Guess Sports DO make a big contribution to an area's energy and economic vitality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

A big reason privately-owned streetcars became unsustainable was that governments began dictating where the traction companies had to provide service--and also placed caps on fare increases. The private IRT and BMT subway lines in New York were taken over by the City for this reason too. There was still *plenty* of developable land in the 1950s.

The problem is, the private sector isn't developing the corridor. In the case of Ilitchplayland, it's being constructed with hundreds of millions of public dollars, which go right into the pocket of Olympia, never to be seen again. Even more public dollars go into speculative "development" where perfectly usable buildings are demolished, raising the financial barriers to new development.

These enormous and expensive Project Plans don't work as-advertised, and they haven't worked since at least the Ren Cen was built in 1977. It makes you wonder when Detroit is going to learn this incredibly expensive and wasteful lesson.

---

Why GP, are you actually suggesting an Ayn Randian free enterprise solution to Detroit's woes would be better?

You're right on transit -- to a degree. My socialist side says that there is some space for mandated coverage -- but not too much. Today, then pendulum has swung too far. The best solution for DDOT would clearly be to cover areas not covered by private jitneys. If you opened up Woodward to private buses and jitneys excellent service [[with a mean security guard on board) would appear in moments.

Sometimes the solution isn't more government and regulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Why GP, are you actually suggesting an Ayn Randian free enterprise solution to Detroit's woes would be better?

You're right on transit -- to a degree. My socialist side says that there is some space for mandated coverage -- but not too much. Today, then pendulum has swung too far. The best solution for DDOT would clearly be to cover areas not covered by private jitneys. If you opened up Woodward to private buses and jitneys excellent service [[with a mean security guard on board) would appear in moments.

Sometimes the solution isn't more government and regulation.

---

I think you meant Adam Smith. Ayn Rand was the woman who said, in so many words, "Fuck 'em".

Are there any current barriers to private buses operating in Detroit? I mean, Greyhound seems to provide intercity service of its own free will. One would think that if transit were inherently profitable, that more cities would have such services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

It certainly is, but the way it was stated was that light rail is what makes the difference. Light rail will not do squat unless the conditions are there. Why do you think this mode was left in the dust in the 1950's [[when the automobile became the primary conveyance)? If it makes economic sense now, it would have then too, but it did not.

---

It certainly does make a difference, and to behave as if it wouldn't make that crucial difference in Detroit is silly. The conditions are there. Our local leaders are determined that we never have it again.

As for light rail being "left in the dust" [[in North America, where massive subsidies for highways, low-cost gasoline, dwindling subsidies for transportation, broad-brush zoning regulations, transit-incompatible building codes, etc., etc., etc.) that's just your personal bias at work. We all know that the fix is in, and our local leaders are determined to never invest in light rail. Why you have to rationalize and it and cheerlead for that mentality is beyond my comprehension.

Better to stick to why you are opposed to giving a billionaire several hundred million dollar in tax monies. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

As for light rail being "left in the dust" [[in North America, where massive subsidies for highways, low-cost gasoline, dwindling subsidies for transportation, broad-brush zoning regulations, transit-incompatible building codes, etc., etc., etc.) that's just your personal bias at work. We all know that the fix is in, and our local leaders are determined to never invest in light rail. Why you have to rationalize and it and cheerlead for that mentality is beyond my comprehension.

---

My take on history is not a bias. It is a fact that in the 1930's streetcars began to lose riders and car ownership began to rise. It was at this time that the ownership of streetcars was shifted away from private interests who were completing the development of streetcar suburbs [[term used loosely as in Detroit many streetcar suburbs were places like Grand River/Greenfield, Old Redford, Rosedale) to being a service provided by the public for those who could not or should not drive.

Things have come full circle along Woodward. There is starting to be investment in areas that have long needed it. There are upswings in population and in employment that can help support and grow a transit system. What I find curious is how today, as like yesterday, it is the landowners who are paying most of the costs of M-1 as they see this as an important means to get to what they want: the redevelopment of the City and a chance to make a lot of loot.

In talking about subsidies you seem to forget it is the car that subsidizes most of the funding that goes into transit capital. This is paid for through gasoline taxes and car registration fees. Yes there are costs of the highway system that are borne by other parts of government as well [[emergency response, sewers, etc) but those also need the roads for either response times or to provide the ROW need to move the poop. You make a major dent in car traffic under this scenario and transit loses the most and roads deteriorate to the point where no one, not even the bus or truck delivering goods can use them.

This will also give what many folks who post here the active city core they want. One that is definitely denser than it would be if there were not the transit improvements that would reduce time travelled.

Still a better investment that will provide benefits to the community at large than any tax packages or funds directed to stadiums so billionaire owners can save a few bucks and pay exorbitant salaries to athletes that are overpaid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

My take on history is not a bias. It is a fact that in the 1930's streetcars began to lose riders and car ownership began to rise.

---

You know what you're doing, don't you? You're dining a la carte on history, just cherry picking the things from the historical menu that suit your taste, and ignoring the other things that aren't your flavor. And why shouldn't you? That's what so many "experts" do when they go online these days. You're happy to simply make your case for the status quo for the most part, selectively ignoring facts, conveniently foregrounding others. And that works for you.

Of course, for many of us who post here on this forum, you're a lousy historian, a shill for the powers that be, and an embarrassment to the profession of planning. If that sounds harsh, it's you who are making yourself look ludicrous when you defend lousy ideas like BRT, worship at the altar of M1, thank motorists for supporting transit, or ignore the obvious ridership that has always existed in Detroit with no upgrades in transit to serve them.

I understand you have this vision of how, historically, where we've arrived was inevitable. And I also understand that it is a deluded and self-serving view that wouldn't make it into any scholarly publication. Why you attach the suffix "planner" to your handle is a complete mystery to me -- and I know I can't be alone.

Have a nice day, DP. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

You know what you're doing, don't you? You're dining a la carte on history, just cherry picking the things from the historical menu that suit your taste, and ignoring the other things that aren't your flavor. And why shouldn't you? That's what so many "experts" do when they go online these days. You're happy to simply make your case for the status quo for the most part, selectively ignoring facts, conveniently foregrounding others. And that works for you.

Of course, for many of us who post here on this forum, you're a lousy historian, a shill for the powers that be, and an embarrassment to the profession of planning. If that sounds harsh, it's you who are making yourself look ludicrous when you defend lousy ideas like BRT, worship at the altar of M1, thank motorists for supporting transit, or ignore the obvious ridership that has always existed in Detroit with no upgrades in transit to serve them.

I understand you have this vision of how, historically, where we've arrived was inevitable. And I also understand that it is a deluded and self-serving view that wouldn't make it into any scholarly publication. Why you attach the suffix "planner" to your handle is a complete mystery to me -- and I know I can't be alone.

Have a nice day, DP. :)

---

Please stay on topic. You seem to have the uncanny ability to say snarky things about the posters while ignoring both facts and the topic at hand.

In case you have not figured it out a thread about economic development should speak of how govt money is used. You can attack me all you want but I am in daily conversation with folks at FTA, FHWA regarding on transportation funding and I have thick skin. I will continue to post no matter how childish your behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

4) You change the property tax structure so that vacant buildings are charged a far higher millage than occupied buildings, and vacant lots are charged a higher millage still. If that means slumlord billionaires have to pay a few more shekels to allow their decrepit speculation projects to disgrace the city, so be it. Oh--and COLLECT on the damn taxes

---

I think you're off the mark there. If you tried to do that, you'd soon enough have a bunch of buildings landing into the City of Detroit's hands. People aren't going to develop JUST to avoid taxes.

On another note, I think the stadium issue is too complex for it to be as black and white as some of the posters here are trying to make it. I believe that it's true that stadiums can force through some gentrification, such as a few restaurants, lofts, and perhaps offices, where before there was almost nothing. Yet at the same time, does that mean the stadium makes economic sense in its location? Probably not. It's throwing a lot of good money after a lukewarm or stale opportunity. But if you're desperate, it can give create a semblance of vitality in an otherwise barren environment.

Think about it. If there was a stadium on the old Hudson's site [[I know, that's an absurd scenario, but this is a hypothetical), would there or would there not be more businesses open on Merchant's Row? I'd hazard to say there most definitely would be. But that doesn't mean it would be a good deal for taxpayers, or even a good example of urban planning. It's a desperate approach for desperate cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Please stay on topic. You seem to have the uncanny ability to say snarky things about the posters while ignoring both facts and the topic at hand.

---

No, this is all relevant to the conversation because, when it comes to your pet topics, you seem to be deep in denial of the facts. So the only riddle is, are you are a consistent cheerleader for bad ideas because you are so poorly informed? Or do you keep yourself so poorly informed so you can consistently cheerlead for bad ideas? I am afraid it all comes back to you, because debating the facts with somebody who is as consistently deluded as you are would be an exercise in futility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

In case you have not figured it out a thread about economic development should speak of how govt money is used. You can attack me all you want but I am in daily conversation with folks at FTA, FHWA regarding on transportation funding and I have thick skin. I will continue to post no matter how childish your behavior.

---

I am not at all surprised that you are in daily conversation with folks at FTA and FHWA. I look at the dismal state of rapid transit in our area and I think you are a perfect fit for the job -- precisely because you seem to be riddled with faulty assumptions, illogical thinking, an utterly biased view of the history of transportation and a stubborn unthinking resistance to the ideas that are working in cities across America.

What's childish, DP? Saying no to a proven strategy of redevelopment that has worked in countless cities across America? Or saying that this view is ill-informed and ridiculous?

Really, have a great day, man! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nain rouge

I think you're off the mark there. If you tried to do that, you'd soon enough have a bunch of buildings landing into the City of Detroit's hands. People aren't going to develop JUST to avoid taxes.

---

Absolutely correct. And frankly, the City doesn't have the expertise or resources to maintain an inventory of old, empty buildings, or to play developer. I would like to see better building code enforcement, though. We know that a lot of these buildings aren't as safe and secure as they need to be.

Quote:

---

On another note, I think the stadium issue is too complex for it to be as black and white as some of the posters here are trying to make it. I believe that it's true that stadiums can force through some gentrification, such as a few restaurants, lofts, and perhaps offices, where before there was almost nothing. Yet at the same time, does that mean the stadium makes economic sense in its location? Probably not. It's throwing a lot of good money after a lukewarm or stale opportunity. But if you're desperate, it can give create a semblance of vitality in an otherwise barren environment.

---

Sure, a stadium is good for supporting a few additional bars and restaurants, particularly on game days. But for $400 million, one could open a lot more than a few restaurants.

Agreed that it's a desperate approach. Even worse, though, is not so much the desperation, but that it's so expensive for the results that are obtained. The only real winner is Mike Ilitch.

Didn't know where to stick this post [[mostly because I didn't find a thread on a soccer stadium).

Here is the latest on D.C.'s effort to build a new soccer stadium. Note this is a map link in the article. Helpful to understand the area of D.C.

What is significant here is the effort to locate it in an area near Nationals Park, called Buzzards Point, which is pretty decrepit [[kind of like parts of Detroit).

They are taking land which is industrial usage [[e.g. cement), one of the few industrial areas left in D.C,. and connect that area to the stadium district.

There are some neat photos and maps showing its proximity to Nationals Park, yet an area which really needs a 'jump start'.

Beside what is planned, I could see a nice parking lot which would sit between the soccer stadium and Nationals Park [[and serve both - surface parking isn't particularly plentiful at Nationals Park) and maybe some eateries serving both. All of this could be good for fans wishing to enter Nationals Park by home plate, rather than through the center field gates.

I can see some real development possibilities in an area which has been impossible to develop over the years.

This stadium just might do something to that area which the private development hasn't been able to do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...484_story.html