 
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3970
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 9:47 pm: |    |
I will read that link.
Trust me, it's just as quiet 200 yards away on the other side of Mack. There are at least a few neighborhoods in the city where you have big backyards and quiet settings. The city has plenty of parks, with Belle Isle at the top of the list.
The luxury that my family sought by getting a house 200 yards outside the border was good public schools.
You can see how difficult it is for me to understand people who think it is safer/better to be 30 miles away from the city as opposed to 15 miles away, when, from my standpoint, you can work around the downfalls of the city by moving to the innermost suburbs. |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 561
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 9:49 pm: | |
How is it safer out there with all the irritated animals getting booted out by these dumb people?
In recent years, the forest animals have been coming back into the suburbs and reclaiming their land with whatever it takes. Like the Fox incident recently in Plymouth. |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 734
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 10:06 pm: | |
The city can be very quiet and peacefull. I think a lot of people forget that most city dwellers live in homes, with yards, etc. Most do not live the Manhattan lifestyle.
My sisters live 5min from downtown Toronto, and when you sit in their yard, all you hear is birds. No huge traffic sounds or anything. And why? Because there is no highways 
Cities really are not noisy unless you live in the core downtown.
I hear more noise in the suburbs, then in core inner city neighbourhoods. And again, it has to do with there being less fast moving traffic, etc. And hey fire trucks you hear everywhere, city or burbs. |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 735
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 10:12 pm: | |
Some news today about sprawl from the Toronto newspapers.
----
Ontario's planners says communities must prepare for car-less future
By Michael Oliveira, THE CANADIAN PRESS
CNews
TORONTO - Towns and cities must start planning ahead for a future where the car is a thing of the past, and a first step toward that reality would be creating more public transit for communities, says a new report by the Ontario Professional Planners Institute.
Municipalities must be forward-thinking enough to address their current needs without saddling future leaders with problems that are difficult to fix, said institute president Wayne Caldwell.
He said there must be an emphasis on building transportation networks and curbing problems with urban sprawl, which is contributing to obesity and has the potential to reduce life expectancy for future generations.
"We need to look at the opportunities to focus on building transit ... realizing that the things that have driven us in the past, particularly related to the automobile, are things of the past," Caldwell said.
"It's not to say that automobiles won't be important in the future, but I think we all have an awareness and appreciation of the increasing energy costs and the congestion that flows out of that and the need to do things differently in the future."
Institute president-elect Sue Cumming said communities should work to make everyday life more pedestrian-friendly so people can go about there lives without having to rely on cars.
The report, entitled "Healthy Communities, Sustainable Communities," suggests about 2.4 million Ontario residents live in areas where they have few options for transportation beyond a car because that's just the way many communities have been designed.
The report also suggests fewer children are likely to walk to school today compared to past generations, and that has an effect on their health.
"In terms of our children's abilities to live a long and full life, that is now at risk," Cumming said.
"As we've learned from the public health officials that we've been working with, this is very much determinate on your postal code."
The Ontario Professional Planners Institute's more than 2,700 members work for governments, private industry and academic institutions. |
Craig
Member
Username: Craig
Post Number: 407
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 10:35 pm: | |
Mack - "immature." Really? Imposition of "one size fits all" urban living was the hallmark of the planned economies (reds). Talk with some who had to live just as they were told and you'll see that when freedom came the vision that you advocate was abandoned as quickly as possible.
Give it a few years (say, mature) and maybe you'll appreciate diversity of options. |
Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover
Post Number: 2728
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 10:45 pm: | |
I appreciate your thoughts Mike in Toronto.Toronto essentially is now what Detroit was seventy or so years ago.Back then people from Toronto came to Detroit for culture and a taste of a U.S. big city. Now it is almost the opposite with Toronto being a destination city.
Mackinaw, I think the main difference is that those people in Detroit have a greater apprehension than where your family lives.The people in Detroit even near you area are not gonna have the level of services and sense of safety that your family does. Now I realize that more shit happens in a big city; but is there any real valid argument against the degree that crime has permeated Detroit?
Here is another article or op-ed on crime reduction.
http://www.city-journal.org/ht ml/17_4_skid_row.html
I post this not as an exact example but again as an idea. Give people a good reason to come back and I believe they would. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3971
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 11:38 pm: | |
I look at your second paragraph, and while it's valid, I think it's missing the point of the thread.
I am calling out the people up at M59 and beyond (I guess that means I-69 these days) for thinking that the "crime" and "noise" of the city can be escaped only if you are sufficiently far away from the city when in fact you can move 2 minutes past the city to solve those problems, or, even more mind-boggling, you could find an enclave within the city that satisfies those things.
Great point, Mike. High speed traffic, which is much more prevalent in the suburbs because of highways and collector roads, make most suburbs noisier.
I feel like this discussion has been carried out so many times already on D-yes. But I think trying to figure out just why M59 is better than 12 mile to some people, or why Holly is better than Auburn Hills-- basically, to get at the crux of the psychosis that is the sprawling impulse-- is what we are discussing here, and it is very important.
I'm not saying that people should be confronted with:"urban life or wilderness, take your pick." I don't hope to persuade the people who are moving to Holly from Troy to move to Detroit instead. I want to persuade them against wonton and needless consumption of land, fuel, and building supplies-- and everyone's tax dollars which enable their move-- and try to get them to stay put, or to buy an existing home somewhere, anywhere. I'm just scratching my head and wondering about this ongoing process which typifies our throwaway society. |
Michigan_snowflake
Member
Username: Michigan_snowflake
Post Number: 5
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 11:51 pm: | |
No JL, some small towns actually have laws in place that prevent paving of roads, street lights etc. See, its voted on by the people who live here. The town works with the people to keep it rural, keep out big box stores, keep the road from being paved. Some people choose to live this way and vote to keep it that way. |
Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover
Post Number: 2729
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 1:03 am: | |
Mackinaw, perhaps it is not so much a "getting away" from the city as it is leaving an area that does not have much to offer.
Perhaps, unlike you I don't feel strongly about where people choose to live.Like you and again I don't know for certain I would like to see people populate areas that are already equipped i.e. infrastructure_ water systems,sewer systems etc. My point is that until we make those areas attractive, especially the city of Detroit it will not happen.And it is unfair to expect people to compromise their safety or sense of safety.
I hate to end this post on a depressing note.But as long as the idiots that are the city council are in power nothing will change. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3722
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 2:17 am: | |
quote:Mack - "immature." Really? Imposition of "one size fits all" urban living was the hallmark of the planned economies (reds). Talk with some who had to live just as they were told and you'll see that when freedom came the vision that you advocate was abandoned as quickly as possible.
Give it a few years (say, mature) and maybe you'll appreciate diversity of options.
I frankly don't understand this. There is absolutely nothing "one-size-fits-all" about living in an urban environment. You can inhabit an apartment, condo, townhouse, or detached home. You can walk, bicycle, take the bus or train, get a cab, or drive. Population density leads to a greater variety of businesses within a small area. And if you want or need to change jobs, your commute isn't necessarily drastically impacted.
All I see in sprawl suburbs is detached vinyl-clad homes, big-box stores, and chain restaurants. You have to drive everywhere you go. How is that representative of greater diversity and freedom of choice? |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3972
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 2:39 am: | |
I love how my views were tied to communism, and how "one size fits all" is how urban living is characterized. Dan correctly points out the flaw in that. The most vibrant market in the world, New York City, is also America's most intensely urban realm. It has not become so successful by being one size fits all.
I believe in respecting and working within markets, especially as a student of economics. That does not mean we ignore negative outcomes of peoples' collective actions. Furthermore, we need to look at how government action enables/limits certain activity. Everyone knows that the government subsidizes suburban sprawl. That's a bit more than enabling freedom. The government has tools such as taxes, subsidies, and incentive programs to shape market outcomes, especially with externalities and effects that actions in one market have on other markets in mind. For instance, if a population decides that pollution is bad and the use of cars should not be fostered because of CO2 effects, or that sprawl is not aesthetically pleasing, or that there should be limits to the amount of greenfield development that is allowed in a place, the government can use its tools to channel demand or straight-up regulate a market. It's possible to believe in market economies and recognize a role for the government at the same time...and not be a communist. Let's put it this way: we should have planned cities and metros, but not planned economies. |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 737
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 9:33 am: | |
Lets also get one thing straight. The current suburban sprawl is being dictated to you by your government. Suburban sprawl is not some "market driven demand" for the most part. It is there because government shave promoted it and funded it.
Now lets move onto
[quote]
I hate to end this post on a depressing note.But as long as the idiots that are the city council are in power nothing will change.[/quote]
The City of Detroit is not the one that we have to worry about at the moment. The people moving further and further out are not fleeing the City of Detroit. They are fleeing other suburbs.
So I think that right there points to the fact that people are not fleeing the urban city. They are fleeing one suburb for another, and then another suburb for another. And that will leave a big mess if it keeps happening.
We are no in the age of people leaving the big bad city. We are in the age of people leaving the suburbs for other suburbs. |
Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13
Post Number: 3132
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 10:10 am: | |
"There is absolutely nothing "one-size-fits-all" about living in an urban environment. You can inhabit an apartment, condo, townhouse, or detached home."
Dan, there is one thing that all of those options do have in common: small lot size. For those who require a large parcel of land, as I do, none of those situations will work.
I agree with the basic tone of your post, however. You correctly point out that are many types of housing in more urban areas. It's unfortunate that the truly rural areas are farther out now, and that so much rural landscape has become exurban. |
Michigan_snowflake
Member
Username: Michigan_snowflake
Post Number: 6
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 10:40 am: | |
You can inhabit an apartment, condo, townhouse, or detached home
------------------------------ -------------------
I dont want to live in any of those.
About a park being a few blocks away being enough for some one who wants open green space? That wouldnt work for me. In a park you have to share the space with others music, litter, noise. You have no control over what goes on there. You cant hunt there. On my own acreage, I control everything, there is no litter, no loud music I dont want to hear, no lights, no dog poo, no one telling me I cant hunt. No set hours I can enjoy my acerage. I just dont want to live in the city. |
English
Member
Username: English
Post Number: 602
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 11:16 am: | |
Mind_field, I wasn't asking permission. I was being sarcastic.
Also, the impulse to live all alone defies human evolutionary history. We evolved to live and work together in social groups. Many societies do not subscribe to our ideas of private space or individualism, nor are their notions of land ownership the same. And it is because of the development of technology that living outside of a community is feasible and not perilous (i.e., the "pioneers") or a death sentence (i.e., exile in premodern times).
To each their own, though. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 2148
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 11:23 am: | |
>Michigan_snowflake
Miss_cleo's back... |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 3724
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 12:27 pm: | |
quote:Dan, there is one thing that all of those options do have in common: small lot size. For those who require a large parcel of land, as I do, none of those situations will work.
For someone who wants to live on 10 acres, there used to be this thing known as "the country", where it was actually rural.
quote:In a park you have to share the space with others music, litter, noise. You have no control over what goes on there. You cant hunt there. On my own acreage, I control everything, there is no litter, no loud music I dont want to hear, no lights, no dog poo, no one telling me I cant hunt. No set hours I can enjoy my acerage. I just dont want to live in the city.
I have this weird habit, though, where I actually *like* being around other people. I'm not obsessed with controlling the details of my everyday life--kinda keeps things interesting.
You're someone else who apparently wants to live in a rural area. If hunting on your own property is your goal, then you're not even looking to live in a suburban area, let alone a city.
Subdividing and conquering only destroys the existing areas that you seek. |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1456
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 2:27 pm: | |
Again, rural does not equal suburban. Rochester Hills is not rural. Shelby Twp is not rural. Novi and Walled Lake are not rural.
Again, you want rural, fine, there's nothing wrong with that. But if you want rural, don't buy 1/4 acre lot tract housing in a corn field next to I-94.
Besides, if you live on a cul-de-sac long enough, you might wind up someday finding burned and beheaded bodies in your driveway. ;)
(Message edited by focusonthed on November 10, 2007) |
Trainman
Member
Username: Trainman
Post Number: 564
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 2:47 pm: | |
Urban Sprawl rules in southeast Michigan. SEMOOG has the facts to prove this. Our population has increased very little in the last 20 years. Yet, the amount of land we use has increased much more in relationship to the population increase. |
Alan55
Member
Username: Alan55
Post Number: 730
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 5:33 pm: | |
Actually, Dan, if someone wanted to hunt on their own land, even 10 acres would not be enough.
Under the Horton Trespass Law, you can't hunt any closer than 450 feet from any dwelling (at least with firearms). Under that rule, probably 7 acres of a 10-acre lot would be off limits. You would need at least 20 acres to hunt, and that would only be enough if a hunter sat in one place and didn't hunt while walking, or the hunter had accommodating neighbors.
If someone wants to buy an old farm to live and hunt on it, fine. I hope, however, that these people who are buying their 10-acre farmettes and building 3,800 square-foot brick colonials don't think they are living the country life. |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 738
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 10, 2007 - 10:29 pm: | |
If you want to hunt, go to the forest and hunt. I don't know anyone who hunts on their property.
My brother lives in a rural area. And you know what, they still go off hunting somewhere else. They still go to cottages. They still go out to other areas that are remote to use snowmobiles.
Even in rural areas, you don't have all the room you want within your 10 acres or whatever. You still need to go off somewhere else
Infact in my brothers case, except for the front yard which has a couple horses, the rest of his huge property is just trees. Rural people don't really use their land much, unless they are farmers. Which many are not anymore. |
Craig
Member
Username: Craig
Post Number: 408
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 12:45 am: | |
Funny, Dan: all that you see in suburbia is tasteless vinyl, and all that some see in you is a tasteless know-it-all who wets his pants. |
Craig
Member
Username: Craig
Post Number: 409
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 12:45 am: | |
Funny, Dan: all that you see in suburbia is tasteless vinyl, and all that some see in you is a tasteless know-it-all who wets his pants. |
Craig
Member
Username: Craig
Post Number: 410
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 12:50 am: | |
Great thoughts Mack. I believe that much of what you've advocated has been demonstrated as hollow by the hordes who have ditched the straight lines of planned urbia for the freedom of suburbia. |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3975
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 1:36 am: | |
Suburbia is freedom. Wow, that's a thought. I'll think on that one.
Are you a philosopher? |
Renfirst
Member
Username: Renfirst
Post Number: 101
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 3:00 am: | |
This is a very frustrating subject. I look at sprawl as one of the many issues this region is facing that has no clear solution.
Does anyone honestly think that this region will adapt a more common sense approach? |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 739
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 9:48 am: | |
No untill the state steps in takes the lead. The state has to come in, start a smart growth plan, and then mandate the municipalities follow it.
Without a regional plan, nothing will come together. |
Craig
Member
Username: Craig
Post Number: 411
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 10:30 am: | |
Not a philosopher, Mack, but I'm not living at home, either. |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1459
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 2:45 pm: | |
AGAIN, for Christ's sake, why do people think you can hunt in the suburbs? There is no rural-ness in the suburbs. Can you hunt on 23 mile road? Hell no.
God. So frustrating. If you want to live somewhere you can hunt, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. But you won't find it in a Pulte development. |
56packman
Member
Username: 56packman
Post Number: 1894
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 3:10 pm: | |
A friend of mine who reads LOTS of science fiction novels (not my kind of literature) told me of a future-apocalyptic book set hundreds of years in the future where America's cities had be almost re-gentrified by the wealthy, who rushed in because the land was cheap and snapped up all of the land, priced the locals out of their homes by driving up the tax base.
The suburbs were the new slums/lower income areas and everything was fine until a series of incidents caused rioting against the "haves" by the larger "have not" population and now they were surrounded with no way out. This book would have been written in the mid-70s. |
Saintme
Member
Username: Saintme
Post Number: 57
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 4:08 pm: | |
What a disappointing waste  |
Mackinaw
Member
Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 3977
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 5:13 pm: | |
Craig, WTF are you talking about? You don't know shit.
56packman, the place in that book is called Europe. |
Fareastsider
Member
Username: Fareastsider
Post Number: 679
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 7:43 pm: | |
Hunting on 23 Mile yes you can actually even south with a bow in Chesterfield. You can use a rifle in state owned land on 25 Mile in Chesterfield as well. Im not saying its wise but you can. There are still some large open parcels along 23 Mile in Macomb and Chesterfield Twps. |
Fmstack
Member
Username: Fmstack
Post Number: 7
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 9:15 am: | |
The thing that's weird isn't people wanting to live somewhere they can hunt in their backyard -- the thing that's weird is people wanting to live somewhere where they can hunt in their backyard, and also at the same time wanting to work in a city job. Someone who wants that wants something that never was and will never be. |
Craig
Member
Username: Craig
Post Number: 428
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 9:20 am: | |
FM - driven south on 75 during the morning rush hour? It's pretty busy - someone must be living the dream of city work and a wild home. |
Fmstack
Member
Username: Fmstack
Post Number: 8
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 10:58 am: | |
I can see a gas station's sign from my third story window. Looks like it's up to 3.25. I'm sure it'll come down soon, though. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 2170
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 11:04 am: | |
^I just heard on the news this morning that prices are expected to jump another 20 cents in the next few weeks. The story was on NYC local news, but I think they were talking about the national average... |
Craig
Member
Username: Craig
Post Number: 429
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 11:10 am: | |
You missed the point.
If you have a sense of what is "art" then maybe you can also imagine the objective an subjective draw of a home far from the dense concrete grid. People pay for art, and they'll pay to live their lives as "art." |
Fmstack
Member
Username: Fmstack
Post Number: 9
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 11:59 am: | |
You're kidding. |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1463
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 12:02 pm: | |
A home far from the "dense concrete grid" like this?
Way to get away from that grid. |
Craig
Member
Username: Craig
Post Number: 433
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 12:22 pm: | |
FM - better keep an eye on the gas prices so as to avoid getting in over your head here.
Focus - since your Google skills are probably better than mine I invite you to zoom in the area that you've pasted above. Do the same for any randomly selected Detroit (or inner ring suburb) neighborhood. In Detroit you'll see smaller lots & homes and maybe even wreckage. If this is for you (FM implies that it's for him) then more power to you. |
Fmstack
Member
Username: Fmstack
Post Number: 10
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 12:56 pm: | |
I'm lost. What do you want? |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1464
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 1:32 pm: | |
Craig, since you asked nicely.
A zoom in of the sub in question:
Now, a zoom of a comparable plot:
This can be found in horrible inner-ring Southfield, just off 11 and Lahser. The homes and yards appear very similar. Yes it's closer to the city, and yes you can see your neighbor's house. But that's the same situation you have out there on 22 Mile as well. My point is this: suburban does not equal rural.
We lose rural as soon as landowners sell out to developers who build McMansion subdivisions, placing homes in the boonies, but at inner-ring density. Why? Because the developer makes more money if they break their land up into 40 1/4-acre plots, rather than 10 1-acre plots, of course. |
Craig
Member
Username: Craig
Post Number: 434
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 1:47 pm: | |
FM -thanks, but I've had enough
Focus - I agree that there are very nice areas in the inner rings, and even Detroit proper. Further, suburban does not equal rural. You would have fallen closer to my point if you'd pulled up a still from the areas in Detroit populated by regular people. Pull back from the Romeo (I'm west side, so I don't know the area that you featured) shot as well as your choice in Southfield and ask: where is one more closely hemmed in by roads, strip malls, etc. I submit that those 'up north' are enjoying a quality of life not replicated 'down here,' e.g. quieter roads, more wildlife, better view of stars at night... Not for everyone? OK. Preserve the virgin (such as it is) state of outlying areas? Hundreds of thousands of your neighbors say no. Let them go. |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1466
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 2:00 pm: | |
Craig, that's all fine and dandy until those hundreds of thousands of people move "up north" and in doing so, turn "up north" INTO "down here".
You want to live at 35 Mile, that's fine. Really. I love going to the country, going into the woods, fishing, hiking, riding quads, etc. But you lose the ability to do all of that when the suburbs follow you. So if that is the life you want, please do not sell your land to a developer, and beg your hundreds of thousands of neighbors to do the same. |
Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13
Post Number: 3143
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 2:10 pm: | |
"I love going to the country, going into the woods, fishing, hiking, riding quads, etc. But you lose the ability to do all of that when the suburbs follow you. So if that is the life you want, please do not sell your land to a developer..."
Totally agree! |
Craig
Member
Username: Craig
Post Number: 435
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 2:16 pm: | |
FD - I'm veering off with this comment but... virtually every new development that I've seen does an admirable job of preserving green space and wetlands. No doubt some of this is mandated by law, but I also believe that the market demands this.
I grew up on 40x120 in the City, shooting at rats and fighting with lousy neighbors. Landing 'out there' has given me a peace and happiness that, for me, is astounding. If I could have afforded the high-price of the big lots in Southfield I might have landed there. But when I'm watching humming birds in the yard or our little homecoming parade I'm thankful that I didn't.
Peace. |
Swingline
Member
Username: Swingline
Post Number: 942
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 2:17 pm: | |
quote:>Michigan_snowflake
Miss_cleo's back... Was Ms. Cleo "exiled" from DYes or is she merely serving her sentence by performing a few hundred hours of soup kitchen time? Hers was a spectacular outburst a couple of weeks ago on that removed thread. Her racist worldview was stunning in its simplicity and venom. Once that gasket blew, her meltdown was complete. It must have been that N. Mich. meth. Drugs are everywhere. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 2176
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 2:35 pm: | |
^I would hope she got the boot because of that outburst. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 10757
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 3:08 pm: | |
What was said in her outburst? |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 2178
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 3:12 pm: | |
quote:What was said in her outburst?
She posted a story about a black kid trick-or-treating at her relatives house in Royal Oak (or somewhere). The kid tried to run into their house or something and she made multiple allusions to the n-bomb in reference to the kid. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 10758
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 3:16 pm: | |
No surprise. It was pretty obvious from the start. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 10760
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 3:40 pm: | |
No double standards. He was wrong for his actions and should be prosecuted. That doesn't change the viewpoint from all of your posts. He's a criminal and you are a bigoted person.
Your posts speak volumes about you and it is abundantly clear that SE Michigan improved the day you left. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 3604
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 3:45 pm: | |
Luckily I saved it.
Miss_cleo
Member
Username: Miss_cleo
Post Number: 954
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Tuesday, November 06, 2007 - 2:55 pm:
Racist and proud. American would be a much nicer place if our ancestors hadnt been stupid and brought the slaves over. Now look at the whiney black shit we have to put up with all the time. *I was fired cause I'm black* No you were fired cause you are lazy.
Waaa, I was pulled over cause I am black....no you were pulled over cause you were breaking a law
Waaa, Give me a job cause I am black and will call discrimination if you hire a deserving white person instead of me
Waa, waa, wa,, get on a boat and go back to Africa, hell you even have to put African in front of American.Cant just be American huh? Gotta push and whine and keep your hand out.
I am saying what so many are afriad to say, call me what you want I dont care. |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 2180
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 4:05 pm: | |
^Haha. Do you have the original one where she talked about the kid? It's probably archived at some site out there on the www that might also cater to Detroit. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 3605
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 4:08 pm: | |
No, that's the only one I got before the thread was deleted. I saw it coming so I pasted it into a word document for safe keeping. |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.