Term Limits at the Local Level, Some Examples

[XLFD]

Some interesting notes on other areas that have term limits, and those who try to extend those term limits, plus some comments:

 

San Antonio San Antonio has currently one of the most restrictive term limits in the nation — two two-year terms and then a lifetime ban on service.

A measure on the November 2008 ballot, which would have allowed for four two-year terms was narrowly rejected by voters. Previously, an effort to loosen the limits in 2004 to three three-year terms was unsuccessful This has been ascribed to ”[s]till-fresh memories of indicted councilmen in handcuffs, simmering anger over rising property taxes, a lack of leadership and a campaign that failed to resonate with voters all hampered that effort”.

However, as an opponent of the San Antonio effort notes: ”If voters really wanted to extend term limits, … they would be gathering signatures.” Instead, he said, the city's “political establishment was hitting up corporate donors to wage its campaign”.  {In Ludington, the Committee trying to raise the mayor's term limits from 3 to 5 four year terms, is composed of a laundry list of Reeds, Neals, and other business interests, plus other long-serving politicos.}

Nashville In Nashville voters rejected on November 4, 2008 a proposal that would have allowed council members who were elected to fill less than half of an unexpired term to run for two full, four-year terms thereafter. Attempts to change the limit to three terms previously failed in 1996 and 2002, as did an effort to abolish term limits altogether in 1998. But hope on the part of city officials ‘springs eternal in the human breast’ when it comes to overturning restraints on their terms in office.  {Unless the proposal is well disguised, term limit proposals generally go down on a popular vote.  A mayor or council with 70% approval ratings may also succeed, but these are rare.}

New York City New York has a term-limit law approved in two referendums in the 1990s. Yet, the financial crisis in 2008 provided an excuse for the removal of voter- approved term limits by their city council without resort to approval at the ballot box.  {If the Charter proposal fails in Ludington, will some emergency condition arise that will necessitate such a move by our City Council?  Will Ludingtonians allow them to do that?}

Washington DC

New York officials thus hope to follow Washington DC, where this move succeeded past voters who were not vigilant enough to vote out of office those who used this approach in the succeeding election. Perhaps the New York City elected officials hope New York voters will be as lax?   {The legality of the city council making an ordinance in Ludington that could do that is within the realm of possibilities; after all, they have already passed policies and ordinances that defy state and federal laws.}

San Francisco

One may also wish to keep in mind that since 1955 San Francisco’s mayors have been subject to a voter- imposed term limit in what is perhaps the most politically engaged city in the country. It has introduced innovations that have spread to other parts of the state and the nation beyond. {Are mayoral candidates in other cities like Ludington less able than those in San Francisco? One might wonder. Would their electorates agree with this proposition?}

Chicago

Chicago is the only one of the nation's five largest that does not limit the terms of its mayor and City Council members. Of the 10 largest cities, it is one of only two with no such limits.  {This is what is the basis for what is well known as Chicago-style politics.  There can be an incredible amount of power when you have control of an office for many years; just ask any dinosaur in the US Congress.  Seven termer Richard Daley, even when he has fell below 50% favorability often, had 71% of the vote at the end due to his efficient re-election machine.  Twelve years has led to a lot of powerful partnerships with both political and business leaders in our community, but what about the rest of the community?}

[AQUAMAN]

Term limits are there for a good reason, and this administration, hopes that the lax voters will again just be lax, and not caring about their own funds and representation in local politics. It's a sad day if this actually passes, and I suggest, a recall instead of throwing existing ordinances and rules like this to the WOLVES that feed on our tax monies. JMO

[Willy]

Excellent article X. Love that photo of Chicago. What bothers me is that none of the posters or signs give a hint as to what the "City Proposal" is about and when one considers how deceiving the slogan is, "for a stronger Ludington" it only makes it obvious that this is a power grab by the Mayor's supporters. I hope the voters will see passed this charade. I can't imagine having any Mayor for 20 years especially one who is so obviously cronyism motivated. Short term limits are what makes a "stronger Ludington".

[XLFD]

Deception is the only way you can slip this pass the voters, unless you have a very popular mayor, like New York's Mayor Bloomberg was back in 2008 (70% approval), when the voters allowed term limits to go up to three. 

If the general citizen actually noticed how often their taxes have been raised since 2005, seen how restrictive some of the City's ordinances have been during that period, and seen the city's low priorities over the infrastructure and public safety during that period, they would have to come to the conclusion that Ludington is not getting stronger.  Maybe some select politicians and citizens, but not Ludington.

[Marty Redman]

Having lived and worked in Chicago I can tell you that the Daleys and the current "Dead Fish", Richard Daleys heir apparent, are the best counterexample to the notion that a stronger Chicago has anyhting to do with serving in an office for seven terms.  Down here, during your first term instead of doing all those innovative things you want public servants to do you have them spending that time getting to be part of the system so you get re-elected. 

By the time you get down to doing anyhting for the people, you find yourself with different masters.  Its happening in Ludington and many other areas too Chicago style politics, and don't ever kid yourself about partnerships.  Jefferson and Madison never put anyhting about partnerships in their founding documents. 

[XLFD]

Good point Marty, and let's not forget that we Americans rebelled against England because of the intolerable acts that King George and parliament passed along to us.  The King and the House of Lords did not have to worry about term limits, just armed rebellions.

[easymoney]

maybe the serfs in Ludington would enjoy living under a monarcy? WHO KNOWS????

[XLFD]

I would hope so too, John, but some 300+ people were canoodled into signing the petition and you have to presume you got at least 200+ votes for the proposal right there.  Let's hope those people reconsider and the rest of the population aren't promised free ice cream for voting for it. 

With Paul S. Peterson coming out against it now, and George Dila coming out against it early, the COLDNews pundits are at least distancing themselves from the proposal, and giving me some hope for the rest of the payroll there.