Are there ANY examples of how State Takeovers actually "helped" anyone?

[rex]

Detroit needs some help. Less than 50 years
ago it was bangin from what ive read and heard. Lots of
crime perhaps but there was a ton of money in Detroit. People
came here to get paid. City was flush with cash. It took 50 years to
get this bad. I think it will take 50 to make it back if major changes were to start happening today.

[Scottathew]

I dont know what I said to make it "seem" that I'm opposed to cuts, cause I'm not. I live in reality. I know that alot of things MUST change. However my ? was/is is Has the State shown that they can "help". Yes our clowncil and Mayor are not _______. But the State hasnt shown any of us that they are able to "help". I'm not opposed to making EVERY employee a contract employee and make them pay for their own health care etc. I'm not opposed to that @ all. I'm not opposed to alot of things that will help the city move forward. However I am opposed to loosing my democratic right to vote, or even my republican right to vote lol. I like Snyder to be honest, so far, so good. Except when it comes to State Takeovers. Like I said earlier I live in reality and know that nothing will fix Detroits problems overnight. The problem I see is a lack of vision, lack of inginuity. Detroiters scream all day and night about our assets but no one wants to make our "assets" generate us money or at least pay for themselves. Its no reason why Belle Isle is still free. Its no reason they havnt converted the City Airport into a drag strip on the weekends. No reason why a messed up burned out neighborhood shouldnt be converted to a paint ball warzone and call it urban warfare. No reason the empty parts of the river front be converted to a fair ground. etc. They need to start using our assets as what they are assets. Whats the point of having alot of "jewels" and not shining them up or @ least putting them on display. Make Money Detroit. get to making money. The Mayor nor CC has came up w/ ANYTHING to make money besides raising taxes, and longer meter hours. WTF. so frustrating.

Well, I certainly agree with you here. You've proposed a lot of good ideas to generate revenue.

I still believe that the main issues are:

1) Too much infrastructure to maintain [[you still have to maintain blocks that only have one or two houses on them)
2) Inefficient management of assets and lack of technology efficiency
3) Union contracts that benefit the workers far more than they benefit the residents

I agree new revenues are great ideas. I'm for a blended approach to balancing the budget. However, I think it's need to be about an 85/15 blend, that is most of it being cuts.

The state is stepping in not because it wants to, but because it must. Detroit's elected officials have neglected their duties and the city is bankrupt.

[illwill]

I think Detroit already has a huge advantage by having adedicated grass roots movement in place. Detroit is where it is because it wasDetroiters and supporters of Detroit who rolled up their sleeves to get Detroitwhere it is today. We also have very strong world class cultural institutions,attractions, universities and history in place. Detroit has what no other cityin the state of Michigan can offer. So whether the manager is helpful orhurtful to our city, in the minds of real Detroit supporters, the band playson.

We've seen much worse days.

[Hermod]

using Detroit as a playground of ideological-drive privatization

Privatization is not a dirty word [[except to employee unions).

Here in SE Florida, few of the cities and counties have public trash collection. They employ a private corporation under a contract where the private corporation is paid a fixed fee for ton of garbage, trash, and yard waste collected and delivered to the landfill or incinerator. The corporation is also paid a fixed fee per ton of recyclables delivered to the recycling facility. The executive at the private corporation tries to keep his manpower and equipment costs as low as possible so that profit is maximized out of the fixed fees per ton and his bonus is based on that. He strives for the most efficient use of personnel and equipment and tries to minimize call-backs for missed pickups. They are profitable enough that, at this time, another company is bidding significantly less for the contracts.

Now take a public sanitation department. Here the executives salary is based on the size of his department both in terms of manpower and budget. Therefore, maximizing manpower and cost is good and reduction is bad. Since the front line "sanitary collection engineers" are unionized, he will give out everything they want at bargaining time because they vote, he doesn't want any headaches, and it isn't his money. The union bosses have their salaries set n the amount of union dues collected. The result is a system which maximizes featherbedding and hierarchy. If you try to cut, they cut from the bottom and reduce services.

[EastsideAl]

Now take a public sanitation department. Here the executives salary is based on the size of his department both in terms of manpower and budget. Therefore, maximizing manpower and cost is good and reduction is bad. Since the front line "sanitary collection engineers" are unionized, he will give out everything they want at bargaining time because they vote, he doesn't want any headaches, and it isn't his money. The union bosses have their salaries set n the amount of union dues collected. The result is a system which maximizes featherbedding and hierarchy. If you try to cut, they cut from the bottom and reduce services.

On the other hand, sanitation workers are paid an actual living wage, rather than being treated as potential cost-saving drones for someone else's profit. This allows them to buy from local stores and businesses, purchase homes, cars, etc. and actually contribute to the economic well-being of their families and the community. It also allows them to have some dignity in themselves and their work, and a decent retirement in their old age after many years of hard physical labor.

Lest we forget that everything was won only through hard battles fought with those who would prefer to hold all working people down:

[Scottathew]

Here in SE Florida, few of the cities and counties have public trash collection. They employ a private corporation under a contract where the private corporation is paid a fixed fee for ton of garbage, trash, and yard waste collected and delivered to the landfill or incinerator. The corporation is also paid a fixed fee per ton of recyclables delivered to the recycling facility. The executive at the private corporation tries to keep his manpower and equipment costs as low as possible so that profit is maximized out of the fixed fees per ton and his bonus is based on that. He strives for the most efficient use of personnel and equipment and tries to minimize call-backs for missed pickups. They are profitable enough that, at this time, another company is bidding significantly less for the contracts.

Let me guess, the private garbage workers don't get pensions, right? Another hunch, if they don't do their jobs, there is no union to protect them, right?

I'm all for privatization. Detroit is unable to manage its departments, privatization will fix this.

[corktownyuppie]

On the other hand, sanitation workers are paid an actual living wage, rather than being treated as potential cost-saving drones for someone else's profit. This allows them to buy from local stores and businesses, purchase homes, cars, etc. and actually contribute to the economic well-being of their families and the community. It also allows them to have some dignity in themselves and their work.

Lest we forget that everything was won only through hard battles fought with those who would prefer to hold us all down:

I'm not trying to hold anyone down. I just want service levels commensurate with my taxes paid. Your argument holds a lot of weight emotionally. The problem is that it implies that there's some way to accomplish both goals: providing top-notch service and living wages for its employees.

Do you believe that's possible? Because so far it's bankrupting the city. And if you don't believe it's possible...then which one is more important to you? Which one is more important to the taxpayers?

[Detroitnerd]

Privatization is not a dirty word [[except to employee unions).

Sure it is. It is legalized graft.

And the community ends up bearing the extra costs while the legal-graft set makes extra, unearned money for being a totally unneccessary middleman.

[hamtown mike]

In order for anything to change the people have to get mad. And people have gotten mad, at the wrong entity-the state.

The people should be angry with themselves for placing inept non-politically-minded, tiara-totin', onward christian soldierin', ego-centric grandstanders into office.

But no, let's lay blame on the state for holding our feet to the fire of reality.

[EastsideAl]

All of which ignores the fact that city unions, including the sanitation workers, have already negotiated significant cuts and concessions with the mayor and council.

Now, it may be that the situation is dire enough that more and deeper cuts need to be suffered. And Lansing's intervention may indeed be necessary at some level. But treating city workers and their unions as abstractions that don't represent actual working people, particularly in a city where city workers are a major driving force in what little economic activity we have and are the largest group of working taxpayers, is a recipe for dissension and distrust.

Everyone here wants service levels commensurate with our taxes paid. Certainly people who work for the city do too. But the main problem in the City of Detroit is that we live in a city with an aging and crumbling infrastructure and a shrinking population, in which there are simply not enough taxpayers, at a high enough level, to get the services done. Don't kid yourself that privatization, or paying workers below a minimal living wage standard, is somehow going to change that situation in any way or magically improve the level of services you receive.

Now, here comes Lansing riding to our "rescue," only they aren't bringing the thing we need the most, which is money and revenue sources. Instead they promise to come riding in the help us only with their Republicanized ideas of further cutting, and the disempowering, and perhaps even the privatizing out of existence of the jobs and lives of a significant chunk of the city's working population. And, along the way, pretty much undoing the work that our actual elected officials have already done to address the emergency, while still preserving some measure of trust and goodwill with the people who actually do our work. In other words, Snyder et.al. promise to "save" us only by potentially destroying us to serve their anti-labor ideological needs - not by actually damn helping us.

I submit that's because we, that is to say the actual residents of the City of Detroit, are just as hated, resented, disdained, and feared in Lansing now as we have been for decades. I sure don't expect services to improve, or become anything even approaching "top-notch" under such a regime, because I don't think they really give a damn how we live or what services we get as long as we don't cost any of their constituents any money.

So, while I admit that we perhaps do need Lansing's help in some form right now, don't expect me or everyone else here to jump up and down with thanks or suddenly trust them or their motives, and certainly not to fight to get a better deal in writing. Particularly since they've already said that they're showing up to take us over, while offering nothing in return but empty hands and vague promises.

[Wesley Mouch]

All of which ignores the fact that city unions, including the sanitation workers, have already negotiated significant cuts and concessions with the mayor and council.

Now, it may be that the situation is dire enough that more and deeper cuts need to be suffered. And Lansing's intervention may indeed be necessary at some level. But treating city workers and their unions as abstractions that don't represent actual working people, particularly in a city where city workers are a major driving force in what little economic activity we have and are the largest group of working taxpayers, is a recipe for dissension and distrust.

Everyone here wants service levels commensurate with our taxes paid. Certainly people who work for the city do too. But the main problem in the City of Detroit is that we live in a city with an aging and crumbling infrastructure and a shrinking population, in which there are simply not enough taxpayers, at a high enough level, to get the services done. Don't kid yourself that privatization, or paying workers below a minimal living wage standard, is somehow going to change that situation in any way or magically improve the level of services you receive.

Now, here comes Lansing riding to our "rescue," only they aren't bringing the thing we need the most, which is money and revenue sources. Instead they promise to come riding in the help us only with their Republicanized ideas of further cutting, and the disempowering, and perhaps even the privatizing out of existence of the jobs and lives of a significant chunk of the city's working population. And, along the way, pretty much undoing the work that our actual elected officials have already done to address the emergency, while still preserving some measure of trust and goodwill with the people who actually do our work. In other words, Snyder et.al. promise to "save" us only by potentially destroying us to serve their anti-labor ideological needs - not by actually damn helping us.

I submit that's because we, that is to say the actual residents of the City of Detroit, are just as hated, resented, disdained, and feared in Lansing now as we have been for decades. I sure don't expect services to improve, or become anything even approaching "top-notch" under such a regime, because I don't think they really give a damn how we live or what services we get as long as we don't cost any of their constituents any money.

So, while I admit that we perhaps do need Lansing's help in some form right now, don't expect me or everyone else here to jump up and down with thanks or suddenly trust them or their motives, and certainly not to fight to get a better deal in writing. Particularly since they've already said that they're showing up to take us over, while offering nothing in return but empty hands and vague promises.

All you have to do to avoid this is to fix the problem yourself. Then there's no Lansing 'riding in' to rescue. Nothing would make Lansing happier.

City residents love rights, but aren't so big on responsibilities. They seem to be looking for a savior [[to fund things) but aren't willing to accept the control that comes with now being able to manage your own finances. [[Cue the blame game here.)

[Detroitnerd]

[[Cue the blame game here.)

Ha! Nothing like a little chest-thumping suburban exceptionalism to help us all get along and stop that "blame game." Har-de-har-har.

[Hermod]

Sure it is. It is legalized graft.

And the community ends up bearing the extra costs while the legal-graft set makes extra, unearned money for being a totally unneccessary middleman.

So, if someone makes a profit when providing a service or a product to a government entity, it is "legalized graft"?

I know the Department of Defense has contracted out janitorial services for all of their office buildings at quite a savings over federal civil service janitors.

[Detroitnerd]

So, if someone makes a profit when providing a service or a product to a government entity, it is "legalized graft"?

I know the Department of Defense has contracted out janitorial services for all of their office buildings at quite a savings over federal civil service janitors.

The city collects taxes from the people to perform services. The city performs the services. That is how government is supposed to run.

But, as you well know, the big, bad ol' "gubmint" has political bosses who step in the middle, take some money, and then the taxpayer is cheated and the city worker has to make do with less. Services suffer, workers earn less, city infrastructure crumbles, while the corrupt are rewarded. This is the old ward patronage system.

"Privatization" is a scheme whereby a corporate boss is appointed to step in the middle, take some money, and then the taxpayer is cheated and the city worker has to make do with less. Services suffer, workers earn less, city infrastructure crumbles, while the corrupt are rewarded. This is the new corporate patronage system.

But you don't mind that because of your existing bias against government and for private industry.

So there you go. Privatization is legal graft.

Don't you have a right-wing talk show to call in somewhere?

[Wesley Mouch]

It's not quite that simple. Detroit has wound up the way it is both through millions of individual decisions, many of those by people who simply chose to take their wealth and community spirit and leave, and by major policy decisions at all levels of government which affected those decisions [[freeways, GI Bill, military decentralization, outlawing de jure segregation). All those decisions have cemented who the "winners" are in this society, and who the "losers" are. Detroit is one of the "losers." Detroit has borne the brunt of the pain.

Now imagine it from the standpoint of Detroit. After all the "winners" turned their back on you, took the money and ran, considered you a political prize for a bunch of increasingly corrupt bottom-feeders but said nothing until it became unavoidable and even then dithered ...

... now they want to "help" you ... with more major decisions of policy.

Or, to use another metaphor, just a little operation...

No, I think I understand the fears and frustrations at work here. The winners are coming ... to take what's left.

What odd logic. Blame others. Call youself [[Detroit) a loser. Why do you have so little faith in Detroiters and the City. It has no value or way to make itself better without the stolen 'wealth' that 'cemented' their destiny? It is always someone else's fault.

[corktownyuppie]

"Privatization" is a scheme whereby a corporate boss is appointed to step in the middle, take some money, and then the taxpayer is cheated and the city worker has to make do with less. Services suffer, workers earn less, city infrastructure crumbles, while the corrupt are rewarded. This is the new corporate patronage system.

But you don't mind that because of your existing bias against government and for private industry.

So there you go. Privatization is legal graft.

Don't you have a right-wing talk show to call in somewhere?

Now, now. Privatization is not better than public service. Public Service is not better than privatization. They both have strengths and weaknesses that are valid and warrant high levels of scrutiny.

Your statements about privatization would only hold true if the public department is at or near the levels of efficiency that are possible. Let's look, for example, at the Secretary of State. Back in the 90s, I remember the SOS being a gigantic clusterf**k. It was totally normal to wait 30 minutes in line. And it was also normal to get to that counter and be told to fill out a form and then wait in the same line again. People were miserable and it took hours to get basic services done.

Recently, the Secretary of State branch offices were re-structured [[but not privatized). This caused much friction, and many were angry that their branches would be closing. On the other hand, they also did common sense things, such as re-structure the queueing system so that once you waited in line the first time, you could get in a different -- and much shorter line -- once your paperwork was done. Moreover, they invested in electronic kiosks and setup internet services so that people could avoid waiting in line...if not avoiding having to go to the branch all together.

This is a great example of being able to improve services, cut costs, make everyone more happy without privatization.

And you know what? If we could find a way to do that in Detroit, it would be awesome. The problem is that we haven't. We are still overpaying for underproducing employees. Now are they underproducing because they're bad people? Or is it because they have bad managers? Or is it because the systems are broken?

I don't know. But the window of opportunity to fix it -- going on 10-20+ years now -- has come and gone. Is this the fault of the employees? Probably not. But the point is, it hasn't been fixed yet.

So if the city can get the same services at less cost...or better services at the same cost, then it doesn't matter if you cut wages in half at the bottom and double them at the CEO level. Yes, I understand, it matters to you....and those employees.

But we [[the citizens) are not the employees. And if you can find some employee-owned and employee-run model where the profits get shared and there's no fat, underworked, overpaid boss at the top...while still getting us increase in service or decrease in cost...or BOTH?! Then WE'LL HIRE YOU.

Until then, the timer's up. This isn't a right wing vs. left wing question. There's just not enough money to pay. So now what? There is no happy ending.

That's what everyone just needs to accept. In the short run, at least, there is no happy ending. 5 years from now? I think things will be different.

[corktownyuppie]

5 years from now? I think things will be different.

Different [[good) for some of us. Different [[bad) for others. But this isn't a Detroit thing...that's a 21st century America thing.

[Hermod]

The city collects taxes from the people to perform services. The city performs the services. That is how government is supposed to run.

The city PROVIDES the services. Whether it provides them by using city employees or it provides them through a contract is immaterial except that the services should be provided by the most cost effective means.

"Privatization" is a scheme whereby a corporate boss is appointed to step in the middle, take some money, and then the taxpayer is cheated and the city worker has to make do with less. Services suffer, workers earn less, city infrastructure crumbles, while the corrupt are rewarded. This is the new corporate patronage system.

No, privatization need not be corrupt. There can be an honest contracting system where there are firm metrics, the contract is let, and the contractor performs as required by the contract.

But you don't mind that because of your existing bias against government and for private industry. So there you go. Privatization is legal graft.

Obviously, the federal and state taxpayers don't have to worry about building your "magic choo choo" up Woodward. The city can just have it built by those fabulously talented and energetic City of Detroit civil service workers. You wouldn't want to privatize the construction of something so near and dear to your heart.

[Detroitnerd]

So if the city can get the same services at less cost...or better services at the same cost, then it doesn't matter if you cut wages in half at the bottom and double them at the CEO level. Yes, I understand, it matters to you....and those employees.

This is the crux of the matter. When you have this corporate grafter taking money to break unions and pay city workers less, not only do you reward this totally unnecessary middleman, the costs are still there; they're just passed onto the community in the form of cruddier services and externalities. Somebody's wife has to work and kids don't get watched and cared for. Kids don't get breakfast or a packed lunch. Somebody makes the cut somewhere else in a household and feels pain.

And the very idea that this is what happens while some middle-managing corporate executive gobbles up extra money is anathema to me, and to anybody in the rank-and-file with a brain, and anybody at all with a heart.

This whole crisis goes back to, as I've said before, millions of decisions high and low. Frankly, if we could have taxed those decisions at a penny apiece, we wouldn't be here now. Instead, I fear we're going to have the rich consolidating their unhealthy sway over our region through privatization schemes and legal graft.

[Detroitnerd]

No, privatization need not be corrupt. There can be an honest contracting system where there are firm metrics, the contract is let, and the contractor performs as required by the contract.

That's not privatization. That's contracting. I understand the difference.

Obviously, the federal and state taxpayers don't have to worry about building your "magic choo choo" up Woodward. The city can just have it built by those fabulously talented and energetic City of Detroit civil service workers. You wouldn't want to privatize the construction of something so near and dear to your heart.

And how were the talented CoD employees when they built your Cobo Canals?

Again, Hermetically-Sealed Man, not everything in life is profitable -- nor should it be. Core services that aren't profitable shouldn't be attempted by private business -- as contractors or as privatized entities. Where does that line fall? A matter of lively debate. But, given your blinkered logic, I don't think I'm going to trust your advice very much.

The very idea that schools, fire, police, water, prisons and such should be privatized is ridiculous, and should be stopped. But it won't, because ideologically driven forces want to feed their corporate ideas at the public trough. And the "crisis" in Detroit is just a way in.

We already have paid as a country to learn that when you privatize fire coverage, whole cities burn down while men fight over the fireplug. That when you have private prisons they have zero interest in fighting recidivism because those are tomorrow's customers. We know that privatized schools DO NOT perform any better than public schools, and, in fact, have a record of cheating on tests to get more money. We know that when we privatize water systems, they start lying about the quality of the water to save profits.

We know all this.

And yet ... we're going to try it here. Because of cranky people with cranky ideas that don't hold water.

[Wesley Mouch]

Different [[good) for some of us. Different [[bad) for others. But this isn't a Detroit thing...that's a 21st century America thing.

A couple of great posts, CTY.

And its not just a 21st Century America Thing -- ask the Greeks and Spaniards, its a 21st Century World Thing. [[Let's not bring China into this for the moment -- but their time will come.)

[Detroitnerd]

What odd logic. Blame others. Call youself [[Detroit) a loser. Why do you have so little faith in Detroiters and the City. It has no value or way to make itself better without the stolen 'wealth' that 'cemented' their destiny? It is always someone else's fault.

You're funny, Wesley. You can't even troll properly, can you...

Stick to the Freep boards...

[Hermod]

That's not privatization. That's contracting. I understand the difference.

Where is the difference? Where is your dividing line? Is contracting anything the city is now doing in house privatization?

There do exist good private water supply utilities in the US. They were not all dishonest.

Should a city have a graphics capability in-house, or should they obtain such work from a graphics design company? Should the city maintain its own copy machines or should it be done by contract?

Large corporations make these kinds of decisions every day. Do we do it in- house or do we contract it out? Is the management of such a function beyond our core competency?

Arguably, it would make sense for Detroit to let DTE take over the Detroit Lighting function [[privatization).

And yes, when I worked for the City of Detroit, we knew we had to contract out expressway construction. It wouldn't be efficient for the city to keep on hand a gigantic construction crew [[though think of all those living wage jobs)..

[antongast]

No, privatization need not be corrupt. There can be an honest contracting system where there are firm metrics, the contract is let, and the contractor performs as required by the contract.

In theory such a thing may be possible, but we're talking about Detroit here.

[Wheels]

In theory such a thing may be possible, but we're talking about Detroit here.

Synagro anyone?