Will the Detroit Restructuring Process Actually Be "Painful"?

I have noticed that the upcoming financial and governmental reform in Detroit is often described as "painful", and I wonder what aspects of the reform people think will actually be "painful".

I fully expect that this process will be painful for city employees and retirees, but I wonder if it will actually be painful for the citizens of Detroit who don't work for the city.

Frankly, I don't see how government services can get much worse for Detroiters than they are right now. As it stands, police and EMS response time is shitty, if they show up at all. The streetlights frequently don't work, and it is common for them to be out for months at a time. The bus service is shit, and has been getting worse with each passing year. The department of Human Services is a joke, and the city government is filled with redundant and ineffectual departments.

So far, the "painful" reforms that I am hearing are things like eliminating the Health and Human Service departments, turning Belle Isle into a state park, privatizing bus management, turning over some traffic enforcement duties to county sheriffs, turing over tax collections to county and/or state agencies, etc.

These all sound like good things that will make the government run better and result in improved services for the citizens. What is painful about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erikd

I have noticed that the upcoming financial and governmental reform in Detroit is often described as "painful", and I wonder what aspects of the reform people think will actually be "painful".

I fully expect that this process will be painful for city employees and retirees, but I wonder if it will actually be painful for the citizens of Detroit who don't work for the city.

Frankly, I don't see how government services can get much worse for Detroiters than they are right now. As it stands, police and EMS response time is shitty, if they show up at all. The streetlights frequently don't work, and it is common for them to be out for months at a time. The bus service is shit, and has been getting worse with each passing year. The department of Human Services is a joke, and the city government is filled with redundant and ineffectual departments.

So far, the "painful" reforms that I am hearing are things like eliminating the Health and Human Service departments, turning Belle Isle into a state park, privatizing bus management, turning over some traffic enforcement duties to county sheriffs, turing over tax collections to county and/or state agencies, etc.

These all sound like good things that will make the government run better and result in improved services for the citizens. What is painful about that?

---

You are leaving out the part about the White takeover and taking everything they left behind when they left in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheels

You are leaving out the part about the White takeover and taking everything they left behind when they left in the first place.

---

Please tell me you are being sarcastic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48091

Please tell me you are being sarcastic.

---

Of course I am but it's not like it was never said during all the EMF rants.

It is painful for the people in power, who will lose their power. It is painful for the pride of some people. But big changes need to be made. It is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erikd

I have noticed that the upcoming financial and governmental reform in Detroit is often described as "painful", and I wonder what aspects of the reform people think will actually be "painful".

I fully expect that this process will be painful for city employees and retirees, but I wonder if it will actually be painful for the citizens of Detroit who don't work for the city.

Frankly, I don't see how government services can get much worse for Detroiters than they are right now. As it stands, police and EMS response time is shitty, if they show up at all. The streetlights frequently don't work, and it is common for them to be out for months at a time. The bus service is shit, and has been getting worse with each passing year. The department of Human Services is a joke, and the city government is filled with redundant and ineffectual departments.

So far, the "painful" reforms that I am hearing are things like eliminating the Health and Human Service departments, turning Belle Isle into a state park, privatizing bus management, turning over some traffic enforcement duties to county sheriffs, turing over tax collections to county and/or state agencies, etc.

These all sound like good things that will make the government run better and result in improved services for the citizens. What is painful about that?

---

Citizens will certainly see improved services.

There are three ways things will be painful, in my opinion:

[[1) Many people will be displaced from their job. Now, you might argue that doing so only directly affects those people. But no man is an island. Think about it...if 4 of your friends lost your job but you didn't...you're still gonna feel shitty about it. Or if your best friend tells you he's getting divorced, you don't really think...good thing my marriage is A-ok! So there's going to be upheaval and difficulty all around.

[[2) There is going to be the pain of uncertainty. When you talk to change management consultants, one thing that consistently comes up is how the people who are most impacted by the change also tend to have the least amount of input. This is, of course, normal. Generally the people who have the best perspective of what changes to put forth have the luxury of seeing a birds-eye view.

But to the people at the bottom...and I'm talking about not just the employees, but even the citizens...there will be paranoia that develops from feeling disconnected from the decision-making process. This is normal in any organizational change, whether it's the owner of the Pistons changing, whether it's GM operating under new management, or whether it's a company restructuring, or a family getting divorced.

Add that paranoia to already unhealthy race relations, as well as what I perceive to be an already existing unhealthy paranoia that comes from being put through the wringer over and over....this is not going to be easy.

[[3) The pain of the learning curve. Biking is faster than walking, right? But, oh yeah, I need to fall down a few times before I can figure out how to ride it. This is going to happen at every level of operations in the city and the community.

I'm a volunteer for my undergraduate fraternity, and we just completed putting together a brand new $3MM new home for occupancy this fall. What are we dealing with right now? Joy? Gratitude? Adulation?

No. I have 19-year-old kids complaining that they didn't have input on what type of carpet we chose, or why they don't get to paint the walls, and who decided the policy on parking? And I don't understand why we can only get wireless internet in the common rooms?

It's infuriating. But this is normal. No one shows up at their college dorm and says, "Why is this door made of steel?" and "Couldn't we have saved on the ceiling tile and bought a nicer tv?". But I guarantee you, you put 20 decisions on the table, everyone is going to demand input. And we're going to get some of them wrong, which will require trust, communication, learning, and correction.

=====

So yes. From the big picture, is this all going to make for a better Detroit? Of course. And to the people who are used to seeing the big picture...it's clear as day. That's why investors are slowly coming back. People are coming back.

But you know what? Detroit is a blue collar town. The people who make up the guts of this place aren't used to seeing things from the top down. They see things from the bottom up.

And from the bottom up, things look scary as shit.

So in that regard, yes...the restructuring will be painful.

Not to mention, less money spent is less money into the economy. Every job cut takes money away from the workers' community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

Not to mention, less money spent is less money into the economy. Every job cut takes money away from the workers' community.

---

This argument is understandable, but holds less weight for me personally. For example, let's take a hypothetical situation where the city is employing 400 people at $50,000 per year to paint fire hydrants. That's $2MM per year that the city is spending and that the employees are earning.

I think we would all agree in a time where city lights are out, there aren't enough cops, and we're weeks away from not paying the bills, this service is probably a waste of money.

Now your argument is essentially, "If we get rid of the fire hydrant workers, that's $2MM less money going into the economy." But the way I see it is that we free up $2MM to do something that will actually give us a return on investment...we can use it to make a really nice park that we can generate $400,000 per year in profits. So for this 5 years, people see no change...sure there's 50 fire hydrant painters out of work. But we just hired 50 guys to make the park nice.

The best thing about this is that after 5 years, now the park investment has paid itself back and is now generated solid revenue that we can use to do something else.

Yes, those 50 people are out of a job. But between the new money coming from the investment...plus attracting 20 new tax-paying homeowners who moved here from the suburbs...then, hell, that was $2MM well spent!

The problem that I tried to articulate above is that humans aren't like checkers on a checkerboard, and so this is painful. But in the end, the $2MM in lost wages pales in comparison to the $400,000 we'll be getting every year along with the 20 new residents who are now paying taxes.

Detroit's biggest problem is that it's spent money on things to make people happy...but that don't generate a positive return for the city's bank account. Ok to do this when the money is flush. During a drought, it only brings you from bad to worse.

"These all sound like good things that will make the government run better and result in improved services for the citizens. What is painful about that?"

That's because your list is woefully incomplete. Those steps aren't going to balance Detroit's budget. Laying off police and firefighters and slashing other city services are what it's going to take to balance the city's budget. Also, unlikely yuppie's rose-colored glasses view of the future spending, there's not going to be money to invest in parks because the fire hydrant painters got laid off. On top of all that, you're going to have a lot fewer city workers who are going to be asked to do more work for less pay and cuts in benefits. You think things can't get worse? They can get much worse and will.

How it will be painful, and how painful it will be, depends on what is done. If you receive money from the city in any way, you could have it reduced or eliminated altogether [[pay, pension, or benefits for employees; contractors and vendors with the city; creditors of all kinds to the city). If you recieve direct services from the city [[you live in city-owned housing, etc), your home might be managed more poorly. What little infrastructure work that gets done now [[street, sidewalk, lighting, etc) might get reduced further.

BUT, where there is pain there is opportunity. Some services- if contracted out to private companies [[and existing unions be allowed to bid on the work), or pooled with other governments & organizations [[DDOT folding into a regional transit authority)- might actually improve, at a cost reduction.

Erik, I think you are being ridiculously dismissive of the effect of putting out 1,000+ workers all at once in this economy will mean. Yeah, it's going to be painful in a very real and macro sense for the local economy. Whether it's necessary or not is a whole other debate, but to pretend as if this won't be painful is just plain silly and really kind of insensitive. BTW, this won't just be painful for Detroit proper as many city workers live outside the city.

This is not even to get into the reality that even folks like Kirk Lewis said the other day that even spinning off something like lighting won't get lighting up to dependable standards for probably five years. So, not only do you have the immediate economic consequences of mass layoffs, but you have actual levels of many different city services that WILL get worse before they even have a possibility of getting better. What no one is really talking about are that some departments will be creatively destroyed, and some just destroyed altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexlin

Erik, I think you are being ridiculously dismissive of the effect of putting out 1,000+ workers all at once in this economy will mean. Yeah, it's going to be painful in a very real and macro sense for the local economy. Whether it's necessary or not is a whole other debate, but to pretend as if this won't be painful is just plain silly and really kind of insensitive. BTW, this won't just be painful for Detroit proper as many city workers live outside the city.

This is not even to get into the reality that even folks like Kirk Lewis said the other day that even spinning off something like lighting won't get lighting up to dependable standards for probably five years. So, not only do you have the immediate economic consequences of mass layoffs, but you have actual levels of many different city services that WILL get worse before they even have a possibility of getting better. What no one is really talking about are that some departments will be creatively destroyed, and some just destroyed altogether.

---

From a point of curiosity, how many employees are there for the city? I mean, If there's 700,000 people and 10,000 people lose there job, there's not doubt it will be painful. But to put things in perspective, we're really only talking about 1.5% of the city population, and many of those don't even live in the city limits.

There's no question that you cannot cut your way to success here. Even the GOP-tilted Detroit News states that Detroit needs to grow its way out of this. I think what's hard is that you can't grow until you cut first. And you can't know how you're going to grow until after the cutting is done.

The cutting will undoubtedly be painful. But the pain will also hit some more than others. There needs to be a shift made so that the private sector is the primary employer of city residents, not the city. This will be healthier for the city -- in the long run. But we don't get the luxury of waiting for the private sector to show up before we cut the city workers. You have to cut then gain. Obviously, this is scary for many reasons.

The people who will be hurt the most are those who rely on the city for both services and employment. The people who will be hurt the least are those who rely on the city for neither of those.

"There needs to be a shift made so that the private sector is the primary employer of city residents, not the city."

If your original statistic is correct then this doesn't make sense. How can the city be the primary employer of city residents if, as you claim, only 1.5% of the city's population works for the city?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

There needs to be a shift made so that the private sector is the primary employer of city residents, not the city.

---

I have maintained for years that the receipe of the City of Detroit and DPS being numbers 1 and 2 as the primary employer of city residents was a bad one and in the long run unsubstainable.

This is going to hurt big time, but in the long run we will have a stronger city

Detroit Budget Proposal Due Thursday

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news...ay-20120411-ms

If the cuts further reduce policing, fire and ambulance service we are in for great pain and increase in crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstandten

I have maintained for years that the receipe of the City of Detroit and DPS being numbers 1 and 2 as the primary employer of city residents was a bad one and in the long run unsubstainable.

This is going to hurt big time, but in the long run we will have a stronger city

---

The problem is endemic to government employment. If you try to cut, the managers always want to cut the folks at the "sharp end". They want to cut beat cops and station firefighters. What is needed is to have an EFM that cuts from the top down. Wipe out the layers of management, the offices and sub-offices that do nothing useful. Take a copy of the org chart and a stack of non-recourse pink slips and go after the high salaried types.

^^^^ Perhaps a few white-collar 'ghost' employees may be discovered.... but dangy policing and fire reductions are just dangerous to consider!

Any large employer can be in danger of placing huge numbers of employees in the unemployment line because of financial problems. Hence the many, many cities and towns across America that have been severely impacted over the decades by private employers going out of business or entire private industries suffering downturns. The fact that the City and DPS are large employers of Detroit residents is actually one of the few things continuing to keep the City afloat and allowing the City to maintain some remnant of a middle class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

The problem is endemic to government employment. If you try to cut, the managers always want to cut the folks at the "sharp end". They want to cut beat cops and station firefighters. What is needed is to have an EFM that cuts from the top down. Wipe out the layers of management, the offices and sub-offices that do nothing useful. Take a copy of the org chart and a stack of non-recourse pink slips and go after the high salaried types.

---

Yeah, this problem isn't endemic to government. If it were, all the banks would have fired their CEOs and promoted the people who saw the shitstorm coming, right? This is an organizational problem across the spectrum. And, frankly, even consultants [[chainsaw men are hired by the CEOs, no?) and emergency managers [[Bobb went on a spending spree and left DPS deeper in debt than ever, didn't he?) don't generally address that problem.

You're kinda right. But don't let your anti-government bias blind you to a stubborn problem with all sorts of institutions.