State laws re: bankruptcy contribution

[coracle]

It's not a bailout or a settlement it's a cop-out - we are giving money to an entity that spends it's own money on building a new Hockey Arena complex while expecting others to save its Pensioners from sliding into poverty. It doesn't even want to borrow it; it just wants it. It stinks. The time to stop the trend is now before the bailout/settlement/cop-out becomes the "entitlement".

[corktownyuppie]

It's not a bailout or a settlement it's a cop-out - we are giving money to an entity that spends it's own money on building a new Hockey Arena complex while expecting others to save its Pensioners from sliding into poverty. It doesn't even want to borrow it; it just wants it. It stinks. The time to stop the trend is now before the bailout/settlement/cop-out becomes the "entitlement".

There's good cause to disagree with the Hockey Arena, but I feel compelled to emphasize that it's not City Money, and so none of the money that would come from the state would go toward the Downtown Development Authority.

[coracle]

There's good cause to disagree with the Hockey Arena, but I feel compelled to emphasize that it's not City Money, and so none of the money that would come from the state would go toward the Downtown Development Authority.

The Downtown Development Authority should divert it's Funds to the Detroit Pensioners then. They have far more responsibility for them than the State has [[which is none). And the DDA can then ask the State to give them the vital funds they need for their developments. Do you think cities and towns don't "raid" their allocated funds to pay for their pet projects? Pensions are not a Detroit pet project, only inasmuch as it eases money from soft sources more readily than DDA projects do.

[Gistok]

The Downtown Development Authority should divert it's Funds to the Detroit Pensioners then. They have far more responsibility for them than the State has [[which is none). And the DDA can then ask the State to give them the vital funds they need for their developments. Do you think cities and towns don't "raid" their allocated funds to pay for their pet projects? Pensions are not a Detroit pet project, only inasmuch as it eases money from soft sources more readily than DDA projects do.

Coracle... it defies logic trying to make sense out of this paragraph.... apparently you are unaware that by law tax increment funds are not legally usable for other purposes besides development....

[coracle]

Coracle... it defies logic trying to make sense out of this paragraph.... apparently you are unaware that by law tax increment funds are not legally usable for other purposes besides development....

You can change stupid laws when they stand in the way - ask Conyers.
Except for not paying Banks/Creditors/Investors/Bond holders what they owe them and extracting contributions/settlements [[for what?) out of State/Suburbs/DIA/Philanthropists, what is the DETROIT TAXPAYER'S CONTRIBUTION to its own Bankruptcy?
Bankruptcy isn't so bad if you don't have to liquidate any of your assets, don't have to pay your bills and somebody steps in and gives you the money to carry on as you were with promises of better to come. I might even do it a second time.

[mwilbert]

You can change stupid laws when they stand in the way - ask Conyers.
Except for not paying Banks/Creditors/Investors/Bond holders what they owe them and extracting contributions/settlements [[for what?) out of State/Suburbs/DIA/Philanthropists, what is the DETROIT TAXPAYER'S CONTRIBUTION to its own Bankruptcy?
Bankruptcy isn't so bad if you don't have to liquidate any of your assets, don't have to pay your bills and somebody steps in and gives you the money to carry on as you were with promises of better to come. I might even do it a second time.

In Detroit's case, it is pretty much agreed that the taxpayers are already paying as much as it makes sense to ask them to pay. That is what they are contributing, and it is more than anyone else. But I don't think you are right about the "carry on as you were". The plan of adjustment is supposed to provide a blueprint for how the city will operate in a fiscally sound way in the future, and the bankruptcy judge is not supposed to approve it unless he thinks the plan is viable. It is pretty clear that will involve significant changes from what the city was doing before.

[coracle]

In Detroit's case, it is pretty much agreed that the taxpayers are already paying as much as it makes sense to ask them to pay. That is what they are contributing, and it is more than anyone else. But I don't think you are right about the "carry on as you were". The plan of adjustment is supposed to provide a blueprint for how the city will operate in a fiscally sound way in the future, and the bankruptcy judge is not supposed to approve it unless he thinks the plan is viable. It is pretty clear that will involve significant changes from what the city was doing before.

Everything you say makes good sense and in a perfect world everybody would come out of it with a "win" if a good plan of adjustment is conformed to. It's the couple of reference to "supposed"s in your note that strike wariness [[and weariness) in my thinking based on history; and maybe they are there because subconsciously it occurs to you also. I sincerely hope you are right and I'm wrong and it works out to everybody's advantage.

[Wesley Mouch]

You can change stupid laws when they stand in the way - ask Conyers.
Except for not paying Banks/Creditors/Investors/Bond holders what they owe them and extracting contributions/settlements [[for what?) out of State/Suburbs/DIA/Philanthropists, what is the DETROIT TAXPAYER'S CONTRIBUTION to its own Bankruptcy?
Bankruptcy isn't so bad if you don't have to liquidate any of your assets, don't have to pay your bills and somebody steps in and gives you the money to carry on as you were with promises of better to come. I might even do it a second time.

I think its likely Detroit will stumble a couple times. Why not. If you believe many of the critics, the problem is a theft of democracy. Or was the evil bankers. Greedy businessmen. Republicans.

All of the above were contributors to financial crisis to be sure. But if you shift the blame to them, you absolve other contributors. And you absolve yourself.

I think the most likely result of Detroit's bankruptcy is to delay the real day of reckoning. Detroit may have been the worst combination of bad decisions piled on top of the 2007 economic collapse. But a lot of other cities and states are right behind us. Look at Illinois. Look at California.

When the rest of the country truly faces the fact that you can't pay an increasing number of pensioners an increasing benefit for an increasing lifespan, there will have to be some reorganization on a national level. It will look a lot like what Walker or Snyder have been doing. Changing the rules.

The past rules where the cost of government just keeps going up as leaders promise away the future, and unions use political power to optimize union revenue -- the can't go on forever. Some type of civil service with good pay and benefits and more flexibility will need to erupt.

[erikd]

You can change stupid laws when they stand in the way - ask Conyers.
Except for not paying Banks/Creditors/Investors/Bond holders what they owe them and extracting contributions/settlements [[for what?) out of State/Suburbs/DIA/Philanthropists, what is the DETROIT TAXPAYER'S CONTRIBUTION to its own Bankruptcy?
Bankruptcy isn't so bad if you don't have to liquidate any of your assets, don't have to pay your bills and somebody steps in and gives you the money to carry on as you were with promises of better to come. I might even do it a second time.

What is the Detroit taxpayers contribution to our bankruptcy?

Our contribution to the bankruptcy is the fact that we pay the highest property taxes, the highest income taxes, spend the most money on retiree/legacy costs, and receive the shittiest services and return on our tax dollars than anybody else in the state.
-------------------------
Let's take at look at the facts here:

In 1960, the city of Detroit had 1,670,144 residents, 26,386 active employees, and 10,629 pensioners.

In 2012, the city of Detroit had 701,475 residents, 10,529 active employees, and 21,113 retirees.
-------------------------

Between 1960 and 2012, the city of Detroit lost 58% of its population, cut its active workforce by 60%, and the number of city retirees increased by 199%.
--------------------------

Given these facts, I don't see how Detroit taxpayers are failing to 'pay our bills', and are just 'extracting contributions and settlements from the state/suburbs/DIA.'

Accusing Detroit taxpayers of shirking our responsibilities and failing to pay are bills is not only offensive, it is flat out incorrect. The 40% of us who are still here in the city pay for way more than we receive, and in fact, we pay almost as much for the debt that was left to us by former Detroiters than we do on our current expenses.

I don't know why former Detroiters should be completely absolved of their responsibility to pay for the debts and legacy costs that they incurred in exchange for the services rendered while they lived in the city.

Metro Detroit is like a dinner party where 20 people ate and drank all night, then 12 people got up and walked out, stuck the last 8 people at the table with the bill, and then the dine-and-dashers were outraged when they were asked to kick in a few bucks the next day.

[Hermod]

Metro Detroit is like a dinner party where 20 people ate and drank all night, then 12 people got up and walked out, stuck the last 8 people at the table with the bill, and then the dine-and-dashers were outraged when they were asked to kick in a few bucks the next day.

No, it is like a dinner party where 20 people got together and the 20 paid for dinner and wine. Three of the twenty then asked five of theirs friends to drop by and the eight of them ran up a big bar bill and began acting crazy. Seventeen of the original twenty left in disgust. The original three and their five buddies then trashed the dining room and were outraged that the ones who left weren't contributing to the bar bill and the damages to the restaurant.

[Wesley Mouch]

What is the Detroit taxpayers contribution to our bankruptcy?

Our contribution to the bankruptcy is the fact that we pay the highest property taxes, the highest income taxes, spend the most money on retiree/legacy costs, and receive the shittiest services and return on our tax dollars than anybody else in the state.
...snip...

Certainly basic city services have been shitty -- but Detroiter's decided on other priorities. For example, Detroiters have paid for a Human Rights Department. Detroiter's got that service. Or paying for a mayoral mansion. Nice -- but not the priority of Troy, Wayne, or Ypsilanti. Or how about a paying for a contract compliance department who checks how many whites are working on city jobs.

So stop complaining. Detroiters got value for their money. We just didn't ask for services, we asked for all kinds of irrelevant things that are none of the city's business.