Attorney Douglas Bernstein: Detroit Should Go Bankrupt

[Zacha341]

I'm not for bankruptcy. I think if we wait things out, maybe more people will continue to move here, bringing with them revenue from tax sources.

The problem with 'waiting' is that our fiscal insolvency is actually 'worse' than what's being reported! That's usually the case... as politicians and corporatists attempt to hide the level of the problem to save face, unless the whole thing is a farce for some agenda and we know the second option is not this case.

It was already bad when the coffers where being drained during the Kilpatrick admin.; when the audits couldn't be produced and we lost money. All part of the cover up. It's all being revealed as is usual about this stage of things - from all the bull previously. Along with the 'justification' that allowed the bull!

[Wesley Mouch]

Let's hope that the Federal judge has the wisdom to adjust the 'pain' being applied in proportion to the degree that the stakeholder has already been helpful, rather than obstinate.

Those who worked with the reformers and took pay or pension cuts should take less of a cut in bankruptcy than those who stonewalled.

If we expect workers of the future to work with their governments, then they must not be punished for helping out. They should be rewarded.

One prayer to the judge.

[Vic01]

"wait things out"? how long does that take? 5 yrs? 10 yrs? going further into the red all the while...

[Hermod]

When I play pretend mayor, I don't just shut down the urban prairie ala Detroit Works, I de-annex them. "Here Wayne County/Lansing, YOU take your turn with these problem areas and peoples. They are killing my bottom line. I'll keep downtown, midtown, Palmer Woods, Rosedale and other the revenue producing/working parts and wall off the problems just like the rest metro communities do and there will be no need for an EFM. Oh, and don't come crying to me until you are ready to discuss insurance redlining and metropolitan union."

Mayors and councils [[pretend and real) do not have that option. Cities ave tried to de-annex their problem areas in the past [[too expensive, too many minority voters, etc). The court cases have gone uniformly against them. I would say that judicial precedence in the US is firmly and absolutely against both de-annexation and secession at the city-county levels.

[Wesley Mouch]

Mayors and councils [[pretend and real) do not have that option. Cities ave tried to de-annex their problem areas in the past [[too expensive, too many minority voters, etc). The court cases have gone uniformly against them. I would say that judicial precedence in the US is firmly and absolutely against both de-annexation and secession at the city-county levels.

I'll accept your word on the legality. But let's discuss the idea. If its a good idea -- then a way to achieve that goal can be found. Perhaps not via simple de-annexation. But 'by any means necessary'.

[townonenorth]

There's nothing wrong with the "problem" areas de-annexing themselves, though. I think that in some cases it would be better for both parties, although allocating a portion of debt owed may be a problem. I think that's a tradeoff Detroit may make.

[Honky Tonk]

"I'm not for bankruptcy. I think if we wait things out, maybe more people will continue to move here, bringing with them revenue from tax sources."

What will you tell lenders and vendors? Please "wait it out", when Ho' Foods comes, we'll have such an influx of revenue and be able to pay off a 80 billion dollar debt + counting?

[Wesley Mouch]

There's nothing wrong with the "problem" areas de-annexing themselves, though. I think that in some cases it would be better for both parties, although allocating a portion of debt owed may be a problem. I think that's a tradeoff Detroit may make.

The whole idea of 'cities' is a bit messy. It makes sense if you are looking at, say Engadine. You know what is Engadine, and what is Escanaba. But the west and east sides of Five Point are not really much different. No more so than the north and south sides 14 Mile Road.

Cities exist to serve residents. They should not serve to separate residents. Go Metro government. And let's solve our problems. And if a few local municipal bankruptcies help, great.

[Hermod]

I'll accept your word on the legality. But let's discuss the idea. If its a good idea -- then a way to achieve that goal can be found. Perhaps not via simple de-annexation. But 'by any means necessary'.

WM: Economically, it sounds great. The problem is that every city of any size has a map which shows those parts of the city the are "revenue positive" and those parts of the city that are "revenue negative" [[i.e. they cost more in services than they take in from taxes). If every city was free to dump their revenue negative parts, there would be an awful lot of poor people with no municipal services.

Here in Florida, Broward County [[contains Ft Lauderdale) want all of the unincorporated parts of the county to be annexed by one of the numerous cities in the county. They have been pushing for this for years. Unfortunately, there are parts of the county that the adjoining cities do no want [[low tax base, too many minority voters, demand for services). As a result, we still have pockets of the county that are unincorporated. A group of subdivisions in this situation then self-incorporated as the city of West Park. It was an instant basket case.

[Hermod]

The whole idea of 'cities' is a bit messy. It makes sense if you are looking at, say Engadine. You know what is Engadine, and what is Escanaba. But the west and east sides of Five Point are not really much different. No more so than the north and south sides 14 Mile Road.

Cities exist to serve residents. They should not serve to separate residents. Go Metro government. And let's solve our problems. And if a few local municipal bankruptcies help, great.

Another legal hurdle is that the courts are very unfriendly toward annexations and consolidations which "dilute minority voting power" which a tri-county consolidation with Detroit having one-seventh of the population would surely do.

[Wesley Mouch]

Another legal hurdle is that the courts are very unfriendly toward annexations and consolidations which "dilute minority voting power" which a tri-county consolidation with Detroit having one-seventh of the population would surely do.

Oh how pathetic. So the 'minority' can live in squalor, so long as their voting rights aren't 'diluted'. That kind of thinking makes me crave the 'tea party'. Let it go. Stop these silly laws based on race. Get 'stuff' done. The best thing for minority rights would be a responsible government. Let's get out of the way.

[corktownyuppie]

Oh how pathetic. So the 'minority' can live in squalor, so long as their voting rights aren't 'diluted'. That kind of thinking makes me crave the 'tea party'. Let it go. Stop these silly laws based on race. Get 'stuff' done. The best thing for minority rights would be a responsible government. Let's get out of the way.

Agreed. I understand the legal argument against mandatory dilution, but we are also dealing with de facto dilution with every black family that moves from Detroit to Harper Woods or Southfield.

Of course I'm against dilution when I am comparing it to nothing else. But when comparing to the value of a functional government system providing reliable services to both the rich and the poor..... screw dilution.

[iheartthed]

Another legal hurdle is that the courts are very unfriendly toward annexations and consolidations which "dilute minority voting power" which a tri-county consolidation with Detroit having one-seventh of the population would surely do.

That is for congressional voting districts. An amalgamation of Metro Detroit communities would not alter congressional districts.

[Hermod]

That is for congressional voting districts. An amalgamation of Metro Detroit communities would not alter congressional districts.

No, there have been court cases where cities with a Black minority emerging into a majority have been blocked from annexing a largely white adjacent area on the basis that the Black minority would be "harmed".

I am not an advocate for the established judicial precedents described in my above posts, I am just saying that any Detroit de-annexations or regional consolidations will have to jump those judicial hurdles.

[iheartthed]

No, there have been court cases where cities with a Black minority emerging into a majority have been blocked from annexing a largely white adjacent area on the basis that the Black minority would be "harmed".

I am not an advocate for the established judicial precedents described in my above posts, I am just saying that any Detroit de-annexations or regional consolidations will have to jump those judicial hurdles.

If you say so.

However, annexations/de-annexations are affairs of the state, not the federal government. I'm not aware of any annexation challenges in Michigan history that were based on race. I also doubt that Michigan law allows for any such consideration.

[townonenorth]

The whole idea of 'cities' is a bit messy. It makes sense if you are looking at, say Engadine. You know what is Engadine, and what is Escanaba. But the west and east sides of Five Point are not really much different. No more so than the north and south sides 14 Mile Road.

Cities exist to serve residents. They should not serve to separate residents. Go Metro government. And let's solve our problems. And if a few local municipal bankruptcies help, great.

But when the city fails to serve residents, shouldn't the residents have a say as to what form of government they have? Or better yet, what quality of services they receive? They are letting people choose their school district now [[or will if the bill passes, whole nother thing) why not their city government?

[Hermod]

If you say so.

However, annexations/de-annexations are affairs of the state, not the federal government. I'm not aware of any annexation challenges in Michigan history that were based on race. I also doubt that Michigan law allows for any such consideration.

The feds do consider race and they will be on you in a heartbeat if, say, Joann Watson takes exception to the vision of being an insignificant, though loud, back-bencher in the tri-county legislative body. She will have the state in federal court so fast it will make your head spin.

[iheartthed]

The feds do consider race and they will be on you in a heartbeat if, say, Joann Watson takes exception to the vision of being an insignificant, though loud, back-bencher in the tri-county legislative body. She will have the state in federal court so fast it will make your head spin.

The feds consider race because it's federal law but it does not have any bearing on state law. Feds are mandated to consider race in hiring, application of federal programs, drawing of federal districts, etc., according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, states can and have adopted so-called race blind policies that bar consideration of race on any grounds. States are not mandated to consider race in their own programs.

[Wesley Mouch]

Agreed. I understand the legal argument against mandatory dilution, but we are also dealing with de facto dilution with every black family that moves from Detroit to Harper Woods or Southfield.

Of course I'm against dilution when I am comparing it to nothing else. But when comparing to the value of a functional government system providing reliable services to both the rich and the poor..... screw dilution.

Voting districts and governments should both be based upon rational, neutral considerations.

All voting districts should be defined by distance -- gerrymandering is obscene.

City government should be similarly defined. Distance, size, etc.

Dilution is only a problem if we use subjective standards to set our districts and municipalities.

Personally, I'm not in favor of racial purity standards nor forced governmental categorization by race. I don't think it serves us well.

[Hermod]

According to the Voting Rights Act, Michigan, while not subject to pre-approval as are the southern states, may still be sued for changes to the voting patterns of which annexation constitutes a "change".

I am not saying that i like it, I am just saying that it is there.