Mayor Bloomberg Is Correct On This One
Say what you want about our mayor and his modus operandi but he has gotten a few things right over his tenure. I am not a big fan of his but I don’t dislike him either. He was absolutely correct with his ban on cigarettes in certain public establishments; taking the flack in order to get that policy into law. He was correct in putting public education on the front burner; even though I feel that his successes in this area were somewhat exaggerated: but you can’t deny that he has genuinely tried to deal with the issue. I think that in principle he was correct to suggest some type of congestion pricing formula for Manhattan’s traffic congestion problem; hopefully the details would be worked out before pigs grow wings. His positions on the issues surrounding illegal firearms (guns, gun shows, gun sales, etc.) are sensible and timely; and there are other things I could commend him on. Of course there are also many others that I could critique him on, but that’s not the issue here. You can always view my column in the archives (where I called him a leprechaun), to get a better sense of how I felt about him just a year ago.
Lately, the issues surrounding “term limits†have reared their ugly heads again. And maybe some intrepid reporters like Azi Payabarah, Ben Smith and/or Helen Klein, could one day dig deep enough, to find out whether or nor Speaker Christine Quinn did promise to overturn term limits (legislatively), when trying to secure supportive votes during her speakership bid. You see, if she did make some open (or “wink-winkâ€) promises, then she has reneged on her colleagues. Yesterday, Christine Quinn came out fully against overturning term limits. Did someone say: mayoral bid coming? In recent past Christine had been quite vocal in her opposition to term limits. Did the Angel Gabriel suddenly appear out of her mayoral dreams, with a convincing argument? Or was it intense polling on the issue?
It was only a few weeks ago, that councilmember Weprin (Queens), publicly suggested that the council could “tweak†term limits through legislation. What he meant was that the council members could have voted to extend the limit from eight years to twelve (not totally overturn it); implying that they were in the right to do this legislatively, despite the fact that two referendums on the issue were voted down by the voters more than a decade ago.
So here comes Mayor Bloomberg, with a sensible idea as to how we all can deal with this issue once finally. He is suggesting that next year we should put it up for referendum again; this time closing any legislative loophole which might enable council members to overrule the voters on this issue at some point in the future. I think this is a great idea; I hope the council agrees. This would be their last chance to convince voters to embrace their selfish position. Once the wording is tight, we can rest assured that term limits will never be overturned unless by referendum. Personally, I believe the voters will nail their coffins shut once and for all; but that’s just me thinking wishfully I guess. What do you think?
Stay tuned-in folks.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Christine Quinn | Mike Bloomberg
My 2¢ worth
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 5 December 2007 - 5:20pm.
Last year, Councilmember Gale Brewer held a forum on extending term limits, at which the possibility of going the legislative route was raised. During the Q&A, I asked the question, "What is your moral authority for overturning, by legislative fiat, the twice-expressed will of the people?"
I agree with Millstone on term limits. I voted against them in '93, and voted to repeal them in '96. After the forum, I informed CM Brewer that if she wanted to put the question back on the ballot I'd be willing to carry petitions. I'm thrilled that Speaker Quinn took legislation off the table, and completely agree that a tightly-worded referendum is the way to go.
Meanwhile, one way of reducing the power of incumbency is exactly what we're doing -- more citizens getting informed and involved on a grass-roots level. The more people who are looking over our elected officials' shoulders, the more likely that they will not be reelected. Full public funding of elections (known as the "Clean Money, Clean Elections" initiative) might help, but so far it doesn't seem to be making much of a difference. It's going to take a combination of several things -- campaign finance, public oversight, a weakening of the "regular" clubs, independent districting, more flak over member items, etc.
dont miss the point please...........
Submitted by ROCK (not verified) on 5 December 2007 - 6:15pm.
This is all about the will of the people being expressed. Hopefully you guys will get another chance to put your arguments to the voters; but in the end, if the voters decide something in referendum, it should only be overturned the same way. Whimscical and self-serving legislators should not be able to overturn a referendum decision arbitrarily. That is against the spirit of true democracuy. If something (policy measure) placed on the ballot is unconstitutional, then let the courts decide that.
Three terms
Submitted by Klugstah on 5 December 2007 - 10:23pm.
I agree with what Daniel said concerning both the negative and positive effects of term limits. We're seeing a game of legislative musical chairs as term-expired Council members scramble for new positions in the 08-09 electoral cycle. Undoubtedly, there are some within the City Council who will be seeking higher office who would not have done so if not for term limits. In such situations, naturally, concerns about accountability to constituents versus career ambition arise. That said, we all know the damaging power that incumbency has on good governance, transparency, and avoiding corruption and crony-ism.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if the City Council wanted to extend the term limits to 12 years instead of 8. Either way, however, we need to ensure that the loophole that would allow legislative action effectively overturning the will of the people of New York City is closed, and that the issue of term limits is settled permanently.
As it happens, I think term limits are a bad idea because I
think people should be allowed to vote for whom they please and because the frantic dance of NYC office holders to find a new seat after two terms distorts legislative and political processes. On the plus side of term limits is that bright, brash beginners like my Council Member Rosie Mendez might never have had a chance had not the prior member (and Rosie's former boss) Margarita Lopez not been term-limited out.
The power of incumbency seems so great that unless we find a way to put office-holders and challengers on more equal footing, we'll need term limits just so as to bar people holding office for life -- as seems to be the plan of NY county DA Robert Morganthau. So I guess at present, I'm unhappy either way. (At least election consultants and professionals make out like bandits with term-limits)