Michigan to withhold $10M in aid to Detroit

[Vic01]

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2Cqxv425S

"The City Council's rejection of a key legal contract Tuesday could leave Detroit teetering on its own fiscal cliff after the state blocked $10 million in aid intended to keep the city solvent through December".
"A spokesman for state Treasurer Andy Dillon said the bond money would not be forthcoming."Until those milestones are achieved, the funds will not be released," Terry Stanton said".

[michimoby]

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2Cqxv425S

"The City Council's rejection of a key legal contract Tuesday could leave Detroit teetering on its own fiscal cliff after the state blocked $10 million in aid intended to keep the city solvent through December".
"A spokesman for state Treasurer Andy Dillon said the bond money would not be forthcoming."Until those milestones are achieved, the funds will not be released," Terry Stanton said".

You may want to re-title this post to:

"Detroit Citizens, City Council Reject Improvement Measures Required to Receive Aid from State"

Suggesting that the state is just dangling this carrot over the heads of Detroiters with no reprieve is ignoring the incessant and immature defiance of City Council and Free Detroit-No Consent.

On that note, can someone please explain to me why no voices of reason are EVER able to provide a counterbalance during Council sessions?

[313WX]

On that note, can someone please explain to me why no voices of reason are EVER able to provide a counterbalance during Council sessions?

Because everyone else consists of folks who either live downtown where things appear to be slowly improving [[for the time being), seniors who simply want to enjoy the last days in a place [[home) they're familiar with minus the strife, people who are directly involved in the criminal elements and thus probably hate all types of government or law-abiding people who are quietly planning to leave the city/state and thus really don't give a fuck anymore.

Sad broad brush, but I know I'm mostly right. I doubt the Lion's Share of Detroit's citizens would say they're happy living in the city.

[erikd]

Because everyone else consists of folks who either live downtown where things appear to be slowly improving [[for the time being), seniors who simply want to enjoy the last days in a place [[home) they're familiar with minus the strife, people who are directly involved in the criminal elements and thus probably hate all types of government or law-abiding people who are quietly planning to leave the city/state and thus really don't give a fuck anymore.

Sad broad brush, but I know I'm mostly right. I doubt the Lion's Share of Detroit's citizens would say they're happy living in the city.

313, I disagree with your assessment.

First off, there are not that many people showing up to the meetings to rabble-rouse and complain. It's usually around 100 people or less, and there is usually quite a bit of media coverage, so 75 protesters with 25 media reporters jammed in a meeting winds up looking like a much bigger protest than it really is.

Secondly, most of these meetings take place in the middle of the workday when most people are at work, so many of the voices of reason simply can't show up because of the time.

Thirdly, most of the protesters are either union reps who get paid to show up to these meetings and complain about anything involving cuts, or professional rabble-rousers, like Malik Shabazz, who make a living by selling conspiracy theories to a small group of followers, or dottering old busybodies who have nothing better to do in their retirement than go to local government meetings and complain about how they don't like change because things were better back in the old days.

This type of turnout and comments are actually very common at local public government meetings.

I worked the board meetings for a local school district in a very affluent area for about 7-8 years, and my experiences were not much different than what you see at Detroit city council meetings. During most meetings, there would be a couple of the old busybodies who showed up regularly, and would frequently get up to make a rambling statement about how long they had lived the community, and that they didn't like whatever change was happening, because things were better 50 years ago, etc.

Whenever there was a big budget issue, such as outsourcing food service or janitorial contracts, there would be 75-100 extra people who would show up, mostly union reps and union employees, who loudly complained that it wasn't fair to be cutting union jobs because of budget constraints.

Whenever there was any discussion about residency requirements or becoming a "school of choice", there would be another 75-100 people who would show up to protest anything that would make it easier for "outsiders", "non-residents", or "Detroiters" to gain access to their schools or community venues.

There is a very vocal, but usually small, group of people in every community who will fight against any type of change, and are wary of people outside of their community. Too often, we mistake the vocal minority for the silent majority.

[DJ Tom T]

313, I disagree with your assessment.

First off, there are not that many people showing up to the meetings to rabble-rouse and complain. It's usually around 100 people or less, and there is usually quite a bit of media coverage, so 75 protesters with 25 media reporters jammed in a meeting winds up looking like a much bigger protest than it really is.

Secondly, most of these meetings take place in the middle of the workday when most people are at work, so many of the voices of reason simply can't show up because of the time.

Thirdly, most of the protesters are either union reps who get paid to show up to these meetings and complain about anything involving cuts, or professional rabble-rousers, like Malik Shabazz, who make a living by selling conspiracy theories to a small group of followers, or dottering old busybodies who have nothing better to do in their retirement than go to local government meetings and complain about how they don't like change because things were better back in the old days.

This type of turnout and comments are actually very common at local public government meetings.

I worked the board meetings for a local school district in a very affluent area for about 7-8 years, and my experiences were not much different than what you see at Detroit city council meetings. During most meetings, there would be a couple of the old busybodies who showed up regularly, and would frequently get up to make a rambling statement about how long they had lived the community, and that they didn't like whatever change was happening, because things were better 50 years ago, etc.

Whenever there was a big budget issue, such as outsourcing food service or janitorial contracts, there would be 75-100 extra people who would show up, mostly union reps and union employees, who loudly complained that it wasn't fair to be cutting union jobs because of budget constraints.

Whenever there was any discussion about residency requirements or becoming a "school of choice", there would be another 75-100 people who would show up to protest anything that would make it easier for "outsiders", "non-residents", or "Detroiters" to gain access to their schools or community venues.

There is a very vocal, but usually small, group of people in every community who will fight against any type of change, and are wary of people outside of their community. Too often, we mistake the vocal minority for the silent majority.

Honestly - while I am proud to live here, Detroit and its Metro is an ABSLOLUTE SHITHOLE!! We can't educate our children, therefore can't hire workers with hope of achieving higher standard of living, and appear to be OBLIVIOUS to everything going on around us.

**CAVEATS: I understand the nation as a whole is in economic decline. Also, I am a Lafayette Park resident and have been since 2000**

Our schools, affluent or not [[West Bloomfield comes to mind - affluent area with schools regarded as sub par by most) SUCK!! Have to get his corrected ASAP. Forget everything else.

The small progress that is made, is in spite of itself. The ENTIRE METRO needs to get its act together and get ahead of the 21st century. Can't afford not to.

Time for consolidation of government on a LARGE SCALE like Toronto did in the 90's. This is the only way to save our region without a massive amount of hurt.

[erikd]

Honestly - while I am proud to live here, Detroit and its Metro is an ABSLOLUTE SHITHOLE!! We can't educate our children, therefore can't hire workers with hope of achieving higher standard of living, and appear to be OBLIVIOUS to everything going on around us.

**CAVEATS: I understand the nation as a whole is in economic decline. Also, I am a Lafayette Park resident and have been since 2000**

Our schools, affluent or not [[West Bloomfield comes to mind - affluent area with schools regarded as sub par by most) SUCK!! Have to get his corrected ASAP. Forget everything else.

The small progress that is made, is in spite of itself. The ENTIRE METRO needs to get its act together and get ahead of the 21st century. Can't afford not to.

Time for consolidation of government on a LARGE SCALE like Toronto did in the 90's. This is the only way to save our region without a massive amount of hurt.

I agree. I am a big supporter of regional government.

My post was to simply illustrate that the majority of Detroiters do not agree with the radical anti-suburb/ anti-state mindset being championed by the rabble-rousers at the city council meetings, and that suburban communities have a similar small percentage of anti-city rabble-rousers.

During the election polling last month, two thirds of Detroiters said that they supported turning Belle Isle into a state park. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...RO01/210100358

Clearly, the shouty handful of people showing up and protesting at city council meetings do not represent the vast majority opinion of city residents.

[Wesley Mouch]

313, I disagree with your assessment.

First off, there are not that many people showing up to the meetings to rabble-rouse and complain. ...snip...
There is a very vocal, but usually small, group of people in every community who will fight against any type of change, and are wary of people outside of their community. Too often, we mistake the vocal minority for the silent majority.

So why do we all seem to think these 'community meetings' are useful? Does it make us feel better?

[Scottathew]

On that note, can someone please explain to me why no voices of reason are EVER able to provide a counterbalance during Council sessions?

Because they're at work, working.

[michimoby]

Because they're at work, working.

Ah, touché.

[rb336]

I am not a fan of the city council, but on this they were 100% right. There is no rational reason that the funds should be tied to Miller-Canfield and the only reason they are is that they wrote the proposal. Such a contract should be handled by an RFP process. the whole thing reeks of cronyism

[Hermod]

I am not a fan of the city council, but on this they were 100% right. There is no rational reason that the funds should be tied to Miller-Canfield and the only reason they are is that they wrote the proposal. Such a contract should be handled by an RFP process. the whole thing reeks of cronyism

Yeah, it should go to the clownsil's cronies.

[mam2009]

The Free Press's Matt Helms did more than a one-sided propaganda piece. I guess asking the question, "Why?", is just not part of the journalistic standard for the Detroit News editors when it comes to City Council votes...

http://www.freep.com/article/2012112...yssey=obinsite

The Bing administration has refused to make public many details of the Miller Canfield contract including individual billing statements paid with public funds, even under subpoena from the council after months of requests for transparency.

Given those questions as well as Miller Canfield’s perceived conflicts of interest -- some of which the council would not reveal publicly -- council President Charles Pugh said it was disingenuous for Bing to blame the council for endangering the city’s finances.

"I think it’s unfortunate that Mayor Bing allowed himself to be painted into a corner to accept a deal that would hold $10 million that we already bonded for and set aside so we wouldn’t run out of cash -- and which we’re paying interest on," Pugh said. "He holds that law firm in that high of esteem that it’s worth $10 million to him? Why would he do that? He’s saying that this is an example of our putting the city at risk? He’s the one who proposed that deal."

Pugh added: "The mayor is blatantly putting the future of the city of Detroit at risk in the name of one law firm.”

[Honky Tonk]

The Free Press's Matt Helms did more than a one-sided propaganda piece. I guess asking the question, "Why?", is just not part of the journalistic standard for the Detroit News editors when it comes to City Council votes...

http://www.freep.com/article/2012112...yssey=obinsite

The Bing administration has refused to make public many details of the Miller Canfield contract including individual billing statements paid with public funds, even under subpoena from the council after months of requests for transparency.

Given those questions as well as Miller Canfield’s perceived conflicts of interest -- some of which the council would not reveal publicly -- council President Charles Pugh said it was disingenuous for Bing to blame the council for endangering the city’s finances.

"I think it’s unfortunate that Mayor Bing allowed himself to be painted into a corner to accept a deal that would hold $10 million that we already bonded for and set aside so we wouldn’t run out of cash -- and which we’re paying interest on," Pugh said. "He holds that law firm in that high of esteem that it’s worth $10 million to him? Why would he do that? He’s saying that this is an example of our putting the city at risk? He’s the one who proposed that deal."

Pugh added: "The mayor is blatantly putting the future of the city of Detroit at risk in the name of one law firm.”

Ah, There she is again. We missed you. Funny how you appear everytime the Clowncil boo-boo's, looking for sympathy. Instead of posting on the internet, shouldn't you and the rest of the Clowncil get back to work before the rest of the actual tax payers move out in disgust and you're REALLY left holding the bag?

[Motor City Sam]

The Free Press's Matt Helms did more than a one-sided propaganda piece. I guess asking the question, "Why?", is just not part of the journalistic standard for the Detroit News editors when it comes to City Council votes...

Thanks for posting that link. Nice to see an article on happenings at City Hall that are more than just a paraphrasing of a press release by the Mayor's office.

The lack of follow up by our local media on major issues like this
is appalling.

[Motor City Sam]

Obviously City Council hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt in matters like this, but everyone should be asking why the Bing Administration won't release the details of a contract that is going to cost $300,000 in public money.

I'm not defending CC, but the idea that the City has to give a 300K contract to a specific vendor in order receive $10 million in bond money is certainly worth a question or two.

[coracle]

The Headline should read - " Detroit Council vote to reject $10 Million State Aid."

[Honky Tonk]

They should use the same Law Firm they've always used, Dewey, Cheatum, & Howe.

[rb336]

The Headline should read - " Detroit Council vote to reject $10 Million State Aid."

except that is patently untrue - they rejected the strings

[corktownyuppie]

except that is patently untrue - they rejected the strings

Fair enough. The new headline should be...

"City Requests to Borrow $10MM but Rejects the Lender's Conditions for Loan:

No Other Lenders Indicating Interest to Provide Needed Cash; Elected Leaders Powerless to Respond. "

[Wesley Mouch]

except that is patently untrue - they rejected the strings

Well, what is patently true is they're focusing on the strings. They should be focusing on the problem.

Your post, as well as an interview I heard with a member of the council, infers that they needed to stand on principle. Fight against this imposition of terms.

I would ask 'why now'? And 'why on this issue'.

We know the answer. Because no effort is too great to stop anything from Lansing. Even if its a helping hand. Sorry, you're hand isn't clean enough.

You have to be delusional to think this has anything to do with the 'strings'. It has to do with the stringholder.

[corktownyuppie]

Your post, as well as an interview I heard with a member of the council, infers that they needed to stand on principle. Fight against this imposition of terms.

I would ask 'why now'? And 'why on this issue'.

Well I agree, except I'd add on one more thing... How? I keep saying that beggars can't be choosy....except here in backwards world. Let's end the charade. Lansing has us by the balls. You may think that their requests are unreasonable, fine.

Then let's debate and make the choice. We are either choosing bankruptcy or we are choosing consent. Let's quick arguing over piddly minute details. And if we choose bankruptcy, then let's get be transparent about it and get on with it.

For once I'd just like to hear Councilmembers say this:

"In weighing our options between demands handed out down by our lender of last resort vs. bankruptcy, our choice is clear. Bankruptcy will be painful for everyone, but we've come to the conclusion that it will be be painful either way. Although the process is going to be crippling and drag out over time, we still believe it is better than the alternative of taking orders and demands without due process and an objective 3rd party. In other words, Lansing, we don't trust that you have our best interests in mind.

We have elected to default on yesterday's interest payment due to the bondholders and have begun the process of filing Chapter 9 bankruptcy. We hold the opinion that the situation should never have gotten to this point and are choosing between what we believe is the best of several evils.

Our priorities as your representatives are to protect the interest of our citizens, starting with public safety, fire, and basic city services. A bankruptcy judge will have the ability to nullify labor agreements and force a restructuring of our city government. We are willing to accept this from a disinterested 3rd party who is obliged to follow due process as we believe that it the best route to maximizing the city services received by our citizenry and bound by law and legal precedent to honor our rights to be heard."

I don't agree with this but at least I find the position tenable.

[Honky Tonk]

Well I agree, except I'd add on one more thing... How? I keep saying that beggars can't be choosy....except here in backwards world. Let's end the charade. Lansing has us by the balls. You may think that their requests are unreasonable, fine.

Then let's debate and make the choice. We are either choosing bankruptcy or we are choosing consent. Let's quick arguing over piddly minute details. And if we choose bankruptcy, then let's get be transparent about it and get on with it.

For once I'd just like to hear Councilmembers say this:

"In weighing our options between demands handed out down by our lender of last resort vs. bankruptcy, our choice is clear. Bankruptcy will be painful for everyone, but we've come to the conclusion that it will be be painful either way. Although the process is going to be crippling and drag out over time, we still believe it is better than the alternative of taking orders and demands without due process and an objective 3rd party. In other words, Lansing, we don't trust that you have our best interests in mind.

We have elected to default on yesterday's interest payment due to the bondholders and have begun the process of filing Chapter 9 bankruptcy. We hold the opinion that the situation should never have gotten to this point and are choosing between what we believe is the best of several evils.

Our priorities as your representatives are to protect the interest of our citizens, starting with public safety, fire, and basic city services. A bankruptcy judge will have the ability to nullify labor agreements and force a restructuring of our city government. We are willing to accept this from a disinterested 3rd party who is obliged to follow due process as we believe that it the best route to maximizing the city services received by our citizenry and bound by law and legal precedent to honor our rights to be heard."

I don't agree with this but at least I find the position tenable.

SO, all those employees who worked for the City in good faith, and belonged to those evil unions, who own homes, cars, have medical issues, now that they're elderly, and were promised pensions and medical after retirement, we just tell them "Hey, tough shit, we're broke, have a nice day!", rather than have that satanic State of MI come in and possibly find a work-around solution to Detroit's governing bumbling incompetence that made a mess out of it's finances throughout the years? I find that plan cold and heartless. I feel it's on the same level as Mr. Shazamm's plan to "burn it to the ground".

[Hermod]

Well I agree, except I'd add on one more thing... How? I keep saying that beggars can't be choosy....except here in backwards world. Let's end the charade. Lansing has us by the balls. You may think that their requests are unreasonable, fine.

Then let's debate and make the choice. We are either choosing bankruptcy or we are choosing consent. Let's quick arguing over piddly minute details. And if we choose bankruptcy, then let's get be transparent about it and get on with it.

For once I'd just like to hear Councilmembers say this:

"In weighing our options between demands handed out down by our lender of last resort vs. bankruptcy, our choice is clear. Bankruptcy will be painful for everyone, but we've come to the conclusion that it will be be painful either way. Although the process is going to be crippling and drag out over time, we still believe it is better than the alternative of taking orders and demands without due process and an objective 3rd party. In other words, Lansing, we don't trust that you have our best interests in mind.

We have elected to default on yesterday's interest payment due to the bondholders and have begun the process of filing Chapter 9 bankruptcy. We hold the opinion that the situation should never have gotten to this point and are choosing between what we believe is the best of several evils.

Our priorities as your representatives are to protect the interest of our citizens, starting with public safety, fire, and basic city services. A bankruptcy judge will have the ability to nullify labor agreements and force a restructuring of our city government. We are willing to accept this from a disinterested 3rd party who is obliged to follow due process as we believe that it the best route to maximizing the city services received by our citizenry and bound by law and legal precedent to honor our rights to be heard."

I don't agree with this but at least I find the position tenable.

At least with the consent agreement, they get to do some negotiating and retain some power as to priorities. The bankruptcy judge can be arbitrary as hell and any attempt to sway him or to appeal his decisions will entail significant legal costs.

[michimoby]

except that is patently untrue - they rejected the strings

So what does that mean? Will Council accept another agreement that has a different set of strings attached to it?

I bet you a nickel that 90% of the FD-NC people don't even understand the stipulations behind the revenue sharing agreement, nor even have the desire to look into it further.

The only leg FD-NC has to stand on is the 0.1% income tax decline that occurred in July, but even that is a slim margin of concession.

[313WX]

The only leg FD-NC has to stand on is the 0.1% income tax decline that occurred in July, but even that is a slim margin of concession.

Losing $8 Million dollars in tax revenue is hardly chunk change for a city that's broke.

Fact of the matter is, regardless if it were legal, the state of Michigan reneged on its end of the contract.