Fidler Wants His Cake, Tries To Eat It Too

When it comes to having an abundance of emotion, Lew Fidler can be counted among those that have it in City Hall. He can talk up a storm and pound his fist on the table for good measure. Fidler certainly did that in the wake of the property tax hike initiated by Bloomberg and shortly after the Mayor's "gutless" comment for all those that didn't vote his way. Lew was outraged, outraged I tell ya!

Check out this sternly-worded statement:

I just wanted to tell each of you that the Mayor has some frickin' nerve calling the CMs who voted no on the property tax increase "gutless". I wanted to remind all of you---or tell you if you had not heard this before---that this is the same Mayor who told me that it would be better politically to do it sooner rather than closer to the election. So who is gutless? The people who stood up and said "this is not necessary now. If we have to do it later because it becomes necessary then we will,", or the guy who says let's do it sooner so the voters might not be as mad when the election comes around.

When he called me in his round of phone calls to thank members who supported the term limits extension, he immediately went to the property tax and said---and I quote---"It would probably be better politically if we did this now rather than later anyway."

I would not share a private conversation this way if he had not made such an outrageous public comment. I guess when you have been a business executive and did not need the cooperation of democratically elected co-workers, you could function this way. After 7 years, its hard to believe that he doesn't recognize the world he works in.

Lew Fidler

Aww Lew, after seven years, it is unbelievable that you do not recognize that very same world. For the sake of your own self-interest, you voted for the term limit extension that is meant to help you and the Mayor in power. Sure, I heard your excuses before about why you oppose term limits and that this is just an opportune time to get it done. Nevermind of course that your actions helped to see an undemocratic means get to its end.

Basically, Lew stuck with the Mayor when it was advantageous to him, and now that the CM wants to be seen as fighting for the people who own homes in his district, he is a screamin' and a shoutin'. I have to admit, even though Bloomberg is a gutless wonder himself, he is right that there are gutless Councilmembers out there, like Lew Fidler.

Laws Won't Get In Bloomberg's Way

We've already seen the Mayor punch a large gaping wound in our democracy to let him run for another term, so why not ignore more laws? Michael Bloomberg's ego isn't letting him back away from his pledge to rescind the property tax rebate so fast. He recommended it as a part of cutting the city's budget, but found out that it wasn't really his decision to axe that check from those that own property in NYC, especially for those that regard $400 as a nice chunk of change for the holidays.

From The NY Times:

After being dealt a rare public embarrassment by the City Council, which forced his administration to acknowledge on Monday that he was legally required to send out $400 rebate checks promised to hundreds of thousands of New York homeowners, a defiant Mr. Bloomberg said on Wednesday that he had no plans to release the money.

At a news conference, Mr. Bloomberg described the rebates as “up in the air.” Asked what he would tell homeowners who have been depending on the money to pay bills or buy holiday gifts, he responded: “Plan for the worst, and hope for the best.”

When pressed, the mayor said: “I just answered your question. You just don’t want the answer.”

That my fellow New Yorkers, is your callous, obnoxious and dare I say, Mr. Grinch of a Mayor. You can find four hundred bucks under the cushions of Bloomberg's couch, but for the great majority of us that is a lot of money and he clearly showed he is deeply out of touch with this city. We as a city are not simply all those that live around Central Park Mr Mayor. If the new term limits law is here to stay for now, the Mayor can expect to hear it from those he thinks he pulled one over on, from now until election day.

Quinn Frustrated With Bloomberg?

Well how about this nugget of news, Quinn's people are frustrated with the Mayor. Boo friggin' hoo. The Times is reporting that tensions are up between the Speaker's staff and the Mayor's due to the term limits battle and the upcoming votes to raise property taxes and cut funding. Those last two things are never fun, but Quinn should have thought about those tensions before deciding to become Bloomberg's chief lackey in his unethical quest for more power.

From The NY Times:

Feelings are raw between the two sides largely because Ms. Quinn took heavy political shrapnel for the mayor during the term limits battle as she rounded up support for what became an unusually difficult vote.

The strains at City Hall could stymie the Bloomberg administration’s agenda in the middle of the deepest financial crisis to strike New York City in decades.

In closed-door meetings over the last few days that occasionally escalated into shouting, Ms. Quinn has told the mayor’s aides to back off a plan that would change how hundreds of programs for the elderly are financed, a proposal that has infuriated several council members.

According to people briefed on the conversations, she has warned that the mayor’s plan to push for a property tax increase as early as next week could encounter resistance, especially since council members are still reeling from the term limits vote.

Quinn really should have thought things through in regards to her job at the Council and representing her district before calculating her political ambitions next year. If she (gasp) stuck to semblance of having principles, such as respecting democracy, things may have come out differently. Instead, she gave the Mayor what he wanted, a chance to run for another term and now she must live with it.

Of course, she isn't the only one whining, the Times quotes the ethically tarnished Councilman David Yassky saying “There is a sense that the mayor has damaged his popularity and that is emboldening members,” which is ironic because that is exactly how residents and activists feel about him in his own district for turning his back on them. Another complaintant in the article is Councilman Fidler, a long time opponent of Bloomberg but who decided to support the abolishment of term limits through the Council, even though he thought the tactic wasn't the best way to go about it. So much for his respect of the people.

The attitude I liked best was from Charles Barron, one of 22 members that voted against the term limits legislation. In his conversation with the Mayor, Barron ended the chat with a “meet you on the battlefield.” That is exactly what many of us will do with Bloomberg from now until election day of next year.

Debate At Baruch, The Pros And Cons Of Term Limits

While the NYC Bar Association condemned the Mayor today for trying to overturn term limits by legislative fiat, the term limit debate itself is being revived across the city. Here at Baruch College, several esteemed citizens of New York have come together to talk about the current situation and the issue as a whole. The public forum was put together by Common Cause of New York, Citizens Union and NYPIRG. All three organizations are against the Mayor's way of doing things but the panelists are sitting in the room representing many different perspectives on the matter.

Professor Richard Briffault started things off and brings his "Professor of Legislation" at Columbia to the table, as well as his consultancy work to the Charter Revision nearly twenty years ago. He addresses many issues concerning term limits and that there are pros and cons to both sides of the matter.

Councilwoman Reyna spoke to how a legislator works within the system. As Chair of the Rules Committee, she's a powerful member on the Council and has been a strong advocate for the low to middle class constituents in her district (34th - Queens/Brooklyn). She says that the Mayor is using the Council as a "punching bag" to hammer this through even though he could have sought a referenda before 2008.

Randy Mastro went next and as Deputy Mayor under Giuliani, has a working knowledge of the city's Executive branch. He says whether or not you agree with term limits, the process matters and that this action by Bloomberg will be found to be illegal. He advocates for a public referendum that could be on the ballot by early 2009, long before candidates must petition to get on the ballot. Mastro is worried that Bloomberg's push for this legislation is being rushed with no good reason other than, what seems to be pure politics. He even goes as far to say that Bloomberg owes his own tenure as Mayor to term limits. Mastro is passionately against hizzoner's plan, but at least in the opening round he does not address the question of term limits sans Bloomberg.

Mitchell Moss is an Urban Policy Professor at NYU and says at the outset he'll address the issue. He's clearly against them, mentioning that only consultants and campaign fundraising benefits from term limits. Elected officials need time in office to learn how government works. Also that in special elections low turnouts produce motivated voters that can affect great change if certain groups are mobilized to do so. Due to that, he argues that the Council's determination to vote on the current term limit legislation is at least as representative as a referenda. As for the third point, he really didn't get to it, but his message was clear, we should get rid of term limits, period.

Now Councilman Fidler gets his five minutes. He starts off addressing the fiscal crisis and how this is more important than term limits (I agree). He takes pride in opposing Bloomberg repeatedly and even endorsing Freddy Ferrer. He is sick of the billionaire's involvement in this and how the debate was presented by the Mayor. However, he's been against term limits throughout and will vote to change the charter by a Council vote regardless. Term limits give too much power to lobbyists, bureaucrats and staff members. "This isn't Poli Sci 101, this is the real world," says Fidler. As passionately as Randy Mastro is against the change, Fidler is for it. The Councilman then smacked Mastro's arguments and brought up his advocacy for pay raises to counter the Conflicts of Interest Board petition against the current legislation.

Esmeralda Simmons rounds out the panel. Her experience as a civil rights and a voting rights attorney leads her to believe that Bloomberg is using the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to protest a special election is "baloney." Ultimately the Justice Department rules on this but her faith in the current Administration (on the Federal level) isn't so strong in meting out a fair decision. She is most ashamed about this being a controlled act. She does not want the voters to be duped and does not believe the Mayor is being truthful about the process. She prefers a referenda over the Council's vote but in a perfect world a general election should ask this question.

Now back to the questions. Councilman Bill de Blasio stood up and addressed the members of the panel, praising all of them. He is a well known opponent of Bloomberg's legislation but says it is a "democracy question." He "honestly feels that our democracy is threatened" due to the Mayor's extreme power and ability to undermine public debate on the issue. Ultimately Bloomberg's wealth gives him immense power in an election against those who aren't billionaires.

Gene Russianoff asks the second question about why this is such an important issue. Councilman Fidler says this is a political question and that those who have the most to gain or lose are speaking with greatest volume. Funny enough, as Fidler mentions this, a member of the audience shouted out that the Councilman's term is up next year (makes you wonder about what Fidler has to lose, eh?). Moss backs him up and adds that it isn't like 2001 in that people can vote to re-elect Bloomberg and not keep him longer like Giuliani had wanted. Mastro is still shocked at the speed of the legislation going into the Council and again reaffirms the will of the voters. Councilwoman Reyna favors legislative action and seems to go off from her "undecided" stance, claiming that the people can decide things in next year's election. Fidler follows her up with more theater. Simmons then wonders if any of the Councilmembers have polled their district to see how the public feels.

Finally a new question is segmented in, Gene and Susan ask why can't the people have more of a say? Fidler quotes a poll that people want term limits rescinded for Bloomberg and he's only gotten 24 calls about the matter. He doesn't legislate by poll and that's that, even though he mentions lots of numbers. Mastro then follows up by saying that people are generally opposed to career politicians and institutions but no so much the individuals that fill those seats. He counters that legislative responsibility is also about being willing to respond to your constituents and that it has happened before where the Council asked the people to vote on an issue.

Now Susan Lerner turns it over to the audience's questions, only thirty-five minutes after the schedule says it'll start.

The first guy is against term limits, but against Bloomberg's plan and disappointed in the Council not being able to reframe the debate and that he wants an education debate and not a soundbite tidal wave financed by billionaires like Bloomberg, Lauder and (most likely) Golisano. Reyna whines about the situation and everyone tells her to propose a bill to change the debate and then Fidler breaks in to continue his pro-term limit theater. Professor Briffault calls for more time so that the issue can be better studied and digested by the people.

Council candidate Yetta (inaudible) for the 3rd District gets up next and wonders how the current Council rationalizes their vote when most New Yorkers are in favor of keeping term limits. Moss goes back to the argument that the Council has the power to change the charter regardless of previous referenda as well as the fact that seventy-five people showed up for this forum.

PDA and DFNYC member Scott (inaudible) rails on Quinn and says that we as voters have no representation, so will they vote against Quinn if she is re-elected to a third term to Speaker again. Reyna promptly gives him a "no."

Many questioners will follow but I wonder if the debate over term limits got anywhere tonight. A lot of words were said but mostly about the current situation and not the philosophical question on having term limits. Fidler answered that best, saying no, no, no. Most of the panel was against term limits but solidly opposed to what Bloomberg was doing. One thing that wasn't answered was about the good things of term limits. Does it help democracy or not? The power of incumbency was rarely addressed by the panel and perhaps a sit down with Professor Briffault would answer that better. The theater was certainly great and I loved de Blasio's entrance in the middle of it. If the fireworks here were any indication of what will go down at the Council meeting on Thursday and Friday, then that will be an even greater show.

Ah, well my battery is in the red and it is time for dinner outside this very spacious conference room at Baruch.