That was quite an interview. One line stood out to me: "The plan is to have planning..." lol. I appreciate that Walden knows what he doesn't know, and admits it freely. The dedication to learning about issues, understanding the facts and the data, before jumping to solutions, is admirable and a strong approach to public policy generally. These are things I wish more candidates demonstrated. But at the same time he came across as somewhat out of depth on several issues, and I found that approach hard to square with some of his stated positions.
I am glad to finally see a robust discussion on climate/energy/sustainability. I think that is a big (although admittedly, perhaps less pressing for the everyday New Yorker) issue that hadn't been covered as much in previous interviews. Though I have to say, Ben Smith's contention that reaching net-zero would require "immediate social and economic revolution" was quite strange and not grounded in reality.
A lot less annoyed than I was on first read through, when I was mainly focused on tone, but still have a few issues with him. He’s very car-brained, and doesn’t mention any new or good ideas on bus redesign. He also doesn’t talk about expanding non-car infrastructure, just building garages outside the city’s core, probably near transit, which is a decent idea but not sufficient to solve our needs. He’s also too sympathetic to the community board system, a system which generously 30% of New Yorkers know about, as a means of solving local issues and accurately representing public opinion. He doesn’t mention the capability for the government to build, including on things like transit infrastructure where it really is necessary. Likely getting ranked above Cuomo and Adams, but below everyone else except maybe Zohran depending on his housing proposals.
That was quite an interview. One line stood out to me: "The plan is to have planning..." lol. I appreciate that Walden knows what he doesn't know, and admits it freely. The dedication to learning about issues, understanding the facts and the data, before jumping to solutions, is admirable and a strong approach to public policy generally. These are things I wish more candidates demonstrated. But at the same time he came across as somewhat out of depth on several issues, and I found that approach hard to square with some of his stated positions.
I am glad to finally see a robust discussion on climate/energy/sustainability. I think that is a big (although admittedly, perhaps less pressing for the everyday New Yorker) issue that hadn't been covered as much in previous interviews. Though I have to say, Ben Smith's contention that reaching net-zero would require "immediate social and economic revolution" was quite strange and not grounded in reality.
Really enjoying these. I read first and then listen later. Ty for all the education questions. TY Dr. For this: Christina Greer
As a quick follow-up, did you talk to education experts, who are some of those education experts you spoke to?
Who is next? I just heard Blake on Lehrer and going to listen to FAQ. I wonder if he will round it out here?
Wow.....
A lot less annoyed than I was on first read through, when I was mainly focused on tone, but still have a few issues with him. He’s very car-brained, and doesn’t mention any new or good ideas on bus redesign. He also doesn’t talk about expanding non-car infrastructure, just building garages outside the city’s core, probably near transit, which is a decent idea but not sufficient to solve our needs. He’s also too sympathetic to the community board system, a system which generously 30% of New Yorkers know about, as a means of solving local issues and accurately representing public opinion. He doesn’t mention the capability for the government to build, including on things like transit infrastructure where it really is necessary. Likely getting ranked above Cuomo and Adams, but below everyone else except maybe Zohran depending on his housing proposals.