Found this on HuffPost.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-ha...b_1096094.html
Printable View
Found this on HuffPost.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-ha...b_1096094.html
He's doing a good job of getting media play for an idea that's never going to happen.
It may never happen but I give him props for acknowledging that Detroit needs a bailout. Cuts only will not save Detroit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
Quote:
Originally Posted by R8RBOB
Then Detroit is pretty much screwed. There is practically NO interest in giving Detroit any handouts, bailouts, whatever we want to call them.
Clarke knows full well this idea is DOA, and its nothing but theatre for the masses. This way he can turn to his constituents and say hey I tried, I deserve reelection - and he will get it. Thats the only reason that Candace Miller was willing to attach her name to it, she knows it will go no where and she can still say hey, I tried to help Detroit.
Hell, you wouldn't be able to garner support for this idea in the Detroit Metro area, yet alone anywhere else in the country.
See this is why we have forums. We can share opinions. Here is my opinion:Quote:
Originally Posted by ferntruth
Regardless if Clarke's plan is DOA, the fact is he is the first [[I think) who has acknowledge that Detroit needs some form of bailout. Here are the facts: Bing and the council can cut all the meat off the bone and they can cut into the bone but the city will still have money problems because of Detroit's population. The city needs home owners [[tax payers) to generate revenue. The city need money outside of budgetary responsibilities for new developments, new schools, improve services like fighting crime to woo people back to Detroit.
Again, cuts will not save Detroit because there has to be money coming in to offset the cuts and the money is not coming in.
Express your opinion all you like - it doesnt change the reality that ITS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Detroit will have to find another solution other than standing there with its collective hand out begging for a handout.Quote:
Originally Posted by R8RBOB
The rest of the State and the Country would go apeshit crazy if we were forced to step in financially and take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. How Detroit gets out of this mess is their problem, not the rest of the country - thats my opinion.
Oh well, shit happens.....Quote:
Originally Posted by ferntruth
A bailout would do nothing. Detroit must be forced to operate more efficiently. My guess is that it will have to be done by an EFM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferntruth
OK then how about the rest of the country decides to not send the army, navy, air force, marines, peace corps, Bruce Willis and assorted action figures anytime shit happens in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, or Lybia.
What is the big deal trying to restore a city that has seen better days? How about showering money on a massive urban re-design with A-1 transit and business districts that would be the pride of the region instead of repeating the same mistakes from the past?
Maybe an EFM is needed, but the emergency measures would not be enough to counter the attrition and the blight, whereas a massive investment in a region that needs to pull together is a better way through the mess that is Detroit.
You speak of Detroit like its an individual. Its not.Quote:
Originally Posted by ferntruth
A city is just an entity charged with managing the collective needs of some residents. Its done a bad job of that. And can't be allowed to continue. But it didn't happen in a vacuum.
1) Residents left
2) Corporations left
-- and this was happening long before the current economic mess --
3) Unions sucked the blood out of city government and the car companies
4) An economic collapse
5) Shipping no longer requires a good port, but can often better be done from what was farmland
6) Corporations merged and took their headquarters to other cities
7) The south and west became attractive due to air-conditioning, cheap land, growth policies, and freeways built by money from Detroit residents of the past.
8) A million other things
So the only question now is, how to we get good, competent governance in Detroit.
And although I betray my libertarian beliefs here, a plan to
1) Give Detroit money
TIGHTLY COUPLED WITH
2) Loss of all local power over things and creation of a new governmental model
...makes a lot of sense.
Trying to keep our failed governance model going is the definition of stupidity. Regionalize all governments, and pitch in some money [[by Hansen's plan), and you might have a chance.
There are lots of major cities across this country that were down in the dumps until a natural disaster hit then billions were poured into rebuilding those cities giving them a fresh start ,I guess in a sense based on that it would be only fair to consider what was written.
But on the other hand everybody knows already what needs to be done topside.
when you divert funds to tear down the Ford verses the neighborhoods that it was designed for things still look a bit on the sketchy side.
new charter kicks in ,50 financial forensic FBI agents to scour the city works to root out the rest of the corruption so if the funds come it goes to what it is designed for, helping the city and its people instead of a select few then I would say give her what it takes for a fresh start ,it will be well worth the investment in the future.
Start slamming non homesteaded property owners for the tax scams would probably be a nice start.
There's a lot of merit to this. It's like a bankrupt company being bought out by another company to stabilize the company. And I think when push comes to shove it will likely be discussed as the surrounding entities realize how they will be negatively affected if Detroit defaults or files bankruptcy. We all have skin in the game here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
There are all kinds of ways of transferring money to the city--if you look at the budget you can see what a large portion is already funded by non-city sources. Those amounts could change and there could even be new programs at some point, but what is not ever going to happen is an explicit, Detroit-only federal handout, which is why I think Clarke's plan has no relevance in this universe.
The fact remains is that Hansen Clarke is correct. Whether or not it's likely to happen in the near future is really immaterial. Without someone saying something that seems unlikely to happen, movements never get started. And we really need a movement in this country that commits our considerable resources to helping our actual citizens, and most particularly helping those communities that have been the most damaged by the economic changes partially wrought by our government's policy decisions.
This would sure be a better use of our resources than sending them halfway around the world in order to kill hundreds of thousands of other poor people in order to keep our politically connected military contractors happy. Or to continue other subsidy programs that mostly serve to feed even more of our resources to companies already fattened on corporate welfare.
Detroit, and the rest of the distressed post-industrial communities, have given more than enough to this country, including being the engine of our victory in WWII. It may seem unlikely or impossible that we will ever be able to fight vested interests enough to change the priorities of how we handle our resources, and who benefits from them. But unless someone starts this conversation about changing our priorities to serve our actual citizenry, and sticks with it, it is absolutely certain that change will never come.
Obviously I disagree with the previous comment insofar as it relates to Clarke's proposal. Of course it would have made more sense to spend a trillion dollars on US cities than on a pointless war, but that would obviously not have been politically possible either. It is conceivable that you could come up with a program that would provide a lot of money to cities and that could pass Congress [[not this Congress, of course). That has happened in the past. But there has never been and is very unlikely ever to be a Congress that would be willing to say "Detroit, [[and only Detroit, because it is so special and people who lived there 70 years ago helped win WWII) gets to keep its citizens' federal taxes and spend them without any further oversight from Congress."
The conversation that a parochial proposal of this kind starts is likely to be short and unrewarding. Detroit's issues are not mostly about Detroit; they are about a changing economy and a concentration of poverty and dysfunction that is becoming a common pattern around the country. I think that a fruitful conversation has to be be about measures that are more broadly applicable across the US.
It's true. What's happening in Detroit is happening in most other places not only in the U.S. but around the world. Small towns all across the country are going through similar situations. I think a lot of people are watching what's happening in Detroit because they know it's what they're going to be going through in the near future.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
Fifty years ago people in rural areas that were in decline had the option of rolling the dice and heading for one of the industrial cities. With that not being very realistic anymore, people in small towns that are going into default are scared too. It might not seem like it to most of you in Detroit, but we're all in this thing together.
I nominate your post "Best post on this thread"Quote:
Originally Posted by EastsideAl
As I stated in a previous post; maybe Clarke's plan never gets a vote and dies in committee but at least he is proposing something that everyone knows needs to happen. Bing tried a half-hearted attempt to get Detroit some money from the state but he needs to go bigger. The council, well all they are thinking about is saving their jobs. The idea that Detroit can balance its books on just cuts alone is nuts.
Just thinking on how this country can toss billions of dollars to nations to keep them afloat yet we have people arguing that Detroit don't deserve a bailout is sad. Maybe Detroit needs a freak earthquake to wipe out the shitty infrastructure and rotting homes that the city can't demolished and then the US government would have to spent billions to rebuild Detroit. Maybe Detroit can get a understanding Congress. I doubt neither would happen in my lifetime but who knows...
I wholeheartedly agree that there's a significant debt due to those in Detroit today, and now living elsewhere. And of course Detroit can't balance its books on 'just' cuts alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by R8RBOB
But do you suggest that 'Detroit' has zero responsibility? That this is just a money shortage, and would be solved by tossing money at it?
That's where we differ.
I do believe in federal responsibility for Detroit -- and equally with local responsibility and need for civic reform. They both must happen.
Detroit, Wayne County, Oakland County, Macomb County, the state of Michigan and the US government is all responsible for the decline of Detroit in some fashion but Detroit needs to look to its corrupt politicians and business leaders to see the why Detroit is in the shape it is in now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
I would like to consider the Detroit that I and many currently live in is the old Detroit. A Detroit that has been plagued by racism, crime, corruption, abandonment, bad schools, bad services and the list goes on but we have Bing and Pugh bickering on how to save old Detroit. I don't want old Detroit saved. I want it to die. Throwing money to prop up old Detroit is a disaster in the making because like a house with a bad foundation, it will eventually fall to the ground.
If Detroit was to ever get a bailout then it would understood that the goal would be to build a new Detroit. A new Detroit with a healthy tax base which means people repopulating the city. This means new development of neighborhoods that has been abandoned. Improved services, new schools and the list goes on but this would require a lot of money because the old saying applies; "it takes money to make money."
And to do these things requires change. If there is to be money taken from outside Detroit to 'help' Detroit, then it must be tied to thorough institutional change. Without that, you're right. Failure is guaranteed.Quote:
Originally Posted by R8RBOB
If the rest of the state and country go "apeshit crazy" for helping Detroit, it would be a shame. As a 20+ year tax paying resident of Detroit, I don't ever recall going apeshit crazy when other cities and areas in the country faced disasters like tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes and my tax dollars were spent helping them rebuild. While Detroit's disaster is not a natural disaster, it's a disaster nonetheless. Perhaps the victims of natural disasters should be held to the same standard and "take care of themselves" lest they use our valuable tax dollars for self interests.Quote:
Originally Posted by ferntruth
I think that the Binb administration had proven that Detroit doesn't use federal funds giving to the city. Hansen Clarke has a good idea. However, if a bailout would had been given to Detroit this administration would had just sat on the money and let the city drown such as times beforeQuote:
Originally Posted by ferntruth
Did you notice that Clarke proposed his plan have a five-year wait? He is not dumb. Bing is not the leader he sold himself as and he will be back in Franklin in two years.Quote:
Originally Posted by stasu1213
This is speculation so follow me. Let's say that Clarke somehow is able to sell this plan and get enough Tea Baggers and Republicans to go for it and it passes and the President signs it, Clarke is a fuckin' hero in Detroit. Going deeper.....next year Clarke is running in the newly redrawn 14th district which is my district but it goes deep into Oakland County. The word is he won't win against Gary Peters which means he will be without a job....that is until 2013 when he will run for mayor of Detroit. Bing will not get reelected and a number of possible candidates may have the stink of either Kilpatrick or Ficano so they will be unelectable which leaves the door wide open for Rep. Clarke.
Good theory but I think that Detroit is being ran by entites maybe local or nationa who help get Bing into office.Hansen Clarke is too much for the people of Detroit while Bing and those who are controlling him are for the land of Detroit . Two questions that bloggers should ask themselves.Why had Bing refused to debate Tom Barrow or Jerroll Sanders? This was a union town however the unions did not back him. I had noticed that President Obama did not acknowledge Mayor Bing from the podium when the President had acknowledge all the other dignitaries. Was that an oversight? I think that Mayor Bing is on an assignment giving to him by local entities who or corporations who want the land and water of DetroitQuote:
Originally Posted by R8RBOB
I like Hansen Clarke.. and I'm disappointed he's doing a 'district exchange' with Conyers.. but if clarke loses his congressional run, then decides to run for mayor.. I don't know.. there will be some bizarre hurdles.. he'll probably get attacked for his ethnicity, whisper campaigns on is he mexican? arab?, plus not having a black wife.. I don't see him schmoozing with the local megachurch leaders or the Baptist Pastors council.. he has Catholic ties, so somebody's going to bring up the child-molestation stuff.. as nutty and non-issue-based as this may be..Quote:
Originally Posted by R8RBOB
plus, even with the council by district and other revised parts of the city charter.. would clarke be "allowed" to make progressive-radical change, or would this be yet another go-round of "say everything's fine when clearly too much is not" situation..