Hello, Mayor Bloombergforever: City Council Votes to Pass Term Limits Extension, 29-22

Update, 4:35 p.m.: The City Council voted 29 votes in favor of extending term limits, to 22 votes against. Each member had the opportunity to explain their votes. Council member James Oddo, who voted against the legislation, wished he had some f-bombs left over and quoted the West Wing: "Quando dio vuole castigarci ci manda quello che desideriamo."/ "When the gods wish to punish us they answer our prayers." (Oddo said he hoped the gods were busy today.)

And here's Mayor Bloomberg's statement:

Today, the majority of the City Council decided to give the people of New York a fuller choice in the November, 2009 election. I believe that was the right choice, and I want to thank Speaker Quinn for her leadership. Those of us who work on both sides of City Hall must now move forward with the important decisions that face us, particularly finding ways to soften the fallout from the economic downturn and balancing our budget as revenues decline. We have a lot of work to do together to get New York through these tough times.

And then he went home to count his billions!

Earlier: So far, the City Council has voted to reject an amendment that would have called for a public referendum on term limits, the Times is reporting. The vote was 28 to 22, with one member, James Sanders Jr. of Queens, abstaining on the amendment, which would allow a public say on the decision to extend term limits from two terms to three for the elected positions, including Mayor and City Council.

The Council is now debating the main bill, which would simply abolish term limits without any meddlesome direct "voting" from citizens. Mayor Bloomberg officially started his push for a third term on September 30, and had said term limits could be changed by the Council, claiming it was too late for it to be put on the ballot.

While giving a speech endorsing the bill, council speaker Christine Quinn was booed and jeered from the balcony—which was standing-room only—when she insisted it was "ludicrous" to suggest the bill was the fruit of a "back-room deal." Not only did she claim there had been plenty of transparency during "two, well-attended public hearings, 20 hours of public hearings and a vigorous debate... Support for this bill is broad and deep," she also invoked President Bush. Politicker NY reports Quinn tried to find a positive about her term limits turnabout, "Many of us, myself included, have been highly critical of our president. When facts change, he won’t change his position on different matters."

The Times also reports that most New Yorkers were excluded from the meeting, which was not held in a bigger space despite enormous public interest. Even Gene Russianoff of the Straphanger's Campaign (and the senior attorney with a government watchdog group opposed to the term limits extension) was rebuffed and had to pull strings with council staff members to get up in the balconey: “I was able to get in because of the relationship I have with some people on the staff here. But the average New Yorker would not have fared as well as I did. That’s a problem for the average New Yorker who wants to participate in the process."

Here is NY1's tally of how the members voted. Terms limits had been voted on by NYC residents twice in the 1990s, with voters supporting a two-term limit both times. While billionaire Ronald Lauder poured millions into bringing about the limits, he supports the idea of a third Bloomberg term because of the economic issues facing the city. (Lauder is not so keen about other elected officials getting a third term, though.)

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on October 23, 2008 4:45 PM

Comments [rss]

JacqueMehoff

he knew he won't be liked,

remember how the FDIC didn't like his "girlfriend" for the job.

he's a bully through and through.

Editrixie

donpaulo, all that talk was rumor. He said he wasn't interested. He said he likes being mayor of NYC. Hey, at least he only gets paid $1 a year.

donpaulo

I am left wondering what ever happened to his honor's run at a national job. There was much talk about Bloomberg's next step not so long ago, when Rudy was stumping in Iowa.

Methinks he looked at his options and decided it was better to change the rules in NY than to seek another job.

donpaulo

I am left wondering what ever happened to his honor's run at a national job. There was much talk about Bloomberg's next step not so long ago, when Rudy was stumping in Iowa.

Methinks he looked at his options and decided it was better to change the rules in NY than to seek another job.

JacqueMehoff

here's another one,

I hope he get's caught up in that Bermuda Triangle storm that just sidelined another billionaire.

now who's sick????? iz dat bettr? am I jealous

ummmmm. durrrrrrrrrrrr. that ole jealous excuse is played out. his life is not worth more than mine.

willllllburrrrrrr.

danisaint

#32

The city council is supposed to represent the 'people' so 'you' did vote. If you have an issue with the way they voted, take it up with your city council official...

Jaquemehoff #11...It is really sick to wish harm to Bloomberg's kid...that just shows that you have no respect for human life. You can hate Bloomberg till the cows come home, but leave his kid out of it...she didn't do anything wrong except be born into privledge and wealth...maybe you are jealous of everything she has been given and will continue to get...just a thought...

If you don't want him as mayor....DON'T VOTE FOR HIM....DUH!!!!!!!!!!

GaryK

How many City Council members would have voted for this if it did not directly benefit themselves? 23 of the 35 council members who are at the end of their second term voted for the bill. Only 6 out of the 16 first term council members voted yes. So few voted for it because it will not benefit them, the word on the street is that first term council members will not be allowed to run for three terms. This is self-dealing and it is illegal, hopefully Bloomberg has not bought the courts too.

sowhtifithppnsitwll

sad state we are in. to have the same people vote on an issue they would and did personally gain from.

thats like me telling my boss i dont want a raise. imagine that.hah

they should all go to hell. the sooner the better. bloomie stuffs.

blablanyc

Up next: Campaign spending cap for NYC mayoral races!

blablanyc

Gregory56 - You're wrong about that. They all would lead and do what's best for the city. None of them would pull the nonsense Bloomberg does. I'm embarrassed for the city after what happened today.

NannyState

Republican or not, James Oddo is the f'n bomb.

Gregory56

No one should listen to anything that Thompson has to say on this matter. Or Weiner, De Blasio or anyone who works in albany where they've never heard of term limits. They are all too self-interested to be believed.

Anyone who claims that democracy - let alone the representative democracy that has served us well for a few centuries - has failed us is just using scare tactics to make people believe that the sky is falling. Its not, and nothing has changed except that those who oppose their incumbants will get to vote them out and those who support their incumbents will get to vote for them again. All that has changed is that voters have to make one more choice where they previously had a law to make it for them, for better or worse. So to Thompson, Weiner and all the chicken little's out there, shut up and go vote in 09.

ComptrollerSpokesGuy

New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr. issued the following statement today following a vote by the New York City Council on term limits:

Today’s vote is an affront to New Yorkers. It says that their votes and their voice do not matter, that bullying and heavy-handed threats are more powerful than democratic ideals.

I am saddened that our Mayor and majority of City Council members have put individuals before principles. Today our government chose to empower itself rather than the people it serves.

Despite the rising tide of opposition to a Council vote, and in the face of a public poll that showed nearly 90 percent of New Yorkers wanting the issue put to a voter referendum, our City Council decided to turn its back and close its mind. This is a sad day for New York.

blablanyc

By voting in favor of the term limit extension, the City Council have created more problems for the city and themselves than they can ask for. Oh, boy. This isn't over yet. There's more to come.

glob

I think Bloomy also wants to make a mayoral term 20 years to avoid this messy problem again. When do we get to vote for a robot mayor?

Ralph 2008.

ides_of_march

Maybe Giuliani should run against him now.

IvoryJive

I can't because the deadline has passed. But why should we have a referendum to overturn a referendum preventing an election? Let's just have the election and cut out the middleman.

S.D.

Just noticed:

"12 years later, the people as represented by their elected officials want something different."

IvoryJive, You sure about that? Without a Referendum, how would you know what the majority of the people wants?

IvoryJive

Because the deadline for a referendum had passed, the City Council elected to punt the issue to the voters in the next general election. Of course I agree a new voter referendum to overturn the old referendum would have been a better way to go. Regardless, the City Council can still legally overturn any referendum they choose. It is an understandably unpopular move, but they can do it. In this case, they overturned a referendum that just sends the decision back to the voters next Novemeber, which really isn't that big a deal. Unless of course you hate Bloomberg so much that you would prefer people not be allowed to vote for him.

Spirit of 76

The people saying that voters can just elect someone else seem to ignore the fact that incumbents have massive advantages. The only way to really lose as an incumbent is to really screw up, like Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Alphonse D'Amato and Ed Koch did.