Many people admire Dave Bing for running this city like a "Business". Does anyone think that Detroit should be ran like one?
Printable View
Many people admire Dave Bing for running this city like a "Business". Does anyone think that Detroit should be ran like one?
In some repects, yes. It's not all about profit but 'business' needs to be taken care of. Things need to be repaired and maintained, bills have to be paid etcetra.
Absolutely Yes, every Municipal function is a business and should be run like one. The business of government is to provide services to us, it's customers. We the people should be deciding what those services are by voting. Every government should be trying to provide the services the voters chose as efficiently as possible. We the tax payers are the shareholders, customers and financiers of the governments business. We must demand all our money and resources are used wisely.
Damn right it should be. Look at the mess the supposed 'altruistic' public sector has got the city into. Out of control wages, feather-bedding, flabby, worse or non-existent, service delivery. Best thing for the D would probably be to contract out everything. The city needs an enema, and how.
Um, the business of business is making profits, not providing services or goods. So, no, business should not be the model of government.
That was succinct and correct Detroitnerd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Each can borrow from the other: businesses can strive to be good "corporate citizens" and government can adopt some of the practices of business that can make it more efficient and effective. But they serve two different and often opposing purposes.
Furthermore, there are rules associated with using the public's money, that businesses don't have to concern themselves with: equal access, open and transparent processes, etc.
Functions should be privatized only if they truly result in savings. Most people who work for the city can identify real tangible examples of current situations where contractors are costing significantly more than city personnel for the same job. And it gets worse when you hire someone from a company, that is subcontracting to another company. Each level of companies has to get its own profit which results in high overhead added on to the already higher hourly rate being paid to the contractor.
So those blanket, "Privatize everything" statements don't make much sense to me. Privatize what makes sense to privatize. And the savings should be substantial, because if they are minimal, then you need to factor in the real consequences of putting your employees out of work. Most of them are still also your citizens, helping to keep some semblance of stability in your neighborhoods.
Like I wouldn't say privatize everything, I also wouldn't say privatize nothing. Let the dollars speak for themselves.
Um, how do the profits get generated? By providing goods and services better than competitors. The 'word' better is defined by the consumer, so it can refer to price, value or whatever each consumer looks for. Businesses are not able to just call up someone and demand money. For that, they need government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
In a municipal model, the 'consumers' are the resident and businesses located in the jurisdiction.
If a store, say Joe's Emporium, does not satisfy their customers, the customers no longer shop at Joe's. Maybe Frank's up the street is cleaner or has lower prices. Joe either keeps doing things the same way and eventually goes out of business, or he changes his business practices to gain new customers.
For a city, people and businesses move out, and it's up to the city to either change or go bankrupt.
That is the middle school fable, anyway. Profits are generated by skimming off the top of other people's labor.Quote:
Originally Posted by EastSider
And marketing and advertising can help you sell an inferior product, or a harmful one.
Externalizing costs is another thing businesses do to protect their all-important profits, and that often harms people in a way a government would find indefensible.
Perhaps most importantly, businesses are closed models, resistant to democratic processes, another problem with applying the model to government.
Welp, there goes regionalism, out the window.Quote:
Originally Posted by EastSider
I was going to agree [[and I still do in part), but then I realized that people are not going to abandon any governmental entity [[city, state or country) as quickly as they will a business. People consider themselves to have more invested in their city, state or country. My life is so tangled up in this city that I love that I have probably stayed far longer than is "rational". I want it to thrive and I have made sacrifices to try and help it thrive. I'm not doing that for any business. I actually grieve over its deterioration. I'm not doing that for any business.Quote:
Originally Posted by EastSider
I'm just saying that government serves a different purpose. It cannot be run just like a business, or it won't meet the very needs [[services if you will) that citizens [[some of whom aren't paying a penny for services) are expecting. If a candidate doesn't understand the special challenges of running a city, as opposed to a business, their naivete will eventually cause more harm than good.
Why isn't it sufficient to say that government should strive to be as efficient and effective as possible. That is not solely the realm of business.
Good question, Locke. I would guess that it helps hammer home the old party line of "Government bad; business good."Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke09
But we all know that it's more complicated than that.
Detroit is a city and it should be run like a city, not a business.
It absolutely should be run like a business.
The problem is, many Detroiters view the primary function of government as being to provide Detroiters with government jobs that are paid for through taxation of businesses.
The best cities in the world are run like businesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Hey, I like it the way it is now. It's like a big slush fund for crooked pols and a big jobs program for incompetent workers. Why would we want to change that? It's worked really well for us.
Which ones?Quote:
Originally Posted by ndavies
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
How about as a city with some business like practices?
All of them because they are businesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
What is the difference between running a city and running a business?
Each one has a purpose.
---The purpose of a business is to generate profits [[by making and/or selling products and/or services) and it has to spend a certain amount to do that. Earnings are divided between maintaining and improving the business and paying out to shareholders.
----The city's purpose is to provide services to residents and maintain itself using funds gained through taxes.
The source of the money is different. The purpose is essentially the same. Generate income, spend responsibly to achieve the purpose. Money to spend, whether tax generated or profit generated, must be equal to the task at hand, requiring constant evaluation and balancing of revenue versus product or service.
It depends on what business like practices. As has been pointed out above, the purpose of a business is to turn a profit. That isn't the purpose of a city. If you want to say that a city should be well managed... Well, that isn't strictly a trait of business. I can point out many businesses that are poorly managed and many not-for-profit seeking entities that are well managed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggyselbin
Well stated..Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Well maybe you should notify every business school on the face of the planet that they are missing an urban planning concentration.Quote:
Originally Posted by ndavies
As I've said, cities can adopt some business practices, and businesses can try to be good corporate citizens. But no city, however well-run, is a business. And cities and businesses have distinctly different purposes, as a few here have already noted, even though they both should try to fulfill their purposes as effectively as possible and within the constraints of their budgets.
My family is not a business, but we stay within our budget and look for opportunites to meet our family needs [[and even many of our desires) as inexpensively as possible, and even generate some profit [[or savings) that can be set aside to "build" the next generation.We adopt some business-like practices, but we are not a business and never will be. And yes, children sometimes want to leave a family they feel doesn't meet their needs and go to another family. Sometimes they actually do that. But the family is not a business.
Oh, bullshit. Profits are not proof of "exploitation." Put away your tired Marxist cliches and join the grown-ups.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Businesses are not closed models, and they certainly are not resistant to democratic processes. Can Ford force you to buy one of their cars? Can Best Buy require you to take home a new computer? Did Harmony House ever make it mandatory for people to buy the new album by Elvis Costello?
No. Those are all voluntary exchanges made between two consenting parties. If people don't like some policy at Wal-mart, no one stops them from shopping at Meijer or someplace else.
Bankruptcy is the ultimate "democratic" potential facing every business concern, as long as the free market is allowed to work. Politics can get injected, and some companies may be deemed "too big to fail" but that's a bullshit, meaningless designation.
The events of the last ten months have clearly shown us the tremendous financial loss that can be realized when you have crooked businessmen, crooked financial investors, incompetent business leaders, greedy corporations [[especially banks) etc. Government has not cornered the market on corruption and incompetence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Det_ard
Many of you may be too young to remember when you could get replacement lightbulbs for free from DTE [[then Detroit Edison). But a business person sued because it kept him from selling his bulbs for a profit, and the courts decided that Edison could no longer give away lightbulbs. Mind you, this was a drug store owner, so lightbulbs were only one of the items he sold. Spare me some of the "practices" of business.
And above all other considerations, consumers [[citizens) are turning to other businesses [[cities) when they are leaving Detroit for other cities.
Citizens are not strictly consumers. They don't necessarily pay for every service they receive. When they do pay, they mostly pay proportionate to their assets [[land, house, income). There are exceptions of course where there are fees that are the same for everyone in a particular category [[bus fare, for instance). Sometimes citizens pay for services that they don't receive, such as when they pay school taxes but send their kids to private school. I don't pay for anything I don't receive from a business and they cannot take my money to provide goods and services to someone else, unless I agree to make a donation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stosh
Businesses are not going to charge based on income or assets, although they might run sales or specials designed to give a break to seniors or others.Cities cannot tell everyone to pay the same property tax regardless of the value of their property. Business can decide to relocate to where they will find more desirable customers. Cities must serve everyone within their geographic boundaries.And on, and on and on.
We are taking the analogy too far. Next, we're going to say consumers [[husbands) are turning to other businesses [[mistresses) when they leave their wives for other women:rolleyes:
Conducting city business SHOULD be more business-like and professional. Many poor decisions have been made from a financial standpoint. I won't say they're wrong, because the city officials' priorities [[as elected by the citizens of Detroit) have supported those decisions - but they've had consequences.
For instance, many say that outsourcing to contractors doesn't save money. I would say that in general, the city does a shitty job of selecting and managing contractors.
The black-owned set-asides and preferences cost the city 5-20% on contracts, as what actually happens in many instances [[not all, of course) is that a local black front company is erected then selected, and then many of the firms that would of done the work who are qualified do it anyway, but with a mark-up because you now have an extra layer.
Also, you must be a union contractor in most cases for the bulk of the work the city needs done. Those wages and work rules are going to be more expensive, and frankly, not price competitive with the price the suburbs get where those rules in many instances do not apply. I'm not making a value judgement on if unions are bad, but they do in general cost more and if that's worth it to you, then fine. But realize the financial consequences of that decision.
Even in those cases, being better organized, having qualified people [[reading Bing's report, there's a lot of people who aren't, such as accounting) and being more efficient on the city side alone can save a lot of money. Union or not, being clear on directions saves a lot of time and effort.
Having to talked to a good share of officials and people over the years, I honestly don't think many citizens, employees or officials really understand the impact of their choices over the years, or how deep of a hole the city is in. They just assumed they're going to get saved somewheres along the line.
I suggest this is the first type of thinking that needs to be changed everywhere, not just in the city: the idea that services are 'free.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke09
There is not, never has been, and never will be, any such thing as a 'free lunch.'
Residents absolutely do pay for every service they receive, and lots of 'services' they would never support if ever given the choice [[wait, I thought businesses were immune to democratic processes?!).
I can't speak for the union contractors, but I can speak for the white-collar non-union contractors. Their rates are astronomical compared to city employee rates, even with benefits. In most cases, they are no more competent than the city professionals. In many cases, they do their work by getting information from the city professionals and repackaging it.Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalvision
You are accurate that there is some overhead associated with having minority fronts. But there are a plethora of non-minority companies, with no one fronting for them, that provide white collar workers and professional services at ridiculous prices. I've sarcastically challenged the press to ask for real substantiated numbers whenever they cry out for privatization - at least where the white collar jobs are concerned.
If you really want to save money, you must also want to understand the real numbers. I'm not interested in privatization just because it is politcally correct or the current mantra. I am interested in what actually results in a lower tax burden on citizens.
Which by the way is why I'm voting no on Proposal S. It doesn't make good "business" sense to build more buildings when you cannot afford the ones you currently have. Doesn't make sense when you cannot afford teachers and counselors. Doesn't make good sense when residents are already not only losing their homes to mortgage foreclosures, but also to tax foreclosures.
And if you look within Locke's response you find this:
Exactly why people are abandoning Detroit for other businesses.. I mean cities.:DQuote:
Sometimes citizens pay for services that they don't receive
I reread my post and this is what I meant: Not all residents pay property and/or income tax. So some residents are getting a free ride at the expense of those who are paying. I think the remaining body of my post makes clear what I meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by EastSider
I also noted that some people don't pay property tax, but send their kids to public school. Others pay property tax but don't send their kids to public schools. Somebody's paying, but not necessarily the person receiving the goods or services. That is unlike the business model.
I understood it pretty well the first time you said it. Not sure why that wasn't clear to others...Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke09
Oh, you grow up. Try to crack your mind back open and resist the urge to catcall everybody you think doesn't agree with you as a Marxist. This isn't 1955 anymore, EastSider.Quote:
Originally Posted by EastSider
A city is a business where the owners are also the customers; where the creditors are also the debtors. It should run neither an excessive profit or deficit, because either one is harmful to its owners/customers. If it runs a profit, that means too much was taken; if it runs a deficit, that means much more will have to be taken.
If Detroit's a business, when's the going out of business sale going to happen? And when can the receiver take over and whip it into shape?
Absolutely, yes. Cities need good common sense money managers. If you do not have the mental ability to allocate funds to pay for police protection, utility upgrades, etc., your municipality will be in the dark and dangerous. If the people who handle our municipal funds do not understand the basic laws of business and possess a strong ethic code, we have -- Detroit.
The people we elect to national offices [[President, Congress) should have a foundation based on [[of course) not only management skills, but also implementing ideas that will strengthen our constitution and protect and nurture our citizens.
Ideas have a place on a national government level. Eisenhower had a vision and an idea of a country with citizens who could travel on well maintained, planned and accessible roads. His idea became the interstate system.
I don't know much about New York's Mayor Bloomberg ideology, but he can handle my checkbook anytime.
Locke09,
[[RATHOLE WARNING: EXPLAINING SCHOOL FUNDING FOR OTHERS)
Proposal S is written the way it is because of the fubar State of Michigan funding system. Follow the rabbit hole written by our "esteemed" government.
You can't tax yourself, as a school district, for anything but capital improvements. It's illegal to use that money for teachers, in the classroom, etc. and it's against the law in Michigan to pass a tax that pays for salaries, benefits, etc or the direct educational experience, which the state now controls the dollars to.
Why bonds and sinking funds are important is that some, if not many repairs any school district has to make on their buildings, if they're paid for by the bond or sinking fund they then don't come out of the general fund, reserving more money for teachers and the like. Roofs still need replaced, tuckpointing, boilers, etc. It's a complicated and confusing game that not even our current legislators [[none of them were here at the time, thank you term limits) understand.
It's really sad when you talk to legislators and they literally have no idea that the bonds their districts pass cannot be used for teachers and so don't understand the ramifications of their actions. Some actually think that the local district can tax themselves to make up the difference the state cuts, which, as I mentioned before, is in violation of state law!
Proposal A was a windfall at the time for districts, but no one thought the ride would end [[of course). It didn't take into account the fact that economic cycles occur and it's devastating in a downturn.
So in short, in MI, passing a bond, in theory, helps relieve the pressure on the general fund, therefore freeing up money for teachers and core stuff like that.
It's a bad, confusing way of doing things, but we live in Michigan - where we've been doing things right for so long, it's obvious why we lead the nation! [[In Unemployment).
I don't know about the way you're couching it. In Detroit, for instance, we're far past any question of "mental abilities." The money is not there. The revenues are not there. It's not a matter of doing it smarter. Sometimes accounting abilities do make the difference, but I'd argue the applications are narrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckystrikes
Take L.B. Patterson. He's a competent administrator, but you could have had a trained monkey in charge of Oakland County at its zenith and things would have run fine. Similarly, I doubt Patterson would be able to do much with Detroit, other than thump his chest and blame Detroiters.
I have to laugh though. When you say a city is "dark and dangerous," do you mean the city? Or the people? ;)
I meant we will not have street lights or police protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
I used the word 'marxist' because it fit, dumb ass, not because I'm stuck in some arbitrary year pulled out of your butt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Profits are not 'skimmed off someone else's labor.' Try running your own business, and then come back and tell us you didn't work for your profits.
First of all, iheart, this is not a personal rebuttal, rather, you have succinctly expressed a concept which lays bare the gist of the matter. A city is nothing more, and nothing less, than the people who live there. The business model assigns these people both the role of consumer, and the role of stockholder. As consumers, they expect quality products such as public safety and a nurturing environment for their children. As stockholders, they retain the power and initiative to fire the CEO [[the mayor). In this model, Dave Bing brings respectable credentials, he's a self-made man, untainted by the dubious accomplishments typically associated with affirmative-action and race-mongering. He's not in it for the money, he's not in it for the ego. He doesn't need this, but if he does succeed, and we should all hope that he does, it will be entirely because he "means business".Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
Mr. Bing has not tackled anything with the complexity of a multibillion dollar conglomerate like Detroit [[since we insist on calling it a business). The sheer number of unions, job types and titles, functions and services, regulations and laws [[not all of them local), and different constituents alone [[businesses, visitors, citizens, partnerships) puts it outside of the realm of anything he has had to deal with. He has never, to my knowledge, turned around a corporation that was 300 million dollars in the red [[since we insist on calling it a business). Has he? He has only ever had one or two automotive customers to satisfy, not hundreds of thousands of customers [[since we insist on calling it a business). He has never provided a service, the success or failure of which might truly mean someone lives or dies. He has never run a company where "meaning business" and huffing and puffing might not produce any real results [[how are we doing with the 300 million dollar deficit?).Quote:
Originally Posted by LouHat
If this really were run like a business we would have hired a CEO with more relevant experience, wouldn't we?
I actually don't care about any Mayor/CEO. I care about the quality of life in the City of Detroit.
Then volunteer to go clean up the parks or something. Leave the heavy-hitting to the Bing-ster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke09
Examples, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by ndavies
Paris is not run like a business, and things get done fairly quickly. Under Mitterand the Grand Travaux, or 'great works' projects transformed the city in a relatively few years.
France spends 57% of each tax Euro on "culture" as they call it- which includes renovation of historic structures, public lighting and art displays, museums, opera, stabilizing retail sectors, parks, education, etc. No business would operate on that model and stay in business very long.
Your primary example I'm sure will be New York, which has been run like a business in recent years under Guiliani and now Bloomberg, and that's why New York is still dirty, the subways are still antiquated, and Disney has been allowed to transform formerly seedy areas like times square into tourist traps.
Be careful what you wish for.
Christ. It's just unbelieveable. Do you really think for a second that any CEO doesn't depend heavily, if not totally, upon managers and underlings for effective performance? What do you think he was handed the day he took office? An actual working city? You think the 300 million was ran up overnight?Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke09
Hi Lorax. Au contraire, big time. I lived in Brooklyn many moons ago, and not too long ago traveled with an acquaintance from Long Beach to Manhattan on the subway. I looked at the map and saw that we had to transfer at Decalb, and I was so embarrassed, big mistake, should have known better, aw-shucks, etc. etc., and I told her to stick close to me, it was going to be dangerous and "ghetto". And we get there and it's so lame and peaceful, like a mall in Minnesota. And I'm like "well, back in the day, it was really nasty, believe me, for real, honest injun, etc., etc.". I felt like a wimp, getting all dramatic about it. And I blame Giuliani, he cleaned things up and neglected to inform me about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorax
It's good that you were pleasantly surprised, but I am there frequently, 5-6 times per year, and find some thing improved, and many places still dirty. Grand Central Station, Central Park, the Met and the library are looking better, Times Square is a little too cheesy for my tastes, and a less Disneyfied atmosphere would have been better.
Turning Manhattan into a tourist attraction of that kind is a shame. I remember when Giuliani would have bogus traffic tickets handed out by cops as if they were handing out candy, claiming there was some sign blocks back about no turning right on Broadway, etc., and when people would all be turning, they'd have ten cops waiting, standing there directing turners to the curb and handing out tickets.
Giuliani ruled by entrapment, thievery and crass brass knuckly politics. Giving in to corporate interests did not make Manhattan better.
And the subways are still antiquated and dirty.
I'll give you all that, Lorax, but there's a certain electricity about it, and it's the people, and when I was home on leave hanging out with some Hamtramck buds, I observed that I was feeling the same vibes there that I felt on 86th and 5th [[Bay Ridge). But I date myself ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorax
What you're describing is a corporation, which is not completely synonymous with "business". A corporation is only a subset of business types. Municipal governments are not a subset of business types.Quote:
Originally Posted by LouHat
Not to come across as an arrogant egghead, but when people say that a city should be "run like a business", I have to question if those people know what is the true definition of business. This entire discussion reminds me of Michael Moore's new documentary [[Capitalism - A Love Story), in which the filmmaker repeatedly conflates the definition of an economic system with that of a political system.
Detroit is a city, and should be run like a city. If the leadership tried to run Detroit like a city, instead of always trying to create new definitions of what a large city should be, I am certain that Detroit would be a better place right now.
I can't argue with anything you've said here, but it doesn't negate anything I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stosh
A CEO will depend heavily on managers, advisers and other employees. But that CEO had better have enough relevant experience to make good decisions based on the information being provided by the "underlings". The CEO had better know when people are feeding him or her BS. The CEO had better be able to spot both competence and incompetence. A CEO walking into a complex organization had better have some experience with complexity. A CEO needing to deal with a huge deficit and an organization in need of change should have some experience turning around an organization in the past. Otherwise, we're saying the City's CEO is just a "figurehead"?
So, a company is going to look for a CEO that has played a similar type game in a similar arena. Hey, maybe Detroit should be run like a sports team;)
Oh, and I don't think anyone expects the deficit to be wiped out in 6 months. I'm just asking what progress has been made. Is it still 300 million or is it down to 290 million now?
Locke, you pretty much sum up my concerns about the Bing administration. Without getting controversial, I do think he may have been the beneificiary of a lot of business deals not because of his business acumen but because of his good name, steady personality and connections. He's not a turnaround man, as his response to recent business setbacks help clarify. He is, howeveer, integrated with the business community here in Detroit.
Is the deficit down at all? Is the turnaround taking place? All I've seen are some PR moves, like condemning street shootings [[was there ever a question street shootings were bad?), talking tough with the unions [[but not gaining traction), raising the salaries on his appointees while discussing closing down a lot of bus service in a city where many residents rely on public transportation to get them around.
And around him, the same coterie of sweethearters, people like Adams, Jackson, Beckham and Evans. Some of these people have criminal convictions, and many of them are tied to the SOS that people across the aisles would object to. And the brief transparency of the Cockrel administration has been brushed aside.
It's like the worst of both worlds: The same stooges, spendthrifts and sweethearters running the show, while Bing seems like a figurehead.
It prompts the question: Was Bing ever anything but a figurehead?
OK, whatever that means, remember, a "city" is merely a creature of the people who live near-abouts. If Detroit can't succeed as a "business", what right does it have to claim to be a "city"? It all boils down to the people-customers-stockholders, if Detroit sucks, the people-customers-stockholders will abandon it, and sign-up with something better. And it does, and they are, and they have been, and they will continue to do so until we are Gary, or Benton Harbor. Nice, a great city killed by silly, cop-out theorizing.Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed