You’re Telling Me That You Can Make It On Your Own By Yourself All Alone Without My Help, Mister You Just Made A Big Mistake

Is that “well oiled” as in “snake” or “well oiled” as in “grease the system”? Either way, a Freudian slip:

At times, he slouched in his chair, crossing his arms, then uncrossing them. His eyes darted around the room, sometimes settling on the clock. He fidgeted.

The body language was not difficult to read: Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg was uncomfortable.

“To hell with your agenda,” thundered David Tieu, a 21-year-old deliveryman from Brooklyn, as the mayor sat about 15 feet away, staring at him.

Patrice Senior, a nurse from Brooklyn, accused Mr. Bloomberg of “plantation politics.” And Patti Hagan, a writer, assailed his “strong-armed knuckle-busting” tactics.

Custom at City Hall has long allowed anyone to appear at a bill signing and offer an opinion on the legislation being enacted. Most such ceremonies are sleepy affairs that attract a handful of political gadflies.

But on Monday, this tidy ritual was turned on its head. For four uninterrupted hours, scores of New Yorkers walked up to a microphone, looked at Mr. Bloomberg and rendered a blunt verdict on the legislation that would allow him to seek a third term.

It was a singular moment in the Bloomberg era of government. For much of his tenure, the mayor has been showered with accolades and surrounded by friendly crowds that have treated him like a head of state.

But during the bill signing, a man unaccustomed to direct, public criticism endured a heavy — and very harsh — dose of it from those he governs.

Dozens of speakers accused the mayor of arrogantly disregarding the will of New York voters, who overwhelmingly endorsed the current eight-year term limits in two referendums in the 1990s.

There were many voices of support, too — from average New Yorkers, elected officials and union heads — and Mr. Bloomberg appeared relieved when they spoke of his proven leadership and financial résumé.

“You have everything well oiled, and I would like you to sign this so the people of New York City have a choice to keep you in office,” said Jill Whitaker, a personal assistant in Manhattan.

. . .

When the testimony was over, around 2 p.m., it was Mr. Bloomberg’s turn to speak. Still sitting behind the table, with the room half empty, he said that “I thought long and hard” about the issue. After long opposing any attempt to tweak term limits — he once called the idea “disgraceful” — the mayor said he had decided to reverse himself.

“You know that I have, over a period of time, fundamentally changed my opinion in terms of how long somebody could be in office,” Mr. Bloomberg said.

“Nobody is irreplaceable,” he said. “But I do think that if you take a look at the real world, at how long it takes to do things,” he added, and finished the thought, “I do think that three terms makes more sense than two.”

With that, the left-handed Mr. Bloomberg picked up a black and gold pen and, with a flick of his wrist, rewrote New York City’s term limits law.

So Either . . .

. . . this is the most important use of city money, and far, far outweighs incurring potential multi-gazillion-dollar deficits or the mayor is totally full of shit and there is not and will not be a crippling financial crisis (in which case, take a third term off the table!). Because it can’t be both:

The city has gobbled up another chunk of Willets Point in Queens as Mayor Bloomberg pushes his plan to transform the gritty industrial zone near Shea Stadium.

In the biggest land deal to date in the neighborhood, the city persuaded Indian food distributor House of Spices — the second-largest landowner at Willets Point — to sell its 4 acres, city officials told the Daily News.

The deal is expected to be announced Monday along with an agreement for a third of an acre owned by another company.

Combined with previously inked deals, the city now controls more than 40% of the 62-acre tangle of auto body shops and other businesses — and could soon have half the land.

Bloomberg wants to spend $3 billion to turn the area into a glitzy enclave of 5,500 residences, stores, a hotel and a convention center.

Location Scout: Iron Triangle.

So Obviously The Borough President Is Also One Of Those Indispensible Posts; There’s A New One . . .

I understand that Mayor Bloomberg is the only person out there who can single-handedly save New York City from a worldwide financial meltdown, which makes it absolutely vital to allow him to run for a third term. And although it’s unclear why a philosophical line-in-the-sand needs to be drawn at this point, without much public debate, about the effects of term limits on representative bodies like the City Council, I understand the arguments against term limits (though which is it — a one time-only break to ease the city into the upcoming financial crisis or a principled stand against term limits?).

But for the life of me, I will never, ever, ever understand why the offices of Borough President, Comptroller and Public Advocate are so necessary that those posts also should be included in the legislation. But then there they are, also in the legislation:

Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this charter, no person shall be eligible to be elected to or serve in the office of mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president or council member if that person had previously held such office for three or more full consecutive terms, unless one full term or more has elapsed since that person last held such office; provided, however, that in calculating the number of consecutive terms a person has served, only terms commencing on or after January 1, 1994 shall be counted.

Not just unserious — profoundly unserious! Again, fuck all you all!

It’s Not So Much Self-Serving As It Is Crassly Opportunistic

Of the 15 Councilmembers who have expressed support for the plan to raise term limits for the City Council and Mayor to three terms, at least temporarily, before a Charter Revision Commission can restore them to two, 14 are term limited out of office in 2009.

The “Why Lie? I Need A Beer” Method Of Campaigning

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.