Third Avenue

From a New York Times account of the Giuliani campaign's use of New York City in his rhetoric:

He invokes the Time magazine cover headline in 1990 that most New York City residents would just as soon forget — “The Rotting of the Big Apple.” And Mr. Giuliani recalls the days when, as he remembers them, a New Yorker couldn’t walk up Third Avenue without being on the lookout for muggers, of the blocks of dirty book stores and prostitutes, of public urination and pot-smoking.

I've been known to remark on how formerly no-good spots like Avenue B have become hip, but I can't ever remember a time when 3rd Avenue was particularly dangerous.

More seriously, contemplating the main thing that one might give Giuliani credit for -- New York City's larger-than-average crime drop in the 1990s -- just makes you realize that no matter how much credit you think he deserves for it, it has nothing to do with running for president. The president can't reform local departments' policing procedures. Meanwhile, crime is down and has lost a lot of salience as a political issue. Bill Bratton, having been fired by Giuliani for getting too much credit for the good job he was doing, seems to be doing a good job in LA. Maybe Rudy should go back to giving speeches, but mix some stuff in about how more cities should use Compstat and put more cops on the beat along with his corporate gigs. But make him president? No way.

Comments

Scumbag columnist Robert Novak in todays' Washington Post seems to be rather negative on Mr. Giuliani. Anybody slimed by a slimeball like Novak can't be all bad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/14/AR2007101400956.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

Posted by SLC | October 15, 2007 12:22 PM

Maybe Matthew is not aware of this,being from downtown and all, but Third Avenue runs all the way from Cooper Square up into the Bronx. Third Ave in the South Bronx (say, right across the Thrid Ave Bridge) was very unsafe back in the day. I doubt Rudy was referring to the East 70s.

Posted by Al | October 15, 2007 12:34 PM

Props to Rudi for hiring Bratton; it shows excellent judgement. But then he also hired Bernard Kerik for the same job.

Posted by Mike | October 15, 2007 12:38 PM

Can't expect Matt to have any knowledge of the black parts of New York. He prefers to watch the NBA.

Posted by Ashtray | October 15, 2007 12:41 PM

You mean 9/11 didn't cause the drop in crime in NYC in the 90s? How can that be?

Posted by jim | October 15, 2007 12:44 PM

Giuliani beats Hillary in some projected matchup polls. Everywhere you read bloggers of a left/progressive bent (such as MY here?) obsess as to Giuliani's electability, regaling readers with a litany of perfectly acceptable reasons Rudy is booth batshit insane and wholly unqualified for the Presidency. Guess what? All those reasons are exactly why Rudy WILL get elected. The U.S. electorate is comprised of people that will sit through a 6 hour marathon of Wheel of Fortune. They gorge on fried bread and dough until they're so fat they can't walk to the mail box without stopping for a cigarette break. They buy 4-wheel drive behemoths that get 12 miles to the gallon and never leave paved asphalt, all to get to the grocery or day care. They elected Bush (sort of) TWICE. Rudy is precisely the man for this nation. Nuts, intellectually challenged and with personal morals akin to Caligula. Matches up the electorate nicely.

Posted by steve duncan | October 15, 2007 12:45 PM

Giuliani must mean 3rd Avenue in downtown/UES, not the Bronx or uptown, because otherwise it makes no sense. No one would point to 3rd Ave. in the Bronx as an example of a street that's turned around because most people still think it's scary.

Posted by BP | October 15, 2007 12:46 PM

But don't you DARE challenge steve duncan's patriotism!

Hey, Steve! Hate America and it's fat, lazy, Caligula-like people? Leave.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 15, 2007 1:01 PM

Actually, crime is not down, it's back on the rise. NYC is still in good shape, much of the rest of the country have seen rising rates of property crimes and violent crimes over the last couple years.

Obviously, it's nowhere near as big an issue as it was in 1992, but a law and order message does have more saliency now than in say, 2000 or 2004.

(Cue photo of Thompson with accompanying L&O 'dink-dink.')

Posted by Philly | October 15, 2007 1:02 PM

But don't you DARE challenge steve duncan's patriotism!

Hey, Steve! Hate America and it's fat, lazy, Caligula-like people? Leave.

Posted by Chris Ford
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Funny (but understandable) how certain talking points raise the ire of those most closely associated with them.

Posted by steve duncan | October 15, 2007 1:09 PM

No one would point to 3rd Ave. in the Bronx as an example of a street that's turned around because most people still think it's scary.

That's ridiculous. South Bronx has most certainly turned around - so much so that it is the new Williamsburg. (Complete with catchy moniker: SoBro.) Whether or not "most people" think it is still scary, Giuliani is right to be proud of the changes that have occurred in the area since the late 80s when BDP were rapping about getting shot there.

Posted by Al | October 15, 2007 1:10 PM

Yeah, maybe it was the walking up Third Ave IN DRAG ABOVE, SAY, 106th STREET that was dicey. What a crock.... Absolutely non-sequiturial, not to mention nonsensical. And the public pot smoking was GREAT, too.

Posted by elle loco | October 15, 2007 1:13 PM

To add some actual facts to this thread, from 1990-93, Guiliani was a partner at Anderson Kill Olick & Oshinsky, whose offices at the time were at 666 Third Avenue (Third & 42nd Street). While Guiliani did not spend lots of time in the office, I think it is more than reasonable to assume that when Guiliani is talking about his experiences on Third Avenue in the early 90s, he is talking about what was outside his office.

Posted by Ephus | October 15, 2007 1:27 PM

The Anderson Kill Olick & Oshinky address is interesting, but here's the most pertinent datum of all:

If you think you can, well come on man
I was a Green Beret in Viet Nam
No more of your fairy stories
'Cause I got my other worries

53rd and 3rd
Standing on the street
53rd and 3rd
I'm tryin' to turn a trick

53rd and 3rd
You're the one they never pick
53rd and 3rd
Don't it make you feel sick?

Then I took out my razor blade
Then I did what God forbade
Now the cops are after me
But I proved that I'm no sissy

53rd & 3rd

Posted by cluefrog | October 15, 2007 1:34 PM

I read the Times' piece this morning with my wife and we gagged on our java. We both grew up in other parts of the country; both of us have lived in New York for twenty years during the Great Transformation. Her first job in city government was during the Giuliani administration. Trust me: Bernard Kerik is only the tip of the iceberg.

There are so many policy reasons to oppose this man's candidacy, but the thing I find most loathsome is how he has continually shat on his own people for his own ends, as the Times made abundantly clear. In South Carolina -- South fucking Carolina -- he disses our city in light of the tragedies we have suffered and the hard, ongoing work we've all done to heal? All for an applause line from Southerners who can't begin to grasp the historical and complexity of 9/11 and its aftermath? Beyond vile.

It's amazing that people outside New York can be swayed by a repulsive, self-serving, and totally false myth. I tell you one thing: if it's Hillary vs. Rudy, she'll win 75% of the vote in the five boroughs . . . maybe more.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | October 15, 2007 1:36 PM

The thing most read about that changed the moment Giuliani became the mayor is generally about the 'squeegee men'. I lived in Manhattan then and since I didn't drive all that much but walked around a lot, though I remember the squeegee men, the thing that I struck me the most was that all the hookers, or at least the streetwalkers, disappeared. There were hookers everywhere in NYC when Dinkins was mayor, I was once propositioned right in front of the Waldorf of all places, and at least all the ones that one couldn't help seeing and getting asked for a date by while walking about were gone within a week of Giuliani becoming mayor.

There was one corner, IIRC it was Lex and 28th street that had at least 50 hookers hanging around on it every night. I don't remember any particular place on 3rd Ave being quite as crowded, but if 3rd Ave north of 59th and south of 96th was 'nice' the rest of it wasn't. He's right about that.

Posted by j mct | October 15, 2007 1:37 PM

That's pretty funny. When he was going out with Nathan, she was living on Third Avenue at 94th street, just two blocks south of the spanish harlem line.

Posted by jayackroyd | October 15, 2007 2:01 PM

all the ones that one couldn't help seeing and getting asked for a date by while walking about were gone within a week of Giuliani becoming mayor.

They all moved into a city-owned apartment with Bernie Kerik . . .

Posted by rea | October 15, 2007 2:04 PM

Actually a president could reform local police procedures the same way the federal government reformed DUI and drinking age laws, by putting strings on revenue sharing. Uncle Sam transfers over $400 billion a year to state governments.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030811&s=easterbrook081103

So if Congress backed his play, a president could sign legislation to stop or reduce payments to any states that didn't adopt his police reform proposals. So a president could require every state to have its own COMPSTAT system (easier for the Feds to audit 50 state databases than hundreds of local ones) or ensure an adequate cop to citizen ratio. Most cities have only one half or a third the number of cops per capita as New York City (the safest major city in the country). Put it on the states to get that number up to that benchmark-- either by hiring more state troopers or strong arming cities to hire more cops.

A president could also mandate states build adequate prison space to alleviate overcrowding or require they put in Innocent Project-type reforms on DNA reviews, interrogations and witness identification.

No state would be forced to comply-- if they'd rather fund their own highways and pay full freight on Medicaid, its still a free country-- but I'd suspect they'd all quickly fall in line.

Posted by beowulf | October 15, 2007 2:06 PM

I don't know where Matthew gets this idea that a President can't affect crime because crime is a local issue. Wasn't Matthew alive during the 90s, when President Clintons "put 100,000 cops on the street" and funded all kinds of community policing initiatives? Is Matthew denying that Bill Clinton had anything to do with the decrease in crime in the 90s???

Posted by Al | October 15, 2007 2:18 PM

contemplating the main thing that one might give Giuliani credit for -- New York City's larger-than-average crime drop in the 1990s -- just makes you realize that no matter how much credit you think he deserves for it, it has nothing to do with running for president.

I think we're supposed to see it as analogy for how Giuliani would deal with all manner of poor, darkly-skinned populations. Rudy the Exterminator.

Posted by Jason C. | October 15, 2007 2:28 PM

Third Avenue and Fourteenth Street used to have prostitutes back in the day. The nearby Paladium, site of those famous nightclub shootings, is now an NYU dorm of course.

Posted by phil | October 15, 2007 2:36 PM

"New York City's larger-than-average crime drop in the 1990s"

Exactly where on the spectrum was NYC's crime drop. It would be interesting to me to know that alongside a geographic\demographic breakdown. My impression was that NYC's crime drop was more in accord with other cities rather than an outlier.

Posted by theCoach | October 15, 2007 2:49 PM

the thing that I struck me the most was that all the hookers, or at least the streetwalkers, disappeared.

That's largely due to the Internet, not Giuliani or policing reforms. All the hookers went online.

Posted by Stefan | October 15, 2007 3:05 PM

Eighth Avenue would make more sense. It was traditionally the most run-down of the Midtown avenues, and even today some pockets of sleaze remain.

Posted by Peter | October 15, 2007 3:24 PM

The president can't reform local departments' policing procedures.

Even if he can't, what about the FBI, the CIA, and the Justice department? All these things are related.

That said, reducing the crime rate and watching as your city is attacked by terrorists does not qualify you as the "foreign policy candidate". It would be nice if the media would acknowledge that the only major Republican in the race with more foreign policy experience than Barack Obama is John McCain.

Posted by right | October 15, 2007 3:30 PM

Eighth Avenue would make more sense. It was traditionally the most run-down of the Midtown avenues, and even today some pockets of sleaze remain.

Hey, watch it! That's my (now, former) address you're talking about.

Posted by Al | October 15, 2007 3:31 PM

Stefan,

Right, I'm sure pimps let their bottom bitch surf the web and answer emails on their lunch break.
http://www.badasf.org/slavery/heartlanddaughtersforsale.htm

Posted by beowulf | October 15, 2007 3:36 PM

Interesting study here that suggests, through an analysis of international data and crime trends, that the primary factor in this crime surge was environmental -- lead poisoning.

It's full of big words, though, and requires a high-school education to understand, so I expect the trolls will just make fun of it.

Posted by sunsin | October 15, 2007 3:43 PM

So were do you people go now for some sleaze?

Posted by novakant | October 15, 2007 4:40 PM

TheCoach is correct. Other major cities (for example, San Diego, Boston) had large crime declines during the 1990s. For a sound overview of why crime decreased during the '90s, see http://www.urban.org/publications/410546.html. (Note, this report does NOT report support for the idea of zero-tolerance policing.)

Posted by ChristianPInko | October 15, 2007 7:19 PM

There were hookers at 3rd Avenue and 11th Street when I lived in the East Village ('82-'88). But I don't know what dirty book shops he's talking about -- a real loss in that neighborhood has been the loss of many serious used book stores a block west of Third. Now only the Strand remains.

Posted by Steve M. | October 16, 2007 6:58 AM

I reveal my age, but prostitutes were a common site on 3rd + 86th in the 1970s and 1980s. A japanese friend of mine owned a restaurant on 86th between 3rd and 2nd where I hung out sometimes in the mid 1980s. He was always having to kick them out of his recessed entryway.

Nonetheless, my general impression is they were gone by 1988.

I have to go take my Geritol and have a nap now so I'm awake for the early bird special.

Posted by "Mindles H. Dreck" | October 16, 2007 9:01 AM