Bloomberg's battle won, but war not over
Dan Janison
8:20 PM EDT, October 23, 2008
New York City Council
New York City Council members gather at a City Hall. (Getty Images Photo / October 23, 2008)
Mayor Michael Bloomberg might just want to hold the signing ceremony for this bill in a closet.
After the City Council voted 29-22 to extend the limit on city offices from two terms to three, Bloomberg was targeted with charges and cursing by enraged hecklers who called him "liar" and "sellout" as he was escorted by police to his sport utility vehicle parked outside City Hall.
Heckling can always be written off as part of the terrain. But there was something ominous in the air Thursday inside the Council chamber, too.
For one thing, the margin of the vote tally was less than impressive.
The "yes" votes fell short of two-thirds in a house where most members stood to be forced out of office by the end of next year. That means, in the jargon of the Council, that the measure is not "bulletproof." That is, the Democratic-dominated Council needs Bloomberg, who was elected as a Republican, to sign the bill.
If they had gotten 34 votes - two thirds of the house - they could overrule any veto and then better buttress the argument that their body is truly independent.
But for Bloomberg, as well as for Council Speaker Christine Quinn, and her loyal majority, there was a chill fall wind not just in the tally but in the tone of the dissidents' floor speeches.
In hoarse and angry tones, Tony Avella, a Queens Democrat, struck the core of the issue when he explained his "no" vote.
"If those who support this bill think it is a really good-government thing, that we have three terms instead of two, why did they wait til now? They waited til now so it was too late to do a referendum, so it could only be done legislatively."
Then he warned others in the Council: "You're not conning anybody. The public of this city knows the fix was in from the beginning. And you know something? When the time comes, hopefully - and I apologize to my colleagues - but you should all be voted out of office."
How often do you hear that kind of statement in City Hall? Cheers went up from opponents in a very divided chamber.
"We are forgetting who we work for," warned fellow "No" voter Bill DeBlasio (D-Brooklyn). He called "Orwellian" the claim made by Bloomberg and Quinn that "by taking away the people's right to decide this issue we are increasing their choices."
Charles Barron (D-Brooklyn) even cited the fact that Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez - targeted as a left-wing tyrant by American leaders - held a referendum on his own term limits and accepted the verdict when the people said no.
Before voting "No," Eric Gioia (D-Queens) offered up his local version of Joe the Plumber in the form of Jimmy the Barber, who said of the elected group at City Hall: "What are you guys thinking over there?"
"We have to rebuild people's faith in our unique form of government," Gioia said.
Now it's on to the courts, where those who favor letting the people vote again in a referendum - as done in 1993 and 1996 - will press the issue. Legal experts say it's not too late to go on the ballot next year.
This fight is just starting, the resistance clear and resonant. Don't be too shocked if by the end of this, the audacious Bloomberg, Quinn and friends - seeking a political escape route - take a fresh look at holding a public vote after all.