(Update) Michigan Republicans Sell Cities - Dismiss Elected Officials

[Senoska]

Well, a few of my friends suggested I write Noam Chomsky about this since he is a rather outspoken individual. I figured it couldn't hurt. Although his reply isn't the greatest, it is still relevant to this thread:

From: Kyle [Deleted](by way of Noam Chomsky <[email protected]>) [mailto:[me].edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 12:13 PM
To: Noam Chomsky
Subject: Regarding the Situation in Michigan

Professor Chomsky,

My name is Kyle and I'm a resident of Detroit Michigan. I've lived here my entire life. I'm 21 years old, and a senior at [Removed], and I am very concerned with the situation in my home state. I've decided to email you because no one else seems to want to listen or lend their voice to this cause, and frankly, I feel as if I am out of options.

Earlier this year, our newly elected Republican leaders have cut funding to cities, and given the power to our state government to dismiss our cities elected officials or sell utilities [1]. As it has turned out, they have recently enacted this policy on the city of Benton Harbor, a city of 10,000 on Michigan's west coast. These policies chill me to the bone. Here is some of the power we have granted to our oh so friendly CEO friends, the "Emergency Financial Managers" (EFM):

"EFM for Benton Harbor, Michigan issued "an order prohibiting all action by all city boards, commissions, authorities and other entities, except as authorized by the emergency manager. [2]"

In a recent effort by the local government to block the EFM's merger of the police and fire department, the EFM has claimed that they no longer have the power to dictate what goes on in their cities, and their voted-on policy to keep the fire and police department separate was ignored. This has reached the level of dictatorship. Our voices no longer carry any weight. This is only the beginning of the situation sure to follow.

There are moves to privatize our Prison system. In this state, and specifically my city, highschool students already have a better chance of ending up in prison than with a high-school diploma. We are apparently the number one country on the planet, and yet we pander to billionaires at the cost of our personal freedoms. We have high unemployment, high crime, high drug-related arrests, and now, we have lost our voice to police any of these policies enacted on us.

I have tried talking with the people around me to gauge their attitude on this situation, and there is a profound sense of anger that exists in this community. However, the people here do not have time to make their voices heard. They do not have the money to travel to places of protest. I encounter people every day that are in poverty that makes me both angry and saddened. I have witnessed people having to make the choice between selling drugs and risking 5+ years in prison, or not having food for their family or diapers for their babies. Now, to take those people who are already isolated and poor and put this burden on them is not something ethically I can accept, nor should anyone else.

I write to you because you are a voice of reason in the noise that permeates our culture. Things here are not okay. I'm basically out of ideas to try to change this. Protesting has been tried and is not working. This is receiving absolutely zero national press coverage, and it is simply ignored. I feel like my voice, and all of our voices, have been drowned out by news of celebrities and arbitrary nonsense. Any input on this matter would be fantastic.

Thank you for your time,
-Kyle

1: Michigan Republicans seek power to dis-incorporate whole cities, dismiss elected officials
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/20...ted-officials/

2: UPDATEDx2 - And so it begins. Emergency Financial Mgr. fires entire government of Benton Harbor, MI.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...ton-Harbor,-MI

His reply:

from Noam Chomsky [email protected] to"Kyle [Removed](by way of Noam Chomsky <[email protected]>)" <[me].edu>
date Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:05 PM subjectRE: Regarding the Situation in Michigan mailed-bymit.edu

What you describe is very real, and very ominous, not only in Detroit – though it’s particularly bad there – but all over the country. It has been going on for some time, even before the Reagan years which sharply escalated the bitter class war fought by concentrated capital against the general population. The last liberal president was Nixon. Plenty of people are writing, speaking, organizing, acting to try to reverse these grim tendencies. One of the most important is right in Detroit, Labor Notes, excellent journal, fine people, and I’m sure they can tell you a lot about what can be done right there.

I don’t agree about the futility of direct activism. It’s achieved a lot in the past, and can today too.

Noam Chomsky

From his account, people do seem to be upset. They seem to be writing him a lot apparently, so hopefully something may be in the works to end this.

[Kuya]

lol

[tyven]

T/F: this is a problem Michigan brought on itself. If its residents could be trusted to elect the right people you prob would not be in this situation. Who needs democracy when it doesnt work?

[Drex]

Regarding whether it's unconstitutional or not, underlined most relevant parts

The theory of state preeminence over local governments was expressed as Dillon’s Rule in an 1868 case: "Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so may it destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge and control. Clinton v Cedar Rapids and the Missouri River Railroad,(24 Iowa 455; 1868). As opposed to Dillon's Rule, the Cooley Doctrine expressed the theory of an inherent right to local self determination. In a concurring opinion, Michigan Supreme Court Judge Thomas M. Cooley in 1871 stated: “Local government is a matter of absolute right; and the state cannot take it away.” People v. Hurlbut, (24 Mich 44, 95; 1871).

In Municipal Corporations (1872), Dillon explained that in contrast to the powers of states, which are unlimited but for express restrictions under the state or federal constitution, municipalities only have the powers that are expressly granted to them.[2] This formulation of the scope of municipal power came to be known as the "Dillon Rule," which states that municipal governments only have the powers that are expressly granted to them by the state legislature, those that are necessarily implied from that grant of power, and those that are essential and indispensable to the municipality's existence and functioning. Any ambiguities in the legislative grant of power should be resolved against the municipality so that its powers are narrowly construed. However, when the state has not specifically directed the method by which the municipality may implement its granted power, the municipality has the discretion to choose the method so long as its choice is reasonable.

Hundreds of U.S. court decisions to the present day have employed the Dillon Rule to determine the scope of municipal powers and rights. Critics of the rule have argued that it imposes unreasonable constraints on the ability of communities to govern themselves and so undermines democracy, and even that local self-government is a matter of natural right that does not need to be conferred by higher political structures. It has also been suggested that Dillon's approach derived from the contemporary view that cities were inherently corrupt political organs. This was perhaps an often well-deserved judgment during his time, especially considering the extensive business ties and even investments of numerous cities and their leaders in the late 19th century. Deviations from the Dillon Rule remain in the minority, however, despite the significant decrease in the public perception of municipal corruption.

The Supreme Court of the United States cited Municipal Corporations and fully adopted Dillon's emphasis on state power over municipalities in Merrill v. Monticello, 138 U.S. 673 (1891), reaff'd. Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 (1907), which upheld the power of Pennsylvania to consolidate two cities against the wishes of the majority of the residents in one. The Court's ruling that states could alter or abolish at will the charters of municipal corporations without infringing upon contract rights heavily relied upon Dillon's separation of public, municipal corporations from private ones.

Pittsburgh Regionalist David Y. Miller argues that Dillon hit upon a central paradox defining American cities: having great political authority while having little legal legitimacy. He quotes Dillon as calling municipalities "mere tenants at will of their respective state legislatures" which could be "eliminated by the legislature with a stroke of the pen." And yet, Dillon also said that eliminating local government would be "so great a folly, and so great a wrong."

Dillon's Rule

big surprise about an anarchist, libertarian, socialist being offended by this. it's pretty much the apocalypse to him i'm sure.

edit: and fjfjkaafaff of course they're making budget cuts, the city was bouncing the checks for its interest payments. you have to stop spending sometime when that happens.

[Demosthenes11]

it blows my mind that you don't think being able to declare an emergency and remove elected officials is not a breach of power. I don't care if it's justified in the least bit.

This country might be safer if all people had to be naked when flying. sure as fuck doesn't mean we should be and it's not a breach of our rights

[Kuya]

Being able to nullify municipal officials that were elected to office strikes me as profoundly undemocratic to an extreme degree.

[archibaldcrane]

If you didn't want the democratically elected governor to nullify local elected officials, you shouldn't have democratically elected him.

Democracy in action.

[Drex]

it blows my mind that you don't think being able to declare an emergency and remove elected officials is not a breach of power. I don't care if it's justified in the least bit.

This country might be safer if all people had to be naked when flying. sure as fuck doesn't mean we should be and it's not a breach of our rights

so municipalities should have the right to make corrupt decisions, lie, and default on loan payments with no one to punish them when they are caught doing so? that's treading pretty dangerous waters
i don't even see how your analogy is relevant since people would probably want the government that ruled "people must fly naked" thrown out of power. wait, we can't do that because they were elected by the people and that would be an attack on democracy.

[Drex]

Being able to nullify municipal officials that were elected to office strikes me as profoundly undemocratic to an extreme degree.

it is, but if an elected official signed the bill and it's allowed by the constitution, then it's constitutional and exemplary of a republic. we happen to live in a constitutional republic.

i do think this situation does expose a really severe problem with democracy though. this guy's (snyder, the governor who gave the EFMs these powers) entire platform when he ran consisted of doing whatever it takes to cut spending and bring back the poverty-stricken towns of michigan. he won by a landslide. then everyone decided they didn't want to cut their spending, especially the poverty-stricken towns of michigan. i'm curious what the solution is, outside of "let every town go bankrupt and be taken over by the corporations who bought their municipal bonds", which is decidedly undemocratic.

[Demosthenes11]

so municipalities should have the right to make corrupt decisions, lie, and default on loan payments with no one to punish them when they are caught doing so? that's treading pretty dangerous waters
i don't even see how your analogy is relevant since people would probably want the government that ruled "people must fly naked" thrown out of power. wait, we can't do that because they were elected by the people and that would be an attack on democracy.

you are 100% not able to comprehend that elected public official = elected public official. The same joke that ran this town could be (really, is) the same joke that is in power at the state level, only the one at the state level now gets to appoint similar jokes to make town "business" decisions at his discretion.

There is no way to protect against bad officials other than a) the constitution, b) the law, and c) voting them out

[Senoska]

Regarding whether it's unconstitutional or not, underlined most relevant parts



Dillon's Rule

big surprise about an anarchist, libertarian, socialist being offended by this. it's pretty much the apocalypse to him i'm sure.

edit: and fjfjkaafaff of course they're making budget cuts, the city was bouncing the checks for its interest payments. you have to stop spending sometime when that happens.

Its pretty clear to me that you have not read into the situation here at all. The governor cut spending to all the cities, not out of need, but its a "republican money saving tactic" that is being used. By not sending ANY MONEY to ANY CITY of course cities are going to fail. They don't have the resources to keep their city afloat without some type of state support. When the cities started to fail as a result of this act (Which was deliberate, this was passed in the same bill that allowed these EFM's to dismiss elected officials,) they started dismissing city officials.

If this doesn't strike you as something bad, I don't know what to say to you besides fuck you, and you're a piece of shit. You're so blinded by this little agenda you feel the need to push that you can't even see the problem with elected officials being dismissed and power over an entire city, at the protest of the people, given to a single individual.

This goes against everything America and democracy stands for.

[Kuya]

it is, but if an elected official signed the bill and it's allowed by the constitution, then it's constitutional and exemplary of a republic. we happen to live in a constitutional republic.

If it's constitutional or not is only relevant in court. The important issue here is how stupid and inmoral it is.

[archibaldcrane]

Similar to Wisconsin, the financial crisis is being ginned up in order to further consolidate control and power at the state governmental level.

[kyod]

it blows my mind that you don't think being able to declare an emergency and remove elected officials is not a breach of power. I don't care if it's justified in the least bit.

This country might be safer if all people had to be naked when flying. sure as fuck doesn't mean we should be and it's not a breach of our rights

But when elected officials are clearly mismanaging city funds and are driving a city to ruin, doesn't the state have a duty to citizens to change that? I know, I know, states are reducing funding cities. Any class in urban politics will let you know that while the state is being a douche by basically shifting fiscal problems to cities, it's fully within a state's power.

This is a lot less black/white than people are making it seem. I can see why people are outraged, but in the case of Benton Harbor it's harder to rage about it.

Another similar case to Benton Harbor in regards to elected officials being absolutely worthless and corrupt is East Cleveland, Ohio, where the state had to come in and manage the city's finances in the late 80s. This helped the city balance it's books (though it took about 8 years), but the city ended up running itself to the ground again with more worthless elected officials. Arguably, had there been more state intervention, the city probably wouldn't have gone down the path of complete obliteration (the entire city is falling apart, annexation by neighboring cities was discussed, but none wanted the problems associated with the area).

The big question is does democracy go too far when the people elect corrupt politicians who end up making life for the entire voting electorate worse? Is it American to let people drive their city to destruction or is it more American to intervene and make a change, hopefully, for the better? These are the real issues rather than talking points fed to people by Gov Monitor or Daily Kos.

[Kuya]

The big question is does democracy go too far when the people elect corrupt politicians who end up making life for the entire voting electorate worse?

This is the dumbest thing i've ever seen. That's not democracy going too far, that is precisely an aspect of democracy. You can't just cancel out democracy when it produces results you don't like; that misses the whole point.

The point of adopting democracy is not that one expects it to produce the best results, the point is consent, legitimacy, and giving people some level of responsability for their own communities. If people drive a city to the ground because they elect idiots, then that's just part of the democratic process. A better use of time would be to find out why mediocre politicians end up in office.

[Drex]

Its pretty clear to me that you have not read into the situation here at all. The governor cut spending to all the cities, not out of need, but its a "republican money saving tactic" that is being used. By not sending ANY MONEY to ANY CITY of course cities are going to fail. They don't have the resources to keep their city afloat without some type of state support. When the cities started to fail as a result of this act (Which was deliberate, this was passed in the same bill that allowed these EFM's to dismiss elected officials,) they started dismissing city officials.

If this doesn't strike you as something bad, I don't know what to say to you besides fuck you, and you're a piece of shit. You're so blinded by this little agenda you feel the need to push that you can't even see the problem with elected officials being dismissed and power over an entire city, at the protest of the people, given to a single individual.

This goes against everything America and democracy stands for.

The governor cut spending to the cities because the money was being mismanaged and because they were running massive deficits. The city spent all of its bond money in 3 years. I don't have an agenda. I'm still waiting for your democratic solution to the problem, but I guess you got temp-banned or something. The funding comes from lower corporate tax rates bringing more businesses into the area so people can have jobs and pay taxes, since Michigan is 5th in the US in unemployment.

If it's constitutional or not is only relevant in court. The important issue here is how stupid and inmoral it is.

Considering the number of people calling it unconstitutional, it seems pretty relevant.
It's also immoral, undemocratic, and stupid to sit back and watch a couple of profit-hungry corporations take over the city when it defaults on its debts next year. At least this way the council will get its control back when the budget is balanced out. There's no happy answer, but this is the lesser of two evils. The GOOD ending would have been the city council taking the EFM's advice and fixing the problems themselves, but they had no interest in that.

[Drex]

This is the dumbest thing i've ever seen. That's not democracy going too far, that is precisely an aspect of democracy. You can't just cancel out democracy when it produces results you don't like; that misses the whole point.

The point of adopting democracy is not that one expects it to produce the best results, the point is consent, legitimacy, and giving people some level of responsability for their own communities. If people drive a city to the ground because they elect idiots, then that's just part of the democratic process. A better use of time would be to find out why mediocre politicians end up in office.

Agree strongly with the bolded part, especially considering the town in question had a voter turnout rate of under 20%
Regardless, this situation exemplifies republicanism, which is the government we have in the US. Democracy is used more as a buzzword to give people warm fuzzies.

[Kuya]

You keep mentioning republic as if it weren't a democracy. If a constitution violates the principles of democracy in a republic than you have a contradiction.

[Drex]

You keep mentioning republic as if it weren't a democracy. If a constitution violates the principles of democracy in a republic than you have a contradiction.

Not necessarily. Officials in a republic are obligated to act in the best interests of the people (within the limits of the constitution), not necessarily according to their wishes. No matter how much being temporarily taken over by an EFM blows, it's hard to argue that it's worse for the people than being permanently taken over by a corporation would be. Unless you have a democratic, ethical solution to the problem...

Maybe I'm badly representing myself. I'm not saying it's moral, ethical, or democratic. I'm saying it's better than sitting around waiting for the city to die off.

[kyod]

This is the dumbest thing i've ever seen. That's not democracy going too far, that is precisely an aspect of democracy. You can't just cancel out democracy when it produces results you don't like; that misses the whole point.

The point of adopting democracy is not that one expects it to produce the best results, the point is consent, legitimacy, and giving people some level of responsability for their own communities. If people drive a city to the ground because they elect idiots, then that's just part of the democratic process. A better use of time would be to find out why mediocre politicians end up in office.

But when people aren't acting in the best interest of their community and let things turn to shit, isn't that a failure of democracy? What's the point of legitimacy and consent when you have an apathetic electorate who votes purely on race/party line? Like I said, it's not a black and white issue. There are a lot of shades of gray.