2009-08-14 / Letters

Bloomberg's Fourth Term

Dear Editor,

Yesterday a reporter asked Mayor Bloomberg if there is any guarantee that he won't try to seek a fourth term if he wins his current bid for a third term as Mayor. With a straight face, King Mike responded that the "law does not permit a fourth term!" When the reporter pointed out to Bloomberg that the term limits law did not permit more than two terms in office Mayor Bloomberg said, "But it does now. It permits only three terms, so I don't know. Talk to your City Council. The City Council changed the law. It's up to the voters whether they want four more years…"

Later that afternoon, realizing that the Mayor essentially stuck his foot in his mouth, Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser said the mayor is "not running for a fourth term; period." If I remember correctly (and I do!), Loeser said much the same thing back in January 2008, too.

This is the same Mayor who, back in 2002, speaking of the two public referendums wherein the public voted twice to uphold the two term limit law, told the Daily News, "I would oppose any change in the [term limits] law that a legislative body tries to make. I do think after Letters

you've asked the public to express their views twice, you don't try to circumvent the will of the people."

In 2007, the Mayor also described the actions of some members of the City Council who were trying to overturn the term limits law so that they could hold on to their council seats as

disgraceful."

In 2007, Council Speaker Christine Quinn also issued a statement saying, "After careful consideration and discussions with my colleagues in the Council, I have decided not to pursue a change in New York City's term limit law… I believe that overruling the will of New Yorkers—who have voted twice in favor of term limits—

would be anti-democratic and antireform."

Of course, in August of 2008, all that changed when King Mike decided that he wanted to run for a third term. Speaker Quinn and the rest of the City Council who, by that time, had their own problems with the Council's "slush fund" scandal, jumped right on the Mayor's bandwagon and passed legislation, without any public input, effectively negating the longstanding term limits law.

This Mayor and his City Council essentially told the voters of this city, who had twice voted for term limits, that their votes didn't count for anything when he and his Council simply rewrote existing law, without public input, amending the term limits law to allow for a third term.

And now, when asked about the possibility of a fourth term, he has the audacity to look at a camera and tell us that "It's up to the voters whether they want four more years…"

What I would really like to see is a

pointedly ask the Mayor how he can blithely state that "it is up to the voters" when he obviously disregarded those same voters when he conveniently amended the term limits law, despite the two voter enacted referendums mandating that the two term limit law remain in place? In doing so, did not he and the Council basically "circumvent the will of the people?"

After all, given the Mayor's track record with this issue, if the voters don't want a fourth term, there is nothing stopping our billion dollar Mayor and his cohorts on the Council from, once again, amending the term limits, essentially making Mike "King of New York for Life!"

PETER J. MAHON

Return to top


Email Us
Contact Us

Copyright 1999 - 2014 Wave Publishing Co. All Rights Reserved

Neighborhoods | History