Like has been stated, the best option would be to create a Metropolitan Government out of the Tri-County area. It would be a "city" of some 4 million people making it the second largest incorporated place in the U.S. after New York.

If that were to happen, I think there might actually be more opposition from city leaders, considering the suburbs would basically rule Detroit [[they'd have about 75% of the vote), and L. Brooks Patterson would probably be the "mayor". The "new" city would also become somewhat more fiscally conservative and tougher on union excesses.

Benefits would include:

--stemming the endless stream of unneeded residential/commercial development along the rural fringe, while focusing on strengthening what we already have.
--consolidation of governmental services, thereby reducing taxes needed to pay for 100s of mayors, police chiefs, etc.
--economies of scale when it comes to contracts for city services, again reducing the tax burden of most residents.
--less regional in-fighting and more cooperation on bringing new developments and jobs to the region.
--better national image as far as social/economic statistics are concerned. For example, Detroit would no longer be the "most dangerous city". In fact, it would actually have one of the lowest crime rates in the country, when compared to other cities.

While most Metro Detroiters [[city and suburbs) are ignorant homers, I think if proponents campaigned long enough and effectively enough as to the major benefits we all would see under a metropolitan government, I think a majority of residents in the region would agree to it.

For the most part people are only concerned that they live in a safe, clean neighborhood, with good schools, and a good mix of low taxes and quality city services. If suburban residents realize that they would see virtually no difference at the neighborhood level but have a lower tax bill, I think many would be rational enough to forego the idea of an "independent enclave".