Shame on us

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · October-27-13, 06:27 PM

This is a symptom, not the disease. We vote for foolish people and policies and this is what we get. Fixing our woes, budgetary and otherwise, starts with a look in the mirror. If we keep voting for ill-advised spending, we will get more of the same. It is harder, more courageous, and better for all of us to not spend money.

http://www.freep.com/article/20131027/NEWS01/310270101/Detroit-bonds-money-owed-on-vacant-demolished-schools

**Locke09** · October-27-13, 07:09 PM

I agree with you. But why worry when you can just file bankruptcy and relieve yourself of the taxes and other financial burdens that you and your elected officials approved?

**313WX** · October-27-13, 07:15 PM

This is more of a side effect from us trying to curb the sympton of the disease. This is not the symptom itself. The symptom of course is Detroit's rapidly declining population and tax base.

For example, let's say back in 1973 [[when the city had 1.5 Million People and a much stronger tax base), the Detroit School Board of Education approved a 30-year bond sale to renovate several schools on the lower east side of the city.

How exactly were they supposed to have the foresight to know that the lower east side would completely empty out by 2003 [[after all, the rate of Detroit's decline is unprecedented in modern history). When they approved these bonds, it was with the hope that the same, or a greater number of parents with children would still be living in the lower east side to use the school buildings and help pay off the bond.

In short, a gamble was taken and it was lost. As tragic as the situation is, we have to suck it up and move on. Now that we fully recognize the severity of the issue, we can take steps to keep from making the same mistakes going forward.

**Locke09** · October-27-13, 07:25 PM

You couldn't blame someone for approving a 30-year bond in 1973. Maybe even 1994. But in 2009? The economy was in dire straits and there were already predictions for a continuing decline of enrollment. It didn't make sense in 2009. I remember begging people not to vote yes on those bonds and begging them not to vote for that last set of bonds approved under the Kilpatrick regime.

The taxpayers built new schools. Some were turned over to charters and EAA district. Rent is being collected but I bet that rent isn't going to pay off the bonds so the tax burden can be eased sooner.

**313WX** · October-27-13, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Locke09

You couldn't blame someone for approving a 30-year bond in 1973. Maybe even 1994. But in 2009? The economy was in dire straits and there were already predictions for a continuing decline of enrollment. It didn't make sense in 2009. I remember begging people not to vote yes on those bonds and begging them not to vote for that last set of bonds approved under the Kilpatrick regime.

The taxpayers built new schools. Some were turned over to charters and EAA district. Rent is being collected but I bet that rent isn't going to pay off the bonds so the tax burden can be eased sooner.

As far as the answer to your question, it's tough to say. The schools where students still live remain in deplorable condition, and the city needs SOME funds from SOMEWHERE to assure those students are provided with the best infrastructure to help provide them with the best education. You also can't attract new students without fixing the schools, and not fixing the schools would scare away the current student population. Yet, because of city's decline, there isn't enough tax revenue presently coming in to pay for this stuff [[that may hopefully change, say, 10-30 years from now).

Detroit's essentially stuck between a rock and a hard place.

There are other steps that can be taken to help minimize expenses as well. For example, assuring that the CHEAPEST bids are selected for municipal projects and not the bids from friends and family would be a start. Eliminating all of the administrative fat would also help [[why should DPS remain in that huge New Center building when they can easily relocate to one of the empty school buildings?).

**DetroitPlanner** · October-27-13, 09:43 PM

The original bond in 1993-1994 ish was supposed to go to fixing up neighborhood schools. However most of the funds were used to replace schools. A big chunk of it was also used to replace administration digs [[under the time the Schools were under State control). You have to remember that times were different 20 years ago. The idea of schools of choice or charter schools was virtually unheard of. The last 20 years has seen the rise of the Charter School and the demise of the parochial ones. The rise of the Charter schools have had a big impact on how the money is spread out. The demise of the parochial schools was brought on by the charters, putting more kids into the quasi-public system out of the private one.

The school system was hosed. Poor decisions were made in what to do with the bond dollars and the competition made the school population drop 4 times as fast as the City's actual population.

I agree with 313wx. Get out of the Fisher and New Center One buildings and put the administration in a closed school. This is not unusual. Most of the school districts in this state have done this. Heck there are some pretty big High Schools that have either been closed or tore down!

**Zacha341** · October-28-13, 03:18 PM

Does the article mention the EAA take over of buildings we're on the hook to pay for as well? Talk about a conversion of assets without representation!

**DetroitPlanner** · October-28-13, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Does the article mention the EAA take over of buildings we're on the hook to pay for as well? Talk about a conversion of assets without representation!

Its a total mess. In 1993-1994 ish I voted yes. In 2009, I voted no. "Screw me once? Shame on you! Screw me twice? Shame on me!"