New Yorkers Coming Together

The Working Families Party and Tom Golisano, not to mention Charles Barron.

Sure, Because A Shoe Box Is Much More Modern Than A Mattress

Not so much a nation of whiners as a nation of whack jobs*:

Richard Cruz, 48, of Manhattan, said he’s moving money he’s saved for his daughter’s college education out of his bank and into somewhere he thinks is safer.

“I’m afraid we’re going to lose it all. I’m going to put my money into a shoebox,” he said.

Cruz said he contemplated going to the mattresses, but decided that was too “last century.”

“No one hides their money under a mattress any more,” he said. “That’s the first place people would look.”

Cruz, whose 17-year-old daughter attends Hunter College, said “they say the banks can’t mess with it but I don’t trust them.”

He even says he wants to pull out the money in his daughter’s account that she saved from her Sweet 16 party.

“Sure it’s insured,” he said, “but if the banks get hit for billions of dollars, I’ll be lucky to get even half of that.”

*I really, really hope this is the Post’s version of the bogus trend of the week . . .

In Tough Times It Is Probably Good To Have More Choices . . .

Case in point:

One of the casualties of Michael Bloomberg’s move to run for a third term, it seems, is next year’s Democratic primary.

Yes, it’s still 11 months away, and the mayor has only just finished announcing his intention to overturn term limits, but the prospect of Mr. Bloomberg — and his billions of dollars — running again may have ended the contest before it even took shape.

Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a Bloomberg ally who was the favorite of much of the city’s business establishment, reacted immediately by announcing that she would abandon a planned run if the mayor went for reelection.

City Comptroller Bill Thompson, the only minority candidate in the prospective Democratic field, says that he’s running, but doesn’t sound incredibly convincing. For now, his game plan consists entirely of trying to block the mayor from running by casting public doubt on the idea of changing term limits without a referendum.

. . .

“No one believes Thompson stays in,” said George Arzt, a Democratic consultant. (Mr. Arzt, a former City Hall bureau chief for the New York Post and aide to Mayor Ed Koch, said that he had “spoken with” more than one potential mayoral campaign, but that he won’t work for any of them against Mr. Bloomberg if the mayor runs.)

. . .

“People do believe that, at least initially, Weiner will be in there, but if he sees he’s going to get crushed that he would back out, rather than suffer two different losses in two different elections,” said Mr. Arzt, referring to Mr. Weiner’s run for mayor in 2005 in which he narrowly missed making a runoff against the eventual Democratic nominee, Fernando Ferrer.

Consultant Jerry Skurnik was more hopeful about the chances of having some sort of primary contest, but only slightly: “The odds are two of the three will run, and that we’ll have a primary,” said Mr. Skurnik, referring to Mr. Thompson, Mr. Weiner and Mr. Avella. “But it’s possible that we won’t have a primary — that only one of them will run. I don’t know.”

Of course, there’s one more scenario — perhaps the least appealing of all for the Democrats: that Bloomberg, instead of destroying their primary, joins it.

Mr. Arzt said that an employee in his consulting firm already received a call as part of a telephone survey asking whether the employee would support Mr. Bloomberg if he ran as a Democrat in next year’s primary.

Where Have You Gone, Don Carlo?

Remnants of the Gambino crime family have been reduced to shaking down hot dog vendors:

Three men — two of them Gambino crime-family associates — have been charged with shaking down a Bronx hot-dog vendor and beating him, cops said yesterday.

The men — also suspected of torching his truck — allegedly demanded $200 a week in “protection” money from the vendor and attacked him when he refused to pay.

Reputed Gambino associates Robert “Bobby Fingers” Francella, 49, and Patrick Lombardo, 47, along with Gregory Monzeglio, 44, met with the victim several times in a restaurant.

When they couldn’t collect, they beat him with a hammer on Aug. 14, and assaulted him again on Sept. 8, cops said. The vendor suffered cuts and lacerations.

The truck, parked in a vacant lot near the restaurant, was burned on Sept. 28.

The “Why Lie? I Need A Beer” Method Of Campaigning

30 Democratic City Councilmembers revealed some of what they are thinking regarding the mayor’s plan to permanently raise the number of terms via a Council vote. Time for a roll call:

At the meeting, many council members expressed support for changing term limits, which would force dozens of them from office next year, but said they were deeply uncomfortable doing so themselves because New Yorkers had voted for it twice.

Several lashed out at Mr. Bloomberg, saying that the mayor and his wealthy friends had orchestrated a campaign to rewrite the law without consulting with council members, according to those in attendance, who described the meeting on condition on anonymity for fear of offending colleagues.

“This one billionaire is now controlling our government, like a dictator,” Councilwoman Darlene Mealy, who represents Brooklyn, said during the meeting, colleagues said. Ms. Mealy did not return phone calls after the meeting.

Normally, “like a dictator” is an offensive rhetorical overreach. Not in this context!

Roll call — Lewis Fidler comes out in favor of self-serving legislation to extend his Council career:

But several members argued that even if the method of changing the law was unsavory, they remained philosophically opposed to a two-term limit and would act to change it.

Lewis A. Fidler, a councilman from Brooklyn, said he told the group that “this is about whether term limits are good government or bad government. I think it’s bad government.”

Roll call — John Liu, finally understanding the difference between good grandstanding and bad:

According to those in the room, roughly eight members spoke in favor of the legislation revising the law to three terms; eight spoke against it; and four asked questions that did not reveal their position.

Queens Councilman John C. Liu, who has emerged as a leader in the effort to stop the mayor’s plan, gave what many considered the most moving speech. As he recounted after the meeting, he told his colleagues, “I came into government with a pretty cynical attitude, but over the last six years I came to believe in the system. But in one fell swoop, what has happened here has decimated my belief in that system.”

Roll call — Robert Jackson, expanding on his personal philosophy of representative government and principles:

Robert Jackson, a Manhattan councilman, offered a rousing defense of the legislation under consideration, saying he has always opposed term limits and would not let public opinion sway him. “Even if 80 percent of my constituents are in favor of the death penalty, I wouldn’t vote for it,” he said. “The same is true for term limits. It’s a matter of principle.”

The issue of the back-door referendum:

A few members, like David I. Weprin, of Queens, questioned why Mr. Bloomberg did not attempt to change term limits through a public referendum.

But Peter F. Vallone Jr., of Queens, said that a referendum would cost millions of dollars to organize, a cost the city should not bear while the economy is faltering.

Solution — have the mayor bankroll a special election. It would be “altruistic” . . .

Roll call — Domenic Recchia, on the subject of “ample opportunity” to voice opinions:

After the meeting, Councilman Domenic M. Recchia Jr. of Brooklyn, who said he favors the extension, explained: “A lot of us council members feel that passing it through legislation is giving ample opportunity to the voters of the city to voice their opinions.”

He added: “If the voters don’t like their council member, they can vote him out of office. And if they don’t like the mayor, they can get rid of him too.”

And, finally, contra Joyce Purnick, evidence that billionaire term limit-hater Ronald S. Lauder may not be in on the plan after all:

As the Council debated, Mr. Bloomberg’s aides scrambled to shore up the support of Mr. Lauder, the term limits advocate and cosmetics heir.

After agreeing last week to support a third term for Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Lauder vowed on Sunday night to fight the mayor’s plan to permanently change the limits to three terms from two, calling it a “terrible mistake.”

Last week, Mr. Lauder privately agreed to support a one-time change of the law to three terms, to allow Mr. Bloomberg to seek re-election in the middle of an economic crisis. But he was angry to learn that the mayor was pushing for a permanent change of the law.

Mr. Bloomberg’s staff argued that there were two reasons a permanent change was preferable: It was less likely to face legal challenge and would appeal to more City Council members. When Mr. Bloomberg learned of Mr. Lauder’s frustration, he and his aides suggested a deal in which Mr. Lauder would sit on a 2010 charter commission committee, which would have the authority to change the law back to a two-term limit. In return, Mr. Lauder would agree to not fight the mayor’s plans to alter the law.

But Mr. Lauder, after appearing to back such a deal, balked on Sunday night, people familiar with the matter said. His reversal left City Hall staff members confused, as one said, and flustered.