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

JacqueMehoff

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:00:09 -0500

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

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 04:23:10 -0500

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

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:25:59 -0500

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

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:25:33 -0500

JacqueMehoff

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:30:48 -0500

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

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:15:23 -0500

#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

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:22:53 -0500

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

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 05:18:20 -0500

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

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:39:05 -0500

Up next: Campaign spending cap for NYC mayoral races!

blablanyc

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:57:22 -0500

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

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:50:49 -0500

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

Gregory56

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:35:06 -0500

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

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:08:39 -0500

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

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:00:08 -0500

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

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:56:32 -0500

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

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:49:45 -0500

Maybe Giuliani should run against him now.

IvoryJive

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:39:02 -0500

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.

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:34:19 -0500

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

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:31:01 -0500

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.

Spiritof76

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:30:59 -0500

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.

Dirk

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:28:12 -0500

News Flash: If you don't want a third term of Bloomberg, then DON'T VOTE FOR HIM.

Gothampc

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:12:43 -0500

Can't you smell the desperation of Bloomberg? He has nowhere to go. He hasn't distinguished himself in any way in the last seven years and he's afraid he'll end up like Ed Koch trying anything to get the attention back on himself. It's sad really that he puts his ego before the concerns of the citizens.

IvoryJive

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:04:58 -0500

I would approve of a vote for a third term for any president, yes. I have no problem with George W. Bush being on the 2008 presidential ballot. He would lose by possibly the largest margin U.S. history, but as far as I'm concerned, he can go ahead and knock himself out.

S.D.

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:01:04 -0500

jackdonaghy, you got it. The Issue isn't Term limits, it's the negation of Two Referendums. I have no problem with another Referendum, but I have a big problem with the mayor and his allies doing this so late in the game AFTER a referendum can be scheduled. I'll keep that list handy on Election day.

sinisterteashop

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:59:33 -0500

In my opinion, term limits, whether enacted by public referenda or not, essentially inhibit the will of the people by forbidding an otherwise eligible candidate for office. Then you'd approve of a third term run for George W. Bush?

IvoryJive

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:50:42 -0500

Yes rolltide darling, the people voted in 93 and 96. I know that. The people vote every year. The best thing about democracy is that it is flexible. It shifts with the will of the people. We are not living in 1996. 12 years later, the people as represented by their elected officials want something different. The fact that public opinion on term limits is so schizophrenic only highlights the paradox - we cannot ultimately vote to limit our own voting authority. In my opinion, term limits, whether enacted by public referenda or not, essentially inhibit the will of the people by forbidding an otherwise eligible candidate for office. Regardless, public referenda are not permanent laws. In fact none of our laws are permanent decrees as we have a common law system. The State Supreme Court has upheld that state constitution allows representative bodies to overturn public referenda. If you don't like that, you can draw up an amendment to the state constitution to make voter referenda only able to be overturned by another referendum or by the Supreme Court. Get to work. Also rolltide, I wouldn't look in the constitution for information on smoking bans, trans fats, abortion, etc. The constitution grants the state and city elected bodies authority to enact such laws, but does not specifically describe those laws. If you have a problem with those laws, you may have been in the minority of opinions when your elected officials enacted them. You may be suffering from the democratic principle of the "tyranny of the majority." How do you propose to resolve that?

jackdonaghy

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:44:30 -0500

#28, Koch was the mayor for 3 terms. NYers voted to limit terms from 3 to 2 in 1993 and re-affirmed in 1996. You're missing the point. We're having our rights taken from us. We should have voted, not the City Council.

cwbuecheler

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:44:08 -0500

Disgusting. Quinn's been awful for years, but I was actually reasonably ok with Bloomberg. Too bad he didn't have the class to go out gracefully. I'd vote for a cardboard cut-out before I vote for Bloomberg, now, no matter what ticket he runs on.

REALITY CHECK

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:41:52 -0500

#10, democracy is over because the City Council basically thumbed their nose at the electorate, saying that their legislation overturning the public vote was worth *more* than a public referendum (or TWO referendums, in this case). This is disgusting.

Will

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:36:38 -0500

Here is a list of the council members who thought it appropriate to thumb their nose at New Yorkers wishes and voted to extend term limits, rather than put it to a referendum. Christine C. Quinn Maria del Carmen Arroyo Maria Baez Leroy G. Comrie Jr. Inez E. Dickens Erik Martin Dilan Simcha Felder Lewis A. Fidler Helen D. Foster Alan J. Gerson Sara M. Gonzalez Robert Jackson Melinda R. Katz G. Oliver Koppell Miguel Martinez Darlene Mealy Michael C. Nelson Domenic M. Recchia Jr. Diana Reyna Joel Rivera James Sanders Jr. Larry B. Seabrook Helen Sears Kendall Stewart James Vacca Peter F. Vallone Albert Vann Thomas White Jr. David Yassky I have emailed all of them, saying that if they don't care about my vote, then they will not get mine, ever, for any office. NYers have a long memory and these politicians should remember that. marroyo@council.nyc.gov, baez@council.nyc.ny.us, comrie@council.nyc.ny.us, emdilan@council.nyc.ny.us, felder@council.nyc.ny.us, fidler@council.nyc.ny.us, foster@council.nyc.ny.us, gerson@council.nyc.ny.us, gonzalez@council.nyc.ny.us, jackson@council.nyc.ny.us, katz@council.nyc.ny.us, koppell@council.nyc.ny.us, martinez@council.nyc.ny.us, darlene.mealy@council.nyc.gov, nelson@council.nyc.ny.us, recchia@council.nyc.ny.us, rivera@council.nyc.ny.us, sanders@council.nyc.ny.us, seabrook@council.nyc.ny.us, sears@council.nyc.ny.us, vann@council.nyc.ny.us, twhite@council.nyc.gov, yassky@council.nyc.ny.us Christine C. Quinn, Inez E. Dickens, Diana Reyna , Kendall Stewart, and Peter F. Vallone, Jr did not list their emails on the City Council site. -Will

Editrixie

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:36:37 -0500

What's the big deal? Koch was mayor for, like, eons. Term limits doesn't mean we don't get to vote, all it means is he can run again. It's not like they decided to make him Mayor for Life or something - you still get to exercise your right to vote. Sheesh.

Potosi

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:34:05 -0500

Vote the bums out!!!!

rhonda718

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:31:17 -0500

Term Limits = Lazy People's Democracy

babyhitler

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:30:39 -0500

damn, this shit is just as wacky as my condo board elections. cut-throat.

JacqueMehoff

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:29:59 -0500

thank you, longacre. me classy to the nth degree. willllllburrrrrr. like I said in my earlier posts, I held my contempt for this mayor for too long. just wait til the SHTF, I got nothing to lose. horse jumping is a dangerous sport.

S.D.

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:28:29 -0500

Nice. I'll have to save the vote record so I can be certain to vote against the ones who voted for it. Mind you, our Gov't is NOT a Democracy per se, but rather a Republic, specifically a Representative form of Gov't. After two referendums, this 11th hour negation of the two referendums is just BS.

jackdonaghy

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:27:28 -0500

Let me preface my statement by saying that I love Mayor Mike and yes, we will have at least 3 options on the ballot since he's an independent. However, what happened today IS an infringement upon our democractic rights. There should have been a public referendum. (and there would have been a very good chance that Bloomberg would have gotten his way). This backdoor vote sets a very bad precedent. We cannot have politicians change the rules of the game when the end is looming. This is the kind of b.s. that happens in countries that we look down upon (i.e. dictatorships). Those of you who acknowledge that we don't have to vote for Bloomberg are correct, but you're only half right. Bloomberg's name should not even be on the ballot without him winning a referedum.

MT

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:25:33 -0500

Keep in mind we don't technically live in a democracy. We live a republic.

longacre

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:24:52 -0500

JacqueMehoff: You stay classy. If anything, these anti-Bloomberg sentiments are a symptom of his success as mayor. The professional complainers that make up a good portion of NYC's population have run out of legitimate problems to complain about, so they make things up.

sinisterteashop

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:23:54 -0500

Bloomberg wants his 9/11 so he too can become America's Mayor. Anyone who follows how the City Council works and hinges on the decision of the Speaker knows that this bill wouldn't have gone forward if it hadn't already been worked out behind closed doors to pass. But now a lot more people are watching and Quinn and Bloomberg are going to choke on their own poo-poo.

Gregory56

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:17:02 -0500

If anything we have been given a choice that we didn't have before. I suggest that everyone make the most of the authority that the Council has just given us and make our votes in 2009 count. I will be paying attention that much more over the next year and am glad that we now have 0 lame ducks in the council down from about half.

Steven

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:16:29 -0500

Bloomberg will be running as an independent - I would think he is anyway. At least this way it wouldn't tie up a Republican or Democrat to run as well. If the city doesn't want Bloomberg to win they shouldn't vote for him.

Rolltide23

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:14:14 -0500

don't see any contradiction in there. Additionally, there is nothing about mayoral term limits in the U.S. Constitution, the New York State Constitution or the City Charter. And hell, if you wanna play that game, there is nothing is any of those about a smoking ban, a trans fat ban, abortion, social security and all the other entitlement programs. Nothing. If you ca find me where in the Constitution it says you can kill a baby after you got it all stuck up in your cooch and now dont want it, Im all ears.

tblake

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:14:07 -0500

Roast these pigs on a stick come next November. DON'T FORGET and don't give into the fearmongering!

Rolltide23

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:11:32 -0500

de·moc·ra·cy (dĭ-mŏk'rə-sē) n. 1. A form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them. The people voted in 93 and 96. That is also democracy sweetie.

IvoryJive

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:05:51 -0500

Whether you are for Bloomberg or against him, allowing his name to appear on the ballot next year is NOT a subversion of democracy. That is absurd. Our elected representatives have voted to pass a bill allowing a candidate to appear on the ballot in next November's mayoral election. That is democracy in action folks. If you don't like him, don't vote for him. de·moc·ra·cy (dĭ-mŏk'rə-sē) n. 1. A form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. I don't see any contradiction in there. Additionally, there is nothing about mayoral term limits in the U.S. Constitution, the New York State Constitution or the City Charter.

goyogago

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:58:51 -0500

How is Bloomberg going to get us out of this 'crisis'? by that logic didn't he have seven years to warn us about it? or try to stop it? What a joke this guy is. so typical of a politician. all these council members should be thrown out on their asses. he's setting himself up for the 2012 presidential election. i really hope people see through this crap.

JacqueMehoff

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:57:33 -0500

I don't usually wish ill will to anyone cause I'm a nice guy. (ask my therapist) but I wish bloomberg's daughter get's chris reeved. (and pray to your God, any GOD, deity, cat, shaman and nostradamus) love them horsies.

BigWill

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:56:09 -0500

How is democracy over in New York? If the people don't want Bloomberg to be mayor again they can vote him out.

whitecastlerock

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:54:45 -0500

Is Fernando Ferrer running against him again?

Boss Tweed

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:44:16 -0500

Oct 23, 2008. The day democracy died in New York. What a disgrace.

fakenewyorker

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:44:01 -0500

YES All hail the doge of manhattan!

Rfive

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:43:46 -0500

Bloomberg 2009!

BlackieJones

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:40:30 -0500

NYC City Council - Subverting Democracy since 2008 This is fucking ridiculous.

JacqueMehoff

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:36:29 -0500

the extension is passed 29 for.

djwerdna

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:23:46 -0500

How was the public able to vote on the term limit issue twice previously? Were they special referendums or were they ballot questions?

S.D.

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:21:01 -0500

Actually, The City Council is afraid that they'll be getting the public P/O'ed so they're considering the Odds carefully.

Blairy Blair

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:15:01 -0500

Of course they'll vote to abolish term limits. The billionaire mayor wants his way and he'll get it. Tammany Hall once and always.