Can the city really handle a marathon right now?

"My first instinct was sure, we're going to be ready for the big event. We can do anything in the world. We're New Yorkers and that's what New Yorkers do," said Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. "But after visiting shelters around the city, seeing the devastation in Staten Island and Breezy Point and knowing that people are trapped in buildings on the Lower East Side and we cannot get to them, this is not the time."

On Friday, Mr. Stringer voiced his opposition to holding the marathon this Sunday, joining a growing number of politicians who feel that the city should not host a major event while so many residents are struggling for access to electricity, food and water.

Even in the midst of rising opposition, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and city officials have pressed on with plans to hold the marathon, asserting that it's an important sign of resiliency for the city and will help raise money for relief as well as reviving the local economy. The marathon has rechristened itself a "race to recover," declaring its dedication to helping communities impacted by Hurricane Sandy.

Still, an increasing number of New Yorkers are criticizing the decision to go through with the marathon, arguing that the resources needed to host thousands of runners cannot be spared when whole neighborhoods still lack basic necessities. In a particularly unfortunate coincidence, the race's starting line is in Staten Island, which suffered the highest death toll in the city with 19 dead. And the number may rise in the days to come as search teams continue digging through the debris of thousands of destroyed homes. Staten Island Councilman James Oddo has called the decision to hold the race "idiotic," and at least one Brooklyn runner is planning to scrap her race plans in favor of volunteering in the battered borough.

"I think it's admirable that Bloomberg wanted to hold the event to show the city's resiliency. The mayor has done an excellent job providing resources around the city," said Mr. Stringer. "But right now we don't have enough generators and people are lining the streets of the Lower East Side looking for food and water. We cannot take fire services and ambulances away from the places that need them."

kvelsey@observer.com

This could be you... if the Parks Department's budget is cut.

Early this morning, a handful of city park advocates, a trio of council members, and a smattering of curious onlookers gathered on the steps of City Hall to talk parks, budget cuts and leafy green things.

“Funding for our parks must be restored,” cried City Councilmember Brad Lander, who was joined at the rally by park-loving compatriots Melissa Mark-Viverito and James Oddo.

The last few years have not been kind to the Department of Parks and Recreation, which has been the victim of a number of heavy-handed budget cuts since 2008. This year, the Parks Department faces a proposed budget cut of $33.4 million that, if approved, would lead to a cumulative loss of $62 million in funding—or 17 percent—over the last five years.

“New York City’s 2,100 parks are an irreplaceable treasure, providing places for New Yorkers to play, relax, run, bike, picnic, perform, gather, and connect to nature,” Mr. Lander wrote in a statement.

New Yorkers For Parks (NY4P) Executive Director, Holly Leicht, who helped organize the rally, said that cutting parks funding is “more serious than people realize,” because it is a “disinvestment in our parks and the city’s economic future.”

And she has a point. Grass cutting and tree trimming costs money! The Parks Department does not just spend its cash on park benches, Narnia-esque lamp posts and the occasional swan. The bulk of the funding goes towards maintenance and operations, including trimming trees, cutting off dangerous or low-hanging branches, repairing and maintaining surfaces, controlling insect populations, removing snow and cleaning up litter and bathrooms.

And weeds aren't the only ramifications of budget cuts. The rally comes on the heels of a recent announcement that four public pools—Mayor Wagner Pool in Manhattan, Howard Pool in Brooklyn, Fort Totten Pool in Queens, and Faber Pool in Staten Island—will remain closed for the summer if money is not restored to the budget. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed pool cuts for three years in a row according to the Staten Island Advance, which also includes closing the city pools two weeks earlier than normal. If Mayor Bloomberg gets his way, and the four pools remain dry this summer, the city expects to save a total of $1.5 million.

But is it worth it?

“No, I don’t think it is,” a young mother of two, who declined to give her name, said at the rally this morning. “It’s like, I take my kids to the park all the time. They like the park. But if it’s not safe, or clean, or, you know, maintained, then what I am gonna do?”

“I had no idea this was going on,” she added.

Of course, maintenance reductions go hand in hand with maintenance staff cuts and if the park's funding cuts are approved, up to 800 jobs are at risk, according to NY4P.

So can anything be done to prevent this? Will the city's wealthy elite finally step forward in support of the parks?  It doesn't look good, but for the superstitious, there's always crossing your fingers, blowing on dandelions, or plucking out ‘dem eyelashes. 

jschiewe@observer.com

"I don't see him at this point in his life getting sucked into the mire of Albany," said Oddo. "The balance of power in city government is very much in favor of the executive. If the rules of the game in state were similar to city government, the position of governor would be much more appealing to him."

Oddo, who was in the audience when Giuliani spoke to Republicans on Staten Island Monday night, said, "I think he wants to influence the national agenda, and you combine that with 'Do I want to fight a fight under Shelly [Silver]'s rules,' the frustration would get the better of him within weeks."

Councilman Vinny Ignizio, who also attended the speech Monday night, said it left him feeling that Giuliani "is very interested in being on the national stage to help the country return back to Republican and conservative principles."

"He gave a fiery speech on Monday night about the direction of this country, and how he is passionate to bring back the economic and foreign policies that are better than the current administration," said Ignizio.

Oddo said Giuliani delivered the speech with "no notes" and "no teleprompters. This was Rudy, almost like the way he gave the State of the City speeches--very personal."

Dennis Gallagher didn't. The former city councilman, who resigned his seat last year after admitting he sexually assaulted a woman in his Middle Village campaign office, stood inside the doorway of the mall, smiled, then walked down the hallway back to work.

That's where City Council candidate Peter Koo's campaign office was located, and also where Gallagher has quietly toiled away for months.

Since resigning his seat, Gallagher has gotten an insurance license and a job at Fidelity National Title. He also sells old memorabilia online, and, with much less notice, works as a political consultant.

"I was a very active consultant who helped devise and implement the strategy from day one" said Gallagher in a telephone interview Monday evening.

Gallagher declined to name the consulting firm. Campaign finance records show Koo's campaign made payments to consultants at one firm, J. Mac Associates.

The strategy for Koo, as Gallagher, described it, was to get as granular as possible, solidify the few Republican votes, and peel away Democrats disaffected by the contentious primary, which Yen Chou won with about 30 percent of the vote.

"I advised Peter Koo that the race could never be won if this was simply Democrats versus Republicans," said Gallagher. "We had to show what he thought, how he felt, and how he lived his life."

Koo "ran his campaign as an independent running on the Republican line, with strong Republican values and with some Democratic support. If we had come out with George Bush pieces of literature, we never would have won."

The broader message in the Koo victory, as Gallagher sees it, is that the "Republican Party is a party that can reach out in new immigrant communities. The Republican party has failed to do that. New immigrants that share our core Republican values" and Koo's victory "sends a signal that Republicans can get elected in overwhelmingly Democratic districts."

And the message of beating the odds isn't lost on Gallagher, whose own involvement in this race is one few could have predicted.

"In some instances, Peter encouraged me to be more out front, but I was the one who wanted a more behind-the-scenes role," said Gallagher. "I certainly didn't want to be an issue for him and his campaign."

Gallagher announced in March 2008 that he was resigning his seat the following month, after pleading guilty to two misdemeanor counts of sexual abuse. A more serious rape charge against Gallagher was dismissed by the state supreme court on the grounds that the prosecutor unfairly prejudiced the grand jury.

Since that time, Gallagher has said he reconnected with his two children and grown a goatee. According to a friend, he's also lost some weight. The former councilman said he's enjoying life outside the public eye, but is looking to do more campaign work.

"One mistake in my life shouldn't overtake over 20 years of government and political service," said Gallagher. Before getting elected in 2001,  Gallagher worked on several campaigns, including Bob Dole's (presidential), George Pataki's (gubernatorial),  Serphin Maltese's (a successful write-in candidacy for State Senate!), and, he says, he ran his own campaigns for Council.

"I felt happy I was able to contribute to this race," he said, "and I can see myself continuing to run or manage a campaign."

Which is welcome news, according to Jimmy Oddo, the current minority leader in the City Council.

"Obviously, Dennis has made mistakes in his life and he has paid a heavy price for them," he said. "While people can question some of his decisions in his personal life in the past, they can never question his political acumen. He has a brilliant political mind."

But as Republicans celebrated a surprise victory in Flushing, they also saw a stunning defeat in Gallagher's old Middle Village district, once thought to be a Republican stronghold. Democrat Liz Crowley, who won narrowly won the seat in an election last year, fended off a challenge from Gallagher's old boss and former Councilman Tom Ognibene. How did that happen? "The Ognibene-Crowley race was won by Elizabeth because of the amount of work she put into the race," said Gallagher. "She clearly outworked Tom."

City Councilman Jimmy Oddo texted to say he’s in his district office on Staten Island “with the tv tuned (yes to Fox), watching this historic event.”

Republican Senate Leader Dean Skelos’ only major plan of the day is to travel from Long Island to Albany, according to his aides.

Bloomberg, speaking during his weekly radio appearance with host John Gambling, went on to say, “Even if the city is obligated to do it, we don’t have to do it for the next handful of months, till probably June.”

City Council members Vinny Ignizio, Jimmy Oddo, Tony Avella and others have signed on to a lawsuit to compel Bloomberg to release the checks, which the mayor has said he doesn’t want to do now that the city is facing a financial crisis.

The dispute occurred during a hearing on a bill that would strengthen laws that govern protesters who demonstrate in front of women's health clinics that provide abortions, and also other services. Supporters say it protects access to the clinics, critics say it infringes on free speech. Christine Quinn backs the the bill and co-wrote an opinion piece on it today.

Oddo opposes abortion rights. Barron supports them.

According to a person who attended the hearing, the fight was so chaotic, “It was hard to make out what they were saying.”

This is not entirely unexpected behavior from either Oddo or Barron.

I popped my head into the hearing after the excitement. The two men were seated on opposite ends of the room, both seemingly occupied with a stack of papers in front of them.

McMahon said, "After attending hearings, speaking with constituents, and considering the legislation, I have come to the decision that I cannot support the current effort to extend term limits. While I've consistently voiced my opposition to term limits, and believe that Mayor Bloomberg would be a valuable asset to the city during this fiscal crisis, the people have voted twice to impose term limits, and I do not believe the City Council should reverse the will of the people in this manner."

The statement comes one day after another Staten Island City Councilman, Republican Jimmy Oddo, said he'd vote against the bill.

Most of them claim to be hesitant to support the bill out of concern about the legal principle involved, although it seems more likely than not that the bill could stand up to legal challenges.

Lappin asked at least two witnesses whether the Council has overridden a ballot referendum in the past (term limits were approved in two referendums in the 1990s) and once asked about the history of term-limits legislation in the Council.

Vallone and Gerson repeatedly expressed regret that they cannot put the issue on a general-election ballot because the deadline to do so for this November has passed. Without that option, they focused on the question of whether there is an inherent conflict of interest in the Council voting on legislation that will benefit most if its members. (The city Conflicts of Interest board ruled this week that Council members could vote on the legislation).

Despite the questions, it still seems likely that these members will eventually support the legislation. Gerson put his "conflict of interest" question to the pro-legislation former speaker of Council, Peter Vallone Sr. and mentioned that he's been fretting about the cost of a referendum.

Interestingly, the clearest-cut and least technical challenges to the administration's proposal came from Republican Councilman James Oddo.

When the administration asserted that a special election was undemocratic and would allow certain parties to have disproportionate influence—a nervy assertion, given the mayor's propensity to spend tens of millions of dollars in the cause of his own campaigns—Oddo pressed corporation counsel Michael Cardozo specify what parties have disproportionate influence, and how.

"What do they bring to the table that allows them to have a disproportionate voice?" he demanded. "Who are they?"

Cardozo never answered directly.

It seemed at times as if Oddo was alone in seeking to ask tough questions, rather than simply putting possible future objections on the record before casting an aye vote.

Citizens Union has posted online its study on how City Council members spend taxpayer dollars to raise their profiles.

I’m not sure what benefit top spenders like Michael Nelson and Helen Sears got for their expenditures, but others at the top of the list are widely known to be eyeing races for other offices: Domenic Recchia is running for congress. James Gennaro is likely taking a shot at state Senator Frank Padavan’s seat. Joel Rivera may run for Bronx Borough President, and James Oddo may run for Borough President on Staten Island.