The Michigan annexation laws were changed to prevent Detroit from gobbling up any more land. Look at the dates of annexation for the outer parts of the city. The annexation suddenly stopped. It's not by coincidence.
The Michigan annexation laws were changed to prevent Detroit from gobbling up any more land. Look at the dates of annexation for the outer parts of the city. The annexation suddenly stopped. It's not by coincidence.
Michigan law requires that a majority of residents in the affected area[[s) of the suburban community, as well as the city of Detroit must vote in favor of such an annexation.
There's absolutely no way that the residents of a single suburb would vote for such an annexation. Even in Highland Park or Royal Oak TWP [[two places that have similar demographics to Detroit and might possibly see improved city services) the chances are remote that a majority of residents would vote to be absorbed by Detroit.
Well, in the case of the City of Toronto, the residents voted against amalgamation 3 to 1 in citywide referendums, yet the Province of Ontario said tough luck and went ahead with it anyway to streamline costs. Why couldn't the Governor of Michigan change the laws and do the same thing as the Province of Ontario did with Toronto?Michigan law requires that a majority of residents in the affected area[[s) of the suburban community, as well as the city of Detroit must vote in favor of such an annexation.
There's absolutely no way that the residents of a single suburb would vote for such an annexation. Even in Highland Park or Royal Oak TWP [[two places that have similar demographics to Detroit and might possibly see improved city services) the chances are remote that a majority of residents would vote to be absorbed by Detroit.
Are you serious? First, the legislature makes the laws. Secondly, I guess you're just now realizing the cultural difference between our two nations. To mess with an areas home rule, particularly incorporated cities and charter townships [[limited home rule) which now surround most of our major cities, is to declare war.
Lastly, Detroit's problems have long since gone past the point where annexation would be anymore than a temporary bandaid. Annexation only truly releases its full benefits, and is only really worthwhile, when started early before the areas around an urban area are developed.
Because it wouldn't pass in the State Legislature. The Governor doesn't change laws by fiat.Well, in the case of the City of Toronto, the residents voted against amalgamation 3 to 1 in citywide referendums, yet the Province of Ontario said tough luck and went ahead with it anyway to streamline costs. Why couldn't the Governor of Michigan change the laws and do the same thing as the Province of Ontario did with Toronto?
"The October 1925 vote was the last major annexation measure to succeed in Detroit. The
late 1920s saw a significant slowing of real estate speculation and the 1930s are renowned for
bankruptcies in real estate – cities’ physical growth was rarely an issue as residents and
developers fought to maintain financial solvency. However, by the time growth in the city was robust once again, annexation laws and attitudes toward central cities had changed, making the
prospect unlikely, as June Manning Thomas demonstrates in her book on post-war planning in
Detroit.29 In addition, the Detroit Water Board’s ability to sell water outside the corporate limits
had unbound urban services from the city proper, meaning that as urbanites moved outside the
city, they could still access city services.30
In this decade [1915-25] in Detroit’s history, real estate developers did more than influence or
support annexation of outlying townships. Developers drove the process for economic gain in
this period of expansionism and boosterism, tripling the size of the city in 10 years’ time, maxing
the debt limit of the city and creating a physical legacy that Detroit struggles to revitalize today.
29
See June Manning Thomas. Redevelopment and Race: Planning a Finer City in Postwar Detroit.
[[Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997)."
|
Bookmarks