Term Limits--’Yes’ on Prop. 2, ‘No’ on 4 : L.A. city ballot measures are similar, but their difference is important

On Los Angeles’ April 20 municipal ballot are two measures that would limit the terms of the mayor, city attorney, city controller and City Council. We endorse one version, Proposition 2, and oppose a slightly different version, Proposition 4.

There are all sorts of reasons to oppose term limits, in theory; limiting the time a politician has in office to ensure periodic turnover is no guarantee that constituents will be better served. So term limits are nothing magic. But oh, the alternative. The alternative is what Los Angeles has now in its City Hall: a mayor who has served for 20 years; council members who have been in their jobs for 32, 28, 26 years. And those are just the most senior: Tenures of more than 13 years are facts for nearly half of the council.

The many years of experience do lend expertise. But unfortunately it’s too often expertise that has not served Los Angeles well: expertise in cutting deals and lining up support for a particular program in one district no matter how that program may affect the rest of the city. The strongest theoretical argument against term limits--that it deprives the voter of a chance to reelect a good representative--is negated by the sad reality of Los Angeles politics: Many of the current City Hall occupants are walking advertisements for term limits. Local political office has become a lifelong career to be protected and preserved--which usually means catering to special interests, satisfying narrow constituencies and walking a safe and limited political line. None of this breeds leadership, something this city desperately needs.

Thus The Times supports Proposition 2, which would limit incumbents to two more terms--eight years--starting this year, and newly elected officeholders to a total of two terms. Proposition 4 is similar, but it would allow incumbents not up for reelection this year to have only one more full term, starting at reelection in 1995. Those council members in the even-numbered districts won’t have to stand for reelection until then and therefore could serve only a total of six more years.

So, under Prop. 4 some incumbents could have eight more years in office while others could have a maximum of only six. The difference is arbitrary. Prop. 2 applies the same starting point for all--two full terms starting this year. It needs a simple majority to pass.

It’s true that Prop. 2 was put on the ballot by a reluctant council to counter Prop. 4. But Prop. 4 would also have the effect of forcing out of office sooner some of the incumbents who have been in office the least time.

Prop. 2 is more evenhanded. It deserves a “yes” vote.