Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Leveraged Buy Out of NYC Faltering?

More behind the scenes deal making, according to this morning's NY Times, has apparently not persuaded Ron Lauder to agree to go along with the mayor's solipsistic skirting of the voters wishes: "After agreeing last week to support a third term for Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Lauder vowed on Sunday night to fight the mayor’s plan to permanently change the limits to three terms from two, calling it a “terrible mistake.” Last week, Mr. Lauder privately agreed to support a one-time change of the law to three terms, to allow Mr. Bloomberg to seek re-election in the middle of an economic crisis. But he was angry to learn that the mayor was pushing for a permanent change of the law."

You really can't make up this anti-democratic maneuvering in this cauldron of supposed democratic politics: "When Mr. Bloomberg learned of Mr. Lauder’s frustration, he and his aides suggested a deal in which Mr. Lauder would sit on a 2010 charter commission committee, which would have the authority to change the law back to a two-term limit. In return, Mr. Lauder would agree to not fight the mayor’s plans to alter the law. But Mr. Lauder, after appearing to back such a deal, balked on Sunday night, people familiar with the matter said. His reversal left City Hall staff members confused, as one said, and flustered."

And jsut when you think that sunlight is the best disinfectant, along comes the city council. Some infections are immune to all manner of vaccine. We did get a kick out of some of the comments> Here's our favorite from Dominick Recchia: "After the meeting, Councilman Domenic M. Recchia Jr. of Brooklyn, who said he favors the extension, explained: “A lot of us council members feel that passing it through legislation is giving ample opportunity to the voters of the city to voice their opinions.” He added: “If the voters don’t like their council member, they can vote him out of office. And if they don’t like the mayor, they can get rid of him too.”

Perhaps, but wasn't that the point of the referendum in the first place-kind of like a salary cap in basketball? The owners in the NBA, unable to control themselves, placed a cap on salaries to avoid temptation; as the voters did, when voting for term limits in two referendums, to avoid the temptation of returning incumbents year after year. Dominick's sentiments are clear, but the logic is less so.

Most odd was the following: "Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn did not reveal her views on the legislation, though she is widely viewed as supporting it." What happened to her "strongly held" views of last December? Kind of like Dr. Wernher von Bruan: "A man of allegiance who's ruled by expedience; once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down; that's not my department says Wernher von Braun."