Bloomberg Should Come to Terms and Resist a Self-Dealing Power Grab

The facts were different but the mayoral abuse similar. In 1999, when running for the U.S. Senate, NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani tried to change the rules in the middle of a term. His effort to keep me, as public advocate, from succeeding him under the city Charter was rejected 3-to-1 in a public vote.

Is Mike Bloomberg, so different in approach and temperament, now imitating Rudy Giuliani?

After two public referenda (1993 and 1996) where New York City voters favored limits of two terms -- and after repeatedly saying that it would be "disgraceful" and "undemocratic" to overturn two public votes with contrary legislation -- Bloomberg's now telling aides, council members and publishers that he may flip-flop to support a superceding law so he (and others) can seek third terms.

It's one thing to change your mind on, say, whether the tax code should impose a 30% or 38% top rate or whether to continue supporting a war after it goes bad. It's quite another thing to do a 180 when you are ignoring voters to benefit yourself. The issue is not so much term limits, as Queens Councilman John Liu said, but who decides. "Is it 52 people -- the mayor and 51 council members -- or 8 million people?"

Reasonable people can differ over whether there should be term limits at all, or if so whether it should be two or three terms. But reasonable people cannot allow ambitious politicians to veto voters. Imagine that a mayor and council decided they'd had done such a terrific job that they each deserved, say, 1 $10,000 bonus. That would be repudiated by all as as corrupt. So why would it be ok if the self-serving grab is not for money but for power?

Mayor Bloomberg must think about history. When George Washington refused to seek a third term, he began a precedent that stayed intact until the War in Europe changed FDR's mind and he sought a third term. Then Republicans in Congress pushed successfully for a constitutional amendment limiting Presidents to only two terms in office. That amendment, enacted in 1951, explicitly exempted President Harry Truman -- because it was considered wrong to change the rules to affect a sitting official.

Some people who like Mike and don't think much of the current field of replacements insist that the quality of the leader is more important than these principles. And given the Wall Street meltdown this week, his supporters are now arguing that his business skills justify continuation irrespective of City law. But that "indispensable man" argument holds no water. As Mike himself has repeatedly and self-effacingly noted, "I've always said that a new guy can do better."

Earlier this year, his spokeswoman said that "he's absolutely ruled out a third term." Speaker Christine Quinn, his potential partner in any back-room deal, added, "I will not support the repeal or change of term limits through any mechanism, and I oppose aggressively any attempt to make any changes in the term limits law." What's changed?

Bloomberg has come to his fork in the road: One route ends with his reputation and legacy intact as an accomplished, nonpartisan mayor. The other leads to a dead end where no one can ever again believe what he says, which convulses ongoing city elections where scores of candidates were understandably relying on enacted term limits, and that allows him to run and then either lose because of a public backlash or win ugly, by the weight of his wealth.

Personal notes: I am the Mark Green who as a mayoral candidate in 2001 wrongly agreed to Giuliani's desire to have 90 more days to help recover from the 9/11 calamity. My mistake notwithstanding, what's the equivalent catastrophe justifying an extension not of 90 days but four years? This week's Wall Street crisis is real but not the War in Europe or 9/11 -- and for those who exploit this moment to advance Bloomberg, hell why not just cancel the election and just hire Buffett?

I have no partisan interest here. Though I was the Democratic nominee who ran against Bloomberg in 2001, I've lauded him since on 311, guns, tobacco, mayoral control of schools, rainy day budgeting and more.

But I can't be silent in the face of this abuse of power, especially when there's a good option. Bloomberg can put a referendum on the 2009 ballot and then bring together a coalition to figure out a proposal that asks voters whether they now want to go to three terms prospectively, like federal term limits and Truman.

That wouldn't help Bloomberg and Quinn, but at least it would be honest and honorable. In the spirit of the U.S. Open, where Mike and I chatted amiably last week, the ball's now in his court.

Green, former public advocate of the city of New York, is president of Air America Media.

Comments

[rjgx]

Guess what? There"s no reason that a public referendum could not happen quickly along with legislating an emergency, one-time/one term only extension for the NYC mayoral election! If the voters don"t like it, they"ll vote Bloomberg out. Mark Green is wrong, the Giuliani extension was prudent and not a mistake given 9/11 and the need for strong leadership to get through those horrible first months. I am not a Giuliani fan, but he was the right guy for this tragic assignment.

NYC is in a financial crisis, fueled by the national economic crisis, because of LACK OF ETHICS & LEADERSHIP from responsible parties. This may not measure up to 9/11 as a reason to make an extension or third mayoral term exception, but I think it comes pretty damn close. Here"s why.

The economic meltdown we face will, if permitted to continue, produce unimaginable losses to individuals, families, institutions, and public confidence, -- yes even fatalities from despair, poverty, and budget cutbacks of fundamental services. As bad as 9/11 was, its long-term consequences may pale in comparison to this potential scenario.

Yes, redefining laws to fit any crisis is a slippery slope. The Japanese-America internments during WWll are a telling historical example of potential abuse. But that"s why we have a voting, participatory democracy. Do not preclude the chance for the electorate to make this choice because of a statute or time constraints. Remove all the blocks and let the people decide. Not Mark Green.

[PerryWhite]

If they keep everyone but you off the ballot, you might be elected mayor.

[sand252]

It would be okay if he sought to change it provided he was not included -- therefore he cannot benefit from the third term. Other than that, there is a limit and he should not seek to overturn it to benefit himself. That is just not an option.

[raker]

Term limits are undemocratic. They were foisted on people by Republicans who were unable to oust Democrats in the conventional way - by winning elections. Bloomberg should leave office and work to repeal New York's term limits. Honor, and legacy. Byootyful.

[MIKEinNYC]

On a local level, especially for executives, term limits are just plain stupid.

For better or worse, why shouldn't the local population get the leaders it wants? That would be true democracy. Isn't that what we espouse?

As far as representatives like senators, house reps, city council people go, that's another story. You can have instances where a legislative representative in some far-off place is making life miserable for you where you live.

The best kind of term limits that I can think of is voting for the other guy.

[RumiSouth]

If only it worked that way in real life.

IMHO, no one -- NO HUMAN BEING -- should ever be allowed to occupy an executive office of any kind for more than ten years. Graft and corruption are inevitable. Elites and machines take control. It has been ever so throughout the course of human history.

[MadOzbo]

People, like everything else, CHANGE.
Age, family, environment, you name it. YOU are NOT the same person you were 4 or 8 years ago.

Same for politicians.
The difference being, those changes that time and life bring MIGHT have changed that elected pol into someone who is NOT what he once was...

Does the name "John McCain" tell you ANYTHING?

We NEED term limits, to keep the waters fresh. To insure that people elected to office do NOT become complacent fat cats, addicted to the power, prestige, and money, that elected office brings.

It is a pity there are not term limits for the House and Senate...

[Wintergreen4President]

As a New Yorker, I voted against third terms and I've had enough of Mayor Mike and Christine Quinn and their ilk. They've turned their backs on this city and turned New York into the mall for the rest of America. They've made it impossible for the middle class to live here, only the very rich can afford to make the city their home. Without a middle class, there is no real New York. Just a Disneyfied pretense of one.

[NTO08]

I left NY precisely due to what you describe...even though my rent stabilized apt. was cheap by the standards of the day (2005), to walk out your door and spend an inordinate amount of money just to buy basics was an absurdity I could no longer tolerate...besides, as you describe, my neighborhood, the East Village, was in the midst of rezoning, thanks to Bloomie, that has forever changed the landscape of the neighborhood into ugly high rises that have no relation to their surroundings. The once bohemian character of the neighborhood as well as its mix of cultures of Ukrainians, Poles, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, African Americans, Japanese, artists and street denizens turned into a sea of ridiculous yuppies with their briefcases and ubiquitous Blackberries.
Bloomberg has some nerve trying to muscle his way into a third term...I still work in the City, and you can not walk a block without some construction crane looming overhead, ominously threatening another fatality as has happened too frequently of late. All this construction does NOTHING to benefit anyone except the wealthiest New Yorkers, some of the same fools who have put the country in an economic pit.
I never liked Rudy, but back then the streets weren't so dirty as they are now and there weren't so many panhandlers.

[davidly]

If the Fed bailed out NYC, would that make him President and CEO?

[jayded]

are you still bitter about Bloomie blowing you out in the mayoral election Mr. Green.

[citygal]

I think you would have been a fine mayor if you hadn't been betrayed by Freddy Ferrer & his henchmen, and if Bloomberg hadn't had such deep pockets he virtually bought the election, and of course we ultimately have Osama bin Laden to thank for his narrow victory. But I don't agree with your praise of Bloomberg, who has been Wall street's, not Main street's mayor and who has trampled on civil liberties. It's true he gets great press from the vested interests like big real estate (yes, I know your brother is a real estate 'mogul'), and after Giulani the Enforcer we all could breathe a sigh of relief. But where is all the affordable housing he promised us? Thank heaven we were spared the horror of hosting the Olympics, but many of his big Doctoroff-driven plans may still go forward while he shops for a "Legacy."
YES you are right we don't need more of Mike in a backroom deal.
PS The jury is still out on education reform (call it equipping a workforce with the minimum skills necessary ).

[NTO08]

Bloomie has SUCKED as Mayor...face it!

[Nommo]

Bloomberg ran as a Republican. Is it any wonder that he has no respect for the electorate's decision?
What, he has some more developers to turn the our neighborhoods over to? Him and Klein need to be gone. Wasilla, maybe.

[NTO08]

He also brought the ugly, nasty Republican Convention here...something he should be forever guilty of...we remember what he turned the City into...a police state...and the City is still dealing with the legacy of police overreaching their powers during that fateful August.

[Nommo]

To the tune of millions in recent settlements.