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

[evergreen]

[QUOTE=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?[/QUOTE]

Excellent point. If they are so convinced the suit is absolutely without merit, why not seek expedited review? They could have been half way to the Michigan Supreme Court in the time that the State has wasted on bullying.

[Novine]

" 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. "

It only makes sense if you believe the Law Department's job for the past decades has been to sit on their thumbs and do nothing. Otherwise, why wasn't this issue flagged by them when the water bill dispute or state revenue sharing dispute first arose? Wasn't that their job to bring those issues to the attention of the Mayor and Council?

[mam2009]

Excellent point. If they are so convinced the suit is absolutely without merit, why not seek expedited review? They could have been half way to the Michigan Supreme Court in the time that the State has wasted on bullying.

Ditto and ditto. I just finished watching the two hour Emergency City Council Session from Monday morning and am more convinced than ever that the State is, indeed, bullying [[by attempting to extort) the City into forcing Ms. Crittendon to drop her motion for declaratory judgment on the validity of the consent agreement. The Mayor, the CFO and the rest of the Mayor's advisers made it very clear that the state is arbitrarily choosing not to allow the City access to funds that will allow the City to remain solvent for the remaining three weeks of the City's fiscal year. They indicated that the City has not violated the consent agreement in any way. The State just doesn't like that Ms. Crittendon has asked for a judge to make a decision on this legal question so the State has said it is cutting off our funds just because they can -- not because they have to.

If the State should carry out its threat of denying the City access to funds that will keep it solvent by week's end, it would be a shame if an EM was installed without at least one of the major media outlets telling the story of how the State is burning down the house just to get rid of a rat [[someone else used that analogy earlier on this thread). So all you e ditorial writers, columnists, consumer reporters, defenders, problem solvers, hall of shamers, let it rippers, flashpointers, spotlighters, black journalers, chroniclers, please don' drink the Governor's Kool-Aid. Challenge him on this. The Mayor and the CFO made it clear today that the City has in no way violated any of the terms of the consent agreement. So why would the Governor threaten to behave as if they did? And why would the Governor try to extort the City's elected officials into firing the Corporation Counsel for doing her job by threatening not to allow the City access to its funds? This is outrageous! I'm done.

[Novine]

"This is outrageous! I'm done."

As are the city elected officials, who have consigned themselves to irrelevance by embracing this phony legal argument absent any legal foundation for it. Not once have you or any other person associated with the city been able to provide a legal agreement entitling the city to these dollars.

I'm opposed to the EFM law and I don't think that state oversight of the city's finances guarantees anything good. But the Mayor and Council have shown through their actions, which is trying to rescind a legal agreement that they signed with the state, that they are untrustworthy or incompetent or both. Either way, the state has no obligation to deal with such "partners" and the Governor's in a position to exercise the legal authority that he has. The Mayor and Council brought this on themselves and now they'll get to watch from the sidelines as Lansing calls the shots. Foolish all the way around.

[corktownyuppie]

"This is outrageous! I'm done."

Still waiting...
http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...atson-is-right

[iheartthed]

" 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. "

It only makes sense if you believe the Law Department's job for the past decades has been to sit on their thumbs and do nothing. Otherwise, why wasn't this issue flagged by them when the water bill dispute or state revenue sharing dispute first arose? Wasn't that their job to bring those issues to the attention of the Mayor and Council?

From the way I understand it, the law department was mandated to act within the authority granted to them by the mayor's office under the old charter. So the law department did nothing without the mayor's consent... Which is why I say it's irrelevant that the issue was never raised before. They didn't have the legal authority to file the suit on their own before. If it was raised before January there is nothing they could do without the mayor's consent so it would be largely unknown to the public.

Now, the new charter has changed the power structure so that the law department is mandated to enforce the charter independently of the mayor and city council's consent. So... the charter let the dog off the leash.

[Richard]

So I am sure we will be hearing real soon from Ms. Crittendonon on how many bids are going to be rejected on the tax sale properties,as it would be illegal for the city to enter into a real estate sales transaction with somebody that owes the city money ,ie back taxes on another property.

FOR SALE by the City of Detroit Real Estate Development Division To be considered, proposals [[bids) must be received in the Real Estate Development Division, 11th floor, 65 Cadillac Square, Detroit, MI 48226, before 2:00 p.m. EST., FRIDAY, JUNE 29, 2012. THE BID RESULTS WILL BE POSTED AT 10:00 am, EST., FRIDAY, JULY 6, 2012, at 65 Cadillac Square on the 11th floor.

[Novine]

"If it was raised before January there is nothing they could do without the mayor's consent so it would be largely unknown to the public."

Just so we're clear, you believe that the Law Department raised this issue years ago when it first became an issue. But that the Mayor and City Council have sat on this issue, even though it would place the city contrary to the Charter. But now that the Law Department has been "unleashed" by the Charter, they are now free to address an issue that has been kept quiet for years? So the conspiracy of malfeasance extends to the Mayor and Council for approving agreements that they knew were in violation of the City Charter and State Law? Really?

[Richard]

"If it was raised before January there is nothing they could do without the mayor's consent so it would be largely unknown to the public."

Just so we're clear, you believe that the Law Department raised this issue years ago when it first became an issue. But that the Mayor and City Council have sat on this issue, even though it would place the city contrary to the Charter. But now that the Law Department has been "unleashed" by the Charter, they are now free to address an issue that has been kept quiet for years? So the conspiracy of malfeasance extends to the Mayor and Council for approving agreements that they knew were in violation of the City Charter and State Law? Really?

Personally I do not think they thought that the charter would ever pass,but I would think that it would only effect things that happen after the Jan 1st implementation ,though I am not a lawyer.

[iheartthed]

"If it was raised before January there is nothing they could do without the mayor's consent so it would be largely unknown to the public."

Just so we're clear, you believe that the Law Department raised this issue years ago when it first became an issue. But that the Mayor and City Council have sat on this issue, even though it would place the city contrary to the Charter. But now that the Law Department has been "unleashed" by the Charter, they are now free to address an issue that has been kept quiet for years? So the conspiracy of malfeasance extends to the Mayor and Council for approving agreements that they knew were in violation of the City Charter and State Law? Really?

I really don't know whether they raised the issue before or not... And I don't really think it matters.

Before they could not act on it without the mayor's consent because, as I understand it, they were not the authority charged with enforcing the charter. It's probably always been the law department's duty to verify that contracts are in compliance with the city's charter, but now they have the authority to enforce the charter without the consent of the mayor or city council. So instead of just being agents at the service of city leadership they are now an actual enforcement agency... powers given to them as a reaction to Kwame's abuse of power.

[Wesley Mouch]

Ditto and ditto. I just finished watching the two hour Emergency City Council Session from Monday morning and am more convinced than ever that the State is, indeed, bullying [[by attempting to extort) the City into forcing Ms. Crittendon to drop her motion for declaratory judgment on the validity of the consent agreement. The Mayor, the CFO and the rest of the Mayor's advisers made it very clear that the state is arbitrarily choosing not to allow the City access to funds that will allow the City to remain solvent for the remaining three weeks of the City's fiscal year. They indicated that the City has not violated the consent agreement in any way. The State just doesn't like that Ms. Crittendon has asked for a judge to make a decision on this legal question so the State has said it is cutting off our funds just because they can -- not because they have to.

If the State should carry out its threat of denying the City access to funds that will keep it solvent by week's end, it would be a shame if an EM was installed without at least one of the major media outlets telling the story of how the State is burning down the house just to get rid of a rat [[someone else used that analogy earlier on this thread). So all you e ditorial writers, columnists, consumer reporters, defenders, problem solvers, hall of shamers, let it rippers, flashpointers, spotlighters, black journalers, chroniclers, please don' drink the Governor's Kool-Aid. Challenge him on this. The Mayor and the CFO made it clear today that the City has in no way violated any of the terms of the consent agreement. So why would the Governor threaten to behave as if they did? And why would the Governor try to extort the City's elected officials into firing the Corporation Counsel for doing her job by threatening not to allow the City access to its funds? This is outrageous! I'm done.

Step back a second and reassess this. You're seeing quite a conspiracy here.

'Denying fund' -- perhaps they are owed. Perhaps not. But this obviously isn't 'news'. This is old dirt just stirred up.

The governor has a plan that he started w/ Gov. Granholm to withhold money from the city? Why on earth? This makes no sense whatsoever.

The governor wants to do what? Take 'control' of the city? Why in heaven would he spend this tremendous amount of energy and long-term planning to do this?

[Richard]

It is not 225 million ,the check for the 80 million that the state backed is due somebody has to pay it ,if the city cannot then since the state cosigned they have to pay it or lose their creditability as it was backed on future revenue sharing proceeds.

So the city is into the state for 80 million plus and now it needs more operating cash say another 80 million and now you are into the state for 160 million with no plan for payback and at currant levels no way to pay it back.

I think that there is a bit of difference of a state forced takeover and forcing the state to take over .

[313WX]

It is not 225 million ,the check for the 80 million that the state backed is due somebody has to pay it ,if the city cannot then since the state cosigned they have to pay it or lose their creditability as it was backed on future revenue sharing proceeds.

So the city is into the state for 80 million plus and now it needs more operating cash say another 80 million and now you are into the state for 160 million with no plan for payback and at currant levels no way to pay it back.

I think that there is a bit of difference of a state forced takeover and forcing the state to take over .

Th $80 million dollars the state plans to place on hold has nothing to do with the $225 million dollars that Detroit was supposedly to receive [[based on several conditions being met) as a percentage of the Sales Tax revenue per PA 532 of 1998. Per the act, the city was supposed to receive a total of $333 million dollars between 1998 and 2007, and the city alleges it didn't receive $225 million of that.

The argument against that is the Act was not an appropiations bill [[or a legally binding agreement), and even if the court says it was, all of the conditions in the Act weren't met by either parties [[city or state).


The $80 million dollars is a portion of the $137 million dollars the state agreed to provide the city when they signed the Consent Agreement, so the city could remain liquid until a new budget was passed. Instead, the state plans to hold that money and pay the people who loaned them that money with it, while the state taking this money away will prevent the city from paying off the upcoming payments for PAST bond sells it agreed to.

[Meddle]

This is outrageous! I'm done.

See ya' later Joann.

[corktownyuppie]

Step back a second and reassess this. You're seeing quite a conspiracy here.

'Denying fund' -- perhaps they are owed. Perhaps not. But this obviously isn't 'news'. This is old dirt just stirred up.

The governor has a plan that he started w/ Gov. Granholm to withhold money from the city? Why on earth? This makes no sense whatsoever.

The governor wants to do what? Take 'control' of the city? Why in heaven would he spend this tremendous amount of energy and long-term planning to do this?

The conspiracy that Lansing wants to control the city and "steal its jewels" has now approached the level of "Birtherism". Pretty soon, it's gonna be Nazi, KKK, and Al Qaeda references.

[townonenorth]

So Snyder says that the state will act if the city runs out of cash. Of course the word "act" has certain connotations, don't it?

Birmingham — Gov. Rick Snyder said today that Detroit is in a "crisis" and if the city runs out of money, he is ready to act to protect Detroiters and the state.
Stopping short of saying he'll appoint an emergency manager, Snyder said that if the consent agreement is breached, there are a "variety of steps" to follow through on first.


From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz1xbD6nHB3

[Novine]

"It's probably always been the law department's duty to verify that contracts are in compliance with the city's charter, but now they have the authority to enforce the charter without the consent of the mayor or city council."

But isn't that the point? If this was a real legal issue, why didn't the law department inform the Mayor and Council years ago? Because they were incompetent? Or if they did inform the Mayor and Council, that means both bodies have been operating in violation of the city charter and state law for years.

[Wesley Mouch]

"It's probably always been the law department's duty to verify that contracts are in compliance with the city's charter, but now they have the authority to enforce the charter without the consent of the mayor or city council."

But isn't that the point? If this was a real legal issue, why didn't the law department inform the Mayor and Council years ago? Because they were incompetent? Or if they did inform the Mayor and Council, that means both bodies have been operating in violation of the city charter and state law for years.

This conversation is really irrelevant. If its illegal, the courts will deal with it. If not, then move on. The world doesn't always wait for lawsuits. EXCEPT that you don't put money in the hands of your partner who is suing you.

Duh.

So the state not unreasonably is waiting. Perhaps there is money due. That'll get determined by the courts along the way. What the state saw here is this....

1) City signs agreement -- that means they agree
2) City law department thinks there's a problem.
3) City law department goes out to distant suburbia to find a judge who has jurisdiction, and a history of ruling against the state.
4) State realizes this is what it is... a stalling tactic. And realizes their partner isn't a partner, but a fair-weather friend.
5) State decided wisely to hold off on funding until suit is addressed.

The State didn't cause the delay -- the city did. Regardless of whether this has validity -- the city's actions speak loudly. They are looking for any way possible to get the cash, but not the obligation to live by a deal.

[corktownyuppie]

This conversation is really irrelevant. If its illegal, the courts will deal with it. If not, then move on. The world doesn't always wait for lawsuits. EXCEPT that you don't put money in the hands of your partner who is suing you.

Duh.

So the state not unreasonably is waiting. Perhaps there is money due. That'll get determined by the courts along the way. What the state saw here is this....

1) City signs agreement -- that means they agree
2) City law department thinks there's a problem.
3) City law department goes out to distant suburbia to find a judge who has jurisdiction, and a history of ruling against the state.
4) State realizes this is what it is... a stalling tactic. And realizes their partner isn't a partner, but a fair-weather friend.
5) State decided wisely to hold off on funding until suit is addressed.

The State didn't cause the delay -- the city did. Regardless of whether this has validity -- the city's actions speak loudly. They are looking for any way possible to get the cash, but not the obligation to live by a deal.

I think, too, that the State *thought* they had a willing partner to help solve the city's problems. So did I. The problem is that there's an element in the city for whom the state's involvement is nefarious, not benevolent. And even if Snyder, Bing, and half of City Council are ready to roll up their sleeves and start looking for ways to generate revenue and cut costs...there's still people on the Council who are not interested in getting along.

Obviously, I'm not foolish enough to totally invalidate the real-life experiences of thousands of Detroiters going back 40-50+ years. They're skeptical for good reason. At the same time, there's an element for whom it doesn't matter who's in the Governor's chair or what solutions might work, they'll never trust anything coming from Lansing. These people are short-sighted.

In any case, I am hopeful that once we actually run out of money and people really see how much trouble we're in, combined with hearing the financial advisory board put together broad-based recommendations and opinions, we will shift this conversation away from the politics and toward actual solutions.

[Wesley Mouch]

I think, too, that the State *thought* they had a willing partner to help solve the city's problems. So did I. The problem is that there's an element in the city for whom the state's involvement is nefarious, not benevolent. And even if Snyder, Bing, and half of City Council are ready to roll up their sleeves and start looking for ways to generate revenue and cut costs...there's still people on the Council who are not interested in getting along.

Obviously, I'm not foolish enough to totally invalidate the real-life experiences of thousands of Detroiters going back 40-50+ years. They're skeptical for good reason. At the same time, there's an element for whom it doesn't matter who's in the Governor's chair or what solutions might work, they'll never trust anything coming from Lansing. These people are short-sighted.

In any case, I am hopeful that once we actually run out of money and people really see how much trouble we're in, combined with hearing the financial advisory board put together broad-based recommendations and opinions, we will shift this conversation away from the politics and toward actual solutions.

Yes.

A responsible law department would have said -- hey state, we have a problem with this agreement. It is our job to support the executive [[Bing, et. al) here, so here's our solution. We think we need to have a resolution of these past debts. Can you place these funds in escrow for us -- and agree that we'll take this to court another day? In the meantime, we'll sign some new documents that change this from a 'bad debt' to something that is legal.

Instead the law department went rogue, and sought out a friendly judge to torpedo the executive. That's politics -- not the sound legal advice some here seem to think.

The job of the law department is to protect the city in its dealings with others -- not to torpedo them.

Going to Ingham County to find a friendly judge isn't responsible -- its insubordinate.

[[btw, does anyone else see a little irony in going to Ingham County? Do you think Bobby Ferguson would get a more impartial jury there?)

[mwilbert]

Even if the city's counsel believes that the state owes the city money and that this requires her to oppose the consent agreement in court, in this case the situation is hardly so clear-cut that the money in question couldn't be characterized in some other way, particularly when there isn't anyone in a position to challenge that characterization. So unless she actually believes the consent agreement is contrary to the interests of the city, I think she should have been able to avoid this.

[rjk]

I watched about 5 minutes of the council meeting earlier this afternoon with the highlight being Charles Pugh proclaiming that he just realized that the roll call was done alphabetically and not done one after another around the table.

Yikes.

[iheartthed]

"It's probably always been the law department's duty to verify that contracts are in compliance with the city's charter, but now they have the authority to enforce the charter without the consent of the mayor or city council."

But isn't that the point? If this was a real legal issue, why didn't the law department inform the Mayor and Council years ago? Because they were incompetent? Or if they did inform the Mayor and Council, that means both bodies have been operating in violation of the city charter and state law for years.

Yeah, it's very possible that the city leadership has already been acting in violation of the charter [[assuming that this debtor clause is not a new provision of the charter).

[313WX]

A responsible law department would have said -- hey state, we have a problem with this agreement. It is our job to support the executive [[Bing, et. al) here, so here's our solution. We think we need to have a resolution of these past debts. Can you place these funds in escrow for us -- and agree that we'll take this to court another day? In the meantime, we'll sign some new documents that change this from a 'bad debt' to something that is legal.

You're assuming the state of Michigan in that situation would even agree that there is a debt, which they don't. That's what the letter Crittendon sent to the state was for [[scenario you outlined) before she actually filed the lawsuit.

That's what the courts are for.

Just because the state of Michigan says they don't owe the money doesn't mean they actually don't owe the money [[and they may not actually owe the money). It's up to a court of law to decide that when two parties disagree.

[Wesley Mouch]

You're assuming the state of Michigan in that situation would even agree that there is a debt, which they don't. That's what the letter Crittendon sent to the state was for [[scenario you outlined) before she actually filed the lawsuit.

That's what the courts are for.

Just because the state of Michigan says they don't owe the money doesn't mean they actually don't owe the money [[and they may not actually owe the money). It's up to a court of law to decide that when two parties disagree.

313WX -- No. I don't assume that the state would agree.

Whether the debt is truly owed is a matter that lawyers can work on and get settled by the courts. Disagreements over debts and everything else are worked through the legal system all the time.

It is 100% irrelevant whether there is or isn't a debt.

If Detroit's law department has a problem, they'd discuss it with the state, and they would all agree to restructure the alleged debt in a manner that would allow the parties to move forward. Perhaps an escrow. How they'd do it doesn't matter. This is done all day long everywhere. Lawyers work out how to get something done.

My point is that the Detroit Law Department isn't trying to work this out -- they're working to undermine a deal. Isn't that obvious when Detroit goes to Ingham County to find a judge they like?

That's why this is falling apart. Not because of the actual facts of the alleged debt. That's the MacGuffin here. [[See wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin)

Again -- in a functional city, the law department would have solved this problem -- not magnified it. That's the real problem. Ignore the MacGuffin -- or you'll miss the real fight. And it ain't about water bills at the State Fair [[or whatever).