Vote "no" on all 3 "Flip Your Ballot" laws!

Flip Your Ballot & Vote “No” x 3

“No” to Campaign Finance, “No” to Civic Engagement & “No” to CB Term Limits

Mayor DeBlasio rushed the formation of the Charter Review Commission last year. And now without enough public discussion or coverage, except the current TV campaign showing happy people flipping their ballot, the Commission is suddenly poised to change laws seriously affecting our communities. Simply put, the administration is attempting to amass more power.

The NYC City Council also created its own Charter Review Commission. The presence on the their commission of those who seem to be aligned to big real estate interests makes the composition suspect. But Lynn Ellsworth of Human Scale New York writes about the Council’s Commission with hope, “the presence of campaign finance reform advocate Sal Albanese on the Council’s commission is a hopeful sign…that in the end we could get better reform ideas out of them that with the bad ideas the Mayor’s team has come up with.”

But for now, we only have the Mayor’s three proposals on the ballot. Here is why we suggest three “no” votes:

Campaign Finance sounds great, lowering the “maximum” contribution from $4000 to $2000. But how many of us have personally donated $2000 to a candidate? Big donors will still be able to donate $4000 through their stand-ins. So it is pretense that a giant problem is being repaired, when in reality not much has changed. We need real reform, not window dressing.

Proposal Two: Vote “No.”

Civic Engagement also sounds appealing but seems ill-advised with the majority of members appointed by the Mayor, with resources funded

with public money. The panel seems to entitle co-opting of duties of elected officials and Community Boards. We have tried to civically engage the Mayor here multiple times to voice concerns, and never received an answer. Having mayoral proxies here instead with so much authority is a scary substitute.

While term limits for Community Boards sounds like a no-brainer, and some Community Boards might be filled with “dead wood” and special interest members, Community Board 2 has been reflecting community views both on Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (“unaffordable” affordable housing), and the recent DOT plan, against the positions of our Councilman and Mayor. Our so-called “dead wood” stood up for us, as

Proposal Three: Vote “No.”

well as many newer members. Our Commiunity Board and Councilman stood together on 50-25 Barnett amid considerable pressure citywide. The “dead wood” in regard to Mandatory Inclusionary Housing voted “no” citywide in 51 out of 59 Community Boards against strong pressure from both the Mayor and City Council. They were ignored, but they stood with the people.

Better to vote no and come up with real Community Board reform which does not throw the baby out with the bath water. We need the institutional knowledge and courage to say no that comes with longer service. Yes, reforms are needed. Community Board members should be elected by us, not

appointed. And there should be a strong “no conflict of interest” bar for those allowed to run. Those who are professional lobbyists for any industry, real estate or otherwise are ill-suited.

As for diversity, that is already in motion and the Councilman and Borough President have done well.

Transportation Alternatives has endorsed term limits due to resistance from Community Boards. Board members are are unpaid, and although “advisory” should not be under fire because are not as cooperative as desired by Mayor, Councilperson, or lobbyists.

(Lynn Ellsworth of HumanScale.nyc, who organized “Rally to Save Our Neighborhoods Oct. 13 at City Hall, supports term limits because in Manhattan where she is based, she notes, “Community Boards have become sclerotic.”)

Proposal One: Vote “No.”