The proposed contract or lease that is again being scheduled for a vote by city council is bad for Detroit. This is the mayor’s office and the city recreation department stating that they don’t have the competence to care for city parks.
What’s being proposed in the lease?
- The city will pay the state to cut the grass and shovel the snow, while the city will be forced to lay off more city workers.
- The city will continue to pay for the lights, the lighting, the electric wiring and the light poles on Belle Isle.
- The city will continue to pay for the water and sewage on Belle Isle. The city will pay for the state to water the grass.
- This is worse than the consent agreement; when introduced to council, over half of the lease document was missing and unknown.
- The state will take ownership of property and roads. With this ownership comes the millions in state road funding.
- This is the same as the city council signing a blank check. A check when cashed will put the city further into debt.
- The city already has and controls all $ dollars used or meant for Belle Isle. Why would the city give that money away?
- The city’s deficit will rise and park services around the city will fall. Revenue generated by Belle Isle is now used at all parks, future Grand Prix and Hydroplane race income will now go to the state.
- The state is not using state money for Belle Isle. The state is not giving money to the city. The state is taking our money for state use. The city will not have money to use on other parks as a result of this deal.
- The state should fund Belle Isle if Belle Isle is intended to be a state park. All other state parks in the state are state funded. Belle Isle will continue to be funded by the city.
- The state will call Belle Isle a state park, charge a $10 entry fee. Take Detroit’s revenue sharing to maintain the island and force the city to cover existing costs.
This is a sale under the terms of a contract masquerading as a lease. This is a fraud. The state is not doing anything that Detroit cannot already do. The state takes city money and then pushes for emergency managers and a continuation of the consent agreement. Detroit’s city council should reject the states illegal unfunded mandate regarding Belle Isle. This is not just a NO vote on this proposal; this should be a NO to the consideration of such a deal by the city council.
Snyder and Dillon want Detroit to pay them to take control of Belle Isle.
Maybe the real answer is a new mayor and a new set of council members to oversee our parks.
This is an Early Christmas present, but not for Detroit.
The city of Detroit is considering a no-bid contract worth nearly $50 million to a Minneapolis based company called simply EMA. Visiting the company’s web site raises more questions regarding the company’s real capabilities. There are a number of issues and questions raised with this proposal. The city is still facing a federal lawsuit with the EPA that is forcing the city to make changes to the water system to comply with the Clean Water Act. Will this contract interfere with the city’s move toward compliance? Will this contract force a delay or a setback in the progress already accomplished? IF this contract is approved will it extend Judge Cox oversight of the board?
Other issues to consider include the following;
- This is a no bid contract. With this type of contract the city won’t know if the price is fair and reasonable.
- The water department is reportedly under an authority being ruled by federal judge Cox. Why is the city of Detroit involved in the contracting of work for the water department?
- The water department has its own segregated budget and does not have a deficit. Why is this contract not funded with water rate revenue?
- If this contract is funded by the city of Detroit, this will force the city of Detroit into bankruptcy.
- There is a report that EMA is being investigated by the EPA, if true any discussion on this proposal, and votes, should be cancelled or postponed until after the investigation.
- Did EMA participate in writing this contract that is now a no bid contract for EMA? Earlier this year EMA provided a report to the city, paid for by the city, that detailed a need specifically for the tasks outlined within this contract.
- The owners, investors, board members and other key players of this non-Michigan company are not known. Are there any connections to city or state business or political leaders?
- When was the last audit for the water department? Without an audit, how can any proposed benefits be substantiated.
- The Detroit Water and Sewage Department does not have a deficit. Why then is this necessary? This contract also does not lower water or sewage rates for customers.
- Does EMA have experience with a water and sewage system this large? Their current customer list consists of systems much smaller than Detroit’s. Detroit’s system is within the top three in size in the nation.
- This type of contract does not provide any transparency to the work that will be done. EMA plans to hire sub—contractors to perform the work which would be outside the jurisdiction of the water board and city council.
- Hiring a company from outside the city of Detroit and outside the state of Michigan will transfer jobs away from where they are needed the most. This arrangement sends money outside of Detroit and increases the city’s financial problems. Just how many out of state companies will seek or obtain contracts with the city or any of its revenue generating departments?
For these reasons this contract should be rejected by the Detroit City Council. This is bad for the city and bad for the customers of the water and sewage department.
Where as Public Act 4, The Emergency Manager Law has been suspended due to a citizen led petition drive seeking to have the voters over turn this law.
Where as Public Act 72 was repealed per the laws of the state of Michigan with immediate effect in the month of March of 2011 when Public Act 4 was enacted into law.
Where as MCL 8.4, does not allow the existence of Public Act 72. MCL (Michigan Compiled Laws) states “8.4 Effect of repeal of repealing statute, Sec. 4 Whenever a statute, or any part thereof shall be repealed by subsequent statute, such statute, or any part thereof, so repealed, shall not be revived by the repeal of such subsequent repealing get statute.
Where as Governor Rick Snyder, appointed persons to a position called Emergency Financial Managers, named for and created in the repealed Public Act 4, by Michigan laws a non-existent law.
Where as the Governor in so doing so has violated the laws of Michigan by taking actions not supported in law.
Where as the Governor has created and enabled a criminal enterprise by the actions taken in violation of the laws of Michigan and through the use of state government funds, resources and personal.
Where as the governor has involved through what may be direct orders staff and otherwise subordinate persons in this criminal enterprise and included otherwise willing participants who are aware of and understanding of the law.
Therefore Governor Rick Snyder should face one or more charges of impeachment as appropriate and be removed from the office as governor.
Therefore Governor Rick Snyder should face an investigation of his actions by the law enforcement agencies of this state.
Therefore Governor Rick Snyder should face disciplinary actions as outlined by his oath taken as governor of the state of Michigan.
Therefore the co conspirators should be removed from the public office they serve either through impeachment or firing as appropriate. These persons should also face any criminal investigation to determine the extent of the misuse of state funds and resources for private gain.
Therefore the state attorney general, Bill Schuette, should face disciplinary actions for his role in this criminal enterprise. Schuette should have his law license revoked and should be removed from office for blatant misuse of his office and malpractice under the law.
Michigan August 8, 2012
Michigan Public Act 4 (PA4), the unconstitutional dictator government law is officially suspended. A successful petition drive has placed a vote on the November ballot. The governor, treasurer, state school board and others across the state seek ignore Michigan law to advance their own personal agendas. Michigan law, (MCL) 8.4 states
8.4 Effect of repeal of repealing statute.
Whenever a statute, or any part thereof shall be repealed by a subsequent statute, such statute, or any part thereof, so repealed, shall not be revived by the repeal of such subsequent repealing statute.
This means that Michigan can no longer have any type of state appointed person running a local government or a school board. As of today, no emergency manager law exists.
The supporters of this law successfully delayed the acceptance of the petitions since April of this year. However they could not fight the law. Now these same groups, both democrats and republicans, and some unions, are looking again to delay following the law.
All those elected to a position that had been effected by PA4 must now exercise their elected responsibilities. The school boards and city council’s must again perform their actions and run their schools and local municipalities. Detroit’s consent agreement is also null and void. Its an un-enforcible contract now that the law that permitted such a contract no longer exists. Just like slavery, once it was outlawed the contracts that existed for slavery became null and void. These contracts could no longer be enforced.
Financial Stability Agreement = Financial Handcuffs for Detroit
The Detroit City Council is expected to vote on a proposed DRAFT consent agreement. What is not reported, or discussed is that any vote is premature. The agreement violates the city charter.
This agreement is legally being proposed by the Detroit City Council. The council member sponsoring this for consideration is not being listed by the clerk. The council is empowered by the city charter which is empowered by the Home Rule City Act (“Act 279”). A law cited within the agreement itself. That law says in part that the local municipality must follow its local charter. If the local charter does not provide legal rules or guidance, only then does the local council apply state law. This leads to the Attorney General and Governor approving a local charter when it’s being considered or adoption or change.
The city charter outlines the role of all actions by council. The charter states the limits of the city council and defines the structure of city government. This so called financial agreement violates both and in doing so violates the city charter. By taking this under consideration the city council would then be in violation of the city charter. The agreement creates an office called a Chief Financial Officer and further defines mayoral appointees who would then report to this new office. A document that is not part of a local charter cannot alter a local charter.
Further, this activity is the same as a modification to the charter. The charter cannot be modified by a simply vote of the council. Only by the approval of the voters in Detroit can the charter be modified. Additionally, as reported before, http://hoodresearch.org/pressrelease/?p=170 – “City Council Prepared to Vote and Violate our City Charter”, a rule of law of this type can only be created through an ordinance by city council. The city council is attempting to create this agreement as a resolution. This too is a violation of the charter. Lastly the council operates on a committee structure. Changes to law are supposed to originate within a committee and then by vote of the committee majority the proposed item is brought before the body of the whole. The council is violating the charter and violating their rules.
Those elected to serve on the council took an oath of office to uphold the state constitution. By taking these actions they are violating that oath by breaking the law. This will lead to their eventual forfeiture of office under this new charter. Is jail a possibility? An investigation by the county prosecutor or state attorney general will be needed to determine that outcome.
“City Of Detroit Financial Review Report”, By Tom Barrow, http://hoodresearch.org/TheThinkersReport/?p=552
“Three Reasons Why City Council Should Not Approve State Plan”, http://hoodresearch.org/pressrelease/?p=172
Follow Us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/HoodResearch