EFM Law Facing Repeal

Update: The Michigan Supreme Court ruled on August 3, 2012 that the ballot proposal to repeal the EFM law is valid and must appear on the ballot.

--------------------------------

"A group seeking repeal of the state’s emergency manager law submitted this afternoon what they said were 226,000 petition signatures to force a referendum on the issue in November.

If a state elections panel verifies that 161,305 of the signatures are those of registered voters, the controversial statute enacted last year would be suspended until the vote...."

Detroit Free Press

Detroit News

I think we all knew this a month or two ago.

Too bad this is really just an "US vs. THEM" [[black/white) issue and not really about getting things in order!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by One Shot

Too bad this is really just an "US vs. THEM" [[black/white) issue and not really about getting things in order!

---

NO IT'S NOT. Its a RIGHT to be an AMERICAN Issue. Its a RIGHT TO VOTE ISSUE. NOT Black Vs. White. Eventhough it only seems to be Black communities lossing their right to vote, govern etc. What if China told America we are going to appoint someone to run OUR country cause we so deep in debt. Would YOU let that Fly. Should it Fly??????????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313hero

What if China told America we are going to appoint someone to run OUR country cause we so deep in debt. Would YOU let that Fly. Should it Fly??????????

---

Hmmm… that already happens every day in the real world.

During a bankruptcy [[particularly commercial real estate) the lender can take several routes. If the lender perceives the borrower is not part of the problem the loan failed, then they MAY allow a “debtor-in-procession.” This is where the owner maintains management of the property while they attempt to restructure their loan.

However, if the lender believes the borrower is part of the problem and contributing to losses, then they can ask the court for a court appointed receiver. Once a Receiver is named, then the borrower gives up control of the asset and the Receiver becomes responsible for the property. The borrower is still the owner, but no longer in control.

Sound familiar?

Maybe not a China/US thing, but this happens every day in Michigan.

If you mess up your finances bad enough, Your rights get taken away. It doesn't matter if you're a person, city, state or country. The minute you have to have someone come in and save you, You lose your right to decide on your future.

If I was the Governor, I would send one of the entities assigned an EFM through chapter 9 bankruptcy. The communities that are in trouble will be screaming for an EFM after they watch the fallout from a bankruptcy.

The choice is between a EFM appointed by the state and a receiver appointed by a federal judge. I personally think the EFM is the better route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313hero

NO IT'S NOT. Its a RIGHT to be an AMERICAN Issue. Its a RIGHT TO VOTE ISSUE. NOT Black Vs. White. Eventhough it only seems to be Black communities lossing their right to vote, govern etc. What if China told America we are going to appoint someone to run OUR country cause we so deep in debt. Would YOU let that Fly. Should it Fly??????????

---

China would not appoint someone to run OUR country because we were so deep in debt. They would appoint someone to run our country if we were so in debt to THEM and ALSO IF the way we were running our country caused them not to get paid.

This is the way the world works. If you lent $1,000 to a friend and you found out she was using to buy a 7-day cruise, you would eventually get pissed and say...ok, look, you owe me $1,000, and as long as you pay me back on schedule, I don't care what you do with the money.

But if you aren't paying me back on time and I find out you're using that money to do other less important things, then OF COURSE you're going to want to control her spending.

That's the way the business world works. It's the way the political world works. It's the way human nature works.

If you don't want the Chinese taking over, you have two choices: Pay them back on time or Don't borrow money from them.

LMAO too funny

So if someone lends me $1000 and I cant/dont pay it back they should have the right to choose who in charge of my household??? they have the right to take away my wife and appoint me a new one??? they have those rights??? So If America Misses a payment to China they have the right to appoint us a new President. Is that what you guys are saying??? I hope yall dont truly believe that. Well seeing how yall treat KK yall probably do. WOW. Is that why we invading all of these other countries cause they owe us money??? or is because WE want EVERYBODY to be governed the way we are??? We want to spread "Freedom" buy actually taking away the freedoms of other Nations. In a Free world those countries should be "free" to have dictatorships. Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Municipal bankruptcies are not preferred to EFM or a consent agreement. Removing the other two options via petition will assure that a whole lot of stuff will be out of the hands of Detroiters. Get used to it.

I find it funny that there's a rebellion against EFMs. The EFMs are actually a tool of the government to try and find a way of avoiding the real pain of bankruptcy.

It would frankly be much better for all of us if we just let the bankrupt municipalities go through bankruptcy. The deep pain involved might actually change municipal government for the better.

Under the EFM, there'll just be a little pain, and then mostly back to business.

I don't want to shield the corrupt [[Detroit) and greedy [[contractors and unions) and stupid [[Allen Park) from their bad financial decisions. Let them live with the results of raping their cities.

No, you don't get it - you are hung up on the US/China thing.

Notice I said, "...particularly commercial real estate." It happens is business every day. It pays to understand the terms and conditions you agreed to when you signed that loan, mortgage or note.

You've never heard of a court appointed receiver??

Seriously???

This whole China-chooses-your-own wife thing is pretty hilarious.

Look, let's be simple about this.

Let's say you're a plumber for the City of Quahog. You get paid $1,000 per week. Quahog misses 3 consecutive paychecks. You're pissed. Not to mention, you're f-ing broke.

So then you find out that Quahog didn't pay you because they were too busy paying for the Mayor to go on 2-week vacations to Tahiti.

At some point, you're gonna say...LISTEN...you OWE me money for STUFF I ALREADY DID.

Since you don't like the EFM solution and don't like a court-appointed receiver making the decisions, what is your solution? How are you gonna make sure you get paid? And seriously, how would forcing the Mayor to marry your Chinese bride help you get paid any more?

Admittedly I'm not as informed of all the ins and outs of the EFM law as I would like to be. That being said......

I've never heard it mentioned, is there any type of long term fiduciary resposibility associated with appointing an EFM? So what happens after the EFM [[sent by our pro-business, outsourcing, charter loving Governor) comes in cancels contracts and sells off all desireable assets of the community in question? The municipality may have enough money from the selling of assets to sustain itself for another couple years, but what about after that? Does the state now assume responsiblity for paying that city's bills? Will they maintain the infrastructure in that city? Will they assure the retirees still get paid? Because more than likely the EFM's slash and burn policies to reduce the bills will render the city to be less desireable to future residents or businesses.

Or is this just a way to legally raid a sickly community? To allow the buzzards to come in for an easy meal and pick the last of the flesh from the dying carcass?

Ok, I've got to chime in here. The current EFM statute actually provides GREATER authority to an EFM than a bankruptcy judge or trustee would have over a municipality in a Ch 9 proceeding. Case in point, a trustee in ch 9 cannot sell off city assets in order to satisfy municipal debt, an EFM can [[remember the Pontiac Silver Dome). The problem with Ch 9 is that there is a great deal of uncertainty over Ch 9 as there have been relatively few cases under it [[the largest I think was debt of ~$5B in AL, very recently), and there is additional potential fallout on the state and/or other local governments if the largest municipality in a state cannot fund its obligations.

The whole US-China thing is completely asinine. If the US cannot pay the portion of its debt owned to China [[currently $2T of the total national debt of ~14 or 15T), then the result would likely be a civil suit in US Court, diplomacy, or war. There is no provision for a foreign country to take over another in the event of a debt default, because, at the end of the day, who would enforce it? US Courts interpret US and international [[based on treaties, etc) law, and it is enforced by executive branch [[FBI, etc). The only judicial body that would enforce a default on Treasury debt would likely be a US Court, but you then get into a variety of other legal issues, such as governmental immunity, etc. It is all very hypothetical because it has never happened and likely never will. In the event we cannot pay with the money we have, we will print more [[unless of course, we have a political issue with the debt ceiling authority).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by townonenorth

Municipal bankruptcies are not preferred to EFM or a consent agreement. Removing the other two options via petition will assure that a whole lot of stuff will be out of the hands of Detroiters. Get used to it.

---

This isn't going to get rid of EFMs entirely. What it will do is roll back Snyder's expansion of the EFMs' powers and reinstate the previous EFM provision. From the Freep article linked at the top of the thread:

Quote:

---

In a statement issued shortly after the petitions were submitted, Attorney General Bill Schuette said suspension of the 2011 law would revive an earlier emergency manager law which was repealed by the new statute. “Pending the outcome of the referendum vote in November…the previous state law governing emergency financial managers…will govern in the interim,” Schuette said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevgoblue

Admittedly I'm not as informed of all the ins and outs of the EFM law as I would like to be. That being said......

I've never heard it mentioned, is there any type of long term fiduciary resposibility associated with appointing an EFM? So what happens after the EFM [[sent by our pro-business, outsourcing, charter loving Governor) comes in cancels contracts and sells off all desireable assets of the community in question? The municipality may have enough money from the selling of assets to sustain itself for another couple years, but what about after that? Does the state now assume responsiblity for paying that city's bills? Will they maintain the infrastructure in that city? Will they assure the retirees still get paid? Because more than likely the EFM's slash and burn policies to reduce the bills will render the city to be less desireable to future residents or businesses.

Or is this just a way to legally raid a sickly community? To allow the buzzards to come in for an easy meal and pick the last of the flesh from the dying carcass?

---

From a business standpoint, understanding that it doesn't exactly follow when dealing with a municipality, the process of restructuring generally involves eliminating the shackles of mounting and accumulating debt while doing everything you can to stabilize and increase revenues.

So I don't think the city is going to default it's pensioners. But it does beg the question, why the didn't we stop offering the pension benefits to new hires 10-15 years ago like everyone else? At minimum, we need to stop that right now for the new hires because every year we keep it going is just making the problem worse.

The city needs to consolidate, consolidate, consolidate. Which policy do you think attracts more residents, one which charges 3.5% income tax but collects less than half of it? Or one which charges 1.25% income tax but collects all of it?

If you were running a company, would you rather have 6 sales reps costing $100,000 per year? Or 6 sales reps that you paid a $40,000 salary plus commissions that could get them to $100,000 per year? We have way too much excess capacity in our processes and not enough lean operation.

So at this point even if an EFM "sold everything" but then eliminated our debts, then that's f-ing awesome. It's so much easier to start all over with a blank slate and build from there, rather than walk into battle with an 90lb. elephant around your neck weighing you down.

If there were a way to appoint an EFM that wouldn't be giving the finger to the democratic process, I'd be more willing to accept it. If it came with actual state assistance to maintain vital services, it would be more palatable. When we see an EFM getting rid of a city's vital services, as was done in Pontiac, we can't see any benefit to the citizens of the city. When one is proposed for a city like Detroit which has a mountain of valuable assets, and when the past behavior of other EFMs is known, it seems like an invasion aimed at controlling those assets, especially when the suburban leaders are known to have been drooling over that idea for decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb336

If there were a way to appoint an EFM that wouldn't be giving the finger to the democratic process, I'd be more willing to accept it. If it came with actual state assistance to maintain vital services, it would be more palatable. When we see an EFM getting rid of a city's vital services, as was done in Pontiac, we can't see any benefit to the citizens of the city. When one is proposed for a city like Detroit which has a mountain of valuable assets, and when the past behavior of other EFMs is known, it seems like an invasion aimed at controlling those assets, especially when the suburban leaders are known to have been drooling over that idea for decades.

---

I would have no objection at "electing" our EFM and giving him a 12-month period to straighten out the finances. But even that has problems, because the people who have the money [[or who are owed the most) will spend some coin to finance "their guy".

I think the best way to avoid the EFM is to pay our bills. We find a way to do that, and then this whole EFM thing won't even be on the table. Somehow, I feel like that's been forgotten in all of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

I would have no objection at "electing" our EFM and giving him a 12-month period to straighten out the finances. But even that has problems, because the people who have the money [[or who are owed the most) will spend some coin to finance "their guy".

---

Quote:

---

I think the best way to avoid the EFM is to pay our bills. We find a way to do that, and then this whole EFM thing won't even be on the table. Somehow, I feel like that's been forgotten in all of this.

---

The problem goes way deeper than that -- it's a whole restructuring of the city that is needed. Too much area for too few people. structural problems. It's a daunting task, and only serious reinvestment in the city will permanently fix it. That means bringing more jobs to the city and turning around the population decline, broadening the tax base. We've had a serious reinvestment in the schools - $500 million to renovate and build new buildings. Parents need to get on board to make sure their kids stay in school and WORK at learning. That's a decent start

Since we're talking about paying our bills that we owe, we can start with the state paying the money it owes Detroit:

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...CS02/201040375

I believe the $220 million owed would cover the debt... After that, let's talk about the state and the city coming up with solutions together that attack the legacy debts and that doesn't usurp the democratic voting process.

Yeah, let's keep resisting, keep fighting the EFM thing. The folks currently running things are doing a fucking swell job and certainly shouldn't be subjected to interference of any sort. Yay team. Rah. Rah.

I really do hope that the State isn't stupid enough to give Detroit $220 million dollars without Detroit demonstrating their ability to make good and sustainable use of that money. We've already seen reports that the DHS in Detroit was unable to spend money fast enough and may have to return it. That really makes me laugh though; who would've thought that the government would have problems spending money? That is the most bass-ackwards thing I've ever heard of.

It really saddens me that the possibility of bankruptcy does not register at all with Detroiters. Maybe when the money really runs out and bankruptcy is the only way out, Detroiters will realize how harsh creditors can be.

For me, being a Detroiter is almost embarassing. When I see how my leaders are unable to come to even basic agreements without pointless arguments, it really shows the sad state of what we have to call 'leadership'. I couldn't vote in the previous elections [[I was only 17 at the time), but best believe I will NEVER vote for any of those clowns in city office. They need to go, and go fast! I have nearly given up on Detroit; I wanted to help out and bring my city to glory, but Madison Heights and Southfield are looking really good after I graduate :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

If you don't want the Chinese taking over, you have two choices: Pay them back on time or Don't borrow money from them.

---

One big difference with China as the lender and the US as the borrower. If the lender makes too big of a stink about it, the US just pays them off. The debt is denominated in dollars and the US owns the printing press. If the debt was denominated in euros or in gold, there might be a bigger problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb336

If there were a way to appoint an EFM that wouldn't be giving the finger to the democratic process, I'd be more willing to accept it.

---

It is the democratic process. The people of Michigan elected the governor and the legislature [[last time I looked, Detroiters were able to vote for that). Now the democratically-elected government of the State of Michigan has a prblem on its hands which it needs to clean up. That is what the EFM is for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schoolcraft

Since we're talking about paying our bills that we owe, we can start with the state paying the money it owes Detroit:

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...CS02/201040375

I believe the $220 million owed would cover the debt... After that, let's talk about the state and the city coming up with solutions together that attack the legacy debts and that doesn't usurp the democratic voting process.

---

Detroit's debt is as much as $20 billion dollars.

That $220 million dollars would keep the city running for maybe 3-6 additional months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

One big difference with China as the lender and the US as the borrower. If the lender makes too big of a stink about it, the US just pays them off. The debt is denominated in dollars and the US owns the printing press. If the debt was denominated in euros or in gold, there might be a bigger problem.

---

I know what you mean by this. A few econ buddies of mine were toying around with the idea of what would happen if Detroit began running its own currency...like the Confederates did during the Civil War. We arrived at three conclusions:

[[1) We'd be able to pay all our debts, because they'd be denominated in Detroit Dollars. No EFM or bankruptcy necessary.

[[2) Detroiters would experience hyper-inflation because using the printing press to pay debt also results in deflating the Detroit Dollar.

[[3) All our expatriated pensioners who live out of the city and out of the state would be more likely to spend money back into the city. Much of our problem is that for ever $1.00 we spend on pensions and expenses, only a fraction actually ends up back into the local Detroit [[or even Michigan) economy.

So yeah, I see your point. That's why I'm not worried about the Chinese empire forcing me to choose my own bride :) Hyper-inflation, however...it's a possibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

It is the democratic process. The people of Michigan elected the governor and the legislature [[last time I looked, Detroiters were able to vote for that). Now the democratically-elected government of the State of Michigan has a prblem on its hands which it needs to clean up. That is what the EFM is for.

---

so one elected body has the right to usurp the rights of another elected body? that is the stupidest "logic" I've yet heard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb336

so one elected body has the right to usurp the rights of another elected body? that is the stupidest "logic" I've yet heard

---

Yes, law at a higher level of gummint overrides law at a lower level. Remember how the Federal Civil Rights Act overrode the segregation laws of the southern states?

In addition, cities and counties are not sovereign. They are instumentalities of the state operating under a state charter. I would assume that gives the state the right to revoke the charter of a non-performing entity.

Yep, the debt being higher than anticipated is no surprise really. Under the Kilpatrick admin it was hidden, attention diverted, audits left undone as the corruption reached critical mass. Chickens firmly home to roost now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313WX

Detroit's debt is as much as $20 billion dollars.

That $220 million dollars would keep the city running for maybe 3-6 additional months.

---

The $20 billion doesn't mean much without some context. A big piece of that is Detroit Water and Sewer which means the debt is an obligation of the ratepayers in the city and suburbs, not the city. Much of that "debt" isn't debt at all but future obligations for pensions, etc. While there is a concern about paying those long-term, those have less of an impact on current payments. Also, it's not as is Detroit isn't paying off its current debts. Debt payments are a significant part of the city's budget and those payments will continue to be made even if the city runs out of money for other needs. It's not as if the city needs to come up with the money today to pay off that $20 billion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novine

The $20 billion doesn't mean much without some context. A big piece of that is Detroit Water and Sewer which means the debt is an obligation of the ratepayers in the city and suburbs, not the city. Much of that "debt" isn't debt at all but future obligations for pensions, etc. While there is a concern about paying those long-term, those have less of an impact on current payments. Also, it's not as is Detroit isn't paying off its current debts. Debt payments are a significant part of the city's budget and those payments will continue to be made even if the city runs out of money for other needs. It's not as if the city needs to come up with the money today to pay off that $20 billion.

---

Thanks for the clarification. I was wondering what that $20b represented. Clearly, debt is OK to carry -- especially if its in service of productive use. I trust that the water board debt is to build infrastructure. If that's the case, this is no different than any other city -- actually, its a sign of economic health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Thanks for the clarification. I was wondering what that $20b represented. Clearly, debt is OK to carry -- especially if its in service of productive use. I trust that the water board debt is to build infrastructure. If that's the case, this is no different than any other city -- actually, its a sign of economic health.

---

Agreed. I really would like to see the DSWD debt on its own set of books and separate them from the City of Detroit balance sheet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

Yes, law at a higher level of gummint overrides law at a lower level. Remember how the Federal Civil Rights Act overrode the segregation laws of the southern states?

In addition, cities and counties are not sovereign. They are instumentalities of the state operating under a state charter. I would assume that gives the state the right to revoke the charter of a non-performing entity.

---

I looked at the 1963 constitution, and find no such provision for revoking the charter of a city, although the EFM is mentioned. Earlier manifestations of the EFM just didn't seem as extreme as Snyder's, which, until recent court cases, have acted in a star chamber fashion

Last week's Michigannow story on EFM legal situation.

http://www.michigannow.org/2012/03/0...call-petition/

The Benton Harbor paintings are deep.

Whirlpool got newly elected state rep Al Pscholka, who's been on one of their boards, to push the law that allowed them to takeover Benton Harbor. Al's last job was as local chief of staff to Fred Upton, grandson of Whirlpool.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”. Benito Mussolini quote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novine

The $20 billion doesn't mean much without some context. A big piece of that is Detroit Water and Sewer which means the debt is an obligation of the ratepayers in the city and suburbs, not the city. Much of that "debt" isn't debt at all but future obligations for pensions, etc. While there is a concern about paying those long-term, those have less of an impact on current payments. Also, it's not as is Detroit isn't paying off its current debts. Debt payments are a significant part of the city's budget and those payments will continue to be made even if the city runs out of money for other needs. It's not as if the city needs to come up with the money today to pay off that $20 billion.

---

Now we're working with some common sense! The news went from dismissing the screams and cries that the state owed the city money to news reports of "well Detroit's REAL debt will be 20 BILLION by the year 2036!" when the treasurer admitted Detroit was owed $220 million. Way to scare everybody chicken little. It's possible to work this debt off without state intervention, but there needs to be new ideas and a new mayor. I'll gladly vote for one of the people the governor has in mind for EM for mayor if they want to run.

That state of Michigan doesn't need an emergency manager operationg like a dictatorship. The United States Constitution operates in a "Checks and Balances" governing system so there would no other government or leader having too much power over other governments and the people. The EM dictatoship law must be appealed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny

That state of Michigan doesn't need an emergency manager operationg like a dictatorship. The United States Constitution operates in a "Checks and Balances" governing system so there would no other government or leader having too much power over other governments and the people. The EM dictatoship law must be appealed.

---

So Danny -- is it really just the dictatorship? Would you be OK with it if Jenny was appointing the dictator? How about if Barack Obama himself were doing the appointing?

And what would you do with a city that spends more than it takes in? Who would you make pay for their paychecks? Would you be willing to increase your personal taxes 20% to keep Detroit afloat?

Do you think bankruptcy for cities is a more equitable approach?

No one wants a dictator to clean up financial messes -- but unless you provide some answers to those types of questions, your resistance is pointless.

So provide an alternative -- not just a roadblock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

I would have no objection at "electing" our EFM

---

Yeah, we've seen how 'electing' leaders in Detroit works out.

I'm still puzzled how in America one leader can appoint another leader and remove all the voting rights from the citizens, and the citizens don't even get to chose this appointed figure, and the appointed person doesn't even have to answer to the citizens. To think, all this time we have been fighting in the Middle East in the name of freedom and democracy, all we had to do was name a financial manager for the Middle East.

I'm still puzzled how in America one leader can appoint another leader and remove all the voting rights from the citizens, and the citizens don't even get to chose this appointed figure, and the appointed person doesn't even have to answer to the citizens.

You must not be getting it. No one is removing voting rights of anyone. The people voted for the representatives who passed the law. The people voted for the Governor who is working within the law. The people voted for the Supreme Court Justices who ruled on the law, and in many cases the lower court judges also.

This is how the system works in America. The people vote for government leaders to represent them. When some elected officials become corrupt or ineffective, they can be removed or over ruled by other elected officials.

This law is part of the process of checks and balances that is the very core of government in the U.S.


If you don't like how an elected official is performing, you have the right to vote against them at the next election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313hero

So If America Misses a payment to China they have the right to appoint us a new President. Is that what you guys are saying???

---

China has a wee bit of a problem here. The loan is denominated in US dollars and the president owns the printing press. He can quickly print up a stack of billion dollar bills and pay off China. That is why China cannot pressure us because of our debt. Of course in any new borrowing, China would demand the debt be denominated in gold, Swiss Francs, or some other hard asset.

YAY!

I'm definitely voting YES, YES, YES to appeal Public Act IV [[as known as the EM Dictator Act!). Detroit and rest of Michigan don't have to rely of emergency managers to solve its money crunch. The law is unconstitutional for government checks and balances. Snyder, you nerd! If you want to reinvent this state consectrate global jobs here. Let Detroit and the rest of its cities solve their money problems on their own.

Hah! As I've said before we take our medicine better when the dems put out the spoon. That's going to have to change as we see the repubs usually instill a bigger dose when it's their turn. We need to see what's coming and course correct earlier.

Though the EFM/ DPS debacle made even the most 'die-hard' dems take notice. Recall the teachers and their unions attempts at push-back [[withstanding the level of closed agreements), the protests and marches. There were even a few marches to Lansing when it was Granholm's house. Imagine that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

So Danny -- is it really just the dictatorship? Would you be OK with it if Jenny was appointing the dictator? How about if Barack Obama himself were doing the appointing?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny

YAY!

I'm definitely voting YES, YES, YES

---

So you enjoy corrupt city officials?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

I'm still puzzled how in America one leader can appoint another leader and remove all the voting rights from the citizens, and the citizens don't even get to chose this appointed figure, and the appointed person doesn't even have to answer to the citizens.

You must not be getting it. No one is removing voting rights of anyone. The people voted for the representatives who passed the law. The people voted for the Governor who is working within the law. The people voted for the Supreme Court Justices who ruled on the law, and in many cases the lower court judges also.

This is how the system works in America. The people vote for government leaders to represent them. When some elected officials become corrupt or ineffective, they can be removed or over ruled by other elected officials.

This law is part of the process of checks and balances that is the very core of government in the U.S.


If you don't like how an elected official is performing, you have the right to vote against them at the next election.

---

I don't have the right to vote in the person governing my city anymore. This person has the ability to raise my taxes, sell city assets without any vote or input by the citizens. By the same token, Obama can just appoint a financial manager to all 50 states. They can all be his cronies. We elected him so he should have this authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shollin

I don't have the right to vote in the person governing my city anymore.

---

Sure you do. But if the person you vote for doesn't perform properly, they should be able to be removed before they do further damage.


And if you haven't noticed, other elected officials have been removed from office or overridden many times in the past throughout the country. Some have even been arrested while in office.

Just because someone is elected doesn't mean they can do whatever they want if it isn't in the best interests of the people, nor does it guarantee they will remain in office until the next election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

So you enjoy corrupt city officials?

---

Last time I checked, Detroit isn't the ONLY city in the US that suffers from corruption. What makes Detroit and Wayne County different, is the officials that were corrupt did a poor job of covering their tracks. Detroit got caught faster than most.

I doubt it has any impact on Detroit's CA [[today's decision).

Precisely! Detroit's corruption has tended to be more sloppy and open. As though no one was looking or would ever look or check. Stuff laying out on the table... literally, bold and in your face.

When the economy tanked, and the tax base eroded to crisis levels, the revenues, costs, budgets came under scrutiny. From that missing moneys, diversions and corruption in general was very easy to uncover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid

Last time I checked, Detroit isn't the ONLY city in the US that suffers from corruption. What makes Detroit and Wayne County different, is the officials that were corrupt did a poor job of covering their tracks. Detroit got caught faster than most.

---

Does anyone know who actually 'approves' union contracts w/ municipalities. Are they signed by an elected official?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

Sure you do. But if the person you vote for doesn't perform properly, they should be able to be removed before they do further damage.


And if you haven't noticed, other elected officials have been removed from office or overridden many times in the past throughout the country. Some have even been arrested while in office.

Just because someone is elected doesn't mean they can do whatever they want if it isn't in the best interests of the people, nor does it guarantee they will remain in office until the next election.

---

Who decides what's "in the best interests of the people," if not the people themselves? It's not like there is some universally agreed-upon standard for governing in the best interests of the people. The way democracy works is that the people themselves have the right to decide who is governing in their best interests. In other political systems, an individual or small group of elites make decisions on behalf of the people and use their own judgment to determine what's in the people's best interests, and if you believe in that sort of system that's fine, but here in America we haven't officially had a system like that in about 236 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

So you enjoy corrupt city officials?

---

The EM law isn't intended or promoted as a solution to municipal corruption. What gets you an EM is being poor, not corrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antongast

What gets you an EM is being poor, not corrupt.

---

And corrupt gets you poor. If a power play is necessary to stop corrupt before poor, so be it.

Our Metro Detroit family of communities as a whole has successfully walled-off the vast majority of the region's poor, disabled, felons and ex-felons into a handful of communities.

Such citizens cannot pay taxes and those communities therefore cannot generate enough revenues to maintain services, thwart crime and maintain their infrastructure. On top of that they are penalized with higher insurance rates, blight, crime and poor services and schools. This continually drives out the remaining middle classes, which cuts property values, therefore tax revenue and down and down goes the spiral.

No EMF can fix this from within these communities. The money just isn't there and can't be there. If they shut down or reduce public safety and other services for some temporary 'fiscal stability' they are merely applying bandages and worsening the long term problems.

If these communities are going to be expected to remain as prisons for the metro region's problems, then they need serious state and regional aid combined with lower taxes and lower insurance rates than the rest of the region, not be punished by some non-elected slash-and-fly-away EFM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

And corrupt gets you poor. If a power play is necessary to stop corrupt before poor, so be it.

---

Okay, but that is not how the EM law works. If you want to debate the merits of a fictional/hypothetical law that works that way, start a separate thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

No EMF can fix this from within these communities.

---

That's why you do it from outside the community --- from the State level, where they can look at the 'bigger picture'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

That's why you do it from outside the community --- from the State level, where they can look at the 'bigger picture'.

---

That begs the question. The state arbitrarily puts an EFM within the community who reflects the state's wishes first, above the community's.

The State's 'bigger picture' is failing to understand or address the core issues at the basis of the revenue problems -- the blunt fact that there are not enough tax-generating citizens within the community and too many tax-consuming citizens instead. No state-appointed EFM can fix that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Does anyone know who actually 'approves' union contracts w/ municipalities. Are they signed by an elected official?

---

If you have a "council-manager" type government, the unelected manager does.

If you have a "strong mayor" type government like Detroit, the mayor does.

Depending on the local government, the council/commissioners may or may not have to approve it before it is signed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

That begs the question. The state arbitrarily puts an EFM within the community who reflects the state's wishes first, above the community's.

The State's 'bigger picture' is failing to understand or address the core issues at the basis of the revenue problems -- the blunt fact that there are not enough tax-generating citizens within the community and too many tax-consuming citizens instead. No state-appointed EFM can fix that.

---

First of all, Lowell, thanks for your always-thoughtful commentary. Your solution in the previous post [[state aid) unfortunately does not hold water; not that it's not part of any reasonable solution, just that it is not going to happen. There is no appetite in the suburban and outstate communities to provide monetary support to the historic cities of this state.

The difficulty we have here is twofold. First of all, Detroit in particular has a long and proud history of squandering whatever money it has. The intentional misspending, misdirection and even nonspending of targeted money over the decades has completely soured the rest of the state on the idea of helping Detroit with money. Giving a sledgehammer to a toddler once might be a forgivable mistake; giving a sledgehammer to a toddler repeatedly is insane.

Second, our bizarre "home rule" constitution has made southeast Michigan in particular sort of a copy of Germany or Italy in the early 1800s: a huge mishmash of a large number of parochial entities that won't ever work together in any meaningful way. The paragraph above gives a good reason why politicians in Grand Rapids, Marquette and Okemos aren't interested in helping Detroit; home rule explains why Dearborn and Madison Heights aren't any more interested.

To fix Michigan's cities we first must be able to establish some kind of meaningfully controlling regional government. It doesn't have to control everything, but it does have to control at least some things, so that resources can be allocated based on a combination of availability and need, rather than just availability [[as is done now). If you want some examples how it could work, take the Metro Parks model and apply it to Public Transportation or road maintenance, just for example.

But so long as our State's constitution automatically makes Detroit and Ferndale compete against each other every single day, we can never solve our essential problems. Our constitution is the rope we've voluntarily put around our own necks, and now we're astonished that it's hard to breathe.

I am so glad this is up for a vote. This law absolutely needs to go. These managers don't even get assigned a time frame. They can remain as dictator indefinitely. One EM even came out recently and said it does not work. What's to stop Snyder from just appointing business buddies with their own corruption and self interest as one of these emergency dictators? They then have freedom to bust contracts, raise taxes, and sell off whatever they want to the lowest bidder. Who would have ever though Republicans would be the biggest government socialists Michigan has ever seen? This is some Soviet Union style shit.

Because of the size of Detroit, State Aid would be a disaster for Michigan taxpayers. Dependency has an insatiable appetite for other people's money. Once started it is never taken back because it becomes "a right" and it knows no limits on its wants. It would attract new tax-consuming citizens to the City and add to the problem.The only way forward to save Michigan is EMF/bankruptcy for Detroit.

When the cities are forced into bankruptcy these union folks are going find they are going to get a much worse deal than from the EM. So much for home rule. Maybe they can get the Michigan constitution changed to shut down the bankruptcy law. Yea that's the ticket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

So you enjoy corrupt city officials?

---

No! you misunderstood my codespeak. If you want to get rid of your corrupt city leaders, make a protest and make a petition for a recall. Otherwise vote him or her out. It's simple democracy in America. The Public Act IV is unconstitutional. The Michigan Supreme Court said so by looking at its judical review and the Amendments of IX, X and Article III of the Michigan State Constitution. You can not have a EM overseeing, hire or fire any public city government official. Doesn't matter if that official is good or bad. If any city in U.S. is facing financial crisis, that city government official must apply for bankrupcty protection to have some supreme court judge from out of state or hire just a emergency manager to oversee financial cutbacks. The Public Act IV is form of almost goverment dictatorship when city government or county officials in Michigan will not have full power to oversee public works. It's having Hitler, Stalin, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussien and Pol Pot running Detroit like an iron fist; oppressing its people until they die. Please vote yes to appeal Public Act IV.

Whatever it takes.

I wouldn't care if they cut the city up into smaller pieces and made a bunch of smaller towns. Let the State or the Feds have the vacant areas for parks. EPA could SuperFund certain areas and handle the cleanup and restoration to greenspace.

The city as it was in the heyday decades is dead, so we may as well surgically remove the gangreenous tissue and bury it.

I have a strong feeling that 70% of Michiganders will vote yes to appeal Public Act IV because all Michigan cities don't some EM dictator running government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meddle

Whatever it takes.

I wouldn't care if they cut the city up into smaller pieces and made a bunch of smaller towns. Let the State or the Feds have the vacant areas for parks. EPA could SuperFund certain areas and handle the cleanup and restoration to greenspace.

The city as it was in the heyday decades is dead, so we may as well surgically remove the gangreenous tissue and bury it.

---

I'm just about at the point where I'll be perfectly fine with that, and instead I'll just move on to a different city and state.

Have at it folks!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noggin

When the cities are forced into bankruptcy these union folks are going find they are going to get a much worse deal than from the EM. So much for home rule. Maybe they can get the Michigan constitution changed to shut down the bankruptcy law. Yea that's the ticket.

---

The Michigan legisture will not end the old bankruptcy law! Folks and political city and counity gov't officials been borrowing cash to either pay its debt or keep its public services and utilities on. If they can't pay, they can't borrow, their credit rating drops and go to bankruptcy. And hope for the better when city-county gov't officials or any citizens clear their debts towards society. You can't borrow money if you can't pay it off in time. Just like the Bible "If anyone borrows money and can't pay it off, then its stealing!"

I don't buy the corruption excuse. The whole EFM debacle is just another naked example of disaster capitalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny

I have a strong feeling that 70% of Michiganders will vote yes to appeal Public Act IV because all Michigan cities don't some EM dictator running government.

---

You're probably right. The anti-EFM crowd has attached themselves to the idea that this is a 'dictatorship'. Its a brilliant political move. Quite misleading. A lot of government is indirect and run by the unelected. So what.

This whole anti-EFM is just part of a political game, and those against don't realize they're pawns of another 1% -- the current dysfunctional administrations and labor who seek to protect their status quo at all costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

You're probably right. The anti-EFM crowd has attached themselves to the idea that this is a 'dictatorship'. Its a brilliant political move. Quite misleading. A lot of government is indirect and run by the unelected. So what.

This whole anti-EFM is just part of a political game, and those against don't realize they're pawns of another 1% -- the current dysfunctional administrations and labor who seek to protect their status quo at all costs.

---

The EFM wasn't a dictatorship. People were perfectly fine with PA 72, which all states have some form of.

However, the EM had powers not even the federal government has, and that's what makes it a dictatorship. A Federal Bankruptcy judge can't toss out elected official for whatever reason [[despite being the supreme level of government) without legal due process, nor they can sell off municipal assets without the approval of the government's leaders and its citizens, nor can they impose contracts on unions if they don't like collectively bargaining with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313WX

The EFM wasn't a dictatorship. People were perfectly fine with PA 72, which all states have some form of.

However, the EM had powers not even the federal government has, and that's what makes it a dictatorship. A Federal Bankruptcy judge can't toss out elected official for whatever reason [[despite being the supreme level of government) without legal due process, nor they can sell off municipal assets without the approval of the government's leaders and its citizens, nor can they impose contracts on unions if they don't like collectively bargaining with them.

---

An EM doesn't have to remove the city officials. He merely has to take the city checkbook out of their hands. They can continue to meet and pass city ordinances. They just don't have the power of the city fisc.

Of course, the EM can fire their staffs, take away their city cars, drivers, and security, and move them to less palatial office space. He could also change their compensation to $50.00 per council meeting. He is not removing them from office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

First of all, Lowell, thanks for your always-thoughtful commentary. Your solution in the previous post [[state aid) unfortunately does not hold water; not that it's not part of any reasonable solution, just that it is not going to happen. There is no appetite in the suburban and outstate communities to provide monetary support to the historic cities of this state.

The difficulty we have here is twofold. First of all, Detroit in particular has a long and proud history of squandering whatever money it has. The intentional misspending, misdirection and even nonspending of targeted money over the decades has completely soured the rest of the state on the idea of helping Detroit with money. Giving a sledgehammer to a toddler once might be a forgivable mistake; giving a sledgehammer to a toddler repeatedly is insane.

Second, our bizarre "home rule" constitution has made southeast Michigan in particular sort of a copy of Germany or Italy in the early 1800s: a huge mishmash of a large number of parochial entities that won't ever work together in any meaningful way. The paragraph above gives a good reason why politicians in Grand Rapids, Marquette and Okemos aren't interested in helping Detroit; home rule explains why Dearborn and Madison Heights aren't any more interested.

To fix Michigan's cities we first must be able to establish some kind of meaningfully controlling regional government. It doesn't have to control everything, but it does have to control at least some things, so that resources can be allocated based on a combination of availability and need, rather than just availability [[as is done now). If you want some examples how it could work, take the Metro Parks model and apply it to Public Transportation or road maintenance, just for example.

But so long as our State's constitution automatically makes Detroit and Ferndale compete against each other every single day, we can never solve our essential problems. Our constitution is the rope we've voluntarily put around our own necks, and now we're astonished that it's hard to breathe.

---

Very well put.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

An EM doesn't have to remove the city officials. He merely has to take the city checkbook out of their hands. They can continue to meet and pass city ordinances. They just don't have the power of the city fisc.

---

The point is, the EM had the power to do so if they felt it was necessary.
Not even the Federal Government/Federal Bankruptcy judge has that power.

As far as taking the checkbook out of the city official's hands, isn't that what the EFM was supposed to do? If the fiscal problems were too deep for the EFM to handle, as broke or not the law still applies, that's what Chapter 9 Bankruptcy was put in place for by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313WX

The EFM wasn't a dictatorship. People were perfectly fine with PA 72, which all states have some form of.

However, the EM had powers not even the federal government has, and that's what makes it a dictatorship. A Federal Bankruptcy judge can't toss out elected official for whatever reason [[despite being the supreme level of government) without legal due process, nor they can sell off municipal assets without the approval of the government's leaders and its citizens, nor can they impose contracts on unions if they don't like collectively bargaining with them.

---

One essential distinction between a 'dictator' and an EFM is that they cannot perpetuate their own position. In fact, their position is designed to be eliminated if:

1) The elected official who appoints them so desires,

2) The public changes the law,

3) The city has enough money to pay money to those to whom it has promised.

Thus, I think the term 'dictator' is misleading and pejorative. Real 'dictators' are not subject to the whims of elected officials and voters [[at the state level) to continue in their position.

Dont' forget, the best way to avoid a 'dictatorial' EFM is to avoid getting into a financial emergency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

One essential distinction between a 'dictator' and an EFM is that they cannot perpetuate their own position. In fact, their position is designed to be eliminated if:

1) The elected official who appoints them so desires,

2) The public changes the law,

3) The city has enough money to pay money to those to whom it has promised.

Thus, I think the term 'dictator' is misleading and pejorative. Real 'dictators' are not subject to the whims of elected officials and voters [[at the state level) to continue in their position.

Dont' forget, the best way to avoid a 'dictatorial' EFM is to avoid getting into a financial emergency.

---

Sometimes the EFM can do that! Look what happen to Benton Harbor, MI. Laws can get sleepy that its corrupted.