 
Urbanvaquero
Member
Username: Urbanvaquero
Post Number: 355
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 9:07 pm: |    |
I say we cut it up and push it off onto neighboring suburbs. It's gotten so big over the years, it's unmanageable.
Redford Heights, Michigan? College Park, Michigan? Palmer Park, Michigan? Fort Schaefer, Michigan?
--Brenda |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 586
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 9:11 pm: | |
Haha. Cute. |
Dtown1
Member
Username: Dtown1
Post Number: 390
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 9:14 pm: | |
There's too many "lovers" of Detroit. they just dont want to deal with all the problems of the city. |
Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 316
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 9:31 pm: | |
I say we slice out Old Redford, Warrendale and make em separate cities again! |
Detroit_stylin
Member
Username: Detroit_stylin
Post Number: 3121
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 9:33 pm: | |
I say if yall want that then just leave the city so you wont have to worry about the slice job... |
Eric
Member
Username: Eric
Post Number: 578
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 9:38 pm: | |
quote:There's too many "lovers" of Detroit. they just dont want to deal with all the problems of the city.
More like too many dumbasses concocting idiotic, unrealistic "solutions". |
Jasoncw
Member
Username: Jasoncw
Post Number: 263
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 9:38 pm: | |
What are the benefits for an area to be a part of Detroit? |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 8073
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 9:47 pm: | |
What a ridiculously stupid concept.
Yep, eliminating Detroit will also educate the illiterate, create a wonderful sense of personal responsibility, make the addicted give up their drugs, make the dealers quit dealing, supply the homeless with a new castle.
The idea that the problems are due to Detroit and not in spite of Detroit is what all too many in this ignorant region believe. Dissolving Detroit will not create jobs, educate people, make parents care, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, etc.
The notion that the problems exist because of Detroit not the problems would exist regardless but are now mostly shouldered by the city shows how ridiculous people's thoughts can really be.
Stupid, stupid, stupid. The problems will continue to exist with or without Detroit. |
Detroit_stylin
Member
Username: Detroit_stylin
Post Number: 3123
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 9:52 pm: | |
No Jt this is about the 30 thousandth time I have seen someone say "divide up Detroit"...
SO I say bump it...lets do it, and THEN we will see how fast SE Michigan will really grow or how much political capital it will grab...
It makes no sense... |
Urbanvaquero
Member
Username: Urbanvaquero
Post Number: 356
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 10:26 pm: | |
"Detroit" would no longer have the highest crime rate if we could split it up into different cities.
Hell, St. Louis might finally beat us in the high crime rate department, too, if we were wiped off the mat.
If Detroit were split up, and what was left of Detroit was, say, the Woodward corridor from Downtown to Highland Park, you'd better believe I'd pay $1500 a month rent for a one-bedroom apartment just for the privilege of being able to tell people I live in Detroit. But because for three years I've shared this city with 600,000 who couldn't give a shit about the fiscal health, social health, community health, mental health of this city, it doesn't mean much to be a Detroiter any more.
Reducing Detroit to five square miles and selling off everything around those five square miles would be a good start.
Just think, we'd still have a Belle Isle Zoo and Aquarium if we'd given the island to the Grosse Pointes or Windsor five years ago.
I'd sooner see the city split up and/or affixed to neighboring suburbs than to see it in the hands of a Granholm-appointed or Devos-appointed or court-appointed receiver.
We can have the "Detroit" we love, and still sell off the Detroit that's mapped by the political geographers. They could rename the whole city "Hoopleheadville" but I'll still think of all the favorite spots I've come to love over the years in the area that I hope will someday become formerly the city of Detroit.
Memories are serving Detroiter so much better than realities these days. Just ask any building-hugging wacko or SyneJizzer in the city. I'm sure they'll tell you the same.
-=Brenda |
1953
Member
Username: 1953
Post Number: 1069
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 10:34 pm: | |
Brenda, you upset me. Detroit is the greatest city on Earth.
1953 |
Detroit_stylin
Member
Username: Detroit_stylin
Post Number: 3124
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 10:39 pm: | |
Tell' er again 19 five three...
lol |
Mayor_sekou
Member
Username: Mayor_sekou
Post Number: 227
Registered: 09-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 10:49 pm: | |
I see your point Urbanvaquero but Id rather work on improving my city of 139 sq mi instead of copping out and just focusing on downtown. So I have to agree with my other fellow forum members that this is a dumb idea.
And I second 1953's sentiment Detroit is the greatest or it will be. |
Royce
Member
Username: Royce
Post Number: 1874
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 11:18 pm: | |
Getting rid of Detroit isn't going to solve many of the city's problems. However, making Detroit physically smaller would save billions over time in maintenance costs. The shrinkage would have to take place in areas of the city that are severely depopulated.
Since eminent domain is no longer a viable solution without years of litigation, one solution to reducing the costs of maintaining certain areas of the city would be for the city to tell residents in these targeted areas that after a certain amount of time(six months, a year, two years) their area would no longer be serviced by the city, no electricity, no water, no gas, no trash pick up, and no fire or police protection.
The city would then help the residents of these targeted areas find new housing or even build new housing in more populated areas of the city to increase the density in those areas. Those residents who refused to leave could stay in their homes, but they would have to fend for themselves.
If the city's size was reduced, the border areas would seem the logical areas to sell land to the surrounding suburbs. Maybe the city could reduce the size of the city to Seven Mile to the north, Lahser to the west, and Conner/Gunston/Hoover to the east. At that point the city could sell the land to the suburbs bordering closest to the new city borders or to any developers who were interested in the land.
Given the fact that the city was built for two million people, and given the fact that Detroit will never reach that plateau again, maybe it's time to reduce the city's size, get people living in more densely populated areas, and make a profit by selling the excess land. It's just an idea, but something that might have to be looked at one day.
(Message edited by royce on November 01, 2006) |
Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 318
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 02, 2006 - 9:10 am: | |
In all seriousness a move like this would make the politicos focus more on the people of the City who pay taxes as opposed to the corporations that help to bleed it dry.
Heck if Warrendale was split out, we could have a better police force, our own fire department without raising taxes as we are already a stable area with people who probably make the same kind of dough as those living in Garden City or Dearborn Heights. Not exactly glamourous lifestyle, but I know we could have much improved services. We could develop Hermann Gardens to address our needs. |
Dtown1
Member
Username: Dtown1
Post Number: 393
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 02, 2006 - 11:24 am: | |
Hey, I want to stay in the city, make the east border for the city Schoenherr instead. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 8084
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 02, 2006 - 11:35 am: | |
quote:Heck if Warrendale was split out, we could have a better police force, our own fire department without raising taxes as we are already a stable area with people who probably make the same kind of dough as those living in Garden City or Dearborn Heights. Not exactly glamourous lifestyle, but I know we could have much improved services. We could develop Hermann Gardens to address our needs.
How would Warrendale schools be funded. I suspect that there is not enough industry to pay the extra 18 mils to sustain the school district.
How does the newly deconstructed city determine what legacy costs Warrendale should eat? Would Warrendale have the human resources to fill necessary positions or would they need to hire reducndant staffs.
There is major room for improvement in how the city is run but you guys are over simplyifying a ridiculous concept. |
Dds
Member
Username: Dds
Post Number: 1
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 02, 2006 - 12:24 pm: | |
I see the point Urbanvaquero is trying to make, but how would we convince any of these cities to "buy" parts of Detroit? Sort of like, "Would you like to buy this car? It runs poorly, and the seats, steering wheel, tires, axles, struts and shocks are gone." (Damn chop shops) |
Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 320
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, November 02, 2006 - 12:43 pm: | |
JT you are not reading the first part. All neighborhoods should propose this as a reality check to those at City Hall who largely ignore the neighborhoods. Shame on us for being ignored so long. I would think that such conversations are needed in order to get the priorities of the city back to where they belong: on basic and working services to those who live here, not creating a fantasy land or potempkin village for those that do not. If I wanted that, I could live in Celebration FL. |
Jasoncw
Member
Username: Jasoncw
Post Number: 265
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 02, 2006 - 4:32 pm: | |
So what are the pros and cons for an area to be part of Detroit vs. its own city.
I think it would make areas in the city that are already doing well a lot better, and the areas that are doing bad now would be the same.
It seems like the tax money that goes to Detroit's excessive beurocracy would be able to be spent on better things.
I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea, but I'd like to know what the benifits of an area staying part of Detroit are. |
Quickdrawmcgraw
Member
Username: Quickdrawmcgraw
Post Number: 79
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 02, 2006 - 4:49 pm: | |
how about changing the charter into wards so that we can have government officials responsible for smaller areas of management rather trying to make the city work as if it is still the 1960s. |