The Washington Post on Tacoma's Prop 1
First the New York Times had something to say about Tacoma’s Proposition 1 that removes term limits … Now the Washington Post weighs in on the debate. The Post’s George Will offers this on our very own Connie Ladenburg:
… Disregard the dubious idea that “visionary” legislatures are desirable, and disregard the fact that term limits always allow legislators to serve for “years” — usually at least six and often eight or more. But consider the Times’ supposedly alarming example of Tacoma Councilwoman Connie Ladenburg.
Now in her second four-year term, she advocates something that the Times presumably considers visionary and not a bit small-bore — a $2 million pedestrian and bike trail. Ladenburg lamented to the Times that she thinks “this is crazy” because “If I go away, and it’s not completed, what will happen?” Well, either the trail will be completed or it won’t. Presumably, if the good people of Tacoma want it, it will be, in which case she will not have been indispensable, which will also be true if they do not want it completed.
So … what do you think the “good people of Tacoma” will do when November 4th comes around? Do our city representatives need more time?
Link to The Washington Post
Filed under: The-Politics-of-Development, General
18 comments
R RR Anderson October 12, 2008
“graveyards are full of indispensable men”
lol
T Thorax O'Tool October 13, 2008
“…are constantly in campaign mode, thinking of the next election rather than the next generation. The idea that when term limits are absent, these difficulties are absent is refuted by two words: Norm Dicks.“
J J. Cote October 13, 2008
If “Mrs. Golf Course” can’t see a simple walking trail to fruition in 8 years, then what f%$king good is she anyway?
The PEOPLE put term limits in place and it is the PEOPLE that will keep them there if for nothing than to keep her and her husband constantly looking for jobs.
S Squid October 13, 2008
I guess I wasn’t looking when the changed the rules that I can’t vote for whomever I please.
Ladenburg’s talk about “finishing” her work is a red herring. There is a reasonable debate to be had on the issue, but the way she frames it just muddies the waters. I’m generally against term-limits, but if we are voting on the proposition based on the argument Ladenburg offers, I’m in favor of them.
D DavidS October 13, 2008
Here’s to politicians that believe the only way they can improve the community is through elected office.
(& what’s that mean they think about the rest of us?)
D Douglas Tooley October 14, 2008
Ms. Ladenberg does have a good point about project oversight, however I don’t agree with her solution.
A better one would be to recognize individuals who have taken a leadership role on a project and to tap that expertise as a way of keeping an eye on government, reporting to the Council on the specific projects.
Most often this is done with various groups, but recognizing specific individual volunteers for specific oversight activities – hopefully also in association with the City’s various appointed and non-appointed groups would be a very good thing.
Former elected officials would be great in this role, having been ‘educated’ in the subject – and perhaps also capable of associating with the rest of us up and comers, some of whom might even be interested in moving up into one of those term seats.
T torinaga October 14, 2008
I support term limits only because everything I have learned in my life has led me to believe that anyone who truly has a desire to hold a public office should most likely be barred from doing so.
M michael g. October 15, 2008
I’ll be voting to repeal term limits. I think we should be able to keep incumbents we like and vote out ones we don’t. Is that so wrong?
S Squid October 15, 2008
Michael G, I think you are totally reasonable. This way, we get exactly the democracy we deserve, which is the beauty of the system.
No reason to cloud the issue with phony arguments about seeing projects through to conclusion.
J J. Cote October 16, 2008
Question just for the heck of it: How many of you that are NOT for term limits were here during the Janovich era? (1970’s-80’s) Pacific Ave was home to more smut shops, brothels and massage parlors than any Seattle street. Graft was rampant in ALL levels of City and County government. A project couldn’t be started or completed unless the right people were paid off.
At the same time, several Tacoma City Council Members were booted from office for numerous infractions (I can’t recall and cite specifics. There are some of you that are much better historians than I).
The point being that some can become so entrenched in office and protected by the power that they hold, that it becomes impossible to get them out. Their power on the unions, trades and businesses is such that they can not be voted out. Any attempt to ouster them is eventually met with reprisals and in some cases violence.(Top Of The Ocean was burned down because the owners wouldn’t pay). That’s a large part of why our Charter was changed to include term limits. To change it in this manner is as wrong as wrong can be.
M michael g. October 16, 2008
@10: Rhetorical question — why do other cities seem to do fine without term limits? Are Tacoma voters less capable than voters in other cities of making good judgments about their leaders?
T torinaga October 16, 2008
Could you provide some Rhetorical examples?
I googled Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Denver, Chicago and Detroit. In that group only Chicago and Detroit do not have term limits and the later is sending their former mayor to jail, if I am not mistaken.
There is really no reason to stay in a single office that long. People rise to their level of incompetence. If after 8 year they can’t move on to a different position, then it appears obvious that they have reached that level.
S Squid October 16, 2008
I have some rhetorical questions then: How do you become entrenched in office when you have to stand for election every 4 years and are subject to being booted out? Are you able through office to rig elections? Are you able to buy off voters?
Why do many cities have term limits but many other municipalities do not, including U.S. Congress?
If term limits were designed to prevent individuals from consolidating power and essentially creating dictatorships as the heads of municipalities, then why are things like city council term-limited when a member, as part of a body, has only one vote?
Why isn’t our school board term-limited?
I am TOTAL agreement that regular turnover in things like City Council is a good thing. I just believe that the best way to do that is through the vote.
Serious question here to pro-term limits folks: Why are not all elected offices term-limited?
T torinaga October 16, 2008
“Why are not all elected offices term-limited?”
I wish they were.
“How do you become entrenched in office when you have to stand for election every 4 years and are subject to being booted out? “
How does a trail become a road? People vote on name recognition in Primaries and Party in Generals. Being the incumbent usually provides a huge advantage in the primary, where someone who is in your own party can potentially knock you off. It does not provide as much of an advantage in the general because the left/right sway happens relatively slowly. Usually if you have won your constituency once or twice, you almost have to start murdering puppies to lose your party support. If that’s gone you might lose your primary.
That isn’t even getting into the differences between a primary and a general election turnout. As the parties kind of turned their backs on our state because we have the audacity to tell them we might want to vote for someone in a different party in a primary election and they didn’t even count (on the Dem side, the Reps used %50 I think) our votes in deciding who won Washington.
This system engenders individual elected officials to worry about either campaign contributors and or party leadership more than they worry about their actual constituency.
“Are you able through office to rig elections? Are you able to buy off voters?
You can redraw districts, that is pretty close in some areas. And you can certainly buy advertising space which buys you mindspace.
M michael g. October 17, 2008
@12: I don’t know about those other cities (don’t have time to Google them all myself at the moment), but Seattle does not term limit its city council members.
J J. Cote October 17, 2008
Thank you all for a great discussion. Why are not all elected offices term limited? I think that MOST should be.
Torinaga brings up a very valid point in that many people vote on name recognition if they are unfamiliar with all of the candidates. It’s a lazy-ass way to vote, but, hey, it’s a fact. I make sure that I know a candidates viewpoints on essential matters before I cast my ballot. But, I’m retired with much more time than riches.
I was here in the late 1970’s, early 80’s and I remember how entrenched the elected officials were and how much power that they had over anyone that wanted to do business. If you didn’t grease a few palms, it didn’t get done. The people finally took charge by changing the Charter.
If Madame Golf Course (or anyone else) can’t do the job in 8 years, that just shows how badly she is doing the job.
Add to all that the back-handed way that this got on the ballot to begin with and it’s a terrible idea. You don’t circumvent the voice of the people in order to push your own agenda.
S Squid October 17, 2008
I just wanted somebody to say it out loud, that’s all. We have term limits because voters are by and large lazy asses. Pretty sorry that we voluntarily restrict our freedoms just because we are too lazy.
I maintain that the beauty of democracy is that we get exactly what we deserve. If we as a community are lazy-asses, we SHOULD have lousy government. It is actually counter-productive to have a better government than we deserve. I know that sounds funny, but I really believe it to be true.
M michael g. October 17, 2008
Right on, Squid. Shockingly, the best way to hold elected leaders accountable is to hold them accountable.