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.