 
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 4283
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 4:23 pm: |    |
OK, so the article is based on some guys who are trying to sell some books. Here is a good quote:
"And in most cases, sprawling developments do not generate enough property taxes to cover these added costs."
First of all, they provide no data to back up their claim, second of all, there are other revenues that come in besides property taxes as I already mentioned. Thirdly, they do not appear to be factoring in potential population growth.
quote:Does it seem reasonable that sprawling development like this new mall is able to generate tax revenues of $50,000 per person in the next twenty years?
The problem here is you are trying to apply a figure that was derived from some vague data encompassing all of Sacremento CA to a mall being built in Clinton Township MI. Now that is not really intellectually honest is it?
(Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 24, 2007) |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3557
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 4:40 pm: | |
quote:First of all, they provide no data to back up their claim, second of all, there are other revenues that come in besides property taxes as I already mentioned. Thirdly, they do not appear to be factoring in potential population growth.
Again, if revenues exceeded costs, we wouldn't have to worry about backlogged highway repairs, lack of funding for transit, budget deficits, cuts to education funding. The State would be rolling in dough. This is intuitive enough for a junior high kid to understand.
If you want to know what happens in an area with a growing population, look at Northern Virginia. Jesus, what a disaster. You have some of the wealthiest counties in the U.S. clustered together, and they can't keep up with school construction, road repairs, or transit funding, because SPRAWL COSTS MONEY TO BUILD.
Virginia now allows its localities to charge developer impact fees to cover these costs (as Maryland already did). The reality is, these fees run a good $30,000+ per home, and it makes the market that much softer. These fees typically only cover "hard" costs, though, like sewers, roads, and schools. Externalities, like added pollution to the Chesapeake Bay and destruction of native habitats, are ignored. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 4297
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 4:59 pm: | |
The state has other costs besides infrastructure, you apparently never even got to junior high level. Virginia is doing quite well, I don't hear anyone complaining but you. I get calls for job opportunities from there all of the time.
You don't like sprawl and that is fine for you. But life goes on. Everything costs money, including re-building cities like Detroit that were left to rot.
(Message edited by perfectgentleman on October 24, 2007) |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3558
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 7:41 pm: | |
quote:The state has other costs besides infrastructure, you apparently never even got to junior high level. Virginia is doing quite well, I don't hear anyone complaining but you. I get calls for job opportunities from there all of the time.
Virginia also makes sure to balance their budget so they can maintain their bond rating. The Commonwealth still suffers from hundreds of millions of dollars of unmet transportation needs, and the traffic congestion in NoVa is legendary. I don't know that I'd plunk down half a million bucks for a house just to drive 1-1/2 hours to work everyday. |
Detroit_stylin
Member
Username: Detroit_stylin
Post Number: 5262
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 11:47 pm: | |
quote:You don't like sprawl and that is fine for you. But life goes on. Everything costs money, including re-building cities like Detroit that were left to rot.
Glad PG finally acknowledged it and didnt put the blame solely on the residents as he normally does.... |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 4306
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007 - 11:52 pm: | |
No, I acknowledge it isn't just the residents. City government is incompetent as well. Of course they are elected by the residents. It couldn't have been more foolish to elect Coleman Young for 5 terms even though he was a complete failure and presided over the decline of a once great city. |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 703
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 12:28 am: | |
Just to show how over retailed North America is.
Lets look at London, England. Metro London has over 12 million people. Yet look at this.
Harrods(London's Hudson's)
Only one location metro wide in central London.
Selfridges & Co Department Store
Only one location metro wide in Central London.
Lets even look at Metro Paris, which also is larger then Metro Detroit.
Galeries Lafayette Department store.
Only one metropitan location in central Paris on Blvd Haussmann.
Is it not funny how in North America we need the exact same store only 2min down the road at a different mall???????? |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4466
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 12:32 am: | |
Let's make Canada even better than the US by having them close down a fair percentage of its retail establishments. |
Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd
Post Number: 920
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 8:24 am: | |
PG,
There are a few very important aspects of this debate that have not been clearly addressed.
First off, the discussion on this tread has gone into a "city of Detroit vs outer suburb" debate that is not very realistic, and ignores pragmatism in favor of dogma.
In reality, this new mall will have no impact on the city of Detroit. Retailers in the city will not lose customers to this new mall. City residents will not move 25 miles away just to be close to this new mall. The existing suburban malls and suburban retailers are the ones that will be hurt by this.
Suburban expansion is no longer being fueled by business and residents leaving the city. It is now happening at the expense of other suburbs. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3559
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 9:45 am: | |
Erikd, you make a good point. I don't see this phenomenon as any different than that which bled Detroit beginning in the 1950s. It's the same factors at work, just further from downtown. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1981
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 10:37 am: | |
Suburban expansion is no longer being fueled by business and residents leaving the city. It is now happening at the expense of other suburbs.
A point that I thought was implied, but apparently it wasn't. Thanks for splainin' to the folks in the back.
Maybe it will all eventually come full circle and make re-development in the city attractive again? Hopefully it happens before everything gets demo'd for parking structures. |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 304
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 10:41 am: | |
The assumption that expansion and development is a Zero Sum Game is rather unsupported though lheartted. That assumption also carries through in much of the suburb v. CoD threads but isn't always accurate. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3561
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 10:45 am: | |
quote:The assumption that expansion and development is a Zero Sum Game is rather unsupported though lheartted.
If population, incomes, and tax revenues are relatively static, then yes it IS a zero-sum game. |
Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd
Post Number: 921
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 10:50 am: | |
There is one other aspect of this debate that causes much confusion and misunderstanding....
The terms "sprawl" and "growth" are central to this debate, but they have very different meanings to the people involved in the discussion.
---------------
Some people think these terms have basically the same meaning, and equate sprawl with growth.
Some people consider any suburban expansion to be sprawl, regardless of any increase of population or economic expansion.
Some people define sprawl as suburban expansion without a corresponding increase in population, but they would consider suburban expansion as a result of increasing population to be growth.
The dictionary doesn't define these terms to that level of specificity, resulting in much confusion.
-------------
Considering the fact that we are discussing "sprawl" in metro Detroit, we need better clarification of this term.
There is a vast difference between "sprawl" in Las Vegas, and "sprawl" in Detroit. Las Vegas is "sprawling" as a result of massive population growth, while Detroit is "sprawling" as a result of a stagnant population vacating existing neighborhoods in favor of new neighborhoods.
Any attempt to equate these two situations can only lead to confusion and misunderstanding. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3562
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 10:56 am: | |
Sprawl is segregated use, automobile-dependent development. Population growth by itself doesn't cause sprawl, which is a popular misconception. Zoning regulations and investment in the necessary automobile-supportive infrastructure cause sprawl. Cities grew physically for hundreds of years without sprawling. The paradigm only changed after WWII. |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 306
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 11:05 am: | |
I'd disagree with DDC. By his rationale, if we were dependent on buses or mass-transit to get to a shopping mall at 32 mile, it's no longer sprawl.
One primary reason I don't view this new mall as sprawl is because it was already developed land. DaninDC obviously never drove by that area. It's infill, just not in Detroit. It's also not a Zero Sum Game because it's different stores. Different stores, different markets. Why different more upscale stores? Because incomes in that area were rising during the period the development was planned. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3563
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 11:16 am: | |
What would you call it then, UMCS? Urban? |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 310
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 11:20 am: | |
Suburban. No mistaking that. Prior to it being a mall though, it was a subdivision, golf course, and small retail. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3564
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 11:22 am: | |
The land is single-use, and access is strictly by automobile. Is that correct? If I had to guess, I'd venture to say there are acres and acres of free parking surrounding the place.
Sounds like textbook sprawl to me. |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 311
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 11:25 am: | |
DDC,
There's no debating with is there? Because they didn't put a train station in, it's sprawl despite the fact it took a less dense area and consolidated commercial and retail into a more compact area served by bus lines. Yes, that is horrible sprawl. God forbid should they do that to the former Hudson's site. The sprawl there on open ground is unacceptable because people would have to drive to the city. |
Xd_brklyn
Member
Username: Xd_brklyn
Post Number: 331
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 11:27 am: | |
quote:I did not say TCO was the largest in the world, I said it was the most successful. (There are several larger.)That's why Simon tried to acquire Taubman, whose centers have the highest per square foot sales in the industry, overall;centers have the highest per square foot sales in the industry, overall
3rdWorld: Fair enough, I was looking at Market Cap -Simon $22.2B, TCO $2.93B-as the qualifier.
Cheers |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3566
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 11:38 am: | |
quote:Because they didn't put a train station in, it's sprawl despite the fact it took a less dense area and consolidated commercial and retail into a more compact area served by bus lines.
Did I say as much? No. Your understanding of my argument would be helped if you stopped making so many inferences.
My question is this: what percentage of patrons at this mall will arrive on foot? On bicycle? On bus? Via any means other than private automobile?
Is there housing within walking distance? Offices? Parks? Schools? Or does it just kinda sit there by itself in the middle of a parking lagoon, isolated from the rest of the world? |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 312
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 11:52 am: | |
It actually is surrounded by office parks, other commercial retail strips, is backed by several subdivisions, and yes, parks. It is also close to a community college and within 3 miles of downtown Mt. Clemens.
If you go to Google Maps, type this into the address.
42.626128, -82.946692 @42.626128, -82.946692
The golf course is now a mall and other potential development sites. As for percentages of patrons arriving on foot, bike, bus, or other means, you've got to be kidding right? You can't do that in SE MI at all until the governments (state and local) get off their behinds and work together. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3567
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 11:59 am: | |
quote:As for percentages of patrons arriving on foot, bike, bus, or other means, you've got to be kidding right? You can't do that in SE MI at all until the governments (state and local) get off their behinds and work together.
That's the point. Thank you. Drive drive drive.
"Proximity" doesn't necessarily equate to "not sprawl". Downtown Mount Clemens is within 3 miles? Big whoop. I'd hate to tell you how much you could find within a 3 mile radius of a traditional neighborhood, because then I'd just be accused of elitism.
(Message edited by DaninDC on October 25, 2007) |
Umcs
Member
Username: Umcs
Post Number: 313
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 12:02 pm: | |
I've never said we don't need mass transit in SE MI. I've always been an advocate for intelligent mass transit options. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1985
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 12:05 pm: | |
"Proximity" doesn't necessarily equate to "not sprawl". Downtown Mount Clemens is within 3 miles? Big whoop. I'd hate to tell you how much you could find within a 3 mile radius of a traditional neighborhood, because then I'd just be accused of elitism.
I'll do it. To put it into perspective, at it's widest point, Manhattan is 2.5 miles wide. That point is somewhere in Midtown. Just think about all of the development and money in that 2.5 mile stretch of Midtown Manhattan. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3568
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 12:05 pm: | |
^The form of development has just as much to do with sprawl as transit. You could run buses up and down Hall Road every minute and a half. It would just be a waste of money.
Andres Duany has a good chapter on this very topic in "Suburban Nation". I think the chapter is called, "When nearby is far away" or something like that. |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 704
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 8:16 pm: | |
The only way to solve these problems is to get a strong Metropolitan form of government in Metro Detroit, that can impose a regional plan and stop this uneeded development. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 4343
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2007 - 9:04 pm: | |
Not gonna happen. |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 705
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 1:48 am: | |
It could happen if the state stands up to METRO DETROIT and mandates it for the better good of all people. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4475
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 2:14 am: | |
quote:It could happen if the state stands up to METRO DETROIT and mandates it for the better good of all people. Spoken like a real socialist Canadian. Maybe the US should use a page from that book and take over Ontario or the rest of Canada for its own betterment. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3576
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 1:34 pm: | |
I guess everyone in Portland, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and Louisville are all socialists too, huh? |
Steelworker
Member
Username: Steelworker
Post Number: 1019
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 1:58 pm: | |
i wish we had more socialist here |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 195
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 2:57 pm: | |
"there are other revenues that come in besides property taxes as I already mentioned"
This is true but ignores the fact that there's a complete mismatch between the costs and the revenue generated. For example, the primary revenue source for transportation infrastructure for local governments is gas taxes. But what locals get from gas taxes doesn't come close to paying for infrastructure costs, in large part due to the costs of maintaining the infrastructure demands caused by sprawl growth.
Here in Novi, (per city budget documents) the city will spend $11.5 million this year to maintain and improve local roads. That covers everything from basic road maintenance to upgrading and expanding roads to handle the demands from growth and bond payments for past major road projects. Of that total, around $3 million comes from gas taxes from the state. The rest is covered by local millages for roads and bond payments. That means the majority of the road costs are being covered by property taxes, not gas taxes. Most property tax payers do benefit directly or indirectly from such improvements. But without that revenue, the entire system would collapse as the city never gets enough money from gas taxes to cover costs.
I know that Rochester Hills is one community that's been unable to keep up with the local road needs because they don't have a dedicated road millage. It's not surprising because road maintenance is very expensive and sprawl leads communities to have more roads that they have to maintain while fewer dollars coming it to do it. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 4402
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 10:35 pm: | |
So the residents of Novi are funding their own infrastructure improvements through taxes. I guess I don't see the problem. Clearly more roads leads to more revenue, are people building roads to nowhere? No, they are either lined with businesses or homes, both of which generating tax revenue.
The suburban communities are in better shape financially than places like Detroit so apparently they are covering their expenses somehow. |
Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd
Post Number: 923
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 1:50 pm: | |
quote:Spoken like a real socialist Canadian. Maybe the US should use a page from that book and take over Ontario or the rest of Canada for its own betterment.
Maybe the US should take a few pages from the Canadian book for OUR betterment. I love America, but we are not a perfect country, superior to all others in every aspect.
Canada is a much more civilized country than America. The incredible amount of violent crime that plagues America just doesn't exist in Canada. The amount of crime in Canada is so much lower, most Americans can't even comprehend it. The reality of relatively crime-free large cites, such as Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Ottawa, is something that Americans dismissed as impossible long ago.
Do you realize that the entire COUNTRY of Canada, including all of the big cities mentioned above, had 50 FEWER murders than the CITY of Chicago in 2003.
As a 32 year old American, I have never lived in a county without rampant violent crime. There have been well over SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND people murdered in America during my first three decades of life. The only thing worse than this history of rampant violence is the fact that most Americans have come to accept it as normal. I don't have much hope for a solution in the near future. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 4423
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 2:05 pm: | |
So higher taxes and Universal Health Care that doesn't work too well is the answer to America's problems? What other gems of Canadian policy would benefit us? |
Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd
Post Number: 924
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 2:21 pm: | |
Right on cue, the all-or-nothing response is brought out...
I didn't even mention health care or taxes in my post.
What is your problem with Canada? Why do you resort to overly dramatic irrational bluster at the very mention of the country? |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 4425
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 2:37 pm: | |
I have nothing against Canada at all, you made an assertion that it is more "civilized" than the US and we should look to them to improve our own country. I was just wondering what exactly what policies they have that you think we should be adopting here? I can't think of any myself. |
Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd
Post Number: 925
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 2:46 pm: | |
Your ranting about high taxes, socialism, and government health care might be better directed towards the American government.
The American government spends a fortune to fund Medicare, Medicaid, prescription coverage, welfare, Social Security, and a host of other socialist programs.
Instead of an outright dismissal of every other viewpoint, it would be wise for us to look at other governments for better solutions. This doesn't mean that we must adopt the exact system from Canada, or any other country, but we should be looking at these other systems to see what works well, and what doesn't. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 4426
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 2:52 pm: | |
I am all for new solutions, I am just not seeing anything in Canada that is the cure for the problems we have here, especially as it relates to crime. There are plenty of good ideas that Americans have come up with we could try, and I don't see the federal government as having the answers as it has become bloated and incompetent.
There are lots of things that could be done in Detroit for example to combat crime that have worked elsewhere but we aren't going to see them implemented because city government and the residents would reject them. |
Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd
Post Number: 926
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 3:58 pm: | |
quote:I have nothing against Canada at all, you made an assertion that it is more "civilized" than the US and we should look to them to improve our own country. I was just wondering what exactly what policies they have that you think we should be adopting here? I can't think of any myself.
My statement that Canada is more "civilized" than the US is based on the fact that America has 3x more violent crime than Canada. IMO, more murders and violence is a big indicator of a less civilized country.
My suggestion that the US should look to Canada for improvement was a direct counter to your idiotic and offensive statement that "Maybe the US should use a page from that book and take over Ontario or the rest of Canada for its own betterment."
You must not realize how deeply offensive and arrogant your statement was. Do you realize that Canada is a very strong ally of the US, and one of our biggest trade partners? Do you understand the fact that Canada is a sovereign nation, and not some kind of US controlled territory?
How dare you suggest the US should take over Canada "for its own betterment"? What makes you think that Canada is inferior to the US? You need to check yourself.
The last thing Canada needs is an ignorant blowhard from the most fucked up state in America telling them how to run their country. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 4431
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 4:05 pm: | |
You are getting me and LY mixed up, clearly he was using some sarcasm, no need to blow a gasket. |
Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd
Post Number: 927
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 4:29 pm: | |
quote:I am all for new solutions, I am just not seeing anything in Canada that is the cure for the problems we have here, especially as it relates to crime.
Good point. There is obviously nothing we could learn about reducing crime from a country with far lower crime rates.
quote:There are plenty of good ideas that Americans have come up with we could try, and I don't see the federal government as having the answers as it has become bloated and incompetent.
Hmmm... We have some good ideas we could try, but the federal government is too bloated and incompetent.
quote:There are lots of things that could be done in Detroit for example to combat crime that have worked elsewhere but we aren't going to see them implemented because city government and the residents would reject them.
Please tell us more about these great crime fighting ideas that work elsewhere, but are blocked by city government and residents in Detroit.
I would also like to know why these great ideas haven't been implemented in Chicago, LA, New Orleans, St. Louis, Newark, Philly, and all the other high-crime areas in America. Is there a nation-wide trend of local governments and residents fighting against these amazing crime-fighting ideas? |
Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd
Post Number: 928
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 4:38 pm: | |
PG,
I apologize for my inclusion of the comment from LY in my response to you. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 4433
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 5:08 pm: | |
quote:Please tell us more about these great crime fighting ideas that work elsewhere, but are blocked by city government and residents in Detroit.
The ideas that reduced crime in NYC by 56% that Giuliani and Bill Bratton implemented. Broken Windows Policing, Compstat to name a couple. A strong leader that is willing to take on the special interests groups in the city and make hard choices. Of course a man like Giuliani would never be elected in Detroit.
Ideas like this have been implemented and have worked. The reason they are not implemented in places like New Orleans and Detroit is that the residents would never vote for candidates that would be for them. They prefer candidates that blame others for the problems in their cities.
It is only recently that Kilpatrick has realized how foolish this is and is now trying to hold people accountable for their actions, predictably he is being condemned for that by many. |
Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd
Post Number: 929
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 5:41 pm: | |
quote:The ideas that reduced crime in NYC by 56% that Giuliani and Bill Bratton implemented.
These ideas worked great in NYC, but cities around the country have not been able to duplicate this success.
quote:The reason they are not implemented in places like New Orleans and Detroit is that the residents would never vote for candidates that would be for them. They prefer candidates that blame others for the problems in their cities.
That's bullshit. No other large American city has been able to duplicate the success in NYC. Even Chicago couldn't make it happen.
Your assertion that cities like Detroit and New Orleans could enact crime fighting strategies like NYC, but choose not to, in favor of blaming others for the problems, is also bullshit.
NYC is the largest and richest city in America, and the financial capital of the world. NYC has an incredible amount of resources that simply do not exist in cities like Detroit and New Orleans. |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 4435
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 5:53 pm: | |
Of course they choose not to, Detroit is doing nothing meaningful relative to crime. The stats are what they are. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4486
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 6:02 pm: | |
The high crime rate in Michigan is not restricted to Detroit, although its rate is the worst. Thirty percent of Michigan's 54,000 state workers are in Corrections. Any get-tough action on crime is going to be terribly expensive, considering the relatively high number of savages throughout the state. Michigan cannot readily afford footing the bill for many things in addition to crime-related costs.
(Message edited by LivernoisYard on October 28, 2007) |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 4436
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 6:09 pm: | |
LY -
It would be expensive, but I don't really see the city making it a priority either. Government has choices to make when it spends, public safety should be at the top of the list IMO.
If more funds are needed, then Kilpatrick, Granholm, Levin and Stabenow should be trying harder to get federal money. We are a net federal tax donor and we should not be. There are also better ways to utilize the resources we have and that is also not happening.
We need a hard-nosed police chief in the city and I don't think Ella Bully-Cummings fits the bill. |
Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd
Post Number: 930
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 6:27 pm: | |
quote:Of course they choose not to, Detroit is doing nothing meaningful relative to crime. The stats are what they are.
So Detroit is not effectively fighting crime because they just choose not to do it?
You don't think the reduction of our police force, caused by declining tax revenue, plays a role?
You don't think the federal war on drugs, resulting in street wars fought in our cities, plays a role? |
Perfectgentleman
Member
Username: Perfectgentleman
Post Number: 4437
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 6:56 pm: | |
So crime related to drugs is the federal government's fault? That's a new one. Detroit could be doing much more to combat crime, they are not making it a top priority and haven't for years. It isn't just a funding issue, it is a question of the approach. |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.