Friday, October 03, 2008

Let the Voters Decide



Mayor and City Council
Want Four More Years.
Public Voted 'No' Twice
But What Do They Care?


The rush of events surrounding Mayor Bloomberg’s candidacy for a third term kept us from commenting sooner on his volte-face.

For a person so aware of time that he puts clocks in his commissioners’ offices to remind them how much time is left in his term, the decision to seek another 1461 days in office will mean a massive resetting of timepieces if he is successful.

With the aid of compliant, self-serving Councilmembers, most of whom could never get a job comparable to the $110,000 plus lulus that they pull down today, the 454 remaining days for all of them would become 1915. And a precedent will be set under which the band of brigands could change the law again and vote themselves a fourth term when 2013 rolls around. Who knows, the city may be in worse shape then than it is today. Consequently, they will believe their services will be even more necessary.

READ MORE...

5 comments:

  1. Woody5:35 PM

    SQ: No pig on any farm, sorry Mr. Orwell, would voluntarily abandon the trough filled by others. Only a cochon foux would conduct their pork laden selves in a manner designed to upset the farmer who fills their trough with their daily slop. With no insult intended to my four legged friends, Members of the NYC Council are like the pig as they don't want to voluntarily abandon the trough, their political sinecures, to be filled by others.

    Similarly, they are like les cochon foux, as current Members of the NYC Council seem destined to upset the decisions of the farmers who fill their trough by deciding unilaterally to undue the term limits decided upon in 2 referenda by the voters of NYC. Ultimately, continuing the analogy, eventually a real cochon finds its way to a butcher, while members of the equally piggy NYC Council endeavor to find their way to perpetual re-election.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bush wanted as much home ownership as possible--,he thought once a homeowner then next a republican --he was right until they had to pay and obviously could not-then dems again-after 9/11 we had to get the economy moving- a shot in the arm was needed --easy credit--escalating real estate values made everyone feel better including the tax collectors and the economy looked strong but there was just a govt at war with a disastrous policy of guns and butter and a philosophy that deficits do not matter--as a result the economy is now bush league at best after having been bushwhacked ==and it seems that we are all bushed while many have lost their homes and headed for the bushes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous7:30 PM

    Of course the voters should be the ones who decide whether term limits should be changed, not the City Council, and certainly not the oligarchy of editors, real estate developers and Wall Street geniuses. True, another referendum will entail some additional expense, but the cost would be piddling in comparison to the hefty tax benefits our Mayor has seen fit to bestow on the likes of Bruce Ratner, George Steinbrenner and the many other benefactors of Gotham who no doubt are among the most ardent supporters of Four More Years.

    A referendum might even clarify the important distinction between principle (Law) and popularity (the Candidate). That could be risky...

    Just for fun, the voters could get to pick and choose which municipal offices should receive an extra term, Chinese menu-style. I doubt that Council members would be granted another four years, but that would only be right, since they apparently agree that only Michael Bloomberg can steer us through the wreckage that the great brokerage houses have inflicted on our economy.

    -arthur

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bruce Edward Logan10:54 PM

    Mr Stern,

    I absolutely agree with you. Mr Bloomberg must not be allowed to change the Law.

    The Rule of Law drives democracy. To change the law over the wishes of the public is a violation of the trust that people had in voting not once, but twice, to have term limits.

    If the public is willing to change the law, then have a charter change. After Spetember 11, 2001, Mr Guiliani tried to circumvent the Constitution of New York State and the Charter of New Yprk City by being allowed to stay on after his term ended.

    Thank God this silliness was stopped. The current silliness must also be stopped. I will vote against anyne, including my current council member, Mr Martinez, that tries to change the law by fiat.

    Mr Guiliani then, and Mr Bloomberg, now, try to claim that only they can save the day. To paraphrase Mr Kennedy in 1960, why do they think only one man can save the day?

    It is not just the Mayor's job, but the other city-wide positions, the borough presidents, and the city council positions that must be opened up. I would prefer a new person represent me in those offices.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Murray Adams6:44 PM

    Henry,
    As usual, you hit the nail on the head. Only if the law is changed by referendum should any elected official be allowed to run for a third term.
    And while they are at it, let's have the Charter Revision Commission come up with a law that the Council cannot change laws enacted through refernda.

    ReplyDelete