Should Detroit have an Emergency Financial Manager? (Eastpointe: limousine, house)

[michiganmoon]

When 1 in 4 houses for sale are foreclosures and I know many people buying big houses that they have to stretch every penny to make it work...people are buying houses they can't afford. The banks let them, but self accountability for the biggest purchase of your life needs to hold some weight.

[michigan83]

Read an article today in the Lansing State Journal about how Rev. Jesse Jackson was in Detroit, with a coalition of pastors, civil rights leaders, and elected officials who are gearing up for the fight against the emergency takeover, including the use of civil disobedience if necessary.

A key quote from the article: "The coalition acknowledged that the city was in a crisis but did not offer financial solutions."

Honestly, I do get where they are coming from, to a point.

But I wonder... What if they put all of this energy and emotion into pressuring the city leaders and unions to actually solve the problem? What if Jesse Jackson was instead making public statements about how all Detroiters need to come together and do everything possible to fix the finances? What if he was out there, God forbid, telling the unions that they aren't sacrificing enough? Now THAT would be worthy of front page news.

Again... I understand the issues people have with the law. But focusing all of this energy towards the emergency manager law seems like a dog and pony show to me, a way of diverting attention from the real problem. You know what would impress me more? Doing something that is not politically easy, something that is really against the grain. I doubt there has ever been a crisis solved in this World by avoiding difficult decisions, painful decisions, or without people giving up more than they want to. Or by creating a diversion and starting a firestorm that does absolutely nothing to fix the problem.

[EdwardA]

Originally Posted by michigan83

Read an article today in the Lansing State Journal about how Rev. Jesse Jackson was in Detroit, with a coalition of pastors, civil rights leaders, and elected officials who are gearing up for the fight against the emergency takeover, including the use of civil disobedience if necessary.

A key quote from the article: "The coalition acknowledged that the city was in a crisis but did not offer financial solutions."

Honestly, I do get where they are coming from, to a point.

But I wonder... What if they put all of this energy and emotion into pressuring the city leaders and unions to actually solve the problem? What if Jesse Jackson was instead making public statements about how all Detroiters need to come together and do everything possible to fix the finances? What if he was out there, God forbid, telling the unions that they aren't sacrificing enough? Now THAT would be worthy of front page news.

Again... I understand the issues people have with the law. But focusing all of this energy towards the emergency manager law seems like a dog and pony show to me, a way of diverting attention from the real problem. You know what would impress me more? Doing something that is not politically easy, something that is really against the grain. I doubt there has ever been a crisis solved in this World by avoiding difficult decisions, painful decisions, or without people giving up more than they want to. Or by creating a diversion and starting a firestorm that does absolutely nothing to fix the problem.

There's no money for Jesse in doing that. He's an old fashion shakedown artist nothing more, nothing less.

[Retroit]

Al Sharpton to the rescue.

Rev. Al Sharpton to protest Michigan emergency takeover law | MLive.com

I'm sure MLK would be proud to see Detroit implode on itself. Protesting at the governor's house is really going to turn things around in Detroit. I wonder how many murders, rapes, burglaries, and arsons will take place tomorrow in Detroit that will be ignored by Rev. Sharpton.

[scolls]

It's not the fact that Detroit should have a financial manager, it's the fact that these financial managers go against everything America stands for. It's suppose to be government by the people for the people, yet the people have no say in what happens in their city, nor do they have any say in what dictator gets chosen for their city.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by scolls

It's not the fact that Detroit should have a financial manager, it's the fact that these financial managers go against everything America stands for. It's suppose to be government by the people for the people, yet the people have no say in what happens in their city, nor do they have any say in what dictator gets chosen for their city.

I actually agree with you here...

[Retroit]

I'm glad I got you two to agree on something.

..only now I disagree with both of you!

If "the people" do not have enough sense to elect people who have enough sense to run their city without going bankrupt, then it is up to the state to protect the interest of "the people" by not having the largest city in the state go bankrupt.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by Retroit

If "the people" do not have enough sense to elect people who have enough sense to run their city without going bankrupt, then it is up to the state to protect the interest of "the people" by not having the largest city in the state go bankrupt.

Bad voters isn't the problem (Michigan and the US is filled with them).

It's the fact that Detroit has lost 61% of its population that's the problem, or in a word, the lack of revenue.

You don't think an EFM won't make the situation worse by accelerating Detroit's decline? How is East Detroit High School these days with the EFM controlling DPS?

Bankruptcy will be quick and we'll have a clean slate to work off on. Also, we won't have to pay millions of additional dollars to someone as a salary to preside over it and the legacy costs may be wiped out.

[scolls]

Wait a minute, the dictator, I mean governor, can determine who we elect? Why doesn't the governor just pick which candidates we can vote for? How is this different than Ghaddafy? I have no idea how this is constitutional.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by scolls

Wait a minute, the dictator, I mean governor, can determine who we elect? Why doesn't the governor just pick which candidates we can vote for? How is this different than Ghaddafy? I have no idea how this is constitutional.

If the city declares bankruptcy, who do you think will be calling the shots?..."The People"?