Detroits population tipping point

[umtim]

People lived here in the past because they worked in factories making things. Now many of the factories have gone. The auto industry in the past was mostly concentrated here. Later auto factories went to other states and left Detroit. Part of the exodus.
If the people want to eat they find jobs somewhere else and move. There are plenty of empty and near empty coal towns in PA that died when the coal ran out. They lost their purpose and folks had to go elsewhere for work.
Detroit has lost its purpose. Until another one emerges folks will keep on moving out. Wind is most likely the answer. The mechanics and factory space is here for this kind of work. Just a matter of finding the funding and moving along with it.

[7051]

More info for discussion....

A 2007 conversation with a competent and knowledged assessor revealed that 50% of the homes in the city paid $1,000 per year or less in property taxes!

Hard to believe if one lives in one of 40-50 neighborhoods in which the Archer administration directed assessors to fully assess so that when homes were sold the new property owner would have a high uncapped taxable value [[SEV) which would be their new taxable value [[capped taxable value), and thus high property taxes [[$3,000-$18,000 per year [[Green Acres to EEV to Palmer Woods, etc.)).

Just one more piece of evidence to suggest cutting off services [[and no longer requiring property tax payments) to those areas that have 1,2,3,etc. homes on a block - each paying $1,000 or less per year in property taxes. That 1,2,3k generated by that block certainly does not pay for the street to be paved and cleaned, sidewalks fixed, ems, fire, police, garbage, water/sewer maintenance, etc. I have seen streets and sidewalks actually recently replaced in these areas! What a waste! These 1,2,3,etc house per block neighborhoods will not exist within 5-8 years anyway due to old people passing away/family not wanting house/can't sell, slumlord owners who are just collecting rent/not maintaining the house/eventually no one rents at any price/house is abandoned, current owner-occupants not maintaining, and a host of other reasons.

Secondary, these above resources, especially police/fire/ems, can be shifted [[IMMEDIATELY) to viable neighborhoods to keep current residents happy and stop them from moving. Plenty of neighborhoods that were decent 5 years ago have lost residents when drugs, criminals. etc. moved in and city services declined further. Put our limited resources here too before more neighborhoods collapse.

These ideas may seem elitist but times like these require desperate solutions. Save the 50% of the city which can currently be saved or watch 90% of the city collapse within 15 years.

Signed,
An 11 year resident.

[7051]

Crawford,

I live in the Univ. District. Quite a few foreclosures have been purchased in the last 8 months. Some by "investors", many by owner occupants, both of whom who have put in much restoration work. New foreclosures are still occuring unfortunately, but at a slower rate than the last 2 years. Which street in Green Acres are you refering to [[mini Brush Park)??

[R8RBOB]

What is saddening is that this continual 60-year decline in population is demonstrating that everybody - white and black - basically believes that the municipality encompassing 140 square miles, situated along the banks of the Detroit River, in southeastern Michigan, called the city of Detroit, is NOT worth saving.

You said it all brother. Prime real estate. NO ONE WALKS FROM THAT. No one.

[davewindsor]

If the problem with Detroit's declining population is people moving to the burbs, then maybe Detroit should start annexing neighbouring cities to regain its population and tax base. Detroit has 138 square miles of land, while Chicago has 228 square miles, Toronto has 243 square miles and New York City has 305 square miles. .

[jtf1972]

Those of you who revel in the idea of Detroit completely imploding to have a population density similar to Ionia do realize the impact of such on the metropolitan economy as a whole, and on the suburban landscape, don't you?

Of course you don't.

I doubt the suburbs would grow to their own metropolises with vibrant economies. I doubt there will come a day when people living in Rome and Paris think of Dearborn, Troy & Sterling Heights when they thing of the great cities of America.

As Detroit goes, so goes Southeast Michigan. The sooner people realize we are all in this together and stop looking forward to Detroit's complete and utter destruction, the sooner we can all grow together. Like it or not, Detroit is the foundation of the metropolitan area.

[[Don't get me wrong, I am in no way putting down Ionia. It is a fine little town. But try to name five suburbs around it with bustling economies...)

[Quonset Hut]

AND just to be clear: I am not anti-suburb. I am anti-suburban sprawl. I think there are good suburbs that will continue to be great places long into the future. Ferndale, Royal Oak, Dearborn, Grosse Pointe, are among these communities. In the future, when Detroit is once again great, it may be of great benifit to these suburbs to finally put away their individual governments and join the City of Detroit as neighborhoods instead of seperate cities.

What you are saying, except for the Pointes, is that you love the little ranches and capes piled almost on top of each other, in straight blocks, just like you were in Detroit. While I didn't grow up in SE Michigan, people left for a variety of reasons, some to have a larger house with enough room for their kids to play. I just left a house in Lansing on a 40 x 100 lot where my neighbor spends spring, summer, and fall on his back porch, talking loudly to everyone, and his grill smoke always went right into my window. I'll guess I can't be forgiven by the land use thought police because we now live most of the time in blessed silence, though kids do play in the common area behind the house.

If I remember correctly, the "Detroit specific" state laws were changed to "a city over 700,000 population". I'd like to see the city of Detroit do better. But when it takes months and months just to get a simple permit, many sensible people decide to do things elsewhere.

To think the the old suburbs would join Detroit is laughable. First, Detroit government would have to not be a joke. This, by itself seems too much to overcome, so I won't bother listing anything else,,,

[Quonset Hut]

If the problem with Detroit's declining population is people moving to the burbs, then maybe Detroit should start annexing neighbouring cities to regain its population and tax base. Detroit has 138 square miles of land, while Chicago has 228 square miles, Toronto has 243 square miles and New York City has 305 square miles. .

You need the people in the affected areas to vote for the annexation. I'm sure they are lining up to be represented by tiara-wearing Council members.

[Bearinabox]

What you are saying, except for the Pointes, is that you love the little ranches and capes piled almost on top of each other, in straight blocks, just like you were in Detroit. While I didn't grow up in SE Michigan, people left for a variety of reasons, some to have a larger house with enough room for their kids to play.

First off, "enough room for kids to play" must mean something entirely different to you than it does to me. I grew up in a pre-WWII house on a small lot and never had any trouble playing--I rode my bike all over the neighborhood, and made use of the many nearby parks, but my house and yard were usually perfectly fine for any sort of game I could think up. What kids really need to play is other kids, and I had several good friends within easy walking distance.

Secondly, I don't think moving from the street grid to the rat maze has really increased the amount of space most people have in their yards. I've visited acquaintances in spanking-new vinyl subdivisions in northern Oakland and Macomb, and even in fairly rural parts of Livingston County, and I don't think any of them have much more space of their own than I did growing up. Eliminating fences and making the lot shapes irregular creates the illusion of a wide expanse of green lawn, but the slice of it that belongs to each individual homeowner is still relatively small. There are exceptions [[many of the older neighborhoods along the Southfield-Farmington border have enormous lots, for example), but the average subdivision of McMansions out on the exurban fringe doesn't provide a whole lot more breathing room than the average prewar outer-city or inner-suburban neighborhood.

If people were moving to the exurbs and buying farms instead of McMansions, maybe you'd have a point, but I think sprawl has very little to do with a desire for "space for the kids."

[Quonset Hut]

First off, "enough room for kids to play" must mean something entirely different to you than it does to me. I grew up in a pre-WWII house on a small lot and never had any trouble playing--I rode my bike all over the neighborhood, and made use of the many nearby parks, but my house and yard were usually perfectly fine for any sort of game I could think up. What kids really need to play is other kids, and I had several good friends within easy walking distance.

Secondly, I don't think moving from the street grid to the rat maze has really increased the amount of space most people have in their yards. I've visited acquaintances in spanking-new vinyl subdivisions in northern Oakland and Macomb, and even in fairly rural parts of Livingston County, and I don't think any of them have much more space of their own than I did growing up. Eliminating fences and making the lot shapes irregular creates the illusion of a wide expanse of green lawn, but the slice of it that belongs to each individual homeowner is still relatively small. There are exceptions [[many of the older neighborhoods along the Southfield-Farmington border have enormous lots, for example), but the average subdivision of McMansions out on the exurban fringe doesn't provide a whole lot more breathing room than the average prewar outer-city or inner-suburban neighborhood.

If people were moving to the exurbs and buying farms instead of McMansions, maybe you'd have a point, but I think sprawl has very little to do with a desire for "space for the kids."

Sure, I grew up in a densely packed area of East Lansing, and went to the schoolyard and woods to play. Of course, almost all the woods are gone. One problem now is parents are afraid to let their kids go to the park unsupervised. As for the newer big house/small lot developments, you are right. We moved to a 60's/70's development in F.H. There is a 14 acre common area in back of my lot.

Getting back to the original issue, the reduction in family size has been a large factor in population loss in most areas, particually where there is little new development. I once lived in Parsippany, NJ, a bedroom community. While there was much residential development from 1970 to 1980, the population did not change as baby boomers went on their own and average family size dropped.

[royce]

Why does the city need to take possession of anything to implement a centralization plan? If the only goal is to reduce the cost of providing city services, then just tell residents in those areas that services will no longer be provided after a certain date, and offer to buy them out before that date for X amount of money. Anyone who doesn't take the buyout is welcome to dig a well and buy a shotgun and drive their garbage to the dump, and will be exempted from all city taxes for as long as they want to stay there. I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of this, and I'm sure there's a reason why it wouldn't work, but I'd be curious to know what the reason is.

Bearinbox, I am in absolute agreement with you on the plan you propose. If eminent domain no longer works, then the plan above should be possible. A city should have some say over how it wants to use "its" land. Private ownership of one's property is important in a free society, but should it be an absolute? Giving people the option to take a buy-out and relocate or stay on their property and not have to pay taxes but lose city services, should be a win-win situation for the city and resident.

[professorscott]

This is an interesting thread, but to some extent there is an air of unreality about it. I lived in Detroit for many years. The population of the City, relative to the region, has declined and continues to decline for two simple reasons.

1. The cost to live in Detroit is very high relative to the inner suburbs. Taxes are higher; insurance is higher [[for serious reasons).

2. The benefits of living in Detroit, as opposed to Ferndale or Dearborn or Warren, are not of value compared to the tax rate: schools are for the most part worse; crime is worse; parks are unkempt; libraries are closed. Shopping is mostly nonexistent.

The City could choose to try to be competitive, but so far as I can tell, it has no interest. The City seems to take the attitude of "people are rotten if they don't live in the City". But people choose to live where it benefits their own family. Detroit needs to compete with the suburbs, rather than just wish people didn't live in the suburbs.

Mr. and Mrs. Prof moved out of Detroit in 1990 because of repeated burglaries and the City's lack of interest in trying to prevent or solve said burglaries, coupled with the high tax rate and lack of service. If we had stayed, we'd have had to move anyhow when our oldest child reached school age, because of the condition of the schools. It does nobody any good to pretend such problems don't exist.

This is all, of course, just IMHO. Based on this, I don't think Detroit has come close to bottoming out; in fact, I don't see a bottom. Zero is not entirely inconceivable. I'd hate to think that's where we're headed, but I don't see why it isn't.

[iheartthed]

This is such a myth. Take crappy Macomb Township, home of cheap McMansions, tons of foreclosures, ugly as hell, and convenient to nothing.

A wanna-be Rochester Hills, which is a wanna-be Bloomfield.

The fact is that Macomb Township homes, on a per square foot basis, sell for more than any neighborhood in Detroit, including Palmer Woods!

It's not just about the sticker price for a house. When I say "cheap" I'm incorporating insurance -- much cheaper to insure a house and car in the middle of nowhere, taxes -- taxes in exurbs can be cheaper because they usually aren't paying the upfront costs for infrastructure yet, and the cost of obtaining a mortgage -- considering what we just went through, banks are gonna put a lot more scrutiny on writing mortgages for homes built in brand new subdivisions in the middle of nowhere.

[masterblaster]

The City could choose to try to be competitive, but so far as I can tell, it has no interest. The City seems to take the attitude of "people are rotten if they don't live in the City". But people choose to live where it benefits their own family. Detroit needs to compete with the suburbs, rather than just wish people didn't live in the suburbs

Weren't you a citizen of the city prior to 1990 and about 200,000 other people ? All of those 200,000 who have left since 1990 could have chosen to make Detroit more competitive! They could have made Detroit a place that would benefit their family. But they were unwilling.

You say Detroit should try to compete with the suburbs, but who is going to make Detroit competitive , if everybody follows what you and 1,000,00 other people did - BAIL TO THE SUBURBS????????

As I said before - the People for the last 60 years have voted with their feet - Detroit is not worth saving.

[mwilbert]

This is all, of course, just IMHO. Based on this, I don't think Detroit has come close to bottoming out; in fact, I don't see a bottom. Zero is not entirely inconceivable. I'd hate to think that's where we're headed, but I don't see why it isn't.

Because there are so many city residents who are incapable of moving--they don't have the money to move, and they don't have any reason to think their lives would be any better any other place they could afford. I guess you could move them by turning off the water, but otherwise I don't think they are going anywhere short of a relocation program. However, this is far from a majority of the current population, so I agree with you that there is no reason to think we are anywhere near a bottom.

[mwilbert]

You say Detroit should try to compete with the suburbs, but who is going to make Detroit competitive , if everybody follows what you and 1,000,00 other people did - BAIL TO THE SUBURBS????????

This is really not right. The "competitive" part is the competition for people and businesses who can afford to move and afford to pay taxes. The city would be competitive if it tried to provide those things those people want. It mostly neither tries to nor succeeds in providing those things.

We all know that safety is a problem. No one can say that the police department has been run well. That isn't because people have left the city; it is because the administration of the city has been incompetent. The schools are a tremendous problem, but the city could make it possible to establish usable schools, either by creating subdistricts or by eliminating the DPS altogether. This is not done because admitting that a large portion of the districts students are not going to be educated in any case isn't palatable, and because the DPS's major function is not education but job creation. This isn't because people have left the city either.

We know that the red tape involved in opening a city business is remarkable. That isn't because people have left the city.

If the city government addressed its shortcomings, I'm pretty sure fewer people would leave, and I wouldn't be surprised if more came back.

[iheartthed]

Weren't you a citizen of the city prior to 1990 and about 200,000 other people ? All of those 200,000 who have left since 1990 could have chosen to make Detroit more competitive! They could have made Detroit a place that would benefit their family. But they were unwilling.

You say Detroit should try to compete with the suburbs, but who is going to make Detroit competitive , if everybody follows what you and 1,000,00 other people did - BAIL TO THE SUBURBS????????

As I said before - the People for the last 60 years have voted with their feet - Detroit is not worth saving.

Detroit's problem is only partly that natives and current residents are not staying. I think the bigger problem is that Detroit is not attracting outsiders to locate to the city. For what it is worth, middle class black people across the country are migrating from inner city neighborhoods to suburban areas, not just in the Detroit area. But Detroit is unique among large cities because there is very little in-migration to keep the overall numbers stable, and also unique in that such a large percentage of the city's population is made up of middle class black residents.

[Danny]

By the year 2010 Detroit's population will be over 829,900.

That would be over 640,000 blacks, 79,000 whites,38,000 Arabs 56,000 Hispanics, 16,100 other and 8,000 Asians,


By the year 2020 Detroit's population will be over 714,300

That would be over 487,000 blacks, 66,000 whites, 54,000 Arabs, 78,000 Hispanics, 20,100 other and 9,200 Asians,


By the year 2030 Detroit's population will be over 708,700

That would be over 316,000 blacks, 99,000 whites, 80,000 Arabs, 110,000 Hispanics, 81,600 other and 12,200 Asians,


By the year 2040 Detroit's population will be over 834,000

That would be over 256,000 blacks, 165,000 whites, 124,000 Arabs, 183,000 Hispanics, 81,600 other and 25,200 Asians,


By the year 2050 Detroit's population will be over 1,717,340

That would be over 198,400 blacks, 367,000 whites, 219,340 Arabs, 290,000 Hispanics, 193,600 other, 70,400 Asians, and 4,600 Centaurian Alien Race.


By the year 2060 Detroit's population will be over 2,245,773

That would be over 87,400 blacks, 679,000 whites, 486,340 Arabs, 510,233 Hispanics, 245,800 other, 146,200 Asians, and 91,600 Centaurian Alien Race.


By the year 2070 Detroit's population will be over 3,562,203

That would be over 31,500 blacks, 898,000 whites, 421,120 Arabs, 792,983 Hispanics, 619,800 other, 277,200 Asians, and 521,600 Centaurian Alien Race.


By the year 2080 Detroit's population will be over 3,763,770

That would be over 19,100 blacks, 925,367 whites, 219,120 Arabs, 899,983 Hispanics, 516,800 other, 312,800 Asians, and 870,600 Centaurian Alien Race.


By the year 2090 Detroit's population will be over 3,990,670

That would be over 7,800 blacks, 854,367 whites, 129,120 Arabs, 1,000,983 Hispanics, 321,500 other, 356,300 Asians, and 1,270,600 Centaurian Alien Race.


By the year 2100 Detroit's population will be over 4,149,500

That would be over 10,430 blacks, 679,367 whites, 98,120 Arabs, 1,298,983 Hispanics, 101,500 other, 412,500 Asians, 1,478,600 Centaurian Alien Race and 70,000 Tau-Ceti Alien Race.


By the year 2110 Detroit's population will be UNBELIEVABLE!

That would be over 9,980 blacks, 600,567 whites, 65,220 Arabs, 1,504,999 Hispanics, 97,300 other, 437,700 Asians, 1,892,600 Centaurian Alien Race and 532,330 Tau-Ceti Alien Race.

[Oldertimer]

To solve some of the Detroit's problems just revert to Kelo v. New London law suit. Detroit could take anyone's property away and sell it to anyone else. As long as improvement is made to the property. Doing this, you could rid all old buildings. Have them demolished and resell the property for new enterprises. As long as there is improvement it can be done. And is legal.

[iheartthed]

By the year 2010 Detroit's population will be over 829,900.

That would be over 640,000 blacks, 79,000 whites,38,000 Arabs 56,000 Hispanics, 16,100 other and 8,000 Asians,


By the year 2020 Detroit's population will be over 714,300

That would be over 487,000 blacks, 66,000 whites, 54,000 Arabs, 78,000 Hispanics, 20,100 other and 9,200 Asians,


By the year 2030 Detroit's population will be over 708,700

That would be over 316,000 blacks, 99,000 whites, 80,000 Arabs, 110,000 Hispanics, 81,600 other and 12,200 Asians,


By the year 2040 Detroit's population will be over 834,000

That would be over 256,000 blacks, 165,000 whites, 124,000 Arabs, 183,000 Hispanics, 81,600 other and 25,200 Asians,


By the year 2050 Detroit's population will be over 1,717,340

That would be over 198,400 blacks, 367,000 whites, 219,340 Arabs, 290,000 Hispanics, 193,600 other, 70,400 Asians, and 4,600 Centaurian Alien Race.


By the year 2060 Detroit's population will be over 2,245,773

That would be over 87,400 blacks, 679,000 whites, 486,340 Arabs, 510,233 Hispanics, 245,800 other, 146,200 Asians, and 91,600 Centaurian Alien Race.


By the year 2070 Detroit's population will be over 3,562,203

That would be over 31,500 blacks, 898,000 whites, 421,120 Arabs, 792,983 Hispanics, 619,800 other, 277,200 Asians, and 521,600 Centaurian Alien Race.


By the year 2080 Detroit's population will be over 3,763,770

That would be over 19,100 blacks, 925,367 whites, 219,120 Arabs, 899,983 Hispanics, 516,800 other, 312,800 Asians, and 870,600 Centaurian Alien Race.


By the year 2090 Detroit's population will be over 3,990,670

That would be over 7,800 blacks, 854,367 whites, 129,120 Arabs, 1,000,983 Hispanics, 321,500 other, 356,300 Asians, and 1,270,600 Centaurian Alien Race.


By the year 2100 Detroit's population will be over 4,149,500

That would be over 10,430 blacks, 679,367 whites, 98,120 Arabs, 1,298,983 Hispanics, 101,500 other, 412,500 Asians, 1,478,600 Centaurian Alien Race and 70,000 Tau-Ceti Alien Race.


By the year 2110 Detroit's population will be UNBELIEVABLE!

That would be over 9,980 blacks, 600,567 whites, 65,220 Arabs, 1,504,999 Hispanics, 97,300 other, 437,700 Asians, 1,892,600 Centaurian Alien Race and 532,330 Tau-Ceti Alien Race.

You must hold some type of world record for being the longest surviving troll on an internet board.

[jbd441]

iheartthed,
It's called comic relief.. but then again I'm a big scifi fan. Where are the population numbers for people of mixed races?

[R8RBOB]

iheartthed,
It's called comic relief.. but then again I'm a big scifi fan. Where are the population numbers for people of mixed races?

I suppose it would be "other"

[masterblaster]

The city would be competitive if it tried to provide those things those people want. It mostly neither tries to nor succeeds in providing those things.

We all know that safety is a problem. No one can say that the police department has been run well. That isn't because people have left the city; it is because the administration of the city has been incompetent.

How long has the city "neither tries to nor succeeds in providing those things" that attract residents? Since when ? 1970? 1980? In '80, Detroit's population was 1.2 million, about 350,000 people more than now. Those 350,000 that have left - you say they left because the city "neither tries to nor succeeds in providing those things" that attract people.

But those 350,000 that left - they were citizens of the city at one time. They had the power and the responsibility to "try and succeed in providing those things" because they lived IN THE CITY! Those people who live in a city DIRECTLY AFFECT how attractive it will be!

And to your second point. You say that the police department is dysfunctional because the city administration is incompetent. But who elects the city administration? The people! The people directly determines who serve as mayor and councilperson!

These people who have fled the city know that Detroit's population will drop to 350,000 because they know that nobody [[or not enough people) will take responsibility for the plight of the city - people will just continue to leave like their predecessors such as professorscott. Detroit is not worth saving.

[Retroit]

It is infuriating that black people have to move away from black people in order to attain a good quality of life.

Well said. This is precisely the problem in Detroit. You can lower taxes all you want, but until black people improve their culture, Detroit [[and the suburbs they move to) will continue to decline.

That is not to say that all black individuals are bad or that all white individuals are good, but just that comparatively, black culture is less conducive to livable society than white culture [[provable by the fact that it is more likely for black people to move to white areas than vice-versa).

I think that Danny also made a good point [[embedded in his numbers). That being that if Detroit's population does increase, it will be because of whites moving back in as blacks move out. The typical black person's opinion of Detroit is what the typical white person's was during the era of White Flight. However, the typical white person's opinion of Detroit will likely increase as their communities become less differentiated racially from Detroit and as land values in Detroit continue to decrease, thus providing suitable areas of development.

[stinkbug]

Well said. This is precisely the problem in Detroit. You can lower taxes all you want, but until black people improve their culture, Detroit [[and the suburbs they move to) will continue to decline.

That is not to say that all black individuals are bad or that all white individuals are good, but just that comparatively, black culture is less conducive to livable society than white culture [[provable by the fact that it is more likely for black people to move to white areas than vice-versa).

I think that Danny also made a good point [[embedded in his numbers). That being that if Detroit's population does increase, it will be because of whites moving back in as blacks move out. The typical black person's opinion of Detroit is what the typical white person's was during the era of White Flight. However, the typical white person's opinion of Detroit will likely increase as their communities become less differentiated racially from Detroit and as land values in Detroit continue to decrease, thus providing suitable areas of development.

Mostly bullshit. I can argue that black culture is block clubs, family reunions, and church[[which is all true), and white culture is strip malls, gated communities, and racism. Yeah, Macomb Township is a real fucking bastion of culture. I can't wait to take my kids to Best Buy, and then drive next door to Applebee's.
When white flight began, fueled by racism, they started and endless downward spiral. For a couple decades now black people have maintained our region's central city while white people have chose to denigrate it on every occasion.