouraging cars with two and three riders, making a fee
progressive with income, targeting black cars and taxis (which equal
40% of all cars in the Manhattan congestion zone), and enforcing
higher fines for illegal and double parking in congestion zone,
eliminating the credit for tolls (which will exempt most of the
congestion fee for New Jersey and Conn. drivers), establishing some
form of rationing such as prohibiting vehicles with odd or even
license plates to odd or even days, thereby encouraging car pooling, etc.

But the real goal of the proposal is to provide a new revenue source
from the middle class and working poor. . Even worse, the failure of
the plan to require such additional revenues be used to make public
transit more accessible and affordable for the families of our
neighborhoods instead of allowing it to fund major capital projects
favored by developers is hypocritical and dooms any hope for making
public transit more accessible and affordable or for any real hope of
a reduction in congestion.

In fact passage of this plan will almost guarantee a large fare
increase because whatever monies which are given to the MTA will not
be used to pay for public transit improvements but instead will be
used to collateralize borrowing which will result in higher future
interest payments which public transit users will need to repay with
higher fares. Therefore it will not encourage people to use cars
since use of mass transit will be almost as expensive. The congestion
fee will impact on those with low and middle incomes and will have
little impact on the wealthy who will simply use it as a business deduction.

There are many more arguments against this plan but these are some
very major ones which require me to vote no in order to protect the
families of our neighborhood .

Thanks,
Bill

I've been a journalist for nearly 20 years, and tho I wasn't acting in that capacity when I called Glick's office, I fully stand by what I reported.

I didn't act as a reporter in part because I was frankly aghast at what Ms. Swidorski said about the negative impacts of expanded subway construction on the air. What I quoted were her words, not mine.

I totally agree with Sheila's comments above that while Glick may be right to stand up for enviro concerns, she is focusing on the trees instead of the forest and failing to show any real leadership here, as are many of the State Democrats.

Sadly, Glick may be parroting the narrowcast line of many in the Green community when it comes to this SEQRA objection.

Someone sent me this letter from Assemblymember William Colton, 47th AD, who is pitching a similar concern about SEQRA.

Obviously there are many reasons not to like Congestion Pricing, not least of which is that it's generally a regressive tax. The problem is, how else are we PRACTICALLY going to reduce traffic in the city and raise revenues for mass transit?

Should we mandate hybrid vehicles? Have license plate rationing as Colton suggests? I'm sure there would be howls about that. How do you pay for the cops or additional cameras and surveillance required to ensure that drivers are carpooling into the city? WOuldn't that entail even further civil liberties encroachments?

Or should we go back to arguing that the federal government really SHOULD be subsidizing greener transit and keep praying for that rainy day to arrive?

Subject: [manhattangreens] Against Congestion Pricing plan (William Colton)
To: BrooklynGreens@yahoogroups.com

From: WILLIAM COLTON

Dear Friend,

I do not support the congestion pricing plan which has been passed by the City Council.

The biggest problem with this congestion pricing proposal is that it
sets a very bad precedent by setting aside the SEQRA requirements for
an environmental impact study before undertaking a major project. The requirement that an Environmental Impact Study be completed before a major project is approved is critical to protecting people from the consequences of bad projects.

I believe the refusal to do such an EIS is because this proposal does
not really achieve a reduction of congestion but rather seeks to
impose a regressive tax on families. It fails to include elements
which might be effective at reducing the environmental impacts of
traffic congestion, such as favoring green low gas and hybrid
vehicles, encouraging cars with two and three riders, making a fee
progressive with income, targeting black cars and taxis (which equal
40% of all cars in the Manhattan congestion zone), and enforcing
higher fines for illegal and double parking in congestion zone,
eliminating the credit for tolls (which will exempt most of the
congestion fee for New Jersey and Conn. drivers), establishing some
form of rationing such as prohibiting vehicles with odd or even
license plates to odd or even days, thereby encouraging car pooling, etc.

But the real goal of the proposal is to provide a new revenue source
from the middle class and working poor. . Even worse, the failure of
the plan to require such additional revenues be used to make public
transit more accessible and affordable for the families of our
neighborhoods instead of allowing it to fund major capital projects
favored by developers is hypocritical and dooms any hope for making
public transit more accessible and affordable or for any real hope of
a reduction in congestion.

In fact passage of this plan will almost guarantee a large fare
increase because whatever monies which are given to the MTA will not
be used to pay for public transit improvements but instead will be
used to collateralize borrowing which will result in higher future
interest payments which public transit users will need to repay with
higher fares. Therefore it will not encourage people to use cars
since use of mass transit will be almost as expensive. The congestion
fee will impact on those with low and middle incomes and will have
little impact on the wealthy who will simply use it as a business deduction.

There are many more arguments against this plan but these are some
very major ones which require me to vote no in order to protect the
families of our neighborhood .

Thanks,
Bill

"so I guess Downtown Girl is one fo (sic) the 2 women, or a supporter of one, who ran against glick and lost."

Sam, you guess wrong!

First of all, your knowledge or lack thereof is obvious in your opening sentence. Glick's opponents in 1991 were not "2 women', as you claim. One was a woman and one was a man.
For the record, I am neither of her opponents, nor one of their supporters, other than voting for one of them.

Good try but you don't win the cigar.

Everything I wrote about Glick's voting record and positions is true.

She voted against the "Clean Water, Clean Air Act", even though one of the schools in her district, Chelsea Vocational, was spewing out coal fumes throughout her district.

Her office has been picketed by poor people from the Bronx because she wants them to have garbage trucks go through their neighborhood, instead of having the West Village get its Fair Share.

Her opposition to HIV testing for mothers and her opposition to the warning on liquor bottles is also well known.

So please get your facts straight.

One more thing which is telling about Glick.

She ran for Manhattan in 2007 in a ten-way race, and lost. This led to her one and only editorial in the Daily News.

Rather than accepting her loss gracefully, the News editors wrote the day after the election, at her party following the closing of the polls, Glick told her supporters:
"I lost because I am a lesbian." (The victor was a black woman, by the way, Virginia Fields)

The News was wise enough to see through this disgusting use of Crying Wolf, and condemned her for it, famously concluding with:
"Glick did not lose the race because she is a lesbian. She lost because she did not campaign beyond the confines of her election district"

So, please, do not tell me how wonderful this person is. She is not as bad as some, but it is time she gets replaced.

Debbie, for the sake of your constituents, move on. There still may be a job opening somewhere as a Xerox operator, or collecting tolls when CP goes into effect.

He is not to be taken seriously, although he is serious. He is also a bit of an egomaniac

He would have 40 trees stand in the way of a Second Avenue Subway.

And aren't squirrels just rats with fancy fur coats and better PR?

REGIONAL EMISSIONS FROM CONSTRUCTION-RELATED SPOILS AND MATERIALS TRANSPORT

"Because of the large scale and extended duration of the construction required for the Second Avenue Subway, the construction could potentially increase regional concentrations of ozone precursors-NOx and VOCs-as well as fine particulate matter (PM2.5), all of which are pollutants of concern on a regional basis." (Federal Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS 11-18).

In addition, although construction of the Second Avenue Subway has just begun in the area from 91st to 97th Streets, the impact on trees, birds and squirrels has been quite the opposite of the ambitious plans described in PlaNYC. In this regard, The New York Bird Club sent out the following invitation to a meeting At the New York Blood Center on June 7 to protest tree removal by the New York City Department of Parks in order to allegedly facilitate construction of the Second Avenue Subway:

"Due to the construction of the 2nd Ave subway, there already have been removed at least 40 trees along 2nd Ave. The next place to remove trees is by the park at 2nd Ave between 91-90th Streets. There are magnificent very large and lush sycamore and other trees on this block, perhaps that have been there for 100 years or so. They are marked to be removed sometime in the very near future. These trees are homes to squirrels and birds who already do not have enough greenery to survive, and the trees also provide beauty, shade and clean-air for people."

a) lying
b) frighteningly uninformed about this issue
c) insane
d) a moron

any one of which makes her unelectable.

Is there a good Council member being term limited out of a job who could run against her? Who do we got down there? Quinn? Nope. Gerson? Yeesh. OK, I guess NYC politics is broken!

Wait, how about Ian Dutton!?

I'm going to print this out and put it on my wall, just like the restaurants tape their first dollar bill to the wall!! My vote count stands at a respectable 1 (maybe 2 if I can get my wife, Shea).

What's really funny is as I read this, I was on the phone with Alan regarding his achievements negotiating his "yes" vote on CP.

Among the expected candidates for Chris Quinn's seat are CB2 Chair Brad Hoylman and Andrew Berman (Exec. Director, GV Soc. for Hist. Preservation). If we don't see Deborah come around on CP, I'd be interested in whoever doesn't end up with Quinn's seat challenging Glick (not likely, though).

And I'll proudly brag about my 1 (2?) vote(s).