Expert: Different approach could have helped Detroit avoid bankruptcy filing (Lansing: 2013, go bankrupt)

[313Weather]

The problem wasn't the State of Michigan didn't want to help. It's that that they didn't want to help unless EVERYTHING was on THEIR terms, versus forming a TRUE partnership.

Either way, his conclusion is right. Because the city, suburbs and state were too petty to put their differences aside for the greater good, now Detroit, the state's largest city, is in bankruptcy court (unlike Chicago/Illinois, Pittsburgh/Pennsylvania and New York City/New York who were all too busy to hate).

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130920/BIZ/309200111#ixzz2fdogYg9m

Detroit — A bankruptcy expert said Friday that the state of Michigan could have taken a more proactive approach to help Detroit avoid its July bankruptcy filing, the largest municipal filing in U.S. history.

Frank Shafroth, director of the Center for State and Local Leadership within the Center for Public Governance at George Mason University in Virginia, published a study Friday that looks at six American cities, including Detroit, to see whether the Motor City’s financial crisis could spread. The other cities are Chicago, Pittsburgh, Providence, San Bernardino and Baltimore.

Speaking at the Michigan Municipal League’s annual conference at Renaissance Center, Shafroth said a Michigan law that allowed Gov. Rick Snyder to appoint Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr was a “post-distressed program,” meaning it came after the financial crisis and provided help too late.

“The concern about Michigan is the law provides the state to interact after(Detroit’s)gone over the cliff,” he said. “Michigan the state could have been more positive in thinking through how can we help instead of waiting until it was too late.”

[y2c313]

Watch all the negative nancys come out and totally disagree, saying that it was all Detroit's fault! Now, I'm not saying Detroit doesn't deserve any blame, but michigan could've done more to help them avoid bankruptcy.

[adams_aj]

I wouldn't, and I don't know a sane city/state that would. Because given the last few Detroit administrations and councils, that's exactly what was going to happen to it. . .

As was pointed out by a poster in another thread not too long ago: at least the crooks in Chicago know enough not to completely "kill the goose that was laying the golden eggs". They just leach onto it enough to get a pile--not enough to suck it dry. Former Detroit mayors and councils weren't bright enough to keep the gravy train flowing. Their greed sucked it dry.

Detroit needs a mayor and council that can mostly be depended on to run it FAIRLY responsibly first.

[313Weather]

The analysis in the Detroit News was speaking retro-actively. In other words, the State of Michigan refused to show any interest in the health of its state's major city until D-day was upon it. If anything, many of the actions taken by the state HURT Detroit.

Just to name a few things:

*It lifted the residency requirement (knowing darn well it would impact Detroit the most) causing Detroit to lose millions of dollars in tax revenue, as well as more residents despite outcry against doing so from Detroiters.

*It refused to pass an Regional Transit Authority so Detroit could have a functioning, world-class mass transportation system (until Detroit goes bankrupt of course).

*It reneged on its end of the 1998 Revenue Sharing Agreement despite the negotiations that took place in good faith between state and city leaders.

*It passed land/annexation laws that made/make it impossible for Detroit to grow or shrink, and it hasn't even attempted to revisit them.

*It approved the move of Michigan's world class university from Detroit to a farm town that was in the middle of nowhere, probably costing Detroit all sorts of future potential as a hub for education (no slap in the face of WSU or U of DM, but they're not U of M and it never will be)

*It approved the move of Michigan's state capital from Detroit to another farm town that was in the middle of nowhere.

[Retroit]

Let's be fair though. It's not like the Detroit Sh!tty Clown Show was willing to cooperate with the state or any other outsiders. There is plenty they themselves could have done pro-actively to (possibly) save Detroit.

I would agree though that the system isn't set up with a realization that older, poorer inner cities can not survive unless they are better integrated with the surrounding newer, richer suburbs. But, like I said, the folks at the Coleman A. Young building are partly to blame for that.

[skinnayyy]

Maybe this is kind of like the bailouts, where they had to let Lehman fail to show that wall street isn't invincible, by letting Detroit go bankrupt its showing that major cities aren't invincible either.

[jonnynonos]

Keep dreaming. The Clowncil wouldn't even let the state "take over" Belle Isle. Detroit politicians didn't want the state anywhere near them for any reason except handing over gobs of money.

There is nothing the state could have done to "save" Detroit anyway.

Honestly under the circumstances Detroit was probably destined for this since the 50s or 60s.

[MS313]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

The analysis in the Detroit News was speaking retro-actively. In other words, the State of Michigan refused to show any interest in the health of its state's major city until D-day was upon it. If anything, many of the actions taken by the state HURT Detroit.

Just to name a few things:

*It lifted the residency requirement (knowing darn well it would impact Detroit the most) causing Detroit to lose millions of dollars in tax revenue, as well as more residents despite outcry against doing so from Detroiters.

*It refused to pass an Regional Transit Authority so Detroit could have a functioning, world-class mass transportation system (until Detroit goes bankrupt of course).

*It reneged on its end of the 1998 Revenue Sharing Agreement despite the negotiations that took place in good faith between state and city leaders.

*It passed land/annexation laws that made/make it impossible for Detroit to grow or shrink, and it hasn't even attempted to revisit them.

*It approved the move of Michigan's world class university from Detroit to a farm town that was in the middle of nowhere, probably costing Detroit all sorts of future potential as a hub for education (no slap in the face of WSU or U of DM, but they're not U of M and it never will be)

*It approved the move of Michigan's state capital from Detroit to another farm town that was in the middle of nowhere.

WOW!!! to the bolded... especially the last two. Could you imagine if Detroit was the state capital AND had UofM? I mean sure Ann Arbor and Lansing wouldn't really exist (at least the way it does today) but Detroit (city and region) would be MUCH different.

[Tekkie]

Originally Posted by MarvinStrong313

WOW!!! to the bolded... especially the last two. Could you imagine if Detroit was the state capital AND had UofM? I mean sure Ann Arbor and Lansing wouldn't really exist (at least the way it does today) but Detroit (city and region) would be MUCH different.

It'd probably be much nicer. The amount of money the politicos and schools would bring into the city would be an incredible economic boost. I mean, just look at what they did for Ann Arbor and Lansing.

[MS313]

Originally Posted by Tekkie

It'd probably be much nicer. The amount of money the politicos and schools would bring into the city would be an incredible economic boost. I mean, just look at what they did for Ann Arbor and Lansing.

Exactly, Boston comes to mind actually.