  Gnome Member Username: Gnome Post Number: 1410 Registered: 08-2007 |
The teletype machine is clicking along and telling a story of a city that is broken and needs to be overhauled. The Mayor's office is a mess. The Council is waring tribe of loons and the school system shows that it can't survive in its current form. As a thought experiment, what would happen if Detroit was broken apart into a series of smaller cities? Would there be any pluses? Where would the boundaries be? | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1416 Registered: 12-2006 |
Plus: smaller cities tend to have more accountability (that's not an absolute fact, just a tendency) Minus, at least from a city government viewpoint: Detroit is allowed to charge a higher income tax than any other city in Michigan; a series of mini-Detroits would not have that ability. I'm neither in favor of this nor opposed; I haven't thought about it enough. Intriguing, though. | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 1898 Registered: 02-2006 |
Well since the city would certainly be broken up along socioeconomic lines, all it would do is make the bad parts worse, as the areas with a tax base would no longer be supporting depressed areas. Depending on your viewpoint, letting certain areas go back to nature might be good or bad to you, but let's not kid ourselves...splitting Detroit up would likely benefit those in already good neighborhood, and would probably drag down neighborhoods sitting on the fence, as well as decimate those that are already treading water. | ||
W_chicago Member Username: W_chicago Post Number: 42 Registered: 01-2008 |
It's pointless. If anything, it would make more sense to consolidate the suburbs into the city. Then implement a borough and ward system throughout the city. So neighborhoods can elect reps to the a ward council, then wards can elect reps to the borough council, and then boroughs can elect reps to the city council. Decisions that only affect a ward, would only be made by the people in that ward. Decisions that affect people in a borough would only be made my people in that borough. And decisions that affect the entire city should be made by the entire city. This way we could have have the best of both worlds: de-centralized and accountable government, and efficient regional decision-making. And hopefully it would also be a participatory government, in which every citizen has an opportunity to participate in a meaningful way to shape the direction of his/her community... much unlike the one we have now, where there is basically a handful of people running everything, and decisions flow from the top-down. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 1417 Registered: 12-2006 |
W_chi, I expect in a very short time you'll see a variety of interesting opinions about your post. It's not the first time someone's thrown gasoline on that particular fire. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2611 Registered: 07-2004 |
Detroit's development was unusual in that it really started exploding just as the movement to consolidate American cities was coming to a close. In 1898, Greater New York was consolidated, creating a super-city of five counties and more than 300 square miles of land. The same thing happened with Boston around 1900. But, by the 1920s, American thinking about cities had begun to change. Reformers hated the living conditions, the slums, the dirty factories. Good-government activists hated local political machines. Lots of people resented the streetcar monopolies and hoped to buy cars to get away from the city. In the 1920s, Michigan's laws governing how cities may grow were changed. Although many thought in 1920 that Detroit would cross Eight Mile Road into a city straddling more than one county, by 1930 that was politically impossible. Detroit's municipal growth was halted at about 140 square miles. What might have happened if Detroit had expanded into the other counties? We have no way of knowing. But would the region be as divided as it is? Perhaps we'd behave more cooperatively. Instead of having the warlords of our discrete political fiefdoms fighting for the spoils and leaving the weakest with the least, we'd be more disposed to build our civic institutions for all. Perhaps instead of the people from south Oakland and Macomb counties saying they're from Ferndale or Warren or Royal Oak, they would say, "I'm from Detroit." Unfortunately, that age of consolidation is long gone. What opportunities we missed, we may never know. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 13252 Registered: 12-2003 |
I WOULD be in favor of using imminent domain to force the consolidation of neighborhoods to a more manageable status. Gather them more closely around the police and fire stations, community centers, schools, markets, and workable public transportation. Then turn the resulting open land OFFICIALLY into farmland, only leasing it to a foreign country or giving it back to the Native Americans as an urban reservation so the FEMA laws would not apply and the Federal government would have to stay the fuck out forever. They have their designs on all farmland, and we need to make provisions to end-run around those horrible FEMA laws from 1978. I think the Native direction is the best, and we should immediately classify all homeless as indigenous, too, so they could begin to learn how to subside for themselves beyond chump change. There could be a program through the Greening of Detroit or another willing group to train individuals...like the Greening folk are doing NOW only with an even MORE altruistic purpose. I'd not mind making a buffer zone between neighborhoods, so each could have their own food production nearby. Include space for farm animals, too. Chicken, cows, goats...this has been done on a limited basis by forward-thinkers, but apparently a few of the neighbors have complained. I'd say move them around some, shuffle the like-minded ones together...it is happening organically now, but to have a plan would be beautiful. THEN we can make a specific government function to turn our raw materials into goods to be sold around the world. We have sand, salt, and fresh water in abundance, right under our feet. We have some of the most creative people on the earth, their goods can have a more well-designed marketplace to foster growth (I'm working on that now with a music industry think-tank). We CAN make goods that will be sold outside our city, and make a tourist spot that will draw in outside dollars...this is the ONLY way we will survive, as far as I can tell! I made a listing once of all the post-petrol industries that should be encouraged...and just found it while cleaning the other day. We need to find an escape from the Federal Government without seceding from the Union directly...because they have become more trouble than they are worth, but will do what they can to put down any insurrection. We will see shortly with this Lakotah Nation rebellion...how well our fair and balanced Federal Government will handle a threat to their power! Cheers, free-thinking is fun. | ||
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936 Post Number: 3349 Registered: 01-2005 |
City of Detroit: Bounded by the Chrysler on the east, Fisher on the north, Lodge on the west, and Windsor on the south. City of Corktown: Everything inside W. Grand Boulevard west of the Lodge. City of Jefferson: Everything inside E. Grand Boulevard east of the Chrysler. To include Belle Isle. City of Brightmoor: Everything west of Southfield. City of Palmer: Bounded by McNichols on the south, Eight mile on the north, John R. on the east, and Southfield on the west. City of Springwells: Bounded by W. Grand Blvd on the east, Conrail/old MCRR tracks on the north, and current city limits on the south and west. River Rouge to give up Zug Island to them. City of Denby: Everything else on the east side except for City Airport, which will become "City of No Return". City of Mackenzie: Everything else on the west side. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2612 Registered: 07-2004 |
What about the People's Republic of Hamtramck?  | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 931 Registered: 11-2003 |
Gannon, all I can think of with your proposing of putting the homeless folk and native americans together is the Dave Chappelle special where he talked about his partying with native americans... NSFW, Explicit Language, Politically Incorrect, BTW... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Teq8-3Xitxc | ||
W_chicago Member Username: W_chicago Post Number: 43 Registered: 01-2008 |
I don't think the age of consolidation (or more broadly, regional cooperation) is over. Maybe it's against the state constitution, but that can change. And more and more, i think, people are recognizing the interdependence of city-suburb and the need to cooperate in these times of a struggling economy, a global climate crisis, and peak oil. Detroit and it's suburbs need to cooperate on such issues like sprawl (and controlling its expansion), mass transit, industry, the environment, education, housing, poverty, crime, etc. I really think the talk of legality of real regional cooperation (democratic cooperation, not just one mayor talking to another) is less important that then the fact that we do need to cooperate. Laws can be changed, new forms of government and democracy can arise. If they law can't adequately allow experimentation, then it should be changed. I think we are on the crux of a new wave of democratic participation. Although it's not that visible right now, you can see its roots: a people tired of the headlines that read "30,000 to be laid off" and "mayor in scandal." The hard times and the corruption are not bad apples on a overall good tree, rather its the whole tree that is bad. We need need something new, and people are starting to experiment with what the new something will be... community land trusts, urban gardens, cooperative enterprises, credit unions, etc. are all examples, and there are many, many more. What an exciting time to live. Hope still lives on, and so does our great city. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 3256 Registered: 04-2006 |
What exactly would breaking Detroit into pieces solve? Also, isn't this a bit counter productive considering that Lansing is trying to encourage municipalities to consolidate?! | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2613 Registered: 07-2004 |
W_chicago: If a new age of consolidation -- whether that's top-down or ground-up -- is coming, it had better get here soon. We could use it. I think local attitudes pose the main obstacle. Sure, somebody in West Bloomfield won't want to be a Detroiter. They might ask, "What do I have in common with somebody in Dexter-Davison?" But New York has been consolidated for more than 100 years, so the person in a tiny household on the south end of Staten Island doesn't often ask what right HE has to be lumped in with the billionaire in a new Manhattan condo or the ghetto poor of East New York. And that's part of what makes New York City work: As strongly as they might feel about their neighborhoods, they think of themselves as New Yorkers, not residents of Richmond county, New York County or Kings County. I don't see us getting to that point here for some time. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 13257 Registered: 12-2003 |
D'Vision, Very funny...that's what I'm talking about! Chappelle is a genius. | ||
Miketoronto Member Username: Miketoronto Post Number: 910 Registered: 07-2004 |
Breaking up Detroit would cause major issues as the poorer neighbourhoods would not have access to the tax base that downtown captures. If Detroit was broken up into smaller municipalities, you would need to have a system set up like in Australia, where the state governments provide almost all the services for the metropolitan regions, due to the cities have such small municipal borders. For example, in places like Melbourne, the state government provides Metropolitan police, fire, transport, and other services. I say just merge with the suburbs You guys need stronger state government who can push through mergers. Check out what just happened in Melbourne. See how the State government decided. --------------- Kensington/North Melbourne boundary change The City of Melbourne took responsibility for the whole of Kensington and North Melbourne from 1 July 2008 from the City of Moonee Valley. Both councils have been working to ensure a smooth transition with limited impact on services to residents and businesses. The change follows a State Government decision in December 2007 to amend the boundary between the two council areas. While some services in Kensington and North Melbourne may be delivered differently under the City of Melbourne, they will continue to be available. In late June, residents and businesses received a City of Melbourne Welcome Pack containing information regarding many aspects of the boundary change impact as well as general information about the City of Melbourne. ------------ (Message edited by miketoronto on July 01, 2008) | ||
Dtowncitylover Member Username: Dtowncitylover Post Number: 205 Registered: 02-2008 |
W_chicago, I totally agree with you. I have often wondered if Detroit had expanded the way cities like Chicago did. Detroit should have annexed Dearborn, D. Heights, Melvindale, Livonia, Harper Woods, East Detroit. I think its not too late to annex... Hell, I'd be in favour if Royal Oak became a part of Detroit. I have actually used a map of Detroit to split the city in 11 different wards; and I've named them. | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2300 Registered: 08-2007 |
Detroit is made up of dozens of small towns that were absorbed, and Hamtramck and Highland Park that remained independent. It would be fun to research those old town boundaries and restore them as administrative districts. Detroit proper could be the area bounded by Grand Boulevard. It could work as a regional plan if the big institutions were made regional/state institutions instead of city of Detroit institutions. Detroit Symphony, DIA, DPL, Water and Sewer, Belle Isle, Rouge, Chandler and Palmer Parks, waste disposal maybe, there are a lot that need regional support to survive. Having them in individual small towns would place a huge burden on those small towns. There could be Norris, Hemlock, Redford, Delray, North Detroit, Oakwood, Springwells, Woodmere, Parkland, Springwells, Greenfield, Brightmoor and many more. One thing that could come from this is the responsibility for the community welfare becomes much more focused. It would be smart to try and include a broad range of family income, business stock and housing prices in the mix in each division. (Message edited by gazhekwe on July 01, 2008) | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1703 Registered: 04-2006 |
Bring Back the City of Warrendale! | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 7456 Registered: 02-2004 |
Breaking up Detroit into several subdivisions. I DON'T THINK SO! It have to be new governmental establishments, charters, fixing the tax base. dealing with the community development and other internal improvements plans, public transit improvements plans. SW Detroit should break away Detroit period and call it Springwells. Otherwise combined Detroit with the suburbs just like Toronto. | ||
Ladia Member Username: Ladia Post Number: 47 Registered: 05-2008 |
if detroit was broken into smaller cities,it could be just many small 'highland park' type cities with similar problems,some areas that would be complete cities may by run down while other areas that were separated would be better neighborhoods,would be the 'nicer' cities. | ||
Detroitrise Member Username: Detroitrise Post Number: 2668 Registered: 09-2007 |
Yes Ladia. Besides, it wouldn't help the situation at all. Bottom line, Detroit (and Michigan) needs a strong, modern urban core to survive. Otherwise, we're just a simple misplaced southern state. | ||
Buyamerican Member Username: Buyamerican Post Number: 622 Registered: 02-2007 |
Just look at the people running the City of Detroit and the DPS and you can see why it's in the shape it is in now. Detroit needs new leadership in all aspects, from City government to the school system. It won't be long before Detroit goes into receivership because Detroiter's are allowing this thug mayor to continue to rape and pillage whatever he can before he runs for re-election (and will probably win because of the mentality of the residents) and when the schools are totally just a gangland territory. When the State steps in, maybe things will change for the better. (Message edited by Buyamerican on July 03, 2008) | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 284 Registered: 04-2008 |
A bunch of poorly run small cities is no better than one poorly run large city. I'd be in favor of the plan if I thought there were a chance that the people elected to leadership positions in the subdivided cities would have any more competence than the current fools. | ||
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd Post Number: 2619 Registered: 07-2004 |
I don't know. I wonder just how poorly they could be run. Just out of curiosity, I might allow them to start a small Blackwellville or (Monica) Conyerstan, just for kicks. | ||
Planner_727 Member Username: Planner_727 Post Number: 143 Registered: 07-2006 |
I read the first half of the thread, and had a thought for a different question. I agree that breaking up the city into smaller areas would make the nice nicer and bad worse. We need to have a precinct or ward system for city council to return some accountability into the 140 sq mile monster. As I thought again about how it would be great to combine the suburbs and Detroit, you would still have dozens of school districts, which I would say is in the top 2 or 3 reasons keeping people from moving back into the city. To return to the original thought, what about breaking up DPS into smaller districts or some sort of more hierarchical system somehow to allow more focus on local neighborhoods or something. Not sure how this would help, just a thought. Seems from a rational standpoint of getting suburbs on board, that even if you could get past the stigma associated with the city, the quality of services and schools in the city is so poor compared to most of the suburbs that the overall service quality for the region would be significantly affected. Maybe that could be countered or corrected by the ward/boroughs system.... | ||
Russix Member Username: Russix Post Number: 89 Registered: 11-2006 |
Break outer areas off by annexing them into their neighboring suburb. When these areas are better annex them and the parenting suburb into the City. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 292 Registered: 04-2008 |
Russix, the neighboring suburbs have enough problems of their own to think they can try to fix the problems in Detroit, and then after putting in all that effort, give it back. Nice try, though! |
