Judge Rhodes Rules Detroit Is Eligible For Bankruptcy

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Without a "defined", "guaranteed" pension plan [[and as the social security system crumbles) it's a sure thing that folks would get a clue and start saving...

You would think so, but it's not always the case as it is increasingly difficult to save when it's getting more expensive to live period.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

not everyone is in a position to save enough for retirement and live day to day. just the facts. especially in country who's people are ok with $10 an hour jobs and higher costs of living, outsourcing, and undeniable greed.

+100 This country has gone into the crapper as far as producing decent jobs for people. They've let all the good jobs be outsourced. $10 an hour jobs aren't the answer either. You aren't going to make ends meet on that pay scale.

[Vic01]

Seems too simple a response. Especially considering that there are numerous other major cities facing the same dilema. And without having undergone the seismic economic implosion to the magnitude that Detroit has experienced. Cities being questioned include Chicago, Cincinatti, Philadelphia, Fresno and quite a few others. The U.S. is losing its manufacturing base. Those locations are feeling the economic pinch. Yet at the same time they still face the legacy costs associated with their former prosperity. They also tend to be older cities, which are experiencing higher costs associated with maintenance of their infrastructure. Roads, bridges, water mains, etc.

Sure my response was "simple", it was only meant to say what it said, period. Which was that the "State" [[Michigan) was not the primary cause, "they" didn't do it to "us". The fact that there are other cities in other states in close to our mess indicates that Michigan is not the guilty party here. And, yes jobs left and the economy took a dump, that's a given... I wasn't trying to cover all facets of the problems. I was simply stating that when "we the people" put bums and thieves in office, because we vote 'em in or don't vote at all, then "we" have to accept our share of the responsibility.

[BankruptcyGuy]

And so asset sales must have a different standard than simply, "sell it all, and divide the proceeds with the creditors". Orr, in fact alluded to this when he first arrived in Detroit, stating [paraphrasing], "You don't want this to go to bankruptcy court; the law tilts far in favor for the city [[and against creditors) in bankruptcy court."

Another way of looking at this is that there are certain city assets which make it a desirable place to live. If you sell off too many of those assets, then what will be left will not be a sustainable municipal entity anymore. We sell all the riverfront property to Canada. We sell all of the parks to developers.

Now that said, just because the Court can't insist that assets be sold, can the Court also reject the city's proposed Plan of Adjustment?

If so, Rhodes can use that hammer to "strongly encourage" monetization and also turn around to the pensions and "strongly encourage" a settlement, rather than taking this all the way the Supreme Court.

Next 3-6 months will be interesting indeed.

Let me divide this into theory and practice:

Theory: the US Constitution, pursuant to the Bankruptcy Clause, does not give a US non-Title III court the right to violate state sovereignty. So while Chapter 11 allows creditors to prepare a competing plan, it does not allow creditors in a Chapter 9 to do so. No creditor in a Chapter 9 can propose asset sales, nor could they, for example, propose higher taxes. Contrast with Chapter 11, where a creditor could certainly suggest asset sales or new sources of revenue.

The theory is that the US Constitution's limits do not allow interference with state functions like deciding which assets to own and what level of taxation to have.

Practically, my first response would be "who knows"? The EM draws his powers from state law. If the EM went to sell art, I'm guessing that the state legislature would prevent that.

On the other hand, I think a sale of the DWSD is likely. There is already legislation to create an authority, which would pay money to the City for the long-term rental of the sewer assets. The difference between the City's proposal and the state legislation is all a matter of control. Again, likely the state wins here.

Could the EM propose a plan that:

a) freezes pensions
b) provides for some limited contribution capped at specific figures going forward
c) provides for some DC plan for current non-vested workers?

The answer is yes. And in fact, the EM's consultant prepared a report detailing the costs of just such a program.

[Jimaz]

DetroitYES Home » Non Detroit Issues » GoLeft TV » Papantonio: Wall Street Steals Detroit

[mwilbert]

Sure my response was "simple", it was only meant to say what it said, period. Which was that the "State" [[Michigan) was not the primary cause, "they" didn't do it to "us". The fact that there are other cities in other states in close to our mess indicates that Michigan is not the guilty party here. And, yes jobs left and the economy took a dump, that's a given... I wasn't trying to cover all facets of the problems. I was simply stating that when "we the people" put bums and thieves in office, because we vote 'em in or don't vote at all, then "we" have to accept our share of the responsibility.

You said more than one thing. You said that the state was not primarily responsible, with which I agree. You also seemed to be saying that the voters were. I don't really agree with that--no question they also bear some responsibility, but as kevgoblue indicated, Detroit's problems are extreme but hardly unique and I would say are only about bad governance to a limited extent. And, of course, even if you want to blame governance for more than I think appropriate, the voters didn't have a lot of great options to choose from. It isn't as if there were lots of highly talented people vying for council seats or even the mayor's office.

[Jimaz]

DetroitYES Home » Non Detroit Issues » Thom Hartmann » What the media isn't telling you about Detroit's bankruptcy

[Wesley Mouch]

You said more than one thing. You said that the state was not primarily responsible, with which I agree. You also seemed to be saying that the voters were. I don't really agree with that--no question they also bear some responsibility, but as kevgoblue indicated, Detroit's problems are extreme but hardly unique and I would say are only about bad governance to a limited extent. And, of course, even if you want to blame governance for more than I think appropriate, the voters didn't have a lot of great options to choose from. It isn't as if there were lots of highly talented people vying for council seats or even the mayor's office.

Nobody was primarily responsible. It was dozens or hundreds of individual bad decisions. There's enough blame for all. But why Detroit, then. Would we really have been OK if the Big 3 had made Camrys and UAW employment were still 250,000? Maybe. I think we got here first because we were worse than every other city in hundreds of bad decisions by people in Detroit, the region, the State, the entire Rust Belt, the nation, and the world. So what? We remain primarily responsible for our problems, and we need to work together to solve them. Thank g0d we have the government to bail us out of our problem.