Politics & Government

NYC Mayoral Candidates Spar Over Term Limits

It was a case of four against one as Council Speaker Christine Quinn defended her stance on referendums.

Things became heated between Democratic mayoral candidates at a forum Wednesday when asked about term limits, a still-touchy subject after Mayor Michael Bloomberg's successful 2008 campaign for a third term.

During the Brooklyn Reform Coalition-hosted event at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, New Kings Democrats President Alex Low asked the five candidates: "Do you pledge never to attempt to overturn any referendum, such as city term limits, while you are mayor?"

First to answer was Comptroller John Liu, who gave a simple "yes."

Find out what's happening in Bayside-Douglastonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Former Comptroller Bill Thompson expanded on Liu's affirmative answer, remarking on the 2008 controvery still fresh on the minds of many. "Yes, what happened before was a disgrace and it is a mark on the city of New York," he said. "So, the answer is yes and I won't just say it, I'll keep my word."

Public Advocate Bill de Blasio echoed Thompson, saying, "Yeah, democracy got suspended in our town in 2008."

Find out what's happening in Bayside-Douglastonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

De Blasio said he was "proud to lead the opposition in the City Council against Mayor Bloomberg's proposal and, yes, the answer is yes, I will respect the will of the people through any referendum."

Following in Liu's footsteps, Former councilman Sal Albanese also answered with one word: "Absolutely." 

But the last mayoral candidate to answer had no intentions of following suit.

"Any referendum? No," said Council Speaker Christine Quinn, D-Manhattan. "Look at what's happened in California. They found the budget of their state by citizen referendum, often funded by big business interest. That state can't fund itself because of that. So, I hope there is never that situation, but I'm not going to tell you no when I have no idea what could be put on the ballot years from now. That's simply not a responsible answer."

Some members of the audience were not pleased with Quinn's response and made sure she knew it, booing and jeering at the speaker as she finished her answer. As the audience calmed down, Low asked for clarity on her position regarding term limits.  

"I made a decision a number of years ago that, based on the economic situation we were in, I believe it was the right decision," she said. "And, quite frankly, it was the same decision Public Advocate de Blasio advocated when he was running for speaker in 2005 at the debate we had for speaker candidate. So, at that moment in time, in the economics we were in, I believed it was right. I respect that many folks disagree with that, and we're gonna have to agree to disagree." 

De Blasio said the audience was "presented with a cautionary tale," saying "the speaker said very clearly she's ready to undermine the democratic process again, and I hope people heard that loud and clear."

He said he didn't understand the "obsession with the year 2005," but that when he saw that in 2008 " a huge amount of money [was] being used to undermine the democratic process, I thought it was time to say no and thats what I want to be judged by. I think you should judge all of us up here on whether we stood up against the mayor and the speaker when term limits was being decided the wrong way."

Quinn said that she would not undermine the will of the people.

"What I said was I was willing to lead and if something happened that was against the interest of the city as we've seen in California— we need to look at that evidence," she said. "I said, as mayor, I was willing to stand up and lead and be judged by the voter and held accountable, just as I was before. That's leadership. If something's happened that's going to jeopardize our city —we don't know what could get put on the ballot —you have to stand up and lead."   

Thompson jumped in to the discussion, saying the situation in 2008 had nothing to do with the interest of the people.

"2008 and the undermining of the will of the city of New York was not about our interest, it was about self interest, let's just be honest," he said. "It was wrong. The strength of our democracy is it is not about one person. There is no indispensable person in this city and undermining the will of the people of the city of New York, who went to the polls twice and then were forced to go back a third time was outrageous. There is no reason, there is no excuse, that 2008 should have happened and the undermining of term limits in this great city— it is wrong."

Liu closed out the heated portion of forum, agreeing with Thompson. "And the argument that, in 2008, the economy of the city necessitated a third term by this financial genius— [a] financial genius that has 300,000 city employees working without a contract," he said. "He's leaving us with a $5 billion hole in the budget by the end of the year. It's just amazing how the will of the people had to be subverted because of the compelling need to have this person in for another four years." 

What are your thoughts the term limits fight? Let us know in the comments.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

More from Bayside-Douglaston