http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03...gain-nyc-bans-food-donations-to-the-homeless/
This sort of nanny stuff is just the way it is in NYC.
I can only assume the citizens are in agreement with it, since Bloomberg still has a job.
What should the citizens of NYC do? Go to war? The mayor and his cronies overrode a voter's referendum that limited NYC politicians to two four-year terms. This was challenged in the federal courts and the Federal judges ruled against the challengers. All that the citizens of NYC could do (peacefully, anyway) was vote to reinstate the term limits again. And as for voting for Bloomberg again -- you can't vote for another strong candidate unless strong candidates choose to run. Well, you could write one in on your ballot, but that's not an effective or easy way to get someone into office.
Terms and term limits (since 1834)
Direct elections to the mayoralty of the unconsolidated City of New York began in 1834 for a term of one year, extended to two years after 1849. The 1897 Charter of the consolidated City doubled the term to four years which could not be renewed. In 1901, the term limit was removed, but the term halved to two years. In 1905, the four-year term, without limit, was restored. (Mayors Fiorello La Guardia, Robert F. Wagner, Jr. and Ed Koch were later able to serve for twelve years each.) [1] In 1993, the voters approved a two-term (eight-year) limit, and reconfirmed this limit when the issue was submitted to referendum in 1996. In 2008, the New York City Council voted to extend the two-term limit to three terms (without submitting the issue to the voters).[2] Legal challenges to the Council's action were rejected by Federal courts in January and April, 2009.[3] However, in 2010, There was yet another referendum, and it passed overwhelmingly.[4]
Is Term Limit Vote a Big Smack at Mayor?
<snip>
The whopping victory margin by YES voters on yesterday's term limits referendum could be read as a big "take-that" slap at Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker Christine Quinn and 28 of her complicit members.
Here's why: The proposition to restore the prior two-term limit passed by a margin of 73.9% (YES) to 11% (NO). The vote spread, based on unofficial results, was 484,139 for YES and 170,824 for NO -- a victory margin of 380,255 votes out of 654,963 cast.
Who wouldn't want to win by that margin? For instance, it's more than three times the 50,597 vote margin that Bloomberg beat Bill Thompson by in last year's mayoral election.
When NYC was forced by federal law to replace the mechanical lever machine Mayor Bloomberg wanted an ATM style machine that had a poor paper trail (a roll of paper with ink that faded rapidly). A few people lobbied very hard for a scanner type machine instead where the voter would mark the ballot directly and the original ballot would be retained in a lock box. For various reasons this type of technology is still inferior to the mechanical lever machine -- but superior to the ATM style one as far as having a paper trail goes.
Luckily we won and got the voting machines that used the scanner technology. It doesn't surprise me that the mayor wanted the machine with the far weaker paper trails.
He obviously has a dictatorial streak.
Last edited: