Printable View
There has been talks of "Right Sizing" Detroit. Will the borders of Detroit be moved in? Will some parts of Detroit will be giving back to the other cities such as Redford, Dearborn, Grosse Pointe etc as it was during the turn or middle of the 20th century?
No, they are just planning to have little Thomas Kincade villages surrounded by idyllic fields of heather and shamrocks.
It would be tricky buying a house in the older sections of Detroit. Dave Bing and co. might decide to close that neighborhood down not becuase or the lack of houses on the street; the woodframe homes looks too old and worn down regardless if they were passed down from generation to generation. Regardless if the occupants are paying the taxes on their' homes timely. I believe that the city will get it's Mass Transit after the size of it is rightsized; then it will be determeined how far the light rail will go.
...and here I thought that was the underlying premise of modern Suburbia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
If the city had some really talented engineers they could move structurally sound homes closer together into their own little villages. Restrictions would be placed that new development has to sprout off the existing villages. Owners of vacant restricted properties could either accept no taxes until the village grows large enough to border their property or trade for a developable plot. A village should be focused along a strong transit link with some commercial zoning.
It's possible. Detroit could "de-annex" land and give it back to Redford, Fairlane[[!), etc. Heck, bring back some old names, Nankin Twp, and so forth. Turn over policing to Wayne County Sheriff's Dept. Of course, those new twps would not have city taxes, and presumably cheap land, so it may spur development on its own. Cut some new deeds and get the property on the tax rolls again. It would be something if it would actually happen. What Detroit really needs is that little Sim City bulldozer tool, and just click on a bunch of stuff. Too bad its not that easy
It will never happen, for the same reason Macomb and Oakland Counties strangled off the growth of the city years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by detlump
Land is power.
I guess that begs the question:Quote:
Originally Posted by izzyindetroit
Under Michigan law, can an incorporated city annex land in an adjacent county?
I know in Virginia, the city of Richmond annexed land from two different counties.
I realize that this is moot, because in Oakland and Macomb counties all of the land adjacent to Detroit is in incorporated cities so it cannot be annexed.
.
The city of Milan, MI, I believe was incorporated in 1968. It is on the Monroe-Washtenaw County line.
HELL NO! Once Detroit has annexed a certian township it can not be de-annexed. If it did to another city, then the city would have to pay off its tax burdens not to mention it's black ghetto mess. If a certian neighborhood in Detroit wants to start its own city. It have comply with the State Boundry Commision's Michigan State Constitution's requirements to have its own government, water supply and sewage clean-up and pay off its starting tax deficit burdens. It is almost IMPOSSIBLE to break Detroit up. However the suburbs or Detroit can combine its services like Toronto. But its too many race cards in city and state poltics to cover this proposal. Therefore Detroit is stuck with its doom and gloom and the suburbs is stuck with a big black ghetto in a 'urban donut' setting.Quote:
Originally Posted by stasu1213
NO! if it did that city or township will have to pay its tax deficits.Quote:
Originally Posted by detlump
The times that i have lived in localities where there is an annexation process going on, the entity doing the annexation has to compensate the losing entity by assuming the portion of their debt in proportion to the taxable value lost to the entity.
In other words, if Bigtown annexes Happy Acres from Cornfield County and Happy Acres makes up 30% of the county's taxable assessed value, Bigtown usually has to take over 30% of the county bonded debt and pension liabilities plus is assessed a "readjustment fee" to take care of the county having to build any new facilities lost in the annexation [[fire stations, police stations, etc).
I would suppose that, if an area split off from Detroit and had 10% of Detroit's taxable assessed value, they would have to take that portion of Detroit's bonded indebtedness plus pension liabilities
.
I believe the city needs to downsize, moving people closer to Woodward and the other arterial streets. Having the outer parts of Detroit annexed by neighboring suburbs is not the answer. First off, the neighboring suburbs aren't in position to buy Detroit property. Most of them have financial problems. Secondly, many of the inner-ring suburbs are losing population. Adding more land is not going to change that fact. The process of right-sizing Detroit will be complicated and controversial. It is, however, extremely necessary. No new industry, nor mass immigration is going to repopulate Detroit. Unless oil, gold, or the fountain of youth is discovered here, the population in Detroit will not increase substantially. At this point, either Detroit shrinks or everyone just leaves and calls it a day.
It's already been done, starting off the urban praries of Miller Rd. From Mt. Elliot St. to Saint Cyril St. Near the Lodge Park sub-division at Van Dyke Rd. I can see those prarie dogs and coyotes roaming in that area.Quote:
Originally Posted by royce
Part of the reason Detroit would not want to "de-annex" land is that in large part the peripheries of the city are more prosperous than the inner city, and in large part much more dense. The exception would probably be the Alter area boarder at Grosse Pointe, but places like EEV, Balduck area, Mohican Regent, Warrendale, SW, most of the 8 mile neighborhoods are heavily populated. Detroit isn't going to want to "shrink" that way, rather consolidate areas like the near east side that are sparsely populated, if anything.
Hmmmm, maybe Detroit could float a bond issue, consolidate people to create large swaths of vacant land, erect solar power panels on all of the vacant land, and solve all the city's finacial problems by selling electric power.
We need visionaries and money. Unfortunately, those are in short supply in this region.
I am all for concentrating the citys population and using the empty spaces in between more productively but I wonder what the real savings will be.
Are the police and fire departments really spending that much time and money patrolling and putting out fires in the areas where there may only be one or two houses per block?
Is it really that much of a burden for the garbage truck to drive down the street?
What other services that cost so much are being provided in these areas? Not may.
I think those in power should let these areas continue to deteriorate naturally as long as the people who live in them know that police and fire may be a little slower getting to them. People in the country make the same trade. Then when everybody has moved there should be a plan in place that details what is next for the area.
I think a lot of the people who live in these empty spaces love where they live and the privacy that comes with the space.
This is not going away. On Fox ch. 2 they're actually dicussing the idea that people will have to adjust to the idea of leaving their house if it is the emptyu zones... Thankfully, I have no property, can walk away from it all as I live in a grouping of shared dwellings near Midtown/ WSU that is not on the hit list [[so far)..... Will people leave their homes without protest? Will some areas like parts of the the east side be "adjusted" first?
Agreed. Especially visionaries... :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by English