Printable View
To continue part of the thread from the old forum:
Why are council members entitled to a driver, car, etc.? And, how does a group of concerned citizens put a stop to the excessive/unnecessary spending? On a recent "Tell Me More", political columnist Jasmyne Cannick spoke about our apathy over this exact sort of issue. Unfortunately, she offered no solution. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=102283097
The only solution I see is council by district. This would mean councilpersons would have to campaign in the district they wanted to be elected from. This would force candidates to engage the community. The current system leaves far too many voters detached from the political system. JMO...
Sadly, the powers that be won't allow for an actual districting of Detroit. Sad, because then certain neighborhoods would be actually represented, ie...southwest Detroit. What would be so wrong with 12 districts?
When doing research for a genealogical thingy, I happened to find all my great grandparents living in Detroit, 1870ish and listed as 'Sixth Ward' [[apaprently the Eastern Market neighborhood)
So what's with all the blathering about going BACK to the Ward system? Not one poster has mentioned, we already HAD this system in Detroit, for years, all they do is piss and moan that it'd be 'worse than what we have.'
Every arguement I hear says how the Ward/District idea of Council election is 'fraught with the potential for bad abuses' but obviously the 'Member at Large' system we have now replacing it hasn't stopped the little dears from shoving grubby hands into the money pot. I have yet to see a valid arguement from supporters of the 'at large' system that isn't anything but 'status quo' Does anyone have any data indicating the old Ward system was worse than this current shitfest? Or is it all knee-jerk opposition from those with a vested intrest in keeping the gravy-train running?
I don't think the "powers that be" can stop districting if the citizens want it. The citizens have been the ones to reject it, although the powers that be have encouraged them to reject it. It requires a charter amendment that the citizens can have placed on the ballot.Quote:
Originally Posted by d.mcc
detroitchef,
I'm not taking a firm position on the ward system yet, but various posters have mentioned that we had this system before, and have pointed out the documented corruption that existed.
What I and I'm sure others have noted also is that a ward system is not as effective and is probably more prone to corruption when you have a strong-mayor form of government as Detroit has. The reason is, council cannot force any city department to do anything [[except the few divisions that fall under council). They have no control over the executive branch where all the services that matter to the citizens come from. So, I am afraid of any move to a ward system that doesn't also come with charter revisions that give the wards more control over their services. No one seems ready to tackle that and it is the reason I cannot make up my own mind about it yet.
Also I can just see a mayor pitting one ward against another - vote the way I want and I'll see to it that your ward gets special treatment. Divide and conquer.
Finally, for now, I think about the various wards that the city would be carved into. Not all the wards will be "pretty". Some of those wards will undoubtedly be filled with people who don't care if their councilmember is hanging out at the casinos, having driven there in a city-owned vehicle, "possibly" with a city-paid driver. They'll say "So what" like they said about Kwame. You will likely have several council members that reflect the attitude of their wards.
Just some specific thoughts.
Very good points Locke09. I barely agree with wards only because of two reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke09
- It allows the districts that care to reflect that by the leadership and services provided, the areas that don't care fall into disrepair - as opposed to the whole city.
- It forces council members to campaign inside those districts, which means they have to engage the community. Maybe a lot of voters would wake up if they had a candidate knocking on their door to solicit their vote as opposed to candidates that only campaign in the major areas. There is something to be said for more power locally.