Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Certainly, but a major reason for many of the large older cities having problems has to do with the long term movement of affluent folks to the suburbs. If looking at Detroit population and per capita income in 1960 vs today, you see the major shifts. Expecting the poorer city to maintain services by itself at some point just isn't very reasonable.
I know the conflicts between jurisdictions, but at some point government leaders need to grow up and take a look at the bigger picture.
Although Detroit's problems are not unique to Detroit, their magnitude puts Detroit in a league by itself. The reasons are multiple of course, but high among them is the poor leadership that the city has been saddled with. Having a racist mayor (wasn't his name Coleman Young?) quite some time ago accelerated the middle class flight from the city, for one thing. A true basket case (Detroit).
It is going to be interesting to see who gets their pension cut- if anyone. Orr still needs to propose cuts, the bankruptcy judge needs to approve or deny. The original case still needs to go through the courts before we even get there.
It is going to be interesting to see who gets their pension cut- if anyone. Orr still needs to propose cuts, the bankruptcy judge needs to approve or deny. The original case still needs to go through the courts before we even get there.
Excellent point. Nothing concrete has been decided yet. It seems to me, based on the ruling, that these two things are the result of that ruling:
1. Detroit really is seriously broke (not the legal term used!) and so its bankruptcy filing is legitimate and thereby upheld, and can proceed.
2. Pension cuts are NOT automatically off the table and can be considered.
While the second item would make me nervous as hell if I were drawing a pension from the City of Detroit, it is true, as you point out, that almost everything remains to be seen.
Both are good articles - thanks for posting them. Pensioners, however, stand to gain very little by "uniting". They are already united in the sense that they are represented by their unions and by their pension funds, such as CalPERS in California which has joined the legal battle.
Of course I see your underlying point, and I would be a bit nervous right now if I had a city or county pension. States, of course, are a bit different because they are not allowed to file for bankruptcy.
Although Detroit's problems are not unique to Detroit, their magnitude puts Detroit in a league by itself. The reasons are multiple of course, but high among them is the poor leadership that the city has been saddled with. Having a racist mayor (wasn't his name Coleman Young?) quite some time ago accelerated the middle class flight from the city, for one thing. A true basket case (Detroit).
The first inclination is for everyone to blame Coleman Young for most of the problems. I met the guy several times during the time I was in Detroit. He was a guy with a great heart but ill prepared to address all of the issues of running a large city.
White flight from the city cannot be blamed on Coleman Young. That was precipitated by the 1967 riots which started the decline as well as the major decline of the police department that occurred afterwards.
The problem that I have with public pensions is the tight relationship between city officials (who benefit from the pensions) and teh city employees. It is easier for politicians to grant most of the wishes of the municipal unions because they realize that everything will hit the fan many years after they are gone.
I have a real problem with giving the employee pensions a pass and having the other creditors "suck it up." There should be some sharing of the pain. The US Bankruptcy Court is probably the best arbiter.
Both are good articles - thanks for posting them. Pensioners, however, stand to gain very little by "uniting". They are already united in the sense that they are represented by their unions and by their pension funds, such as CalPERS in California which has joined the legal battle.
Of course I see your underlying point, and I would be a bit nervous right now if I had a city or county pension. States, of course, are a bit different because they are not allowed to file for bankruptcy.
My sister retired from CA state. Many of her friends retired city/county. She was group-mailing the article links.
The first inclination is for everyone to blame Coleman Young for most of the problems. I met the guy several times during the time I was in Detroit. He was a guy with a great heart but ill prepared to address all of the issues of running a large city.
White flight from the city cannot be blamed on Coleman Young. That was precipitated by the 1967 riots which started the decline as well as the major decline of the police department that occurred afterwards.
The problem that I have with public pensions is the tight relationship between city officials (who benefit from the pensions) and teh city employees. It is easier for politicians to grant most of the wishes of the municipal unions because they realize that everything will hit the fan many years after they are gone.
I have a real problem with giving the employee pensions a pass and having the other creditors "suck it up." There should be some sharing of the pain. The US Bankruptcy Court is probably the best arbiter.
Since you have boots on the ground experience in Detroit I must rate your opinion as more valid than mine. I agree about the importance of the 1967 riots. But I still tend to think that the widespread criticisms of Coleman Young must have some basis in fact. I myself remember that he was quoted in some rather inflammatory remarks which were hostile towards whites. That didn't help make a bad situation better, even if Coleman Young was not responsible for the bad situation.
Some posters have stated vehemently that pensions are contracts and therefore can't be abbrogated.
But that is precisely the PURPOSE of filing bankruptcy.
When an entity is insolvent and has no hope whatsoever of meeting all it's obligations, then bankruptcy is the process by which CONTRACTS CAN BE VOIDED, assets sold off, and creditors share the spoils, as well as the pain.
Bankruptcy is viewed as a salvation by most individuals... until it's YOUR OX that is being gored!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
