Town of Los Altos Hills
2,371 / 68.2% Yes votes ...... 1,106 / 31.8% No votes
Index of all Measures
|Infomation shown below: Impartial Analysis | Arguments ||
Do the qualified voters of the Town of Los Altos Hills approve the ordinance
stating: No person shall be allowed to serve more than two (2)
consecutive terms on the Los Altos Hills City Council. Notwithstanding
the above, at any municipal election after the expiration of two years
following the two (2) consecutive terms, such person may again seek election
or appointment to the City Council.
|Arguments For Measure Y||Arguments Against Measure Y|
|Throughout the U.S. voters are demanding term limits at every level
of political decision-making. Sixty-seven percent of Los Altos Hills residents
supported term limits in the California state legislature. This overwhelming
strong support of term limits reflects citizens belief that one should
seek public office to serve and represent a constituency for a limited
time, so that the political process is constantly reinvigorated with new
ideas and fresh perspectives based upon a dynamic environment and the changing
needs of constituents. Term limits which force open seats have the positive
effect of attracting a larger and more diverse pool of individuals seeking
office, as well as increasing voter participation and decreasing apathy.
This effect has been clearly demonstrated in Los Altos Hills. Eight candidates
ran in 1988 for three open seats Since then, only one resident has ever
challenged an incumbent, significantly limiting our choice in Los Altos
While opponents of term limits may rightfully claim residents may vote out incumbents, residents also have the right to put in place a political structure which guarantees limited service. Our society saw the wisdom of this structure by limiting our president to two terms years ago. Two consecutive terms totalling eight years is clearly sufficient time for a Los Altos Hills councilmember to make a contribution, give back to the community, then step down, so that others are encouraged to participate.
|Vote NO on Measure Y it will have no effect until 2006 and then it may
take away your right to choose who you want on the Town Council. Term limits
act as an automatic trigger to dump an incumbent whether or not it may
be ''time for a change''.
"Time for a change" is a legitimate campaign issue. But it should apply to an individual, and not a blanket, automatic prohibition against a candidacy.
Retain your right to decide whether the incumbent deserves your support or the challenger. A Yes vote on Measure Y takes that right away from you.
Term limits on State Legislators became necessary because incumbents could collect huge reelection war chests from lobbyists which made it difficult to mount a campaign against them. Nothing like this occurs at the Town level. The cost of running an election here rarely exceeds $5000, and in the past few elections the candidate spending the least has come out on top.
In a small Town like ours, there is a limited number of residents willing to serve in this rather thankless job. Let's not preclude those who are willing to serve from continuing as long as we agree with the job they are doing.
Santa Clara Home Page || Statewide Links || About Smart Voter || Feedback