Volume 80, Number 22 | October 28 — November 3, 2010
West and East Village, Chelsea, Soho, Noho, Little Italy, Chinatown and Lower East Side, Since 1933

Editorial

Vote ‘yes’ on 1 and 2
When New Yorkers go to the polls on Tues., Nov. 2, on their ballot’s back they’ll find two important referenda.

Question 1 asks if voters support returning to the term limits previously approved twice by the electorate — before Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council in 2008 legislatively changed them to three terms.

If voters say “yes,” they back returning to two terms for city councilmembers, borough presidents and the mayor, city comptroller and public advocate. In addition, if this referendum passes, the Council would be barred from legislatively overturning the voters’ will on term limits — the “loophole” that allowed term limits’ extension.

To vote “no” means keeping the current three-term limit for councilmembers, B.P.’s and citywide elected officials; also, the Council would still be able to legislatively modify term limits.

We support term limits, and, in fact, feel three terms is better than two since it allows politicians to become more skilled at their jobs and, thus, better representatives; it also lessens the pressure of having to look for their next job, letting them focus on their districts.

Our greater concern, though, is that the Council, with a powerful mayor, never again thwart the voters’ will by legislative fiat. For this reason, we support voting “yes” on Question 1.

Question 2 has seven items, ranging from disclosure of independent campaign spending and increasing ballot access, to making conflict-of-interest training mandatory for city employees.

We agree with critics who say this question packs too many items, to the point of confusion. Nevertheless, we support voting “yes” on Question 2.

We endorse the idea that groups spending more than $1,000 on “independent expenditures” — such as “robo-phone calls” or TV commercials — for or against a candidate should report this information to the Campaign Finance Board, which would make it public.

We also like the idea of decreasing the number of petition signatures needed to get on the ballot — since this would yield a wider pool of candidates, including more from outside traditional political circles.

Over all, however, this Charter Revision Commission process was far too rushed. New Yorkers haven’t had enough time to consider what they’ll be voting on.

Traffic relief in sight
Electronic tolling offers a bright ray of hope that Downtown Manhattan will soon be relieved of the unfair burden of truck traffic it currently endures. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is researching cashless tolling for bridges and tunnels, and if findings are positive, Congressmember Jerrold Nadler says he’ll consider introducing legislation to restore a two-way toll on the Verrazano Bridge.

Traffic backups at toll plazas — the reason Staten Islanders got the toll changed to one-way in 1986 — wouldn’t occur with an electronic system. Meanwhile, a two-way toll would curtail truckers’ using Downtown Manhattan as part of their no-tolls route, which unduly impacts communities like Chinatown and Soho.

We hear it’s likely electronic tolls will be implemented, making us optimistic for a two-way Verrazano toll. There’s no downside anymore to a two-way Verrazano toll — except for trucking companies, who will lose their free ride through our communities.

TheVillager Newspaper on Facebook


Reader Services

thevillager.com

EMAIL OUR EDITOR | ARCHIVES





blog comments powered by Disqus
The Villager is published by Community Media LLC. 145 Sixth Avenue, New York, NY 10013 Phone: (212) 229-1890 | Fax: (212) 229-2790 | Advertising: 646-452-2465 | © 2009 Community Media, LLC

Written permission of the publisher must be obtained before any of the contents of this newspaper, in whole or in part, can be reproduced or redistributed.