For some stories, being NYC-based will be important; for others, location is of no consequence.

If you’re interested, email me what you think I should have and know. It’s my full name as one word at the publication’s domain.

ALL COMMUNICATIONS WILL BE HELD IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE. 4/4

Plus which, I'd actually be closely editing your work notwithstanding all your years of experience.

You have to be sufficiently heterodox to be comfortable asking the kind of questions many outlets find taboo.

The stories will be on domestic public policy only, across a wide range of topics. 3/4

Must be willing to push interviewees hard (though that might make them less willing to talk to you next time), slog through docs in some cases, and deal with editor whose sins include saying things like, “I know that’s interesting & newsworthy, but it’s not the specific story we want probed.” 2/4

Walden vehemently disagreeing with 2020 Zohran Mamdani comment that NYPD should have no role in responding to incidents of domestic violence: “I don’t think he has the first clue what the police training regimen is at the academy and after the academy.” 5/5

Upzoning (including upzoning to fight segregation? “What I don’t want to do is I don’t want to say we need more housing and so I’m gonna dump it in a community that doesn’t want it.” 4/5

For those in a new kind of rent-reg w 5-year affordable rent but then transition to market-rate: “[T]hey basically have a 5 year window & they may get an exception, but that they’ve gotta, work and save to be able to go somewhere else if they are not afforded the exception.” 3/5

Walden:

“[R]emove a lot of regulations and let the market work.”

The “government’s just a gateway to a program that’s largely gonna be a contract between two private parties, a tenant and a landlord.” 2/5

And that doesn’t even get into state legislative politics, where retrograde so often wins out. Case in point: NY has an incentives-only program (no sticks) to coax resistant suburbs into helping ease housing crisis. I reported on its flopping yesterday: www.remappingdebate.org/article/hoch... 6/6

All that said, I think your dissent from the editorial was depressingly on target in terms of Dem sclerosis generally & establishment Dem sclerosis in NY in particular. So much here is either “it’s my turn” or “I own this spot” as opposed to “here’s what I’ve done and can do for you.” 5/6

And I understand the don’t-rank-Andrew, we’re a slate strategy, but it meant (most especially for Lander) much less room to draw attention to distinctive strengths in the usual way (which would included contrasting Mamdani). 4/6

I thought moderators in both debates did very well, but there was on reason why there couldn’t have been more debates earlier, each featuring fewer candidates. It’s really hard to dig deep if you’re having to handle 6 or 8 people on stage. 3/6

Earlier reporting on substantive Cuomo’s record (including failure to reform poorly functioning state agencies) would have served New Yorkers better than horse race coverage (as usual). And other candidates would have been noticed more . . . if media had noticed them more. 2/6

Fine piece, and IEO fueled spending is overwhelming other candidates. But Cuomo’s presence was not what “made it nearly impossible for these Democrats to get noticed.” 1/6

We invite you to subscribe. Free now, free always. 2/2 remappingdebate.org/subscribe