ShareThis Page
Nation

Detroit's emergency manager questioned about bankruptcy plan

| Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2014, 9:24 p.m.

DETROIT — Emergency manager Kevyn Orr testified in bankruptcy court Wednesday that when he took over Detroit's finances, he found a city with poor services for residents, next to no cash flow and significant neighborhood blight.

Orr, who was hired by the state in March 2013 to fix Detroit's finances and who took the city into the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history, was called to the stand and questioned by a city lawyer in federal court in Detroit.

Judge Steven Rhodes is to decide whether Orr's plan to remove $7 billion in debt is fair to creditors. Orr has said Detroit's unsecured debt is about $12 billion.

Orr said Wednesday that before he filed for bankruptcy, every creditor wanted to be “paid in full.”

“Each of the groups had a view that their situation was special ... and did not want to take a haircut,” he said.

At the same time, the city was struggling, he testified.

Police and ambulance response times were slower than the national average, he said. Most fire runs were to abandoned houses and buildings. Communications and computer systems were antiquated.

“The city's core provision of services were substandard. It had an inability to meet its bills,” testified Orr, who also said the city bounced a check or two.

Orr's debt restructuring plan, in which deals have already been reached with most creditors, sets aside $1.7 billion for improving city services. A centerpiece is an agreement where businesses, foundations and the state will donate more than $800 million to soften cuts to retiree pensions. The so-called “Grand Bargain” would keep city-owned art from being sold to satisfy some debt.

Of the total unsecured debt, the city owes $5.7 billion in retiree health care obligations and $3.5 billion in pension liabilities.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me