Emergency Managers make your democracy vote null and void.

The critical thing to consider....is the alternative. Without the EFM law, the only recourse for a failing city is bankruptcy. Wouldn't you rather have a local resource, appointed by the Michigan Govenor (like him or not) over a court appointed bankruptcy judge?

They care alot more about the community than any bankruotcy judge, who's primary role is to protect the creditors. This is a classic case of...be careful what you ask for...

Let an apolitical Federal Bankruptcy judge decide.

Although I am voting “NO” because the EM law, as it stands, is poorly crafted and is a blatant power and money grab; readers should know that a Village, City, or Township are "Charters", or more like a "Franchise" than a Constitutional Right. These charters are prescribed at the State level, not the Federal level, which in fact gives the States total control, like it or not. Although looking at the surface makes one believe that local government is a democratic process, which it is if everyone does the right thing, but step outside the States guidelines (the State authorizes the Franchise) and they have the right to come in a straighten things out. Buy a McDonalds Franchise and don’t follow the rules and see what happens. We can scream and cry democracy, racism, and fairness, but the bottom line is the State holds all of the chips. We need to craft a fair law that mandates transparent financial reporting, and mandatory criminal consequences for Elected Officials who are caught acting wrong, and design the law so that the State errors on side of the constituents and employees who protect/care for the community! So if you want fairness, Vote No, then demand fairness; maybe it is in a Bankruptcy Judge instead of a Political Crony/Puppet.

Emergency Managers come in because the politicians have failed and promised things they cannot afford so they can get elected. Dramatic change has to happen to fix the situation and put the community on the right path that is fiscally responsibility that is sustainable.

The only special interest groups that are outraged by this emergency action are the unions and politicians who want to spend money they do not have and cannot afford. They need to learn to live within their means like we do in our personal and business finances.

The private sector has seen major cuts and is on the edge with their personal finances and property values. The public sector wants more tax dollars to spend and refuses to make the changes to compensation of the union employees; in fact in many cases they have seen raises in these difficult economic times.

Shared sacrifice amongst the private and public sectors is long overdue. I have been told by public sector officials that they trail the private sector by 1 to 2 years. The private sector has seen many changes since 2008; we are still waiting for the public sector to have a similar sacrifice like the people who pay for their salaries and benefits.

Rochester Hills; they tricked the voters into passing a 2.5 mil rate increase by promising not to use it. RCS, they are spending the reserve fund to sustain the existing budget without real cuts to all employees. OPC, they are adding raises and unsustainable costs.

Everyone needs to understand, in the next few years more cuts will be made to cities across the state. Cities will fall and EM will take the place of government elected officials. Engler, Granhom and Synder have not paid into a number of state employee pension plays. Now, Pension are being used as a tool to convice others that cities are spending on pensions. We are letting our government take control. What is the difference between Middle Eastern government and Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin nothing? Lets start with voting NO!

Aren't Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin considered part of the Midwest, not the Mid(dle) East?

I'm voting yes. There is no alternative.

YES ON PROPOSAL 1.
NO ON ALL THE REST.
IT'S THE ONLY INTELLIGENT WAY TO VOTE.

The alternative is to attend town hall meetings. Get the print out of where the money is going. Hold the elected officials accountable.

Get involved!

Yes on Proposals 2, 3, & 4. No on the rest.

This is why I’m voting no; pay particular attention to the word “distress” and the first two points:
The Emergency Manager Law allows the governor to declare a local government or school district in financial “distress” (read the law and see for yourself the many variables that allow for this law to take affect) and appoint an emergency manager, who is appointed with no salary cap or required experience/education to take control. Emergency managers are unelected bureaucrats are unaccountable to local taxpayers and have unchecked, unprecedented power. Under this law, they can: seize and sell assets owned by the city, such as buildings or parks, without the approval of voters or local elected officials: add to local debt, by putting property tax hikes on the ballot with confusing wording that hides the real cost of the tax hike: outsource to private and out of state companies with no requirement for competitive bidding: lay off thousands of public employees including teachers, police and firefighters: fire elected officials, and: dissolve or merge whole cities, counties and school districts with no requirement for hearings. So, if your elected officials aggravate the Governor, he can trump up the law and appoint an EM who can dissolve your community/investment, with no input from the tax payers. This is a bad law!

R. EALLY,

I had to delete your comment because the language violated our terms of service. But you're free to re-submit it using more family friendly language.

I am voting NO, the law as written is bad, and leave the constitution alone.

I'm voting no because I generally dislike expansion of government powers, but I can see the arguments on both sides of the issue.

Maybe we should add a third voter choice to proposals, such as, NO--needs reformation and/or clarification. A way to inform drafters that the idea is liked but needs to be more, Transparent.....

Option 3 is actually to have the State de-certify a city. Then they came make of it what they will. In a place as large as Detroit with as many problems, that may be a good idea.

L J , I agre4e let the city go under, none of this political stuff, bankrupt it, even let neighboring cities , annex parts touching ...........

I'm voting NO on all the constitution ballot proposals. I just don't believe that any of these issues require placement in the MI Constitution. These are issues best resolve by the state legislatures--whom we all vote for.

I believe that voters must become of aware of the candidates that they "pull the lever" for. Too much of this is done by party affiliation, interest group pressure, unions, etc., and others who serve as proxies for the lazy citizens that don't want to spend the time to see what their elected representatives are doing, or what a candidate proposes to do. In the end, it's not whether a person has a well known name, was a TV newscaster, or sang in a band that makes him/her a good candidate. It's up to citizens to become engaged in the electoral process and support candidates that know how to "reach across the aisle" and find the middle ground if Michigan is going to move forward.

I believe a "no" vote overturns the Emergency Manager law. So unlike a typical "no", voting "no" in this instance does not leave the status quo in place.

This is NOT a Constitutional Amendment! The remaining proposals are, but this is simply our agreeing with (YES) or disagreeing with (NO) the emergency manager law.

@Laura Vogel - NO overturns the law.