Former Detroiter offers viewpoint in The New Yorker

[nain rouge]

Yes, reducing crime is very important, but it isn't something you can just do--crime is the result of multiple factors many of which the city can't control.The city needs to concentrate on making changes that it can make, some of which, like improving the management of the police department, may make the city safer.

The city is in a hopeless position. A lot of people like to put a lot of blame on the corrupt city government and services, but from what I've observed across the country, corruption is an end result of decline. Not the other way around. When a city is doing well, you don't see as much as corruption because people can "get what's theirs" without resorting to risky business. That's just human nature.

You can demand a big city suffering from decades of terminally declining revenue and population to get its act together all you want, but in my experience that's like asking a person dying from cancer to stop acting sick and tired.

Bottom line is, we need to treat urban decay as a national issue. Detroit won't get back on its feet without a few helping hands. We should put a moratorium on most foreign aid and intervention until we've fixed up our own problems. This "rugged individualism" approach to cities is asinine in a mature industrial country. This isn't the 19th century. Europe's cities fare better because countries like France understand that its major cities are essential to the country's health. Meanwhile, we're so big that we still think we can let major cities fall of the map.

Well, look around. How is that working out for us? How much money and lives has it cost us?

[FlyOnTheWall]

1) Yes, reducing crime is very important, but it isn't something you can just do--crime is the result of multiple factors many of which the city can't control.The city needs to concentrate on making changes that it can make, some of which, like improving the management of the police department, may make the city safer.

The city is in a hopeless position. A lot of people like to put a lot of blame on the corrupt city government and services, but from what I've observed across the country, corruption is an end result of decline. Not the other way around. When a city is doing well, you don't see as much as corruption because people can "get what's theirs" without resorting to risky business. That's just human nature.

I just don’t see it “a hopeless position” as you do. I do see it as pretty grim though. I saw this sort of thing during the civil rights demonstrations back in the 60’s and 70’s with the terrible Jim Crow laws in the south. I saw citizens demonstrate in mass to get things changed. It was hard work to get these wrongs righted but a relatively small percentage of the total population had success. The voice of Detroiters can succeed in Detroit in much the same way to bring law back to Detroit. If enough Detroiters stand up and be counted, Detroit will be turned around. Outsiders could not do it but Detroiters could but it would take determination and intestinal fortitude. I guess I’m getting long winded. Simply put, some of the citizens of the south wanted the Jim Crow laws changed. they showed the strength to succeed. Are enough Detroiters tired of the lawlessness of Detroit? Until there are, Detroit will be what it is today. A place that people want to leave.

When a city is doing well, you don’t see crime in the streets. A well run city curtails the crime.
When a city is doing well, you don’t see a council person complaining because the laws are being enforced [[Belle Isle). A good counsel person would work to change the law if it was thought to be a bad law. Not complain about enforcement of the law.
IMHO A city is all of the people of the city. It isn’t the mayor or the town counsel. They only represent the citizens and should do as the citizens demand. If enough people demonstrate, your leaders will do as the citizens say.

If a small percentage of the population of the South can change a Nation, why can’t Detroiters change Detroit? I believe that if the crime is curtailed, the money and people will come.

[unclefrank]

My parents viewed Detroit as hopeless back in 1963 and headed for the burbs. Main issue back then was the poor quality of schools.

[FlyOnTheWall]

My parents viewed Detroit as hopeless back in 1963 and headed for the burbs. Main issue back then was the poor quality of schools.

In my little town, the public schools are hopeless. Two years ago, we started a Charter School which our town controls. It is doing wonderful and the kids are happily learning. What a turn around. Too bad that in your day a Charter School wasn't possible.

[FormerDetroiter]

My parents viewed Detroit as hopeless back in 1963 and headed for the burbs. Main issue back then was the poor quality of schools.

I'm surprised your parents thought the quality of education was poor in the early 60's. I went to DPS from 1953 to 1966. I don't know what your parents were looking for but back then the DPS system was excellent. Myself and my three brothers all graduated from DPS between 1963 and 1968. All three of us have undergrad & grad degrees from U of M.

[sumas]

Thank you for caring about kids. Such nice news that kids anywhere get the education deserved.

[sumas]

I'm surprised your parents thought the quality of education was poor in the early 60's. I went to DPS from 1953 to 1966. I don't know what your parents were looking for but back then the DPS system was excellent. Myself and my three brothers all graduated from DPS between 1963 and 1968. All three of us have undergrad & grad degrees from U of M.

Thanks for expressing my thoughts and sentiments. My husband and I also graduated in similar years. We went on to college and post graduate degrees. DPS did not suck then.

[Mackinaw]

I would go as far as to hypothesize that suburbanites suffer from Post-Traumatic Embitterment Disorder. Folks like L. Brooks Patterson and Jim Fouts would be perfect examples of this. They're so bitter about Detroit's sad decline that they've allowed it to cloud their judgment when it comes to the progress of the region. They're not necessarily working on ways to improve the region as a whole, but to simply function in spite of Detroit.

Amen. This needs to be clinically treated, say I.

[mwilbert]

The city is in a hopeless position. A lot of people like to put a lot of blame on the corrupt city government and services, but from what I've observed across the country, corruption is an end result of decline. Not the other way around. When a city is doing well, you don't see as much as corruption because people can "get what's theirs" without resorting to risky business. That's just human nature.

I don't believe the evidence exists for this position. Corruption isn't particularly related to decline. China isn't in decline, but it is amazingly corrupt. Massachusetts is doing just fine, but the last three speakers of the house have gone to jail as a result of their corrupt behavior. Providence RI was booming in the 90s, and the mayor [[now out of jail, I think) was busy skimming the whole time. Some of the greatest booms in New York corresponded with Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall. Those clowns who were robbing Bell, CA blind and are now all in jail weren't a symptom of decline, just of greed. There are simply a lot of people who are willing to do questionable things for profit if they think that they can get away with it, even if they are already pretty well off--as demonstrated by many people working in the financial industry. It's just human nature, and the way it is prevented is by adequate financial controls, oversight, and audit.