Yet another reason to get out of this cesspool as soon as possible.
So now apparently, although PA 4 was repealed, local municipalities who already have an EFM in place before March 27th will not have the opportunity to choose between bankruptcy, a consent agreement, "mediation" or an EM. Rather the EFM will automatically be grandfathered to an EM position.
And I bet this new law was also drafted by the "fine" folks over at Miller Canfield.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE
It is democracy. The state could essentially repeal a city's charter if it wanted, or fold it into a county unigov-style, or combine two counties. A long held tenet of muni law is that cities and counties are "creatures of the state," subject to the state's control, not entirely unlike how you can control your hand or your foot.
The misinformation out there about EFM/EM laws is astounding.
3 points:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
1) Just because something has been done for a long time [["a long-held tenet of muni law...") doesn't mean that it is democratic to do so. Some quick googling reveals that the legal doctrine you cite [[Dillon's Law, a century-old constitutional principle) is rather controversial, as well. The hand-to-brain analogy, btw, doesn't work. Your hand can never act independently, like a city mayor can.
2) Just because something can be done, legally, doesn't mean it should be done--or that it is democratic to do so. Democratically elected governments are capable of subverting democratic principles and procedures.
3) Putting aside the anti-democratic nature of emergency manager laws, the other issue here is the way the Republican legislature explicitly subverted the will of the people expressed in the PA4 referendum by passing the same law with cosmetic changes. And as 313X points out, even those cosmetic changes don't apply to cities like Flint.
1) It's unquestionably "democratic," just not a manifestation of democracy that you like. Do you deny that Snyder and the legislature were popularly/democratically elected?
2) There are substantial differences between this law and the other.
Simply put, I think you and 313 are arguing what "ought to be" rather than what "is." I lean more toward your side in the general debate but harbor no illusions concerning the legality or "undemocratic" nature of the law Snyder just signed, especially with the appropriation trick they pulled.
But calling it undemocratic is some Joann Watson style ignorant demagogue shit.
Elections have consequences... if there is some ire at the Rs legislating the agenda they ran on and loudly tout, then maybe next time Ds will remember to vote instead of sitting at home in off year elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
Catches^ the essence perfectly. You snooze, you lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
The extreme lurch of this lame duck session and meek compliance by the governor will spur the opposition. Their turn will come and a lot of this will get tossed. Unfortunately what they did means war and a long period of political warfare will ensue. Hopefully the sides will ceasefire on issues essential to the state - like the new bridge, like regional transit, like saving our inner cities.
You're confusing "legal" with "democratic."Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
And just because Snyder was elected in a democratic process [[elections, to the degree they are democratic in the United States today) doesn't mean anything he does is therefore ipso facto democratic.
If cities can avoid EFM/EM through democracy, why don't cities simply vote themselves more money to pay their bills? That would be democratic and legal. Would solve all problems. No EM/EFM. Lots of money!
If it was just that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
Not just Snyder, but the popularly elected legislature. Snyder cant just pass laws by fiat like a dictator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melocoton
Again, democratic, just not a manifestation of it you like [[or are unwilling to accept[[?)).
This distinction doesn't contradict my earlier point at all. A popularly elected leader--or a popularly elected legislature, or a popularly elected whatever-you-like--is capable of subverting democratic principles through legal means. Just because someone--or some groups of someones--are elected doesn't mean that whatever they do is democratic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
Again, I say the emergency manager law is undemocratic because 1) it removes the authority of elected representatives [[I have to ask, if elections are the sign of democracy, as you say about Snyder and the state reps., why not also in the case of mayors and city councilmembers?); and 2) the new law is an obvious finger in the eye to voters who just voted down such laws in Nov. All of this is legal, but that doesn't make it democratic, in the sense of protecting the rights and the will of all the people of this state--not just those who are wealthy or who live in Republican districts.
I'd be willing to posit that the continued gross mismanagement of the city of Detroit is purely undemocratic as well, given your definition of democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melocoton
Why not also in the case of mayors & city councilmembers, you ask?Quote:
Originally Posted by Melocoton;359003...Again, I say the emergency manager law is undemocratic because 1) it removes the authority of elected representatives [[I have to ask, if elections are the sign of democracy, as you say about Snyder and the state reps., [B
Democracy is not simply rule by the majority -- at least in the USA. It is a respect for the rule of law and laws, with decisions made by various groups under general democratic principles. There's nothing particulary democratic in the one-man, one-vote way about much of our democratic society.
Most votes are simple majority. But many are not.
To protect the minority viewpoints, we have lots of rules and policies in place. For example, the Senate gives population disproportionate power to Delaware and Rhode Island -- that protects small states from large states majority rule. Those policies and procedures are established by constitutional guidelines. We all agreed by signature of just a few representatives to these rules. They form the guidelines under which your democratic voting operate. If the majority decided to hold an election given them dictatorial powers, its not valid. Why? Because we have guiding principles that say no. We have courts to rule only when our principles are violated.
Why do I summarize the obvious? Because these rules apply to Detroit's situation in this way. Money is also a rule. When you don't have money, you don't get to make decisions that require money. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I think money is defined there. Regardless, we have a social agreement about our money that was democratically established.
The agreement is that you manage your affairs with money to a large degree. If you do not do so, you lose your rights.
I posted in jest earlier about the City voting itself more money. The population might pass that at the ballot box. Very democratic. And against our principles. We expect rational management of finances from our cities. Sure, times are tough. Those who have managed their finances well are having a hard time these days. Those who were wasteful must get swept out of power. Method? EFM/EM/bankruptcy... or the market. Doesn't matter.
btw, is bankruptcy democratic to you?
I'm not a constitutional scholar either, but I'm pretty sure that there's nothing in the Constitution or the Declaration or John Locke's complete works or anywhere else about your rights being contingent on how much money you or your town have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
Perhaps we should revise the preamble to the Declaration accordingly.
Wesley's Preamble to the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, assuming the governed have money, in which case, all bets are off. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, or if the government lacks money, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness and money. The agreement is that you manage your affairs with money to a large degree. If you do not do so, you lose your rights.
We can end this by just having Obama name a financial manager of Michigan and get rid of Snyder.
I liked Wesley's Preamble to the Preamble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melocoton
But seriously, folks... lack of money does not limit your rights. But your rights do not grant you money either.
The real issue is that the rights demanded include the right to other peoples money. That's not a right. Detroit is making a democratic choice. That choice is failure. If you make that democratic decision, then live with the consequences, including financial ruin. You will still have your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. But no jobs. Enjoy.