Ideas to help Detroit Recover

If this has been posted before I apologize but I haven't read all the threads so bear with me. Detroit needs lots of fixin' right? But no money to do so. I thought what if some of the vacant land or lots or run down houses and buildings were given to contractors who would perform the work we need throughout the city? Example: Street Lights. A good company comes in and puts in new ones and gets some land? With the condition they also clean it up, maintain it, can sell it for profit or develop it? Ok I got my flame suit on let her rip!!!!! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MotorCityTrikes

If this has been posted before I apologize but I haven't read all the threads so bear with me. Detroit needs lots of fixin' right? But no money to do so. I thought what if some of the vacant land or lots or run down houses and buildings were given to contractors who would perform the work we need throughout the city? Example: Street Lights. A good company comes in and puts in new ones and gets some land? With the condition they also clean it up, maintain it, can sell it for profit or develop it? Ok I got my flame suit on let her rip!!!!! :rolleyes:

---

It's not a terrible idea. I think Cleveland has been doing something similar in its Slavic Village neighborhood, which was hit extremely hard by unscrupulous "flippers" during the foreclosure crisis. Slavic Village Recovery, LLC [[backed by developer Forest City Enterprises) is planning to get 300 homes at little-to-no cost, invest $40,000-50,000 rehabbing each, and selling them for around $60,000.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/in..._properti.html


I'm not sure where there is any "meat" for someone to do the same with public utilities in Detroit [[street lights, etc), but I don't see why something similar can't be done with housing.

There's a reason a lot of that land has stayed vacant. I doubt most contractors want to be "paid" with something that can't be converted back into cash.

What does Detroit need to "recover"? Unless you know what changes you're aiming for you won't know when you've got them. "Recovery" in the abstract will never happen.

Something Biblical perhaps?

I know, I know, very abstract.

There ain't nothing that consists of Brick and Mortar that is going to resurrect Detroit.

It's going to take the peoples of Detroit to do the right thing.

Aye, there the rub lies.

If Detroit is to be the leader in Michigan it deserves to be, it needs an influx of 1-2 million people who's family heads will work, open businesses, innovate, build, run schools, manage public money efficiently, dilute the crime rates etc, etc. That would be my concept of recovery but it won't happen in our lifetime. Short of that Detroit will be in constant recovery mode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coracle

If Detroit is to be the leader in Michigan it deserves to be, it needs an influx of 1-2 million people who's family heads will work, open businesses, innovate, build, run schools, manage public money efficiently, dilute the crime rates etc, etc. That would be my concept of recovery but it won't happen in our lifetime. Short of that Detroit will be in constant recovery mode.

---

I like the way you think, yes I do.

The solution to pollution is dilution. Be it influx or dispersion.

Both politically incorrect although Chairman Mao pulled it off.

Trikes, that is not a bad idea at all. Detroit lacks money, but has plenty of land. If it can pay for some things it needs with land instead of cash, that's great. I think they need to be sure that it includes firm rules for being productive with the property, and putting it back on active tax rolls sooner rather than later. But I think that is very doable. It would probably have to wait until the bankruptcy is over to be able to commit the land, though. Lawyers would also need to vet that state and local property transaction laws, local zoning, and federal tax laws are not violated [[example: how will the IRS consider the property in terms of payment value?). It is a thought that should be pursued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Wesson

I like the way you think, yes I do.

The solution to pollution is dilution. Be it influx or dispersion.

Both politically incorrect although Chairman Mao pulled it off.

---

A little confused here. What did Chairman Mao pull off as it relates to Detroit? You aren't suggesting forced resettlement to Detroit are you? Not trying to pick an argument here, but I actually can't see what you are referring to.

To get people to do the right thing. If the carrot doesn't work, what do you do?
Walk away?

Community service based general cleanup! I'd much rather have non violent offenders out cleaning empty lots, overgrown parks and litter strewn streets than have them locked up in the WC jail wasting time on the taxpayer dime. Not only could it reduce the expense of confinement, but in some it may instill a sense of pride in the condition and cleanliness of their city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Wesson

To get people to do the right thing. If the carrot doesn't work, what do you do?
Walk away?

---

I'm still not really clear on what your proposal is here, as it relates to Mao and the people of Detroit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnnny5

Community service based general cleanup! I'd much rather have non violent offenders out cleaning empty lots, overgrown parks and litter strewn streets than have them locked up in the WC jail wasting time on the taxpayer dime. Not only could it reduce the expense of confinement, but in some it may instill a sense of pride in the condition and cleanliness of their city.

---

I think putting people to work for the city/county as opposed to jailing them [[in some cases) is a great idea. There are a lot of obstacles, though. Imagine the reaction of the parks dept or sanitation workers' union[[s) to using convict labor to do that kind of work. Disliking that work also is a very good deterrent against future infractions, better than abstract concepts of justice. I would also use people on unemployment to do "public good" work 20 hours a week in order to receive benefits. Everything from working in soup kitchens to planting trees and flowers in parks, etc.

we could build a new detroit, a better detroit, a safe detroit.

we'll call it new delta city.

Well we gotta do something. We don't have jobs [[yet) we don't have cash and since all we have is land and people like us who give a dam let's at least put part of this great city back in working order. Complaining about the situation isn't good. Most of us didn't ask for this but if you can come up with ideas maybe we as Detroit lovers can fix it. Dang sports teams and casinos take in millions while kids freeze and starve. No wonder the Lord is holding back our blessings......

No contractor is going to want land that you can't give away for free. I still like the plan where they move everyone from the east side to the west side and demolish the whole east side and build westward. You have to do something dramatic like that because cherry picking lots isn't going to do shit.

Hey.....

http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...rt-for-Detroit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MotorCityTrikes

Example: Street Lights. A good company comes in and puts in new ones and gets some land? With the condition they also clean it up, maintain it, can sell it for profit or develop it? Ok I got my flame suit on let her rip!!!!! :rolleyes:

---

You just answered your own question. The land isn't quite "free", now is it? It comes with a property tax bill. It may come with a lien for the unpaid back taxes due on it. It will need to be brought up to code, which costs money. It needs to be cleaned and regularly maintained, which costs money. Development costs money.

Remember the news stories a few years back about how you could buy a house in Detroit for $1? Were those cheap houses snapped up and rehabbed and now house taxpaying families today? Maybe a few were, but most were not. Even if they were bought, most of them languished because they were bought by morons who were unprepared to pay the taxes on it or bring them up to code. Nor were the buyers, looking to turn a quick buck by flipping or renting, willing to invest tens of thousands in houses that had been scrapped, torn apart, and otherwise wrecked by neglect, theft, and vandalism. And so these properties change hands from negligent owner to negligent owner, never being developed or otherwise put to good use.

Yes aj3647 you're right but think of it this way. When you buy stock you do it in the hope it will gain value. If and it's a big if ...... we got things looking better like Street Lights that work, old buildings demolished, trash picked up and vacant lots bulldozed. It creates an atmosphere for interest in us. Then as the city looks better and FEELS better and is more user friendly property value rises. Sure it's a leap of faith for a company to come here and help us but they could also gain our business all over Metro-Detroit. You know scratch our back ......

PS ...the land would be payment in lieu of $$$ we don't have.

The only thing I can do if and when this Roush Trike finally comes out is bring a few manufacturing jobs to the city and some world wide attention.

Turn Midtown into a Red Light District.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Turn Midtown into a Red Light District.

---

In order for that to work the public would need access to the restrooms

I think Trikes' idea is worth trying. The worst case scenario is that no one goes for it, and we are no worse off. The best case scenario is that we get some work done in exchange for giving land to someone who'd do something with it. The land given should have past-due taxes forgiven. Perhaps, as an incentive, too, zoning exemptions or future tax credits could be given, too. That's something to think about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Turn Midtown into a Red Light District.

---

Surely this is a joke. All the development currently underway in Midtown would melt away as it became brothelville. To quote Richard from Casablanca, "I don't believe in the buying and selling of human beings."

NO taxes on businesses for 15-20 years.

Kevyn Orr played some role in helping to establish a Detroit Land Bank that is funded, I believe, with about 34 million federal dollars. I believe they are
going to help assemble land that may be used for commercial or residential purposes. There are some advocates who claim that Land Banks have been very effective in some cities including Flint and K-Zoo. Does anyone know
what the Detroit Land Bank has accomplished thus far? It aims, I believe, to put vacant or unused or foreclosed land in the city back on the tax roles.

The only way to rise from the ashes is barter what we do have in exchange for what we need most. Put some pride back in this once proud town too. We don't need hookers or more casinos we need nice looking neighborhoods. I went by the house I grew up in recently this is what it looks like now..........sad.

You can't see it but on the back wall through the open window is written the name "Jesus" how appropriate.....need Him now more than ever.

People need to move to city.....we need more working and tax paying people..that should help

I would love to own that old house again... it's in Brightmoor wonder if my neighbors would be cool with that???????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

Surely this is a joke. All the development currently underway in Midtown would melt away as it became brothelville. To quote Richard from Casablanca, "I don't believe in the buying and selling of human beings."

---

It is a joke. It used to be the redlight district not too long ago. When I was a kid this area was full of hookers, drug dealers, transvestite stip bars, many of the aprtment buildings would have prostitutes on the steps waiting for people to drive by, all the stuff that would not be welcome elsewhere.

It is a nod to those who remember it to realize that things change over time. It may take a while, but things are better here than they once were.

There's a simple way to fix Detroit. Move there. Pontificating from afar gets us nowhere. Of course Detroit has problems. But if people move there, make the best of it, and demand better, we'll get to were we need to. Everything else is a waste of time. Patronizing a restaurant or stadium won't save the city. It only helps the greater city if it encourages people to move in, bottom line.

Metro Detroit, last I checked, had over 4 million people. We have the people to populate Detroit. We just lack the will to fix the problems.

The only way would be to do away with all the suburban city boundaries. Create one big Megalopolis. Throw the population into a blender then pour. Take every person out of their comfort zone. Let the fun ensue. See if social engineering would work or be trumped by animal instincts, Survival of the Fittest.

The solution to pollution is dilution.

But alas didn't they try that before? A small attempt in the scheme of things, Forced Busing of School Children. How did that turn out?

It's like that old axiom... You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Nature versus nurture and all that.

It ain't gonna happen in our somewhat free society but it can under a different set off rules.

What would you rather have?

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
Author: Emma Lazarus

Or

A walled in city ala "Escape from New York City"


PS. Don't take this post too seriously, Thank you.

I don't see how your gonna improve Detroit with out a reeducation and
re-purposing of the entire population of Southeast Michigan. You are all in one big boat and this boat has 1st, 2nd, 3rd Class accommodations followed by steerage below deck and the twain shall never meet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nain rouge

There's a simple way to fix Detroit. Move there. Pontificating from afar gets us nowhere. Of course Detroit has problems. But if people move there, make the best of it, and demand better, we'll get to were we need to. Everything else is a waste of time. Patronizing a restaurant or stadium won't save the city. It only helps the greater city if it encourages people to move in, bottom line.

Metro Detroit, last I checked, had over 4 million people. We have the people to populate Detroit. We just lack the will to fix the problems.

---

Getting more people to move into the city is ultimately the only way that our problems can be resolved, but the question is how do we make that happen.


IMO, the solutions to our problems in the city are simple. We don't need to embark on some kind of complex grand experiment where we turn half the city into farmland, or make the city some kind of tax-free zone, or spend billions of dollars to demolish everything in some futile attempt to eliminate "blight.'


It seems that most people are looking for some magical "solution" to address the symptoms, while mostly ignoring the root causes.


It doesn't matter how many vacant houses we tear down if we don't do anything to address the root causes of why people continue to vacate their houses in the first place. It doesn't matter if we have some huge blight removal crew that goes around clearing away weeds and illegally dumped debris if we don't do anything to prevent illegal dumping and find a way to prevent these lots from becoming overgrown again.


The only solutions that will work are the ones that are very basic and simple. We need to PROVIDE BASIC CITY SERVICES. It's not complicated. If we had basic, reliable, city services in Detroit, it would have a dramatic positive impact.


We need timely, and quality, police response, and we need basic city infrastructure maintenance.


I'm not sure when Detroit stopped doing these basic things, which are taken for granted pretty much everywhere else in the developed world, but it was a long, long time ago. I have lived in the city for 17 years, and these basic city services were shit long before then. Some of the old- school Detroiters on this forum may remember a time when broken streetlights got fixed in a timely manner, and DPD would show up and actually do something about crime in a timely manner, but nobody in my generation does. These city service failures go back well over 20 years, and probably started at least 30-50 years ago.


Until we fix the basic city service delivery problems in our city, all of these grand schemes will prove to be futile. I think that we will continue to see redevelopment and growth in the core city areas regardless, but there won't be any kind of significant large-scale, city-wide improvement until the basics are taken care of.

I hate to bring it up again, but the quickest thing we can do to help Detroit is bring back the residency rule. I know that this topic makes for a long discussion, but changing that would mean immediate jobs for Detroiters, revenue [[through both income and property tax) and an immediate population boost for both neighborhoods and a reduction in crime. Detroit is an 80+% black city. Large black areas in this country usually equate to poverty and joblessness. If we can't get at least some of these people jobs we're going to continue to struggle.

And because I know that residency will never happen again, I think Detroit seriously needs to look at getting rid of its income tax or at least reducing it to something miniscule like [[0.3%). After bankruptcy is over and the emergency manager is gone, Detroit will have lost, sold or given away each of its money making assets [[the water dept., DIA, Belle Isle etc.) to regionalization. Asking Detroiters to pay an income tax for amenities they don't even have control of while the surrounding cities don't have a pay a nickel of their income is basically just begging people to leave this city. Before Detroit can even think about drawing people back, they have to be on an even playing field with its surrounding cities. I think this is actually a realistic solution after bankruptcy, because if Detroit's budget is balanced, they can make a plan to move forward without the old revenue streams they had to use in the past. Getting rid of taxes is something that most Republicans don't oppose so Detroit would probably be able to get it done legislatively too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schoolcraft

I hate to bring it up again, but the quickest thing we can do to help Detroit is bring back the residency rule. I know that this topic makes for a long discussion, but changing that would mean immediate jobs for Detroiters, revenue [[through both income and property tax) and an immediate population boost for both neighborhoods and a reduction in crime. Detroit is an 80+% black city. Large black areas in this country usually equate to poverty and joblessness. If we can't get at least some of these people jobs we're going to continue to struggle.

---

Bringing back the residency requirements wouldn't do much to solve the city's problems. The city currently has fewer than 10,000 employees, and we are losing residents at a rate of 20,000-30,000 per year.

Even if there were 10,000 city employees living outside of the city [[which there isn't) forcing all of them to move back into the city would only offset 3 to 6 months of our population decline. It wouldn't change anything other than slightly slowing down the population drain for a couple of months. Reinstating residency as a way to combat our population decline is like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schoolcraft

I hate to bring it up again, but the quickest thing we can do to help Detroit is bring back the residency rule. I know that this topic makes for a long discussion, but changing that would mean immediate jobs for Detroiters, revenue [[through both income and property tax) and an immediate population boost for both neighborhoods and a reduction in crime. Detroit is an 80+% black city. Large black areas in this country usually equate to poverty and joblessness. If we can't get at least some of these people jobs we're going to continue to struggle.

---

I agree with you and I've also been saying this for years. I do believe it's possible to overturn the residency law. From my understanding, it would have to happen at the State level.

The city of Chicago announced this past week that Mayor Rahm Emanuel is rewriting their outdated city codes and bringing them up to modern times. This is a VERY difficult task but rewarding in the end. So the reversal is possible. The State just has to be committed to doing the difficult work that it takes to reverse the law. It'll pay off in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schoolcraft

After bankruptcy is over and the emergency manager is gone, Detroit will have lost, sold or given away each of its money making assets [[the water dept., DIA, Belle Isle etc.) to regionalization. Asking Detroiters to pay an income tax for amenities they don't even have control of while the surrounding cities don't have a pay a nickel of their income is basically just begging people to leave this city.

---

I wasn't aware that DIA or Belle Isle were such tremendous profit centers for the city. I thought that they were consumers of resources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erikd

Bringing back the residency requirements wouldn't do much to solve the city's problems. The city currently has fewer than 10,000 employees, and we are losing residents at a rate of 20,000-30,000 per year.

Even if there were 10,000 city employees living outside of the city [[which there isn't) forcing all of them to move back into the city would only offset 3 to 6 months of our population decline. It wouldn't change anything other than slightly slowing down the population drain for a couple of months. Reinstating residency as a way to combat our population decline is like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound.

---

I was thinking more along the lines of having more revenue from the folk who move back to the city would allow us to hire more officers and firefighters, pay them better for the jobs they do, and have better equipment which would make the city safer and create stronger neighborhoods which would in turn bring more people into the city that don't work for the city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

I wasn't aware that DIA or Belle Isle were such tremendous profit centers for the city. I thought that they were consumers of resources.

---

No I agree, they weren't profit centers for the city. That's why ownership was changed, but the opportunity for them to be profitable was there with better management. For example, the DNR will be making a profit off of Belle Isle through recreation passports. Cobo made a profit this year. My point is that Detroit doesn't own them anymore so they shouldn't be paying special taxes for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by illwill

I agree with you and I've also been saying this for years. I do believe it's possible to overturn the residency law. From my understanding, it would have to happen at the State level.

The city of Chicago announced this past week that Mayor Rahm Emanuel is rewriting their outdated city codes and bringing them up to modern times. This is a VERY difficult task but rewarding in the end. So the reversal is possible. The State just has to be committed to doing the difficult work that it takes to reverse the law. It'll pay off in the end.

---

You're right, it would have to happen at the State level, but you know that ain't happening. Too controversial, too many Republicans. Detroit is going to have to meet the folks running the State on their terms at this point. The best way to help Detroit and all of MI's urban centers will be through legislation, so we're going to have to come up with something that lawmakers will agree to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schoolcraft

And because I know that residency will never happen again, I think Detroit seriously needs to look at getting rid of its income tax or at least reducing it to something miniscule like [[0.3%). After bankruptcy is over and the emergency manager is gone, Detroit will have lost, sold or given away each of its money making assets [[the water dept., DIA, Belle Isle etc.) to regionalization. Asking Detroiters to pay an income tax for amenities they don't even have control of while the surrounding cities don't have a pay a nickel of their income is basically just begging people to leave this city. Before Detroit can even think about drawing people back, they have to be on an even playing field with its surrounding cities. I think this is actually a realistic solution after bankruptcy, because if Detroit's budget is balanced, they can make a plan to move forward without the old revenue streams they had to use in the past. Getting rid of taxes is something that most Republicans don't oppose so Detroit would probably be able to get it done legislatively too.

---

First off, the water department, DIA, and Belle Isle are not money making assets for the city. The water department is a separate entity, and any money that is made or lost by DWSD doesn't affect the city's revenues or expenses. The DIA and Belle Isle used to cost the city millions of dollars every year to operate, and now that they are being funded by the state and the region, instead of the city. Detroit is saving many millions every year while still retaining all of the benefits of these assets.

Secondly, your assertion that Detroiters are paying city income taxes to support amenities that they don't have control of is factually incorrect. Now that the city is no longer funding Belle Isle, the DIA, and Cobo Hall, none of our city income taxes are being used to pay for these assets. In fact, the reality is exactly the opposite. Tens of thousands of suburbanites who work in the city pay city income taxes that solely go to the city of Detroit. Detroiters pay city income tax to fund city services and debt, which is mostly controlled by our elected city officials. The tens of thousands of suburbanits who work in the city, but live elsewhere, pay taxes that are used to fund the city, yet they have no vote or say in how their tax dollars are used.

Cutting the city income tax would do very little to stop the population loss out of the city, and it would do very little to attract new residents into the city, but it would be devastating to the city's budget.

Instead of forgoing one of the largest sources of revenue in a futile attempt to make living without basic city services more attractive, the city should simply provide basic services like the rest of the developed world, and then the taxes wouldn't be that big of an issue.

Think of it this way: If your streetlights have been burned out for six months, the police don't show up when you call, and your neighborhood park down the street has been left to become overgrown with weeds and garbage, would you rather have a small tax reduction, or would you rather continue paying the same taxes but have those things taken care of?

The vast majority of people will choose better services over a tax reduction. We need to fix the city services in Detroit. Without that nothing else will matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schoolcraft

... Detroit is an 80+% black city. Large black areas in this country usually equate to poverty and joblessness. If we can't get at least some of these people jobs we're going to continue to struggle.

---

Don't stop there. Let's aim higher than that! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schoolcraft

No I agree, they weren't profit centers for the city. That's why ownership was changed, but the opportunity for them to be profitable was there with better management. For example, the DNR will be making a profit off of Belle Isle through recreation passports. Cobo made a profit this year. My point is that Detroit doesn't own them anymore so they shouldn't be paying special taxes for them.

---

1. Ownership of Belle Isle, the DIA, and Cobo Hall has not changed. The city of Detroit still owns all of them.

2. Cobo has never made a profit, and it never will. Convention centers are funded by huge tax subsidies [[mostly coming from things like hotel and car rental taxes) and then further subsidied by direct government funding. The city of Detroit used to spend about $13 million every year out of the general fund to cover the annual operating losses of Cobo. Now that Cobo is funded and operated regionally, they have reduced the amount of money that they lose every year, which results in less direct subsidy over and above the special tax that they collect, but they have never, and will never turn a profit.

3. The DNR will not make a profit on Belle Isle. Even after years of budget cuts, the city was still spending $6 million a year on Belle Isle, which wasn't enough to even do basic grass cutting, tree trimming, or keep the bathrooms open. The state DNR will be spending significantly more money on Belle Isle than the city did.

It is simply not possible for the DNR to make a profit on Belle Isle. Even if EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN DETROIT paid for the annual recreation passport it would be 700,000 Detroiters x the $11 annual fee= $7.7 million per year for the DNR.

The DNR will be really lucky to sell 200,000 - 300,000 recreation passports to Detroiters, which would get them about half the amount that the city was spending to not really maintain Belle Isle. In reality, I would be shocked if the DNR got 100,000 Detroiters to buy passports, which would get them a little over a million bucks a year. Belle Isle will be a huge money loser for the state DNR, but it is a huge win for Detroiters.

6 million bucks and they can't even cut the grass!!!!!!!! Borrow some hungry cows for God sake!! I could buy a years worth of TP at Costco for 5-G's better yet everybody bring your own. What do they spend the money on there's nothing there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erikd

1. Ownership of Belle Isle, the DIA, and Cobo Hall has not changed. The city of Detroit still owns all of them.

2. Cobo has never made a profit, and it never will. Convention centers are funded by huge tax subsidies [[mostly coming from things like hotel and car rental taxes) and then further subsidied by direct government funding. The city of Detroit used to spend about $13 million every year out of the general fund to cover the annual operating losses of Cobo. Now that Cobo is funded and operated regionally, they have reduced the amount of money that they lose every year, which results in less direct subsidy over and above the special tax that they collect, but they have never, and will never turn a profit.

3. The DNR will not make a profit on Belle Isle. Even after years of budget cuts, the city was still spending $6 million a year on Belle Isle, which wasn't enough to even do basic grass cutting, tree trimming, or keep the bathrooms open. The state DNR will be spending significantly more money on Belle Isle than the city did.

It is simply not possible for the DNR to make a profit on Belle Isle. Even if EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN DETROIT paid for the annual recreation passport it would be 700,000 Detroiters x the $11 annual fee= $7.7 million per year for the DNR.

The DNR will be really lucky to sell 200,000 - 300,000 recreation passports to Detroiters, which would get them about half the amount that the city was spending to not really maintain Belle Isle. In reality, I would be shocked if the DNR got 100,000 Detroiters to buy passports, which would get them a little over a million bucks a year. Belle Isle will be a huge money loser for the state DNR, but it is a huge win for Detroiters.

---

1. Ownership of Belle Isle, the DIA, and Cobo Hall has not changed. The city of Detroit still owns all of them.

If you don't make final decisions on what happens to them and somebody else is making money off of them then you don't own them. I don't care what anybody tells you.

2. Cobo has never made a profit, and it never will.

It just did this past year: http://www.cobocenter.com/news/detai...13-fiscal-year

3. The DNR will not make a profit on Belle Isle.

That's a difference in opinion between you and I, but I promise you that with this governor in charge, the State is not going to be losing money on anything. The State has only budgeted $2.5 million this year for Belle Isle. They aren't spending anywhere near 6 million to take care of the island. The city estimates that 2 million cars drive on and off the island every year. Many of those people don't live in Detroit OR Michigan. Anybody who visits Belle Isle from out of state will pay $8 a trip to enter Belle Isle. Anybody from out of State who pays for a yearly passport because they might want to visit more than once will pay $28. It's a debatable point, but we'll see.

I pay 2.4% of my income just because I live inside Detroit's boundaries, when I could live in the burbs, pay none of my income and get the same if not better services in the burbs. If somebody who lives in the burbs wants to let me know what amenities that Detroiters should be getting that they don't get because of the extra taxes please let me know. If you think that doesn't make a difference when I pay pretty much higher everything [[home/car insurance, property tax) else than people in the burbs I don't know what to tell you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erikd

2. Cobo has never made a profit, and it never will. Convention centers are funded by huge tax subsidies [[mostly coming from things like hotel and car rental taxes) and then further subsidied by direct government funding. The city of Detroit used to spend about $13 million every year out of the general fund to cover the annual operating losses of Cobo. Now that Cobo is funded and operated regionally, they have reduced the amount of money that they lose every year, which results in less direct subsidy over and above the special tax that they collect, but they have never, and will never turn a profit.

---

Au Contraire http://www.cobocenter.com/news/detai...13-fiscal-year

Belle Isle, if managed properly can be as big of a drawing card for the State [[and the City) as Mackinaw Island.
http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/artic...h#.UsneO_RDuQA

If you look at Belle Isle so narrowly as a selling of passports then you won't see the impact that it will have in providing jobs to concessionaire [[who will also pay fees), or to nearby eateries, hotels, bars. With that kind of analogy, then Dequindre Cut was a waste as it cost $20 million, but people use it for free. Same is true with the Riverfront.

Your calculation is wrong. Passports are for cars, people get in free. How many cars in Detroit? But then again, who cares? If it brings people in from outstate or from somewhere else in the world, then it is a success. Those folks will spend and provide jobs.

Why would a family with jobs and child responsibilities WANT to move to Detroit?

Given that present zoning rules result in the abandonment of properties, allow a five year delay on new owners getting homes up to code. This would result in higher sales prices and fewer abandonments.

Inspired by Zeffernelli's Romeo and Juliet in which the streets are no mans land but there is civilization within walled block sized family compounds, perhaps Detroit could carve out areas of prosperity within a no mans land.

Given that there is no cash, allow more control by developers. Allow walled gated sub-cities of maybe 4,000-50,000 residents. These communities would provide their own security and private schools. They would pay city taxes. Its a win-win. There would be construction and long term jobs. Detroit police and other services would have less territory to take care of and more tax money to work with. This idea sure beats planting forests or watching decay. If and when crime comes down in Detroit, the gates could come down. If gated communities don't sound appealing, consider that every apartment complex is a gated community.

If Detroit can't afford its pensions, pay what it owes in land to individuals or to unions. The unions, in turn, could sell or develop their land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coracle

Why would a family with jobs and child responsibilities WANT to move to Detroit?

---

My parents raised me in Detroit to be close to the Party Stores, good hospitals, museums.. Oh and being City Employees kinda clinched it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Given that present zoning rules result in the abandonment of properties, allow a five year delay on new owners getting homes up to code. This would result in higher sales prices and fewer abandonments.

---

So the building inspectors should just turn a blind eye to dangerous conditions? Yes, it's obvious that unsafe homes that do not meet building codes will sell for a premium.

Quote:

---

Inspired by Zeffernelli's Romeo and Juliet in which the streets are no mans land but there is civilization within walled block sized family compounds,

Given that there is no cash, allow more control by developers. Allow walled gated sub-cities of maybe 4,000-50,000 residents. These communities would provide their own security and private schools. They would pay city taxes.

---

I believe that's called "Florida". I'm banging my head on my desk as to why anyone sane would spend good money to move to West Berlin. Kinda defeats the purpose of being in a city, don't you think?

Detroit is going to have to get smaller physically. Services have diminished but the area to cover has not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Wesson

Detroit is going to have to get smaller physically.

---

you think detroit will look like windsor in the future?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

So the building inspectors should just turn a blind eye to dangerous conditions? Yes, it's obvious that unsafe homes that do not meet building codes will sell for a premium.

---

Keep in mind most homes were built to an older building code. The delay would not allow dangerous conditions, just a delay in updating homes to the newer building codes. For example, all basement electrical outlets now need to be GFIs. Not having GFIs in the basement isn't unsafe, it's just safer if they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBMcB

Keep in mind most homes were built to an older building code. The delay would not allow dangerous conditions, just a delay in updating homes to the newer building codes. For example, all basement electrical outlets now need to be GFIs. Not having GFIs in the basement isn't unsafe, it's just safer if they are.

---

Yeah...except homes aren't required to be brought up to current Codes after purchase. The exception is if, and only if, renovations [[requiring a permit and inspection) are conducted. Well, and if there's an immediate danger that requires repair [[see above, then). So really, you're just making shit up. Just like Oladub is making shit up when he said that "Zoning regulations cause abandonment". Zoning has *NOTHING* to do with building codes.

Quote:

---

ghettopalmetto: So the building inspectors should just turn a blind eye to dangerous conditions? Yes, it's obvious that unsafe homes that do not meet building codes will sell for a premium.

---

I ran into a retired couple in Wisconsin who had abandoned their house in Detroit because the cost of bringing it up to code was more than they could sell it for. Abandoned house can be fire hazards and in other ways dangerous too. Had they been able to sell their house even for five or ten thousand dollars it would have remained occupied and presumably not been an expense for the City to tear down. Also, if you noticed, I suggested that the new owners be required to bring it up to code within five years. Sweat equity might make that an affordable proposition to competent purchasers. Maybe you would rather have homeless people and burned down houses than temporarily imperfect houses?

Quote:

---

I believe that's called "Florida". I'm banging my head on my desk as to why anyone sane would spend good money to move to West Berlin. Kinda defeats the purpose of being in a city, don't you think?

---

No I don't think it defeats the purpose of living in the city. it makes living in the city a possibility for middle class families. The idea is to reclaim the City dozens of blocks at a time. Middle class families do not want to move their families into a high crime area with lousy schools. Thats's how it stands. Maybe that's what you would like them to do but they aren't that stupid or irresponsible. Notice that I began with "given that there is no cash". I suggested a way to navigate around the problem of no cash. Where are your suggestions about how to do the same? Don't forget that my suggestion was job and tax rich but maybe you can do better. Go for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

No I don't think it defeats the purpose of living in the city. it makes living in the city a possibility for middle class families. The idea is to reclaim the City dozens of blocks at a time. Middle class families do not want to move their families into a high crime area with lousy schools. Thats's how it stands.

---

If the idea if living in a walled and gated compound is so terrific and desirable, then you first.

Why the focus on families? Families with school-age children constitute 25% of households in the United States. You're proposing to throw the other 75% of the potential market out with the bathwater...and forcing them to live in drab militarized communist bunkers, lest they have any run-ins with panhandlers on the street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

If the idea if living in a walled and gated compound is so terrific and desirable, then you first.

Why the focus on families? Families with school-age children constitute 25% of households in the United States. You're proposing to throw the other 75% of the potential market out with the bathwater...and forcing them to live in drab militarized communist bunkers, lest they have any run-ins with panhandlers on the street.

---

Ever been to a brain storming session where there is one guy sitting in the corner shooting sown ideas without contributing any?

I have lived in apartment complexes and visited a number of condos. if you need a key or fob to get in to use their pools, laundry rooms or just to access units, it is a gated community. I was, of course, referring to something larger that would offer the same security as well as other services.

Living in a gated community with security and good schools might not be important to you but to each his own.

Why families? Because they are the building blocks of civilizations and Detroit has a deficiency of middle class families. But you bring out a good point. There is no reason that developers couldn't create retirement or other sorts of communities either. I made no mention of drab militarized bunkers. In fact, I mentioned that taxes and jobs created by such developments would benefit the balance of Detroit. We've been waiting for some Democratic Party fairy godmother to start throwing money around Detroit. So far, that hasn't happened. Again, I ask, what ideas do you have to help Detroit recover?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

If the idea if living in a walled and gated compound is so terrific and desirable, then you first.

Why the focus on families? Families with school-age children constitute 25% of households in the United States. You're proposing to throw the other 75% of the potential market out with the bathwater...and forcing them to live in drab militarized communist bunkers, lest they have any run-ins with panhandlers on the street.

---

I think this is correct. Also, gated communities don't solve the problem of schools in any case. The last people who are going to move into Detroit in quantity are middle-class families with children [[poor families don't have much choice, rich families have educational options wherever they are.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I think this is correct. Also, gated communities don't solve the problem of schools in any case. The last people who are going to move into Detroit in quantity are middle-class families with children [[poor families don't have much choice, rich families have educational options wherever they are.)

---

Why do poor families have children they can't support and who do they expect will support them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I think this is correct. Also, gated communities don't solve the problem of schools in any case. The last people who are going to move into Detroit in quantity are middle-class families with children [[poor families don't have much choice, rich families have educational options wherever they are.)

---

Then we have two votes for the middle class to stay away from Detroit and allow the city to swirl down the drain rather then benefit from more jobs and tax revenue... unless you have a better idea. Lots of people putting up good ideas here. Have a try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Ever been to a brain storming session where there is one guy sitting in the corner shooting sown ideas without contributing any?

---

I have. This is a different paradigm. Why, you ask? Because Detroit is SO behind the 8-ball, that virtually every other city in the United States is a living catalogue of Best [[and Worst) Practices...all of which you're ignoring in favor of Soviet bunkers for new residents.

In brief:

1. Going for the family market is a bad idea at this time. The quality of the schools, and the size of this potential market are but two sticking points.

2. Children cost $$$ to educate. What Detroit *really* needs at this point are taxpaying residents who consume very little in the way of services. Who fits that profile?--educated 20-and-30-something professionals and entrepreneurs.

3. The Renaissance Center was an expensive architectural blunder on which even more $$$ was spent to partially undo. You're proposing a regression to this style, but for residential neighborhoods. If one wants to live in an urban environment, he/she is going to want to take advantage of the assets, not feel imprisoned. If anything, Detroit needs greater openness and emphasis on the public realm, not encouraging withdrawal into isolated private enclaves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

Then we have two votes for the middle class to stay away from Detroit and allow the city to swirl down the drain rather then benefit from more jobs and tax revenue... unless you have a better idea. Lots of people putting up good ideas here. Have a try.

---

For some reason you equate families with children with the middle class. As ghettopalmetto pointed out, this is simply mistaken. As we have both pointed out, this is not the logical target market for Detroit living.

However I can provide some ideas. These are things that I believe are actually feasible within an imaginable political context, even if some are not perhaps feasible right now. None of them require large infusions of support from the outside world.

1) The city needs to channel redevelopment into a very limited number of areas. With redevelopment dependent on finite tax credits you can't get critical mass if it spread out all over the place.

2) All abandoned real property should end up in the Detroit land bank, and only disposed of for uses consistent with 1). As I understand it, in general the Wayne County land bank takes the land first, and sells the valuable land itself without regard for the city's priorities. The land they don't want to sell gets passed onto the Detroit land bank. This needs to be changed.

3) The city should allow neighborhoods or groups of neighborhoods to establish special tax districts to raise revenue to pay for additional police protection. This will be only moderately useful if the DPD can't get its act together, although it appears to me that there has been some improvement under the new chief.

4) The DPS district should be eliminated and everyone living in the former district should be given education vouchers. Neighborhoods or groups of neighborhoods should be allowed to create new local school districts in lieu of the vouchers.

5) Michigan needs to assist the city in making sure that city income taxes are paid. What would probably make the most sense is simply to include the city taxes as part of the state returns. This would both save the city money and reduce the likelihood of evasion. This should be extended as an option to all Michigan cities with an income tax.

6) The city needs to make all kinds of permitting efficient. There should be as few barriers to people starting businesses or doing renovations as possible. This is a policy goal which can only happen within a city whose administration improves to some level of competency.

7) The city needs to do a comprehensive revaluation of its property. Current assessed values are not closely related to actual values and this discourages people from purchasing distressed properties. My understanding is that this is underway, although I have no idea if the values they eventually arrive at will be appropriate.

8) This one will not make people happy. It doesn't even make me happy, but I see no way around the fact that Detroit needs a smaller percentage of poor people. One way to do this is to attract new residents, and I certainly want that to happen. One way is to convert poor people into richer people. Eliminating the DPS would probably help the next generation and I have already suggested that. Increases in the state or federal minimum wage, or less likely and less soon, some kind of minimum guaranteed income or jobs program would help the current poor. I expect these things to happen eventually, but they are out of the control of the city. The third way is to make it less attractive for poor people to live in the city. Serious code enforcement, and regular checks for proper car registrations and insurance would make the city relatively less attractive to the impoverished by increasing the cost of living in Detroit. It would also probably reduce the cost of car insurance for the people who actually have it now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

...Also, gated communities don't solve the problem of schools in any case.

---

I think that the "gated community" post said "These communities would provide their own security and private schools".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

...Living in a gated community with security and good schools might not be important to you but to each his own.

Why families? Because they are the building blocks of civilizations and Detroit has a deficiency of middle class families. But you bring out a good point. There is no reason that developers couldn't create retirement or other sorts of communities either. I made no mention of drab militarized bunkers. In fact, I mentioned that taxes and jobs created by such developments would benefit the balance of Detroit. We've been waiting for some Democratic Party fairy godmother to start throwing money around Detroit. So far, that hasn't happened. Again, I ask, what ideas do you have to help Detroit recover?

---

Here's an idea - Let's try multiple "options" at the same time. It seems like many are so against anything "gated", or otherwise not totally free, that they're unwilling to look into it. Why not try one [[or one East Side and West Side) and actually see how it goes... As originally described it sounds like there's some positives to the plan. Who knows, the "educated 20-and-30-something professionals and entrepreneurs" [[referred to in another post) may choose to live there, or not... but why not let 'em have a choice. If you don't like it, don't move there. In 20 yrs we'll see which "plans" have worked best, in the meantime let's be open minded.

At the same time let's try some other options. I saw a couple posts about making houses easier to buy and a 5 yr grace period? to get it up to code, let's look into it.

mwilbert had one - "All abandoned real property should end up in the Detroit land bank, and only disposed of for uses consistent with 1). As I understand it, in general the Wayne County land bank takes the land first, and sells the valuable land itself without regard for the city's priorities. The land they don't want to sell gets passed onto the Detroit land bank. This needs to be changed". Makes sense, let's try it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vic01

Here's an idea - Let's try multiple "options" at the same time. It seems like many are so against anything "gated", or otherwise not totally free, that they're unwilling to look into it. Why not try one [[or one East Side and West Side) and actually see how it goes...

---

There is enough empirical evidence from other cities that makes this type of extreme experimentation unnecessary. Walled and gated compounds are a terrible idea for several reasons:

1. They're isolated from the rest of the city.
2. They scream, "Fear for your life" and "We're not even going to bother policing this area".
3. It's an anti-urban building form. Young professionals, who pay taxes and consume little in services, are moving to older urban neighborhoods across the nation. Given the choice between a suburban subdivision, and an urban subdivision that is even more isolated, the young people are going to choose Elsewhere.

Quote:

---

As originally described it sounds like there's some positives to the plan. Who knows, the "educated 20-and-30-something professionals and entrepreneurs" [[referred to in another post) may choose to live there, or not... but why not let 'em have a choice.

---

In other cities, young people are *choosing* to renovate historic homes, in neighborhoods where they can walk to coffee shops, stores, and restaurants--not locating in walled compounds.

Quote:

---

If you don't like it, don't move there. In 20 yrs we'll see which "plans" have worked best, in the meantime let's be open minded.

---

And they won't.

Quote:

---

At the same time let's try some other options. I saw a couple posts about making houses easier to buy and a 5 yr grace period? to get it up to code, let's look into it.

---

Make houses easier to buy, yes. Code upgrades are only required during construction [[which includes renovation). A grace period on the building code can compromise safety. That's a no-go. This idea does nothing to improve housing stock, and in fact, could allow the existing stock to deteriorate further.

Quote:

---

mwilbert had one - "All abandoned real property should end up in the Detroit land bank, and only disposed of for uses consistent with 1). As I understand it, in general the Wayne County land bank takes the land first, and sells the valuable land itself without regard for the city's priorities. The land they don't want to sell gets passed onto the Detroit land bank. This needs to be changed". Makes sense, let's try it.

---

And there you have it. Southeast Michigan is a chicken coop of competing governments, all scrambling to get their own feed, pecking each other to death in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vic01

I think that the "gated community" post said "These communities would provide their own security and private schools".

---

Private schools don't solve the problem. There is nothing stopping people from creating private schools now. Except cost, which putting them inside a gated community does nothing to solve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

In other cities, young people are *choosing* to renovate historic homes, in neighborhoods where they can walk to coffee shops, stores, and restaurants--not locating in walled compounds.

---

Does Detroit have a dense concentration of "historic" AND "renovatable" homes that could serve as a sustainable "gentrifiable" neighborhood?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

And there you have it. Southeast Michigan is a chicken coop of competing governments, all scrambling to get their own feed, pecking each other to death in the process.

---

In this case we are talking one county [[Wayne) and one subordinate city [[Detroit) and the myriad of cities in western Wayne County and in Oakland and Macomb are not the issue here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

Does Detroit have a dense concentration of "historic" AND "renovatable" homes that could serve as a sustainable "gentrifiable" neighborhood?

---

That is one thing Detroit does have. In fact, arguably it has too much of it--the effort gets diffused across too many neighborhoods.

unless better public policy [[taxes, employment,education cost, etc.) gets enacted and enforced at the federal and state levels, I’m not sure what strictly-localized efforts are going to do to help that won’t be impeded by macro-level issues. Why set up any new manufacturing operations in Detroit proper when it’s “cheaper ”to do it outside of the country, etc. What’s the percentage of public safety workers who actually live in the city? Why develop region-wide mass transit options when NIMBY and NOOMP typically get the final say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

That is one thing Detroit does have. In fact, arguably it has too much of it--the effort gets diffused across too many neighborhoods.

---

That is what I meant. Gentrification requires a concentration of desirable and economically repairable homes that the "urban pioneers" can easily begin regeneration of the neighborhood. All too often in Detroit, the blocks will be half empty and half of the remaining homes will be "teardowns". I don't think the little one and one-half story bungalows which predominate in the newer [[and denser) sections of the city are of that much interest to yuppie gentrifiers.

Quote:

---

ghettopalmetto: There is enough empirical evidence from other cities that makes this type of extreme experimentation unnecessary. Walled and gated compounds are a terrible idea for several reasons:

1. They're isolated from the rest of the city.
2. They scream, "Fear for your life" and "We're not even going to bother policing this area".
3. It's an anti-urban building form. Young professionals, who pay taxes and consume little in services, are moving to older urban neighborhoods across the nation. Given the choice between a suburban subdivision, and an urban subdivision that is even more isolated, the young people are going to choose Elsewhere.

---

This would hardly be an experiment as huge apartment and exclusive residential complexes exist all over the Country. What is so bad about experimenting anyway? What is so bad about the new jobs and taxes such an experiment would produce? Would you rather grow trees?
1. Wherever the middle class has gone already is isolated from the City. Let's try to get them back.
2. Detroit already screams "fear for your life". That's why the middle class avoids it. I'm suggesting carving out safety zones acceptable to the middle class and using tax money thus raised to make the rest of the City safer. [[win-win)
3. Young urban professionals are moving downtown in cities like Minneapolis where it is safe to walk outside at night. Such is not the case in my old neighborhood in Detroit.

Quote:

---

In other cities, young people are *choosing* to renovate historic homes, in neighborhoods where they can walk to coffee shops, stores, and restaurants--not locating in walled compounds.

---

Detroit: what coffee shops? If you noticed, I suggested huge sub-cities of up to 50,000 residents. They would have everything from doctors offices, to private schools and security, to theaters and Menards.

Quote:

---

Make houses easier to buy, yes. Code upgrades are only required during construction [[which includes renovation). A grace period on the building code can compromise safety. That's a no-go. This idea does nothing to improve housing stock, and in fact, could allow the existing stock to deteriorate further.

---

I thought that a house had to be brought up to code before it could be sold in Detroit. Either way, a grace period could also make more sales happen, reduce the number of vacated houses. There is safety and economy in that. I built a house in northern Michigan once in which I camped before all the plumbing and wiring was in. I wouldn't have been able to afford building otherwise. I want to give other young people the same opportunity as I had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwilbert

Private schools don't solve the problem. There is nothing stopping people from creating private schools now. Except cost, which putting them inside a gated community does nothing to solve.

---

Residents of such a community would have the freedom to send their kids to Detroit Public schools. However, the young urban professionals who pay big money to move into downtown Minneapolis head for the suburbs when their kids get to be school age. They are petitioning the Minneapolis school district to build a school downtown for their kids because they find existing public schools' standards unacceptable. We would have to go back to Carter to find a President who sent his kids to a public school. I just mentioned private schools as a temporary solution at least until Detroit Public Schools can match the quality of education found in Montessori schools. From the public school perspective, the increased jobs and tax base of having large gated communities would financially benefit Detroit Public Schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

And there you have it. Southeast Michigan is a chicken coop of competing governments, all scrambling to get their own feed, pecking each other to death in the process.

---

Chicago is much more fragmented with competing governments yet people still flock to the City as well as its suburbs. Our problem is not simple. It is a lot more complicated of an issue that includes economics, safety, education, opportunity, and of course a lack of places to get Taco Bell.

Give it six months, if you can.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...xt%7CFRONTPAGE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

And there you have it. Southeast Michigan is a chicken coop of competing governments, all scrambling to get their own feed, pecking each other to death in the process.

---

They're NOT pecking each other to death, they're taking actions to stop the Fox from gobbling them up to satisfy an insatiable appetite to be appeased initially by feeding on some of them now and keeping the rest to satisfy his wants for the future. Unless the Big Mother Hen of the Farmyard gives him a little bit of everybody's feed from inside and outside the chicken coop. Then he'd really be cooping it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coracle

They're NOT pecking each other to death, they're taking actions to stop the Fox from gobbling them up to satisfy an insatiable appetite to be appeased initially by feeding on some of them now and keeping the rest to satisfy his wants for the future. Unless the Big Mother Hen of the Farmyard gives him a little bit of everybody's feed from inside and outside the chicken coop. Then he'd really be cooping it up.

---

http://www.hvacproforums.com/styles/...eadscratch.gif

Detroit proper is a great place compared to a lot of other so-called nicer cities. We just an extreme makeover visually.