wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

If de Blasio fights half as hard as he did on the term limits issue he will be the best choice public advocate, hands down. Mark Green....do I really need to saying anything about that guy?

Well Suzanne, I’m from a state (Virginia) with single term gubernatorial limits so the Commonwealth’s top executive only gets one shot, 4 years. Then they go on to be junior senator (Mark Warner), DNC head (Tim Kaine), or mayor of Richmond (Douglas Wilder).

And you beat me to it hjs, I was looking for 1993 and 1996. It was around sixty percent in 1993 (so a sizable majority), and Peter Vallone’s Proposition 2 to stay in office failed reaffirming the 1993 vote (but I couldn’t see by how much).

We don’t need Tammany nor political dynasties in this city, but there just seems to be a taint on this that sours me against any politician (or journalist) that talks about what “the people wanted” and ignores the true history of the referenda.

voter,
also i wouldn't say this wasn't an issue.
because there was no term limits (and add to the fact that this is a one party city) we had office holders for life in the city. peter vallone comes to mind, on the city council from 74-01. (his sone got his seat after term limits) in general the city council had very low turn over. there was less a democracy and more like a permanent ruling class. koch was also around too long also (he lost a primary race finally) I voted against term limits for the some of the reasons you said BUT there is a power of incumbency in this country (even bush won a 2nd term after all his failings)

SuzanneNYC,
the anwsers is 60%
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/04/nyregion/1993-elections-new-york-city-roundup-vallone-says-term-limits-issue-not-dead.html?scp=2&sq=election%201993%20referendum&st=cse

I would be interested to see the numbers on how many people -- what percentage of eligible NY voters -- passed this referendum. The pro term limits campaign was heavily financed by one multi millionaire (as noted in several posts). Those opposed were less organized and had much less funding to get the word out. Supporting term limits is one of those simplisitic ideas that seems populist and makes sense but really isn't and doesn't. If elected officials have only a limited number of years in office, they tend focus on the short term and not the longer term which is what you need to establish good public policy. So once again voters were led by a rich guy to vote against their interests. Kind of like what happened in Albany a few months ago. So I think it's a bad idea.

voter,
well i couldn't be more disappointed with the quality of voters after 30 years of reaganism has the electorate is out of touch with reality. there's little we can do if voter won't support issues in their own interest. they seem to only hear rich men and right wing nuts, but we can't take the vote away from stupid people.

Trust me, I have nothing against rich guys… I voted for Bloomberg 4 years ago and think he’s done wonderful things for the city (development policies aside.) And since Thompson seems to do nothing but stoke the fires of class warfare and complain about term limits not giving him a fair shake, I may vote for Bloomberg again. (And to be honest, I’m not sure Thompson grasps the gravitas of governing 40% of New York State, 3% of the United States, and the #1 terror target in the USA.) But this just wasn’t an issue in the forefront of New Yorkers minds until Lauder made it one.

hjs,

My point is that this issue’s mired in more Astroturf than the Brady’s back yard.
I would agree with you (we usually tend to agree) if this idea germinated with the citizens being unpleased with where their democracy was headed, but it was not. It was the brainchild of a jilted also-ran.
I’m not saying there wasn’t support for term limits before Lauder, but this was Lauder’s hobby horse; otherwise it would have been demanded years ago. I should mention I wasn’t a full resident of and eligible to vote in NYC until 2004 so I wasn’t here for the referenda.
I think what bothers me most about this is, much like in California and in health reform, one or two people get together and decide what the citizens want/need then pump millions or billions into it so phrases like “keep your government hands off of my Medicare” makes sense to voters and gains popular support.

Voter
we should thank that rich guy for helping out the local economy with his grapes.

voter,
that maybe be true, but the people DID vote for it. if anyone cares i don't like term limits (or the GOP) but i do support democracy. if the people want to sell their vote let them. not sure where you're going with this.

is your point that voters should be ignored? OK

that the people are stupid? maybe

that people will get what they deserve? always

hjs,

This is from the Times bio on Ronald S. Lauder

"Things did not work out as planned. After spending millions of dollars of his own money to run for mayor of New York in 1989 and 1993—including $12 million in the first Republican primary alone, in which he won only 37,000 votes (a cost of nearly $350 each) — he turned his attention to a very different political endeavor: establishing term limits for New York City officials."

Sour, sour $350 grapes :)

hjs,

It's all about history...

NYC did not have term limits until (from the NYT City Room Blog 10.8.2008)"

"Citing a “financial emergency,” Ronald S. Lauder, the cosmetics heir who twice financed referendums setting a limit of two terms for city elected officials, said Wednesday afternoon that he would “reluctantly” support a plan by Mr. Bloomberg to extend the maximum number of terms to three. "

This is not for the people by the people. This was for Ronald S. Lauder by Ronald S. Lauder.

The citizens were just populist sheep that played along with what Ronald S. Lauder wanted them to do.

Voter
the voters voted twice on the matter, really they did.

Out here in Windsor terrace someone has been putting 8x10 stickers on peoples windshields for Yassky. Seems suspect in that the reaction to trying to remove these stickers is leading people to not want to vote for him.
my reaction was that this is dirty campaigning by liu.

Voting for Green, mostly bc I don't like the way de Blasio was so friendly to the Atlantic Yards development and Ratner. Still undecided but leaning towards Yassky for Comptroller.

Actually hjs, did the voters really call for term limits or did one rich guy call for the council members he gave donations to to put up a referendum calling for term limits to get the results he wanted?
I voted for Yassky, well simply because I can’t accept a lie like Liu’s sweatshop hogwash fresh out of the gate. If he can’t be honest about his childhood, his mother doing piecework out of the home and not in a sweatshop, and his father being a corrupt bank executive, then how can he be honest about the finances of New York City.

I do not like artificial term limits -- inherantly undemcratic. First time: for comptroller John Liu -- seemed like a good choice; for public advocate, Norman Siegal -- liked his independence. This time: John Liu again. Public Advocate -- I guess Green -- the smaller and less powerful the job the more viciously people fight for it. I'm getting a bit nervous about the Working Families Party.

Voted for Liu but it was really a vote against Yassky.

Yassky voted to remove term limits, despite the voters voting for it twice. And he supported Atlantic Yards, when this neighborhood (his district!) really needed a voice of skepticism.

Yassky seems like a nice guy, but he can't be trusted.

yassky has so many negative adds up, also he supported ending voter called for term limits. I can't support him. besides we need more (any) asians in public office.
I don't want to see mark green ever again