The Mayor’s Dangerous Idea

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?

See What Happens When You Don’t Follow “The Rules”?

You attract the wrong kind of guys:

Cops say a New Jersey man wooed a 30-year-old woman from New Dorp Beach online, but then, after she paid for lunch at the end of their date, stole her credit card.

Jared W. Winans, 28, of Old Tappan, is accused of using the card to make about $100 in purchases in New Jersey and Massachusetts.

The ill-fated date started on May 21, and ended at about 12:30 p.m. the next day at the Applebee’s restaurant in New Dorp, according to court papers.

She paid the check, though it’s unclear if the two ever went on a second date, a law enforcement source said.

A few days later, the woman noticed her credit card missing, and filed a report. The investigation led to Winans, who made several small purchases a day after the date, the source said.

The NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau got involved not long after, the source said, because Winans puffed up his dating résumé by falsely claiming to be a cop.

Woodlawn Meets Fallujah

Take care of these animals now before they become mass murderers:

Their colony in the Bronx already is devastated by so many ills: homelessness, hunger and rampant disease. Their young are often left to fend for themselves in the streets or in abandoned houses, where many will die a lonesome death.

And now they’re being beaten, burned and mutilated, residents say.

With so much already against them, it seems even harder out there than usual for the feral cats of Woodlawn.

The first report surfaced late last month. Karen Borsotti said she was walking along Vireo Avenue near East 233rd Street when she noticed a gray cat skulking by the road. It had a large gash across its back and seemed a bit haggard, she said. Ms. Borsotti stepped closer to get a better look, but the cat darted off. Later, she said, she saw signs posted on utility poles offering a $500 reward for anyone with information on the person or people responsible for what some say is serial cat abuse.

A couple days later, Animal Nation, a nonprofit rescue group, reported receiving a frantic call from a teenage girl pleading for help. She had found a 6-month-old brown tabby she knew from the neighborhood. It had been badly beaten and its tail was burned to the bone. A veterinarian later said that most of the cat’s teeth had been broken or knocked out, that it had suffered major head trauma and burns to its gums, likely sustained when it tried to bite out the flames on its tail. The young tabby was euthanized.

Where Are All Those Yankee Stadium Parks They Promised?

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 Cult Of Rebates And Tax Cuts

That stupid, stupid, stupid asinine Christmas rebate back in 2005 is looking stupider and stupider now that the MTA is squawking about consecutive years of fare increases:

The subway fare is accelerating faster than a runaway express, as the MTA yesterday announced two fare hikes in the next 30 months.

Straphangers are due to get slammed by the pair of increases — totaling 13.4 percent by January 2011 — on the cost of tolls, commuter tickets and MetroCards, according to the MTA’s financial plan.

An 8 percent hike is slated for July 2009, and another 5 percent is due to be tacked on 18 months later. Added to the 3.85 percent hike enacted in March, the fare will have risen nearly 18 percent in 34 months.

“I don’t want to pay more money,” said Wendell Trupe, 49, of Harlem. “What are they doing with the money from the last fare hike? These damn people are out of their minds.”

The 8 percent increase, due to raise $202 million next year, is proposed to take effect six months earlier than originally planned. It is the first time riders have been hit with fare hikes in consecutive years since the early ’80s.

The MTA is also expecting to spring a 5 percent raise on the cost of MetroCards in January 2011 to bring in an additional $272 million that year.

“This is a function of where we are now,” said MTA executive director Elliot Sander. “The last thing we want do is to be up here right now asking for this.”

(And are we in for a similar shock after years of idiotic property tax rebates? Likely!)