  Detroitman Member Username: Detroitman Post Number: 1070 Registered: 06-2004 |
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20070729/NEW S05/707290583 | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 6291 Registered: 02-2004 |
It may work. But the white folks in that community may have to deal with a growing black communities of R.O.T. and Oak Park. This is NOT a race issue, but a issue to saving property tax base. Maybe Detroit could annex the rest of Harper Woods, the five Grosse Pointes, Hamtramck, Highland Park, River Rouge, Ecorse, Melvindale, Allen Park, Dearborn Heights, Dearborn and Redford TWP. The city population would be to a million in no time. | ||
Number1 Member Username: Number1 Post Number: 12 Registered: 07-2007 |
Merging municipalities sounds like a great idea. It would make it much easier to get things done in the metro area. It would cause people to think about whats good for the region instead of their 2 square mile city. Merged municipalities would also lead to better, more ambitious mayors and city councils because each merged city would have a larger talent pool for candidates. Merging the inner ring suburbs with the city and creating a new Detroit city council based on districts would do wonders for the city although this is very unlikely to happen. It is likely that many suburbs will merge however. | ||
Scs100 Member Username: Scs100 Post Number: 1282 Registered: 12-2006 |
quote: Not gonna happen for a long time, if ever. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5858 Registered: 10-2003 |
The Pointes don't need to be part of Detroit. They already work together on quite a few services, and are large enough to function as a single entity if they ever wanted to. It would be nice to see a Greater Royal Oak, though. To allay some of the fears of a loss of character, the greater city could keep the boundaries of the current municipalities as official city neighborhoods, perhaps with their own advisory councils. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2887 Registered: 11-2003 |
That's what they want you to believe. If size has any bearing on efficency, then the largest municipality (Read: Detroit), should have the most efficient and cost effective services. It does not. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 6297 Registered: 02-2004 |
You know what forumers. Let Detroit annex all of the suburbs. Then we have a population almost bigger than Los Angeles. (3.8 Million) Detroit pop. ( 3,897,997) 91% white 4% black 2% Hispanic 1.9% Asian 1% other (Message edited by danny on July 29, 2007) | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1188 Registered: 02-2006 |
If Detroit annexed the suburbs, the Black residents of Detroit alone (around 720,000) would make up 18% of the population "new" Detroit. Your math is awful. | ||
Douglasm Member Username: Douglasm Post Number: 895 Registered: 10-2003 |
We deal indirectly with that issue in the small Washington town I'm a city councilman in. What many small towns that have given up or consolidated some city services see is a loss of local control. Our police services, for example, are provided by the county, but it's very difficult to get them to enforce some local ordinances, or to get the fire district to focus on our little town when they've got over 1,000 square miles to worry about. Like the article says, it seems to work best is in things like library and health districts. | ||
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina Post Number: 30 Registered: 12-2004 |
In 2000, the Tri-County area had 4,043,467 people, of which 1,011,038 were black. That's a little more than 25% of the total population. | ||
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina Post Number: 31 Registered: 12-2004 |
Douglasm, this is an area of about 38 sq. mi. not 1,000+ sq. mi. In comparison Livonia and Sterling Heights are both about 36 sq. mi. If Livonia and Sterling Heights are able to effectively administer their 36 sq. mi. areas than a combined Royal Oak could do just as well if not better. (Message edited by hudkina on July 29, 2007) | ||
Urbanize Member Username: Urbanize Post Number: 1940 Registered: 02-2007 |
I do think Detroit Could Annex Highland Park, Hamtramack, and Harper Woods overtime. That would help the Population. | ||
Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider Post Number: 497 Registered: 08-2006 |
No it wouldnt both Highland Park and Hamtramck had 60k+ at peak and now are near 20k. plus Harper Woods only has about 10k people itself. these are all +/- numbers but are nothing compared to Detroit. I think consolidation sounds good on paper. If cities want to sure go ahead. But if smaller cities can exist on their own just fine who are we to say they cant do that anymore. Besides today it is neighborhood associations that are the bigger problem. No small cities incorporate anymore anyways. There are just dozens of segregated subdivisions with or with out associations that most people return home to at the end of the day in most newer out lying areas. | ||
Douglasm Member Username: Douglasm Post Number: 896 Registered: 10-2003 |
Good point Hudkina, but the problem again becomes one of lack of local control. I don't think you'd be able to get the cities to merge, which would be the only truely effective way to combine major services like police and fire. | ||
Urbanize Member Username: Urbanize Post Number: 1941 Registered: 02-2007 |
^^^I should have said those would be the most likely Detroit Annexing occurring anytime soon. | ||
Fareastsider Member Username: Fareastsider Post Number: 499 Registered: 08-2006 |
How far out will we go before we stop and try to organize the metro area....I say development will be well north of I69 by then. | ||
Urbanize Member Username: Urbanize Post Number: 1942 Registered: 02-2007 |
^^^What? I and many others could have swore that the sprawl was already well north of I69 (Lapeer and St. Clair Counties). Heck, by now, our Metro Area would be ppushing toward Saginaw and Lansing (Flint might as well be included in the Metro like Ann Arbor, Toledo and Monroe). (Message edited by Urbanize on July 29, 2007) | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 597 Registered: 07-2004 |
Forget merging. Just form a METROPOLITAN GOV. Metro Government is the way to go at first. METROPOLITAN DETROIT GOV -Covering Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland counties Following services would be provided metropolitan wide -Metro Police -Metro Transit -Metro Fire and Emergancy services -Metro Low income housing -Metro School District -Metro Parks District -Metro Waste Disposal | ||
Sturge Member Username: Sturge Post Number: 51 Registered: 05-2007 |
Only city I see merging with Detroit would by Hamtramck since its surrounded. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 461 Registered: 04-2006 |
It was the SMART and DDOT merger called DARTA that not only cost Livonia bus service but also a hefty permanent tax increase. | ||
Detroit313 Member Username: Detroit313 Post Number: 412 Registered: 02-2006 |
No city would/should merge with Detroit. Why? Detroit has been poorly run for the past 30 years(Excluding the Archer Admin.) Why? What benefits would any city gain with a merger WITH Detroit? The only services that should be regionalized are: 1. Transit 2. Parks and Recreation | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5862 Registered: 10-2003 |
Detroit doesn't need anymore land to manage. If anything, it's one of the very rare cases where municipal fracturing should be discussed. The merging that needs to be discussed is all in the suburbs. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 635 Registered: 07-2006 |
My parents live in Grand Blanc, where there was a recent attempt to consolidate with the township. His rational, which i found hard to argue with, was that now his vote is 1 out of 8,000, but if it was combined, he would only be 1 out of 43000. He wasn't willing to accept his vote being diluted that much, even if his taxes did go down significantly. He feels that now, when he goes down to city hall, he's listened to, and has a quick response to any problems he has, but sees no reason to believe it would remain that way with a merged city - they would just be too busy to deal with him. They already cooperate on some things, when it can improve service for both communities - the volunteer fire department, for example, runs as one, as does the parks & rec department. Where they feel there is little to gain (police, for one), they don't. Cooperation that results in improved services for everyone at a lower cost makes sense. But that doesn't mean they have to merge to accomplish that. Also, the claim that merging will save money isn't necessarily true. Right now, if one community wants a particular service, they can get it. if another doesn't, they don't. in a merged city, even those who don't want it, may end up with both the service and the bill. So who is saving money? The other option is that someone will no longer get a service they have become accustomed to. How does a merger benefit them? It doesn't. Someone loses out either way. Any savings is not necessarily in administration, either. As one guy in the article pointed out, you may only need one police chief, but then you need several assistants that you didn't need before. Not to mention, a chief of a larger force can command higher pay than that of a smaller city. And who really expects the government bureaucracy to shrink? It may look good on paper, but paper and reality rarely agree. | ||
Douglasm Member Username: Douglasm Post Number: 897 Registered: 10-2003 |
My point exactly..... | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 598 Registered: 07-2004 |
Merging even if it does not save money, is still good because it makes people think regionally. Metro Detroit is really one city. It is time people stopped acting like they live in seperate cities. Merging could bring more people together. One thing though, is not to merge to many suburbs together, because then you end up with the Toronto problem of having MEGA burbs, which have to much power and can overshadow the city in some ways. Last thing you want is a suburb like Toronto's Mississauga, with 700,000 people. But merging is good. In Toronto's case merging was done over a period of almost 50 years. The area that is now the "City of Toronto" proper, started out with 13 municipalities before 1953. Over the years, different places were merged in with each other, untill the final merging in the late 90's, in which all inner suburbs were merged in with the City of Toronto. However there was the Metro Gov before that. It should be noted that even before the final merger, services were already provided regionally by the METRO Gov. Here are the services METRO provided. -Welfare, homes for the aged, children's services (ie. child care) Metro Toronto Welfare and Social Services -Policing: Metro Toronto Police -Public transit: Toronto Transit Commission -Regional parks including the Toronto Islands, waterfront park and valley parks systems: Metro Toronto Parks and Property -Metro Toronto Planning - Regional planning -Metro Toronto Treasury -Metro Toronto Clerk -Metro Toronto Legal -Metro Toronto Personnel -Arterial roads and expressways: Metro Toronto Roads and Transportation -Ambulance services: Metro Toronto Ambulance -Sewage treatment, water filtration and distribution: Metro Toronto Works -solid waste disposal (but not collection, which was a lower-tier responsibility) -Social services, hostels, public housing, children's services: Metro Toronto Community Services and Metro Toronto Hostel Services Division -The Metropolitan Toronto Library Board, which directly operated the Metro Toronto Reference Library and provided coordination between the municipal public libraries within Metro -Metro Toronto Audit In addition, the following agencies were Metro government agencies: -Metro Toronto Zoo (now Toronto Zoo) -Hummingbird Centre (formerly the O'Keefe Centre) for the Performing Arts -Exhibition Place (Message edited by miketoronto on July 30, 2007) | ||
El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 265 Registered: 12-2006 |
We NEED to have some mergers. In my opinion, there are too many chiefs and not enough indians in the local government in SE Michigan. Everyone is so damned concerned about their own little fiefdom that they lose site of the regional and global opportunities out there. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 565 Registered: 12-2006 |
Didn't we have a thread about this, not too awfully long ago? Ontario is doing this in a big way, but it's being done as a push: the Provincial government says to all the communities in a region, "Thou Shalt Merge", and it happens. I don't think the Michigan constitution allows the State to do such a thing (not that anybody pays attention to constitutions anymore), and I can't begin to believe for one second that very many suburban communities would be interested in a big regional merger. I also don't think it would help at all. I can see some benefit to some of the smaller suburban communities joining up, such as the "Greater Royal Oak" concept floated earlier in the thread, but the local politicos won't be willing to give up their phony-baloney jobs, and the state can't force 'em as far as I can see. So, all in all, I think we're fantasizing here. | ||
Arc312 Member Username: Arc312 Post Number: 44 Registered: 01-2006 |
I currently am an intern working with a county government (Central MI Area) that has recently created a county-wide strategic plan. While it was not written, the possibility of pushing the idea of consolidation was discussed as a way to at the very least maintain the current level of services given the current state of affairs in Michigan. However, this particular county has taken to the idea that regardless of the situation, if the county’s residents are not behind the idea it will not work. This is the same for Metro Detroit. Lets be honest, history has shown us that the suburbs are more willing to work with other suburbs…in most cases. In time, when City-Suburb cooperation is feasible, it will happen. Sadly even 40 years after the riot and even decades more after the decline of Detroit, suburban-city cooperation will not work given the social, racial, and economic disparities for an EQUALLY beneficial relationship to occur. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 3 Registered: 07-2007 |
"And who really expects the government bureaucracy to shrink? It may look good on paper, but paper and reality rarely agree." I'll bet that a single Michigan city or township serving the same population as the City of Grand Blanc and Grand Blanc Township does it with fewer people and with lower total cost than the two municipalities do with their current governments. There's no reason that the area of a single geographic township can't be served by a single government and still be responsive and cost-effective. See the cities of Portage and Sterling Heights or the Townships of Canton and Shelby to see how it's done. The biggest problem in Grand Blanc is the lack of planning and coordination due to it taking place between the city and township. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 571 Registered: 12-2006 |
Shoot, Novine, there's no reason that the area of four townships can't be served effectively by a single government. In Kent County, Ontario, the County government and all the cities and villages that used to exist have all been merged into the Municipality of Chatham-Kent (Chatham having been the largest pre-merger city), and it's working quite well so far as I have been able to determine. The point is, Michigan does not have any effective vehicle to force it to happen, and I maintain it will not happen without force. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 600 Registered: 07-2004 |
Its funny. But Michigan's anti merger views must have spilled over into Windsor. I say this, because Windsor is the only city in Ontario that basically did not get merged in with its suburbs, during the merging craze of the late 1990's. Every other city including many rural areas merged, except for Windsor.  | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 5 Registered: 07-2007 |
"The point is, Michigan does not have any effective vehicle to force it to happen, and I maintain it will not happen without force." That's probably true as far as existing legislation. But I don't think there's a constitutional obstacle as was mentioned earlier. Municipalities derive their powers from the state and it's a well-established legal principle that states can create, merge or abolish local units of government as they wish. I think you're right that 90% of consolidations would require it to be imposed by the state but I don't think there's anything preventing the state from doing that other than lack of will and the politics involved. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 573 Registered: 12-2006 |
Novine, here's an explanation of the difference between Michigan and every other state: Michigan has "home rule" written into the State constitution. Let me quote Wikipedia's decent explanation: "Local units of government in the United States are created by the various states. Such local governments may go by various names in the several states. It is entirely possible for a state to totally abolish any or all local units of government. In the case of Michigan, the state government is specifically restricted under the state's constitution as to how it may interact with local governments and may not alter the boundaries of a local government without a vote by the affected residents." So, no, Michigan (unlike other states) cannot abolish or even alter local units of government. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 6302 Registered: 02-2004 |
Miketoronto, Since Windsor has annexed most of its suburbs. Will it be possible to annex the rest of Sandwich TWP? | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 9 Registered: 07-2007 |
"In the case of Michigan, the state government is specifically restricted under the state's constitution as to how it may interact with local governments and may not alter the boundaries of a local government without a vote by the affected residents." I would say that Wikipedia is wrong. The State Boundary Commission alters the boundaries of local governments without it being put up to a vote. Where does it get that authority? It's delegated to it by the Legislature. Likewise, local governments have authority to alter their common boundaries without putting it to a vote. Where do they get that authority? From the Legislature. I know the Michigan constitution discusses home rule authority but I don't believe it has that requirement at all. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 1244 Registered: 04-2006 |
In the case of Michigan, the state government is specifically restricted under the state's constitution as to how it may interact with local governments and may not alter the boundaries of a local government without a vote by the affected residents. How did the state take over the Detroit school board, Highland Park and Hamtramck? | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 574 Registered: 12-2006 |
The school board is not a local government. In the cases of HP and Hamtramck, and others, the State did not "take over" but rather appointed an emergency financial manager to oversee finances during a fiscal crisis as provided for in state law; the existence of the local government continued unimpeded and the boundaries of the communities were not altered. Novine, give me an example where the State Boundary Commission has altered the boundaries of a local government without a vote since the 1908 constitution? Also, a local government can alter its boundary with another if both agree, but that is the local governments agreeing to it, which is exactly my point. The State can't do it without local approval. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 640 Registered: 07-2006 |
Article VII, § 34 Construction of constitution and law concerning counties, townships, cities, villages. The provisions of this constitution and law concerning counties, townships, cities and villages shall be liberally construed in their favor. Powers granted to counties and townships by this constitution and by law shall include those fairly implied and not prohibited by this constitution. I would imagine that city boundaries would be part of that. the boundary commission can oversee it and resolve disputes, but it cannot unilaterally demand cities to merge without input by the cities' residents themselves. However, boundary alterations do not need to be put up to a vote, that only happens if 25% of the population signs a petition opposing such a move, at least in the case of annexation. I'm not sure how it would work in the case of actual cities merging, but given that cities generally have more powers than townships, i expect that if there is any difference, it would be more restrictive. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 10 Registered: 07-2007 |
"Novine, give me an example where the State Boundary Commission has altered the boundaries of a local government without a vote since the 1908 constitution?" Every annexation by a city of township property approved by the SBC is an alteration of boundaries of both governments. Also, County Boards can approve annexations by General Law Villages, which are not subject to the SBC. In any case, all of these actions take place because they are authorized by state law. By what authority would any annexation or merger take place without that authority being spelled out in the law? | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 577 Registered: 12-2006 |
You're missing my original point, though, which is a merger can only occur if the local governments agree to it, which I believe will never happen. The State cannot force it on them. Nothing you have said contradicts that central idea. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 13 Registered: 07-2007 |
I guess you're missing mine. The laws that say that cities have to agree to a merger were passed by the Legislature. The Legislature could just as easily re-write the laws to say that no agreement is required for a merger to take place or to dictate that the merger is going to occur even if residents oppose it. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees voters a vote on the boundaries of their community. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 5884 Registered: 10-2003 |
I think you're both missing each other's points. Professorscott, I think, is saying that there is no political will (nor will their be down the road) to ever change the law to give the state more power in deciding issues of local governance. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 580 Registered: 12-2006 |
Yep, L, that's my point. Thanks for clarifying. | ||
Hpgrmln Member Username: Hpgrmln Post Number: 66 Registered: 06-2007 |
Clawson might as well merge with Troy. They fought hard enough to keep their police department, but Troy now does all the dispatch work for Clawson and Clawson has to use Troys station and jail during nighttime hours. Plus, with open enrollment in effect, a large percentage of Clawsons kids attend Troy schools.The Clawson school district has been more or less abandoned. | ||
Trainman Member Username: Trainman Post Number: 472 Registered: 04-2006 |
There are people who think that merging SMART and DDOT would save lots of money and get us more federal transit grants. Much evidence proves otherwise. |
