Submitted by Izengabe, Nov 30, 2007 12:45

Having two seperate referendums on term limits is a good idea, but not for the reason you state. I don't think it is good public policy to enact or change term limits because you happen to like or dislike the individual the term limits effect.

Having said that, I think there is a really good reason to have term limits on the Council but not the Mayor.

The reality of politics in NYC is that while most people know who the Mayor is the vast majority of New Yorkers have no idea who their City Councilman is.

As a results Mayors are generally held accountable for their performance while City Councilmen generally are not.

The built in advantages of incumbency (council staff, taxpayer financed mailing, ect...) and even the campaign finance system (which caps the spending of opponents while giving incumbents 4 yrs to raise the maximum allowed spending) makes incumbent councilman nearly impossible to oust. Having term limits on them brings new life to the council and keeps the City Council accountable.

This makes term limits on Mayors unnecessary and term limits on the City Council essential. If their must be a 3rd vote on term limits lets split the question in two.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.