I suppose it was inevitable that the 39th City Council race would turn nasty. Maybe it's remarkable how long it took for it to happen. But with just a few weeks left before the September 15th election, it's happening now and tensions are running high in the campaign offices of two of the candidates in this tight race.
That said, what is going on? And is any of this important to the voters of the 39th district?
Come on folks
Did Brad Lander really attack Josh Skaller for sending his son to Berkeley Carroll? Knowing Lander as I do, I seriously doubt that he actually attacked or criticized the Skaller's for the highly personal choice they made about their son's Wolf's education.
Wouldn't that be dumb? I mean, school choice is a very personal matter and lots of voters send their kids to private schools.
As a member of the Park Slope community, Lander obviously knows many people who send their kids to Berkeley
Carroll and other private schools. That said, from the beginning Lander has made a big deal out of the fact that he is the only candidate with children in public school. In his own words: "It is something that I believe is relevant for
people to know (and, of course, that contains an implicit comparison)" he wrote me in an email.
Being a public school parent is something that voters might value in their local politicians. I mean, it's comforting (and validating) to know that they believe that the public school are good enough for their kids. But it's also worth noting that Skaller and Lander are the only candidates out of a group of 5 who have children. Candidates Heyer and Reilly have said that when they do have children, they will go to public school. Heyer's wife is pregnant with their first child.
Okay.
Now there's a lot of back and forth between Lander and Skaller about campaign finance issues. This was started by Skaller who hammered Lander for his ties to the Working Families Party.
In retaliation Lander spilled the beans on Skaller's alleged misconduct connected with the status of his campaign office space. Says Lander, "he wasn't reporting the existence of the office or paying rent
for it."
So, is Skaller operating a campaign
office, without reporting the existence of the office or paying rent
for it? Well, Skaller's campaign has admitted wrongdoing to the accusation that they were hoping not to pay for their office space.
Is this something the voters need to know? Yes, I think this is worth knowing. But it's also important to understand the context. Did Skaller and Co. intentionally try to pull the wool over the CFB's eyes or was this just a way of cutting corners, an oversight, a mistake, a bad choice, a dumb move?
Who knows?
According to Chris Owen's, Skaller's campaign manager “The CFB and the campaign are in discussions as to whether or not
the space should be treated as an in-kind contribution. Originally, we
were given advice that the space, if it had no commercial market rate,
would not count. After the audit, the CFB asked for more information
about the space, which we have provided to them. If the CFB deems the
space to be a contribution, we will value it and list it as such. But
that final ruling has not been made at this time."
Okay.
According to Lander, his campaign has been aware of Skaller's officegate for while: "We were hoping things would not get ugly, so we didn't
say anything about it. But when they hit us with a totally baseless
attack, we let people know about it," said Lander in an email to me.
The so-called "baseless attack" was Skaller's hammering of Lander for his ties to
the Working Families Party and its offshoot, a for-profit company
called Data and Field Services. According to the Brooklyn Paper, "Lander, like other WFP-endorsed candidates, allegedly received
significantly more field assistance from the party via its sister
organization than what he and the other pols disclosed in their filings
with the Campaign Finance Board."
The Skallers are right to say ‘enough’s enough’ of a less than genuine slant, and face-to-face intonation to voters about their choice throughout the District (if this is true). I accept their sacrifices, done make it work for them. Having a wife with the vocation of a public school teacher, is a firsthand and always there advocate anyway — and this is something shared ONLY by John Heyer and Josh Skaller. The Obama children were apart from public education long before the Senate. If Lander’s people believe they’re stronger on public education than President Obama, too — well then you’ll have yourself a news angle.
“On the campaign finance issue it is important to note that the Skaller’s campaign has admitted wrongdoing to the accusation that were hoping not to pay for their office space.
“Apparently they got caught by the Campaign Finance Board and they are now going to have to acknowledge the value of that office space.”
Huh? “Admitted wrongdoing?” Unless you have new info, there has been no wrongdoing, nor any admission of wrongdoing. Did you even read the quote from Chris Owens that you posted above? The CFB originally advised them that what they were doing was okay, so how can you say it was “a way of cutting corners, an oversight, a mistake, a bad choice, a dumb move?”
And “Skaller has the progressive, anti-development, Develop Don’t Destroy crowd.” True, many of these folks support Skaller, but opponents of Atlantic Yards are not anti-development, they’re anti-Atlantic Yards. And anti-boondoggle, anti-taxpayer giveaway, anti-eminent domain abuse. They support the UNITY Plan, which envisions some pretty dense development. Smart development.
And people who support Skaller also care about education, affordable housing and livable neighborhoods.
Jeez, Louise. I’m just saying.