Joe Lazar Announces Candidacy For NYC Council


joe-lazarToday, in a show of unity, a rapidly growing coalition of community leaders pledged their support to Joe Lazar’s bid for the City Council seat being vacated by Simcha Felder.

“Joe Lazar is a special person who not only cares about our community, but has the expertise to spot openings in government budgets and to design programs to fit them, to help the members our community,” said Assemblyman Dov Hikind. Joe has found funding in creative ways for dozens of institution and programs in our community.” It is only fitting, and I am proud that my community showed Achdus (Hebrew for unity), on Joe’s behalf for the good of the whole community.

“We need to elect Joe Lazar to the City Council in this time of great change and economic uncertainty; to ensure our community continues to get the government programs and services it needs to grow in economic times like these when government budgets are being cut, said Moshe Wieder, a spokesperson for the community leaders.

As long as I am privileged to be in a position to help, I feel the need to serve my community,” said Joe Lazar. “I believe in governing by family values and traditions, which means protecting senior citizens, using government resources for public safety, health care needs, affordable housing and helping parents pay for the high costs of education.”

“Joe Lazar was responsible for condemning unsafe drug infested buildings so we could build new homes for families in our community,” Said Rabbi Shmuel Lefkowitz. “Joe will make it possible for our children, to be able to raise their families in our community.”

“Joe Lazar is known for his selflessness, especially when it comes to helping others with healthcare needs in our community, said community leader Mrs. Miriam Lubling. “Joe has helped me help many individuals who needed medical care. He has assisted many of our communal organizations to obtain government services, benefits and programs.”

“Joe Lazar understands the needs and concerns of the small businessman in our community,” Said Arnold Klapper owner, Clear View Opticians. “He has helped many of us fix problems that we have had with city and state governments. I support him because he is already doing the job of our City Councilman.”

Joe Lazar, who has lived in Boro Park and Midwood since 1961, has served this community in many capacities, including his appointment as one of the early members of Community Board 12 (appointed in 1972 by then City Councilman Howard Golden), and served as the chair of the budget committee.

Joe Lazar, a veteran of city and state government and community service for many years, serving as the NYC Regional Director of the NYS Office of Mental Health, and Budget Director for the NYC Department of Buildings, has long since proven his unique ability to successfully navigate large bureaucracies and the legislative bodies which preside over them. It has given him a unique understanding of the inner workings of government. Joe knows how to navigate the system to bring services and funding to our community. Joe has brought hundreds of millions of dollars to the community, and is looking for the opportunity to continue to do so.

{ Newscenter}



  2. Joe Lazar’s position on mishkav zochor is

    He follows liberal party line on mishkav zochor. He mistakenly thinks that it is unimportant for frum community. (I heard him
    making such silly statements on the radio.)

    While he probably does not believe in mishkav
    zochor, his viewpoint on the subject is naive
    and inappropriate for a frummer Yeed. He fails
    to understand that the toeiva issue can have
    a negative impact on the religious community.

    Greenfield seems to have the most experience with a track record on yeshiva tuition activism. (I do not know his position on toeiva.)

    I hope the candidates will engage in an honest
    discussion of the issues without
    ad hominem polemics. (If Rabbi Levin has additional information re Greenfeld, he should
    provide specifics clarifying his negative

    In general, I agree with Levin’s philosophy regarding political candidates. The rabbi said–to paraphrase- that it would be better to have
    a conservative nokhree than a Yeed with a shvakher hashkafa.

    Let us be mispalel that we will be zoiche to have a good shleeakh tseebur.

    Rabbi Yehuda Levin does not seem to be enthusiatic about Greenfield. (I do not understand Rabbi Levin’s negative evaluation of
    Greenfield’s candidacy.)

  3. Lazar also has a track record; but I do not
    approve of his position on toeiva. He actually
    defended it on the misguided basis of civil rights. That is a fallacy. (Lazar is not the only politician who has succumbed to that fallacy.)

    Aside from the religious objections
    to such immorality, there would be legal
    difficulties that would impact Shomerei-Torah
    Yeedin. Lazar apparently understands neither the principle nor the practicality inherent in
    the need to reject Toeiva not only philosophically as a consequence of religious
    conviction but also politically to safeguard the Tseebur against this band of menuvalim.

  4. I heard Lazar talk on the radio about toeiva and the comments appearing here are a complete misrepresentation of what he said.

    He said he is against it and would vote against it if he was ever in the position to do so. He explained that in the list of priorities our community should have we would be better off focusing on the abuse issue than this. If you think the abuse issue is not more important than toeiva then you obviously do not understand the issues.

    Rabbi Lazar (yes he is a musmach of RJJ) passes his shailos in halacha to R’ Dovid Cohen Shlita. The people who object to his opinion can take it up with Rav Dovid Cohen.

  5. Re#7 “From Blatant Lies”

    “I heard Lazar talk on the radio about toeiva and comments appearing here are complete
    misrepresentation of what he said..”

    You describe your own comments as “blatant lies.” It is thus silly for
    you to criticize other people for “misrepresentation”.

    But let’s discuss the facts. I also
    heard Joe Lazar on the radio– several times.
    He did indeed belittle and dismiss the “toeivah” issue. (He was on Zev Brenner’s
    program; he was also on Dov Hikind’s program.)
    In fact, Lazar used the “civil rights”
    argument to explain why he did not strongly
    oppose the agenda. In fact,
    Lazar emphatically disagreed with other frum
    Jews who called the radio program in opposition
    to the toeivah agenda. He debated this
    issue with Rabbi Yehuda Levin, who is a haredi
    rabbi and strong opponent of mishkav zokhor
    activism. (It was clear to me that Lazar did not view opposition to the “toeivah” agenda as a priority—a huge mistake.)

    “We should be better off focusing
    on the abuse issue more than this…”

    Look, the abuse issue is of vital
    concern. That has nothing to do with the
    moral and practical dangers of the
    mishkav zokhor agenda. It is thus
    incomprehensible why any religious person
    would disparage the importance of vehement
    opposition to sodomy. And Lazar, to my
    chagrin, proceeded to defend his dubious
    apathy to this issue because
    of civil rights—a fallacy. This has
    nothing to do with civil rights.

    “You can take it up with Rav Dovid Cohen.” I don’t have to take it up with anyone.
    I know this issue very well; I know what I heard.(Did Rav Dovid hear Lazar’s statements? Joe Lazar emphatically denied the importance of this issue on the radio and
    defended his position with dubious pretexts.

    Now, if Lazar has modified his position–so be it. I hope he has in fact
    taken a more principled stance on the issue.
    (I have not heard him say anything to that effect.) When I heard Lazar speak, he was on
    the wrong side of history. Baruch Hashem,
    the New York Senate had the sense to strike
    down the same-gender union bill. Maybe
    Rabbi Lazar will now understand that this issue
    has a practical dimension with political relevance.

  6. Gentlemen:

    I do not know any of the candidates. I
    certainly have nothing against any of the candidates. My aim is—to the best of my ability—to discuss the issues as an informed

    Only by discussing and knowing the issues can we properly exercise our right
    to vote.

    I mention the above to stress
    an important point: Support for candidates
    should not be limited to economic issues.
    (Of course such issues are important. But it’s
    not just about choosing a candidate who can
    procure the most money. There are also moral
    issues that should be of vital concern to the
    religious community. The abuse issue is also
    very important. (When I heard Lazar on the radio, he did not juxtapose the issues of
    toeivah and abuse in terms of
    priorities. He simply belittled the relevance
    of the “toeivah” issue.)

    It seems that some frum politicians
    tend to prioritize the economic issues at the
    expense of moral ones. Sheldon Silver, for example, sided with mishkav zokhor activists
    to push for toeivah marriage. (Yes, he voted for it in NYS Assembly.) This is wrong.

    I would like to hear Rabbi Lazar
    state his opposition to same-gender activism
    and repudiate his defense thereof on the basis
    of civil rights. (He actually made that argument on the radio.) Has he retracted?
    The electorate has the right to know. This
    same scrutiny should apply to all candidates so that we can choose the best candidate.

    At this juncture in the campaign,
    I am neither endorsing nor rejecting anyone.
    Let the best candidate win.

  7. Re Rabbi Yehuda Levin Vs. Rabbi Joe Lazar

    I was not aware of Joe Lazar’s
    ordination. One blogger states he is a rabbi.

    Regarding the aforementioned discussion between Levin and Lazar, it was not
    initially scheduled as a debate.

    Rabbi Lazar was substituting for
    Dov Hikind as moderator of the talk show.
    Lazar was called about the toeivah issue.
    One caller, in particular, a gentile woman,
    brought up the issue. She argued against
    toeivah; Lazar dismissed the importance of
    issue. Thereafter, Rabbi Levin called the show to dispute Rabbi Lazar’s apparent liberalism on the subject. It was a polite
    exchange. (Lazar did not express support of
    mishkav zokhor; he obviously is not in favor of
    it; Lazar simply misunderstood its political
    and moral relevance. Of course, Levin the haredi clergyman voiced his objections to
    Lazar’s nonchalance with respect to the urgency
    of the subject. Thus, Lazar repeatedly downplayed the importance of the subject on
    the same program.)