Monday, November 10, 2008
When does a limit actually mean a limit?
As the fall weather approached, everyone across the nation were getting ready for the presidential election and letting their voice be heard while some New Yorkers had to also hold on to theirs back home. On one hand is a history making presidential campaign/election. And on the other hand was a swipe taken at voters in a blink and you'll miss abracadabra of New York City law. Bloomberg was a billionaire businessman no nonsense politician, until October 2008 when the end of his 2 terms was coming near. Then he lost it. Mayor Bloomberg introduced an extension to term limits for his and others' positions which are limited to two 4-year terms. Was this out of fear of losing a job, hunger of power or just a need truly for New Yorkers' benefit during one of the worst economic crisis ever seen? It could be all of the above. Before this extension idea was brought up, most New Yorkers had a good feel about Bloomberg and liked him very much. Some even expressed their sadness to see Bloomberg go at the end of his second term. When Mayor Bloomberg announced that he will introduce to City Council an amendment to term limits, sides were not quickly chosen. People were more confused as to what is going on. Ooo, we can make Bloomberg stay on? Can we just turn around a law just like that? Wait, I can't vote on it? Couldn't he just be a consultant for the City or something? Most were actually excited at the thought of keeping Bloomberg at the Mayor's desk. But then the realization came that it would only be members of the City Council to vote for this amendment. Hey, play fair. It seemed like the Mayor didn't trust the public enough to give him a chance. Well now he's popped his own bubble. I think he thought wrong that they wouldn't think in his favor(did you get that?). As a result, many have lost at least a little respect for the Mayor and will be even more inclined to the idea of voting against him during the mayoral run. Even an economic meltdown that is so visible in New York City could not make forgotten a cold shoulder or disrespect from such a popular politician. Not to mention the fact that this is New York City where we can switch one billionaire for another easily. These are New York City people you are dealing with. No bull taken. At least they still get to vote for mayor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, guess I'll break the silence and get the discussion going...
First of all, isn't it the City Council's job to vote on the city's legislature? How many bills are brought up and voted on in the City Council that the city doesn't even hear about? What is the protocol for proposing such an amendment? While I agree that perhaps Bloomberg could have addressed this issue more transparently, such as holding a referendum or adding a question to the November ballots, but to accuse him of distrusting or ignoring the public seems excessive and far-fetched. Citizens of this country do not vote on pieces of legislature, they only vote for a representative to vote for them. Unless FDR set a precedent of seeking public support instead of asking Congress for extending term limits, why should Bloomberg be treated any differently?
Ultimately, this issue boils down to the legality of Bloomberg's proposal, an issue most likely to be decided by the courts. Looking at the big picture, Bloomberg has demonstrated during his time in office a clear understanding of economic issues facing the city and is not an easily-replaced asset/billionaire to the city in these hard economic times.
Thank you for your insight into this issue. You bring up very good points/questions. I am glad that you got the "discussion going." Also to just to note, my posts are based on personal opinions so far. Anyways, yes we do vote for representatives to vote for what is best for us. And there are plenty of bills that go in and out of City Council that New Yorkers don't even hear or want to give the time of day to care about. This we rely on our representatives. But the term amendment is up for being "treated differently." A referendum regarding term limits was put up for vote in 1993 and 1996. Term extensions beyond 2 terms were ultimately voted against. Although issues and needs change over time, this vote should not have been approached differently in terms of who got a say in it. Bloomberg has in the past mentioned term extensions and was adamantly against it. As recently as 2002, Bloomberg vetoed term limits for the City Council Speaker post. Also earlier this year, Bloomberg said he absolutely has no intention of running for re-election even if it was allowed. I agree that Bloomberg is a successful businessman and is a very good mayor. But why do we need to change the law to suit his ambition, if it is ambition? He said that a change in management is sometimes needed to bring in fresh ideas. This might be what the City needs now in the midst of the economy meltdown. There shouldn’t be a disregard for the law (there’s a reason why it was there), or at least without proper procedure and reason. Both Republicans and Democrats are and have been joining together to bring a lawsuit against Bloomberg’s bid for re-election. And that joint team is growing by the day. This brings us back to when NYC was attacked on September 11, 2001. The mayor at the time, Rudy Giuliani, also wanted to extend his stay in office to bring the City through this moment. This caused a public uproar. And eventually Giuliani stepped aside to let his successor take over at the proper time. And New York City did fine. If September 11th could not give enough reason to keep the same mayor in office, I do not know how an economic crisis will.
Post a Comment