http://www.freep.com/article/2013052...bankruptcy-art
It's kind of funny seeing the reaction from folks across Michigan now that he's made this announcement. Surely everyone besides the so-called rabble rousers at the City Council meetings saw this coming when they insisted Detroit get an EM.
This may actually open the door to a type of regional merger since these so-called assets must remain in the public domain. The metropolitan fiber may be in a nascent stage with this looming threat.
Where's that goofy "leverage the value of the DIA's collection" guy when you need him?
Kevyn Orr would go down as the greatest scrapper in Detroit history if he allowed that to happen. If he wants to get attention, he has squarely hit the donkey between the eyes with a 2 by 4.
I can hear this argument arising.
Hey I'm a little guy homeowner in Detroit, I've seen my city services and home value decline, crime go on unabated and my insurance rise. We've paid all we can and we have to take care of all the poor people who can't afford to live anywhere else in the metro. Why not sell something that is primarily used by people from elsewhere in the metro?
What's wrong with that argument?
Maybe this will get to the real issue - metropolitan sharing -- of the good and the bad.
Yeah, those crazy, 'fickle' creditors.....wanting to be paid back the money they loaned and everything. How rude.
If you're going to go BK, you don't get to keep the Ferrari and tell the bank to take a haircut. It's just not how it works.
Would it destroy the DIA? absolutely. No one would donate anything other than a paint by numbers their kid did... but that doesn't mean the asset is somehow beyond reach.
There is a gold mine of art there that rising museums, emerging third world billionaires and collections would love to have a shot at.
A bankruptcy sell off would be extremely complex and I notice the DIA has hired a bankruptcy lawyer to advise them. Al Taubman has chimed in with his opposition somewhat ironically describing such an event as a crime. But he is signaling that big money will oppose such a move. So Orr has their attention too.
Bear in mind that those bondholders are getting great rates on bonds due to the horrible ratings due to the city's finances.
I have issues with the belief that bondholders should not take a loss since they knowingly bought junk bonds. They are essentially saying we should get a higher rate due to risk but we really aren't willing to assume that risk
The title of this thread is misleading. He didn't threaten anything. He is considering it. Orr has to explore all options and be realistic about the situation, unlike all Detroit elected officials over the last fifty years. Let's all calm down. They haven't set up a yard sale out in front of the DIA and they aren't pulling art off the walls.
So why doesn't the city just transfer ownership of the collection to the DIA? Then it is out of the reach of creditors, n'est pas?
I can't see what business a city - let alone a bankrupt, godforsaken hellhole of a city run by fucking idiots - has owning a world-class art collection in the first place. It seems that the only purpose that serves is the danger of it getting sold off.
A la Vietnam, we had to burn the village in order to save it?
I brought this up in the other Orr thread and some of the responses were "Get real" and "Never gonna happen". The city can't claim to be flat broke and refuse to honor contracts and commitments when it's holding billions of dollars in artwork. The DIA holdings are going to be on the table sometime during this process, it's just a matter of when.
Detroit [[the region, not the City of) is not going to lose this artwork. It will be on the table, for sure, but it's not just a mattero when, but also a matter of how. Detroit, the city, may lose "ownership" of the art.
I have a feeling the scenario looks like this: The State [[or some other regional entity created with state backing) might have to end up purchasing the artwork from the City. The state [[with its credit rating) could issue some really long-term bonds paying pretty low interest using the artwork as collateral. The DIA museum might have to add the interest cost as "rent" that it pays to the entity. This interest cost would then result in higher operating expenses [[but not by too much). This extra expense might need to be made up via capital campaign, increased endowment, etc.
But I don't believe any of that art work is leaving the DIA when all the dust settles. Who "owns" it, and how that "ownership" is paid for will be an interesting question.
If this happened, Orr would be no better than a scrapper going into a house and stealing all the copper wiring. You might as well not have a city if you're going to go this route.
I do find that the most entertaining point in all of this.
I have no clue how the legalities of any of this work and not particularly interested [[law is boring as shit, that's why my sister is the lawyer). But it is interesting watching the commentary of so many who handwaved the disenfranchisment of city voters get their panties in a bunch over this.
But the thing is he wants to use the artwork to pay of the city already accrued, not use as negotiation for additional bonds [[or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying).
And couldn't the city do that on its own once the already accrued debt is restructured?
They are going to take a loss. It's not like a hypothetical sale of all the art would even come close to the outstanding obligations. I don't personally think it would ever happen because the city image would never recover and no person, foundation, or buisness would ever contribute a dime to any municiple entity again. I would imagine this is a warning shot across the bow of those that think a bankruptcy is a preferable option to working with the EFM. Orr is just letting everyone know what the nuclear option is going to look like.
I get that, just my concern is that people seem to discuss the bondholders like all bonds and bondholders are created equal which simply isn't the case.
I would hope that someone that holds junk status bonds wouldn't realistically expect to get the same amount as someone holding A rated bonds. That however is the impression I get. People involved in this process, the bondholders and media need to be clear that they bought junk rated bonds so they were assuming the high risk for a higher rate.
If that gets lost with the EM or a bk court then it would be a complete travesty. Bondholders, especially those buying junk bondds, should not be immune to taking a large hit.
Yeah, because the sale of some artwork would really sting Detroit's image. I'm sure that's what going to put the nail in the coffin, not the fact that Detroit has over 10k abandoned homes, averages a murder per day and has 4 out of the top 10 most violent neighborhoods in the U.S.
Most people outside of Detroit didn't give a shit that Detroit had to close fire and police stations, they didn't care that Detroiter's don't know if someone will show up when 911 is called and that people are dying because of it. They hardly cared about any of this, but God forbid someone even suggest that they may have to sell some city owned paintings that most of the Detroit's residents have never even seen or heard of before.
The ratings of the bonds has no legal impact on how much the bondholders are entitled to recover. Doesn't matter if they are AAA [[pristine) or CCC [[bad junk). What matters is what the bonds are secured by and what other obligations are senior to them. That in turn affects what rating the bonds may receive.
I'd have to disagree with that. Many people outside of Detroit or Michigan do care about what's happening there. Some of it stems from compassion, but a lot of it is also based on the fact that most people in this country know we're just a few steps behind Detroit.
We're all in this together and it's not a pretty picture.
Traditionally [[and as encoded by law) the procession of bankruptcy disbursements is as follows:
1 - Federal government - anything owed to the fed gets paid out first
2 - Secured debt holders - Mortgage holders, secured bonds, lease holders, etc...
3 - Unsecured debt holders - Unsecured bonds and loans with no collateral, account parables to suppliers, customers, etc...
4 - Everyone else - Stockholders, employees, etc...
I believe all municipal bonds are in the second category, as they are backed by "the full faith and credit" of the issuer.
As for being able to force the city to liquidate assets, I think the question is up in the air, as I don't think it's been raised in past municipal bankruptcies. Especially as, since the GM/Chrysler bailouts, the federal government can apparently ad-hoc tinker with the disbursement rules and, as long as a federal bankruptcy judge goes along with it, there isn't much you can do about it as a bondholder.
Of course you are totally right about how callous people are about the "situation" in Detroit.
But you know, now that a collection that was given or financed by the wealthiest families in the region for a hundred years seems to be close to the auction block, the moneyed people are looking at this very closely. Anybody that gives artworks to a museum signs a release with clear restrictions.
I cannot imagine the powerbrokers letting a bunch of Picassos their fathers bequeathed when a "good" Picasso can bring in 50 million. There is probably a lot more than 3 billion dollars worth of objects in the DIA. I was looking at the collection and Bruegel's the Wedding Dance alone will probably build you a hefty skyscraper nowadays.
I dont think the Youknighted States government would let a city's treasure chest of art ever be disseminated this way.
That said, yes, the city is in need of more security, more of everything, but that doesnt mean it needs to impoverish itself in this way. I'd find a way of chopping a coupla F35's from the Air Force grocery bill and solve that and other problems in Detroit.
A better idea would be to take all the taxpayer funds from the magic 3 mile choo-choo, and taxpayer funding for Illitch's newly proposed hockey stadium, put those on hold, and use the money to salvage Detroit? Then after a few hundred thousand people move into mid-town and start paying Detroit taxes, we'll pay off the debt, build up a reserve, then we can start funding fun projects. What do you think?
Folks in the Tri-County Area can get in free. But the DIA is selling art. PITIFUL!
I don't see it happening. Too many rich and powerful people are involved with the DIA.
I like to think Orr is playing the 'nuclear option' card here, and I agree that selling the city's art would be a last and very hard road to go down. However, this is a real threat, and we all need to do what ever we can to see that it is not realized.
Art may not seem as important as police in neighborhoods, but the museum and its collection have very significant economic benefits to the city and region, and they are key parts of the regional identity. If they go, we all might as well follow them to their new homes.
That was Coaccession.
It wasn't the easiest time to promote a new idea like that, right after Wall Street invented all those investments that crashed the global economy. People are understandably wary of financial inventions now.
If it does come down to the DIA holdings, IMO the above would probably be a best case resolution. I'm just not quite sure it would even be possible [[Politically or otherwise). It would be very difficult to put a value on everything, and unless everyone was made whole, I doubt those owed would happily go along with selling/transferring the works for anything less than market value.
Sounds like posturing. Everything that I've read says that a federal judge can't force the city to sell assets in bankruptcy. The city might choose to but that would put it back on Orr and Snyder, not a federal judge.
I expected apathy and indifference from Canada's neo-fascist Conservative government when it came to this country's struggling urban centers but for God's sake isn't the Obama administration a LITTLE more enlightened that the Tea Party government in Canada? After all, didn't 99% of the city's residents vote for him in 2008 and 2012? Where are the bold solutions that are needed to save cities like Detroit and Cleveland from the Republican parasites who think destroying America's old industrial cities will destroy the Democratic party?
I believe most of the donations are "in perpetuity" - the terms of the gifts, whether of art or of money for the purchase of art, preclude them being sold off, except under very specific circumstances
The city of Harrisburg Pennsylvania sought bankruptcy in federal court. I
believe their creditors contended that the city had assets that they were
unwilling to sell to pay their debts. I believe the federal courts turned down
the city's request for bankruptcy and the State of Pennsylvania stepped into
the controversy.
If the city of Detroit seek bankcuptcy protection in federal court, the city will have to list all of its assets including the art works at DIA if the city really has title to them. The lawyers for the creditors are only interested in getting full payments of all they think is due to them. However, I assume that DIA would fight this in court for a very long period.
Look at the names on the board of directors
Edsel Ford II
Alfred Taubman
Dennis Archer
Eugene Applebaum
No need to worry. Snyder has probably gotten a phone call on this today by one of these people. The Art work is going no where.
yo canuk. Whats a nascent stage?
1) You are correct that the sale of municipal assets cannot be forced in a Chapter 9 bankruptcy.
2) The judge does not have to [[and presumably will not) approve a bankruptcy plan that he doesn't think is equitable. If the judge does not approve a bankruptcy plan, the city has to resume operating without bankruptcy protection. In that case, if the city can avoid defaulting on its obligations, presumably by ceasing pretty much all other operations in Detroit's case, the assets are safe. If not, then once default occurs the creditors can go to court and start trying to seize assets, probably including art. Whether or not that happens, the city government will be effectively paralyzed because no one is going to want to do business with it under conditions of such uncertainty.
so
3) If we get to bankruptcy, we have to hope that the judge thinks that not including DIA art in the city's proposed settlement is equitable. And that the almost inevitable appeals court agrees.
obama saved detroit/michigan once with the auto bailout.
you want obama to find bin laden AND jimmy hoffa?? hehe
Per the below link, the reason Harrisburg's bankruptcy filing was denied was because not all of its municipal branches of government had agreed to the filing.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204452104577056462180868008.html?m od=googlenews_wsj
DIA is a product from an earlier age which has flourished while the City has continued to diminish in tax paying population. If it cannot be sold then it is not a financial asset. Everybody in the State is generally of the opinion that the cultural value is of such enormous importance in the World that it should not be broken up; so why not donate ownership and liabilities to the State, to be reviewed after 100 years. It will remain in Detroit and still be the DIA. If it's sale is forced by Bond Holders and it is broken up it may marginally ease the pressure for a time but its value will be lost forever and the proceeds from the sale will quickly be used up.
The city would get a much better return by selling Belle Isle. Remember all the folks in Detroit yapping about losing all the city gems? Because they would not let them go the opposite will happen.
On Belle Isle Conservancy's board:
Sarah Earley [[wife of DTE's CEO)
Cynthia Ford
Joyce Hayes-Giles [[veep @ DTE)
maybe not as strong as the DIA, but these women are not lacking pull
Maybe this was mentioned before, but isn't any piece of artwork donated to a museum subject to certain regulations as to it being sold without the donor becoming the the recipient of such a sale? I'd think there would be some documentation that would specify language of that sort.
I don't know how much there really is to all of this, it may all be smoke and mirrors and it may not be. Also, I am not taking a stand on this issue; I haven't enough detailed knowledge to form an educated opinion and I'm not drunk enough to post the other kind. I will say, though, when it is publicly known that a bankruptcy filing may be in the cards, it is very risky indeed to start hiding assets in such a way as this. Bankruptcy courts take a very dim view of such shenanigans. Protecting the artwork by transferring ownership would have been a useful thing to consider some time ago, but by now I fear that train has left the station.
Expect huge lawsuits if it affected art work donated by trusts or estates who state the art is to be held by the DIA for the benefit of the community[[ very common). They will most likely demand it back..Wish Mr.Orr would initially done something much more logical, even though much smaller, like let the state get control of Belle Isle as proposed logically earlier, saving a minimum of 6 million a year and let them make vast improvement. It would have went over far better for starts.... Wonder if he is doing this for political maneuvering.
There are many different types of bankruptcies, but they all fall into two basic types: liquidation or restructuring.
Chapter 7 is the common liquidation type of bankruptcy, where a person or business basically says: "fuck this, I'm done." All of the assets are sold off, and the bankruptcy judge divvies up the proceeds from the sale of said assets, and disburses them in the most equitable way that the judge sees fit [[or is agreed to by the creditors.)
Chapters 11 and 13 are the most common types of restructuring bankruptcies, and the forced liquidation of assets in these types of cases are seriously diminished.
In a restructuring type of bankruptcy, there is heavy weight and consideration given to the use and necessity of assets as tools to be leveraged in realistic and sustainable manners to create increased revenue generation, or future cost savings, in order to pay off remaining debts.
For example, in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the judge would not force the sale of a $40,000 heavy duty pickup truck if it was the sole vehicle owned by a contact construction worker, and therefore a valuable asset needed by the bankruptcy filer in order to effectively generate future income. However, the same bankruptcy judge would most likely order the sale of that very same pickup truck if it was owned by an accountant or doctor who only used it as a recreational vehicle to tow his boat and jet skis to the cabin up north. It may be the same asset, in front of the same judge, but the way that the asset is used to generate future income and ability to repay debt makes all the difference.
Chapter 9 [[municipal) bankruptcies are necessarily treated as restructuring cases. Cities, counties, and states can not be simply liquidated, therefore all chapter 9 bankruptcies are treated as restructuring cases, and the court can not force the sale of municipal assets. There are situations where the court may penalize the municipality for being unwilling to make common sense sales and/or force reforms, but it is highly unlikely that a bankruptcy judge would over-rule the resistance to liquidate a world-class art museum in order to fund a one-time payment that would only cover 20-33% of debt obligations, while seriously harming future revenue generation and investment.
Detroit's cultural center, and the DIA in particular, are crucial, landmark institutions, on which the nascent rebirth of midtown and the greater city center is founded upon. Liquidation of the DIA art collection would act as a significant deterrent to the city's ability to retain it's tenuous grasp on recent and historical investment, and would certainly serve as a huge deterrent to future investment.
The last thing that an expert in bankruptcy restructuring would ever want to do is liquidate key assets needed to produce future growth and revenue generation.
In my opinion, there is no way that EM Orr will do this, but it is a very effective tactic to show all of the stakeholders involved what a "nuclear option" might look like. This is a wake-up call to all of those who have so far been unwilling to come to the table and negotiate. If we don't embrace common-sense solutions, be it public-private partnerships, increased inter-governmental cooperation, regionalization, or public-sector reorganization, this will ultimately be the end-game scenario.
I had thought that the DIA belong to the region and not Detroit. Voters of Southeast Michigan had voted to have $12.00 a year from each taxpayers to fund the DIA. Why is it considered in trouble and why selling off it's assets would be allowed to help the city without the regions consent? The citizens of Michigan should not allow this for we were lead to believe that by us voting yes for a mileage the DIA and it's assets would be spared. There is no telling where or who the money from the assets will go to if they were sold.
While pushing the proposal for regional funding I'm sure those at the DIA were well aware that this may [[And probably would be) an issue in the near future. Of course they denied it before November's election and some are still denying it today. Even so, I'm sure they were preparing for it and the 20 million in taxes they are receiving every year will help them fight it in the courts.
The fact that the proposal passed in three counties, 2 of them hard core 'burbs, should tell you something about how people feel about the DIA. I'm sure the people running the DIA looked @ the mentality of the City government and realized that an attempt to sell it off as a last ditch incompetent effort to save themselves, would be a possibility, so what did they do? They PREPARED for that possibility. Kudos to them for their foresight. Maybe they could give management tutorials to the Mayor and City Council?
The EM wasn’t the one who elected the City Government leaders, who voted to spend all the borrowed money.
The voters of the Metro area, outside of Detroit are not the ones who elected the City Government leaders, who voted to spend all the borrowed money.
In fact, when Kwame was re-elected one of his campaign points, that helped him win re-election, was folks in the suburbs, tended to like the other guy?
So now when it is time to pay back the borrowed money, the blame for the unpleasantness, falls on the the EM, or this is a “regional problem”.
Spending borrowed money, that one has no intention of paying back, is no different than passing a bad check.
Who endorsed the “bad Check”?
The voters of Detroit.
Now if the voters are not responsible for their decisions, why vote?
Well unless they went ahead and built a fancy Dubai-like billionaireville on the island, which is highly unlikely and severely undesirable; a casino wont happen.
For one thing, Detroit's casinos are exactly where they are supposed to be, especially regarding Detroit's needs, those of the public and of the casinos.
Montreal's only casino is on Notre Dame island in the middle of the river where the Grand Prix is held. They keep adding onto it but would love to move it closer to downtown if they could, which it is relatively speaking, maybe a ten minute drive. But to think of Belle Isle as some kind of an exclusive playland for the rich is sad. It is also wrong. Downtown is the ideal place for any development because it is where developers will be able to play off one another's property values, and since we're in a capitalist system, right or wrong, that is the better solution for a resurgence of the city from the core outward.
Belle Isle needs to be a park, a better park maybe, but nothing else. Likewise, the DIA collection is more than a bunch of old bills hidden in a stocking, it represents Detroit's important ascension in the world, and frankly, with all its problems, the city is more the sum of all its parts, namely; the metropolitan area. And this is where a chance at convergeance of interests may provoke a political merger of sorts. That is my hope.
".....the city is more the sum of all its parts, namely; the metropolitan area. And this is where a chance at convergeance of interests may provoke a political merger of sorts. That is my hope."
God forbid we merge in any sort of way with Detroit politics - they don't work. It would turn out to be a continual transfer of monies one way only and provoke the beginning of the demise of the cities that had to contribute their taxes.
I am talking about those who claim that responsibility for the problems of Detroit rests solely on the voters, the administration and the union employees, the baptist ministers, the ghetto mentality of the city of Detroit. Transfer of guilt is unhelpful in that sense because when you wear that Tigers cap, you have to remember it represents more than a part of its sum.
From saturday's DetNews, it would seem that Orr is basically calling out the DIA for not doing anything to shield the art. Frankly I'm a bit shocked after all this time the very wealthy and well connected major donors and backers didn't firewall the collection from the CoD decades ago.
Quote:
Nowling also blasted the DIA for failing to act when restructuring consultants approached the DIA two months ago to warn of "a potential huge liability for them."
"They've been negligent to date in trying to find a way to protect a tremendous cultural asset, not only of the city, but of Michigan and the world," Nowling said. "Burying your head in the sand is not the right option that they should be looking at."
......
DIA spokeswoman Pamela Marcil said earlier Friday the city is not allowed to sell off assets because of an agreement with the DIA that says the museum will operate according to professional standards. Selling off art would violate standards set by the American Association of Museum Directors, which has accredited the DIA.
...
But in a Chapter 9 filing, the agreement between the city and the DIA would be thrown out, Nowling said.
"It's a contract, like all other contracts," he said. "So what you have left is a city asset sitting on the table."
While federal bank law prohibits any liquidation of assets, creditors can sue Detroit for payments — and they could demand Detroit sell off assets to settle those debts, Nowling said.
Detroit owns the majority of the 66,000 pieces of art and the building, but the DIA is the caretaker.
Nowling stressed there's currently no plan to sell any art and that this is a "precautionary measure" to inform the DIA that if Detroit is pushed into bankruptcy "we're not sure we can protect the assets from the creditors."
"We recognize the cultural impact and significance of the DIA for the city," he said. "Quite frankly, we're bemused that it's taken them over two months to finally react to what we think is a huge liability."
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2UbIPd19b
Charles Pugh and council had a chance to pass a bill to charge a fee of $3.00 to get on the island but missed the opportunity. They had a second chance to allow the State to take over the park and make it a Metro Park but they had blew that idea. Now some people from New York are asking for the island be sold to them.
This would be a perfect time to sell the island to private investors, especially if the new owners are allowed to secede from the City of Detroit. This would increase the value substantially.
I just reedited my last post to try and make more sense;
I am talking about those who claim that responsibility for the problems of Detroit rests solely on the voters, the administration and the union employees, the baptist ministers, the ghetto mentality of the city of Detroit. Transfer of guilt is unhelpful in that sense because as a suburbanite, when you wear that Tigers cap, you have to remember you are part of Detroit's potential, that is if you care enough to post your opinions about it on this site.
I am talking about those who claim that responsibility for the problems of Detroit rests solely on the voters, the administration and the union employees, the baptist ministers, the ghetto mentality of the city of Detroit. Transfer of guilt is unhelpful in that sense because as a suburbanite, when you wear that Tigers cap, you have to remember you are part of Detroit's potential, that is if you care enough to post your opinions about it on this site.[/QUOTE]
Now I see where you're coming from. I am one of those that does blame the problems on the people you list and not people that don't live there. But to transfer their guilt to someone wearing a Tiger's cap in the suburbs is stretching it. I've never been to a game so that might let me off the hook. On the other hand I go to Lion's games [[I'm a masochist) but I only wear their cap when its dark; so it might not count either.
Now I see where you're coming from. I am one of those that blames the problems on the people you list and not people that don't live there. But I agree, transferring their guilt to someone wearing a Tiger's cap in the suburbs is stretching it. I've never been to a game so that might let me off the hook. On the other hand I go to Lion's games [[I'm a masochist) but I only wear their cap when its dark; so that might not count either.
First of all, I would hate to see the DIA collection broken up and sold off. But realistically, what percentage of Detroit residents actually use the DIA, or have ever been there? Compare that number with the percentage of residents who may need police, fire dept, or lighting. Should billions be tied up for those few who use them? Or is the region better served by selling it off and using the money for desperatly needed city services?
Assuming the assets would be used correctly and not to line someone's pocket [[in Detroit?)...also recognizing there is probably a higher percentage of people on this board who utilize / contribute / patronize the DIA than the population at large in the city. Bottom line, how is the money best used?
For one thing, try to imagine rebuilding a city that has lost Hudson's dept store and other gems, but then add to that the potential loss of DIA, the Detroit Opera, or Symphony. Detroit is in rebuilding mode albeit tentatively, the last thing I wish on the metropolitan area is the loss of these monumental institutions.
I see this disjointedness as a malaise that must be overcome myself, More than half my tax bill goes to the core city services [[police, EMS, Fire, transit and culture) and a whole lot manages to provide for my small municipality on the island of Montreal. They just built a massive indoor olympic sized pool next to one that was built in the early sixties.Quote:
coracle/ Now I see where you're coming from. I am one of those that blames the problems on the people you list and not people that don't live there. But I agree, transferring their guilt to someone wearing a Tiger's cap in the suburbs is stretching it. I've never been to a game so that might let me off the hook. On the other hand I go to Lion's games [[I'm a masochist) but I only wear their cap when its dark; so that might not count either.
There must be a creative yet sober way of merging services in metro Detroit and help the core city resurgence, which would help outlying cities. If people keep the either/or going, and favor sprawl over concentrated effort at densifying inner city neighborhoods, the resurgence may be shortlived. The culprit will be the core city folks again, no doubt.
To quote an old George Carlin skit, "you gotta wanna", and there in lies the rub. Yes, all these things you mention are possible, and yes it does make sense to do. The 'burbs, [[well, most of them), hate Detroit or refuse to have anything to do with it, [[except to pee on the storefronts), and Detroiters keep covering their jewels for fear of 'bubanites yanking them away. [[except, of course, when Detroiters go to hock them so they can eat for another day) This attitude has been going on since the dawn of time and, quite frankly, I don't see this attitude changing anytime soon.
The either/or is definitely a feature on both sides of the fence. Something's gotta give, and in the case of Detroit metro, Detroit has caved in for reasons that are varied and dare I say variegated.
Please dont mention George Carlin, you are thrusting another Youtube half hour on me.:D
"There must be a creative yet sober way of merging services in metro Detroit and help the core city resurgence, which would help outlying cities."
There is; it's a matter of having trust the recipient will use your funds wisely. I'm sure lots of people would be happy to contribute if they had control; count me in; but not if the funds are handled by the Money Managers we've seen operating in the City for the last 10/20/30/40 years.
Mind you, we have the same sort of crappy administration problems in our core city. The last mayor resigned, the interim mayor Michael Applebaum is also under investigation. The mayor of the largest suburb [[Laval, pop. 400,000) resigned earlier this year as well and 3 weeks ago was arrested and accused of gangsterism. A pretty massive system of collusion existed among the political leadership, construction companies, engineering firms, asphalt and aggregates providers and the mob.
One witness before the commission last week told of his car being blown up in his driveway because he wanted to stop doing dirty deeds. In the meantime, he had already skimmed 700,000$ off the top for coordinating payments from contractors to the political parties and the mob. The commission is televised since last year and what we see is that a lot of small towns are just as fucked as the core city.
But the point is that if a metropolitan govt were possible for Detroit, the region would have a say in how the core city, and the suburbs allocate resources.
How to determine the best political entity, the best chance of oversight?
Thanx for the insight to your local government. On the one hand it's good to know it ain't just us, on the other, I've been to Montreal multiple times, and am sorry to hear that beautiful city is plagued with similar problems. I think you see some of this happening to a lesser degree with the RTA and our DWSD, [[waterboard, {NOT the torture}), I believe your suggestions are inevitable, or else the whole S.E. MI area is going to fail. The changes aren't going to happen without a fight, though.
Selling the art in the DIA still wouldn't settle all the debut problems the city has , Schools wouldn't suddenly open , we wouldn't have more cops and firefighters on the streets, the lights wouldn't all of a sudden come on.
when GM went bankrupt a LOT of people took a haircut and sorry but , some groups just took a bad bet.
You could sell the art the building and belle isle and it wouldn't help , the real problem is the way the city was being run .
It wont help just selling everything off if you keep doing the same thing .
It's like going to a pawnshop selling all you stuff and going right back to the craps table thinking this time will be different .
There are PLENTY of others things that need to be address first , light the lighting department, the bus service, EMS can all go private , ect
these are some of the "services" that got us were we are and are most the debtors . Let them take the hair cut first . There are assets and liabilities The art in the DIA is not a liability it's an asset , and even though buses , lighting and EMS are an asset , they are a MAJOR liability with their legacy cost ,in my opinion they need to privatized .
Sell off the lighting , bus and EMS services ,Let the private sector worry about their[[ health care and retirement) the city of Detroit just cannot afford it any more .
Your post is dead on. One of the arguments against an EFM is "well so-and-so had an EFM and look @ the shape THEY'RE in". After the EFM leaves, and the same old people and mentality go back into control, they end up with the same old results. Money is merely a tool to achieve an end result. You can have all the tools you want, but if you have no idea how to use them, or you keep taking them home, you'll never achieve the desired results.
I agree that Detroitdave post is spot on. Give private and public debtors a haircut to reduce the debt and Privatize everything possible to reduce running expenses.
But I have a suggestion that may not go down very well. I would install a Board of EMs to run the city for at least 10 years to take away the power from the people who put themselves up for election claiming they can run it. If this doesn't happen everything will start reverting back to square one as soon as the current EM turns out the light of his office on his last day.
I know I will probably get blasted for asking these questions.
Can the EFM collect past due taxes or impose heavy fines on slum lords like Moroun? Can he seize property and land from absentee landlords and sell those for revenues? I know there is not much demand for large amounts of Detroit land but is it possible?
If they privatize lighting, would that organization also be responsible for updating the infrastructure?
If they privatize EMS, how would that increase response times if the lack of security [[police and fire) is not resolved?
If the lighting and EMS plan does not work how does the city get out of the contract?
Would the new lighting authority or EMS contractor be responsible for legal actions due to poor service?
I agreed, but I also doubt THAT'S ever going to happen. Few Detroiters seem to vote with their heads and not with their emotions. You saw the circus over the Consent Agreement, Belle Isle, and the EFM. The best one was calling out the President of the United States to square up for votes rendered.
Sorry, but my personal feelings are, @ this point, let the State [[try to) fix it, then go from there. It took years to get to this point, and my guess, if Detroit DOES go back to a consent agreement, I don't see the current administration succeeding, and it'll take even more years to get the State back in here. Everyone seems to know what needs to be done, but no one was attempting to do it. Now it's just turned into an even bigger mess.