Ambivalence About Outside Investment in Detroit

I wanted to share a link to my latest column about Detroit, linked here:

http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_...-recovery.html

I wrote this right about the time there was a flurry of pieces on the web hating on Shinola. It's about the understandable ambivalence Detroiters have towards outside investment, but the need to overcome that and embrace it. Here's an excerpt:

Quote:

---

“Detroit is the only town in America where misery hates company, or at least distrusts it,” wrote Detroit Free Press columnist Brian Dickerson about the Shinola controversy. Detroiters, he notes, view enterprising newcomers as “mere poseurs, parasites feeding off a hardscrabble heritage to which they lack any legitimate claim.” Some of this is understandable. In a recent study of urban rootedness, Governing magazine found that Detroit had more longtime residents than any other large city surveyed. Those residents who stayed during the decline resent outsiders coming in now and leveraging the city’s ruination for profit. The city’s overwhelmingly black population lends an unavoidable racial dimension to this critique.

---

Oh, it's a completely different topic, but Eric McAfee [[a planner who spent a bit of time living in Detroit), had this piece taking a look at a mural on the Detroit-Grosse Point border:

http://dirtamericana.com/2015/01/bec...he-party-line/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arenn

I wanted to share a link to my latest column about Detroit, linked here:

http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_...-recovery.html

I wrote this right about the time there was a flurry of pieces on the web hating on Shinola. It's about the understandable ambivalence Detroiters have towards outside investment, but the need to overcome that and embrace it. Here's an excerpt:

---

Arenn, haven't read article yet. Got a question.

Sure, there is resentment. Vocal resentment. Is it really widespread? Or is it a vocal minority?

I have this question a lot in these days of the era of 'click bait news'. Everyone likes to report on 'ideas' like this resentment. But is this based on anything other than the yells of special interests?

For example, do the majority of Detroiters really hate Charter Schools? Or is it just that there's a vocal opposition, created by those with a dog in this fight [[teachers, current administrators, union members)?

OK, off to read your article now, because I think the distrust of outsiders is a major problem for us in Detroit.

You see this kind of thing all over.

Landlord has a strip mall with a lot of vacancies and he gives a two or three year lease to a new tenant at a very low rate just to have some money coming in. Tenant moves in a has a gang buster business going in a couple of months. Landlord thinks the guy is making too much money and want to renegotiate the lease. Tenant refuses and landlord does everything he can to be difficult because he thinks and resents that the tenant [[who took a risk leasing the place) is making too much money.

I think there's some of this everywhere. There isn't a city in the world without some degree of parochialism. I even reference New Yorkers' skepticism of billionaire housing investments as an example at the other end of the spectrum.

There does seem to be something visceral in Detroit, however. But more to the point, in Detroit it is affecting public policy, ranging from items like Belle Isle to Hantz Farms.

In other cities what I tend to observe more as the killer of investment is that you need the right political fix to get things approved. Weak governance in Detroit has meant that hasn't been as big in an issue for grass roots type stuff as near as I can tell, though obviously politics is involved in every land use decision.

I don't recognize the world this article is critiquing. Or rather, I do, but only from reading scads of similar laments, many of them on DetroitYes, and feeling similarly baffled.

The Shinola clocks didn't get tagged because of visceral hatred of outsiders, they got tagged because goddamn everything in Detroit gets tagged. As Motor City Muckraker has reported, this is in large part because there are a bunch of non-Detroit residents [["outsiders!") who find it entertaining to tag things, and have found that the risk of law enforcement is less in Detroit than elsewhere. I mean, how far do you want to take this interpretation of tagging? That KATSU asshat [[from New York! An "outsider!") who squirted the Eddystone Hotel with a fire extinguisher, you think that was some kind of protest against the Ilitches? You think he even knows who the Ilitches are? When people tag exit-ramp signs on the Jeffries, are they expressing their visceral hatred of MDOT, or are they just tagging hard-to-reach shit because they can?

Then take Hantz. He had to "face down critics" in order to obtain a sweetheart insider deal to cheaply purchase a large chunk of the east side. Surely this is a first in human history. A real estate profiteer, "facing down critics?" Quelle horreur! Also he's not a "suburbanite" or an "outsider" so I don't get how he fits your narrative anyway.

Quote:

---

Detroit must also convince outside investors that they can turn a profit in the city. New stakeholders will have their own ideas about what the city should become. They won’t simply mail checks.

---

Right, this is exactly the problem. Investors aren't just trying to "improve" the city, they're trying to remake it in their image. And whenever anyone who actually has to live here tries to say "hey, wait a minute, is remaking the city in this random dude's image consistent with what we want for the city?" they get slammed for being obstructionist and reflexively hostile to outsiders. We're not supposed to ask questions, we're just supposed to let the money guys do their thing and accept whatever they give us. And that, right there, is what a lot of people find off-putting.

There is no doubt it is worse here. I'm sure the roots of the problem are in the stupid burbs vs. city crap.

Good article. While there is some investment-xenophobia, and it seems that gets exaggerated attention, I do not have a feeling that is a predominant sentiment. In fact I think there is the opposite attitude held by a big majority who welcome the investments and take them, as I do, as affirmation of our turn around.

And why not? Jobs are being created and our tax base enhanced.

I think that outlook was more prevalent 20-30 years ago when the city - suburb hostility was at its peak during the Coleman Young - L. Brooks Patterson fueds and many 'investments ' were no more than speculators squatting on ruins. Those often came with grandiose plans that masked a scavenging operation such as happened to the Hudson's Building.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

Good article. While there is some investment-xenophobia, and it seems that gets exaggerated attention, I do not have a feeling that is a predominant sentiment. In fact I think there is the opposite attitude held by a big majority who welcome the investments and take them, as I do, as affirmation of our turn around.

And why not? Jobs are being created and our tax base enhanced.

I think that outlook was more prevalent 20-30 years ago when the city - suburb hostility was at its peak during the Coleman Young - L. Brooks Patterson fueds and many 'investments ' were no more than speculators squatting on ruins. Those often came with grandiose plans that masked a scavenging operation such as happened to the Hudson's Building.

---

I'd love to hear how one would come up with a plan to redevelope The Hudson's Building that wasn't grandiose. If anything was going to save that building it had to be done on a grand scale. It's not like you could just put a grocery store and some apartments in there and call it a day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

Good article. While there is some investment-xenophobia, and it seems that gets exaggerated attention, I do not have a feeling that is a predominant sentiment. In fact I think there ise the opposite attitude held by a big majority who welcome the investments and take them, as I do, as affirmation of our turn around.

And why not? Jobs are being created and our tax base enhanced.

I think that outlook was more prevalent 20-30 years ago when the city - suburb hostility was at its peak during the Coleman Young - L. Brooks Patterson fueds and many 'investments ' were no more than speculators squatting on ruins. Those often came with grandiose plans that masked a scavenging operation such as happened to the Hudson's Building.

---

I think you're right, Lowell. There 'investment-xenophobia' is not a predominant sentiment. The media gives it more voice that it deserves than the ascendant open-arms truth. Falling behind the times and giving voice to the past is what the media does today. Probably because its cheaper than real research or thought. Quote Al Sharpton and get ratings -- cheaply. Do a real story on what the average resident things? No way. That's expensive.

As to Hudson's, some of those grandiose plans seemed pretty real. CAY was talking to Defense Department and BCBS if I remember correctly. If he'd landed the big fish, we'd all be toasting his brilliance. I don't think it was cover for scrapping. Coleman played a high-stakes game with Hudson's. They bolted. He lost. Just a cover for some scrapping? No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antongast

I don't recognize the world this article is critiquing. Or rather, I do, but only from reading scads of similar laments, many of them on DetroitYes, and feeling similarly baffled.

The Shinola clocks didn't get tagged because of visceral hatred of outsiders, they got tagged because goddamn everything in Detroit gets tagged. As Motor City Muckraker has reported, this is in large part because there are a bunch of non-Detroit residents [["outsiders!") who find it entertaining to tag things, and have found that the risk of law enforcement is less in Detroit than elsewhere. I mean, how far do you want to take this interpretation of tagging? That KATSU asshat [[from New York! An "outsider!") who squirted the Eddystone Hotel with a fire extinguisher, you think that was some kind of protest against the Ilitches? You think he even knows who the Ilitches are? When people tag exit-ramp signs on the Jeffries, are they expressing their visceral hatred of MDOT, or are they just tagging hard-to-reach shit because they can?

Then take Hantz. He had to "face down critics" in order to obtain a sweetheart insider deal to cheaply purchase a large chunk of the east side. Surely this is a first in human history. A real estate profiteer, "facing down critics?" Quelle horreur! Also he's not a "suburbanite" or an "outsider" so I don't get how he fits your narrative anyway.


Right, this is exactly the problem. Investors aren't just trying to "improve" the city, they're trying to remake it in their image. And whenever anyone who actually has to live here tries to say "hey, wait a minute, is remaking the city in this random dude's image consistent with what we want for the city?" they get slammed for being obstructionist and reflexively hostile to outsiders. We're not supposed to ask questions, we're just supposed to let the money guys do their thing and accept whatever they give us. And that, right there, is what a lot of people find off-putting.

---

Great response!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

As to Hudson's, some of those grandiose plans seemed pretty real. CAY was talking to Defense Department and BCBS if I remember correctly. If he'd landed the big fish, we'd all be toasting his brilliance. I don't think it was cover for scrapping. Coleman played a high-stakes game with Hudson's. They bolted. He lost. Just a cover for some scrapping? No.

---

Why did people bolt from investment in the city? There was too much "pay for play" that had to be worked into every contract. When the crew got done adding in their set asides, projects quit making economic sense.

Thanks for the comments. I would say that one of the folks above really highlighted the crux of it: investors have their own ideas about Detroit. You can either accept outside investment and let those investors play a role in shaping your city. Or you can exclude them and do whatever you want with your city with your own resources. But people aren't just going to mail checks to the people of any city to do whatever they want with it. That's true anywhere.

When a developer finally gets his project through all of the city and financial hurdles, DetroitYes will find his architectural drawings to be hideous and unacceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

Why did people bolt from investment in the city? There was too much "pay for play" that had to be worked into every contract. When the crew got done adding in their set asides, projects quit making economic sense.

---

Hermod, don't you also think that some people, like the management of J.L. Hudson simply found the climate in Detroit unfriendly? Of course economics is a major driver, but as with most things, its a lot of factors. Money, crime, business climate, corporate takeover [[Daytons), and CAY's obvious belief that white people were ok, so long as they kissed his ring.

Dayton Hudson punked Coleman Young...he believed they would never close the store and the day the proposed development on the Broadway/Farmer/GrandRiver/John R block went down they filed for a open ended date to be determined going-out-of-business permit. The multistory deck might have prolonged the life of the store not have saved it.

Yep...the world became global.If Target thought the building would generate enough cash..it would have been saved.I miss it.....every Christmas.

I think that until the city actually opens up to outside investment it is a non issue,the pay to play aspect is in the past but unless you are a foreign holding company that is directed to the non hanging low fruit the city is still on lock down for American funding.

Shinola does not really count as a heavy employer,Hantz is a local what has been acquired in the last two years using a US based funding source in the city by an outsider [[ from out of state) ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antongast

...snip...Investors aren't just trying to "improve" the city, they're trying to remake it in their image. And whenever anyone who actually has to live here tries to say "hey, wait a minute, is remaking the city in this random dude's image consistent with what we want for the city?" they get slammed for being obstructionist and reflexively hostile to outsiders. We're not supposed to ask questions, we're just supposed to let the money guys do their thing and accept whatever they give us. And that, right there, is what a lot of people find off-putting.

---

You setup a false argument here. Its not either-or. Some people have hard opinions. Others don't. But as to business development the question isn't this or that. Its not mine or yours. It is whether. And if it is whether, it then mostly needs to be decided by whoever is investing. If the city invests, they mostly get to decide. If a businesswoman invests, she mostly decides.

This money thing is the game. Those are the rules. Funny thing, however. Almost everyone wins if the game is played in their yard -- not someone elses. And Detroit has encouraged the game to move elsewhere for too long. The trend back is going to be great for all.