The big news out of New York yesterday was that Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plea to extend the city’s two-term limit so he could run again was approved by the City Council.

Sound familiar? It should. In 1994, District voters approved a two-term limit on the mayor, members of the D.C. Council and members of the Board of Education. Seven years later, the D.C. Council voted to repeal the term limits, effectively saving the jobs of pretty much every sitting member of the Council. The leading proponent of the repeal was Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), who has since served on the D.C. Council for a full decade (if/when he gets re-elected in less than two weeks time, he’ll have 17 years total with four more to go).

The debate over term limits is complex and divides everyone from the public to political scientists. Proponents argue that term limits allow new blood to work its way into a political system, preventing elected officials from making public service and all its trappings a career choice. Put practically, had term limits stayed on the books, a number of our current council members wouldn’t be in office, including Evans and Carol Schwartz (R-At Large). Additionally, Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), David Catania (I-At Large) and Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) would not be allowed to run for re-election next time. Possibly the best argument for term limits in the District is that in 2012, we’d finally find a way to retire Marion Barry from elected office.

Opponents of term limits claim that elections themselves are a sufficient enough mechanism to clean out elected officials who aren’t good at their job. Additionally, they argue, there’s something to be said for the experience that is gained with years and years in public office. As you look at the list above, it’s hard to deny that each of the council members who would be term-limited this year have become particularly good at either being contrarians (Mendelson), hounding city bureaucrats for any type of indiscretion or misstep (Catania) or being so responsive to constituent concerns as to merit a whole new verb for what they do (Graham and “Grahamstanding”).

The issue recently bubbled up at a debate between candidates for the two open At-Large seats, but none of the candidates seemed particularly inclined to give a definitive answer. Should they? Is the issue of term limits worth revisiting, especially considering how it was overturned in the District? (There’s a bit of a conflict of interest when the council overturns a citizen referendum, especially when that referendum affects the job security of those very council members.) Or should we just let the four-year election cycle be the sole means of dumping ineffective or crooked pols? Beyond just the Council, keep in mind that Adrian Fenty is only in his mid-30s, so as things stand, he could keep running for re-election for literally decades.

Give us your thoughts.