I am sure this has already been said, but, I would like to add a perspective that might solidify the deal for NYC.
While a third term for Mayor Bloomberg is disappointing for Mayoral hopefuls, adding potential time to ANY major city's transition of authority DURING a change in USA President is more than prudent.
Since the events of September 11th, America's mayors have made incredible progress in securing their cities. I congratulate them all. That progress is tenuous when one realizes the two major attacks on NYC were following the transition of authority in the Executive Branch. When Bill Clinton and when George W. Bush took over the Executive Branch they both faced nearly eight years apart; terrorist attacks on a major city.
I don't believe in 'coincidence.' I do believe in learning from one's mistakes. There needs to be legislation that bolsters the efforts between the USA intelligence agencies and those in our major cities during transitional years in the Executive Branch. That means every four years there is a potential for 'slightly' weaker infrastructure at our intelligence networks.
No different than 'leap year,' every four years when a major Executive Branch election is taking place, the cities of the USA need to have special provisions to allow their infrastructure to 'stay on board / in authority' for one additional year.There is nothing to say elections of mayors can't take place, but, the transition during these 'delicate' cycles need to be prudently done and with cooperation between incoming and out going administrations.
I can't think of any other time when NYC would be more vulnerable to such terrorist attacks than when a Presidential and Mayoral transition were happening at the same time.
That's my 'two cents' on the subject.
