Michigan to withhold $10M in aid to Detroit

**Vic01** · November-21-12, 05:58 AM

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** · November-21-12, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by 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".

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** · November-21-12, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by michimoby

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.

**mam2009** · November-21-12, 08:34 AM

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.”

**Scottathew** · November-21-12, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by michimoby

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.

**Honky Tonk** · November-21-12, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by 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.”

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?

**michimoby** · November-21-12, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by 48091

Because they're at work, working.

Ah, touché.

**Motor City Sam** · November-21-12, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by 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...

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** · November-21-12, 10:13 AM

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.

**rb336** · November-21-12, 10:15 AM

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** · November-21-12, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by 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

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

**coracle** · November-21-12, 11:18 AM

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

**Honky Tonk** · November-21-12, 12:05 PM

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

**mikeg19** · November-21-12, 03:26 PM

What will everyone chant outside city council meetings when the payless paydays begin? "Why didn't you ask for help!?"

**rb336** · November-21-12, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by coracle

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

except that is patently untrue - they rejected the strings

**corktownyuppie** · November-21-12, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

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** · November-22-12, 03:04 AM

Originally Posted by rb336

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** · November-22-12, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

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.

**coracle** · November-22-12, 07:53 AM

The reason they voted to reject the Aid is because the source is "white", and "black" must make "white" understand that when they eventually take it they are the ones really in control.

**Honky Tonk** · November-22-12, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

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".

**Honky Tonk** · November-22-12, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by coracle

The reason they voted to reject the Aid is because the source is "white", and "black" must make "white" understand that when they eventually take it they are the ones really in control.

I don't think that's the whole story, but I do think that's a good part of it.

**michimoby** · November-22-12, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by rb336

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.

**michimoby** · November-22-12, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

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".

HT, I think CY mentioned at some point that his/her relatives would be affected quite substantially by a bankruptcy decision, so I don't get the impression that he/she is flippantly blowing off the pension issue like you claim.

**Honky Tonk** · November-22-12, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by michimoby

HT, I think CY mentioned at some point that his/her relatives would be affected quite substantially by a bankruptcy decision, so I don't get the impression that he/she is flippantly blowing off the pension issue like you claim.

I don't think she specifically is blowing it off, but I'm getting the impression from postings that bankruptcy is becoming the "one size fits all" solution. I think we need to remain cognisant of the fact that we're dealing with real people and lives here, that are going to be seriously affected if income or medical is cut off. Not everyone that worked for the City or was a Union member was a lazy scammer. Thanx for keeping my postings in check.

**313WX** · November-22-12, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

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".

Yeah, instead you just tell the few remaining taxpayers Detroit has and doesn't need to lose "Hey, your services are about to get worse and your insurance rates are about to go even higher, tough shit, we're broke, don't let the door hit you as you cross 8 Mile/the Michigan state line!"