Justice

Beyond Flint: Should States Take Over in an Emergency?

Many cities can’t avoid interference, and state legislators like it that way.
U.S. Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) (3rd R) addresses a news conference about potential legislation in response to the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) (L-R), Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) and Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), at the U.S. Capitol in Washington January 28, 2016. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Emergency managers have no fan clubs. They are representatives of a takeover, sometimes hostile, of a city by a state when the city proves unable to get its finances in order. Emergency managers are often given sweeping powers that trump those of all elected officials, including mayors. They are the “fixers,” brought in to solve irreconcilable fiscal problems. And they are not uncommonly curt in their methods, as time and bond ratings are critical factors.

They don’t always fix problems, though. Occasionally, they make them worse, such as in Flint, Michigan, a city that has endured four different state-appointed emergency managers lording over the city in the past five years alone. At least two of those managers were involved in the regrettable decision to draw water from the corrosive Flint River, which they rationalized as financially prudent. Now, there’s a rising consensus that no one person should have all that power.