Benchmarking the Consent Agreement. Show me the progress.

[313hero]

Biggest scandal in MI history and its ignored by the media every single day. Damn shame. COD residents shouldnt pay one dime in taxes, untill our rights are restored.

[Wesley Mouch]

yet they are still doing the same risky things that resulted in the meltdown of '08. how much of the "not a bailout" has been repaid?

69%

Wikipedia: Of the $245 billion handed to U.S. and foreign banks, over $169 billion has been paid back, including $13.7 billion in dividends, interest and other income, along with $4 billion in warrant proceeds as of April 2010. AIG is considered "on track" to pay back $51 billion from divestitures of two units and another $32 billion in securities.
Looks like the 'repayment' is on track.

[Wesley Mouch]

Biggest scandal in MI history and its ignored by the media every single day. Damn shame. COD residents shouldnt pay one dime in taxes, untill our rights are restored.

What rights have been denied? Can you explain?

[Detroitnerd]

69%

Wikipedia: Of the $245 billion handed to U.S. and foreign banks, over $169 billion has been paid back, including $13.7 billion in dividends, interest and other income, along with $4 billion in warrant proceeds as of April 2010. AIG is considered "on track" to pay back $51 billion from divestitures of two units and another $32 billion in securities.
Looks like the 'repayment' is on track.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/04/...big-shakedown/

The banks were given $700 billion when the TARP bailout was enacted. Then they were given $1.25 trillion more in the first round of quantitative easing [[QE) where the Fed purchased the banks toxic mortgage-backed securities [[MBS) and agency debt. They were given another $900 billion in QE2, in which the Fed exchanged $600 bil in reserves for US treasuries and another $300 bil in recycled proceeds from maturing MBS. So, altogether the banks have been given roughly $3 trillion, not a penny of which has benefited US taxpayers, increased demand, or strengthened the recovery. In fact–as we pointed out earlier–the money has not even increased lending which was the stated objective. [[along with lowering unemployment) So, we’ve been fleeced, right?
Imagine if that same $3 trillion had been given to smaller banks with the proviso that they temporarily drop interest rates on credit cards to 5 percent for [[let’s say) two years. Of course, the banks would still make boatloads of money because they borrow from the Fed at zero. [[0.25%). But think of how much activity that would create if people could borrow at 5% instead of 18%. Most likely, it would lead to another credit expansion.

[313WX]

In the midst of this "banks vs Detroit" bailout discussion [[which is getting way off topic), at the end of the day, the US can afford to lose Detroit where as allowing the banks to fail would have likely decimated the economy far worse than what we have now.

How everyone feels about the banks and how they were bailed is neither here nor there when it comes to Detroit's situation.

[Detroitnerd]

In the midst of this "banks vs Detroit" bailout discussion [[which is getting way off topic), at the end of the day, the US can afford to lose Detroit where as allowing the banks to fail would have likely decimated the economy far worse than what we have now.

How everyone feels about the banks and how they were bailed is neither here nor there when it comes to Detroit's situation.

Not so much. I mean, on the one hand, you have incompetents and crooks wreaking havoc [[in Detroit) and they deserve a heavy hand, tough love, a suspension of democracy and hard rules.

On the other hand, you have incompetents and crooks wreaking havoc [[on Wall Street and across the world) and they deserve a light touch, generosity, autonomy and trillions of dollars in aid.

Allowing the banks to fail would have likely decimated the economy? Have you looked around you? It's still decimated. They took the money and now they're sitting on it. So we paid and paid and got stiffed.

[antongast]

The right to trash pickup is fairly arbitrary. We could reasonably decide to require residents to take their trash somewhere. With recycling in many places, as much as 75% of what is considered 'trash' in Detroit is taken by residents to recycling depots on their dime. And they often pay for the privilege. This right can be re-thought and re-imagined easily -- to the collectively benefit of all.

Trash pickup is not, of course, a "right," but eliminating it in Detroit would cause most people to just dump their trash in random empty lots. As a Detroit resident living on a block with a lot of empty lots where illegal dumping is already a problem, I don't think eliminating trash pickup is a workable solution.

[Wesley Mouch]

Trash pickup is not, of course, a "right," but eliminating it in Detroit would cause most people to just dump their trash in random empty lots. As a Detroit resident living on a block with a lot of empty lots where illegal dumping is already a problem, I don't think eliminating trash pickup is a workable solution.

Gaster: I agree on trash. But tough choices that are unpopular and will cause pain must be on the table.

[antongast]

Gaster: I agree on trash. But tough choices that are unpopular and will cause pain must be on the table.

Except pretty much every single one of those choices has comparably unpleasant side effects. Cut transit, people can't get to work and lose their jobs. Cut public lighting, crime goes up. Et cetera, et cetera.

[Wesley Mouch]

Not so much. I mean, on the one hand, you have incompetents and crooks wreaking havoc [[in Detroit) and they deserve a heavy hand, tough love, a suspension of democracy and hard rules.

On the other hand, you have incompetents and crooks wreaking havoc [[on Wall Street and across the world) and they deserve a light touch, generosity, autonomy and trillions of dollars in aid.

Allowing the banks to fail would have likely decimated the economy? Have you looked around you? It's still decimated. They took the money and now they're sitting on it. So we paid and paid and got stiffed.

Where would democracy be suspended? I thought our elected officials agreed to the Consent Agreement. Are our duly elected, home-rule officials unable to make agreements like this in a democracy? They were not forced to enter the agreement, so far as I know.

[313WX]

Not so much. I mean, on the one hand, you have incompetents and crooks wreaking havoc [[in Detroit) and they deserve a heavy hand, tough love, a suspension of democracy and hard rules.

On the other hand, you have incompetents and crooks wreaking havoc [[on Wall Street and across the world) and they deserve a light touch, generosity, autonomy and trillions of dollars in aid.

Allowing the banks to fail would have likely decimated the economy? Have you looked around you? It's still decimated. They took the money and now they're sitting on it. So we paid and paid and got stiffed.

I said FAR WORSe than it is now.

While I don't agree with the way the bailout was handled [[in fact, I agree with you solution), it is what it is. The money we gave them was merely a drop in the bucket compared to the upwards of $100+ Trillion dollars in derivatives that would have been lost had they failed. If you think what we have now is bad, wait until the derivatives bubble eventually pops. At least with the bailout, we did at least delay our impending doom. There's even still time to implement your solution on the banks [[though unlikely to happen).

Detroit [[city) is of no importance to the US from a financial standpoint. No one at the federal level would cry if it disappeard tomorrow.

The only leverage Detroit has in all of this, to avoid all the tough love and austerity, is to purposely delay the financial reform measures so the state of Michigan will have no choice but to send the city through a federal bankruptcy, which will hurt the state and every community in the state severely [[possibly even drag Wayne County into bankruptcy with it). Of course, no one really wants to utilize that card, because we really don't know what will be the outcome of it [[the only bankruptcy analog for Detroit is Jefferson County's in Alabama). Plus, the state may very well be willing to swallow the pill of a Detroit bankruptcy when all of their options have been exhausted. Of course, at that point, Detroit, while debt-free, will find it much more difficult than it is now to sell bonds [[and what the city needs if anything is a huge cash infusion, I agree with that much). So even then, that option is a circumstantial one.

Thus, you can't really compare what's happening with the banks to Detroit.

[Detroitnerd]

Thus, you can't really compare what's happening with the banks to Detroit.

... and yet you can ...

[Wesley Mouch]

... and yet you can ...

And you did!

And no one in Washington cares. Boo Hoo.

Now what.

[313WX]

... and yet you can ...

No, I showed why equating Detroit's situation to the bank bailouts is silly.

[313WX]

In any event, getting back to the original topic...

http://www.freep.com/article/20120605/NEWS01/120605067/Detroit-legal-dispute-consent-agreement-debts

Detroit attorney adds more state debts to list of reasons why consent agreement should be tossed


MASON – Detroit’s top lawyer expanded the list of alleged state debts to include unpaid bills for parking tickets, stormwater disposal and lighting in her lawsuit to try to throw out the financial stability agreement between the city and state.

Corporation Counsel Krystal Crittendon’s complaint, filed in Ingham County Circuit Court on Monday, lists an additional $1.6 million in alleged debts as justification for dissolving the stability agreement. The Free Press had previously reported that she had cited alleged debts of $224 million for revenue sharing payments and $4.7 million for a state fair water bill.

[313WX]

And also, I did laugh at this when I read it.

Coincidence?

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...e-consent-deal

Ingham County judge Collette to hear legal challenge to consent deal

Lansing — A complaint challenging the legality of Detroit's consent agreement will be heard by the same Ingham County judge who has previously ruled the process violated open meetings laws.

[Hermod]

And also, I did laugh at this when I read it.

Coincidence?

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...e-consent-deal

A peculiarity of the Michigan judicial system is that lawyers can shop for the judge they want. Unlike other states, they do not have to go to the judge which has jurisdiction in the case. In Michigan, all judges have jurisdiction.

[Wesley Mouch]

A peculiarity of the Michigan judicial system is that lawyers can shop for the judge they want. Unlike other states, they do not have to go to the judge which has jurisdiction in the case. In Michigan, all judges have jurisdiction.

Simply amazing. What a wonderful world we live in.

I laughed too. And then cried when I read that it was the City's Corporation Counsel. How sad.

With all the problems Detroit's facing, time is spent on wild-goose chases rather than on actually doing something useful.

There's so much work to do to prepare for the departure of the EFM or end of CA. And its so important. Oh wait... if we can get that Ingham judge to muddy this up, we'll avoid any outside control and find a way to keep our relatives working for us part time to earn their retirement.

[313WX]

Simply amazing. What a wonderful world we live in.

I laughed too. And then cried when I read that it was the City's Corporation Counsel. How sad.

With all the problems Detroit's facing, time is spent on wild-goose chases rather than on actually doing something useful.

There's so much work to do to prepare for the departure of the EFM or end of CA. And its so important. Oh wait... if we can get that Ingham judge to muddy this up, we'll avoid any outside control and find a way to keep our relatives working for us part time to earn their retirement.

I'm not defending the city by any means, but to be fair nothing's stopping Snyder from also declaring the Consent Agreement null and void and sending in the efm or worse [[IF Detroit's financial problems need immediate attention as he claims).

The blame doesn't rest entirely on the city. The problm is no one wants to take the responsibility for what will likely be a failure of a financial restructuring [[if things such as the crappy services, the number one reason taxpaying Detroiters are fleeing the city, aren't addressed). That's likely the same reason Granholm, as some say, "passed the buck."

[Detroitnerd]

The US government should simply cancel the $230 trillion in derivative bets, declaring them null and void. As no real assets are involved, merely gambling on notional values, the only major effect of closing out or netting all the swaps [[mostly over-the-counter contracts between counter-parties) would be to take $230 trillion of leveraged risk out of the financial system. The financial gangsters who want to continue enjoying betting gains while the public underwrites their losses would scream and yell about the sanctity of contracts. However, a government that can murder its own citizens or throw them into dungeons without due process can abolish all the contracts it wants in the name of national security. And most certainly, unlike the war on terror, purging the financial system of the gambling derivatives would vastly improve national security.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/06/the-economy-comes-unglued/

[corktownyuppie]

I'm not defending the city by any means, but to be fair nothing's stopping Snyder from also declaring the Consent Agreement null and void and sending in the efm or worse [[IF Detroit's financial problems need immediate attention as he claims).

The blame doesn't rest entirely on the city. The problm is no one wants to take the responsibility for what will likely be a failure of a financial restructuring [[if things such as the crappy services, the number one reason taxpaying Detroiters are fleeing the city, aren't addressed). That's likely the same reason Granholm, as some say, "passed the buck."

Good points.

Could Snyder appoint the EFM immediately with a standing offer to suspend EFM powers once the lawsuit is resolved?

That way the EFM powers go into effect right now? And then if Crittenton drops the suit, we can go back to the financial advisory board?

[313WX]

Good points.

Could Snyder appoint the EFM immediately with a standing offer to suspend EFM powers once the lawsuit is resolved?

That way the EFM powers go into effect right now? And then if Crittenton drops the suit, we can go back to the financial advisory board?

I'm not sure. He may technically violate the agreement by appointing an efm without allowing the legal process to take place. He and Crittnton [[or any official at CAYMC) would both have to agree to nullify it before bringing in an efm.

But the political damage for him would be done at that point, as Snyder wants a completely hands-off approach to Detroit's restructuring so he can't be blamed for anything. Remind you, he's the one who came up with th Consent Agreement.

What will likely end up happening, if Crittenton's lawsuit goes to the Michigan Supreme Court and it is in fact nullified [[though I doubt it), instead of bankruptcy we will likely just revert back to the old em law [[as, by then, I expect a decision on the recall petitioner's appeal) and they will work with the city on its finances.

[stasu1213]

I feel that the council and the Mayor are pussyfooting around on this agreement. Are we to believe that they didn't check with the city's lawyers before signing this agreement? Weren't they warned by many who had came before them that this bill is illegal?

[mam2009]

I feel that the council and the Mayor are pussyfooting around on this agreement. Are we to believe that they didn't check with the city's lawyers before signing this agreement? Weren't they warned by many who had came before them that this bill is illegal?

Its hard to believe, but, no, neither the Council, the Mayor or the Law Department knew that the consent agreement actually violated the portion of the Home Rule Cities Act [[and the City Charter) that prohibits Michigan cities from contracting with an entity that has defaulted on a previous contract. The mayor used an outside law firm to craft this agreement [[I'm told the main outside attorney Bing used actually assisted Dillon & Snyder with writing Public Act 4). So once the entire Council got the agreement about a week before the deadline to vote on it, that was the first time that the Law Department had set eyes on it. When the Council asked the Law Department to analyze the document, they told City Council that they really would need at least two weeks to thoroughly analyze it because it was so complex. But Council was under the gun. The Council had also assumed that the Law Department was a part of the process of drafting the agreement or had at least been consulted because that just makes sense.

The Mayor PURPOSELY kept the Law Department out of the process so this is why the agreement is where it is now. The Council was under pressure to vote by the State's deadline. When people make rushed decisions about complex matters without fully fleshing it all out, this is what you get -- chaos and confusion.

[ndavies]

The state says they'll recapture money promised the city for bond repayments until the lawsuit goes away. Is the city willing to give up $80 million in state aid?

http://www.freep.com/article/2012060...text|FRONTPAGE

You'd think City Council would have seen this coming. You knew as soon as the city challenged the consent agreement the State would do everything they could to stop the city form getting that bond money.