By Nathan Duke
Peter Vallone Jr. (D−Astoria) may be one of the city’s most outspoken City Council members on law and order, but he is silently weighing whether the city should extend term limits for elected officials.
Vallone, who leads the Council’s Public Safety Committee and sits on its Government Operations Committee, said he has long spoken out against term limits.
But he said he is currently “undecided” on Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s recent proposal that would have the City Council vote on whether to extend limits and appoint a charter revision committee to put the issue before voters at a later time.
“I’ve always thought an eight−year limit was bad for the city,” said Vallone, who is term limited out of office next year. “It’s bad structurally because it does not allow the Council to be an effective check and balance against the mayor. It’s bad for planning because capital projects take five to six years to complete. And it’s bad for individual elected officials, who are forced to start seeking a new job once they are elected.
He added: “That being said, I thought the right way to rectify this would be through a referendum but, unfortunately, that is not the hand we are being dealt.”
Bloomberg announced earlier this month that he would seek a third term to help the city navigate through Wall Street woes and a national economic downturn. The mayor had previously said he was against extending term limits.
Voters had previously voted in favor of eight−year term limits in 1993 and 1996. Vallone, who had announced that he would run for Queens borough president, has now said he would not face off against Borough President Helen Marshall if term limits are also extended for that office.
The Council was scheduled to hold hearings Thursday and Friday on extending term limits.
Vallone said he thought the best way to determine whether to extend the limits would be to put the issue on the Nov. 4 ballot. But he said that is no longer an option.
“A special election, at this point, would still be an option, but the turnout would be very low and it would cost about $15 million to open all booths and run an election.” he said. “We are about to start making decisions that may involve cuts to essential services. Is $15 million something we can afford to spend on a referendum?”
He said voters in his district have given him mixed signals on the issue.
“I’m getting a lot of phone calls opposing it,” he said. “But when I speak to community groups at night, I hear people supporting it. But I’m keeping an open mind until I get to the hearings.”
Reach reporter Nathan Duke by e−mail at news@timesledger.com or by phone at 718−229−0300, Ext. 156.
