Flickr: Creative Commons by CarbonNYC

New York City now has a choice--Democracy or Bloomberg. A Wednesday New York Times editorial reversing years of opposition to a City Council law overturning two referenda on term limits was unconvincing in at least three ways:

* First, any such law would be obvious self-dealing by the mayor and council. They are not disinterested parties acting only in the public interest since they are possibly extending their careers working for the city by enacting such a law. That's why the far better solution would have been another public referendum this fall, which the mayor could have gotten on the ballot at any time over the past few months. It's sheer political chutzpah for the mayor to say it's now too late to have a refendum on the ballot to extend term limits when it was he who stopped it from being on the ballot.

New Yorkers now have to think about who should decide this question--voters in a special referendum next January deciding about the public interest or incumbents voting in their political interest.

* Second, Bloomberg allies are arguing that the current economic crisis justifies this extraordinary remedy. But isn't that more an after-the-fact alibi rather than a real argument? Think about it. This week's national "crisis" will largely be resolved by national legislation within the week, with implementation occurring over the next year or years. By 2010, the only serious issue for the next mayor will be budgetary--and whoever serves 2010-2013 will have an OMB doing necessary belt-tighting. Since Bloomberg as mayor has no federal or local jurisdiction over this fiscal crisis, how can he imply that he's the indispensible man?

* Third, the Times editorial and Bloomberg completely omit talking about the 800 pound gorilla of why an election in 2009 is adequate voter ratification. For Mike Bloomberg's likely $100 million to $200 million campaign treasury would in reality mean that an undemocratic power grab in 2008 would be ratified by an undemocratic election in 2009.

Unless, that is, the mayor wanted to take the following step: he argued in 2001 in his race against me that he had to spend $74 million to tell voters who he was; obviously, everyone now knows who he is. So if he insists on going ahead with a law vetoing voters, will he at least have the courage to opt in to public financial system and thereby run on his substantial record rather than on his bank account?