Panel: Detroit water, sewer department should cut 81% of workers to slow soaring rate

[Detroitnerd]

Well, for example, I consider Belle Isle to be a non-essential government service. It's 1,000 acres. There are 4,000 acres of park space in the neighborhoods. [[citing Stephen Henderson column from this a.m.)

So if the $0.85 per month prices the bottom 1% out of Belle Isle, but doing so frees up cash for every other park in the city while also making Belle Isle an attraction for people all over the SE Michigan region, and possibly the state, why would everyone be up in arms over that?

Up in arms, I don't know. There seem to be many good reasons not to institute a fee to have access to Belle Isle, from the costs needed to administer the fees that likely would mean no funds would be freed up in the first place to the logistical headaches of having traffic backed up on the bridge.

Then there is some principled resistance to allowing our public goods to be transformed into fee-based amenities. The park was not built as a playground for people of means, after all, it was built for the enjoyment and recreation of Detroiters. Just because Detroit got very, very poor is no reason to exclude Detroiters who recreate on the island and obey all public laws. Encoding discrimination in the form of a fee designed expressly to keep poor people out seems unjust.

And justice, I trust, is what we're after, yes?

[corktownyuppie]

Then there is some principled resistance to allowing our public goods to be transformed into fee-based amenities. The park was not built as a playground for people of means, after all, it was built for the enjoyment and recreation of Detroiters...

...And justice, I trust, is what we're after, yes?

Justice is what we're after.

The problem is that sometimes two parties can maintain just positions that are at odds with each other. I see this often when engaging with clients about how they want their possession distributed at their death. Do you want them split equally among all children? Or do you want them to be split according to their individual needs? Or would you like to reward one at the expense of another because of a sacrifice they made on your behalf?

Each of these positions is rooted in a desire for justice, and I very often see married couples or board members wrestle with how to answer those questions.

So -- not that you are rejecting this argument, I'm simply pre-empting it -- it's very possible to take a position which is results in less for the most disadvantaged and still claim moral high ground.

Just because Detroit got very, very poor is no reason to exclude Detroiters who recreate on the island and obey all public laws. Encoding discrimination in the form of a fee designed expressly to keep poor people out seems unjust.

I don't support a Belle Isle fee in order to discriminate. That may be the purpose of some; that is not my stance. I support a Belle Isle fee to improve the quality of the park. I see the exclusion of some residents as an unavoidable byproduct of that decision.

I have avoided taking this position as much as possible, but I have had no choice to arrive here because:

a) the park is poorly run
b) the park eats up a disproportionate amount of city resources which could be used on other parks
c) the small number of people who would be excluded is far, far, far, outweighed by the gigantic number of people who would benefit...most of whom are not in the top 1%. Or top 10%. Or top 40%.

To be clear, if some benefactor descended down and committed to making Belle Isle a well-serviced jewel for all to share, this wouldn't be a problem. And, no, I would not employ some other "coded rule" to discriminate against the poorest of the poor.

But there is no such benefactor. And so I'm forced to weigh the interests of a very small fraction of people [[those who can't afford $0.85 per month) against a very large number of people [[the top 90% of us or more). To honor the needs of the Top 1% at the expense of the 99% is economically and socially unjust, in my opinion. But to honor the needs of the Bottom 1% at the expense of the 99% is very close behind.

When looked at through this prism, it's impossible for me to understand why there is any resistance at all. What am I missing? Are we really going to accept gridlock in every decision going forward? Should we amend the constitution so that every law is by referendum, and that any individual can veto it? Claiming that it's democratically unjust to do so?

[Detroitnerd]

Justice is what we're after.I don't support a Belle Isle fee in order to discriminate. That may be the purpose of some; that is not my stance. I support a Belle Isle fee to improve the quality of the park. I see the exclusion of some residents as an unavoidable byproduct of that decision.

Well, then I must revert to the first argument which is that, logistically, administratively, any fee would be eaten up so to fund the resources required to ... administer the fee. Even if there were some surplus, too many people will find it unreasonable to have resources dedicated to charging the fee. This may be the main reason that, time after time [[this has been proposed many times), this idea is politically a nonstarter.

If a family cannot afford air-conditioning but can afford enough gas to get their beater to the island -- where it's always gloriously 10 degrees cooler -- and they obey all laws while recreating there, I just can't justify even a nominal charge for their use of the island.

Maybe it's me, though. My dad lived through the Great Depression and grew up very lucky to get anything to eat. I grew up with excellent city services and wouldn't begrudge anybody the same. To charge Detroiters to use the flagship park -- and, collaterally, to deny the poorest Detroiters its use -- in the name of ostensibly, perhaps nominally improving neighborhood parks, I think it does more harm than good. [[Philosophically, the idea of doing some harm to do a greater good is repulsive to me. I loathe the phrase "You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs," mostly because men's souls are not eggs to be broken and whisked.) I especially think it's important that young Detroiters are free to enjoy our flagship park, to run around on turf and goose poop, to take in open vistas of water and gaze at Canada and freighters. You can't do that in Jayne Field, you know.

And, for an allusion, since you are willing to offer a film, I offer this paragraph from Melville's Redburn, which moves me to consider why young people's happiness is worth perhaps the expense it requires.

"Talk not of the bitterness of middle-age and after life; a boy can feel all that, and much more, when upon his young soul the mildew has fallen; and the fruit, which with others is only blasted after ripeness, with him is nipped in the first blossom and bud. And never again can such blights be made good; they strike in too deep, and leave such a scar that the air of Paradise might not erase it. And it is a hard and cruel thing thus in early youth to taste beforehand the pangs which should be reserved for the stout time of manhood, when the gristle has become bone, and we stand up and fight out our lives, as a thing tried before and foreseen; for then we are veterans used to sieges and battles, and not green recruits, recoiling at the first shock of the encounter."

[corktownyuppie]

First, I appreciate your insight. We'll have to agree to disagree on some fundamental points, though your stories do give me a better idea of where you're coming from. My parents emerged from poverty as well, with my mother growing up on a small rural pig farm without indoor plumbing in a 3rd world country. My compassion for the disadvantaged is extremely high, though I recognize that it manifests for me in a different way than it does for you. I don't know if it's a generational thing, but I grew up with horrible city services in Detroit, and that's shaped/influenced my thinking on this as well.

Philosophically, the idea of doing some harm to do a greater good is repulsive to me. I loathe the phrase "You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs," mostly because men's souls are not eggs to be broken and whisked.)

Lastly, the idea of doing harm for greater good may be repulsive, though it is very real even from your position on this issue. By putting the needs of the poorest above the needed economic viability of a world-class attraction, you are choosing to harm the "world-class elitists" in favor of your vision for what you are seeing as an economically just greater good.

I take no pleasure in the breaking of the eggs. But to say that my position is to break an egg while yours does not seems short-sighted to me.

In my ideal world, someone shows up with a big pot of money to make Belle Isle the place that everyone can enjoy. But even with that vision, people can claim that I'm breaking an egg by having that money used toward a public park instead of on public safety.

We have to prioritize values when they compete with each other, and it's hardest to do so when both values are very important. But the other problem is that to avoid making the choice in order to avoid "breaking of eggs" is also a choice...it's a choice to not do anything.

I am open to as many ideas that are willing to accept that the status quo is untenable, but perhaps we differ on even the most fundamental part of the question?

Thanks for your thoughts - C

[Wesley Mouch]

To say the 99 percent movement hates wealth is to misunderstand the complaints driving the movement. I don't think anybody says it better than Matt Taibbi.<snip>
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz23ddCTPjh

Thanks for posting.

I don't think Mr. Taibbi says anything so very well. Like a lot of rhetorical writers, he makes some good points about the bankers. Screw them.

Still seems to me that the 99% isn't 99%, but about 1% of the 99%. The 1% that enjoys the spoils of our system while 'hating' its sources because they don't understand where wealth comes from. So they think that those evil bankers, and they are evil, are emblematic of all bankers. Lump them into a group [[1%) and hate away. No way to run a reasonable protest.

The 99% movement had a change to co-opt all segments of the discontent with the banks. Instead, they've chosen to be radicals. Its a free country. But don't say you represent the 99%. Hubris.

[Hermod]

Parson Malthus in his treatise on political economy stated the proposition that if the very poorest are helped, that only depresses the next level up the ladder.

[Detroitnerd]

Lastly, the idea of doing harm for greater good may be repulsive, though it is very real even from your position on this issue. By putting the needs of the poorest above the needed economic viability of a world-class attraction, you are choosing to harm the "world-class elitists" in favor of your vision for what you are seeing as an economically just greater good.

I guess it comes down to the Hippocratic thing: First, do no harm. To take a public resource and exclude people from that public resource strikes me as harmful. So long as people use the island and obey the law, I can't think of any real reason to exclude anybody.

I don't know: Maybe I'm missing something, but when I go to Belle Isle, I see families using it, picnicking, the occasional homeless dude picking up bottles, and an island that's generally in good condition. Maybe I go early after the crews have picked up the litter. It doesn't seem as dire to me as some people seem to think it is. Again, perhaps perspective enters into it there too.

Anyway, you are a class act, CY. I don't necessarily agree with you on things, but you consistently put the effort into explaining why you feel as you do, and appear to listen to the replies I offer. Thanks for that.

[downtownguy]

...I just can't justify even a nominal charge for their use of the island.

Maybe it's me, though. My dad lived through the Great Depression and grew up very lucky to get anything to eat. I grew up with excellent city services and wouldn't begrudge anybody the same. To charge Detroiters to use the flagship park -- and, collaterally, to deny the poorest Detroiters its use -- in the name of ostensibly, perhaps nominally improving neighborhood parks, I think it does more harm than good. [[Philosophically, the idea of doing some harm to do a greater good is repulsive to me. I loathe the phrase "You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs," mostly because men's souls are not eggs to be broken and whisked.) I especially think it's important that young Detroiters are free to enjoy our flagship park, to run around on turf and goose poop, to take in open vistas of water and gaze at Canada and freighters. You can't do that in Jayne Field, you know.

Bravo, Dnerd!! Well said!

[Wesley Mouch]

Up in arms, I don't know. There seem to be many good reasons not to institute a fee to have access to Belle Isle, from the costs needed to administer the fees that likely would mean no funds would be freed up in the first place to the logistical headaches of having traffic backed up on the bridge.

Then there is some principled resistance to allowing our public goods to be transformed into fee-based amenities. The park was not built as a playground for people of means, after all, it was built for the enjoyment and recreation of Detroiters. Just because Detroit got very, very poor is no reason to exclude Detroiters who recreate on the island and obey all public laws. Encoding discrimination in the form of a fee designed expressly to keep poor people out seems unjust.

And justice, I trust, is what we're after, yes?

Yes -- justice should always be a goal.

It is just that everyone can use the park [[residents and non) but only residents [[and those employed in the city) pay now via their taxes to Detroit?

Perhaps a model like the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC? There's a highly recommended fee -- but you can just say I don't want to pay -- and get in for free. It gets 99% of the revenue of a 'fee', but its actually a donation.

[Detroitnerd]

Yes -- justice should always be a goal.

It is just that everyone can use the park [[residents and non) but only residents [[and those employed in the city) pay now via their taxes to Detroit?

Perhaps a model like the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC? There's a highly recommended fee -- but you can just say I don't want to pay -- and get in for free. It gets 99% of the revenue of a 'fee', but its actually a donation.

I guess that's true. Taxpaying Detroiters fund the park but anybody can use it. So you have Detroiters paying for it and non-Detroiters not paying for it.

Recommended donation would be amusing to watch. It would likely reverse things.

[Wesley Mouch]

I guess that's true. Taxpaying Detroiters fund the park but anybody can use it. So you have Detroiters paying for it and non-Detroiters not paying for it.

Recommended donation would be amusing to watch. It would likely reverse things.

Justice might also be an argument for regionalization. Unless an arbitrary political boundary populated by an ever-changing subset of people contributes to justice.

[Detroitnerd]

Justice might also be an argument for regionalization. Unless an arbitrary political boundary populated by an ever-changing subset of people contributes to justice.

I see trouble ahead otherwise. I think we've been blinded to certain possibilities by the incredible monetary and resource wealth of North America. Other countries seem to better recognize that the real wealth of a nation is its people, and they invest accordingly. We regard our people, when we do, as a burden. This simply can't go on forever...

[Wesley Mouch]

I see trouble ahead otherwise. I think we've been blinded to certain possibilities by the incredible monetary and resource wealth of North America. Other countries seem to better recognize that the real wealth of a nation is its people, and they invest accordingly. We regard our people, when we do, as a burden. This simply can't go on forever...

I would agree that we need to do better investing in our people. Education and health care reform top that list. But I'm curious to hear where you see such recognition of 'the real wealth' exists.

The US may not be at the top of the list -- northern Europe might be. But the US sure beats Cuba, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, Iran, Columbia. Each country has strengths [[for example China moving in good direction, if you're not Chen Guangcheng; but is there anything to be said for North Korea?)

But that said, let's get health care for all [[not health insurance) and allow education reform to flower.

And that ties it back to this thread. We can't value our people if we are wasting money. The money being paid to surplus employees and wasted administration and even contractor profits could best be spent educating and improving the health of Detroit's citizens.

[Detroitnerd]

I would agree that we need to do better investing in our people. Education and health care reform top that list. But I'm curious to hear where you see such recognition of 'the real wealth' exists.

Investing in the health, welfare, education and development of our people, especially of our young people. To actually believe the idea that any one of today's young people could be tomorrow's leaders, inventors, facilitators. Instead, we write off so many of our young people and blame them when they fail.

[Dumpling]

I like Wesley Mouch's idea of a suggested donation - not required - for entry
onto Belle Isle. I think what will happen is that vehicles will need to have
a State Park pass or otherwise pay some daily amount.

As regards the savings from eliminating surplus employees in DWSD [[if 80%, then for sure I'm one of them!!) going towards education and improving the
health of Detroit's citizens...I'd say first, there will be construction projects
needed to make the system more efficient and compliant, then there would
be paying down debt, then maybe ratepayers might catch a break, then THAT savings in Detroiters' pockets could then be spent on health and education. Before that time, those Detroiters employed by DWSD that
will be laid off and/or rehired by a private firm might see their education and
health funds suffer.

[Wesley Mouch]

... Before that time, those Detroiters employed by DWSD that will be laid off and/or rehired by a private firm might see their education and health funds suffer.

Or we can just keep paying them. Those are the choices -- well, I suppose we could find some more people who are incredibly deserving. They need help too.

[Wesley Mouch]

Anyone catch this story yet?!

The water department has a horseshoer, but no horses.

Yes -- see earlier in this thread. Standard fight between those who see it as evidence of gross collect incompetence of admin and labor, and those who think its just fine so long as deserving people are being paid by tax money.

[Detroitnerd]

OMG, and the UAW has Millwrights, but no Big Three plant has a mill!

[Motor City Sam]

Wasn't it already determined the day this story broke that the horse shoer is actually a person that is classified as both a welder and a horse shoer, and that his job is actually welding? Granted, the truth is not as ridiculous as the idea of a guy sitting around waiting for a horse to come by, but we should tell the complete story there.

Kind of reminds me of how people believe a woman got millions of dollars in a lawsuit against McDonald because her coffee was too hot. Most don't seem to know that the woman got third degree burns and had to have skin grafts.

It always helps to not just accept the popular or loudest version of a story as the truth.

[Al Publican]

What are water bills running for residences these days? I would like some folks to post here what they are paying for water, including the number of people in their residence. Is Detroit water billed every two months or every month?

[Eber Brock Ward]

We're about $40/month in the city.

I think it was $29.60[[?) for the ongoing connection with no usage when it was empty after the sellers moved out and before we moved in.

[Wesley Mouch]

Wasn't it already determined the day this story broke that the horse shoer is actually a person that is classified as both a welder and a horse shoer, and that his job is actually welding? Granted, the truth is not as ridiculous as the idea of a guy sitting around waiting for a horse to come by, but we should tell the complete story there.

Kind of reminds me of how people believe a woman got millions of dollars in a lawsuit against McDonald because her coffee was too hot. Most don't seem to know that the woman got third degree burns and had to have skin grafts.

It always helps to not just accept the popular or loudest version of a story as the truth.

It is more than sufficiently ridiculous that DWSD administration and labor union have agreed to a horseshoer job category in their labor agreement. It is a symbol of how union AND management both could have allowed such a job classification:

“We found the organization is siloed, with inflexible job descriptions, multiple reporting levels and a lack of training,” said Brian Hurding, vice president of EMA....The reports says the department has 257 job classifications and that number will fall to 31 under the plan. On Wednesday afternoon, Hurding told the water board that one of the classifications was "horseshoer."

It is more than sufficiently ridiculous that someone puts a cup of hot coffee on their lap and is compensated when it burns them. If I recall correctly, she placed the coffee between her legs...yes... from the ever accurate wikipedia...

Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.

I don't think it makes it any better than there's only one person in that job classification, nor that they have a real job.

There's no apology nor explanation for management's acceptance of this classification in a labor agreement. One could argue that the Union was at fault too -- and I have. But the real blame here is inept management. Someone signed this agreement from management of the DWSD.

If you want the real version of this story, its yet to be told. I think we'd find something very interesting about why this classification was kept around, and there's only one guy in it. Here's where an investigative reporter could do wonders.

[bailey]

It is more than sufficiently ridiculous that DWSD administration and labor union have agreed to a horseshoer job category in their labor agreement. It is a symbol of how union AND management both could have allowed such a job classification:

It is more than sufficiently ridiculous that someone puts a cup of hot coffee on their lap and is compensated when it burns them. If I recall correctly, she placed the coffee between her legs...yes... from the ever accurate wikipedia...
I don't think it makes it any better than there's only one person in that job classification, nor that they have a real job.

There's no apology nor explanation for management's acceptance of this classification in a labor agreement. One could argue that the Union was at fault too -- and I have. But the real blame here is inept management. Someone signed this agreement from management of the DWSD.

If you want the real version of this story, its yet to be told. I think we'd find something very interesting about why this classification was kept around, and there's only one guy in it. Here's where an investigative reporter could do wonders.

Regarding the Horseshoer, +1... its not the fact that there is a dual classification, it's the mere existence of the classification itself that should be a huge indicator of what else is going on.

Also, not to thread jack but regarding the Coffee lady.... the point was not that someone frivolously sued because she spilled a hot cup of coffee on her lap. What get's lost in the story is the coffee she spilled was hot enough to give her third-degree burns over 6% of her body. And she actually got just $640,000 [[after McD's had rejected her proposal they pay her 20k to cover her medical expenses...McD's $800.00 as a hearty fuck you), some of which went to pay for skin grafts. Plus, the jury still called the accident 20% her fault, and reduced the award accordingly.

I think any reasonable person can admit that coffee served anywhere by anyone should never be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns and necessitate skin grafts.....right?

[Motor City Sam]

It is more than sufficiently ridiculous that DWSD administration and labor union have agreed to a horseshoer job category in their labor agreement. It is a symbol of how union AND management both could have allowed such a job classification:

It is more than sufficiently ridiculous that someone puts a cup of hot coffee on their lap and is compensated when it burns them. If I recall correctly, she placed the coffee between her legs...yes... from the ever accurate wikipedia...
I don't think it makes it any better than there's only one person in that job classification, nor that they have a real job.

There's no apology nor explanation for management's acceptance of this classification in a labor agreement. One could argue that the Union was at fault too -- and I have. But the real blame here is inept management. Someone signed this agreement from management of the DWSD.

If you want the real version of this story, its yet to be told. I think we'd find something very interesting about why this classification was kept around, and there's only one guy in it. Here's where an investigative reporter could do wonders.

The job classification for horse shoer goes back to the time when they actually used horses in DWSD. It hasn't been updated since 1967. Obviously, the job classifications are out of date and need to be redone, but there are individuals and groups, such as the Mackinac Center group that wrote that article, that are trying to present it that the the DWSD is paying a guy to be a horse shoer. The situation is a sign that there are too many job classifications in the department, but it's not a sign that someone is sitting around getting paid do do nothing. You have one guy with two job classifications, one of which is outdated. It looks to me like it was just an administrative oversight, not some plot to keep the job classification around for some unseen purpose.

I don't really see how it makes a big difference where that 79 year old lady got burned by the coffee. Would it have been worth compensation if it spilled on the front of her shirt and burned her there? The woman got third degree burns and had to have skin grafts from a cup of coffee. Her family tried to get McDonald's to cover only her medical bills, which would have been around 20 grand. McDonald's refused, despite having received many complaints about their coffee being too hot and having settled numerous claims prior to that. If coffee is going to be served hot enough to give you third degree burns that require skin grafts, you probably need to lower the serving temperature a bit.

I agree with you that the the real story on the water department needs to be told and that it would be nice to have some investigative journalists working on it. What we have so far is a consulting firm hired by an entity that wants to outsource jobs and cut the workforce, and the firm comes out with a report recommending cutting the workforce and outsourcing jobs. And we have many people, including folks on this board and Stephen Henderson of the free press, accepting the firms report as gospel without doing any known examination of the firm, how it was chosen, what it's mandate was, etc. Maybe it's legit, but I know you can hire a firm to produce a report saying whatever you want. I'm always a little skeptical in situations like this.

[bailey]

The job classification for horse shoer goes back to the time when they actually used horses in DWSD. It hasn't been updated since 1967. Obviously, the job classifications are out of date and need to be redone, but there are individuals and groups, such as the Mackinac Center group that wrote that article, that are trying to present it that the the DWSD is paying a guy to be a horse shoer. The situation is a sign that there are too many job classifications in the department, but it's not a sign that someone is sitting around getting paid do do nothing. You have one guy with two job classifications, one of which is outdated. It looks to me like it was just an administrative oversight, not some plot to keep the job classification around for some unseen purpose.

I don't really see how it makes a big difference where that 79 year old lady got burned by the coffee. Would it have been worth compensation if it spilled on the front of her shirt and burned her there? The woman got third degree burns and had to have skin grafts from a cup of coffee. Her family tried to get McDonald's to cover only her medical bills, which would have been around 20 grand. McDonald's refused, despite having received many complaints about their coffee being too hot and having settled numerous claims prior to that. If coffee is going to be served hot enough to give you third degree burns that require skin grafts, you probably need to lower the serving temperature a bit.

I agree with you that the the real story on the water department needs to be told and that it would be nice to have some investigative journalists working on it. What we have so far is a consulting firm hired by an entity that wants to outsource jobs and cut the workforce, and the firm comes out with a report recommending cutting the workforce and outsourcing jobs. And we have many people, including folks on this board and Stephen Henderson of the free press, accepting the firms report as gospel without doing any known examination of the firm, how it was chosen, what it's mandate was, etc. Maybe it's legit, but I know you can hire a firm to produce a report saying whatever you want. I'm always a little skeptical in situations like this.

Skepticism is always healthy... but why is there no skepticism of the claims of DWSD? Why is any deviation from the DWSD talking points immediatly rejected as motivated by ulterior motives? We have a generations worth of demonstrable evidence of corruption, graft, cronyism and out and out incompetence [[with more coming as Mercado readies to take the stand in Federal Court). Frankly, at this point, I would take almost anyone's word about what should happen to DWSD over anyone connected with DWSD. Give me one reason why that should not be so.