Stephen Henderson: Detroit financial report an indictment of Mayor Dave Bing's leader

I'll give Henderson some credit, he doesn't hold back on Bing's basic failings as an administrator over Detroit city government.

"There's a lot in the state's preliminary financial review of Detroit that isn't about Mayor Dave Bing.

The city has problems that predate Bing's administration by years, even decades.

But one of the more telling aspects of today’s report is the window it opens on how many of those problems have gotten worse under Bing, and how ineffective the mayor has been tackling Detroit’s big-picture issues.

It may be the most damning evidence yet that Bing, a proven winner who generated high hopes among residents and strong backing from the business community [[and the Free Press) has not been the right leader for Detroit...."

Detroit financial report an indictment of Mayor Dave Bing's leader

Damning indeed. I've supported Bing up to now, and I'm starting to shift away from having his back.

The thing is that I actually support the things he's doing now to re-structure our legacy costs. But man, did it really have to take 2 years to get here? And even then, it was only the EM threat that did it. Also wish he could've start the right-sizing of the city footprint earlier.

On the flip side, perhaps it required coming to the brink of death to push everyone to get moving...maybe he tried to push the revolutionary re-design at the beginning and then found the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object. And that pushing us to the brink was his plan all along to finally do what needed to be done.

Or, maybe he's just incompetent.

I know that we may disagree about this, but all the things that are happening as a result of our financial stress are things that I advocated for from the beginning. In fact, I still maintain the position that had we started this process 20 years ago like other counties and municipalities, perhaps we wouldn't be in this place.

I just wish that Bing could've made it happen earlier so it wouldn't have to be so painful.

I am beginning to think that the" I'll be a one term mayor " Bing was the con all along to win the election, knowing he had a failing business and he probably wasn't ready to retire. He probably figured that once he got in the people would be impressed with the fact that he runs an honest admininstration [[that we know of) and under these dire economic times he is doing the best he can to make the citizens lives better. With no clear cut competition on the horizon he could ride this for at least two terms and then ride off into the sunset.

The problem with that is that was not what he campaigned on. He said he would fix Detroit's problems even if it took him being a one term mayor. The people knew and was ready to take some bitter medicine if they were assured that down the road it would lead to better times in the city. I think when he couldn't really sell the downsizing of certain Detroit areas to the people he just decided to kick the can down the road like the other mayors. So essentially he is going to let an EFM do his job for him. Hell, if that happens once the EFM's term is up we should vote for that person to be mayor.

http://www.freep.com/article/2011122...-finances-says

To all of those people in Detroit who are so adament about "their" city and "their" elected officials and to all of those clergy with a real church along with those store-front clergy who pay no taxes at all, this is why the City is in the dire straits it's in right now:

"Instead of cutting the budgets to reduce the deficits, the city borrowed more than $600 million from 2005-10 to try to cut into the shortfalls. This has increased the city's long-term debt without reducing the deficit" [[thug KK's reign).

"The city was unable to account for approximately $216 million in pension investments."

"The city appears to have misspent $14.5 million -- mostly on salaries -- that was intended for community development block grants, WIC [[Women, Infants and Children) recipients and other services to help lower-income Detroiters" [[And this one should outrage all of the citizens of Detroit)

Gary Brown, a multi-millionaire, wants all of the City employees to shoulder this debt and "sacrifice", while he and others on the Clowncil refuse to give up their perks. City employees can and will apply for Bridge Cards and anything else they can get from government to help them live. Cops are being paid wages that most other communities laugh at and they go out and risk their lives everyday in a town where murders aren't one a day but 4 a day or more. Firefighters risk their lives to save the residents lives and homes and get no thanks and are asked to give up more for their families. This is really screwed up and Detroit will be total chaos very soon.

Yeah, and let's not forget under the KK 'administration' we were not getting audits out with any measure of timeliness. I was debating this with KK supporters during the time, stating that it was a problem that would come up down the road...

We lost money on that and the depth of Detroit's fiscal situation was concealed - for obvious reasons during that time. All kick the can policies [[and corruption) and now the butchers bill is due - three-fold!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buy American

http://www.freep.com/article/2011122...-finances-says

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buy American

Gary Brown, a multi-millionaire, wants all of the City employees to shoulder this debt and "sacrifice", while he and others on the Clowncil refuse to give up their perks. City employees can and will apply for Bridge Cards and anything else they can get from government to help them live. Cops are being paid wages that most other communities laugh at and they go out and risk their lives everyday in a town where murders aren't one a day but 4 a day or more. Firefighters risk their lives to save the residents lives and homes and get no thanks and are asked to give up more for their families. This is really screwed up and Detroit will be total chaos very soon.

---

Since you really aren't a proponent of facts you shuold be aware that Gary Briown proposed cutting Council budgets by 30%, eliminating phones, cars and other perks. The council voted against it. Complain about the other on council but Brown wanted to lead by example but was overruled.

You also ignore the fact that a significant issue the city is facing is debts associated with pensions. A pension that you are collecting.

Yes, current administrators have and continue to do a lot wrong but the reality is that these issues go back a long time and the obligations that the city owes is from years and years back, in addition to current times.

So collect your pension and enjoy it while whining.

And since you have always insisted that pensions and retirees aren't a burden on the city. Yep, the city messed up but the leaders and unions during your time are complicit in the current fiscal issues the city is facing
From:http://www.freep.com/article/2011122...text|FRONTPAGE

Ballooning costs

A major cause of the long-term debt is ballooning pension costs. The number of retirees continues to increase, while the work force that helps pay for pension obligations has reached historic lows. The city makes health care and pension payments to more than 20,000 retirees, while only about 11,000 employees are on the active payroll. In 1975, there were two active employees for every retiree.
During the past four years, pension and health care costs increased from $266 million to $391 million, even with a $40-million drop in payroll.

I found this most disturbing in Dillon's report because it almost insures longevity of this process. IMO bankruptcy may be the only way out these obligations.

Quote:

---

• To pay down the city's more than $8 billion in long-term debt on time, the city would have to pay $597 million a year, which is more than the city collects annually in income and property taxes.

• Anticipating a rise in interest rates for bonds, the city entered into agreements that protected it from rising rates. But because interest rates fell instead, the city's agreements will cost it $1.1 billion over the life of the debt.

---

There is a lot that the city has and continues to do wrong. I can't fault them for locking in rates. As a governmental entity you want to ensure consistency in what your obligations are and nobody would have expected rates to drop so much.

The more important point that is missing is what and when they locked in rates. It very well may have been the right thing to do at the time. It would be akin to criticizing someone who refinanced their home at 5% because rates are now at 4%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jt1

There is a lot that the city has and continues to do wrong. I can't fault them for locking in rates. As a governmental entity you want to ensure consistency in what your obligations are and nobody would have expected rates to drop so much..

---

I totally agree with that and understand it. Had or should rates rise, it would have looked like a genius move. I was more bemoaning the bad luck and than the intention. The problem, of course, was taking on the original debt obligations.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Taking on debt to pay obligations/operations will never result in a positive thing. It is like people that are surprised that taking out a second mortgage to maintain a specific lifestyle was a bad idea.

I understand that cities often need to float bonds but it should be for very specific one time costs such as infrastructure, not to maintain operations. I would go so far as to say that there should be legislation that forbids cities or counties to do this.

For BuyAmerican: Article about Brown proposing significant [[although likely not significant cuts) to the council budget:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...=2011112070438

"You also ignore the fact that a significant issue the city is facing is debts associated with pensions. A pension that you are collecting."

thug KK, Conyers and many other corrupt politicians have had their hands in the pension fund for a long time. How do you think thug KK is paying for all the extravagance and lawyers while he awaits his fate? He has more money stuck away in offshore accounts than there are employees in the City of Detroit.

After 30 years of service to the City of Detroit with the DFD I will continue to collect my pension as long as I can. When I hired in to the City, a pension was part of the package THEY provided and it was terms they set up. Brown is collecting a pension that is 3x more than I receive for less years worked.

Brown, though you are correct that he proposed cuts, is a turncoat in my eyes. His ideas to lay off police and fire personnel is irresponsible.

It will be a one term mayor. After that an EFM dictator will oversee everything in Detroit's city goverment business. There will be no council by districts. Only council by districts from the EFM's friends and Synder, the nerd's friends. Some Detroit's services will be privatized, unions will be gone and its infrastructure will be provided by the corporate and investor proposals.

Get ready for a whole new Delta City.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novine

I'll give Henderson some credit, he doesn't hold back on Bing's basic failings as an administrator over Detroit city government.

"There's a lot in the state's preliminary financial review of Detroit that isn't about Mayor Dave Bing.

The city has problems that predate Bing's administration by years, even decades.

But one of the more telling aspects of today’s report is the window it opens on how many of those problems have gotten worse under Bing, and how ineffective the mayor has been tackling Detroit’s big-picture issues.

It may be the most damning evidence yet that Bing, a proven winner who generated high hopes among residents and strong backing from the business community [[and the Free Press) has not been the right leader for Detroit...."

Detroit financial report an indictment of Mayor Dave Bing's leader

---

Novine: Appreciate the shout out.. It is not fun writing this way about people we support... and believe me, I've taken to heart a lot of your criticisms about how long we stuck with the mayor. That's generally my inclination: to work to help make people successful, not tear them down. That may have led us to back away from more concerted criticism earlier - although a lot of the stuff we're learning now was not evident last year or before.

[[random thought)-- I wonder what would have happened had Cockrel won out, lol.. hmm.. anyway.. I hope that all city leaders get more proactive in their duties immediately.. it's not a good look for any of them, come 2013..

Never thought much of Dave Bing, don't really think he ran his business and saw no reason to presume that he could manage Detroit's problems. I think either Cockrel or Hendrix would have been better choices.

We are in real trouble here.

Not to deny that the report is unflattering to Mayor Bing, but did we really need a report to see that the financial problems apparent from before the time he was elected were not being addressed?

I find it incomprehensible that he didn't act more rapidly and with a greater sense of urgency. Perhaps he still would not have been able to get the other stakeholders to go along, but in a deficit situation, waiting makes everything harder, until you get to where we are now, where the city has almost no options.

I would have been happy to see Cockrel keep the job, but never thought that was likely--I was convinced Bing would win [[if he ran) from before the time he decided to run. But he has done less than I had hoped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstandten

I am beginning to think that the" I'll be a one term mayor " Bing was the con all along to win the election, knowing he had a failing business and he probably wasn't ready to retire. He probably figured that once he got in the people would be impressed with the fact that he runs an honest admininstration [[that we know of) and under these dire economic times he is doing the best he can to make the citizens lives better. With no clear cut competition on the horizon he could ride this for at least two terms and then ride off into the sunset.

The problem with that is that was not what he campaigned on. He said he would fix Detroit's problems even if it took him being a one term mayor. The people knew and was ready to take some bitter medicine if they were assured that down the road it would lead to better times in the city. I think when he couldn't really sell the downsizing of certain Detroit areas to the people he just decided to kick the can down the road like the other mayors. So essentially he is going to let an EFM do his job for him. Hell, if that happens once the EFM's term is up we should vote for that person to be mayor.

---

I was living in California when Kwame Kilpatrick was elected mayor so naturally, I didn't vote for him but I returned in 2004 and I didn't like what I was seeing out of the mayor so when 2005 came along, I cast my vote for Freeman Hendrix and I thought the job was his but "the street vote" saved Kilpatrick and we had to watch the city continue to deteriorate with Kwame at the top of the heap.

When Dave Bing threw his hat in the ring, I was skeptical of the man because he was 1) a suburbanite and 2) a businessman but seeing how the city was going down the tubes I was like why not... So, Detroiters like me voted for Bing because one of the things he campaigned on was the fact that he would make the tough decisions because he intended to stay only a single term as mayor. The trappings of power is a bitch because it will seduce you and old ass Dave Bing got seduced by the power just like the power seduced Kwame Kilpatirck. Bing was defanged and now Detroit has further deteriorated.

It doesn't matter who you voted for. Bing or Hendrix or the guy selling hot dogs outside the federal building. The city has no money. Nobody can save it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveJ

It doesn't matter who you voted for. Bing or Hendrix or the guy selling hot dogs outside the federal building. The city has no money. Nobody can save it.

---

Since I mentioned Hendrix then I can assume you meant this for me. That said, I suppose I should thank you for informing me that the city has no money but DUH I think I know that. This was an assessment of Dave Bing as it was written by sehender1. Try to stay on point before you get snarky.

The city's long term debt is a very real and dangerous threat. However, Dillon's report gives a somewhat misleading impression. I believe that the $8 billion in long-term debt figure he references includes about $5 billion of debt that is from Water and Sewer. That Water and Sewar debt is paid from the revenues that department generates from its customers and not the city's general fund revenues such as property and income taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

I found this most disturbing in Dillon's report because it almost insures longevity of this process. IMO bankruptcy may be the only way out these obligations.

---

I think the point is, no matter what the level of debt the city is in we aren't seeing the leadership that we were told we would see. I want to see some concrete action on resolving the issues that face this city. All that I'm seeing is more political posturing, more kicking the can down the road.And yes that is an indictment on Mayor Bing's leadership. That say in business its best to underpromise and over perform. Well, as far as this city's concerned we are getting the opposite.