Are there ANY examples of how State Takeovers actually "helped" anyone?

[Hermod]

The city collects taxes from the people to perform services. The city performs the services. That is how government is supposed to run.

The city PROVIDES the services. Whether it provides them by using city employees or it provides them through a contract is immaterial except that the services should be provided by the most cost effective means.

"Privatization" is a scheme whereby a corporate boss is appointed to step in the middle, take some money, and then the taxpayer is cheated and the city worker has to make do with less. Services suffer, workers earn less, city infrastructure crumbles, while the corrupt are rewarded. This is the new corporate patronage system.

No, privatization need not be corrupt. There can be an honest contracting system where there are firm metrics, the contract is let, and the contractor performs as required by the contract.

But you don't mind that because of your existing bias against government and for private industry. So there you go. Privatization is legal graft.

Obviously, the federal and state taxpayers don't have to worry about building your "magic choo choo" up Woodward. The city can just have it built by those fabulously talented and energetic City of Detroit civil service workers. You wouldn't want to privatize the construction of something so near and dear to your heart.

[Detroitnerd]

No, privatization need not be corrupt. There can be an honest contracting system where there are firm metrics, the contract is let, and the contractor performs as required by the contract.

That's not privatization. That's contracting. I understand the difference.

Obviously, the federal and state taxpayers don't have to worry about building your "magic choo choo" up Woodward. The city can just have it built by those fabulously talented and energetic City of Detroit civil service workers. You wouldn't want to privatize the construction of something so near and dear to your heart.

And how were the talented CoD employees when they built your Cobo Canals?

Again, Hermetically-Sealed Man, not everything in life is profitable -- nor should it be. Core services that aren't profitable shouldn't be attempted by private business -- as contractors or as privatized entities. Where does that line fall? A matter of lively debate. But, given your blinkered logic, I don't think I'm going to trust your advice very much.

The very idea that schools, fire, police, water, prisons and such should be privatized is ridiculous, and should be stopped. But it won't, because ideologically driven forces want to feed their corporate ideas at the public trough. And the "crisis" in Detroit is just a way in.

We already have paid as a country to learn that when you privatize fire coverage, whole cities burn down while men fight over the fireplug. That when you have private prisons they have zero interest in fighting recidivism because those are tomorrow's customers. We know that privatized schools DO NOT perform any better than public schools, and, in fact, have a record of cheating on tests to get more money. We know that when we privatize water systems, they start lying about the quality of the water to save profits.

We know all this.

And yet ... we're going to try it here. Because of cranky people with cranky ideas that don't hold water.

[Hermod]

That's not privatization. That's contracting. I understand the difference.

Where is the difference? Where is your dividing line? Is contracting anything the city is now doing in house privatization?

There do exist good private water supply utilities in the US. They were not all dishonest.

Should a city have a graphics capability in-house, or should they obtain such work from a graphics design company? Should the city maintain its own copy machines or should it be done by contract?

Large corporations make these kinds of decisions every day. Do we do it in- house or do we contract it out? Is the management of such a function beyond our core competency?

Arguably, it would make sense for Detroit to let DTE take over the Detroit Lighting function [[privatization).

And yes, when I worked for the City of Detroit, we knew we had to contract out expressway construction. It wouldn't be efficient for the city to keep on hand a gigantic construction crew [[though think of all those living wage jobs)..

[Detroitnerd]

Where is the difference? Where is your dividing line? Is contracting anything the city is now doing in house privatization?

Rather than engage in hair-splitting...

Private companies hate public competition. It lowers their profits when there is a public organization providing the same service they do. Wherever that line falls, you can be sure corporate managers are going to use public relations, media campaigns, bully pulpits and donations [[bribes) to ensure that the public options are few. So expect the line between "contracting" and "privatization" to be deliberately blurred.

As for private water companies fudging their figures, look no further than United Water, the company Flint contracted -- to save the city a whopping $2.8 million. How would you feel if your water utility was contracted out to a company facing 26 counts of felony violations of the Clean Water Act? But then those savings must come out of services. And city residents calling United Water expecting responses about rusty water and other problems simply didn't have calls returned. Now, who do you vote against to stop this mismanagement? You don't because you can't. At a certain point, privatization looks a lot less like deal-shopping and a whole lot more like top-down Soviet systems where you get what they want you to get, and if you don't like it, lump it, Tovarich.

Frankly, I think a lot of the enthusiasm for "privatization" comes from people who are outside its crosshairs. People of means who have efficient city services, are politically engaged and pay attention to their government [[something poor people don't do enough of because it's a struggle to keep breathing each morning), people who have quietly been grinding an ax against unions and think it will sock it to them, etc.

Reminds me of the emergency manager thing. For a while, people in Grosse Pointe were all for it. People in sleepy outstate communities were for it. But when they realized it may have some ramifications for them, some decided to turn against it. Somebody else's democracy, we think we can tinker with. But our democracy is sacrosanct. This is something we should very carefully consider going forward.

[corktownyuppie]

Frankly, I think a lot of the enthusiasm for "privatization" comes from people who are outside its crosshairs. People of means who have efficient city services, are politically engaged and pay attention to their government [[something poor people don't do enough of because it's a struggle to keep breathing each morning), people who have quietly been grinding an ax against unions and think it will sock it to them, etc.

Your entire post was thought provoking for me. I want to focus on the paragraph written above.

Simple words can have different meanings based on our worldview and our cumulative experiences. For example, I've read some interesting studies about the difficulties teachers have with specific students. The difficulty lies not in their intellectual abilities or even in their willingness to work...rather, one major factor in the teaching process is a function of what beliefs the students hold about teachers in general.

For example, take the word, "teacher". If a parent came from a childhood where teachers treated them unfairly, caused emotional trauma, devalued them in some way, then it's not a surprise that those parents are inclined to raise kids who are taught to stand up against authority, rebel against any criticisms [[constructive or not), obey selectively. The emotions they experience when merely hearing the word "teacher" are worlds away from mine...teachers treated me justly, I always excelled in school and received an overabundance of positive messages, etc.

On a more personal level, I've had the fortune [[or misfortune) of having lived in many different sets of shoes. Words like "privilege" or "power" or "white" or "black" have different meanings for me than some of my friends. I've been hurt by the privileged and the powerful during much of my childhood. But I've had opportunities in adolescence and young adulthood where the privileged and powerful treated me in a way I considered just. And as an adult, I've been fortunate enough to live in the shoes of the privileged...but my formative experiences in youth keep me hyper-aware of wanting to act fairly and correct injustice.

So, I think you're right. You and I both see the word "privatization" and we imagine two very different visions in our mind. Your experience of it seems to revolve around good, hard working people suffering from pay cuts while the powerful and the well-connected benefit by padding contracts for their own benefit. And when thinking about it that way, I WOULD BE AGAINST PRIVATIZATION TOO!

Of course, when I think about privatization, I think that competing parties face off in a tournament to provide the highest performance at the lowest costs. And given that Detroiters: [[1) pay too much in taxes while [[2) receiving shitty services...certainly you can understand that in my vision of privatization, both those needs are directly addressed. Certainly, in my vision, if one private company is overpaying at the top at the expense of service to the customer...then another private company will force a face-off and try to demonstrate a combination of better/cheaper/faster.

Ah, but then what you write strikes an interesting chord.

Private markets work best when an informed consumer is making -- and able to make -- blindly objective and rational choices. [[This, btw, is why I can be totally in favor of private competition for some businesses...such as buying apples at Eastern Market while being in favor of public involvement for others, such as choosing a health care plan).

What's interesting about Detroit's history is that privatization has been so rifled with corruption that the pockets of the few at the expense of many. And so the benefits of privatization have rarely been even seen by the citizens -- which defeats the purpose of privatization to begin with.

At the same time, I know from my own experience and my father's [[who worked for the city) that Detroit is an organizational culture that resists change, is filled with inefficient layers of operations, is unwelcome to outsiders, is besieged with nepotism, and offers poor levels of service.

What is the solution to this? Is it privatization...which risks corruption and theft? Or is it staying with public management...which resists improvement and change?

Obviously, the answer is none of the above. At least not at face value.

I still choose to err toward privatization because: [[a) I'm one of your privileged examples that has time to write a 10 minute essay just for fun so that one day I'll have material for my stump speech and election campaign*, and [[b) if we make a mistake and pick a bad contractor, we can just find a better one.

But admittedly, I also have greater faith in our leadership because [[as per my example re: the word "teacher", my experiences with authority and leaders as been universally positive my whole life. And while my experience in leadership positions of organizations hasn't been perfect, it's filled with example after example of success despite challenging environments. In other words, I see leaders in a good light because I've been surrounded by good leaders and I see myself as one.

At the same time, from the shoes of the marginalized and poor...especially here in Detroit where leadership has been atrocious for one reason or another...and when the consequences of poor decision making has fallen disproportionately on the powerless and the oppressed....I can see why they [[or you) might see things very differently.

I guess at the end of the day, it's oversimplistic to merely state that privatization is or isn't the answer. But we do know that whichever answer we choose will require good, ethical leadership at the top....as well as an informed, better educated, better LED, bottom that is open to change. We've tried it with our current organization. Maybe it's time to try it with private contractors. Either way, all of this will require introspection and transformation from all the parties involved at all levels.

Will Detroit see that?

I am hopeful as my experience is that the new generation of young leaders is not bogged down with the old thinking that has mired us in the past. But to be realistic, it will probably take one more generation...20-30 years, before Detroit realizes the transformation it is wanting.

But, had we started 30 years ago, we'd be there today. So we might as well get moving.

*Just kidding about actually ever running for office.

[antongast]

No, privatization need not be corrupt. There can be an honest contracting system where there are firm metrics, the contract is let, and the contractor performs as required by the contract.

In theory such a thing may be possible, but we're talking about Detroit here.

[Wheels]

In theory such a thing may be possible, but we're talking about Detroit here.

Synagro anyone?

[corktownyuppie]

Synagro anyone?

Synagro isn't so much an example of privatization gone wrong...it's more an example of what happens when the people running the city are operating in a manner that fall under the definitions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [[RICO).

[313hero]

Synagro isn't so much an example of privatization gone wrong...it's more an example of what happens when the people running the city are operating in a manner that fall under the definitions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [[RICO).

Wrong. Synagro APPROACHED those people w/ those "bribes" not the other way around

[corktownyuppie]

Wrong. Synagro APPROACHED those people w/ those "bribes" not the other way around

I hold public officials to a higher standard than any of its contractors and vendors because they have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their constituents.

Presuming that you're correct about who approached whom [[frankly, I don't know the details)...what I find relevant is not that Synagro offered the bribes, but that our public officials ACCEPTED them.

I hold them both responsible and think they're both dirty. The difference is that Synagro doesn't work for me, my elected officials do. And so I don't this as an example of why privatization doesn't work, I see it as an example of why privatization doesn't work when your elected officials are taking dirty money.

Maybe Detroit has had dirty leaders for so long that they think it's normal. I don't know. but that's what's gotta change. Wayne County not too far behind, either. I'm not giving them a free pass.

[esteban]

I lived in the financially exhausted City of Highland Park, and saw first hand what the State of Michigan did to that minority city.
However one would like to malign the Detroit City Council and the City Administration, one ought to keep in mind that THESE WERE ELECTED BY THE CITIZENS OF DETROIT!
The Governors constitutionally ILLEGAL decision to force the duly elected Mayor and Council to choose between slow asset-stripping or rapid asset-stripping is NO CHOICE at all.
This is nothing but an occupation force, imposing itself on a huge demographic minority. The Detroit Mayor and Council should recognize it as such, and REFUSE to be the tools of this morally illegal outrage. Going-along to get-along is NOT AN OPTION. It is nothing but an ignominious collaboration with a State that means Detroit no good.
The Governor of Michigan calls this a 'Consent agreement'. I think the citizens of Detroit have no alternative but to forge a 'Dissent Agreement'.

In the light of decades of neglect, this has gone beyond the morally bankrupt authority of the State of Michigan, which has strangled Detroit of resources for decades to the extent that it has now reached a point where the situation needs to become a Federal concern.