Everywhere, we’ve been hearing about how cities, towns and even entire states are so far in debt that they will never get out. In an attempt to avoid that situation – or at least to minimize future damage – one Michigan town near Detroit has opted to turn off its street lights and rip them out rather than go further into debt on a $4 million electric bill Highland Park’s city officials say bluntly they simply will not be able to pay[1]. In fact, when elected officials opted to turn out the lights, they also had them removed completely, ripping out “bulbs, poles and all.” Residents are outraged, called the extreme austerity measure “a disgrace” and accusing elected officials of endangering anyone out after dark.
The streetlights themselves were removed to make sure that the decision stuck. While libraries can be opened and closed and roadwork resumed at the first sign of an angry population (if the money can be borrowed to do so), it’s going to be pretty hard to get 2/3 of the city’s light poles reinstalled on short notice. And the city’s monthly electric bill has permanently been cut by 80 percent. Like much of Detroit and surrounding areas, Highland Park has suffered dramatic losses with a 22 percent unemployment rate[2] and fewer than 12,000 residents where it used to house more than twice that number[3]. “We’re all hurting,” says one city council member who approved the controversial move to shut off the lights even though this is an election year.
Even the utility company hesitated to comply with the city’s request, according to vice president of marketing and renewable for DTE Energy, Trevor Lauer. Highland Park’s debt to the company goes back nearly a decade, and DTE has listed the overdue bill as an “uncollectable expense.” Moving forward, though Lauer says that he is confident that Highland Park is a “municipal lighting customer I’m confident can pay its monthly bill.”
A number of energy analysts predict that other cities may also consider cutting off the lights “if it works in Highland Park.” Do you think that Highland Park’s city council made a good decision?
Thank you for reading the Bryan Ellis Real Estate Letter!
Your comments and questions are welcomed below.
[1] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Unable-to-pay-bill-Mich-city-apf-2920161472.html?x=0
[2] http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/04/361549/michigan-city-removes-streetlights-deficit/
[3]http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEBT_TO_DARKNESS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Its an outrage how elected officials can make a judgement to turn off the lights and leave its citizens unprotected and open up a perfect vector for a higher crime situation. What ever happened to looking for alternative solutions to help subsidize the cost of electricity. I say re-engineer the situation which could perhaps create a viable solution to meet the needs of the citizens who voted these people in office to serve them.
Well, lets see. They have a 4 million dollar bill they can’t pay. Reduction by 80% will give them some sort of inroad toward paying that bill off over time.
Seems like a good idea to me. After all if you can’t afford the light bill then maybe you should turn them off. Simple enough to me.
i bet the criminal element is celebtating this irresponsible decision.. lots of theifs & rapistys will be on the streets with no fear
The city’s duty to the citizens is the provision of the infrastructure and for safety. If they can’t provide that, they are not needed. I’d say, reduce the expenditure on the lights. Lower the wattage, turn off (do not remove) every other pole, leave them on for less time. Now, eliminate a few jobs. Make the offices more efficient. No one should complain about jobs reduction because if they have higher crime, they will lose residents and then the city workers will be out of a job anyway.
If it were me, I’d reduce my taxes by 25% a year, file a suit against the city and put that 25% of my tax money into the judicial escrow while the suit is being heard. I’d encourage a few others to join me. Cities think that they have no accountability to the people except through the vote. Well, they will soon learn that if you put the citizens in danger and impact the desirability of their neighborhoods by refusing to provide safety (that was already in place as a fixture when they moved into the neighborhood and the city) then you are going to have to be accountable. The city is in effect ‘condemning’ the neighborhoods without due process. That may seem a bit of a reach, but if the result is more crime, then the city leaders are responsible. There are better answers than this, but space is short and my time is limited. The first thing to go off the budget is fringe benefits, then overtime, then fluff jobs, then parks and on it goes. Safety is the last to go.
What part of “we are out of money” don’t people in America understand? The majority of Americans have lived off borrowed money for so long they now feel they really earned it. The people that earn money produce something that’s in demand and can be sold for a profit without subsidy. Voters have put people in office so they can avoid the reality that more debt than income equals future crash. Looking to the Federal Reserve to print more money will make everyone in America poor. Try and explain basic economics to the current generation of dumbed down liberals and you will get feelings instead of facts. Student loans have exceeded the debt from credit cards but some are talking about debt reduction. Who will pay for this reduction? The half of America that is paying the tax! How long can any reasonable person think this can go on before the workers instead of moochers hit the streets? If any of you think turning off some street lights is something, wait for the real main event. Folks, you haven’t seem anything yet!
I read the article about ripping out the light pols I think the move was extremely drastic. I say this because I wanted a street light in my ally where I lived and the city light company said that if I wanted o0pne I would have to agree to p;ay for the lights energy forever. This amounted to $4.00 per month at the time at the time. If it was my light that was slated to be ripped out and I had the choice I would simply agree to pay for the lights energy for a certain length of time like say one year increments. I think they made a mistake pulling out the pols because now when they do have the money in the future it will cost millions on top of it all to put the pols back. unless this is simply a tea bag move to get rid of government I.E. you have a percentage less of government with all of the stuff that goes with having to have public lights. but what is next? sewers?
The article said that the power company considered the debit un- collectable which means they can right it off as a loss, they probably don’t even care one way or another. Whey would you not just start fresh racking the bill up and figure out how to pay for the new bill? why was the desision based on the old debit that was already considered un collectable?