Printable View
After reading this article, I've actually gotten concerned about the new city council.
http://detnews.com/article/20101220/...r-over-charter
is the writing of the new charter going to become a glorified power struggle. Why do they want 11 members on the council. I also didn't know Detroit spend more their city council than a city like San Diego.
I'm not saying I agree with the mayor on this, but I think council is being unreasonable on this ! do they fear council by districts that much ?
You bet your sweet ass they do. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by showstoppa
I have been reassured a few times that -- don't worry -- the new charter is going to have council by districts. Why? The city residents are in favor of council by districts. We have whole areas of the city for whom nobody is accountable. It makes sense to want one councilperson for every ward or district. Then, individual councilpeople would be accountable for their district.
The city council, most of whose members all live in one neighborhood, are terrified at the thought of having their sweet jobs taken away, or of having to give up their Palmer Park homes. Of losing their offices. Of losing their expense accounts. Of losing their perks.
And -- despite all the people who reassured me that the new charter will have council by districts -- I still live in fear. Fear that the councilmembers will find some vile way to twist the meaning of "council by districts." To tack on some regressive component of at-large members whereby council officeholders can seek a shot at another term playing the citywide name game. This is not, I imagine, what the citizens of Detroit envisioned.
But, you know, Jake. It's Chinatown.
oops, I accidently posted this twice please disregard the other thread !
I am perfectly fine with dumping the ombudsman office. They never did get that they are supposed to be a citizen advocate.
So it looks like Detroit will only have seven districts, regardless of which plan is chosen. That will allow for very large districts, and Council will probably draw them. You're not going to have a cross-section of representation that way; you could conceivably still have five out of the seven district/council members living in one general area of the city.
There is no reason whatsoever to retain any at-large council positions.
Council-by-district is the law of the city, due the election from last year.
Doesn't matter what Council does today, what is drawn up in the new Charter...IF voted in by the populace...will rule THEM. Period.
Council-by-district has the racists in power totally afraid. They are pretty easy to spot. They cannot shut up when the topic is breached...I saw this contention at the Charter discussion a month ago.
One young woman boasted that Charter-by-District was merely a way for those in the SW and NE sides to have someone on Council who looked like them.
I couldn't believe she spoke those words out loud. She is a racist. Afraid of losing power in an increasingly changing city. Oops!
I've seen some of the work by the latest Ombudsperson, Durene Brown. The fact that they're actually doing far more work than the previous Ombudsman, John Eddings, is probably the main reason that Bing wants to get rid of the office. She's put some departments on full blast.Quote:
Originally Posted by sumas
All of the Commissioners are for Council By District, until they get elected. But, since they're trying to use the Commission as a stepping stone to get onto City Council, that idea is always abandoned since they realize that they live in the same Northwest neighborhoods as the Council Members and Council by Districts wouldn't benefit them. Who knows, maybe things will be different with this Commission.Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitnerd
Myself, I think that proposing an expansion of Council to 11 members puts the entire revision at risk. After all, the voters have to vote on everything at once, not piece by piece. If someone manages to sneak in something that most voters abhor so much that they're willing to vote against the entire revision, that's it.
I have written to the charter commission to suggest 7 council seats by district, period. no at-large seats, i do not see the point of at-large seats at all if Districts also mean some oversight on certain city services. Just what would the at-large councilmembers have to do, exactly? what makes their duties "special" compared to a district councilman? I do not support 11 council seats-- Already council does not have any oversight over city services, what good will 11 councilmembers do in that regard? In my opinion, that's just a convenient way to chop up "districts" to allow most current council members-- or their close friends/staffers-- to set up shop in another neighborhood then run for office-- Also, maybe even more cynically, it seems almost like a way to "guarantee" that there will be an African-American "supermajority" in council overall. I do not look forward to 11 mini-mayors bickering. I don't care.
Expect a slight uptick in one-bedroom apartments in devastated city neighborhood real estate markets, as council contenders follow Tinsley-Talabi's example of being a "resident" in "their" neighborhood. [[Does anybody seriously believe Tinsley-Talabi ever seriously lived at 630 Chene?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypestyles
When did Talabi use 630 Chene as an address? As long as I can remember, every election has had Pennsylvania listed as her address. She's about to represent that district as a state rep.