It should be allowed to finish as much as possible advancing its deeply entrenched progressive framework and trajectory for this city.

Whatever concerns that have to be met with all the bluster about "trashing democacy" and the need for referendums, etc.; so be it.

Ian (#3) is right about that, although with the current climate rampant development will be less of a problem.

I understand the ambivalence about the term-limit extension and Bloomberg himself, but jmc (#33) is dead on.

Two words: Iris Weinshall. The rest of the candidate field is dismal, and Weiner is no progressive. He'll set us back 20 years. Whereas with Bloomberg we get another 4 years of JSK, and how can you beat that?

How true!

1. The longer people are in power, the more entrenched they become.

2. Someone who considers himself indispensable (because he will save the city from financial ruin, environmental disaster, etc.) will consider himself infallible.

3. If George W. Bush suspended the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution (imposing term limits on the president) on the justification of a state of emergency, we'd be outraged. Changing the rules to keep one's self in power happens in corrupt governments all around the world--let's not let it happen here.

4. Unbridled development, gentrification, and suburbanization of New York

5. Rampant and unchecked abuses of power by the NYPD

6. If such a "green" mayor can't do something as uncontroversial and widely supported as making Central Park and Prospect Park car-free (out of deference to a minority of automobile owners), what good is he?

I don't think it's too early conclude that neither Anthony Weiner nor Bill Thompson will be effective advocates of anything, let alone a particular policy agenda. That's got to be at the center of Bloomberg's thinking -- he can get away with this because of two words that have the city's financial and political elites scared shitless: Mayor Weiner.

"Beyond that, this is a power grab that astounds me as a voter" You must not be from around these parts I reckon ...

"(including one who supported term limits twice, as did the majority of New Yorkers) and as a citizen." I voted against them twice, foreseeing exactly these circumstances. But what Bloomberg is doing is wrong. Get a referendum on the ballot and let the people speak that way.

I'd be happy to entertain the question of whether term limits make sense, though -- in a vote put forward by the mayor and council and only if they themselves would not benefit. In other words, for the NEXT mayor and the NEXT round of council members. Otherwise, the mayor and the council will just be doing a local version of what's done in Russia or North Korea.

We are in very difficult times and there is a lot at stake especially, in this difficult city with many people at risk.

When talk moves to fears of trashing democracy just look around, at the streets, the headlines, and TV news; the past eight-year voted-in (in part by the Supreme Court) nightmare Whitehouse legacy, and in this matter the moral outrage rings hollow.

Bloomberg gets his pleasures being in the limelight (perhaps) and serving the city and its people and it would be naive and a bit self-destructive not to take full advantage of his graciously proffered oversight, talents, and resources.

To limit someone's ability to choose among all qualified candidates is a truly drastic step, and one that gets at the problem only obliquely. There have to be better ways to eliminate the problems that come with entrenched politicians without resorting to term limits.

The thing to remember is that term limits aren't a solution to the problem of incumbent advantage, they're a kludge. They were one way to get enough of the Howard Goldens and Peter Vallone Seniors out of government to hopefully implement a real solution, but that solution has not yet been implemented. Once it is, we can remove term limits.

In the meantime, I agree with a lot of Capitalist's assessment of Bloomberg, but I also agree that keeping him in power for another four years is not worth trashing what democracy we have in this city.

We have a problem in this democracy with corruption, opaqueness, lack of responsiveness to one's constituents, being bought off by special interests, etc., that goes along with extended incumbancy with a great many, but not all, politicians. Extended incumbancy itself is not a problem as long as the office holder remains competent, as is the case with Bloomberg.

To limit someone's ability to choose among all qualified candidates is a truly drastic step, and one that gets at the problem only obliquely. There have to be better ways to eliminate the problems that come with entrenched politicians without resorting to term limits. We're using a machete to eliminate the good with the bad, instead of selectively pruning.

And what politician isn't?

"And while he has his good moments he has benefited from great PR or he would not be so popular."

It's more than PR. At the core of things, Bloomberg really does make most of his decisions on what he in good faith thinks are the merits, which is not something you can say about very many politicians. People who observe the details of the way his administration works recognize this. He gets good press (despite the fact that does nothing to hide his contempt for the media) because he does as good a job as can be done with his office. He is sometimes wrong, and he does have a blindspot for develepors, but compare him to the two administrations that preceded him, which were worse in every way. He undid much of the damage done by his predecessors to the basic competence and esprit de corps of NYC's civil service. By doing things like allowing agencies to run themselves with much less intereference from City Hall, supporting investments in technology (sometimes to a fault, admittedly), streamlining an awful lot of internal procedures, and appointing mostly pretty good people instead of hacks and/or members of his praetorian guard to high-level positions, he made a very big difference in the day-to-day running of the city. That's the source of his good press, not his PR efforts, which are widely viewed as inept.

"People should remember Atlantic Yards, West Side Stadium, 2004 Convention debacle, the failed Olympics bid, last year's discretionary $1 Billion tax rebate in the face of a pending financial crisis (and cuts to MTA capital plans), treatment of Critical Mass under Bloomberg, even his original scrapping of glass recycling."

Yup, these were all mistakes (though the glass thing worked out in the end). On the flipside, no Russell Hardings, no Crown Heights riots, no PVB scandals, no Bernie Kerik, no DOT commissioners impersonating cops, no Norman Steisel soliciting prostitutes, no prosecuters in charge of basic city services, no Amadou Diallo, no Abner Louima, no Abe Beame reaping what he sowed with a financial shell game ... We could do (and have done) much worse.

"We don't need another 4 years of Mike. He has accomplished some good things, but we've never had a mayor this out of touch with working people or willing to cut corners for his billionaire developer pals."

That's nonsense. He has made huge improvements in the administration of health, social services, and education and done more good for ordinary people than any City official since LaGuardia. Yes, he has also thrown a huge amount of money in the direction of his developer pals. That's not evidence of his being out of touch. It's evidence of his being a poltician.

"We can do a lot better ..." Not with the current crop of prospective candidates

" ... and to cling to this man out of fear of the unknown is ridiculous."

Believe it or not, I agree with this. As much as I respect Bloomberg, detest term limits, and wish he could run for a third term legitimately, the route he seems to going is not legitimate. He's exploiting a loophole in the term limits law for his own personal gratification, and will be abetted in this by council members who have the same conflict of interest. If he wanted term limits abolished, he should have put it directly on the ballot a long time ago. As for others' comments about how term limits have improved the calibre of the City Council, bullshit. All term limits accomplished was the exchange of one collection of hacks and mopes for another. What the current crop lacks in senility they make up for in ineptitude and venality.

Clarence is right, the Council is much more dynamic now and wholly improved.
Besides, a man with Bloomberg's money and influence can still do a lot to continue to shape the city. Maybe he should have run against Shelly? Governor Bloomberg?

Exactly. I'll be pretty angry at the existing Council members if they do this, but how do they compare with the state legislature? Well, another four years and they will turn into the state legislature.

Bu the way, to savvy and smart add more representative of those who are here and moving in, not just those cashing in and moving out. Most of those who actually benefitted from Sheldon Silver's decisions are either dead or living in Florida.

To those of you who are making supportive noises about a third term: Do you realize that Bloomberg's proposal to do an end-run around the voters' clear support of term limits is tantamount to approving a political coup? Forget short-term issues like who's a good successor to the Mayor. The longer-term consequences are far too disturbing to let that matter.

Term limits aren't perfect -- but the outrageous complacency, lack of transparency and accountability, and disdain for the public shown by most of the city's pre-term-limit incumbents should be better remembered by all of us. Heck -- they were the reason WHY the term limits referendum passed not once but twice. Human nature doesn't change. Take away term limits and watch our city leadership vanish behind a veneer of smokescreens and sneers at the public.

Term limits were what gave us the savvy, smart city electeds we have now, and there's every reason to believe we'll see an even broader, sharper batch of candidates each election season, because of the opportunity that term limits has provided. That is the longer-term benefits that term limits restored to New Yorkers.

Anthony Weiner! Anthony Weiner!

I know exactly what would happen with that.

Do you guys not remember the pre-Bloomberg era?

Iris Weinshall?

Was Rudy a friend of progressives?
Was Dinkins effective?

Ian, the instigation of term limits (TL) was in fact the work of a single person: rich, right-wing billionaire Ron Lauder who lost as Mayor in 1989 and, so rebuked by the Democratic voters, spent his wealth on a slick ad campaign to eviscerate the Democrats by convincing voters of the worthiness of his scheme. (Note that LAuder didn't push TL for the Republican State Senate or Republican NY Governor, Pataki, or for the Republican Congress at the time!)

Just as ad campaigns convince people that Coke is better than Pepsi, so too did this ad campaign work. Opponents of TL had not the financing to mount a serious ad blitz. (Curiously and without comment, TL did not pass in Manhattan, with its large base of progressive, college-educated activists, who may not be as susceptible to Lauder's gambit than some other voters. Remember, the outer boroughs were not 'gentrified' in 1993.)

Voters believe that all politicians are corrupt, except the ones THEY themselves vote for. A naive concept.

Thus TL was passed: by the spite and money of a single person - spoiled rich kid, Ron Lauder.