Groups plan Belle Isle rally to protest 'aggressive treatment of citizens'

[mwilbert]

People did not abandon Detroit because of crime. The rising crime did not start until hundreds of thousands had already left the city. Detroit's crime rates were fairly stable until the mid 1960s, when the crime rates suddenly exploded. Detroit had 102 homicides in 1944, 103 in 1949, 108 in 1954, 106 in 1959, and 125 in 1964. The crime really started to explode in 1965 when the homicide total jumped to 188, and then continued to skyrocket at incredible rates, up to 389 in 1968, 577 in 1972, and 714 in 1974.

According to the Free Press and US Census data, Detroit's population peaked at close to 2 million around 1953. By 1965, Detroit's population was already under 1.6 million. The city of Detroit's population dropped to 1.511 million in the 1970 census, and was down to 1.203 million in the 1990 census.


To put these numbers into perspective, Detroit lost around 400,000 residents in the 12 years just before the crime explosion that started in 1965, but this massive population loss actually slowed down after the crime explosion started. It took more than 25 years AFTER the 1965 crime explosion for Detroit to lose another 400,000 residents.

The population decline of Detroit happened for a number of reasons, but rising crime was not one of them.

As other people have said, this is ridiculous. It is true that crime was not the only reason people left Detroit, and that Detroit's population was dropping before crime became a major issue, but to take that as implying that crime wasn't ever a major issue is illogical, and in this case, contrary to fact.

[Honky Tonk]

People did not abandon Detroit because of crime. The rising crime did not start until hundreds of thousands had already left the city. Detroit's crime rates were fairly stable until the mid 1960s, when the crime rates suddenly exploded. Detroit had 102 homicides in 1944, 103 in 1949, 108 in 1954, 106 in 1959, and 125 in 1964. The crime really started to explode in 1965 when the homicide total jumped to 188, and then continued to skyrocket at incredible rates, up to 389 in 1968, 577 in 1972, and 714 in 1974.

According to the Free Press and US Census data, Detroit's population peaked at close to 2 million around 1953. By 1965, Detroit's population was already under 1.6 million. The city of Detroit's population dropped to 1.511 million in the 1970 census, and was down to 1.203 million in the 1990 census.


To put these numbers into perspective, Detroit lost around 400,000 residents in the 12 years just before the crime explosion that started in 1965, but this massive population loss actually slowed down after the crime explosion started. It took more than 25 years AFTER the 1965 crime explosion for Detroit to lose another 400,000 residents.

The population decline of Detroit happened for a number of reasons, but rising crime was not one of them.

erikd, you're not totally correct. Your stats only show homicide rates. Other crimes happened, and in abundance, besides homicides. The big issue that comes to mind was garage breakins and auto breakins. Crimes of "opportunity" if you will. @ the time, people started padlocking garages with their cars inside. Later people started reinforcing doors, adding alarms, etc. When those started failing, people abandoned the use of garages altogether, [[NOT in all neighborhoods) and kept tools in the house. That lead to home invasions. Our neighbors wife was raped while the assailant held a knife on her throat. I was stabbed because I gave someone change to buy a bottle of wine. [[I'm still trying to figure that one out) Mother's Day? Flowers from around the house or flowerboxes got stolen. [[I know someone is going to post "you think people moved out of Detroit because someone stole their flowers?") All this added to annoyances that people were unwilling to put up with, and the situation just kept escalating. When Coleman Young became Mayor, the cork was pulled from the bottle, and mass exodus started. Had his viewpoints been more middle of the road, he could have kept things more together. I don't dislike the man, or blame Detroit's downfall on him, but he certainly didn't help matters any. A lot of Detroit's past history has been rewritten, sugar coated, or blame laid elsewhere. [[It's the SPRAWL, man) I watched, as many on this forum did, beautiful neighborhoods turn into what you see now.

[Wesley Mouch]

Does hyper sensitivity actually abound in Detroit? People say that as if it is a fact, but I disagree. If Detroiters were really so hyper sensitive about things like state takeovers and increased law enforcement on Belle Isle, then why are there only a handful of people showing up at these well-publicised protests? There was a public protest in Detroit about the Trayvon Martin case that happened at the same time as the state takeover of Detroit. 1500 people showed up for the Detroit Trayvon Martin protest, but only 50 showed up for the anti-state takeover protest.

The common opinion says that Detroiters are hyper sensitive, but the actions of city residents don't support that assertion.

In reality, Detroiters are just like everybody else. We are reasonable people who want the same basic things as everybody else. Of course, we have cranks and radicals just like everybody else does, but they do not represent the majority opinion of Detroiters, no matter what people have been led to believe.

Erik, in the real world, people are not judged by reality but by perceptions. Its not fair, but its true.

The perception of Detroit today is indeed driven by the people with agendas who hold 'protests'. The media today are lazy. This protest should not be covered by the media. I don't think it does represent the majority thinking in Detroit. To me, this is like 'stop and frisk'. Liberal Democrats stuck in the 60s distrust police -- so they fight S&F because it seems like police abuse of power. But the actual people in NYC really like that the criminals are being beaten back. The media reports the protests against S&F. Its too hard to actually go and talk to regular people and uncover what's really happening. Here, you are completely right. The media reports the easy story. Cops abuse citizens on Belle Isle. And I'm sure there may be some issues -- but for the most part the citizens of Detroit I think are thrilled with what's happening on BI.

[EastsideAl]

Am I making this stuff up? I'm sure to someone, like yourself, who's so outraged on paying $11 a year for island access, it would appear so.

You ignore far far too many intervening factors to mention in your rush to characterize our fellow city citizens as "nazis".

[IrishSpartan]

People did not abandon Detroit because of crime. The rising crime did not start until hundreds of thousands had already left the city. Detroit's crime rates were fairly stable until the mid 1960s, when the crime rates suddenly exploded. Detroit had 102 homicides in 1944, 103 in 1949, 108 in 1954, 106 in 1959, and 125 in 1964. The crime really started to explode in 1965 when the homicide total jumped to 188, and then continued to skyrocket at incredible rates, up to 389 in 1968, 577 in 1972, and 714 in 1974.

According to the Free Press and US Census data, Detroit's population peaked at close to 2 million around 1953. By 1965, Detroit's population was already under 1.6 million. The city of Detroit's population dropped to 1.511 million in the 1970 census, and was down to 1.203 million in the 1990 census.


To put these numbers into perspective, Detroit lost around 400,000 residents in the 12 years just before the crime explosion that started in 1965, but this massive population loss actually slowed down after the crime explosion started. It took more than 25 years AFTER the 1965 crime explosion for Detroit to lose another 400,000 residents.

The population decline of Detroit happened for a number of reasons, but rising crime was not one of them.

Detroit still had to have been at least a little over 1.6 million in 1965. Hell, over 150,000 people left the city between 1967-1970 and still the official count in 1970 was a little north of 1.5 million.

[mwilbert]

Erik, in the real world, people are not judged by reality but by perceptions. Its not fair, but its true.

The perception of Detroit today is indeed driven by the people with agendas who hold 'protests'. The media today are lazy. This protest should not be covered by the media. I don't think it does represent the majority thinking in Detroit. To me, this is like 'stop and frisk'. Liberal Democrats stuck in the 60s distrust police -- so they fight S&F because it seems like police abuse of power. But the actual people in NYC really like that the criminals are being beaten back. The media reports the protests against S&F. Its too hard to actually go and talk to regular people and uncover what's really happening. Here, you are completely right. The media reports the easy story. Cops abuse citizens on Belle Isle. And I'm sure there may be some issues -- but for the most part the citizens of Detroit I think are thrilled with what's happening on BI.

There is little evidence that S&F is effective--yes, crime fell a lot in NYC, but it fell before S&F, and it fell pretty much everywhere else as well. And of course the new mayor of NYC was elected easily on a platform that included an end to S&F. So I'm not sure how widely popular it was either.

The media reports on what it thinks people will pay attention to. 20 people demonstrating on Belle Isle about a new cause isn't usual. If they keep doing it without any change in participation or new issue to hang the story on, people will stop paying attention. Relative importance is not the issue--you aren't going to get news stories saying "Climate still warming" or "People still being killed by drones" or "Still lots of poor people in America" unless there is something else new to hang the story on--a new study, or a big storm, or a particularly interesting target, or something.

In Detroit, you get stories about new stores opening, because there aren't so many of them, and not so many about people being shot, because there are. In that sense, the spin is perhaps better than it should be. On the other hand, everybody knows people are getting shot in Detroit,and they may not know about the good stuff, so in that sense the media may actually be doing the right thing in terms of public education. Unfortunately, there is rarely going to be a hook for a story about the large majority of Detroiters just going about their business and trying to get along, so you probably aren't going to see that in the papers.

[Honky Tonk]

You ignore far far too many intervening factors to mention in your rush to characterize our fellow city citizens as "nazis".

I'm ignoring as many factors as the person who originally posted the word "Nazi". Do me a favor, read this thread from the beginning and get back to me, will you? If the people I cited in my retort are your "fellow citizens", then we are on opposite sides. Don't start making stuff up and interjecting it. And for crying out loud, pay the $11.

[downtownguy]

To me, this is like 'stop and frisk'. Liberal Democrats stuck in the 60s distrust police -- so they fight S&F because it seems like police abuse of power. But the actual people in NYC really like that the criminals are being beaten back.

And by "actual people," you're referring to conservative white people?

[Wesley Mouch]

And by "actual people," you're referring to conservative white people?

No, I mean people living is social housing in NYC. Look around, and get their stories. Find the stories about how they support the police, and S&F. Or you can continue to believe as you do. I'm not all for S&F as great policy -- but I'm against the over-reaction against something that's worked. You can say crime was already falling -- maybe so. NYC proves that crime falls when you pay attention to everything -- and we'll see if it rises as you start micromanaging NYPD. DiBlasio was not elected on S&F. He was elected on a broad liberal vision of America. Time will tell whether he's right or wrong. In the meantime, be careful if you live in housing projects or you want to send you child to one of the great charters that is above average.

But to stay on topic, the common 'thread' here is that the media no longer are very reliable. They cover what's easy -- not what's true. And they harm us by doing so.

[Honky Tonk]

But to stay on topic, the common 'thread' here is that the media no longer are very reliable. They cover what's easy -- not what's true. And they harm us by doing so.

They cover what sells.......

[erikd]

As other people have said, this is ridiculous. It is true that crime was not the only reason people left Detroit, and that Detroit's population was dropping before crime became a major issue, but to take that as implying that crime wasn't ever a major issue is illogical, and in this case, contrary to fact.

I was specifically responding to the statement made by HonkeyTonk, when he claimed that "People "abandoned" Detroit because of the crime that already existed. It accelerated once the ball got rolling, but initially it started because people didn't want to put up with it."

I should have made my response more clear, because my entire point was that people did not initially abandon Detroit because of existing or rising crime. The abandonment started first, then the crime increased after the first wave of population loss.

Of course, there was a feedback effect that created a greater push for even more people to abandon the city after the crime started to increase, but abandonment was not started by, or initially caused by, increasing crime.

My point is that the abandonment started first, then the crime increase started about a decade later. It is absolutely true that further abandonment happened as a result of increasing crime, but the crime is not what started it.

[erikd]

Detroit still had to have been at least a little over 1.6 million in 1965. Hell, over 150,000 people left the city between 1967-1970 and still the official count in 1970 was a little north of 1.5 million.

The 1960 US census counted 1,670,144 people in Detroit. The 1970 census was down to 1,511,482. It is very likely that of the 158,662 people who left Detroit between 1960 and 1970, at least 71,000 of them did so before the halfway point of the decade, especially when you consider the rapid population decline that happened between the early 50s and 1960.

Also, it is factually incorrect to claim that over 150,000 people left Detroit between 1967 and 1970. The only way that could have happened is Detroit had virtually no population loss from 1960-1967, which is clearly not the case.

[corktownyuppie]

Ran into Ron Scott [[Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality) earlier this week. He and I spoke briefly about Belle Isle. I think part of the problem/misunderstanding is that he is conflating two separate issues:

[[1) Strict enforcement of the laws as written, such as fishing permits, the speed limit, etc. [[which is ok, IMHO).

[[2) Unnecessarily hostile engagement of islandgoers who haven't done anything wrong, such as the earlier post of someone who was questioned by police even though they did not have a reason to be detained or probable cause to be questioned. [[which I'm not ok with.)

He mentioned that the protest was very calm and peaceful and that their intention is not to be confrontational, unless necessary. He mentioned to me that there's a group of classic car enthusiasts who do an annual get together on Belle Isle but that they're afraid to do the even their for fear of being harrassed. [[or worse).

I told him that if they're not breaking any rules, then I don't have a problem with them being on the island...his response was that after years of things being one way, it is unclear to the general population of what is within the rules and not. And he also mentioned that it is also unclear that there is a check on law enforcement to make sure they aren't overstepping their bounds.

Now let me pause and mention that Ron Scott is very vocal about the Emergency Management as being an "occupation", and he is viewing this through a civil rights issue rather than a financial issue. And, of course, given the last 50 years, there is certainly some reason for him to see it that way. But I do take him at his word that there needs to be better understanding from the people as well as the police about -- in practical, not theoretical terms -- how both guests and law enforcement are expected to behave.

He said he will e-mail me his list of "demands" that he is asking for from MSP, and I told him that I would keep an open mind and reserve judgment until I see exactly what people are asking for.

Is it possible that all of this is just a misunderstanding? Probably not 100%. Certainly there are going to be some changes that some people just straight up will not like. But, given that both Ron Scott and Brenda Jones have stepped back their confrontational tone, I think that a good part of this conflict can be ameliorated with better communication.

In other news, apparently, the Belle Isle "party crowd" has moved to Rouge Park, and the Assistant Chief of Police mentioned that now that they are relieved from policing Belle Isle, they will be deploying more police officers to Rouge Park and other parks as well.

[Honky Tonk]

Ran into Ron Scott [[Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality) earlier this week. He and I spoke briefly about Belle Isle. I think part of the problem/misunderstanding is that he is conflating two separate issues:

[[1) Strict enforcement of the laws as written, such as fishing permits, the speed limit, etc. [[which is ok, IMHO).

[[2) Unnecessarily hostile engagement of islandgoers who haven't done anything wrong, such as the earlier post of someone who was questioned by police even though they did not have a reason to be detained or probable cause to be questioned. [[which I'm not ok with.)

He mentioned that the protest was very calm and peaceful and that their intention is not to be confrontational, unless necessary. He mentioned to me that there's a group of classic car enthusiasts who do an annual get together on Belle Isle but that they're afraid to do the even their for fear of being harrassed. [[or worse).

I told him that if they're not breaking any rules, then I don't have a problem with them being on the island...his response was that after years of things being one way, it is unclear to the general population of what is within the rules and not. And he also mentioned that it is also unclear that there is a check on law enforcement to make sure they aren't overstepping their bounds.

Now let me pause and mention that Ron Scott is very vocal about the Emergency Management as being an "occupation", and he is viewing this through a civil rights issue rather than a financial issue. And, of course, given the last 50 years, there is certainly some reason for him to see it that way. But I do take him at his word that there needs to be better understanding from the people as well as the police about -- in practical, not theoretical terms -- how both guests and law enforcement are expected to behave.

He said he will e-mail me his list of "demands" that he is asking for from MSP, and I told him that I would keep an open mind and reserve judgment until I see exactly what people are asking for.

Is it possible that all of this is just a misunderstanding? Probably not 100%. Certainly there are going to be some changes that some people just straight up will not like. But, given that both Ron Scott and Brenda Jones have stepped back their confrontational tone, I think that a good part of this conflict can be ameliorated with better communication.

In other news, apparently, the Belle Isle "party crowd" has moved to Rouge Park, and the Assistant Chief of Police mentioned that now that they are relieved from policing Belle Isle, they will be deploying more police officers to Rouge Park and other parks as well.

CTY, First of all, Thanx for stepping up to the plate and intervening. Too bad Mr. Scott is in a mind-lock about making Detroit better. The fact that he is taking this as a personal onslaught to his civil rights, @ least his civil "rights" as he sees them, tells me he isn't interested in seeing progress made in Detroit, he's more interested in business as usual, as so many posters and protesters seem to be. He has no position to make "demands", because simply, there are no demands to be made. There are laws governing Detroit, and Belle Isle, and civil behavior. If Mr. Scott doesn't care to adhere to them, well, he's free to relocate elsewhere, where things aren't as imposing on his perception of "rights". As far as the Classic Car Group goes, I think Mr. Scott is fear mongering to gain support for his cause. You can tell him, for me, Google is his friend. I'm posting links to two websites with rules, regulations, and "how too's", to avoid having the car owners shackled and carted off to plantations.

http://www.detroitmi.gov/Departments...BelleIsle.aspx

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7...024---,00.html

[Hermod]

I was specifically responding to the statement made by HonkeyTonk, when he claimed that "People "abandoned" Detroit because of the crime that already existed. It accelerated once the ball got rolling, but initially it started because people didn't want to put up with it."

I should have made my response more clear, because my entire point was that people did not initially abandon Detroit because of existing or rising crime. The abandonment started first, then the crime increased after the first wave of population loss.

Of course, there was a feedback effect that created a greater push for even more people to abandon the city after the crime started to increase, but abandonment was not started by, or initially caused by, increasing crime.

My point is that the abandonment started first, then the crime increase started about a decade later. It is absolutely true that further abandonment happened as a result of increasing crime, but the crime is not what started it.

"Perceived threat" of crime then? People's perceptions should be seen as their "reality".

[Honky Tonk]

I was specifically responding to the statement made by HonkeyTonk, when he claimed that "People "abandoned" Detroit because of the crime that already existed. It accelerated once the ball got rolling, but initially it started because people didn't want to put up with it."

I should have made my response more clear, because my entire point was that people did not initially abandon Detroit because of existing or rising crime. The abandonment started first, then the crime increased after the first wave of population loss.

Of course, there was a feedback effect that created a greater push for even more people to abandon the city after the crime started to increase, but abandonment was not started by, or initially caused by, increasing crime.

My point is that the abandonment started first, then the crime increase started about a decade later. It is absolutely true that further abandonment happened as a result of increasing crime, but the crime is not what started it.

erikd, there were issues with Detroit before the mass exodus. As I tried to explain, in my original reply to you, the crime wasn't as intense as it is now, but it was enough to get people looking elsewhere. You are right, as people started leaving, it did escalate. [[the notorious "downward spiral") My neighbors didn't leave in the 60's and 70's "just because".

[Bham1982]

My point is that the abandonment started first, then the crime increase started about a decade later. It is absolutely true that further abandonment happened as a result of increasing crime, but the crime is not what started it.

This isn't true. There was little abandonment in Detroit pre-1970. The initial postwar population loss was mostly young familes heading to cheaper new housing in the suburbs. Back then Detroit was overcrowded and expensive, and you could get more for your money by crossing 8 Mile, especially with the GI Bill for new construction housing.

Widespread abandonment didn't take place until the 80's, after crime had peaked and almost half the city already left.

[jolla]

[[1) Strict enforcement of the laws as written, such as fishing permits, the speed limit, etc. [[which is ok, IMHO).

[[2) Unnecessarily hostile engagement of islandgoers who haven't done anything wrong, such as the earlier post of someone who was questioned by police even though they did not have a reason to be detained or probable cause to be questioned. [[which I'm not ok with.)

I'll admit I may have missed a post or two, but I didn't see any examples of #2.

[Detroitnerd]

This isn't true. There was little abandonment in Detroit pre-1970. The initial postwar population loss was mostly young familes heading to cheaper new housing in the suburbs. Back then Detroit was overcrowded and expensive, and you could get more for your money by crossing 8 Mile, especially with the GI Bill for new construction housing.

Widespread abandonment didn't take place until the 80's, after crime had peaked and almost half the city already left.

Take a look at the back of a city directory around 1946-1950. You'll see one resident occupying more and more properties around the city: VACANT.

[Wesley Mouch]

There is little evidence that S&F is effective--yes, crime fell a lot in NYC, but it fell before S&F, and it fell pretty much everywhere else as well. And of course the new mayor of NYC was elected easily on a platform that included an end to S&F. So I'm not sure how widely popular it was either.

The media reports on what it thinks people will pay attention to. 20 people demonstrating on Belle Isle about a new cause isn't usual. If they keep doing it without any change in participation or new issue to hang the story on, people will stop paying attention. Relative importance is not the issue--you aren't going to get news stories saying "Climate still warming" or "People still being killed by drones" or "Still lots of poor people in America" unless there is something else new to hang the story on--a new study, or a big storm, or a particularly interesting target, or something.

In Detroit, you get stories about new stores opening, because there aren't so many of them, and not so many about people being shot, because there are. In that sense, the spin is perhaps better than it should be. On the other hand, everybody knows people are getting shot in Detroit,and they may not know about the good stuff, so in that sense the media may actually be doing the right thing in terms of public education. Unfortunately, there is rarely going to be a hook for a story about the large majority of Detroiters just going about their business and trying to get along, so you probably aren't going to see that in the papers.

This thread isn't so much about S&F, but I suppose that is related here since there are complaints of 'over policing'.

I see lots of evidence that S&F works.... but its a mistake to focus on a single tactic. S&F in its worst application is to be avoided. S&F done with the tremendous oversight in NYC seems to have done wonders -- along with a broad campaign to 'take back the streets'. But let's leave that for a second.

NYC crime and Detroit crime were roughly the same in the 1980s. NYC and Detroit are not the same today. NYC has things well under control. Detroit does not. You may draw a conclusion that NYC didn't benefit from S&F. I do.

[Bham1982]

Take a look at the back of a city directory around 1946-1950. You'll see one resident occupying more and more properties around the city: VACANT.

Probably true, but doesn't matter. The point was that there were relatively few areas of high vacancy until the 80s. Back in the 60's there were no vacant areas whatsoever except for cleared out federal urban renewal land.

[Honky Tonk]

Probably true, but doesn't matter. The point was that there were relatively few areas of high vacancy until the 80s. Back in the 60's there were no vacant areas whatsoever except for cleared out federal urban renewal land.

That's not entirely true, because as kids, I remember going into vacant, abandoned homes, looking much the same condition as you see today. So some of it must have been going even back on then too.

[Bham1982]

That's not entirely true, because as kids, I remember going into vacant, abandoned homes, looking much the same condition as you see today. So some of it must have been going even back on then too.

Where in the 60's was there widespread abandonment in Detroit?

That doesn't even make any sense, as the city was still packed in and relatively expensive.

[p69rrh51]

Where in the 60's was there widespread abandonment in Detroit?

That doesn't even make any sense, as the city was still packed in and relatively expensive.

Bham you are too young to make that statement. Sections of the eastside were in the process of decaying. I remember driving with my parents along E. Grand Blvd. and noticing the empty houses then. Also most of the urban praririe you see today on the eastside, especially around the what was the Jefferson Assembly Plant was already visible in the late 1960's.

[Bham1982]

Bham you are too young to make that statement. Sections of the eastside were in the process of decaying. I remember driving with my parents along E. Grand Blvd. and noticing the empty houses then. Also most of the urban praririe you see today on the eastside, especially around the what was the Jefferson Assembly Plant was already visible in the late 1960's.

Yeah, obviously, that's federal urban renewal land. That was the whole point. The objective was to empty these areas.

I'm asking where were the abandoned neighborhoods in Detroit. Not "where are the feds buying out people for urban renewal", which has nothing to do with the housing market.