Feds Clear Last Hurdle For Perpetual Bloomberg Reign

Um. Thank Paterson. (0.00 / 0)

He's the guy who made this happen. The thinking being: either Bloomberg runs for Mayor again, or, gulp, he runs for governor...

BTW, this never had a chance in court. However, Bloomberg could be stopped in a NY minute if the state legislature were to pass that bill knocking around Albany requiring a referendum in any city that wanted to revise its term limits laws, but even getting it passsed in the Assembly is questionable. Bah.

---

by: JohnS @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 17:42:25 PM UTC

not sure that paterson is blameless (0.00 / 0)

but suggesting that he and the lege are more responsible than bloomberg and quinn is simply ridiculous.

TODAY is day one. It always is.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 18:03:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ridiculous? (0.00 / 0)

Do you actually think Quinn was making herself look like shite on this to protect Bloomberg's flank -- or Paterson's? Why did 11 of the 14 blacks in the Council vote in favor and Harlem Councilwoman Inez Dickens cast the swing vote in favor when if they had voted against Bloomberg's term extension, Bill Thompson might have been our next mayor? You tell me why the legislation that would but an immediate plans to a Bloomberg third term isn't even assured of passage in the Assembly?

---

by: JohnS @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 18:56:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That should have read (0.00 / 0)

You tell me why the legislation that would but an immediate end to plans for a Bloomberg third term isn't even assured of passage in the Assembly?

---

by: JohnS @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 19:00:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

do members of the City Council (0.00 / 0)

get a third term as well?

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/SteveinNYC

---

by: SteveinNYC @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 19:41:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

of course (0.00 / 0)

and quite honestly, two term limit on legislators is ridiculous. You have people charing committees they have served on for little time...three terms makes more sense.

But they should've let the people decide.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 20:08:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

so that's why (0.00 / 0)

the City Council went along with the Mayor

And the people did decide. We want two terms to be the limit.

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/SteveinNYC

---

by: SteveinNYC @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 20:41:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not over (0.00 / 0)

I'm not talking about the state legislature, I'm talking about the court.

There is an appeal from a ruling that the Council acted legally under New York State law.  If that appeal succeeds, we're back to two terms.

Does the appeal have a chance of succeeding?  An exceedingly small chance, perhaps, but still a chance.  There are clearly statements made by the judge in the original case that are incredibly stupid.  For example, the judge said there was no quid pro quo between Bloomberg and Ron Lauder -- when Lauder himself issued a press statement saying there was.  (Note:  The day before Lauder's statement, I blogged here about the deal.)

Chances are, a lot of people will be getting a third term; the appellate court might even rule that there were problems with the Council's action, but to reverse it at this late date would cause more problems that it would solve. (Probably not exactly -- courts usually find some legalistic rationalization for doing this type of thing.)

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 18:12:01 PM UTC

I never supported term limits (0.00 / 0)

at least not a two term limit...I actually support increasing limits to three terms.

but not the way it was done. They should have put it to a referendum. Had they, I would've supported it and organized on the pro-extension side. I actually think a term limit extension to three terms would easily pass.

My problem is not with the policy, it's with the process.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 20:07:13 PM UTC

exactly (0.00 / 0)

this really isn't about term limits per se, it's about council overturning what citizens have supported at the polls more than once.

if they wanted to extend or even get rid of the limits, they should have gone back to those citizens and made their case.

they didn't and should be made to pay. period.

TODAY is day one. It always is.

---

by: phillip anderson @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 20:35:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]