hmmmm. Am I okay with a charter process that fails to produce council by district?

Not an easy question to answer, because I guess I have more than one.
From a policy perspective, I am NOT okay with a charter commission that leaves council the way it is. I agree that's absolutely crazy, and will set the city back [[in terms of council effectiveness, etc.) terribly.

But from a process perspective, I guess I have a different answer. If, after we have voted to create a charter commission, and voted to elect charter commissioners, and then gone through the process of charter revision [[which should be very open and transparent and full of debate about the issues) and the result is a decision that council-by-district shouldn't be part of the charter, then I gotta say that IS ok. That's democracy. It's messy. And it doesn't always produce the results we want. But in any good republic, the integrity of the process has to matter more than the outcome, right?

As a matter of principle, I have a hard time with failsafe-type legislation that prevents the democratic process from reaching a result that's considered "undesirable." [[See, for example, our long-standing opposition to term-limits.) The process is the best way to get the desired result; and the easy way isn't an acceptable substitute..

Of course, the Freep editorial board will fight like hell to make sure the second scenario you laid out doesn't happen. And I certainly don't think we'll be alone. Seriously, who besides the current councilmembers is even on the fence about council-by-district?

Then again, anything's possible... and this IS Detroit, where it seems any crazy thing happens.