Discuss Detroit » Archives - July 2008 » Urban Planning: I'm ignorant...help me out here. « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Youngprofessionaldetroiter
Member
Username: Youngprofessionaldetroiter

Post Number: 157
Registered: 07-2008
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 2:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ok, as rural areas experience population growth, they see revenue growth, take that revenue and use it to invest in infrastructure. Eventually roads are developed, schools are expanded, and these rural areas end up with their own municipal services such as trash, fire, police, etc.

Etc. etc.

So when a city does the opposite and gets smaller and contracts, shouldn't it be divesting some of its excess capacity? Like if our school's population is shrinking, shouldn't we be consolidating students into fewer locations and selling off old school buildings? We would spend far less on building maintenance and security concerns and can spend more on teachers and supplies, right?

As the City's population (and revenue) shrink, doesn't it make sense to sell off some of the city luxuries, such as Belle Isle and the Detroit Zoo to the County? so that the costs for operating these things follow the population instead of having a heavy burden born by an ever-shrinking group?

Part of the reasons why taxes are so high in Detroit have to do with corruption for sure. But isn't it also that you've got 900,000 people paying for enough infrastructure to hold 2,000,000?

Sounds like we have overcapacity issues and need to right-size.

But, in all sincerity, I'm really ignorant to this urban planning stuff. It just seems to make sense that as we lose population, we should be doing the opposite of those cities that are gaining population? As a side note, wouldn't it be great if we could just quarantine entire sections of the city in order to consolidate all of Detroit's residents in to a smaller geographical area? Sure would make policing the area more efficient, though, right?

Spoken like a true urban planning ignoramus, eh? :-)

YPD

(Message edited by youngprofessionaldetroiter on August 12, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Cman710
Member
Username: Cman710

Post Number: 454
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 2:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi young,

I think your instincts are correct. In theory, I think that all shrinking the cities should consolidate and divest themselves of some assets as their populations decrease. Once we accept that premise (one I am not sure everyone on the Forum will accept), that raises a ton of new questions. For example:

1) What assets to divest? One area in which the city has attempted to consolidate is the school system. Recently, the city closed a number of schools, and this surely reduced costs. However, there was great political upheaval regarding which schools to close and where. For example, it is possible to close a school in a depopulated area while another overcrowded school remains open. That does not work well politically, even though the kids in the overcrowded school may realistically never want to go to a school miles away that is undercrowded. I believe the city has also consolidated its policing force.

2) Consolidating population - It would be great, great sense for the city to essentially "close" certain parts of the city. The city is currently paying for an infrastructure that could support a population double the size. In some areas, this might be easy, such as a block with 1 or 2 houses. I many parts of the city, however, the depopulation occurred much more evenly. What should we do there? And who decides who gets to move and who gets to stay? And will the government pay to relocate people and build them new housing on vacant lots in the areas to which we are consolidating? Is there something fundamentally problematic about the government forcing people to move from their homes? (The government does this all the time, but that makes it no less troublesome.)

All these questions make real progress difficult, but I do think we should address them.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cman710
Member
Username: Cman710

Post Number: 455
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 2:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I forgot to mention that I would strongly be against selling Belle Isle or any of Detroit's other important public spaces. Just this weekend, Belle Isle was PACKED with people. I think the Island is a good size given its summer use. I cannot imagine how crowded it would have been in the 1950s.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 4717
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 2:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Ok, as rural areas experience population growth, they see revenue growth, take that revenue and use it to invest in infrastructure. Eventually roads are developed, schools are expanded, and these rural areas end up with their own municipal services such as trash, fire, police, etc.



YPD, you enumerate several widely-held misconceptions. In most developing areas, while an increased population leads to an increase in revenue, it also leads to a greater increase in expenditures. Why is this? Look at who the people are moving into these new suburbs. Are they single? DINKs? The elderly? More often than not, they are families with kids. While an additional house might net an increase of $4000 a year in property taxes, it will cost the school district nearly $20,000 to educate two of their kids.

At the same time, most roads and schools are not funded entirely by localities, and receive funding from the state. This diverts state funding from repairs and maintenance in established areas, leading to a corresponding deterioration of existing infrastructure.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, but I think you get the idea. It's no mistake that taxes in exurban townships keep increasing as their populations grow, and as those people demand more in services.

I would be VERY careful to throw around the idea that parks and zoos are "luxuries". Any civilized city in the world provides these amenities to their people. If Detroit wants to retain, let alone grow, any sort of population that isn't permanent underclass, it would be a costly mistake to excess these assets.

Playing devil's advocate, I'd also know how one unpaves a road, removes sewer lines, and maintains police and fire protection in an area that has been "officially" abandoned.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz

Post Number: 6077
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 3:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Like if our school's population is shrinking, shouldn't we be consolidating students into fewer locations and selling off old school buildings?

There was a recent article in the paper about selling or leasing vacant DPS schools to charter schools.
Top of pageBottom of page

Digitalvision
Member
Username: Digitalvision

Post Number: 1083
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 3:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's almost politically impossible to "right size" in Detroit. Stick around here for awhile, and you'll learn that in the city it's real easy to spend money but political suicide to make the cuts needed to survive.

Not why, but part of, the reason Detroit is in the shape it's in.
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge

Post Number: 8142
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 3:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

To anybody that thinks Detroiters can't get politically active, just try closing a school. And watch out for the grapes.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 651
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 4:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Sounds like we have overcapacity issues and need to right-size."

The main problem, as others have noted, is that while there's a lot fewer people in Detroit, the city still covers the same amount of area. You can't just cut off whole sections of the city like you might shutdown a factory or reduce the number of shifts working on the line. Another point that you didn't highlight but is really hurting Detroit is that the people who remain are generally poorer, meaning they have less ability to pay for the services needed while at the same time, requiring more services than their affluent brothers and sisters in the suburbs. You also missed the fact that the tax base that remains is meager in comparison to suburban communities. I'll restate what I said before:

"Novi has a tax base of $3 billion that provides services to 50,000 residents. Detroit has a tax base of $7.5 billion that provides services to 900,000 residents. Even if Novi and Detroit shared the same crime rates, the same human service needs and supported the same infrastructure (none of which is true), there's no way that Detroit could provide service to almost 20 times as many people with just twice as much tax base at a tax rate similar to Novi's. It's always going to be higher and unfortunately for Detroit, much higher.

(Message edited by Novine on August 12, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Digitalvision
Member
Username: Digitalvision

Post Number: 1085
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 5:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This is why economic development is SO KEY... and security to enable it.

Novi has $60,000 PER RESIDENT in economic activity. Detroiters average $8,333.

It could be boiled down to pure economics.

(Message edited by digitalvision on August 12, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Youngprofessionaldetroiter
Member
Username: Youngprofessionaldetroiter

Post Number: 158
Registered: 07-2008
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 5:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thank you all for your contributions...I like the way this discussion is going. Really fascinating stuff.

What are some ways we could increase the tax base, without increasing the tax rate? I mean, at some point, property values have to get so low that it must make some sense to invest capital here, right? Or is that also part of the dysfunction that is Detroit politics, too?

Novine, I agree with everything you say...now let's take it to the next level. How can we take the poor underclass and "convert" them? When Henry Ford brought mass production to industry, the real magic was that not only were we able to produce goods much more cheaply, but large numbers of individuals were able to exponentially increase their productivity with little cost.

How can we repeat that sort of creative innovation now? Or is that "impossible"?

YPD
Top of pageBottom of page

Youngprofessionaldetroiter
Member
Username: Youngprofessionaldetroiter

Post Number: 159
Registered: 07-2008
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 5:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"And where does that extra money come from? Businesses. That's why I think if Detroit eliminated it's income tax and higher business property taxes it'd be way better off. Alot of that increased tax revenue comes from commercial investment - because residential neighborhoods are, in general, a money-loser as far as tax revenue for municipalities."

DigitalVision...I agree with you on this. This is why (probably to a fault), I don't care if every ounce of resource the city has is used to attract businesses into the CBD. Business are the "early adopters"...they don't need to worry about schooling their kids...in a concentrated area, there's not too much infrastructure cost...people are much more willing to work in the city than live here, so why not give the people what they want.

I'd rather give a developer 5 years of no property taxes and collect taxes for the next 20 years rather than raise taxes and send businesses to Brighton.
Top of pageBottom of page

Digitalvision
Member
Username: Digitalvision

Post Number: 1086
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 5:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You get more business, YPD.

Eliminate the oppressive tax structure, streamline government, and you'll get more businesses that will more than fill the gap.

I was talking to Web 2.0 conference - all "targeted" DINK folks, for the most part - and they all said they'd love to locate in Detroit but they will not pay the personal income tax. Even though it's not that bad, they said they could go to Royal Oak, Ferndale, or Ann Arbor and pay way less in taxes and get more in services, and in their opinion, have just as an urban environment.

Detroit isn't even competitive for those people it'd be best for because of it's shortsighted strategies - the council has about ZERO business knowledge, they're a bunch of lawyers and social workers. Their life experience doesn't lend them to understanding economics - same with the last couple mayors, frankly.

I liked Archer but he still didn't quite get it - or he didn't have the political capital to fight for the right thing.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ltorivia485
Member
Username: Ltorivia485

Post Number: 3034
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 5:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Get more business (small businesses are the key, not just big businesses) and more educated professional tax base to relocate into the city. Not to sound mean, but the homeless and criminal element need to be bused somewhere else. I'm a Detroiter and the number of homeless people within the city limits is staggering and scary.
Top of pageBottom of page

Youngprofessionaldetroiter
Member
Username: Youngprofessionaldetroiter

Post Number: 161
Registered: 07-2008
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 5:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yeah, I feel you, DV, when I feel like so few people around here knows anything about how to GROW businesses and ATTRACT them. It's like there's a whole mentality around here that runs completely counter to how to create economic development.

I think Dave Bing could turn that around. I can't speak about the mayors of mayors past because I'm pretty uninformed.

re: small businesses vs. big businesses...I think we need a large cadre of big businesses to act as anchor tenants. The small businesses will come (assuming the right tax structure and business climate) when they have the security of big businesses creating some stability.

YPD

p.s. It would be nice on this forum if we spent even 20% of our energy on how to do the things necessary to make economic development a part of Detroit. I feel like we devote lots of energy to Kwame, or how things were back in the 50s and 60s.

Those things are really important to me, and we certainly don't want to ever forget our rich tradition and history. At the same time, look at the DYes forum...how much of it spent on forward vision and creating a business culture? I'd say less than 15%? What if we made that even 50%?

YPD

(Message edited by youngprofessionaldetroiter on August 12, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott

Post Number: 1556
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 5:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Specifically, Detroit still does a lot of things that didn't necessarily make sense even when there were about two million people. The fact that City government was able to absorb dozens of the Mayor's friends and family (into jobs which obviously must not mean anything) gives an idea of the size of the useless chunks of the City administration.

The City ought to do only those things that all cities in the region do: collect the trash, put police and firemen on the street, maintain parks and city streets, operate libraries, and not much else. Transit should be regional, and almost everything else the City does should be eliminated. Ask yourself, for any such City function: if Novi and Royal Oak and Dearborn and Taylor aren't doing it, why does Detroit do it?

Once you get the City down to doing only the things which cities must do, you can start to restructure the tax base so you attract people and businesses en masse.

Part of the strategy, while the City is as depopulated as it is right now, might be to officially cordon off and abandon some areas. This was suggested perhaps 20 years ago by a City employee, the late Marie Farrell-Donaldson, who was roundly blasted for the concept. Sadly, the idea was never discussed intelligently, just pooh-poohed. It might be one way to save money in the short run and to assemble large parcels for potential long-term development.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 652
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 5:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Ask yourself, for any such City function: if Novi and Royal Oak and Dearborn and Taylor aren't doing it, why does Detroit do it?"

These are all nice talking points and are completely divorced from reality. Novi doesn't collect the trash. They don't even have a full-time fire department. Would that work in Detroit? I don't think so. Does Novi need health and human services for the poor and elderly? Maybe so but they don't really provide those services. But Detroit does. How do you think the poor and elderly would do if Detroit cut off those services?

Talking about ending the income tax and all business taxes is what I expect from the Chamber of Commerce types. But someone still has to pay for the police and fire services and all of those other services that are needed to keep the city running. Let's say that slashing those taxes does bring new business into the city. That's not going to happen overnight. So where does the money come to pay for the services until we reach that land of milk and honey?

"It might be one way to save money in the short run and to assemble large parcels for potential long-term development."

Really? Who's going to pay all of those private land-owners for their property which has been effectively taken from them?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mwilbert
Member
Username: Mwilbert

Post Number: 330
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 5:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree with the previous post. Detroit shouldn't be doing anything but core services.

I also think neighborhoods should be shut down, but in previous threads no one seemed to agree.
I think it would be very difficult politically, but as far as I can see it makes sense.

I think the city is pretty much doing what it can (other than having a competent government) to attract larger businesses. One thing Detroit should be doing is to make it easy to start businesses. They should be removing whatever regulations are not absolutely needed, including land use regulations, and providing people with assistance in going through the process of getting whatever approvals remain after they eliminate as many as possible.

Businesses starting up in Detroit have some additional costs that the city can't really do anything about, but those costs (in time, money, and uncertainty) under the city's control should be minimized. I don't think that is politically impossible.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fmstack
Member
Username: Fmstack

Post Number: 71
Registered: 06-2007
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 5:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It makes sense to me that ideas to "close" portions of shrinking cities never really catch on among current city planners. I just don't see top-down attempts to forcibly restructure the city working in any real way, since that's failed so badly so frequently. It seems to me, at least, that that's how people got ideas like running freeways through organically developed neighborhoods and replacing them with projects no one would live in by choice.

Sometimes I think that the main source of the problems Southeast Michigan is facing isn't economic decline or entrenched racism, but instead the tendency to try to erase history and start over according to a master plan. A while back on this site someone posted a video made in the early 60s (I think for an Olympic bid by Detroit?) that highlighted things like Lafayette Park and the big medical complex in the Cass Corridor, arguing that the city's progress could be shown by the way that it had cleared "slums" and replaced them with big institutional developments. Although those developments are fine, for what they are, I have to figure anyone, even back then, who was clued in to Jane Jacobs and all that could tell from watching that video that rather than being America's model city (as it was described), Detroit was a time bomb about to go off.

The sprawl since then seems like an aspect of the same phenomenon -- once the people with money realized that it didn't work to erase parts of the city to write their new vision over it, they proceeded to try to realize their top-down plan on what was previously farmland and forest. The stagnation and slow decay that's been going on throughout the region since then proves, to me at least, that trying to build based on any top-down vision doesn't work for actual humans in the real world, regardless of whether you try it in town or in 900 square miles of exurbs. Attempting to build an idea without respecting the preexisting material that idea is implemented in is a recipe for slow disaster, at best.

I guess this is a roundabout way of getting to the point that anyone with bright new ideas about how to fix the city and the suburbs should keep in mind that their ideas aren't the important thing -- the important thing are the people and the actual extant stuff that the ideas will have to work with. Rather than shoving people closer together to make Detroit more compact and more manageable, a planner who wants to succeed needs to find ways to make the extant, scraggly, gap-toothed city workable.

Likewise, the planners of the future, the ones who will be trying to fix the decaying suburbs and exurbs once the cheap oil that's made them (marginally) livable runs out, will, to succeed, have to find a way to refashion the strip-mall-and-subdivision pattern established out on the mile-road grid into something more sustainable without trying to just erase what's already there (which, again, is a recipe for disaster). To my eye, at least, this task will be much, much harder than fixing Detroit will be.

Okay, off my soapbox. I think I've got more ranting about urban planning stored up than is strictly healthy -- which, I suppose, puts me in good company here. :-) Apologies for taking one little aspect of your thread and going off on a tangent from it.

(Message edited by fmstack on August 12, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Douglasm
Member
Username: Douglasm

Post Number: 1120
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 5:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Danindc....
.....good call on expanding urban areas, but you missed one point. Growth brings on added costs that ARE NOT recovered immediately. 2 examples:

When oil shale mining was proposed back in the mid 70's in the Colorado Rockies, estimates were that Rifle would grow from about 2500 to 20,000 population in less than 5 years. The length to time estimated to recoup the needed infrastructure improvements (water, sewer, streets, schools, etc.) was estimated to be 20 years. That proposed boom busted, but aparently the whole idea is moving to the front burner again.

We're looking at something like that on a smaller scale in the 1,000 population central Washington town I'm a councilman. Proposed developments within the urban growth boundry would bring in another 70 houses, or about 300 people. By state law, we have to provide water, thus increasing the strain on the system by 25%. Granted, the developer has to pay for infrastructure to bring water to the developments, but we have to pay for the maintenance once installed, AND find another source of water. Estimates on a new potable well are about $700,000. May need a new water tower, too. We annex those properties, and we're now looking at street maintenance, police services and the like.

Matter of fact, we're looking at a request from a developer to annex in to the city Thursday night.

Both expansion and contraction have their problems.....
Top of pageBottom of page

Mwilbert
Member
Username: Mwilbert

Post Number: 331
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 5:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Who's going to pay all of those private land-owners for their property which has been effectively taken from them?"

Presumably you would be taking land in areas that are mostly abandoned anyway, and hence not very valuable. You start out enforcing codes and issuing fines in the area you want abandoned, that should result in a lot of quick forfeitures. The city already owns lots of land--it could swap land in the area that is being abandoned for land someplace else. If you could actually show the operating cost savings, you could probably bond the purchases. There are lots of ways to pay for things.
Top of pageBottom of page

Melocoton
Member
Username: Melocoton

Post Number: 33
Registered: 01-2008
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 6:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"...I don't care if every ounce of resource the city has is used to attract businesses into the CBD...I'd rather give a developer 5 years of no property taxes and collect taxes for the next 20 years rather than raise taxes and send businesses to Brighton."

Sorry if I'm out of the loop on this discussion, but hasn't the city been focusing vast amounts of energy on developing downtown and the CBD for years, YPD? And tax incentives for corporations have also been part of the way Detroit has worked, especially under Kwame Kilpatrick (tax breaks for individuals? Not so much, I hear). The city gives developers tax breaks like they're going out of style. What the cumulative results of this have been over the last decade or so, I'm not expert enough to say.

The idea in your example, however, that a company would enjoy 5 years of no property taxes, and then happily begin paying city taxes for 20 years thereafter, doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I guess the argument might be that if a company invests heavily in a big building or plant, they might be reluctant to leave. The problem is that this tax break stuff isn't such an easy solution. For one thing, it creates a cycle, in which Detroit, Buffalo, Baltimore, and other depressed cities compete endlessly to give up more than the next guy, and of course companies take advantage of that competition.

Eventually, of course, companies may just leave for "greener" pastures--as American Axle, currently half-way through a 12-year Detroit tax abatement on their new HQ, threatened to do earlier this year. Until, of course, they extracted deep concessions from their blue-collar employees, many of whom are Detroit residents and, therefore, taxpayers. So my point is that these tax incentives spiral downward, especially for cities like Detroit that are in such a vulnerable position.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jb3
Member
Username: Jb3

Post Number: 461
Registered: 06-2007
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 6:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Fmstack, my man!

However, we live in a capitalistic society. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about that. All of these Harvard graduate types trying to theorize a city into socialistic structures is nonsense. What we need is a city that simply understands the principals of what makes bacteria grow. simply provide the right conditions for growth and let the free market figure it out.

Whoever said that the city needs to concentrate on 'core' services, nailed it on the head exactly. First things first though, this city needs to have a clear understanding of how it exists not only in infrastructure, but as part of an ecological system. I would imagine our next mayor should be a botanist. Someone that understands growth and decay on fundamental level.

Anyway, as i mentioned, this is capitalism at work here, and any attempt to socially engineer anything will be burned at the stake. Instead the city simply needs to invest in a masterplan that doesn't take place behind closed doors and is open for discussion. Then let capitalism take it's course. Any attempt to relocate people will have to be done with incentives.

Start with a strong community school and get people to move into that district and make it a prerequisite that they participate in their childs education, offer college tuition as part of an association fee, or something. As they leave their existing rotting out neighborhoods, either deconstruct or relocate the existing infrastructure and housing stock according to an agreed upon masterplan.

We are lost without our ability to exist with nature, we need a city that is ultimately a carbon sink, not a carbon producer. We need a city that understands the fundamental life support systems that we are destroying day by day.

If we are talking about intelligently reorganizing our city, then we need to do so intelligently and without hidden agendas. Granted, this goes against the capitalistic ideology, but the trade off will be an explosion of capital investment...why do think all these developers have such hard-ons for life-style centers? It's because there is a game plan that they can count on.

Cheers
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 653
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 6:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Although I think Detroit budget numbers tend to suffer from smoke and mirrors, here's the numbers that count:

http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/Po rtals/0/docs/budgetdept/2008-0 9_Redbook/Budget-in-Brief%2008 -09.pdf

About 65% of the city's budget goes to Police, Fire and DPW services (sweeping streets, filling potholes, etc.. Of interest is the left-hand column on page 2. It highlights which parts of the operation are self-sustaining through fees, etc. and what operations need funding through taxes, etc. There are a number of areas where I would suspect the tax-cutters would hone in on like Human Services or Planning. But those departments appear to cover their costs, either through fees or federal funding. Those that don't "make a profit"? Police and Fire.

That, ladies and gentleman is the dirty secret about government. It's not a business. Ironically, it's the profit centers which are usually the first thing that those who want to downsize government zero in on to cut. What actually is costing you the big bucks are the services that everyone says we need to provide. So how do you cut your taxes when you need those to provide your basic services?
Top of pageBottom of page

Fmstack
Member
Username: Fmstack

Post Number: 72
Registered: 06-2007
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 7:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jb3

Oh, well, I'm not sure we share the same perspective, what with what you're saying about capitalism being the end-all. I thought I had tipped my ideological hand by talking about material being more important than ideals, but maybe not. :-) But, yeah, we do live in a capitalist society and a plan for the city that isn't driven by that fact is failed from the outset. All of the "we want things just so" top-down plans that have been inflicted on the region for decades seem more based in power fantasies than by an understanding of the real world.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fmstack
Member
Username: Fmstack

Post Number: 73
Registered: 06-2007
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 7:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And I really, really like your incentive plan idea, but personally I think it'd be a better idea to find a way to give people incentives to stay in their neighborhoods. It seems to me that Detroit's big problem, after all, is people leaving, not people staying when they shouldn't.
Top of pageBottom of page

Douglasm
Member
Username: Douglasm

Post Number: 1122
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 7:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Melocoton....
....I understand your frustration with tax incentives, but the THEORY (theory and practice sometimes are not the same thing) is that the company will employ people to build then operate the plant and/or office building. Those new employees will pay sales and income taxes not currently recieved by the city.

In many cases, to get a tax break, a company has to commit to stay for X number of years, but again, government is trying to hook 2 fish. Yes, the employer will get a tax break for building or moving into an area...and hopefully hang around long enough to pay taxes, but the employees of the company (and the construction workers who build the plant, and the companies that supply the construction site, etc.) will pay taxes. I don't know how many employees American Axle has, but even if it's 150, it's probably a win for the city.....
Top of pageBottom of page

Jb3
Member
Username: Jb3

Post Number: 462
Registered: 06-2007
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 7:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

FmStack, we are actually talking about the same thing, but from different perspectives. I whole-heartedly agree that ideals have no legs in societies rooted in the here and now. People have immediate needs and demands. Just as you agree that any city without the potential for profits is doomed. All i'm saying, is that it isn't that difficult for a city to 'set the stage' so to speak, for material demands to flourish.

Society needs constraints with which to work from. Constraints establish order and determine the rules of the game. Without rules, we get what we have now, endless sprawl, a collapsing economy and worthless property values.

Cities are systems, call them living if you must, but regardless of the analogy, they can either spread like cancer and destroy their natural support systems or they can act in natural way of growth and decay using the dead organisms to nourish the rest in an endless cycle.

I believe in unlimited growth. I look at the great Redwood forests or the interconnected forests in Canada identified as the largest single organism on the planet. Yes these systems feed and consume, but they also grow as far as they can replenish their own nutrients.

So to make a long story short, i agree completely with your sentiment about getting people to stay put. But only in so far as it feeds into a greater system of a vibrant city. In short, strengthen the neighborhoods we have that are viable, incentivize people away from areas that are not. And we need to so conscientiously, with regard to the natural systems that existed before we paved over everything.

I may write a blog about this....interesting topic.

Thanks YPD!
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 1812
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 9:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Suburban fringe areas do not invest anywhere what they should into their infrastructure either. Collector roads are conveinently ignored, and this causes an overtaxing and congestion on the artieral system.

The ideal way of handling population increases would be to do infil in Detroit. However, without huge tax incentives to buyers this never happens. The end result is a taxing system where the rich actually pay less in taxes than the poor or middle class because they are the only ones that can afford the newest of housing. In many cases they do not even contribute enough to the City coffers to pay for their most basic of services.

Inner cities are also the 'sinks' of metropolitan areas. A sink is where all the crap collects, be it illegal dumping, drug trades, or homeless population. This is because those from the outside know that inner-cities are understaffed due to the too much infrastructure issues.

The way we develop in this political system sets up winners and losers. It also encourages greed in that those that live at the urban fringe think they pay too much in taxes, even though they may pay half the millage of a home in Detroit. They can rationalize that the poor, drugs, and dumping are someone elses problem; and they have to put their taxes into things such as widening roads or ensuring that they keep the sink as far away from their house as possible.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bvos
Member
Username: Bvos

Post Number: 2303
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2008 - 10:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A few things that aren't/haven't been said:

Straight Market Capitalism - Yes, as you can see that has worked so well for Detroit and SE Michigan. Let's have 80 more years of it. How about 80 more years of its good friend Modernism to boot. After all Detroit is the epitome of Modernism (I'm serious about Detroit being the pinnacle of Modernism).

Tax Structure/Municipal Finance: The State of Michigan dictates the taxing abilities of local governments. The model is based on a growth model and growth only. Those areas experiencing growth get more tax revenue. Those areas built out and/or declining get less. This seems logical on the surface until you start thinking about maintenance of infrastructure that the entire metropolitan area uses. And then thinking about times when no growth is happening across the entire area (like now). And then thinking about built out towns that are doing all the right things to reinvent themselves but still not able to make things go from a revenue standpoint (like Royal Oak). Municipal finance is a horribly broken system in Michigan and the knee jerk no-tax people don't help anything.


Impact of Taxes on Business: I'm sick and tired of the people here and elsewhere saying low taxes attract business. Boston, New York, Chicago, LA, Seattle, Minneapolis, etc. have high tax burdens, probably higher than the City of Detroit. These places are booming and have been for several decades even through national economic downturns. Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, Michigan, etc. have some of the lowest tax burdens in the county. These places are or are becoming economic backwaters.

It's not tax rate that attracts businesses that create economic development. It's quality of place that attracts businesses that create solid economic development. Who is a major factor in creating outstanding places and ensuring those places are well maintained and operated? Government. Where are governments well funded and actively participating in successful quality of place to create economic development and business development? Boston, New York, Chicago, LA, Seattle, Minneapolis, etc.


Role of Planners: as an urban planner myself, it needs to be put out there that planners have a limited role in economic development. We can run all the numbers, facts, surveys, best-practices, fancy drawings, computer models, etc. in the world, but it's the political leadership that makes the real decisions on projects in the end. They're the ones who decide to spend the money, incur the debt, evict/ticket property owners, set policy, tighten loopholes in laws, or not. In other words we lead the horses to water but we can't force the horses to drink or even want to groom themselves.

More than needing better urban planners, we need real political leadership in Detroit and SE Michigan. Detroit and Metro Detroit has some of the best urban planners you'll find anywhere in the nation. However they're incredibly hamstrung and constricted by the political leadership who are worried more about reelection and their free loading benefits than making the hard decisions and doing the right thing for the big picture and long-term benefit of the city and region. This complete and total lack of political leadership/risk/conviction is costing the urban planning profession dearly. There are a lot of urban planners, many of them the best in their field, who are fed up with things and moving to other areas of the country or giving up on urban planning and transitioning their careers to other fields and professions.

There are a lot of urban planners that have talked about shrinking the city and the land serviced by the city and there aren't many planners out there who disagree with that idea. It's the politicians who see it as a third-rail. I wish a few politicians would have the guts to do it and do the right thing.
Top of pageBottom of page

Youngprofessionaldetroiter
Member
Username: Youngprofessionaldetroiter

Post Number: 162
Registered: 07-2008
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 1:44 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Melocoton...I can only speak anecdotally about your question about CBD development. I've been living in Washtenaw County for 12 years. I'm moving back into downtown specifically because of some of the new developments there. I know of others who are doing the same. We are great new residents for Detroit's balance sheet. Although we will not be paying property tax for the next 10+ years, we will be spending our dollars in the city for city-owned businesses, supporting the local economy. Neither I nor my friends moving downtown have children, so we will not be creating any added strain on the public school system. And if I decide to stay in the city after I have kids, I'll likely pay for parochial/private schools. On top of that, the developments coming downtown not only brought me back into the city, but they are a nice enough attraction for my suburban friends to come visit me here and (1) feel connected to Detroit for the first time and (2) spend money here.

I have nothing scientific, so I'm open to hearing the other side of this story. All I know is that I think more CBD development is a net positive for the long-term future and near-term balance sheet of Detroit, because it's going to attract the high income suburbans who require very little of the city services.

Bvos, I understand what you are saying re: businesses being attracted to the quality of cities more than the tax rate. Intuitively, that makes sense...given the budget, someone would rather pay more and get the Cadillac instead of pay less and get the Yugo. Also, having the "Cadillac" of cities would attract the kinds of businesses who can afford to make the city a "high quality" place to live.

I agree with you wholeheartedly in this regard.

My question is what if you're not starting out with the Cadillac? What if all you have to offer is the Yugo? Detroit is not Chicago. Detroit is not New York. So until we have the city services and attractions that make those cities great, how can we attract business development without giving them financial incentives to do so?

This isn't a leading question/argument...I sincerely want to know how it can be done? How have other cities been able to do so? Remember, I'm an idiot about this urban planning stuff, so I'd love to hear your expertise.

As per your comments on political leadership, I agree wholeheartedly. Does anyone on this board have experience in organizational change management? This stuff has to be pretty textbook in terms of stakeholders desperately trying to hold on to their power centers even at the expense of the greater whole...leading to an organism's eventual demise.

Obviously, this would be good fodder for another thread. We all want better leadership, but the question is how do we work with the pre-existing organizational culture to get there?

YPD
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitmaybe
Member
Username: Detroitmaybe

Post Number: 154
Registered: 03-2008
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 2:22 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

YPD to answer your question...Genetrification.

Gentrification, or (urban gentrification), is the change in an urban area associated with the movement of more affluent individuals into a lower-class area.[2]The area experiences demographic shifts including an increase in the median income, a decline in proportion of racial minorities, and a reduction in household size.[3] More households with higher incomes result in increased real estate values with higher associated rent, home prices and property taxes. Industrial land use can decline with redevelopment bringing more commercial and residential use. Such changes often result in transformation of the neighborhood's character and culture.[4]

Gentrification can result from urban reinvestment efforts by local governments or neighborhood groups, which directs money to invest in deteriorating city infrastructure, offer incentives for redevelopment, improve access to lending capital for low-income or minority mortgage seekers, assist lending to first-time home purchasers, and improve rental properties.[5] These efforts have been linked to reductions in local property crime rates, increased property prices, increased revenue to local governments from property taxes, increased tolerance of sexual minorities.[6] Grassroots efforts for existing residents to guide or oppose gentrification generates community activism.[7]

The process has a human cost to the neighborhood's lower-income residents. The increases in rent often result in the dispersal of communities whose members find that housing in the area is no longer affordable.[8] Additionally, the increase in property taxes (due to increased property values) may sometimes force or give incentive for homeowners to sell their homes and move to less expensive neighborhoods.[9] While those who view gentrification positively cite local reductions in a neighborhood's property crime rate, its critics argue that overall crime rates have not actually been reduced, but merely shifted to different lower-income neighborhoods.[10]

for a general synopsis check out..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G entrification

I hope this helps!!I'll be checking back in about 5-10 years.

(Message edited by detroitmaybe on August 13, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 2756
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 4:47 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

YPD, if you want better leadership, then vote for candidates who are willing to address the tough issues, and hound those currently in office to provide a solution to the tough issues or tell them that you will campaign for someone else and convince their supporters to do the same.

Now, regarding the shrinking of the city, I think it is vital to Detroit's survival that certain areas of the city be mothballed, quarantined, or closed off and city services be put to a halt in those areas. The fact is mothballing is the most logical and most expedient thing to do to save the city hundreds of millions of dollars. The tough part about the decision is deciding on how to go about doing it with the least displeasure. Someone's property is going to be affected and emotions will be involved. The question that I have often pondered regarding property rights is, "Who really has a right to property in the city, the landowner or the city who sold the property to that landowner?"

At any rate, Detroit and cities like Cleveland and Youngstown Ohio are faced with an unprecedented 21st century problem that begs the question, "What do you do with a once thriving, built-up, and densely populated 20th century American "city" that continues to lose population? Do you try to save it, or let it die like the "ghost towns" of the West?

In the West, when gold deposits and oil wells dried up, the people left for better opportunities and rendered these cities "ghost towns." Will Detroit, Cleveland, and Youngstown become the United States' first "ghost cities?"
Should they be left to die or should attempts be made to keep them alive?

If we decide to save them, then "mothballing" mostly vacant neighborhoods is the first and most essential step in saving cities like Detroit. Again the problem is: How do we go about mothballing these vacant neighborhoods? Since eminent domain is difficult to carry out, can a city simply stop providing city services to those residents in the vacant areas, effectively kicking them off their property? What do the law books tell us?
Top of pageBottom of page

French777
Member
Username: French777

Post Number: 516
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 7:27 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Don't a good amount of people want to Invest in Detroit ....but there is sooooo much RED TAPE?
Top of pageBottom of page

Optima
Member
Username: Optima

Post Number: 38
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 8:10 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

reat discussion and I will not say much except that I was about half way through this thread before I saw the term infrastructure. Perhaps instead of or in addition to grandiose concepts that will takes decades or may never materialize, we look to the more practical ideas that we can control.

For example, restructure the City Council to make each Detroit City Council member responsible for a specific area of the city. A majority of other large cities are shaped this way and it only makes sense for the citizens to have an actual representative. Next, small, neighborhood businesses must be maintained and encouraged because if a person cannot walk or drive to a local store for basic necessities, what is the incentive to stay in the city? I take this for granted as I am blessed with a great core in my neighborhood but, I understand that many (most) are not.

Although I thoroughly enjoyed reading the above thread and agree with almost all of the suggestions and proposals, many seem like they may be years off and some ignore the remaining troopers who still live in these neighborhoods.

Another suggestion I agree with is that the city should engage simply in core services and defer many of the others to either privatized groups serving individual neighborhoods, based on need or empower its citizens to organize groups to solicit needs like tree trimming, neighborhood watches, razing homes, etc. Perhaps funds can be allotted for groups meeting very basic criteria before the city releases funds for the stated purpose. "Reasonable" community involvement strengthens neighborhoods by forcing communication and raising awareness. For some this involvement would be a blessing but for others, it may look like work.

To me, grass roots efforts working from the bottom up are what will save this city not necessarily utopian visions based upon federal or corporate donations that have played a part of our past. We need to coddle and engage the current citizens (who quite frankly represent the remaining tax base as many corporations have received tax abatements as an incentive to move into the city) as much as possible.

As I've described previously, regionalization is my utopia for this area but until that becomes a more viable idea, I believe that strong leadership, eg. Hendricks, Bing, or Archer with an administration that includes Mr. Penske mending the utter abandonment of corporate influence (economic times are the logical explanation here) may be a good start.

Can we cite a list of current attractions that are strong enough to make any or all of us want to move to Detroit, if we are not already there, based on our current situations? Also, I wonder how many people currently living in the city would remain there if they had viable alternatives.
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 658
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 10:25 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Since eminent domain is difficult to carry out, can a city simply stop providing city services to those residents in the vacant areas, effectively kicking them off their property? What do the law books tell us?"

Is it legal? Sure. It doesn't mean that people will leave though. Do those people get to stop paying taxes on the land that the city no longer serves?
Top of pageBottom of page

Fmstack
Member
Username: Fmstack

Post Number: 78
Registered: 06-2007
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 5:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Seriously, I don't get it. How much money would the city actually save by cutting off services to prairie areas or "mothballing" them? Maybe a bit for utilities, but aren't most of the costs there sunk costs for infrastructure? It's not like the city would be able to stop providing police or fire service -- or if it did, the neighborhoods at the borders of the "mothballed" areas would decay, what with all the being-next-door-to-a-lawless- zone. Am I overlooking some big cost? (I admit this is a possibility -- I don't claim to be the brightest spud on the tree).
Top of pageBottom of page

Terryh
Member
Username: Terryh

Post Number: 897
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 9:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This thread is very educational and informative for an average joe-Detroitophile like myself. Ill have to read it several times. Greatly appreciate this thread.

One question. YPD wrote that he wouldnt pay property taxes for 10 plus years for purchasing downtown. New loft-homeowners downtown get huge tax breaks?
Top of pageBottom of page

Youngprofessionaldetroiter
Member
Username: Youngprofessionaldetroiter

Post Number: 163
Registered: 07-2008
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 10:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Terryh...glad you're enjoying the thread. I've learned a lot too. Yes, on some of the development projects, there are tax breaks for condo owners. They differ from project to project. Some developments only give you the property tax break if you are actually residing in the property. Others will give it to you even if you are renting it out.
Top of pageBottom of page

Zulu_warrior
Member
Username: Zulu_warrior

Post Number: 3423
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 10:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Actually this thread is off kilter and presupposes many ideas that unfortuantely, do not follow logically.

First things first....

The City of Detroit cannot, unfortunately, cut their way out their financial woes. If the City were to only do the basic services, it would still be in a structural deficit. Another way of thinking about it would be this: if Detroit eliminated all the non-essential departments- the Zoo, The Airport, Cobo, Cable, Cultural Affairs, Neighborhood City Halls, Senior Citizens, Human Services, etc.- the total millions that this would save would not be enough to offset the deficit and make substanial improvements in the core services. Prety much every major city Detroit's size has about 20-25 departments.

The next glaring item....

The 139 square miles of Detroit proper need to still be managed and service. This large land mass will still need to be tended to, so the operation costs have a very high baseline to start from fiscally speaking.

The changing demographics of Detroit portend that Detroits population will hover where it is for some time, but it will be far poorer than in decades past.

Urban planning is a social science, with the emphasis on projecting the lives of people and proposing ways to make this work better for many.

The options to fixing things thus begin with the people and the way they make decisions- Politics.

One way to possibly begin to make things better would be to break up parts of Detroit and either allow areas to be absorbed by border cities or create new small municipalities... the problem being that the infrastructure costs to start things up would be large, and in some cases, cost prohibitive.

A second way would be the City of Detroit to be absorbed by or share services with a larger entity. In many places around the country, the idea of a city county merger has taken root and allowed for regional planning.

A Detroit/Wayne merger would assist in reshaping tax policy, services, planning, and investment.

The question would be a political one- would the cities of Wayne go for it and allow the political leaders to sign on to such a decision? while it may seem impossible, the facts are driving us to this conclusion.
Top of pageBottom of page

Izzyindetroit
Member
Username: Izzyindetroit

Post Number: 37
Registered: 07-2008
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 10:35 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm guessing YPD lives in a Neighborhood Revitalization Zone.

http://www.michigan.gov/docume nts/MSHDA_Neighborhood_Enterpr ise_Zone_166438_7.doc
Top of pageBottom of page

Youngprofessionaldetroiter
Member
Username: Youngprofessionaldetroiter

Post Number: 164
Registered: 07-2008
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 10:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Fmstack...

Much of our budget goes to fire and police costs. If you took a 5x5 block zone and just blocked the perimeter with fencing and barbed wire, police would really only to need to guard the perimeter instead of the interior. I believe that it is much easier to police higher population densities because there's just so much less land to cover. You don't have to worry about police being stretched geographically thin, and even if you keep the police force numbers the same, there's so much more overlap and people will feel a greater sense of security because police will be visible more frequently. As for fire coverage, it only seems to reason that shutting down and quarantining parts of the city would make fire coverage much more efficient.

As for being next to a lawless-zone, I'm not sure I agree. I would much rather be in a home adjacent to a secured perimeter (like an airport) where there was no illicit activity rather than next to a neighborhood with drug houses and gang activity running rampant.

Of course this is more an academic exercise, because I don't know how we could completely shut down entire decaying neighborhoods, but it seems intuitive that it would be much easier to babysit 10 kids in one room rather than 10 kids in 10 rooms, right?

YPD
Top of pageBottom of page

Youngprofessionaldetroiter
Member
Username: Youngprofessionaldetroiter

Post Number: 165
Registered: 07-2008
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 10:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"One way to possibly begin to make things better would be to break up parts of Detroit and either allow areas to be absorbed by border cities or create new small municipalities... the problem being that the infrastructure costs to start things up would be large, and in some cases, cost prohibitive."

I actually had this thought a few days ago while driving through Dearborn. What if each bordering city "annexed" (I don't know how municipal incorporation works, so bear with me) all the neighborhoods going 2 miles in?

Obviously, you don't need to barrage me with posts about how Grosse Pointe would never take anything west of Alter Road. But it would be an interesting thought.

Or what if Detroit subdivided into 6 autonomous governments? Where each unit would provide its own city services? At least that way people would have a bigger sense of accountability, right? If trash isn't getting picked up, you don't have to complain about how the folks in the City County building aren't doing anything. You walk 5 blocks to someone in your neighborhood and figure out how to solve it.

Just brainstorming ideas...the fundamental premise behind why I'm bringing all this up is that I belive that while Detroit is disadvantaged financially, I also believe that it's not doing the best it could with the resources it does have....

In other words, corruption aside, I think there may be some structural changes that would make our few dollars stretch a longer way, yes?

YPD
Top of pageBottom of page

Izzyindetroit
Member
Username: Izzyindetroit

Post Number: 38
Registered: 07-2008
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 10:57 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

YPD, are you suggesting we build Berlin walls throughout the city?? My question is only rhetorical, so there is no need to reply.

Second I wanted to mention that police presence isn't needed for a person to feel safe. Having a trust in your neighbors and your community is, along with adequate lighting and street traffic. Having police doing their beat only enhances the illusion of safety. Keep in mind however that police response time is critical as well. When an emergency happens and the police don't show up until an hour later then your trust and sense of safety is diminished.

Also, I understand it was just an exercise but what would you rather babysit? A room of 10 unruly kids that attack you or 10 well mannered kids in 10 rooms?
Top of pageBottom of page

Retroit
Member
Username: Retroit

Post Number: 353
Registered: 04-2008
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 11:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'm glad to see we've found the solution to all of Detroit's problems! Unfortunately, the future of Detroit rests not with the DetroitYES Urban Planning Committee, but with the other 899,900 Detroiters who really don't give a shit!
Top of pageBottom of page

Fmstack
Member
Username: Fmstack

Post Number: 79
Registered: 06-2007
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 11:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Of course this is more an academic exercise, because I don't know how we could completely shut down entire decaying neighborhoods, but it seems intuitive that it would be much easier to babysit 10 kids in one room rather than 10 kids in 10 rooms, right?


YPD, I really like your posts, but the rhetoric here is, I think, problematic -- and points to the big problem with grand plans to restructure Detroit geography. As it turns out, adult residents of any city, Detroit, New York, Grosse Pointe or Novi, are in fact not kids, and tend to chafe when people suggest they need a babysitter.

Very well-meaning people in the 50s and 60s, acting under the influence of a vague sense that poor folks needed babysitting, came up with the idea of taking apart messy, but thriving, neighborhoods and replacing them with orderly but artificial projects. We're still trying to dig ourselves out of the damage caused by those well-intentioned plans. I don't know how to fix Detroit. But I do know that any plan to do it will have to treat the residents as something other than things to be warehoused or babysat.

I know my rhetoric is pretty strong here -- if it seems like I'm coming down on you, I apologize. I myself am working from a position of ignorance, since as far as I know I've never really spent much time talking to anyone living in the prairie parts of Detroit -- most of my friends when I lived back there were in Hamtramck, Mexicantown, or out in Ferndale. It's just that it seems to me that the people who despite it all are still living in neighborhoods that have literally fallen to pieces around them are the key to rebuilding those neighborhoods, rather than a problem to be chased off. And, well, ain't nothing going to convince me that a massive fenced-off zone is less of a drag on property value and positive neighborhood feeling than an empty field. Just thinking about what it would be like to live next to something like that should be enough, but if it's not, I could probably quote Jane Jacobs chapter and verse on the effect of having geographical barriers (train tracks, freeways, and, yes, fences), or empty or single-use spaces next to a neighborhood.

I guess if I had a big dream for how to deal with the prairie neighborhoods, it'd be to try to get ownership of as many of the empty lots as possible into the hands of the people still owning and living in the homes that are left, for use however they see fit. That, of course, is easier said than done -- on the one hand, the city government is corrupt as all hell, on the other hand, anything that involves property transfer from absentee owners to lower-class residents is denounced as socialism by the right. But it'd be a start, and it'd be better than telling people to abandon the homes they've lived in despite it all in exchange for... what, really?
Top of pageBottom of page

Izzyindetroit
Member
Username: Izzyindetroit

Post Number: 39
Registered: 07-2008
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 11:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Just brainstorming ideas...the fundamental premise behind why I'm bringing all this up is that I belive that while Detroit is disadvantaged financially, I also believe that it's not doing the best it could with the resources it does have.... "

I agree that it isn't doing the best job either. But as it has already been stated there isn't going to be parts of it annexed, closed off, or removed. It would just be too big of a headache for everyone involved, the citizens, leaders, lawyers. Many of you are also forgetting about Political Power. As a leader of this city, or any municipality for that matter, would you make the policy and decisions to give away some of your tax base. Resulting in less voters, less income, less power, and so on. It would be nice if we had leaders that weren't selfish but in reality how many people would actually take a loss in self gain for the betterment of others?

If only the New England Patriots or Red Wings would run for office.
Top of pageBottom of page

Izzyindetroit
Member
Username: Izzyindetroit

Post Number: 40
Registered: 07-2008
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 11:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Oh yes and anyone who has posted on here that doesn't know much/anything about planning. Go out and get the Bible and read it.

"The Death and Life of Great American Cities" by Jane Jacobs

^^^ The Planner's Bible ^^^

Written over 50 years ago and still the best piece of planning literature among the planning community.
Top of pageBottom of page

Youngprofessionaldetroiter
Member
Username: Youngprofessionaldetroiter

Post Number: 166
Registered: 07-2008
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 11:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Fmstack...point taken, poor choice of words on my part. I meant no offense and will think a lot about what you said.

Jane Jacobs, eh? I've been wondering who you all were talking about in other posts. I'll have to check it out.

Retroit, thanks for reminding me of the challenges in front of us. It must be frustrating to feel so trapped by what must seem like massive apathy. Yesterday I was talking to a guy who lives in my old neighborhood on the eastside. He told me he was glad to see me moving back into the city, but that he resents that I'm moving back by choice while he's stuck and feels trapped. In all sincerity, if any of you find my relentless optimism irritating, I really do apologize. It's only because I've seen even the most dysfunctional organizations turn things around combined with my real love for the city that I'm trying to understand the issues we face. I know that if we deal with problems at an organizational level (versus limiting ourselves to finger-pointing and blaming), we really can see gradual improvement here, if not a complete change over the next 10-20 years. I don't think that it will be easy...and I think it might even be painful. But certainly much more difficult things have been accomplished.

So why sell ourselves short?

YPD
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 661
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 12:30 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Or what if Detroit subdivided into 6 autonomous governments? Where each unit would provide its own city services?"

This still doesn't change any of the underlying fundamentals - lots of poor people who need a lot of help, limited tax base and lots of infrastructure to maintain. Smaller governments might be more responsive but it also means a lot more bodies to replicate the same structure already provided by a single unit of government.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jb3
Member
Username: Jb3

Post Number: 463
Registered: 06-2007
Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 12:49 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Question from Izzy-'As a leader of this city, or any municipality for that matter, would you make the policy and decisions to give away some of your tax base. Resulting in less voters, less income, less power, and so on'

Answer from Bvos-'It's not tax rate that attracts businesses that create economic development. It's quality of place that attracts businesses that create solid economic development. Who is a major factor in creating outstanding places and ensuring those places are well maintained and operated? Government.'

Same thing with residents, it's the ability to create a desirable location with property values that can retain their value. The French figured it out hundreds of years ago by creating pocket parks in squares and built high density government offices and residences at the perimeter (granted, they then moved on to rural developments shortly thereafter...which we still seem to be fixated on...), New York figured it out when they built Central Park. Same philosophy, it's not about 'how much' land we have, it's the quality we can produce from the land we have. The higher quality land use will attract higher quality development generating higher property values (with longevity) creating increased tax revenues. Kind of a no brainer.

I have a stupid question now...does the city pay property tax to the state?


BTW, Jane Jacobs book IS the bible for how to plan...'in America'. But it should be considered as more of a childrens book for 'special needs' kids. When she wrote it, she was witnessing the systematic destruction of culture and authenticity that traditional neighborhoods grew out of due to immigration and European patterns of development. At the time, the Federal highway act was just getting into full swing and we were well on our way to suburbanization. So please read Jane Jacobs, but remember, the only way we can utlize her ideas to plan cities is to fundamentally change american behavioral patterns of NIMBYism. In other words, we should be catering to immigrants and doing everything in our power to empower them with the same opportunities that suburban families enjoy.
Top of pageBottom of page

Royce
Member
Username: Royce

Post Number: 2757
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 6:17 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Drastic change" is what's needed in Detroit. Trying to figure out how to accomplish drastic changes without having to go through a lot of red tape is the key to making positive changes in Detroit. However, some of you, like many Detroiters, simply say that these things can't be done. Why can't they be done?

In order for any drastic change to be realized, it takes sacrifice, period. Someone somewhere has to give up something precious - property, comfort, or even their life to make things better for society as a whole.

Would Martin Luther King Jr., be revered today if he had only thought about himself and his family? He could have made a comfortable living preaching at his father's church and we might have read or seen somewhere that he's associated with a celebrity who attends his church. That would be his footnote in the history books. And yes, he probably would have lived beyond the age of 39.

Now, if MLK had lived this comfortable life, very few of us would have known anything about him, and the changes that were made to improve the conditions of African Americans and all other oppressed people of the world might have come much later in time or not at all. He sacrificed property, comfort, and ultimately his life so that ALL oppressed people of the world could have a better life. Are we today saying that his sacrifices were all for naught? Was MLK just a naive preacher who had the crazy belief that one person could change the world or was he just a fool for being concerned with the lives of millions of people he didn't know?

Also, we pay homage to injured and fallen soldiers who protect us from enemies from abroad. We admire their ultimate sacrifice, yet no one is willing to sacrifice their home or be inconvenienced by relocating to a better part of the city where their sacrifice not only benefits themselves but the city as well. No one is willing to make sacrifices of comfort, property, life or limb to protect the children or elderly in the neighborhood from drug dealers or report a crime that we've witnessed. Very few of us seem to be willing to protest against a corrupt mayoral administration for fear of retaliation.

During World War II Americans had to sacrifice having many things we take for granted today. Did they say to the U.S. government, "screw you, Uncle Sam, I want my new car right now, and I don't want to wait 'til after the war is over? The answer is "no." Americans were willing to make the sacrifices of comfort so that they could continue living in a free country.

If a natural disaster like an earthquake hit Detroit, then people would be forced to make sacrificies of comfort, and tough decisions would have to be made. Decisions like which structures to save and which structures to demolish would have to be decided upon, without any input from the owners. Which school buildings to use and how to get the students to them once the power is restored is a decision that someone would have to make. Bringing in the national guard is yet another decision to be made.

Well, the natural disaster in Detroit has been occurring for over 40 years. Some drastic changes need to be made, period. Who's willing to make the sacrifices so that they can occur? Who's willing to make the tough decisions among our leaders? The status quo can't continue if a healthier Detroit is to emerge amongst the "fabulous ruins of Detroit."

BTW, regarding mothballing neighborhoods, look at the old Herman Gardens project site at Joy and the Southfield Freeway now under redevelopment. It covers several blocks, east to west and two to three blocks, north and south. The site was fenced in for over two years and water and electricity was shut off. Did this "mothballing of a neighborhood" adversely hurt the city? Did property values in the surrounding area fall? Did illegal dumping take place? Was there illegal activity occurring on the site while it was vacant? I don't know the answers to all of these questions, but just from passing the site and watching and reading the news, I didn't hear about any negative effects from mothballing the site. It's possible that mothballing on an even larger scale could work.



(Message edited by royce on August 14, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Optima
Member
Username: Optima

Post Number: 39
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 7:29 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Interesting thread. Back in 1967 Jacksonville Florida merged with Duvall County (if memory serves) and it is/was the largest city in the US by land mass so the projected/suggested merger with Wayne County is not without precedent. Practical, maybe not but possible, maybe.

One of the books I consider a Bible these days is written by Richard Florida and is called "The Flight of the Creative Class" closely followed by his latest, "Who's Your City" which both partially cite the woes of Detroit and the erosion of its population and economic bases while addressing why and where the creative classes are flocking. Insightful and eye-opening for some, these books address the fight for survival for many former great cities. The author's wife is native to this area and his insights are helpful in understanding why we are in this state. (pun intended)
Top of pageBottom of page

Novine
Member
Username: Novine

Post Number: 662
Registered: 07-2007
Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 11:51 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"I have a stupid question now...does the city pay property tax to the state? "

As a rule, No. There are exceptions for city-owned property that's not used for public purposes but generally, governments don't pay taxes.

Jacksonville is no longer the largest but in the top 5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L ist_of_U.S._cities_by_area

Regarding city-county consolidation, a better example would be Indianapolis's merger with Marion County. While the city and county borders were made coterminus, some existing cities within the county were allowed to remain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U nigov

I don't believe Michigan has any laws that permit city-county consolidation. As far as Wayne County goes, I'm not even sure how well it would work. In Indianapolis, the outlying cities that were excluded were relatively small. But Wayne County has a number of large cities like Dearborn and Livonia. Also, I think Indiana has weak townships. In Michigan, esp. in Wayne County, most of the townships provide quite a few services and have well-established identities.

(Message edited by Novine on August 14, 2008)
Top of pageBottom of page

Bvos
Member
Username: Bvos

Post Number: 2306
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 10:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

YPD,

Re: "My question is what if you're not starting out with the Cadillac? What if all you have to offer is the Yugo? Detroit is not Chicago. Detroit is not New York. So until we have the city services and attractions that make those cities great, how can we attract business development without giving them financial incentives to do so? "

The way to do this is to play on your strengths. There are lots of neighborhoods in Detroit that are as good as neighborhoods in Chicago. The city should be focusing on these neighborhoods and providing quality services to these neighborhoods. By and large these are people living there by choice and people who want to stay. But when three people out for a walk get mugged in one morning within a 3 block radius (which is what happened today in Rosedale Park) and the police take an attitude of "yeah, stuff like that happens in Detroit" and just take down a police report with no intent or actions to pursue the perpetrators, that's a really big flag that it's time to get the hell out of Dodge.

If resources were focused on the neighborhoods that are still solid/on the edge a lot of these neighborhoods would stay solid because people would see their tax dollars at work through good parks, maintained streets, ordinance enforcement, police that actually give a damn, etc.

Royce,

Your observations on Herman Gardens are a great contribution to this thread. The surrounding businesses may have struggled for a while, but the area fenced off stayed fairly problem free for the entire time it was fenced off. There was nothing to mess with in that fenced off area so no one did anything there. Sure, some dumping and litter collection may have happened, but that happens in habited neighborhoods all the time. It was probably less of a problem in Herman Gardens than other neighborhoods.
Top of pageBottom of page

Optima
Member
Username: Optima

Post Number: 40
Registered: 12-2006
Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2008 - 10:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Novine,

Thanks for the updated info. on J'ville. I was stunned at how the infrastructure was so firmly in place and how they were on a tear in terms of attracting new businesses to the area when I was last there in 2004.

I agree that Wayne Cty. may be too well-established to be consolidated and the mentality of the residents is likely in favor of such a plan. Unification to some degree still seems to be a solution as long as privatization is a part of the ultimate plan. It should be interesting to see how/if things develop.
Top of pageBottom of page

Jb3
Member
Username: Jb3

Post Number: 465
Registered: 06-2007
Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2008 - 8:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A Wayne Co. merger is an interesting proposal, especially if we're talking about life/safety services. As far as geographically and politically rewriting the maps, i think the idea is doomed to failure. It may give a short term reprieve, but would only perpetuate a welfare state that we exist within currently. We can look to other cities, like Indianapolis, but ultimately, we have the burden on our shoulders of redefining an American city for the 21st century.

We cannot do this if we continue to look elsewhere for help. Either we pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps or we die. Handouts are not an option.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.