  Deandub11 Member Username: Deandub11 Post Number: 158 Registered: 05-2006 |
Not speaking to anything specific, but we all know this city council is inept, to say the least. Is the main problem that the council members don't actually represent any specific district or is there more to it? Will the setup of the council ever change and what changes would be most beneficial? | ||
Lo_to_d Member Username: Lo_to_d Post Number: 14 Registered: 07-2007 |
First of all, the city should do away with two of the nine council positions. As the population drops, so should the amount of government. This would decrease the amount of bureaucracy in the decision making process and help them come to a consensus on things easier. The worst part of getting things positive done is the lengthy amount of time it takes to get a decision from them. | ||
Spartacus Member Username: Spartacus Post Number: 248 Registered: 07-2005 |
I think districts is a great idea. As it stands, council members are not held accountable. There are so many names on the ballot that anyone with a modicum of name recognition (even negative, this means you Barbara Rose Collins)is easily elected. | ||
Diehard Member Username: Diehard Post Number: 157 Registered: 03-2005 |
That argument to have the council members elected by district instead of at-large comes up every election season. I don't think it would make any difference. You can find idiots who will get elected by idiot voters solely on name recognition from anywhere in the city. That's the biggest problem - voters don't do their homework and get to know who they're voting for. They just vote for anyone whose name looks familiar. There were a lot of good candidates last time around, but in a field of about 120 (anyone remember the exact number?) it was a losing battle to get past the Martha Reeveses and Barbara-Rose Collinses. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 6687 Registered: 02-2004 |
Detroit City Council-How do we fix this? RECALL THEM ALL! | ||
Deandub11 Member Username: Deandub11 Post Number: 159 Registered: 05-2006 |
bump | ||
Deandub11 Member Username: Deandub11 Post Number: 160 Registered: 05-2006 |
Sorry I know I just bumped my own topic, but I really think changing the dynamic of how the city council is run is an important idea that needs to be taken into consideration. The council has been running like this forever and basically answers to no one imparticular. They dont represent any specific area's interest. How has this not been addressed? A better designed city council could be extremely instrumental in reviving the city. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 1725 Registered: 11-2003 |
quote: Well, the Council actually just changed the way they are run by finally adopting a committee structure. quote: It has been addressed, numerous times. It would take a vote by the public to amend the charter to elect Council by districts. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 2805 Registered: 10-2003 |
Council members were at one time elected by district. They had a major scandal I believe in the 30's. At that time it was thought it would be better if they were elected at large. So to fix one problem they switched to electing them at large. Now to fix the current council you want to go back to electing by district. Both ways have issues. The only way to improve things is to hold the council's feet to the fire. | ||
Jjw Member Username: Jjw Post Number: 474 Registered: 10-2005 |
Council members elected by district is the only way to go. It allows for accountability. With Detroit's new population statistics, it would be interesting to see how the districts are drawn up. That could become an entire new issue. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 2662 Registered: 10-2003 |
The scandal you refer to, NDavies, was in 1912-1914. A lot has changed since then. Today, councilmembers elected by district would be accountable to their particular area's constituents. Undoubtedly, it would force councilmembers to build coalitions. Ideally, a new charter would call for about 11 to 15 councilmembers, elected by district, so each member could represent a smaller area. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 2806 Registered: 10-2003 |
Well, that is your opinion. If you want to change it, start the petition drive. Get the signatures needed to get it on the ballot. Campaign to get the votes. That is the only way it is going to change. Bitching and whining here isn't going to change a single thing. The city council is not going to put this on the ballot on there own accord. Also don't expect a majority of the voters to agree with you. They haven't the last 2 times this was on the ballot. | ||
Dds Member Username: Dds Post Number: 405 Registered: 10-2006 |
quote: According to what was stated a few posts above yours, it looks as if the council cannot put this on the ballot even if they wanted to, unless the public votes for it to be on the ballot in the first place. What other 2 times was it on the ballot? (Message edited by dds on October 16, 2007) | ||
Chic_urban_professional_365 Member Username: Chic_urban_professional_365 Post Number: 6 Registered: 10-2007 |
There seriously needs to and amendment to the city charter. Districts or wards would create accountability and representation for forgotten areas (i.e. Southwest-Delray). Someone needs to start a petition. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 6542 Registered: 10-2003 |
as Ndavies said: quote: | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 401 Registered: 07-2007 |
reacall schmecall voters should vote at election time to take action. In the meantime, Districting the Detroit communities to have a balanced council to have a local accountability is really the way to go. The way to achieve this is by putting up another ballot measure so citizens can vote on it. It is the logical and fair way for Detroiter's to have an equal voice in their community. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 2663 Registered: 10-2003 |
"If you want to change it, start the petition drive. Get the signatures needed to get it on the ballot. Campaign to get the votes. That is the only way it is going to change. Bitching and whining here isn't going to change a single thing." Well, I'm not bitching, really... just stating my opinion. Every larger city I've been to -- that has a government that seems to WORK -- has wards or districts. And I can't start a petition. I don't live in Detroit; it's not up to me to force a change. Detroiters will do what they want to do, which is fine. And they'll continue to get what they've gotten in the past -- inept, self-aggrandizing, backbiting, petty, corrupt councilmembers. | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 6548 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Any idea at all, why the council is "At Large"? | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 405 Registered: 07-2007 |
LET'S DO IT! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =VclHtnoTqRA the best comedy movie. animal house. Turn the volume up | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 2666 Registered: 10-2003 |
Don't most of the councilmembers live on the westside (I know that it used to be that way)? If that's so, when do they ever even see the eastside or southwest Detroit, unless they get a phone call? Why should a councilmember care what goes on over on Morang, when they live on Puritan? It helps if a councilmember LIVES in the area they represent. They have a greater stake in things. | ||
Michigansheik Member Username: Michigansheik Post Number: 240 Registered: 09-2005 |
less is more, districts would even the field, small lil empires but at least they would all try and be #1 | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 5537 Registered: 11-2006 |
Vote the current guard out from top to bottom and start fresh with rational pragmatic fiscally conservative elected officials. Well? You asked. | ||
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk Post Number: 960 Registered: 11-2005 |
Two things are necessary: 1) Wards instead of at-large elections. 2) Resurrect Maryann Mahaffey. Seriously, though, you have to go with wards. The city is waaaaaay too diverse geographically to do it at-large. Southwest Detroit share little in common with Indian Village. Boston-Edison share little in common with Brightmoor or Delray. As for Mahaffey, anyone know any voodoo? | ||
Detroit313 Member Username: Detroit313 Post Number: 510 Registered: 02-2006 |
It seems that Detroit used the wards approach until 1930-Population 1,300,000 (est) The city out grew the ward system??? Today Detroit stands at or around 915,000 (est) I belive it is time to go back to the ward system. BUT BEWARE!••• Giving the council less powers and increasing the Mayor's could be very bad and the dark side of the force could destroy us all! <313> | ||
Gnome Member Username: Gnome Post Number: 218 Registered: 08-2007 |
Most Cities that have Ward systems also have "At Large" members. For Example, in Laning there are 7 Council members who are elected by Ward and 2 that are elected At Large. The best system would be a weak-mayor, strong council structure with a City Manager who would be appointed by the Mayor and approved by Council. I don't understand the accertion that going to Wards weaken Council's power. Right now they just act like speed bumps in a parking lot, they just slow things down. Ken Cockrel's current attempt to dissolve the weekly shoutfests by appointing Committee Chairs is a nobel attempt. Let's hope it works. I haven't been to a Committee-of-the-Whole in awhile, but if you want a glimpse into the real reason Detroit is a dump, just go to a City Council meeting. Animals. Preening. Arrogant. Confrontational. Greedy. Go see a meeting before taking off my head. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 2673 Registered: 10-2003 |
I still favor a strong mayor, but with wards. I believe that a weak mayor/strong council/city manager setup is best for smaller cities. Large cities need a strong mayor. We should look to NYC and Chicago for the structure model. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 2674 Registered: 10-2003 |
"It seems that Detroit used the wards approach until 1930-Population 1,300,000 (est)" Detroit used the ward system until 1918. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 2675 Registered: 10-2003 |
"The city is waaaaaay too diverse geographically to do it at-large. Southwest Detroit share little in common with Indian Village. Boston-Edison share little in common with Brightmoor or Delray." Now, THAT'S what I'm talking about. Have 11 councilmembers from wards and 4 at-large. Fifteen is NOT too many (keep in mind, Chicago has 50 aldermen!). The larger number of councilmembers would result in less personal power per member, which would be a good thing. It would also result in members from wards concentrating on their neighborhoods and constituents, and not grandstanding for citywide control. | ||
Gnome Member Username: Gnome Post Number: 219 Registered: 08-2007 |
Indianapolis, Cincinatti, Columbus, Grand Rapids, Raliegh, Albany, Oakland CA, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Miami, Phoenix, San Jose, San Antonio all have City Managers, looking to Chicago or NYC is our problem. I know we'd like to think we're still a big city, and we are if you include the entire region, but in reality we are a mid-size city now. One of our big problems has been pandering to political supporters and we can see where that has gotten us. WE need a steely-eyed SOB who isn't worried about getting re-elected to help us turn this town around. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 414 Registered: 07-2007 |
this city is too broken up by so many various interests that it only serves us to have "accountability" on a more localized level. As it stands now, they are only beholden to their largest donors and vocal interest groups. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 1727 Registered: 11-2003 |
Detroit and Albany have nothing in common. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 416 Registered: 07-2007 |
they are cities, have crime and government problems, have lots of people, and are in the rust belt to name a few. | ||
Tompage Member Username: Tompage Post Number: 40 Registered: 01-2005 |
Shut city government down, particularly the City Council, and let Wayne County take it over. Merge the Detroit Police Department into the Wayne County Sheriff's Department. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 1728 Registered: 11-2003 |
Albany has a tenth of the population of Detroit. They topped out at a whopping 6 murders when I lived there in 2001. It's majority white. It's a college town. It's the State Capital. It has high density housing. The downtown office buildings actually have tenants. I'm confused by the rust belt designation. The majority of their economy is government with relatively few manufacturing jobs (mostly GE). Again, Albany and Detroit have nothing in common. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 2976 Registered: 02-2004 |
Rhymeswithrawk, Maryann would tell YOU to be Maryann Mahaffey. That is one of our problems, we always expect someone else to do it. | ||
Gnome Member Username: Gnome Post Number: 221 Registered: 08-2007 |
Susanarosa, Not too sure why you decided to filet out Albany as though that somehow proves that a City Manager isn't a good idea. The idea behind a City Manager is to remove the "political" aspect of running a city's machinery. Now, while the size of a City does impact which manager is chosen; the concept of a City Manager is not part of that discussion. In this case, size doesn't matter. On that list are several cities which have more population than Detroit, I just came up with that list off the top of my head. If you desire I could do extensive research to provide you with additional information, but I think you have your mind made up. I seriously doubt that our citizens would ever agree to such a wholesale change to our Charter; change - here in Detroit - usually comes slowly and unfortunately through neglect. I see no need to filet out Albany in order to dismiss the concept of a City Manager other than to be opposed to all things except the status quo. Good luck with that positive outlook. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 1729 Registered: 11-2003 |
Oh, so that was your point? Well, they don't have a city manager either. So there. *sticking tongue out* They have a mayor, a common council (which is elected by wards) and a council president. | ||
Gnome Member Username: Gnome Post Number: 222 Registered: 08-2007 |
Like I said, good luck with that positive outlook. | ||
Umcs Member Username: Umcs Post Number: 187 Registered: 06-2007 |
Structure doesn't mean squat. Look at Dallas. Good followed by bad followed by good followed by bad. It just depends on the people. | ||
Detroit313 Member Username: Detroit313 Post Number: 515 Registered: 02-2006 |
Fury thanks for the correction........ That wasn't my point(to be technical) but the general time frame of the city. If I lived in Detroit, I would want the wards/districts and strong Mayor system! <313> | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 453 Registered: 07-2007 |
Susanarosa I assume you like the way Detroit council manages this city? (maybe a false assumption) If so, how come they cannot manage most of the everyday issues going on in the D. If not, what is the best way for them to help citizens control our city? I do realize there is so much crap going on all the time that no one has the time to deal with it all. ps: The council did make a wise decision to allocate time for different issues (departments) on different days, good time management. | ||
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa Post Number: 1733 Registered: 11-2003 |
I don't know where you got that impression. All I pointed out was that Detroit and Albany have nothing in common. I have no real opinion on the Council by District. Consider me apathetic to the issue. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 461 Registered: 07-2007 |
ok, i apologize for any misread of your statement | ||
Hpgrmln Member Username: Hpgrmln Post Number: 234 Registered: 06-2007 |
Small suburbs have it bad, too. Name recognition and how many buddies you have are the only ways you'll get in. 2 elections ago, an unknown ran for Hazel Parks mayor.Lost big time. I don't think the mayor is very good and the council is set up in such a way that he is no more powerful than the rest of council.I don't know what this guy has done except give extremely weak cliched sound bytes to the newspapers.But lo and behold, the good old boy network keeps electing him. And this is what you need to expect from Detroit. Except in Detroit, the mayor has MUCH more power and control, and is less of a mere figurehead. The city is so much bigger and more major that this kind of voting is more harmful than in small municipalities. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1944 Registered: 04-2006 |
Detroit and Albany have nothing in common. I'm thinking he meant Buffalo...... | ||
Cgunn Member Username: Cgunn Post Number: 131 Registered: 01-2004 |
Someone from Crains must read DYes. Council restructure might be good for city | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1962 Registered: 11-2003 |
Nice article from Crain's. The at-large council really is a big problem. Aside from being a very long time ago, just because the city switched to an at-large council in 1918 doesn't mean it was actually a good idea... sometimes you inadvertently create bigger problems when trying to solve smaller ones. I think Detroit would probably be in slightly better shape today had it never switched. Compared with the current system, I'd be happy with either an all-district council, or a hybrid council of both by-district members and at-large members as Keith Crain suggested. IMO a hybrid council would be the better choice of the two, for these reasons: 1. You'd have a better "balance of powers" between district concerns and city-wide concerns. 2. If citizens had an uncooperative councilmember for their district, they could talk to one of the at-large councilmembers as a sort of backup (until reelection time). 3. A hybrid system would be a slightly less radical change from the current system and would stand a better chance of passing in an election. Something like 7 members by district and 2 at-large members would be ideal, in my opinion. You want the districts to be as small as possible to get local concerns addressed, and you really don't need that many at-large members. Increasing the total number of councilmembers to get smaller districts would be nice, but that complicates things considerably, since the budget for each councilmember would have to be reduced, you'd need a bigger meeting room, various rules depending on "9" members would have to be changed, etc. Also, as the city has shrunk in size, increasing the total number of councilmembers becomes less justifiable. So, I'd stick with 9 total for an amendment. The city manager concept is interesting, but is too radical a change to stand much chance of passing, I'd say, so better to leave that discussion for another time. I know of at least one organization in the city that is seriously looking at taking another run at getting the signatures for an amendment, hopefully it will happen this time. I'll do my part, at least. I do believe a good 7+2 proposal, if it got on the ballot, while it might not be a "slam dunk", would stand a very very good chance of passing. |
