PETE GLEASON STATEMENT: WHY NEGATIVE IS OFTEN MISTAKEN FOR THE TRUTH.

Pete Gleason has no issue with the good things the incumbent, Alan Gerson, has done. What he has issue with is that enough wasn’t done. The planning for schools was dismal, the WTC site is a mess with not even a memorial, light manufacturing jobs were kicked out as rampant over-development came in.  While one City Council person cannot be responsible for all of this, we need a councilperson who will take responsibility and is up front and fighting.

We need a councilperson who targets these vital issues and calls it like he sees it. At the beginning of this campaign, Pete Gleason brought up an entire range of issues that were his focus. While certain critics say Pete doesn’t have a platform, he has been calling it out all along. People choose what they want to hear. And other candidates started taking on those issues themselves and making it part of their campaigns.

Pete, from the outset and for years, called for moderate income housing on the parking lot space near the Williamsburgh Bridge, empty for 40 years.

He has pushed that FIRST we need a WTC Memorial. Why? Primarily because of the millions of visitors, seeking solace and reflection. Next, because it will be the most visited site in the world. Pete proposes pedestrian pathways to Chinatown, Little Italy and the South Street Seaport and opening up Park Row. This will give our small businesses the boost they desperately need, and cut down on the buses and tourist vehicles. Pete has been talking about the economy and few of the other candidates bring it up. The small businesses are closing one after another. The WTC site has a domino effect on our businesses.

Pete has been accused of running a “negative” campaign. Yet he’s been “Swiftboated” as if his service to our city and country did not exist; the insinuations and innuendos all untrue. He can take the punches. But pointing to the truth as he has done is often perceived as negative.  If voters want the go-along-to-get-along candidate, vote for someone else. Pete is a fighter for the people who puts himself out there and calls it like it is.

He was on the Lower East Side in the 1980’s as part of the Manhattan South Task Force. He saw first hand the dealings of drugs, guns and gangs. These problems still exist, whether we want to see them or not. Pete knows that after the November elections, the positive spin the electeds put out will turn to the real truth about our NYC economy, which will exacerbate the problems with gangs and drugs. Is Pete being negative? Or telling  the truth?

The incumbent, Alan Gerson, has accused Pete Gleason numerous times about the incumbent’s Board of Election problems and Campaign Finance problems. Recently, the incumbent’s spokespeople have backed away from their constant blaming of Pete.  It was the Board of Elections itself that had problems with the incumbent from the beginning. Pete’s follow up challenge to that uncovered severe non-profit irregularities. – Uncovering the truth or negative?

The incumbent did not receive matching funds from the city – not due to Pete – but due to his own campaign irregularities and disorganization. Problems which have haunted his tenure. Easy to blame Pete and keep the negative spin coming.

Pete Gleason was pointing out problems with discretionary (“slush”) fund scandals early on.  Many voters don’t follow this issue on a daily basis, but Pete does. This is our taxpayer money. Monies being given out for votes, to insiders, to family members. To nonprofits which don’t even exist except on paper. This corruption right in front of our faces has to stop.

On a more arcane level, looking at City finances, our water rates go way up, yet parts of what we pay do not go to the water infrastructure – they go to the general City funds. A hidden “tax” we don’t even know about. Not only does it affect residential, it hits the small businesses. We need the transparency Pete Gleason has been fighting for.  These hidden taxes are on the backs of the people.

As far as the other candidates, P.J. Kim is extremely well spoken and recites numerous statistics. If he lived in the district a longer time than the year or two he has been here, it would give credence to him knowing the issues. Also if he had not been a registered Republican until 2 years ago, we’d feel a bit better about his candidacy. But we need a candidate with deep roots in the community.

Margaret Chin is a fighter as Pete is. Her focus on affordable housing and community work are commendable. But we believe Pete has a broader brush on all the district issues and can represent a variety of interests better.

Arthur Gregory is plain spoken and refreshing in candor. But for City Council, he does not have the depth needed for the position, nice guy as he is. We hope he continues to contribute with his community work.

As someone once said, the sign of good leadership is to surround your self with good people. Pete has done so. He wants the parent groups and teachers in his office, he wants to tell the City what we need in schools, not the other way around. He wants to fight to end the stalemates on the WTC site and to get that memorial. He wants to represent all economic groups. There must be housing for all the people, to keep our diversity and economic engine going.

Pete Gleason is a fighter for the people. And if the critics want to call his campaign “negative”, we call it telling the truth.