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

[Detroitnerd]

It's just cumbersome enough to be politically unfeasible. That's my take on it.

[professorscott]

Well, the State law is what it is, but of course laws are changeable things. But having said that, let me ask this: what one elected leader might sponsor a bill whose ultimate effect would be to combine cities in the Detroit area into a greater metro Detroit? It certainly can't be done without some of the politicians backing it. OK, sure, theoretically it can be, but for all practical purposes it can't.

You'd have a hard enough time getting some of the smaller suburban communities to combine with each other. One could argue, for instance, that Berkley, Huntington Woods, Madison Heights and Royal Oak might combine into one city, which [[one could argue) would be a more efficient way of running things than is done today. Yet, you would have a very hard time getting that done, and that avoids some of the issues discussed in this thread. If that's going to be hard, imagine throwing Detroit into the mix!

Interesting enough thread, but face it, we are discussing impossibilities here. Not physical impossibilities, but political impossibilities, and those are impossible enough.

All this, of course, just IMVHO.

[RickBeall]

There would have to be some reason for the suburbs to want to be part of Detroit. The suburbs would see it as the loss of their own city services, increased taxes, and think there would probably more crime. It certainly would be a public relations disaster for any suburb to join Detroit. We would have to "tart up" Detroit up and make them want us, "C'mon Big Boy, you know you want to touch my Eight Mile."

[Danny]

I'm not suggesting the law not be followed; it just looks to me that as long as the appropriate petitions, commissions, hearings, charters, etc. are complied with, that there is nothing that prevents consolidation. Are you saying that these laws prevent the consolidation of any 2 cities? Could you please cite your reference precisely?

Retroit,

Please re-read the SBC requirements above very carfully before you understand the Michigan annextion laws. The laws may be long, but when I read them carefully it seems to me that there are no loophole for a proposed annexation of Detroit and suburbs. In order for Detroit and suburbs to be amalgamated the State Boundry Commission have to change the laws without distribing the rights and charters of other cities, villages and townships. If you all eager to annex Detroit and suburbs, file a petition to appeal the State Boundry Commissions laws of city, village, charter township and township annexation. Get your friends involved, too. State, federal and local constitutions can be change by the government of the people and for the people. It's in the constitution.

[Danny]

There would have to be some reason for the suburbs to want to be part of Detroit. The suburbs would see it as the loss of their own city services, increased taxes, and think there would probably more crime. It certainly would be a public relations disaster for any suburb to join Detroit. We would have to "tart up" Detroit up and make them want us, "C'mon Big Boy, you know you want to touch my Eight Mile."

Your statement is correct Rick Bell. RACE, POLITICS, SCHOOLS, POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION will be the greatest problem if Detroit and suburbs were to be amalgamated. Race relations then poltics, city services and changes of the laws to the state boundry commission must to handled before we ever see a L.A. like Detroit with little or no suburbs and township borders.

[Danny]

Well, the State law is what it is, but of course laws are changeable things. But having said that, let me ask this: what one elected leader might sponsor a bill whose ultimate effect would be to combine cities in the Detroit area into a greater metro Detroit? It certainly can't be done without some of the politicians backing it. OK, sure, theoretically it can be, but for all practical purposes it can't.

You'd have a hard enough time getting some of the smaller suburban communities to combine with each other. One could argue, for instance, that Berkley, Huntington Woods, Madison Heights and Royal Oak might combine into one city, which [[one could argue) would be a more efficient way of running things than is done today. Yet, you would have a very hard time getting that done, and that avoids some of the issues discussed in this thread. If that's going to be hard, imagine throwing Detroit into the mix!

Interesting enough thread, but face it, we are discussing impossibilities here. Not physical impossibilities, but political impossibilities, and those are impossible enough.

All this, of course, just IMVHO.

I agree with your statement, professorscott. However do you read the SBC requirements, for I see them as State Law. Can the SBC law be a course law? If it is then it can be change through poltical action. But the shield of racial 'invisble segregation' between Detroit and suburbs must be broken first before we could see an amalgamation process. Not to mention about the huge tax base.

Do you all remember years ago about those rediculous Detroit Dept. of Waterworks water rates? For example Garden City have to pay 20% for using Detroit water while Redford TWP have to pay 17% for their rates. While Livonia have to pay up to 11% to use Detroit's water system. Maybe of the suburbs petition the legislatures in Michigan to change the SBC annexation laws and build race relations in the black ghettoes in Detroit then amalgamation could happen.

[hudkina]

But wait, why project forward when we have data for Houston, Indy, Columbus, etc,? Remember, it is up to YOU to prove the point. Where is the data for the areas that have done this?

Indianapolis is the only one of those cities that did anything even remotely like this proposal. Houston and Columbus just happened to be able to annex lots of land, and they have their own suburbs, counties, etc.

Other examples include Jacksonville and Nashville. All three cities have relatively healthy economies and generally effective government services. However, every example is different. Only a thorough investigation into this proposal would truly determine how much money taxpayers would save and how much redtape would be eliminated. They can look at Indianapolis, Nashville, and Jacksonville to determine that it indeed works, and use them as guidelines, but only a study would truly determine how effective a unigov would be for the Tri-County area.

Also, laws can be changed at will by the legislature and more rarely directly by the people. It's silly to say it can't be done because it's against the law, when the whole point is to change the law to allow it to happen...

[iheartthed]

I never said anything about segregation. Segregation is going to persist regardless of a unigov. Again, this has nothing to do with "fixing" Detroit or race relations. It has to do with creating a single voice for the region, lowering taxes for most residents, and streamlining government services to make things more efficient. Under a unigov the inner-city neighborhoods aren't going to magically be cured of all their social ills.

Also, studies would obviously be done showing how much a unigov would actually save the region in tax dollars, as well as the likely benefits and drawbacks to a unigov system.

Lastly, the whole idea that people who live in Rochester Hills would instantly think their neighborhood would become a crime infested ghetto with poor schools and terrible city services is silly. The word Detroit has two connotations: a negative one associated with the actual city [[crime, abandonmnent, corruption, etc.), and a generally positive one associated with the region [[sports teams, zoo, airport, corporations, etc.) A consolidated unigov would ultimately trend more toward the positive association.

Here's something many people don't realize: The city of Houston covers nearly 600 sq. mi. If the city of Detroit somehow annexed its inner-ring suburbs so that it also covered nearly 600 sq. mi., it would have about the same murder rate as the city of Houston. Such things as crime rates, etc. are one of the biggest factors in how people from around the world picture Detroit.

Perception is everything. With its current boundaries, Detroit is one of the supposed "Most Dangerous Cities" but if nothing else except the city boundaries changed, Detroit would instantly fall to the middle of the pack. The same would be true for other social and economic statistics.

There would still be extremely high crime and poverty rates in the inner-city, but those numbers would be highly diluted by the relatively low crime and poverty rates in the rest of the Tri-County area. Ultimately, as Detroit would fall from the "bad" lists and start showing up on the "good" lists, the general perception of the region as a whole would improve.

Okay, I just typed a fairly detailed response and lost it since I was logged out. But I think you bring up good points.

If Detroit were to amalgamate with all of the communities that it shares a land border with, its population would be 1.64 million people. That would make it the fifth largest city in the U.S. behind Houston. And it would achieve this in 300 square miles, versus Houston's 600 square miles. It would also be 800,000 residents larger than Phoenix, which itself has a land area of nearly 600 square miles.

A more plausible scenario would be for Detroit to amalgamate with all of its bordering neighbors in Wayne County. That would push Detroit's population up to 1.25 million, and its land area would only increase to 211 square miles. This would dillute Detroit's density, but it would still be one of the most densely populated of the 10 largest U.S. cities.

It would also likely be more mutually beneficial for the Wayne County communities to join Detroit, than for the Macomb or Oakland communities. For some reason, the communities in Wayne County that border Detroit are extremely fragmented. There are only 8 counties in both Macomb and Oakland County that border Detroit, but there are upwards of 13 in Wayne County itself, and most have land areas of less than 4 square miles. If these communities joined the city, it could greatly reduce the cost of providing services since the cost would be spread over a much larger population. None of the Wayne County communities that border Detroit have more than 100,000 residents, but after amalgamation they would lock into a municipality of 1.25 million residents.

[szla]

Metro gov is neither an annexation nor a takeover even though opponents on both sides of the issue will use those terms. When Indy combined the county and the city it was a sleepy town locals called" Indiananoplace". Today the vast majority of citizens there not only support the metro gov but look at it as the begining of the turnaround. Been to Indy? It's a nice place that works. The same seems to be the case with Toronto according to Dave from Windsor. There is less money. A radical departure from our present course needs to be put forth. We cant be like 12th century crusaders building castles in the Holy Land. We need to embrace the world as region not as a city that doesn't work surrounded by entities that don't want people know they're related.This will save money. It will stop the economic cannibalism within our region. We will be a city of 3.9 million people. We will be the center of a region of almost 6 million people. We will be forced to address our problems as a region rather than run from it as we always have. Don't beat it to pulp on why it wont work but look at it a possible first stage in our salvation.

[casscorridor]

Very interesting that if Detroit at the same size as Houston would most likely put it at #4 most populated city, even though Houston has that place now and Detroit is at #11.

Also very intersting is the crime data would be skewed if Detroit borders grew. We would no longer be considered the most dangerous cities.

A recent online article [[Forbes I think, but I could be wrong) had the top 25 most dangerous neighborhoods, and chicago had 5 or 10 of them. Detroit only had 1. Yet Chicago is generally seen as a much safter city.

The truth is that you can't generalize an entire region, and each city within a metro area is different each neighborhood within a city is different, and each block within a neighborhood is different. It is easy to see this in Detroit where one block will be completely intact of historic buildings, while the next one will be almost completely destroyed, while the one after that has be redeveloped with new construction.

Annexing suburban communities that border Detroit is a good idea. It will increase the tax base, lessen the city vs. suburb divide and lead to more regional unity, as well as take us from #11 largest city to number 4 or 5... which is much more accurate [[so many of the top 10 are called southern "cities" but are actually s mega-suburbs) and Detroit has a density two or three times that of those cities.


If Detroit [[at same density) was the size of Dallas, it would be aprox 2,455,000 [[4th Largest)

If Detroit [[at same density) was the size of Houston, it would aprox 3,838,000 [[2rd Largest) about exact same population as LA [[but lower density)

[RickBeall]

I have an idea! Let's really lower our crime stats and turn all of Michigan into Detroit! I think this is a great way to fight crime. If it does not work, we will absorb Ohio too. We've had a bone to pick with them since the Toledo war, so hey, they'll never know what hit them.

And I say we leave the upper pennisula out of it for now. We will keep it in reserve in case we need to "fight" crime in the future. It's always good to think ahead.

******************************************
In the above, I am just joking. You guys are making some good points concerning a metropolitan wide government. Very interesting arguments. Very thoughtful. [[Maybe unlike my jokes above.)

[rooms222]

Growing up in Indianapolis, I have to say that unigov there excluded the schools, police and fire departments in the merger. Growth stopped in the outer townships of the city for about 20 years as many people wanted to move outside of the boundaries of unigov so their children would not have to have one-way busing from the old city. Now, almost 40 year later, some of the townships are just now merging their police and/or fire departments with the city, due to budget issues. The school districts are all still independent from the old city. I guess if we did the same thing, all of us would get to vote for the mayor, Detroit would run such things as water, bus service, and public health [[unless given back to the counties) and we would pay some higher taxes to the city.....

[szla]

new state law.

All acquisitions, mergers incorporation and laws associated with the boundary laws of 1968 act are hereby superceded when mergers of entities of greater than 500,000 are involved. The laws that govern these entities are ........

[skyl4rk]

Is that a bill or a law? you gots the MCL #?

[szla]

It was a statement that a new law can supercede or replace an old law if it is so written. I assume as long as it does not conflict with the state constitution it can be changed. The political will is the area lacking.

[LouHat]

It will never happen, forced integration led to self-segregation, and escape from jurisdictional boundaries. No one who was born and raised in the old Detroit, and was forced to raise his own kids in the new suburbs, is going to want to see those boundaries redrawn, ever. It's over, thanks for playing.

[Gistok]

There have been a lot of very interesting posts... and a few really smartass sarcastic ones. On this thead Danny is making some of the latter look downright foolish.....

Priceless!

[hudkina]

At 600 sq. mi., the population is only about 3 million. At 1,000 sq. mi. the population is around 3.7 million.

[Danny]

There have been a lot of very interesting posts... and a few really smartass sarcastic ones. On this thead Danny is making some of the latter look downright foolish.....

Priceless!

My comments of Detroit amalgamation with the suburbs has made it clear to the point. It would take lots of petitions to change the SBC requirements and repeal the 1947 Michigan Charter Township Act. It would take breaking the racial and political barriers to make this 'Super Detroit City' happen. For far as I know, Detroit will stay Detroit, The suburbs will stay the suburbs. The best we can do to make Detroit better for ethnicities to clean up our neighborhoods, reform the police, fire, departments, reform city politics and develop regionalization of capital goods.

[Retroit]

...seems to me that there are no loophole for a proposed annexation of Detroit and suburbs.

Technically, you are correct that there is no loophole, but this is because no loophole is needed as consolidation of cities is explicitly allowed!
Proceedings for consolidation may be initiated by the filing of a petition with the commission signed by a number of registered electors who are residents of 1 or more of the affected municipalities at least equal to 5% of the total population of the affected municipalities {123.1012[[1)}
After the public hearing on a proposed consolidation and review by the commission, the commission may deny the proposed consolidation, revise the boundaries of the territory to be consolidated and approve the proposal, or approve the consolidation without any change. {123.1012a[[1)}
If there is opposition to the consolidation, 5% of the voters can have it put up for vote:
If a consolidation proposal is approved with or without a revision of the boundaries the commission's order becomes final 45 days after the date of the order unless within that 45 days a petition for a referendum is filed with the commission which contains the signatures of at least 5% of the registered electors residing in the area to be consolidated as approved by the commission. If a petition is not filed and the commission's order becomes final the secretary shall send a certified copy of the order to the petitioner and the clerk of each county, city, village or township affected and to the secretary of state. If the petition is filed, the commission after determining the validity of the petition shall submit the proposition to a vote of the electors of the affected municipalities and shall specify a date later than the referendum on which the commission's order becomes final. {123.1012a[[3)}
In order to be adopted, the proposition to consolidate shall receive an affirmative majority vote in each municipality affected voting separately. If a majority of the votes cast in each municipality affected are in favor of the proposed consolidation the commission's order becomes final and proceedings may be conducted in accordance with sections 13 to 17. Otherwise the proceedings on the consolidation proposal shall terminate. {123.1012a[[4)}

I think that it would be a mistake to limit the consolidation [[I am going to use that term instead of annexation, because that is what we are talking about) to just the adjacent ring of suburbs around Detroit. Consolidation should cover the whole metropolitan area. This will put more pressure on each city to join, so as not to be surrounded and excluded.

The racial opposition is being exaggerated. Most of the suburbs have seen a large influx of blacks from Detroit. If any suburbanites are truly racist, it should be obvious by now that municipal boundaries have not kept the blacks out, so why have them?

The political opposition is being exaggerated. Politicians love power, so why would they not be eager to be leader of the whole metropolis instead of just a city or county?

The school opposition is being exaggerated. School districts will not change [[unless they choose to).

The police and fire opposition is being exaggerated. They are already cooperating. Suburban police departments have already established relations with Detroit since many of the suburban crimes are committed by Detroiters.

The water/sewage situation is a perfect example of why many suburbanites should be in favor of consolidation; it would give them more control. Better mass transit would also be an easier sell if they had more control over money spent. The key is convincing suburbanites that consolidation will put the control in their hands as they will be the majority. Detroit is incapable of maintaining their city and this has proved detrimental to the metropolitan region. Detroit doesn't need to be taken over by far-away Lansing, it needs to be taken over by the people who know the situation best - suburbanites.

[RickBeall]

That's an interesting way to put it, have the suburbs take over Detroit.

<Cynicism>
And since there is so much negativity associate with "Detroit", let's call the whole shebang Farmington Hills.
</Cynicism>

[Danny]

That's an interesting way to put it, have the suburbs take over Detroit.

<Cynicism>
And since there is so much negativity associate with "Detroit", let's call the whole shebang Farmington Hills.
</Cynicism>

But that calls for the amalgamation for Detroit and suburbs in which it would not happen. Now this messages brings up back to square one. Everyone should follow the rules and regulation of thr State Boundry Comission and Michigan Township Charter Act of 1947 or have the power to change it. Talking about having the amalgamation of Detroit and suburbs will not change or appeal the laws. It takes community action through signing petitions. We Americans govern the land, not just the politicians. If you all want a better community or a supercity, change the laws. We Americans change slave abolishments, African Americans and Womens voting rights, prohibition of alcoholic beverages, civil rights and we can change annextion laws.

As for right now, Detroit and the suburbs remains divided and most people who are living in those cities, townships and villages like it that way.

WORD FROM STREET PROPHET

For Neda Soltani

[hudkina]

If the amalgamation occurs, the entity area could officially be called "Greater Detroit", similar to Greater London, however it would be colloquially known as Detroit.

[Retroit]

Would the STREET PROPHET please prophesy on which part of the "State Boundry Comission and Michigan Township Charter Act of 1947"[sic] he thinks specifically prohibits the consolidation of cities?

WORD FROM PLAIN OLD ORDINARY FORUM POSTER

[Danny]

Would the STREET PROPHET please prophesy on which part of the "State Boundry Comission and Michigan Township Charter Act of 1947"[sic] he thinks specifically prohibits the consolidation of cities?

WORD FROM PLAIN OLD ORDINARY FORUM POSTER

You just have to read the SBC requirements carefully above. If you don't read and understand the laws, YOU LOSE!