A Third Term for the Mayor?
Yesterday New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg successfully got the City Council to overturn their city’s term limits that had been approved by the voters twice. This clears the path so he can seek a third 4-year term. A number of the City Council can now also run for third terms as well.
In St Louis City we have no such limits in place. Our officials can stick around for decades if they like. They amass these huge campaign war chests that are used to intimidate newcomers from seeking office. New blood and new ideas are kept at bay.
I like term limits. Keeps people on their toes. Forces them to think about changing offices or moving out of public service. It doesn’t allow officials to get too comfy.
If someone can’t accomplish something in 8 years they are not going to get it done in 12,16, 20 or more years.
Maybe after I finish my Masters I’ll work on a referendum in St Louis to have term limits.
Term limits are a mixed bag. While most politicians can be replaced with little impact, there are a few that truly do great things, and it’s unfortunate when they do get forced out. From what I saw in Colorado, the unintended consequences of term limits are two fold, career politicians simply move from office to office (and their name recognition gives them a leg up), and paid staff and lobbyists gain more power, since they became the keepers of institutional memory – a not atypical path to a seat on Denver’s City Council was being a staff member for the predecessor. The reality is that it usually takes a year or two for any office holder to get up to speed, and if you’re a lame duck for the last year or two (exploring and campaigning for “other options”), half your tenure is spent being somewhat ineffective. Still, I think the positives greatly outweigh the negatives on the issue.
.
I obviously don’t know the details in NYC, but I’m not quite sure how or if an elected body can override the results of a citizen initiative, absent a finding of illegality. I’m sure we’ll learn more over the next few days.
We have term limits. That is what happens when the mayor has to run every 4 years. If I don’t like the job he has done, I get to term limit him (or her). Maybe I’m naïve, but if the voters are too stupid to make intelligent choices, why should we force them to choose from 2 new choices every 8 years?
I tend to agree with term limits. At every level, we have some politicians who are very good at getting things done and so we’re inclined to want them to stay and “finish the job.” I also see too many who make public service into a career. It becomes more of a way to feed your family than to serve your community. I am a huge supporter of Mayor Slay, but I’d certainly consider someone who could come with fresh ideas and an ability to further unite the city….and maybe pull off a real downtown redevelopment plan.
“We have term limits. That is what happens when the mayor has to run every 4 years. If I don’t like the job he has done, I get to term limit him (or her). Maybe I’m naïve, but if the voters are too stupid to make intelligent choices, why should we force them to choose from 2 new choices every 8 years?”
.
This is the correct analysis.
Beat me to the punch on elections=term limits. But I will add it’s the politicians that “do things” that bother me the most. I think we need more “do-nothing” as in “do no harm” office holders. If hope is the theme for 2008 my only hope is for gridlock. I think “do-nothing Congress” is music to my ears. At least we’re safe for a little while anyway.
The one big argument for term limits is incumbency. It’s almost always easier to get reelected than it is to get elected in the first place, especially if you’re running against an incumbent. Name recognition goes a long way with too many uninformed voters, and unless the incumbent is truly terrible, a lot of people will just vote for the status quo, over and over and over . . .
Term limits are great when you don’t like the guy in office (4 more years of bush is a terrible thought) and awful when you like the guy and don’t have someone good to follow in his footsteps.
You won’t get good governement until you get informed and engaged citizens. Until you get that, term limits does nothing.
if campaign spending were equalized for both new and encumbent candidates and campaign propaganda was properly regulated, i wouldn’t have a problem with unlimited terms.
I’m frankly for the term limits, I feel they’re important for the continuance of our democracy.. When 9-11 happened, Rudy Guiliani tried to snag himself a third term. No fan of the man, I was incredibly impressed with the way he carried himself during that time and was frankly worried that the next mayor might screw up the recovery. When his request for a third term was declined, he endorsed Bloomberg who won with a pretty good margin against Mark Green, who had been beatng him in the polls. Bloomberg was able to turn that win into a mandate and has been able to make some incredible changes in NYC government services. Now that the financial sector is in the dumps, Bloomberg is arguing that he is the one to steer NYC through it during his third term. While I think he would do a stellar job, I think this is his time for him to show leadership and endorse someone else.
I think you should stick to pointing out faulty curbs…..
“if campaign spending were equalized for both new and encumbent candidates and campaign propaganda was properly regulated, i wouldn’t have a problem with unlimited terms.” McCain-Fiengold anyone…….”properly regulated”….actually felt a chill up my spine.
We wouldn’t be worrying about term limits if we had good representation.
Term limits are useful, if not imperative given America’s culture. America is not really interested in new ideas, nor is America innovative. Hell with statistics, look at what is happening on the ground. Today, yesterday or last week.
The media, corporate America and the government: including federal, state and local, excludes any thought of a third political party. This despite the obvious chaos and mismanagement of today’s society. There is a lack of true free thought.
There is no money for mass transit, for health care, for solar energy, but when it comes to wars, bank, insurance and major automobile bailouts, the money is endless.
The American people are being fleeced and it won’t be long before the fleece turns to sheep.
As we’ve seen in the Missouri Legislature, term limits drain a legislative body of its institutional knowledge, and places those you should most fear of being in power (the lobbyists) exactly in the position in which you wouldn’t want them. The best term limit is a better candidate. If you are unhappy with your representation, find someone that has superior skills, knowledge and ability of both governing and running for political office.
â€â€¦.actually felt a chill up my spine.”
what? i have a feeling you get a chill up your spine every time you hear the word “regulated” regardless of the context. i’m talking about impartial FACT CHECKING before a commercial is allowed to air, for example. heaven forbid anything be regulated.
re McCain-Feingold:
.
as far as i’m concerned non-profits can spend as much money as they like on campaign adds provided that their facts are validated by an impartial third partly prior to release, and that no money, goods, or services exchange hands between the candidate’s campaign and that of the non-profit.
There are loopholes for everything, Adam.
^ i know. that doesn’t mean laws and regulations are useless.