politicians archive at The Motor(less) City

Archive for the 'politicians' Category

Preaching to the choir…

Published January 25th, 2009 in moving, abandoned, decay, industry, recession, dysfunctional, light rail, public transportation, industrial, photos, politics, rants, Michigan, politicians, jobs, photography, economy and Detroit. 0 Comments

A discussion with my sister-in-law, regarding the inevitability of change, facing change, and dealing with change, somehow made me think of Detroit. Detroit’s like some people I know who refuse to face up to the fact that change is inevitable. And not only that it’s inevitable, but that you’d better prepare for it, and make the most of it. Once change is accepted, it can become an opportunity. Anyone who knows me, is well aware of how irritated Michigan’s, and Metro Detroit’s, resistance to change makes me.

As an individual, I, like so many others, had to face up the reality that the opportunities that my previous career choice, and my location in Metro Detroit, offered were limited. I mourned the loss of what I once had, and moved on. I learned new skills, used my spare time to build up some experience in my new industry, and, along with a move to a new, more economically viable location, am making a good living in an industry with a lot more current and future potential.

For Metro Detroit, it’s time to mourn and move on. The past is past. It’s time to look towards the future. Time to figure out how to become relevant in the 21st century. When I talk with friends,with similar sensibilities, I always realize how we are simply preaching to the choir. More and more, people are coming to the realization that we are in the midst of a dramatic shift away from our industrial past. When will a Critical Mass emerge, that will force the change upon the area, that is necessary Detroit’s survival? Talk is cheap, and as these articles suggest, there’s plenty of talk…plenty of preaching to the choir. How can we convince the skeptics that change is not only inevitable, but necessary, potentially the best thing that can happen to the area?

New Detroit: A Radical Vision of America’s Greenest City

Immigrants in the 313: This is where the future begins

Essay: Is mass transit in Metro Detroit for real this time?

Suggested New Year’s resolution for Detroit

Published January 8th, 2009 in satire, urban, photos, positive, transit, dysfunctional, sprawl, public transportation, photography, economy, urban living, rants, Michigan, poverty, politics, jobs, politicians and Detroit. 0 Comments

With 2009 upon us, and the current economic situation not looking good, it’s time for Metro Detroit to make some New Year’s resolutions of its own.

Everyone knows about Detroit’s problems, and by the looks of things, the entire state is in big trouble. Detroit is not alone, however, and just like individuals, small businesses, and corporations, the city is in competition with other Metro areas, to attract (and keep) the best people and companies. Many states and cities around the country are facing very tough financial outlooks. There’s no way for Detroit and Southeastern Michigan to avoid the tough times ahead. What the area can do, however, is work together to make smart investments and chart a course for a better future. As individuals we can, in tough times, hide our money under a mattress, or make investments in our future. We can keep our fingers crossed that the job we’re in will exist beyond next week, or that the social safety net we’re relying on will be there tomorrow, or get additional training to prepare ourselves for better paying jobs in the days ahead. Corporations that fail to invest in new technologies, stop marketing, or fail to invest in there employees will be far behind their competitors that do make those investments when the economy recovers. Similarly, an area lacking a decent education system, infrastructure, and basic services, will lose out to the areas that have been making smart investments over the years.

Detroit’s got crumbling infrastructure, a pathetic school system, unreliable city services, and lacks a comprehensive transportation system. In fact the whole state has infrastructure problems and no mass transit other than a hodgepodge mix of bus systems. The area’s rapidly aging population is going to have problems getting around, particularly in the winter. Services and housing are far apart with few options for moving between them. Michigan’s mantra could be “No car? Tough shit!” Most areas in the state lack any kind of cohesive urban center, and most have no viable plan to create one.

I could go on, but I, and others have regularly bitched, moaned, ranted, and reported on the area’s problems. So what will Detroit and the rest of Michigan do about it? Who knows…probably not much judging by the past, and the unwillingness of most to embrace change. Detroit, and Michigan, are in desperate need of change. The area needs to become better. A plan needs to be formulated and pursued, no matter how difficult. Michigan needs more than just slackers who have high tolerance for mediocrity, more than a population heading quickly for retirement (if such a thing exists any more). Detroit needs young, energetic, motivated, entrepreneurial and educated individuals who will not only embrace change, but make it happen.

So my suggested New Years resolution for Detroit is: “Stop being such a crappy place.”

Abandoned Detroit

Published December 20th, 2008 in decay, industrial, urban, abandoned, industry, bailout, public transportation, transit, photos, photography, poverty, rants, Michigan, politics, politicians, big three, economy, jobs and Detroit. 1 Comment

Detroit and Michigan have both been in the news quite a bit lately. Almost every evening news cast, in, and outside of, Michigan, has been focused on whether or not the Big 3 would get a loan (or a bail out, depending on your point of view). Now it appears that at least two of the Big 3 will have access to roughly $17 billion in Federal loans. The big question now is whether or not this loan, at around half of what was requested, will enable the Chrysler and General Motors to survive.

Unfortunately, even if the Big 3 do all survive, they will not be what they used to be, and neither will Michigan. The days of higher than average pay for both blue and white collar jobs at the Big 3 are over, and this will exact a heavy toll on the, heavily automotive dependent, Michigan economy. As it is, Michigan once again leads the nation in unemployment, while Detroit continues it’s downward slide, defying the belief once held by many that Detroit had nowhere to go but up. Michigan can’t seem to pass anti-smoking legislation, even as states such as Kentucky, and countries such as Italy, and France have passed smoking bans. And a decent mass transit system is still years away, though at least progress is being made in this area. Apparently the dire economic situation has made some of our previously reluctant politicians to expand Cobo Hall, and hopefully save the North American International Auto Show.

The most interesting news reports on Detroit though, have been about it’s long declining population. This is, of course, nothing new. Detroit’s population peeked in 1950 at almost 2 million. Since then the decline to roughly half it’s peek, leaves the city with around 850,000 residents. The Detroit Free Press, reports that Manhattan, Boston, and San Fransisco, could all fit in the boundaries of Detroit with room to spare. Apparently, at the rate of decline Detroit is experiencing, the city will be 50% vacant within five to ten years. The amount of vacant land has lead to an increase in the population of generally non-city dwelling animals, such as pheasants and coyotes. The city has also seen a large increase in the amount of urban farming. Perhaps Detroit will be the first American city to go from urban to suburban, or even rural classification. While the current state of the city is scary to say the least, the possibilities for Detroit’s future are much more interesting. Camilo Jose Vergara once suggested that Grand Circus Park become a skyscraper graveyard theme park. My wife always thought Detroit should turn it’s vacant land into large parks or green areas. I have been fond of recommending (tongue in cheek) that Detroit tries reverse annexation. While I don’t generally like eminant domain laws, I do think it’s impossible for a city of 850,000 (and still declining) to maintain and provide services to an area of 139 square miles. It’s possible nothing will change, and Detroit will continue it’s decline for the foreseeable future. It’s also possible that Detroit, and the Metro area, can make something better with this, potentially, clean slate.

The Big 3 Bailout, or, is this the end of the road for Detroit

Published November 19th, 2008 in industry, industrial, urban, New York Times, news, bailout, transit, big three, economy, Michigan, Detroit, poverty, politics, jobs, politicians and Uncategorized. 0 Comments

It seems the Big Three, and consequently Detroit, doesn’t have too many friends these days. Public support for a bailout of financial companies had little public support, and the U.S. automotive industry has even less. The industry has been viewed by the average person as a slow moving, inefficient, and wasteful industry incapable of producing quality vehicles. The politicians see an industry that fought against requirements for producing more fuel efficient automobiles, lobbied for tariffs on light trucks and SUV’s, had out of control expenses, and couldn’t see far enough down the road to be ready for a day when the public didn’t want Hummers or Excursions anymore. Unfortunately many who were too close to the industry didn’t, and maybe still don’t, see things this way.

Rick Wagoner testified in Washington on the need for a government bailout for the Big Three. In his statement Rick Wagoner made several good points, including, “General Motors directly employs approximately 96,000 people in the United States”, and “Last year, we purchased more than $30 billion of goods and services from more than 2,000 suppliers in 46 states.” He also made the claims that GM had made tremendous progress in recent years, by cutting costs, improved vehicle quality, and lowered legacy costs, and that the biggest problem was out of their hands. Rick Wagoner stated that it was the downturn in the economy and the automotive industry, and the current credit crisis that posed the greatest threat to GM’s survival.

I have no love for the Big Three. Over the past decade I’ve watched as CEO’s pushed off dealing with a broken business model, and walked away with fat payouts for their short-sited, and almost certainly, damaging business decisions. The lack of foresight that the American automotive industry has shown, seems to be almost unequaled. Sure other industries have failed to see what was right around the corner, but the ability of the Big Three to ignore the obvious, and insist on business as usual while the industry was cratering, was astounding.

All that said, we’re all on the hook for this one. So while I can still be angry that assembly line workers could make upwards of $140k (yes, I know someone who did…), and that CEOs could make millions while steering a once great industry straight down the drain, I have to remember that Detroit, Michigan, the Midwest, and the entire U.S. economy is still dependent on it. With out, not only do employees of the auto companies lose their jobs, but those of the suppliers, and those who sell meals to workers, and employers, and so on and so on. The numbers who are indirectly connected to the industry are staggering. I am bitter and angry at how these companies have been run, but I’m not willing to cut off my nose to spite my face. Unfortunately I need the Big Three and so do you. What I want to know is why financial companies that made very poor business decisions and took dangerously large, and over leveraged risks, while paying managers and CEOs millions, get a bailout on my dime, but one of the largest industries in the country, seems to be so undeserving.

I think loans should be made, with conditions. The current management and board of directors are out, and long term plans of action must be in place. Management and the U.A.W. need to be on the same page (I was once told by the head of the U.A.W Chrysler that it was “a war between the U.A.W. and Chrysler.” Sorry, thought you were both trying to achieve the same goal…), and the public gets paid back with interest.

What’s really killing Detroit

Auto bailout: showdown

GM Failure: the

How to fix the Big Three

In Detroit, Failure’s a Done Deal

Detroit is going down — if not now, eventually

Saving Detroit from itself

G.O.P. Senators oppose bailout

Moore: Automakers never listened

Retirees Watching Anxiously: Will GM Be Saved

Dems want automakers to show bailout spending plan

No need for bailout, say diners near thriving car plant

Detroit to get mass transit?

Published April 22nd, 2008 in abandoned, decay, moving, news, light rail, public transportation, urban, photos, Michigan, Detroit, urban living, politics, photography, politicians and Uncategorized. 3 Comments

I have to admit, I got a little excited when this Model D newsletter appeared in my inbox. I’ve written letters, made calls, and hoped for years that the dream of a reliable, user friendly, form of mass transit would arrive in Metro Detroit. Of course I was always told the standard line, “Detroit’s the Motor City…we’ll never get mass transit.” And of course L. Brooks Patterson once said on Michigan Public Radio, “we can’t afford to spend a dime on an experiment like mass transit…” Never mind that this “experiment” has been successful all over the globe, and most desirable and economically prosperous metropolitan areas have some form of this “experiment” also known as mass transit.

I’ve followed the debates, and the ups and downs of possible mass transit in Metro Detroit for more than ten years now. Now that the Michigan and Metro Detroit mass exodus of highly educated, motivated, and entrepreneurial people has hit a peek of sorts, and gas is expected to hit $4 per gallon, more Metro Detroiters than ever are asking why a mass transit system doesn’t exist.

Of course many people in the area would never step foot on public transportation in Metro Detroit, and would rather move than have their tax dollars support such a thing. I’ve had acquaintances tell me, “I’d never ride on public transportation here. Who would?” Of course when I was young, some people were afraid the criminal element may use mass transit to escape from the inner-city, come out to the safe haven of the suburbs, and still their refrigerators. Criminals apparently could steal refrigerators, but not cars…

So now here we are in an enlightened time in Metro Detroit. We’re ready for a regional mass transit system. Right? Ok, maybe not. It’s Kwame after all. Remember the police station in the abandoned train station plan? Is this just another “plan” that actually has less than a snowball’s chance in Hell? Time will tell. One problem may be the need for local dollars. The “plan” calls for a light rail system from downtown to the State Fair Grounds. Which of the two communities in which the light rail will pass through have any money. Neither Highland Park, nor Detroit has enough money for schools, libraries, or basic public services. The other problem is getting any other community on board. After all, it’s not going to be successful if it’s just a line from downtown to the State Fair Grounds. A successful plan has to include the communities to the north such as, Ferndale, Royal Oak, and Birmingham. Of those three the most likely to commit to such a plan would be Ferndale. Regional agreements have never been Metro Detroit’s strong suit.

Even if all does work as planned, it’s stated in the article that nothing would happen in this decade anyway. And anything beyond Detroit hasn’t even been discussed. So Metro Detroit is once again going to fail to become relevant anytime in the near future.

Megan Owens, executive director of Transportation Riders United, states “It’s better that they take it slow and do it right,” Owens says. “The worst thing we could do is spend a bunch of money to do it quickly and build a bad system.” Unfortunately Detroit doesn’t have time. It’s already too late to the party. In fact the party’s pretty much over. Detroit needs something, and they need it yesterday.

Picking on Detroit?

Published April 15th, 2008 in moving, decay, industrial, urban, industry, real estate, news, recession, housing, photos, photography, poverty, urban living, rants, Michigan, white flight, politics, economy, jobs, politicians and Detroit. 0 Comments

I’m occasionally accused of only pointing out Detroit’s flaws. It’s mostly true. I do have a “glass is half full” kind of attitude about Detroit. Actually my attitude is more of a “glass is empty” sort of attitude. But this isn’t elementary school. I’m not a bully, and Detroit’s not a little school child. I’m one person pointing out why droves of the most desirable people are leaving Detroit. And I do point out what I think needs to change. Detroit can take it.
And I’m not alone. Lately Detroit’s daily paper’s have taken up the cause as well.

The Free Press is reporting about the Nation’s cities, and what needs to change in order to keep them safe, vibrant, and economically viable. While this series does not focus solely on Detroit, it does point out what Detroit faces, and what it needs to do in order to recover from the depths it’s reached.

The News is reporting about the horrible state of the Detroit Public Schools, and right or wrong, presenting a way to fix it.

The Free Press compares Detroit and Pittsburgh. Detroiters often defend Detroit, pointing out how it’s so different from other cities. Of course it’s not that different. And the solutions aren’t that different either.

And here’s something I’ve mentioned and complained about before. Some idiots still refuse to get with the times. Banning smoking, in public spaces, is within State’s rights of protecting public health, and does not ruin local economies.

An article in the Free Press about how Detroit’s biggest problem is providing basic services to it’s residents.

A Free Press article about Michigan’s over supply of homes.

The area still can’t get it’s act together on the convention center (goodbye Auto Show?).

Some will say that all this misses the good things happening in the area. That may be the case, but reporting about the lipstick on a pig, doesn’t prevent anyone from recognizing that it’s still a pig. Detroit and the Metro Area, won’t get better until a majority of the residents look in the mirror and realize the area’s failings, of which there are way too many.

Michigan’s foreclosure problem

Published April 9th, 2008 in decay, urban, abandoned, real estate, recession, housing, photos, photography, poverty, Michigan, politics, politicians, economy, jobs and Detroit. 0 Comments

Michigan’s foreclosure problem, like in so many other states, is huge. And like with so many other issues no one seems to be able to agree on any possible solutions. The primary question seems to be, who do we bail out? Why do we have to bail anyone out? Because, number one, spending our money is what the government does when there’s a problem. We should all know that by now. Secondly, and more importantly though, bail out or no bail out, we’ll all pay one way or another.

Let’s look at the root of the problem first. Lenders lent too much too easily to too many people. Borrowers borrowed too much, with too little down, and without the means to pay it back. Investors bought these bad loans, without due diligence. Builders built too much, speculators speculated too much, and our entire economy became too reliant on this house of cards. Everyone thought the party would never end. Everyone either fed into, or bought into (o.k., I didn’t, but it seems everyone else did) the idea that housing prices could not go down.

Several years ago, I was told by an employee of a developer, who was then developing housing out in the middle of nowhere, outside of, Metro Detroit that there was no end to the demand. When I asked were everyone was coming from (knowing that Michigan, at the time, had one of the lowest rates of population growth), she replied, “they’re coming from older, closer in suburbs.” As if that could go on indefinitely. Who was buying their houses? Eventually, you need a growing population to fulfill the needs of a growing stock of housing developments. Without it, it’s unsustainable. An unrealistic, and decidedly Pollyannaish, view of the market, combined with a bad economy created Michigan’s housing disaster. Of course the market’s crashing everywhere, not just in Michigan. In other places the speculation got out of hand, prices were driven up to unaffordable rates, and people were sold, or bought (depends on your perspective) bad mortgages. Different cause, same result.

Nobody wants to bail out those who made foolish decisions, but it seems all parties involved made poor decisions. If I am a lender, and lend my money to too many, who, with bad credit, and meager income, have little realistic chance of paying back, I’m at fault, and I deserve to lose that money. Even more so if I’ve convinced borrowers, and purchasers of the loans I make, that it’s a good deal, there’s nothing, to worry about, and we’re all going to get rich doing it.

If I’m a borrower, and I borrow an amount I can’t afford, with the crazy assumption that the 25% annual gains will continue, and I’ll refinance my way out of my negative amortization loan, then I deserve to lose my house.

If I’m an investor, and I foolishly invest money in SIVs, without investigating them first, I deserve to lose my money.

If I’m a developer, and I develop in a community with high vacancy rates, an unstable economy, more housing units than residents, or other obvious signs of trouble, and I fail to head the warnings, I deserve to lose my money.

Unfortunately, we don’t just have one of these groups in trouble, we have all of them in trouble. And when they are all in trouble, we are all in trouble. So the question, is, as was asked at the top, who do we bail out. Right now the politicians are working on various bills for each of these groups, and of course we’ve already bailed out Bear Sterns. Just wait there’s more to come.

This is where the blame game starts. If you fit into one of the above categories, it’s not your fault. It’s the fault of parties in the other groups. Which ever group has the most money, and the best lobbyists wins (gets the bail out).

I don’t know what the answer is, I only know there’s going to be pain, and lots of it. One thing we do need, is to keep as many people in their houses as possible. I know that I don’t want vacant houses around my neighborhood. High numbers of vacant houses do no one any good. So why is it there is so much reporting about lending banks not responding to borrowers who are in over their heads? Why are so many houses being foreclosed on? What do the banks think they’re going to get for vacant, often vandalized homes in, largely, vacant areas of our nation’s cities? Who in their right mind is going to buy a house in an urban area of Detroit, in a market with declining values, when the houses around you look like this:

We shouldn’t cut off our noses, to spite our faces. Forcing people out of their houses because they made bad choices only works if it’s just a few people. When the number about to lose their houses becomes large enough, it’s not just their problem anymore, it becomes our problem.

Am I a cynic?

Published March 28th, 2008 in photos, photography, urban, industrial, industry, decay, big three, economy, rants, Michigan, poverty, politics, jobs, politicians and Detroit. 1 Comment

Am I a cynic, or am I a realist? Maybe I’m both. Yesterday, shortly after posting my, admittedly, rant filled proclamation of how I’d left Metro Detroit, I got a comment stating that I was contributing to the exact thing I detested about the area. I claimed that “Metro Detroit area is a black hole of despair and self-pity, and full of people who refuse to acknowledge, or can’t see, the basic problems…” I think the main point I wanted to make was that people refuse to acknowledge the underlying problems. It’s not that Detroit sucks. It does. It’s not that Detroit’s dangerous. It is. It’s not that the city lacks basic services. It does. And it’s not that the area is almost entirely reliant on a dying industry. It is. It’s that no one wants to make the necessary changes. They want to go on with their lives as if the same old rules apply today that applied in Metro Detroit’s hey day.

The whole state needs to invest in the future. Michigan wants to provide money to companies to start up in Michigan, but they put a limit on what industries they can be in. Michigan needs to encourage any viable business to start up in Michigan. Michigan, and Metro Detroit in particular needs to realize they are in competition for the 18-35 demographics, with cities like Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., etc. If you are a highly educated 18-35 year old, looking for a great place to live, and begin, or develop your career or business, why would you choose Metro Detroit? There are very few reasons. One of the few reasons to head to, or stay in, Michigan is for the automotive industry. Unfortunately Michigan’s lock on the auto industry is slipping. Southern California’s quickly becoming the new car design center, and other states have a lower per worker cost than Michigan for manufacturing. With a global economy there are many fewer reasons to locate your automotive company in Michigan. Even the big three are seeing more growth outside our country than in. One less reason to expand in Michigan.

So what does Michigan do to invest in the future, and attract highly educated and highly skilled workers? Not much. Michigan spends more on prisons than on education. Which of these two things will help Michigan to prepare for the future? Maybe Michigan can become the “Prison State,” and house prisoners from around the country. That’s sure to attract the kind of people Michigan needs. I continue to hear on the street, and on t.v., and on the radio, calls from the citizens to their politicians, to bring a big corporation in to Michigan to save the day. It’s not going to happen. Why? Why go to Michigan, when the people you need for your big corporation to be competitive are leaving in droves? What Michigan needs to do is invest in, and encourage, entrepreneurial activity. Everyone likes to point to companies like Google, and say that we need to bring a company like that to Michigan. Of course not to long ago Google was a two person start up. Google not going to relocate to Michigan. They may bring a few thousand jobs, but that’s small consolation considering the enormous job losses Michigan has had in the past five years.

The second thing Michigan needs to do is invest in the quality of life. Yes, there are beautiful things and places in Michigan, but compare Metro Detroit to other major cities around the country. Detroit’s got an amazing asset in Belle Isle, but head out to Belle Isle on a week day evening and marvel at the burned out buildings, or the trash in the parking lots. Portland, Seattle, San Fransisco, Chicago, New York, and D.C., all have incredible public assets, that attract the kind of people that Michigan needs. Parks, museums, culture, and public transportation (Seattle’s just so, so) , are all things that are neglected in Michigan as being frivolous, non-essential, expenditures, when the reality is these are the things that the very people Michigan is losing, and failing to attract, want to have access to. It’s relatively easy to move around our country, and that makes all major metropolitan areas in competition for the same highly prized workers, entrepreneurs, and businesses.

Trying to attract a business to Michigan is no easy task. As I mentioned before, why would anyone relocate their business to Michigan? There are very few reasons to do so. Tax policies alone are usually not enough. Relocating a business can be very expensive, and many things must be taken into account when making the decision. Will your workers relocate as well? If not, does the area you’re looking at have enough of the workers you need? What’s the quality of life like where you are considering moving the business to? Business owners generally have to live in the area as well.

So, the question is, am I a cynic, a realist or both? I guess I’m both. I’m very realistic in my assessment of Metro Detroit. I’m also cynical about the chances of any kind of turn around any time soon. When politicians like L. Brooks Patterson make statements like, “I love sprawl. I need it. I promote it. Oakland County can’t get enough of it” or “we can’t afford to spend a dime on an experiment like mass transit…” it’s hard not to be. L Brooks Patterson also cut funding to Ferndale’s downtown (one of the few to make an incredible turn around in Michigan) because he didn’t like their position on his spending on roads and views on suburban sprawl. Suburban sprawl is questionable in good times, but now that the population is declining, and sprawl has been encouraged (and achieved), how is the infrastructure going to be maintained? How’s it going to be paid for? And by whom?

Long commutes, crumbling infrastructure, a lack of cultural resources, no mass transit, an over reliance on a single industry, and barely a plan in place to do anything about any of it. Sure there are plenty of individuals, and non-profit groups working to change things, but it takes real political might, and plenty of dollars to enact so much as a plan. Even an investigation into what Michigan needs (if it’s not obvious enough already) would be a start.

When the collective attitudes, and desires change, and the politicians of Michigan start to push for change, maybe things will change, and if it’s not to late, maybe some of us will come back.

Common sense prevails…

Published November 7th, 2007 in christians, berkley, intolerance, religion, angry people, rants, politics, politicians and Michigan. 0 Comments

Well, finally, for me at least, some good news. Common sense prevailed over stubborn and misplaced religious conviction or some kind of possibly damaging desire to remain firmly entrenched in the past. As has been reported fairly extensively in the local, and sometimes national and international, news, there has been a fight in Berkley over whether or not to amend the city’s charter to not only allow, but require a 4′ x 4′ minimum nativity scene on the city’s property.

Most people didn’t have a problem with the city’s holiday displays, however somebody did. They contacted the ACLU and together asked the city to remove the religious display, or possibly face a lawsuit. Now some people are going to complain that the ACLU is out to get conservatives or some other b.s., when in fact the ACLU has come to the aid of such, so called, conservative individuals as, Sen. Larry Craig, and none other than Rush Limbaugh. Of course it’s easy to bash someone who defends something you don’t like, but the truth is it’s very difficult to defend something you don’t like, such as individuals who trash talk your organization on the radio on a daily basis. The true testament to the ACLU, is that they will defend anyone’s civil liberties, regardless of political affiliation.

As much as the “Say yes to the nativity scene” folks would like this to be about the ACLU, it wasn’t. After the initial contact from a Berkley resident and the ACLU, the Berkley City Council implemented a plan, originally proposed by the clergy of a local Christian church, to move the nativity scene off of the City’s property, to a location two blocks away on Church property, where it would be displayed without various other Christmas decorations such as presents and Santa Claus, and other religion’s holiday decorations. The beauty of this plan was that those who think the nativity scene represents the true spirit of Christmas get to have a nativity scene unencumbered by distracting non-Christian decorative items, those who don’t believe that the government should be in the business of setting up religious displays at tax payer expense were happy, and the city wouldn’t get sued! Who loses? No one.

Of course someone has to rain on the parade. And that someone unfortunately was the Thomas Moore Law Center, who came into town with a faux citizen action group, claiming that they could tell Berkley citizen’s were upset that they were not going to have a nativity scene (lie number one), that there was an attack on Christian values underway (lie number two), and that the lawsuit would not cost the city of Berkley anything (lie number three).

Well the city didn’t agree. They liked the solution that was already in place. And a whole group of Berkley residents didn’t agree either and formed there own, truly grass roots action group. The group, unlike the “yes” group, did not have outside funding from a group like the Thomas Moore Law Center, was not in partnership with any outside groups, did not bring in citizen’s from other countries (yes, you heard it right, the “yes” group brought in citizen’s of Canada to help in their “cause”), did have all of the Berkley clergy on their side, and the support of all the area’s major newspapers. And after yesterday’s vote, apparently a majority of Berkley’s citizens.

The final result? 55% of voters voted against the charter amendment, and 45% voted for. Fox news made this sound like a close margin of victory, when in reality it was a margin of 10%, which is much higher than the margin of most presidential races.

So common sense prevailed over religious fervor. On election night one disappointed “yes” supporter stated that this was a case of intolerance of Christians. Hopefully she didn’t really believe it, but said it out of anger. This is, of course, not about tolerance or intolerance of the Christian religion. If she wanted to view it as any kind of intolerance, she would have to see that it would be closer to plain old religious intolerance. After all no religious items will be displayed by city hall during any holiday. No one singled out Christianity. It just so happened that the city was violating the first amendment by displaying only Christian holiday display. Of course the “yes” supporters offered to put in a Star of David. But would that do it? Who decides which religious group gets representation? Do the Wickens get a display? How about the Pagans? If the city decides, then that is a clear violation of the first amendment. Also, if this was indeed intolerance of Christians then who is to blame? After all it was a member of a Christian church that proposed the solution. Christian members of the city council supported it, and by the numbers, at least some Christians voted against the charter amendment. So I guess, if it is indeed intolerance of Christians, it was in part at least, carried out by Christians in the community. Do Christians not tolerate themselves?

Intolerance: unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs. This definition explains why if intolerance was shown, it was at least equally shown by those who had proposed or supported the charter amendment. Intolerance, and it’s antonym tolerance, works in more than one direction. Not being able to force a religious display to be paid for, and maintained by tax payer dollars, and displayed on tax payer property, does not constitute intolerance. Insisting that the public must support your religious display, is intolerance.

Fortunately, Berkley will not appear to outsiders (at least those with common sense) to be an intolerant community. We will, hopefully, be able to attract all kinds of people. And that we can’t afford not to do.

I’m sure you’ve all missed me…

Published October 15th, 2007 in angry people, religion, christians, berkley, politicians, politics, Michigan, rants, race and Detroit. 0 Comments

Wow, it’s been a whole month since my last post. How has everyone survived without my witty rhetoric? All one of you have survived just fine I’m sure.

So what’s going on? Well the big holiday tradition of arguing over nativity scenes has begun again. Apparently we’ve forgotten that the holiday’s are supposed to be about love, kindness, sharing, giving, and forgiveness. Instead we threaten each other, call each other names, and insist that our religious display on public property is our god given right. “That’s right, damn it! I can do what ever I want! It’s a free country…”

Here’s the arguments:

“It’s always been that way.” Umm, no it hasn’t…

“The constitution guarantees me the right to display a nativity scene on public property.” Umm, no it doesn’t… If you think it does, you’re going to have to point out where in the constitution that appears.

“This is what the founding father’s intended.” Umm, no it’s not… Remeber Thomas Jefferson, and that First Amendment thing…

“Nobody complained about it before.” Umm, not to you, and so what? We used to have slaves. A lot of people were perfectly happy with that set up. Things change. Stop being the “grumpy old man.”

“It’s an attack against Christianity.” Umm, no it’s not… nobody other than people at your church (maybe), cares about your religious beliefs. Nor should they. They’re your beliefs, and you have the right, just as everyone else has, to practice, or not practice what ever religious beliefs you have. That doesn’t mean that you get to tell the government what religion they should support.

Let’s take a look at the First Amendment, (specifically the Free Exercise Clause) for the benefit of those who’ve forgotten their history lessons.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. “

So, the first part is pretty clear: ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” That means that laws, such as the charter amendment proposed in Berkley, Michigan, can’t be passed requiring the government to support certain religions. Requiring a “minimum, 4′ by 4′ nativity with proportional figures…” as the language of the proposal contains, would clearly violate the first part of the first amendment. Someone will point out that it says “Congress…”, meaning that it only applies to the Federal government, so of course I have to point to the 14th Amendment as well, which includes the Equal Protection Clause.

Now, of course, this is the part where the person supporting nativity scenes on public property says, “but it also says, ‘or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…’, so we should be allowed to display a nativity scene. They always say we, as if it’s everyone, which it’s not, but that’s not the point anyway. What is the point is that our protections in the constitution and it’s amendments protect individual liberties. That means that while you can practice your religion, you can’t force it on others (which would violate their civil liberties, and the first amendment) by creating laws requiring displays of your religious icons on public property.

I have a right to do with my property as I please, however, that right only goes so far as it doesn’t impinge on some one else’s right. Requiring a nativity scene, or any religious icons, on public property infringes on the individuals protection from the establishment of religion by government, however the removal of a nativity scene from public property in no way infringes on any individuals right to practice their own religion. In order for the government, or anyone else for that matter, to violate the clause, “…or prohibiting the free exercise there of…”, there would have to be a law restricting your ability to practice your religion or preventing you from worshiping as required by your religion. The moving of a nativity scene from city hall to a church, does neither of these things. You can still read the bible, pray, go to church, and celebrate all religious holidays. There is no “thinly veiled attack on Christian’s…” There is no burning of churches, bibles, or raiding of church services (at least not Christian ones). Christians are not beat up, jailed, or ridiculed. For crying out loud, the majority of American’s call themselves Christians. If Christian’s are being attacked, who’s doing it? Give me a break…

The Motor(less) City