 
Alan55
Member
Username: Alan55
Post Number: 1075
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 2:59 pm: |    |
I recall that metro Detroit has somewhere around 230 municipalities. Putting aside the "one entity" discussion for a moment, there has got to be a lot of waste and duplication in having that many city/ village/ township governments. Every city has department heads (who are, most often small businessmen) driving city cars, with city salaries, who put in a good 11 hours per week of work. They wander in at 8:45 AM, then at 10:30 AM announce that they have an outside meeting to attend (yeah, that's it, a meeting) and disappear for the rest of the day. Of course, they are definitely NOT working on their small businesses on city time.
The old, 36-square-mile Royal Oak Township is a good example. Right now, it has 10 municipalities in it. If those could be consolidated into, say, two municipalities AND the redundant department heads (and council members) gotten rid of, and the surplus city halls disposed of, there is a potential to save many millions in tax dollars. This scenario could be played out in many other metro areas. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4874
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 3:15 pm: | |
Why would any suburb decide to join with Detroit, knowing full well that Detroit could go into receivership, not too far into the future? There surely would be little, if any savings, tying themselves to sinking city. And the worst part is that any such former suburb would have little suck in Detroit's council-at-large system.
Total stupidity for any burb to do that--including HP. |
Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 2252
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 3:21 pm: | |
Livernoisyard, it would probably have to come from the state level of government (or at least that is how it would most likely occur for Detroit at this point). |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 141
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 3:36 pm: | |
I hate to sound uninformed here...But can someone give me the laymans def. on receivership? I tried to do some research, but I guess I don't grasp the concept. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4875
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 3:50 pm: | |
Bankruptcy is nothing new for metro Detroit, including Flint: Ecorse (since recovered), HP (since 2001), Flint (2002-2004; recovered), and Hamtramck (2000-2006; recovered). Falling into receivership is quite simple, really. Just run out of money or borrowing authority. Sound familiar?
Privatization Brought Ecorse, Michigan, Back from Bankruptcy |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 375
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 3:56 pm: | |
"Does anyone have any information on the east sides futile late 80's attempt to leave Detroit? "
It's futile because in most cases, there's no legal mechanism to do it. As I stated before, detachment only exists when there's an existing township to govern the detached area. Now the area you mentioned may have included GP Township, which still exists in the boundaries of GP Shores Village. But then you run into the other major obstacle - voting power. Detachment has to be approved by the combined vote of the voters in the city to be detached from and the township that the area was originally from. Do you think that GP Shores (assuming it even would want to be responsible for the detached area) and the votes of the people in the detachment area would outvote the rest of the city of Detroit? |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 376
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 4:00 pm: | |
Here's an overview from the state:
http://www.michigan.gov/docume nts/EFM_Process_Summary_2-10-0 5_132065_7.pdf |
Hpgrmln
Member
Username: Hpgrmln
Post Number: 343
Registered: 06-2007
| | Posted on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 7:33 pm: | |
Personally I think Detroit annexed too much. Compare it with the smaller cities and how well-run they are. Blight, crime, and poor schools are constant battles in the city. Livonia, with its current population of 99,000, has decent schools, low crime, less blight. I believe the smaller a city is, the easier it is to nip its problems in the bud and keep it under control, the only drawback being less money. Most medium sized suburbs are doing fine (Troy, Farmington Hills,Clinton Twp, Sterling Heights) but the suburban lifestyle isn't for everyone. These cities are big enough to have enough tax money to keep things in check, but none have over 150,000 people, so the city isn't too big to manage. I think Detroit needs to cut off a few miles around the north, west and east borders. How about EXPANDING Highland Park? Some of the areas NORTH of hIghland Park share its postal code anyway.
Keep Downtown, WSU etc. in Detroit and trim away some of the outer areas. Detroit would then consist of less land sprawling all over and more attention can be paid to individual areas.Make Highland Park larger to increase its tax base and still provide better, closer attention to the outlying areas.Extent Hamtramck at least as far as Mt. Elliott to the east and 6 mile to the North.
Yes, I believe a city can be too big and that making it just the right size, you can tackle more problems successfully and have the money to do so. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 378
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 11:00 pm: | |
"Yes, I believe a city can be too big and that making it just the right size, you can tackle more problems successfully and have the money to do so."
Detroit's size has little to do with its problems. There are plenty of US cities that are Detroit's size or larger that are functional and in decent fiscal shape. Carving Detroit into smaller pieces isn't going to change the underlying problems and the creation of smaller cities will only serve to dilute an already diluted tax base as well as dilute whatever political influence Detroit still has. |
Danny
Member
Username: Danny
Post Number: 6994
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 12:44 am: | |
Novine,
DWSD is actually Detroit Water and Sewage Dept. Redford TWP. doesn't regulate its own water and sewage. Detroit Dept. of Waterworks does. Therefore Redford TWP. is still not covered under the 1978 Charter Township Act. meaning the rest of neighboring cities could or would annex that township. Redford gets its water from Detroit. You can go check out the map from the Detroit Dept. of Water and Sewage locations. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 381
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 1:14 am: | |
Danny,
How did the water and sewer lines get into Redford Township? Through a contract with the city of Detroit. What does the Charter Township Act say?
(1) A charter township existing on June 15, 1978, or a township incorporated after June 15, 1978 as a charter township that complies with the following standards, is exempt from annexation to any contiguous city or village except as provided in subsections (2) to (8):
(f) Provides water or sewer services, or both, by contract or otherwise. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1059
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 2:01 am: | |
Danny,
I have bad news for you. Novine is correct. The requirement that a Charter Township provide water and/or sewer service does not mean that the Township has to provide it on its own; it can provide water and/or sewer by contracting with another party to deliver the water and accept and treat the sewerage. Also, FYI, a Charter Township does not have to provide that service to all properties within the Township.
Detroit has no chance of annexing Redford Township, even if it wanted to. Detroit, in point of fact, has no chance of annexing anything whatsoever. I'm not sure what I think about all the various points and counterpoints in this thread, but about this I'm certain.
Prof. Scott |
Thoswolfe
Member
Username: Thoswolfe
Post Number: 5
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 2:23 am: | |
Redford Twp became a Charter Township about that time, late 70's- early 80's. The argument FOR becoming a charter township was to be immune from annexations. Residents were assured that although charter townships could levy much higher millages, the General Law Township 1.5 mill maximum rate would not be increased. Becoming a Charter Township was just a precaution to prevent an annexation. (At least the taxes were not raised all at once, right? It is now one of the highest in metro area for townships, about 15 mills for township operations,plus more mills for schools, comm college, library, etc ) |
Hudkina
Member
Username: Hudkina
Post Number: 95
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 2:30 am: | |
I don't understand why people would be afraid of a regional government. For one, if the suburbs were all forced to combine with Detroit then the suburban population would make up nearly 3/4 of the total population. That means that the next mayor and most of the next city council would be elected mostly by the suburban population (L. Brooks Patterson the next mayor of Detroit?). Also, a city can have multiple school districts within its boundaries, which means that even if there was one municipal government for every neighborhood, you could keep the same school districts. So you could still live in the Birmingham "neighborhood" of Detroit and attend some of the best public schools in the nation.
On the flip side, with one regional city government we could all save taxes with the elimination of duplicate positions, THE SUBURBS WOULD EFFECTIVELY CONTROL THE WATER BOARD, The city would be better able to attract new business, and overall the crime rate would be smaller than most other major cities. (i.e. the murder rate would go from about 45 per 100,000 to about 12 per 100,000.) Also, with the consolidation of the various police forces the combined city would be more effective in controlling and reducing the crime. |
Thoswolfe
Member
Username: Thoswolfe
Post Number: 6
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 2:33 am: | |
One of the more interesting urban legends about annexation involves Redford Township. Some Detroit residents near Eliza Howell park insist that there was an 'expiration date' on the annexation of that area to Detroit from Redford Township. And that Redford Township had begun the process of taking the area back, including police patrols.Not likely, is it? (Well, Great Britan only had a 99 year lease on Hong Kong) Michigan law does not have similar time clauses, what's done is done, could only be changed by complicated elections.
(Message edited by Thoswolfe on January 19, 2008) |
Reddog289
Member
Username: Reddog289
Post Number: 217
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 3:28 am: | |
if my city were annexed by detroit, it would make things easier. then i wouldn,t have to say "well it,s between detroit and ann arbor" |
Crumbled_pavement
Member
Username: Crumbled_pavement
Post Number: 112
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 4:26 am: | |
Hudkina said: "On the flip side, with one regional city government we could all save taxes with the elimination of duplicate positions, THE SUBURBS WOULD EFFECTIVELY CONTROL THE WATER BOARD, The city would be better able to attract new business, and overall the crime rate would be smaller than most other major cities. (i.e. the murder rate would go from about 45 per 100,000 to about 12 per 100,000.) Also, with the consolidation of the various police forces the combined city would be more effective in controlling and reducing the crime."
You made some good points but none of your ideas touch on two huge issues that would kill this proposal before it could even leave any elected officials lips.
1) Suburbanites would rather this entire area burn to the ground than allow (more of) their tax dollars to go to benefit poorer Detroiters
and
2) Detroiters would equally rather this who area burn to the ground than to allow suburbanites to have that great of control over Detroit (Water Board, City Council, Mayor).
In other words, that'll never happen in our lifetime |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4879
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 4:42 am: | |
If push comes to shove, Oakland County could do their own water, according to Patterson, and include some of Detroit's current customers (Macomb or elsewhere) in a water war. But Patterson said that was unlikely to happen due to needless costs. Still, that's a very remote possibility.
However, there's no way that Detroit could ever compel Oakland County to assist Detroit financially, short of state legislation mandating it. With Detroit's population being somewhat less than 10% of Michigan's, the latter will definitely not happen. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 382
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 8:01 am: | |
"Residents were assured that although charter townships could levy much higher millages, the General Law Township 1.5 mill maximum rate would not be increased."
Depending on how Redford attained Charter Township status, this would be true but only to a point. Charter Townships that achieved that status by a vote of the Township Board are limited to the General Law millage rate. However, that doesn't prevent voters from approving higher millage rates if that's put to a vote of the people. Charter Townships that achieve that status with voter approval give the Board the authority to levy higher tax rates without having to go back and get voter approval.
"Some Detroit residents near Eliza Howell park insist that there was an 'expiration date' on the annexation of that area to Detroit from Redford Township."
Interesting rumor but there's no basis for it. Annexations didn't come with expiration dates. It would be interesting to learn the history on how that rumor got started.
Having said that, under current state law, two communities can approve an Act 425 agreement that transfers property from one community to another as if it were an annexation. Such agreements do come with expiration dates and some of the agreements actually have reversion clauses where property transferred to a city is returned to the township after a set period of time. But that law didn't exist when those areas of Detroit were annexed. |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 771
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 9:20 am: | |
The state has to come in and mandate some mergers. That is the only way Metro Detroit will move forward on the municipal front.
The State has to come in and go, suburb X, X, X, & X, you are merging with Detroit and there is no debate 
Sometimes drastic measures are needed. |
Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard
Post Number: 4880
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 9:31 am: | |
The state of New York has to come in and mandate some mergers. That is the only way Metro Toronto will move forward on the municipal front.
The State of New York has to come in and go, Toronto's suburb X, X, X, & X, you are merging with Buffalo and there is no debate :-)
Sometimes drastic measures are needed. |
Miketoronto
Member
Username: Miketoronto
Post Number: 772
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 9:42 am: | |
We actually had forced mergers in Ontario. And Windsor funny enough was one of the only cities to not recieve a forced merger by the provincial government.
Toronto had a forced merger(although we were already pretty much merged with the metro gov), and did Hamilton, Ottawa, and a number of rural municipalities.
Quebec also merged Quebec City, and Montreal with their respective suburbs. Montreal did have some de-mergers due to some of the English speaking suburbs voting to seperate from the new City of Montreal.
Even with the demerger each demerged suburb must still send a certain amount of their taxes to the core city of Montreal. |
Royce
Member
Username: Royce
Post Number: 2514
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 11:31 am: | |
Buyamerican, I see Warren and Harper Woods having some real problems in the future. Both cities have old homes that are extremely small that are not going to attract families that have money. Instead these families choose to buy a home in Macomb, Chesterfield, or Shelby Townships.
Poorer families will move into Harper Woods and Warren, which is happening now. These families will bring with them the problems associated with being poor. Eventually, more tax payer dollars will be needed for social programs, more special ed classes will need to be added to the public school system. Those with money will leave, taking valuable property taxes. Next thing you know Warren and Harper Woods will look a lot like mini-Detroits. So, Buyamerican, I guess you're right, Detroit annexing Warren and Harper Woods would be a bad idea. |
Buyamerican
Member
Username: Buyamerican
Post Number: 297
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 12:28 pm: | |
Royce,
Look at the foreclosure rate in every city and every county in Michigan, not just Warren and Harper Woods. Right now, Warren is a very good city to live in. Yes, there are older homes in Warren, probably built in the early 60's, unlike Detroit where homes were built in the early to mid 1900's. There are not too many young families out there these days (in Michigan) that have the kind of money it takes to purchase a $350,000 to $400,000 home in Macomb, Chesterfield or Shelby Twp.
I would like to know what you mean when you say "Poorer families will move into Harper Woods and Warren, which is happening now. These families will bring with them the problems associated with being poor." What problems? Please be more explicit. |
Royce
Member
Username: Royce
Post Number: 2516
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 2:32 pm: | |
The problems would include but not limited to: less home ownership, creating neighborhoods with more transient residents: an influx of students to the public schools needing more remedial or learning disabled classes and English as Second Language classes; and more social programs - GED classes, planned parenthood services, abuse shelters, drug rehab centers, and job training centers. All of these social programs are helpful to the poor, but they create a negative perception of city, keeping those with families and money out. |
Crumbled_pavement
Member
Username: Crumbled_pavement
Post Number: 113
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 2:34 pm: | |
Livernoisyard said: "However, there's no way that Detroit could ever compel Oakland County to assist Detroit financially, short of state legislation mandating it."
Which is exactly why I support suburbs of similar demographics merging together, but not Detroit annexing bordering suburbs. Suburbs of similar demographics merging would cut down on the redundancy of so many governments but would not make people uneasy by forcing polarized groups together under the same government. Metro Detroit is at least a good 50+ years away from being able to peacefully exist under the same government. |
Buyamerican
Member
Username: Buyamerican
Post Number: 298
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 2:43 pm: | |
Royce, thank you for your explanation. I assume you mean these "poorer families" would be coming directly from Detroit into the suburbs. |
Hudkina
Member
Username: Hudkina
Post Number: 96
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 12:31 am: | |
I don't think it would be wise to only force a few inner-ring suburbs to merge with Detroit. If a merger occurs than the new municipal government needs to include most of the regional population. Like I said before it would only work if they moved the "borders" north to 26 Mile Rd and west to Napier Rd in Oakland/Macomb County and include just about all of Wayne County except for the rural-most areas in the southwest. That way the effect wouldn't be as "traumatizing" as merging one or two communities.
I think if a new regional municipal government was created, a few things would need to happen:
1. The city council needs to be based on districts and include a larger number of representatives. Maybe 1 for every 150,000 people which means a council of about 25. In that sense the different communities can retain a sense of "place". Though adjacent communities with smaller populations would share representation.
2. The city income tax needs to be eliminated, and taxes as a whole need to be reduced. If people see their taxes reduced significantly while the level of government services stays the same (or even improves) they will be far more willing to join a regional government.
3. The School Districts need to stay the same, or at least have a minimal amount of merging among smaller adjacent districts. This may only need to occur temporarily, but it will help "provincial" families keep at least some semblence of a "local" identity and it will make it easier for suburbanites to join a regional municipality if they don't feel that they are merging with the "failing" Detroit School District.
4. Possibly have a stipulation that something like 30%-60% of the taxes levied in a particular district stay within that district. That way people will know that at least some of their tax money is going into the local community. The remaining tax money would go to regional projects as well as city-wide services such as emergency services, waste removal, major public institutions (Zoo, DIA, Cobo), and others.
(Message edited by hudkina on January 20, 2008) |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 1410
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 1:52 am: | |
quote:I don't think it would be wise to only force a few inner-ring suburbs to merge with Detroit. If a merger occurs than the new municipal government needs to include most of the regional population..... That way the effect wouldn't be as "traumatizing" as merging one or two communities.
How do you figure that forcing 75+ communities to merge with Detroit would be somehow less "traumatizing" than forcing only one or two inner-ring communities to merge?
Then again, nothing else that you've written makes much sense either - including your assertion that we should regionalize so "the murder rate would go from about 45 per 100,000 to about 12 per 100,000".
I think the savings from elimination of redundancies is much less than the proponents would expect. Most of the savings would be captured from eliminating redundancies at the elected, appointed and department head levels of government. Get rid of 80% of the Metro Detroit suburban communities and you would probably save at most about $220 million a year in their salaries, benefits and perks (equivalent to the total combined budgets of Warren and Sterling Heights).
The delivery of services at the lower levels of local government would still have to be maintained close to where they are needed and I think you will find that most mid-to-large sized suburbs already have staffing levels that are efficiently sized for the population they have - not for the population they used to have. Not much opportunity for any savings there unless you reduce their delivery of services and that won't fly with local taxpayers in any community, Detroit included. |
Reddog289
Member
Username: Reddog289
Post Number: 223
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 3:25 am: | |
i belive that is happening with the police dispatching in westland ,garden city and inkster. i could be wrong. wayne and the former nankin twp used to share fire depts. |
Danny
Member
Username: Danny
Post Number: 6997
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 10:49 am: | |
Professorscott,
You haven't look further on the act. It's a an "escape clause" effect. It quotes: (Outcome of the Compromise) As the SBC began implementing its responsibilities, the caseload for annexation grew dramatically during the 1980s. The caseload involved anywhere from 13 to 47 petitions filed per year. Developers initiated virtually all of the cases and maintained that annexation was necessary to gain access to city water and sewer services. Most commonly, cities providing these services responded by saying the city policy does not permit extending these services outside the municipal boundaries. Hence, in townships that did not provide these services, annexation was the only avenue for gaining these services.
The compromise also resulted in a major decline in the incorporation of new cities and villages and brought a virtual end to the city incorporation of full townships."
"That means all TWPs. who gained access for water and sewage from Detroit will be subject for annexation. Not to Detroit if it's away from city limits but to other incorporated suburban cities. For example Bloomfield TWP. may be annexed to Pontiac, Or Utica may be annexed to Sterling Heights if they voters have a say."
That also means whatever TWP who gains access to city water will be petitioned and proposed for annexation and the prevention of future city incorporations. The ONLY way for a TWP. or village to have immunity from annexation is not have water and sewage lines being brought in from the city. Reford TWP. will be subject for city annexation because it has gained more access to Detroit city water more than gaining access for tapping a well or has propose contracts from other wast management. By the way Redford TWP. back then. didn't have its own sewage treatment plant, but it did have water and sewage discharge to the rouge river and lola valley areas in which it would pollute the water and ruin the area. I'm glad that the rest of parts for Redford TWP. had been annexed to Detroit due to their bankruptcy and newer sub-divisions of Old Redford, North Rosedale Park, Grandmont and Brightmoor. Without this event. Redford would remained a TWP. under possibly state control the result for an immediate full annexation to Detroit from Greenfield Rd. to Inkster Rd. anf from Joy Rd. to 8 Mile Rd.
Luckily a part of Redford TWP. from Inkster Rd. to West Parkway, the alley behind Telegraph Rd. and Five Points and from Joy Rd. to 8 Mile Rd. have been spared annexation to Detroit due to financial fix up of the Redford Charter Board of 1929. That doesn't mean that they out of woods yet. By the 1950s newer sub-divisions were popping up like mushrooms all over the Redford TWP. neighborhoods causing these sub-divisions to gain access to Detroit city water and sewage and less on providing their own city water and sewage requirements. When the new Charter Township Act was proposed in 1978 allowing TWPs to be immuned from city annexation if they met their own city and sewage requirements. Redford TWP along their cookie cutter sub-division neighborhoods had already gain more access to Detroit city water thus making Redford TWP. be to access to Detroit, Livonia, Dearborn Heights or Southfield. If only the last portion of Redford TWP became a village or a incorporated into a city. The it can get access to city water without being annexed to Detroit or other suburban cities unless the people of both Redford and other neighboring metro Detroit agree on a vote.
Sooner or later Redford TWP. will be annexed to a neighboring city. So far most of their dirt roads have be paved asphalt to meet modern street requirements and try to become a city by overuling the SBC anti city or village incorporation. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 384
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 11:31 am: | |
Danny,
99% of the cases before the State Boundary Commission (SBC) don't involve Charter Townships. Only 10% of the state's townships have Charter Township status. Most townships are General Law townships and the annexation provisions in the Charter Township Act don't apply to them. Those annexation cases that you talked about mainly involved General Law Townships, not Charter Townships.
"That means all TWPs. who gained access for water and sewage from Detroit will be subject for annexation...if they voters have a say."
First off, Utica and Sterling Heights are both cities. No city can annex another city without the approval of the voters in both. As to the question of annexation, almost any annexation can occur, if the voters approve it. But what makes you think that the residents of Bloomfield Township are going to approve having the entire Township annexed by Pontiac? That's never going to happen.
As for the rest of your statement, it's flat out wrong as it applies to the Charter Township Act. No court is going to allow any portion of Redford to be annexed based on the water and sewer issue.
Redford defines its own future. That future can be:
1) Stay a Charter Township (most likely)
2) Petition to incorporate as a City (possible but then the Township would be responsible for all road maintenance and that would be another cost they wouldn't want)
3) Petition to annex to a neighboring city. (Unlikely and most of the surrounding cities probably wouldn't want to take on the needs in Redford)
4) A portion of Redford is annexed to a surrounding city using the "loophole" provision in the Charter Township Act.
You never mentioned it but there is a provision in the Charter Township act that allows a portion of a Charter Township to be annexed to an adjoining city and bypasses all of the restrictions of water, sewer, police, etc. That can be done by a majority vote in the surrounding city and the area to be annexed. This was how the development in Bloomfield TWP was annexed into Pontiac and the portions of Royal Oak TWP joined Oak Park. It was also tried in the South Lyon area but in that case, the voters rejected the developer's attempt. However, there's probably few large parcels in Redford Township where this could be attempted and someone would really want to have to be part of an adjoining city. It's a possibility but if city voters don't want to take on the township area, as happened in South Lyon, it won't pass. I would suspect that would be the outcome unless the area to be annexed had some significant business that would add to the city tax base but otherwise wouldn't be a burden.
Long-term, Redford is either going to stay a Township or possible incorporate as a city. The other alternatives are probably not going to happen. |
Hudkina
Member
Username: Hudkina
Post Number: 97
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 2:39 pm: | |
"Then again, nothing else that you've written makes much sense either - including your assertion that we should regionalize so "the murder rate would go from about 45 per 100,000 to about 12 per 100,000"."
How does that not make sense? Unless you don't realize how murder rates are determined... In the city of Detroit there are about 400 murders or so a year. The population is about 900,000. That means that the murder rate is about 45 per 100,000 residents. However, if the borders of the city were expanded to encompass a larger share of the population, the number of murders wouldn't increase as much simply because there are significantly less murders in the suburbs. Overall, there is still less than 500 murders in the combined city/suburban area that I described above. And since the population balloons to 3.7 million then the murder rate falls to about 12 per 100,000 residents. The total number of murders stays the same for the region, but the "perceived" rate falls dramatically simply because the population is much larger.
Besides, I didn't say that we should regionalize only for that reason. However, if such a thing occurs Detroit would no longer be close to being considered the "murder capital" or "the most dangerous city" or any other negative stereotypes often given to this city.
While living in Sterling Heights or Canton or Livonia or any other suburban enclave might make you care two shits about such a title, you have to understand that Detroit is the only city that matters for this region from a national and international perspective. And whatever bad press Detroit gets adversely effects every last city in this region. Sterling Heights may not have to deal directly with the crime that is in Detroit, but it does have to deal with the negative aspects of that bad press.
So, I would say that the perception of crime (this region really does have an overall low crime rate) isn't just a ridiculous factor in why we should regionalize. A lower perception of crime will help the region create a new identity where crime doesn't play a major factor. |
Mikeg
Member
Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 1416
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 3:01 pm: | |
quote:How does that not make sense?
I know how the statistics work. But it makes absolutely no sense to cite that as a reason for regional consolidation.
Just as the Detroit-based automakers have come to accept, despite their improving quality data, consumer perception lags far behind the reality. You are wasting your time promoting any statistical impacts regional consolidation might have to outsiders, particularly this one. |
Hudkina
Member
Username: Hudkina
Post Number: 98
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 4:10 pm: | |
Of course perception lags behind reality, but a decade after "Detroit" is listed nowhere near the top of "dangerous city" lists or "murder capital" lists, people will start forgetting it ever was a "dangerous" city.
Look at New York, the city used to have the worst crime rate in the United States back in the 70's and 80's. Everybody associated New York with crime, decay, and everything else descriptive of a "failed" urban center. Today New York has one of the lowest crime rates in the nation. Now virtually nobody associates the city with crime and decay, despite the fact that it still does exist in large amounts in New York. (Look at movies set in New York in the 80's vs. movies set in New York in the 2000's...)
Also, with a regional municipality, the "perception" of crime isn't the only thing that would be different. With one region-wide police force with one budget, the city as a whole could far more easily tackle the issue of crime. So, even as the perception of crime diminishes, the actual instances of crime would probably fall as well. |
Danny
Member
Username: Danny
Post Number: 7000
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 5:17 pm: | |
Novine,
There is no word "General Law Townships" mentioned in the "escape clause" of the SBC reversal to the Charter Township Act of 1978. For far is I know from the act. All TWPs who had access to city water and sewage may be subject to annexation either by the courts or by voters. Redford TWP. is not part of the Charter Township Act if doesn't provide its own water and sewage requirements. It's get its water and sewage from DETROIT. If Redford TWP. becomes its own city it would violate that act and Detroit will take Redford to highest court for using our water and declaring a charter as an escape goat to become a incorporated city. Plus if Redford becomes a city. Detroit would cut off most water and sewer lines flowing through its neighborhoods. Therefore Redford can not become a city. It could remain a Charter or be annexed to Detroit, Livonia, Dearborn Heights or Southfield.
You quoted that as for the rest of your statement, it's flat out wrong as it applies to the Charter Township Act. No court is going to allow any portion of Redford to be annexed based on the water and sewer issue.
YES IT WILL! since the SBC reverse the Charter Township Act after 1983. That law still stands and not sleepy.
YAY! My 7,000th post! |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 387
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, January 20, 2008 - 11:40 pm: | |
Danny,
Please stop. You don't know what you're talking about and each time you respond, you get it even more wrong. You've misread an analysis of the annexation laws and jumped to conclusions that are either not supported by the text of the law or are contrary to what the law says. You got off track reading this:
"Most commonly, cities providing these services responded by saying the city policy does not permit extending these services outside the municipal boundaries. Hence, in townships that did not provide these services, annexation was the only avenue for gaining these services. "
You have taken this to mean that since Redford TWP gets its water and sewer service from Detroit, it somehow could be annexed by Detroit. What you don't know or don't understand is that Detroit doesn't have a policy of annexation in return for water and sewer services. Instead, it has extended water and sewer services throughout SE Michigan, including to Redford TWP through contracts with those communities.
This provision of water and sewer service to Redford through a contract would exempt Redford TWP from annexation. The Charter Township doesn't require the Township to provide its own water and sewer service and no court has ever said as much so your claim on that point has no basis in either the legislation or in law. Even if you were correct, Redford was a Charter Township before 1978, so it's automatically exempt. It doesn't have to meet any criteria to be exempt.
As for your claim that the SBC reversed the Charter Township Act, no such thing ever happened. The SBC has no power to reverse an act of the legislature. In fact, the 1978 amendments to the Charter Township Act removed the SBC's ability to allow annexation for those Charter Townships that are exempt. If you want more detail on this process, read this:
http://www.michigan.gov/docume nts/cis/Annex-B_the_P_Together -SBC_191180_7.pdf |
Danny
Member
Username: Danny
Post Number: 7002
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 21, 2008 - 10:05 am: | |
Novine,
I know what I'm talking about. You haven't read more details about the "escape clause" that led to the reversal of the Charter Township Act in 1978. The SBC make sure that law will proceed that would make TWPs immune to annexation. Redford TWP. had been using Detroit water and sewage for a long time and time for them to pay up or shut up. Sooner or later Redford TWP will be annexed to Detroit, Southfield, Livonia or Dearborn Heights. So those folks in Redford will have to petition the SBC right away for incorporated city or remain a charter TWP. If the TWP is to be incorporate into a city. The City of Detroit MAY to the township board to the highest court in U.S. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 388
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Monday, January 21, 2008 - 11:20 am: | |
Danny,
I give up. There is no "escape clause" but nothing I'm going to say is going to convince you otherwise. Come back in 5 years and let me know how those annexations by Detroit are going. |
Danny
Member
Username: Danny
Post Number: 7003
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 21, 2008 - 5:16 pm: | |
Novine,
I read that Charter Township Act of 1978 that recommands immunity to TWPs if the they regulate their own water and sewage. The SBC reverse it and declared the annexation is necessary whether TWPs' are chartered or not. I going to have to agree on there words not upon my comments. |
|
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.