7 ms·

So Flint has failed to govern itself - hardly the first time - and now children are poisoned. The city apparently now expects the rest of the country to pick up

So Flint has failed to govern itself - hardly the first time - and now children are poisoned. The city apparently now expects the rest of the country to pick up the tab for the cleanup of their mess. At some point it should become necessary to recognize and acknowledge that self-government has failed and must end. I'd suggest some form of a city death penalty - declare the city dead and give the locals a one-time offer of relocation assistance to an approved list of better places. The city government, and anyone who remains, are officially on their own. We've known Flint (and many similar cities) are doomed for decades. Why do we keep them alive as zombies rather than just help the humans and let the municipalities die?

xd1936 11y ago
The infrastructure for solid factory work is all still there. They just need a collection of companies from another industry to capitalize on the manufacturing assets there.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  What makes this area so good for manufacturing? (I've never been and I'm curious)
  - maxsilver 11y ago
    There's no environmental protections or regulations of any meaningful kind, property is almost free, and there's a significant labor force of people willing to work for minimum wages. It's not great for manufacturing. But it's not the worst place to do so.
    - Kristine1975 11y ago
      >There's no environmental protections or regulations of any meaningful kind, So it's either "have no money and get poisoned by lead in the water pipes" or "have money and get poisoned by the pollution of the factories?"
      - maxsilver 11y ago
        I agree completely. I don't defend it in any way -- it's terrible. But that's what most people mean/imply when they say Flint is "set up for manufacturing".
        Kristine1975 11y ago
        I didn't mean to imply you defended it. Sorry that I wasn't clear enough.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      It's false that Michigan lacks environmental protections. It isn't as strict as California, but the question of where to house factories isn't between California and Michigan; it's between places like Michigan and places like Vietnam and Thailand. There is a lowest common denominator of environmental protection in the US that is higher than most of the other places manufacturers would consider new plants.
    - ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
      Curious, what are things you think are good for manufacturing? As proximity to the cheapest mode of transporting raw materials, access to raw materials and sources of energy don't seem to be on your list.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    Historically, some of the big reasons were access to coal and iron mining (for steel making) and access to the Great Lakes for shipping heavy goods and materials.
    - FussyZeus 11y ago
      As I understand it those industries are drying up pretty badly. (I live in Wisconsin so I hear stuff about Michigan pretty regularly)
FussyZeus 11y ago
Is there any other conclusion to these areas where ignorance is a badge of honor? Once you cross that line where you start rewarding people for standing up to "the man" no matter how reasonable and logical said man's actions are, you're already locked into the road to ruin. I don't see how you recover from it.
andor436 11y ago
Don't forget that it was a State-appointed emergency manager that made the water source switch (from Detroit's supply to the Flint River), and the State DEQ that didn't enforce the correct Federal EPA guidelines for water corrosiveness. It's true that Flint has been mismanaged at the local level, but the State has fouled things up pretty well too. http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2015/10/top_state_water_official_repla.html http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2015/10/top_state_... [edit to add link]
tptacek 11y ago
The country will pick up the tab for Flint, because that is how the country works. The expectation that Michigan and then the federal government will provide assistance isn't something Flint invented: it's part of the deal. Not enough money flows to places like Flint. Michigan just barely ekes out a return on dollars remitted to the IRS; they're in the bottom quartile of benecifiaries. Meanwhile, for every $1 a Floridian pays in taxes, they receive $4.50. The historical reason Michigan is such a low drag on the USG has a lot to do with the businesses Flint enabled. This is such a straightforward point to make, and so easily Googlable, that I feel like you have to have known it already. Some of your acerbic comments are interesting because they bring a perspective to these discussions that I (for one) wouldn't think to consider. This was not one of those comments.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  Yeah, we should build some naval bases in Flint, MI to even things out.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    The $1/$4.50 figure isn't due to military spending, for what it's worth.
    - humanrebar 11y ago
      Being pretty close to $1/$1 seems about the right, though. If a city can't support itself, it can't support itself, right? Why should it be subsidized? Same goes for Florida, for whatever it's worth.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        Because that's how the state/federal financial model works. Some states are a burden (usually poor conservative states), some states pay for more themselves (New York, California, to name the biggest). "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." as it were.
maxsilver 11y ago
> So Flint has failed to govern itself - hardly the first time - and now children are poisoned. To be fair, The State of Michigan took complete control of Flint (through the "Emergency Manager" law). The State of Michigan made the decision to poison Flint's water, not Flint itself.
Nelson69 11y ago
What are some of the other doomed cities you're talking about? And with what metrics? I don't disagree with you that there are troubled towns and cities but it seems really difficult to decide when it's beyond salvage or even what that means.
pm24601 11y ago
This was done because of the Republican willingness to let this happen. The children are the victims. Gov. Snyder (R) let this continue because Flint is Democratic. Even now the state is only offering: "has also offered more than $10 million in financial assistance to pay for a temporary switch into the Detroit system while the connection to Lake Huron is being prepared." Questions: 1. Why did the state even let this happen? 2. Why is the state only offering "financial aid" when it be paying for the switch - since the state failed Flint when it permitted the use of Flint River water in the first place? 3. Why did the citizens have to protest at all? Why wasn't the state proactively step in? 4. Why isn't the state providing emergency water supplies immediately? These are Republican "values" at work.
- webXL 11y ago
  "The City of Flint will also continually test the water being provided to residents." http://wfnt.com/flint-officially-begins-using-flint-river-water-as-temporary-primary-water-source/ http://wfnt.com/flint-officially-begins-using-flint-river-wa... Multiple state and local departments approved of the quality. You might as well ask: why did Democrats and Obama let this happen?
  - pm24601 11y ago
    No. Obama is not responsible for every bad thing that happens. I would rather ask why right-to-lifers let this happen.

xd1936 11y ago

The infrastructure for solid factory work is all still there. They just need a collection of companies from another industry to capitalize on the manufacturing assets there.

FussyZeus 11y ago
What makes this area so good for manufacturing? (I've never been and I'm curious)
- maxsilver 11y ago
  There's no environmental protections or regulations of any meaningful kind, property is almost free, and there's a significant labor force of people willing to work for minimum wages. It's not great for manufacturing. But it's not the worst place to do so.
  - Kristine1975 11y ago
    >There's no environmental protections or regulations of any meaningful kind, So it's either "have no money and get poisoned by lead in the water pipes" or "have money and get poisoned by the pollution of the factories?"
    - maxsilver 11y ago
      I agree completely. I don't defend it in any way -- it's terrible. But that's what most people mean/imply when they say Flint is "set up for manufacturing".
      - Kristine1975 11y ago
        I didn't mean to imply you defended it. Sorry that I wasn't clear enough.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    It's false that Michigan lacks environmental protections. It isn't as strict as California, but the question of where to house factories isn't between California and Michigan; it's between places like Michigan and places like Vietnam and Thailand. There is a lowest common denominator of environmental protection in the US that is higher than most of the other places manufacturers would consider new plants.
  - ZoeZoeBee 11y ago
    Curious, what are things you think are good for manufacturing? As proximity to the cheapest mode of transporting raw materials, access to raw materials and sources of energy don't seem to be on your list.
- ghaff 11y ago
  Historically, some of the big reasons were access to coal and iron mining (for steel making) and access to the Great Lakes for shipping heavy goods and materials.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    As I understand it those industries are drying up pretty badly. (I live in Wisconsin so I hear stuff about Michigan pretty regularly)

FussyZeus 11y ago

Is there any other conclusion to these areas where ignorance is a badge of honor? Once you cross that line where you start rewarding people for standing up to "the man" no matter how reasonable and logical said man's actions are, you're already locked into the road to ruin. I don't see how you recover from it.

andor436 11y ago

Don't forget that it was a State-appointed emergency manager that made the water source switch (from Detroit's supply to the Flint River), and the State DEQ that didn't enforce the correct Federal EPA guidelines for water corrosiveness. It's true that Flint has been mismanaged at the local level, but the State has fouled things up pretty well too. http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2015/10/top_state_water_official_repla.html http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2015/10/top_state_... [edit to add link]

tptacek 11y ago

The country will pick up the tab for Flint, because that is how the country works. The expectation that Michigan and then the federal government will provide assistance isn't something Flint invented: it's part of the deal. Not enough money flows to places like Flint. Michigan just barely ekes out a return on dollars remitted to the IRS; they're in the bottom quartile of benecifiaries. Meanwhile, for every $1 a Floridian pays in taxes, they receive $4.50. The historical reason Michigan is such a low drag on the USG has a lot to do with the businesses Flint enabled. This is such a straightforward point to make, and so easily Googlable, that I feel like you have to have known it already. Some of your acerbic comments are interesting because they bring a perspective to these discussions that I (for one) wouldn't think to consider. This was not one of those comments.

humanrebar 11y ago
Yeah, we should build some naval bases in Flint, MI to even things out.
- tptacek 11y ago
  The $1/$4.50 figure isn't due to military spending, for what it's worth.
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    Being pretty close to $1/$1 seems about the right, though. If a city can't support itself, it can't support itself, right? Why should it be subsidized? Same goes for Florida, for whatever it's worth.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      Because that's how the state/federal financial model works. Some states are a burden (usually poor conservative states), some states pay for more themselves (New York, California, to name the biggest). "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." as it were.

maxsilver 11y ago

> So Flint has failed to govern itself - hardly the first time - and now children are poisoned. To be fair, The State of Michigan took complete control of Flint (through the "Emergency Manager" law). The State of Michigan made the decision to poison Flint's water, not Flint itself.

Nelson69 11y ago

What are some of the other doomed cities you're talking about? And with what metrics? I don't disagree with you that there are troubled towns and cities but it seems really difficult to decide when it's beyond salvage or even what that means.

pm24601 11y ago

This was done because of the Republican willingness to let this happen. The children are the victims. Gov. Snyder (R) let this continue because Flint is Democratic. Even now the state is only offering: "has also offered more than $10 million in financial assistance to pay for a temporary switch into the Detroit system while the connection to Lake Huron is being prepared." Questions: 1. Why did the state even let this happen? 2. Why is the state only offering "financial aid" when it be paying for the switch - since the state failed Flint when it permitted the use of Flint River water in the first place? 3. Why did the citizens have to protest at all? Why wasn't the state proactively step in? 4. Why isn't the state providing emergency water supplies immediately? These are Republican "values" at work.

webXL 11y ago
"The City of Flint will also continually test the water being provided to residents." http://wfnt.com/flint-officially-begins-using-flint-river-water-as-temporary-primary-water-source/ http://wfnt.com/flint-officially-begins-using-flint-river-wa... Multiple state and local departments approved of the quality. You might as well ask: why did Democrats and Obama let this happen?
- pm24601 11y ago
  No. Obama is not responsible for every bad thing that happens. I would rather ask why right-to-lifers let this happen.