Why can't Detroit annex neighbouring cities to regain its population?

[hudkina]

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".

[Detroitnerd]

Hud: I like it. But we are too much of a ship of fools here to ever do something that sensible.

[jj84]

There is a big difference between Charter Townships and non charter townships, Charter Townships have fixed boundaries that make it difficult to annex. Non charter townships are more easily annexed by neighboring communities the rules to how annexation happens varies on where the township is located in relation to the city, the number of people that live in the annexed area, etc. The Non Charter townships is the reason Ann Arbor keeps expanding its size. But Communities like Westland cannot annex Canton. Charter Townships pay less tax to the system and basically get subsidized by the cities in the County when it come to things like Roads, Sewers, Etc.

[Detroitnerd]

Charter Townships pay less tax to the system and basically get subsidized by the cities in the County when it come to things like Roads, Sewers, Etc.

Then how do you explain the ragtag quality of Redford's roads?

[Russix]

Great concept hudkina. Who currently is doing this sucessfully so we can copy from? A ship of fools is easier to influence and maybe an advantage rather than a negative. Promise Detroit residents that their taxes will go down, Suburban residents that their property values will go up and this should go somewhere.

[Stosh]

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".

Why this wouldn't fly in the COD and Warren, from the Metro Nashville Municipal code:

Sec. 3.02. Terms; compensation; age and residence qualification.
Members of the council shall serve for a term of four [[4) years and until their successors are elected and qualified; and shall be compensated at the rate of three hundred [[$300) dollars per month. No person shall be eligible to serve as councilman-at-large or district councilman unless he shall have attained the age of twenty-five [[25) at the beginning of his term and unless he shall have been a resident of the area of the metropolitan government for a period of one [[1) year and shall continue to reside therein during his period of service. No person shall be eligible to serve as district councilman unless he shall have been a resident of the district for which elected for a period of six [[6) months and shall continue to reside therein during his period of service. Members of the council shall hold no other elective or appointive office in the metropolitan government or employment by said government, except as expressly provided in this Charter.

Not only that, but there's 41 of them.
http://www.nashville.gov/council/council_roster.asp

Examine the details at the website. This would invariably be the model that would be pursued. I'm not sure if there are others around or not, besides Toronto.

[skyl4rk]

If you dredge a new channel for the Detroit River and fill the old riverbed, you could relocate the US-Canada border.

Another silly idea to fix the mistakes of the 1920's:

Pass a law that all adjacent Cities and Charter Townships are hereby merged into one jurisdiction.

Of course it could never happen.

[szla]

As a resident of Redford I can now assure you that the ragtag roads are virtually gone thanks to the speaker of the house Andy Dillon. Redford is now about 95% paved and will by the end of the summer probably be about 99.9% paved. The reason for the almost complete stoppage of paving was the significant increase in paving costs and the ability of a small group of property owners oftentimes at the end of the street to stop paving projects. They controlled too great a percentage of linear feet.

On the more important subject annexation is impossible. What we need is a legal mechanism [[state law) that would facilitate a regional government. The state is full of large cities which iare the major components of their county. Kalamazoo city and county. Grand Rapids and Kent county. These are two cities which if a legal solution could be found would serve as perfect models for Detroit and the tri-county area.

[Retroit]

If Detroit annexed enough suburbs to create a majority of sensible voters, maybe competent people could be elected to council & mayor, and things would change for the better in Detroit. If Detroit improves, that would be good for the annexed suburbs.

I'm all for it.

[Detroit500]

Metropolitan Governance is the way to go. Though I doubt Bloomfield & Birmingham would like that very much.

[daddeeo]

Why couldn't Detroit keep it's population in the first place?
Suburbs would never go for a Detroit power grab. You have to be delusional to believe any of them would except maybe Highland Park.

[szla]

Ask your neighbors and friends, coworkers and relatives about metro gov. However phrase it or preface it with the history that Charlotte, Nashville, Toronto and Indianapolis have gone down that road. They are cities that are doing well. Explain to them the economies of scale or one city not competing with another over tax incentives within the metro region. The ability to go after an employer for the jobs as one region and not be in competition-as it's one tax region and we all benefit. Think of the competition or controversy over aerotropolis, automation alley, moving GM's headquarters to Warren, etc and so. The economic cannibalism is diminished. People will at least look at it. And occasionally people will vote rationally and properly even when it is against their own self interest. Take the Livonia vote not to "annex" the Northville Mental Hospital property. The region is more ready than the vast majority of you think.

[hudkina]

The point is that if a regional government were created the current government structure of Detroit would be erased. Even if Detroiters continued to elect regional representatives like Martha Reeves or Kwame Kilpatrick they would have virtually no influence on regional matters. The representatives of Detroit would only hold about 25% of the seats in a regional council. Such institutions as Cobo, the water department, etc. would basically be run by the suburbs. Many council members would come from the more fiscally conservative suburbs. While the majority of members would likely be liberal, there would be a strong conservative presence that would counter act the most liberal of representatives.

Also, you can't argue against a regional government for the simple fact that Nashville council members get paid $300,000 a year. The government charter could limit the pay of council members. If the people want to pay council members only $75,000 a year then just write that into the charter... That's the whole point of self-government.

And again, the only power-grabbing that would occur would be the suburbs taking control of the city. Remember that 3/4 of the representation of a metropolitan government would come from the suburbs. That means the suburbs would collectively control the show.

[Tig3rzhark]

There has to come a time when people here in the city and suburbs have to remember that one cannot exist without the other.

When visitors come to Detroit, they have no idea of the name of many of the suburbs that are located here. They only know about Detroit in general, and currently, we as a region aren't putting our best foot forward.

There are some departments that should be regionalized. I'm pushing regionalization mainly on transportation since that will be the only way that the service would be sufficient. Cobo is already ran by a regional authority, why stop there?

There is no way that the city and suburbs can thrive the way they are.

[skyl4rk]

I think there is a perception or belief that the borders of the City of Detroit somehow hold or contain the criminals within those borders. If the City were eliminated, crime would spread through the Metro. [[I don't believe this).

Probably more people would be inclined to build a Berlin Wall around the City of Detroit than to incorporate it in a regional government.

I don't think that there is political support for a metro government. I think things would have to get much worse before the legislature would mandate a unigov solution.

There might be a way to incrementally move toward regional government by using authorities to provide services. Police, Fire, Water, Sewer, Streets and Stormwater, each as a separate independent authority funded by their own millage and/or utility rates, on a county level or a multicounty level, with elected boards to govern the authority. This is the only solution [[that I can think of) that is politically feasible.

[RickBeall]

... to answer the original question: Because that would scare everybody into the Upper Penisula.

[Crumbled_pavement]

... to answer the original question: Because that would scare everybody into the Upper Penisula.

lol

I can just see signs for 53,948 Mile Road going up now.

[hudkina]

But the whole point of a unigov would be to lower the costs of government, which in turn lowers the taxes for the vast majority of people. By keeping some measure of local autonomy, you would eliminate the cost benefits of having the unigov.

Maybe they could keep the old municipal boundaries as unofficial neighborhood boundaries and have each "neighborhood" have the ability to create a neighborhood council, if it so chooses. But for regional matters, the representation would have to be distributed evenly. For example, if we have 4 million people in the Tri-County area as of 2010 and we choose to have 50 council members then each district needs to have about 80,000 people. Since most cities are either bigger or smaller than 80,000, consolidation and redistribution would need to occur. I think the best option might be to break up the region into economic zones and then redistribute the population around these zones in equal proportions. For example, many of the old village/city centers or large office parks would act as the center of economic zones. That's where the council offices and other municipal services would be generally located.

As an example, you could have Holly as the center of a particular district. However, to acheive a population of 80,000 the district would include Holly TWP, Rose TWP, Springfield TWP, Groveland TWP, Springfield TWP, as well as the portions of Highland TWP and White Lake TWP north of M-59.

[Crumbled_pavement]

hudkina, you have some good ideas. The problem is that perception is reality. It would be a hard sell to this region which would far rather draw lines in the sand and watch the entire ship sink than to *gasps* work with each other. Maybe if the region was more homogeneous that idea would work. But with the history in this region some other significant things would need to change first before people would even talk about the idea. I think skyl4rk summed it up pretty well in the first sentence of post #65. We're an us/them region and we see no reason, even with mass economic failure, to change.

[Corktown Mark]

I find it interesting that homelessness is so central to this discussion. Some of the posters sound really teribly afraid of them and also of Detroit.. I think you are exactly correct szla. There is much opportunity for cost savings by better integration of services between cities in this region. How many administrative offices are really needed to support all the services in all the cities?

[Retroit]

Maybe if this were "marketed" as a suburban takeover of Detroit instead of an annexation of suburbs to Detroit, it will be more attractive to the majority of metro-Detroiters [[i.e. suburbanites).

So here is the question: "Why can't the suburbs take over Detroit to restore civility within the city?"

...Naaah, that would scare all the Detroiters into Canada!

[tahleel]

In all honesty, why would any other city want to annex with Detroit? We have poor city services, high taxes, high crime rate and low home values. None of these seem appealing for annexation.

A deannexation would be a smarter choice. Eliminate the areas that the city must provide services too but lacks that tax revenue. Allow these areas to revert back into wilderness. This would also create a much needed physical buffer between the high crime city and the lower crime suburbs. Once current low crime rates go down, and current high property values increase, these nearby pastures would seem more viable for suburbs to annex. Desperate times calls for desperate measures.

Also, I think the Metropolitan Authority would be a bad idea. Why should my parents have to drive from Canton to downtown Detroit for the "city building", when Canton's is a mile away? All the Southeaster Michiganers who have to go to Lansing for business/personal matters would know how much of a PITA it is.

-Tahleel

[Quonset Hut]

But the whole point of a unigov would be to lower the costs of government, which in turn lowers the taxes for the vast majority of people. By keeping some measure of local autonomy, you would eliminate the cost benefits of having the unigov.

It is up to those who would support the unigov to prove that it worked like this in the other places in the US that tried it. I envision someone like Ficano now having 20-30 times more $$ for sweetheart deals for his pals, and taxes upped immediately in the suburbs to "make up for all the neglect". Maybe the "Detroit" tax rate would go down some, for a while, as the suburbs get jacked up for "fairness". Again, the data must be out there. It is up to the supporters of unigov to provide the proof it has worked in situations most similar to ours, not just that it worked somewhere, sometime.

[hudkina]

Government corruption exists in our current setup, so there's no reason to believe that it won't exist under a unigov. The difference though is that with 50 people running the show, it's a little bit harder to make sweetheart deals. Someone is going to need to "buy" a lot of people to get what they want.

Also, there's absolutely no reason to believe that taxes will go up. Consider three things:

1. What will happen when fewer people will be on government payrolls?
2. What will happen when the region can contract services or purchase necessities in bulk?
3. What will happen when cities won't have to offer extensive tax breaks to corporations competing for two local sites?

The answer is that fewer tax dollars will need to be spent. While there will be communities that might see higher tax bills [[especially the more rural townships), the truth is that most suburban communities would see either a small drop in their tax bills, or no change at all. It's just common sense.

[hudkina]

Also, I think that if such a measure were approved by a simple majority of all three counties then the state could then dissolve the county and sub-county governments, even those that might not have individually passed the measure. It would also require that all three counties approve the measure. It wouldn't work if only one or two of the counties approved the consolidation. Keep in mind that all three counties DID agree to regionalize the zoo, so it's not like there's no precedent.

Like I said it would take a LOT of work to get people to approve such a thing. Hell, it would be nice if the Detroit News did a scientific poll of the region to determine how many people are already open to such a concept.