There have been a few large cities go bankrupt in recent history. In Alabama the city of
Birmingham spent on non-essential projects while needed utility maintenance was set aside. Eventually the city found itself hundreds of millions of dollars in the hole and unable or unwilling to raise revenue to meet obligations.
Stockton California recently made the
news as the largest city to file bankruptcy but it is not the only large
city in California to have leaders put it into financial straights.
- Will cities be better off in the long run if they are forced by bankruptcy to only focus on the most basic needs such as police, fire protection, streets?
- Should your city borrow money for some things while other services are in need?
- Do civic leaders in your area equate the cost of interest rates on bonds to taxes that must be collected?
Of all the things that many people consider that ONLY a city can do, at least one town has
outsourced it's police work! Could some services be done by contract and would this allow competition so cities have choice in the services they use?
