On Any Given Day
As the city council races in the 36th district heats up we are beginning to see not only the candidates in full force, but more of their supporters. After reading this response to Laurel Brown’s entry on our upcoming elections we decided that it should not be left buried in the comments section. In hopes of fulfilling our mission as “Crown Heights’ Virtual Town Square” we want it to be clear that this is not an endorsement of Mr. Cornegy, but rather an invitation to other community members to share with us your perceptions on our candidates in the upcoming elections-or other issues that are near and dear to your heart-and we will do our best to share them on the interwebs. So without further ado, here’s area resident Juan B on his candidate of choice Rob Cornegy.
On Any Given Day
By Juan B., Brooklyn, NY
ON ANY GIVEN DAY, during the hazy, hot and humid days for the summer, it’s not unusual to see a tall man setting up speakers and turn-tables in parks, playgrounds, and pretty much anywhere he can find a crowd of youth and families. He doesn’t get paid for this and in fact it actually costs him money in the time lost that he could have spent doing something else, perhaps sitting behind a desk in an air conditioned office, pushing paper, and sipping an iced latte while writing endless policy and theory papers on issues like what it takes to reduce crime and recidivism in Bed Stuy and Crown Heights, promote diversity without displacement or gentrification, provide meaningful employment and educational opportunities for youth and families, or any number of other issues impacting the 36th Councilmanic District.
He could do that, but then he wouldn’t be Rob Cornegy.
Rob Cornegy takes a simpler, more direct grassroots approach: he goes out into the heart of the district, plays music or just hangs out in an easily accessible area, and get’s to work. Lines form sometimes to get his assistance. A typical afternoon includes requests for help finding work, getting emergency food stamps, help in organizing a community event, or contacting specific government agencies about a problem. Rob, a walking rolodex of social services, makes one referral after another.
In the current campaign season there are many candidates out and about in the community, knocking on doors, interacting with the community, and also providing some social services referrals. The difference between them and Rob is simple: Rob’s been doing this for pretty much his whole adult life, an example passed on from his parents. How do I know? Rob and I have been friends for over 15 years, and the Rob I met and worked with then is the same as the Rob I know now. We partnered on a number of projects, issues, and challenging cases and without Rob Cornegy’s help or support I question what the outcome would have been like.
Fast forward to today: If I’m meeting Rob for lunch and we’re sitting outside eating, it’s not usual for us to be interrupted over a dozen times by passerby’s needing a point in the right direction for any number of service referrals. And the walk there and the walk back are no different. It’s fair to say that lunch is over a three hour event, with the vast majority of that time watching Rob handle what seems like an endless stream of requests.
I’ve watched Rob Cornegy during this campaign season closely, and his approach to solving problems is very straight forward:
Unlike his opponents, he humbly accepts and even embraces the fact that he is not an expert on most issues, nor does he want to be. This community already has experts. They live here, work here, enjoy triumphs and suffer through failures here. To him, their experience is unquestionably more valuable than anything he can ever obtain on his own or through a computer looking up stuff online.
Rob Cornegy wants these experts to weigh in on issues, but only after he actively seeks out, door to door, what issues are most important to the constituents of the district. Yes, he could spend countless hours in an office studying figures, stats, charts, and graphics. But he prefers a simpler approach: Asking our residents, “What’s important to you right now?” It’s only after he knows the answer to that question that he’ll work to facilitate the creation of a district work-plan that addresses issues in the priority set by the constituents themselves.
Rob Cornegy understands that a vibrant local economy is a key component to a thriving community, and that things can be done locally to help minimize, even if just a little, the impact on our local businesses during an economic crisis. He understands why local entrepreneurship plays a major role maintaining a local economy, and the importance of hiring local people to staff the many shops of our area, and has been a constant presence to merchants of the district, helping promote our shops and events so we don’t fall victim to the economic downturn, or our customers flock to shops and events at venues far away from central Brooklyn.
Rob Cornegy knows that a positive, meaningful relationship with local police is based on mutual respect, and that when individual police abuse their authority it impacts every good police officer, so he maintains excellent relationships with Community Affairs officers at all the precincts of the district, partnering with them to conduct crime prevention workshops and working through them to address cases of police misuse of authority. This is perhaps one of the most difficult and delicate of balances to keep, and in a campaign season it’s all too easy to vilify the police to score votes but Rob understands that addressing these concerns needs to be done in a way that doesn’t undermine the trust needed by residents that, when we call 911 for help, we know the police will come quickly and will protect and serve them in that time of need.
Rob Cornegy is committed to bringing more social services into the community because often we become entangled in a multitude of issues and could really use some help to get back on top. Sometimes, because of our own upbringings, surroundings, and poor choices brought about by equally poor self-esteems, we ourselves are the root cause of our issues, compounded by poor role models and even worse living conditions. Rob compassionately, yet without pulling punches, helps us come to terms with these personal realities, and won’t wait to be a member of the council to continue to fight to preserve and expand the social services that we have for all these reasons.
Rob’s supporters are a mixed bag of well-to-do’s and economically challenged, the highly-educated and those from the “school of hard knocks”, the model citizens and those that have made a wrong turn here or there in their lifetime. The list goes on, and he welcomes them all on equal ground. They have one thing in common: their commitment to real change is solid and many have hands that were once weak but Rob helped to make strong. And on September 16th, one day after the Primary Election, regardless of the previous day’s outcome, Rob will most likely be outside again, looking for a spot to set up some music, and doing what he’s been doing in the community year after year after year.
Popularity: 1% [?]
I would like to start out saying that this article is very honest. I feel a great sense of hope ,change and also inspiration to want to help make that change I know Robert G.Cornegy will bring foward to the community. I know that this brother is humane and down to earth and the fact that he has a special gift to bring diverse backgrounds of people together for one common purpose,but same so many different ones that’s a gift that stands out alone and I feel is very important for a canadate to carry because Bed-stuy is a diverse community and you have to be able to reach the people. This brother has got my vote .Keep up the great work my brother I will see you at the polls.
This person offers a very compelling account of the person they know Robert Cornegy jr. to be.
Who could possibly offer anything contrary to what’s been said. So I won’t. Rather, my comment will be counterpoint to Juan B’s remarks:
Over 35 years ago, a man by the name of Al Vann appeared on the political scene in Bedford Stuyvesant with the credentials of the everyday man and the appeal and accessibility of the common man: High School Basketball Star, College Graduate, Public School Teacher, NYS Assemblyman and now, NYC Councilman.
Robert Cornegy jr. bears many of the same qualities and credentials as Al Vann did then.
But 35 years of best intentions has seen little in the way of progress for a community now threatened by the social, political and economic forces that can’t be met with the same approach in political leadership.
And there may not be enough time to establish a new paradigm in political practice at the expense of someone adapting to the curve (and who would be vulnerable to the status quo).
Well intentioned pleas to the voters focusing on the same issues each time election season rolls around only placates the worst of the conditions that have existed for longer than 35 years.
Please don’t choose your next Council Member based on who is more well intentioned….Voters in the 36th NYC Council District can ill afford to continue choosing their elected officials using the "Feel, Felt and Found" approach.
If the candidates haven’t offered any ideas for changing the same conditions that have existed for 35 years….then you should keep Al Vann and wait for him to be ineligible to run again.
You won’t see any change, but it won’t get any worse.
As a disclaimer – My comments down here are solely my own and not necessarily reflective of NostrandPark.com or any of its other editors. When I write posts for NP, I try to maintain at least a semblance of neutrality (well … most of the time). However, when I write down here in the comments section, I do so as a community member rather than an NP contributor.
I have to say that I am in complete agreement with Michael Corley. Good intentions can only take you so far – particularly in a race replete with candidates with good intentions.
For me, a leader needs to convince me of three key things in order to earn my vote: (1) a clear, well-researched and well-reasoned vision for the district, (2) a clear and practical plan to execute that vision, and (3) the ability to effectively execute that vision. This is the rubric that small businesses and non-profits invoke when soliciting funds from investors and funders and I think it is the same rubric that politicians should invoke when soliciting votes from constituents.
Any candidate who has lived, worked and/or served in this district for any appreciable period of time, should be able to articulate, at the very least, a sketch of a vision – based on their own observations and/or from insights that they have gained from the residents and stakeholders in the community. (And, of course, someone who is genuinely dedicated to this district would have been engaged in these types of conversations long before ever considering running for office.)
Contrary to Juan B., I think this vision should also be informed by both the personal anecdotes of the people AND statistics and policy – which help contextualize the personal anecdotes. Unless a candidate can proclaim that (s)he has spoken to a representative cross-section of the community and based on that cross-section, (s)he understands on a macro-level, the issues, I think it is incumbent upon a candidate to familiarize him/herself with the available policy and statistics. The power of anecdotes is not to shape policy, but to refine policy so that it is directly responsive to the needs of the community. At that point, the vision moves from being a proposal set forth by one person – to a collective vision.
The next thing our leader needs is a strong plan of execution. I agree with Juan B’s observation that the “experts” are already in the community. What the politicians need to do is identify these “experts” and other resources and explain how they would leverage them to effectuate the vision. There are a number of people, non-profits, schools, merchants associations, religious institutions and community organizations throughout the district and even outside of the district that, if properly funded or engaged, can truly help serve as conduits of change. Which ones, specifically, would the politician call on to help effectuate the collective vision?
Lastly, a leader needs to be able to deliver. This is the part of the analysis where character, credentials, track record, sincerity, genuineness, good-intentions, etc. come into play. I think what people overlook is that a politician not only has to convince his/her constituents of the merits of their position, but at least with respect to city council, they have to convince 25 – 50 other councilpersons of the merits of their position (e.g. proposed legislation or funding request).
Again, good-intentions is only a singular component in a larger candidate analysis.
My $0.02.
Hello. I’m glad my piece has gotten a few people to comment. I won’t be defensive of the above comments, but instead I welcome them as it gives me an opportunity to expand on them. So thank you Michael and Laurel. I enjoyed reading both your posts.
There are very big differences between Al Vann and Rob Cornegy. Yes, they do share similar traits, but the world and neigbhorhood we live in is starkly different than the world of 35 years ago. One obvious example of course is that 35 years ago a man named Barack Obama would not be president.
But I don’t mean to trivialize Michael or Laurel’s postings by any means. I just think that it truly is apples and oranges to compare Al Vann to Rob Cornegy, or in fact compare the incumbant to any of the challengers. If you reread my piece you’ll see that this was a highly personal account, and one 15 years in the making, something that I mentioned too. My piece was never meant to be objective because that wouldn’t have fooled anyone.
Often in local elections we see endless lists of unqualified, compromised candidates and have to choose between the lesser of all the evils. This is not the case in Bed Stuy, where we have some truly excellent choices.
But the field is crowded with policy wonks and people that want to do good works from behind a desk in an air conditioned office. That’s their strength. Fine, no problem–except that Bed Stuy, Crown Heights, and every community of color has seen policy wonks for many, many decades, cutting programs and services truly were investments; by strengthening lives and fostering independence, you create a tax payer, restoring any money invested in these programs and continuing their contributions to the tax pool. Worse, these policy wonks have done a great job in creating programs that have exacerbated poverty, creating a permanent underclass.
Where I come from there is a much better term for policy wonks: poverty pimps.
So if the incumbant’s record as an organizer with good intentions 35 year ago is fair play as the reason to not vote for someone with a strong organizing background, why aren’t the records of many policy wonks, who, if you apply the same argument, have been around even longer? You can’t compare one without the other.
But like I said, my piece was highly personal and based on 15 years of experience with a single candidate. It is unfair and disengenous to negate the fact that Rob Cornegy has multiple college degrees and certifications, has taught at Brooklyn college, and knows his way around policy. This list of credentials could get very long if I wanted it to, and if my original intention was to give a fair and balanced view of the candidate, I could have done that, but even on my best day I could not be expected to be objective after 15 years of work and friendship with Rob.
What’s of great concern to me is how quickly Michael and Laurel ignore the fact that few elected officials are willing to go out and hit the streets to get firsthand knowledge of what their specific needs are. That few elected officals humbly accept that they are not and will probably not ever be experts in any sole field. That few elected officials will actively seek out the community’s experts to weigh in on the community’s issues in order to make the best decisions possible when it comes to his role in governing.
To equate this to nothing more than "good intentions" is to do all of us a great disservice.
Laurel, your statement:
"Contrary to Juan B., I think this vision should also be informed by both the personal anecdotes of the people AND statistics and policy – which help contextualize the personal anecdotes. "
What happens when the statistics and policy are based on cooked numbers? It’s a bit naiive to think that what is reported is always what has happened. That doesn’t mean we discard these numbers or reports wholehandedly, but instead question them as good citizens and more importantly take the time to gather our own evidence to authenticate their accuracy.
All the more reason to give merit to Rob Cornegy’s plan to go out and ask people a variety of questions that are based on the perceptions of our day to day reality. We live in the perception of reality, Laurel, and if you doubt that, think of how little comfort you draw the next time someone is a victim of a violent crime in Bed Stuy or Crown Heights…and the police’s best response is that crime is down and has been down for the past 15 years. It’s this very type of disconnection that makes community/police relations so difficult in our community.
Michael, your closing statement makes for a good sound bite, but there is simply no evidence to support it, and in fact, if someone like Rob Cornegy is actively measuring the results of his work by asking his constituents what they think and how they feel in any number of categories, as was written in my original post, I am really confused how you can state that, unless you were searching for a good way to end your post. Fine by me. It’s your right. But to parse my post as if it was even meant to be a balanced review of Rob that required parsing is unfair to readers and also confusing and misleading.
I appreciate both your posts and hope that this follow-up doesn’t get censored. I think I have a right to respond to what was written and your readers have a right to see a rebuttal that really didn’t need to happen, because Michael and Laurel chose to take what was a biased post on my behalf (something I never hid) and make it a definative review on a single candidate. You should both know that until I was told that something I wrote to the candidate was on this blog that I had never heard of nostrandpark.com.
That said, I think this blog site is excellent for our community and I’m happy that my writings were posted and that others weighed in. But c’mon, don’t make into something that it’s not.
Of course voters should based their decision on many factors. But don’t take a man’s personal writings and make into something that it was never meant to be. It can make readers question your own objectivity (and objectivity is something that I never had with this candidate nor pretended to have) and that perhaps there were other motivations involved.
Let’s be fair.
Laurel qua NP editor:
Since we try to invoke the "town square" spirit, unless something is highly offensive or inflammatory, we would not "censor" posters. Posts like yours are a welcomed addition to the site, which is why it was brought to the front page. We encourage you to keep posting!
Laurel qua community member:
Thank you for your comments Juan B. My commentary is not specific to Robert Cornegy and was actually not meant to minimize your personal account of Mr. Cornegy. I actually found your post to be quite endearing, enjoyable and helpful for understanding who Cornegy is.
I agree with you, that insight from the community is necessary. I’ve been openly critical of others who have failed to be out and about. But, the reality is that anecdotes are stories. Just as statistics are stories. Both are susceptible to being misstated, manipulated or misused. That’s why I think it’s important to balance the two – anecdotes AND statistics. That was the point that I was trying to make. In your second post, you seem to be saying the same thing, so I think we are in agreement.
Nope. No secret motives or hidden agenda here. I will vote for any candidate along any party line – Bloomberg, Thompson, Carrington, Cornegy, Griffith, Jones, Straker, Vann, Wright, whomever, I don’t give a hoot – so long as I am comfortable with their vision, plan and ability.
Believe it or not, I’ve actually made a chart and ranked each of the candidates based on each of the three criterion. Where I found I did not know enough about a candidate to make an informed decision, I tried to find out more info about them, either by speaking with their reps, reading posts such as Juan B, or speaking with folks in the district. I kid you not!
Laurel,
Thanks for responding again, and thanks for sharing your inisght.
I think readers like myself would love to see your chart! It can really help those that are still on the fence. Obviously I can never make a chart objectively like you can because of my bias towards Rob Cornegy, but others that don’t know any of the candidates personally can use it to better assess the wide number of choices.
What’s your opinion on using silly, deceitful, dirty, or annoying campaign tactics? And does your chart account for that, as in giving or taking away points or other measurements in this category?
Also, what’s your take on constituents with overbearing demands that, if not met, begin smear campaigns? I haven’t seen this per se in Bed Stuy or Crown Heights (yet) but it’s a given that every campaign brings out the neighborhood’s self-proclaimed mayor demands all kinds of things with a gun to the candidate’s head (not a real gun, but the threat of going out of his or her way to attack the candidate if the demands are not met)?
I’m talking about the president of a block association with 4 members including themself and spouse, a pastor willing to use his/her pulpit against a candidate, or a local business leader that demands all kinds of things else he/she sports the opponent’s materials in the window, people like that.
Thanks.
My chart’s probably not that helpful, because all it has are categories and a list of names. Plus, it’s always in flux as I learn more about the candidates. But below I’ve tried to reproduce the thought process that I used. It’s long, but to summarize, my top two contenders are Mark Griffith and Robert Cornegy.
Griffith is my top overall because I think he is very strong in each category – great vision/plan and ability/personality to make it happen. Cornegy, because of personality, campaign management and past achievements, gets MAJOR points for me in the “implementation” category. He loses out only because I don’t know what his vision and plan are. Jones was my top for a good while, but his off-putting personality and relative inexperience spoiled it for me and his vision and plan weren’t strong enough to overcome that. I really like Wright’s vision and plan and had high hopes for her, but my main concern was how effective she might ultimately be. That said, if she got some good staffers behind her (and included Crown Heights in her vision rather than just Bed Stuy) I think she could be effective.
Again, these are my own personal opinions, and not necessarily shared by any other staff member or editor of NostrandPark.com or any other organization with which I am affiliated.
VISION
• Basically anyone whose platform includes affordable housing, economic development and crime gets props from me. I’d love to see discussions about “cultural development” but alas so one has been that forward thinking.
• Mark Griffith – I think it was that he mentioned “green jobs” and “food justice” that really got me interested in Griffith. Then reading up on his background, it seems like he was sounding alarm bells about predatory lending and the foreclosure epidemic long before it became a matter of public crisis. To me, that signals that he is good at spotting issues that our community should be aware of.
• Tremaine Wright – Solid issues list.
• William Carrington – Solid issues list.
• Saquan Jones – I do not think his vision is strong or far reaching enough, but I like that he has a unique perspective on the issues. He doesn’t just point to the typical “affordable housing”, “crime” bag of issues. He talks about things like a “change in mentality” which I agree with and appreciate.
PLAN
• Tremaine Wright – Before Griffith’s site got it together, Wright was the only person in this category, because to me she had the best, most comprehensive outline of her plan for the district. And I like that she cites to specific resources and ideas. My may concern with her plan, at least as it is articulated on her website, is that it does not include Crown Heights at all! I understand that Crown Heights does not make up as much of the district as Bed-Stuy, so if the Bed-Stuy discussion was greater than Crown Heights, that would be understandable. But to omit any mention of issues in Crown Heights, to me, is a fatal flaw.
• Mark Griffith – Until recently, Griffith was not ranked in this category because he previously had absolutely no articulation of what his plan was. His site has since been updated. Now, even though he really needs to flesh out his thoughts on gentrification and economic justice I think he has done an impressive job of explaining how he would effectuate his vision. Like Wright he cites to specific resources and action items. And I like his ideas a lot. Because I’m into the “green economy” and think it can be very important for our community, I was very happy to see his ideas for green jobs, so reached out to his camp and asked A LOT of questions about this and other issues which had not been fully discussed on the website. To be fair, however, I have not reached out to any other campaign reps to dig up additional information, so my support of Griffith on this front is not necessarily balanced.
• Saquan Jones – Most of his ideas are too lofty, not concrete, and probably better implemented through a non-profit. However, I really liked his idea of trying to implement a financial literacy curriculum in the schools. And I like that he specifically identified Nostrand Avenue as needing of revitalization (though he needs to go into way more detail about his ideas).
• [Robert Cornegy] – I didn’t include Cornegy here since his site does not include any issues or plans (though he recently included some info on his blog). However, because of all of his impressive work in the social service sector, I am really interested in his position on the proposal for the Bedford-Atlantic intake center and also about the busing that’s been taking place at the Sumner Armory. He was at the rally against the intake center some months ago. Of all of the candidates, I think I would respect his opinion the most.
• [William Carrington] – Carrington is not ranked on this category because his action plan falls flat. He has very generic descriptions of what he would do. For instance he says he “plans on supporting affordable healthcare”. That is good, but I’d like more details.
IMPLEMENTATION
• Robert Cornegy – Cornegy gets MAJOR points in this category. I love his online media campaign – from his blog, to the surveys, to his commercial. He’s been very visible and active. He was actually the first candidate that I knew about because of a survey that he posted about improving parks in Central BK. Moreover, people who I’ve read from or spoken with about him, LOVE him. For me it seems as if he has the staff power to make things happen and would be able to really engender respect and support of fellow council members as well as the community, which translates into being able to get things done. Not to mention that he’s had experience working in government and has been a big social entrepreneur (with, for instance, the homeless shelter he started).
• Mark Griffith – Griffith gets big points in this category to (though I think Cornegy slightly one ups him). Griffith had a heated debate between him and Jones and I really thought he handled it with great finesse. Then I ran into him with a friend and we both commented on how likeable he was. Not to mention that he’s received some major endorsements – Working Families Party (one of handful of non-incumbents to receive the endorsement) and ACORN. He, like Cornegy, gets big points for his social entrepreneurship with the credit union that he started. Again, to me this translate into an ability gather support and to get things done.
• Tremaine Wright – She is ranked here primarily because she has been on CB3 for 6 years and started her own business. Plus having met her personally, she is very charming. But she is low on the ranks because I saw her in an interview and I felt like she let the moderator’s questions intimidate her, as she stumbled to explain her position on moderate income housing. With that The other downsides that I have seen are that she only raised about $8,000 for her campaign (compared to others who raised upwards of $30 – 40,000). Not to mention that I haven’t “seen” her around much –either online, in the community, or through fliers. I even had myself to her events list, but to date haven’t received a single email. Those things leave me to question her ability to make things happen.
• [Saquan Jones] – Jones loses BIG points in this category. He is way too fiery and contentious for my taste. And I think that for all of the reasons that Cornegy would engender support, Jones would lose it. From the interviews that I have seen and things that I have read, he seems very arrogant. Plus, he does not seem to have much experience.
• [Al Vann] – I have a tremendous amount of respect for things that Al Vann was able to accomplish in the earlier years of his career. When you read up on him or speak to older folks about him, you understand that he really was a hero for this community. Yet and still I hesitate to rank
Vann in this category. His recent track record indicates that he has lost the zeal of years past – the fact that he has the 5th worst attendance record of 51 councilmembers speaks volumes.
I have spoken with dozens of people and almost invariably the responses about Vann fall into two categories (1) “he hasn’t done anything, he needs to go” or (2) “I knew him back in the day so he has my vote.” That is not a strong endorsement. BUT respect for Vann runs deep, and I think if he was able to get it together, I think he could make things happen.