ORANGE COUNTY PERSPECTIVE : Term Limits in Dana Point

Dana Point, which incorporated in 1988, is a new city that hasn’t had much time to suffer from the problems of corruption and staleness that are fueling the current fever for term limits in other cities. And it doesn’t want to. The City Council has put on the June 2 ballot a proposal that would limit council members to two four-year terms and, after a two-year hiatus, another two terms, and so on. The measure is a thoughtful one that deserves support.

There is a hitch: Under current state law, local term-limit measures are of dubious legality. In an effort to remove legal ambiguities, state Sen. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco), a member of the Senate Local Government Committee, is carrying a measure that would clear the way for cities, counties and other local entities to impose term limits if they choose. The Times has supported passage of the bill, which was approved by a Senate committee and now goes to the Assembly and could help clarify the term-limit quandary.

It’s also good to remember that term limits really don’t address the underlying problems that are eating away at the system. At the top of the list is the need for candidates--whether they be one-term, two-term or 10-term--to raise increasingly large sums of cash to get elected. That money comes mostly from special-interest donors who have a stake in the political system.

Still, it can be argued that an official who can serve only a few terms has less time to become beholden to donors. Constant turnover also should bring into the system people with fresh ideas. In addition, term limits underscore the idea of “citizen politicians” for whom public service is a temporary duty.

The measure proposed by Dana Point is among the better-designed term-limit measures to be put before voters in Orange County. Term limits are one way to make sure politicians don’t get too entrenched.