Printable View
First, let me say that I wish it didn't take 4 years to make a decision that could be made in 6-9 months. And I wish that if the deadline for a controversial decision was March 1, they wouldn't wait until April 19 to hold an emergency session and make the decision with a 5-4 vote.
But...
Are the tables turning on the Watson/Kenyatta faction?
- Cobo Hall
- Consent Agreement
- Hantz Land Deal
- Miller Canfield
- Plante and Moran
What is the future of Detroit City Council?
I wish that I can prove that there are members on this council who are on the take. Pay to play might be prevelant in the decisions that council and made in the past. Two weeks ago council had voted down the Canfield Miller deal. Two weeks later they had decided to vote on this illegal agreement that is against the Revised Charter. I wonder what Crystal Crittendon next move will be.
I guess I can't rule out pay to play at the individual level. But at a city level, pay to pay was definitely in force. The state's agreement with the city required them to hire outside council in order to release the $10MM. And so, City Council conceded.Quote:
Originally Posted by stasu1213
You act like this is some new phenom. When have Watson and Co. ever blocked anything? Since KK was first elected the city has day to day management of the Eastern Market, the Zoo, etc. Now in some instances things like Cobo didn't go through, but later passed after some negotiation. The Belle Isle deal is another example, there was an article in paper last week, how this will come back after the new year. The state met with some members and made some changes they wanted. The idea that council is full of 'screw the man' types is not born out by history. Yes, in case some these things required negotiation[[the horror), but they pass eventually. So I don't get the shock about council doing these things.
Council is not full of these types, but they're definitely an influence. It's not the results they get to...it's how much teeth-pulling and foot-dragging you need to do to get there.Quote:
Originally Posted by MSUguy
Very perceptive MSUguy... there's some posters on this forum who haven't quite gotten up to speed that no matter what the faults of the current council, they much more adept at handling city issues than they were when Monica, Martha and Barbara Rose were around.... They seem to be fixated on non-issues such as Pugh making a workout video on his own time, rather than focus on any of the real issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by MSUguy
But I guess that's the luxury of sitting behind a keyboard and saying anything you want... regardless of the facts...:[[
What Gistok and MSUguy say.
I'm not the biggest fan of the city council[[or any of the shitty politicans we have to deal with in this state)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
But it does seem like people are more interested in insulting them than actually critiquing their actual job.
Pugh is gay and does excercise videos. I think he's rude with dealing with the public, but I don't understand the absolute bile spewed at this guy on this board.
Watson is fat. It's always stated she wants a handout. Well does the state actually owe the city money? The state has been wishy-washy on that.
Kenyatta is the one I'm most confused about the hate for. He seems like he always has an at least logical reason for the views he expresses. Is it really because of his dress and name? I'd like to believe not.
Shouldn't a person be able to manage their own personal finances, before managing the finances of a major city?
Would this requirement eliminate any of the current members?
I don't know that the two are related. Some of the finest accountants I know don't balance their own checkbooks.Quote:
Originally Posted by JVB
Being able to run a household where you have sole direct control of the money is different than being one of a group [[CC in this case)who has control over the money.
How many CEO's can drive a company into bankruptcy but still have personal finances that are in great shape? I'm not convinced that one necessarily has anything to do with the other.
Hey now, I couldn't care less about dumb exercise videos. And yes, I agree that the council is much more adept than when Monica, Martha, and BRC were around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
But that's the problem...is Monica/Martha/BRC really our basis for comparison? Talk about setting the bar low. We're in a financial emergency. We don't need a rubber stamp council, but we do need one that is accepting of the current reality and engaged in how to fix it.
When have Watson and Co. blocked anything? I'm not saying that they are. But they sure as hell are SLOWING EVERYTHING DOWN.
And who knows? Maybe even Obama will drop off some bacon?Quote:
Originally Posted by MSUguy
Charles Pugh's financial problems have involved serially stiffing his landlords, contempt for the terms of leases he willingly entered into, mortgage delinquencies and failure to pay his property taxes. Does he really care about this city? Is he a grown-up responsible person? If not, he shouldn't be leading and preaching responsibility for others.
Of course the financial management skills of leadership should be questioned. And CP had no bigger experience, like the CPA in the instance above, to look at. In fact he had no business financial, no Relevant experience at all to point to when he was elected. All we had to judge him on was his personal history and record of irresponsibilty. When his record came to light even Steven Henderson withdrew an endorsement.
The "unspoken problem" is the CONSTANT shouting down of the council and the mayor by citizens, often citizens with no valid question or argument
Citizens, and union members that do not live in the city[[DPD and AFSCME), and special interest groups that don't live in the city [[BAMN).Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
The city has its share of crazies but a lot of crazies also descend on the city and disturb every meeting they can.
I'm willing to bet most of the DPD people booing and yelling at Bing do not live in the city.
The politics haven't shifted, it's just that the popular perception of how Detroit is governed is pretty dramatically different from how it's actually governed. People think Detroit city government post-Coleman Young is some kind of bastion of militant leftists, when most of the time they just showboat a little and then kowtow to corporate interests just like their white Republican predecessors did in the glory days of the Big Three. It's sort of like how in some circles Obama will never shed his reputation as a radical Kenyan anticolonialist no matter how squishy and moderate his substantive positions actually are.
Let's frank, for some people - and many of these people don't even realize it - it's difficult for them to differentiate between people, or easy to group them all together, when they've been raised in sheltered, ignorant environments to believe stereotypes and not recognize complications within groups of people.
You've got nine different people up on that body - just like in almost in any other city - some of them very different from one another, different educational backgrounds, professions, politics, life experiences...and yet what too many sees are a group of, let's face it, militant black nationalists, a tiny [[but vocal) subgroup that has never held a majority on council even in liberal Detroit. If anyone is surprised by this council, they need to look at themselves. This is easily one of the most educated and professional [[in terms of their professions, I mean) councils in decades, and one of the more educated and professional councils in the area for a large cities and suburbs, with their biggest problem being that they have to try to steer the Titanic. You put any group of people in this situation and it's going to bring out the worst. Sure, probably two of the nine of them I could do without, but to color the entire body with the brush of a minority of them isn't fair.
Perhaps folks need to start recognizing people are people on the council with all of their charm and quirks and good and bad. We do for other legislative bodies, maybe some of you should try viewing council a bit more discerning lens. Jus' sayin'.
we'll see what happens next year with the districts [[except 2 remaining city-wide seats for whatever reason, grr..) I'm almost tempted to run but I don't feel like staying here anymore..
Omg! Are the tides ushering in more reasonable thinkers on DYes regarding the Detroit City Council?! Hallelujah! What some may label as grinding progress to a halt, is normally just the democratic process of due diligence and negotiation.
Ahhhh...I'm not optimistic this thread will remain constructive, however, but I'll smile for now.
I've been to most council meetings in the past three years. A majority of the council can be progressive – Pugh, Spivey, Brown, Jenkins and Tate. When it comes to urban agriculture, Cockrel can be progressive, as evidenced by his support of Hantz Farms. But those five – called the "Frivolous Five" by opponents of change – can be really stubborn and easily influenced by the loudest public voices. From what I've experienced, any progress has been slowed or killed because of the toxic relationship between the mayor and everyone on council. So while the progressive side may have some good ideas, they won't put them into action because there's no willingness to cooperate or compromise. And that probably has everything to do with politics: Pugh has used this term as a springboard to mayor in 2013. Anytime he had a chance, Pugh drove a wedge between himself and the mayor. The result? Both bodies of government stopped communicating. Completely. All at the expense of residents and services.