wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Many of us admit that Mayor Bloomberg's corporate management skills have been a large part of the reason for his successful running of New York City. Would you throw out a successful CEO after eight years simply because a corporate charter dictated term limits or would the stock holders vote to change the rules and keep the CEO? I know what I would do.

Let's vote - if ya don't want him, ya vote against him (or for one of his opponents) - if ya do want him, ya vote for him! What an idea!

I'm a big fan of Bloomberg, but I no longer live in NYC, and I would like to see him on the national stage at this moment, tho I don't know in which capacity. Public health czar? Something. He's good, and I can see the argument for wanting to keep him on as mayor.

On the other hand, I think a graduation to the national stage would do him (and us) a world of good, specifically because it seems that one of his problems here was that he sometimes viewed Albany as "too pesky" to kiss ass to, and if he were on the spot in front of the whole country, he'd have to rein himself in, and in that way could find his real potential as a change agent.

Anyway, reading through this particular thread of comments, I'm amazed by how much it reads like a stage script. I think it could be an interesting play, and should be staged by WNYC.

I've always voted against term limits. I think they're a bad idea. I'm glad Bloomberg is finally on board with this. So let him and the Council vote the term limits out. But the legislation should come into effect 2, 3 or 4 years from now to exclude incumbents. That would be a vote on the side of virtue!

What hyopcrisy! A one -time exception for Bloomberg and current councilmembers? Didn't Giuliani also make a power grab on the grounds of his unique capabilities. Either end all term limits for everyone for every election to come or Bloomberg goes. I also criticise WNYC for its 6 PM news segment today in which the commentator interviewed only people wildly enthusiastic about our "superman mayor, "let him be mayor for a hundred years." Bloomberg as Berlusconi. Disgusting.

I think Bloomberg has done great things for the city in some respects, and I am not opposed to extending term limits. However, I would not vote for him again. I think he has focused too much of the city's resources on growth and glass sky-rise apartments. I was a huge supporter of congestion-pricing, and I will vote for anyone else who supports measures to lower traffic and emissions in the city. However, I think we get a new leadership that focuses more resources on education, especially now that we see the success of the Harlem Children Zone. Basically I want to see someone who remembers that there are families in the city who make less than 100K. I do want to see term limits repealed however, because I think we have great representation in the city council, and I hate to see some members lose the ability to run again and have to drop projects (or drop their opposition to projects) that are still outgoing. I would almost like to see the city model after the federal government, where the council doesn't have term limits while the executive branch does. I do hope well for Mike though, and would love to see him get a position in the next Presidential Administration where he can help us transition to a new energy infrastructure. I think to meet these challenges we will need someone who can run a big project and has CEO experience.

I am against term limits in principle and have voted against them twice. But I am OPPOSED TO any term limits being changed for those currently in office. This is a reprise of Giuliani trying to stay on in 2001.

Brian said that Bloomberg had been working with his supporters for several weeks. We saw one piece of evidence in the NY Times: business people worried about the ordinary folks (Quinn) as candidates. (an article that ran a few weeks ago)

Bloomberg? NO WAY! Why is this not a tinpot dictator move?

Let them go back to the voters some time with another referendum. We can get along very well without Mike!

#73

Sure, sounds simple.... How, exactly, do you define a 'crisis' and who gets to decide if and when we are experiencing one?

Mayor Bloomberg has been an excellent mayor
for everyone, but especially for the
Steinbrenner's of Yankee Stadium,
and the developers of luxury housing.

I always vote, even if it's for dog catcher.

So I voted in favor of term limits both times.

I don't think Mayor Bloomberg should
try to circumvent the expressed wishes
of the New York voters by altering
the referendum to his liking.

I think it's time for the "Next Person".

During 9/11 Giuliani wanted to stay on
also, because we just wouldn't know what to
do without him.

Well in turns out, Mayor Bloomberg was
elected and stepped right into Giuliani's
shoes, just fine.

I also voted for Mayor Bloomberg each time
he ran.

I voted for Giuliani each time he ran also
as well.

Mayor Bloomberg can run for governor
of NYS if he wants and he will probably
get elected.

But a deal is a deal.

New Yorkers voted for term limits
and Bloomberg shouldn't try to wiggle out
of that.

A mayor can be a terrible mayor and still be voted in again and again!

Just look at the record of former mayor kotch!!

I love this Pollyanna perspective that people have regarding term limits, those who have the power will get voted in over and over again.

That is why the people of NYC have voted on term limits twice.

The disparity between rich and poor and people of color and white is extreme in this city, hence white people with the exception of one person,

hence white people have always been elected over and over again!

Even with the fact that the city has a majority people of color! and has always been a diverse city.

Those of you supporting a third term for Bloomberg should realize that this will also apply to city council members, some of whom should not be allowed to run again. And it's not that easy to run against an incumbent so it's sort of specious to say that voters can "just vote him out". Bloomberg's pals in business would be thrilled for him to helm the city during a fiscal crisis to make sure their interests are well protected. Look out how he wants to impose the 7% property tax. So what is he going to require from the business community and corporations to help the city out during this crisis?

Response to "michaelw from INWOOD" - comment #15

1. 2 $3 Billion sports stadiums which have plunged this city into a financial crisis
-*- The stadiums are a small part of this "financial crisis." Add on his dedication to the West Side Stadium which didn't happen.

2. Cranes falling and killing people - Bloomberg pushed and appointed corupt people to manage building in the city
-*- I agree.

3. The poor school systems in NYC - Has done ZERO to improve
-*- He has done as much as he can as mayor. The NYC public schools suffer due to a lack of funding - from the state. He can't control the state budget.

4. Transit Strike did nothing to prevent
-*- The MTA is a state agency, he has almost no say, and no control, over a state agency.

5. Did nothing to prevent Fare increases
-*- See response to issue #4 - but, last year he worked with Spitzer to delay a fare increase.

6. Kept police pay low
-*- Police pay was low when he came into office, the recent contract increases pay for all officers, especially first-year officers who will see nearly a $10,000/year increase over current levels.

7. Arrested every man, woman and child during the Republican National convention.
-*- There were many unlawful arrests. But, the GOP and the secret service wished to lock-down the city during the convention. Again, out of his hands.

Elections are term limits. Term limits protect people from voting by ensuring that the leaders will change without their participation. Is that really democracy?

I really enjoy reading all those posts, who are for allowing Bloomberg to have a third term,

how hypocritical people are, when an issue soots their world views how quickly we forgo all rational thinking "yeah he's great let him be mayor again".

Were is the rationality?

This is so nuts and mad. Billionaires think they know everything. There are other ideas out there.
This is the city that never stays the same. Move on and change.

Shock Doctrine, Shock Doctrine people remember that little tidbit. Bloomberg indicates this is the premise why he should get a third term.

If you are bad mayor that should not give you the right to over rule the people on this issue as Giuliani tried during 9/11, and just because you believe a mayor was a good mayor does not also give you the right to over rule the people on this issue. We have laws for this reason, to prevent our emotions from being the guiding force to decision making. This is exactly how the religious right organizes it's political perceptions.Which the people on the other side accuse them for being irrational.

I'm all for a third term, but I'd like the way it's permitted to be less shifty.
I'd like there to be some kind of third, non-partisan party that decides (in all cases like this, from now on) if the major part of a mayor's previous terms have been positive or in such a state of progress as to call for an opportunity for a third term.

Maybe a referendum.

I think Bloomberg has done well enough for me, personally, to want him to keep going and not have to drop the ball.

I voted against term limits. The vote did not go my way. Term limits became the law. Term limits prevented a third Guiliani term. I respected his leadership after 9-11. I was happy that he was not allowed a third term. I did not vote for Bloomberg or Green the first time. I voted for Bloomberg the second time. While I do not approve of every Bllomberg initiative, I think Bloomberg has done a better job than all NYC mayors in my memory with regard to both his initiatives and his mostly non-Political management style.

Since it is legal for the City Council, to amend the term limits law--- and this is important--- and since there is sufficient time to debate the change-- months-rather than days or weeks. I support the effort to allow the Mayor a third term. The decision for Guiliani to have a third term would have to be made under sever time pressure-- like the way we went into the Iraq War-- and now the push for an immediate bailout of credit markets/wall street.

If someone does a good job for you in past then he or she should be trusted to do so in the future.He should be allowed to run for third term by the vote of the people only.For those who think that NYC will be here with or with out him just like how NYC has survived in the past 100s of years, well non of us were alive in the past 100s of year but currently he is the man in charge who has done a excellent job for this city so we should thank him for wanting to carry on his public duties and allow the decision to go to the public vote and see what the majority have to say. Lets not forget the great job this Mayor has been doing and now that this citys economy is in trouble again he is the only one with a favorable track record of succeding.

I hate artificial term limits, which is what we have now in New York City with the forced-two-terms-and-then-you're-done rule for all elected officials. We've always had 'term limits' insofar as we have regularly scheduled elections - if the voters don't want someone they can vote for someone else. But it is worth noting that the voters have twice in the last 15 years voted for the forced limits. And the 2001 election, when term limits were in effect and in which more than than 30 of the 51 Council members were forced from office by term limits, brought extraordinary change and fresh faces and ideas to the Council.

Nonetheless, it is the height of hypocrisy for the Times and Bloomberg to now want to undo what democracy (those two recent votes in favor of the limits) brought. This from a mayor who wouldn't have gotten his current day job but for his loud noise and that of others, including the Times, in opposition to Giuliani doing then EXACTLY what Bloomberg is hoping for now - an extension beyond the two-term limit!

I urge that any action the Council and Bloomberg take should be prospective such that none of those who are term limited in 2009 are permitted to remain in office beyond the current two terms. In this way, the current Council and the Mayor are not the self-interested beneficiaries of any change in the law and the voters are given the opportunity to put forward another referendum to weigh-in on the Council's and the Mayor's action in November 2009.

Bloomberg is a rich man on a total ego trip.

This is all about his own self aggrandizement and glorification.

He seems to be a decent competent follow; but he's not the ONLY person qualified to be mayor. If he believes that the man is delusional.

To overturn what the PEOPLE voted on so that the mayor can stay in power (along with the rest of the pols who will vote to overturn the PEOPLES vote) is not democratic.

Bloomberg can spend a couple of hundred million bucks on advertising and PR to have his way; but that doesn't make him fit to be the "King" of New York.

The man's ambition is boundless, and at this point, toxic.

I used to have respect for him; but this power grab has blown his cover.

fitting in, part II:

Given the reliance on testing, making sure that tests are well designed, properly used and the those who depend on them are properly trained to understand their strengths and limitations is essential. Has his DOE done anything about that? Not at all. Really, literally, not at all.

What he has done, however, is put more pressure on principals, assistant principals and teachers without giving them the kind of training and support that they need to be successful in the long term. His theory of school improvement does not go so far as to explain how his structural or testing changes will lead to improved instruction -- which is what school improvement must lead to. And if his theory of action does not even address that, there's no reason to think that instruction will be improved.

So, I am against Bloomberg in ways that I was not in 2001 -- when I was hopeful about what he would do for education.

But this has nothing to do with term limits. I am against term limits, as I think that that is was elections are for. But I am even more against changing the rules or laws that govern elections for the sake of particular candidates. And that is what people are talking about.

fitting in, part I:

Why I cannot back Bloomberg:

This is an overwhelmingly Democratic city. The people of the city identify with Democrats and Democrats are more concerned with the kinds of issues that affect most people in cities. Yes, Republican policies are better for those with high incomes and NYC has a lot of high income people, but NYC has far more middle and low income people.

I do not hold against Bloomberg that he switched parties in order to game the system by bypassing a crowded Democratic primary. But trying to get the 2004 Republican Convention was a betrayal of the city. The Bush administration has denied 9/11 funding that it once promised, tried to cut of funds for the long term care for Ground Zero workers, and been more concerned with Iraq than catching those actually responsible for 9/11. And yet they used the fact that their convention was here in NYC to make themselves the party of 9/11.

In addition to that, the unconstitutional way that his police handled protesters violates the very spirit of this nation.

And then we get to his biggest issue. When he first ran, he said that we should judge him on the schools. Well, test scores are up. But test scores are up nationwide.

Has anyone ever heard of the "Shock Doctrine".

The People have spoken on this issue not once but twice.

enough is enough.

The greatness of our leaders is measured not only by how well they have led but how readily they let go of power. George Washington, by that standard has to be our greatest leader - he could have been king. Mayor Bloomberg may be our greatest mayor but his term is up and he must go. The world is still open up to him governorship or Congress should be in his future but not this pitiful hanging on to power because he can. He is demeaning himself in my eyes. He stopped Guiliani in his tracks during a similar bid for permanent mayorship he should stop himself now.

Thank you.

I have always opposed term limits as a lazy way for the electorate to escape its responibilities to judge, evaluate, reward and punish their representatives.

If people dont want to make decisions re their reps, then they shouldn't vote. But dont allow this law to replace judgment...and this has nothing to do with the Mayor tho I wld like a chance to vote for him.

I lived in NYC for nearly 20 years and Bloomberg is the least political, and most change oriented executive the city has had in my lifetime. While somewhat unorthodox for him to benefit from the proposed change, these are not doctrinaire times we live in. While Guilani seemed reluctant to let go of his 9/11 spotlight (and still is), I don't think Bloomberg's motivation for staying on is the same. The times demonstate that we need intelligent level headed leaders who are actually experts about some of our biggest problems, and not hack politicians who have no views of their own--only those of the lobbyists they listen to. Seems like more of a need for Bloomberg's industry knowledge and leadership as well as his financial management discipline than Guiliani's grandstanding. There ARE pygmies lined up to take his place. How is that better for the City?

Ever heard of the rule of law !! look it up!

Law is dead. Human are not. If we just follow the rules and ignore the great thing, I think it is a big lost to the New Yorkers.

Bloomberg wants a third term to keep himself in the public eye for four more years until the window of opportunity opens to run for higher office. He has his sights on Albany and Washington.

I'm against the idea of term limits. But you don't change the game in mid-stream...there should be another referendum, and the current incumbent should not get to change the law for his own benefit...
Even more than is typical for NY mayors, Bloomberg has been a mayor for the real estate interests and for the wealthy. He's been a catastrophe for the schools and for those of us in the middle and lower class demographics in the city.

This seems from a strategic political perspective, since the Spitzer fiasco the Jewish community are trying to position them selves for future political issues that relate to Israel!!

Just when before the Iraq war Bloomberg stopped all protest until after the war started...NYC city is very influential, so having control of NYC city for the Jewish cause is strategic.

What is going on! Do the people have no say in this government anymore. No! The term limits were established (and established for a reason) and EVERYONE needs to comply. This is pure ego. Quite frankly I don't think he's so great, crime is up, the homeless are again out and about panhandling on the street corners! Education is lagging, not to mention his poor handling of the congestion pricing situation.
I feel I'm living in a third world country with politics being handled the way they are today, it's a scary time and we need to stop politicians from thinking they can change the laws when it suits their agenda.

I am quite tired of the "NY will survive without Bloomberg." It is another variation on the "we don't need no bailout" noise. Both seem to imply that the fact that we can survive something makes it fine to go through. Is that all we are looking for? survival? Do we not care whether one option is blatantly better than the other, as long as we can survive the bad one? and what for, standing on a relatively empty principle?
I understand the hazard of perpetual incumbency, but we are not making a constitutional amendment here. This means we can actually have flexibility. No crisis - reinstate the limit. It actually is that simple.

The brightest and most qualified rarely run for office, the power of incumbency is grossly underestimated by the electorate, money rules in today's politics, and the voter is sadly uninformed about most public policy issues. And you ask whether term limits should be abolished for a billionaire mayor. The voting public needs to be protected against itself.

I'm sorry but I don't understand why people think he's such a great mayor? Is it the way he's kept subway fares down? His implementation of public programs? More money in the form of grants for the Arts? More affordable housing? Health care reforms?? The way he kept Stuyvesant town from being sold to a huge corporation, or the way he intervened in Rattner fiasco?? The way he's always sided with the 'little' guy? hmm?
...I just don't get it.

I ask: are you better off than you were 4 years ago??

While the city can survive with or without Bloomberg, the City budget at this time of economic concern, which looks in good shape versus the New York state budget (which is a mess), makes me think the voters might want to consider his stewardship for another 4 yrs.

Don't confuse the issues:
The question should be "do we support term limits. Whether Bloomberg did a good job or has lots of money is not the issue.
The question of term limits is tied to whether we trust the electorate to make good decisions. If we think incumbents or millionaires have an unfair advantage because of the money they can raise and spend, then we should address the issue of election funding, not term limits.
If you revoke or change the law, it's on the books for everyone, Democrat or Republican, millionaire or not.

The term limit should be for two terms, but applicable only for Republicans. . . Otherwise, there should be no term limits.

While I have been happy with the job that Bloomberg has done while in office, I am against extending term limits.

In regards to the other comments about letting him run again and letting the voters decide, we HAVE let voters decide. In voting for City Council, we elect the people who make the decisions about term limits. In theory, we have already let our voices be heard.

We had a mayoral transfer of power shortly after the tragedy of 9/11. To say that the the term limits law needs to be changed in light of the crises sounds like nothing more than an authoritarian power grab.

We have to look beyond Bloomberg. This needs to be a debate about term limits, not about whether or not Bloomberg should run again, because this would be a decision that would be with us for years to come.

Yes to Mayor Mike Bloomberg! Let those of us who want him to vote for him again and let those who don't vote against him if that's their wish.
I wish he were running for President!

Whatever happened to loving someone or something so much you need to set them/it free?

No, I don't trust my fellow-voters to always make the right decision. Just look at the fact that Bush won a second term. Imagine if Giuliani had the option of running a third time with all the fear that was purposely being generated back then.

What did Bloomberg do to avert the economic crisis??? So why should we trust him to solve it?

We have run a country based on checks and balances. We can change the term limits, but they work to effectively ensure that a those politicians who don't do their job, don't try to slide back in. We let the laws slide when FDR had to pull the country out of a Great Depression. Are we at that point again?

I would rather see him step down, and then run for Governor of New York.

Term limits were voted in by referendum. I think the will of the people should be respected. Mr. Bloomberg is one of the best Mayors in my lifetime.

Term limits encourages new leadership to develop and for people to move on.

Lets keep it that way - otherwise put up for another referendum.

By their stance on this issue- The New York Times proves itself to be the rag that it has become!

Any much more of this from the NYTimes- and even dead fish will refuse to be wrapped in it!

bloomberg should just buy the city and run it like a principality.

If he buys the bad debt.

Term limits or not, he shouldn't mess with it. NYC is in good shape. We need him kicking ass in an Obama administration.

Voters are not stupid he did buy everyone from african american reverends in harlem to Iman the model to basketball players, Woopi Goldberg, Candice Bergan and so on, he will do the same in the next election to convince idiot voters that he is on there side! Go back to your multi million dollar mansion on the upper east side!

I believe term limits help limit bureaucratic problems and curruption. If they are eliminated we need to somehow deal with those potential problems. A clean sweep may be a good thing every once in a while.

If he pays off some of Wall Street bad debt by buying those instruments, then, and only then, OK.

Gun violence prevention and the movement toward sensible gun laws can only be helped by Mayor Bloomberg remaining in office for a 3rd term. As a former employee of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, DC and a new resident of New York City, Bloomberg's passion, and fortune, have done a tremendous amount to bring more national attention to such a noble cause as gun violence prevention. He is working to build national coalitions of elected leaders on all levels of government to fight the problem of illegal guns on the streets, but they are still in there infancy and need Bloomberg to stick around to grow and become even more successful.

Colin Weaver

"Sensible Gun Laws Save Lives"

Incumbents that want to run after their second term should be required to win by some sort of super majority.

NO!
The poeple have already spoken on this issue!

Of course. If voters dont want him in he wont win. All term limits do is give also-rans a second chance.

I like this mayor, but I don't agree with everything he has done, and I really don't like the WAY he is going about this. It's probably time for him to move on -- there are other ways he can serve ... governor?

Bloomberg appealed to his friends! Wake up Brian. The NYTimes write the news the way that they want it.

I grew up in NYC & worked there as well as maintain a small business there. Even though I no longer vote there, I believe very strongly in term limits. It is 1 of the few ways we can get some control back from the entrenched politicans who serve their own interests, rather than the people's.
REMEMBER what they said would happen when almost the entire city council would change over due to the term limits! Chaos or worse. What happened? Nothing, things got better. REMEMBER what they said post 9/11 & we have to keep Mayor Rudy. Well we didn't & what happened? Things got better with Mayor Mike.
He is not ir-replaceable, no one is. If he cares so much, he can stay on in some unpaid capacity to help the new mayor.
This is just a back door way to overturn the will of the voters & letting the city council & other positions, like Boro-Presidents to stay longer. NO WAY! We don't even need Boro Presidents.
This is a disgrace, my words & Mayor Mike's words!

i have always opposed term limits, they discourage quality people from running. There is a lot to be said for the combination of experienced representatives working with new ones. All new is just spinning wheels.

Definitely change the term limits. First, they're undemocratic, depriving people of the right to elect whomever they want. Second, in our current situation, they would deprive us of the best mayor New York has ever had. We'd be cutting off our noses to spite our face not to allow Bloomberg to run again.

The thing I would not do, though, is say that we need to keep Bloomberg to deal with the economic crisis. That sounds much too much like Giuliani after 9/11--although Rudy's idea was far worse, since an election had already been held and Rudy wanted to stay in office without a new election! But Bloomberg's present justification smacks too much of the discredited "indispensable man" theory. No man is "indispensable." But the fact is, Bloomberg is a great mayor and we'd be stupid, and undemocratic, not to give him a chance to run again. Does the city really want Anthony Weiner or one of the other lightweights who are planning to run instead? We need big projects, big ideas, big changes, and good management. Bloomberg is the only candidate who offers all of those.

Koch had three terms, and presided over the beginning of gentrification in the city. Bloomberg has gotten undue praise: he's done very little for the middle and lower classes in terms of housing, and for the first time, we're actually seeing a Manhattan that threatens to be mostly segregated by income - are these the people who want a third term?

This decision should not be based on whether or not people like this mayor or their current city council member.

Whether Bloomberg has been a good mayor or not is not the point. Neither his strengths nor is weaknesses are the point. And yet, most of the comments on this page are about Bloomberg.

Let us, for the sake of this discussion say that he is a good mayor, but acknowledge that he has also done some things poorly. But let us also think about the mayors of the future, some of which will be worse than him.

If term limits were a good idea before, why would or wouldn't they be a good idea in the future?

The Mayor should leave office. Two-terms is enough and we need new vision. While I agree that in some people's eyes, he has done a good job, but he has also made the price of real estate skyrocket with his rezoning of one neighborhood after another pushing middle class and the poor out. All I have to say is "Beat It!"

Great Idea! It doesn't matter if you love him or hate him you have to admit Bloomberg has made City politics and government interesting. Think of how much better and more humane our City government is today. He has modernized city government, and improved the accountability of our school system. Personally I think the 311 system is fantastic and enough reason for me to vote him a third term. He did a great job for the City after 911 keeping the City financially viable without layoffs. He gave everyone confidence. We need that today.

I like Bloomberg and I'm for a third term. but something we should think about is if we get rid of the term limits, we should also have the opportunity to get rid of someone who's doing a bad job in between terms.
Kind of like the european "no confidence" votes

Absolutely not! With the muck we’re in with a president who questionable bends or breaks the rules; New York city shouldn’t dare display some sort of gesture that doing this okay when people think this is a good rule to break. We need to show that democracy is capable of producing more than one person that can do a good job… if we have ‘buyers remorse’ about term limits than change term limits the DEMOCRATIC way!

I'm for another term as long as he gets the following done, or advocates for these issues (I realize some are not in the cities realm of control, but that's my point)

1. instant run off voting, non partisan primaries.

2. Reinstall the commuter tax.

3. Take back control of the mta (at least the subways).

4. End tax giveaways to corporations.. who cares if they go to jersey city!!!!!

On the point about limiting project scope due to term limits, there is/was a project in San Antonio that was nearly impossible to accomplish due to term limits of the mayor there (the development of the canal through the city center, a beautiful area). This forced (at least) three consecutive administrations to work together, even when they were out of office. It's tough, but it's been known to happen. I don't think Mayor Mike would really leave the spotlight if he wasn't in office.

Compared to the President, the Congress, and the State Legislature Bloomberg is the best politician going.
I have many serious disagreements with him, but I still support him.
His most important quality has been fiscal responsibility and telling the truth.
Never liked term limits anyway.

Why are we talking about this as if it were a fait accompli? Is it that Bloomberg is a billionaire, and so is Lauder? Can someone please explain why a law arrived upon by referendum is suddenly open to legislative manipulation? I've never supported term limits, but I have always supported consistency in democratic mechanisms. I smell a rat. By the way, much as I like the majority of what Bloomberg has done, I have always been uncomfortable with this man since he bought his way into office by pandering for the latino vote in '01.

You wouldn't think a billionaire would be so sneaky and power hungry - and you wouldn't think he'd be deluded enough to think New York needs him for another term. He has mistaken being entrenched for being indespensible. I wish he would just sell the City back to the people and go buy himself a nice little country somewhere.

I think he should be given a third term. If it's not broken don't fix it. This should also go for Presidents. If you have a good President why not let him or her keep going.

I've never supported term limits -- especially just two terms. Voted against them twice. (I would support repealing the 25th Amendment as well.) Too much turn over is as bad as too little -- give them a chance to really do something. Although I'm glad they were in place so Giulini couldn't run after 9/11. I would support Bloomberg's running again (though I've never voted for him either). Especially considering the pygmies who are lined up to take his place.

I think changing the law (without referendum) from 2 to 3 terms is fine.

I have to admit that a lot of my decision not so much based on the fact that I think Bloomberg has done an excellent job, but that the crop of his potential replacements scare the crap out of me. Especially considering the kind of economic and fiscal environment we're heading into.

Instead of term limits, how about an "incumbent handicap?" For each year in office, add 1% to the plurality necessary for that person to be re-elected. So Bloomberg would need a 58% plurality. Any legal problems with this?

This is absolutely ridiculous! You can't change the law after the fact just because you're power hungry. Isn't that why he wanted to run for President? Allow New Yorkers to vote on this. This is not a decision for politicians brokering back room deals.

Brian should ask for called who have changed their mind on term limits.

He should ask them if they'd change their minds again, if there was a really bad mayor, or one they didn't like.

I like Bloomberg over Quinn and Thompson.

But what about the future effects? Would that be too much political power accumulation for future mayors and councilmembers.

I'm a big supporter of Mayor Bloomberg; however, I don't think any sitting office holder should benefit from a change in the law. Also, the law should be changed by referendum and not by Council vote. Finally, I believe that in NYC, the term-limits have gone a long way towards cleaning out the entrenched political machinery that controlled the city for decades. Maybe in another 10 to 15 years, we'll be ready to repeal the restrictions.

Brian, how arrogant of this mayor to use this situation that he is our savior, when he was running in 2001 he would have never been elected had it been for term limits. He based his campaign on the issue that he can rebuild the world trade center and we still have a hole in the ground, Mr Mayor stop trying to hold on to the power that you so have enjoyed.

Politicians should not change laws that affect themselves, whether it be term limits or raises in salary. If we allow the city council to change this, what keeps us different from banana republics where such tactics are employed in order to keep despotic regimes in power?

I like Bloomberg and feel he would be good for the city in a third term but the city will survive just fine without him.

We have always had term limits, we call them elections. Term limits infringe on our rights, as voters, to keep a good official in office.

This law has cost us some good public officials.

I say No.
Why?

1) in extending term limits for this mayor, we are also stuck with extending the term limits for others.

2) Just because you like THIS mayor, the term limits will apply for the next one, which you may not like, and incumbents are difficult to unseat unless there is MAJOR trouble.

3) While the city has improved in some areas under Bloomberg, some areas are not moving in a good direction. There has been too much sacrifice of public free-spaces and affordable housing in order to move pet projects forward. And too much energy was spent on stadiums and business interests. The WTC site and the transit hubs feels like a tug of war where the "winner" will get less than they paid for and the loser gets nothing.

Hello,
I own a condo in NYC. Mike Bloomberg and I share the same interior decorater, "Jamie Drake" lol...He has done a great job as mayor!
He has inspired me and others to stop smoking, and I don't eat transfats thanks to him. This is besides all the great things he's done for NYC. Call him Mayor Muse, he's got my vote for sure....cheers Dennis

Absolutely - let him stay on if he's willing. It would be a blessing for the city to continue to have his steady hand at the helm during this time of crisis. Go Bloomberg!

I've never supported term limits. It's the voter's responsibility to "throw the bums out" It's called "participation". Bloomberg should have a third term if the public wants it.

No Third Term for Bloomberg.

1. 2 $3 Billion sports stadiums which have plunged this city into a financial crisis

2. Cranes falling and killing people - Bloomberg pushed and appointed corupt people to manage building in the city

3. The poor school systems in NYC - Has done ZERO to improve

4. Transit Strike did nothing to prevent

5. Did nothing to prevent Fare increases

6. Kept police pay low

7. Arrested every man, woman and child during the Republican National convention.

ENOUGH?

I'm all for term limits, but 2 terms is just too short. Three is better, 4 is too much, but it should be put up for a vote. And don't even get into the "we've already voted on this, twice" bull. In the past we've always voted for/against, but never as to the appropriate length.

NO!!! Let the PEOPLE decide. Not that we have anybody to replace him in my view though I think Christine quinn is OK - BUT - BLOOMBERG PART OF The PROBLEM!!! He's Mr. Real Estate bubble/development. Democracy my a-- - it is moneyocracy. NO! Nobody else stands a chance against Mike.

New York City has existed for almost 400 years and will continue to do so with or without Mayor Bloomberg. The most notable support for this action is from the business community (as noted in the NYT article). What are they afraid of- a more liberal mayor coming into office?

If Bloomberg wants to change term limits because it's a good idea, it can take affect for the next mayor and council. I rarely agree with Fred Siegel, but we are about to get our very own Bloomberglusconi- Mayor for Life!

Big shocker. A person in power doesn't want to give it up. Sounds a lot like some leaders in Africa that have recently made the news.....

We all love Mayor Mike, but I'm not willing to change the law for one person for fear of letting in those who should *not* be in office longer than they should be.

Commentaries also note that a third term would not be like his first two. I'd be interested to hear what people think and expect from a third mayoral and council term.

Bloomberg also 'threatened' Tom Brokaw that he might want to take over his moderating duties on Meet the Press, making the same remark about his salary.

I think we should get rid of term limits and allow him to run for a third term. People can vote him out if they don't like him. I certainly agree that with the coming economic problems, we will need his help in getting through it.

Considering the funding Bloomberg alone has put towards the arts in this city, not to mention his movement to make this place a whole lot "greener", I say why not.

Ironically Bloomberg seems to be at his best during lush times not lean ones. the guy is great at spending money on all the right things.

But in a crisis -- after GOP convention behavior of jailing dissenters just to play it safe, then not apologizing -- i wouldn't EVER give him my trust for a second. He trusts only himself and therefore I vote for Bloomberg as Mayor of his Big Toe.

Over my cold, dead body

First, I don't like term limits. But that is not exactly the issue.

The real question is under what conditions legislatures & executives should be able to overturn referendums. I would offer that they should be very careful when it even occurs to them to do so.

When it comes to term limits, I do not think that elected officials should be able to repeal them for their own benefit. That is, if YOU cannot run in the election because of term limits, too bad. You should have done something about it earlier.

It's like pay raises. Raise them for your successors, not for yourself.

And terms limits should never be put in place or removed because of one particular candidate or elected official. They are not a bad idea because of Bloomberg, and they they were not a bad idea because of Strom.

I thought we already went over this. When no does not mean no anymore. How many times do we have to vote on this.

Keep the law. Quinn for mayor. Bloomberg can keep an eye on the books as comptroller.

1) Yes, he's a great mayor, and judging from the other candidates who have thrown their hats in the ring already, FAR more qualified for the job.

2) Let's be clear here - even if you change term limits, voters will still be able to vote in any other candidates when the election comes. A third term option does not guarantee an actual third term - it will still be in the hands of the voters.

I am against changing the law to allow Bloomberg to run again. NO WAY, enough is enough!