Photo Courtesy of Wiki Commons

UPDATE: It turns out that the only connection between the DNA sample lifted from a subway gate at a recent Occupy Wall Street protest and DNA collected in the unsolved 2004 murder of Juilliard student Sarah Fox was an NYPD lab worker who processed both, the Daily News reported Wednesday.

The matching DNA was found to be the NYPD employee’s, which means that the samples were contaminated. According to the Daily News’s sources, the employee, whose identity has not been released, will likely face departmental charges for failing to prevent tainting.

- – -

It could be straight out of a pulpy crime drama, but this time it’s for real. A DNA sample collected at a recent Occupy Wall Street protest eerily matches DNA collected in the unsolved 2004 murder of 21-year-old Juilliard student Sarah Fox. Does this point to a connection or mere coincidence? Was the DNA lifted at the protest in fact that of a protester, and, further, what would have prompted the NYPD to lift DNA from the scene in the first place?

(by Alissa Fleck)

The sample collected in connection with OWS was found on a chain used to “prop open the gates at an East Flatbush subway station…designed to let straphangers ride for free,” reports am NY. Realistically, the sample could have come from anywhere.

The DNA is a match to that taken from Fox’s CD player, which she brought with her on a jog in May of 2004, immediately prior to her disappearance and murder.

The shared DNA did not hit on any known criminal in the database, reports am NY. Officials are quick not to jump to conclusions, saying it’s possible evidence was simply handled by a common officer in both cases. The sample on Fox’s CD player was never shown to match her case’s primary suspect or any friends or family.

So is it simply coincidence, or is there a more sinister element at play—could this discovery provide renewed hope for the 8-year-old unsolved murder?

Dr. Lawrence Koblinsky, a forensics expert at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, told NBC New York, “the likelihood is high the person who left that DNA on the CD player is the killer of Sarah Fox.”

The link is odd and serendipitous enough as is, but additionally strange seems the decision to collect DNA evidence in the case of an OWS protest. The collection of DNA in an isolated incident like this one begs the question of when it is protocol for the NYPD to collect a DNA sample. What sort of cost does it incur and how useful is it, in most cases?

The NYPD’s press office did not immediately respond to requests for such information, but the New York State Legislature reached an agreement on a bill in March of this year which would allow for the collection of DNA from those convicted even of misdemeanors. WNYC reported this would make NYS the first “all crimes DNA” state in the country, according to Governor Cuomo.

“DNA collection is one of the most reliable and cost-effective tools that we have in law enforcement,” Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said in a statement.

While this may not directly apply to this particular case, it shows New York’s heightened emphasis on the importance of DNA collection, even in cases where it might seem largely unnecessary. Still, many questions remain unanswered in this stranger-than-fiction discovery.

Jason Quinones, who is 22 and was 21 at the time of the attacks, admitted to raping a woman in her East 90th Street home last August. He climbed through the window of her ground floor apartment at 4:30 a.m. while she slept, grabbed her cell phone to keep her from calling the police and raped her.

Quinones was arrested several days later, based on DNA evidence left at the scene, and later also charged with another sexual assault that had taken place in July on East 83rd Street. He told prosecutors that he approached his first victim from behind in her building and forced her into her apartment, where he pushed her onto a couch and sexually abused her.

District Attorney Cyrus Vance admonished Quinones for committing “atrocious sex crimes.”

“In both cases, he saw a chance to sexually assault a woman while she was vulnerable, and both times, he took it,” Vance said.

Quinones is scheduled to be sentenced on June 20, and could face up to 25 years for the class B felony rape conviction, as well as up to 7 years for the sexual abuse conviction.

Jackson, who lives and works on the Upper West Side, met Linda Fairstein, then the head of the unit, in the mid 1990s and began following her cases.

“It just became an obsession of mine to try to do a film about the unit,” Jackson says. “The fact that it was the first unit in the country; it really is the gold standard. I thought, rape is so chronically underreported that if you showed a portrait of the prosecutors who do take on these crimes that maybe survivors would be more likely to come forward.”

The film highlights the day-to-day work of the prosecutors and follows two cases in particular—a 16-year-old cold case and another recent rape—both brutal crimes. Jackson interviewed the victim of the older case, Natasha Alexenko, and told the story of how her rapist was finally found using DNA evidence.

“I had pretty much closed that chapter in my life,” Alexenko explains in a recent interview. “I had healed and moved on. It was certainly a shock” when they found the perpetrator. She decided to come forward for the film because she wanted to help the prosecutors who had guided her so compassionately through the difficult process of the trial. “I had actually really been inspired by the men and woman that work in the sex crimes unit,” Alexenko says. “I told them I would do anything I could do to help them.”

Jackson spent about a year getting to know Alexenko before she even filmed the interviews with her. She also followed four or five cases simultaneously but could only use footage from trials that had ended by the time the film aired. She shot many scenes from the trial of Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata, the NYPD officers recently acquitted of rape, but wasn’t able to include it.

“I don’t know if it would have changed the film” to include that case, Jackson says. “It would have shown how incredibly difficult their job is, often—in a case like that where there was no hard evidence, there were no eyewitnesses.”

The film also illustrates how cases like that would never have made it to trial before New York State reformed its laws in the 1970s. Jackson interviewed former District Attorney Robert Morganthau about his role in changing the way rape was prosecuted. “I went to him and said, everybody’s talking about your legacy— white collar crime, all this stuff—but nobody’s really talking about the jewel in your crown: his incredible mentoring of women and his championing this unit,” Jackson says. “He’s justifiably proud of that unit.”

Jackson also deliberately included snippets of the prosecutors debating the merits of Derek Jeter and swapping stories about their personal lives.

“A film about sexual violence isn’t depressing. It’s full of humor, it’s full of real humanity,” Jackson says. “They may be really driving, obsessed, laser-focused lawyers, but at the same time, they have obsessions with movie stars, they’re huge Yankees fans, they sweat college loans, they worry about their weight.”

They also work extremely hard at a decidedly unglamorous job. Based on popular TV legal dramas, “we have this perception that they’re all sitting in mahogany-lined offices wearing Prada,” Alexenko says. “And that’s very very far from the truth.”

Both Jackson and Alexenko hope that the film will help victims of sexual assault understand what happens when they come forward to report the crimes against them. Alexenko quit her job last year to work fulltime on her foundation, Natasha’s Justice Project, which works closely with the Joyful Heart Foundation, founded by Law & Order: SVU star Mariska Hargitay, to end the national backlog of untested rape kits.

“With my case, the closure I had, I just felt it’s my karmic duty to take the tools, to take my story and help others,” Alexenko says. “There are 180,000 untested rape kits sitting on shelves. We have the means to find these criminals through databases.”

Jackson hopes that viewers will come away with an understanding of how far the legal system has progressed toward helping sexual assault victims, and how hard the sex crimes unit works for justice.

“It’s either happened to one of us, or we know someone it’s happened to,” Jackson says, citing the statistic that one in six women will be the victim of a sexual assault. “I hope that the film brings a new way of looking at the crime itself, and hopefully motivates more women to come forward, more attorneys to dedicate themselves to this kind of law, and really makes the point of the importance of units like this.”

It’s a hole in one for new Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance.

The man behind the city’s most famous bagel joint, H+H Bagels, pleaded guilty to tax fraud, the district attorney’s office announced May 27.

Former Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau indicted Helmer Toro Nov. 18, 2009 for allegedly stealing tax money taken from his employees’ paychecks and avoiding unemployment insurance tax through six shell companies. The investigation alleged that the 59-year-old Toro pocketed $369,318 in payroll taxes. The fraud is in connection with the popular Upper West Side store at 2239 Broadway and West 80th Street.

“Under no circumstances can employers gain in business by cheating their employees,” Vance said in a statement. “The city’s businesses must adhere to ethical standards and contribute to the tax revenue of the city and state, as well as protect their employees’ interests.”

Despite Toro’s legal problems, the bagel business is running smoothly, according to an employee who answered the phone at H+H Bagels’ main office.

“Yes we are open,” said the employee, who directed questions to a lawyer named Jorge Delgado. “So far, we employees have no problem.”

Toro, who lives on West 70th Street between Broadway and Columbus Avenue, copped to grand larceny, offering a false instrument for filing and manipulating unemployment insurance tax.

Outgoing Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau said the bagel magnate stole withholding taxes—taxes taken out of employees’ paychecks—and evaded unemployment insurance tax. The tax charges are in connection with H+H Bagels’ retail store at 2239 Broadway and West 80th Street, as well as the company’s wholesale operation.

The district attorney’s investigation alleges that Toro collected but failed to pay $369,318 in payroll taxes. Toro is also accused of creating six shell organizations to get a lower unemployment insurance tax rate by moving a large number of workers between these fake companies. He is charged on two counts of violating labor law.

On May 29, two H+H Bagels stores, including the famed Broadway location, closed for three hours when the state department of taxation seized the business. H+H Bagels was allowed to reopen after paying the liability.

Toro was arraigned in State Supreme Court Nov. 18 and pled not guilty. He surrendered his passport and was released on his own recognizance. He is due back in court Dec. 4.

As of Nov. 23, the Broadway outpost was still open.

Readers should note that for two of these offices (comptroller and public advocate), the winner from a field of four candidates needs to get 40 percent of the vote. That means that if no one broaches the 40 percent mark—a very likely occurrence—there will be a Sept. 29 run-off election between the top two contenders, prolonging the politicking.

Mayor: Michael Bloomberg

The general election for mayor isn’t until Nov. 3, but since the Democratic primary will determine nearly all of the most hotly contested races this year, we are including our choice for the city’s chief executive officer with this slate of candidates.

New York City is at a pivotal point in its history. While the city is arguably the most livable it’s ever been, fallout from the imploding financial sector and real estate industry still lingers, despite some initial signs of improvement. The key at this critical juncture is nursing a more diverse economy back to health while maintaining and building on the gains of recent years in education, business, public safety and the vibrant culture that defines New York City. We think Mayor Michael Bloomberg is best qualified for this job.

Throughout the past eight years, Bloomberg has advanced ambitious plans to overhaul the largest public school system in the country, mitigate traffic and congestion, increase and improve green space, foster arts and culture and rezone the city to fit the residential and business needs of tomorrow—all while driving crime to record lows, and keeping a vigilant eye on a terrorist threat that still lingers. We’re impressed with the caliber of staffers Bloomberg has trusted to enact this agenda, and the record he’s shown in working amicably with City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. It’s a refreshing change from the past, one that engenders a climate of productivity, rather than political squabbling.

But what’s most compelling about this mayor is the overall vision orienting these initiatives: his goal is to enhance New York City’s best attributes to make it a place where people want to live, do business and visit. A keen businessman, the mayor understands that these three goals are inextricably linked, and he has the foresight and drive to make them all priorities.

Certainly, Bloomberg’s record has not been perfect. The administration’s focus on teacher quality and blind support of residential development has left classrooms at overcapacity and kindergartners on wait-lists for zoned schools. This was a problem that many saw coming several years ago, and the Department of Education should not have had to scramble to find seats.

Likewise, we think he could do more to help small businesses. Bloomberg’s “Business Solution Centers” assist entrepreneurs with networking, cost cutting and navigating city regulations. He asserts that the biggest help the city can provide is to create a climate that attracts more customers. But this shies away from what’s really hurting mom-and-pops: skyrocketing rents. A more aggressive approach using carrots and sticks, like zoning changes and tax incentives, is worth exploring. And Bloomberg’s suggestion, during our endorsement interview, that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority be responsible for aiding businesses hurt by Second Avenue subway construction is unreasonable, given that agency’s reputation for dysfunction. The city, state and MTA should collaborate to share the financial burden.

But these are flaws in a record that has, on the whole, been bold, inventive and overwhelmingly successful. We’d like to see Bloomberg both build on these accomplishments and address these shortcomings in a third term, leaving a legacy of perhaps one of New York’s greatest mayors.

One issue we have not addressed here is the mayor’s successful bid to change the term limits law. We came out in favor of this proposal, as we thought it was important to have the leadership of a talented incumbent during these economically challenging times. Bloomberg himself has stated that if voters disagree with his actions, the Nov. 3 election is their chance to weigh in. Certainly William C. Thompson is an estimable candidate. But during his successful tenure as city comptroller, he has often been in alignment with the mayor, and there are few major points of difference between the two candidates.

We feel that Bloomberg is the right leader for the next four years, and we support his reelection on Nov. 3.

Comptroller: David Yassky

The comptroller can be seen as C.F.O. of the city, responsible for making sure that budgets are tight and inefficiencies are pinpointed. In this economy, New Yorkers need a comptroller who will audit city agencies, kill contracts that waste money, propose a wise pension fund investment strategy and be a leading voice on transparency and government reform. But we also need more than a bean-counting bureaucrat.

That’s why we feel New Yorkers should vote for Brooklyn Council Member David Yassky as the city’s next comptroller. Yassky showed independence by being the only candidate to endorse legislation that will create a new level of pension benefits for future retirees, with the goal of reducing taxpayer costs. This is the kind of leadership that the future comptroller must exhibit to help the city get through the recession. (Full disclosure: Yassky’s campaign rents separate office space from this newspaper’s parent company, Manhattan Media.)

Yassky has an evenhanded approach to managing the city’s $83 billion pension fund. He understands the need to have a diverse portfolio that will protect the pensioners and taxpayers when the economy suffers. His idea to invest in biotechnological companies as an alternative is not reckless, like some of his opponents’ plans.

Yassky’s campaign also posted the city’s budget and member items on a website, www.ItsYourMoneyNYC.com. While this information is already online, it is buried in the Council’s website and has never been presented in a format that regular New Yorkers can read easily and understand.

The other three candidates—Queens Council members John Liu, David Weprin and Melinda Katz—are qualified. Katz has too many connections to the real estate industry, and her plan to use pension funds to invest in viable but debt-strapped businesses is irresponsible. Liu will surely bring the same tenacity to the comptroller’s duties as he does to Council committee hearings, but we’re concerned he’ll be too focused on using the office as a bully pulpit. Weprin, though he has the financial expertise, lacks a broader vision for the office.

Yassky is a well-rounded candidate who can balance experience with leadership, and we endorse him in the Democratic primary for comptroller.

Public Advocate: Bill de Blasio

Each of the candidates running for this office brings something to the table when it comes to being the city’s ombudsman. But Brooklyn Council Member Bill de Blasio has the most far-reaching vision for this office, and the most detailed plans for executing that vision on a shoestring budget.

De Blasio plans to leverage the public advocate’s meager resources by working with organizations like Transportation Alternatives and the Brennan Center for Justice, at New York University Law School. Through the public advocate’s appointee to the City Planning Commission, he pledges to be an aggressive watchdog on development, making sure that affordable housing, landmarks and neighborhood context are given adequate consideration in the approval process. We also like his promise to examine the “consultant” culture at the Department of Education, as well as the proliferation of testing under Schools Chancellor Joel Klein’s leadership.

The other candidates in this race certainly have their attractive qualities. Mark Green, New York’s first public advocate, has a long and distinguished record of challenging the powers that be, but he seems too focused on the past to enact a forward-looking agenda. Norman Siegel likewise has an impressive resume as a civil rights lawyer, but he has run a lackluster campaign and we aren’t convinced that he will most effectively execute the public advocate’s duties. And Queens Council Member Eric Gioia has become an effective and vocal advocate for constituents, but we feel he’s spending too much time touting his history, rather than detailing his plans for office.

There are, however, a few reservations about de Blasio’s candidacy. If elected, he’ll be tasked with policing the large swath of elected officials and unions that have endorsed his bid for office; we hope this doesn’t make him too cozy to be an effective independent check on city government. And we feel that de Blasio should be more proactive in addressing the questionable services provided to his campaign by the Working Families Party and its for-profit company, Data Field Services (a series of stories in our sister publication, City Hall, highlighted some serious questions).

Still, de Blasio strikes us as the candidate most ready to hit the ground running in January, and we endorse him in the Democratic primary for public advocate.

Manhattan District Attorney: Leslie Crocker Snyder

This year’s race to be Manhattan district attorney is a historic one. The winner will succeed Robert Morgenthau, the legendary prosecutor who was sworn into office in 1974.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office is the most important prosecutorial body in the country. It has far-reaching jurisdiction that has successfully tried complex white-collar crimes, international crime, governmental fraud and violent murderers and attacks. The district attorney needs experience in trying such cases, as well as the vision and management skills necessary to prevent and target criminal activity.

All three candidates—Leslie Crocker Snyder, Cyrus Vance, Jr. and Richard Aborn—are well qualified. They have detailed similar plans for the office, including implementing a community-based justice system, improving technology in the office and minimizing and addressing wrongful convictions. But we feel that Snyder has the experience and drive to follow through with these plans while being an able prosecutor.

Snyder has varied and lengthy experience as an assistant district attorney, defense lawyer and a judge in New York State’s Supreme and Criminal courts.

In 2005, she had the courage to challenge Morgenthau in the Democratic primary. The move was potential political suicide, and we endorsed Morgenthau in that race, but we feel that her courage to take on such a popular figure and highlight the office’s flaws demonstrates the kind of gumption that Manhattan’s next D.A. needs.

With a three-decade-long background in criminal justice, we feel confident in her plans to open a Second Look Bureau to prevent and rectify wrongful convictions, train assistant district attorneys to better prosecute white-collar crimes and manage one of the largest criminal justice offices in the country.

Her opponents are also qualified for the position. Vance is an able prosecutor, but we are concerned that his ties to Morgenthau—his biggest supporter—would not be broken. Aborn’s work on gun-control laws and crime prevention are exemplary, but his ideas are lofty.

We are concerned about the negative tone Snyder has brought to the campaign in recent weeks, as the district attorney needs to show public restraint. But we feel that once elected, Snyder will be a fair-minded and tough prosecutor. We endorse Snyder in the Democratic primary for Manhattan district attorney.

City Council District 3: Christine Quinn

Traditionally an area of Manhattan known for progressive politics, especially involving gay and lesbian issues, City Council’s District 3 has also seen record development and improvement of services. Although some constituents feel incumbent Christine Quinn is detached from the daily issues affecting the West Village, Chelsea and Hell’s Kitchen due to her duties as City Council Speaker, we feel that Quinn has served her district well, using her considerable clout to negotiate and broker deals that have benefited the area. While Quinn can appear too-closely aligned with the mayor these days, she is not afraid to come out against him in vocal ways and we feel she remains the strongest advocate for her district, as well as the city as a whole. We still see a great many positives in Quinn’s time in office. She remains one of the most powerful voices in New York politics and her activism continues; Quinn has spent a great deal of time lobbying for marriage equality with State Senators. Since it appears Bloomberg’s hope for a lasting legacy rests in West Side development—both with the Hudson Yards and extension of the No. 7 train line—we want Quinn to weigh-in on these issues. We admire the achievements of the two women who have challenged her in the race, especially Yetta Kurland, whom we hope to see run for office again. We feel that Christine Quinn’s pragmatism and skills will serve her district and the city best at this critical juncture, and we endorse her for re-election.

–
In the interest of full disclosure, readers should also know that earlier this year, Manhattan Media—the parent company of Manhattan Newspaper Group, publishers of Our Town, West Side Spirit, New York Press, Chelsea Clinton News and The Westsider—formed a separate company called Madison Square Partners, LLC. Clients of this ad placement consulting firm include the campaigns of Michael Bloomberg, Norman Siegel, Cyrus Vance, Jr. and David Weprin.
In order to separate the business interests of Madison Square Partners, any individuals involved with that division were not included in the endorsement process. Endorsement decisions were based on candidates’ records, proposals and on-site interviews conducted collectively by the editorial board of the Manhattan Newspaper Group.

In a race where candidates are trying to “out-progressive” one another, an endorsement from Nadler, the most liberal member of the city’s House delegation, is seen by many as a major stamp of approval for Aborn.

Aborn is running against Leslie Crocker Snyder, a former judge and 2005 district attorney candidate, and Cy Vance, Jr., retiring District Attorney Robert Morgenthau’s handpicked successor.

Nadler met with all of the candidates, but he felt that Aborn’s early advocacy for key progressive issues made him the most qualified candidate in the race. Nadler called Aborn a true leader on gun control, and praised Aborn’s push for expanded the use of DNA evidence and opposition to the death penalty.

“He’s shown an activism on progressive issues that no one else in this race has,” Nadler said. “We don’t have a crystal ball on these things, but you have to believe how he will behave as district attorney is foreshadowed by how he’s behaved in the past. And ditto for other candidates.”

Nadler also noted that Aborn has a broader vision for the office, as well as a track record of advancing liberal causes.
“I said to a number of people that I thought Cy Vance would be a good D.A.,” Nadler said. “I think that Richard Aborn would be an outstanding D.A.”

Given the Upper West Side’s reputation as reliable base of Democratic primary voters, Nadler’s endorsement will most likely help Aborn’s campaign in a race where many voters are unfamiliar with the candidates.

“The candidates have good pluses and not many negatives. And all are trying to get themselves known,” said a West Side political strategist who is working on other campaigns but is unaffiliated with the district attorney candidates. “Somebody of stature with credibility on progressive issues like Nadler has can be a big plus.”

A Queens native, Council Member Melinda Katz now lives in the house she grew up in with son Carter. Photo by Andrew Schwartz

Melinda Katz

Running for City Comptroller
By Josh Zembik

In front of a phalanx of burly but dapper union members, Council Member Melinda Katz looked up at the threatening skies over City Hall. The smallest person on the steps, nearly a foot shorter than most of the smiling men around her, Katz was ready to collect another endorsement—the support of the 120,000-member Teamsters Union—if only the rain would stay away.

That Katz snagged the union’s support wasn’t necessarily a surprise, even in the hotly contested four-person race for City Comptroller. As a Council member, Katz’s most high-profile position—which supporters trumpet and detractors flag—has been her tenure as chair of the City Council’s Land Use Committee. In that position, she has had a direct role in regulating virtually all public and private land use across the city, putting her at the center of major zoning decisions.

She is now second when it comes to fundraising, having raised $173,000 during the last filing period, with $2.4 million in her campaign chest overall. Liu is in first place, with $3.2 million in his coffers.

The city comptroller is tasked with ensuring the five boroughs’ financial health, and a big part of that is managing city pension funds. At a candidates’ forum convened last month by sister publication City Hall, Katz and her opponents—fellow Council Members John Liu, David Weprin and David Yassky—all agreed that the current system is bankrupting the city. Katz is alone, however, in wanting to invest in companies that will benefit the city while upholding her responsibility as steward of the pension fund. She says this will allow her to get concessions that will benefit New Yorkers, promote job creation and bolster the local economy.

“If you’re a big corporation and want millions from hardworking men and women, what are you doing for New York City?” Katz asks. “Where are your corporate offices? What will you do to train people being laid off?”

Tapping into her early career as a mergers and acquisitions attorney, Katz has also proposed investing a small part of the pension in companies that can make a profit but that are saddled with paying off debt. This investment strategy, skewed toward helping New York City companies, would allow businesses to restructure and emerge as a new company, debt free.

The proposal has gotten flack from challenger Liu, who argues that the pension fund should stay away from assessing the viability of struggling companies and providing taxpayer funds to help them get out of debt.

Since her first foray into elected office when she won a seat in the State Assembly in 1994, Katz has molded an “Everywoman” agenda. She has authored and pushed for legislation that improved access to healthcare, assisted the prosecution of child abusers, and increased safety standards at daycare centers. She has also placed kitchen table issues, like the economy, jobs and school performance, at the top of her agenda.

On the East Side, Katz helped broker a plan for the East River Realty project that guaranteed public access to open spaces and included significant height reductions on several of the project’s buildings, satisfying many neighborhood critics. But she has also been at the center of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s rezoning push, in which he rezoned more land than the previous six administrations combined.

The debate over rezoning often revolves around which neighborhoods are affected and how. Critics of the Bloomberg and Katz have argued that their efforts, including the rezoning of 125th Street, disproportionately affect working-class neighborhoods, giving developers free reign at the expense of small business owners and longtime residents.

Katz has benefited politically and financially from her perch on the committee, raising campaign cash from an array of developers and real estate bigwigs. Her critics charge influence-peddling, but Katz is quick to swat down any such notion.

“Look,” she said, “our role [on the Land Use Committee] is protecting the city. We try to make applications better for the community, and it’s my responsiblity to work with all parties involved. That’s what I do.”

When Katz was 3, her mother died; her father died 18 years later when she was in college at UMass Amherst. Perhaps not surprisingly, she’s been a strong advocate for children, and a strong opponent of regressive taxes that largely affect middle- and low-income families. Last year, she voted against Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan, which she called “an unfair tax on commuters,” and this past June, she was one of 10 Council members who opposed a 0.5-percent citywide sales tax increase.

“My father was a public high school teacher, and he raised four children by himself after my mother died,” Katz said. “I’m a product of the public school system, and where I come from, you need to work hard to get ahead. With the sales tax, I saw a tax that would disproportionately burden middle-class New Yorkers, and I couldn’t support it.”

A Queens native, Katz and her son Carter still live in the same Forest Hills house where she was raised. She says her policy decisions, progressive streak and populist stands were molded by her upbringing, and it’s that kind of perspective that’s needed in the comptroller’s office today.

“I get a real sense out there from a lot of New Yorkers that people don’t have faith in their political system anymore,” Katz said. “Frankly, I’d like to restore that. I see part of the job as restoring that. I’ve got a 14-month-old son, and I know what it means to make this city better, not just for him, but for all New Yorkers.”
–
With additional reporting by Dan Rivoli.

Richard Aborn lives on the Upper West Side with wife Ingrid, the twin sister of actress Isabella Rossellini, and their daughter. Photo by Andrew Schwartz

Richard Aborn

Running for Manhattan District Attorney
By Josh Zembik

Although he is gunning to be Manhattan’s next district attorney, Richard Aborn actually may be more popular outside the borough. Referred to as both a long-shot and a dark-horse candidate when he entered the race, Aborn, 56, kicked off his campaign to be Manhattan’s next D.A. by collecting endorsements at a torrid pace. Praise came from City Hall, Albany and as far away as California, along with a surge of campaign cash and instant credibility. According to the latest fundraising data, Aborn raised nearly $1 million during the January-to-July filing period, putting him on nearly even footing with his two rivals when it comes to cash on hand.

Aborn attributes his rise as a first-time candidate to his innovative approach to fighting crime.

“We’re speaking to issues that the voters of Manhattan care deeply about,” he said. “We are delivering a message that we can make the criminal justice system better. We are willing to address the fact that four out of five young people who get arrested cycle through the system over and over again, and I find that not to be a hopeless situation.”

Still, early endrorsements from across the political establishment have clearly helped. Aborn has the backing of a slew of gun-control groups, former New York City—now Los Angeles—Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, Democratic clubs and elected officials, including those from the East Side. Aborn’s records on guns earned him the endorsement of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, the Long Island Congresswoman who was propelled to office on an anti-gun platform in the wake of her husband’s death during a shooting on the Long Island Railroad.

Aborn has spent much of his adult life working on gun issues. After earning his J.D. from the John Marshall School of Law in 1979, he worked as an assistant D.A. in Manhattan, prosecuting violent felonies under Robert Morgenthau, the man he’s seeking to succeed. When he left the office in 1984 to start his own practice, he began volunteering for the state gun-control lobby.

The part-time gig grew into more full-time work when Aborn started working for Handgun Control, Inc., now known as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. His tenure as president of the campaign reached a high point with President Bill Clinton’s 1993 signing of the Brady Bill, which required a five-day waiting period and a criminal background check before a person could purchase a handgun.

Aborn doesn’t have the courtroom experience of his rivals, Cy Vance Jr. and Leslie Crocker Snyder (both of whom last tried cases in 2007), and he hasn’t tried a case to verdict since he became president of the Brady Campaign. His opponents have pounced on that fact, and Snyder has referred to him as a “consultant” during campaign stops.

But Aborn sees his background as an asset. He is quick to point out that he’s been a prosecutor and a defense attorney and that his work as managing partner at the law firm Constantine Cannon involves overseeing roughly 190 employees, a task that’s akin to the daily job of district attorney.

While he’s been cast as the dark horse, Aborn has also been referred to as both a progressive and a candidate of big ideas. He has in fact worked as a consultant, helping police departments and transportation agencies from Los Angeles to London improve and streamline operations. In 1999, at the request of then-Public Advocate Mark Green, Aborn investigated the NYPD’s disciplinary system following the shooting death of Amadou Diallo.

Aborn has carved out strong positions on issues like capital punishment, arguing that not only should the death penalty be outlawed in New York, but that it has no place in the United States—a not-so-subtle shot at Snyder, who, when she ran for D.A. in 2005, said she supported the death penalty in some cases. She has since come out fully against it. In a time of relatively low crime, Aborn has proposed using the office’s resources to stop crime at its roots, providing programs to help nonviolent offenders and putting a new focus on young people, victims and families.

“I continually think about this question: How do we break up the pathway to violence?” Aborn said. “When you look at the system through that lens, you see lots of places where you can lead people off the path to a violent life. That includes things like a much greater use of treatment for those with problems with drugs. It means a very deep commitment to honestly looking at the intersection between mental health and criminal offending. It means working with kids in targeted, innovative ways that are progressive and effective, that are designed to get kids out of a life of crime and back home and back in school where they belong.”

Aborn has lived his entire adult life in New York, and currently resides on the Upper West Side with his wife Ingrid—the twin sister of actress Isabella Rossellini and daughter of Ingrid Bergman—and their 18-year-old daughter.

Bill de Blasio worked in the Dinkins Administration as an assistant to the deputy mayor, where he met his wife, Chirlane McCray. Photo by Andrew Schwartz

Bill de Blasio

Running for Public Advocate
By Clara Martinez Turco

All four public advocate candidates say they want to be a strong check on the mayor they will serve alongside in 2010, and in their campaign rhetoric, they frequently talk about standing up to Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Council Member Bill de Blasio’s opponents have touted their large personalities or fiery language that gets results. But de Blasio, who represents Park Slope and Carroll Gardens in Brooklyn, prefers to balance that out with effecting change from the inside.

As chair of the City Council’s General Welfare Committee, de Blasio has authored legislation that banned discrimination toward people with Section 8 housing vouchers, and reformed child welfare services after the public outcry over the death of Nixmary Brown. The Council also passed his electronic waste recycling bill over the objections of the Bloomberg administration. The bill will require electronics manufacturers to take back their products.

“I have seen the legislative process [produce] a workable compromise,” de Blasio said. “When you see the potential for a positive result, you engage that.”

He used that strategy when the Council passed a budget earlier this year that slashed the public advocate’s office by 40 percent. De Blasio, his competitors and incumbent Betsy Gotbaum held a rally decrying the cut. Afterward, de Blasio proposed legislation that would take away the mayor’s power to fund the office of public advocate, comptroller, the Civilian Complaint Review Board and the Conflicts of Interest Board.

“The public advocate is supposed to be independent and a watchdog; it really should be independently funded, as it should be [with] the other elected offices so they’re not being held hostages by the mayor,” de Blasio said.

His record of working amiably with colleagues to pass legislation has in part earned him endorsements from the city’s elected officials and unions, including Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Charles Rangel, Borough President Scott Stringer and the powerful labor-backed Working Families Party.

Before term limits were extended, de Blasio was a candidate for Brooklyn borough president. During Bloomberg’s push for a third term, the Council member became one of the most fervent leaders in opposition to the proposal.

Although he lost the fight, he decided on the office of public advocate as his next step.

“A public advocate has to be the voice of the people and an opponent of the mayor when he is wrong and someone who can organize people all over the city,” de Blasio said. “That experience led me to feel that I was the right person to take on that particular role.”

De Blasio, a native New Yorker, graduated from New York University and received a master’s degree in public affairs from Columbia University. He has a lengthy history behind the scenes in electoral politics, landing his first political gig as the volunteer coordinator during David Dinkins’ first mayoral race in 1989. De Blasio then joined the administration as an assistant to the deputy mayor, where he met his wife, Chirlane McCray. He went on to run Rangel’s 1994 re-election campaign and Bill Clinton’s 1996 presidential bid in New York, and he managed Hillary Clinton’s 2000 U.S. Senate campaign. Outside of politicking, de Blasio has served as the regional director for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

“It was clear that the electoral process frames everything, so I got involved in supporting candidates,” he said.

De Blasio has built a formidable campaign despite his relatively late entry to the race. Although he is currently third in the polls, behind former Public Advocate Mark Green and Norman Siegel, he is second when it comes to fundraising, with $1,279,150 in his campaign war chest. That money will be crucial for expensive get-out-the-vote operations in the days leading up to the Sept. 15 primary. Queens Council Member Eric Gioia leads the pack in fundraising.

As public advocate, de Blasio says his record of solving problems legislatively will come in handy, but he says he will also use the office as a bully pulpit, which is where most of the public advocate’s power lays. A hallmark of his style will be to build coalitions with neighborhood groups.

“The advocate has to be community organizer-in-chief,” de Blasio said. “There are so many issues that come up on the local level.”
–
With additional reporting by Dan Rivoli.