When I first wrote the “Brooklyn Story”, I figured that two parts would take care of this issue (residency), this time around: I was wrong. The story painfully continues. I talked about three individuals (and others by association and implication) whose residencies have been questioned by many in Brooklyn. I hoped to show that residency laws are ambiguous and nebulous, and that in political races both the spirit and letter of the law are usually violated; especially when applied against those not connected to the powers that be. Especially when used against insurgents challenging elected officials. I have always been outraged by this; it’s unfair and unjust.

Last week, the court challenge against Judge Shawndya Simpson’s residency started in a Brooklyn court. It was hastily moved to a court in Queens. For those who came into the room late, Ms. Simpson is running against Judge Diana Johnson, in a contest for the second Brooklyn Surrogate spot. Judge Margarita Lopez holds the other. Last Friday 17th August, 2007, Judge Peter O’Donoghue ruled that Ms. Simpson did in fact live in Brooklyn; tomorrow however, her opponents are going to the Appellate Court in order to reverse that ruling. Please remember that Ms. Simpson is the candidate being backed by the Brooklyn Democrat’s county organization. Note also that the same organization has in the past, backed surrogate judges who have been convicted- or removed under clouds of suspicion and corruption- over the last 30 years plus. Please remember also, that it was NYC Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia who called the Surrogate Court: “the piggy bank for elected officials and politicians.” They all see it as a cookie jar of sorts.

Earlier in the presidential campaign of Barack Obama, his people believed that New York was a write-off; they felt that Hilary Rodham-Clinton was a lock to win most if not all the convention delegates coming out of New York. To the shrewd political analyst this observation probably made a lot of sense, but sometimes politics defy common sense, and at other times common sense defies conventional political thinking. What is shaping in Brooklyn is a case in point.

As soon as Barack Obama officially announced his presidential pursuit last winter, a group of young idealists came together shortly after to form an organization called: “Brooklyn for Barack Obama”. Almost immediately they hit the street; registering voters, recruiting volunteers, staging rallies, canvassing, politicking, visibly dealing with issues, spreading the Obama message and pushing their candidate. Despite the knowledge that Obama’s national campaign was reluctant to invest in a New York challenge, these young political neophytes, have been undeterred in their objective to deliver Brooklyn’s democrats to the Obama delegate count.

Please note that this column is rated for “mature audiences only”. If one or two “choice” words offend your pristine tastes: then skip this column. And please don’t lecture me in the comments-section about my writing-style unless you are willing to join the Room Eight colony of writers/bloggers, in order to demonstrate how best to do this.

And while I am on to disclaimers, let me state that I work for no political campaign this summer (and that was by my choice). Let me also state that I have no personal dislike for Vito, Bernie or Shawndya, who are the subjects in this two-part series; the issue at hand is bigger than either one of them. Let’s hope that this time around, they (and others) catch my drift; which I don’t even think is an abstract one.

I am going to save the heavy stuff for part two of this article. You know: the deep stuff; the in-depth analysis and so forth. The kind of heady stuff that will get me in trouble (as usual), because I am sure some feathers will be ruffled; the kind of behind the scenes stuff that most of you like. You know what I am talking about: the “national enquirer” kind of stuff. The stuff I held back on during the campaign. The stuff I save for the political crack-heads.

Firstly, I must take some credit for the fact that I was the first blogger in the city, to bring attention to the Haitian-American agenda of political-empowerment through this special election. It was rough road all the way, but in the end the mission was accomplished. Congratulations are in order; not just for Mr. Matthieu Eugene (some are saying “Una-gene”), but also for those in that community who have been crying out for empowerment over the years.

A rather militant black political-activist associate of mine, called a short time ago, and uttered this remark in apparent disgust; “why is it that Lew Fidler seems to always involve himself in the politics of black districts?” My reply was ambiguously nuanced yet simple, to wit: all politics is local, and all local elected officials have a right to be involved; more so when the jurisdiction that he or she represents, has contiguous borders with districts where the racial make-up maybe somewhat different to his or hers. He then retorted; “but do you see local black elected officials in the middle of things in say Bensonhurst and/ or Bay Ridge?” He further queried; “do you ever see black elected officials interjecting themselves in the elections that take place in these white areas and amongst the white candidates?” I didn’t respond to those questions. No sireee Bob; I couldn’t touch them with even a ten-foot pole. Fact is, I don’t recall at anytime- in my near 34 years involvement in Brooklyn’s politics- where black electeds were deeply involved in white races. Maybe Gatemouth could help me out here, since he has a firmer grasp on the political history than I- especially in the white areas of Brooklyn.

Brooklyn’s 40th City Council district came into existence in 1991, when via charter revision the city council expanded from thirty-six to fifty-one districts. It also came about because many Caribbean-American political activists, demanded lines be drawn that were favorable to electing one of their ilk. The 40th and 45th districts were drawn with that objective in mind somewhat, cutting through the heartlands of areas where Caribbean-Americans live in majority. That same year, a pugnacious Jamaican-born woman, stubbornly insisting that she was a “maroon”, emerged victorious. And the ‘icon” that many now refer to by one name, was born. She was Una Clarke. Una held the seat for ten years, before she was eventually term-limited out of office.

Wellington Sharpe called to inform today, that he is seriously considering a run for the 40th City Council seat being vacated by Yvette Clarke- who becomes a congresswoman from January 1st, 2007. Sharpe, a longtime Caribbean–American political activist, as well as a successful businessman in the Brooklyn community, has run for this seat before, when he was one of seven candidates who vied for the seat in 2001. He also ran for the State Senate in both the 20th and 21st districts.

Like Una Clarke-who first represented this district in 1991- Sharpe was born on the island of Jamaica, West Indies; this will surely help him in a district with a high immigrant population. When pressed as to why he is now considering a race he had earlier seemed reluctant to run in, Sharpe said that “the support for my candidacy here has been mind-boggling”. He went on to state that of the presently declared candidates, no one seems to be emerging from the pack. Sharpe further added that his phone has been ringing off the hook about this race, ever since Yvette won the congressional primary; with people inquiring about his intentions and speculating about his chances of winning. “Every where I go, people keep asking what was I going to do”, he also said. This is the back-drop for his reconsideration to enter here. He has also been approached about running by various leaders in the community, who seem leery of the present crop of entrants.

Charles Barron called this morning, wading in on the Al Vann/ David Yassky/ 11th Congressional brouhaha. He took the expected Baronesque position: that Yassky shouldn’t run, and that the seat should be in black hands. And just as Al van Winkle, Annette Robinson, Major Owens and company, Barron doesn’t get it. His biggest flaw is that he lets his obsession with 'race' trump his common-sense, near everytime downfield. 

If this situation was reversed, and Yassky was a black person running against 3 whites, with the demographics of the district also reversed, what do you think Barron would be doing right now, if white electeds were calling for the black to withdraw from the race?  You tell me (as if we all don't know).