NYPress.com - New York's essential guide to culture, arts, politics, news and more » Term Limit

LAST MINUTE TERM-LIMIT DECISION

admin — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:02:44 +0000

When Council Member Gale Brewer was about to explain her vote on term limits, she said she had two speeches in front of her eyes: one in support of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s bill to extend term limits, and one against the measure.
She eventually read from the speech that explained her “no” vote, though she said nobody knew how she was going to vote until she actually did. Brewer had remained silent on the issue and undecided on her vote.
“I think about a half hour earlier I decided,” Brewer said. “I really didn’t know.”
Her decision might have been made for her if an amendment that she introduced with Council members Alan Gerson and had David Yassky passed. That amendment would have required a voter referendum to extend term limits, essentially gutting the mayor’s bill. Brewer, Gerson and Yassky all voted for the amendment, but Brewer was the only one who also voted against the mayor’s legislation.
Brewer had been wrestling with the vote: she said she thinks Bloomberg has been an effective mayor and has always felt that 12 years in office is better than eight. Even more so, she said she felt that Council members who voted against Bloomberg’s bill would benefit with a third term anyway.
“It is a little ‘Have your cake and eat it too,’” Brewer said. “You’re riding on the backs of people who vote ‘yes.’”
Still, Brewer bucked that logic and voted against the bill.
“Something just gnawed at me, at my gut,” she said. “The real reason was the depth of people concerned about this issue. I never saw anything like it.”
Many of her closest friends and allies, Brewer said, felt passionately that term limits ought to be changed through a referendum, like the ballot initiatives in 1993 and 1996 that authorized term limits, rather than Council action.
“Most of the people who were bothering me about the right to vote,” Brewer said, “mean a lot to me.”

–Dan Rivoli

DONATE THE DONATIONS

admin — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:49:29 +0000

To the Editor:
Concerning “Extend Term Limits For 2009” (editorial, Oct. 16), it would be the height of arrogance for anyone, including Mayor Bloomberg, Comptroller Thompson, Public Advocate Gotbaum, Council Speaker Quinn, Council Finance Chairperson Weprin, along with other Council members and Borough Presidents, to claim that overturning term limits is necessary because only they have the insight to run our city. With more than 8 million Big Apple residents, incumbent elected officials hardly have a monopoly on the knowledge or wisdom needed to manage City Hall.
Most of the 36 term-limited City Council members and other public officials have already raised millions of dollars from the usual “Pay for Play” crowd to run for higher public office. They should not be afforded the opportunity to use these funds under false pretenses toward a third term. Instead of continuing to use taxpayer funding for member-item, pork-barrel projects to their favorite community groups, the morally correct position would be to donate these campaign funds to charity. This would provide an even playing field for almost 200 New York City residents who have already stepped forward and begun fundraising in anticipation of running for open seats in 2009.

Larry Penner
Great Neck, New York

Letters have been edited for clarity, style and brevity.

VOTERS SHOULD DECIDE TERMS

admin — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:48:45 +0000

To the Editor:
It is crucial that the public been given the opportunity to vote for or against term limits (“Extend Term Limits for 2009,” Oct. 16 editorial). It should not be decided by the City Council. There are many issues on which my Council person does not represent my point of view, i.e., the carriage horse ban. I hope to vote her out in the next election. In the meantime, I want to exercise my right to vote for term limits. In most cases, two terms are more then enough! And that goes for Bloomberg, too!

Elaine Sloan
Mitchell Place

Letters have been edited for clarity, style and brevity.

EXTEND TERM LIMITS FOR 2009

admin — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:34:32 +0000

From political circles to dinner tables and PTA meetings, the city is abuzz with term-limit discussions. Reasonable people can reasonably disagree on whether or not we should extend the current two-term threshold for city officials in 2009, and certainly here in our office we’ve had a spirited debate on the matter. But given the unknown—and likely bleak—outlook on the economy, we feel voters should be given a third chance to elect Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Yes, there is much to dislike in the way this term-limit discussion has played out. Though the most dire portion of the financial forecast had not hit when Bloomberg first floated the idea of a third term, his initial coyness on the issue means that there’s not enough time for voters to have their say this Nov. 4. Billionaire Ronald S. Lauder, who bankrolled the last two pro-term-limit efforts, has played a not-so-behind-the-scenes role in this debate, coming out in favor of a third term for Bloomberg in exchange for a seat on the Charter Revision Commission. This quid-pro-quo behavior is disturbing—at best. And no one likes the fact that the City Council is in the position to give many of its own another four years in office.
In fact, when we first wrote about this issue last month, we came out against extending term limits. But with frozen credit markets, an erratic Dow and the collapse of Fannie, Freddie, Lehman, AIG and Wachovia, times have changed. On Jan. 20, 2010, we will need a mayor ready to hit the ground running. There will be no learning curve for Bloomberg, who has already steered New York through the aftermath of its darkest days and into some of its best times yet. The mayor’s record of thrifty budgeting, setting the right priorities and constantly reviewing government productivity is what we will need more of in the years ahead. Although unprecedented challenges will surely arise, we trust this man to see us through treacherous times without sacrificing the core needs of safety, schools, housing and transit.
There’s just one minor caveat that we request: if the mayor and Council are going to go over the heads of voters, Bloomberg should agree to stay within the limits of the city’s campaign finance system. With a national profile and an approval rating north of 70 percent, there’s little need for this two-term mayor to spend tens of millions of dollars reaching out to voters before Election Day. A Bloomberg victory won on an even financial playing field would also indicate a clear voter mandate, silencing critics who perceive it to be a thinly veiled power grab.
Finally, we don’t mean to suggest that term limits should be done away with altogether. They play an important role infusing government with fresh talent, and the debate for us has always been about determining an appropriate number of terms. The current financial crisis, we think, highlights the need for three terms rather than two, so the city doesn’t lose experienced hands when it needs them most.