NYC Mayor Bloomberg Wins Term Limit Fight

City Council Votes In Favor Of Term-Limit Change, Paving Way For Mayor's Third Campaign

(CBS/AP)  The New York City Council has approved changes in the term-limits law that will allow Mayor Michael Bloomberg to seek re-election next year.

The council passed the bill Thursday by a vote of 29-22. The bill gives city officeholders the option of three consecutive four-year terms.

Bloomberg announced his plans to change the term-limits law and seek re-election three weeks ago. His second term ends in 2009. He had opposed changing the law earlier in his administration, but now says he needs a third term to deal with the city's financial crisis.

Earlier Thursday, the bill cleared the governmental operations committee by a vote of 6-0 before passing the full 51-member body, despite a last-minute court challenge from opponents seeking to block the council from voting.

The term-limits proposal sparked a short but loud and contentious debate ever since the billionaire mayor announced his plans to seek re-election three weeks ago.

The debate over the mayor's proposal was complicated by Bloomberg's current popularity and the fact that term limits were enacted through public referendums in 1993 and 1996, reports CBS station WCBS-TV in New York. So, while some consider it an argument against Bloomberg's performance in office, others considered the very idea of term limits to be the primary issue.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn was also backing the mayor's plan. She said she thinks the current economic crisis makes it more important to keep experienced leaders in place.

"New Yorkers will have an option of choosing and keeping consistent leadership at the helm of city government," she said.

Bloomberg, whose wealth is estimated at $20 billion, has argued that his business background as founder of the financial data firm Bloomberg LP makes him the best leader to help the city weather the turmoil on Wall Street.

The committee held two hearings last week on the fast-tracked legislation, with testimony lasting several hours. A poll this week found that registered voters overwhelmingly believe the public should have a say on the matter, and not the council.

On Wednesday, three council members who say they are undecided on Bloomberg's bill announced they will introduce an amendment at the Thursday meeting that essentially rewrites the legislation and seeks to have the term limits issue decided by voter referendum.

The measure would establish a charter review commission with the intention of holding a special election by next spring.

[blackyowe]

What a slime ball this man is. People should take to the streets and protest but them NYS has no morality so they hardly notice ***** like this.

[hjedtyj]

Wonder if the British oligarghy has something to do with billionaire NYC Mayor Bloomberg''s third term aspirations since he has been following their overall agenda to ultimately privatize city jobs and programs to corporations, hence ridding government altogether?

Isn''t it true that as mayor he has been working for them as an international financier billionaire for years....Heard his personal wealth of 4 billion increased up to 21 billion as NYC mayor in the past eight years....

[smugbachelor]

So now Bloomberg can carry on doing such a good job of keeping the NYPD out of trouble.

[crazyivan32]

posted by bailmeout1 at 07:52 AM : Oct 24, 2008
(snip)

I see your frustration. Representative democracy is tough! At it''s core it recognizes that while we''re all individuals, we''re still subject to one other. That''s revolutionary, or at least it was two centuries ago. What you are railing against is this: We are a nation. We all live together. We don''t always get to decide for ourselves. Sometimes, we have to leave it to the good citizens of California to decide, to use your example, and then live with it. Of course every area has it''s own self interests. The founding fathers had the same eoncerns, but the alternatives are less savory... On some level, Americans have to agree to disagree and move on. Not every decision about the direction of the country is yours to make. And some decisions made by the citizens of one state can BENEFIT others, so it isn''t always a losing propostion that you are complaining about. California, to continue with your example, provides billions of tax dollars to OTHER STATES each year for all sorts of things like roads and schools and bridges, which are not in the state of California. Under your logic, should California get all that money back? We live together, we die together, we disagree together, and then we move on and play the ball where it lies.

[heero78-2009]

That''s why they invented Hit a Jew Day.

[bailmeout1]

Term limits are inherently unconstitutional. Term limits remove fundamental power from the hands of the people and set arbitrary limits on whom you can vote for. If I want to vote for candidate A 12 times in a row, I should have that right. The fact that New Yorkers voted for term limits says little. Yes, they have the right to give up this fundamental power, but that doesn''''t mean it''''s right. Sometimes the people don''''t know when they''''re giving their freedoms away. Term limits are already built into our system. It''''s called elections and they happen one way or another every 2 years. Keep the ones you like, vote the bums out! Very simple.
-------------------
Posted by crazyivan32 at 06:31 AM : Oct 24, 2008

To a very large extent, I agree with you. In the case of State or local elections, there is no need for term limits that I can see. But with Federal elections such as the Federal Congress there are people representing you and me that we never get to vote for in the first place. Why should a loonytune such as Nancy Pelosi have an effect on my life at all, when I have never even been to San Francisco? Double that question for Mass and Barney Frank. If these areas of the country so blatantly have their own self interest at heart, rather than the overall good of the country, there has to be a means of turning them over at least. I would favor a two year single term maximum on all members of Congress and then none of them can waste my time or money campaigning.

[crazyivan32]

Term limits are inherently unconstitutional. Term limits remove fundamental power from the hands of the people and set arbitrary limits on whom you can vote for. If I want to vote for candidate A 12 times in a row, I should have that right. The fact that New Yorkers voted for term limits says little. Yes, they have the right to give up this fundamental power, but that doesn''t mean it''s right. Sometimes the people don''t know when they''re giving their freedoms away. Term limits are already built into our system. It''s called elections and they happen one way or another every 2 years. Keep the ones you like, vote the bums out! Very simple.

[ahrats]

Just goes to show new york city will do what ever the politians want and not what the people want. No wonder ther finanical markets are in such a sorry state. Just cause he is popular the people voted for term limits and the city council decided to go against it. After another four years they (city council)probablly vote to extend it again. That is a few polititans tell the people what to do, is this a communist city or what?

[slim1h2o]

Well well well, Bloomberg and Chavez have a little bit more in common than we realized.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by yongamerica at 03:26 AM : Oct 24, 2008


I wonder how much longer before we can add Bush, and Cheneys'' name to your short list....


Scarey....

[yongamerica]

Well well well, Bloomberg and Chavez have a little bit more in common than we realized.