Bloomberg and the Referendum Deadline
One of the main arguments being marshaled against Michael Bloomberg's bid to change the term-limits law—in several notable cases by opponents who have never before taken such a keen interest in the merits of government-by-plebiscite—is that undoing the results of a public referendum by Council legislation is undemocratic.
Bloomberg's preemptive (and very convenient) counterargument is that it's too late now to put it on the ballot for November. Here are two instances of Bloomberg discussing his timing.
At the first event, an October 2 press conference, Bloomberg said he would have liked to put term limits on the ballot, but there is no longer enough time.
The second clip, from an October 10 press conference, Bloomberg says he was too busy to put together the charter revision commission that he announced in January—a move that would have ensured that term limits made it onto the ballot this year.
Watch out for Bloomie, he will destroy NYC since he didn't get his 3rd term in office. I am watching you closely Bloomie.
"Bloomberg's preemptive (and very convenient) counterargument is that it's too late now to put it on the ballot for November."
Next logical step -- we're to broke for matching funds for the 2009 campaigns, once the incumbents have gotten their fill from the CFB.
If you are thinking of running against any incumbents, don't. You'll lose your job, and they will not allow you on the ballot, period, no matter how many legitimate signatures you get.
Given his control of the media is anyone surprised that his transparent arguments don't get any real opposition?
The referendum that imposed term limits was in 1993 - 15 years is a long time for anything in NYC, and I think it is reasonable to believe that New Yorkers have changed their minds since. Putting this through the City Council is completely democratic, and even if it passes, every voter will still have a chance to approve or disapprove of a third term for bloomberg - its called an election!
We have never been afraid to vote out an incumbant - remember D'amato? I really don't think that new yorkers will be too timid to exercise their free choice next November.
Putting this in a referendum is democratic, putting it through the City Council, almost all of whom are only there because of term limits, is autocratic and self-serving.
Sure, every voter has "a chance to ... disapprove," but the power of incumbency, between fundraising advantages, member items, and access to the media, is enormous. How many incumbent City Council members have lost a reelection attempt since term limits went into effect? One. Alan Jennings lost in 2005, because he was censured by the Council, rocked with scandal -- and because the guy who beat him, Thomas White, was the same guy who was term-limited out in 2001.
There is no democracy in what the mayor is trying to do.
What does democracy have ANYTHING to do with what Bloomberg wants?
He wants what he wants and that's it.
Obviously he didn't want this issue to be on the November ballot- it's a presidential election year and voter turnout is going to be high. Can he guarantee that only people who SUPPORT his position to overturn term limits will vote? No. Can he guarantee that despite his popularity people want him around another four years? No. Why would he have allowed THE PEOPLE to ever vote on this issue?
Face it, whether we like it or not, we are stuck with this guy for another four years.