Also, because if this city were to somehow roll the dice and hit a 20 and elect a truly effective and generationally unique mayor/council and then have to let that go away because of an arbitrary term limit…well, that would be tragic.

Local voters are generally more sensitive to local issues not being attended to — or attended to — and tend to vote out or retain incumbents at a much higher rate than national or statewide incumbent officials. There have been numerous historical reviews supporting this. I wrote a huge college paper on this. Term limits may be more beneficial (depending how you define that) at a statewide or national office level, but is actually likely more arbitrarily limiting on a change-embracing local electorate.

Question K should be defeated. It’s a pointless amendment that will actually limit local voter choice where such choice is more effective.