  Detroiterinspirit Member Username: Detroiterinspirit Post Number: 22 Registered: 01-2005 |
So any truth to the rumours that once the election is over next week that Detroit will be placed into receivership? I am hearing a modified agreement has been reached between Jennifer and Kwame. The agreement will still give Kwame some authority, not just the state appointed manager. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1449 Registered: 06-2004 |
you mean just like it was supposed to after the mayoral election? or two months after some other seemingly pertinent date? same old tune | ||
Detroiterinspirit Member Username: Detroiterinspirit Post Number: 23 Registered: 01-2005 |
If you think about it, it wouldn't have made sense for Jennifer to do it last year after the Mayoral election. She still had her election coming up this year and I'm sure that she would have lost the Detroit vote. So doing it now, after this week's election, whether she wins or loses, makes more political sense. | ||
Paulmcall Member Username: Paulmcall Post Number: 63 Registered: 05-2004 |
How much more can the city borrow? At some point they have to pay their debts or face the consequences. | ||
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248 Post Number: 74 Registered: 10-2006 |
What is it about these guys and their obsession with putting Detroit in receivership??? Ugly as it is, Detroit's budget IS balanced. They would have to have multiple years of missing their budget before anything remotely that drastic takes place. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 614 Registered: 02-2006 |
It is? | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 133 Registered: 11-2005 |
You forgot to finish the rest of your sentence, Focusonthed. Here, I'll do it for you: (It is) not gonna happen. | ||
Detroiterinspirit Member Username: Detroiterinspirit Post Number: 24 Registered: 01-2005 |
Can I ask a simple question and all I ask is that you think for 30 seconds before you type your answer. My question is what is wrong with receivership if it can remove many of the obstacles the current administration has in truly fixing the budget? | ||
Detrola Member Username: Detrola Post Number: 34 Registered: 02-2006 |
Perhaps I missed the news. When did detroit balance it's budget. Are we speaking of the current budget, or the deficit from fiscal 05, or 04, or 03. Did hundreds of millions of dollars suddenly drop out of the sky. If the budget is balanced then perhaps the city will decide to stop attempting to sell off it's parks, golf courses and summer camp. If the budget is balanced perhaps the city will restore the health insurance of the hundreds of city employees whose benefits were eliminated without so much as a whimper from their union. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1450 Registered: 06-2004 |
"perhaps the city will restore the health insurance of the hundreds of city employees whose benefits were eliminated without so much as a whimper from their union." This will never happen just like it's not going to happen in the private and corporate sectors, either. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 616 Registered: 02-2006 |
That's what I was getting at. When did the city balance it's budget? 1956? | ||
Zulu_warrior Member Username: Zulu_warrior Post Number: 3066 Registered: 10-2003 |
BY law the City of Detroit must present a balanced budget and approve it. Thus when the council gives its approval, the budget is in balance. What happens next is that if revenue short falls occur, the mayor must, by law, balance the budget by the end of the fiscal year. The structural deficit that Detroit faces is due to loss of jobs and loss of residents (read loss of income), not because of over spending. Detroit has always had a balanced budget. | ||
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248 Post Number: 84 Registered: 10-2006 |
Zulu, these "intelligent" people just pick out the parts of the news that they want to hear. The fact there have been deficits, but tough financial decisions have been made every year in order to present a finalized balanced budget totally escapes them, because it would presume that "inner city" people actually have financial skills. Further, how can the state be Detroit's "white horse" when the state itself is in financial crisis (along with several other townships, automotive plants, and corporations that are not "inner city")? Yet there is not the faintest whisper about how someone needs to take them into receivership. New discussion thread: How about we talk about that? | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 618 Registered: 02-2006 |
Wow, take an argument over semantics and turn it into "'why-tee' says blackie can't do no math" Give me a break. Yes, the budget was balanced, but only after firemen and police were laid off, aquariums closed, ad nauseum. Balanced or not, the situation is not "A-OK." Oh, and some small township fiefdom having a couple thousand dollar deficit is not the same thing as a metropolis being hundreds of millions in the red. (Message edited by focusonthed on November 06, 2006) | ||
Eric_c Member Username: Eric_c Post Number: 884 Registered: 11-2003 |
Who turned it into black and white, Focus? Was a thread deleted? None of the above posts suggest anything of the sort. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 619 Registered: 02-2006 |
To me at least, it's pretty clear what Yvette's assertion of "them" thinking "inner city people" don't have financial skills means. Same old same old. If that's not what was meant (or implied), I take back what I said, but I think it's an example of the "codespeak" that some around here are fond of pointing out. (Message edited by focusonthed on November 06, 2006) | ||
Tkelly1986 Member Username: Tkelly1986 Post Number: 175 Registered: 01-2004 |
I agree with Focusonthed; sounds pretty race baited to me......or codespeak if you will | ||
Eric Member Username: Eric Post Number: 580 Registered: 11-2004 |
In case you haven't noticed, that is what happens often when cities have deficits. While Detroit may be the city that could least afford fewer officers, we are by no means the only city in the region that had to the same tough choice. | ||
Salvadordelmundo Member Username: Salvadordelmundo Post Number: 55 Registered: 04-2006 |
How many cops could have been hired or retained for the money it took to fix Kwame's pool? | ||
Detroiterinspirit Member Username: Detroiterinspirit Post Number: 25 Registered: 01-2005 |
WOW - this is both hilarious and sad at the same time. In my initial post I did not bring up race or make any anti-Kwame remarks. But lets move on from how it got twisted and focus on the facts. The budget has been balance only on paper for the last 3 or 4 years, every fiscal year the City starts in the hole with the deficit spending from the previous year. This year, I've read that since the current budget went into effect, every month the city has been deficit spending anywhere from 10 - 15 million a month. Without making major changes that only the city can do in Receivership, much like corporations in bancruptcy, the city will continue to have smoke and mirror budgets. | ||
Zulu_warrior Member Username: Zulu_warrior Post Number: 3067 Registered: 10-2003 |
The heart of the matter is that Detroit has a structural deficit, where revenues will decrease as the population does as well. But detroit is not alone in this, as many inner ring suburbs are experiencing the flight from Whites and Blacks alike. This drain is forcing all sorts of changes, in several suburbs the elimnation of police and fire departments has been the topic, along with outsourcing things to the County. Allen Park/ melvindale, all of Oakland county are discussion or acting on the elimnation of police and fire departments or the consoldation of them. I have in the past on this board advocated for a regional fire authority, one where Detroit Fire can use its top rated department as a way to provide leadership to the suburbs who are struggling with these issues. Detroit should have annexed these cities long ago, but that is another matter all together. | ||
Detroiterinspirit Member Username: Detroiterinspirit Post Number: 26 Registered: 01-2005 |
ZW - I don't think Detroit annexing any city at any time would have been a good idea. What you did bring up that is interesting is the ideas of regionalization of various departments. I think that this is something that should be analyzed, at a very high level is interesting and great potential. But in the past, any discussion of regionalization has always been denounced and presented in a racist way. Are we at the point that this subject without it being turned into a racist idea. Again, I lived in Detroit until I was 25 and then St. Clair Shores for the next 17 years. I want Detroit to succeed and don't know why the very realistic option of receivership can't be a positive tool, if handled correctly? | ||
Rasputin Member Username: Rasputin Post Number: 3786 Registered: 10-2003 |
Right, Detroit has been going into receivership since 1972 ...... y'all all know that "codespeak" and its implications. Go figure ..... on bullschitt!!! Black-atcha ..... Hey Zulu ..... "...Don't need no water; let the MF burn!" LOL | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 5169 Registered: 02-2004 |
...However Rasputin, Detroit under the Roman Griggs administration with the connection of Gov. Romney was planning a receivership in 1972. But the proposal is still a sleepy setback. Today talks of Detroit's receivership is still in the works and I don't believe this RUMOR! coming from Detroiterinspirit. It needs to prove the forum this it true, but nor absolute. For far is I know Detroit is NOT in receivership YET. | ||
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936 Post Number: 901 Registered: 01-2005 |
Danny, I'm sure you meant Roman GRIBBS. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 3250 Registered: 10-2003 |
I posted notes about this on the Future of Detroit thread, namely, that metropolitan union will be forced by the fact the members of our family of communities will not be able to sustain the costs of having redundant public safety, educational and infrastructural bureaucracies, staff and facilities. Does every little town really need a police and fire chief? The big hurdle is how to soothe all the big political egos that will get bruised in the process. As ZW notes, had an annexation policy been in place all along we would not be stuck in this divided situation. Our situation can only be escaped by state law, an impossibility for now, so we will all have to hobble along as best we can until the pain overcomes the egos. | ||
Detourdetroit Member Username: Detourdetroit Post Number: 249 Registered: 10-2003 |
Excuse me for my ignorance on this topic, but I was under the impression that the good people of Detroit had fought and won the right to annex at will earlier this year. With the Livonians under thumb, I thought that we were just waiting until the first frost to start the winter campaign of Fortress Warren. Am I mistaken? https://www.atdetroit.net/forum/mes sages/6790/68360.html | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1677 Registered: 10-2004 |
Come on, Lowell! Reality time... Detroit's annexation options were sealed shut some eighty years ago when its surrounding neighborhoods incorporated as cities. The primary reason that happened back then was that those residents didn't want THEIR properties to become part of the city of Detroit. And lucky for them that they incorporated. Had those suburbs been part of the city, they surely would be as blighted as Detroit--with even fewer, poorer prospects than they enjoy today. Could have been something like a bigger jail, so to speak--with the city having those additional residents (working folk with disposable incomes) and THEIR lands. Through that land, the city would obviously impose its taxing powers--now denied the city. So, you and others with similar mindsets would prefer that the people in those communities did not have the freedom to exercise self-governance. That's quite socialist, err progressive, of you. At some point soon--if not already--the city will not have the taxing revenue from a critical mass of sufficient taxpayers to pay for the city's excesses and yet provide some additional funds for the relatively large percentage of those still living on multi-generational welfare relief. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 5175 Registered: 02-2004 |
Actually Livernoisyard, If the suburbs were annexed by Detroit. How can you be sure the some Detroit neighborhoods being turned into a ghetto. Surely the nicer farther Detroit neighborhood would be mostly white and the black-folks who are dwelling in the inner city ghettos of Detroit. Its public schools system would be better and so will the mom and pop retail and other recreation areas. And other ethnic communities would grow. The population every grow up to 2.2 Million but to be decrease to 1.7 million and later growing up to 1.9 Million Maybe Detroit if it was a the 2nd largest city in the U.S. would not have a mostly black community but a mostly Hispanic, or Asian or Arabs. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1678 Registered: 10-2004 |
Nice try, Danny. However, those industrialists would have simply built outside the borders of the city where the lands would be cheaper and the taxes lower. That could have resulted in even greater sprawl than now. Detroit was unofficially the third largest city just before the Market Crash in 1929, or perhaps, in 1928. But notice that the second Fisher tower was never built, nor was the building that was to connect them in between. A lot of other planned buildings were never built, and if it weren't for WWII during the 1940s, Detroit would have faltered and failed even sooner than it did. The city of Detroit is not the industrial engine that drives Metro Detroit. Most of the auto plants and their tiers moved out of the city long ago and their workers and managers moved out also. The "downtown" for the auto industry has been Troy--for decades. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 5176 Registered: 02-2004 |
If the stock Market didn't crash, the Detroit would annex every last suburb until it reach 2 times the size of Chicago. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1682 Registered: 10-2004 |
It was already too late. Most of Detroit's inner suburbs became cities prior to the Crash of 1929. It's very difficult for a city to annex other cities. That's why the burbs incorporated. Detroit was hemmed in and stayed there ever since. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 3254 Registered: 10-2003 |
LY, it really is not necessary spit right-wing contempt tags all over when replying to me; we all know where you stand. From the time of your post, you must have just switched Rush off and were whipped up in full froth so I forgive you. Socialist... give me a break. If I'm a socialist that would make you a nazi and I don't think you are. Had Detroit remained united, it would be little different than now - there would be poor areas and wealthy and middle class areas. The big differences would be that resources and burdens would be shared and the wasteful redundancy of every community having its little inefficient bureaucracy would be eliminated. Something you would like is that we would probably have a two party system when it came to mayor, although I would hope a unified Detroit would be run by professional managers hired by a modestly paid elected bi-partisan board of directors. We could get down to some unified mutually positive actions such as sprawl containment. Water rates could drop because all these little burgs would have to jack the price to pay for their needless water departments. The benefit will be immense. But, as I have said, it won't come until after more pain, cutbacks, and waste. | ||
Fortress_warren Member Username: Fortress_warren Post Number: 120 Registered: 10-2006 |
Quote" "With the Livonians under thumb, I thought that we were just waiting until the first frost to start the winter campaign of Fortress Warren. Am I mistaken?" We're Locked and Loaded. Artillery registered, minefields set, wearing the white camo. Bring it on. Detroit has about the same population as San Deigo and Seattle, but twice the number of goobermint workers. But with the patronage that's rampant in deeetroit, nothing will change. But you could have mass transit. That'll make everything better. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 5183 Registered: 02-2004 |
Now what's going to happen if Detroit's population decrease to 400,000? Will there still be more blacks, less Whites, Hispanics, ethnic Arabs both Chaldeans and Muslims and East Indians? If this trend doens't end, then the State Legislature may change annexation laws, making Detroit to annex most suburbs or just put it into receivership. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 1701 Registered: 10-2004 |
Danny, you're delusional. No state laws will ever change regarding Detroit's ability to annex anything. Detroit is similar to a beggar nation, living off of the benevolence of others. Detroit has little actual suck in the legislature. If the welfare laws ever change to mirror reality in the other states, Detroit's population will nosedive still further. |
