NY Times (0.00 / 0)

No wonder the establishment NY Times has been busy covering the "election" of 2009 (er, coronation) rather than the actual election of 2008 for NY City.  Silly people, we thought they were supposed to cover the news not create it for the convenience of Versailles.  (Nice palace, Mike)

---

by: David Kowalski @ Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 18:14:54 PM UTC

How does it work (4.00 / 2)

that the city council can overturn a referendum? The whole point of a referendum is to overturn legislation by a popular vote. If it works the other way 'round in NYC, why bother with a referendum in the first place?

---

by: DaveW @ Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 18:36:38 PM UTC

In California ballot measures are just laws (0.00 / 0)

...and so they can be repealed by the legislature, overturned by the courts, etc, exactly the same way any other law can. (This is unless they are also constitutional amendments.) I don't know how NYC does it.

---

by: mcc @ Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 19:03:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the same way it works (0.00 / 0)

that an incumbent mayor decides to circumvent the law.  obnoxiousness.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 20:00:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

referendum (0.00 / 0)

the argument against a public referendum is that it will cost too much money in a bad economic year for a special election.

1) if Bloomberg is so special that he's indispensible for the people of New York, why didn't he see this coming back in June when it coulda been on the ballot in November when turnout is high anyway.

2) Since Bloomberg wants to buy a 3rd election (he's spent well north of $100 per vote he's gotten in the last two), it would be pocket change for him to finance the special election out of his own pocket - it'd be a boost to the economy of election workers, anyway.

3) If he's so important that he needs to create this city council coup for him to stay in office, why doesn't he use his billions, break the arms of his wall st buddies and Go Back to the Freakin' Public Sector?

---

by: green in brooklyn @ Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 19:03:56 PM UTC

PS (0.00 / 0)

I will help raise money and opposition for any council member who votes Yes on this, in primaries and GE's, and that includes post-council races.  Glad to see the WFP is making a stand on this, BTW.  I'll take back some of the things I've said about the WFP if we manage to defeat this, but I'm not holding my breath.

PS Yassky's gonna cave, I just know it, probably trying to use his ammendment as cover.

---

by: green in brooklyn @ Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 19:07:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Term Limits are awful (4.00 / 2)

Term limits are one of the most anti-government, anti-democratic ideas ever. The notion that systematically purging goverment of all of its accumulated wisdom, experience, and stability is somehow a good thing simply fails the test of reason. The idea that someone is somehow inherently corrupt simply because he has been in office for more than 8 years is an insult to the voters who voted for him, and a violation of their rights to vote for the person of their choice. We've had term limits here in California for about 15 years. Take a look at our current budget. Does that look like progress to you?

I don't care if this is a power grab, and I don't care if it results in another Bloomberg term. I hope they succeed in repealing this awful law by whatever means they try. If they do succeed, here's hoping it becomes a trend.  

---

by: Aaron Bonn @ Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 19:12:59 PM UTC

i sympathize (0.00 / 0)

with this position, but i sympathize with the opposing position also. Ultimately I am with you though.

---

by: themostprogressivecorporatelawyerofalltime @ Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 19:19:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah. I'm with you (0.00 / 0)

This is such an interesting issue precisely because its one situation in which popular wisdom is flat out wrong.  

OTOH, and in favor of the other side, one thing that came out of the debate (thanks Justin for liveblogging it) was that the reduction of incumbencies opened the door for lots of minority participation.  New faces get a chance.  That's a plus.  But given that the law only extends by one term the term limits, I feel its not a bad adjustment - it's a compromise that gives the city a little bit more than it had.

Love him or hate him, NYC is better for having Bloomberg pull this stunt.

QT

Visit the Obama Project

WindOnWater.net

---

by: QueenTiye @ Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 20:58:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

so what (4.00 / 1)

whatever you think of term limits, the will of 3 million voters,l who voted twice for term limits, has been overturned by 29 self-serving politicl hacks.

whether you like terms limits, or whether you like bloomberg, voting to overturn term limits today was a coup - straight up.

---

by: green in brooklyn @ Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 22:18:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No its not. (0.00 / 0)

Bloomberg will now stand for election. If the voters of New York don't like him, or don't like what he did here, they can vote him out. If they do like him, and don't care about what he did here, now have the option of voting for him again. Nobody is going to be told that they can't vote for him - whether they want to or not - just because he has served for eight years.

This is democracy in action, my friend. Straight up.  

---

by: Aaron Bonn @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 00:39:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure, vote him out and the rest of them too. (0.00 / 0)

Look, I think term limits are ridiculous but if the City Council is going to overturn the will of the people like this they're the ones that should be held responsible.

Maybe it's hypocritical, I'm kind of glad they did it, but I still think the ones who voted for it should get tossed out.

My council member voted against it so I'll vote for him again but I certainly won't be voting for Bloomberg.

Details of the vote here:
http://itsourdecision.org/wher...

---

by: vaux-rien @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 21:58:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Term limts themselves... (0.00 / 0)

...stand in the way of the will of the people, in that they prohibit certain people from running - and, by extension, prohibit "the people" from voting for them - for no other reason than they have already served for 8 years. Now that NYC's term limits have been extended, we will actually get to see the "will of the people" with regard to both Bloomberg and all of the city councilmen who could benefit from this. Such was not the case with regard to Bill Clinton 8 years ago.

I quite liked my former representative on the Los Angeles City Council, and when she was termed out it irked me quite a bit that I was being denied my right to vote for the person of my choice. I am glad to see the council and the mayor of New York standing up for the people like me in their fair city, and not caving in to the bullying masses falsely claiming the mantle of the "will of the people."

---

by: Aaron Bonn @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 00:19:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, please. (0.00 / 0)

   This an orchestrated attempt by Bloomberg to extend his time in office.  That is the only purpose.  He's much like a third-world dictator in that respect.  I think we need term limits in executive positions.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

---

by: cilerder86 @ Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 23:21:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And, as I said to Green above... (0.00 / 0)

...if the voters of New York don't like him, or don't like what he did here, they now have a chance to vote him out. However, if they do like him, and don't care what he did here, they now have the chance to vote for who they really want.

That's the way the democratic process works. If you are afraid of that, than you are afraid of democracy.  

---

by: Aaron Bonn @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 00:41:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wrong. (0.00 / 0)

   The voters chose term-limits.  That is EXACTLY the excuse dictators use to justify their extra-constitutional attempt to run for another term.  You obviously don't know what Democracy is.  You don't change the rules on a case-by-case basis.  I'm amazed by your interpretation of Democracy.  What if a Republican Congress and Republican state legislatures had passed a constitutional amendment to allow a third term for Bush?  What would you say then?

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

---

by: cilerder86 @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 03:48:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, YOU obviously don't know what democracy is (0.00 / 0)

Bloomberg didn't change the rules here. The City Council of New York - the duly elected legislature of the city - changed this rule, as they are authorized to do under the city's charter. They followed all established procedures and due process to do this. What planet are you living on where a duly elected legislature is not allowed to, you know, LEGISLATE?

Actually, I am all for a Constitutional Amendment repealing the 22nd Amendment. I wouldn't care wich party passed it. And no, I wouldn't be afraid of George Bush wanted to run for a third term. If it wasn't for term limits, we would probably all be currently living through the fourth term of the Clinton Administration, instead of the 2nd term of George Bush. Think about that.  

---

by: Aaron Bonn @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 16:31:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

80 million reasons you're forgetting (0.00 / 0)

incumbency has advantages.  wealth has advantages too.  bloomberg will spend $80 million on re-election, promising $25 million on negative ads destroying the reputation of whomever runs against him.

in principle, you're right: if you don't like it, vote him out.  it's just a little more complicated until you find ways to balance out both the power of incumbency and the influence of wealth.

---

by: Justin Krebs @ Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 20:27:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]