Pontiac's EFM Makes the National Media

[corktownyuppie]

You know, only kind of tangentially related, but I've always wondered that if a municipality is a creature of the state, and if at least in theory a state is the creature of the feds, how would people be reacting if a president suspended a state government and ran it from Washington? I find a lot of folks don't mind this kind or arrangement until it happens to them. I get the feeling that folks don't mind this so long as it happens to one of those communities [[i.e. Detroit, Inkster, Highland Park, Ecorse...) I don't think people realize with the threshold the Michigan government has set just how many other communities are going to be inadvertently be netted when this is all said and done. I sure hope that property values recover pretty soon.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but...

[[1) I would vehemently oppose any federally appointed state government
[[2) Unless, of course, my state pension checks started to bounce, and then I would be totally fine with the Feds insuring my pension check in exchange for authority to run the state.

That's the issue. No one here wants an EFM. But no one can find a route to do the things necessary to avoid one, either.

[Scottathew]

That's the issue. No one here wants an EFM. But no one can find a route to do the things necessary to avoid one, either.

Yup. The problem is that hard choices have to be made:

1) Cut services
2) Make the services you don't cut more efficient [[labor costs, management costs, and structure)
3) Raise taxes

People whine and cry about all three options.

1) Cut services - "But services already suck, cutting them more will only make the city work."
2) More efficient - "Cutting labor costs is an attack on the American middle-class! If you make labor costs resemble private sectors costs it's because you hate workers!"
3) Raise taxes - "My taxes are already high. I don't have any money as it is. You're cutting services but raising my taxes?"

All of the arguments you typically hear are very logical. The issue is that Detroit has been spending more than it takes in for a long time. Short-term budgets have been subsidized\shored up by selling long term assets, moving money around in accounting gimmicks, and flat out lies.

Over the years the annual deficits have grown to what they are now. Instead of plugging the leaks when they were small and manageable, we're not trying to fill an empty pool up that has no walls.

Another issue is that the city's 140+ square miles are so sparsely and unevenly populated that delivering services efficiently is impossible in some cases. When you've got a block that only has one or two residents on it, you're still responsible for maintaining a water main and sewer throughout the entire block, keeping the street lights on for those two people, providing police protection for just two people, sending a garbage truck down an entire block for just two people, and providing all the other services over a large area for a small amount of people.

Detroit is now half as dense as Chicago and Philadelphia, and Detroit is 1/5 as dense as New York City.


How do the folks here feel about some kind of forced take over of hold-outs, where if the lot vacancy rate of a street goes above a certain level of vacancy percentage that homeowner would essentially be forced out through some kind of act of eminent domain. I don't know if this would be legal or ethical, but it's perhaps a way to get folks out of high vacancy areas.

[corktownyuppie]

How do the folks here feel about some kind of forced take over of hold-outs, where if the lot vacancy rate of a street goes above a certain level of vacancy percentage that homeowner would essentially be forced out through some kind of act of eminent domain. I don't know if this would be legal or ethical, but it's perhaps a way to get folks out of high vacancy areas.

It's not legal. Private property rights are paramount, and for local/state government to force property owners to move require an almost insurmountable standard.

However, there is a quote that goes “politicians will do the right thing, but only after they have exhausted every other option.”

I'm sure that when this whole thing is said and done, there will be a re-densifying of the Detroit population. Not because it's the "right thing to do" or the "logical thing to do". It will happen because it will literally be the ONLY OPTION in order for the bills to get paid.

And in my opinion, the sooner we start, the sooner we get there.

[Scottathew]

It's not legal. Private property rights are paramount, and for local/state government to force property owners to move require an almost insurmountable standard.

Great point. My search for a solution has come up with something that seems to be rather un-American.

I agree with you that Detroit will come back. It starts with the jobs coming to Detroit. Then, when some of those people filling those jobs are either hired from, or move to the city, we'll start to see more. Where jobs and people go, other commercial services will start to pop up.

I've seen it happening downtown, as businesses start to open up downtown in response to thousands of jobs coming down.

People are still afraid to invest. However, I hope there will be a tipping point where people will be afraid not to invest, because they don't want to miss out on opportunity.

[Wesley Mouch]

It's not legal. Private property rights are paramount, and for local/state government to force property owners to move require an almost insurmountable standard.

However, there is a quote that goes “politicians will do the right thing, but only after they have exhausted every other option.”....

Agreed that forced relocation would be pretty hard, but more achievable seems to be an elimination of disproportionately expensive services to those left behind in a newly rural area. I would be very politically unpopular, but combined with a reasonable economic incentive, I think this could work. Your right to stay would not be abridged, but your right to urban-style policing [[such that you have), street lights, stop signs, sidewalks, etc. would be eliminated. But I'm sure there are 'fairness' laws that prevent such a rational act.

I'm sure we would all agree that a rational government, freed of historical rules written for other purposes, would do this in the best interests of its collective citizens.

What we have now is a disproportionate tax burden on the poor residents of Detroit who are required to subsidize the infrastructure of now-suburban resident. Shouldn't the left take up this fight against this discrimination. Why shouldn't Warren or Richmond pay for the infrastructure legacy left behind by their residents.