Why I support term limits in Pasadena

 

I support a charter amendment that would set term limits in Pasadena because I believe that term limits would foster a more inclusive and accountable City Council, one more likely to represent the majority of Pasadena residents rather than vested interests.

Our current system reinforces the status quo. Two members of the Pasadena City Council have been in office for more than 20 years. While their institutional memory and experience are valuable, and they have served the city well in many ways, I don’t believe it’s in the best interests of the city to have incumbents so entrenched it is hard for challengers to compete. In California, incumbents win 90% of the time at the state level and 80% at the local level. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to launch a serious campaign, which is a huge advantage to incumbents.

Our city is changing, with renters finally having a voice and institutional power thanks to Measure H, which was decisively passed by voters. Yet entrenched incumbents opposed rent control, even though a majority in their district supported it.

My argument is not that these entrenched incumbents are doing a bad job or are corrupt. What I am arguing is that having term limits would open up the Council to new people with fresh perspectives and innovative ideas. I was very impressed by the challengers who showed up for the candidates forum that Making Housing and Community Happen organized on Jan 31. I would like to have heard from the incumbents, but they chose not to take part. This to me is worrisome since four years ago when we organized a candidates forum, 13 out of 15 candidates showed up and all submitted written responses to our questions. None bothered to do so this cycle. Are they not showing up because they feel they are going to win anyway? Will this be the new normal in Pasadena?

We need elected officials in our city willing to meet with concerned citizens who want to know where they stand and why.

The state of California adopted term limits of 12 years iin 1992 and it has worked fairly well. This limit gives elected officials time to learn their job and acquire expertise in law-making, but it also encourages change. It gives challengers with new ideas a chance to compete for office.

What is the sweet spot for term limits in Pasadena? Should it be 12 years or 16 years? I would lean towards 12 but am okay with 16. What I see as a problem is allowing elected officials to stay in office 20 or more years. That’s just too long!