Detroit, the well run liberal city

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:00 pm

We all know now that the liberal way of running a city just does not work, as evidenced by Detroit. Now to add insult to injury, the UN is going to step in:

"On Monday, the U.N. Human Rights Council’s office in Geneva confirmed to WND that the U.N. plans to intervene directly in the Detroit water crisis, determined to apply international law to judge the U.S. in violation of human rights to safe water."

So the city is now guilty of human rights violations. Can't wait to see how Chicago handles it's budget problems.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:38 pm

Its funny in a sad way. I'm sure they enjoy rubbing it in our faces...or at least think they are but, as you have illustrated, not all of us see the situation there as the result of 'our' doing so their jab doesn't find its mark for many.

What they may be overlooking though, in their rush to take a shot at us, is that without us to enforce it their finding of a violation of international violation is a huge 'so what' moment that merely highlights their impotency.

Reminds me of Dean Wormer in Animal House declaring double secret probation

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:02 pm

I see those Republican governor-chosen despot emergency managers did a real bang up job. And I thought the liberals screwed Detroit up.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:18 pm

tunnelcat wrote:I see those Republican governor-chosen despot emergency managers did a real bang up job. And I thought the liberals screwed Detroit up.

Are you trying to imply Detroit was going to be fine if not for the work of some republican appointed bureaucrats?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:42 pm

And like they were going to fix in a few months what took decades to destroy

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:21 am

tunnelcat wrote:I see those Republican governor-chosen despot emergency managers did a real bang up job. And I thought the liberals screwed Detroit up.

The emergency managers job is to handle the issues with the cities bankruptcy issues, not it's day to day operations. Nice grasping at straws tho.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:00 am

Maybe we could just declare Detroit a sovereign county and let the UN run it altogether.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:27 am

Now there's a thought,

but think of all the millions of disenfranchised Democrat voters they would have

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:32 am

how the feck can you clowns persist in politicizing the plight of a classic American industrial city, ALL of which have suffered from the economic shifts of the past 40 years? Maybe when you all get done gloating and playing ideological games, you will realize that those poor folks with no water service are your fellow citizens(not the snarky description of 'democratic voters'). Shame on you.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 9:12 am

And yet slick, it is those self same liberal policies that you so heartily endorse that put those poor people in the position they are. And now, when the mess has bloomed full flower, you want the rest of us to clean it up. Here's a thought...get all your rich liberal friends to take care of it. When they pay the burden of cleaning up such messes, maybe in the future they will endorse more conservative governance.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:44 pm

callmeslick wrote:how the feck can you clowns persist in politicizing the plight of a classic American industrial city, ALL of which have suffered from the economic shifts of the past 40 years? Maybe when you all get done gloating and playing ideological games, you will realize that those poor folks with no water service are your fellow citizens(not the snarky description of 'democratic voters'). Shame on you.

Maybe you should put that sentiment in a letter to Jon Stewart.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:49 pm

woodchip wrote:And yet slick, it is those self same liberal policies that you so heartily endorse that put those poor people in the position they are. And now, when the mess has bloomed full flower, you want the rest of us to clean it up. Here's a thought...get all your rich liberal friends to take care of it. When they pay the burden of cleaning up such messes, maybe in the future they will endorse more conservative governance.

maybe you should look at the support the cities get from their surrounding suburbs. The suburbanites benefit mightily, the cities wither on the vine, because the higher incomes live in the suburbs. Any city that has avoided this cushy little arrangement(American Apartheid, of sorts) has done just fine. That has nothing to do with 'liberal policies'. The people who are poor were going to be poor in any situation where industries move out, or downsize. To leave the city so destitute that it has to default, or cannot run a program to make water available/affordable for all is a disgrace. We can, of course, count on modern 'conservatives'(and Bible-toting ones to boot!!) to do all they can to ignore the plight of the poor and offer nothing to change the status quo except to ask for more money for them to keep. Greedy assholes, put simply.

Oh, and 'me and my rich friends' are starting a fund to pay off the back water bills for truly destitute people, thank you. Funny, though, the largest water scofflaws are the baseball stadium, football stadium, indoor arena and Civic Center.......

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:55 pm

Maybe the residents of these cities should think about this before they drive all of the higher earning taxpayers out. (partly due to stupid government policies such as section 8 as well)

My new neighbors are making my life a living hell…never really considered moving until now.

I have been a long term hold out, but damn everyone has their limits…the smart ones left years ago…I guess.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 2:06 pm

Spidey wrote:Maybe the residents of these cities should think about this before they drive all of the higher earning taxpayers out. (partly due to stupid government policies such as section 8 as well)

please....'white flight' is due to the non-white people? It's someone's fault that the greedy well-off suburbanites don't wish to contribute to the city that supports their cushy lifestyles? Sorry, I don't buy it.

My new neighbors are making my life a living hell…never really considered moving until now.

I have been a long term hold out, but damn everyone has their limits…the smart ones left years ago…I guess.

Philly has similar issues, but at least the suburbs do kick in more than many other such urban areas. If your neighbors are ticking you off, does that mean you leave the city as a whole?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 2:46 pm

When I was younger, I worked for a jobber off and on for a few years, I helped move at least a half a dozen businesses to the burbs (mostly Bucks County)…including the one I worked full time for…number one reason for moving….

Crime...nope
Taxes…nope
Minorities everywhere…nope
Other...nope
Lack of good motivated workers…BINGO

And gee, how easy it was to predict you would make this a racial issue, I never said anything about race…in fact one of the first families to leave here was black.

LOL you are pathetic…I never said white flight, but everything seems to be a racial issue for you.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:00 pm

you didn't mention, nor did I accuse you of doing so, Spidey. My comment was directed to the comment made that the 'residents' of the city of Detroit FORCED the suburbanites to flee. In most cases, the employers are still located IN the city limits. I used the old-school description of 'white flight' in quotes to acknowledge it isn't simply race. Also, I emphasized that the cause isn't racism, it's GREED.
As I said, Philly is a bit different, and is in far less of a mess than some others, partially because the 'burbs do kick in to the Philly tax coffers. Wage taxes, to cite a large example.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:06 pm

Actually I said "drive".

I chose that word very carefully, because you can't "force" someone to leave a city, but you sure can make the conditions bad enough to make people choose to leave.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:11 pm

Spidey wrote:Actually I said "drive".

I chose that word very carefully, because you can't "force" someone to leave a city, but you sure can make the conditions bad enough to make people choose to leave.

in the case of Detroit, and quite a few other rust belt cities, the 'driving' force was largely that you avoid city taxation, and still live close enough to benefit from all of the city amenities.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:12 pm

just to clarify, Spidey, what are your neighbors doing to send you packing?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:45 pm

Not going to get into that.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 4:44 pm

Slick when you complained about someone 'politicizing' the topic did you mean someone who doesn't lean to your side of the spectrum?

Because it sure doesn't seem like you are above politicizing it! Lol!

And since the topic is the politics being the root of the problem I don't think you protests are valid, even if you had genuinely believed in them...

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 4:59 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Spidey wrote:Actually I said "drive".

I chose that word very carefully, because you can't "force" someone to leave a city, but you sure can make the conditions bad enough to make people choose to leave.
in the case of Detroit, and quite a few other rust belt cities, the 'driving' force was largely that you avoid city taxation, and still live close enough to benefit from all of the city amenities.

Using Detroit and amenities as something in common is really delusional.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:08 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Slick when you complained about someone 'politicizing' the topic did you mean someone who doesn't lean to your side of the spectrum?

Because it sure doesn't seem like you are above politicizing it! Lol!

And since the topic is the politics being the root of the problem I don't think you protests are valid, even if you had genuinely believed in them...

nothing like some Deja' Moo to brighten your day

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:18 pm

since we all know not one of you conservatives is going to touch attempting a solution to Detroit(and others') real problems, I got to thinking more about this specific problem: water. In relatively short time, this will become as much of an issue as food, housing and healthcare. By 'issue', I mean something we, as a society, are going to have to figure out how to provide for more carefully. Right now, the Federal government will subsidize food, housing, healthcare and even heating costs. In the very near future, there will have to be water subsidies unless we wish to condemn large regions, and large numbers of our fellow citizens to a third-world lifestyle. Any thoughts along those lines?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:27 pm

In the case of Detroit, availability of water is not the problem. Getting the citizens to pay for it is the problem. Bring business back to the city, put the local citizens back to work is the very basic answer.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:31 pm

In the case of areas like socal, the areas in question just happen to be in naturally semi-arid regions. Pumping dry aquifers and trying to pipe water from long distances away is unsustainable. Perhap in socal case giant desalination plants might be the answer. Kill two birds with one stone, water the crops and help stem the rising oceans...win win \o/

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:40 pm

woodchip wrote:In the case of Detroit, availability of water is not the problem. Getting the citizens to pay for it is the problem. Bring business back to the city, put the local citizens back to work is the very basic answer.

but how? What is your hook to attract both businesses back, and higher income taxpayers to egress back from the suburbs?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:41 pm

woodchip wrote:In the case of areas like socal, the areas in question just happen to be in naturally semi-arid regions. Pumping dry aquifers and trying to pipe water from long distances away is unsustainable. Perhap in socal case giant desalination plants might be the answer. Kill two birds with one stone, water the crops and help stem the rising oceans...win win \o/

might have rather severe unforseen ecological costs, and MASSIVE infrastructure construction costs, but a distinct way to go.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:01 pm

callmeslick wrote:
woodchip wrote:In the case of Detroit, availability of water is not the problem. Getting the citizens to pay for it is the problem. Bring business back to the city, put the local citizens back to work is the very basic answer.
but how? What is your hook to attract both businesses back, and higher income taxpayers to egress back from the suburbs?

Business's like Quicken Loans and JP Morgan are examples of business investing in Detroit. The hook is Detroit will give little interference on how they go about setting up their business. Business will require their employees to live in Detroit.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:13 pm

so, who is in charge of making businesses force their employees to live within city limits?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:20 pm

callmeslick wrote:so, who is in charge of making businesses force their employees to live within city limits?

Individual business policy? Also those employees would have to pay city income tax no matter where they lived.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:23 pm

woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:so, who is in charge of making businesses force their employees to live within city limits?
Individual business policy? Also those employees would have to pay city income tax no matter where they lived.

the latter is how Philly does it. Try getting that passed in the Michigan legislature. Also, try to see how well a business can impose a policy like that before someone takes them to court.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:30 pm

callmeslick wrote:
the latter is how Philly does it. Try getting that passed in the Michigan legislature. Also, try to see how well a business can impose a policy like that before someone takes them to court.

Detroit used to have a residency requirement and when it was abolished some say that caused a real decline in population. Example 1 would be the police. No longer required to live in Detroit they moved out in droves. Crime went up and even more people moved out. You start to see the chain reaction by vacating the requirement?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:34 pm

Why not take an honest, objective look at why they leave and then decide if a remedy is viable. It might not be completely reversible. Reversing it completely might not be the right thing to do.

And for sure ignoring the real causes and instead trying to misrepresent things to suit an agenda won't be a good solution. Detroit is an illustration of that.
Detroit is the result of the same kind of management that led VA hospitals to let patients suffer in favor of satisfying political and beauracratic needs.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:38 pm

woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:
the latter is how Philly does it. Try getting that passed in the Michigan legislature. Also, try to see how well a business can impose a policy like that before someone takes them to court.
Detroit used to have a residency requirement and when it was abolished some say that caused a real decline in population. Example 1 would be the police. No longer required to live in Detroit they moved out in droves. Crime went up and even more people moved out. You start to see the chain reaction by vacating the requirement?

I agree with your point completely. Here is where GOVERNMENT and REGULATIONS have real impact.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:43 pm

That’s true Will, Detroit is never going to become a large bustling city again, unless some miracle happens…they should just go ahead and downsize, cut their losses and move on...

As far as the water problem…there are already programs to help the truly needy, the problem here is a cultural problem, where people choose their priorities wrong, and I hate to say it…but are the classic deadbeats. (no not all)

But on the other hand, I can sympathize with them, damn utility costs are outrageous, and if I had some balls…I just might become a deadbeat myself.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Jul 03, 2014 6:53 am

as I noted above, the 4 largest 'deadbeats' in terms of water bills unpaid are the sports stadia, and the convention center. I'm guessing no one pulls the water plug on any of them, either.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:07 am

Probably because the loss of income would then be even greater.

Those entities may be behind but making payments, I don’t know.

Anyway, what do you do if someone won’t pay their bills? And I’m not referring to the truly needy.

What is your solution?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:48 am

Spidey wrote:Probably because the loss of income would then be even greater.

Those entities may be behind but making payments, I don’t know.

the total for those four is around $200,000.

Anyway, what do you do if someone won’t pay their bills? And I’m not referring to the truly needy.

What is your solution?

if they don't meet criteria for need, I would cut off service. Therein lies the problem, most cutoffs were to truly needy individuals, as best as I've been able to determine. Hence, the fund being created to pay their bills off.

Here's some analysis of the issue, and it is a thorny one. The Water Authority owes BILLIONS, more from bad management than from deadbeat customers;
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/policyso ... s-not.html

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Thu Jul 03, 2014 12:36 pm

About people not paying their water bills, by dad worked in municipal government for about 30 years and learned how to deal with them quite quickly. When we moved down here and my dad started working for one of the villages, they had some people who hadn't been paying their water bills, the treasurer and the old clerk had been really resistant to doing anything about it other than regularly mailing and reminding them that they needed to pay their water bills or they could be shut off, which as you would expect was useless most of the time. So when my dad came along, he followed the village ordinances and gave them the necessary one month overdue to pay their bills, and then the exact day when that one month was up, he got on the radio to the village works department and had them drive out and shut off the water.

Funny thing was every single time he did that, they showed up at the village hall within a few hours and paid their water bills in full with cash (since it was also in the village policy at that point that they wouldn't take check for obvious reasons). The other funny thing was after doing that to the various deadbeats around town, they all started paying their water bills consistently and on time.