This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.
In late October, a few days after local news cameras swarmed Detroit's courthouse to hear closing arguments in the city's historic bankruptcy trial, "Commander" Dale Brown cruised through the stately Detroit neighborhood of Palmer Woods in a Hummer emblazoned with the silver, interlocking-crescent-moon logo of his private security company.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ing-privatized
heh.. well, I imagine Palmer Woods folks, in the aggregate, have the money to hire out private security. ;)"Good for them", I guess. Over here in Russell Woods... forget it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MizMotown
fucking elitists building walls.Quote:
Satisfied, he continued on, guided by a futuristic tablet map of the neighborhood's languid streets. These had become even more impenetrable last year when the bankrupt city paid for and constructed a series of traffic barriers on the community's edges
god-blessed pragmatists investing in Detroit.Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
All a matter of perspective...lol. That's what everything always will be, different points of view. The real question what is the real motives behind anything? If it's ego-driven it will always be the need to collect "more". If it's spirit-driven it will always be for the good of all. Heads or tails?
I'll bite and respond to a little of the sensational reporting.
"In the second, running water has systematically been cut off from at least 27,000 households this year alone, the latest in a series of government-enacted policies that have made daily life an increasingly desperate battle."
27,000 homes think it's okay to steal water without paying their bills. How did this many people think it's okay to be thiefs and steal without consquences? What can the people of these law abiding sections of the city teach the other criminals in the 27,000 homes?
"The injustices pile up: the threat that Child Protective Services will seize custody of children who are living in waterless homes; the streets upon streets of emptied houses, their roofs caving in, their porches collapsing, their bricks blackened by fire; "
What injustice is here? The injustice of someone trying to afford an asset they clearly have no economic means to afford. Roofs caving in? Porches collpasing? These are signs that you have no right owning a home - this means YOU as the homeowner are the sole cause of the problem. You are trying to live in an asset you can't maintain - you must buy an asset you can maintain or rent. What skills can the people who live in homes that don't have collapsing roofs or porches teach those who clearly live above their means?
I'd be embarrased to know Laura - her journalistic abilities show she's more interessted at blaming people [[i.e. victim mentlaity) as opposed to being part of the solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by belleislerunner
In your perspective what's the solution? What do we do with the folks that may be unable to work, disabled, mentally ill, under-educated, addicted, layed-off, too old, or cannot find a suitable job that pays enough?
Who's paying? I have a family member over there and they want the extra security. We came home while visiting to the door open and the service came fast. I found them to be professional and thorough. Robbers must have been scared away as nothing was taken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
Belleislerunner wants them living in the street, as punishment for their clear crime of being poorer than his lucky self. Only not in any street too close to his house.Quote:
Originally Posted by MizMotown
She should have come to Indian Village. Premium neighborhood with no walls.Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
And on the apparently unlivable east side too.
Glad to help problem solve.
In your perspective what's the solution? What do we do with the folks that may be unable to work, disabled - depending on the disability - State assistance should aid these people and they should rent. I don't know what purpose there is to having a disabled person own a house. That's like allowing a blind person to drive. Where will they get the means for the upkeep. Owning a home is not a right - it's a privilege.
Mentally ill - Mentally ill people can receive drugs/treatment via Obamacare and become normal productive members of society.
Under-educated - Educational options exist at both the community college level and or trade level to provide viable and meaningful employment opportunities.
Addicted - Lay off the addiction and become a functioning member of society
Layed-off - Obtain a new job. If requisite skills are lacking gain those via educational opportunities either vocationally or via community college.
I think we all forget that no one is entitled to handouts in a capitalist society. There are programs for those who are to old or handicapped. Maybe there should be more programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by EastsideAl
But there's also the portion who are too lazy, or feel too entitled. They are drains on society and offer nothing back. I was once help up by a homeless man on Broadway in downtown, he told me i was going to give him my wallet. He was armed with nothing but the hope that i was afraid. I physically detained him and gave the police a call i'm sure he will be better off in jail.
its not the public's responsibility to help those who don't want or deserve the help. We cant save everyone.
But also comes with high[[er) crime, even with private security patrols. Indian Village can't be walled off in any practical way, so probably an issue of street grid rather than philosophical differences between communities.Quote:
Originally Posted by EastsideAl
Some members of my family and I like to occasionally tour around the city just to see different things. One day drive through the 'Points, another cruise around up and down Woodward, maybe Grand River, etc.
While driving through Palmer Woods one day, we got stopped by one of these security guys, who was looking way too intense and far too happy to be rousting what he may have perceived as troublemakers. [[Because a car load of white, middle and senior-aged people throws off that vibe I guess.)
After explaining that we were just checking out the nice homes, the guy then wanted me [[the driver) to give my name and home address while he recorded me on his tablet. I told him no, I would not be providing that information to him and we were then told, quite plainly, to get out. We would be followed to Woodward and if he saw us in the neighborhood again, he would notify the police.
While I understand the want for security and if the residents of the neighborhood can foot the bill for a private organization, then more power to them, but I thought this was a bit extreme.
We actually discussed cruising back through just to see if the guy would make good on his threat but decided that the call of Lafayette coneys was too strong and left to get some food in a more inviting location.
I"m just playing devil's advocate because the issues between the haves and the havenots is something that just keeps going in circles. I totally agree that a victim mentality is very sabatoging to individuals and society at whole. But the above are issues that have gray areas also. Mentally ill people usually don't stay on medication without supervision. [[We've closed psychiatric hospitals in this state), education can be sought for free or reduced tuition on certain income levels only, addiction [[if it was that easy we'd already be in an addictive free society...lol), alot of disabled or low-income people are receiving tax-payer money to live and that is what is pushing rent up, it's easy money for landlords. Every problem comes with it's own solution, I"m just looking to see who is most creative.
Could not agree with you more. We should work on fixing the root of the problems before we aimlessly throw money at a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by MizMotown
Now wait a minute.Quote:
Originally Posted by belleislerunner
"27,000 homes think it's okay to steal water? ... it's okay to be thiefs [sic] ... the other criminals in 27,000 homes?"
Putting aside that homes can't steal, on what do you base your allegations of theft or crime? Stealing means violating a criminal code law, like illegally tapping into water lines to divert and steal water. Are you saying that something like that is happening with these 27,000 households?
Failure to pay a bill is neither stealing nor a crime. It is a civic matter, a contract breach at the most. It's between buyer and seller. Period.
Do you think it fair to blanket malign thousands of people as criminals when no crime has been committed. Imagine if life's fortunes left you in a position being unable to pay a bill? Would you like being called a criminal?
A company [[DTE) charges money [[fee) in exchange for giving a good [[water).
A customer does not pay the bill [[fee) yet takes the water [[good).
What did your mother call it when you take something without paying for it?
My mother called that stealing.
Stealing is a crime.
People who commit crimes are criminals.
Therefore, the 27,000 homes who take water without paying are criminals.
If you disagree - I'd like to know on what basis it would not be okay for me to walk into Starbucks in Campus Martius and take a large coffee without paying and not expect criminal repercussions. It's a civic infraction - a breach of contract at most.
^^^The dumbest thing I've ever heard anyone say.Quote:
Originally Posted by belleislerunner
Lowell is correct. It's strictly a civil matter. Legal 101. There is no criminal action here whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
You should have continued your drive through the neighborhood, perhaps after asking for his name and address.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkhopper
OK, lets call them deadbeats instead of criminals. But if your water is shutoff, and you turn in on without authorization, aren't you in fact stealing it? You have no contract for it at that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray1936
There is no difference - the only difference between the Starbucks example is you pay cash at the register and walk out. In the water bill example, you are invoiced 30 days later and don't pay. The only difference is the passage of time between making cash payment.
Morally - it's still stealing and they're criminals.
Rationalize = rational lies.
"There was pride in the water company," she says. "The one piece of power that black people had in this city is now gone."
Detroit entitlement thinking at its best!
So then would it be a crime if one were to deprive another of water with the intent to cause death by dehydration? Or could that be done legally? ;)