Potential emergency managers for Detroit

[rjlj]

No.........

[Melocoton]

First, Detroiters vote for state legislators and the governor, so it's not like an "outsider" group is taking over; their own state goverment is.

I'm not sure why you think this matters. In any democratic system, power is divided into various branches, like states, territories, cities, etc. If Rick Snyder dissolved the state legislature tomorrow, would you have a problem with that? I mean, we elected both, right?

Third, what is the point of electing a city government? Is it to have pride in your self-government, or is it to render services?

Here's one guy's answer to your question: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Nothing about "providing services" in there. There is a principle that has to be considered, and it's unfortunate how quickly people are willing to surrender what remains of our rights--or, depending on where you live, someone else's--in the name of "efficiency." And btw, it's not clear from our recent experience in Michigan that emegency managers even get that right --see Bobb, Robert, for a case in point.

[R8RBOB]

Nothing about "providing services" in there. There is a principle that has to be considered, and it's unfortunate how quickly people are willing to surrender what remains of our rights--or, depending on where you live, someone else's--in the name of "efficiency." And btw, it's not clear from our recent experience in Michigan that emegency managers even get that right --see Bobb, Robert, for a case in point.

There are some on this forum who would argue that because Robert Bobb didn't have enough power he could not do his job to clean up DPS. They might say that because he could not dissolve union contracts that he was fighting a losing battle to lowering the deficit. I would say let's look at what he did do when he was here. He increased the deficit for starters. He awarded no-bid contracts to FOB's [[Friends of Bobb) and most importantly he proposed to increase classroom size to 60 students and endorsed more charter schools in the city of Detroit. All I have to say, "all that glitter ain't gold."

[Gistok]

.... also one has to realize that Bobb did not stem the tide of students leaving the school district... nor will a EFM be able to stem the tide of folks leaving Detroit... So should that be a criteria for grading their job??

[corktownyuppie]

Here's one guy's answer to your question: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Nothing about "providing services" in there. There is a principle that has to be considered, and it's unfortunate how quickly people are willing to surrender what remains of our rights--or, depending on where you live, someone else's--in the name of "efficiency." And btw, it's not clear from our recent experience in Michigan that emegency managers even get that right --see Bobb, Robert, for a case in point.

Ok, well, here's the problem. Let's put aside whether one thinks that government should or should not be responsible for providing services.

Here is the brutal reality:

The city entered into contracts making financial promises -- payroll, interest, beneefits.
The city will not have the funds to meet those promises.

So now what. If the emergency financial manager is not the answer, which I'm willing to entertain...what is the answer? The city owes $5 to you, $5 to me, and $5 to the lenders.

It has $2.

What should we do about this?

[Dexlin]

...nor will a EFM be able to stem the tide of folks leaving Detroit... So should that be a criteria for grading their job??

That's really the problem with an EFM, or at least with how they are being sold. When you're losing tens-of-thousands of residents and students every single year, all an EFM is going to be able to do is cut. Even with these expanded powers, they can only cut enough in a single year to go a year or two down the road.

If all they are really here for is to financially unwind/wind down municipalities and districts and authorities, those that sold them should say that. If they are effectively liquidators, well, then say so. I've yet to hear anyone planning for Detroit [[the mayor, the governor, anybody) plan for when they think the population will bottom out, and that's very worrisome. So, either you're cutting and not even thinking about an end [[which is poor planning, if you ask me, if you're only dealing with the immediate year's situation in front of you), or you're cutting with the end in mind to be a population of 0. Neither of those will inspire anyone to stick around, let alone move into the city.

[corktownyuppie]

All this debate about the powers granted to EFMs had me thinking about the problem in a different way.

What should be done when a city is bouncing checks?

For example, let's leave Detroit out of this a second. Here's a hypothetical. Up in North Dakota, there are boomtowns popping up where people are moving to in droves because of all the jobs made available by drilling for oil.

Let's assume that up until recently, these were small towns with almost no taxes. Firefighters were an all-volunteer force. The sheriff's office has one patrol car and 3 cops. Everyone used well-water and had septic tanks.

All these new people came in demanding services...roads...sewers...a paid EMS and fire department. The city takes out a loan to borrow the funds. Contracts were signed to pay for all these things. Taxes were levied to raise the funds to pay down the loans as well as the salaries of all these new city employees. After awhile, the city agreed to things like paying pensions and paying for health care. Maybe it added a school system.

Then all of a sudden the oil dries up. Sure, there's still drilling, but the companies only need half the manpower to do it. People start moving out as fast as they got here leaving barely 30% of the population. The city figures, well, with our population cut by more than half, we can cut our police by more than half. We can pay for much fewer roads. Maybe we could re-think the size of the school system.

Too late. The city's already on the hook because it already signed the contracts. The city's already promised the employees. The city has already borrowed [[and spent) all the money.

Now what? Whether you want an EFM or not, the first question is what is the SOLUTION to the problem? Making the oil company re-hire all the people? It can't. There's no money. Trying to attract a new business with new jobs? You can't...the people here aren't trained for research and engineering...all they know is oil drilling.

Ok....so what do we do here? How do we fix this? Or do we just let the city collapse and start all over?

[Dexlin]

Can we get this merged with the, oh, half dozen or so other EFM posts? This wasn't deserving of its own thread.

[corktownyuppie]

Really? The post isn't about EFMs. It's about what do we decide to do as a city to fix this stuff. As far as I'm concerned, EFM shouldn't even have to be mentioned. I'm saying, "Pretend you have total autonomy to fix this problem in any manner you choose. How do you do it?"

[professorscott]

There are a lot of very interesting questions here, and the post is well stated. It's a fascinating way to look at the situation in Detroit. Let me try to address, somewhat, one small part of it.

Let's say you know me personally, and you know that I don't have a thousand dollars, and that I have no hope or prospect of coming up with a thousand dollars, now or in the foreseeable future. In fact, you happen to know that I already owe thousands to others, which I can't hope to pay. Yet you agree to enter into a contract with me in which you perform some service in exchange for a thousand dollars.

Now in this scenario, I am the City of Detroit, you are anybody who has entered into any sort of contract with me in the past five or ten years [[a union, a vendor, whoever), and the numbers given don't have the right number of zeros. Other than that, the scenario fits, broadly speaking.

Of course you will sue me since I don't pay you - I can't possibly - but when it gets to court, what says the judge? [[Some bright legal mind would be very helpful at this point - which I am decidedly not).

[Jimaz]

The highest question is why do Republican "leaders" think that they can continue to get away with undermining the interests of their own supporters. Yes, they've drilled that well dry yet they keep yelling "Drill, baby drill."

The gullibility well has no remaining depth. It has already been exhausted

[stasu1213]

Some of the cuts the Charles Pugh and council had made were tpp drastic. They were trying to be "fiscally responsible". They were trying to ward off the possiblity of an EFM coming to this city. An EFM cuts might not had been as deep and drastic as the council's cuts were.

[Melocoton]

Ok, well, here's the problem. Let's put aside whether one thinks that government should or should not be responsible for providing services.

Just to be clear, that's not under dispute at all. Obviously a local government is responsible for providing services. But that's not what a government is, a service-providing corporation--it's a means by which we rule ourselves. And the whole idea of financial managers, with their ability to liquidate contracts, overrule elected representatives, accountability to whoever appoints them, is totally undemocratic. Which isn't to say that our current system is so great either, but I think it's actually important to defend the principle here, and not just wave it away in the name of efficiency and business-friendliness.

So, I don't think you can put that aside. As for the "brutal reality,"

Here is the brutal reality:

The city entered into contracts making financial promises -- payroll, interest, beneefits.
The city will not have the funds to meet those promises.

I don't see how it can be considered apart from the politics of state and the country. The state also made promises to Detroit and Flint and Benton Harbor, in the form of revenue sharing to cities, funding for public education, etc., that were broken. The concept of an emergency financial manager assumes from the outset that the problem lies in its entirety in the municipality that gets taken over. But we all recognize that Detroit's fiduciary problems aren't entirely of its own creation [[well, all of us with a sense of reality recognize this), and they can't all be fixed with some sort of more creative or ruthless book-keeping. Again, Robert Bobb didn't fix the deficit at all.

And all that overlooks the politics of all this. If you're a Republican, basically hostile to cities and to public sector unions, emergency managers become part of a vicious cycle: starve cities --> create the conditions for emergency managers --> who then break union contracts and cut services--> services deteriorate, more people leave, tax base declines, more financial crises ensue --> start over. etc. etc. etc.

[corktownyuppie]

Just to be clear, that's not under dispute at all. Obviously a local government is responsible for providing services. But that's not what a government is, a service-providing corporation--it's a means by which we rule ourselves. And the whole idea of financial managers, with their ability to liquidate contracts, overrule elected representatives, accountability to whoever appoints them, is totally undemocratic. Which isn't to say that our current system is so great either, but I think it's actually important to defend the principle here, and not just wave it away in the name of efficiency and business-friendliness.

So, I don't think you can put that aside. As for the "brutal reality,"



I don't see how it can be considered apart from the politics of state and the country. The state also made promises to Detroit and Flint and Benton Harbor, in the form of revenue sharing to cities, funding for public education, etc., that were broken. The concept of an emergency financial manager assumes from the outset that the problem lies in its entirety in the municipality that gets taken over. But we all recognize that Detroit's fiduciary problems aren't entirely of its own creation [[well, all of us with a sense of reality recognize this), and they can't all be fixed with some sort of more creative or ruthless book-keeping. Again, Robert Bobb didn't fix the deficit at all.

And all that overlooks the politics of all this. If you're a Republican, basically hostile to cities and to public sector unions, emergency managers become part of a vicious cycle: starve cities --> create the conditions for emergency managers --> who then break union contracts and cut services--> services deteriorate, more people leave, tax base declines, more financial crises ensue --> start over. etc. etc. etc.

I don't disagree with any of this, and I think you make good points about the politics. I would put forth this issue in two steps:

[[1) What are the solutions to the problem?
[[2) What political body/person will be in a position to most efficiently execute the solution?

So much of the conversation about EFMs is a debate over how much control they should or shouldn't have. But I think such a discussion skips an important step -- the most important step -- which is, how do we solve this issue.

And that's the part I find frustrating, from both sides -- liberal and conservative -- before we argue over WHO gets the power, we must first what solution[[s) could feasibly correct an unsustainable situation. THEN we can argue over who gets to sit in the General's chair to make it happen. Of course, that implies that everyone accept the current situation as unsustainable...which, I sometimes wonder if that has really hit home.

Not sure if you were inferring me being a republican, and I assume you weren't...I consider myself politically independent and have only voted for a republican politician one time since 1996. But I do think a movement away from the extreme liberal positions [[especially in regard to economic positions) would do the city some good. I'm wiling to hear and listen to any reasonably proposal that solves the fiscal crisis, no matter where it comes from.

That conversation should precede the debate over which entity gets the political authority to carry it out.

[surenowinlife]

Bring back Archer,he seemed the most credible.........................

[skyl4rk]

There are services that are impacted by the budget, and then there are police powers where a group of elected officials makes rules and ordinances to govern the city. It is a very fair criticism of the EFM process that the EFM has both budgetary authority and the authority to change the ordinances under which the citizens live. The people who support the EFM process as a way to get out of deficit budget situation [[including me) need to remember that there is more to governing a city than the budget. There are many rules such as planning and zoning, traffic regulations, code enforcement and many other rules that should be made with a great deal of public input and the decision should be made by representatives elected by the people, and who listen to the citizens when making those decisons.

There is more to governance than money.