Defending Our Homes: Chris Owens for Congress

Mole333 has a diary up emphasizing the need to support candidates who have proven their dedication to the community. In it he mentions three particular candidates. I want to add my support for one of those candidates because he stands with us against a particularly corrupt and odious development project not mentioned in mole333's diary. I want to voice my support for Chris Owens because he is defending our homes.

Chris Owens is a community activist. There are too many lawyers, wonks and bureaucrats in congress, particularly in the New York delegation.

Look where that has gotten us, mealy-mouthed leadership in the face of a dominating GOP.

We need more members of Congress who come directly from the people; Congress members who spend their lives working with communities and run for office because of their concern for the community, instead of their concern for their political careers.

Chris Owens is one of those candidates. He's running for the 11th Congressional District and is the only true progressive candidate in the race-unencumbered by Brooklyn's corrupt Democratic political machine (as 2 of his opponents City Councilmember Yvette Clarke and State Senator Carl Andrews are) or vast gobs of corporate special interest money (in NYC that's developer money, and that's City Councilmember David Yassky who has raised the most money of any Congressional candidate in the country).  

Chris Owens is from the community and of the community. How has this played itself out? Well, in the 11th District one of the biggest issues is a development proposed by Forest City Enterprises, the largest publicly traded real estate development firm in the country. That proposal, known as "Atlantic Yards," is the largest development proposed by a single developer in the history of New York City, and it is fueled by eminent domain abuse, public land giveaways and massive taxpayer subsidies/costs/investments of close to $2 billion. With all of that onus on the public, all of the risk on the public, the project would never see the oversight of any elected officials other than Albany's three men in a room.

There is enormous public opposition to the project.

Well, from day one, which was December 2003, Chris Owens, as a citizen, opposed that project. His three opponents supported it and still do. David Yassky straddles the fence and tries to pander to both sides of the fight over the development, but in the end that amounts to support for the developer, whose plan would be disastrous for the borough of Brooklyn.  

I witnessed Chris speak out in those early days of the fight over this project when few would-at public hearings, rallies and press conferences.

Now that "Atlantic Yards" is in the spotlight of media attention Chris Owens consistently makes the important point to make-he is the only candidate who stands against the boondoggle and the democratic process it flouts.

Chris Owens' run for office, in a large part, is based, in apart, on the corruption he sees in the "Atlantic Yards" deal. It's the same kind of cynical corruption, characterized by sweetheart deals and no-bid contracts, that are endemic to the Bush administration. It's the same kind of corrupt behavior that the public is willing to see, criticize and attack, while too many entrenched Democrats and Republicans are unwilling to condemn and punish.

Chris stands up to this behavior on the local, community level and is fearless in doing so.

If Chris can stand up to the power elite of New York State, as he has done, we know that he can and will stand up to the Bush agenda. We know that Chris opposed the Iraq War from before the invasion while his opponents are Johnny-come-latelies. It is always the community (the people) who see the truth before the politicians do. And Chris comes from that perspective.  

Unfortunately the same can't be said for his opponents. They stand up to nobody. They pander on their quest for the next political job. Chris is running to represent the community, while the others are running to represent their CV.  

Whats the  conclusion?

Support Chris Owens, a progressive Democrat, who will stand up to entrenched interests and will stand up to President Bush and the GOP, while his opponents stand down. He will be a great new asset and voice to the Democratic House and the New York delegation.

•  I heard that he was planning to

  stay in the race on the Green party line if he loses the primary (from a Green here).

  Is this true?

  If it is, nobody should be supporting him.

  by DemocraticLuntz on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:20:11 PM PDT

  •  Don't think so

    The Greens like him and are supporting him. But Chris has always been a loyal Democrat, always taking a leadership role. I have been told by someone close to the campaign that he has no intention of running as a Green, but I have not discussed it with him. My inside source basically said, "running as a Green would do him no good." I have also been told by a local Green that Chris once got very angry at him for leaving the Dem party.

    I will point out, however, that running third party is somewhat different in Brooklyn where Republicans don't get very far. Letisha James is an excellent candidate who got shut out by the local Dem party machine so she ran WFP line...and won. She has been a very popular representative for her district ever since winning each time she runs for re-election. How this comapres with Lieberman I am not sure, but I do like Tish James.

    by mole333 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:30:19 PM PDT

    •  Sincerity speaks loudly

      No one can predict the future, but having met and spoken with Chris many times, I believe he is sincere and a progressive Democrat thru and thru.

      by Blue Waters Run Deep on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:36:25 PM PDT

    •  WFP is one thing, Green is quite another

      especially with what's been happening in PA.

      by sidnora on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:37:24 PM PDT

      •  Well now. . .

        we seem to have established a pretty clear standard in Connecticut -- we expected both Lieberman and Lamont to pledge, absolutely, to abide by the results of the Democratic primary and support the winner.  If we apply the same standards here in New York, third party runs would be completely forbidden and no dKosser would allow themselves to support, in the primary, anyone who had not pledged to forego a third party run in the general.

        by LarryInNYC on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 06:01:45 PM PDT

        •  I understand your point

          and in a world of perfect consistency you'd be perfectly right.

          But the point I was trying to make is that the motives of the parties in question matter, too.

          Third parties wouldn't exist at all if they merely served as extra ballot lines for major-party candidates. WFP has historically been somewhat to the left of the corruption-plagued Brooklyn Democratic Party, and certainly more reformist in nature, so it has sometimes served as a platform for the kind of candidates Kossacks like, while the Democratic line was occupied by a minion of the corrupt and jailed Clarence Norman (former head of the Brooklyn Dem org.). It has other aims, and its own factions, and therefore its endorsements do not always please me - for instance, this year they have endorsed Hakeem Jeffries over Bill Batson, whom I support, and have made no endorsement in NY-11 due to an internal split. But often they and the reformist wing of the local Dems are in agreement, not only on candidates, but, more importantly, on our ultimate goals.

          Those of us who care are also working hard on reforming the local Democratic Party; if we are successful (a tall order, and it's not going to happen overnight), we might see WFP lose support to the Dems, who would then be far better able to accomplish the same goals.

          The Greens, on the other hand, have a national organization and strategy that should trouble anyone who thinks of themselves as a Democrat.

          by sidnora on Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 04:03:20 AM PDT

    •  I e-mailed the campaign about it.

      I'll be writing a diary about whatever response I get.

      by DemocraticLuntz on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:39:07 PM PDT

      •  Fair enough

        If he DOES run as a Green I'd be seriously torn. I am no fan of the Greens, but I am a fan of Chris and see him as sincere in his beliefs. Many NYC races have runoffs if no one gets over 50%. That is not the case with this race. So, with 4 candidates, the "winner" of the primary may only have some 30% of the vote. A third party run would take the place of a runoff vote.

        Is that okay? I don't know. Again. I look to Tish James who I am very happy is on the City Council. But I am no fan of the Greens and I realize that the comparison with Lieberman (who I have not condemned for a third party run) is inevitable.

        Fair enough asking him and fair enough requiring consistency among Democrats. But...for me it's all about the candidate. I have done my duty to the party when it came to helping out, for example, Ferrer. When I see a candidate who is a friend and really dedicated, I consider that a rare opportunity to fight hard for somone I am CONVINCED will be good in Congress. That is my main focus.

        by mole333 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:51:38 PM PDT

        •  Anything wrong

          with him running -- if he wins the Dem primary -- on both Dem and Green tickets? Or (if he gets the chance) on even more tickets than that? The New York system seems odd to those of us in other states, but if a bunch of parties in New York think one person is the best candidate (and that candidate agrees to be supported by them), it looks like a win/win situation to me.

          by sardonyx on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 06:26:48 PM PDT

          •  The problem is

            that in order to get one of the third party lines in New York (and they are valuable out of all proportion to their actual representation) you generally have to promise to run on that line even if you don't get the major party nomination.  And you have to promise to run hard because those parties want to maintain their ballot access, for which they need 50,000 votes (I think) in each election.

            So, to even entertain accepting a minor party line in New York you essentially have to violate the Lamont pledge of supporting the Democratic primary winner.

            by LarryInNYC on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 06:30:42 PM PDT

            •  Is that true?

              Most incumbents are also on the WFP line. It is very common. In fact, WFP endorses most Dem incumbents.

              I know what you are getting at, but in general cross-endorsements are common in NY.

              by mole333 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 06:33:27 PM PDT

              •  Is what true?

                Yes, cross-endorsements are common.  But, in general, to get the minor party line the candidate must pledge to that Party that he or she absolutely will run on their line even if he or she is not the major party candidate.  So the endorsements are common but so are those pledges -- and those pledges automatically violate the new dKos standard.

                If I recall correctly it was Andrew Cuomo's screw up (withdrawing from the race so as not to lose the primary) which wound up costing the Liberal Party it's ballot line in New York.

                by LarryInNYC on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 06:37:42 PM PDT

                •  Hmmmm...

                  What it sounds like to me is that the dKos standard your refer to may be inappropriate to NY given the common practice of cross-endorsements. If we are going to cut off both our Senators and most of our Conrgessmen, then it doesn't work for NY.

                  Of course my opposition to Lieberman is not because of his running as an Ind. It;s the issues.

                  by mole333 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 06:42:53 PM PDT

                •  that's usually only true for the governor's race

                  since the votes a party gets in the governor's race are what determines ballot status.

                  And Cuomo withdrew as the Liberal Party candidate so he wouldn't take votes away from Carl McCall, the Democratic Party candidate.  Had he been running for a different office than governor, it wouldn't have had an impact on the Liberal Party ballot line.

                  by Steve WFP on Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 10:37:05 AM PDT

              •  I believe Larry is correct.

                But it's not usually an issue re WFP, because they are so often in sync with the Dems.

                And Brooklyn really is different - this is a one-party town (or county, more accurately), and as I have mentioned before, that leads to all the same abuses of power that we see in Washington today. Just because they are being perpetrated by Democrats doesn't make them better. The former leader of the Brooklyn Democratic Party is in jail. There are Democrats, and then there are Democrats.

                If we had no third parties here, our only hope for change would be through internal reform, and while we're working on that, you know it's not going to happen overnight. I'm perfectly OK with supporting WFP candidates when I see them as being truer to the spirit of the Democratic Party than some machine-bred crook who's got the Dem line on the ballot. This is because I see their goals as being pretty much the goals of the National Democratic Party. I would, however, have a very major problem with supporting someone who was running solely as a Green.

                by sidnora on Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 04:19:17 AM PDT

            •  Thanks for the info

              I'm assuming that the candidates have to have filed for each party's ballot line before the September primary...which would, indeed, violate the post-primary Democratic unity support if they lost the Democratic primary but won another party's nod.

              by sardonyx on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 09:02:55 PM PDT

  •  I think we'd know already

    since you have to gather petitions to get on the ballot and the petitions were already due.

    by Steve WFP on Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 10:32:01 AM PDT

•  A candidate OF the People, BY the People, and -

  FOR the People! - as BrooklynBoy says above!

  by Blue Waters Run Deep on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:29:05 PM PDT

  •  Plus,

    his dad is the retiring incumbent!

    by LarryInNYC on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:37:00 PM PDT

    •  I sleep better knowing

      his dad's casting votes on my behalf. I spend a lot less time writing cautionary letters to my Congresscritter than most Kossacks, I wager.

      And Chris probably comes even closer to representing my views than Major does.

      by sidnora on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:39:52 PM PDT

      •  No worries.

        I just wish:

        1. People would state it up front and. . .

        2. The same people wouldn't complain about "dynastic" succession when other people follow their relatives into office.

        by LarryInNYC on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:53:51 PM PDT

        •  I state it in my diary

          The diary of mine Brooklynboy mentions states it up front. I know Brooklynboy and he is passionate about fighting for a better development plan for Brooklyn. So that is what his diary focuses on.

          by mole333 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 06:02:24 PM PDT

          •  I dunno.

            Diaries are read individually.  And when you say things like:

            is the only true progressive candidate in the race-unencumbered by Brooklyn's corrupt Democratic political machine

            and

            Chris Owens is from the community and of the community.

            and then your reader finds out that the candidate you're talking about is actually the son of the retiring, long-time incumbent you can wind up with a bit of egg on your face.  It may harm your argument if people feel that you haven't been entirely straight with them.  To your credit, you do make this clear whenever you diary about this race.  From my point of view it doesn't incline me against Chris Owens at all, and I think the same would be true of many other people.

            Why, by the way, isn't Chris Owen the party-backed candidate?  That seems odd.  Does he have his father's backing?

            by LarryInNYC on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 06:08:37 PM PDT

            •  The Democratic Machine

              The Democratic Machine in Brooklyn is corrupt as can be. Chris is anti-machine. The machine candidate is Carl Andrews, who was the right hand man of the now imprisoned Clarence Norman and a major Hillary supporter. Yassky has ties with Schumer. Now neither Hillary nor Chuck have endorsed, but it would be hard for the party to go for Chris with the local machine going for Carl and with perceived potential support for Carl and David from the Senators. The party is wisely staying far away from backing anyone in this race. He does have his father's backing as well as the backing of a whole slew of Congressmen. By far the candidate with the strongest CONGRESSIONAL support is Chris--Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, and a whole bunch of others. Progressive Democratic Congressmen want Chris.

              I really think Chris IS the progressive candiate (as his long list of progressive organizations indicates) and he does stand with the community. Those are true statements. The fact that he is is father's son doesn't change that any more than the fact that his brother was on the Cosby show. Chris really rocks and I would lay money (well, not really...I don't have the money to bet) that you would like him as well if you got to know him.

              by mole333 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 06:17:27 PM PDT

    •  A lot of members of Congress

      had parents who were politicians.

      Kendrick Meek, Harold Ford, Chris Dodd, Evan Bayh, Lisa Murkowski, Rodney Frelinghuysen, Dan Boren, Mark Pryor, Lucille Roybal, Bob Bennett, Mary Landrieu, Ted Kennedy, Charles Bass, Alan Mollohan, ...

      by DemocraticLuntz on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:47:13 PM PDT

      •  Yes, and I don't have

        a problem with that.  But lots of other people do -- and I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the people who support Chris Owen (specifically not including the people who post prominently here in his support) consider it a violation of human decency for Hillary Clinton, for instance, to aspire to the office of President.

        In particular, I couldn't let the original "of the PEOPLE, by THE people, AND FOR the PEOPLE" comment go without remarking on it.

        by LarryInNYC on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:56:08 PM PDT

        •  If you looked at their campaigns

          the "of the people" would make more sense. Chris' biggest campaign strength is his large and enthusiastic corps of volunteers, truly a grass-roots phenomenon, and drawn from all across the progressive spectrum of Brooklyn politics; Andrews'  strength is the (corrupt) Brooklyn machine, Clarke's comes out of her ethnic community, and Yassky's is, well, money from developers.

          by sidnora on Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 04:30:39 AM PDT

      •  MD-03

        Since the two leading candidates in the Democratic primary in MD-03 are both congressional offspring, John Sarbanes & Peter Belinson, we'll probably add one more to the list in January.

        by davybaby on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 09:19:08 PM PDT

    •  Chirs isn't Major

      I like Major. He is one of those rare Democrats who voted AGAINST the Patriot Act and the Iraq war at every chance.

      But he has been in too long.

      I don't support Chris because of his name. In fact I was a Yassky man at the start of this. It was only after I heard Chris and got to know him that I became convinced he was the right person for the job. I still like Yassky, though he has done and said some things that have soured me a little on him. But Chris is so much better than any of the other candidates.

      I judge him for himself and he comes out superb.

      by mole333 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:53:42 PM PDT

      •  The only thing

        I know about Yassky is this article I read in Edible Brooklyn, a free Brooklyn food magazine I picked up when I took my car to the mechanic in Williamsburg last week.  He certainly seemed to be up on food issues!  Also, he seems like a nice guy in that he's gone into public service instead of big money law, where someone with his credentials could have done well.

        by LarryInNYC on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:58:02 PM PDT

        •  Yassky

          I have known Yassky longer than I have known Chris and I supported his run for City Council. Yassky courted the support of my wife and me fairly aggressively for awhile. I think Yassky's heart is in the right place. But, I think he lets his ego get in the way. He is so convinced he is right that he sometimes overlooks why he is wrong.

          Mainly I just plain like Chris better. A diary I wrote for the Daily Gotham sometime back (which was praised by BOTH Chris and Yassky) compares them. I need to update that and maybe post it here. I think it captures them pretty well. Sadly, I have soured more on Yassky since then. He endorsed the most corrupt candidate for Brooklyn DA last year (the Clarence Norman supporter, Sampson), he has expressed some support for Bush bombing Iran, he told an opponant of DRE voting machines that he "didn't care" about the issue, and he has sponsored a bill that would use $3 million of city money to fund a jobs program that Ratner had promised to fund, thus bailing Ratner out of one of his promises. And, just before he sponsored that bill, he was endorsed by a pro-Ratner organization. It smelled too much like a dirty deal. No single one of those would be a deal breaker for me. But put together it is starts to be hard for me to like him. Meanwhile, Chris impresses me each time I discuss an issue with him.

          by mole333 on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 06:10:05 PM PDT

  •  Makes no difference to me ...

    if his Dad is the incumbent, as long as Chris runs a good and decent campaign and can do the job.

    by Blue Waters Run Deep on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 08:22:03 PM PDT

    •  When the rubber meets the road ...

      it all boils down to doing the job well, day by day, minute by minute. I believe Chris will do that.

      by Blue Waters Run Deep on Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 08:36:32 AM PDT

•  Chris rocks.

  And a word of caution for anyone who might be getting their information about this race from the New York Times: The Times has a business partnership with Forest City Ratner, the developer of the Atlantic Yards project and the chief backer of David Yassky. Although they generally disclose the relationship in any articles about the development, I wouldn't necessarily expect them to so conscientious in articles they publish about NY-11. Look for them to endorse Yassky.

  I have lived in the district all my life. Yassky never did, until 3 weeks after he declared for this seat. For him, this is not about serving my community, it's about It's Time for David Yassky to Go to Washington. Yassky has more money, thanks to FCR, than the other three candidates combined. He is burying us in a direct-mail blizzard (3-4 mailings a week at this point).

  If you care about the quality of the Democrats we send to Washington, as well as the quantity, please click the link in the diary and contribute to Chris' campaign. I want to be represented, not bought.

  by sidnora on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:36:03 PM PDT

  •  I hereby take thee, Chris -

    to be our next Congressman from CD-11!

    by Blue Waters Run Deep on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 05:40:33 PM PDT

•  It's interesting that Owens opposes

  the Atlantic Yards proposal, but what the fuck does this have to do with being a member of Congress? New York has a City Council to deal with this kind of stuff. If this is how Owens sees his priorities, he's running for the wrong office.

  by inside 4ll on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 09:12:13 PM PDT

  •  Amen!

    We need a candidate who will go to Washington to oppose the Iraq war, save Social Security, etc. I don't know know the merit (or lack thereof) of this proposal, but one way or the other it is a local issue, not a national one.

    by davybaby on Sat Aug 19, 2006 at 09:23:26 PM PDT

    •  Right

      First off, Chris IS the candidate who will oppose the war and fight for Social Security, etc. Check out his website.

      Second, a national agenda is important, but so is having respect for and concern for the people you are running to represent. Chris' stand on this overdevelopment proposal shows his respect and concern for his community, something lacking in the other candidates.

      by mole333 on Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 05:49:29 AM PDT

    •  I've said this before and intend to diary on it

      Chris makes all the points you want him to make and in a clear way. When I met him, he talked to me for 20 minutes, volunteering (without prompt) his positions opposing the Iraq war, in the fight for social security, and all the good stuff. Since not all of us will be fortunate to meet him and have us tell him for ourselves, I think he has all that posted on his site.

      Yassky on the other hand has very fuzzy points in his literature that sound more or less DLCish.

      I intend to diary on this later this week, but if what you want is a candidate who will go to Washington and represent good progressive goals, without fear, Chris is it. There's no doubt in my mind.

      by DemocracyLover in NYC on Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 05:55:40 AM PDT

  •  It has a lot to do

    with whose support he gets locally.

    There are many of us who believe this race will be won or lost, not on the issues, but on who got the most support from the developer of the Atlantic Yards, and that happens to be David Yassky, who is on the City Council and has made things very cozy there for Forest City Ratner, the developer. In return, he now has more money than all the other candidates combined to fund a campaign in a district he didn't live in until after he declared his candidacy. Chris' opposition to the project in its current form has brought him the enthusiastic support of the people of the affected community, but we can't compete with FCR's money.

    As to Chris' priorities, I urge you to look at his positions on national affairs. I doubt you'll have any problem with the size of his vision.

    by sidnora on Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 04:46:45 AM PDT

  •  He doesn't, the author does

    I would suggest you check Owens' website before you comment on his priorities. You are confusing the author of the diary for Chris.

    Atlantic Yards does link to national issues because of the threat of Eminent Domain abuse, which became a national issue going right up to the Supreme Court. Also you are wrong about the city council...it is mainly a state issue, but that doesn't change your main, somewhat misleading point.

    Atlantic Yards is an issue that currently permeates Brooklyn politics because it will, in the words of a former City Planning Commissioner, "permanently scar" Brookln and, in the words of an Attorney General candidate and former White House aide to Clinton, is "he face of what’s wrong with a corrupt culture that mixes business and politics, profits and tax dollars." Since Chris is coming from the community as an activist, he was bound to take a stand BECAUSE IT IS HIS HOME. Shouldn't the lives and homes OF HIS COMMUNITY be a priority to him whatever office he is running for?

    You will see from his website, if you bother to visit it before judging him, that his priorities include holding Bush accountable for his lies even to the point of making impeachment an issue, getting out of Iraq, re-establishing respectful diplomatic ties with the world, etc. He has a sound national agenda. But he also is focused on helping people in his community.

    by mole333 on Sun Aug 20, 2006 at 05:47:57 AM PDT