Bing Minimizes cuts so he can Insure an EFM [[Bing) takes Control

[Hypestyles]

If an EFM is appointed, do they serve at the pleasure of the governor or the state legislature? can it be contractually stipulated that the EFM is only to serve for a fixed amount of time, i.e., one calendar [[or fiscal) year? If an EFM makes specific structural changes to local government, can those changes be overturned when elected officials return to office?

In the case of Detroit, how would all of this mesh with the recent Charter revisions that passed?

[corktownyuppie]

Right, it'll be dead.

And if anything, this financial crap may even acclerate the population decline further if not handled tactfully. That's why the claims that such as "If a system is broke, it needs to be completely overhauled" are full of bunk, and these folks don't have any clue how government and economics works. A government and municipality is not a small business, especially a government and municipality as big as Detroit.

Detroiters, those who live in 95%-98% of the rest of the city outside downtown, are sick of the crap and I'm not sure what person expects them to put up with it too much longer.

The city needs to find a way to increase residents and generate revenue without burdening the residents who are already here and are burdened enough.

*Lobby to reinstate the residency requirement [[state-level). There should also be something arranged where the city can do a frequent audit of sorts on these folks to make sure they are in fact residing at their residents in the city.
*Eliminate property tax loopholes
*Eliminate tax credits for corporations in downtown [[if they're truly dedicated to bringing back downtown, let them do it on their own).
*Fire 60% of all employees at CAYMC. I'm referencing the redundant administrative workers.
*Eliminate two of the council seats.
*Cut their salairies by 60%, and elimnates all the perks such as private vehicles and security.
*Keep the income tax for those who live in the city the same and raise them for those who work in the city but live outside the city to 3.5%.
*Place a ban on anymore suburban development, unless all the already developed land is occupied [[state-level)
*Give away city-owned property for free and forgive past tax liabilities.
*Completely outsoure the accounting department to Paychex and a Big 4 Accounting Firm.
*Put in place a maximum weight limit for Detroit police officers and require that only so many work at the police precinct at any given time while the rest are out patrolling the streets [[by foot or in cruister).
*Instead of sending people to jail or fining them for drug posession, make them work without pay for the city during the duration of their sentence.
*

I think all of these ideas are good ones. I'm not a municipal expert or a city manager-in-training, but they sound reasonable to me as a layperson.

The problem is that I don't believe one can make all these changes without having someone with authority to break the whole thing down and start over. No one party is going to be willing to sacrifice so much unless they know that everyone else is doing it.

The accounting department will not be cool with being liquidated unless they know that DPD will have to change their work rules who won't be ok with doing so unless they know that 2 council seats will be eliminated and the remaining councilmen won't take a paycut unless they know that the commuting suburbanites will get a tax hike, etc. etc. etc.

No one entity wants to be the first to take the cuts. This isn't any different than real estate development in downtown Detroit. Most private developers don't want to rehab a building on an abandoned block unless they know that other developers will pick up other buildings on the same block. This is why Dan Gilbert's interest in Detroit is so crucial. He can single-handedly buy up 80% of the block and redevelop it,. Not only is his contribution felt with each completed project, but he can also attract other private investors because no one has to feel like they are the "fist ones out there with their balls hanging in the wind."

If I'm the union head of 300 city employees, there's NO WAY I would agree to taking cuts unless I knew that everyone else was, too. It's political suicide.

So the only way you get it to happen is for one person to have the authority to do it all at once. That way, people can do what need to be done while placing the political cost on someone else.

I go back to the Pontiac argument. People resisted combining the city and county police departments like crazy. And now?

The change also frees up deputies from the time-consuming chores of processing arrests, keeping more officers on the streets. Before, an arrest required two hours of paper work and booking procedures. Now, deputies in Pontiac drop the newly arrested off at the Oakland County Jail, where staff do the booking.

"We never saw police," he said. "Now, they're there all the time. You see them driving through the neighborhood."

I don't like the idea of Lansing sending in an EM. But I do wish one person could have the power to make these necessary overarching changes.

Yes we will lose residents in the process. Yes, the cuts will piss everyone off.

But in the long run, I'd like to be left with a city that is:

- Smaller geographically, so it's more efficient. [[It's cheaper to heat a 2-bedroom ranch than 4,000 sq. foot warehouse. Especially if only 2 people live there.)

- Fiscally sound. The people who are left ACTUALLY pay the taxes they owe. Those taxes are enough to cover our debts.

Then we can focus on the re-building and the expansion. But I stand by my original opinion that no one but an EM/EFM will have the political shielding necessary to do what needs to be done.

[Hypestyles]

..how long would it take to get completely open access to all of the city's ledgers?

..when it comes to selling and/or privatizing city assets, which would be the top 10 and how should they be newly managed/developed?

[R8RBOB]

*Eliminate two of the council seats.
*Cut their salairies by 60%, and elimnates all the perks such as private vehicles and security.

All your ideas are good ideas but I wanted to focus on CC.

You said eliminate two seats, I will go a step further. Eliminate four seats. One of the things that Charter Commission should have debated while writing the new charter in addition to electing by district is determine the number of council seats by population. The population in Detroit has been decreasing since the 1950's yet the number of council seats has remained the same.
The Charter Commission should have taken the government's method of determining how many House seats each state gets based on population taken through the census.

Based on the 2010 Census number of 713,777, Detroit should broken up into five districts and eliminate four council seats.