<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Bing:  No Selling of  City  Assets</title>
		<description>Discuss Bing:  No Selling of  City  Assets</description>
		<link>http://www.michronicleonline.com/index.php/top-news/5465-bing-no-selling-of-city-assets</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 10:59:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.michronicleonline.com/index.php/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/5465" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>COMMENT_TITLE_R E Bing:  No Selling of  City  Assets</title>
			<link>http://www.michronicleonline.com/index.php/top-news/5465-bing-no-selling-of-city-assets#comment-585</link>
			<description><![CDATA[the problem in making the case for Detroit to give away all of its jewels in exchange for “a healthy financial future” is that there is no real guarantee that selling city assets is enough to make Detroit financially solvent. There is no precedent to show that, in fact, when city assets are sold, those cities become eternally strong financially.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ed Franks</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:58:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.michronicleonline.com/index.php/top-news/5465-bing-no-selling-of-city-assets#comment-585</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
