Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Katz explains her political whoreishness

Letter to constituents of the 29th Council District:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the City Council vote on Int. 845A to allow elected officials to qualify for a third term. I am writing at this time to explain the reasons for my vote. I have long been against term limits and have said publicly in recent months that extending term limits as a way to create more stability in city government is good policy, especially under present-day circumstances. The issue should have been raised early enough to decide this by referendum, but at this late date, it was not an option.

I also listened carefully to the testimony given during the hearings at City Hall and I heard from many of my constituents. While I understand and appreciate the views of those who disagree with me, I exercised the judgment I felt was correct for the City at the time, which is what I was elected to do.

There are several reasons I believe that giving voters the option to vote for the present administration and City Council was the best choice.

First, from a practical point of view, a longer time in office affects Council Members' seniority and the ability to see capital improvements through to completion. For example, over the past seven years, I have worked hard to bring millions of dollars in Capital funds to our district to provide upgrades to our parks, schools, firehouses, police stations and roadways. By limiting elected officials to eight years, there is less of a chance that many projects become complete.

Second, State and Federal regulations would permit a special election for a referendum on term limits from occurring until March or April at the earliest, and would not take effect until early May. This is due to rules on amending the New York City Charter and Federal Voting Rights laws governed by the Justice Department. These predictions are the best case scenarios and following this path would hold the future of our City government in limbo at a time when it is in most need of stability.

Third, the New York City Council's job is to pass laws whether they change laws enacted by referendum or legislation. It is one of the reasons the Council was created in the first place - to legislate.

Finally, throughout my career in public service, I have been against term limits. In 1993 and 1996, as a member of the New York State Assembly, I wrote letters and made phone calls in opposition to the two referendums. My position then as well as now has been clear and has not changed.

Once again, thank you for contacting my office on this issue.

Sincerely,

Melinda Katz
Council Member
29th District


No one is guaranteed re-election, unless you have been offered assurances that you will run unopposed. (I recall Katz attending many Republican fundraisers...) So the whole argument behind this letter is stupid, unless Mel believes that incumbency is fail-proof and that incumbents should be lifelong occupants of their seats, which I guess is indeed the popular belief amongst them. Let's remember that you benefitted yourself from term limits, lady, and had neither a primary opponent nor a general election opponent. And as for the snarky comment about it being the Council's job to "legislate": The Council was created to check and balance the mayor, not to be his rubber stamp, which is what this council has become under Bloomberg. I know the prospect of having to get a real job is frightening, but please don't insult our intelligence.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

To argue against term limits argument is one of temporal convenience. Essentially she said, "Term limits are good, until I decide they arent". Bloombergian in every syllable.

Terms rights opponents always talk about experience. Experience means franking privileges and the ability to win on name recognition alone.

Theoretically I am against term limits. But in practice, it means we get the same do-nuthin hacks over, and over and over.. At least on the city level and lower.

Anonymous said...

My how they all stepped in line to make excuses for blooms control and money persuasion.AS the Village voice article pointed out bloomie would go crazy being idle not having control over all of NYC.Please go cazy somewhere else.

Snake Plissskin said...

First, from a practical point of view, a longer time in office affects Council Members' seniority and the ability to see capital improvements through to completion. For example, over the past seven years, I have worked hard to bring millions of dollars in Capital funds to our district to provide upgrades to our parks, schools, firehouses, police stations and roadways.
--------
Are schools and hospitals being built! Doing all this for the people?

Yea, sure. Where I come from you would be called a God-damn liar.

We all know its to satisfy campaign debt to the machine by developers. Maga projects where opposition is weak like Jamaica, Willets Pt, Flushing and Astoria.
------------

Third, the New York City Council's job is to pass laws whether they change laws enacted by referendum or legislation. It is one of the reasons the Council was created in the first place - to legislate.
-----------
Actually, you were set up to satisfy the wishes of the public. The machinery does not exist for its own purposes.
-------------
Finally, throughout my career in public service, I have been against term limits. In 1993 and 1996, as a member of the New York State Assembly, I wrote letters and made phone calls in opposition to the two referendums. My position then as well as now has been clear and has not changed.
---------------
Let me repeat, you are a Goddamn bullshitting self serving lier. Dont tell us one thing, and do something completely different.

Do you think everyone in your district are foggy seniors, clueless immigrants, or old world hoodwinked peasants?

And you are stupid, a product of the machine culture that spawned you.

It would have been better if you never wrote this letter in the first place.

It just makes you a stupid liar.

Anonymous said...

She may have always been against term limits, but when she was elected to the council it was with the understanding that she had term limts. she can vote to change the law, but not to benefit herself. And as for her not having had any opposition, that may change as well. But it's an uphill battle.

Anonymous said...

Anyone ever try to call her office to get anything done? Try and experience what I have experienced several times. Lip service and arrogance. Her office staff is rude and disinterested and you can never get to see the queen.

Anonymous said...

All of the city councilmembers that voted to extend their terms are all full of sh%t. They are selfserving pols.

Anonymous said...

katz is a whore she sold out willets point for the developers & unions afraid of losing their $$$$$$$$$

Anonymous said...

Her office staff is rude and disinterested and you can never get to see the queen.


I have found that in the last five years not only with the polticans, but newspapers.

Its getting to the point that I am telling the editors - you would cover this if we are putting up a 15 story building!

Anonymous said...

She's laying down the groundwork to run again.

slick said...

so vote her out then...!

we need to stand to action

Anonymous said...

How can you vote someone out, when that person runs unopposed?

Anonymous said...

I know this might be off topic but we should all vote out councilpeople who supported term limits.Im in Liu's District can we get peter koo vs liu.

Anonymous said...

Melinda once bl-w me, pre Hevesi

Anonymous said...

Katz is insulting whom she represents. She pronounces her position in one direction and turns on a dime 360 and demonstrates and executes an opposite opinion?

She is one of the worst POL around. She should experience a real job if she could hold one.

Anonymous said...

Alley Katz, the well known developers' slut, needs to have her ass kicked out!