Northattan

In the basement of a New York City Council District office in East Harlem one recent Tuesday evening, three women sat at a large oval table poring over a nine-page listing of 105 citizen proposals for local parks and recreation projects.

Some were modest and very specific: Repave paths in St. Mary’s Park in the south Bronx. Others sought grander goals: Build a park reserved exclusively for the newly popular extreme urban sport of parkour. And several were maddeningly vague, for a process that is supposed to come up with concrete plans for particular sites: “Jogging tracks,” read one proposal, while another suggested “Play grounds renovations.” Neither specified where those projects should be carried out.

“There’s not enough information on some of them to vote yes or no,” said a frustrated Kioka Jackson.

Jackson, 37, and her colleagues in this venture, Susan Rodriguez and Frances Mastrota, hold no elected office. But an innovative experiment in democracy, called participatory budgeting, has given the trio of East Harlemites the power to sift through proposals and help determine which might get implemented in Council District 8, which also includes Manhattan Valley and Mott Haven in the Bronx.

They are just three of dozens of volunteers on nine different committees –- from Housing to Education to Parks and Recreation -– who are currently slogging through 557 of their neighbors’ ideas collected at community meetings this fall.

Melissa Mark-Viverito is one of four City Council members trying out participatory budgeting. Whereas Mark-Viverito and other elected officials normally speak for their residents when allocating public funds, they are now encouraging those residents to speak for themselves.

So, instead of shouting from the sidelines, Jackson, Rodriguez, Mastrota and the other volunteers have to draw up a citizens’ game plan and put it into action. In each district, at least $1 million will be spent next year on infrastructure improvements chosen directly by constituents.

Mark-Viverito’s community outreach started with local nonprofit groups. When Rodriguez, who runs an organization dedicated to AIDS/HIV research and treatment for women, learned about the new program, she quickly jumped on board. “I think what Melissa has done is really ambitious,” said Rodriguez. “Once you build that foundation of people participating in their community, good things can happen out of it.”

Rodriguez, Jackson and Mastrota are part of an eight-volunteer team of “budget delegates,” tasked with whittling down the parks and recreation idea list into a handful of specific proposals.

The ideas were gathered in October and early November, when the entire council district was invited to suggest an idea -– any idea -– whether at one of several neighborhood assemblies or through an online form. Hundreds of suggestions later, small committees of untrained volunteers must find a way to assess all those potential projects and submit just a few for a final community-wide vote in March.

The first parks and recreation budget delegate meeting had a disappointing turnout. Five of the eight volunteer committee members didn’t show, and Mastrota immediately pointed out, “We don’t even have a quorum.”

The delegates were joined by two facilitators. Also volunteers, facilitators are members of the council district office, the local community board or major community-based organizations, people generally more knowledgeable about governmental processes who help guide the committees in their decision-making.

One of them, Will Engelhardt, taped two oversized sheets of paper to the wall — one labeled Priority, the other Non-Priority — and recommended that each delegate come up with five projects for each list. But that exercise wasn’t as simple as it sounded.

After Rodriguez described Thomas Jefferson Park, on 112^th Street between First Avenue and the FDR Drive, as a “ghetto park” and a “dump,” Mastrota bristled, responding that it had received a “high rating.”

And somehow “Redevelopment of Blake Hobbs Park” made its way onto both hanging sheets of paper.

“I thought that there was some tension between the delegates, and that at times people weren’t listening to each others’ ideas,” said Engelhardt. “But I think that is to be expected, as most budget delegates will probably have strong opinions about certain issues.”

The delegates themselves expressed exasperation at the early lack of progress. “It’s a little discouraging when meetings drag on and you don’t get to the meat and potatoes of what you need to do,” said Rodriguez.

However, Mark-Viverito said she was pleased with the vigorous debate. She briefly visited the parks and recreation committee session, engaged in small talk with the budget delegates, reminded them that “we want to go by what’s on the list, as far as projects people have identified,” and then left them to their work. She later issued a statement saying she was “thrilled to see a strong level of participation and engagement from the delegates.”

More than 1,000 cities around the world use some form of participatory budgeting, but Chicago is the only other U.S. city to try it. The experiment that began there in 2009 “shows clear signs of promise, growth, and rapid extension,” according to a report issued earlier this year by the Harvard Political Review.

Although $1 million can’t change the whole district’s landscape, it is a significant portion of the annual $5 million or so that Mark-Viverito controls directly for these types of infrastructure projects. To put that into perspective, New York City’s budget has been estimated at $67 billion by the City Office of Management and Budget.

Despite the initial stumbling blocks, Jackson, Rodriguez and Mastrota remain optimistic as they discuss whether to create green streets in East Harlem or implement free WiFi throughout the entire district, two of the proposals on their long wish list.

“I really do love what’s going on here,” said Rodriguez. And when, after the first few frustrating hours, Mastrota was asked if she still believes participatory budgeting is worthwhile, her eyes narrowed with intensity as she emphatically proclaimed, “Yes!”

Ydanis Rodriguez at a press conference on Wednesday. Photo by Tania Rashid/Northattan.

A day after he was arrested as part of the city’s crackdown on Occupy Wall Street, City Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez demanded that New York City authorities investigate police treatment of the protesters who were cleared from Zuccotti Park early Tuesday.

Rodriguez, who represents Washington Heights, Inwood and Marble Hill, was among some 200 people arrested as the Occupy Wall Street camp was dismantled by police, on the order of Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He was released Tuesday evening but did not speak in detail about his detention until a press conference on the steps of City Hall Wednesday.

Rodriguez, sporting minor scratches above his eyes, told media and dozens of supporters who assembled for the press conference that he had been pushed to the ground by a police officer and beaten in the head with a baton just before his arrest.

While acknowledging that police need to “guarantee order in the city,” Rodriguez said police were heavy-handed in their treatment of protesters Tuesday morning.

“What happened yesterday morning didn’t have to happen,” he said. “I think participating in civil disobedience is the right of the citizens.”

Rodriguez said he went to Zuccotti Park at 1 a.m. Tuesday, after a text message alerted him that police had begun an operation to clear the park. He said that when he arrived, he saw police punching some protesters in the stomach. Protester Rhadames Rivera said he watched Rodriguez ask a police officer to act with restraint.

“Why did they run this operation like a military? This is not acceptable,” Rodriguez told the crowd outside of City Hall, in calling for an investigation of how police treated him and the protesters who were evicted from the park.

When Rodriguez himself was grabbed by police and pushed to the ground, he said he identified himself as a City Council member. Rodriguez said police ignored him and threw him in a van, where he was held for two hours before his transfer to One Police Plaza. He was one of only two city officials arrested, along with protesters who have occupied the park for three months.

Rodriguez said that despite requests he was not allowed to see a lawyer for 12 hours. “I didn’t want to be treated different, I just wanted to be treated with the rights that I know that I have,” he said, noting that though he and many others arrested were released before the end of Tuesday, some remained in police custody on Wednesday.

Rodriguez has been a strong supporter of the Occupy Wall Street protest. Last week he and other Northattan officials led union members, activists and other residents on an 11-mile march from Washington Heights to Zuccotti Park to express solidarity with the protesters. At his press conference, he called on supporters to rally behind a “Day of Action” march on Thursday, to help show that, despite the raid on Zuccotti Park, the OWS movement is still alive.

Washington Heights Dominicans rally in support of presidential candidate Hipólito Mejía ahead of May's election. Photo by Russ Finklestein/Northattan.

Hundreds of supporters of Dominican presidential candidate Hipólito Mejía came out for a “bandereo,” or flag waving, rally on the streets of Washington Heights last Sunday.

The crowd circulated along St. Nicholas Avenue around 181st Street waving pro-Mejia flags and chanting slogans like “llegó papá!” (“Father has arrived!”) Mejía supporters also carried a purple coffin bearing a photo of incumbent party candidate Danilo Medina, symbolizing their hope that the May elections will bring an end to the Dominican Liberation Party’s 8-year hold on the presidency.

Polls suggest that Mejía, who was president of the Caribbean nation from 2000 to 2004, represents the biggest threat to Medina, whose running mate, Margarita Cedeño de Fernández, is the wife of the current president, Leonel Fernández.

But aside from bolstering local support for the Dominican Revolutionary Party’s political platform, campaign organizers in New York are also doing their best to register voters. Amid the chanting and flag waving, campaign volunteers like Argentina Lijanio comb the crowd with clipboards ready to register eligible Dominican voters before the approaching December deadline.

“I left my job in order to motivate people to vote so that we can get rid of this corrupt government we’ve got in power,” said Lijanio, who normally works as a machine operator in a garment factory.

Though the 2010 Census counted over half a million Dominicans living in New York City, only about 80,000 of them are expected to vote.

“I still haven’t figured out who I’m voting for, but I’m definitely going to vote because I feel like I should,” said Luz Maria Portéz, who is registered to vote in the May elections. “It’s my responsibility.”

Dominicans living abroad have traditionally played an important role in the national economy, though before 2004 they were required to travel home to vote in national elections. According to the World Bank, Dominican expatriates sent an estimated $3.3 billion home to friends and family members. These payments, called remittances, make up 7 1/2 percent of the country’s national economy.

U.S.-born Dominicans need to obtain a national ID in order to register and vote in the Dominican election, but many are unmotivated to do so.

“I’m so fixated on other things like work and school that I haven’t really thought about it,” said Brianna Perez, a 26-year-old student and teaching assistant at CUNY.

Perez, who was born in the U.S., says she will not vote in May because she doesn’t have the time or energy to file the necessary paperwork.

The 2012 elections will also be the first time that Dominicans abroad can vote on new legislative representation for expatriates. Seven out of the 178 members of Congress will represent Dominicans living abroad; three of them will represent constituents in the U.S.  Most of the leading candidates live in New York, the unofficial capital of the Dominican community in the U.S.

These legislative candidates are aligned with the key national political parties, including Mejía’s Dominican Revolutionary Party. Many of them have a hand in local grassroots organizing in New York, including events like Sunday’s “bandereo.”

This Saturday, local representatives of the Dominican Revolutionary Party are organizing an appearance by Mejía himself in Washington Heights. The rally will feature a speech by Mejía followed by music from prominent Dominican musical acts El Torito, Hector Acosta, Mirian Cruz and Shino Aguakate, which organizers hope will draw more potential voters who they hope to register before the December deadline. The event is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. in Armory Arena and tickets start at $20.

This article has been updated to correct that the representatives of expatriates in the Dominican Congress will be elected for the first time in 2012.

Rep. Charles Rangel faces censure from the House. AP Photo

For Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), it seemed to come down to this.  All the marching for civil rights, all the fighting he did to illuminate the drug crisis in African-American communities, all the work to become one of the most powerful members of Congress; in a sense, it all came down to a moment in front of the House ethics committee.

And after a grueling day of hearing from Rangel and behind doors discussion by the committee on Thursday, it came down to a censure. The House ethics committee suggested the punishment just below expulsion for his violations of House ethics rules.  Censure requires approval from the full House; a vote is expected after Thanksgiving.

Earlier this week Rangel was found guilty of charges ranging from evading taxes to inappropriate use of Congressional stationery.

It was more than a slap on the wrist for the congressman of 40 years; it was a harsh rebuke. It is only the fourth time in committee history that they have suggested a penalty of censure. But the congressman fought back, declaring before the committee, the cameras, and anyone who would listen that he might have made mistakes, but he was not corrupt.

It was a message he hammered home again and again, not only trying to lay out the case of his long years of service, but also repeating what the committee’s counsel Blake Chisam had said, that Rangel was sloppy, not corrupt.

But the House ethics committee took his ethical lapses very seriously. A censure is a kind of public pillory, an embarrassing show where Rangel would be forced to stand before the House speaker while receiving a verbal drumming for his misconduct.

If the House accepts the committee’s recommendation, it would be another moment of political theater in a week full of stagecraft.

Rangel began the week by walking out of his hearings, and ended it with a long and rambling plea to the committee, at turns begging, boasting, and reminding all of the many battles he has fought, both in the civil rights movement and as a soldier in Korea. There was in his performance both the bravura that those who know Rangel have come to know so well, and the sadness of a man trying to control his own narrative. “I don’t know how much longer I have to live,” he said in a rough voice,  “but I will always try to help people and thank God for what he has given to me.”

Back in Harlem, the people who Rangel has helped rallied behind the besieged congressman. Early on Thursday morning many community leaders, including State Sen. Bill Perkins and Councilwoman Inez Dickens, gathered inside the Martin Luther King Jr. Democratic Center, the de facto headquarters of all things Rangel.

Behind windows wallpapered in Rangel posters, they watched the TV waiting for the news. There had been a plan for members of the community to come here to board buses bound for Washington. But at the 11^th hour Rangel asked his supporters to cancel the trip.

“He asked for a homecoming party instead,” said Dickens. “He’ll be coming home and we are going to welcome him with open arms.” It seemed a move intended to take the focus off of Washington, and turn the spotlight on Harlem.

It is in Northattan, after all, where Rangel’s legacy will resonate loudest. It is also here that he is most loved. These are the voters who made their verdict clear when they re-elected him to Congress earlier this month with 80 percent of the vote. Their sentence for Rangel was different then that of the House ethics committee; they gave him two more years on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Charles Rangel before walking out of his own House ethics hearings on Monday. Photo by AP.

It took over 2 years and numerous twists and turns to get to the House ethics hearings of Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY, but when all was said and done it was over in a flash: Just over 24 hours after the trial’s opening statements, the congressman on Tuesday was found guilty of 11 violations of House ethics rules.

Rangel was found guilty of a number of ethical lapses, among them failure to pay taxes, questionable use of rent-controlled apartments in Northattan and promising “pay for play” deals in campaign fundraising.

If this was Rangel’s last stand, it seemed, at first, a confusing one. There had been much speculation as to what the congressman would do to defend himself, having parted ways from his lawyers a few weeks ago. Rumors were rampant the onetime assistant U.S. attorney would use his much-lauded argumentative skills to defend himself.

But in a bit of political theater, the Democratic congressman of 40 years spoke before the House ethics committee on Monday only to declare himself unable to afford legal counsel. A wounded-sounding Rangel told the 10-member bipartisan committee and a throng of reporters, “as someone who would like to preserve the right of members to be judged by their peers, with counsel, I respectfully remove myself.”

Rangel then picked up a large overstuffed binder, shook a few hands, and walked out of his own ethics hearings. With no defense testimony or presence, the proceedings followed fairly swiftly, leading up to Tuesday’s announcement that the committee had found the congressman guilty of all but two of the charges against him.

From the hallways of Congress to the streets of Harlem, which Rangel has represented for so many years, many wondered why the once-powerful politician had declared himself silent, even if in the loudest of ways possible. “He’s a lawyer, right?” asked Morningside Heights resident Adam Bricknell. “Why couldn’t he just defend himself?”

The House ethics committee had similar questions, pointing out that Rangel had months to set up a legal defense fund. Rangel split with his lawyers at the Washington firm Zuckerman Spaeder because he could not afford to pay them, he said. And, he told the committee, he could not afford new representation. One of the charges against Rangel was that he provided incomplete financial disclosure forms to Congress, making it difficult to gauge the current state of his finances.

Rangel’s failure to secure counsel and his dramatic and abrupt withdrawal from the proceedings began to make sense after the committee, acting as a de facto jury, found Rangel guilty on 11 counts.

In a statement to the public full of righteous indignation, Rangel denounced the committee’s findings, saying: “How can anyone have confidence in the decision of the ethics subcommittee when I was deprived of due process rights, right to counsel and was not even in the room?” His performance Monday set the stage for Tuesday’s defense; the claim that he didn’t have a fair hearing.

This past August, Rangel declared that come what may, he was “not going away.” That familiar blustery tone seemed replaced by recent public silence on the ethics charges, and his victimized tone on Monday. But while Rangel may have walked away from the hearings, he hasn’t gone anywhere.

Rangel called the committee’s handling of the ethics charges unfair, and made sure to emphasize that even the committee’s chief counsel, Blake Chisam, the equivalent of a prosecutor in the case, said that Rangel wasn’t corrupt, just sloppy.

The committee will meet on Thursday to decide on Rangel’s punishment. The New York Times reports that ethics experts say that the octogenarian will most likely face a letter of reprimand or a formal censure.

While Rangel’s power may be diminished in the House, his legacy  at home seems intact:  In the streets of his local Northattan on Tuesday, residents may have seemed aggrieved and annoyed with the congressman, but they didn’t seem surprised.

“Typical Rangel,” said barber Sean Anderson. The men gathered in Anderson’s barbershop seemed to find Rangel more amusing than anything else. Tony Mason, who stopped in for a morning shave, remarked, “If nothing else, he always gives us something to talk about.”

Rep. Charles Rangel returns to Congress on November 15th, the same day his ethics hearing is slated to begin. AP Photo

UPDATE: In a dramatic twist, Rep. Charles Rangel walked out of his congressional ethics hearings this morning. During opening remarks, Rangel said that it would be unfair to try him without a lawyer. Rangel says he cannot afford a new lawyer after paying his old legal team over $1 million dollars.

“I object to the proceeding since I don’t have counsel to advise me; I’m going to have to excuse myself from these proceedings,” Rangel said.

Because he says he cannot afford a lawyer, Rangel wanted the trial postponed, despite the fact that Republicans are set to take control of the House and chairmanship of the committee in January.

If it was a delaying tactic it did not work. Ethics committee chairwoman Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Ca) said that the hearing would continue without Rangel. After Rangel left, committee lawyer Blake Chisam laid out his case against the congressman, according to the New York Times.

There is some good news for Rangel, Chisam doesn’t believe that he is corrupt. “I believe the congressman, quite frankly, was overzealous in many of the things he did. And sloppy in his personal finances,” Politico reported Chisam as saying.

Democrats may have felt awash in a red tide as Republicans toppled them in many congressional races last week, but one seat was never in question: that of New York’s 15^th district in the House of Representatives. The seat belongs – almost literally, it seems – to Democratic Rep. Charles B. Rangel, who has represented Northern Manhattan in Congress for the last 40 years.

But Rangel’s easy reelection victory last week won’t be celebrated for long. Next Monday, the House Ethics Committee is slated to open a hearing on 13 charges that Rangel violated House rules. Among the allegations: Rangel failed to pay taxes, made questionable use of rent-controlled apartments in Northattan and promised “pay for play” deals in campaign fundraising.
Whether the trial will go forward as planned is still a bit of a mystery. Rangel recently split with his attorneys at the Washington firm Zuckerman Speader. He had paid the firm over $1 million from his campaign account, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Both Rangel and the House Ethics Committee have been silent on the subject of the pending hearings, refusing to answer questions about whether or not they will go forward, and if they do, who will represent the accused Congressman.

Rangel, a high school dropout who rose to become the first African American to chair the influential House Ways and Means Committee, has denied wrongdoing. But he now may face a more hostile ethics procedure than he might have before the November elections – particularly if the proceedings spill over to 2011, when Republicans will formally take control of the House and all its committees.

Specific charges against Rangel accuse him of failing to include $600,000 in assets on his congressional financial disclosure statements. Other charges allege that he owes unpaid taxes to the federal government and that he failed to report income from rental properties that he owns in the Dominican Republic.

Closer to his Harlem home, accusations include the use of congressional resources to raise money for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at New York’s City College, making him seem not only unethical but self-aggrandizing as well.

Particularly galling to some in Rangel’s upper Manhattan district are allegations that he made illegal use of rent controlled apartments in Harlem, including leasing one as his campaign office at well below market rates.

For many, the list of allegations is evidence of an entrenched political figure who felt so secure in his House seat that he had begun to believe the rules didn’t apply to him. But Rangel also remains one of Harlem’s most beloved political figures.

Northattan resident Luke Reynolds put it like this, “he might be a crook, but he’s our crook.”

Rangel is  “no dirtier than most” politicians, said Upper West Sider Steven McAdams.  “And at least he’s got, you know, personality.”

Political pundits have speculated that Rangel and the House Democrats want a quick ethics proceeding, starting right now, before the House switches its flag from red to blue in January. But it would be almost impossible for a new legal team to be up to speed as Rangel’s defenders by Monday. And that has fueled speculation that Rangel may represent himself.

That wouldn’t surprise many of his constituents, who reelected the congressman they see as their native son. “He’s got a mouth on him and always has,” said Harlem resident Daphne Anderson. “If anyone could talk his way out of his troubles, its him.”

Earlier this year, Rangel refused to negotiate a settlement on the ethics charges, forcing the House to hold formal proceedings against him, “I’m not asking for leniency, I’m asking for exposure of the facts,” he said. “If I can’t get my dignity back here, then fire your bet shot at getting me expelled. I am not going away. I am here.”

And Rangel showed that he was very much still here on election day, his quirky and upbeat personality on full display as he voted in the morning, hamming it up for the cameras, and as he watched his own win on a night where Democrats suffered huge losses.

In the wake of the election, Rangel has been out and about in front of the media. But on the subject of the hearings he has been consistently evasive. When a TV reporter asked him about his looming ethics trial as he celebrated his election victory, Rangel’s usually friendly demeanor shifted to heavy-handed sarcasm. “I’m certainly glad that you brought that up,” he said,  “because quite frankly I wasn’t thinking about that tonight.”

And on Veterans Day, speaking to a group of reporters, Rangel again refused to answer any questions about the ethics trail, “I don’t think I’m at liberty to discuss that right now” he said. “Plus I’ll be available Monday in Washington.”

That’s the day that Congress returns for its lame duck session, the same day the Rangel hearings are set to start. Rangel and his staff didn’t respond to phone calls about the hearings and whether or not the congressman will defend himself. And Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, the head of the Ethics Committee, has not yet commented on whether the trial will move ahead on schedule.

Lofrgren scheduled the date of Rangel’s ethics committee unilaterally, after warring with the Committee’s Republicans, under the leadership of soon-to-be chair Jo Bonner of Alabama.

The House Ethics committee has already admonished Rangel for violating house gift rules when he accepted trips to the Caribbean in 2007 and 2008. If found in violation of the rules again, he could be given admonishing letter, or a formal reprimand. More severe punishments include censure or even expulsion from Congress. The lighter punishments only need a majority of the committee to pass, while expulsion requires a full two-thirds vote.

Michel Faulkner, at left, campaigning in East Harlem. Photo by Kim Chakanetsa/Northattan

“Retire Rangel! Retire Rangel!” The bullhorns on the corner of Lexington Avenue and 125^th Street were at full tilt Friday morning as the Rev. Michel Faulkner and his supporters launched a final campaign push ahead of the Nov. 2 elections.

Armed with pamphlets and placards, Faulkner, a Republican, implored residents to unseat the incumbent, Charles Rangel, in the district’s race for the House of Representatives.  This is a big ask. Rangel is popular and Harlem is loyal, and very Democratic.

Despite the polls and predictions, Faulkner’s faithful remained hopeful —even confident.  “If we came out, we the people of the 15^th District, then yes he can,” said Pastor Jack Royster, who had temporarily ceased manning the bullhorn.

Among Faulkner’s volunteers was Esther Williams, a tall, witty woman. “Somebody was telling me there was an honest man in the neighborhood,” she said.  “I researched this man like a husband. If I’m going to be doing anything for anybody I have to research him. To make sure there is no baggage, no crazies.”

For Chaplain Viviana Hernandez, another volunteer, it was Faulkner’s consistent record of service across the city that won her over. Having known Faulkner for 10 years, she said, “I can look at people and see if they are genuine. He is the genuine article. He has convictions, a man of integrity.”  Those qualities, integrity and honesty, were mentioned  time and again by his supporters. “He can’t be bought and sold, “ said Williams, a less-than-subtle dig at the ethics violation charges that Rangel is facing.

Chaplain Hernandez holding campaign leaflets for Michel Faulkner. Photo by Kim Chakanetsa/Northattan

Hernandez was confident that the overwhelmingly Democratic district would back Faulkner. “This election people are going to look at the person, not the party, and we can no longer be beholden to a party,” she said. For those unwilling to shift party allegiances, come Tuesday, Faulkner will be on the ballot twice – as a Republican and as the Jobs Now candidate.

Job creation, or “jobenomics” as his campaign refers to it, has been central to Faulkner’s campaign platform in the area, which has been hit hard by the recession.  The job rhetoric drew in residents like Greg Valentine, who has been hunting for a job for over a year. Valentine’s job search was further compounded by his criminal record: “I served 4 and a half years. I used to smoke crack and I sold it to an undercover policeman,” he said. “Now every time I go they look at my history. I’ve cleaned my life up.”

The jobs message was drummed again when a couple dressed in matching denim stopped to ask Faulkner about what they would do about people living in the streets.  Faulkner said: “Jobs, we need jobs to help people take care of themselves.” The couple, perhaps unsure what to make of the response, conferred quietly.

Earlier that day, Tyletha Samuels, Faulkner’s campaign organizer, had described the candidate as “a pastor posing as a politician.”  Outside of Harlem’s Pathmark supermarket, Faulkner’s impersonation of a politician had been uncanny:  smiles and short conversations punctuated by handshakes and high waves.  He greeted commuters streaming out of the 125^th Street subway stop. Some shook his hand out of curiosity, some out of politeness. Others were less receptive. A man, reaching to accept a leaflet, asked, “Democrat?” before recoiling. “Come on, seriously, they don’t care about the working class, ” he said before rushing off in the opposite direction. A woman crossing the street stopped and shouted “Democrats!” to no one in particular.

One woman who had been circling the volunteers for the best part of an hour approached with a message for the candidate. “We as taxpayers are tired of paying for everything and getting nothing. It hurts.  I am a person who grew up with Martin and Malcolm. Then we had the government come in and say yes we can, well no, we can’t. This man has good intentions but I think once he gets in and sees the layers of bigotry, lies and racism, he will see that he is alone.”

So would she be voting for Faulkner?

“No, I am voting for me. I am a write-in candidate.”