215 families, Part II: City Politics, and Potential Solutions

EVENT

On April 18th, I reported on a public housing debacle involving the Flint Housing Commission and HUD. The Housing Commission issued a number of housing vouchers beyond the federal funding provided by HUD. As a result, many tenants signed leases they now cannot pay, and will shortly be evicted.

It was my opinion that this is an absolutely shameful development, partly as part of tired political processes the "rest" of us take for granted, and partly because the press hasn't given the problem nearly the attention it deserves. This is a problem potentially affecting 1% of Flint's population at the most, and many hundreds of people at the least.

It affects us all by extension.

There have been recent developments:

* * * * *

The Flint Journal First Edition

Council cautious on plan to avert evictions
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
By Christofer Machniak

FLINT

The City Council delayed a proposal Monday designed to help about 100 low-income families who faced being evicted from their homes this month.

Council members, who generally supported the plan, set a special meeting for noon Thursday to give them more time to ask questions from city and federal officials.

The plan, proposed last week by Mayor Don Williamson, would shift $400,000 in federal dollars to offset housing commission cuts to the programs that provide vouchers to help pay rent.

Members want more time, in part, to confirm that the city won't be penalized for breaking rules over the funding shift.

The move is seen as a one-time, temporary measure. Officials expect Congress to restore funding next year.

Housing commission officials say an $800,000 cut by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in the Housing Choice Voucher Program led to the rollback, which affected at least 25 percent of families who were using the program.

- Christofer Machniak

* * * * *

I don't know if other cities feel local political vascillations quite as powerfully as Flint does. I suspect that a few do to an equal degree, and many do to a lesser degree. And what I mean is this:

I tend to respect balance and circumspection in civic leadership as much or more than I do ideology. I would happily vote for a mayor whose political alliances differed from my own, for example, to govern the city of Flint, if I thought she could exercise the judgment critical in a city so strained for resources.

Unfortunately, that sort of person is absolutely discouraged from taking office (of any sort) in Flint. Given the segragatory state of the city, its profound connections with labor and the democratic party, and its deep divide with increasingly conservative suburbs, Flint and Genesee County is the sort of place that discourages political circumspection. Everyone's just holding down. There's no special value placed on communication. Elections, thus, inevitably circle around municipal "get rich" schemes, where the winner will solve all problems. (Take a look at our mayor, for example, who during his campaign offered to pay Flint's $42 million debt out-of-pocket, our our council president, who is determined that a casino is the only cure).

In a desperation campaign, who wins? I would say, someone with serious political aspirations, but limited political opportunities. That is, someone who loves attention, loves grandstanding, and would prefer to be, say, with the State House of Representatives, but due to as lack of discretion or connection or finesse cannot hope to obtain such goals.

It is not difficult to see, at all, that Johnnie Coleman and Don Willimason burned their political bridges long ago. Nor is it difficult to see how they might appeal to a simple pluarality in Flint through vague promises and raw charisma. Incidentally, it's not uncommon for these figures to be recalled when they can't deliver. (It's rare that they can. Neither Don nor Johnnie has.)

It often seems that all we can hope is that whatever capacity for understanding their vision drives them, or whatever political winds hurl them along, this short-sighted and self-defeating leadership makes decisions that, nevertheless, work out.

* * * * *

I've often said that Don Willimason is a terrible mayor. He's marginally better than Stanley, perhaps, if only because he's got a mind to reconciling blacks and whites in a bitterly divided city, but that's really as far as I can extend any praise.

But at this moment Williamson is advocating these 215 families.

Should he be lauded for this? He's only doing his job. As a decent mayor, he really should understand this fact, and not bank on any praise. (Sometimes, the most praiseworthy decisions are the least praised.) Moreover, this is at best, a slight penance for his fleecing of nonprofits last year, such as Salem Housing I mentioned in my last post on this subject. Don Williamson has done more to injury to local nonprofits and charities than any other mayor or council in the last fifty years. However...

He's helping at this moment.

The council, it seems, will also be amenable to provide help.

I want to encourage this. I want to hope, eventually, that we have coucilpeople and mayors like Daley, at least, who even if they enjoy flexing political muscle, at least do so with some consistency and awareness.

Right now, it's not possible to replace half of Flint's municipal government with better officials.

It is possible to commend the providing of housing to the homeless while denouncing political impasse.
It is possible to draw his attention to officials' consituencies, and away from grandiose plans for casinos and truck accessories factories.

Fine, Don, fine: I give you one point. This time.

Please, try for another.