Any other DetroitYESers here? It's getting pretty crowded. Very interested to see what Mr. Orr has to say.
Printable View
Any other DetroitYESers here? It's getting pretty crowded. Very interested to see what Mr. Orr has to say.
It's crowded 2 hours before go time? Gonna be interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by samsonov
WDIV livestreaming coverage here:
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/k...z/-/index.html
Does anyone know if there will be any radio coverage?Quote:
Originally Posted by corktownyuppie
I was here at 5 o'clock to wait in line and I was one of the last people to get in. Lots of pissed off people that didn't get in.
Well they got smart...a woman just announced that they will be taking public question by index cards, which will be passed out and collected.
You know why?
You said it...the rent is TOO DAMNED high.
What a well-organized and informative meeting. The civil tone of the Q&A -- and these aren't all softball questions -- gives me hope for how City of Detroit dialogue and civic discourse can go.
Orr stated that he would not rule out going after the state for the revenue sharing money, as he is obligated by law to pursue redress from any and all sources. My gut tells me that any debt "workout" plan may come from the state.
He also stated his intent to put the Belle Isle lease on the table again, but he will not sell it.
Get ready for interesting times.
corktownyuppie...couldn't agree with you more. I watched online. The discourse was civil and intelligent. Very well organized. Orr did a fantastic job explaining his positions and didn't dodge questions. After listening to so much political bs the past few months, this session [[whether you agree or disagree with him) was rather refreshing.
All fun and games until the Wayne State Police start assaulting the press. At least we know Steve Neavling ain't no wussy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvuWq...;feature=share
Happy to hear things were civil. I didn't even try to go cause too many rabble rousers just destroy public meetings.
Of course I care, this is my city.
Screaming idiots just is not my cup of tea. There is still a lot of talent and energy in this city. I want to hear reasoned dialogue and movement to fix problems.
Does someone know what was different this time. How did the vocal minority manage to act civil. Was it security, the room itself or the force of Orr's personality. I just couldn't see Mr. Bing or the council members getting that kind of respect in a public meeting.
What was THAT all about? Why did he get shoved by that cop?Quote:
Originally Posted by socks_mahoney
I was impressed with the poise and professionalism of Orr last night. He answered questions directly, didn't point blame, assessed the situation and gave his current thoughts. [[50/50 chance of bankruptcy, Belle Isle will be leased for 30 years etc). I was most disappointed by the quality of questions posed by the attendees - not one was insightful - and many were downright accusatory. The lunatic white guy screaming about banks being solely responsible for Detroit's ills was an embarassment to all Detroiters. People like that should be banned from future meetings.
A few sources [[neighborhood city hall, etc) put out that the Meeting would be held Friday at Greater Grace in Detroit and Monday at M L King High School both at 6:30pmQuote:
Originally Posted by firstandten
When the news reported WSU Law School, residents knew that only a few seats would be available for the 'average detroiter'.
This was also a signal to 'average detroiters' that do get in they werent playing games either.
I think it was Orr's personality. He won the respect of the crowd. Orr was honest, to the point and seemed sincere about wanting to help Detroit.Quote:
Originally Posted by firstandten
Whether you are against having an EM or not is one issue, however there are FAR WORSE people I could think of for the EM job. Actually, after leaving the meeting I got the impression that Orr was probably the best person to have as an EM if you're going to have one.
If this is true, he really needs to have another meeting. On the east and west side, so that retirees, city workers, people living in the neighborhoods who feel powerless, can see that. Detroiters could care less about what the media says, the approval of the media plus 250 people is really useless. If he can go into the community and treat people with respect and say I care about you and I dont see you as useless and uneducated people [[the general concept of the average Detroit) and I am going to do my best to make your life better. He will probably get support. However, if he continues to isolate himself and speak through the media, he will continue to be thought as Snyders 'token' by most Detroiters.
In the meeting he said this is the first of more meetings. He also said he'd try to get a bigger venue for the next meetings so more people could come.Quote:
Originally Posted by 48205to24
Thats good to hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by samsonov
I think the entire concept of him having meetings [[which are required by law) is absurd. His job is to fix the cities finances - not to be my therapist. There's nothing of value anyone in attendance can add to the process. One meeting every six months is enough in my books.
Residents have the right to hear information directly from him or his representative, without the usual spins from the news.
I hope they post videos of this community meeting and any others on the City of Detroit Website.
As long as the state doesnt shut it down and fence it up for more festivals, concerts, etc. I wonder if the state makes money off of the island will the city see the any of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by corktownyuppie
Here's my take on this...Quote:
Originally Posted by belleislerunner
[[1) I'm in banking, and I will admit that the fraudulent manipulation of the LIBOR really F'd Detroit. Now were banks solely -- or even primarily -- the cause of Detroit's ills? No.
[[2) As much as I would love to avoid stupid or irrational commentary, I think it's just as important to have the public voice be heard. HOWEVA, I don't think that the sound and fury of a small number of people should disrupt the honest and real dialogue of thee many others. You get 60 seconds, and STFU once your time is up. Have questions screened by a 3rd party so that we are hearing many points of view and not just the 30 loudest people in the room singing Onward Christian Soldiers.
[[1) I believe that all money generated on the island will go towards the island.Quote:
Originally Posted by 48205to24
[[2) I believe that we are in no position to negotiate, and I just hope the state will still take the deal that was on the table last year.
[[3) Lastly, is that regardless of what the city/state decide...if this thing goes into Chapter 9, the bankruptcy court could view the lease as a strategy to prevent creditors from seeing any potential revenue that could have been generated. And even if the bankruptcy court rules in favor of the city/state, the creditors will sue -- Matty Moroun-style.
I imagine that the worst case scenario [[since we can't be forced to sell Belle Isle) would be that they void the lease to the state, force the city to start charging an admissions fee on it, and refuse to fund any of the necessary capital improvements.
Chapter 9 could go a whole lot of different ways, and it's quite unclear who or what would be better off.
I get that we live in a democractic republic. Which means the mayor and city council should have public hearings. It also means we, as citizens, are ultimately responsible for what happened over the past 50 years. No one else. We were the CEO's of the cities [[i.e. we elected someone to represent us on our behalf). We clearly failed to govern, or appoint people who could govern effectively.
The emergency manager is the warden sent to correct us. He has no allegiance to us, nor should he. He is here to fix our problems. Prisoners don't suggest punishments or corrective therapy to their wardens. They do as they're told.
In 16.5 months, we'll have our city back and collectively we will become CEO's again. But to think an emergency manager "owes" us public dialogue is patently absurd.
What in the everloving fuck is so hard about scheduling public meetings in adequately-sized venues? It's almost like they're doing it on purpose or something. :rolleyes:
The purpose of these so-called public hearings is to create the illusion that Detroiters stil have their democratic rights and to lessen the bite of any lawsuits filed against PA 436, such as the federal lawsuits that are pending.Quote:
Originally Posted by belleislerunner
Although it's still early days I think Kevyn Orr is doing a sterling job. In a short time he has established his authority over all the clamor; he has the ear of the City; he's sidelined the culprits [[where are the Council and Mayor?); he's put the Unions and their Pension takers on notice; he's left himself a completely free hand on assets and [[unfortunately) he's informed the Investors they are going to lose their money. [[because they won't come back)
But the future looks decidedly better provided his job is not "finished" after 18 months and the process is allowed to start again. At least it should go on until the next Democrat Governor is elected.
Too bad Detroiters! The Emergency Manager is trying its best to save this city from bankruptcy! There will be massive cuts and horrendous sacrifices. But by any means necessary Detroit's 15 billion dollar debt must to reduced. Don't blame Kevyn Orr for this mess. Blame recent Detroit mayors and city councils past and present for overspending, embezzling, wasteful spending our tax dollars. Other Michigan cities like Benton Harbor, Ecorse, Allen Park and Flint are under EM's but those folks are not crying about it, so should Detroiters. New York City government went bankrupt in 1970's. Trump and his corporate venture friends came to the rescue to revitalize all of its financial district and its rough up neighborhoods. Give it up Detroiters, the Coleman Young years are over. The Kilpatrick Manoogian parties are over. It's time to move forward further to the 21st Century and stop going back to old civil rights-black power movement of the 1960's. Our city will be in rough rocky road for a recovery. So cast yourselves into God's hands and start cleaning your hoods. Detroiters are the new city council not government.
WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET!
For Neda, Guy Fawkes, George Stinney, the 99 Percenters Rodney King and Trayvon Martin.
Exactly right. I'm glad Orr has the sense to engage the public -- but I think he has zero obligation to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by belleislerunner
Let's not mistake EFM Orr for a civic leader. He may be a better leader than we've had, but his role here is not to engage the populace and build a coalition. His job is to straighten out the cities finances. We elected him to do so by our choices of leaders. Local leaders who were incompetent. State and Federal leaders who gave us what we wanted -- a public service that gets more expensive and less effective year after year. Mix that with a bad economy, and the weak don't survive. We were weak.
They're doing it because its a reasonable size. Bigger, and it ceases to be productive. You don't think a room with a few hundred people can provide a reasonable cross-section of citizens and civic leaders to ask good questions? Or maybe we could try that Occupy megaphone idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by antongast
Apparently, he wasn't the only journalist involuntarily dispatched outside.Quote:
Originally Posted by socks_mahoney
Jeff Wattrick of Deadline Detroit writes that Neavling was shooting video of Wattrick getting shoved out the door by a DPD lieutenant when that WSU cop more forcefully threw Neavling out the door and onto the ground. From what I can see in the video, it looks like a WSU sergeant gets between the cop and Neavling pretty quick. I wonder if the sarge bothered to say anything about excessive force to his charge after the incident.
Wattrick's article:
Residents Locked-Out Of Kevyn Orr's Public Meeting In Classic Detroit Style
and Neavling's blog:
Public, media forced out of EM meeting
Exactly wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
According to The Detroit News,
Quote:
The Detroit Emergency Manager, Kevyn Orr, is required by Public Act 436 to hold a public meeting announcing the Financial and Operating Plan established in the first 90 days as Emergency Manager.
I can't access Neavling's blog for some reason, but I'm disapointed reading Wattrick's. Sounds like he's got a case of sour grapes combined with "Don't you know WTF I am?" syndrome. I'm also surprised @ some of the analogies, parallels, undertones and conclusions he draws in his article. Almost like he's pleading for support. I for one, am glad it was handled the way it was. Not all -700,000 residents can get in, and that's it. No Ford Field, or Commerica Park. Orr's here to do a job, hand in a report, and come up with a game plan, not to listen to renditions of "Onward Christian Soldiers" by Detroit's Idle. Better luck next time.Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownguy
You do remember who did that, right? A politician, engaging in political theater. Not a member of the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
It depends which time you're referring to? I seem to recall a couple of performances.Quote:
Originally Posted by antongast
I could certainly be wrong about this, but I am not remembering a member of the public singing Onward Christian Soldiers during a comment period, and I can't find anything on Google that isn't about Barbara-Rose Collins. I've attended a lot of public meetings in this city, been shut out of some others due to the same kind of bullshit Kevyn Orr pulled last night [[I did not have high hopes for Mr. Orr in general, but I did hope at least that he'd manage not to absorb some of the most frustrating practices of our regular political class), and I feel pretty comfortable saying that renditions of Onward Christian Soldiers are not a typical component of public comment periods at public meetings in Detroit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
The problem of immature outbursts should be easily solved by using those same comment cards - but having the moderator collect them and then only she reads them to the speaker. You get public participation without the public embarassment.
I don't view it as a problem that needs solving. Kevyn Orr's salary is ten times the city's median household income, and he has unilateral control over city operations. If he can't handle a little blowback from the people whose lives are directly affected by his actions, he shouldn't have taken the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by belleislerunner
That's really the long and short of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by antongast
Well, Dan Gilbert's net worth is several thousand times more than the typical Detroiter and has near-unilateral control over downtown, but his meetings seem to be fairly civil. What's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by antongast
True enough. I wasn't aware that it was a legal requirements. My comment wasn't about whether he had to hold meetings by law.Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownguy
I should have said that there's no need for public meetings -- except to comply with the law. I think its a waste of time. Most public meetings these days are. There's this idea that somehow if you hold a public meeting, everything's gonna be alright.
What's your point? I'm happy to repeat my griping about Dan Gilbert as often as people want to read it, but it seems a little off-topic in this thread. To briefly summarize, Gilbert should not have "near-unilateral" control over downtown, and the only real reason he does is that our city government is failing in its duty to protect the public interest. If members of the public want to make comments on Gilbert's plans, I think they should have an opportunity to do so and I think Gilbert should be obligated to address their concerns, but as a private actor he's not bound by government public accountability laws, which is why it's so important to have a government that's willing to hold him accountable on our behalf.Quote:
Originally Posted by michimoby
As far as the "civility" at his meeting, might that have been because it was an invitation-only event? I certainly wasn't invited to attend or comment.
I am pretty sure that nobody actually believes this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
Funny enough, I agree with you on every single point you state about Gilbert.Quote:
Originally Posted by antongast
I was more focused on addressing your point re: the income parity between citizens and the speaker. It's totally irrelevant to the point.
What seems apparent, based on the handful of city council meetings I've attended, is that the batshit crazies that collectively strongarm their way to the podium to offer inane commentary that is racist, xenophobic, and unproductive needs to be kept in check at these meetings.
It's probable that most of these folks that disagree with what's happening, and have something to say about it in a public forum, have never been informed about the power of solid analysis, empirical statistics, and presenting in a way that is balanced, rational, and free of vitriol.
Well, not any sane people.Quote:
Originally Posted by antongast
My point isn't about income parity per se, it's that Orr is being very well compensated for this job. If one were to question why he is being paid what he is being paid, the answer would undoubtedly include some reference to the fact that the job is difficult, stressful, and politically controversial. Orr knew this going in. He understood that his compensation partly reflected the fact that he would be dealing with the public, and that a significant proportion of the public is inclined to be critical of his position and his actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by michimoby
I also intended to make the point that Orr, unlike most people who comment at public meetings, is largely shielded from the effects of his actions. He may have to sit through some contentious public meetings, but he's not going to lose his job, he's not going to spend his retirement eating dog food, and he's not going to have to live in whatever's left of this city when he's through with it. That isn't exactly a point about income parity either, but it is about power parity, and to some extent money is power, so in that sense I disagree with you that income parity is "totally irrelevant."
Why? To protect Orr's virgin ears? He's a grown man. He can handle it. And if he can't, he is not qualified for this job.Quote:
Originally Posted by michimoby
I don't think it's incumbent on people who are having their lives disrupted by government policies to remain calm and civil, or to conform the presentation of their ideas to your preferences. If you think you can make your point more effectively by different means, then I wholeheartedly support your right to attend a meeting and do so. But apparently that support isn't mutual, since you're presuming that I "have never been informed about the power of solid analysis, empirical statistics, and presenting in a way that is balanced, rational, and free of vitriol" and therefore need to be "kept in check."Quote:
Originally Posted by michimoby
I never can make my point in Council meetings, because the people I reference often overstep their time limits or attend en masse to bum rush speaking time.Quote:
Originally Posted by antongast
And it's quite difficult to sit comfortably through City Council sessions when phrases like "hostile, white takeover" are being uttered. It makes me, as a [[now former) citizen of the city, feel like I'm part of the problem rather than someone that empathizes with the challenges EVERY one in the city faces.
So, yeah. Maybe I do wish that some of these commenters would acquiesce to my preferences, because I feel completely alienated and disrespected when my skin color makes me an alleged opponent of progress.
This is a legitimate point. I'm certainly not suggesting that public meetings in Detroit are always well-run. If you're going to go with the typical comments-at-the-podium format [[and I think that format is overused, and other formats may work better for some types of meetings) time limits need to be strictly enforced, and thirty people making the same off-topic comment should be repeatedly asked to stay on topic, and cut off before their time is up if necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by michimoby
If you're confident that you aren't complicit in any hostile white takeovers, I don't understand why it should make you uncomfortable. Besides, making you feel comfortable isn't the purpose of these meetings.Quote:
Originally Posted by michimoby
Any civil discourse should reflect the real, unadulterated views of the stakeholders. But the need for individual expression should not trump the rights of other individuals to have their voices heard. Lastly, a speaker's need to be hostile should trump the sensitivities of its audience members, though politically and tactically speaking, it's generally not a productive use of our time.
Which brings me to the last point. Debate should be productive. Which means that dialogue should move in both directions. If people wish to protest with the volume of their voices, they deserve a venue to be able to do so. Perhaps that is the venue of the City Council meeting. But if that be so, then those of us are interested in listening, learning, contributing, thinking, and solving should have another venue for our preference toward productive dialogue.
Do you really believe this? If I went to a public meeting where I heard lots of complaints about the actions of a particular ethnic group as an entity it would make me feel uneasy regardless of whether I were a member of the group, or had anything to do with whatever actions were being criticized.Quote:
Originally Posted by antongast
The Q&A reminded me of a Dr. Laura taping - "Hi Dr. Laura - I'm a long time listener, first time caller." Hi Mr Orr... No one cares that the person asking the question lives in Detroit, worked for X union, is a landlord from Harper Woods, got a law degree from WSU. Those are all insecurity complexes trying to make themselves seem more important than they really are. State your name. Ask your question. If based on the merits of the quality of your question/dialogue - you're worth knowing - there are ways for people to look you up. Spare us all your inferiority complexes.
It's important for Mr. Orr to know that stuff to get context for the question. Why is this a big deal anyway? At most 3-4 minutes was spent on the introductions. Anyway, engaging the public will make his job a little easier. I definitely left the meeting with a better impression of him than before.Quote:
Originally Posted by belleislerunner
Corkman, I do of course understand that we want diverse viewpoints to have a forum. These non-stop public meetings seem to me to be mostly a sideshow -- even when they are well-run at a national level.Quote:
Originally Posted by corktownyuppie
Those with edge opinions find them great forums to publicize their views -- see NRA, Occupy, Tea Party, or BAMN.
Are public forums the best way to get public opinion? I don't see that we get more 'democratic' results. Isn't that why we have a ballot box, freedom of speech, and the press?
I was locked outside. The venue was intentional. It was originally scheduled at Greater Grace Temple. Then put in one of the smallest lecture halls at WSU. General Lectures holds double that.
He had a lame excuse about not having a powerpoint ready equipment I think I heard. General Lectures has that, and had enough people to hold everybody.
Orr is a crook running away from the public in small venues. Just like Snyder with the Lame Duck legislature this year.
RANT OVER>
No, I would say that public forums are probably one of the worst ways to get public opinion. Irving Reid [[WSU) and someone from Wayne Law School were talking this morning on the Craig Fahle show about a program called FOCIS [[http://focis.wayne.edu/citizendetroit/index.php) -- Focus on Contemporary Issues in Society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
They run what seems to be a fascinating program to which anyone can register and participate. It starts with a large group dinner so that people can get to know each other. Then, people are divided into small groups of 6-8. A short, 10-minute lecture is given to educate people about all the different sides of issues facing Detroiters so that people are actually making informed opinions [[like understanding the difference btwn deficits vs. debt, or understanding that any profit from the DWSD can't go into the city general fund, etc.)
Then the small groups are given complex issues of the day and are asked to discuss, and propose solutions that have the consensus of the participants.
What they found is that once people were more informed about the complexities and different parts of Detroit's problems, they were more apt to make suggestions that were well-reasoned, creative, and perhaps effective. They also found out that opinions about proposals which might have been political non-starters in the past were revisited with a fresh eye, even if they were eventually rejected.
I think this it the model of public dialogue which is far more effective than 60 seconds in front of a microphone at City Council. However, City Council meetings are the only place where anyone can have a voice...even if they use that voice to say what is sometimes completely stupid. And I think that as things get even more and more painful, people need and deserve to have a place where their voice is heard.