L. Brooks: "I Don't Want to End Sprawl. I Love it."

[Danny]

LB Patterson is Coleman A. Young in reverse. He's creating a "White Detroit" development phase and he's mayor. He likes spawl and end what's left of empty farmland and its northern small cities. I would say to Patterson that's enough with more sprawl. Fix Pontiac and Royal Oak Township and focus of regional help with Detroit. By the time you leave office, your precious sprawl slows down.

[ghettopalmetto]

LB Patterson is Coleman A. Young in reverse. He's creating a "White Detroit" development phase and he's mayor. He likes spawl and end what's left of empty farmland and its northern small cities. I would say to Patterson that's enough with more sprawl. Fix Pontiac and Royal Oak Township and focus of regional help with Detroit. By the time you leave office, your precious sprawl slows down.

Let's not give Ole Brooksie too much credit. The guy just happened to be in the right place at the right time:

1. Take one wealthy metropolis.
2. Apply federal and state sprawl-abetting policies.
3. Receive federal and state money for roads, schools, and utilities.
4. Success!

The continued evolution of southern Oakland County is analagous to inner-ring suburbs in other metropolises. Brooks hasn't done anything other than ride the wave of suburbanization and decentralization.

[Zaiko]

Danny,

Were you the guy that called into to WDET to ask the question that triggered Brook's response at the end of his segment? Craig said it was "Dan from Ferndale."

[Wesley Mouch]

Let's not give Ole Brooksie too much credit. The guy just happened to be in the right place at the right time:

1. Take one wealthy metropolis.
2. Apply federal and state sprawl-abetting policies.
3. Receive federal and state money for roads, schools, and utilities.
4. Success!

The continued evolution of southern Oakland County is analagous to inner-ring suburbs in other metropolises. Brooks hasn't done anything other than ride the wave of suburbanization and decentralization.

Agreed. Only hard times will tell whether his policies have been effective. He does seem to have kept the ship of already-wealthy-suburbia running on course. Which alone is more than Detroit Concordia can claim.

[Bham1982]

Did you notice that all of the Detroit MSA's growth took place between 1960 and 1970?.

This isn't true. It's true that the 1960's were the best decade of growth, but Detroit grew in every decade until this most recent decade, which is exactly what I wrote.

Detroit grew in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. Only declined in 00's. Last I checked, sprawl wasn't invented in 2006 [[the first year of MSA decline).

The only time Detroit didn't grow was in the few years when the domestic auto industry almost perished.

There are a lot of ways to interpret those numbers. None tell a particularly flattering story of Detroit in relation to Chicago.

I never claimed that Detroit's relative growth matched that of Chicago.

I only corrected the false claim that Chicago had doubled in size, and I pointed out that Chicago also badly trailed national growth averages.

Almost all the Rust Belt cities have poor population growth, including Chicago, and I think that economic factors, not sprawl factors, are the primary culprit.

[Bham1982]

Move out, should you enjoy that. But you don't get traffic signals, widened roads, new libraries, etc. unless you pay for them 100%.

I would guess that Brooks would love such a policy. Oakland County is a net donor county [[receives less in state and federal expenditures than it contributes), and Wayne County is a net receiver county [[receives more).

If one were to insitute a "eat what you kill" policy on a county basis, Oakland would be one of the biggest beneficiaries, and Wayne would get slammed.

[antongast]

I would guess that Brooks would love such a policy. Oakland County is a net donor county [[receives less in state and federal expenditures than it contributes), and Wayne County is a net receiver county [[receives more).

If one were to insitute a "eat what you kill" policy on a county basis, Oakland would be one of the biggest beneficiaries, and Wayne would get slammed.

On a county basis, yeah, it's a terrible idea. The way it should work is that if people are urbanizing previously non-urbanized land [[in, say, Oakland Township), the cost of that should fall on them specifically, not on people living in Troy on land that was urbanized 40 years ago, and not on people who already lived in that part of Oakland Township when it was a rural area and only needed minimal infrastructure.

[ghettopalmetto]

Almost all the Rust Belt cities have poor population growth, including Chicago, and I think that economic factors, not sprawl factors, are the primary culprit.

If there were no sprawl factors, why did the Detroit metropolis undergo a PHYSICAL expansion of 40-50% in the same time frame?

If this were, in fact, the result of economic factors, then one would think the region would be too poor to build as many roads, schools, utilities, and public service facilites during this period. I mean, how many additional shopping malls do you really need when your population is essentially stagnant?

[ghettopalmetto]

On a county basis, yeah, it's a terrible idea. The way it should work is that if people are urbanizing previously non-urbanized land [[in, say, Oakland Township), the cost of that should fall on them specifically, not on people living in Troy on land that was urbanized 40 years ago, and not on people who already lived in that part of Oakland Township when it was a rural area and only needed minimal infrastructure.

Some states [[Maryland is one) have the novel idea of requiring developers to pay for the new infrastructure that their new plastic fiefdoms require. Of course, someone always gets their panties in a bunch and claims, "Well that will just make the property TOO EXPENSIVE."

No shit? You don't say.

But such is the game of privatizing profits and socializing losses.

[iheartthed]

This isn't true. It's true that the 1960's were the best decade of growth, but Detroit grew in every decade until this most recent decade, which is exactly what I wrote.

Detroit's MSA hasn't grown more than 2% since 1970. Sounds like not growing to me.

[Novine]

"Detroit's MSA hasn't grown more than 2% since 1970. Sounds like not growing to me."

Bham is deliberately ignoring the point of the discussion. The costs of sprawl are impossible to ignore but Bham wants to do just that.

[ResurgetCineribus]

In other news, Mayor McCheese doesn't want people to stop eating Big Macs, he love's it when they do.

[Wesley Mouch]

Some states [[Maryland is one) have the novel idea of requiring developers to pay for the new infrastructure that their new plastic fiefdoms require. Of course, someone always gets their panties in a bunch and claims, "Well that will just make the property TOO EXPENSIVE."

No shit? You don't say.

But such is the game of privatizing profits and socializing losses.

It won't change the cost of property at all -- overall. That property on the edge will cost more -- and remaining property will cost less. But the people creating the expense will pay the cost.

The only way costs change is if you DON'T SPRAWL. Then you have the opportunity to build without increasing overall investment.

So the truth is that its the sprawl that actually increases the cost of property.

[Hermod]

If there were no sprawl factors, why did the Detroit metropolis undergo a PHYSICAL expansion of 40-50% in the same time frame?

If this were, in fact, the result of economic factors, then one would think the region would be too poor to build as many roads, schools, utilities, and public service facilites during this period. I mean, how many additional shopping malls do you really need when your population is essentially stagnant?

When your existing homes, schools, and shopping areas become uninhabitable due to concerns about crime and blight, you have to seek out new homes, schools, and shopping centers. Brigham Young and his followers didn't leave Illinois and trek out to Utah because there was a lack of space in Illinois.

[Novine]

Nice historical lesson. But most people who fled Detroit in the 50s and 60s for the suburbs, when the first wave of sprawl spilled out of Detroit, didn't leave because of blight and crime.

[ridgeabilly]

I hope to God Brooksie has a full time designated driver, in case there is a re-occurrence of that "medication" reacation.

[Huggybear]

I think there is an excellent poem by Shel Silverstein that anticipates the genius of L. Brooks Patterson's love of sprawl and growth. It is reproduced here only for educational and critical purposes [[Lowell, you can delete or foreshorten if you think reproducing this presents a problem).

My dad gave me one dollar bill
'Cause I'm his smartest son,
And I swapped it for two shiny quarters
'Cause two is more than one!

[...]

And I took the nickels to Hiram Coombs
Down at the seed-feed store,
And the fool gave me five pennies for them,
And five is more than four!

And then I went and showed my dad,
And he got red in the cheeks
And closed his eyes and shook his head--
Too proud of me to speak!

— Shel Silverstein, "Smart"

[[I guess we won't also address The Giving Tree as a metaphor for Detroit)

[bartock]

When your existing homes, schools, and shopping areas become uninhabitable due to concerns about crime and blight, you have to seek out new homes, schools, and shopping centers. Brigham Young and his followers didn't leave Illinois and trek out to Utah because there was a lack of space in Illinois.

None of the folks in the anti-sprawl, freeway-capping, suburban-hating, train-loving crowd ever want to talk about the one thing that is proven to create human flight [[of the black and white variety) out of, and keep most people away from, moving to an area: crime.

[casscorridor]

Nice historical lesson. But most people who fled Detroit in the 50s and 60s for the suburbs, when the first wave of sprawl spilled out of Detroit, didn't leave because of blight and crime.

Exactly, they either left because they got a great deal on a new house in a new suburb OR they simply didn't like the idea of sharing sidewalks, neighborhoods, schools, stores, bathrooms and so on with people who were not white.

So not everyone who left the city for the suburbs were racist, some of them were just making economic decisions that made sense to them. However, a great deal were indeed racist... which is more the type of people LBP relates to. If he was thinking about only economics, he would realize that endless sprawl is not good... economics.

[j to the jeremy]

None of the folks in the anti-sprawl, freeway-capping, suburban-hating, train-loving crowd ever want to talk about the one thing that is proven to create human flight [[of the black and white variety) out of, and keep most people away from, moving to an area: crime.

Only in Detroit...

The point is that crime was a symptom of the policies started in the 1950s. The first "white flight" didn't happen because of crime. It happened because of racist real estate policies, highway construction, and the results of "slum clearance" with no replacement housing built. It also happened because there was a housing shortage in Detroit in the 1950s and 1960s caused by massive urban renewal projects that displaced lots of people. FHA mortgages went disproportionally to white folks in new homes, and the riots and subsequent crack years only added exponentially to a cycle that was already in place.

You should read some books about this subject.

I don't hate suburbs, but I do think sprawl has been useless IN MICHIGAN since the 1970s at least. A state with a stagnant population only needs new construction when THE EXISTING infrastructure is maintained and adequate. We shouldn't have a homeless problem in a city of vacant houses.

[iheartthed]

None of the folks in the anti-sprawl, freeway-capping, suburban-hating, train-loving crowd ever want to talk about the one thing that is proven to create human flight [[of the black and white variety) out of, and keep most people away from, moving to an area: crime.

Is this just your opinion or do you have some data to back this up?

I just checked the crime stats of New York in 1990 versus the crime stats of Detroit for that same year. New York City grew by 3.5% from 1980 - 1990, while Detroit City shrank by 15% during the same period of time. In 1990, NYC had a violent crime rate of roughly 2400 incidents per 100,000 residents and Detroit had a violent crime rate of 2700 incidents per 100,000 residents. So the crime stats of those two cities, as reported to the FBI, were roughly in the same league. Yet, Detroit's population shrank substantially while New York's grew.

Ironically, Detroit's 2010 violent crime rate was roughly 2400 incidents per 100,000 residents, which was NYC's rate the year it posted a 3.5% gain in population over the previous decade. Yet, we all know Detroit didn't hardly grow by 3.5% in the 2000s......

I do think crime is an important quality of life issue, but let's be honest -- crime in and of itself is not hardly the reason why Detroit has lost more than 60% of its population.

http://www.disastercenter.com/newyork/crime/9004.htm

http://www.disastercenter.com/michigan/crime/5632.htm

[ghettopalmetto]

I do think crime is an important quality of life issue, but let's be honest -- crime in and of itself is not hardly the reason why Detroit has lost more than 60% of its population.

http://www.disastercenter.com/newyork/crime/9004.htm

http://www.disastercenter.com/michigan/crime/5632.htm

But, crime crime crime.

Crime. Terror. Boo.

Crime.

[bartock]

Is this just your opinion or do you have some data to back this up?

I just checked the crime stats of New York in 1990 versus the crime stats of Detroit for that same year. New York City grew by 3.5% from 1980 - 1990, while Detroit City shrank by 15% during the same period of time. In 1990, NYC had a violent crime rate of roughly 2400 incidents per 100,000 residents and Detroit had a violent crime rate of 2700 incidents per 100,000 residents. So the crime stats of those two cities, as reported to the FBI, were roughly in the same league. Yet, Detroit's population shrank substantially while New York's grew.

Ironically, Detroit's 2010 violent crime rate was roughly 2400 incidents per 100,000 residents, which was NYC's rate the year it posted a 3.5% gain in population over the previous decade. Yet, we all know Detroit didn't hardly grow by 3.5% in the 2000s......

I do think crime is an important quality of life issue, but let's be honest -- crime in and of itself is not hardly the reason why Detroit has lost more than 60% of its population.

http://www.disastercenter.com/newyork/crime/9004.htm

http://www.disastercenter.com/michigan/crime/5632.htm

Well, I've either lived in Detroit or worked in Detroit nearly every day for pretty much the past two decades. Sometimes the eye test goes a long way, so I'm certainly being subjective. If you want to say crime in and of itself isn't THE reason why Detroit has lost so much population, OK, but that doesn't really say much. My opinion is that crime is the NUMBER ONE reason.

By the way, the murder rate in Detroit as per those charts has always been much, much higher. Also, New York rates from 1995 went below 1,000 [[note that the population jumped by 700,000 between 1995-2000), except for 2004, when that chart says the rate was 1,740 in Detroit, all of the other years from 1995 the rates were over 2,000. So I'd say at least double the violent crime rate [[and about 4 times the violent crime rate in 2005) does have something to do with it.

[ghettopalmetto]

Well, I've either lived in Detroit or worked in Detroit nearly every day for pretty much the past two decades. Sometimes the eye test goes a long way, so I'm certainly being subjective. If you want to say crime in and of itself isn't THE reason why Detroit has lost so much population, OK, but that doesn't really say much. My opinion is that crime is the NUMBER ONE reason.

Exactly--an opinion based on anecdotal evidence. Scholars, such as Sugrue, have tracked Detroit's decline and examined the interrelated factors and the hard data that goes along with them. If crime were the primary cause of urban flight, then you would expect to see sprawling suburban growth lagging increases in crime. An examination of the data shows that growth in the crime rate actually lags flight to the suburbs and urban disinvestment in Detroit. Ergo, crime is a resulting symptom, not a cause.

If crime were the primary factor in disinvestment in Detroit and flight to the suburbs, then how does one explain urban flight in other cities? Was there some instantaneous cultural shift where crime exploded in ever major Northeastern and Midwestern city at the same time, causing everyone of means to flee en masse?

Crime hasn't stoppped young, educated, talented people from moving to New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, or DC--all of which, like Detroit, were once given up for dead. I suppose those cities have "solved" crime???

[rb336]

I have often wondered why nobody ever complains about the costs to the taxpayers with suburban sprawl. I'm sure the folks in Auburn Hills and beyond feel they are entitled to have new and expanded roads to take them home, but how many would be up in arms if their tax dollars went to replace say, the Southfield Freeway?

i avoided this thread for a long time, brooksblather is tiresome. You want a good example of the outerburbs entitlement attitude? just look at how they shriek when asked to pay for extending the water system out to them