Support for Bloomberg at 59%, down from 68%

There is a ton of coverage of the new Marist poll that puts Bloomberg's support at 59%, down from a recent level of 68%. Here's a selected list:

• AP/Newsday ~ Poll: Bloomberg approval at 3-year low
  
• SI Advance ~ Michael Bloomberg's approval rating down 9 percent: Mayor Michael Bloomberg's approval ratings have dropped by almost double digits in the last seven weeks, likely the result of a nose-diving economy and a controversial term limits bill he pushed through City Council, results of a Marist College poll released today indicate.
  
• CNN Political Ticker: Bloomberg approval rating takes a hit
  (currently one of the top national stories)
  
• NY Times: Bloomberg’s Approval Rating Slips in Poll (of the 46 comments as of this moment, 44 were critical of Bloomberg's term limits move)
  
• Yonkers Tribune: NYC Voters Disagree With Term Limit Extension
  
• NY1, Reuters, Crain's, NY Observer, et cetera, et cetera

Also, the Daily News analyzes the Working Family Party's claims of electoral victory, partially based their strong stance against Bloomberg's term extension. They also write about Anthony Weiner taking the high road.

Whew! Much more ink and many more pixels will be spilled on this, especially since there are national implications. The Guardian reports about one of Obama's new appointees, Patrick Gaspard:

Gaspard played a crucial role in SEIU's decision to come out against New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg in his bid to overturn term-limits rules and run for re-election, according to the Daily News report.

~
~~
~

AtlanticYardsReport responds to the Voice

The Atlantic Yards Report casts an appreciative but critical eye to the Voice's coverage of Bloomberg:

Wayne Barrett's Village Voice cover story, The Transformation of Mike Bloomberg, demolishes the claims that Bloomberg's decision to seek a third term was driven by a duty to confront the financial crisis and dissects the editorial arguments made in favor of Bloomberg's effort
to extend term limits.

Here is the Atlantic Yards angle:

I think Barrett is a bit too generous about Bloomberg's first term. After all, there were already signs of the mayor's edifice complex and his unquestioning willingness to back a developer's plan....

As I pointed out, Bloomberg essentially said that the city and the developer were on the same team, nearly a year and a half before the Metropolitan Transportation Authority put the Vanderbilt Yard--some 40% of the proposed site--out for bid.

article >>

This was also covered in NoLandGrab.

~
~~
~

Benevolent billionaire with no political debts ended up owning us all

The Village Voice published an article worth reading about the first and second terms of the Bloomberg administration. Here's a flavor:

The Bloomberg who came into office as the anti-politician, promising to transform city government, has been transformed himself. Some of us liked him precisely because his wealth insulated him from the kind of horsetrading that diminished his predecessors. But seven years later, Bloomberg has not only proved himself to be a master politician, as hungry for power as anyone we've ever seen, but he's also ended up putting nearly everyone who deals with the city deep into his political debt.

article >>

~
~~
~

The need for "consistent leaders"... and persistant bloggers

At Room 8, Oneshirt lays into the City Council and friends in "Was the Lie of 'Consistent Leadership' Old Media’s Last Stand." The post criticizes the argument made by the main New York papers and politicians that continuing the current leadership is somehow good and necessary. For Oneshirt, this is a prime example of why bloggers are becoming the new heroes of our fine city's democracy:

Only the city’s bloggers like Your Free Press, Pardon Me For Asking, The Brooklyn Optimist, The Daily Gotham, Queens Crap, and Washington Square Park reported to their readers during the term limits debate that the Council’s argument for continuity of leadership to save the city’s economy was nothing more than public relations spin to cover the Council’s blatant power grab for an additional term in office. At the same time these citizen journalists across the City were reporting the real facts, the Mayor was meeting with the publishers of the three major dailies to coordinate a cover story for his support of extending term limits.

One of these bloggers/journalists, Rafael Martinez-Alequin, is fighting to keep his press pass. He is being represented by Norman Siegel.


article >>

~
~~
~

Bloomberg and the 29 didn't listen to you...but the internets will

There's a new website dedicated to the Bloomberg 29—that is, the City Council Members that voted to give the mayor a third term. You can visit it at bloomberg29.webs.com and see snazzy graphics like this:

And what would any movement be without t-shirts? You can pick them up at cafepress.com/bloomberg29.

~
~~
~

First Term Limits Lawsuit Court Appearance

Here is a press release from the office of Council Member Bill de Blasio:

Tomorrow, plaintiffs and co-counsel Randy Mastro, Norman Siegel and Pieter Van Tol in the lawsuit against the newly enacted law extending term limits, filed last Monday in the Eastern District of New York, will make their first court appearance. The court appearance is scheduled for 2pm and will be a scheduling conference at which the attorneys filing the suit will ask Judge Charles P. Sifton to set a schedule for the resolution of the merits of the case.

What: First term limits lawsuit court appearance.

Who: Plaintiffs; Co-Counsel Randy Mastro, Norman Siegel and Pieter Van Tol.

When: Wednesday, November 19th, 2:00PM

Where: The Federal Courthouse for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Courtroom 6-A. The Courthouse is located in Downtown Brooklyn at 225 Cadman Plaza East.

~
~~
~

ChangeNYC.org on term limits

ChangeNYC.Org is a newly announced website working to "unify our City’s Democratic Party by welcoming all New Yorkers back into the political process." Here is what they have to say about term limits:

In New York City, there is only one political party with any real power: the Democratic Party. It controls almost every single elected office in the five boroughs and sets the City’s policies practically unopposed. As Democrats, you would think that would make for an ideal government. But, as we all know, New York City’s government is far from perfect.

The problem is that the comfort of one-party rule has let our City’s Democratic leaders settle into a pattern of indifference to the people’s concerns, dangerous inaction, and, all too often, corruption.

Our City’s elected officials and political bosses deliberately keep our government dysfunctional to preserve and advance their own interests. The clearest example of this self-serving agenda is the City Council’s recent vote to extend term limits. New Yorkers had voted twice in the past fifteen years to have term limits, and there was no reason to believe we had changed our minds. In fact, just two days before the Council voted to treat themselves to another four years in office, 89 percent of New Yorkers polled said that they opposed the Council’s power grab.

website >>

~
~~
~

Term limits and mayoral control over schools

There was an anti-mayoral control of schools rally that took place at City Hall which sparked several articles:

• The Daily News just published "Foes vow to loosen mayor Michael Bloomberg grip on schools."
  
  
• This was followed up by a blog posting with video by Elizabeth Benjamin of the News.
  
  
• The Gotham Gazette published Choosing Sides in the Fight Over Schools
  
  
• Gotham Schools published Weiner says extending term limits will hurt mayoral control back on October 30
  

~
~~
~

Blog round-up of Bloomberg term-limit coverage

Here are this weekend's collection of screeds against Bloomberg:

• In Mayor's Dangerous Slippery Slope, the The Neighborhood Retail Alliance asks about Bloomberg, "With a white knight like this, who could be frightened of a really malevolent leader?"
  
  
• Roughed-up protester wins thousands! reports on protesters illegally detained during the 2004 Republican National Convention
  
  
• NYC Mayor Bloomberg~Bilderberg covers the new anti-Bloomberg coalition living up to the handle "It's all Dark News, it has to be."
  

While many blog (like this one) on re-hash news, Rock Hackshaw continues to write original analysis based on a very long memory. In Vann, Fidler and Comrie (Part Two), he asks some questions that go to the heart of the term limit debate:

What projects have you (as electeds) failed to complete that necessitate the extension? Also; why did you fail to complete them?

article >>

~
~~
~

Team Bloomberg vs. Team Obama

Bloomberg's team is being picked at by two sides. The city budget crisis makes deals tougher for the mayor, but several City Hall folks are angling for Obama jobs. The Daily News writes about it in Team Michael Bloomberg in a bit of team chaos:

At least one of Bloomberg's top commissioners may be plucked for high-level duty in President-elect Barack Obama's administration, and others are enjoying the speculation that they might. One of his top jobs sits empty, with no obvious candidate, and everyone planning for a five-year future has to do it quietly.

On the other hand:

"There's a more palpable tension right now," said City Councilman Lew Fidler (D-Brooklyn), who supported Bloomberg on extending term limits and is now fighting him on eliminating the $400 tax rebate. "The alliances are shifting."

article >>

~
~~
~

The Mayor, The Times’ Timing, and a Proper Ordering

In The Mayor, The Times’ Timing, and a Proper Ordering, Noticing New York posts detailed analysis about the NY Times editorials regarding term limits. The article suggests some buyer's remorse by the Times in their support of Bloomberg's term extension, and it paints an unseemly picture of Bloomberg:

We do not know exactly what makes a wealthy man like Bloomberg tick. He may be wealthier beyond any need to be richer. He can’t eat any better and he is at that “What can you buy that you can't already afford?” stage (See: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, Remembering; Not Forgetting in Chinatown). The Mayor’s attraction to power is out in the open, given that he was recently willing to pay such a high price to stay in power. Some explanation is likely to be found in the way funds flow through the Mayor’s charities. The Mayor may claim by not taking campaign funds he owes nobody anything. But we have observed that the way he uses charities to accept and intermingle funds from developers points to quid pro quo obligations. It presents situations that are a challenge to distinguish from old-fashioned kickback behavior.

article >>

~
~~
~

Letter from Butiama: Bloomberg should have been Tanzanian

The Tanzanian Standard Newspapers are not very impressed with Mayor Bloomberg's leadership record:

There is no shortage of lecturers from the developed world who do not miss an opportunity to lecture leaders and governments in the developing world people to respect regulations governing term limits.

But following the recent amendment of the New York City’s term limits law by Mayor Michael Bloomberg that will extend term limits and allow him and fellow councillors to seek a third four-year term in 2009 who will continue to argue that the urge to remain in office is an affliction of the developing world only?

article >>

~
~~
~

Rock on Vann, Fidler and Comrie

Rock Hachshaw is a person with a long memory. He just posted about Al Vann, Leroy Comrie and Lew Fidler— "all three voted for the vomitable extension bill"— and here is a bit:

Leroy Comrie had raised $211,624 from 683 people. This money was for his re-election to the council in 2005. I also exposed the fact that he had spent $193,629 of this money, and still had some other outstanding liabilities at that point. What was striking to me was the fact that Leroy Comrie had no primary opponent. He also had no challenger for the general election. As far as my recollection goes, his name appeared on the Democratic, Republican and Working Families Party lines. He may have even been placed on the Independent Party line for all you know. I found this disgraceful. He spent all this money for what purpose?

Rock gives a brief overview of all three of their long, long careers, and concludes:

My point is this: if elected officials are given significant times in office, but still fail to solve or resolve problems/issues; then why should their terms be extended?

article >>

~
~~
~

Bloomberg keeps The Angry New Yorker busy

The Angry New Yorker has many posts to add to the rants about Bloomberg's term limit extensions. Here are a couple:

• Bring in the Feds
  
  
• Term Limit Flip Flopper tries to explain herself.

And this one isn't on term limits, but it is about Bloomberg:

• Bloomberg: Let’s Cut NYC until it Burns

The City That Never Sleeps should probably be renamed The City With Bloggers That Never Sleep.

~
~~
~

NY GOP sours on Bloomberg

NY Post reports on Bloomberg's falling support within the NY state GOP:

Many Republicans had hoped Mayor Bloomberg, with his deep pockets and personal popularity, would fill the leadership vacuum and run for governor because term limits were expected to force him to leave office.

Months ago, Bloomberg even quietly sounded out retiring Buffalo US Rep. Thomas Reynolds and former Utica Sen. Raymond Meier about becoming the state GOP leader.

But the possibility that Bloomberg would run for governor ended with the City Council's decision last month to allow him to run for a third term.

The changed dynamic has led some Republicans to look to Red Apple/Gristedes supermarket mogul John Catsimatidis as a possible new state GOP force and potential candidate for governor.

article >>

~
~~
~

Long: Conservative politician against Bloomberg's term extension

The Daily News introduces us to state Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long:

He's certainly one of the more right-leaning members of the 26 plaintiffs who sued yesterday in federal court.

But Long insisted that he is not, unlike some of his compatriots, motivated by a desire to keep Mayor Bloomberg off the ballot in 2009, but rather due to his longstanding support of term limits as a concept and his belief that there should have been a referendum this time around.

article >>

~
~~
~

Scathing report on Bloomberg by Inner City Press

Inner City Press is not very happy with Bloomberg:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, fresh from buying the chance to buy a third term despite the public passage of term limits, now apparently feels free to deploy lawless gangs to evict lower income New Yorker, all in the name of redevelopment.

On November 10, Bloomberg's housing and buildings Departments converged on a four-story building in Mott Haven in the South Bronx, intent on removing the residents. They never took them to court. Rather, they wrote pretextual vacate orders and called Con Edison to turn off the lights. They stood cackling in the half-light, ridiculing those they were evicting, many of them hard-working immigrants of the type Bloomberg pretends to respect.

article >>

~
~~
~

Am Law Litigation: Legal team could embarass Bloomberg

It's always interesting to see how the legal press reports on legal actions. AmericanLawyer.com reports on some of the personal implications of the lawyers involved in the newest suit against the mayor:

Given his loyalty to Giuliani, [Randy] Mastro's work on the legal campaign to block Bloomberg's efforts had already raised eyebrows even before he coauthored the coalition's complaint. "If Mastro succeeds in derailing Bloomberg's plan for another four years, he'd embarrass [Bloomberg]," wrote Jacob Gershman in a recent New York magazine story.

article >>

The Neighborhood Retail Alliance continues with similar observations, and has this to say:

The idea that this gives the folks more choice is subjected to justified ridicule: "The lawsuit points out that in the past decade, only 2 of 107 incumbent council members lost a re-election bid. It also highlights Mayor Bloomberg’s many statements in favor of term limits over the past few years, as when he deemed some council members’ calls for a change to term limits “disgraceful” and criticized a proposal to resubmit the issue to a third referendum by saying, “I think the public has spoken twice and they’ve spoken quite clearly. I don’t know that you should keep shopping for a different answer.”

article >>

~
~~
~

Tons of press about suit against Bloomberg's term extension

There has been countless articles written in the last few hours about the new suit against Bloomberg's attempt to get a third term as mayor.

Before listing countless links, click here to read the text of the suit against the mayor. It's one of these new iPaper things.

If you're reading this, then you've probably already done a Google news search on the Bloomberg and "term limits." If not, click here.

Here's a sample of what much of the press has say. This is from a Newsday article:

"It was not legal or constitutional for the majority of the City Council and the mayor to enact this legislation, to award themselves another term in office," said Attorney Randy Mastro and civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel, announcing the filing of the 48-page legal brief.

Foes of the term-limits bill Bloomberg signed last week filed suit in federal court in Brooklyn. The suit claims voters' constitutional rights had been violated, saying voting is "a bedrock democratic principle."

The Gotham Gazette does a good job in painting a picture of the vast range of opponents to the mayor, representing all boroughs and political stripes. But do their efforts have any chance in succeeding? Azi Paybarah takes a stab at that question in his article in the Observer.

The NY Times also writes about arts groups which have gotten money from Bloomberg, have just gotten awards from him, and are- surprise- lining up to testify in his favor. The Gray Lady covered the new suit and press conference here, and writes about the upheaval after Darlene Mealy's vote in favor of the mayor here.

NY1 continues its regular coverage here, though you've got to wonder when they will realize that LetiTia James does not have a "c" in her name.

It's the articles on the periphery that are even more interesting. My San Antonio give some perspective on this fight. All the while, the Bloomberg LP is facing a suit for gender discrimination. Condé Nast has writes about it in "Mayor Bloomberg's Delicate Condition."

Whew! On a day when liberals are praising George W. Bush for gracefully handing over power to President-elect Barack Obama, you've got to wonder when we'll have a peaceful transfer of power in New York City.

Ex-Staten Island BP plans suit vs. term limits extension

The Staten Island Advance reports on the growing political and legal heft opposing Bloomberg's term limit maneuvers. Ex-Staten Island BP plans suit vs. term limits extension reports on the impressive list of elected officials supporting the new suit:

Molinari, a Republican who also represented the Island in Congress for a decade, said he will be the lead plaintiff in the civil action against Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who sought the extension to three terms. The former borough president will be joined by more than a dozen plaintiffs, including Brooklyn Democrats Charles Barron, Leticia (sic) James and Bill DeBlasio, the City Council's most vocal opponents to the term limits bill; Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum; and the New York Public Interest Research Group.

There is an interesting legal basis for the new suit:

The lawsuit contends that overturning two public referenda that overwhelmingly supported a limit of two 4-year terms for public officeholders violates the First Amendment, which guarantees the right of political speech and meaningful elections; and it violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which "forbids incumbent elected officials from making legislation for the purpose of extending themselves in office."

Molinari's move come with a personal cost:

His decision to join the lawsuit was difficult, the 79-year-old said, because he considers Bloomberg a personal friend. However, Molinari, who still remains a force in Staten Island politics, said he "certainly wouldn't rule out" backing the mayor for a third term -- should he lose the lawsuit, of course. "Despite the feelings I have for Mike, if you don't agree with someone, and you really believe it

article >>

~
~~
~

Roundup of Bloomberg term limit bill signing

There was a flood of coverage of Bloomberg's signing ceremony today which featured a garnish of public testimony. Nothing can quite capture the raucous nature of the crowds gathering before the hearing. It was disorganized, but it was an inspiring and spontaneous expression of democracy... followed by a pre-ordained event.

Here are the videos that I recorded:

http://www.youtube.com/nopowergrab


Here are a ton of links:

• NY Times: Bloomberg Gets 3rd-Term Bill, and a Public Earful
  
  
• Daily News: Term Limits A Done Deal
  
  
• NY1: Mayor Signs Term Limits Extension Into Law
  
  
• Associate Press: NYC mayor signs term-limits bill
  
  
• Reuters: NY mayor wins chance for 3rd term despite criticism
  
  
• AlterNet: The Big Money Barrier Surrounding the White House
  
  
• WNYC: Mayor Extends Term Limits
  
  
• The Wonkster: Bloomberg Signs Term Limits Bill
  
  
• SI Advance: Staten Islanders speak at signing ceremony for Bloomberg's term-limits bill
  
  
• Brooklyn Daily Eagle: Assemblyman Jeffries Announces State Proposal on Term Limits

A few links via Gotham Gazette:

Final Hearing on Term Limits (Daily News, 11/03/08)
The public will get one more chance Monday to sound off about term limits, and this time they'll get to say it directly to Mayor Bloomberg.

Imperial Bloomberg (New York Magazine, 11/03/08)
During the City Hall press conference officially making Michael Bloomberg a term-limits flip-flopper, a reporter began a question by referring to the mayor’s extended flirtation with a third-party bid for the White House.

~
~~
~

Mayor Risks Image by NY Times and other commenters

The NY Times explores some of the dirty politics that goes behind Bloomberg enlisting support for a third term. The paper suggests that his dealings with party insiders will make it harder for him to govern in the future.

As he doggedly pursued a third term, Mr. Bloomberg bridged disparate political constituencies that barely communicate, much less agree on anything — enlisting union leaders and titans of finance, party bosses and abortion rights advocates. (Even the rabbi at Mr. Bloomberg’s Manhattan synagogue called a wavering City Council member on the mayor’s behalf.)

But in creating those alliances, the mayor may have hurt his chances for re-election. A large part of Mr. Bloomberg’s popularity rests on his image as a nonpartisan billionaire not beholden to special interests or fellow elected leaders.

article >>

The Times article prompted additional observations on The Neighborhood Retail Alliance:

And the mayor has governed in such a way as to bolster the confidence of the investor class as every turn. Why shouldn't they feel he's the "most sophisticated and the most skilled person available?" But this may all, as the Times points out, be about to change. The erosion of the image can be seen as the first step towards a popular re-evaluation: "But in creating those alliances, the mayor may have hurt his chances for re-election. A large part of Mr. Bloomberg’s popularity rests on his image as a nonpartisan billionaire not beholden to special interests or fellow elected leaders."

This is just the beginning, however. As the NY Post reports this morning, plans are on the table for municipal layoffs; and if this comes to pass-along with the inevitable knee jerk Bloomberg tax hike-people are going to see Mike Bloomberg in a totally different light. No longer on the pedestal constructed by a fawning editorial phalanx, Bloomberg's diminished image may be the harbinger of his ultimate political demise.

article >>

~
~~
~

Avella to Bloomberg: What You Did Was a Disgrace

Here is a reaction from Tony Avella to Bloomberg's recent attempt to mend fences:

Last week, Tony Avella received Mike Bloomberg’s “reconciliatory” telephone call, following the vote to extend term limits.

“While I appreciated receiving Mr. Bloomberg’s phone call, I told him that what he did (extending term limits) was clearly a disgrace,” Avella stated.

“Although he tried to rationalize his actions as a measure that provided voters with a choice, I told him he can justify his own actions however he wants; but what he did was still wrong."

website >>

~
~~
~

City residents' last chance to weigh in on term limits

In City residents' last chance to weigh in on term limits, Newsday reports that tomorrow is your last chance to speak up about the bill before Bloomberg signs it into law:

Foes of the move are urging residents to show up at City Hall for the 9:30 bill-signing ceremony. Before the mayor actually puts pen to paper, members of the public have an opportunity to express why he should or should not sign the bill, said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Forest Hills), a likely 2009 mayoral candidate and opponent of extending term limits.

"The mayor and the City Council may be able to take your vote away, but they can't take away your right to speak," Weiner said.

Some people would disagree with Weiner. Many accuse Bloomberg of being responsible for detaining people to prevent them from using their right to free speech and assembly at the 2004 Republican convention.

article >>

~
~~
~

Vote Ourselves In

Room 8 raises a scary proposition. If the term limit controversy has shown that the mayor has too much control, then you might want to give more power to the city council. But given the council's recent actions, that's not a pretty option. Here is how nymaverick concludes the post "Vote Ourselves In":

Bloomberg's powers should be reduced through referendum in his third term. But the City Council, for having little responsibility, has become stocked with irresponsible people. The voters of New York should grant themselves greater ability to serve as a check against both of them.

article >>

Larry Littlefield responded with this:

I've Got Bad News

We have had initiative and referendum since the 1989 charter. Only one referendum generated by initiative was ever introduced and passed -- term limits. That's how it got there.

And I'll bet that the City Council gets rid of it, without a referendum, after the 2009 election, so term limits cannot be voted back in. Then they will extend terms indefinately or, as the NY Times wants, get rid of it entirely. Public campaign financing will be eliminated before or after this. All this is merely a logical extension of what has already happened.

~
~~
~

Sounds of Voting and Check-Writing

Consortium News just published "Sounds of Voting and Check-Writing" by By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship:

Once upon a time the mayor supported the rule that city officials can only serve two terms. But then someone pointed out term limits applied to him, too, and that he couldn’t run for a third term.

So he set out to change the rules. But instead of asking the people to vote on it in a public referendum, the mayor decided he couldn’t risk his ambition on a fickle public.

He turned first to his fellow moguls who own the city’s major newspapers – Murdoch, of the New York Post and The Wall Street Journal; Zuckerman of the Daily News, and Sulzberger of The New York Times.

Then, according to the Times, with his considerable philanthropic clout – before the financial meltdown, his worth was some $20 billion dollars – the mayor leaned for support on the community and arts groups that depend on his charitable largesse.

article >>

~
~~
~

Public to Give Mayor Earful on 3rd Term

The bit of drama in the term limit controversy will happen on Monday. The NY Times reports about it in "Public to Give Mayor Earful on 3rd Term":

The bruising debate over term limits is not over — yet.

Starting at 9:30 a.m. on Monday at City Hall, members of the public will be given two minutes each to tell Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, face to face, why they favor or oppose legislation that would permit him to seek a third term. It is not known how long the hearing will last.

It will be the first time that Mr. Bloomberg will be present for a public hearing on the legislation.

article >>

~
~~
~

CBID: We will not forget. We will not forgive

In DailyGotham, mole333 posts about the strong reaction of CBID towards term limits:

The Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats (CBID) strongly oppose the recent City Council vote extending their own terms of office and those of the Mayor and other municipal officeholders, as well as the unsavory tactics used by Mayor Bloomberg to bend the Council to his will. Strong-arming charities who depend upon the Mayor's largesse and harrassing vulnerable Council Members do not represent the transparent, accountable governance approaches that this Mayor has always claimed to offer. For the Mayor and City Council to dismiss two recent referenda proving the people's support for eight-year term limits is an outrage.

While many New York City Council members behaved in a cowardly and self-serving manner, Council member David Yassky was a spectacularly shining example of hypocrisy. It is hard to believe that his amendment to require a referendum on the extension of the terms of office was offered in good faith when, upon its defeat, Yassky then voted to support the power grab orchestrated by the Mayor, the City Council Speaker and New York's plutocracy.

CBID is proud that Senator Barack Obama has financed his Presidential campaign with four million donors, most have whom have made small contributions that represent personal sacrifice linked to their passion for the candidate. We don't want a city whose Mayor only has the support of one donor - himself - along with everyone else whose support he has bought with millions of dollars spent to date and during the coming year. This is not democracy in action.

This year, CBID has members working in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and other areas to protect and enhance democracy through a fair Presidential election. Next year, CBID's members will be working right here in New York City. Mayor Bloomberg, we will not dismiss or forget your hubris. Nor will we forget the lame but devastating votes cast by David Yassky and 28 other Council members. And we will not forgive.

article >>

~
~~
~

WCBSTV: Bloomberg Could Face Angry Council If Reelected

WCBSTV published "Bloomberg Could Face Angry Council If Reelected", which makes a similar point to a NY Times article. Here is their description of the new dynamics at City Hall:

There's every indication that the mayor knows he needs to mend fences. On Friday, he met with council delegations from various boroughs about the Willets Point project.

"This kind of meeting on a mayoral proposal is somewhat unprecedented for this mayor," said Councilman Oliver Koppell (D-Bronx).

"He's almost never talked to council members, suddenly he's calling all of us and [asking] can't we all get along? And he's meeting with borough delegations and God bless him, but after seven years it's hard to believe a sudden revelation he wants to be cooperative," said Bill De Blasio (D-Brooklyn).

article >>

~
~~
~

Window opened on the assumptions of City politics

TPM provides a candid quote on the reasoning behind some of Bloomberg's support. In "Bloomberg Devotee: It's the rich who matter" Craig Gurian writes:

Every once in a while, however, a window is opened on the embedded assumptions that shape City politics. The New York Times recently interviewed Felix Rohatyn, long-famed for bringing New York "back from the brink" of fiscal ruin in 1975. Rohatyn thinks we couldn't possibly have a better Mayor than Mike Bloomberg (Bloomberg is "as indispensable as anyone I know in doing that job"). Apparently Rohatyn is particularly reassured by comparing Bloomberg to himself: "I don't think there's anything I know about finance that [Bloomberg] doesn't know or can't get by snapping his fingers").

Entirely missing from Rohatyn's analysis, of course, was any reason why anyone should believe that Bloomberg has been or will be looking out for New York's middle and working classes. And Rohatyn provided the reporter (Sam Roberts) with a wonderful insight into why: The test of the city," says Rohatyn, "is whether it keeps attracting rich people, important people..." (emphasis in original)

article >>

~
~~
~

After Prolonging Their Tenure, Councilmembers Turn on Mayor

There's some very interesting commentary coming from Henry J. Stern's column. His most recent installation is called "More Attitude, Less Gratitude." An excerpt:

Councilmembers are specifically forbidden by the Charter (Section 38) from extending their own terms, but at the time the Charter was adopted (1989), term limits were not an issue, so there is no direct prohibitory language in the Charter. Similar provisions governing elections are protected from political tampering by that Section, and it was the clear intent of the Charter drafters not to allow politicians to interfere with the election process by changing the ground rules themselves.

Here's more from the end of the article:

Footnotes: All four Councilmembers who are seeking election this year voted No. They are McMahon (running for Congress), Addabbo and Gennaro (running for the State Senate) and Como (running for a one-year term as Councilmember). When I was on the Council, we used to call that 'Going off the reservation'. It was all right if you received a pass from the leadership.

article >>

~
~~
~

Norm Siegel Fighting the Bloomberg Putsch

The Daily Gotham continues its frequent coverage of the term limit controversy. This is from a short post "Norm Siegel Fighting the Bloomberg Putsch" by mole333:

Now that the City Council has surrendered to Tsar Bloomberg and Director of the Gendarmes Christine Quinn on term limits, the legal challenge to their attack on the voters takes center stage. And that is where Norm Siegel comes in. A civil rights lawyer defending New Yorkers for decades, Norm Siegel is lending his expertise to the legal battle against the Bloomberg Putsch.

article >>

Norman Siegel's website >>

~
~~
~

Yassky’s integrity terminated

Brooklyn Paper editorializes about the term limit vote and David Yassky in "Yassky’s integrity terminated". Here's an excerpt:

• It was inherently self-serving: Most of the members of the Council would have a hard time finding another $90,000-a-year job, but they should not have given in to the temptation of allowing themselves hold onto their cushy posts. Now Yassky can run for his seat virtually unopposed. Isn’t that convenient?

• It was falsely argued: The mayor and Yassky made the argument that the city’s economic downturn will be so traumatic that we need Bloomberg’s steady hand to pilot this sinking ship. Again, reasonable people can differ on whether Billionaire Mike is the man to oversee New York’s response to problems partly caused by his billionaire friends, but there is no doubt that New York City has come through deeper troubles before. Lest we forget, Bloomberg only became boss because then-Mayor Giuliani could not run for a third term despite widespread feeling that the continuity of his leadership was essential after 9-11. It wasn’t true then, and it ain’t true now.

• It was unnecessary right now: If Yassky and others truly believe that a three-term limit is better than two, fine. But such councilmembers could have easily voted against the mayor’s naked power grab and then called for a charter commission to review the issue calmly and soberly rather than in the heat of this manufactured leadership crisis.

article >>

~
~~
~