Since AP went "all in" on the studio idea and lost, the city appears to be in dire straits. So if an EMF is appointed, would Detroiters feel better about getting their own EMF afterwards?
Does it take a suburb of Detroit getting an EMF first to make it OK for Detroit to get one as well?
Interested to hear everyone's thoughts...
Have a great long weekend!
Benton Harbor, Ecorse, and Hamtramck have all been there, no?
Detroit would be much like those cities. Arrival in EFM-land because of a million bad financial decisions on the backs of the citizens over the years.
Allen Park appears only to have made one bad decision on the backs of the taxpayer. A really big one.
So tell us, what big decision is your city going to make to become the next Allen Park?
Between the crash in property tax values, the reductions in revenue sharing and the elimination of the personal property tax revenue, the next round of EFMs won't be due to financial mismanagement, it will be due to the state pushing local governments into insolvency through decisions made in Lansing, not locally.
Agree with Novine. The fact that there is mismanagement doesn't mean there isn't a structural problem with municipal finance in Michigan. Badly run and/or more disadvantaged cities just hit the wall first. Maybe people will be able to cut enough to get ahead of it, but I wouldn't count on it.
I agree as well -- for the most part.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
You have to fix structural problems, mismanagement, fraud and waste, inefficiency, disproportionate pension liabilities, overspending, service sharing, outsource where appropriate, adjust tax rates, match government size to population, restructure, decrease number of job classifications, amalgamate cities...
And each and everyone of them difficult -- and controversial.
We have one in Pontiac and its working out ok by me.Tough choices have been made regarding police fire and services,but the clowsil crooks who were/were not running the place srceamed until they not heard from.Detroit can do the same,sooner the better.
Lucky...you've touched on something important. The screams are just the sounds of those who have it pretty good unhappy that reality knocked on their door. Some people will be hurt. Let's minimize that as much as we can. But fixing government in Detroit is a goal that will help the citizens oh so much. Its more important than whether administrators take a pension haircut.Quote:
Originally Posted by luckycar
Agree with Mouch. We need to do a better job of expecting the screams. For 2 generations, screaming was the only strategy to have your voice heard. For the first time, though, people are realizing that being heard is not going to put bread on the table.Quote:
Originally Posted by luckycar
We have to remember that for many of these civic leaders, they were taught that when your screams were ignored, the only solution was to scream harder. It's the same reason why you don't ever hear of Mangement/UAW negotiations getting completed 2 weeks in advance of the deadline. Even if they both agree...all of their constituents would be furious unless they thought their leaders were fighting for the best deal they can get...even if that short-sighted mentality was preventing the cooperation necessary to further long-term goals.
The bigger problem, which makes our municipal finance system unsustainable no matter what short-term patches we put on it, is the ridiculous number of municipalities, and the resulting duplication of positions.
Consider what was, a hundred plus years ago, Royal Oak Township. That's 36 square miles, a decent size for a community which would have one police chief, one city manager, a single municipal building, perhaps two libraries and two fire stations. But that's not what Royal Oak Township turned into. Contained within those 36 square miles today are Royal Oak, Ferndale, Oak Park, Hazel Park, Berkley, Pleasant Ridge, Huntington Woods, Madison Heights, half of Clawson, as well as a small unincorporated area that is still Royal Oak Township. And there's so many I might have inadvertently left one out.
We have to get serious about combining communities and removing this excess of duplication of services. But nobody's even really discussing that seriously. It's been done in Ontario, to great effect. But in Michigan we continue to tie the noose of "home rule" tighter and tighter around our own necks, while simultaneously marveling that it seems to be getting harder and harder to breathe.
By the way if you would like to argue against this point, feel free, but leave Detroit out of it. Detroit is 139 square miles and doesn't have to merge with anything. This thread is about too many suburbs.
Lobsters scream when you though them in a pot of boiling water, but the final outcome is quite good!:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by luckycar
I agree completely that there are structural and economic issues that are exacerbating Detroit's budgetary problems. But I think it's as obvious as the nose on your face that even if those other problems were magically suddenly fixed, we still need a team in place to put everything back together. While a team needs good players, it needs a coaching staff to make a cohesive unit ready, willing, and able to play to win. Detroit has no coaching staff to speak of [[this post is not a dig at the Tigers!). Also, the mismanagement of the past caused the structural problems, and at least substantially contributed to the economic problems in the city. An EFM can help put sound management practices into place, with modern accounting and business practices, etc. We should remember, though, that an EFM is not designed to fix the city's problems, merely to put it on a sound financial footing. How we get get economic growth, better schools choices, safer neighborhoods, streets in good repair, etc, are not the EFM's job. They're ours.
A very important point you make.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
All of the anti-EFM gang would be better advised to accept the short-term pain, and start building a good team for the future. Those issues really need attention. Avoiding the EFM is only a power-game.
But to take it back to Allen Park -- can someone 'splain how a city can make this kind of financial risk...? Aren't there provisions to prevent leaders from making absurd bets. If not, why is this problem local to Allen Park, and not every other city?
I agree and would like to add that the mayor and council have not made any good decision on saving the city from financial ruins. The cuts that they have made turned the city into Dave Bing was once on the board ot DTE was he not? I would rather have an EFM than for my tax dollars to pay the salaries of these elected officials to cut to the bone basic services that I am paying through the nose in taxes to haveQuote:
Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn
The prevailing wind seems to indicate that the fine residents of the CoD don't want to have ANY pain involved in this process. Oh sure, there's a few dandys in the Corks and Mids who would, but the overwhelming majority... Let's, for the sake of argument, give Joanne her 250MM. What would it accomplish? It would cut this year's deficit from 315MM to 65MM. You still have to cut the 65 or add to the approximate 1.6 billion structural debt. Ok, let's say there's a new movie called Ms. Watson Goes To Washington and she goes all Monica on Obama and Obama says "let's forget about your debt". Then what? THAT'S why you need an EFM. To teach the esteemed leaders of the CoD some basic accounting and economics principles.
And this makes them different from everyone else in the world? People don't generally mind too much having other people get their taxes raised or their benefits reduced, but they generally are quite cross when their own are. The council has some irresponsible panderers, but again, what legislative body does not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maple Leaf Rag
I don't have a problem with the irresponsible panderers on council. I have a problem when the irresponsible panderers start outnumbering the responsible solution-finders.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
That isn't really the role of a weak city council such as Detroit's. However, what happens in more functional cities is that the council panders, but passes the mayor's budget anyway with a few changes that they can point to as improvements. In Detroit, currently, the mayor makes inadequate proposals, and then the council obstructs them. That's a bad place to be, but the council isn't the main problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by corktownyuppie