Well, he finally rolls it out:
http://freep.com/article/20091007/NE...oit--Bing-says
Printable View
Well, he finally rolls it out:
http://freep.com/article/20091007/NE...oit--Bing-says
Shocking.
280M deficit currently, 300M estimated this fiscal year.
340M internal and external borrowing.
The graphs in appendix I are frightening.
Thank you to Mayor Bing for starting to address this issue.
Don't gush too much. After a little more than 5 months on the job, all we have at this point is 144 page report that:Quote:
Originally Posted by skyl4rk
- Doesn't cite the sources for any of the statistics that it mentions [[e.g., the number of Detroit's municipal employee's vis a vi national averages);
- Doesn't provide support for most of their projected cost savings [[i.e., they'll claim that a certain action will result in a savings of X but fail to show how they derived at said number); and
- Makes claims that are utterly ridiculous [[e.g., the report actually praised the DEGC for its transparency, which is basically the same as congratulating the Detroit Lions for the Super Bowl victories).
The Free Press article says that the report is 145 pages, but the linked PDF file is only 21 pages. Is there a more detailed report out there?
The full version of it is @ http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/Portals/...l%20Report.pdf
Thank you.
God the City of Detroit website fucking blows. A god damn 16 year old can put together a better website than that.
I see Frank's bashing Mayor Bing like he did Mayor Cockrel. But I agree with him that it's a lot of fluff and not much substance. Who's going to buy up the vacant city buildings and land that Bing is proposing to unload? Speculators perhaps but not for many dollars. Some of the "opportunities" for savings also could turn into opportunities for friends and allies of Bing to cash in. Watch who jumps it to take over various services and functions as Bing outsources them to private service providers.
Making the public aware of the extent of the problem is a first step. The only way to push through the drastic measures that have to be taken is to make the public aware of how bad the situation is.
Getting control of the purchasing function in one department is key because if it is decentralized, the executive has little control over the bureaucracy [[I mean administration). This may the biggest strategic issue to deal with, and may be the reason why past attempts to control spending failed.
Looking at the General Fund charts in Appendix I, in fiscal year 2007-2008, the City had only 1M operating deficit, but an accumulated deficit of 155M. Spending has decreased slightly from 07-08 to the current year 2009-2010. The problem is not increased spending, the problem is a decrease in revenues from 1,360M to 1,270M over that time period, and a continued projected decrease in revenues. However, these charts do not seem to show the problem related to borrowing to pay for deficits in the past, and there may be problems outside the General Fund that are not reflected in its budget.
In Appendix III, City of Detroit Indebtedness, under Other, it shows Pension Obligation Certificates and RANs/TANs. The text of the document indicates that this is what was used to carry the City over by paying budget deficit with these funds [[page 6). The total amount of this debt is about 1.4 billion; the text states that of this amount 330M was used to cover past deficits.
Looking at the projected revenues, the City will need to downsize through the next few years to reflect available revenue for the General Fund. [[This is an obvious statement). But even when they do so, the City will still likely be in a position of facing cuts every year until revenue stabilizes. No one can predict where revenues will be in 5 years, they may continue to fall. So even if the executive can patch all of the leaks in the City's finances, there will still be a need to reduce the size of city government to reflect a falling revenue source. This is assuming that new revenue sources are not available, perhaps some can be found?
Another source of revenue:
The City should consider selling the water utility to a consortium of municipalities that are served by the system. That would bring some cash in. They almost stole it from the City using the legislature a few years ago, why not negotiate a price and sell it to them with teh City as a participant in the consortium. It would be a good step towards regionalism in SE Michigan.
I'm an equal opportunity curmudgeon. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
At first glance, I don't see anything wrong with the city's website.
http://www.indy.gov/Pages/Home.aspx
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/
http://www.phoenix.gov/
http://www.atlantaga.gov/
Are these really that much better?
I agree that it's a first step. However, there weren't any properly sourced details in this report that weren't already widely reportedly in the news media.Quote:
Originally Posted by skyl4rk
The closest thing to new, relevant information in that report was the claim that Detroit has 25% more municipal employees per resident than the national average. Unfortunately, the report did not cite a source for said assertion so we have no way of knowing its legitimacy.
Duh. When you ARE the source, why have to cite your sources? Really. There's no way in hell anyone can make this more apparent. The city is broke. There's no money. Things have to be cut. Crying about little BS "sourced" details doesn't help matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnemecek
You can easily see the problems facing the city. It's easily apparent that there needs to be cuts. It's apparent that there is a plan, flawed as you may think it is. Question here is, what's Barrow's plan? [[crickets chirping) Thought so.
Barrow's plan is to play the populist route. Just like the way the unions support him now. Say whatever to get elected. Then once he gets elected, then what?
"The City should consider selling the water utility to a consortium of municipalities that are served by the system. That would bring some cash in. They almost stole it from the City using the legislature a few years ago, why not negotiate a price and sell it to them with the City as a participant in the consortium. It would be a good step towards regionalism in SE Michigan."
The water system is protected by the State Constitution. The effort to "steal" the system never would have survived a legal challenge. As for the money that the system would bring in, any proceeds of the system would first have to go to any outstanding debts that the system has unless the buyers agreed to take those on. Why would they? As for selling it, what's the benefit? It's a possible one-time injection of cash from a department that doesn't cost the city's bottom line. Sounds like a lot of work for little gain.
Anyone notice what was missing from the report to Bing? Any consideration of reconsidering the massive tax breaks and subsidies provided to wealthy downtown property owners [[Ilitch for example). We keep hearing about how "everyone" has to share the pain but apparently "everyone" doesn't actually include everyone, just those without the money and power to leverage the pain onto everyone else.
That's a good point. Of course, that's never on the table anywhere. Not seeing how the tax breaks are structured [[X number of years for Y development), it seems to me that would be going back on promises made to these corporations and individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
Going totally back on this would probably have a chilling effect on attraction of new development and businesses. But a minor adjustment in the tax break, not a total abatement, could happen with the consent of the owners. I suppose all they would have to do is ask and see what happens. Maybe they already have, and were told to take a hike?
Companies make all kinds of promises when they get those breaks and few are ever held to account for not fulfilling the terms. I bet Bing's team never asked. Why would they? Look who they represent.
If they back out of promises, I think then that would be a trigger for some sort of reduction. But how many have actually not done as promised intentionally? How much of this is predicated on outside factors out of their control?Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
GREAT IDEAL BING!
Your turn around plan is save this city millions of dollars. A first start to rise this city out from the ashes.
The City of Detroit is the source for statics about how other cities around the country operate and spend their money??? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stosh
Since when?
Ok, that's a good point. In the comparisons they make, which cities are they comparing to? The study mentioned regarding employees per citizen ratio. A comparable study link is below:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnemecek
http://www.publicpurpose.com/ge-2000cities.htm
Bear in mind these are 2000 figures. Other cities may have changed their figures up or down by now.
Also this:
http://www.afsc.net/PDFFiles/The%20P...20Services.pdf
Quote:
Fifty years ago, Detroit was the fourth largest city in the United States, with a population of 1.7 million people, and at $8,500 per year, one of the richest cities in terms of per capita income. It was 3.5 times the size of Indianapolis, the 26th largest city, whose income was almost identical on a per capita basis.[1] Today Detroit and Indianapolis are the 11th and 12th largest cities, respectively, with Detroit's population cut in half from 50 years ago [[and losing 3,000 people per year this decade), while Indianapolis has grown by 70% during the same time frame.Remarkably, Indianapolis now has a per capita income 50% greater than Detroit's.
How did this happen? One answer, according to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, is that Detroit's city government is far larger, more regulation prone, and more bureaucratic than Indianapolis's city government: the ratio government productivity, is 50:1 in Detroit, one of the worst in the United States, but is 203:1 in
Indianapolis, one of the best.
What are tax breaks worth?
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/finan.../D9B78OAO0.htm
Corporate welfare. Unfortunately, thats the name of the game in economic development today.
The City of Detroit website is rather bland :[[, but that is not terribly unusual. Most municipalities will tend to focus primarily on functionality and not flash.Quote:
Originally Posted by izzyindetroit
In reading through the basic Crisis Turnaround Team report [[PDF), it certainly ain't sexy content-wise. Based on the illuminated credentials of the participants, the quality of the report is unimpressive. And the SWOT analysis appears not comprehensive enough after a full 100 days [[and 5,000 volunteer hours).
"Corporate welfare. Unfortunately, thats the name of the game in economic development today."
We've seen how well that's working these days.
From the bit I read, I see "corporate" style restructuring --moving the chairs around and getting rid of extra ones, but no real vision for the future.
I would like to see something daring, like what parts of Detroit will be turned into parkland?
How are they going to lure homeowners back by increasing security in the approved
areas? Something.
If the City cannot afford to clear land to create jobs and investment that create jobs and taxes, how on god's green earth are they going to be able to clear the same land to create parks that do not create jobs but do require more expenditures? The city cannot afford the upkeep on Belle Isle and Rouge Park. How the eff are they going to be able to pay for new park land?Quote:
Originally Posted by RickBeall
Go back to square one and think beyond facile. lazy ideas.
And while we're at it lets be clear on reasonable expectations. Less than 90 days ago Bing's team was still uncovering things like the fact that the city was raiding the Library Board's pension fund to cover day to day expenses. It is completely unreasonable to expect any team to walk in to a $3 billion operation as dysfunctional as Detroit and have a fully fledged, fully documented turn around plan in 5 months. Its simply not possible with expending millions of dollars in counsulting fees. If you think it is possible, well you're probably the type of person who thinks printing t-shirts and skipping public meetings is the best way to be a community activist.
BTW, you can't complain about a lack of trasnparencey when you do not attend public meetings. Just saying.
Is this applicable to the scenario where the DEGC found it necessary to spend public money to turn the Lafayette Building into a "park".Quote:
Originally Posted by PQZ
Yeah, well, this t-shirt printing activist - who by the way attends 2 or 3 public meetings per month but is strategic about which ones because he has a freakin' day job - knows that it doesn't normally cost $700 per window to board up a building so shut the fuck up already.Quote:
Originally Posted by PQZ
"BTW, you can't complain about a lack of trasnparencey when you do not attend public meetings. Just saying."
Then turn off your computer and go back to the 1980s. At this date, there's no excuse for any public body spending public tax dollars not to place agendas, minutes, policies and basic information like who is serving on the board online for the public to access. That's transparency. The DDA gets millions in taxpayer dollars and the public has every right to expect access to that information without having to attend in person every board meeting or get access to information only when the city offices are open. The DDA's failure to make that information available and your continued defense of that ongoing failure comes from the same mentality of secrecy and obstructionism so as to hide the cronyism and favoritism that takes place.
Finished the report over dinner and almost spilled my food when reading the Information Technology section. No disaster recovery system is in place! Silos. Decentralized, but not for redundancy. OMG! Well they certainly have their work cut out for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by vetalalumni
And maybe I was a bit harsh with my criticism of the report. Don't need me to pile on.
Holy shit! That is mind-boggling to me that there isn't one.Quote:
Originally Posted by vetalalumni
You pick on one of the few that are devoted to the city image. I don't know the details, but I would say any tax break the city could give is far less than the value received. A big city needs magnets to draw others to invest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
It shows that tax breaks do help. It is too bad the city can't afford across the board tax relief.
Which brings us to yesterday's Detnews article: Detroit jobs lost despite city tax breaks.Quote:
The City Council soon could crack down on tax breaks after learning Detroit cut taxes on $2.7 billion in investments in the past decade to businesses that not only failed to follow through on jobs promises, but laid off at least 7,500 workers....
The Bing Group -- like other companies hit by the economy -- didn't fulfill job promises. In its case, it fell short at four of six projects that received tax breaks last year. Assessment records indicate they saved the company $180,000 in 2008.
Many were granted years ago, before the cataclysmic decline of the auto industry. But they bring renewed debate to an old controversy about the economic-development tool: Should poor cities like Detroit continue to dole out tax breaks to businesses that don't deliver? Can they afford not to?
How about instead of handing out incentives, make the tax structure competitive as a whole? Oh wait, that'd require even more real reform, and the unions would never sign on to it, even though long term it would mean more city workers.
This line says it all: "In Detroit, where he already has another plant, taxes are higher even with the breaks and he has to pay for ambulance and security service because of the slow response time."
The sheer incompetence of the government the past decades is an insult to every taxpayer and resident.
Oh my. It looks like someone has a little anger management issue. Perhaps a warm and tasty ice cream treat would mellow you out. I note that you have no reasonable rebuttal for that fact that yes, the task Bong has taken on is impossobly huge. Rather than faulting an all volunteer task force for being methodical and prudent, perhaps we ought to congratualte Bing for assembling such a team and not spending millions for a consulting firm that would have barely qualified interns do half the work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnemecek
So tell us - how much DOES it cost to board up windows? Based of course on your experience in contracting out such things on a fourteen story building in a downtown area?
And as to Novine's comment:
The DDA receives on average four requests for agendas and minutes from the general public a year. Those request are filled by staff simply printing and mailing or emailing a PDF of the requested documents - a 15 - 20 minute process depending on the length of the docuemnt requested. Agendas and minutes are avaialble to anyone attending the DDA meetings. The DDA generally distributes about 50 copies to Council members, key city staff and the three to six media members that attend each meeting as well as the handfull of citizens that do show up.
Considering the man hours & hosting costs for stacks of documents relating to meetings that occur every other week and that copies of such documents are freely available to any who requests them and considering that less than a handful of people request such documents - it seems that the DDA is being prudent by spending that money on projects rather than creating a website for which there appears to be little or no demand - except from the occasional internet crank who sits at home and complains he / she might actually have to send an email or make a phone call.
You referred to the Mayor as "Bong"???Quote:
Originally Posted by PQZ
Don't look know, but I think someone's Freudian slip is showing.
As for the substance of your remarks, of course the act of turning around a City like is huge and extremely difficult. It will require tremendous sacrifice by all parties and will likely take several years to complete. However, it's a long way from recognizing those facts [[as I've done umpteen times on this forum and elsewhere) and calling Mayor Bing's turnaround plan "methodical and prudent", as you asserted.
Mayor Bing's plan does not cite the sources for any of the statistics that it mentions [[e.g., the number of Detroit's municipal employee's vis a vi national averages). How in the world does that constitute being "methodical and prudent"?
Mayor Bing's plan does not provide support for most of their projected cost savings [[i.e., they'll claim that a certain action will result in a savings of X but fail to show how they derived at said number). How in the world does that constitute being "methodical and prudent"?
We both know that I have absolutely no experience with such things. Regardless when I see things such as the DEGC spending approximately $700 per window to board up one window, it stands out. [[I can buy everything that you need to board up a window at Home Depot for $25 and I know that contractors get their supplies for a lot less.)Quote:
So tell us - how much DOES it cost to board up windows? Based of course on your experience in contracting out such things on a fourteen story building in a downtown area?
Since I don't have any first hand experience, I rely on the expertise of others. I shared those numbers with general contractors and architects who have done work like this. The consistent response that I've gotten is that $700 per window for a simple board up is ridiculously out of line.
Honestly, I don't really care about the citations. What is this, college? Do we need to worry about copywrite with this document? I don't think so,.
What really matter is what the end effect is. If it works, then who cares.... it works!
Citing the sources enables us to verify the numbers that the turnaround team used. Were these well-calculated, solid numbers that we can put our faith in? Or were they randomly generated to simply get Mayor Bing past next month's election?Quote:
Originally Posted by dcmorrison12
We don't know, because the turnaround team didn't divulge the source of those statistics that they used nor did they give any indication of how they derived at their revenue and cost-savings projections.
The problem is that, because the turnaround team didn't do the things that everyone else learned in the 5th grade, we won't know for 2 - 3 years from now whether or not this plan will actually work. If this is simply a case of someone throwing together number in order to get Mayor Bing past next moth's election then we're screwed. We won't know until it's too late.Quote:
What really matter is what the end effect is. If it works, then who cares.... it works!
We have one shot to make this work and avoid bankruptcy. Simply closing our collective eyes and praying that no one is going to play games with the numbers isn't an acceptable option, in my opinion.
Of course they will play with the numbers. And the bureaucracy is working right now to undermine Bing. Good luck to him, he will need it.
A good number of the team's recommendations require multi-million dollar expenditures [[e.g. process reengineering, consolidations, facilities improvements, disaster recovery, training, accelerating automation of some systems, etc.). So, we'd better be fairly certain there are some hefty savings on the back end of these expenditures. It's reasonable to wonder how they arrived at these figures.
Maybe there is a full, internal [[unpublished) version of the report [[not intended for public consumption). That is not unheard of, especially when details are tricky or troublesome in any way. I have to believe the effort did produce more than what we are reading. In the private sector, and with the credentialed cast involved, this report would be insufficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke09
I think you're right. A second look at the "report" leaves me with the impression that the pdf that was published was actually in "presentation" format rather than being a true report. We're getting the basic findings, opportunities and recommendations.Quote:
Originally Posted by vetalalumni
Sure you can buy the two sheets of plywood needed [[maybe) for $25. But you aren't getting the two by fours needed to frame them out properly, you aren't getting the two by sixes to anchor them, you aren't paying the laborers to cut, assemble and paint the windows and you sure the fuck ain't renting a swing stage for their installation for $25.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnemecek
I heard they had a public meeting about this but people didn't show up because they wanted to step out of the way and let the professionals do their job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnemecek
Wow! If only one of the contractors that I talked had pointed that out!Quote:
Originally Posted by PQZ
Or maybe they did.
- If memory serves, their estimate for all of the lumber needed was around $40 per window. [[Feel free to double check it at your local Home Depot.)
- Swing stage rental was somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 - $15,000 or about $80 per window.
That still leaves $580 per window [[or a little more than $100,000) unaccounted for. You've still got dumpster rental and assorted other expenses in the equation. However, since a decent carpenter can board up 2 - 3 windows in an hour, unless your labor costs are somewhere north of $500 per hour then a grand total of $700 per window is ridiculously out of line.
I heard they planned to embezzle lots of cash, leave Michigan before anyone catches on and then give quotes to all of the newspapers about how stupid those tax paying activists in Detroit are.Quote:
Originally Posted by PQZ
Would you like a "warm and tasty ice cream treat" now?
"it seems that the DDA is being prudent by spending that money on projects rather than creating a website for which there appears to be little or no demand - except from the occasional internet crank who sits at home and complains he / she might actually have to send an email or make a phone call."
Ho, ho, ho, boy what a belly laugh I got out of that one. It's a real challenge to take a Word or PDF document [[or is the DDA staff still using typewriters?) and e-mail that off to someone who manages the city's web site to add it as a link on a page. Or to take the time to add the names of the DDA board members to a web page. Someone might need to spend 2 minutes typing those into a web page [[if they don't know those tricky cut and paste keyboard shortcuts). Your local school PTO has a more up-to-date and comprehensive web page than the DDA which is charged with spending tens of millions of local, state and federal tax dollars. But the funny man here is telling me how the authority is being "prudent" by doing its best to keep the public out-of-the-know and the DDAs work out of the public eye. It's a laugh a minute with PQZ.
I think to many people look to the city to solve problems. Yes they need to address their issues, but the citizens can solve most everything. How can that happen, the city needs to back off, get out of the way with excessive taxes and regulations. How can anyone move there and live with such social conditions, taxes and regulations?
To me it is simple. In the past land grants were used to populate areas of the west. Do the same there, establish areas with an existing infrastructure, give the land away, make taxes low, so low that it covers just the basic costs of services, not the bloated city government infrastructure. Roll back building regulations. Use the existing infrastructure and entice start up companies to operate with responsible freedom. The people will b industrious if allowed to be. We need freedom once again to make Detroit great like it was 100 years ago.
In other words, give everything away and let everyone do whatever the hell they feel like without regard for anything or anyone whatsoever? I'm sure you're not the only person smart enough to have ever dreamed up such an incredibly detailed plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by GRALR
Guffaw!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnemecek
Methinks someone woke up on the wrong side of Rasputin this morning.
Oh, come on. I know you can do better than that.
Hey, I'm not the one having a gay affair with a paranoid schizophrenic twice his age....Quote:
Originally Posted by Fnemecek
Glad to see you haven't let Southern manners affect your ability to always be the consummate professional.Quote:
Originally Posted by PQZ
See, I'm just funnin' around making up preposterous and over the top fake situations. I thought that was what this fnemecek fellow was doing and thought I would join in the shenanigans.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto
You didn't think any of this was serious did you?
That's exactly what we were doing. Making up preposterous and over the top fake situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by PQZ
I mean, who would possibly believe that the DEGC might actually spend $125,000 to install plywood over some of the broken windows of the Metropolitan Building in downtown Detroit; a price that works out to approximately $700 per window, which is ridiculously out on line with normal costs.
I mean, really? What kind of an idiot would do that?
No, I was only kidding about my concerns over Mayor Bing's "turnaround plan". Granted, his plan does not cite the source for any of the statistics that he uses nor does it explain any how they arrived at any of the projected savings.
Cynics might argue that the noticeable absence of such things makes this "plan" little more than a feeble attempt to kick a proverbial can down the road so that Mayor Bing can deal with this in earnest after the mayoral election. However, I'm not a cynic.
I believe that would should close our eyes and put our complete faith in Mayor Bing's team. After all, they are professionals. Many of them were a part of the Kilpatrick Administration.
And we never had any reason to doubt the integrity or dedication of anyone associated with that administration, now did we?
Now, I forget: who am I allegedly having a torrid gay romance with again?