Here’s a figure for you all — Bloomberg probably spent $100 million to win a third term with about 550,000 votes (about 200,000 fewer than he received in 2005). That’s somewhere around $180 a vote. There’s your mandate.

The Bloomberg victory speech was horrifying in several ways, not least of which being that the mayor conflated his “squeaker” with talk of a Yankees ticker tape parade. Talk about wishing bad luck on oneself:

Thank you. Gracias. What a week this is turning out to be. Tonight, a hard-fought victory in a very difficult year, and — who knows? — maybe in a few days, the biggest victory parade that Broadway has ever seen.

Thank you, Jimmy Fallon, that was maybe the nicest thing a Red Sox fan ever said about a Yankees fan, and I appreciate it.

. . .

Will the Yankees win Game 6? You better believe it.

The problem here of course being that Jimmy Fallon only became a Red Sox fan after running around like an idiot for that one movie, and his true allegiance is basically disputed. No matter — baseball, like politics, is full of bandwagoning idiots.

But Jimmy Fallon aside, the mayor really needs to purge Howard Wolfson from his mental space (I need to purge Howard Wolfson from my mental space) — the spin of this being “a very difficult year,” which Wolfson also tried using last night, is especially specious. The mayor’s narrow victory wasn’t because the economy sucks, it was because he overturned the will of the voters without a referendum and poured $100 million into a campaign. Be upfront about this. Quit bullshitting. The election is over.

Speaking of the narrow victory, I also think the media is to blame for making this out to be a landslide from day one:

Still, the margin seemed to startle Mr. Bloomberg’s aides and the city’s political establishment, which had predicted a blowout. Published polls in the days leading up to the election suggested that the mayor would win by as many as 18 percentage points; four years ago, he cruised to re-election with a 20 percent margin.

How no outlet could have honestly reported the closeness of the race in the weeks leading up to it seems particularly egregious. Here’s one example of bullshit spin from October 30:

The Thompson campaign keeps insisting that momentum is on their side in the closing days of the mayoral campaign. But a poll released Friday by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion suggests otherwise.

The survey, like other recent polls, shows Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg with a commanding double-digit lead over his Democratic opponent, William C. Thompson Jr., the city comptroller.

. . .

On Thursday afternoon, the Thompson campaign released the results of an internal poll that portrayed the race as much closer, with Mr. Bloomberg leading Mr. Thompson by just 8 percentage points. But internal polls are notoriously suspect.

In a news release on Friday, Howard Wolfson, a Bloomberg campaign spokesman, dismissed Mr. Thompson’s poll, saying that it “gives new meaning to the term margin of error” and that every other reliable public poll done over the past month confirms Mr. Bloomberg’s comfortable lead.

There are so, so many other examples that it’s hard to pick just one. But a prime example of conventional wisdom appeared in the election day Times op-ed from Joyce Purnick. Purnick is someone who is very up on Bloomberg’s machinations, having just written a book about the mayor, and her tone — like the tone of nearly every piece written about the election — was that the result was always a foregone conclusion:

Memo to the 108th mayor of New York, Michael R. Bloomberg: You didn’t have to do it. You didn’t need to set a new national campaign spending record. You didn’t have to become a one-man stimulus program, employing costly campaign consultants, ad producers and all those “volunteers.” You didn’t need that barrage of television ads, those wasteful glossy mailings or maddening robocalls.

None of it. You are the incumbent. You are in and destined to stay in after today’s mayoral election because — unless unduly provoked — New York voters don’t reject their incumbent. They’re pragmatic, even complacent, when their city is not in anguish. You could have spent more on your philanthropy and less on yourself and still be leading your Democratic competitor, City Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr., in the polls.

Even columnists unfriendly to Bloomberg bought into the inevitability — again, pick any, but here are two I remember: Patrice O’Shaughnessy in the Daily News and Clyde Haberman, who while continuing to go after the ridiculousness of the Bloomberg machine, did it in a way that telegraphed a depressing inevitability.

All of which brings me back to the Phillies’ Game 4 meltdown in the ninth inning, after the team tied the Yankees in the eighth, and Brad Lidge self-destructed, giving up three runs and ensuring that Rivera would close out the win; yes, the game was only tied, but the momentum was there for Philadelphia. The series was so close to being evened at two games a piece, and was especially painful for Phillies fans to watch. So was this election. Thompson lost by about 50,000 votes with somewhere around 1.1 million cast. What if things went a little differently?

What if, for example, Cory Booker wasn’t bought off by Bloomberg? What if Obama hadn’t been such a pussy? (And all that Corzine support got him exactly nothing in the end.) And most importantly, what if the media had been a little less incurious about polls and not actively worked to dissuade voters from actually participating? It’s true that this would have cut both ways — I’m sure many voters supportive of Bloomberg were apathetic about voting in a landslide — but the inevitability of a Bloomberg reelection was overpowering to watch day after day, and had to have had an impact.

Going back to that disgusting Times article about the campaign that they only published last night hammers home two big points:

Mr. Tusk, extremely self-confident and forceful, talked about “taking the oxygen out of the room”: hiring so many staff members, rolling out so many endorsements, and tossing up so many television ads that opposition seemed futile.

A sky-is-the-limit ethos, unfettered by spending limits, infused the effort. Mr. Tusk told his outreach coordinator for Asian voters, Oliver Tan, to find him a Bollywood star to endorse the mayor. After weeks of transcontinental phone calls, he did.

“It was selling inevitability,” a campaign adviser said.

Selling inevitability — and everyone — everyone! — bought it. Maybe we need to look at ourselves a little bit, too. The other part, the oxygen sucking, is well illustrated with the Cory Booker quid pro quo. Thompson just couldn’t get a break with any free airtime of the kind that Bloomberg got over and over again. It wasn’t so much the endorsement that Cory Booker gave Bloomberg as it perhaps was Booker actually shepherding the mayor around to black churches in Queens on the Sunday before the election — that of course became a big story for Bloomberg. If Booker had simply sat this out — and not crossed party lines to endorse a Republican — this story doesn’t exist, and oxygen remains intact. But Booker going as far as actually campaigning in Southeast Queens with the mayor was just one of many non money-related examples of Thompson’s huge, huge disadvantage over the course of this race.

The whole experience — from the furtive talk about running for president through to the City Council overturning term limits to the obscene spending and consolidation of power during the campaign — was profoundly discouraging. But you know what really got my goat? That insipid fucking new Black Eyed Peas song “I Gotta Feeling,” which was played before Bloomberg came out to speak; it’s lazy songwriting, tailor made for opening montages of televised sports events and, now we know, campaign appearances.

The other day I bemoaned the deleterious effects of this campaign on younger people. On our way out of the polling place last night, a cheerful high school student handed us one of the glossy pieces of Bloomberg campaign literature that this morning are littering the sidewalks of our neighborhood. The student insisted she wasn’t getting paid, though she did admit that a pizza party (Bloomberg spent thousands on pizza this campaign) was in the cards. I’m sure she was also angling for a letter of recommendation of some sort as well because, ultimately, everyone is in it for something. And that’s the real legacy of this dispiriting campaign.

See also: Bloomberg For Mayor 2009.

If nothing else, Cliff Lee’s no-earned-run complete-game mastery and brilliant fielding last night during Game One of the World Series between the Phillies and Yankees will be useful in that it may actually shut up the New York Post, which has been stupidly and relentlessly on Philadelphia’s case for some reason or other since the Yankees finally clinched the pennant.

You know the type of stories the paper is running — the ones where it takes like six reporters to go out and interview yahoos who will say stuff about how Philadelphia is “a nothing city” (I often wonder whether people outside of New York actually care about New York as much as people in New York want to believe people outside of New York care about New York) or that the Phanatic mascot isn’t even as cool as the “retarded” Mr. Met mascot (classy, printing that quote). I almost want the Yankees to lose just to chasten the Post.

As Lee continued to shut down the Yankees’ offense over the course of the game — while the Phillies’ Chase “WFC” Utley hit not one but two home runs against Yankees ace C.C. Sabathia — it was tough to resist that time-worn cliche of “that’s why they play the game.” And sometime last night — probably after Lee struck out A-Rod for the third time — it occurred to me that a Yankees World Series loss would lessen the sting of a Bloomberg victory: The Yankees could be the sacrificial lambs for the sins of Michael Bloomberg.

If Bill Thompson can’t fulfill the role of underdog, then maybe the Phillies can. It will prove that maybe you can’t just spend hundreds of millions to win. It will put the elite in their place. It will shut up the Post! And should this all transpire, I want to believe that Bloomberg sycophantically hanging around the Yankees clubhouse on Sunday night and pandering to fans in Times Square on Wednesday will be the curse that catalyzed the team’s World Series failure.

. . . .

Speaking of the Post, let’s keep picking on the Post. The paper’s noxious endorsement of the mayor hinged on three areas — education, crime and the city’s finances.

On education, the Post’s editorial board argues that “Mike Bloomberg will be remembered as the mayor who brought accountability to the system. Supervisors, principals, teachers, students — all are now expected to show results. And they have, often spectacularly.” Let’s put it into perspective. Bloomberg put the board of education under the control of the mayor, which allows voters to punish a mayor for an under-performing system. That’s nice if you’re a lazy voter, and can’t be bothered to pay attention to the machinations of the school system, much less figure out which board members to vote for when school board elections come up. But I question whether this mayor — or any mayor — can really take credit for success in the school system. Bloomberg knows this, which is why they’ve been puffing up the test scores, this despite questionable results (and I’m assuming there’s a perfectly good reason why the NAEP scores for New York City are going to be delayed two weeks). Bloomberg shouldn’t oversell mayoral control, and he shouldn’t go after Thompson for an under-performing school system during Thompson’s tenure as board president when the truth is much more complicated than that. Look at it this way — is it Bloomberg’s fault that the Department of Buildings was apparently infiltrated by the mafia? Hey, now that I think about it, maybe Bloomberg should be held accountable — goose, gander, etc. At least Board of Education incompetence didn’t cause actual deaths . . .

On crime, the Post writes “Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelly took a crime rate that already was declining dramatically and drove it to levels not seen since the ’60s. And they did so even while deploying significant resources into counterterrorism — helping to keep New York safe from another 9/11.” You don’t even have to read that closely — “a crime rate that was already declining.” Do you really think a mayor has much control over the crime rate? If so, then you’re much more idealistic than I am, though I’m guessing you probably also haven’t watched all that much of The Wire either. As for counterterrorism — well, for argument’s sake, let’s say the mayor actually does get out there, Jack Bauer-like, to keep us all safe. Actually, no, let’s not, because that is another absurd argument (though are you really impressed by the NYPD’s spurious sting operations and bungled investigations?). What’s more, it’s offensive to the many municipal and federal law enforcement officials who actually do their best to keep us safe to act like the mayor is somehow responsible for our safety. Giuliani’s recent Giuliani-like boasting about Bloomberg’s terror-fighting prowess was the quintessence of this asinine argument.

On finances, the Post writes “Eight years ago, Bloomberg took a city driven deep into recession by 9/11 and helped bring it back. Last June, he delivered a budget that cut spending by $1.5 billion — even as Albany’s budget grew by 10 percent” before acknowledging that the mayor’s deals with the unions may bankrupt the city (in so many words). I don’t buy that the city was “driven deep into recession” after September 11, 2001 because — especially compared with the current recession — the one following 9/11 wasn’t all that deep. And — let’s be crystal clear — mayors don’t fix the economy. Mayors may fix potholes and sanitation schedules, but they sure don’t do much for a worldwide economy. Even really smart businessmen like Michael Bloomberg. As for the second claim — that Bloomberg delivered a budget that cut spending — well, OK, maybe he cut spending a little. But A) I’m not convinced the budget savings weren’t merely the result of illusory accounting, since it’s easy to squirrel away or otherwise conceal $1.5 billion of a nearly $60 billion budget — and we’ll see how he manages a budget in 2010, should he make it that far; and B) you’re really comparing the city to what they do in Albany? Sounds like a backhanded compliment to me . . .

But you have to like an endorsement that starts out saying “It can be hard to warm to Bloomberg’s governing style, and we have little patience for his often arrogant nanny-state meddling in New Yorkers’ private lives.” Nice.

The Times’ Bloomberg endorsement — hidden in the Saturday paper, by the way — works similar debate-club style gymnastics to come to a conclusion. Their lede is absurdly fawning: “The real test of any mayor is how well the city works. In his eight years in office, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has managed to make the unpredictable city of New York work astonishingly well.” Wow — “astonishingly”? Were you at any point “astonished” by how well the city ran during Bloomberg’s tenure?

Second paragraph: “Mr. Bloomberg has been a first-rate steady hand during unsteady times. He guided the city out of the post-9/11 recession, then tucked away money during the boom years that followed.” “Guided the city out of the post-9/11 recession” sounds familiar to what the Post wrote. Is this taken from bullet points or something? We’ll see just how much money has been “tucked away” — I question whether it will be anywhere near what is supposed to be needed to plug a 2011 budget gap — but it is interesting to note that candidate Thompson spoke out last year for an actual rainy day fund, and not just raiding random accounts.

And check out this important point: “He has run the $60 billion government with a keen attention to accountability and efficiency. He has chosen some of the best people in the country to work for him, and he has mostly let them do their jobs. As a result, many city services operate better than they have for years. The garbage mostly disappears on time.”

The garbage “mostly disappears on time.” Again — wow. If that’s the case, why not go for a fourth term? What else here . . . oh, “Public education is better over all” (no real data or argument to back that up) and “Crime is down under Raymond Kelly, the police commissioner” — at least they didn’t try to say that Bloomberg actually “drove crime levels down,” like the Post wrote.

Both editorials feel the need to admonish Bloomberg’s churlishness. That’s not insignificant. The Times writes, “Finally, like others who have not always agreed with the mayor, we worry about his difficulty brooking dissent.” I think they are talking about mayor’s leadership qualities, especially vis a vis building consensus, which Bloomberg is not good at and which is one of the few traits that actually matters in an executive. Take his West Side Stadium defeat and failed congestion pricing proposal — two initiatives that would have been cornerstones of his development/job creation and environmental record. Those failures can’t all be due to a recalcitrant state legislature (or even Sheldon Silver). There’s a pattern there, and that pattern shouldn’t be relegated to near the end of a lukewarm endorsement.

. . . .

You want to read something funny? Compare the Observer’s endorsement with the Times’ endorsement. First the Observer (emphasis added):

The mayor’s record speaks for itself. Critics complain that voters are being brainwashed by the mayor’s free-spending campaign, but Mr. Bloomberg’s popularity has more to do with his accomplishments than with the quality of his television commercials. His place in history was ensured the moment he took office, because on January 1, 2002, the city still was recovering from the attacks of 9/11. The city was on edge, emotionally and fiscally, on that January morning. Mr. Bloomberg helped lead the city from its despair with a combination of reassurance, compassion and financial acumen.

In the years since, Mr. Bloomberg has defied conventional wisdom, as he and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly continued to drive down crime even after the historic decreases under Rudolph Giuliani. He told us to hold him accountable for the performance of the city’s public schools, and he is now reaping the benefits of a school system that no longer is dysfunctional, unaccountable and unsafe. He returned the city to its rightful place as a leader in public health through his campaigns against smoking and trans-fats. He recruited capable deputies and let them do their jobs.

Then the Times (again, emphasis added):

What makes the mayor stand out is not his political skill, although he has come a long way since his first clumsy days in office. He has run the $60 billion government with a keen attention to accountability and efficiency. He has chosen some of the best people in the country to work for him, and he has mostly let them do their jobs. As a result, many city services operate better than they have for years. The garbage mostly disappears on time. The police and fire departments respond quickly. Mr. Bloomberg’s 311 phone line allows New Yorkers to complain to a live human being. Often, they even see tangible results.

Public education is better over all — although parents still need more access to their children’s teachers and schools. The mayor’s new complaint line for parents should help, as will other changes imposed by the Legislature. But in a third term, the mayor and his team should still work harder to listen to those who hand over their children each morning to his educators.

Crime is down under Raymond Kelly, the police commissioner, although there is concern again about stop-and-frisk actions, which seem to focus too heavily on Hispanics and African-Americans. Mr. Bloomberg also has been a national leader in gun control.

The mayor’s environmental efforts — stalled in Albany — show admirable concern about the city’s future. And he has worked hard to improve the city’s health — most effectively with the smoking ban.

The Post endorsement actually sounds even more similar to the Observer’s language on crime: “Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelly took a crime rate that already was declining dramatically and drove it to levels not seen since the ’60s.” The “accountability” portions in the Post and Observer endorsements sound similar as well. All three endorsements sort of lob up there the same hackneyed reasons to vote for the mayor. All three sound like stupid bullet points. None seem serious.

The largest issue for most voters is the third term nonsense — another “not insignificant” concern, but the Post brushes it off: “No doubt, some New Yorkers are angry about how Mayor Mike used his considerable resources to having them set aside to allow him to run again. It was a characteristic display of Bloombergian hubris, and we suspect that it will cost him on Election Day.” The Times doesn’t mind that the term limit issue went down the way it did because the editorial board happens to agree with the outcome (I recall similar arguments during the Iraq War and subsequent failure to uncover WMD). Instead, the Times somehow believes that allowing every city councilmember, borough president, the public advocate, comptroller and mayor to run again somehow offers voters “more choices” — and they’re right; after all is said and done, voters will get precisely one more choice. It’s Orwellian logic. The Daily News makes the same argument in its endorsement.

. . . .

But let’s move to real talk. The real problem with the third term isn’t that Bloomberg either bought off or wielded power to influence the elite — the editorial boards, the power players — to accept the proposal to ignore term limits. The most egregious thing is that Bloomberg poisoned the democratic well for those of us who aren’t in roles of power, and that will have a much longer effect on the city. When voter apathy is low everywhere, but especially in sclerotic New York (cf. eight percent turnout for last month’s runoff, a vote that actually had a significant outcome), it sends a bad message. And it doesn’t just send a bad message to educated, older voters who will participate anyway (and continue to vote in years to come) but rather to those who don’t see a reason to participate in the first place. How many youths — even people into their 30s — have come of age politically during Bloomberg’s tenure, and developed their ideas about democratic participation while he steamrolled through $200 million-plus to get himself elected? How will this third-term charade affect their ideas about democracy? Bloomberg and his supporters (Bono! Shilpa! Cherry!) haven’t answered for this or even acknowledged it. We deserve better.

. . . .

But what if the unthinkable happens? Is a Bloomberg victory really a foregone conclusion? Remember the Phillies. For one bright, shining moment last night, the Phillies reminded Yankees fans “that’s why they play the game.”

And if somehow both the Yankees and Bloomberg lose, then that would be epic. New York Magazine will craft a trend piece on the end of New York. Spike Lee could make a film about it, just like he did with 1977. Howard Wolfson will walk away looking like a huge dick. And maybe, just maybe, the rest of the country will breathe a huge sigh of relief knowing that New Yorkers are not nearly as vapid as they appear! It will be a victory for all. So go vote Tuesday. You know what to do.

See also: Bloomberg For Mayor 2009.

The mayor’s half-billion-dollar Million Trees initiative may be revenue-neutral after all:

A newly installed ‘no parking’ sign in front of the Tosca Marquis catering hall, located at 4034 E. Tremont Avenue, is difficult to see because a tree obscures it.

Many unwitting motorists are getting tickets because of the obscured sign in front of the hall designated as a no parking zone from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday through Saturday. There is no clear indication as to where this parking regulation ends on the street. The sign has only one arrow pointing north to the curb in front of the dining hall. The entire area is now designated for loading and unloading in what had formerly been two metered spots.

“The sign is obstructed by the tree, so I didn’t even notice it,” said a motorist named Milton, who was parking in front of the catering hall on Friday, October 9.

I don’t know which is more annoying — that an enterprising parking space hoarder discovered a way to prevent people from parking in a legal space or that parking enforcement cops are really this uninformed:

Motorists have been parking their cars for years in three spots between the Catherine Scott Promenade and Seashore Restaurant. Now, many have been slapped with tickets even though the Department of Transportation deemed a “No Standing” sign at the location bogus.

. . .

After seeing pictures of the “No Standing” sign which was attached to the utility pole with sheetrock screws, a DOT spokesman said that the sign would come down.

“This sign is illegally posted and it will be removed,” said DOT spokesman Montgomery Dean on July 17.

Those who have been utilizing the spots, many patrons of the Seashore Restaurant at 591 City Island Avenue, were shocked to receive $115 parking summonses.

“A bunch of retired and active police officers and I have been meeting in the Seashore Restaurant for years and using those spots, which can hold roughly three cars,” said City Island resident and retired NYPD lieutenant Bob DiMartini. “We were parking there because they were legal parking spaces.”

DiMartini said all of that changed when three people he knew received summonses for parking in the spaces.

“It is a real Department of Transportation sign,” DiMartini said, “but it does not belong on the pole.”

. . .

“It is the first restaurant when you come onto the island,” DeMartini stated. “They have their parking attendants put out cones to direct traffic, where the three spots are located.”

Looks innocent now, but get a couple more examples* and you’ll have a real story:

Mayor Bloomberg got some free publicity on the state-created English Regents exam this month, scoring a positive mention in a reading-comprehension passage.

“New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg has spearheaded an ambitious plan, unveiled in 2002, to ring Manhattan with recreational, multi-use paths and greenways to make the entire waterfront accessible to walkers and cyclists,” gushed paragraph 14 of the mandatory passage, read by about 150,000 high school sophomores and juniors across the state this month.

After students — all too young to vote for Bloomberg, who is running for a third term — read the passage, an excerpt from a September 2006 Environmental Defense Fund article, they had to answer nine multiple-choice questions and write an essay.

*Not sure if this counts or not.

Just try to read this without feeling any sarcasm or bitterness. It’s impossible. But really, who cares anymore? It’s all a game anyway:

Over the past fiscal year, which ends June 30, the Council spent $48.5 million on discretionary Council spending, according to spokeswoman Maria Alvarado.

But the city had a $5 billion budget surplus during that fiscal year, compared with a $5 billion revenue shortfall this time around.

The funds are disbursed by Council members to several thousand nonprofit and charitable groups that defenders say will help a wide variety of needy constituency groups.

But it also lets Council members — most of whom are running for third terms because they and Mayor Bloomberg lifted the prior two-term limit — boast they’ve brought home the bacon.

Then there’s this:

Following the discovery last year of a City Council slush fund that stashed dough for fake groups to later spend on pet projects, a rigorous review process was put in place. As a result, Bloomberg’s office yanked $10,000 slated for the Davidson center earlier this year, citing “poor performance on past contracts.”

But that didn’t stop Councilmembers Maria Baez and Joel Rivera. Both of the Bronx Democrats earmarked a combined $85,000 for the group in the budget, according to the lengthy list of grants.

They’re interchangeable at this point.

The details don’t even matter anymore. All that counts is the City’s antiquated method of discretionary spending.

But when you have to cram in trees everywhere, there may be some resistance:

Some Mott Haven residents are fuming over city plans to plant trees on their block.

The problem, they say, is that the tree roots eventually crack their sidewalks, leaving them stuck with the repair bill.

“If they want a green Bronx, just look in our backyards,” said Marion Rivas of 434 E. 144th St. “We already have trees there. We don’t need them out in front.”

The trees are part of Mayor Bloomberg’s MillionTrees campaign to plant 1 million trees in the city by 2030.

The Department of Parks and Recreation is planning to plant 12 street trees along E. 144th St. between Brook and Willis Aves.

But residents there point to city trees planted across the street that already have ripped up their neighbors’ sidewalks.

“This used to be flat,” said Shawn Ramos, of 443 E. 144th St., pointing to his broken sidewalk. “I’ve seen people trip over this. If someone gets hurt, then we’re the ones in trouble.”

Residents on the south side of the street said it’s only a matter of time before the same thing happens to their sidewalks.

Homeowners also fear that because their sidewalk is 2-feet narrower, fully-grown trees will damage their homes, clog sewer drains and entangle power lines.

Most of all, they worry about footing the bill to fix inevitable upheavals in the sidewalks.

“I spent $1,200 fixing my sidewalk already, because it was old,” said Polivio Hernandez of 428 E. 144th St. “Now they want to put these trees here? What happens if, in a couple of years, the sidewalk is all destroyed again? I don’t want to spend more money.”

Parks officials did not respond directly to neighbors’ concerns about out-of-pocket expenses, instead saying that careful thought goes into each tree planting.

And may the Post’s New-Yankee-Stadium-Sucks stories never end, for they are too much fun to read. First, either no one is buying, or at least sitting in, $2600 seats (”Maybe the reason the best tickets at the new Yankee Stadium are called ‘Legends’ seats is that fans willing to fork over $2,625 a game are mostly mythical. . . . At Sunday’s game, nearly 7,000 seats at the stadium were empty, the large majority of them at field level”) and then the 84-year-old longtime superfan is shut out of the place:

Freddy “Sez” Schuman, the one-eyed, cookware-clanking octogenarian who’s been an unofficial pinstripe mascot for 22 seasons, was forced to panhandle for tickets at the new Yankee Stadium over the weekend.

In years past, Schuman, who, like Yogi Berra, turns 84 next month, received free season tickets from sponsors such as Modell’s, or was simply let through the press gate with a wink from a Stadium official.

On Opening Day, he had no trouble getting into the new ballpark for free through the press gate, but on Friday, Saturday and Sunday he had to depend on the kindness of fellow Yankee fans for free seats.

On Sunday, he stood outside the Stadium holding his frying pan and a sign that read, “Freddy ‘Sez’ Yankees say, ‘I can’t go in; must buy ticket!!’”

. . .

He cannot afford the seats at the new Stadium, and doesn’t really need one, since he spends his time in the Stadium walking around and letting fans clank his pan with a spoon for good luck.

“Frankly, I don’t know how some fans are going to afford these new prices,” he said.

Location Scout: New Yankee Stadium.

Mayor Bloomberg wants $45 million to retrain employees who are probably the least likely to trust government job training programs:

Just as Michigan is scrambling to retrain laid-off auto workers, New York City officials have come up with a plan to find new work for the unemployed from one of its core industries: financial services.

Under a program unveiled on Wednesday by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, the city wants to invest $45 million in government money to retrain investment bankers, traders and others who have lost jobs on Wall Street, as well as provide seed capital and office space for new businesses those laid-off bankers might create.

The plan is intended to stem a potential exodus of banking professionals from the city during the restructuring of the financial services industry, which has been the city’s economic engine for decades, and to speed the industry’s recovery, which will take at least several years, officials said.

. . .

The mayor announced the 11-part program at a building at 160 Varick Street that will house an incubator for start-up companies that might employ laid-off professionals. Trinity Real Estate donated the space for three years and the Polytechnic Institute of New York University will select the entrepreneurs who will occupy the space, beginning in April. A second business incubator is scheduled to open in Lower Manhattan later in the year, said Seth W. Pinsky, the president of the city’s Economic Development Corporation.

The agency plans to put $3 million into funds to make small investments in start-up companies, Mr. Pinsky said. He said that he hoped to attract twice as much money from private investors and that $9 million would be enough to help start hundreds of new businesses.

All told, city officials plan to spend about $15 million on the program, in addition to the $30 million of federal money. They estimate that over 10 years, it could stimulate the creation of at least 25,000 jobs and contribute $750 million to the local economy, but Mr. Bloomberg referred to those projections as a “guess.”

*And think of how many housing project roofs or elevators that could be fixed with $45 million . . .

It’s simple:

With costs ballooning to replace two Bronx parks that were bulldozed for the new Yankee Stadium — the latest estimate is almost $195 million — the city’s Independent Budget Office said on Tuesday that more than $16 million of the higher expense “remains to be explained.”

The latest cost is almost $79 million over the 2005 estimate of $116 million, which itself was considerably more than the $96 million figure based on “conceptual designs” in an environmental impact statement using 2004 dollars.

The Yankees will be using their new $1.3 billion ballpark for opening day in April, but Little Leaguers, tennis players and picnickers are unlikely to have access to all eight replacement parks until the end of 2011, a year later than promised, the budget office said in a report.

New York Post freakout coming in 5, 4, 3, 2 . . . blammo:

It was those damned geese!

A feather from a bird and “organic material” has been found on the engine, wings and fuselage of the US Airways airliner that crash-landed in the Hudson River, federal authorities said yesterday.

Investigators also have found that fan blades in the Airbus A320’s right engine “revealed evidence of soft-body impact damage.”

. . .

“What appears to be organic material was found in the right engine and on the wings and fuselage,” said the NTSB in a press release. Samples of that material have been sent to the US Agriculture Department for DNA analysis.

“A single feather was found attached to a flap track on the wing,” said the release, adding that the feather “is being sent to bird-identification experts” at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington.

It was the evidence of the old bird’s feather! It increased my fury as the beating of a drum stimulates the soldier into courage!

Who knew a picture of a tunnel was could be so enraging, in that where-the-fuck-is-all-this-money-coming-from kind of way:

Construction, it seems, is indeed under way for the extension of the No. 7 line, the cornerstone of the Bloomberg administration’s planned development of the far West Side.

The MTA’s capital construction page shows an update for November with pictures from below, where the agency is hollowing out the cavern for the station and making way for the eventual launch of a tunnel-boring machine, which will slowly dig its way along the 1.5-mile route.

The project, budgeted at $2.1 billion, would extend the line from Times Square to the base of the Javits Center on 34th Street, adjacent to the West Side rail yards. The Bloomberg administration has been the driving force behind the extension, which it says will help spawn tens of millions of square feet of West Side development.

The cash-strapped MTA had no desire to pay for the project, so the city is footing the entire bill, up to the $2.1 billion. Should costs exceed the budget (which many onlookers assume they will, given rising costs everywhere), the city and the MTA have yet to negotiate an agreement on who would cover them.

(Given the lack of real funding sources for the MTA’s next five-year capital plan and the $1.2 billion deficit in its operating budget, it’s safe to assume the agency isn’t eager to pony up any cash for a project the Bloomberg administration pledged would be paid for entirely by the city.)

. . . first must gin up the numbers to make his case. Suggested protest placard — “Bloomberg Lied, Democracy Died”:

On Oct. 21, two days before the City Council voted by a thin margin to allow Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to seek a third term, the mayor sounded an alarm on the city’s economy.

New York City’s annual budget deficit, he said, would swell by $500 million during the current fiscal year because of weakening tax revenues.

At the time, the worsening picture seemed to strengthen his central argument for changing term limits — a vulnerable city needed his steady hand and business background for four more years.

But some of those inside and outside the administration say that Mr. Bloomberg’s remarks were inaccurate and may have painted a more dire financial situation than was warranted. Interviews with these people show that the city does not expect any budget deficit in the current fiscal year, which began July 1.

In fact, data that was provided to the city about the same time the mayor was speaking showed the city’s tax revenue grew at an unexpectedly brisk pace during July, August and September.

During that time, the city took in at least $200 million more than it had planned for, data and interviews show. Much of the unexpected revenue stemmed from sales, personal income and property transfer taxes.

Of course, the city could face deficits reaching into the billions in 2010 and beyond as a result of the global financial crisis, as layoffs mount, consumer spending falls and tourism slows.

But several economists said they were mystified by Mr. Bloomberg’s statement. Marcia Van Wagner, a deputy in the New York City comptroller’s office who focuses on budget issues, said that “it is extremely unlikely that the city would end the year in deficit.”

She said that tax revenue would certainly fall later this year, but that surplus funds now slated to be used in the 2010 fiscal year could offset any shortfall this year, “as can other reserves that are normally freed up during the year,” she said.

Ms. Van Wagner also noted that the mayor has already requested $500 million worth of spending cuts from city agencies this year, which could be used to close any budget gaps.

Asked why the mayor said the city faces a deficit this year, aides said that Mr. Bloomberg may have been referring instead to his expectation that revenues would be lower than the city forecast. But even if the mayor were referring to a potential falloff in this year’s tax receipts, the $500 million number is a greater decline than what many city officials and economists predict.

Mr. Bloomberg’s Oct. 21 remarks carried significant weight, and prompted articles in The Daily News and The New York Post about the city’s worsening economy.

Both articles reported that the city’s budget deficit would swell by $500 million, and mayoral aides never sought to correct those stories.

“I can tell you,” the mayor said, “that our deficit — we originally had ‘09 balanced. Now we’ve got a $500 million hole in it.”

More democracy, not less:

Setting up a showdown over one of the most divisive issues in recent political memory, Speaker Christine C. Quinn announced Tuesday that the City Council would vote Thursday on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan to revise the term limits law so he can pursue four more years in office.

Supporters of the change said the move reflected Mr. Bloomberg’s and Ms. Quinn’s confidence that they have gathered the 26 Council votes needed to pass the legislation.

There are also signs that public opinion is tilting against the change, and privately some allies of Ms. Quinn say she is anxious, if not desperate, to hold the vote before an advertising campaign opposing the change takes hold.

“If it’s not on Thursday, they’re in trouble,” said one council member who supports the bill, speaking on condition of anonymity so as not to upset the mayor or the speaker.

Case in point:

One of the casualties of Michael Bloomberg’s move to run for a third term, it seems, is next year’s Democratic primary.

Yes, it’s still 11 months away, and the mayor has only just finished announcing his intention to overturn term limits, but the prospect of Mr. Bloomberg — and his billions of dollars — running again may have ended the contest before it even took shape.

Council Speaker Christine Quinn, a Bloomberg ally who was the favorite of much of the city’s business establishment, reacted immediately by announcing that she would abandon a planned run if the mayor went for reelection.

City Comptroller Bill Thompson, the only minority candidate in the prospective Democratic field, says that he’s running, but doesn’t sound incredibly convincing. For now, his game plan consists entirely of trying to block the mayor from running by casting public doubt on the idea of changing term limits without a referendum.

. . .

“No one believes Thompson stays in,” said George Arzt, a Democratic consultant. (Mr. Arzt, a former City Hall bureau chief for the New York Post and aide to Mayor Ed Koch, said that he had “spoken with” more than one potential mayoral campaign, but that he won’t work for any of them against Mr. Bloomberg if the mayor runs.)

. . .

“People do believe that, at least initially, Weiner will be in there, but if he sees he’s going to get crushed that he would back out, rather than suffer two different losses in two different elections,” said Mr. Arzt, referring to Mr. Weiner’s run for mayor in 2005 in which he narrowly missed making a runoff against the eventual Democratic nominee, Fernando Ferrer.

Consultant Jerry Skurnik was more hopeful about the chances of having some sort of primary contest, but only slightly: “The odds are two of the three will run, and that we’ll have a primary,” said Mr. Skurnik, referring to Mr. Thompson, Mr. Weiner and Mr. Avella. “But it’s possible that we won’t have a primary — that only one of them will run. I don’t know.”

Of course, there’s one more scenario — perhaps the least appealing of all for the Democrats: that Bloomberg, instead of destroying their primary, joins it.

Mr. Arzt said that an employee in his consulting firm already received a call as part of a telephone survey asking whether the employee would support Mr. Bloomberg if he ran as a Democrat in next year’s primary.

30 Democratic City Councilmembers revealed some of what they are thinking regarding the mayor’s plan to permanently raise the number of terms via a Council vote. Time for a roll call:

At the meeting, many council members expressed support for changing term limits, which would force dozens of them from office next year, but said they were deeply uncomfortable doing so themselves because New Yorkers had voted for it twice.

Several lashed out at Mr. Bloomberg, saying that the mayor and his wealthy friends had orchestrated a campaign to rewrite the law without consulting with council members, according to those in attendance, who described the meeting on condition on anonymity for fear of offending colleagues.

“This one billionaire is now controlling our government, like a dictator,” Councilwoman Darlene Mealy, who represents Brooklyn, said during the meeting, colleagues said. Ms. Mealy did not return phone calls after the meeting.

Normally, “like a dictator” is an offensive rhetorical overreach. Not in this context!

Roll call — Lewis Fidler comes out in favor of self-serving legislation to extend his Council career:

But several members argued that even if the method of changing the law was unsavory, they remained philosophically opposed to a two-term limit and would act to change it.

Lewis A. Fidler, a councilman from Brooklyn, said he told the group that “this is about whether term limits are good government or bad government. I think it’s bad government.”

Roll call — John Liu, finally understanding the difference between good grandstanding and bad:

According to those in the room, roughly eight members spoke in favor of the legislation revising the law to three terms; eight spoke against it; and four asked questions that did not reveal their position.

Queens Councilman John C. Liu, who has emerged as a leader in the effort to stop the mayor’s plan, gave what many considered the most moving speech. As he recounted after the meeting, he told his colleagues, “I came into government with a pretty cynical attitude, but over the last six years I came to believe in the system. But in one fell swoop, what has happened here has decimated my belief in that system.”

Roll call — Robert Jackson, expanding on his personal philosophy of representative government and principles:

Robert Jackson, a Manhattan councilman, offered a rousing defense of the legislation under consideration, saying he has always opposed term limits and would not let public opinion sway him. “Even if 80 percent of my constituents are in favor of the death penalty, I wouldn’t vote for it,” he said. “The same is true for term limits. It’s a matter of principle.”

The issue of the back-door referendum:

A few members, like David I. Weprin, of Queens, questioned why Mr. Bloomberg did not attempt to change term limits through a public referendum.

But Peter F. Vallone Jr., of Queens, said that a referendum would cost millions of dollars to organize, a cost the city should not bear while the economy is faltering.

Solution — have the mayor bankroll a special election. It would be “altruistic” . . .

Roll call — Domenic Recchia, on the subject of “ample opportunity” to voice opinions:

After the meeting, Councilman Domenic M. Recchia Jr. of Brooklyn, who said he favors the extension, explained: “A lot of us council members feel that passing it through legislation is giving ample opportunity to the voters of the city to voice their opinions.”

He added: “If the voters don’t like their council member, they can vote him out of office. And if they don’t like the mayor, they can get rid of him too.”

And, finally, contra Joyce Purnick, evidence that billionaire term limit-hater Ronald S. Lauder may not be in on the plan after all:

As the Council debated, Mr. Bloomberg’s aides scrambled to shore up the support of Mr. Lauder, the term limits advocate and cosmetics heir.

After agreeing last week to support a third term for Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Lauder vowed on Sunday night to fight the mayor’s plan to permanently change the limits to three terms from two, calling it a “terrible mistake.”

Last week, Mr. Lauder privately agreed to support a one-time change of the law to three terms, to allow Mr. Bloomberg to seek re-election in the middle of an economic crisis. But he was angry to learn that the mayor was pushing for a permanent change of the law.

Mr. Bloomberg’s staff argued that there were two reasons a permanent change was preferable: It was less likely to face legal challenge and would appeal to more City Council members. When Mr. Bloomberg learned of Mr. Lauder’s frustration, he and his aides suggested a deal in which Mr. Lauder would sit on a 2010 charter commission committee, which would have the authority to change the law back to a two-term limit. In return, Mr. Lauder would agree to not fight the mayor’s plans to alter the law.

But Mr. Lauder, after appearing to back such a deal, balked on Sunday night, people familiar with the matter said. His reversal left City Hall staff members confused, as one said, and flustered.

The Times’ David Carr goes local and explains how the city’s major editorial boards slid into the tank for the mayor:

Mr. Bloomberg said that he understood the situation and did not take the people’s verdict lightly. “But as newspaper editorialists and others have pointed out,” he said, “the current law denies voters the right to choose who to vote for — at a time when our economy is in turmoil and the Council is a democratically elected representative body.”

It is no coincidence that Mr. Bloomberg cited voices from the city’s opinion leaders. With a fiscal crisis at hand, the business leaders of New York has already held a private referendum and decided who the next mayor should be. So in spite of his rather breathtaking grab for another term, there will be no opprobrium forthcoming from the editorial pages of the city’s newspapers.

Before Mr. Bloomberg took this controversial step — remember when Rudolph W. Giuliani got clobbered for seeking three more months in office after Sept. 11? — he made the rounds and locked up the support of the editorial pages of The New York Post, The New York Times and The Daily News, three city newspapers not known for moving in lock step.

. . .

To set the stage, the mayor had spent the last month making plain his interest in staying put at City Hall. He did not post a Web site or drop items in various blogs, but instead called Howard J. Rubenstein, a master of the city’s power grid. Meetings were set up with the owners of the daily newspapers, as well as with potential opponents and the city’s corporate overlords.

It was a gambit that would not have been out of place in the 1970s — or the 1870s, for that matter. This being a Bloomberg administration, there were no smoke-filled rooms, but there was definitely the sense that issues of civic moment were being handled in private environs.

“The only thing that my clients have been talking about for the past few weeks is the fiscal dilemma that this city is facing,” said Mr. Rubenstein, the public relations mogul who helped broker a deal in 1975 involving Abraham D. Beame, then mayor of the city, and Governor Hugh L. Carey back when the feds told the city to more or less drop dead.

“I did step up because I want to see the city survive and prosper,” Mr. Rubenstein said, “and I think we all agree that he is the person who we would like to see leading us through this crisis.”

In mid-September, after a year of talking on and off, Mr. Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch, who owns The New York Post, met for dinner at an Italian restaurant on the Upper East Side and sealed a deal. Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of The New York Times, had two breakfasts with the mayor, and although no specific commitments were made, an understanding was reached.

Mortimer B. Zuckerman, owner of The Daily News, said he had no trouble throwing his support behind Mr. Bloomberg. He said there had been no cabal, no conspiracy, just three newspaper publishers all arriving at the same conclusion at a critical juncture in the life of the city.

“Suggesting that the publishers can decide who the next mayor is is a little like being a 90-year-old named in a paternity suit,” Mr. Zuckerman said on the phone. “I only wish we had that kind of power. I think he has been a remarkable mayor, we face tremendous challenges as a city right now, and it’s clear that he is the person for the job.”

Emphasis on, “I don’t want to walk away”:

The term-limits question could have gone before the voters a third time next month had Bloomberg appointed a Charter Revision Commission he promised in January in his State of the City speech.

Councilman Bill DeBlasio (D-Brooklyn) called on the mayor to name that commission now so it could do just that in a special election.

But the mayor rejected that idea as “problematic.”

No need for referendum, by the way:

Council Speaker Christine Quinn disclosed Thursday that the mayor’s bill will request a permanent extension of term limits instead of a one-time waiver.

The question of whether to extend term limits permanently to three four-year terms from two — rather than just once for Bloomberg and other incumbents — is one of the most contentious aspects of the controversial move.

“As I understand the mayor’s bill, it is a bill that would permanently change term limits from eight years to 12 years,” said Quinn in a seeming slip.

. . . rewriting the law like you’re the Hugo Chavez of the Northeast is something different. And that press conference still doesn’t really provide a reason why this is a good idea:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced on Thursday that he would abandon his earlier opposition to changing the term limits law and seek a third term as mayor, arguing that the economic crisis buffeting the nation called for continuity in municipal leadership.

“The good news is that we have planned for a slowdown in New York, but we may well be on the verge of a meltdown,” Mr. Bloomberg said, “and it’s up to us to rise to the occasion.”

He added that a third term “is a challenge I want to take on for the people of New York.”

At a noontime news conference at City Hall, the mayor did not detail how the law, which voters have twice approved through referendums, would be overhauled.

“Should the City Council vote to amend term limits, I plan to ask New Yorkers to look at my record of independent leadership and then decide if I’ve earned another term,” he said. “As always, it will be up to the people to decide, not me.”

The mayor maintained he was still a supporter of term limits. “You’re not taking away term limits,” he said. “You’re simply going from two terms to three terms.”

So if next November the economy is in better shape, we can expect that you won’t run? Is that a promise?

Ronald Lauder, who bankrolled the 1993 and 1996 term limit referendum, tells us we should kill it, kill it:

My fellow New Yorkers agreed with this and voted overwhelmingly for term limits in both elections. And over 15 years, the concept has proved itself correct. Term limits gave us a more dynamic City Council. It also gave us Michael Bloomberg — a smart, competent and popular mayor. So having said all that, why do I suddenly have a change of heart on something about which I feel so strongly? Why do I believe term limits should be lifted temporarily to allow Mr. Bloomberg to run for a third term? The answer is simple.

I lived and worked here in New York during the fiscal crisis in the early 1970s. I remember how close this city came to going under. I also remember how that financial crisis trickled down and depressed life not just on Wall Street, but on every street in every borough. Housing prices plummeted, storefronts remained empty for years, business stagnated and opportunity dried up. A corresponding rise in crime led to nightmare murders that became the stuff of horror movies. Visitors stayed away, further eroding the city’s economy. Times Square in 1975 was not a place you wanted to bring your children.

I never want to see that happen again. During the last few weeks, we have seen an unprecedented rupture in our national economic system that rivals not 1975, but 1929. Ground zero for this financial meltdown is not Washington or California or small-town America, but New York. The sudden and shocking demise of major institutions like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns only reinforces the comparison to the earlier and even darker time.

Certainly, there are able candidates for mayor in both parties; I know and admire many of them. But I believe that for a city poised on the brink of economic disaster (and experience tells us that economic disasters eventually become social disasters), a prosperous future depends in large measure on a mayor with a deep understanding of finance, governance and politics.

There’s a strong vote of confidence about what the city’s economy will look like on January 1, 2010. I wonder what he knows . . . but as much as Lauder feels good about his own efforts to tame the sclerotic system of entrenched lawmakers, shouldn’t an idea be a good or bad idea regardless of who supports it financially?

So let’s tease this out — given that Bloomberg is especially suited to saving New York City from catastrophic economic woes 15 months from now, what exactly has the mayor done that is so impressive on this front? What will he do, create a computer terminal? What about his tenure in office — doing mayoral things that every mayor does, and acccomplishing mayoral goals that every mayor has — what about his work in office would bring someone to this conclusion? For starters, consult his astounding 96 percent success rate in fulfilling his 2005 campaign promises (as of 2007) (.pdf here). Obviously no one else in the whole world would have been able, for example, to “expand the Out-of-School Time (OST) system to increase the number of young people served” (page 4). That’s great and all — but that doesn’t exactly show how he would single-handedly stave off a worldwide recession.

I say look on the bright side, if Bloomberg is unable to lead and the city starts to look like Scorsese’s Taxi Driver, then we won’t have to worry about where to put those million new residents, will we?

No, not this mayor. “The Mayor’s Dangerous Idea” was the title of a Times editorial in 2001 that argued against Giuliani’s idea to extend his term three months to deal with the aftermath of Sept. 11:

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani wants to extend his current term of office into 2002, postponing the inauguration of a new mayor for several months. This is a terrible idea. Neither New York City nor the nation has ever postponed the transfer of power because the public was convinced it could not get along without the current incumbent. The very concept goes against the most basic of American convictions, that we live in a nation governed by rule of law.

To suggest that the city would be incapable of getting along without Mr. Giuliani after the end of the year undermines New York’s sense of self-sufficiency and normality, which the mayor himself has worked so hard to restore. While Mr. Giuliani has been a great leader during this crisis, the truth is that no one is indispensable. George Washington understood that when he rejected repeated attempts to keep him in office indefinitely. Washington was followed in the presidency by a long line of successors, some of them distinctly mediocre. But the country went on, because people put their faith in the democratic process and not in the strength of any one individual.

Mr. Giuliani has asked his three possible successors to agree to postpone the next inauguration and let him stay on for a few more months to continue his work on the city’s recovery. He and his supporters are holding out the threat that if the mayor is not given his wish, they will mount an attempt to repeal the term limits law so he can run for re-election in November. They argue that he needs just a few extra months to finish the most critical work in the wake of an enormous disaster. But one critical task after another is going to crop up for the foreseeable future. And history suggests that the worst time to change the election rules is right before an election, in a time of crisis.

. . .

Mr. Giuliani already has the ability to make sure the transfer of power is smooth. The mayor should begin working immediately to bring his potential successors up to speed. When he leaves office Jan. 1, he should urge key members of his own administration to stay on to finish the work they are doing if his successor wishes them to stay. The best way for Mr. Giuliani to help New York City after Jan. 1 is not by retaining power but by giving it up in the most generous way possible.

All of which is interesting given the Times’ editorial this morning endorsing Bloomberg’s proposal to temporarily overturn term limits to allow himself and all members of the City Council a chance to run for a third term:

The bedrock of American democracy is the voters’ right to choose. Though well intentioned, New York City’s term limits law severely limits that right, which is why this page has opposed term limits from the outset. The law is particularly unappealing now because it is structured in a way that would deny New Yorkers — at a time when the city’s economy is under great stress — the right to decide for themselves whether an effective and popular mayor should stay in office.

Partly for this reason, and partly to extend their own political careers, a majority of City Council members are thinking about amending the city law to allow elected officials to serve three consecutive terms instead of two. That would permit Mayor Michael Bloomberg to run again in 2009 and could also prolong the service of council members and other senior elected officials. Mr. Bloomberg, who is expected to announce on Thursday that he will seek a third term if he can, likes the idea a lot.

We do, too. But we would go further and ask the Council to abolish term limits altogether — not to serve any individual’s political career but to serve the larger cause of democracy.

Which really is to say, we’re not serious about this at all. Think back to the large outpouring of support for Giuliani after Sept. 11 — “mayor for life” and all that. Does the Times editorial board really — no, seriously, really — think Bloomberg has more good will right now than Giuliani did after Sept. 11?

It makes a lot of people uncomfortable to legislatively rewrite a law that voters have twice approved at the ballot box — in 1993 and 1996. It makes us uncomfortable, too, and we previously took the position that any change should be left to the voters. But we have concluded now that changing the law legislatively does not make us nearly as uncomfortable as keeping it. It is within the rights of the Council, itself an elected body, to do so.

Term limits are seductive, promising relief from mediocre, self-perpetuating incumbents and gridlocked legislatures. They are also profoundly undemocratic, arbitrarily denying voters the ability to choose between good politicians and bad, especially in a city like New York with a strong public campaign-financing system, while automatically removing public servants of proven ability who are at a productive point in their careers.

But again — who exactly — exactly who — is agitating for a change? Is this something families discuss over dinner, expressing fear that their elected representative who is right in the middle of a productive point in his career won’t have had enough time to fulfill his legacy? Or is this coming from the people who would truly be affected by term limits, which is to say, the mayor and the City Council?

The City Council members who want to change the law are not alone. A survey in The Times last month found that at least two dozen local governments are suffering buyer’s remorse about the term limits they adopted, mostly in the 1990s. One common complaint is that they force politicians to focus on small-bore projects that can be achieved quickly rather than visionary ideas. The constant churning also diminishes accountability in governmental institutions like the City Council.

See, elected officials in governments everywhere are unhappy that they only have a limited time in office! As much as I’m excited to let council members explore visionary ideas, I have a feeling New York City will somehow survive.

Then there’s the up-is-down argument that this is actually more democratic:

Most places that are trying to relax term limits are likely to do so via the ballot box, with several referendums due in November. There is a chance that a vote on the issue could be organized early next year in New York in conjunction with special elections to the City Council. But such elections do not attract many voters. In the end, a vote by the Council is probably the most democratic way to address the matter.

And if you don’t like it, vote the bums out:

It is worth repeating: This is a rule that needs to be abolished. If the voters don’t like the result, they can register their views at the polls.

Good idea. It almost makes you want to hope that Bloomberg, despite the millions he will spend, will go down horribly next November.

Ultimately, you have to wonder who is so excited about a third Bloomberg term? The Times’ report clarifies:

With his decision, Mr. Bloomberg is overruling the advice of his top three assistants at City Hall — Deputy Mayors Edward Skyler, Patricia E. Harris and Kevin Sheekey –who have expressed opposition to a third term.

Those aides have told the mayor — at times forcefully — that any campaign to challenge the term-limits law would look like an end run around voters, and could sully his legacy as a reform-minded outsider. Others have told the mayor that they may not remain for a full third term.

In the business community, however, the idea of a Bloomberg third term is popular. At charity balls and on golf courses, executives like the financier Steven Rattner, the developer Jerry I. Speyer and the media mogul Rupert Murdoch have encouraged him to seek a third term.

Got that? Wall Street, a developer and Rupert Murdoch. Given what has happened this past month, do you really want to trust those guys?

. . . decisive action is taken.

Pelosi, you’re killing me here . . .

Were federal terror funds used for this, I wonder? Oy:

Among the hundreds of New York City police security cameras installed throughout the city are three in front of the Brooklyn home of Chief of Department Joseph Esposito, according to police sources.

Esposito, the highest-ranking uniformed member of the department, lives on a quiet block that residents say is virtually devoid of crime and trouble, other than the occasional rowdy teenager.

Police sources said the cameras — two aimed at his property and one that can rotate and capture images farther up the block — were set up as a precaution and not because the chief had received any legitimate death threats.

Esposito referred questions to the NYPD’s press office. Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne said it is the department’s policy not to discuss security matters.

. . .

One high-ranking police source, however, said the cameras in front of Esposito’s home are not among the 505 being placed at a cost of $9.1 million throughout the city to fight crime.

Esposito is highly visible, often seen at the side of Police Commissioner Ray Kelly during news briefings and known to respond at all hours of the day and night to major incidents.

Kelly has a camera outside his apartment door in the Battery Park City building where he lives, and there is a stepped-up police response whenever officers from the First Precinct respond there, regardless of the nature of the call.

It was unclear if any other police officials have cameras outside their homes.

One politician who does, city Councilman Peter Vallone Jr., said one was installed in front of his Astoria home because someone opposed to his public denouncements of graffiti put his address on a Web site and encouraged taggers to vandalize his property.

I don’t know — check the flood plain. Yes, that’s right — flood plain:

Why does the city want to elevate a new riverfront park by five feet?

That was the question this month at a public meeting on replacing parkland lost to the new Yankee Stadium. By raising this parcel, the city replied, people would be able to see over an elevated freight track.

. . .

The land had always been the most peculiar piece of the city’s park replacement scheme. Located next to the Deegan Expressway, it was a mile away from the parkland it’s replacing.

Anger greeted last month’s news that cleaning up this site would cost taxpayers $56 million, three times the previous estimate. When questioned, the city claimed it had no idea the land was so polluted, though contamination had been found there in a stadium project review two years ago.

Capping polluted sites is so prevalent the practice has been derided as “pave and wave.” But why raise the land by five feet exactly?

The parcel was originally part of the Gateway Mall project being built by powerhouse developer the Related Cos. A slice later got pawned off on the city in former Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff’s failed bid for the Olympics. A 2005 City Planning document for the mall noted the site would have to be “elevated approximately five feet due to the flood plain requirements in this area.”

. . . the typical easy target:

Hizzoner said yesterday uncollected taxes on cigarettes sold on Indian reservations could spare straphangers at least one of two proposed fare hikes to close a $700 million hole in the MTA’s budget.

“That just alone would replace one of those fare increases,” said Bloomberg, who was in New Orleans for the National Conference of State Legislatures. “We want to make sure that the state goes and finds alternative sources.”

Skin cancer will cause the deaths of 7,000 Americans this year, and maybe more if the most evil team in baseball has its way:

Yankee fans are seeing — and turning — red over a ban on sunscreen, which Stadium security guards say was widely expanded in the last few weeks.

Security guards collected garbage bags full of sunblock at the entrances to Yankee Stadium over the sweltering weekend, when temps hit 96 degrees and the UV index reached a skin-scorching 9 out of 10 — a move team officials said was to protect the Stadium from terrorism.

But fans baking in the bleachers and upper deck argued that the sun may be a bigger threat than Osama bin Laden.

“I was really pissed because, since I am Irish and I have a bald head, I need my sunblock,” said Sean Gavin, 40, who had to toss his SPF 30 at the gate Saturday.

“After they saw me dousing myself with it, it should have been obvious to them that it was sunblock and not some explosive.”

. . .

Four weeks ago, Stadium officials decided that sunscreen of all sizes and varieties would not be permitted, a security supervisor told The Post before last night’s game.

“There have been a lot of complaints,” he said. “We tell them to apply once and then throw it out.”

For fans who bring babies or young children to cheer on the home team, the guard had suggested they “beg” to take the sunblock in.

. . .

The Stadium does sell 1-ounce bottles of Arizona Sun SPF 15 for $5 — a huge markup that makes its beer seem cheap.

Dermatologists said that, security concerns or not, leaving 56,000 fans unprotected from potential skin cancer is “very dangerous.”

“This is especially bad for children, as their younger skin is particularly sensitive,” said Dr. Babar Rao, a specialist at the Skin and Cancer Center of New York. “Sunblock needs to be reapplied every two hours, even if you are not swimming in the ocean or pool.”

Major League Baseball even has a skin-cancer prevention program called “Play Sun Smart.”

An hour after being asked about the sunscreen ban, Yankee spokesman Jason Zillo told The Post that the rules would be changed to permit 3-ounce containers.

(And MLB doesn’t just have a namby-pamby “program” to battle skin cancer — it’s actually one of Commissioner Bud Selig’s pet projects, Selig himself diagnosed with skin cancer in 2004.)

That would be a switch! Funny how that sometimes works out:

One of the biggest water bill deadbeats in New York City is the Economic Development Corporation, according to an audit released by the city comptroller’s office on Monday.

William C. Thompson Jr., the comptroller, said that the corporation had not paid any water or sewer bills for 22 years at the Brooklyn Army Terminal in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, a building of commercial and light industrial space controlled by the corporation.

The unpaid bills totaled $4.5 million.

In a press conference, Mr. Thompson said he was outraged that the agency was so delinquent, not only in failing to pay its bills but also in not contacting the city’s Department of Environmental Protection, which runs the water system, since 1989.