« Today on the Brownstoner Backpages Closing Bell: Let Flea-dom Ring »
October 24, 2008
Tish and BdB Suing Over Term Limits
As expected, Councilmembers Letitia James and Bill de Blasio have formally announced their intention to file a lawsuit over yesterday's vote to extend term limits. "New Yorkers twice voiced their opinions on term limits," said de Blasio in their joint press release, "and yesterday their will was subverted." And James: "The vote taken by the City Council yesterday represents a great step backward for democracy."
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/6872
Comments
Please stop with this anti-democracy nonsense......
Why should we hold the popular vote of a decade+ old electorate as sacrosanct, when the nature of the vote itself state - that the popular will of people (in the future) should be ignored and instead replaced with a legal process (term limits)
IOW - Why should the people voting today have their choices limited by voters in the past and 2. If the voters in the past didnt think the electorate was so smart (i.e. unable to vote out the incumbents) why should we hold their (historical) desires as so binding?
I am not saying there is nothing ethically ambiguous about the TL extension; but these calls saying it is the end of democracy are so so over the top.
Posted by: fsrg at October 24, 2008 3:36 PM
Totally agree fsrq...these arguments are nonsensical.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 24, 2008 3:41 PM
Not only nonsensical but also self-serving.
Posted by: sam at October 24, 2008 3:45 PM
It's not the end of democracy, but it's an abuse of power. I don't feel that political bodies should be able to have direct voting control over things that effect those same political bodies. I don't think congress should be able to vote on its own salaries, and I don't think city council should be able to vote on its own term limits.
Just because Bloomberg wants to remain relevant until he can run for president in 2012 doesn't mean he should be allowed to rewrite policy without letting the people of New York vote on it.
If they put the term limits rule up to a popular vote, like they should have done, it would've been upheld. That's why they shoved it through this way, and why this lawsuit is necessary (though even if successful, its success will come too late to impact the 2009 elections, I imagine).
Posted by: cwbuecheler at October 24, 2008 3:48 PM
So I guess previous posters are not real concerned with process? How about the Lauder amendment? Were you OK with that? You guys buy into the argument that by ignoring voter precedent the Council is expanding democracy? I can't see how ignoring the overwhelming desire of the electorate to vote on the issue is expanding democracy? Can you explain?
Posted by: exlege at October 24, 2008 3:51 PM
ugh. so this means that great old buildings that can be used for roller discos are going to be turned into more bland condos? :( boo!
-rob
Posted by: PitbullNYC at October 24, 2008 3:53 PM
council member's slush fund corruption, thats what pisses me off. Not seeing Bloomy on the ballot again - just vote against him if you don't want him.
Posted by: dittoburg at October 24, 2008 3:55 PM
As far as self-serving goes, I can't really think of anyone who acted in a more self-serving manner than Bloomberg and his term-lilited henchmen.
Posted by: exlege at October 24, 2008 3:58 PM
What about MKG?
Posted by: dittoburg at October 24, 2008 4:00 PM
Good for Bill de Blasio and shame on Mayor Bloomberg and the Council members who selfishly voted against term limits. What the heck is anti-democratic about a law that was passed.............by public referendum? And give me a break about this "choice" business. The fact of the matter is that term limits have served NYC and Mayor Bloomberg himself very well. In case you have forgotten, this very issue came up after 9/11, when somehow someone thought that keeping Guiliani in office for a third term would "help" this city. Total nonsense. Bloomberg, who most people in this city had never heard of, came in and did a fantastic job. Can you imagine the damage to NYC that would have been caused by extending Guiliani's term? There's no doubt in my mind he would have won, because voters tend to stick with what they have. Incumbents of all stripes get relected not through the democratic process but because they have the party machine behind them and the bully pulpit of their current job. NYCers recognized that, voted in term limits, still support them by an overwhelming majority, and would be well served if Mayor Bloomberg, Christine Quinn and all the others who don't want to find a new job after 2009 would leave them as they are.
Posted by: slopenick at October 24, 2008 4:00 PM
This is simple common sense. As New Yorkers we obviously want the best man for the job of Mayor. Is there really a better politician in NYC or America for that matter other than Bloomberg? The guy is a financial genius, has gotten the city to move forward with green initiatives, is making improvements in our schools and is pushing for infastructure improvements. Had it not been for the dumbest man in Albany (aka Silver) we would have had a world class stadium in the works to compete with Giants Stadium and less traffic that would have come with $500 million for our public transportation. And to top it off, he does the job essentially for free.
It doesnt get any easier than this as far as political decisions go. Who cares about term limits, if the right guy is in the chair and gets the votes to stay, let him be.
Posted by: twc at October 24, 2008 4:02 PM
Don't get me started on Silver.
Posted by: dittoburg at October 24, 2008 4:08 PM
Before we start patting Bloomberg on the back...let's not forget that he has tried to use Brooklyn (first Crown Height, now Bed Stuy) as a "dumping ground" for Manhattan's homeless population. TWC- Maybe he is the right guy for Manhattan, but certainly not for Brooklyn.
Posted by: hoyaka at October 24, 2008 4:16 PM
I think we should call him Bloomers. As per Wikipedia.
Posted by: dittoburg at October 24, 2008 4:22 PM
No politician is perfect and I agree that moving those shelters was not in Brooklyn's best interest but who else can do as good of a job overall for all 5 boroughs right now?
Posted by: twc at October 24, 2008 4:22 PM
I don't and didn't favor term limits.
But this was terrible thing for Bloomberg and Quinn, etc to do. With the blessing of NYTimes and all the city moguls. People voted twice and expected that to be the rule followed until they (the people) changed it. Then Bloomberg with all the power his money carries gathered the power brokers of this city and
rammed thru the council (have they ever moved so fast before
on anything?).
This is why so large of the the population is cynical about our political process. How quickly and blatantly their choice was overruled.
This is not a referendum on Bloomberg - so don't try to argue he is great, blah, blah, blah. That is not the issue.
You don't change the rules for the favored and powerful (and maybe change them back when someone else comes along).
It is abuse of power and makes a sham of process.
Posted by: Petebklyn at October 24, 2008 4:23 PM
Bloomberg's done his share of good for the city and up until now I respected him, even if I didn't agree with every one of his stances.
His role in this term limits debacle, however, has lost him at least one vote in 2009. I won't be voting for him no matter whom he's running against.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at October 24, 2008 4:24 PM
Thanks Petebklyn. I think that bears repeating:
"It is abuse of power and makes a sham of process."
Posted by: SnarkSlope at October 24, 2008 4:27 PM
whaddya all think of term limits for the New York County district attorney? (current incumbent 33 years in place)
Posted by: dittoburg at October 24, 2008 4:29 PM
And I've just discovered Shelly has been in his seat for 32 years.
Posted by: dittoburg at October 24, 2008 4:32 PM
If people do not want Bloomberg to continue as mayor...vote against him next year. Isn't that the best form of term limits? I would not want to roll the dice on the future of the city. Dark, dark days are coming, and Thompson, Weiner, Quinn, etc., don't really instill a lot of confidence when it comes to dealing with the effect that this depression will have on the city in terms of the inevitable increase in unemployment and crime, and reduced public services. Let's have all the candidates make their case as to why they are best qualified to lead New York into the next decade...but it will be nice to at least have the OPTION of having Bloomberg amongst the contenders for the post.
Posted by: FtGreeneCorey at October 24, 2008 4:33 PM
Anybody who doesn't vote for Bloomberg is nuts.
Sure certain things he's done piss various interest groups off. Personally, I rue his property tax increases as well as his role in allowing the Trump Soho to be built, but otherwise, we're all very lucky to have the opportunity again to have such a smart businessman at the helm during the upcoming four years, which will be very tough times for all.
Especially since it looks like that socialist, Obama, will be president. . . God help us all.
Posted by: IronBalls at October 24, 2008 4:37 PM
Don't let Democracy get in the way of Democracy. I agree with FtGreeneCorey, if you dont want him back, dont vote for him. When it comes to the mayors seat, ESPECIALLY IN THESE TIMES, let the best man or woman win. I dont think we really need a vote to see whether or not we can vote for anyone in particular. Yes, he steamrolled a lot to get this done quickly but its in the best interest of the city. If he is not the mayor for the next term get ready for the 70's Redux.
Posted by: twc at October 24, 2008 4:45 PM
I'm looking forward to Times Sq getting seedy again, I missed it the first time.
Posted by: dittoburg at October 24, 2008 4:47 PM
Why all the love for Bloomberg?
State one *specific* thing he has accomplished in his two terms.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at October 24, 2008 4:50 PM
One more time:
"It is abuse of power and makes a sham of process."
Posted by: East New York at October 24, 2008 4:51 PM
I agree...if you dislike a candidate, vote for someone else. That's what I did with Tish.
Speaking of Tish, she's currently one of the loudest (as usual) opponents of this legislation, but will surely leap at the chance to run for a third term, hypocrite that she is.
Posted by: Big Jugs at October 24, 2008 4:52 PM
slopenik - you're Guiliani example is not relevant. Rudy did not want to run again, he wanted to extend his term - with NO ELECTION for 3 mo. That is entirely different.
Again - is it unseemly - probably - but:
why should the electorate of the 90's (many of whom are dead or moved) dictate the electoral choices of today's electorate (which includes many new members). And while a referendum today might be a less obnoxious way of dealing with this - it isnt practical to keep having referendums, the referendums are corrupted by $ and extremely low turnout (as was the Billionaire sponsored '93 and '96 referendums).
So my point is - yes this action is self-dealing - but it is no more anti-democratic then the term-limit referendums were in the 1st place. Elections should decide who is in office not legal processes instituted by people long ago.
Posted by: fsrg at October 24, 2008 4:52 PM
ditto...you and i ought to go on a pub crawl sometime. It'd be especially good since we're both interested in the same venues but not actually competing.
Yes, the old gritty Times Square sure was fun. Hey Oh Lay Lola!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 24, 2008 4:52 PM
Snark,
He set up 311.
Prior to 311, it was nearly impossible to make a complaint and have anything done about it.
Since you only asked for one thing, I won't list anymore, but there are many.
Posted by: IronBalls at October 24, 2008 4:53 PM
you really think so Big Jugs???? :)
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 24, 2008 4:53 PM
He didn't run the city into the ground.
Posted by: dittoburg at October 24, 2008 4:54 PM
I've got to mention his outlawing smoking in bars and restaurants. Best move of his career as far as I'm personally concerned.
You forget how much it sucked to come home late at night and have to take a shower since you reeked of stale cigarette smoke.
Posted by: IronBalls at October 24, 2008 4:55 PM
Slopenik:
Mayoral Control of the schools, massive crime reduction, lower debt burden for NYC, 3-1-1, 2nd Ave subway construction, massive increase in number of available housing units, shall I go on????
Posted by: fsrg at October 24, 2008 4:56 PM
Yes, carry on shouting its a sham, thats very persuasuve.
Term limits themselves aren't inherently democratic are they? Otherwise we wouldn't have SHeldon silver.
why are people acting like its a coup d'etat. Let meeee say it one more time, or for the first time actually, "Bloomberg will only become mayor if he is voted in by the voters".
Posted by: dittoburg at October 24, 2008 4:57 PM
ironBalls....I'm going to try and be cordial to you for awhile after pointing that one out. I hated that ashtray smell all over me when I got home. the only losers on that initiative were the dry cleaners!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 24, 2008 4:58 PM
"So my point is - yes this action is self-dealing - but it is no more anti-democratic then the term-limit referendums were in the 1st place."
OK, if term limits are anti-democratic (a ridiculous argument), let the people VOTE to remove them the SAME way they VOTED to put them in place. Allowing a politician - ANY politician, even one whose done some good things like Bloomberg - to subvert the process is setting a dangerous precedent.
Posted by: East New York at October 24, 2008 4:59 PM
I meant aren't inherently undemocratic.
at least I think I did.
Posted by: dittoburg at October 24, 2008 5:01 PM
"I've got to mention his outlawing smoking in bars and restaurants. Best move of his career as far as I'm personally concerned."
I'm a smoker and IMO that initiative sucked badly. Banning smoking in a bar is foreign to everything I'm about.
Posted by: East New York at October 24, 2008 5:02 PM
He's not subverting the process. He has been able to change the rules. Master politician!!!!!!
I just want to know what he promised Christine Quinn. or what amount he wrote on the check???
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 24, 2008 5:03 PM
Mayoral Control of the schools - Which has achieved what specifically?
massive crime reduction - Sadly, we have to thank Rudy for that.
lower debt burden for NYC - Good one, yes.
3-1-1 - Kudos for that, as noted above.
2nd Ave subway construction - Which will probably stop again any day now. The money would probably have been better spent on improving the existing lines.
massive increase in number of available housing units - With no corresponding increase in schools or other infrastructure.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at October 24, 2008 5:03 PM
Bloombergs accomplishments, and I quote:
"He prevailed, where his predecessors failed, at persuading the state legislature to give him control of city schools. He steered the municipal government out of a deep fiscal crisis, turning a $6.4 billion budget gap in fiscal 2004 into a $1.9 billion surplus. He passed a controversial ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, setting a trend for cities around the country. All the while, crime on Bloomberg’s watch continued its remarkable plunge — even with 4,000 fewer cops on the street and with the added pressures of protecting against terrorism. By the numbers, New York City is about as safe a place, the mayor likes to point out, as Port St. Lucie, Florida."
- Congressional Quaterly Inc.
PS - 311 kicks ass if you use it.
Posted by: twc at October 24, 2008 5:04 PM
Spoken like a true smoker ENY....total disregard for the health of everyone else and the entire medical body of evidence.
You're about selfishness and stupidity ENY. Sorry but that's the only response to "smokers' logic"
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 24, 2008 5:05 PM
Yes, that no corresponding increase in schools/transport etc was a bad oversight.
ENY, why are you so worried about term lmits if you are a smoker? Aren't they only going to be an issue to people who are still around to see him rule again?
Posted by: dittoburg at October 24, 2008 5:07 PM
ENY - of course term-limits are anti-democratic - if you can not see this basic reality then you are blind.
Yes a referendum might be better - BUT - remember the people who voted in the 90's are not today's electorate; and a special election (necessary now) would have little turnout.
Posted by: fsrg at October 24, 2008 5:08 PM
I used that approach once in the "old days" ditto and got jumped all over by a few of the faded type guests!!!
BTW our pub crawl should start (or end) along Roosevelt Ave in Queens!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 24, 2008 5:09 PM
"He prevailed, where his predecessors failed, at persuading the state legislature to give him control of city schools"
And then achieved specifically what with that control?
Posted by: SnarkSlope at October 24, 2008 5:10 PM
I'm torn on this one--I like Bloomberg, but it is an abuse of power.
And the suggestion that folks just need not vote for Bloomberg is overly simplistic. Between being an incumbent and a billionaire he has a HUGE advantage.
Posted by: tinarina at October 24, 2008 5:10 PM
"the people who voted in the 90's are not today's electorate"
We're talking the 1990s, not the 1890s. I'm sure a rather large percentage of us are still alive.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at October 24, 2008 5:11 PM
Ive heard there's all three types on the menu there.
Posted by: dittoburg at October 24, 2008 5:12 PM
If you're against this change, don't blame Bloomberg.....blame your City Councilman who voted for it.
I'm sure there was a lot of backroom horsetrading that included allowing the ones that voted No to do so for whatever would put them in better with their constituency.
Trust me, Bloomberg has put out a lot of IOUs on this one!!!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 24, 2008 5:13 PM
Yes ditto. I'll screen out the "questionable" chicas for you.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 24, 2008 5:14 PM
Posted by: SnarkSlope at October 24, 2008 5:03 PM
Mayoral Control of the schools - Which has achieved what specifically?
Impressive increases in student test scores - against the prevailing trends that existed here and continue in other municipalities
massive crime reduction - Sadly, we have to thank Rudy for that.
No - you have to credit Bloomberg with the ADDITIONAL crime reduction - especially give 9/11.
2nd Ave subway construction - Which will probably stop again any day now. The money would probably have been better spent on improving the existing lines.
So what (and likely not true) - it is funded and in progress under Bloomberg - he gets credit until other facts develop.
massive increase in number of available housing units - With no corresponding increase in schools or other infrastructure.
Not true - school construction has enjoyed increased funding under Bloomberg and again so what - it is an accomplishment no matter.
Posted by: fsrg at October 24, 2008 5:15 PM
Ok, explain how, with A, B and C wanting to be mayor, and offering themselves, it is democratic to say "you can vote for A or C (but you can't vote for Bloomers, aka B)".
Posted by: dittoburg at October 24, 2008 5:15 PM
Besides, it kinda feels nostalgic to have some good old Tammany Hall style politics back in the Big Apple.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 24, 2008 5:16 PM
We should have abolished term limits for Reagan (if he were alive!!!) and even Clinton and we'd never be in any of this economic mess.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 24, 2008 5:19 PM
Big Jugs- you're twisted. Tish James has said outright that she doesn't support term limits. Yet despite that, she disagrees with the process of the council voting on the issue rather than the public. Thats not hypocritical at all, its legitimate, and even admirable.
Snark Slope- Bloomberg also out together PlaNYC 2030, which its a huge positive in terms of its ambition, objective and foresight. (Its attention to detail and execution are still being tested). Also, Bloomberg has intervened in some tense labor disputes and was able to mediate successfully. Just a couple other examples.
Posted by: blowfish at October 24, 2008 5:20 PM
I wish I could vote.
Posted by: dittoburg at October 24, 2008 5:20 PM
Bloomberg is right in the middle politically. On many sensitive issues, he won't tip the boat.
The last thing we need is some pandering liberal like Letitia James expanding rent stabilization throughout NYC. She's been trying to expand the rent laws for years.
Even the majority of you Obamabots have to agree that expanding the rent laws would further decrease the supply of rental housing in the city, and if you currently own and rent a unit or two to help cover your mortgage, you'd be royally screwed if the laws were extended to small buildings as well as large ones.
Posted by: IronBalls at October 24, 2008 5:20 PM
We're talking the 1990s, not the 1890s. I'm sure a rather large percentage of us are still alive.
-and what of all the people that reached voting age, who moved here, who became citizens over the last 15 years.
Think about this - how would you feel if the 1993 referendum instituted term-limits AND made a "term" 30 years - would you still be arguing that this 15 year old vote should be so honored - as Rudy Guliani would only be half way into his 1st term
Posted by: fsrg at October 24, 2008 5:20 PM
fsrg - it is really quite simple. Put the issue before the today's electorate, including "all the people that reached voting age, who moved here, who became citizens over the last 15 years."
Posted by: SnarkSlope at October 24, 2008 5:25 PM
"Spoken like a true smoker ENY....total disregard for the health of everyone else and the entire medical body of evidence."
I oppose smoking bans in bars. If you don't like smoke, don't go into or work at that bar. Problem solved. But hey, I've adjusted to the new rules. I can be flexible. With regards to myself, it's my life, and if I want to smoke, and am capable of understanding the risks, that's my choice. Now it happens that I'm a pretty good athlete in addition to being a smoker, so I'm doing OK. I bet I'm in MUCH better shape than and should outlive people like dittoburg and DIBS, who spend most of their time in front of a computer. Lots of long life in my immediate family tree, which includes smokers. Anyway, there are plenty of people who engage in lifestyle choices will impact their health. That's my business.
FSRG, I'm not blind, but I'm starting to believe that you are.
Posted by: East New York at October 24, 2008 5:26 PM
I think that the words describing removal of "term limits" are a poor description, it implies that the single term itself can somehow be unlimited, or expanded at least.
It reminds me of when I read the headline that Spitzer was "involved in a prostituion ring" only to find out he was a john and not a pimp.
Posted by: dittoburg at October 24, 2008 5:26 PM
WOW IronBalls...I totally agree with you on that as well. We could be buddies!!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 24, 2008 5:28 PM
Good luck with that ENY.
Posted by: dittoburg at October 24, 2008 5:29 PM
Yes ENY, that's fine but again the smokers logic creeps in..."If you don't like smoke, don't go into or work at that bar." How can I characterize it? Neanderthal maybe? Jackass
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 24, 2008 5:30 PM
Dave, being called names by someone like you is pretty much a compliment. So thanks.
Posted by: East New York at October 24, 2008 5:34 PM
ditto...I think that's what ENY thought when we had this discussion earlier this week...that Bloomberg was going to stay in office without a vote.
For what its worth, I guess I too have been "involved in a prostitution ring" at one time or another!!!!!! I never thought of it that way LOL
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 24, 2008 5:34 PM
Q: "explain how...with A, B and C wanting to be mayor, and offering themselves, it is democratic to say 'you can vote for A or C (but you can't vote for Bloomers, aka B)'."
A: When the general public has democratically voted TWICE to constrain itself that way. If the mayor wanted to, he could have put this out for a general vote again but he did not, I suspect because he thinks public opinion has not changed.
I voted against term limits both times. I work with council members regularly and have seen them take 12-24 months to get oriented at the beginning of their first terms. Three terms is better than two. But those previous three sentences notwithstanding, I think this was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Posted by: g man at October 24, 2008 5:34 PM
Your welcome. Anytime.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 24, 2008 5:37 PM
12-24 months g man???? What kind of morons are we electing???
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 24, 2008 5:38 PM
Actually, what's "democratic" about term limits anyway? If you don't want someone you vote them out. What could be simpler than that? Just because the electoral process favors the incumbent, that's no reason to impose additional rules.
And I don't see how this goes against anyone's will. Presumably if the statute had been written so that the City Council *couldn't* overwrite it (ie had to a referndum) it would've been. So they had the authority and did so. Am I missing something (I will admit the change was before my time in NYC).
Posted by: cmu at October 24, 2008 5:39 PM
And cmu, the suit to stop it was tossed out by the State Supreme Court so there had to be legalese that made it all right.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 24, 2008 5:41 PM
g man - I get your point, but that still doesn't make it democratic to say "you can't vote for B", it clearly can never be democratic to say that. If the voters want to vote in something undemocratic (i.e. an undemocrtic restriction that is the result of a democratic vote) thats fine, but it doesn't change that fact. The voters could vote in a referendum for a one-party one-candidate election. But the subsequent election wouldn't be democratic would it?
Perhpas Kim Jong-Il will throw his hat into the ring.
Posted by: dittoburg at October 24, 2008 5:45 PM
Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum of Dubai is a better choice from a "massive increase in number of available housing units" perspective.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at October 24, 2008 6:05 PM
Democracy is what got Bush elected... a second time.
Like free markets it's a great thing when it works but sometimes there needs to be an intervention.
Posted by: Aussie at October 24, 2008 6:44 PM
The power of incumbancy is so great that the people re-elect officials under indictment. I find the statement, "If you don't want someone you vote them out. What could be simpler than that?," to be particularly glib, or less flattering, naive. Here's another fact that flies in the face of my opposition to what the mayor has engineered: term limits are a substitution for people actually learning about the issues and the candidates, the effort necessary for cmu's prescription.
Dave, 12-24 months isn't really that long when you realize how complex, for example, working with the city budget is, and that is just one aspect of the multi-faceted job. But it is ineffective, especially when you have half (more or less) of the chamber being elected at one time. Also, term limits give greater power to City Council staff (not to be confused with the council members own staffs) because they are the only ones with institutional memory.
I hear you dittoburg, and the other arguments as well. Legal isn't always the moral high ground. Anybody happy with the way Markowitz re-directed taxpayer funds to his concert series? It was all legal.
Posted by: g man at October 24, 2008 6:51 PM
I think G-Man has it right.
From my perspective, having voted for term limits in NYC, it seemed like a good idea at the time...and I'm certainly glad Ghouliani didn't get a third term!!! Ugh! And that ploy to extend his term three months! Thank goodness he didn't get away with it...but having thought about it, I'm sure Bloomberg maneuvered him out of there. Bloomberg benefitted from the way things shook out between Mark and Freddie in the primary and the small window of time before the election tipped it all to Bloomie...
That said, I wouldn't pass out if the council members and mayor had three terms but frankly, as Gman pointed out "Legal isn't always the moral high ground.".
I might have voted for Bloomberg but I'm feeling a little disgusted at the way this was rangled. As someone above already commented, they've lost another vote.
Parts of our government are supposed to create, at least, the illusion of a representational democracy. This vote by the council, has been a bit of an "aha, I see" moment for many people I speak with.
To Aussie who wrote that Bush got elected twice...I'll just leave it at that with little comment. It speaks for itself.
People need to realize that we have very, very little "voter fraud" in the US but seemingly plenty of "election fraud".
It's kind of too bad...at least for my generation. We thought things in the US were AOK and moral. Social movements seemingly made for some positive change. Of course it was all a dream even at that time, but we had hopes.
Ms. BG
Posted by: BrooklynGreene at October 24, 2008 7:36 PM
I actually think that had this gone to referendum, the public probably would have extended term limits to three terms, rather than two. But Bloomberg just didn't want to take the chance. And although I like him well enough (except for his ALWAYS pro-development stance in all cases--except putting up big building in the sacrosanct Upper East Side) this leave me disgusted. As mentioned, the Wall Street mess was an excuse to push this through quickly (in a city where things usually take too much time!) and obviously many people were pressured or just wanted to kiss up. The City Council has a legal right to do it this way, but it seems a clear power grab to me and sets a bad precedent. Plus, it makes a cynical population even more cynical, if that's possible.
But if he gets rid of the Cabaret Laws, all is forgiven!
Posted by: Carol Gardens at October 24, 2008 8:05 PM
The New York public is so over-burdened and pissed-off by taxes, fines and tolls that if there were a referendum calling for all politicians to be beaten and hung on poles in City Hall Park, it would probably pass.
The council members are by and large hacks and rent-a-pols.
For instance, Yassky can't decide whether to sell or lease himself to the Orthodox community in Williamsburg. Why should we want these idiots to run for second terms, much less third terms? Bloomberg is a different story. A billionaire blow-hard who is accountable to no one and not truly of this world. Listen, NY is a city of hustle, of working it out in the margins, of getting by by getting along. In the final analysis these bozos mean very little to the life of the city. I say throw them out every year. who would notice?
Posted by: Inigo at October 24, 2008 9:22 PM
F Bloombeg and his autocratic, arrogant snarky self. we need him in a fiscal crisis??! he's been the steward of this physical crisis.
Posted by: aytoofly at October 24, 2008 10:04 PM
F Bloombeg and his autocratic, arrogant snarky self. we need him in a fiscal crisis??! he's been the steward of this fiscal crisis.
Posted by: aytoofly at October 24, 2008 10:04 PM
I've started calling him Vladimir Bloomberg.
Posted by: giovannina at October 24, 2008 10:13 PM
Did Bloomy do well for the city the last five years, or was it simply all this debt spending and massive real estate tax increases that simply fueled the good times in NYC and the entire country.
Good times, and debt money going around means lower crime, so did Bloomy's works lower crime in NYC?
The school system is a mayoral agency...meet the new boss, same as the old boss. BTW there were many political enemies made from this mandate and shift of power. Those who were in power are laying low, this referendum needs to be voted on by the city council every x years. It can be flipped.
Where was his great financial acumen to see this collapse coming so he could steel the city against this. Maybe trim the city budget for the rainy day with the last 4 years of good times surplus. Even the WHAT saw this coming and he's no finance wizard like Bloomy.
Term limits were put in to protect the democratic process to prevent an individual from seizing power. What if George Washington ran for a third term, and then a fourth.
What if Bloomy had enough money and was corrupt and could rig elections. Isn't there a small town in Jersey like this? The mayor was corrupt and pretty much ran this insignificant township.
Posted by: Eigth ave at October 25, 2008 12:25 AM
Outlawing artificial trans fat was brilliant. He's won me over for all eternity for that one. Maybe he can outlaw Fedders buildings next.
Posted by: mopar at October 25, 2008 9:59 AM
Thanks to Bloomberg, I was able to quit smoking. The temptation isn't there any more.
Also, I will soon be a landlord and I would support very mild rent control of the type they have in San Francisco. When a renter moves into any unit, you cannot raise their rent more than a certain percentage per year (it's quite generous, changes according to the cost of living index, and is set by the City Council). When they leave, you can charge the next renter anything you want.
Like anything, it's not perfect of course. But it does give renters some of the stability owners enjoy. And it's not an economic hardship on the owners.
Posted by: mopar at October 25, 2008 10:07 AM
Blowfish, if Tish James were sincerely outraged over the "process" of this legislation, then she would decline to run for a third term in order to protest corruption. In the end, though, her job stability will trump her principles.
Posted by: Big Jugs at October 25, 2008 11:29 AM
Tish can run again this is only her second term. The bill that was passed doesn't apply to her. Its a one time only bill for 2009 and for the third term to be allowed in 2013 a charter amendment must pass.
Posted by: smeyer418 at October 26, 2008 2:38 PM
Tish is probably supporting De Blasio. I don't know if it is a good move.....
Bloomberg pandered to real estate developers yes and sold out on the AY. Maybe Tish should make a deal with him and let him out on the lawsuit if he promises to block the AY.
Posted by: Dora Chica at October 27, 2008 10:11 AM
Big Jugs, check your facts, she can run again without the law, it doesn't apply to her.
Dora Chica, by all the things reported, it seemed to be a joint move.
I am floored by the "go Bloomie" sentiments at the top. Simply floored.
Posted by: MFowl293 at November 21, 2008 8:06 AM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Canaille
added January 9, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Le Toukouleur
added January 8, 2009 12:00 PM in Bedford Stuyvesant -
Hibino
added January 7, 2009 12:00 PM in Cobble Hill -
James
added January 6, 2009 12:00 PM in Prospect Heights -
Abistro
added January 5, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Wing Wagon
added December 30, 2008 12:00 PM in Prospect Heights -
Babouche
added December 29, 2008 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
La Maison du Couscous
added December 23, 2008 12:00 PM in Bay Ridge -
Sotto Voce
added December 22, 2008 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Pedro's
added December 19, 2008 12:00 PM in Dumbo
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.