Over two weeks ago, New York City Republican mayoral candidate Joe Lhota said of his Democratic opponent: “New York isn’t ‘A Tale of Two Cities,’ it’s the melting pot of the world, and Bill de Blasio should be ashamed for trying to polarize it. My vision for the city will help all New Yorkers—regardless of their background, color, ethnicity or religion—move forward united, not divided.”

According to a new report by the Independent Budget Office (IBO), wealth in New York City is geographically concentrated, but the poverty’s dispersed. And no place is that displayed better than in de Blasio’s home borough of Brooklyn.

The report (compiled by the IBO’s Julie Anna Golebiewski and posted by Doug Turetsky on the IBO blog), focused on the wealthiest and poorest U.S. Census tracts in the five boroughs. Golebiewski used the 2000 Census and the 2011 American Community Survey’s five-year estimates to compile the lists.

The goal of the U.S. Census Bureau is for census tracts to contain about 4,000 people, and the surveys are drawn to encompass a demographically homogenous population, but both the Census and the survey estimates vary in size spatially and in number of residents.

In 2000, four of the 10 lowest income census tracts were in Brooklyn, three in the Bronx, two in Manhattan and one in Staten Island. Brownsville was the only neighborhood with more than one Census tract in the top 10 tracts in 2000. After a decade, five of the 10 poorest census tracts were located in Brooklyn, four in the Bronx and one in Manhattan. According to the report, the geographic dispersion narrowed a bit, with two of the lowest income census tracts still in Brownsville and two more in Hunts Point in the Bronx.

As for the wealth, it’s concentrated in relatively few areas. “In 2000, nine of the 10 highest income census tracts in the city were located in Manhattan—the one tract outside of Manhattan was in the Riverdale/Fieldston section of the Bronx,” wrote Turetsky. “This geographic concentration of wealth becomes clearer with the observation that five of those highest income census tracts were located on the Upper East Side. In 2011, the story was similar. Eight of the 10 wealthiest census tracts were located in Manhattan, six of them on the Upper East Side.”

What were the other two? DUMBO and Brooklyn Heights. According to the IBO report, median household income in both tracts increased more than 45 percent.

“Moving past locational differences, the contrasts in wealth and poverty become even starker when viewed in terms of dollars and cents,” wrote Turestky. “In 2000, median household income in the wealthiest census tract, located in Midtown Manhattan (just southeast of Central Park), was $256,100. The poorest census tract, located in the Bronx’s Hunts Point, had a median household income of $9,600. That’s a gap of more than $246,000 between median incomes in the city’s wealthiest and poorest districts. Or to put it another way, median household income in the Midtown tract was more than 25 times that of the Hunts Point tract in 2000.”

Both Lhota and de Blasio didn’t respond to multiple requests from the AmNews to comment on the report that demonstrates the main theme of their campaigns, but a spokesperson from Mayor Michael Bloomberg sent an emailed statement saying that the income disparity simply shows that more work needs to be done. But it’s not a mark on their administration.

“As Mayor Bloomberg has noted, New York City’s poverty rate is lower than other big cities—in fact, we are the only major city whose poverty rate did not increase between 1999 and 2012,” read the emailed statement to the AmNews. “And while we have much more work to do, the issue isn’t that we have the super wealthy within our city limits (which tips the income inequality number). We continue to work to create upward mobility for people at the lower end of the income scale, and we have had far more success than other cities.”

Politicians in the borough of Brooklyn have also reacted to the IBO’s report. Council Member Jumaane Williams told the AmNews that the income inequality is not only a result of Bloomberg’s policies, but overall policies of former President George W. Bush.

“While many other cities across the U.S. have been experiencing similar problems as a result of the Bush administration’s economic policies and an era of unregulated Wall Street, the administration of the last 12 years and beyond have shown little acknowledgement or interest that needs of many of our low-income residents were not being addressed,” said Williams to the AmNews. “In many instances, these policies have exacerbated this inequality. It is my hope that as our city enters a new progressive era, we can adopt a more holistic and multipronged approach that provides adequate funding for the programs and services our too often ignored communities deserve while simultaneously finding innovative solutions to create sustainable, good-paying jobs.”

And while the rich might still be well-off, it looks like they’ve lost some wealth as well. According to the study, between 2000 and 2011, median household income in the richest census tract declined (the same for New York City as a whole). During the same period, however, median household income stayed around the same in the poorest census tract, and the income gulf between the richest and poorest tracts narrowed somewhat.

But the gap still remained.

“The wealthiest census tract in 2011, located in Manhattan’s Upper East Side, had a median household income of $247,200,” Turestky wrote. “In comparison, the poorest census tract, located in Coney Island, Brooklyn, had a median household income of $9,500. The difference in median household incomes betweeen the two census tracts was over $237,000, meaning the city’s richest census tract still had a median income 25 times higher than the lowest income tract.”

But the Bloomberg administration disputes the notion that the city has gotten worse for low-income residents. They prefer to say that the wealthy people have made the city better for New Yorkers of all incomes.

“But the fact that we have more wealthy people and that wealthy people here are more wealthy than other places does not make New York a worse place for people on the low end of the income scale,” declared the statement from the Bloomberg administration. “Rather, it makes it a better place because we have resources to spend on improving public schools, on keeping communities safe and on our vast social services network.”