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.
You kick out all the people and build a country club and charge an arm and a leg for membership. And there's probably a lot more room for other stuff that would bring in lots of dough. Build huge mansions that'll have sky high property tax bills. Then when all that money is pouring in the cons will say gee look at all that money pouring in that emergency manager did a great job
You kick out all the people and build a country club and charge an arm and a leg for membership. And there's probably a lot more room for other stuff that would bring in lots of dough. Build huge mansions that'll have sky high property tax bills. Then when all that money is pouring in the cons will say gee look at all that money pouring in that emergency manager did a great job
The only thing moving into Detroit are Bears and Coyotes.
So it's okay for a state's governor to come in an appoint someone to run a city? If this happened with a Democratic governor pushing aside a Republican mayor for his own hand-picked "emergency manager," Rush Limbaugh's hair would be on fire.
This is not democracy, even if Detroit is poorly-run. The people get the government that they deserve.
Are the STATE vs city taxpayers supplying the funds that are going into the city? If so, it's not only "OK", but should be mandatory for the manager to be appointed by the state government. Otherwise the state taxpayer's money is being spent without their representation. That would be baaayd.
We have the same situation in Ohio where municipalities are allowed to collect a small income tax from employees that work in the city but live elsewhere. I've always opposed this based on the same argument that you're making that it's taxation without representation, so I empathize with you there.
That being said, I still don't buy the argument that non-residents of one city should have any kind of a significant say over how the residents of another city make decisions about how they choose to govern their own city. The citizens of Detroit have an elected mayor and city council that they have chosen to make decisions for them. The idea that the governor can come in and put into place his own hand-picked czar to completely nullify the duly-elected local government is, indeed, not democracy. If the tables were turned and an "emergency manager" were put into place to run you city, making decisions with which you disagreed, I am not sure how happy you would be, either. If you want to participate in the democratic decision making process regarding Detroit, become a resident (either by moving there or petitioning to have your municipality annexed).
If my city needed an emergency manager, I'd be glad we had one. Obviously, Detroit has been poorly run for some time. There comes a point where you have to stop the hemorraging. It's going to be painful and it may turn out to be too little too late.
I'll second that wall around Detroit to keep them in.
Are the STATE vs city taxpayers supplying the funds that are going into the city? If so, it's not only "OK", but should be mandatory for the manager to be appointed by the state government. Otherwise the state taxpayer's money is being spent without their representation. That would be baaayd.
Seems like an overreach. My guess is that probably no city in the country has a "net zero" tax situation with their state; based on that, does that give the citizens living in a "donor city" the right to vote for state government in a way that allows them to have a "city manager" appointed to make decisions about another city in that same state (even if there is nothing wrong with the second city)?
Even if this is legal under state law, it's still not at all representative of what democracy in this country should be.
I don't have a problem with the governor appointing an 'emergency manager' for what used to be a thriving and booming city which once upon a time was the fourth largest city in the country.
If the best intentions of Mayor Dave Bing can't be put into practice due to union stubborness or a city council strangled with tunnel vision, then I certainly don't blame folks such as Ivorytickler for heading for the suburbs in search of a much higher quality of life.
As exemplified by those asinine moves by the local politicians regarding urban and suburban bus service, it's no wonder that Detroit has been losing residents for at least three decades, just like other liberal-created hellholes we all know, including here in Los Angeles.
I'm also an African-American baby-boomer, and that nonsense regarding Oreos and fried chicken is just juvenile, not to mention very condescending.
I don't have a problem with the governor appointing an 'emergency manager' for what used to be a thriving and booming city which once upon a time was the fourth largest city in the country.
If the best intentions of Mayor Dave Bing can't be put into practice due to union stubborness or a city council strangled with tunnel vision, then I certainly don't blame folks such as Ivorytickler for heading for the suburbs in search of a much higher quality of life.
As exemplified by those asinine moves by the local politicians regarding urban and suburban bus service, it's no wonder that Detroit has been losing residents for at least three decades, just like other liberal-created hellholes we all know, including here in Los Angeles.
I'm also an African-American baby-boomer, and that nonsense regarding Oreos and fried chicken is just juvenile, not to mention very condescending.
This is not a liberal/conservative thing. Detroit is not unique in its situation (though it may be the most extreme example). Even well-run, older cities have been losing population due to things like a natural inclination for people to want to take advantage of new technology to spread out post-WWII, and of course, racism. However each and every one of the United States' dominant world cities are run by liberal governments. Now that's not to say that liberalism is the way to go, but the point is that it's not the reason why cities like Detroit and Cleveland are struggling. There are a whole host of other significant factors at play, some (as mentioned above) that are beyond the local government's control.
That said, the point remains that although emergency managers may be legal, perhaps even in some cases wise, there's still not a strong argument that they're a great example of democracy.
I am white and wish I could get people to throw Oreo cookies at me, there is not too many things better then Oreo cookies dunked in a glass of milk. Oh wait minute a dark colored object with a white middle dunked into a white liquid that could be racist. Do I need sensitivity training?
It depends on how you use the word "oreo". When you call a Black person an oreo(and I am Black), you are basically saying that said person is "black on the outside, white on the inside". That is basically what it means. It is used to vilify Black people that are perceived as "not Black enough".
However, if you are referring specifically to the cookie, then that is fine.
Those are dictators. It is very disgraceful that there is a austerity dictatorship in Michigan.
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.
