State to Detroit: Drop consent suit or lose funds...

**Novine** · June-11-12, 03:13 PM

"The new city charter, which took effect last year, grants the city's law department new authority that it didn't have before:"

Irrelevant. The Law Department should have raised these legal issues when the "breach of contract" first occurred. The fact that they didn't means they were incompetent then or now or both. I'm sticking with both.

"You sound like you are referencing the $225+ million that the current State Treasurer acknowledged in public was owed to the City, but that he had no intention of attempting to right the wrong that was created when the State held the City to its part of the deal even though the State did not keeps its part of the deal."

You can call it a "deal" but it wasn't a legal contract between the city and state. No such thing exists. On what legal basis can the city demand that the state legislature appropriate state revenue sharing funds to the city? There is none.

**Meddle** · June-11-12, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Richard

You do realize that while everybody is distracted by this the Gov is pushing the bridge through with no voter or legislator approval needed.

Which bridge? If it's the non-Matty one downriver, good!!

**townonenorth** · June-11-12, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by mam2009

From the CRC report: Therefore, unless state law is amended, the municipal income tax rates for residents and nonresidents will fall from 2.5% to 2.4% and from 1.25% to 1.2%, respectively, in July 2012.The rate reduction will be the first of its kind since 2003.This will cost Detroitabout $8.5 million in lost revenue on a full-year basis if the rates are not frozen at 2011 levels through a statutory intervention [[similar to what occurred in 2008 and 2009).

And guess what? I'm told the State has indicated its willingness to allow Detroit to freeze its tax rate [[the rate rollback would mean lost revenue for a City in a cash crisis) ONLY IF the City supports pending legislation in Lansing [[HB 5705) that would allow for a portion of the utility tax [[which, by State law, is currently only to be used to pay for Police) to be used to pay back bonds that would be floated by the proposed Public Lighting Authority [[HB 5688) for system upgrades.

If this is true [[& I've got it on good authority that it is), why wouldn't the tax rollback legislation [[SB 970) just be a given since we are a city in a cash crisis? Why does that even have to be a subject of negotiations? For some idea of the truth of that statement go to the Michigan Legisture website and do a search for those bills. You'll notice that the Public Lighting Authority bill was introduced on May 29, 2012 and passed by the House less than two weeks later, while Senate Bill 970 regarding the income tax rollback was introduced in February 2012 and hasn't even been analyzed or heard in Committee yet.

I hope some of you can see how it is that the City could be concerned that the State has a funny way of showing how much it wants to help Detroit. I'm not saying the Governor doesn't want to help Detroit, but he is certainly making the creation of an amicable partnership very difficult.

The reason the tax rollback legislation is going nowhere is quite easy. It's open ended, with no end date. their text:
Also entails a .50 % tax increase to residents.
[[D) BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2012, A RATE OF NOT MORE THAN 3.00%
22 ON RESIDENT INDIVIDUALS AND 1.50% ON NONRESIDENT INDIVIDUALS.

**iheartthed** · June-11-12, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

Irrelevant. The Law Department should have raised these legal issues when the "breach of contract" first occurred. The fact that they didn't means they were incompetent then or now or both. I'm sticking with both.

What breach of contract? This one? The law department has been saying that it's been illegal since the idea first became public. This isn't new.

**Wesley Mouch** · June-11-12, 03:39 PM

This state vs. city is all distraction.

Those who are worried about this 'state takeover' are missing the real issues. The City has problems. And the problem isn't Lansing.

Extortion, state takeover, loss of 'home rule', etc. This is just politics.

We have a broken city -- can we fix it? -- or are we consigned to a hell where the world debates who's at fault?

**mam2009** · June-11-12, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

This state vs. city is all distraction.

Those who are worried about this 'state takeover' are missing the real issues. The City has problems. And the problem isn't Lansing.

Extortion, state takeover, loss of 'home rule', etc. This is just politics.

We have a broken city -- can we fix it? -- or are we consigned to a hell where the world debates who's at fault?

That's what the consent agreement is for. So how about we make sure its actually a legally binding document so the City & State can move forward?

**Wesley Mouch** · June-11-12, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by mam2009

That's what the consent agreement is for. So how about we make sure its actually a legally binding document so the City & State can move forward?

That's a great plan.

Last I heard, we're waiting on the City's law department's law suit filed in Ingham County.

**313WX** · June-11-12, 03:51 PM

On a more light-hearted note, someone could become filthy stinkin' rich turning all of this crap into a Movie, Book or TV show.

Not even Stephen King can come up with something this wacky.

**Novine** · June-11-12, 04:15 PM

"What breach of contract? This one? The law department has been saying that it's been illegal since the idea first became public. This isn't new."

The basis for the claim is that the state withheld state revenue sharing and hasn't paid a water bill at the State Fairgrounds. Both issues didn't emerge in the past weeks. These claims would go back years. What evidence do we have that the Law Department raised these issues at any point in the past? None.

**mam2009** · June-11-12, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by townonenorth

The reason the tax rollback legislation is going nowhere is quite easy. It's open ended, with no end date. their text:
Also entails a .50 % tax increase to residents.
[[D) BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2012, A RATE OF NOT MORE THAN 3.00%
22 ON RESIDENT INDIVIDUALS AND 1.50% ON NONRESIDENT INDIVIDUALS.

That's what Committee hearings are for -- to refine the language of a bill. As I stated previously and as can plainly be seen on the Michigan Legislature website, this bill has not moved an inch since it was introduced and referred to the Committee on February 15, 2012. Today is June 11th. The rollback is scheduled for July, right? Why hasn't the State moved swiftly with that simple cash fix?

**skyl4rk** · June-11-12, 04:19 PM

The state must be in big financial trouble if it can't afford to pay its water bill.

**mam2009** · June-11-12, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

mam2009, you wouldn't happen to be Joann Watson or one of her staff, would you?

No, Meddle, I am not. But, if I was, would it matter to you?

**iheartthed** · June-11-12, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Novine

"What breach of contract? This one? The law department has been saying that it's been illegal since the idea first became public. This isn't new."

The basis for the claim is that the state withheld state revenue sharing and hasn't paid a water bill at the State Fairgrounds. Both issues didn't emerge in the past weeks. These claims would go back years. What evidence do we have that the Law Department raised these issues at any point in the past? None.

That's true, we don't have evidence that those issues have been raised before. I'm not entirely clear on what exactly changed in the charter, but it sounds like Crittenden is saying that the law department now has the responsibility to enforce the charter, which it didn't before. If that is the case then this now makes a LOT more sense and it is irrelevant that no one challenged the state in the past about its debts. This is presumably the first major contract between the city and state since the charter took effect in January. Sounds like the new charter -- which the state approved -- is at fault for this mess.

Now, another question: why doesn't the state just fast track this through the court system? If the city has no legal ground to stand on then it will quickly be dismissed, no?

**skyl4rk** · June-11-12, 04:47 PM

Has anyone thought about shutting off the water to the State of Michigan?

**Meddle** · June-11-12, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by skyl4rk

The state must be in big financial trouble if it can't afford to pay its water bill.

Originally Posted by skyl4rk

Has anyone thought about shutting off the water to the State of Michigan?

What are you babbling about?

**Meddle** · June-11-12, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by mam2009

No, Meddle, I am not. But, if I was, would it matter to you?

It would explain your motivation in beating a dead horse.

**skyl4rk** · June-11-12, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Meddle

What are you babbling about?

I was just thinking that they should turn off the water to the state and not turn it on until they pay their water bill and revenue sharing.

**Scottathew** · June-11-12, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by skyl4rk

I was just thinking that they should turn off the water to the state and not turn it on until they pay their water bill and revenue sharing.

That bill is in mediation. So to even call it unpaid is just laughable. I'm sure the state will pay up if the mediation demands it. Maybe Detroit's right, maybe it's wrong.

**Wesley Mouch** · June-11-12, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by skyl4rk

I was just thinking that they should turn off the water to the state and not turn it on until they pay their water bill and revenue sharing.

Maybe they'll then have to cancel the State Fair. That'll get them jumpin'.

**townonenorth** · June-11-12, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by mam2009

That's what Committee hearings are for -- to refine the language of a bill. As I stated previously and as can plainly be seen on the Michigan Legislature website, this bill has not moved an inch since it was introduced and referred to the Committee on February 15, 2012. Today is June 11th. The rollback is scheduled for July, right? Why hasn't the State moved swiftly with that simple cash fix?

Because there is nothing to refine? If they had made the bill just for this year, perhaps it would have moved some by now. But nobody will be moving a bill without Republican co-sponsors, sadly. They have one shot at this, and they blew it. Chalk this up to not working within the framework.

**SWMAP** · June-11-12, 08:32 PM

Institutional water rates and meters are complicated. The City has often acknowledged mistaken double-billings, faulty metering, etc. A disputed institutional water bill is just that- a subject of negotiation usually. It does not compare to a residential water bill.
I think it's laughable to be discussing a water bill - it's as if the Law Deparment head polled every department to find something to throw in the accusation pot. Making an outstanding, currently under negotiation water receivable a major element just undermines the value of her theory.

**skyl4rk** · June-11-12, 08:34 PM

Unpaid traffic tickets? Boot all state vehicles until revenue sharing is paid up.

**313WX** · June-11-12, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by skyl4rk

Unpaid traffic tickets? Boot all state vehicles until revenue sharing is paid up.

Given how petty the state is, they'll just respond by moving all of their offices out of the city [[tit-for-tat).

**mam2009** · June-11-12, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by townonenorth

Because there is nothing to refine? If they had made the bill just for this year, perhaps it would have moved some by now. But nobody will be moving a bill without Republican co-sponsors, sadly. They have one shot at this, and they blew it. Chalk this up to not working within the framework.

So you're saying the Governor and the Treasurer shouldn't have made it a priority to assist with ensuring that a revenue stream for the City remain whole by rallying the Republicans to support a "no roll-back" bill?

**townonenorth** · June-11-12, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by mam2009

So you're saying the Governor and the Treasurer shouldn't have made it a priority to assist with ensuring that a revenue stream for the City remain whole by rallying the Republicans to support a "no roll-back" bill?

I'm saying that the sponsors of this bill should have used their brains for once, and crafted a bill that would pass the House, Senate, and Governor of the opposition party. These guys have not done that, so there it sits.

I hate to say it, but the Democrats can't seem to get anything passed, even when they had control of the system. Sad, and I vote for them too.

Not to mention, that the Governor and the Treasurer are not in the Michigan Legislature. and they have no method of putting bills on the floor.