4 ms·

You're acting like this was forced on them from budget cuts. The city manager was warned about exactly this happening and still went ahead and did it because it

• bpodgursky 10y ago
  The city manager was only appointed after Flint became effectively a failed city, and the state took over management. In the US, cities manage their own municipal services including water supplies. The state only intervenes when the city runs out of money to provide basic services to their inhabitants -- and this happens very rarely. If Flint had had a functioning government, the state appointees would have had nothing to do with the water supply. It's a tragedy what happened, but at the point a city is unable to provide the most basic of services to its citizens like clean water, I think we need to consider whether it is worth pumping money into a city, or just call it quits and provide relocation funds to the remaining inhabitants, to get them to a region with actual economic activity.
  • macawfish 10y ago
    Relocated like cattle to another pasture? I can't for the life of me understand this philosophy that financial economy under-girds life.
    • JumpCrisscross 10y ago
      Finance, in this case, is a way of framing sustainability. If your city puts out less than what it brings in, it's not sustainable.
      • macawfish 10y ago
        I agree, finance is being used here as a way of framing sustainability. But it's obscuring and distorting the entire basis of economy altogether, which is living ecology. If people are denied the basic ability to improve the livability of their communities because of allegiance to global market tab sheets, then money has replaced the very thing it is meant to serve: human beings. All this talk of there not being any jobs is hypocritical balogne. There's clearly plenty of infrastructure work to do, not to mention basic life stuff, like raising and teaching kids, growing food, building community... But the global market has stripped life itself of its value for these people. Your community and mine aren't far behind, from the looks of things!
        • bmelton 10y ago
          I think you're missing a lot here. The city isn't failing for lack of jobs, but for lack of jobs that produce value. A job rebuilding the infrastructure of an area is only valuable if there are other jobs from which you can tax to justify that. If I spend $100 million to fund a trench that does nothing, it's a money sink. I've effectively thrown that money away. However, I have achieved however much employment that $100mm bought me. Until and unless that $100mm gets somebody some value, it isn't worthwhile, and as we've seen, there are very few people willing to fund completely pointless projects for no reason... even governments try to avoid it. This is different than health care spending, or housing, or welfare -- those things (at least arguably) provide benefits. If I give someone health care for free, it's largely assumed that the cost of that health care will be offset in other ways. See the discussions on the Utah Unemployment article for examples. But because governments are funded by tax dollars, and tax dollars are generated by earnings, until and unless people are earning moneys from outside the government that pays them, it simply isn't sustainable. Building infrastructure in the middle of nowhere is fruitless it is used as a lure for some form of money or productivity. The absence of said productivity means that, at best, you'll be revenue neutral on the funding projects and sustainable until inevitably inflation wipes everything away. Of course, to do that, the community has to be entirely self sustainable, which Flint definitely isn't. In short, tax and spend can't work unless there's something to tax that isn't also part of the spend.
    • malandrew 10y ago
      So you're proposing we throw good money after bad? The city failed. It it's not financially feasible to fix it so it is self-sustainable at a level of investment that can be paid back in a reasonable amount of time, relocating is a perfectly acceptable proposal. People have every right to stay there if they can afford to do so, but if they are going to ask others for financial help bailing them out, it's not in the least bit unreasonable for those spending the money to do so to dictate how that money is spent. If the city has no hope of recovery, then saying the money can only be used for relocation is perfectly acceptable. What's not acceptable is expecting others to support your unsustainable city in perpetuity.
      • macawfish 10y ago
        I'm proposing we throw good money into basic human necessities instead of investing in weapons, and that our measures of success be linked to human health and wellbeing, not to level of absolute exploitation.
        • mattnewton 10y ago
          I wish that was on the table. Even still gp's point would stand that beggars have a hard time justifying being choosers.
          • macawfish 10y ago
            Appreciate this moderate take. It's the cold hard truth of American capitalism, especially in places like Michigan, but it doesn't mean we can't wish for humane policies!
            • bmelton 10y ago
              What does capitalism have to do with it? It's almost universally agreed that government choices were the ones at fault, and whether capitalist, socialist, whatever, cost vs. quality is still a factor.
    • bpodgursky 10y ago
      Uh... how about, give them money to relocate so the children in the failing schools can grow up somewhere that doesn't have the highest crime rate in the country, can drink water that isn't poisoned, and get a job that still exists? They are real people who are fucked because they were born in a dying city which relied on a dying industry. They aren't plaything for your anti-financial philosophy.
      • macawfish 10y ago
        Look, I'm not opposed to helping people relocate, but please don't trivialize my "philosophy" as some kind of a toy. I grew up in a community fractured by racial and socioeconomic segregation. It's not some play toy thing when I see schools and basic infrastructure being systematically defunded in in the name of globalization.
      • macawfish 10y ago
        I want to address the idea that 100 million dollars is a lot of money. After skirting its own laws, the city of Minneapolis just pledged $700 million to a sports stadium. There are 50,000 households in Flint. $100 million/50,000 households = $2000/household. I don't know how you expect to move 50,000 households on that budget. Just fix the pipes!
    • LoonyBalloony 10y ago
      Its simple really. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX0fIi3H-es https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX0fIi3H-es
      • macawfish 10y ago
        Haha that pretty much sums up the mentality
  • droithomme 10y ago
    bpodgursky, your post contains facts presented accurately and without exaggeration. They are inconvenient facts though and thus your post is downvoted. It is not politically correct to state facts or acknowledge reality here.
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  • ocschwar 10y ago
    > In the US, cities manage their own municipal services including water supplies. The state only intervenes when the city runs out of money to provide basic services to their inhabitants -- and this happens very rarely. In most of the country, if the city runs out of money, the city runs up a debt. And if the city can't pay the debt, the city goes bankrupt. No state intervention to protect creditors. They took on the risk when they lent the money. And it is only money. The idea that muni bond holders are so important that cities should have fiscal solutions forced on them from above to prevent a debt default? That's a Michigan thing. And now we know what that Michigan idea can lead to.
    • 8note 10y ago
      Who funded snyder's campaign? probably municipal bond holders
  • analog31 10y ago
    In the US, cities manage their own municipal services including water supplies. The state only intervenes when the city runs out of money to provide basic services to their inhabitants -- and this happens very rarely. In my view a city is not a sovereign nation. The political and financial structure of cities is decided by the states. If a city isn't providing basic services, it means that the state isn't providing basic services in geographic pockets of the state. On the other hand, if this structure is really the best way of delivering municipal services, so be it. But I'm skeptical. I see no reason why something like water service has to be managed at the municipal level. There could just be a state water service, and it could decide to manage itself by creating regional services. So far as I know, the cities aren't expected to manage delivery of electricity or natural gas. Maybe Michigan is a failed state.
• maxerickson 10y ago
  You must have misunderstood my comment. What do you think It was the institutional and regulatory failure during the switch away from Detroit city water that made the lead an emergency. means? Or in a sibling thread where I say it shouldn't have been a financial decision?
• hueving 10y ago
  >their corrupt Republican governor What does the party affiliation have to do with this particular statement? Additionally, your citation doesn't seem to link to a corruption case. If a Governor is corrupt, just say 'corrupt governor' and provide a link (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich).