Yassky to Paper: I was right

The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

To the editor,

In response to your editorial this week (“Yassky’s integrity terminated,” online edition, Oct. 30; print edition, Nov. 1), I wanted you to read the full text of a letter I sent to my constituents after the term-limit vote on Oct. 23.

Dear friends,

I am sure you know by now that the City Council voted last week to approve Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to lengthen the term limit for City officeholders from eight years to 12 years.

I want you to know that after a great deal of thought, I chose to support the mayor’s proposal. This was the most difficult decision I have faced in the Council — more than congestion pricing, the garbage plan, or the post–9-11 tax increase — and I want to explain why I believe it was the right choice.

Like many people, my initial reaction to the mayor’s proposal was outrage. While I have always held that the eight-year term limit was bad policy, it was a policy put in place by referendum and the fairest way to change it was by a subsequent referendum. I was saddened by the mayor’s eagerness to bypass the voters, and I strongly disagreed with his assertion that a referendum was not feasible. Most important, I knew that a Council vote to change term limits would confirm many people’s most cynical suspicions about politics and politicians.

Following the mayor’s announcement, I advocated both publicly and privately, to the mayor, [Council] speaker [Christine Quinn] and my colleagues in the Council, that we should put the term limits question before the voters. I argued to the mayor directly that he was making a mistake, and that he and the Council could not afford to undermine our moral legitimacy at precisely the time when we will be asking New Yorkers to sacrifice for the greater good.

As the vote neared, it became increasingly clear to me that the mayor would not relent, and I focused intently on the choice before me. I had dozens — probably hundreds — of conversations with friends and constituents, and heard very strong feelings on both sides of the issue. Many people were appalled that the Council would even consider overturning a referendum, and many — I was surprised by how many — said simply: “I want to keep Mayor Bloomberg.”

These conversations had a deep impact on my thinking. While I have worked well with the mayor and I hold his administration in high regard, I certainly don’t believe he is the only person capable of leading the City over the coming years. But I do know that we are in a period of extraordinary challenge, and that voters may well value stability and experience in the city government. I became convinced that the right choice at this point in time was to leave open for voters the option of choosing to continue the Bloomberg Administration next November.

Even so, I pressed the referendum argument to the very end. Over the mayor’s objections, I introduced an amendment to the term limits bill that would have put the issue before the voters in a special election early next year. Many of my colleagues supported the amendment, and it was vigorously debated on the floor — but it lost narrowly. That left the stark choice: As much as I was loath to override the expressed will of the voters, I was unwilling to leave in place a term-limits policy which I believe is bad in general and especially at this time.

Finally, I know that some on the other side of this debate have accused Councilmembers of acting out of self-interest in voting to change term limits. For my part, I can say unequivocally that I saw no personal benefit in the mayor’s proposal. As you know, I have been planning to run for City Comptroller next year, and have felt confident about my prospects for success. That campaign may now be foreclosed, as the current Comptroller is eligible to run for re-election.

I knew that many supporters would disagree with this vote. In making my final decision, one particular conversation stuck with me. In the supermarket, a few days before the vote, an older man approached me, told me he had voted for me, and told me he didn’t like the term limits extension. But then he said: “Whatever you do, I trust you to do the right thing.” I do believe that my constituents want me to look diligently at the issues before me and follow my best judgment about what is right for our city and for our community.

As difficult as this vote was, I know that still more wrenching choices lie ahead: closing hospitals versus fewer teachers, raising taxes versus cutting cops. On all of these issues, as with the term limits vote, I will take my responsibilities as a City Councilmember with the utmost seriousness, and will work as hard as I possibly can to serve in the best interests of the people I represent.

David Yassky, Brooklyn Heights

Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

Reader Feedback

RedHook from Red Hook says:
"As much as I was loath to override the expressed will of the voters, I was unwilling to leave in place a term-limits policy which I believe is bad in general and especially at this time."

What does THAT mean?

You just keep making it worse and worse, Yassky.

I hope you're voted out of office.
Nov. 1, 2008, 1:31 am
Joyce Saly says:
Yassky says with all the upcoming issues, he " will work as hard as possible to serve in the best interests of the people." Will he ignore the voice of the people on all of the upcoming issues as he did with the term limits vote? Yassky chose to ignore the expressed will of the people in two previous referenda , the Quinnipiac poll stating that a landslide 89% of the respondents thought the issue should be decided by the public; and 51% opposed to pushing the limit to three terms. Yassky should have voted "NO" to the Mayor's bill if another referendum was opposed by the Mayor. Who does Yassky represent - the expressed will of the people, himself or the Mayor? He can never explain away his decision to ignore his constituents. You just have to walk the downtown neighborhood to know that Yassky is a disappointment and will never be re-elected. The more he supports his decision the more he reveals how out of touch he is. The Constitution says, "WE the people..."
Nov. 1, 2008, 11:27 am
Yassky_ThatIsNotAnAnswer from LowerManhattan says:
For the life of me, I read the letter and Yassky does not give anything near an adequate response to the outrage called Bloomberg's extension of term limits.

Yassky was great when it came to term limits, but in this case, he offers absolutely no believable reason why he voted to overturn a general referendum, the right thing to do, and choosing to support a Mayor who continues to sell out the soul of New York City to his developer friends. Until Yassky comes up with a REAL answer, New Yorkers can only surmise that Yassky was bought out by Bloomberg under the table. This is just wrong for NYC.
Nov. 2, 2008, 1:16 am
Angry on the Northside from Williamsburg says:
I think this is the best vote Yassky ever cast. Now that people have seen his moral fiber exposed with this cockamamie justification maybe we can get someone in council district 33 who isn't in the tank for big development. With all due respect Mr. Yassky, if I wanted smoke blown up my ass I'd be at home with a pack of cigarettes and a short length of hose.

There is a legitimate argument based on a theory that people that have been in and around the system longer have garnered more political capital and are thus better able to serve their constituents. Sounds like cronyism to me, but that's not even what upsets me. It's the means and methods employed to shove this [term limits] down my throat.

After 9/11 I was against extending limits for Rudy and I don't think we need a billionaire--albeit a very effective Mayor I voted for twice--at the helm to steer us through what will no doubt be very tough economic times for the city. There are some of us in the non-billionaire set that have sound fiscal minds and while I think he has been a great Mayor, hubris has finally taken hold.
Nov. 2, 2008, 10:31 am
Pacholo from Red Hook says:
Yassky you will learn what term limits mean in your next election. You took my vioce away and you will pay for it. I am not a happy hooker no more, I will vote for your political career to end. Mike will lose also.
Nov. 4, 2008, 7:55 pm
HappyOne from Greenpoint says:
Councilmember Yassky:

We all know that all you care about is power and your public image.

Trust me, I for one will be there campaigning against you whether you seek to be Councilmember again or City Comptroller.

As a NYer, you should know that you can't win an election in this city without teachers, cops and firefighters. Real NYers stick together and once you are REALLY exposed for your lies, you won't have a chance of winning any election again.

It's a little too little and a lot too late for you and your manipulative ways.

Farewell and enjoy your last term in public office!!!

Sto Lot
Nov. 22, 2008, 4:53 pm
tyir from tier says:
Aug. 28, 2011, 10:34 pm

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

This week’s featured advertisers