Search
Yassky splits the baby
Some people want term limits, some do not. Now, there's a third position, as articulated by Councilites Yassky, Brewer and Gerson: boo term limits, but yay referendum. Azi:
Three undecided City Council members—David Yassky, Gale Brewer and Alan Gerson—told reporters just now they’ll introduce an amendment to the term-limits legislation that would establish a charter review commission that could put term-limits to a voter referendum at the earliest opportunity.
The Council votes on the legislation tomorrow; the three lawmakers, who were previously undecided about how they will vote, declined to say whether they’ll support the bill in its current form.
All three said they believe it's better policy to allow city lawakers to serve three terms, instead of only two, but expressed reservations about overturning two public referendums with legislation in the City Council.
"This introduces a whole new dynamic...It forces an up or down vote on a referendum, and provides some people with cover."
It also complicates things for people who like to cloak themselves in the reform mantle, who can't argue now that they didn't have the opportunity to vote for the referendum bill because it wasn't on the floor.
Really nothing wrong with having a referendum, is there, even as we've been told that the thirteen months between now and the 2009 election aren't adequate to hold one.
Reasonable
Been wondering what Yassky was going to do. He jumped right on the anti position at first, then backpeddled rapidly. Heard some rumors he was negotiating to see who would offer him what. In the end, this seems a reasonable position if he sticks with it and DOESN'T vote against the will of the people.
Cover, schmover
There's no cover here. This is a farce!
Lew Fidler will repeat his "timeline" for a referendum -- a timeline that's actually quite accurate. It means that the referendum would be held in February (conveniently timed to coincide with the special elections that will happen as McMahon, Monserrate, and possibly others move on). If the referendum passes, the next step is the Justice Dept. They have to rule that this referendum is legit under the Voting Rights Act. That could take until April, by which time people will be scrambling in all directions.
That's why the "amendment" will be voted down.
Then, a bunch of folks (like Yassky, Brewer & Gerson) will say they "tried" to get a referendum but it just couldn't be done this time. Then they'll vote for the mayor's power grab, hoping nobody will notice what really happened. Their problem, of course, is that everyone will notice, and nobody will like it. Meanwhile, there is an organization forming that will work to overturn everyone who votes for the mayor's bill -- and they're going to be both organized and well-funded,
It should be an interesting year.
Brewer...
Brewer did the right thing. Yassky should take a lesson from Gail!
1 Wrong So Far
I had predicted McMahon would either vote in favor or be absent from the vote but I now see on WFP Blog he's voting against Bloomie and Quinn. Don't think they would allow him to do this unless they had the votes to pass the extension of term limits.
Dan, please email me more about that group that's forming if you can.