The voters put the term limits in. The City Council would never have done it- the limits apply to them, too.
Thanks for the clarification. That’s a somewhat different matter.
Yes, it’s repulsive. Of course the City Council approved it, it’s to their own benefit. Bloomberg accomplishes this while most of us are paying more attention to the presidential race, going over our heads as it were despite the fact that we, the people, voted this restriction in ourselves.
I actually don’t mind Bloomberg; as Repubs go, he barely qualifies to wear the elephant t-shirt (he only became a repub recently), and whatever problems we have here in NYC it’s not especially his fault AFAIK. But I strongly disapprove of this opportunistic power grab on his part, and the implication that he, only he, can solve our problems. We had enough of that hubris with Giuliani. Personally I hope his ass gets bounced out in the next election, along with the useless City Council members who voted in the best interests of maintaining their power instead of the people they represent.
Exactly, and to add to this, the most recent referendum on term limits was in 1996. This isn’t one of those cases where a law has been hanging around on the books since the days of consolidation in 1898, and might reasonably be thought not to reflect the views of modern voters.
I don’t get how this won’'t be overturned. The voters were asked if they wanted this law–they said “Yes”–people got turned out of office on the basis of this law–and now it’s being overturned because a small group of politicans decide the law is a bad one? Could someone explain Bloomberg’s argument before the court, please? The graveyadrs are full of indispensable men. This seems like a slam dunk to me.
I believe that term limits were voted upon by the voters, twice. Extending his term would suggest that he would do so against the vote of the people. That would be wrong. He wants to be King of New York. What ego it takes to think he is the only one that can run the city.
Giuliani made his reputation on 9/11 – he seemed competent, and people were glad to have a competent hard-ass running the show at that point. Bloomberg, in turn, won the mayoral race on Giuliani’s endorsement (he could’ve named just about anyone as his successor for a short while there). Also, nobody likes Mark Green.
He’s no longer a Republican even in name.
Anyway, like a lot of others, I’m a fan of Bloomberg’s, but this seems like a troubling departure from the rule of law. Assuming it passes muster with the courts, I don’t know whether or not I can vote for Bloomberg next year, regardless of the clown(s) that will no doubt be running against him.
Right now his likely opponents are Weiner and Thompson. Maybe Quinn would run again if Bloomy looks to be headed for defeat, but in that scenario, her leadership in this term limits situation might be a stone around her neck.
I forgot to mention that the cover of the Post yesterday showed Bloomberg with a laurel wreath on his head, under the headline “MIIIKE.” Just in case anyone was wondering what the hell I meant with the Rubicon thing.
Something like 2/3 of the city council is at the end of their term limits and they just don’t want to have to find a job in this market. It’s shameless.
I probably would have voted for an extension of term limits in a referendum, but I really don’t like the way they are going about it.
I’m also conflicted about this as I don’t doubt that Bloomberg will do a good job, but this sort of messes with the rule of law.
He made a power grab to take over the schools and that turned out well. But it could have easily turned out bad if he didn’t know what he was doing.
Schools, hospitals and the economy have improved under Bloomberg. Now he wants to tackle poverty. It isn’t likely that I will vote for someone else whenever the name Bloomberg is on the ballot.