It looks like it’s all gone pear-shaped–or has it? Mayor Michael Bloomberg just knew that New Yorkers would heartily embrace his announcement that he was going to sidestep a little technicality and run for a third time in a twice-referendum-approved, two-term-limited office.
Not so fast. Now it’s the clash of the titans: Bloomberg with Ron Lauder against Thomas Golisano, as the three billionaires, egos unholstered, face off. Kind of. On Thursday, Oct. 23, the City Council is scheduled to vote on the issue.
The question being asked by politicos, pundits and residents alike is: Does the mayor and his cooperative colleague Speaker Christine Quinn have the votes or not? No one is sure. “The mayor and the speaker should not do an end run around democracy,” charged Council Member Letitia James. “This is about a fundamental right that our ancestors fought and died for, and we’ve got to defend that right; and we cannot ignore voters who have spoken not once but twice.”
At press time, Councilman Charles Barron told the AmNews that publicly undecided colleagues Gail Brewer, Alan Gerson and David Yassky had just proposed an amendment to Bloomberg’s bill that, if it is passed, it must go to referendum before it is enacted. But that means we cannot vote on the bill the same day. “You cannot vote on a bill on the same day there has been an amendment made to it. It has to age for at least a week.” None of the undecided members contacted by the AmNews responded to a request for comment. Barron said that he and his colleagues were now trying to convince fellow council members to pass the amendment. “Right now, there are about 23 saying ‘no’ to Bloomberg’s bill, 18 saying ‘yes’ and about 10 claiming to be undecided,” he said. Barron is seeing the amendment proposal as a “great victory for us and speaks to the public pressure.
Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker Christine Quinn never expected this backlash from the people, but it is reminiscent of Bloomberg’s failed congestion pricing and West Side stadium projects. “If there is no amendment and the bill passed, we will be ready to go to court on Friday morning to say that the law cannot be interpreted the way the mayor has claimed.” Three weeks after the mayor tossed this political football in the air, New York City politicians have been forced to argue their conscious in public–career, public interest or defending the city charter? First came the disgruntled rumblings from City Council members who refused to be coerced, convinced or cajoled into going along to get along or repay slush-funded program favors.
Then the public weighed in. “Eight then out! That’s what the public said twice,” boomed a more-than-aggravated Councilman Barron. “We need to get some fresh blood in the City Council. We do not need another referendum. The people defeated this bill in 1993 and 1996.” Ron Lauder was the financial backer for the original term limit laws, which put the kibosh on career politicians sitting in the same seats for decades. This time around, first he was for the mayor’s effort, then against it–then a deal was cut. He was offered a seat on the 2010 Charter Revision Commission and the billionaires bonded once again. As Bloomberg’s bill to extend his term made its way to the City Council chambers, opposition bills were crafted by Council Members Letitia James and Bill de Blasio and by Assemb. Hakeem Jeffries. Heated were last week’s public hearings that had Jamal and Jean Public voicing support or opposition alongside activists, elected officials, good-government groups, and union leaders. But Barron demanded that Bloomberg’s bill just be voted down. “We don’t need another referendum.”
Term limits is a way of getting rid of ineffective elected officials. He added, “Used to be that council members were in for 20 odd years before term limits, and you couldn’t get them out. Even though they were deadweights selling us out, you still couldn’t beat the power of incumbency. So new candidates wouldn’t even run. So even though Ron Lauder financed the term limit bill because he wanted to give opportunities to people he wanted in office, the people liked the idea of term limits, and they voted ‘yes’ in the referendum, saying, ‘We don’t want you in the City Council forever.’ “So now these billionaires want us to have to endure a dozen years to get rid of dead weight.” “A Quinnipiac poll said that 89 percent of those asked said they wanted a referendum,” James told the AmNews. Surrounded by a host of politicians such as Council Member James and Assemb. Jeffries, billionaire Rochester businessman Thomas Golisano came out this week and said that he would bankroll the opposition to Bloomberg’s bill. He added that if it was passed, he would fund the court challenges. And if those were defeated, he would financially back those running against Bloomberg for the mayoral seat. At a press conference, Golisano said, “The people have spoken twice, 1993 and 1996. They do want term limits for City Council and mayor.
Now, is there anything more democratic than the people making this decision? And now the City Council wants to violate the will of the people. To maintain the spirit of democracy, there should be at least another public referendum.” “The best way to deal with a billionaire is to get another billionaire,” James told the AmNews. The New York Times reported that as she tried to sway “yes” votes, Speaker Quinn now finds herself in a predicament after already promising freshmen council members that they, too, can enjoy the spoils of a council-approved third term run. Lauder has always been in support of Bloomberg’s proposal so long as Bloomberg was the only beneficiary of his third term extension bill. He balked at the notion that current council members would also get 12 years in office. “The freshman class of City Council members are voting against their own interests if they pass the mayor’s bill,” said James. “There’s an amendment in the bill that treats freshmen differently. In 2010, the mayor said that he would convene a Charter Revision Commission, where Ron Lauder said he would roll back the term extension, so while myself and other senior members will be alright, the new freshmen will be treated differently.” The battle is far from over, as Councilman Barron warned, “We will have a people’s referendum with petitions, and the City Council will still fight for a referendum. The public will put pressure on anyone who sides with the mayor on this, and it will be remembered when they run for office.The mayor is definitely defeatable in 2009.”