Today, many people on our Term Limits mailing list received a mailing riddled with errors that an overzealous computer geek sent out.

We apologize for this mistake and ask you ignore this mistaken missive.

New Yorkers for Term Limits remains committed to the eight-year, two term limit on City officeholders one million voters here twice approved.  Yet, extraordinary circumstances now require NYTL to take an extraordinary step.

Two difficult realities confront term limits supporters today.  The financial crisis has shaken the City’s economic security and the City Charter allows the term limits law to be changed, or even repealed, without a vote of the people.

With a push already underway for a total repeal, it is very clear some politicians are willing to use the financial crisis as a convenient cover to kill term limits.  This forces a tough decision about how to best preserve New York City term limits into the future.

Accordingly, New Yorkers for Term Limits founder Ronald Lauder has agreed to support a one-time, one-term extension of term limits until the financial crisis has passed.  This emergency measure is a temporary extension, not a total repeal.  Any plan New Yorkers for Term Limits backs must include a provision that returns to the current two-term limit as quickly as possible.

This is a realistic, but difficult, position.  When faced with total repeal, this one-time solution looks more tolerable.  Yet New Yorkers for Term Limits well understands other term limits backers will shun this approach.  We wish the best of success to those who take a different approach to defending term limits.  And we look forward to coming together again to work for our shared goal of accountable government and voter choice.

New Yorkers for Term Limits is committed to defending a return to the two-term limit after this crisis is past. 

Read the comments section of this Gothamist post. It reflects the will of the people of New York: Don't Mess With Term Limits.

Even the argument that the economic mess is reason to keep Bloomie and the City Council in office is rightfully shot down.It brings to mind the cry to keep Rudy in office after 9/11. The City did not collapse because term limits forced Rudy to leave. In fact it prospered.

Elizabeth Benjamin reports on New Yorkers For Term Limits' response to Councilman Koppell's arrogant move to extend his term in office.

Sign the term limits petition and send it to family and friends. We must mobilize to stop the professional politicans like Koppel before they steal steal our Term Limits Law.

Ken Moltner, a spokesman for New Yorkers For Term Limits, participated in a City News conference opposing City Council legislation to undermine the current term limit law which was approved by New Yorkers twice.

Moltner correctly summarized what this controversy is all about:

 “It’s all about respect for the will of the people..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15limits.html?ref=nyregion

A group of concerned New Yorkers took to the streets to express their opposition to attempts to undermine the term limits law by legislation. 

Read the New York Times report here.

Although she is term limited like the City Council and the Mayor, New York's Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum opposes the City Council taking legislative action to extend their terms in office.

The New York Times is reporting that Gotbaum has written:

"The fact is, incumbents benefit from the extension of term limits. But the opinion of one elected official, or a handful for that matter, should be irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the people of this city have spoken twice on this issue, first voting for and then voting to uphold term limits."

Former Deputy Mayor Randy Mastro thinks that after seven years in elected office Mayor Bloomberg has crossed the great divide between elected officials who serve for the good of community and those who are in it for themselves.

In an op-ed in the New York Sun, Mastro marshals his evidence and makes his case. He hones in on Bloomberg's shameless toying with the outrageous idea of gutting the people's Term Limit Law. He notes how Bloomberg had the power to bring to the people of New York his proposal to extend term limits but chose not to. Instead, he is sending signals to the City Council that he would approve their legislative action on this issue, thereby bypassing the voters who enacted and defended this law on two occasions.

Mastro also points out that third terms in office are notorously failures. An important hostorical fact.

Senior Bloomberg deputies agree with Mastro.

The New York Times did a public service by confirming the obvious. A majority of New York City Council members, though not all Council members, want to extend or ditch term limits.

John Liu, who is the first Asian elected to the Council thanks to the Term Limits Law, forcefully disagrees with his colleagues. Liu told the Times, "The issue at hand is not term limits, it's who decides. Is it 52 people - 51 council members and the mayor - or is it 8 million New Yorkers?"

Councilman Avella who is a declared candidate for Mayor said, "The day we change the term limits law is the day we take a step toward dictatorship."

In an odd swtich, Mayor Bloomberg who has given impetus to a possible move to change the term law told the Daily News that it is most desirable to keep term limits on the City Council.

Meanwhile, the Village Voice declares that the fact that City Council members don't want term limits is a good reason to keep them.

When asked by the Daily News if he had voted for or against the New York City Term Limits Law, Mayor Bloomberg said, "I don't remember at all."

The record shows that he voted both times term limits was on the ballott, but his memory is now blank on the particulars. 

Could it be that Bloomberg does not want to admit that he voted for limits of two term in office as he suggests that two terms might be enough for him and the City Council?

You decide.

In the end, the theory of the indispensable man failed. Mr. Giuliani left office on schedule at the end of 2001. Both the city and the republic survived.

Now Mr. Bloomberg is making noises that sound suspiciously like an echo of that theory. After years of speaking unswervingly in favor of term limits, he has wavered. He now seems open at least to the concept of a voter-dodging maneuver by the City Council to give him and other city officials a third term beyond 2009.

How serious he is about this is hard to tell. Mr. Bloomberg has minions of his own. They have floated more trial balloons than the Macy’s parade in various attempts to stave off lame-duckdom. This third-term business may be just another way to keep his name front and center as his days at City Hall wind down.

But it just could be that Mr. Bloomberg, like Mr. Giuliani, has never fully absorbed Charles de Gaulle’s admonition about indispensable men. The graveyards, de Gaulle said, are full of them.

Not bad advice for would-be presidents, too, come to think of it.

PRO TERM LIMIT QUOTES

MAYOR MIKE BLOOMBERG

New York Post, 11/30/05

Bloomberg has denounced plans by City Council members to pass legislation that would extend their own terms from eight to 12 years.  The mayor made it clear he sees no need to change the current law, which was enacted via a 1993 referendum.

“There’s no company that I know of that doesn’t benefit when they have changes in management once in a while,” Bloomberg said.

Daily News, 11/23/05

Mayor Bloomberg denounced some City Council members’ calls to extend their term limits through legislation as an anti-democratic “outrage” – noting voters twice approved the eight-year limit law.

“While it may be that that the City Council has a right to override them, deliberately saying to the public, “We don’t care what you think,” I would use the word disgraceful,” Bloomberg said yesterday.

“The cynicism that that would engender towards city government is not something that this city needs,” the mayor added.

“The public wants term limits, and if that’s what they want, we should all learn to live with ‘em.”

The Western Queens Gazette, 12/01/05

“The public wants term limits, and if that’s what they want, we should all learn to live with them,” the mayor stated.

New York Post, 12/10/05

If City Council members enact a self-serving bill to extend their own term, Mayor Bloomberg said yesterday he’s back another referendum that would restore the current term-limits law.

“It would be such an outrage,” the mayor said on his weekly WABC radio show. “But if they do it, you can rest assured there will be a ballot initiative.”

- 2 -

New York Post, 7/19/06

Mayor Bloomberg declared yesterday that he’d oppose any effort to put a third referendum on the ballot to change the law, which obliges city elected officials to pack it in after two terms.

“I think the public has spoken twice and they’ve spoken quit clearly. I don’t know that you should keep shopping for a different answer,” the mayor said.

“The public shouldn’t be bothered continuously with the same question.”

Daily News, 7/19/06

Bloomberg said the benefits of term limits outweigh the drawbacks.

“The little you lose in experience you more than make up in terms of fresh ideas – I don’t know of any company that would allow their people to stay doing the same thing for long periods of time,” he said, adding he supports term limits at all levels of government.

New York Times, 12/4/06

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg vigorously criticized the Council for even considering going against the voters’ wishes on the issue.  “The public wants term limits, and if that’s what they want, we should all learn to live with them,” the mayor said at a recent news conference. “The issue is not whether term limits are right.  The issue here is whether they public has a right in a democracy to have government the way it wants.”

New York Sun, 11/29/2007

A spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, Stuart Loeser, said the mayor has been clear about his views on term limits.

“It’s eight years and he’s out. He believes in term limits.  He has absolutely no interest in a third term,” Mr. Loeser said.  “It’s the greatest job in the world, but he believes that after eight years it will be time for someone else to take over.”

- 3 -

NY Post.. no date

David Seifman, City Hall

Stu Loeser, the mayor’s spokesman, said there was no chance the mayor would flip on the term-limits issue.

“It’s false,” he said of the source’s account.

“Sure he’s going to stay in public service, but he’s not going to stay in public office.”

“Public service like his foundation and boards?  Sure.  Keep speaking out on national and global problems that affect New Yorkers? Of course.  But he’s not running for office again,” Loeser said.  

Daily News, 4/12/08

“A spokesman for the mayor said Bloomberg promises to abide by the law, which limits elected city officials to two four-year terms in office.

“The mayor is absolutely not seeking a third term, said Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser. 

Asked if the mayor would promise to leave at the end of 2009, Loeser replied, “YES”

New York Sun, 4/14/08

A spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, Stu Loeser, said, “The Mayor believes in term limits and will be leaving office at the end of his second term,” he said.

New York Post, 4/15/08

Bloomberg said that on his final day office he will attend his successor’s swearing-in ceremony. 
The next day, he will take his mother to her 101^st-birthday party.

And on the third day, Bloomberg said =, he will go golfing, which he confessed would probably bore him in fairly short order. 

“But, you know, one of the things I would love to do is spend some time traveling the state,” he said.

Catching himself, Bloomberg quickly added, “But not as a candidate and not as governor.”

- 4 -

Daily News, 4/15/08

“I favor term limits, and I’m looking forward to being mayor through midnight on Dec. 31,’09 and then doing something else,” the mayor said yesterday. I’m not seeking a third term. That’s correct.”

“I’ll probably wind up in philanthropy,” Bloomberg said.  “I give away $225-odd million a year, and there’s an awful lots of ways to change the world, be involved.  And I think you can contribute a lot by rally working hard at it, and I will do it.

In answering questions about his plans, though, Bloomberg twice mentioned gold.

“One of the things I would love to do is spend some time traveling the state,” he said. “I’d love to do that again, but not as a candidate, and not as governor. I’d like to do it as a tourist.  You know, there are golf courses all over this state that I could dig up with my swing.”

Daily News, 4/22/08

“….his spokesman definitively said Bloomberg would leave – on schedule – at the end of 2009.

New York Post, 6/7/08

David Seifman

“If the public wanted to vote for it to change, I don’t know that I would want to run again.  I’m going to be 68 years old when I finish this.  I really haven’t had a vacation in six years,” the mayor said.

“We have term limits which I have said are probably a good idea.  I’ve always said a new guy can do it better. The public has voted for it twice.” 

- 5 -

New York Daily News, 6/8/08

Michael Goodwin

Back in April, he (Bloomberg) said: “I favor term limits, and I’m looking forward to being mayor through midnight on Dec. 31, ’09, and then doing something else.  I’m not seeking a third term.”

Two years ago, he declared that “change is good” and blasted City Council members trying to overturn the term limits approved by large margins in 1993 and 1996.

“The public has spoken twice, and they’ve spoken quite clearly. I don’t know that you should keep shopping for a different answer,” he said, arguing the benefits outweigh any drawbacks.

“The little you lose in experience you more than make up in terms of fresh ideas.  I don’t know of any company that would allow their people to stay doing the same things for long periods of time.” 

He added the he supports term limits at all levels of government.

…. In November 2005,”The public wants term limits, and if that’s what they want, we should all learn to live with ‘em.” 

“It is simply inappropriate” for incumbents to change a law “in a manner that may work to their own advantage," he said in his veto message. 

Reporting from the Democrat National Convention, Elizabeth Benjamin quotes former City Council President Mark Green declaring that Bloomberg would "cross the line" if he supported changing the term limits law so that he and members of the City Council could run for another term.

Green said, "It is unethical and impermissible to change the rules in the middle of an election to benefit the Mayor and the City Council, who are the ones drafting and enacting the legislation to overturn the votes - twice - of the people."

In other news, Gene Russianoff of the New York Public Interest Research Group called a City Council effort to overturn term limits "undemocratic." And he indicated that if the Council passed anti-term limit legilsation it is likely his influential good government group would join the legal challenge to the action.

Also, Mayoral candidates Congressman Anthony Weiner and Comptroller William Thompson both oppose Bloomberg's idea of a legislative move to extend term limits.

"That didn't sit well with Gene Russianoff of the New York Public Interest Research Group, a good-government organization, who pointed out that the current law was approved at the ballot box twice.
 
"The only thing that's appropriate is to go back to the voters," Russianoff said.

"Woe to the people who do it [through legislation], because the public is strongly in favor of term limits."

And Michael Meyers of the New York Civil Rights Coalition issued this statement:

There are many New Yorkers--not just billionaire Ron Lauder--who support the People's Term Limits Law. We keep telling these self-dealing pols to get a real job and that they have eight years in the City Council or mayoralty or as borough president or Public Advocate before having to seek other employment, either in another government post or in the private sector. They can always run again for Mayor or City Council after a four-year break. But that's not good enough for them. They--including Mike Bloomberg--get into office, pay lipservice to respecting the people's will, and then as their terms near an end they think they are indispensable and needed for another term. They spend taxpayers' money to clean up the stench of their slush funds--Bloomberg's and Quinn's. And Christine Quinn even spent public funds to conduct a poll as to whether the people would be amenable to changing the term limits law. The answer came back — leave the term limits law alone.

Bloomberg spent a paltry portion of his billions to poll to see whether his popularity in office would be a factor in getting people to abandon or change the term limits law. He too got the same answer. Leave the term limits law intact. How many terms are enough for these people? Three? Why not four? Why not five? This argument that the City Council and mayor and other incumbents need "just four more years" is a trojan horse argument; it is a utilitarian, self-dealing one. They really are opposed to term limits and will kick open any crack in the People's Term Limits Law that they can, towards their goal of staying in office and overturning term limits entirely.

Bloomberg should have moved to close the loop hole in the law that allows for the City Council to on its own overturn the term limits referendum of the voters. He could have made the heroic argument that the rule of law is more important than the hubris of the incumbents in public office who seek to extend their own time in office by overturning the people's term limits law. But, no, Bloomberg has also revealed himself as just another power broker who thinks of himself as the best the city can get. Please name some of those businesspeople she claims want Bloomberg to stay, and want him to help overturn the Term Limits law so that he may have a third term? Those gophers should be forced out of their holes and answerable to questions and willing to debate this issue publicly. But, no, the nobless oblige types really think they have cornered the market on management and good judgment, when in their own business sector, as we have seen, they are neither the best nor the brightest that they claim to be. Eight years are enough; with the advantages of incumbency, we know that term limits are the only effective way to control egos in government.

Then a few weeks ago, Bloomberg emphatically said he would not pursue a change in the law.

But yesterday he not only seemed to encourage a change in the law (giving the inept, sometimes corrupt, City Council more time in office) and he suggested that the change be done without giving people a chance to vote on it!

Talk about a sea change. Bloomberg the citizen politician seems to have become the classic politician who wants to deny the people their right to be heard.

If this Bloomberg initiative goes anywhere New Yorkers For Term Limits will once again be in the forefront of defending the Term Limits Law, enacted by the people. We will also be defending the right of people to vote on any changes.

If you agree, sign the petition and get others to do so. together we can beat this power grab. 

Mayor Bloomberg told a Brooklyn news conference that a campaign to overturn term limits will not happen. Bloomberg said, "It's not going to take place."(August 4, 2008)

With these words, Bloomberg joins Council Speaker Quinn in publicly declaring that they will not lead or support an anti-term limits campaign. 

This has not stopped the New York Sun from publishing two articles which may leave the impression that a serious campaign against term limits might be materializing. Today, the Sun gives space to the once poster boy of why New York City needs term limits, former Council Speaker Peter Vallone. The Sun publicizes Vallone's continued anger at the Term Limits Law that bounced him out of office. He even threatens to lead a campaign against the law.

The Sun does not report that when the voters of New York overwhelmingly approved the Term Limits Law, Vallone declared that he did not recognize the vote. This Stalinist attitute to a vote of the people led Vallone to marshall a massive war chest to overturn the Law in 1996. 

Despite being outspent by Vallone, New Yorkers for Term Limits beat him at the polls, again.

There is no question that Vallone out of office could not launch an anti-term limits campaign without the support of Bloomberg. And Bloomberg has said he will not challenge the law.

Which brings us to the question: Why is the New York Sun allowing itself to be the platform for every powerless politician who wants to go back to the bad old days of career politicians like Vallone mis-governing the City of New York?

We can understand Vallone getting excited because his son, the City Councilman will have to find a new job when his term is up, but the Sun?

Read Newsday's Dan Janison here.

Elizabeth Benjamin
The Daily Politics

Q Poll: NYers Like Mike - But Not Enough To Keep Him

Today's Q poll finds that while Mayor Bloomberg tops the list of would-be mayoral candidates in 2009, New Yorkers don't support changing the term-limits rules enough to keep him around for another four-year term.

Bloomberg's approval rating continues to soar - 71-22 - and asked whom they would like to see elected mayor in the next election, 38 percent of poll respondents picked Hizzoner.

But 55 percent of poll respondents said they think it would be unfair to overturn term limits at this stage of the game to allow Bloomberg another term; overall they oppose extending term limits, 56-38, and support the basic concept of limiting elected officials' time in office, 71-23.

Voters also didn't favor (65-32) the idea of extending the current two-term or eight-year limits so city officials can stick around a little longer.

The next closest non-candidate to Bloomberg? NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, who got 12 percent.

Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz and Rep. Anthony Weiner, both of whom have actually publicly admitted to being contenders (unlike Kelly, that is) are nearly tied at 11 percent and 10 percent, respctively.

Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Comptroller Bill Thompson are deadlocked at 7 percent. Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, who has said she's unlikely to run, gets four percent. Councilman Tony Avella, who has formally announced his mayoral campaign, doesn't even rate.

BY MARIANNA NASH 
The Queens Courier

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:09 PM EDT 
In 1993, the group New Yorkers for Term Limits (NYTL) led a successful campaign to codify the city term limits law, which states that local officeholders can run for no more than two four-year terms. The group defended the law in 1996 when incumbents and special interest groups fought to add a third term.
On June 9, in response to rumors that Mayor Michael Bloomberg and members of the City Council were interested in changing the law, the group polled 600 likely voters in New York City by phone to gauge what they thought of the term limits law. An overwhelming 73 to 22 percent of voters supported having term limits. Additionally, 61 to 29 percent were against changing the law.

“This is reflective of the New York City voting population,” said NYTL Executive Director Allen Roth. “We wanted to demonstrate the views of the citizens. They said ‘no’ [to new term limits].”

The citizens group credits term limits with introducing diversity and competition to local elections. Term limits provide opportunities for creative, motivated citizens, rather than “career politicians,” to run.

Results of the poll showed that a broad base of voters approve of the term limits law.

“Some politicians and pundits may be unhappy with the most sweeping reform of City politics in recent years, but voters remain very pleased with the term limits law. In two elections, over a million New Yorkers voted for term limits. And any politician who ignores the voters’ voice should be prepared to be punished,” said Roth.

African-Americans, women, and voters under 30 showed respectively 81, 75 and 79 percent support for term limits. The numbers reflect NYTL’s goal of increasing diversity among City Council candidates.

The survey cited the recent federal criminal investigation into the “slush fund” (an amount of money secretly set aside for personal interests) in City Council that involved over $17 million in taxpayer money. Asked if term limits should be extended for the politicians involved in the scandal, only 7 percent thought they should, as compared to 78 percent who disagreed.

Some critics of the law say that career politicians are not deterred by term limits. Andrew Moesel, spokesperson for Councilmember Peter Vallone, Jr., said that although the councilmember believes the limits should be extended to 3 or 4 terms, “they need to be changed by the people.” Vallone would not support a referendum to change the law “without the people’s will.”

“We took a covenant with the people of this city,” said Councilmember Tony Avella. Changing the law is “the worst thing an elected official can do.” Avella found talk of the mayor or fellow councilmembers changing the term limits “upsetting.”

The survey asked voters whether the city needed more “professional politicians with long experience” or “new people from outside the political system” as candidates. 59 percent thought more new people should run while 28 percent favored professional politicians.

Additionally, 58 to 19 percent said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who had voted to extend term limits, while 17 percent said the candidate’s stance would have no impact on their vote.

The poll was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research and had a plus or minus 4 percent margin of error.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg remains as popular as ever, despite an overwhelming consensus that his administration should have done more to ensure the safety of construction sites and an overall sense that the city is headed down the wrong path, according to the latest New York Times poll.

Some 67 percent of city residents approve of the job Mr. Bloomberg is doing, while 28 percent disapprove, according to the poll. (About 5 percent had no opinion.) That matches Mr. Bloomberg’s highest mark ever in a Times poll, which was in October 2005, shortly before he defeated Fernando Ferrer to win re-election to a second term.

Despite their favorable views of the mayor, two-thirds of residents called the city’s term limit law a good idea, although it will force Mr. Bloomberg from office in December 2009. Mr. Bloomberg, who has recently acknowledged that he is uncertain about what to do when his term is over, has been in discussions with his aides about how to remain in public life, and he recently commissioned his own poll asking residents whether they would be open to loosening the limits.

The Times poll showed that even though residents like Mr. Bloomberg’s leadership, many are hard pressed to point to any particular accomplishments of his administration, a troubling signal as people inside and outside City Hall begin to assess the mayor’s legacy.

Whereas his predecessor, Rudolph W. Guiliani, for example, was widely credited with reducing crime, when residents were asked to name the best thing Mr. Bloomberg had done as mayor, there was no single achievement or area identified by a broad swath of respondents. When asked to name the "worst thing" Mr. Bloomberg had done, the most frequent response referred to taxes, at 7 percent, followed by congestion pricing, his handling of finances and education, all at 4 percent.

But an area of deep concern among residents is whether the city is adequately balancing the need for safety in the construction industry with the economic benefits of development, especially in light of two recent crane accidents. Four-fifths of respondents say that the mayor should have done more to make the construction industry safer.

One of those interviewed for the poll, Bill Walters, a tour guide from Manhattan, said: "I’m somewhere in the middle on Bloomberg. I like the fact that he seems to be open and accessible, a little more human than some of the mayors we’ve had in the past. He’s generally done well for the city, except for his penchant to support what I consider wanton speculation and development of the city at the expense of the historic neighborhoods."

The poll of 444 New York City adults was conducted by telephone from June 6 to June 11. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus five percentage points.

The poll mirrors recent national surveys in gauging the public’s swelling anxieties over a worsening economy. By 56 to 37 percent, city residents say that the city has gotten on the wrong track; three years ago, the numbers were nearly reversed, with 63 percent saying it was headed in the right direction. Four in 10 residents now feel that they are worse off, financially, compared with four years ago, while just one in four said so in September 2006.

Still, those numbers are more upbeat than the results of comparable national surveys.

The poll also offers a snapshot of a city on the cusp of a major political realignment, thanks to term limits. Not only is Mr. Bloomberg due to step down at the end of 2009, but so, too, are two-thirds of the City Council, the city’s two other citywide elected offices of comptroller and public advocate, and four of the five borough presidents.

And if the poll is any indication, the mayor’s race next year is still wide open. When asked about three contenders widely believed to be running — Representative Anthony D. Weiner; Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker; and William C. Thompson Jr., the city comptroller — an overwhelming number of residents who were polled did not have an opinion about any of them.

And, even though 52 percent of those polled said there was "no excuse" for the police shooting of Sean Bell in 2006, they still approve of the job Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly is doing, by 56 to 26 percent.

That rating has not changed much since an August 2004 poll, which found that 59 percent of city residents liked the job Mr. Kelly was doing. Even among black residents, who were far more likely to say there was "no excuse" for the shooting, Mr. Kelly’s numbers are solid: 50 percent approve of his performance, while 40 percent disapprove.

In a follow-up interview after being polled, LaVern Wilkerson, a resident of Cambria Heights in Queens who is a retired school crossing guard, said: "As far as the city is concerned, there are bad things happening. The cost of transportation, for example. And the police could be better. The Sean Bell case should have been handled better. I think actually Bloomberg handled that fairly well and made good statements, like a lot of it wasn’t called for."

That kind of dichotomy — people feeling queasy or unhappy about one issue, yet not holding Mr. Bloomberg directly responsible — was a common theme underlying many of the survey responses.

The mayor is so well liked that according to the poll, 67 percent of city residents believe that Mr. Bloomberg, who made billions as a businessman, cares about ordinary New Yorkers — a figure that rises to 75 percent among those making over $50,000 a year.

It is, no doubt, a remarkable change from the early days of the administration, when Mr. Bloomberg, a political novice and lifelong Democrat who switched to the Republican Party in order to run, was wildly unpopular.

Indeed, in a New York Times poll from June 2003, only 24 percent of those polled approved of Mr. Bloomberg’s performance, citing job losses, tax increases and service cuts. It was the lowest approval rating for a mayor since The Times began taking polls on mayoral performance in 1978.

But slowly, and steadily, Mr. Bloomberg’s marks climbed. And along the way, New Yorkers felt more strongly about Mr. Bloomberg’s strengths and flaws, with many people applauding his efforts to revamp public education and fight crime.

Yet fewer people are readily able to associate Mr. Bloomberg, who is now an independent, with any single issue.

"I like Bloomberg personally, but I may not always agree with his administration," said one respondent, Kwame Okoampa-Ahoofe, a 45-year-old Bronx resident who teaches writing at Nassau County Community College.

"There are quality-of-life issues, like shutting down hospitals rather than looking at how effective they were in serving the people," he said. "There have been increases in tolls. Bloomberg is personable. He knows what he’s doing most of the time. So I somewhat approve and somewhat disapprove. It’s hard to get boxed into yes or no."

By DAVID SEIFMAN

June 7, 2008 -- Mayor Bloomberg hinted yesterday that he might be open to changing term limits - but only for other city officials, and not himself.

"If the public wanted to vote for it to change, I don't know that I would want to run again. I'm going to be 68 years old when I finish this. I really haven't had a vacation in six years," the mayor said.

"We have term limits, which I have said are probably a good idea. I've always said a new guy can do it better. The public has voted for it twice."

As things now stand, two-thirds of the City Council's 51 members will have to depart on Dec. 31, 2009, along with the mayor, public advocate, comptroller and four of the five borough presidents.

An extension of the eight-year term limit to 12 years could be achieved by a public referendum.

But Bloomberg would have to appoint a new Charter Revision Commission almost immediately to get the issue on the ballot this coming November.

Sign the Term Limits petition. 

Among the busiest tribunals in the state are Family Courts. Now, relief may be in sight through a bill pending in the state Legislature that would increase the number of Family Court judges by 39, including several within the Capital Region.

The measure calls for the creation of 14 judgeships on the Family Court bench in New York City and 25 for the rest of the state. Nineteen counties -- including Albany, Columbia, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady and Warren -- are each in line to get one more judge. Erie, Monroe and Suffolk counties would each get two.

``Of all jurisdictions, Family Court judges have the heaviest caseload, and their cases involve some of the most difficult and heart-wrenching issues -- our children,'' state Office of Court Administration spokesman David Bookstaver said. ``Caseloads, over the years, have risen substantially, and the request for additional Family Court judges was based on that rising caseload.''

In Albany County alone, at the end of 2007, Family Court had 15,892 filings, according to Deputy Chief Clerk Dan Pekrol. Through March 23, the first term of this year, 3,077 filings were recorded, he said.

If the bill becomes law, the 39 new judges would represent a 27 percent increase statewide. Most of the new judges would take the bench Jan. 1, 2010, after elections in November 2009, except for New York City, where seven judges would begin hearing cases on Jan. 1, 2009.

Family Court judges' salaries range from $119,800 to $136,700. In Albany, Schenectady, Rensselaer and Saratoga counties, they are paid $119,800.

Once again, New York City voters show, by an overwhelming majority, that they wish to uphold the Term Limits Law.

New York City overwhelmingly vote to uphold the new Term Limits Law.

To:  City Clerk, City of New York

(1). We the undersigned, being duly qualified electors of the City of New York, State of New York, representing not less than thirty thousand qualified electors, present this petition to the City Clerk of New York and respectfully request that the following proposed local law to amend the Charter of the City of New York be submitted to the voters of the City of New York at the next general election.

A LOCAL LAW

To amend the New York city charter, in relation to the establishment of term limits for various elected officials.

Be it enacted by the people of the city of New York pursuant to the authority provided in Section 37 of the Municipal Home Rule Law as follows:

Section 1. The New York city charter is hereby amended by inserting therein a new Chapter 50 (or, if there is an existing Chapter 50, the first available unused chapter thereafter) to read as follows:

#1137. PUBLIC POLICY.    It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the city of New York to limit to not more than eight consecutive years the time elected officials can serve as mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president and council member so that elected representatives are “citizen representatives” who are responsive to the needs of the people and are not career politicians.

#1138. TERM LIMITS.   Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this charter, no person shall be eligible to be elected to or serve in the office of mayor, public advocate comptroller, borough president or council member if that person had previously held such office for two or more full consecutive terms (including in the case of council member at least one four-year term), unless one full term or more has elapsed since that person last held office, provided, however, that in calculating the number of consecutive terms a person has served, only terms commencing on or after January 1, 1994 shall be counted. 

SECTION 2.   This local law shall take effect on January 1, 1994.