http://www.nytimes.com/...
After months of speculation about his political future, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg plans to announce on Thursday morning that he will seek a third term as mayor, according to three people who have been told of his plans.
I believe Mr. Bloomberg has performed well as NYC Mayor. However, I strongly disagree with the position of extending term limits, especially if that proposed extension is not subject to a public vote.
The move represents an about-face for Mr. Bloomberg, who has repeatedly said he supports term limits and once called an effort to revise the law "disgusting." He will apparently try to do so through legislation in the City Council, rather than the ballot box.
Mr. Bloomberg’s gambit carries significant political risk. The city’s term limits law was passed twice by voters, in 1993 and 1996, and several polls show widespread popular support for keeping it in place. Under the plan Mr. Bloomberg has outlined to associates, those voters will have no say in the matter, raising the possibility of a backlash.
Term limits help to ensure that no administration goes interminably unchecked and to provide for various public servants to bring in good, not just new, ideas that may seem untenable to the incumbent even as those ideas reflect the greater voter populace.
In his announcement, Mr. Bloomberg, a former Wall Street trader and founder of a billion-dollar financial data firm, is expected to argue that the financial crisis unfolding in New York City demands his steady hand and proven business acumen.
Extending any term under the guise of a "crisis" is a thinly veiled attempt to extend political reign (in this case perhaps to stay in the public eye towards an attempt at the 2012 Prez election. See Bloomberg for President). Let's not forget that NYC survived, if not thrived, after 9/11 and Giuliani's term. It can do the same after Bloomberg and nothing prevents him from contributing his ideas and other resources to the new administration (if they want and accept it).
Imagine if Bush, under the pretense of "crisis", attempts to extend his administration? Is that what Americans want or need? The only scenario under which I could envision a justifiable temporary term extension (where no public vote on the matter occurs) would be if the physical area governed were under persistent and prolonged physical attack (e.g. Canada invades across the NY border and begins attacking and marching troops downstate), but let's hope that is an unlikely scenario.