The first step is to declare bankruptcy and hope to restructure the debt to something more managable.
The 2nd step is to piss away any money the city might have left to defend the bankruptcy in court.
The 3rd step is to close the government’s doors and turn out the lights.
Detroit’s city managment has proven that they can’t run the city anywhere but into the ground.
When Detroit can no longer pay city employees, will the employee work for free? Or will they move to someplace that has jobs?
And rename the city Independence Park! 
Well, what if Detroit annexed its suburbs? Then those suburbanites become Detroit taxpayers . . . and also Detroit voters. Would that help matters any?
And litterers will be publicly flogged!
[dr. klahn]
:mad: Take him to Detroit!
[/dk]
If the bankruptcy goes thru, they will be able to free-up some funds to start doing these type of things. Hopefully, they will invest after the bankruptcy and not just piss money away on things with little to no possible future return. The residents and businesses cannot possibly be taxed enough to turn the city around, nor would they want to. No doubt it will be painful, and things will not get better overnight.
If a city goes bankrupt, does it simply default on its debts and leave the creditors with nothing or cents-on-the-dollar, or does the state have to honor the city’s debts? A city is a creature of the state legally.
I’m a lawyer but I don’t practice bankruptcy law. Anybody know?
The question is, how did it get this bad? Detroit used to be a city people wanted to move to. It was able to expand because nearby areas were eager for the benefits that came with being inside the city limit. I’m arguing that as transportation improved people moved outside the city limit and yet continued to enjoy many of the benefits of Detroit. They had the same jobs, the same clients, the same recreation, used the same infrastructure. Originally they moved because homes were larger and more prestigious, it was cleaner (they still built things in Detroit), and the taxes were lower. As more and more people “left” cost of maintaining the city became more difficult to meet. Taxes went up and schools and police protection deteriorated. This led to more people “leaving”. It was individuals at first but businesses followed. Your carpet cleaning service or whatnot could be based in Dearborn or wherever and still service the same clients. It’s a vicious circle. Things get worse so people “leave” making things worse.
This is my argument. I’ve made it several times now. It would be nice if the Blame Detroit crowd would stop ignoring it. Detroit is not in a position to make itself a more attractive place to live than Bloomfield Hills anymore than a garbage dump can be made a more attractive place to build a new home than an undeveloped piece of land. I’m not saying that people in Detroit have done nothing to make the situation worse or that more couldn’t have been done to improve the situation. I’m saying that the deck was stacked against the city from the start and that is the first thing that needs changing. Maybe my idea of expanding the city is overambitious but something needs to be done to level the playing field.
I think it does matter why Detroit collapsed. First off, because if we don’t understand the problem then we won’t know which solutions make sense. Perhaps more importantly it matters politically. So long as you and the rest of the Blame Detroit crowd are allowed to frame the question as, “How can Detroit fix Detroit’s problem?” then nothing much can get accomplished. The first step is realizing that this is a regional issue that no municipality is capable of addressing. The State of Michigan needs to step up and take some responsibility here.
There is not much to the indictment of Coleman Young. My summary with comments in parenthesis.
The percentage of black residents grew by 30% during Young’s tenure. (No comparison to other urban centers if offered.)
A former county prosecutor and 2 Detroit News columnists claim he was anti-white. (The unsubstantiated allegations of three whole people!)
Hi Opal.
Whites didn’t just suburbanize they moved to suburbs just over the city limit (???)
A 1980 poll showed 70% of white Detroiters felt discriminated against. (White people feeling discriminated against? Who ever heard of such a thing!)
Cities rarely pass income taxes yet Detroit, which already had one, raised theirs under Young. This encouraged “the better off” to leave but had no effect on Young’s poorer black supporters. (What about poorer whites? And it couldn’t be that the city needed the extra revenue? I mean, we all know how well the economy did in the 70s.)
Young sought to bring in federal housing money the city didn’t need. (Somehow this made blacks happy but not whites? I don’t get this one either.)
City services that whites value were cut. (Because blacks love crime and fires and garbage piling up! And again, it was the beginning of the Rust Belt so maybe belts needed to be tightened?)
Young supported a casino and a business complex and similar construction projects that would bring in tax money without attracting white residents to the city. (No examples of potential white attracting projects that Young rejected are offered.)
Population declined under Young. (Say it with me, “Correlation isn’t causation.”)
All in all, a pretty weak effort.
Of course, this is Detroit. If they have problems, they can always call in The Doctor. He’ll straighten 'em out.
I love that movie. See you next Wednesday, BG!
Wouldn’t that be some sort of hostile takeover? I can only assume that the people living in the suburbs would fight tooth & nail against any effort on the part of Detroit to annex them. Wouldn’t you?
No, I wouldn’t.
Okay, but does Detroit have the power to annex the suburbs against the will of the people living there?
I already covered this. Detroit cannot unilaterally absorb surrounding areas. To be more specific, it takes a plebiscite of each municipality to agree. Similar to the recent abortive move by wealthy Grosse Pointe Shores to secede from Wayne County for an estimated tax savings of 4 mills. That’s $4,400 a year on a million dollar home.
After a quick check of the constitution of Michigan it appears that the legislature sets the general laws for incorporation of municipalities. IANAL but I think that means the state government could merge cities without local residents voting on the issue directly. But maybe I’m wrong there.
But Detroiters have the same advantage: they have access to all of the resources of the suburbs and don’t have to contribute for paying for it either. And there are a lot more resources outside of the city than in the city. This is one of the reasons we have different, multiple levels of government in our state and nation.
Hell, I’m forced to pay for the Detroit Zoo in via my property taxes, and the zoo is owned by the city of Detroit (but not operated by it), and it’s not even in the city of Detroit. I’m paying for the Detroit Institute of Arts, too, by the way.
“Incorporated” (and “charter”) mean that they’ve already met the requirements of the legislature. They’re local rule. No one can annex anyone.
Why does Detroit have to spread its corruption by annexing its neighbors? How about one of the responsible neighbors annex Detroit instead?
Hmm, no one has suggested that yet. Each of the suburbs take a slice of Detroit for themselves to fix?
Or an act of the state legislature, I should think.
Check out Cities Without Suburbs, by David Rusk.