Originally Posted by
Stavros
Londoners (not me), will vote in May in local Borough elections, and for The Mayor. With Mr Cuomo under siege in the city of New York, my thought for the day is -are Mayors the best way to organize the management of a large city?
London did not have a political Mayor until 1999, management previously being organized through a Council or the Greater London Authority, which Margaret Thatcher abolished. Most Boroughs, like most towns and cities, have Mayors which perform ceremonial duties only. The City of London, which is an autonomous authority governing the Financial District, has had a Mayor since 1189.
if London and New York did not have Mayors, should they have a Management Committe? A Council? Blackchubby may pipe in -'been there, tried that' - but as I don't know, I can't add much more. Other than to query the position of Mayor, if only because it puts so much pressure to deliver on one Man (has a woman ever run for Mayor in NYC?) even if they don't work alone.
Some years ago the Mayor of Nice, Jacques Médecin, once ruled this beautiful, but crime-addled city like an Autocrat (he effectively inherited the job from his dad, Jean [Vichy? Pas moi!]) -until he did a runner with a suitcase full of cash. So I have tended to think of Mayors with enormous powers as a mistake waiting to happen.
But are there practical alternatives?