People who serve on community boards under term limits are less likely to be susceptible to appeals from real estate developers and other special interests than those "seasoned members" The Times extols.
33
@Lola I'm still on the fence on this one - good point.
5
Visit Brooklyn CB15 and you'd understand why term limits are needed for CBs.-- "institutional memory" consists of rubber stamping some 90% of permits with clubhouse control.
15
Editorial comes very late in the day and is very lacking in detail as to the pros and cons, esp for proposals 2 and 3. I have just googled this to death and find a lot of split by progressives and progressive groups on both sides, a lot of need to know more. Both pro and con sides claim the real estate industry favors the other side. I am not more certain on either than I was before I started. (Prop 1, I'll vote yes)
For what its worth, given my 36 yrs experience living downtown/East Village, the wonderful skyscape and landscape have been, continue to be, mutilated and mutated under the present/old system since the 90s, so it doesnt seem to have worked so well. NYU - the blob that ate the villages, has college kid quick eat shops/bars proliferating now. E 14th St bought out mom and pops in a sweep (from Ave B to 1st Ave) to build luxury housing and more chain stores. Meanwhile, our lone close-by 24/7 Korean green grocer just left, after decades of adding an important piece to services that made us complete as a neighborhood. New lease rent raised too high to stay. But I guess now that the luxury buildings are filling up... why not?
Maybe I'll vote yes on 2 and/or 3... or maybe not. And maybe yes or no wont make much difference either way. Guess I'll keep researching...
28
Community board members *should* be limited in their terms. We need new eyes and new ideas instead of the same old bs that happens w/many CB's.
18
Being able to write million-dollar checks gets you influence over elected officials
Ian Vandewalker, Brennan Center for Justice
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/02/midterm-spending-top-political-donors-sheldon-adelson?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlVUy0xODExMDM%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUS&CMP=GTUS_email
4
On Ballot Proposal #3: the appointing bodies to community boards are already in bed with the developers, so that is a moot point. As for seasoned members of community boards, there is nothing prohibiting re-appointment after a two-year "rest". We should all be wary of "members for life".
28
I agree that new voices are needed on many communities boards but imposing term limits doesn't 100% guarantee that Borough Presidents will appoint them. It only guarantees that institutional knowledge will be lost. While I’m sure new appointees will be intelligent, committed individuals, board members are non-salaried volunteers (with other jobs) facing deep-pocketed developers armed with dedicated teams of land use lawyers, lobbyists, PR people, architects—none of whom are term-limited. So yes, I do want at least some of my board to have more than 8 years experience. Without term limits, constituents can demand that their Borough President appoint some new blood while keeping some seasoned veterans so that institutional knowledge is preserved.
17
@bb Thanks for this. I'll consider it when I go to the ballot tomorrow.
1
Cambridge MA uses a form of participatory budgeting, and it is rapidly gaining popularity. However, it devotes a small percentage of the budget to this, and it allows residents 12 and older who live, study or work in the city to vote for which projects will be funded.
https://pb.cambridgema.gov/
It serves as a great grassroots idea generator, and it brings to light problems and challenges that would otherwise go unnoticed.
4
@aek Yes, we have been doing PB for several years now. It's very popular. I think all cities should do it b/c people feel like they have more of a voice in their neighborhoods.
4
If the NYT has a position on the imitatives in Tuesday’s midterm election, it should be published more than 2,days in advance of Election Dsy.
Many New Yorkers, including myself, have already submitted absentee ballots without the benefit of the NYT’s guidance.
Is anybody in your shop thinking?
31
The Editorial Board takes the position that City Council would have its abilities to affect voter turnout across NYC impeded by the passage of Prop 2. Good, take a look at past NYC election turnout through the NYCCFB and vote based on whether you think City Council has been productive at increasing participation in deciding our local governance. I'm voting to give money to the community boards and parts of boroughs where centralized City policies on increasing voter turnout have flopped.
NYCCFB Stats: https://www.nyccfb.info/media/blog/7-statistics-about-voting-and-voter-turnout-in-new-york-city-s-2017-elections/
As for Prop 3, elected officials should never remain in the same office for more than a few terms. If they are successful and good advocates, they will advance. All denying prop 3 would accomplish is the continuation of elected officials not seeking out and grooming their successors, a problem not only seen in NYC but across the country. Nobody is arguing that former community board members should have to completely distance themselves from whomever replaces them or from local politics at all, but the Editorial Board seems to assume these community board members have such vast quantities of insider knowledge that they couldn't possibly pass it all on to the next member, even if say, they worked for or alongside them. This Editorial Board takes the position community boards are about individuals and that seems pretty backwards to me.
10
I'm surprised at you, NYT, for saying NO to Prop 3. It prevents board members from serving 4 CONSECUTIVE terms, but you can take 2 years off and then serve another 8 years, so long as there is a 2 year gap between each 8 years. Furthermore, our current community boards are made up primarily of old white males, followed by old white females. Well time for at least a chance of some fresh blood every 8 years.
22
People get on Community boards and stay for decades. It becomes a fifdom. I understand what you are saying but, Most New Yorkers don't even know what community board Number is their district yet Who is on it. Can't have people on community boards for 10-20 years or more.
17
Re #1, it is not revenue neutral. I won't support any measure that has a cost associated with it. This city is one financial crisis away from fiscal ruin and it is irresponsible to tax and spend the way de Blasio has been doing.
5
lThank you for bringing this to our attention. It's worth thinking about .
2
Term limits exist for a reason, which is to combat the very human and predictable tendency to get comfortable with the power of the office. Eight years is plenty of time for a community board member to learn the ropes and be effective. In fact, knowing that tenure is not guaranteed into the indefinite future can inspire people to work harder, so they leave a legacy they can be proud of. Vote "no" on Proposal 3.
14
You make some very good points, but there must be another way to make sure we retain the talented and passionate advocates who have served long enough to understand how to do the best job they can for the most people.
3
@Ellen Merchant under this proposal, a CB member who served 8 years could simply take a 2 year break, get reelected, and serve another 8 years. So I think that's a way talent would be retained.
5
@Round the Bend
You argue in favor of term limits -- then suggest voting 'No' on the proposal to introduce term limits.
8
November 5, 2015
On the good advice of this Editorial I am pleased to be guided and must say as always I enjoy and look forward before Election Day to what will aid my thinking for such topics, thanks to the EB - Happy Election Day New York and America.
JJA Manhattan, N.Y.
4
@Joseph John Amato.....you say you're pleased and always enjoy and look forward to the editorial bd aiding your thinking for elections?
Sounds a big exaggerated. Glad someone's having a good time.
3
RE: NYT's editorial on referendum question "Ballot Proposal 3: No.
This would prohibit community board members from serving more than four consecutive two-year terms. This could weaken community boards by stripping them of their most seasoned members, replacing them with novices more susceptible to appeals from high-powered developers. "
Reading the NYT's Real Estate & Business sections is like being in bed with "high-powered developers" or HPDs (not to be confused with NYC Dept of Housing Preservation & Development).
The NYT Editorial Board's members do read the paper, I assume, & would know that HPDs (commercial & residential) continue to advertise & get coverage in an amazing annual volume. NYC's real estate sector is owned & operated by those HPDs. They'd approve the Editorial Board's message about CBs.
Community Boards, on the other hand, get short shrift in the NYT's pages. The NYT doesn't acknowledge that many CB members serve for decades until their "institutional memory" has alzheimered out. Come on, NYT Editorialists, how many of you have tried to get appointments to your CBs? How many have served? How many have seen CB members serve for years & decades on end, thanks to local pols & local pull?
Keep CBs democratic. Vote YES. (My personal opinion. I've been a public member of my CB Housing Committee.)
21
Re: Prop #1 - My fear is this will give too much power to independently wealthy candidates. There is no cap on how much a candidate could fund his/her own campaign, and so a less wealthy candidate would be at a major disadvantage with the contribution caps. Plus matching small contributions with tax $s is just problematic. I appreciate the effort behind this proposal and want campaign finance reform, but this proposal offers too little, and in a dangerous way.
Re: Prop #3 - maybe it's because I live within CB3 aka the worst community board in NYC, but I'm dying for fresh blood on the community boards. Assuming that new board members are too stupid to stand up to developers is an illegitimate (fear-mongering) reason to vote no. under prop 3 board members could serve 8 years, so there will be plenty of brains and experience to go around.
14
@leanne
to sum it up: vote NO for 1 and YES for 3
3
You really need to read what the actual proposal say! I never knew 16 year olds could service on Community Boards Proposal 3 talks about that. I’m not sure what their roles are? Teen issues? Or the sewer project or property tax issues are they qualified for that? I realize we need better representation but the word diversity is plainly written my question and this could be reflective of any neighborhood what is meant by this? Should the people who are looking to gentrify a neighborhood say they need to be on the Board to represent their agenda as opposed to the majority of the community? I like well represented and well qualified as to opposed by filling in a check box that “we have one of those”.
For some reason the NYT negelected to inform its readership about these proposals adaquetly. Why?
4
The Borough Presidents now run community boards like their personal fiefdom. Voting yes on #2 and #3 will bring more transparency and help eliminate corruption among board members.
In 2016 I filed a simple Freedom of Information Request with Manhattan CB4. In response, I received a phone call from not one but two lawyers for BP Gale Brewer. They spent over ten minutes yelling at me, threatening me, as they demanded I withdraw the FOIL request. Their bizarre attitude was that I had started a FOIL action against them. They viewed it as a lawsuit! Well, we got the information and a pattern of corruption was revealed. You can read the first report about it here:
http://media.wix.com/ugd/f5a6d5_33d7d910155b405db1a5e197a68f9192.pdf
This has to stop. A board from the mayor's office will remove the tight-fisted control the BPs have over these Boards, helping to end the harm they do to people in the community.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
15
Why don't you stop telling voters how to vote and start enabling them to inform themselves? For starters, internet as a public utility. From there, we should discuss the wisdom of in-person voting. What good is standing in line during certain hours doing anyone? Oh wait, I know. Party leaders want to suppress voter turnout in the primary but then gather public support in the general election. See Hillary Clinton for examples.
Republicans are explicitly undemocratic. Democrats though are not doing a very good job covering the distance. Would you make your grandmother wait in a line all day? That's essentially what polling stations are telling you as a voter. Go wait in line. In reality, the USPS has the problem solved with less money and less effort. Done.
9
@Andy: Very few, if any, New Yorkers are "waiting in a line all day" nor even standing in line for HOURS to vote in person.
Sadly, b/c of low voter turnout in most elections, the NYC voter can vote & be out the door in about 10 minutes.
3
"The contribution limit for citywide candidates would be lowered to $2,000 from $5,100. Matching funds would increase under the proposal, to an 8-1 match from a 6-1 match now."
Can it please, please, PLEASE ban those access "dinners" too?
Pretty pleeeeease, Santa? I'll leave extra cookies!
4
I served on Manhattan Community Board 4 for one term and left after in disgust with the cabals of entrenched members promoting their own agendas and talking down to the majority of the board. The main reason I will be going to vote on Tuesday is to vote YES on Prop 3. The Boards need fresh energy and a diversity of voices that are all heard. One only has to look at the monstrosity of Hudson Yards to see that CB4's long timers are in the pocket of the real estate industry. Sweep them out.
32
Community Boards are not independent. Members are appointed by City Councillors. If a board member consistently disagrees with the City Councillor, she or he will be replaced.
I want Community Board members to be elected, but the Democratic Party would never allow us to vote on that.
I voted Yes to Community Board term limits but it's a very limited "reform." If it passes, City Councillors will easily replace term-limited toadies with new toadies.
12
@David Levner Half the Community Board members are nominated by City Council members. All the members are appointed by The Borough President.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
3
I would like to thank and congratulate all of the commentators as of 8:39 am. Their very informative posts are a wonderful example of reasoned and courteous debate, one we could all use elsewhere.
14
I have served on two different community boards for almost 10 total years and I can tell you term limits are desperately needed. Those who have been on the boards for a decade or decades use their knowledge of the system, chairpersonships of committees, and relationships with other long time members and district managers to stifle the opinions and efforts of new members. It undermines the whole democratic community model (in favor of persons who have endless time to commit to community board work as opposed to a few years to give). YES ON #3!!!
30
@Chad MarlowI think you might have changed my mind.
5
Please remember us early voters when you schedule election-related information.
10
100% agreed on these. Protect our Community Boards with long serving members who “get it” and have lived here long enough to know a scam when they see one.
2
While all the proposals are deeply flawed my inclination is to vote yes on 3. The boards are not only clubbish, but members serve so long that they are no longer representative of the current inhabitants of their districts.
12
Anyone know why the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) testified AGAINST term limits for community boards? So weird to see REBNY, the Times, Scott Stringer, and the Manhattan BP lined up together on the issue.
13
On #3: so longstanding board members are categorically not susceptible to appeals from developers? Puh-leeze! CBs need fresh blood.
9
@fast marty That's what elections are for. Elections ARE term limits.
1
@Melpow but we don't get to elect community board members.
4
@Melpow Board members are not ELECTED. They are APPOINTED by politicians in office.
3
I've been stunned and revolted when long time, 10 yr+ community board members have shot down the participation in public meetings of their neighbors who broaden the debate on local issues. Vote yes for community board term limits if you believe in diversity of opinion and the ability of people to participate.
16
I've wasted enough of my life attending community board meetings for local issues to feel very strongly that the people who gravitate to those committees and build little kingdoms sorely need to be thrown out. Eight years is enough.
What the city really needs are means for electronic participation in all community board matters, rather than telling people they have to travel 50 blocks on a schoolnight to be lectured at by politicians and smug community board members for 2 hours before they might, might, get 2 minutes to speak and then be ignored. A pox on the entire thing.
25
@A Reader Thanks for posting A Reader - your comment sums up the current status of boards perfectly.
7
in re: proposal #3 - I'm getting the idea that many comments here are confusing the community boards (CBs) with the elected city offices of mayor, city council members and borough presidents - all of which already are term limited.
Community board members are volunteers. Anyone can volunteer to serve on the community board that covers the neighborhood they live in, there is no 'election' per se. Yes, the chairperson, and I believe the committee chairs are elected. but they are elected by the community board volunteers (you won't see a line for 'community board', chair or otherwise on your ballot tomorrow). Chairpersons also serve as unpaid volunteers.
These people are extremely knowledgeable about neighborhood issues and local politics, and they are very willing to help. Each community board does have an office with paid staffers, but these people are there for community outreach and to answer and direct questions and issues from constituents to the appropriate CB member. Community boards are there to give a voice to city residents and do a very good job of it.
Finally, contrary to what some people seem to think, community boards are almost always a thorn in the side to large businesses and developers, as well as to city agencies looking to make changes of any kind to a neighborhood.
9
Perhaps it would've behooved the NYT editorial staff to explain this further to their readership, as an argument for their reasonable stance (imo) on the issue.
And doing so sooner than less than 24 hours before the polls open might have helped as well.
3
@Mikeweb Whenever community board members feel threatened, they invariably trot out that old wheeze: "we're just volunteers."
No.
They are political appointees and, under the City Charter, they are in fact City Officers.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
6
I have witnessed in the community board nepotism as many of the board's members are there for more than 8yrs. The argument is that we need to have those who have mastered the city political system to help the community boards do a better job, but what they do not take in consideration is that having people for an infinite amount of time in the community board can also create problems.
The disproportion in representation of having these longterm serving members who have created a fraternity/sorority club in which they rotate the chair of committees and chair of the community board among themselves has to end. I think is good to have term-limited because no political seat in our government is to be held indefinitely. Also the proposal states they can be there for 8yrs, and after a 2-year break, they can come back and be reappointed. If those who argued we are going to miss valuable experienced community members then I would say if they cared they will stay around. If they decided to leave, they only care about the power. The proposal also will not allow for the exodus to happen all at once. I think its good or our democracy and to have more vibrant community boards.
14
I'm voting NO on all three for many reasons, but first because I resent having had no opportunity to educate myself on the proposals. There is clearly room to improve, modify, enhance on all three. What's the rush? Making these kinds of changes under pressure, lacking public input, is bad government.
3
Absolutely vote YES on #3. Setting term limits is the best antidote to corruption and the status quo.
11
@TD I used to think the same thing. But then I came to realize two things: 1. Just how much power and authority wielded by staff; and 2. The time required for any freshman to 'learn the ropes' means that decisions fall to both staff and to party bosses.
Term limits are something that I call "seems like", as in "seems like a good idea". On reflection, while the motivation is critical and perhaps righteous, the tool is far too blunt.
2
@TD
Not in this case. Not sure if you realize but that measure is only regarding the community boards, not the city council, mayor or borough presidents who are all already term limited.
Community board members are a valuable grass roots organizing resource - as a co-founder of a neighborhood advocacy group 15 years ago I know this firsthand. Also, being a community board member is a volunteer (i.e. unpaid) 'job', so term limiting these people might come as a relief to some of them (or their families who don't get to see them as much as they'd like), but they are usually extremely knowledgable about local issues and local politicians and every level.
8
@Mikeweb, @MichaelSpencer
I've recently become involved in local issues, including joining a civic association - it's not that hard to catch up and understand who's who and what's what.
Also, in my Town, the Council members are actually paid (appx $34K/year), and one has been on the council since 1992! They are generally considered to be asleep at the wheel and completely beholden to the Town Supervisor.
Term limits SHOULD be extended to ALL levels, but the current resolution is a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.
1
I disagree with the Times on Proposal 3. I think when people are in the same position for too long they can become corrupt. The developers know the players. It's much easier to bribe them. It's harder to bribe the average new person who comes on board trying to make a difference for his/her community. We see how corrupt the state legislature is in Albany. They say they either leave office in a coffin or in handcuffs. May I remind you of State Senator Pedro Espada, Dean Skelos, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, etc. Don't forget Hiram Monserrate, another state senator who, along with Pedro Espada, sold their souls to the Republicans and made a deal whereby they held up the people's business by shutting down the state senate only to open the senate then adjourn minutes later day after day.
I don't care how seasoned people are. It's time for fresh blood and others to come in and make a difference. That would be eight years total same like any president of the United States would serve if he/she gets reelected a second time. The way to end corruption is by sending a signal to the electorate that you, too, can have a chance to serve. It's not a closed club. That the people who serve now were once novices too. No one was born with knowledge. We all learn.
That's why I'm voting no, same as I'm voting no on Proposal 2 which cedes more power to the mayor and takes away from the city council that represents the people. The only proposal that makes sense is #1.
12
@Wayne
Voting no on proposal 3 would allow community board members to serve more than four consecutive two-year terms. Did you mean you are voting yes on proposal 3, to limit terms?
3
@R. Turner yes correct. I'm voting yes to allow for fresh blood.
2
Imho, this particular initiative was designed b/the Mayor to limit the power of a few specific Community Boards, including MCB 1-5. I totally agree that ALL CBs deserve much more institutional support and resources, but the truth of the matter is that Mayors don't really want informed expertise from local communities which have a tendency to interfer with their development plans. It started with Mr. Bloomberg and continues with Mayor Di Blasio. Most rezonings in NYC over the last 20 years have been originally drafted by the community boards (& specifically by a few community board members, all with extensive experience and expertise), and then debated, amended and eventually ratified by the City Council. Although totally imperfect this process, objectives for affordable housing, green space, culture, new schools and safety all originate from the institutional memory acquired by a handful of CB members, many that I know of as friends and colleagues - who are well-intentioned and more importantly have a history of success for their communities. All of this is going to change eventually as many of these talented folks age out. But I trust those colleagues who have real ties to the community to continue to do the right thing (as opposed to political appointees with agendas of their own.)
Ex-co-chair Quality of Life Committee / Chair, Mega Development Construction Task Force, MCB4. Ten years of service (My last 2 years is when we got the good stuff done - just saying : )
4
@David how about all the gentrification that occurred during their inveterate time in office? In the last twenty years rents are unaffordable. Luxury high rise buildings all over the place. Look at downtown Brooklyn it's no longer recognizable. When I was growing up the tallest building was at 1 Hanson Place known as "the big clocks." Now we have several skyscrapers. None of these buildings are affordable. They are pushing out small businesses. All the barber shops are gone. The check cashing place on Myrtle Ave near Flatbush Extension. along with the Associated supermarket all gone. The area now known as DUMBO is unrecognizable from when I was growing up. Luxury buildings galore. I remember when Giuliani was in office and he kicked out people who were living in that area in what were old factories. And I'm no fan of Giuliani but he did the right thing. Since Bloomberg came to office this has become scaffold city. Just about every block got scaffolding and construction. And nothing they build is affordable. Only a few apartments are set aside, due to tax rebates, for very, very poor people. I tried to get a studio but was told I make too much money ( I wish I did) which is a laugh. How does that work out to have very poor people probably lacking social skills living in the same building with well-to-do sophisticated tenants? People should vote Yes on Proposal 3 to give honest people a chance who don't want to be priced out in their own neighborhoods they grew up in.
5
@David
I couldn't agree more. From his time on the city council from district 39, Diblasio had very little regard for the CBs.
1
@Wayne, Development comes in many varieties. "As of Right", is a development process that does not include community involvement or oversight. Community Boards ONLY have non-binding oversight on those properties that have City and State ties, or that involve zoning changes, which must start at the Community Board level. As a result, much of the over-development that you refer to had no Community Board input at all.
Community Boards have far less power than often imagined by members of the public. Having said that, those issues which arise which Community Boards DO have a voice in, as far as my personal experience at MCB4 showed, massive amounts of political advocacy is focused on behalf of the needs and wants of the Community. Of course, examples of disagreement (sometimes very contentious) do occur. What I marvel about though is the amount of consensus regularly achieved between citizens, board members and local electeds on the matters that really matter.
Yes, Please vote NO on all proposals. The campaign finance question in particular has a lot of details that make the problem even more complicated for candidates. These items could have all been enacted via legislation by the City Council members that represent each of us NYers. Do not let a Mayoral Commission dictate what should govern the NYC Charter.
VOTE NO on ALL
4
These Mayoral commissions that propose charter amendments have a sorry history, in my opinion. A charter provision to change the manner of their appointment and process would probably do more good than anything they propose this year. But on to number 3:
First of all, at our local community board there have been new members appointed every year due to people leaving the board for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons was simply non-reappointment. Term limits is really not needed. The position of chairman of our community board is term limited by the board itself. That's a good idea.
I have been through community board "training" and that was next to useless. It doesn't begin to compare with the experience gained by sitting next to experienced board members for years and learning by this sort of apprenticeship. It takes a good while before becoming a useful participant.
But, from my point of view, the best argument against term limits is long time institutional memory. For example, it happens that real estate applicants come up for renewals of the privileges sought and the long-time members are the ones who remember the arguments and assurances made years ago. These can then be measured against performance. Invaluable!
7
@LennyM so create a system whereby new members could pull an electronic file to read about the arguments and assurances made. That should not be hard to do in the age we live in. I remember someone told me she had applied for a tourist visa to come to the United States years ago but was denied. She told them she had a boyfriend here. The consular office probably believed she would come and then change her visa after marrying him. Fast forward she went back a few years later to apply for a tourist visa. The consular officer pulled up her file and asked about her boyfriend. She said they had broken up. How did this consular officer know this? It was noted and put in a file under her name. My point is the community board does not need some old timer with a great memory. It needs a mechanism in place to keep notes of all assurances made by real estate applicants. That is all you need to measure performance. Your argument makes it so that board members feel they are invaluable and should not be replaced by a democratic system. Look at the state legislature in Albany who corruption is bred where many end up going to prison.
4
@Wayne
Sorry, but how out of touch you are. These are all volunteers, most with regular day jobs. The investigation usually asked of them is to at least physically visit the site that's up for consideration. Totally unreasonable to seek to have each one of them do independent research on what may have happened 10 years before.
Actually, an old-timer with a great memory is an invaluable asset to decision making at a board. There is no duplicating this asset. Guess you had to be there!
The current nominations for board membership is NOT a democratic one. Proposition three does not make it democratic.
3
@LennyM
I agree 100%
1
Re #1. Lowering the campaign contribution won't do anything to limit the amount of Dark Money flowing to candidates and, in fact, may make candidates more reliant on it than ever. I'll be voting NO.
1
Hey Editorial Board, thanks for the analysis of the three ballot proposals (not that I agree with it all), but why so late? I've been poking around the internet for the last week or so trying to find out more about them, and haven't seen much. WNYC's site listed them and gave some cursory pros and cons, but not very helpful.
I point out the lateness because I have a daughter away at college. Yesterday was pretty much the last day we had to discuss the candidates and her choices before she mailed her absentee ballot (last year she left it a bit late, and her vote didn't count.) We're all trying to get young people to vote, but it's not easy when the first four years they're eligible, may also be when they have to pre-request, fill in and snail mail (very retro) a paper ballot.
Let's hope our state gets its act together by 2020 and allows early voting and/or easier absentee voting. But meanwhile, please have articles discussing the candidates and issues well before the penultimate days of the campaign.
34
@Alicia Agreed. I voted absentee and voted on these three proposals basically with no context. This breakdown would have been extremely useful 1 or 2 weeks ago.
7
@Alicia the guide from the Board of Elections sent to me gives the pro and con for each proposal. You probably did not read it.
1
Community boards are deeply flawed, since they don't actually present the will of the community accurately and all too often don't act in the best interest of their neighborhoods and the city. Limiting term limits is a small but helpful step in putting the breaks on the reactionaries and local landowners who are preventing the desperately needed creation of more housing. I am definitely voting yes on 3.
14
I am 23 years old, and was appointed to my local Community Board in April 2018, less than 1 year after graduating from college. Roughly 20% (8/50 members) of my board is comprised of new members appointed in 2018, meaning that the board constantly gains fresh voices, contrary to the narrative motivating Provisions 2 and 3. Community Boards are already accessible to anyone wishing to get involved in local government—from those less than a year out of college to the retired and everyone in between. Therefore, I encourage you to vote NO on 2 & 3.
11
@Rachel so what makes you so special that you were appointed? The proposal gives the opportunity for others to participate by running for the position. Just because you were appointed does not mean there are no flaws in the system.
6
@Wayne Most CB's don't have enough volunteers to join. They're lucky to have people serve a longtime. I recommend you join your CB, they'd love to have you.
1
@Wayne this proposal does not propose elections for CB positions, even were the proposal to pass the members would be appointed. And to the contrary Rachel here must be an upstanding citizen to have been appointed after just graduating from college, so kudos to her for being a young person eager to engage in her community!
1
The editorial board owes readers better reasons for its opinions on CB term limits. ‘Seasoned’ vs ‘novices’? Loaded terms.
Why would new, younger, more diverse people necessarily ‘weaken' the CB? That's just a generalization with no evidence. Depends on who they are. Why would they be more “susceptible to appeals from high-powered developers” than those more entrenched? Or the old timers less susceptible---please explain.
There's a healthy trend in public opinion favoring new, younger, more diverse people in politics.
33
@Meredith Absolutely correct. The editorial makes a bogus argument against Proposal #3. If there is any doubt that entrenched CB members have allowed developers to walk all over them, look around at the insane amount of development. The entire city has been handed over on a silver platter to every dream developers have ever had. Term limits will help.
7
@Joe
Than why do groups financed by real estate support proposal 3. Basically if real estate interests want it , it can NOT be good for New Yorkers.
2
@Meredith I agree. Look at the over development in downtown Brooklyn. Barber shops are gone. Supermarkets are gone. Who are these people serving. Also let's look at seasoned individuals up in Albany. Names like Sheldon Silver, Dean Skelos, Pedro Espada, etc. All seasoned politicians who were hard to beat at the ballot box but all are now in prison.
2
I completely believe that the Supreme Court's decision 'Citizens United' was a dramatic slap in the face of fair elections. The amount of money a person or group can contribute to a political campaign on it's face is unfair. My $20 donation will not get me a 'seat in the room where it happened' or a ticket to the Ball.
Ballot #2. With out oversight another 'mysterious committee' with it's own hoops to follow seems unnecessary.
Ballot #3. I think Term-Limits are a good idea but they need to be accompanied by a staggered process and some form of training so all of the "knowledge" of a certain issue is not lost. I think I will need to read the whole summary on this one.
3
I have never seen a newspaper that didn’t oppose term limits, it must be easier dealing with people you know. The same arguments were used here in Florida when we passed legislative term limits, that lobbyists would rule. It is no more true than before term limits.
3
@Rich Murphy
Interestingly this is a proposal by politicians to limit terms on community boards, many/most of whom are not professional politicians but volunteers. It's kind of the opposite of legislative term limits. I think the City Council and Mayor have limits, Gov certainly does not. I'm not sure about Assembly and State Senate--but I would expand term limits to state offices before I expand them to community boards.
4
@Rich Murphy
We already have term limits. They're called elections and are held every two or four years,
1
@Bicycle Bob
When did you last vote for a community board member?
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
1
Re #3: I don't know the details. It might be correct that 8 years is a good limit but a better proposal would have staggered terms so that some seasoned members remain while other seats open up.
The argument that "novices could be susceptible to developers" is not compelling. The city, and its existing "seasoned" community boards, are already at the mercy of developers and REBNY and Related Cos. and others, who are raping the city's tax base with luxury projects and sweetheart permit deals. Take a look at the back-door challenge and grandfathering permits to the much-opposed giant tower on E. 58th street if you want a good example.
18
As for Item # 3. If Council Members and Borough Presidents did a better job in selecting members that reflected the community, this proposal would be unnecessary. As a member of City government my job takes me to all of the Boards. I walk through neighborhoods whose demographics changed long ago, but whose members have not.
18
Vote “Yes” to reinvigorate the 59 Community Boards - our big city’s small town halls - through term limits, standardized applications, and the resources they need to stand up to special interests.
Community Boards are often residents’ first experience with government where they should be greeted by board members who hear their voices and reflect the demographics of their neighborhood. Term limits for city elected officials have weakened special interests and created a more diverse local government that better reflects the residents it represents. Term limits will do the same for Community Boards.
Standardized paper and online applications will open Community Boards to every New Yorker interested in participating in local government and end automatic reappointment by requiring existing members to reapply.
We can strengthen Community Boards with training as well as by providing the land use and technical experts needed to stand up to special interests in real estate.
Vote “Yes” to open up applications, provide term limits, and bring greater expertise so we can empower our Community Boards to stand up for our neighborhoods.
16
@NYC Council Member Ben Kallos Hear, Hear!
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
Why aren't community board members elected? It seems that this proposal doesn't do anything. The community boards don't have real power, so give them some. The community boards don't represent their communities, so let them be elected.
11
@Robert In addition to term limits, we also need elected community boards, and tight conflict of interest rules that would exclude lobbyists, members of the permanent government, and political clubs from running their people, and a fresh mandate as to what community boards should even be doing.
Right now we have way too many lobbyists serving on community boards, and the BP put them there!
2
Opposition to Ballot Proposal #3 is entirely specious. The Editorial Board supplies no evidence whatsoever that new board members would be more susceptible to developers or other outside interests. In fact, the usual pattern is that members of boards are often "captured" by outside interests after serving long terms. Turnover is a good thing. It keeps the process vital by engaging new members and viewpoints. Prop #3 deserves a "yes" vote.
15
Having served on Community Board 2 in Manhattan for years, it was obvious that developers would love the least experienced members to pass on their proposals. Looking at neighborhoods around the city that have sudden and explosive development and a transportation system that is unable to reasonably support it, anyone with eyes can see the folly.
7
Lowering the campaign contributions to $2,000 is so grossly inadequate as a reform - it leaves the politicians dialing for dollars with the same people as before which doesn't really fix the situation.
The civic engagement commission is a joke - yet another Mayor dominated commission that now intervenes in community board land-use even more than it already does.
But why not term limits for community boards? There are many schlerotic boards - for every functional board with good volunteers there is a terrible one that is filled with old-timers who vote in everything REBNY wants - no wonder REBNY is opposed to term limits.
6
I appreciate information about these proposals- both in editorial and comments. I am always flummoxed about which judges to vote for though. There is no information about candidates that I know of. Where do we go for information about these candidates ?
39
@Andrew Maas-- NY Daily News has the following about the judges on the ballot--
"But we are stuck with this stupid system, so as a public service, the Daily News checked how well these soon-to-be jurists followed court rules for judicial candidates.
Shahabuddeen Ally (Manhattan Supreme), Karina Alomar (Queens Civil), Marissa Soto (Bronx Civil) and Matt Titone (Staten Island Surrogate) all failed to file mandatory financial disclosure statements.
Alomar was also late in completing mandatory judicial campaign ethics training. Other slowpokes here were Brooklyn Supremes Ingrid Joseph and Devin Cohen and Brooklyn Surrogate Harriet Thompson. Brooklyn Supreme Loren Baily hasn’t done it yet.
Separately, the city Bar Association found that new machine-picked Surrogate Thompson is not qualified, a dishonor shared with financial forms scofflaw Soto. The Bar also flunked Jeanine Johnson (Manhattan Civil), Connie Morales (Bronx Civil) and Bronx Supremes Benjamin Barbato, Eddie McShan, Elizabeth Taylor and Robert Torres. Brooklyn Civils Rupert Barry and Jill Epstein got thumbs down, as did Staten Island Surrogate Ron Castorina.
Which means in one of the few real contests, for Staten Island Surrogate, both Republican Castorina and Democrat Titone have marks against them."
3
#1 seems reasonable, even with the delay in implementation. It's certainly worth a try. If it doesn't work, it can be changed.
#'s 2 & 3, if approved, would enhance the power of the Office of the Mayor to the derogation of Borough Presidents. Since the major Charter revision back in the 70's and the elimination of the Board of Estimate. Borough Presidents have little to do. The appointment of Community Planning Board members can be abused and sometimes has been, but the Planning Boards can be important. The matter of expertise is a two-edged sword, but the proposed change would tend to increase the power of the Mayor, and that office already is too powerful, so NO.
4
Many community boards do not reflect the demographics or points of view of the neighborhoods they represent. The argument that new members won't have expertise or that there will be a "brain drain" of some sort is problematic. I personally know a lot about land use and zoning and I know many other members of my community that are similarly dedicated individuals who love their communities and would want to serve on community boards. To say that new members would be susceptible to real estate interests is insulting. Over the past 20 years, there were no community board term limits and gentrification and unchecked luxury development has ravaged NYC neighborhoods. By bringing in new members who are activated by the desire to address current critical issues in their neighborhoods like gentrification, term limits could actually create a more hostile environment for problematic developments. Other institutions that have term limits have systems for preserving records and institutional knowledge that don't rely on life long appointments and entrenched members. Proposal 3 even requires the Civic Engagement Commission to offer training to CBs on land use and zoning, a very fair proposition.
41
4 Borough Presidents, Comptroller Scott Stringer, and numerous Council Members and Assembly Members are also advising NO on #2 and #3. They make a clearer case why term limits will benefit developers and their lawyers, who aren't term limited. Community Boards are voluntary positions and it takes awhile to get up to speed and be an effective advocate for communities and tenants. They also say that the term limits are redundant since the Borough Presidents and Council Members who appoint Board Members are term-limited themselves.
10
then I wonder why the current Manhattan BP has appointed a REBNY lobbyist to a community board, a hospitality/tavern industry lobbyist, a Capalino lobbyist, a taxi medallion lobbyist, a bike lobbyist, and two additional real estate lobbyists from private firms (all to different community boards). I find this so mysterious.
2
Terms limits have worked well for NYC and there are lots of new people coming into the political system. I originally opposed term limits but am now an advocate and think that we would do well to expand the positions covered by term limits. Why not impose them on community boards? Let's break the hold of an old guard that is often not representative. And why stop there -- how about judges, state reps and the governor?
13
@historyprof: Community board members are part-time workers. They cannot devote the time to learning about issues that will come before them that legislators can, and they don't have staffs to assist their learning. Zoning issues are very complicated; have you ever tried to read zoning rules? Even liquor licensing by neighborhood is complicated. it takes years for community board members to become really knowledgeable about such things and to understand the implications of the purposely complicated wording of developers' proposals. Term limits are not a good idea here.
11
@Thomas It's not very difficult to understand if a high rise is moving across the street from you on Orchard Street or squeezed into a vacant lot in between two fragile brick buildings. There's not an inch left downtown to breathe and Brooklyn is a highway where semis line the tiny streets. We have a president that doesn't read and barely knows how to speak English, I think any interested member of the community could figure out that our neighborhoods need protecting from developers; Bloomberg already turned the historical rugged streets of downtown into an exclusive suburban mall dotted with Duane Reade's and Banks where if you want to do laundry, fix your shoes or mail a letter you're out of luck. Frankly, anyone with half a brain could have made plans to do almost nothing and the city would have been better than fine.
2
@Thomas How did the current Board members learn? They had to begin somewhere.
2
This contribution limit, just like most Electoral new ideas will leave us all exactly were we are: the one-party-System.
3
The rationale behind rejecting Ballot Proposition 3 is pretty patronizing to the Latinos, Asians, and young people who are currently underrepresented on community boards. What if they aren't just "novices" who are too green to resist the appeals of developers, but rather have a legitimate interest in wanting more housing? They're more likely to be renters and not own cars than the "most seasoned members," who tend to be homeowners who value parking above all else and are unaffected by (or even benefit from) New York City's chronic housing shortage.
59
Re: #3
I have attended community board meetings and they definitely need new blood. As for new members being the pocket of the real estate developers, I think it is the other way around. The longer you are on the board, the more chances you have of "benefitting" from your connections. Eight years is enough.
Vote yes.
78
Re #3: Is there really anybody in the entire government of NYS that is not in the pocket of developers, either under or over the table - or both? It's the one thing that Cuomo and DeBlasio have in common: they are both vassals of the REBNY.
34
Indeed. The giveaway of half (if not more later) of Stuyvesant Town to the pirate developers by de Blasio (to say nothing of LICH...) was quite a horror, and Cuomo's palm grease is even thicker and well-known.
I'll, of course, be voting sane. That almost surely means another general where Cuomo doesn't get my vote. Will someone step up to protect tenants, stop bulk and flipper buyers, and hold the wealthy, racist landlords ("covfefe" still among them, even as he, sometimes literally, squats the White House...) in line with strong, compassionate eminent domain?
3
In terms of Q 3, it doesn't take effect until 8 years from now and a member can rejoin the board after a 2 year break, they are not gone forever. And in those 2 years they are not official members they are still welcome to lend their expertise to new members. And as a millenial, the notion that "novices are more susceptible to appeals from developers" and thus not knowledgeable about housing issues is offensive and so very wrong. Sad to see all these older New Yorkers who claim to be "progressives" but freak out when their own power is threatened. Yes on 3!
86
I think a bit more context would be helpful, for #3. So for example, is there currently no limit to the number of terms that someone can sit on the board?
Also, so long as there is a mix of members that have served anywhere from 0 to 8 years on the board, does that not include members who are seasoned enough to not be easily swayed/influenced by developers? And, could we not argue that the opposite could be true...that some of the longer-term board members may have developed cushy relationships with developers, hence their being successfully voted back in, election after election, due to their high-powered friends?
It would seem to me that serving 4 consecutive terms is plenty. Sometimes those who are in place for too long, become complacent, and 'new blood' on the board is often a good thing.
36
@Lisa Agreed, all we need to look at are Orin Hatch, McConnell and Graham - the same muddyfkers who put Clarence Thomas on the court and now Kavanaugh. They've learned nothing that could benefit us. I'd file under "you can't teah new tricks to an old dog" and leave it at that. I haven't seen "the stablishment" do anything but use their positions to hold onto power and blindside anyone who opens there mouth to advocate for a new day.
@Lisa, Community Board members are appointed by the Borough Presidents, not elected.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/bkncb1/html/explained/explained.shtml#Appointments
The Borough Presidents are themselves term limited, and the CB member terms are short so a new BP could replace many of the CB members if they wished to.