Detroit is a business?"

[stasu1213]

Many people admire Dave Bing for running this city like a "Business". Does anyone think that Detroit should be ran like one?

[ordinary]

In some repects, yes. It's not all about profit but 'business' needs to be taken care of. Things need to be repaired and maintained, bills have to be paid etcetra.

[ndavies]

Absolutely Yes, every Municipal function is a business and should be run like one. The business of government is to provide services to us, it's customers. We the people should be deciding what those services are by voting. Every government should be trying to provide the services the voters chose as efficiently as possible. We the tax payers are the shareholders, customers and financiers of the governments business. We must demand all our money and resources are used wisely.

[467riverfix]

Damn right it should be. Look at the mess the supposed 'altruistic' public sector has got the city into. Out of control wages, feather-bedding, flabby, worse or non-existent, service delivery. Best thing for the D would probably be to contract out everything. The city needs an enema, and how.

[Detroitnerd]

Um, the business of business is making profits, not providing services or goods. So, no, business should not be the model of government.

[Locke09]

Um, the business of business is making profits, not providing services or goods. So, no, business should not be the model of government.

That was succinct and correct Detroitnerd.

Each can borrow from the other: businesses can strive to be good "corporate citizens" and government can adopt some of the practices of business that can make it more efficient and effective. But they serve two different and often opposing purposes.

Furthermore, there are rules associated with using the public's money, that businesses don't have to concern themselves with: equal access, open and transparent processes, etc.

Functions should be privatized only if they truly result in savings. Most people who work for the city can identify real tangible examples of current situations where contractors are costing significantly more than city personnel for the same job. And it gets worse when you hire someone from a company, that is subcontracting to another company. Each level of companies has to get its own profit which results in high overhead added on to the already higher hourly rate being paid to the contractor.

So those blanket, "Privatize everything" statements don't make much sense to me. Privatize what makes sense to privatize. And the savings should be substantial, because if they are minimal, then you need to factor in the real consequences of putting your employees out of work. Most of them are still also your citizens, helping to keep some semblance of stability in your neighborhoods.

Like I wouldn't say privatize everything, I also wouldn't say privatize nothing. Let the dollars speak for themselves.

[EastSider]

Um, the business of business is making profits, not providing services or goods. So, no, business should not be the model of government.

Um, how do the profits get generated? By providing goods and services better than competitors. The 'word' better is defined by the consumer, so it can refer to price, value or whatever each consumer looks for. Businesses are not able to just call up someone and demand money. For that, they need government.

In a municipal model, the 'consumers' are the resident and businesses located in the jurisdiction.

If a store, say Joe's Emporium, does not satisfy their customers, the customers no longer shop at Joe's. Maybe Frank's up the street is cleaner or has lower prices. Joe either keeps doing things the same way and eventually goes out of business, or he changes his business practices to gain new customers.

For a city, people and businesses move out, and it's up to the city to either change or go bankrupt.

[Detroitnerd]

Um, how do the profits get generated? By providing goods and services better than competitors.

That is the middle school fable, anyway. Profits are generated by skimming off the top of other people's labor.

And marketing and advertising can help you sell an inferior product, or a harmful one.

Externalizing costs is another thing businesses do to protect their all-important profits, and that often harms people in a way a government would find indefensible.

Perhaps most importantly, businesses are closed models, resistant to democratic processes, another problem with applying the model to government.

For a city, people and businesses move out, and it's up to the city to either change or go bankrupt.

Welp, there goes regionalism, out the window.

[iheartthed]

Detroit is a city and it should be run like a city, not a business.

[artds]

It absolutely should be run like a business.

The problem is, many Detroiters view the primary function of government as being to provide Detroiters with government jobs that are paid for through taxation of businesses.

[ndavies]

Detroit is a city and it should be run like a city, not a business.

The best cities in the world are run like businesses.

[ziggyselbin]

Detroit is a city and it should be run like a city, not a business.

How about as a city with some business like practices?

[LouHat]

Detroit is a city and it should be run like a city, not a business.

First of all, iheart, this is not a personal rebuttal, rather, you have succinctly expressed a concept which lays bare the gist of the matter. A city is nothing more, and nothing less, than the people who live there. The business model assigns these people both the role of consumer, and the role of stockholder. As consumers, they expect quality products such as public safety and a nurturing environment for their children. As stockholders, they retain the power and initiative to fire the CEO [[the mayor). In this model, Dave Bing brings respectable credentials, he's a self-made man, untainted by the dubious accomplishments typically associated with affirmative-action and race-mongering. He's not in it for the money, he's not in it for the ego. He doesn't need this, but if he does succeed, and we should all hope that he does, it will be entirely because he "means business".

[EastSider]

That is the middle school fable, anyway. Profits are generated by skimming off the top of other people's labor.

And marketing and advertising can help you sell an inferior product, or a harmful one.

Externalizing costs is another thing businesses do to protect their all-important profits, and that often harms people in a way a government would find indefensible.

Perhaps most importantly, businesses are closed models, resistant to democratic processes, another problem with applying the model to government.

Oh, bullshit. Profits are not proof of "exploitation." Put away your tired Marxist cliches and join the grown-ups.

Businesses are not closed models, and they certainly are not resistant to democratic processes. Can Ford force you to buy one of their cars? Can Best Buy require you to take home a new computer? Did Harmony House ever make it mandatory for people to buy the new album by Elvis Costello?

No. Those are all voluntary exchanges made between two consenting parties. If people don't like some policy at Wal-mart, no one stops them from shopping at Meijer or someplace else.

Bankruptcy is the ultimate "democratic" potential facing every business concern, as long as the free market is allowed to work. Politics can get injected, and some companies may be deemed "too big to fail" but that's a bullshit, meaningless designation.

[Detroitnerd]

Oh, bullshit. Profits are not proof of "exploitation." Put away your tired Marxist cliches and join the grown-ups.

Oh, you grow up. Try to crack your mind back open and resist the urge to catcall everybody you think doesn't agree with you as a Marxist. This isn't 1955 anymore, EastSider.

[Locke09]

Um, how do the profits get generated? By providing goods and services better than competitors. The 'word' better is defined by the consumer, so it can refer to price, value or whatever each consumer looks for. Businesses are not able to just call up someone and demand money. For that, they need government.

In a municipal model, the 'consumers' are the resident and businesses located in the jurisdiction.

If a store, say Joe's Emporium, does not satisfy their customers, the customers no longer shop at Joe's. Maybe Frank's up the street is cleaner or has lower prices. Joe either keeps doing things the same way and eventually goes out of business, or he changes his business practices to gain new customers.

For a city, people and businesses move out, and it's up to the city to either change or go bankrupt.

I was going to agree [[and I still do in part), but then I realized that people are not going to abandon any governmental entity [[city, state or country) as quickly as they will a business. People consider themselves to have more invested in their city, state or country. My life is so tangled up in this city that I love that I have probably stayed far longer than is "rational". I want it to thrive and I have made sacrifices to try and help it thrive. I'm not doing that for any business. I actually grieve over its deterioration. I'm not doing that for any business.

I'm just saying that government serves a different purpose. It cannot be run just like a business, or it won't meet the very needs [[services if you will) that citizens [[some of whom aren't paying a penny for services) are expecting. If a candidate doesn't understand the special challenges of running a city, as opposed to a business, their naivete will eventually cause more harm than good.

Why isn't it sufficient to say that government should strive to be as efficient and effective as possible. That is not solely the realm of business.

[Detroitnerd]

Why isn't it sufficient to say that government should strive to be as efficient and effective as possible. That is not solely the realm of business.

Good question, Locke. I would guess that it helps hammer home the old party line of "Government bad; business good."

But we all know that it's more complicated than that.

[Det_ard]

Hey, I like it the way it is now. It's like a big slush fund for crooked pols and a big jobs program for incompetent workers. Why would we want to change that? It's worked really well for us.

[Locke09]

Hey, I like it the way it is now. It's like a big slush fund for crooked pols and a big jobs program for incompetent workers. Why would we want to change that? It's worked really well for us.

The events of the last ten months have clearly shown us the tremendous financial loss that can be realized when you have crooked businessmen, crooked financial investors, incompetent business leaders, greedy corporations [[especially banks) etc. Government has not cornered the market on corruption and incompetence.

Many of you may be too young to remember when you could get replacement lightbulbs for free from DTE [[then Detroit Edison). But a business person sued because it kept him from selling his bulbs for a profit, and the courts decided that Edison could no longer give away lightbulbs. Mind you, this was a drug store owner, so lightbulbs were only one of the items he sold. Spare me some of the "practices" of business.

[Stosh]

And above all other considerations, consumers [[citizens) are turning to other businesses [[cities) when they are leaving Detroit for other cities.

[Locke09]

And above all other considerations, consumers [[citizens) are turning to other businesses [[cities) when they are leaving Detroit for other cities.

Citizens are not strictly consumers. They don't necessarily pay for every service they receive. When they do pay, they mostly pay proportionate to their assets [[land, house, income). There are exceptions of course where there are fees that are the same for everyone in a particular category [[bus fare, for instance). Sometimes citizens pay for services that they don't receive, such as when they pay school taxes but send their kids to private school. I don't pay for anything I don't receive from a business and they cannot take my money to provide goods and services to someone else, unless I agree to make a donation.

Businesses are not going to charge based on income or assets, although they might run sales or specials designed to give a break to seniors or others.Cities cannot tell everyone to pay the same property tax regardless of the value of their property. Business can decide to relocate to where they will find more desirable customers. Cities must serve everyone within their geographic boundaries.And on, and on and on.

We are taking the analogy too far. Next, we're going to say consumers [[husbands) are turning to other businesses [[mistresses) when they leave their wives for other women

[EastSider]

Citizens are not strictly consumers. They don't necessarily pay for every service they receive. When they do pay, they mostly pay proportionate to their assets [[land, house, income).

I suggest this is the first type of thinking that needs to be changed everywhere, not just in the city: the idea that services are 'free.'

There is not, never has been, and never will be, any such thing as a 'free lunch.'

Residents absolutely do pay for every service they receive, and lots of 'services' they would never support if ever given the choice [[wait, I thought businesses were immune to democratic processes?!).

[gazhekwe]

What is the difference between running a city and running a business?

Each one has a purpose.
---The purpose of a business is to generate profits [[by making and/or selling products and/or services) and it has to spend a certain amount to do that. Earnings are divided between maintaining and improving the business and paying out to shareholders.
----The city's purpose is to provide services to residents and maintain itself using funds gained through taxes.

The source of the money is different. The purpose is essentially the same. Generate income, spend responsibly to achieve the purpose. Money to spend, whether tax generated or profit generated, must be equal to the task at hand, requiring constant evaluation and balancing of revenue versus product or service.

[digitalvision]

Conducting city business SHOULD be more business-like and professional. Many poor decisions have been made from a financial standpoint. I won't say they're wrong, because the city officials' priorities [[as elected by the citizens of Detroit) have supported those decisions - but they've had consequences.

For instance, many say that outsourcing to contractors doesn't save money. I would say that in general, the city does a shitty job of selecting and managing contractors.

The black-owned set-asides and preferences cost the city 5-20% on contracts, as what actually happens in many instances [[not all, of course) is that a local black front company is erected then selected, and then many of the firms that would of done the work who are qualified do it anyway, but with a mark-up because you now have an extra layer.

Also, you must be a union contractor in most cases for the bulk of the work the city needs done. Those wages and work rules are going to be more expensive, and frankly, not price competitive with the price the suburbs get where those rules in many instances do not apply. I'm not making a value judgement on if unions are bad, but they do in general cost more and if that's worth it to you, then fine. But realize the financial consequences of that decision.

Even in those cases, being better organized, having qualified people [[reading Bing's report, there's a lot of people who aren't, such as accounting) and being more efficient on the city side alone can save a lot of money. Union or not, being clear on directions saves a lot of time and effort.

Having to talked to a good share of officials and people over the years, I honestly don't think many citizens, employees or officials really understand the impact of their choices over the years, or how deep of a hole the city is in. They just assumed they're going to get saved somewheres along the line.

[Locke09]

For instance, many say that outsourcing to contractors doesn't save money. I would say that in general, the city does a shitty job of selecting and managing contractors.

The black-owned set-asides and preferences cost the city 5-20% on contracts, as what actually happens in many instances [[not all, of course) is that a local black front company is erected then selected, and then many of the firms that would of done the work who are qualified do it anyway, but with a mark-up because you now have an extra layer.

Also, you must be a union contractor in most cases for the bulk of the work the city needs done. Those wages and work rules are going to be more expensive, and frankly, not price competitive with the price the suburbs get where those rules in many instances do not apply.

Even in those cases, being better organized, having qualified people [[reading Bing's report, there's a lot of people who aren't, such as accounting) and being more efficient on the city side alone can save a lot of money. Union or not, being clear on directions saves a lot of time and effort.

Having to talked to a good share of officials and people over the years, I honestly don't think many citizens, employees or officials really understand the impact of their choices over the years, or how deep of a hole the city is in. They just assumed they're going to get saved somewheres along the line.

I can't speak for the union contractors, but I can speak for the white-collar non-union contractors. Their rates are astronomical compared to city employee rates, even with benefits. In most cases, they are no more competent than the city professionals. In many cases, they do their work by getting information from the city professionals and repackaging it.

You are accurate that there is some overhead associated with having minority fronts. But there are a plethora of non-minority companies, with no one fronting for them, that provide white collar workers and professional services at ridiculous prices. I've sarcastically challenged the press to ask for real substantiated numbers whenever they cry out for privatization - at least where the white collar jobs are concerned.

If you really want to save money, you must also want to understand the real numbers. I'm not interested in privatization just because it is politcally correct or the current mantra. I am interested in what actually results in a lower tax burden on citizens.

Which by the way is why I'm voting no on Proposal S. It doesn't make good "business" sense to build more buildings when you cannot afford the ones you currently have. Doesn't make sense when you cannot afford teachers and counselors. Doesn't make good sense when residents are already not only losing their homes to mortgage foreclosures, but also to tax foreclosures.