Bush Impeached?

[detwaa84]

The Detroit City Council votes to impeach Bush?!?!

If anyone should be impeached, it should be the council members themselves. I'm trying to recall one positive thing they did or are doing to this city. What a waste of time. Don't they have more important things to do that can better help the citizens of this impovrished city than to worry about something they have no control over whatsoever.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...NEWS01/70516072

[RustTown]

Detroit is one of dozens of American cities that have long since passed similar symbolic resolutions. City councils pass symbolic resolutions all of the time, and I'm not quite sure why the local media is making such big news of this. Yep, it's sweeps time, again.

[jas49503]

The Detroit City Council votes to impeach Bush?!?!

If anyone should be impeached, it should be the council members themselves. I'm trying to recall one positive thing they did or are doing to this city. What a waste of time. Don't they have more important things to do that can better help the citizens of this impovrished city than to worry about something they have no control over whatsoever.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...NEWS01/70516072

[chgrnative]

What a complete waste of time...and then it says that Monica Conyers couldn't vote because she was in Hawaii for a pension convention. Wonder who is paying for that trip?

[Zissou]

This must be the reason why each council member have soo many people on their staffs. If they each didnt have 16 helpers they may not be able to pass important resolutions like this one.

[Ramcharger]

You know, they

[MJLO]

It's a waste of already scarce, albeit non existant city resources.

[RustTown]

What city resources are being used up by this?

I'm trying to figure out how this is anymore news, or anymore limiting of the council's time than any of the other non-binding resolutions this council, and councils all over the country, pass every single day of the year? Seriously, I'm truly baffled by how this can be any worse? I can think of few other presidents in history more deserving of a real impeachment, and that they took what, a few minutes out of their time for this doesn't seem odd or silly, to me. If anything, this is probably one of the more meaningful of the non-binding resolutions they could pass. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to bulldog city leadership. This is not one of them. I just don't see how this is any different than NYC arguing over a resolution to "ban the N-word", or Ann Arbor voting to make possession of small amounts of weed the lowest order of law enforcement, or Lansing/Grand Rapids/Detroit city councils voting in opposition of the AA-ban...or a number of more ridiculous non-binding, municipal legislation passed every day. City government can't win for losing with most of you.

The only ridiculous thing I see, here, is that the media tries to make this news. It's not.

[detwaa84]

I still think it's a waste, but it's done and over with. I don't see why it shouldn't make news though, when all the other resolutions you pointed out do all the time. Infact, I would think this is much more important since Detroit is the first to do it.

Plus, it was just a freep article, it's not on CNN or anything.

Plus again, If todays media doesn't cover silly and/or pointless stories, they'd run out of business. You should watch the JibJab clip on this, it's

http://www.jibjab.com/originals/what_we_call_the_news

[resourcefulidiot]

Im with LMich on this one, what's the big deal?...some people here are like broken records really

[RustTown]

Detwaa, Detroit is FAR from the first city to pass this resolution. Did you read the article? The only thing newsworthy the Freep could pull out of this is that Detroit is the largest city to have done this. And? My city passed a resolution a year or two ago opposing the war. It didn't hurt anything, and it was purely symbolic. Cities have the right to do it, and should do it if they feel the need. The idea that councils are out of bounds, or that there is no time for cities to make statements is ridiculous.

This resolution, at worst, is neither here nor there, and at the best it represents the vast majority of the views of the constiuents that each of these members represents. For a city that has passed many a real and poor policy over the years, this is not only not bad, but refreshing.

On another side of this coin, I'm pretty sure if I looked back through the history of this country, and certainly Detroit, I can assure you that their were plenty of cities that passed non-binding resolutions opposing apartheid in South Africa. There are cities that have passed resolutions "supporting out troops" in Iraq. Are those kind of resolutions a 'waste of time' too? You can't have it both ways.

I guess I'm in the minority, here, but I find municipal governments taking the time to speak for their citizens, whatever side of the political spectrum they may fall on, very democratic, and very refreshing.

The Detroit City Council takes a lot of legitimate criticism, but it takes far too much illegitimate criticism. You couldn't pay me to be a city leader in Detroit. They are given credit for nothing good, and blamed for everything short of the crucifixtion of Jesus. And people wonder why Michigan is going down the drain. It's because we love to whine, we love to pick, and we love to b%tch. Forget that Kilpatrick launched his neighborhoods programs, yesterday, let's all b&tch about how stupid the city council is for passing a non-binding resolution that represents the view of most Detroiters.

[jas49503]

Detwaa, Detroit is FAR from the first city to pass this resolution. Did you read the article? The only thing newsworthy the Freep could pull out of this is that Detroit is the largest city to have done this. And? My city passed a resolution a year or two ago opposing the war. It didn't hurt anything, and it was purely symbolic. Cities have the right to do it, and should do it if they feel the need. The idea that councils are out of bounds, or that there is no time for cities to make statements is ridiculous.

This resolution, at worst, is neither here nor there, and at the best it represents the vast majority of the views of the constiuents that each of these members represents. For a city that has passed many a real and poor policy over the years, this is not only not bad, but refreshing.

On another side of this coin, I'm pretty sure if I looked back through the history of this country, and certainly Detroit, I can assure you that their were plenty of cities that passed non-binding resolutions opposing apartheid in South Africa. There are cities that have passed resolutions "supporting out troops" in Iraq. Are those kind of resolutions a 'waste of time' too? You can't have it both ways.

I guess I'm in the minority, here, but I find municipal governments taking the time to speak for their citizens, whatever side of the political spectrum they may fall on, very democratic, and very refreshing.

The Detroit City Council takes a lot of legitimate criticism, but it takes far too much illegitimate criticism. You couldn't pay me to be a city leader in Detroit. They are given credit for nothing good, and blamed for everything short of the crucifixtion of Jesus. And people wonder why Michigan is going down the drain. It's because we love to whine, we love to pick, and we love to b%tch. Forget that Kilpatrick launched his neighborhoods programs, yesterday, let's all b&tch about how stupid the city council is for passing a non-binding resolution that represents the view of most Detroiters.

[detroitfan]

Yes they have in fact lot a lot more important to take care of, this was council agenda yesterday. Strange no mention of resoltion passing a resoltion against Bush/Cheneny. Looks like they spent the vast, vast majority of that day taking if cities business

9:30 AM DISCUSSION Committee of the Whole

Economic Emergencies declared by other States

ATTENDING: City Council Fiscal Analysis & Research Analysis. Divisions

10:00 AM CDBG/NOF Committee of the Whole

Community Development Block Grant/Neighborhood Opportunity Fund (CDBG/NOF)

ATTENDING: City Planning Commission; Planning and Development Department

1:30 PM BUDGET HEARING Committee of the Whole

Buildings and Safety Engineering Department

ATTENDING: Buildings and Safety Engineering Department; Budget and Finance Department

2:00 PM BUDGET HEARING Committee of the Whole

Workforce Development Department

ATTENDING: Workforce Development Department; Budget and Finance Departments

2:30 PM BUDGET HEARING Committee of the Whole

Municipal Parking Department

ATTENDING: Municipal Parking Department; Budget and Finance Departments

3:00 PM BUDGET HEARING Committee of the Whole

Detroit Water and Sewerage Department

ATTENDING: Detroit Water and Sewerage Department; Budget and Finance Departments

Interesting note from Tuesday's agenda looks the Leland Hotel is trying to become a historic district they did same for the Fort Shelby so it was eligible for historic tax credit. No that can't right, according some here they've never done anything postive for city, it must've been some other city council that approve the tax credits for book-cadillac and fort shelby.

9:45 AM PUBLIC HEARING Committee of the Whole

Proposed ordinance to amend Chapter 25, Article II, of the 1984 Detroit City Code by

adding Section 25-2-165 to establish the Detroit-Leland Hotel Historic District and to

define the elements of design for the district.

ATTENDING: City Council Historic Designation Advisory Board, Law Department and City

Council Research and Analysis Division

[detwaa84]

I would agree with Lmich if this was from any other city council but Detroit. These council members are a joke, which means I can't take them seriously at all. Go to their meetings, and you'll see how it takes them weeks if not months of delays and disagreements to get anything passed in this city. Most things delayed and never happened in this city is because of them, and now they are trying to show that this represents what Detroiters want. Detroiters also want cleaner streets, better services, less council members, etc, that are much more important but are never acted upon. I don't care wheather this makes news or not, I just think it's uneccessary when they don't even know how to act on the important issues. It's probably days or weeks of full-time work that can be better spend on the CITY of Detroit and it's unhappy citizens more with city leadership than the president. Just for one day, some of you should step inside of their chambers and see first hand why this city is where it is. You will be shocked to see how racist, nasty, and mean these people are. Lmich, I expect a disagreement attack.

[RustTown]

I have already made my point. I also disagree with what has been implied over-and-over again for decades, and that is that Detroit City Council is the most ineffective in the United States. Councils reflect their people, period. A majority of Detroiters gave up on their city long time ago, the council can't turn around what the people don't want to turn around, themeslves.

It really shouldn't surprise me how quick people are to bash Detroit city government considering who has lead the charges over the years. The reason has been obviously clear for decades considering who the gadflies always end up. Sour grapes, I guess. What a completely thankless and demoralizing job, this is. Not one good man or woman has been judged to have been a hero by those on the outside since the 60's. That tells you one of two things, either every single one of these members has been corrupt and/or incompetent, or someone has an agenda.

[detwaa84]

Well, sometimes it may take making certain people unhappy for the better of the city in the long run. That's why some of the other major U.S. cities have turned around. Why is Detroit so unique when it comes to this?

In the city of Wixom, people are protesting against developements that are aiming to make the city densly populated. The city is not listening, which may be wrong, but they are looking at it from the perspective that one day their city will be much more affluent with college campuses, offices, thriving downtown, etc, and diffrent people that will think diffrently.

Some of the members and the mayor probably realize this, thus approving and going through things like raising water rates, privitizations, etc. even though they know it's making most people unhappy. Others complain that it's the poor of Detroit that is hurting or that suburban folks are taking city interests. Who the hell cares who controls the zoo or the water department. The water and the zoo will still be there and the citizens will still enjoy the park and drink the water.

At the same time they are trying to find a solution to the budget crises knowing that the only way to fix it is what the mayor is currently doing. I just think they are very unintelligent, and do not reflect on the majority of the citizens. or at least I hope they dont.

[RustTown]

I'm really not sure I understand most of that, but what I do know is that Detroit's municipal government is the least of the city's problems. There are cities with less competent leadership that are growing in spite of their poor leadership. But, they sure do make a great lightening rod as shown time-and-time again by these kinds of reactions. This may sound weird coming from a liberal, like myself, but Detroit's problems are much larger and deeper than its government, and they get blamed for A LOT that they shouldn't.

[detwaa84]

So what are these deep problems? would you say it's Coleman Youngs fault. Or the fault of the white and middle class flight, which many, NOT including myself, say is Youngs fault. If so, this city council today is the current exact replica of the honorbale Mr. Young and has the same power and influence that he did. During Young's leadership detroit saw more growth in downtown than it is seeing now. So I don't really consider detroit to be growing at historical pace not experienced in decades. It was growing when he was in office but it was still left as a dump when he left. I see what you're saying though. This is not a disagreement.

[RustTown]

I'm really confused as to what you're getting at, but I'll try.

To answer the question as simply as I can, you have a city less than half its former size, paying for a city and its infrastructure that was once much larger. And, this is only talking about population. I'm sure if you take only the tax base into account, the difference between now and when the city was 2.1 million in population it's even less. I wonder how many Detroiter's are even wealthy enough to actually pay taxes considering how many are on some form of government assistance or another? Not only is the population way less supporting a city built for many more, but the number of tax paying citizens must have dropped by an even greater percentage than the population. You stack on top of very real mismanagement and corruption in certain areas of municipal government, and you have a failed city.

BTW, Detroit was not growing when Young was in office, not at any time during his terms, nor was downtown. The decline of the city also started way before he got into office, and before even the 50's when it just had begun to show. The people present when the city hit its proverbial iceberg only got to see the top of it; we're now starting to see what many people already now, that is that the vast majority of an iceberg exists under the water. Detroit's problems are nearly a century in the making.

[detwaa84]

But I thought the rencen, two skyscrapers, harbortown, cobo expansion were all done then. The only new office built since his departure was Kennedy Square. Everything else is renovations and most are to-be renovated. But then again, his term was longer than these two mayors put together. I don't know, I just don't call what we're seeing now real growth. Maybe in a decade we will.

As to the size of the city compared to the population. Why can't the city consider selling land?

[RustTown]

I'm not sure what you call growth. A few skyscrapers amongst a collapsing downtown is not what I would call growth. That is the whole irony of things like the RenCen. Downtown's current growth is more real and tangible than its ever been. Downtown was declinning the entire time under mayors like Cobo, Cavanaugh and Young. Only recently has real growth taken place. What downtown was experience from the 50's to the 90's was not growth, and definitely not real, sustainable growth. Did you forget how terrible downtown got by the late 80's and early 90's? It had hit rock bottom.

You know that the city has been trying to sell land. Even if people were buying it as quickly as it was going up for sale, that would only temporarily shore up the tax base. This is not even to mention the city can only sell the land it owns, and it doesn't have the money to keep buying land at any meaningful pace. But, why buy land that people aren't buying and developing at a fast enough basis? Even if they were to build on the land, the city would probably be subsidizing the projects meaning you're really not gaining much.

[detwaa84]

feeewhh, I'm tired, and so are you. Thanks for the info!

[jas49503]

But I thought the rencen, two skyscrapers, harbortown, cobo expansion were all done then. The only new office built since his departure was Kennedy Square. Everything else is renovations and most are to-be renovated. But then again, his term was longer than these two mayors put together. I don't know, I just don't call what we're seeing now real growth. Maybe in a decade we will.

As to the size of the city compared to the population. Why can't the city consider selling land?

[RustTown]

We were talking about seized/bought city property not things like Belle Isle. At least, that was what I thought he was talking about, mostly.

[jas49503]

We were talking about seized/bought city property not things like Belle Isle. At least, that was what I thought he was talking about, mostly.