There’s something suspicious about the mayor calling for the end of term limits so that he can have another four years at the helm of the city, especially since it is early enough to schedule another referendum on the issue. Why is he trying to bypass the need to take it back to the voters?
Mayor Bloomberg said in his press release, ”I also understand that people voted for a two-term limit, and altering their verdict is not something that I think should be done lightly.” Remember, that the people voted twice (1993 and 1996) for this two-term limit.
However, the Mayor adds, that according to the Charter, the Council has the right to change the law without a referendum that tests the will of the people.
“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”
Mayor Mike and all the other mayoral candidates (except for Green) in the aftermath of 9/11, disapproved of Giuliani’s call to extend his term for 90 days in the wake of the disaster and turmoil we experienced at that time. So why are people lining up behind this idea now for Mayor Mike?
If 9/11 wasn't a good enough reason for Giuliani to extend his term for 90 days, then why does this financial crisis rise to the level of an emergency that requires Mayor Mike to hold office for another 4-year term?
A Daily News online poll shows that a large percentage of people oppose the potential power grab and a New York Times piece quotes several people who expressed opinions that this Wall Street crisis doesn’t justify suspending the election rules.
Read Mark Green’s blog on the Huffington Post where he says there’s plenty of time to bring the issue to the people in a public referendum. He adds that if this is the time to have a financial manager run the city, then why don’t we just suspend the mayor’s office and city government and hire Warren Buffet?
One way to cure an addiction to power and fame is to cut the person off from the source. So take a hike Mike and let someone else carry the baton.