"It is a function of government and politicians to invent philosophies to explain the demands of its own convenience." - Murray Kempton

A couple of weeks ago New York City’s term limits law was extended legislatively by the New York City Council and Mayor Bloomberg based upon the rationale that the City needs consistent leadership to get us through the coming economic crisis. The editorial boards of all the city’s daily newspapers made this exact case to their readers and our elected officials echoed their argument. Council Speaker Quinn said “given the level of economic tumult that exists, I have decided to change my position [opposing the extension of term limits] because I believe the potential of consistent leadership by this council and this mayor would be in the best interest of the city during these hard economic times."

You would never know it from the media that Councilmember Lewis Fiddler funds one of the city’s largest non-profit patronage operations in the city. Coming in with the third highest amount of member items in the council, with just over $700,000, Lewis Fidler, assistant majority leader and Chairman of the Youth Services Committee, said he is proud to be considered the third "biggest pig" in the council. The Councilman uses the city’s budget to provide jobs for his friends, campaign workers and to continue the illusion that a once-powerful club is still going strong.

Email from Councilman David Yassky regarding term limits:

Thank you for contacting my office about Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to revise the City’s term limits law. As you know, current law limits City officials to two terms in office. Be assured that I take this issue very seriously, and will not come to a decision lightly.

While I believe that it is better for the city to have twelve year term limits instead of eight, the current limits were twice approved by the voters of this city through a clear and direct ballot process. For this reason, it would have been my strong preference that this issue not be put before the City Council, but rather the voters. However, as Mayor Bloomberg has put the issue before the Council, it is incumbent upon me to weigh the benefits of a twelve year limit against the desire to have the decision remain in the hands of the voters.

For that reason, your input is extremely valuable to me as I anticipate casting a vote.

Please encourage others you know to share their opinions with my office on this important issue, and know that I will take your input seriously as I make a decision about what is appropriate.

By Morgan Pehme (a.k.a. The Brooklyn Optimist)

Before I lay out exactly why you should be against the City Council's move to extend term limits without your say, let me start by putting two common misconceptions to rest.

The movement against extending term limits is not about whether Mayor Bloomberg has done a good job in office. For the record, I think that he has. And if the City Council puts extending term limits on the ballot, as I believe they must, then you will have still have the opportunity to re-elect our Mayor if the measure passes.

So many New Yorkers are confused that this is an anti-Bloomberg initiative because that is how the Mayor has shrewdly framed the issue. Since the majority of New Yorkers feel pretty positively about him, miscasting the debate as “Bloomberg vs. No Bloomberg” twists the odds in favor of his agenda.

Second, this is not a debate about whether term limits are good. Personally, in an ideal world, I would be opposed to term limits, because the people should have the right to vote for whomever they want, for as long as they want. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world. But I’ll get to that in a moment.

Councilman Domenic M. Recchia told the New York Times on October 7th that he favors the extension of term limits, “A lot of us Council members feel that passing it through legislation is giving ample opportunity to the voters of the city to voice their opinions.” He added: “If the voters don’t like their council member, they can vote him out of office. And if they don’t like the mayor, they can get rid of him too.”

An addition of an extra term for city officials will have a chilling effect on competition for elective office, worsening a political system in the City which is already on life support. The immediate critical problem is not that less than 1% of registered voters during the last primary had a choice at the polls; it is the centralization of control in the hands of a new breed of powerbrokers that has evolved since the corruption scandal uncovered in the 1980’s in the Koch administration.

Only one man can stop this elite gang of elected officials, party leaders, lobbyists and their clients from a complete takeover of New York City’s budget and political system: Michael Garcia, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District. Garcia, whose office is mostly known for convicting members of violent organized crime families, must not let the city’s secret powerbrokers end his investigation of the City Council’s member item slush fund scandal. Mr. Garcia, you have assembled valuable resources to stop this new ruling gang from continuing to loot the City’s budget. You must use the power in your hands to do so now. It was the municipal scandal of the 80’s that led to the term limits reform not the money of Ron Lauder.

Will Garcia Uncover a New Municipal Scandal to Rival New Jersey U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie’s Accomplishments?

Harlem-based community advocacy group Voices of the Everyday People (VOTE People) will announce a challenge to the City's proposed rezoning of 125th Street on Tuesday, April 1 at 9 am at City Hall.

The announcement will come as the Zoning Subcommittee of the City Council's Land Use Committee will hold a public hearing (at 9:30) and consider the proposal.

Come out to oppose the rezoning -- a proposal that would evict a community, destroy a history, erase a culture by paving the way for "luxury development" without protection for long-time cultural institutions, businesses and residents.

Be there at 9 to support VOTE People and the fight to save Harlem. Hang around 'til 9:30 and testify at the hearing!

VOTE People's position paper on the rezoning is available at: www.votepeople.net.

If you've read Corinne's liveblog of yesterday's Marketplace of Ideas Event on fighting against predatory mortgage lending then you know there was some really interesting discussion.

Now you can watch video clips from it too.

Senator Schumer announces his new lending bill:

and Councilman James Sander's responds to Mayor Bloomberg's assertion that the government can not address the mortgage loan crisis:

This past Wednesday, City Council Member Darlene Mealy submitted Resolution 961, which calls on the state Board of Elections to "promptly commission the development of a Precinct Based Optical Scan voting system that would comply with New York State voting system standards, which would be owned entirely by the State of New York."

Five years after passage of HAVA, New York remains the only state that hasn't done anything about it. Fortunately, we can learn from the mistakes of others; three states, at least, are throwing out their new computerized DREs in favor of a paper-ballot, optical scan (PBOS) system.

The current stumbling block is that under New York law all software running a new voting system must be put into escrow, including firmware and operating systems -- and practically every voting system on the market uses Windows. Naturally, Microsoft doesn't want to make their OS available to anyone.

So what can be done?