Quote:
Originally Posted by PiKA2001
I don't get what the big deal is Dee, the state has always had the ability to take over city management during a fiscal or other crisis. During the whole Kwame mess the governor had the option to impeach Kwame and take over the city of Detroit. If that HAD happened it would've been a budget manager out of Lansing who would have been the "mayor" of Detroit. People have been calling for a state takeover of DPS for years as well, it's just that Granholm, while mentioning the option was available, didn't want to get into that hot mess and I don't blame her.
So how is this any different?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito
There is a difference from impeaching somebody and just sacking somebody.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiKA2001
True but AFAIK if the state ever did take over the city due to a crisis people elected and appointed would be replaced left and right.
|
There is a huge difference between impeaching a mayor and eliminating the entire city council and
disincorporating a city. Additionally, for the governor to impeach that mayor, there are steps required, including a hearing. It doesn't eliminate the whole city as an entity! It would also allow for a new election because there is a secession plan built into a city charter. And an ELECTED city council member would become mayor, not whoever the governor decides to put in charge. Tell me how the following can even happen in a democracy?
Gov. Snyder is seeking emergency powers that would enable him to 1) unilaterally declare a "financial emergency", 2) disincorporate entire municipal governments, 3) dismiss elected officials with no replacement election to follow, 4) seize control of local civil services, 5) hand taxpayer money, services and POWERS to private, for-profit firms.