4 ms·
Got it, thanks. And was that to save the city from insolvency? The original article here also phrased things as the state allowing the city to switch sources. T
by throwawaysea 5y ago
Got it, thanks. And was that to save the city from insolvency? The original article here also phrased things as the state allowing the city to switch sources. The reason I am probing is it seems wrong in a sense for state taxpayers to be punished for attempting to help a mismanaged city, although I recognize it’s complicated. I also am probably missing key background information here.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago"it seems wrong in a sense for state taxpayers to be punished " The problem with that logic, is no-one would ever get compensation from the government, as in the end it's all taxpayer's money.
- da_chicken 5y ago> And was that to save the city from insolvency? More or less, yes. Flint has struggled for several decades. The decline of the auto industry in Michigan hit several cities very hard, including Flint. As businesses and people left and unemployment climbed, tax revenue plummeted and crime soared. That encouraged more people to leave. Sometimes even if they abandoned or foresook their homes. The causes of the crisis are fairly complex. But the management after it had been identified by the population was absolutely criminal. There's a very good reason that criminal charges have been filed. Making the switch was somewhat defensible. However, they ignored the signs of problems, ignored complaints, didn't test appropriately, etc.