A Term Limits Twist?

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun
NY Sun
NEW YORK SUN CONTRIBUTOR

With speculation rife around City Hall that Mayor Bloomberg is preparing to allow the voters of the city to have their say on term limits in yet a third ballot referendum, we have to admit that we are on the fence ourselves on the issue. For one thing, a third referendum would make it even more brazen for the lawmakers to extend their own terms — as if it weren’t brazen enough to do so after two referenda, in 1993 and 1996, showed voters backed term limits. Our advice to the mayor — not that he needs it — is to have some fun with the issue. The mayor could tell the Council Members he’d support sending the issue back to the voters on two conditions.

The first condition would be that the question be divided into two parts — the first on lifting term limits on the mayor, the second on the council. This would be a fine way to measure that gulf in popularity between the mayor, who is widely regarded as effective, and the council, which is widely regarded as a waste of time, even if some, such as the speaker, are showing a real knack for leadership. It’s possible the voters would agree to allow Mr. Bloomberg to seek a third or fourth term in office, but require the City Council members to step down after two terms.

Wouldn’t that be a fine outcome? We’ve been urging Mr. Bloomberg to run for president, largely because, on a net basis, he’s been a highly successful mayor. Though we haven’t agreed with him on every issue, and though it’s not clear who the other candidates for mayor would be, the city could do a lot worse than have him in office for another four years. Eight years isn’t that long for a big city mayor to serve — the mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino, is in his fourth four-year term, having first been elected in 1993.

The second condition would be a “loser pays” provision requiring the Council Members to reimburse the city for the cost of conducting the referendum and to reimburse New Yorkers for Term Limits whatever funds it spends fighting the extension of the provision. The Ronald Lauder-backed New Yorkers for Term Limits has spent about $4 million winning two referenda on the issue, and if the Council wants to have a third go of it just because 36 of its members are now facing term limits, the Council members should pay the bills, not the taxpayers. If campaign fund are to be used, it should come from actual contributions, not taxpayer matching funds.

With those two conditions, the mayor could tell the Council members, go ahead, take your case to the voters. The irony is that nearly all of the Council members now facing an unwanted exit from office wouldn’t be there in the first place had not term limits created a place for them by clearing out the original dead wood.

NY Sun
NEW YORK SUN CONTRIBUTOR

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.


The New York Sun

© 2025 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use