GreekChat.com Forums  

Go Back   GreekChat.com Forums > General Chat Topics > News & Politics
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

» GC Stats
Members: 331,476
Threads: 115,707
Posts: 2,207,598
Welcome to our newest member, zajuliaandext24
» Online Users: 8,662
2 members and 8,660 guests
GeorgusHef, JohnnyxDow
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #15  
Old 03-12-2011, 09:05 PM
AGDee AGDee is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiKA2001 View Post
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 View Post
There is a difference from impeaching somebody and just sacking somebody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiKA2001 View Post
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.

Last edited by AGDee; 03-12-2011 at 09:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Outrage at Funeral Protests Pushes Lawmakers to Act Rudey News & Politics 28 05-04-2006 09:19 PM
Susan L. Taylor Protests Hampton's Policy CrimsonTide4 Delta Sigma Theta 45 04-18-2006 01:38 PM
Protests/Violonce over desecration of Qur'an at Gitmo RACooper News & Politics 50 05-31-2005 04:35 PM
Law Celebrates Mass Despite Protests Rudey News & Politics 6 04-12-2005 11:28 AM
Hong Kong Protests Chinese Rule Rudey News & Politics 1 07-01-2004 01:45 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.