How broke is Detroit? A few charts illustrate...

[daft]

yes, property values and population have fallen. but how valid are these charts?

the average price of a residential unit sold has fallen 87%? how many units were actually sold? and the numbers are skewed because so many places in detroit are sold on land contracts -- meaning they're not counted as 'sold' until years later when the contract is paid off.

detroit gets a smaller percentage of its revenue from property taxes than all those suburbs do? of course it does, since it has another source of income -- a personal income tax, which those other places don't.

there's mention of a chart showing a drop in income taxes, but it's missing.

[Danny]

How broke is Detroit? flat broke and dead broke! It's corruption within the city government since Hazen S. Pingree left office. It's city employees taking state, local and federal grants and taxes and run. Now let the EFM dictator take over Detroit city government and start downsizing and fire more people and kick poor black folks out of the city and government.

WORD FROM THE STREET PROPHET


The color of our skin through its Detroiters is not the main issue. It;s the color of green.

For the 99 Percenter and Guy Fawkes.

I miss you so, Neda.

[iheartthed]

Ok comments like the city is basically choosing "how it is gonna die" is showing how this discussion is losing perspective. Lets look at population loss [[since peak levels) for some other Rust Belt Cities and major US cities.

Cleveland- Lost 56.7% of population from a peak of over 900,000
Youngstown- Lost 60.6% of population from peak of around 170,000
Buffalo- Lost 55% of population from peak of around 580,000
Flint- Lost 48% of population from peak of around 196,000
Probably the most surprising statistic is Chicago[[in order to continue giving us perspective).
Chicago- Lost 26% of population from peak of around 3.6 million.

In perspective, Detroit has lost approximately 61% of its population, not a number shockingly higher than the rust belt cities listed. Now what is going on in the city is a terrible problem, but acting as though it is happening here and only here on this level is simply false. It is important to have perspective in this issue and I feel that we have lost it. Now lets get back to focusing on how we can fix this issue, not dramatize it beyond the terrible problem that it already is.

Source: 2010 US Census

There are some nuances to those cities and their lost populations. I think there are really three tiers of Midwest Rust Belt cities: one tier which includes cities like Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Youngstown and the other Pennsylvania steel towns, another tier which includes the larger population centers like Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, finally, the third tier is Chicago itself. The cities in the first group are located in metro areas that have had consistently declining regional populations since the 1950s. The cities in the second group have centered around central cities that have consistently lost population since the 1950s, while not necessarily the regions themselves.

The first tier really doesn't need much explaining. They were all cities that had economies centered around steel. Domestic steel industry implodes and... You get it.

The second tier is where things get a little murky. If you measure from 1950 through 2010 the growth of the metropolitan area populations for the Midwest Rust Belt, Cleveland [[+97%) performs the best out of any of those cities followed by St. Louis [[+67%) and Detroit [[+52%). They ALL outperform Chicago [[+41%) -- Chicago was in fact the worst performing large metro area for population growth in the Midwest between 1950 - 2010 [[Pitts and Buffalo excluded). The irony is that the central cities of those cities have all posted population declines far greater than Chicago's -- about 30% for Chicago versus 60 - 65% and above for the tier twos. The other irony is that all tier twos made the bulk of their gains between 1950 and 1970. The population growth in the metropolitan areas of Detroit, Cleveland and St. Louis basically shut off post 1970.

Why does Chicago deserve its own tier? Well Chicago's bust doesn't closely mirror any of the other groups. Chicago's lull between 1950 and 1990 is probably closely related to the tier one group because Chicago was a major steel production center like Pittsburgh, Buffalo, etc. Chicago grew by 25% during this period of time, Buffalo grew by 4% and Pittsburgh by 7%, so all were significantly below the population gains in tier two. In just pure numbers both Detroit and Cleveland posted larger absolute population gains than Chicago between 1950 - 1990 [[+1.8Million for Detroit, +1.39Million for Cleveland and +1.37Million for Chicago).

But in another twist, Chicago's growth between 1990 - 2010 [[+1.45Million) far eclipses Detroit's [[+0.03Million), Cleveland's [[+0.02Million). Chicago added more people in the 20 year period from 1990 - 2010 as it did during the 40 year period of 1950 - 1990. Chicago's 1990 - 2010 growth mirrors the northeast m Chicago's absolute number of new residents was on par with the major metros in the northeast, which all added over 1 million people each with the exception of the Philadelphia region.

Used this link for the population stats: http://www.demographia.com/dm-usmet-fr50.htm

[sehender1]

"For me, this is one of the things we're nto really talking much about during the city's financial crisis. If you don't boost revenue... cutting and restructuring will just not be enough.. "

This from the same Stephen Henderson who not that long ago was pushing the idea here on DY that Detroit could save itself by dumping the city income tax? Apparently after dumping the city income tax, the Trickle Down Angels were supposed to pass over the city dumping bags of money.

Novine: Your point only resonates if you believe that the income tax has actually made the city's revenue problems better.
I'd argue there's very strong evidence to the contrary.

Even as the rate has remained constant [[there was a drop in the late '90s, but it has stayed around 2.5 percent since then) receipts have been plummeting.

My argument against the income tax was that its excessive rate, combined with the other highest-in-the-state taxes that Detroiters pay, had become a disincentive to city living.

Is there any doubt that's true? The city's caught in a terrible cycle. People have been leaving, which requires taxes to be hiked to maintain services [[and crushing debt and legacy costs.). The higher taxes, for lesser services, becomes its own driver of people out of the city.

No question, part of solving the revenue problem is about yielding more money off a lower rate, which woudl require us to figure out how to attract more people into the city.

It's a complicated process, no doubt. And it requires abandoning preconceived notions about supply-side economics. [[which i generally don't subscribe to.)

But I stand by everything i've written about the city's sky-high taxes. They are part of the problem - not the solution..

[sehender1]

yes, property values and population have fallen. but how valid are these charts?

the average price of a residential unit sold has fallen 87%? how many units were actually sold? and the numbers are skewed because so many places in detroit are sold on land contracts -- meaning they're not counted as 'sold' until years later when the contract is paid off.

detroit gets a smaller percentage of its revenue from property taxes than all those suburbs do? of course it does, since it has another source of income -- a personal income tax, which those other places don't.

there's mention of a chart showing a drop in income taxes, but it's missing.

Daft: The charts come from McKinsey, which is an extremely reputable consultant.
In addition, the chart showing property value declines was prepared by Citizens Research Council, another very solid source.

I hear what you're saying, though. There could be sales that are not included.. But let's say the numbers are off by a third, or even half. [[I suspect they're not, but just for the sake of argument.) That's still a horrible drop, and a huge, huge loss for a city whose revenue was pretty shaky to begin with...

And no, it's not okay that only 14% of our revenue comes from property taxes. Income tax is never, ever, ever a substitute for aa healty property tax base, which is the basis for every city's successful existence. Note that it's not just snooty suburbs in the list; it's places lke Pontiac and Southgate - other working-class areas.
No city can survive, frankly, on a model where 14% of your revenue comes from property taxes.. Thus the situation we find ourselves in here in Detroit..

[Wesley Mouch]

Exactly.

Detroit, as is, is essentially done and over with no matter which realistic options we take.

This crossroad Detroit is facing is really like asking which way you want to die.

What does the death of the municipal union called Detroit matter. What matters is that a method for the current residents to obtain critical public services. Police, Fire, Animal Control.

The cost of these services must be paid. This is just a political decision.

So the thing called Detroit dies. It will actual enable the residents to prosper, unburdened by the debt and bad decision to turn government into a jobs machine, not a service machine.

Unless you're a retiree who expects to continue receiving better benefits than the residents you served, you'll do better when the city-entity dies.

[313WX]

What does the death of the municipal union called Detroit matter. What matters is that a method for the current residents to obtain critical public services. Police, Fire, Animal Control.

The cost of these services must be paid. This is just a political decision.

So the thing called Detroit dies. It will actual enable the residents to prosper, unburdened by the debt and bad decision to turn government into a jobs machine, not a service machine.

Unless you're a retiree who expects to continue receiving better benefits than the residents you served, you'll do better when the city-entity dies.

It matters because more people will just leave the city when faced with these austerity measures [[as if there's anything else to cut in terms of services for Detroit citizens).

It matters because Detroit will no longer be a big city. That means the big city amenities many around here get here for cheap [[relatively speaking) already will likely be history. That will mean more of our younger population will continue to flee the region for other big cities.

[Ltdave]

I have my taxes structured to pay the least amount [[I pay city income for the privilege of working about 1/3 a mile inside the city limits) with an unplowed street lined by lights that don't light...

I paid overl $2,000 this year which is MORE than what my income required but I wont bother filing for a refund. Why? Not because of some altruist notion but because I know it will go the way of my last couple of returns for refund. They'll never show up....

[Novine]

"My argument against the income tax was that its excessive rate, combined with the other highest-in-the-state taxes that Detroiters pay, had become a disincentive to city living. "

Using your logic, the drop in tax rate in the 90s should have resulted in a positive impact on city revenues and keeping and attracting people and companies to the city. Any evidence of that? Likewise, how does Detroit's income tax rate compare to other urban cities? Is it "excessive" as you claim? I think you would have a hard time finding evidence of that. It's less than what one would pay in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington DC, Baltimore and NYC, all cities that levy a local income tax. Those cities provide a higher level of service for those tax dollars but in terms of relative rates, Detroit's is hardly excessive.

Let's also not forget the fact that the state income tax rate declined at the same time the state economy went into the tank. So much for the theory that reducing income taxes stimulates the state economy. The reduction in state income taxes likely contributed to the problems of funding state government that was experienced over the past decade. Now Snyder is jacking up income taxes on pensioners and reducing credits and deductions for most everyone else meaning almost all of us we'll be seeing our state income taxes go up. But you endorsed those moves in Lansing, didn't you?

[Bham1982]

Chicago's 1990 - 2010 growth mirrors the northeast m Chicago's absolute number of new residents was on par with the major metros in the northeast, which all added over 1 million people each with the exception of the Philadelphia region.

I agree with your entire post except for this part.

It's true that Metro Chicago's growth rate since 1990 has been roughly proportional to the growth rates in the Northeast, but the growth distribution is radically different.

Metro Detroit, for that matter, had roughly proportional growth rates to the Northeast until about 4 years ago. But, again, I think you're missing an important distinction.

In NYC, the core city and surrounding inner suburbs are driving much of the growth. There's much more limited exurban growth than in other parts of the country. In contrast, Chicago's core city and inner suburbs are emptying out, and the exurban fringe is providing the growth.

Chicago's growth since 1990 very closely resembles the growth patterns of Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, and other Midwest cities. Yes, the metro rate of growth is also comparable to cities in the Northeast, but, looking deeper, the spatial distribution of growth is purely Midwest.

[ProudMidwesterner]

Oh boy, another "central Chicago is dying" post.

[Bham1982]

Oh boy, another "central Chicago is dying" post.

Oh boy, another Chicago booster claiming we should ignore the Census, BLS stats, and other reliable methodologies, and should instead just rely on an anonymous poster's unsupported anecdotes.

Chicago is Midwest to the core. It's the great metropolis of the Rust Belt. Embrace reality.

[ProudMidwesterner]

Oh boy, another Chicago booster claiming we should ignore the Census, BLS stats, and other reliable methodologies, and should instead just rely on an anonymous poster's unsupported anecdotes.

Chicago is Midwest to the core. It's the great metropolis of the Rust Belt. Embrace reality.

Still, I'd hardly call losing one in every eighteen people emptying out on what could very well turn out to be a one-decade fluke. It does have some strong Midwestern characteristics, but it has evolved into something different-and far more stable--than the other Great Lakes rust centers.

[sehender1]

"My argument against the income tax was that its excessive rate, combined with the other highest-in-the-state taxes that Detroiters pay, had become a disincentive to city living. "

Using your logic, the drop in tax rate in the 90s should have resulted in a positive impact on city revenues and keeping and attracting people and companies to the city. Any evidence of that? Likewise, how does Detroit's income tax rate compare to other urban cities? Is it "excessive" as you claim? I think you would have a hard time finding evidence of that. It's less than what one would pay in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington DC, Baltimore and NYC, all cities that levy a local income tax. Those cities provide a higher level of service for those tax dollars but in terms of relative rates, Detroit's is hardly excessive.

Let's also not forget the fact that the state income tax rate declined at the same time the state economy went into the tank. So much for the theory that reducing income taxes stimulates the state economy. The reduction in state income taxes likely contributed to the problems of funding state government that was experienced over the past decade. Now Snyder is jacking up income taxes on pensioners and reducing credits and deductions for most everyone else meaning almost all of us we'll be seeing our state income taxes go up. But you endorsed those moves in Lansing, didn't you?

Lots to deal with here. I'll try to be brief.
1)The half-a percent drop in the late 1990s was insignificant; Detroit still boasts the highest rate in the state.
2) The question is not how Detroit compares to other urban cities, but how it compares to accessible nearby cities here in Michigan. If you can live in Ferndale or Southgate or Birmingham for less [[and get way better services in any of them) then Detroit's rate [[a cumulative 97 mills!) is excessive.
3) Even comparing Detroit to other urban cities, we come up short. IN Baltimore, where I lived for 12 years and still own a home, income taxes are slightly higher but property taxes are much, much lower. But the level of services in decent city neighborhoods [[it still varies more than it should) blows Detroit away. Note that I'm always talking about he relationship of taxes to services, not just taxes in absence of any context. Same is true in Chicago, where I lived for two years. I can't speak first-hand about other cities..
4)No one's saying that income tax decreases always coincide with economic growth. It's not that simple, and I never said it was. Indeed, there are times when a tax decrease is a bad idea [[bush tax cuts, for instance) and lead to unnecessary debt and other shortfalls. But in Detroit's case, again, carrying the highest rates with the lowest return on investment is, in my opinion, a big, big part of the problem. You keep trotting out strawmen simplistic tax theories; I'm not talking about any of those, but this very specific case..

[Wesley Mouch]

It matters because more people will just leave the city when faced with these austerity measures [[as if there's anything else to cut in terms of services for Detroit citizens).

It matters because Detroit will no longer be a big city. That means the big city amenities many around here get here for cheap [[relatively speaking) already will likely be history. That will mean more of our younger population will continue to flee the region for other big cities.

I prefer to think that the death of the dysfunctional municipal unit currently hanging around the neck of 'Detroit' doesn't deliver big-city amenities and is itself the main impediment to reducing the bleeding.

Mercy killing is ethical.

[Novine]

"The question is not how Detroit compares to other urban cities, but how it compares to accessible nearby cities here in Michigan."

By that standard, Detroit's always going to be excessive. It's never going to be as cheap to live in Detroit than it is to live in Ferndale or Southgate or Birmingham. Even if the city dumped the income tax, as you had proposed, the difference in property taxes between Detroit and those communities falls more heavily on property owners in Detroit than the income tax.

"But in Detroit's case, again, carrying the highest rates with the lowest return on investment is, in my opinion, a big, big part of the problem. You keep trotting out strawmen simplistic tax theories; I'm not talking about any of those, but this very specific case.."

In the list of problems plaguing Detroit, it's probably not even top 10. It's also countered by the fact that some of the most desirable communities in SE Michigan, Ann Arbor and Birmingham and the Grosse Pointes, have some of the highest tax rates compared to their neighboring communities. Yet people want to live there and pay more in taxes. It's also countered by the fact that many suburban communities have gone through the same cycle of depopulation and disinvestment but don't have a local income tax. Have you been to Inkster or Hazel Park or Riverview? Dumping the city's income tax doesn't do anything to change what really ails Detroit and there's little evidence that such a strategy would help the city long-term.

As I pointed out in an earlier discussion on tax rates, if Detroit's going to cut any taxes, the income tax is the last tax it wants to cut. If and when the economy in the city recovers, only the income tax has the ability to grow with the city's economy in any appreciable way. Property taxes are capped by Headlee and fall only on property owners, while the income tax is more widely spread across the resident and corporate taxpayers.

The last time we discussed this issue, you claimed that there was $85 million in reductions that Bing had identified that could make up for lost revenue from dumping the city income tax. Where are those? Why hasn't Bing implemented them? You claimed that the city could continue to provide the core services that it needs to provide even without that revenue. In light of what we know now, do you still stand by that statement?

[1953]

Novine - your "experiments" were uncontrolled. How attractive is a tax-free zone when you can use all of the loopholes in current tax law to live tax-free just about anywhere?

[iheartthed]

I agree with your entire post except for this part.

It's true that Metro Chicago's growth rate since 1990 has been roughly proportional to the growth rates in the Northeast, but the growth distribution is radically different.

Metro Detroit, for that matter, had roughly proportional growth rates to the Northeast until about 4 years ago. But, again, I think you're missing an important distinction.

In NYC, the core city and surrounding inner suburbs are driving much of the growth. There's much more limited exurban growth than in other parts of the country. In contrast, Chicago's core city and inner suburbs are emptying out, and the exurban fringe is providing the growth.

Chicago's growth since 1990 very closely resembles the growth patterns of Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, and other Midwest cities. Yes, the metro rate of growth is also comparable to cities in the Northeast, but, looking deeper, the spatial distribution of growth is purely Midwest.

The Detroit area grew by 3% between 1990 and 2000. Chicago grew by 11%. New York grew by 8%. Boston and D.C. significantly outpaced both New York and Chicago in growth.

On a macro level, Chicago's growth rate resembles Detroit in that inner-city neighborhoods are losing population to new development in the fringe. But Chicago also resembles the coastal cities in that the areas near its core have also experienced a significant boom in population that has helped off-set the losses of the older inner-city neighborhoods. This has not happened in any other Midwest metropolitan area, but this has happened in all of the major east coast cities.

[iheartthed]

By that standard, Detroit's always going to be excessive. It's never going to be as cheap to live in Detroit than it is to live in Ferndale or Southgate or Birmingham. Even if the city dumped the income tax, as you had proposed, the difference in property taxes between Detroit and those communities falls more heavily on property owners in Detroit than the income tax.

You hit the nail on the head right here. Taxes will never be Detroit's competitive advantage, and it shouldn't be. As I mentioned in another thread, I met the president of a larger real estate development company last week that is developing one of the largest projects in New York City history. His philosophy on NYC's competitive advantage was that NY will never win on being the cheapest so it's not in the city's interest to compete that way. NYC wins on the amenities that it offers. Detroit is similar to NYC in that respect. It can never win a war against a generic suburb on cost. Detroit's advantage is that it is the big city and [[in an ideal world) can offer a big city lifestyle.

[sehender1]

"The question is not how Detroit compares to other urban cities, but how it compares to accessible nearby cities here in Michigan."

By that standard, Detroit's always going to be excessive. It's never going to be as cheap to live in Detroit than it is to live in Ferndale or Southgate or Birmingham. Even if the city dumped the income tax, as you had proposed, the difference in property taxes between Detroit and those communities falls more heavily on property owners in Detroit than the income tax.

"But in Detroit's case, again, carrying the highest rates with the lowest return on investment is, in my opinion, a big, big part of the problem. You keep trotting out strawmen simplistic tax theories; I'm not talking about any of those, but this very specific case.."

In the list of problems plaguing Detroit, it's probably not even top 10. It's also countered by the fact that some of the most desirable communities in SE Michigan, Ann Arbor and Birmingham and the Grosse Pointes, have some of the highest tax rates compared to their neighboring communities. Yet people want to live there and pay more in taxes. It's also countered by the fact that many suburban communities have gone through the same cycle of depopulation and disinvestment but don't have a local income tax. Have you been to Inkster or Hazel Park or Riverview? Dumping the city's income tax doesn't do anything to change what really ails Detroit and there's little evidence that such a strategy would help the city long-term.

As I pointed out in an earlier discussion on tax rates, if Detroit's going to cut any taxes, the income tax is the last tax it wants to cut. If and when the economy in the city recovers, only the income tax has the ability to grow with the city's economy in any appreciable way. Property taxes are capped by Headlee and fall only on property owners, while the income tax is more widely spread across the resident and corporate taxpayers.

The last time we discussed this issue, you claimed that there was $85 million in reductions that Bing had identified that could make up for lost revenue from dumping the city income tax. Where are those? Why hasn't Bing implemented them? You claimed that the city could continue to provide the core services that it needs to provide even without that revenue. In light of what we know now, do you still stand by that statement?

I think we would agree that if all other things were equal [[Detroit was a typical big city with the amenities people expect, etc.) the city's tax rate would not be an issue.

But precisely because nothing is equal in the city, the tax rate is a big issue - in my book, top 10 for sure. It's fine that you rate it lower.

Also: The $85 million in reductions were recommendations from a think tank. NOt only are those savings still achievable, but we also now have the report by McKinsey consultants who have outlined hundreds of millions in savings that the city could achieve - through restructuring, better cash management, etc.

Why hasn't Bing acted? I think that's the million-dollar question... I honestly, seriously don't know..

[Novine]

"Why hasn't Bing acted? I think that's the million-dollar question... I honestly, seriously don't know.."

You endorsed the guy for Mayor. You've been providing cover for him while he's dithered away the past 2 and a half years, burning cash and missing opportunities to turn the city around. Now that the city teeters on the precipice of fiscal collapse and is facing the prospect of losing control of its democratically elected government to an unelected, unaccountable fiscal manager, the best answer you can come up with is "I honestly, seriously don't know"? As the kids say, "Seriously?"

As I've said before, you have one of the biggest megaphones in the city. Those of us on DY, we're just a bunch of hack commentators sharing our views on the woes of the city. Unless Gilbert or Penske or Pugh is lurking behind a screen name, none of us have the ability to influence the discussion about pulling Detroit back from the brink. That's your privilege and your responsibility. You need to step up and call out Bing for his failings. Or are you going to be the guy in charge that people will look back on and say "Where was the Free Press when Detroit city government died?"

[Det_ard]

Why hasn't Bing acted? Because he's in over his head. Having a business background is better than no business background but just because he's been a businessman doesn't mean he's qualified to do what's needed to run this city.

He's clearly not up to the task. If the the task were to run say, Sterling Heights, a relatively stable city mainly in need of care-taking, not transformation, he'd be fine. Running Detroit at this point in its history is another matter. We needed an outstanding leader but we didn't elect one.

[Dexlin]

"Why hasn't Bing acted? I think that's the million-dollar question... I honestly, seriously don't know.."

You endorsed the guy for Mayor. You've been providing cover for him while he's dithered away the past 2 and a half years, burning cash and missing opportunities to turn the city around. Now that the city teeters on the precipice of fiscal collapse and is facing the prospect of losing control of its democratically elected government to an unelected, unaccountable fiscal manager, the best answer you can come up with is "I honestly, seriously don't know"? As the kids say, "Seriously?"

As I've said before, you have one of the biggest megaphones in the city. Those of us on DY, we're just a bunch of hack commentators sharing our views on the woes of the city. Unless Gilbert or Penske or Pugh is lurking behind a screen name, none of us have the ability to influence the discussion about pulling Detroit back from the brink. That's your privilege and your responsibility. You need to step up and call out Bing for his failings. Or are you going to be the guy in charge that people will look back on and say "Where was the Free Press when Detroit city government died?"

Quoted for truth. I don't think this can be said enough to the leaders that meet us here on this site.

I do thank Stephen for the courage to come into a lions den like this. That said, I wish he'd be as candid in his writing as he is, here. Our mainstream media [[the nation over) seems to pussy-foot around our so-called leaders and give them undue deference and the benefit of the doubt they don't deserve. It doesn't mean you have to be a bomb-thrower, all of the time, but I wish the media would stop giving these folks the benefit of the doubt, particularly the ones that have shown us on more than one occassion that you can't trust a word they say. And excellent example of this was the media's response to the cancellation of the light trail the other day. There are so many questions to ask about this, and so many obvious lies to take apart, and what we get is the media taking hook, line, and sinker every reason they gave for the chopping of it.

[sehender1]

"Why hasn't Bing acted? I think that's the million-dollar question... I honestly, seriously don't know.."

You endorsed the guy for Mayor. You've been providing cover for him while he's dithered away the past 2 and a half years, burning cash and missing opportunities to turn the city around. Now that the city teeters on the precipice of fiscal collapse and is facing the prospect of losing control of its democratically elected government to an unelected, unaccountable fiscal manager, the best answer you can come up with is "I honestly, seriously don't know"? As the kids say, "Seriously?"

As I've said before, you have one of the biggest megaphones in the city. Those of us on DY, we're just a bunch of hack commentators sharing our views on the woes of the city. Unless Gilbert or Penske or Pugh is lurking behind a screen name, none of us have the ability to influence the discussion about pulling Detroit back from the brink. That's your privilege and your responsibility. You need to step up and call out Bing for his failings. Or are you going to be the guy in charge that people will look back on and say "Where was the Free Press when Detroit city government died?"

Good grief. I've written no fewer than a dozen columns this year calling out the mayor for his shortcomings. Not least of which was a very big take out on failings in the police department.
I have not simply been screaming about what is not working, but documenting in very deeply reported pieces about how things are not progressing.

No kidding, it's more than disingenuous for you to suggest that somehow I need to "step up."

We have been after him about budgetary problems for the better part of the last two years. And not for nothing, but I know first-hand that he is furious with us [[and me personally) for the things we've written.

My only regret is that what we've been writing hasn't made more of a difference. But everyone with access to the mayor's ears is in that boat: the governor, the business community, etc. He has not proven to be someone who listens a whole lot to criticism or suggestions.

And yes, we endorsed him, because [[and I think we've had this conversation before) endorsements are about finite choices. Bing was the best choice on the ballot when he ran in 2009. If you want to make the case that there was someone better, the floor's yours. I'd love to hear it.

[[also, if you'll remember, we were not initially enthused about Bing's candidacy, saying he hadn't specified enough what he'd do; we endorsed Warren Evans in the first primary that year)

[sehender1]

Quoted for truth. I don't think this can be said enough to the leaders that meet us here on this site.

I do thank Stephen for the courage to come into a lions den like this. That said, I wish he'd be as candid in his writing as he is, here. Our mainstream media [[the nation over) seems to pussy-foot around our so-called leaders and give them undue deference and the benefit of the doubt they don't deserve. It doesn't mean you have to be a bomb-thrower, all of the time, but I wish the media would stop giving these folks the benefit of the doubt, particularly the ones that have shown us on more than one occassion that you can't trust a word they say. And excellent example of this was the media's response to the cancellation of the light trail the other day. There are so many questions to ask about this, and so many obvious lies to take apart, and what we get is the media taking hook, line, and sinker every reason they gave for the chopping of it.

Appreciate your comments.
I don't often run into people who see me as "pussy-footing" around - in fact, quite the contrary. But I understand where you're coming from.
I'll say this: I'm as frank and direct as the facts and circumstances warrant in my columns. I don't hesitate to come down hard on friends or people of like political mind; I don't hesitate to praise those with whom I disagree.
I don't know another way to do the job.
What you describe as giving people the benefit of the doubt is, in fact, a necessary governor on over-emotional responses that don't serve to advance policy discussion.

I appreciate your comments, but I can't say I accept the idea that somehow I'm holding back.