Aspiring politico Maria Danzilo, who most recently lost a bid to represent District 47 in the New York State Senate race in November 2022, had a harrowing Wednesday afternoon while strolling the streets with her pooch.
The Upper West Sider and former Democratic candidate took to Twitter to recount the alleged mid-week mayhem, stating, “I am shaken to the core. Today I was sucker punched in Central Park around 81st St. west side entrance at 2:25 PM while walking my dog. A man punched me hard, hitting my upper arm. I think he was aiming for my face but I moved away at last second.”
Advertisement
Danzilo – who in June 2021 reported being the victim of a cyber attack and also seeing a naked man walking around the UWS – praised NYPD officers from the Central Park Precinct for their swift service, which allowed her to return home and seek solace from an ice pack.
The native New Yorker — who received her law degree from Brooklyn Law School in 1981 — also lamented the “once safe” neighborhood’s “terrifying” conditions and pleaded with New York City Mayor and party fixture Eric Adams to “put his money where his mouth is and live up to his promise of delivering real public safety.”
The subject of safety has been a paramount part of Danzilo’s previous campaigns, and she’s currently protesting the Safe Haven shelter, set to arrive at 106-108 West 83rd Street between Columbus and Amsterdam Avenue. The “low-barrier transitional housing program” has been a subject of controversy as of late, but many — including Gale Brewer, who defeated Danzilo in the City Council election in November 2021 — approve, despite its proximity to a local school.
Advertisement
“It’s ironic that this happened to me at a time when I am fighting to stop an unsafe shelter from opening at PS 9 schoolyard for 108 men with mental illness and chemical addictions and no screening or curfews,” she wrote. “But maybe today is a sign that we are on the right track.”
This is horrifying. My old neighborhood and park entrance as well and it was always very safe – you never had to worry about being attacked there! Esp in the middle of the day. Ugh. Glad you’re ok.
— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) March 30, 2023
It is so weird how things keep happening to this woman…
UWS mom of 2:
Yeah, “weird”.
“It’s ironic that this happened to me at a time when I am fighting to stop an unsafe shelter from opening..”
Yes, it certainly IS “ironic,” isn’t it? (Though that isn’t quite the word I would choose.) And exactly what does this incident have to do with the proposed Safe Haven shelter – which may or may not be “unsafe,” as she claims – except that she is opposed to it? Why am I not surprised that she is using a “right-wing” tactic (conflating two completely unrelated issues) in order to get an emotional response?
Conflating unrelated events to elicit emotional response in the populace is a “right-wing” tactic?! Bwahahaha.
What’s the left-wing tactic? Just being stupid by default? Because I’m not hearing much reasoned discourse that doesn’t fall apart at the first application of logic.
A typical right-wing response in that you offer nothing but false equivalence and insult.
Color me unimpressed. 😉
Sure… as if you offered anything different first. Color me disgusted – but not surprised.
You had decades to educate yourself on the tactics of left-wing movements, dictators, etc. and draw the logical conclusions. Clearly too late now.
Okay, I’ll bite. Give me an example of how “conflating two unrelated issues in order to evoke an emotional response” is a “left-wing” tactic. Other than that, I’ll let the readers decide who is correct on this, you or me.
And btw? Fascists are not “left-wing,” they are “right-wing.” So the “fascist playbook” – used by “strongmen” throughout history (Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Gaddafi, Mobutu, Berlusconi, Duterte, Erdogan, Putin et al), as well as those who admire them (Trump, Giuliani, much of the current GOP et al) – is relied on by the right, not the left. Maybe it is YOU who needs a remedial course in history. 🙂
You bit – in the wrong place. The point is not that it’s a right-wing or left-wing tactic ONLY. The point is that it’s THE tactic of ALL political opportunists, dictators or minor tyrants of every shade, whose key purpose is to hold on to power by eliminating any and all dissent. For every “fascist” you name (Berlusconi?!), you conveniently forgot all the ones of left-wing inclination, starting from Lenin, through every communist revolutionary in the developing world, all the way to caricatures like AOC.
LOL. Engage in false equivalency much? I started with a very specific comment on a very specific issue: the use of conflation to evoke an emotional response. You have now turned it into: “The point is that it’s THE tactic of ALL political opportunists, dictators or minor tyrants of every shade, whose key purpose is to hold on to power by eliminating any and all dissent.” Yet you have still not provided a single example of its use by those on the left.
As for the rest, the fact that you seem not to know the difference between “fascism” and “communism” tells me a lot about the level of your knowledge.
As for your questioning of my inclusion of Berlusconi, I highly recommend that you read the book, “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present,” by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert on authoritarianism and fascism in history.
It’s alright, Ian. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about, but keep projecting the same issue on others. All the best.
Peter:
Fascists fundamentally fuse corporate power with the state’s power. Therefore Lenin was NOT a fascist.
Furthermore, accusing AOC of being fascist just underscores your ignorance of the term.
Read more, check more, then you’ll post less ignorance.
Glenn Beck is not a valid source.
Jay – Do you have trouble reading, too? (I’m giving you the same measure of respect you gave me.)
I called out the leftist tactics as being as reliant on the emotion of the populace as right-wing ones. I didn’t call Lenin or AOC fascist.
Nope, Peter, Jay is correct. Here is your exact quote:
“For every ‘fascist’ you name (Berlusconi?!), you conveniently forgot all the ones of left-wing inclination, starting from Lenin, through every communist revolutionary in the developing world, all the way to caricatures like AOC.”
Thus, you DID imply that Lenin was a fascist (though as “left-wing” one – whatever THAT means). And you also implied that AOC was one, though you suggest a “caricature” of one.
Nice try, though.
Enough of the trolling and ridiculous and disingenuous banter and inciteful name-calling aside from not making your case, Peter. Comments reveal character.
You wouldn’t know the first thing about my character. Skip ahead if something bothers you.
The article in Patch and NYPost the other day about a man who defecated on a pride flag outside a restaurant in the low 100s…. Was that guy homeless? I’m asking bc I thought you might recognize him given your work as the minister of the street homeless population. And, by your estimate, what is the estimated number of street homeless between West 72 and West 103 from CPW to RSD?
Thank you for your questions. First, I only worked with the street homeless between 72nd Street and 86th Street, so I would not know the homeless conditions in that area, other than passing through it and knowing that there are a significant number. So I would certainly not know if the man who engaged in that act was or was not homeless, nor would I be able to give you an estimate of the number of homeless within the borders you provide.
I can tell you that in my years of working with them, I would estimate that the number of street homeless in “my” area, at the height of the period I worked, was ~60-75. Of course, I didn’t know every single one of them, so that number could be off by up to 10% or more.
Do you think the new safe haven is safe? Would you send someone there to sleep? And what if someone gets raped inside? Or dies? We will say that you felt it WAS safe. It is easy to question other people but harder to make declarative statements for yourself. You just debate ppl but don’t say anything of substance. Do you think the new safe haven will be safe?
Let me begin by saying that I know several panhandlers on the UWS who stay at Breaking Ground facilities around Manhattan. Some stay in smaller ones, where residents can be up to four per room, and some have private rooms. However, all of them have told me that Breaking Ground is a thoughtful and professional organization that makes every effort to provide a safe and welcoming environment. None have been raped, and none have seen or heard of anyone being raped. (In my opinion, your mention of that is mere fear-mongering.) And none have personally experienced violence, though some have witnessed some degrees of violence – not so much among the residents themselves, but rather nearby, since some of the buildings are in much more “dangerous” areas than the one planned for 83rd Street.
Will someone die inside? It is entirely possible, of course, just as someone may die in the building in which you live. If you are suggesting that someone will die due to violence, that has not happened at a Breaking Ground facility (as far as I am aware), though I suppose that anything is possible. But, again, anything is possible in the building you live in as well.
But in answer to your question, yes, I believe it will be safe, and I would (and have) recommend certain of my former charges for the program.
So I guess since she’s suffered the consequences of leftist policy, she’s now a Republican. In the words of Frank Rizzo, “A conservative is a liberal who got mugged the night before.”
Exactly what “leftist policy” are you referring to?
Well no bail – no jail for one. Shall I continue?
I see. Given that the NYPD does not even know who the attacker is, you know that he had been previously arrested and given “no bail”…how?
Well technically, not really but when a criminal has no fear of facing either jail nor bail, what’s to keep them from rampaging?
You are WAY overstating this, by suggesting that most, or even many, arrestees get neither jail nor bail. You wanna provide some evidence for this?
That’s not what I said. Please reread what I last posted and don’t falsely misinterpret here what you wished I’d said in order to push your biased and prejudiced narrative.
I stated EXACTLY what you said. You said “When a criminal has no fear of facing either jail or bail….” I merely restated the same thing in another way.
In the USA in 2023, generally it is the left that has a problem with labeling people mentally ill and forcing hospitalization; with labeling Public Safety and Order (no trash, no encampments, no loud music, no occupying the median, no barbecuing on public grounds, no showering in Starbucks) as a priority and acting in it; and with prioritizing the needs of the majority over the minority. The majority of the residents of the UWS do not believe that we are under serving the DHS, on the contrary we believe that we are sheltering enough homeless ppl at this point in time. We wish to share the wealth of good fortune by letting others rise to the occasion and earn their portion of the world to come as well. You may be a great debater but you tend to miss the point. Pretend for once that you understand what people mean when they speak. Attempt for once to put yourself in the speakers shoes. Declare for once that your way is not the only way. It is a legitimate request to ask the city to cease adding to our homeless population for many reasons which are and aren’t debatable. Not everyone thinks or feels like you. Respect that.
Your diatribe is SO wrong that I am going to parse it.
“In the USA in 2023, generally it is the left that has a problem with labeling people mentally ill and forcing hospitalization; with labeling Public Safety and Order (no trash, no encampments, no loud music, no occupying the median, no barbecuing on public grounds, no showering in Starbucks) as a priority and acting in it; and with prioritizing the needs of the majority over the minority.”
We have no issue labelling people “mentally ill.” We DO have an issue with “forced hospitalization” because that is a very dangerous and slippery slope to be going down. However, we fully believe in providing the proper care and programs for mentally ill, and it is the “left” (Dems) who call for increased funding for these programs while the “right” (GOP) that wants to virtually completely DEFUND them.
Re PSO, I doubt you have ever attended a precinct council meeting. AS the former president of the 20th precinct council, I can tell you that there is ZERO difference in the number of complaints or amount of concern over PSO issues between the “left” and the “right,” at least on the UWS.
As for “the needs of the majority over the minority,” that’s almost comical, since I would suggest that the homeless and unhoused are a minority, and it is the right, not the left, that seeks to prioritize the needs of the majority (i.e., “normal” people, housed residents, etc.) over the much needier and more vulnerable minority.
“The majority of the residents of the UWS do not believe that we are under serving the DHS, on the contrary we believe that we are sheltering enough homeless ppl at this point in time.”
This is exactly backward. As a 55-year resident of the UWS, I can tell you that you and your ilk do NOT represent the “majority of the residents of the UWS.” In fact, you are simply a very vocal minority. That is why the Democratic candidates for every office on the UWS (local, State, federal) receive a consistent 85% of the vote, while the “other” candidate rarely gets over 12%-15%. If you were correct that “the majority” believes that “we are sheltering enough homeless ppl at this point,” then there would not be such continued support for them, including the siting of facilities.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that because you and your ilk may be more overtly “vocal” that you are “the majority of residents.” You are NOT; and it will be a VERY long time before there is even the slightest possibility that you will be.
And I ALWAYS listen to “the other side” and consider their feelings and points. But I am also allowed to disagree with those points, and to consider the feelings of ALL stakeholders in a given situation, and not just those of one group. You seem to forget that.
What you also seem to ignore is that YOU moved into a historically, traditionally “left” neighborhood, where compassion and concern for the less fortunate has been a guiding principle. You and your ilk want to turn the UWS into a “gated community” controlled by YOU and YOUR feelings, at the expense of everyone else, and with little or no compassion for “those least among us.”
Personally, I am glad that could NEVER happen in my lifetime.
Thank you, Ian. Well put.
Sorry but I can’t carry on further a conversation with a racist homophobe anymore. These people are just ignorant and unreasonable and can’t fathom the concept of logic.