 
Figebornu
Member
Username: Figebornu
Post Number: 85
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2008 - 9:47 pm: |    |
Detroit has lost over half of its population, so that means its representative body, the Detroit City Council, should either be reduced or turned into a part time Council. These and other reasons reflect Detroit's budget woes. We simply cannot afford a city government that mirrors the one we had when the city was near 2 million in population. Any thoughts? |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 3723
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2008 - 9:48 pm: | |
No. Nine council members for a city of 900,000 is not excessive. |
Meaghansdad
Member
Username: Meaghansdad
Post Number: 252
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2008 - 10:05 pm: | |
Go part time, and divide into districts. |
Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 2828
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2008 - 10:27 pm: | |
Eliminate the Council and turn Detroit into the world's largest HOA. |
Detroitej72
Member
Username: Detroitej72
Post Number: 681
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2008 - 10:40 pm: | |
I bet if they cut the salary's in half, that would weed out many of the rats who choose to fatten thier pockets, at the taxpayer's expense.
Then, maybe it would encourage people whose aim is "only to serve the greater good" to become council members. |
Thoswolfe
Member
Username: Thoswolfe
Post Number: 32
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2008 - 11:21 pm: | |
Districts/Wards and at large. Maybe even more council members but with less of a budget for 'Administrative Staff' such as Lonnie Bates and others have/had. |
Hamtragedy
Member
Username: Hamtragedy
Post Number: 109
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 12:06 am: | |
In case you forgot, or didn't know, something like 128 people ran for council last election in the primaries. At $80,000/year (more?) plus benefits, plus a staff, that told me two things:
1. The job market here sucks
2. With little or no experience, purpose, or accountability, hell, why not take a chance. |
Vandykenjefferson
Member
Username: Vandykenjefferson
Post Number: 42
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 2:36 am: | |
Figebornu - Nine council members seems appropriate. Look at Milwaukee (pop. 596,974), who has 15 council members. Even Birmingham has 6 council members and a voting mayor.
A ward system, however, would be effective, I believe. |
Chuckles
Member
Username: Chuckles
Post Number: 210
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 6:03 am: | |
I think it would be more appropriate to shorten the meetings and to hold them at
"Chucky Cheese's" ........
regards |
Jaydetroit
Member
Username: Jaydetroit
Post Number: 7
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 8:53 am: | |
I'm not concerned with the quantity of people on council, just the quality. They were going to waste time superficially voting on whether or not they would be in favor or opposed to Kilpatrick resigning...mind you, this vote was for the publics benefit only, and had no actual bearing on Kilpatrick leaving office. Then when they met they wasted even more time and taxpayer money by deciding it was too early to make a decision of that magnitude, and they should first wait for Worthys decision on the mayor... how can anyone with a 6th grade education not be outraged with their blatant waste of time... for the matter Worthy has been stalling and wasting time as well. We have elected the wrong people for office!•• It's time the public takes a stand...we need to have real action...it's not right that they push us around over and over and over and over... |
Mrsjdaniels
Member
Username: Mrsjdaniels
Post Number: 535
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 2:57 pm: | |
fractional time (not half time - you wont get anything done)
and less pay...from 45-65K depending on your years of service
term limits and districts...
this would REVOLUTIONIZE the council and city (hopefully) |
Pussygirl313
Member
Username: Pussygirl313
Post Number: 70
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 6:46 pm: | |
Yes term limits for the council is a great idea.
Just wondering what is the process for recalling the council or members? They are really a bunch of fuck ups. I hate that I voted for some of those clowns, I feel so mislead by them and the mayor. Being a citizen of Detroit right now sucks. It was hard to hold your head high and have Detroit pride before all this happened, now it is almost impossible to be proud of Detroit. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 5526
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 6:52 pm: | |
quote:Districts/Wards and at large. Maybe even more council members but with less of a budget for 'Administrative Staff' such as Lonnie Bates and others have/had.
You mean 650,000 is too much to give a council member for "Administrative costs"... The hell you say!
Hey, it costs a lot of money to attract the caliber of people who threaten to shoot Aides if they had a gun. |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 786
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 10:55 pm: | |
In my politics class on urban issues, my professor made a good comment.
He said we are always standing there ready to cut councillors, etc. But we never really think about representing the population, and that maybe gov is not "bad" and that maybe more councillors are needed not less, in many of our cities.
We continue to look at government as a problem, instead of looking at it, as something that can bring a lot of good to our cities.
With only nine councillors, don't be ready to cut. |
Michigansheik
Member
Username: Michigansheik
Post Number: 279
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2008 - 8:05 am: | |
I agree quality before quantity!
Term limits would also be a good thing.
Districts would at least help bring the 'local' voice of the customer to the table. But then you get local corruption but at least your neighborhood is then moving in the right direction, I guess thats OK!! |
Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia
Post Number: 1217
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2008 - 8:40 am: | |
If you completely eliminated the city council the city would be better off than it is today |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 3735
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2008 - 9:10 am: | |
"If you completely eliminated the city council the city would be better off than it is today" ~ Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick |
Magnasco
Member
Username: Magnasco
Post Number: 245
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2008 - 9:31 am: | |
The budget is a bit large for them, but they do have a large responsibility.
My thought is that the districts are the way to go. More than local accountability, it would add a level of fairness to the election process. Rather than competing against all the people on the ballot, with names like Conyers, Reeves, and Cockrel, you would be competing against the person or persons in your community and would be able to call them out on the issues.
I think to get to districts it needs to be either a decision of council or a ballot proposal. We aren't going to get it from Council because the ones holding the positions aren't going to make it tougher to keep those jobs, so I think ballot proposal is what we need to be looking at.
As to the question about recalls, look at the Call em Out folks. Joann Watson's friends were responsible for attempted recall of all members except Joann and Brenda Jones about a year and a half ago. It fizzled out of the headlines but it was there for a bit. |
Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia
Post Number: 1218
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2008 - 12:27 pm: | |
"If you completely eliminated the city council the city would be better off than it is today" ~ Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick
and that's even after the unemployment that we would have to pay out because none of those clowns could hold down a real job. |
W_6_mile
Member
Username: W_6_mile
Post Number: 67
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2008 - 12:31 pm: | |
If Detroit's population is decreasing shouldn't the Council? Why do we need a nine person council for a population under one million? Who on that panel represents me? Or my neighborhood?! |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 787
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2008 - 4:18 pm: | |
9 council members for a city of 900,000 is actually pretty small.
If anything it should be increased, not decreased.
Sorry that I only have Canadian stats. But as you can see, much smaller places have more councillors.
City of Windsor(pop 200,000): 10 councillors.
City of Mississauga(pop 700,000): 11 councillors.
City of Montreal(Pop approx 1.3 million): 64 city councillors, plus borough councils.
In addition, there is the Agglomeration council, which looks over services and issues that cross city boundaries into the suburbs, like transit, police, etc. Montréal's city representatives hold 87.3 per cent of the voting rights on the agglomeration council, whereas representatives of the 15 suburban municipalities collectively have 12.7 per cent of the votes. |
Douglasm
Member
Username: Douglasm
Post Number: 1040
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2008 - 6:17 pm: | |
City of Rock Island, WA. Population 1,000. 5 Councilmen, of which I'm one. Calculate that out, and it would be 4500 Councilpersons for Detroit.
Seriously, part time is not the answer. In our little 1,000 person town, we meet twice a month ($50 a meeting), yet I spend probably 20 hours a month on city business, from reading reports to attending meetings on various subjects. Our mayor attends up to 20 billable meetings a month. It's not as easy a job as it looks.
Going to a district system with 1 or 2 at large slots should be considered for the reasons Magnasco cited.
As to the pay issue that Mrsjdaniels brought up, the Michigan State Constitution may have something to say on the subject. Generally in elected government, the pay is the same for all persons holding the same elected position in one jurisdiction. On the federal level (and here in Washington), elected officials CAN vote themselves a pay raise. They CAN NOT take that raise though, until after they've been re-elected to their position. Myself, one other councilperson and the mayor got a pay raise January 1st. 3 other councilpersons who were not on the November ballot did not.
Oh, anyone got $9M they can give us? We're trying to get a sewer plant built..... |
Pythonmaster
Member
Username: Pythonmaster
Post Number: 143
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2008 - 6:51 pm: | |
Eliminate the clowns that inhabit the council, and bring in folks like Penske,Bing, Bettis, Father Cunningham etc. who have shown involvement and common sense. |