Protests In Wisconsin

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Read my posts above because the stuff in Michigan isn't about unions. It's about a governor trying to take the power to take over any city or school district that HE deems to be in a financial crisis and fire all of their elected officials and appoint his own manager to that city. Elected officials are NOT unionized.

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?

[Psi U MC Vito]

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?

There is a difference from impeaching somebody and just sacking somebody.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

There is a difference from impeaching somebody and just sacking somebody.

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.

[AGDee]

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?

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

There is a difference from impeaching somebody and just sacking somebody.

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.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

I'm curious to see if any other state governors have the ability to do the above or if what Snyder wants is just totally out there. Another thing to note, just because he would have the means, it doesn't mean he has the intent. I doubt Snyder will disincorporate city after city. It would just lead to more shit on his plate. I know that since you're a democrat, Snyder is probably public enemy #1 to you right now but I still think it's a little early to be foaming at the mouth over this.