Detroit won't force residents to move in city's reshaping From The Detroit News: htt

[iheartthed]

Whoever came up with this "right-sizing" concept should be fired.

[malmarson]

Most of it's ours [[land.) Mt Elliot corner's are the city or the county.

Hey, I just want ideas on viability! I thought owning
or caretaking a block was a way towards substainability.

[Detroitnerd]

Hey, I just want ideas on viability! I thought owning
or caretaking a block was a way towards substainability.

Well, I'm not going to declare that your lifestyle is irresponsible and a drain on city services. Sounds like we could use a few more folks like yourself.

[fryar]

I don't think anyone would. It's great that you're keeping up the area, I would be happy for you if you ended up sitting on a big block of valuable property, and I don't want someone to show up at your door and evict you.

But do you have an expectation that you will receive the same level of city services? Both whether it is likely, and maybe even whether you should. It isn't likely, in my opinion, that you'll have the same number of cops per square mile, for example, as downtown, don't count on being the first one to have water if there is a rash of bursting water mains, and if there should be a rash of scrappers making off with power lines because they discover some trick, don't expect to be the first to get power back. That's just not realistic. This should be dealt with pro-actively in order to minimize the associated pain, which you may not feel or may be willing to take in exchange for your lifestyle, but that's obviously not true for everyone.

As a counterargument, creative uses could probably be found for some of those areas/blocks. High hedges and block-long nudist colonies? Communes? Gardening/farms of course.

FWIW, how did you acquire that contiguous piece of land? One of the arguments put forward by those who favor an aggressive approach is that if you try to assemble a large tract of land, such as for industrial purposes, you'll always run into that last holdout, trying to make a score instead of simply settling for a fair price and getting out [[which, in turn, retards development).

[cman710]

Whoever came up with this "right-sizing" concept should be fired.

I am not sure that there is even one clear view of what "right-sizing" would mean, but what would be your alternative? To keep trying the same policies that have failed for forty years?

[fryar]

I am not sure that there is even one clear view of what "right-sizing" would mean

Is it at all clear what is meant by right-sizing or shrinking the city? People seem to think it means city employees will forcibly remove people from their homes. I would have thought incentives and zoning law changes, clearly that kind of thing, would be in play.

[kathy2trips]

Love your house? Why not move it to a better hood? It would be cheaper for the gov't in the long run.

[Detroitnerd]

But do you have an expectation that you will receive the same level of city services?

For what it's worth, I don't think anybody lives in Detroit for more than a few months and doesn't realize that they are bound to get inferior city services. To bring up expectations of city services for somebody who's already a long-term resident seems sort of silly.

that's obviously not true for everyone.

Of course it isn't. But those people who don't like it will likely move to the campus area, where several other organizations [[UCCA, WSU, etc.) pick up the slack. Only the hardiest types will stake a claim in the prairie.

One of the arguments put forward by those who favor an aggressive approach is that if you try to assemble a large tract of land, such as for industrial purposes, you'll always run into that last holdout, trying to make a score instead of simply settling for a fair price and getting out [[which, in turn, retards development).

I find it distasteful that we are giving credence to arguments that treat residents -- especially the most conscientious among us, living in difficult places and working to keep them clean and orderly -- as costs, onuses, obstacles and otherwise "selfish." As for those large players who want big parcels, is that the way forward for this city? Or is it only because big deals mean big kickbacks for big-time pols?

If that sounds like overstatement, conversations with the more enlightened former Detroiters boil down to: "They didn't care about mom-and-pop shops and homeowners anymore. All they cared about was big business. So we moved out." Aren't these sorts of arguments just more of the same? Aren't these "holdouts" assets? Discuss.

[iheartthed]

what would be your alternative?

Focus on improving the services. At this point Detroit needs population infill instead of this so-called right-sizing. There should be a concerted effort to attract new bodies from outside the region and steer them to live in the city.

[Johnlodge]

Focus on improving the services. At this point Detroit needs population infill instead of this so-called right-sizing. There should be a concerted effort to attract new bodies from outside the region and steer them to live in the city.

Seems like there should be a solution somewhere between the illegal immigration by people desperate to come to this country and Detroit desperately needing people. Amnesty for people willing to live in Detroit for 5 years? Just brainstorming, probably plenty of problems with it.

[fryar]

Seems like there should be a solution somewhere between the illegal immigration by people desperate to come to this country and Detroit desperately needing people. Amnesty for people willing to live in Detroit for 5 years? Just brainstorming, probably plenty of problems with it.

I like that idea. One problem is can these folks, at least, have some jobs, or does everything just deteriorate because everybody is unemployed? But in the abstract, I like it.

[Detroitnerd]

I like that idea. One problem is can these folks, at least, have some jobs, or does everything just deteriorate because everybody is unemployed? But in the abstract, I like it.

Southwest Detroit provides a good example of how industrious and creative many of our latest immigrants are. They are actively improving a neighborhood that has been down on its heels. The idea would certainly touch off a political furor with the know-nothings, of course.

[Tig3rzhark]

That may not be a bad idea. At least there would be more people living here.

[JJD]

While I like the idea I can see the FOX News headlines now "Detroit manages to increase it's drain on the US Taxpayers by allowing illegals to show up and live legally drawing on government aid and services without contributing". I personally think this is a load of crap, but about 50% of America would agree with them.

[Detroitnerd]

While I like the idea I can see the FOX News headlines now "Detroit manages to increase it's drain on the US Taxpayers by allowing illegals to show up and live legally drawing on government aid and services without contributing". I personally think this is a load of crap, but about 50% of America would agree with them.

It's all about the spin, baby. Just have the headline read this way: "U.S. punishes illegal immigrants by sending them to Detroit." Joe-Bob Six-Pack would nod approvingly.

[cman710]

Focus on improving the services. At this point Detroit needs population infill instead of this so-called right-sizing. There should be a concerted effort to attract new bodies from outside the region and steer them to live in the city.

I agree that the state should do more to attract new people from outside the region. That said, the fact that Detroit has perhaps the nation's highest unemployment rate of any major city will be a major hindrance. People go where jobs can be found [[as they did to Detroit in the first half of the 20th century), which is why the South and Southwest are growing so rapidly.

An alternate approach, rather than focusing directly on people, would be to try to bring in new businesses with a combination of incentives, tax breaks, and anything else that could be used. Of course, those incentives also have a cost, and the state of Michigan and city of Detroit already cannot balance their budgets. This makes such an initiative unlikely.

Moreover, even if the state were to bring in some new people, it would require a critical mass to make a significant difference throughout the city. The bottom line is that many neighborhoods in the city are not places signficant numbers of people would move, even if they did come to the city. [[Most people will not choose to be the second house on a block with only one house).

And all this does not even account for the fact that many newcomers to the region would be drawn to the suburbs by fairly cheap, quality housing and better city services. In the long-term, as many immigrants in Southwest Detroit become established and earn wealth, many of them, too, will head for the suburbs.

So, that all being said, I think the city does need to address right-sizing. I do not think that necessary means forcible removal of individuals from their houses. What it will have to include is reorganizating the provision of city services to make them more efficient in a city that will not grow back to near 2 million people any time soon.

[royce]

How do you improve city services if services are stretched thin? Isn't it automatic that if you focus services on a smaller area, you can do better in providing those services? Repopulating the city is not an option until there are more jobs for the people who want to work. Even then, would people want to live in the city? As Cman710 just pointed out, there are very few neighborhoods in the city that outsiders would want to move into. No one is desiring to move to Mt. Elliot and E. Grand Blvd, McNichols and Gratiot, Seven Mile and Hoover, Wyoming and Plymouth, Chene and Ferry, MLK Jr., Blvd and Rosa Parks Blvd, Hubbell and Fenkell, and Brightmoor.

Right-sizing/down-sizing is the best chance for improving neighborhoods and city services. As I've mentioned in a previous post, saving money on cutting grass on vacant lots would do wonders for the city's budget. Also, as bad as street light outtages are, a smaller area to light up might just be the cure for that problem. For some, right-sizing is not the solution, but given the facts, what practical alternative would work?

[iheartthed]

How do you improve city services if services are stretched thin? Isn't it automatic that if you focus services on a smaller area, you can do better in providing those services? Repopulating the city is not an option until there are more jobs for the people who want to work. Even then, would people want to live in the city? As Cman710 just pointed out, there are very few neighborhoods in the city that outsiders would want to move into. No one is desiring to move to Mt. Elliot and E. Grand Blvd, McNichols and Gratiot, Seven Mile and Hoover, Wyoming and Plymouth, Chene and Ferry, MLK Jr., Blvd and Rosa Parks Blvd, Hubbell and Fenkell, and Brightmoor.

Right-sizing/down-sizing is the best chance for improving neighborhoods and city services. As I've mentioned in a previous post, saving money on cutting grass on vacant lots would do wonders for the city's budget. Also, as bad as street light outtages are, a smaller area to light up might just be the cure for that problem. For some, right-sizing is not the solution, but given the facts, what practical alternative would work?

Do you really believe that the physical size of the city is the reason why the city can't adequately provide services? Because if so then the person who came up with that excuse needs a promotion.

But here in reality I have a hard time believing that Detroit would service population of 900,000 in an area of 100 sq. miles any better than they do the same size population in 139 sq. miles.

The truth is that Detroit is still one of the most densely populated large cities in the country. Of the 11 largest cities in the country, Detroit is ranked number 11 in population but number 5 in density [[NYC, Chicago, Philly, and L. A. were the cities that are more dense).

How do those cities like Houston, Dallas, San Jose, San Antonio service their populations since they are all less densely populated than Detroit?

[Fnemecek]

How do you improve city services if services are stretched thin? Isn't it automatic that if you focus services on a smaller area, you can do better in providing those services?

In theory, that's a great idea. The problem that everyone seems to gloss over is that those sparsely populated areas of the city receive very little services to begin with.

Moving a penny from one pocket to another doesn't create dollar. It's still only a penny.

Right-sizing/down-sizing is the best chance for improving neighborhoods and city services. As I've mentioned in a previous post, saving money on cutting grass on vacant lots would do wonders for the city's budget.

That would work, if the City of Detroit were still cutting the grass at vacant lots in those areas.

Also, as bad as street light outtages are, a smaller area to light up might just be the cure for that problem.

The City of Detroit only allocates $901,077 in tax dollars for street lighting for the entire city. How much do you think will be saved by shrinking the footprint of what we light?

SOURCE:
http://www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/d...ef%2010-11.pdf

BOTTOM LINE: It would be extremely optimistic to presume that right-sizing Detroit will yield improvements as large as
3.5% - 4%. A 1.25% - 2% improvement is more realistic.

More over, one should not discount the fact that it will take several years and a considerable expense to achieve this minimal improvement.

For some, right-sizing is not the solution, but given the facts, what practical alternative would work?

In my opinion, it seems far more prudent to take the resources currently allocated towards right-sizing Detroit and put them directly into improving city services. For example, instead of shrinking the amount of land that our street lights have to light, install a more energy efficient street light.

The result will still be quite minimal, but we would get those results a lot faster. A small improvement today is better than an equally small improvement 3 years from today.

[Fnemecek]

I am not sure that there is even one clear view of what "right-sizing" would mean, but what would be your alternative? To keep trying the same policies that have failed for forty years?

The thing is, "right-sizing" has been the de facto policy in Detroit for decades. Many areas of the city have received almost no services at all, thereby encouraging people to leave.

The current efforts simply formalize the matter.

[kraig]

In theory, that's a great idea. The problem that everyone seems to gloss over is that those sparsely populated areas of the city receive very little services to begin with.

Moving a penny from one pocket to another doesn't create dollar. It's still only a penny.



That would work, if the City of Detroit were still cutting the grass at vacant lots in those areas.



The City of Detroit only allocates $901,077 in tax dollars for street lighting for the entire city. How much do you think will be saved by shrinking the footprint of what we light?

SOURCE:
http://www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/d...ef%2010-11.pdf

BOTTOM LINE: It would be extremely optimistic to presume that right-sizing Detroit will yield improvements as large as
3.5% - 4%. A 1.25% - 2% improvement is more realistic.

More over, one should not discount the fact that it will take several years and a considerable expense to achieve this minimal improvement.



In my opinion, it seems far more prudent to take the resources currently allocated towards right-sizing Detroit and put them directly into improving city services. For example, instead of shrinking the amount of land that our street lights have to light, install a more energy efficient street light.

The result will still be quite minimal, but we would get those results a lot faster. A small improvement today is better than an equally small improvement 3 years from today.

Well said.

[cman710]

Sure, saving money on streelighting will not make the difference between providing great services elsewhere and not. And I think this kind of rigorous evaluation needs to take place before any decisions are made.

That being said, how can you deny that it would not be easier to provide services in a smaller area?

To answer iheartthed's question, cities like San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, and other "sprawl" cities can provide better services in a less dense environment than Detroit for several reasons. First, these are all cities growing at rapid rates. That means that [[1) their tax base is increasing because of population growth, and [[2) the value of the land in their cities is increasing, also increasing the tax base. This gives more money to go around than in a declining city like Detroit. If any of these cities ever experience widespread decline, they will have extreme difficulty providing certain services effectively. Second, these cities tend to have less social welfare, education, and labor costs than cities in the North and Northeast.

The issue here is not density for density's sake. The issue is that it will be more effective to provide services within a smaller area than a larger one.

[DetroitDad]

Detroit neighborhoods are fragile. We can't afford to lose another China Town or River Town. We can't afford another People Mover or plastic light boot fiasco. We no longer have the resources to get another Renaissance Center or Washington Boulevard street scape right. It is in our best interest to support small, tiny, even microscopic fixes in Detroit. The inexperience we all have with orchestrating dream projects is even another reason not to do them at all.

Perhaps part of the problem is that no one has managed a project quite like this before? Even if other cities have downsized and consolidated, the sheer scale of what needs to happen in the D is daunting.

Would you hire painters to come and paint your house without seeing the color first? Of course you wouldn't, you'd spot test possible shades in single brush strokes, and then tell them your choice.

Only fools rush in.

[royce]

Fnemecek said: "In theory, that's a great idea. The problem that everyone seems to gloss over is that those sparsely populated areas of the city receive very little services to begin with."

What services are these sparsely populated areas not getting, Fnemecek?

Fnemecek said: "That would work, if the City of Detroit were still cutting the grass at vacant lots in those areas."

The fact that the city may not be cutting vacant lots in some areas may be true. However, from a quality of life point of view, a smaller Detroit would mean no more vacant lots because you would now have denser neighborhoods. People would feel better about their neighborhoods because these vacant lots will no longer be an issue. The feelings associated with living in an "urban prairie" would be gone.

Fnemecek said: "The City of Detroit only allocates $901,077 in tax dollars for street lighting for the entire city. How much do you think will be saved by shrinking the footprint of what we light?"

Well, if that amount is all that is allocated for lighting, then at least in a shrunken city that money might go towards repairing the smaller amount of lights that would exist.

Fnemecek said: "BOTTOM LINE: It would be extremely optimistic to presume that right-sizing Detroit will yield improvements as large as
3.5% - 4%. A 1.25% - 2% improvement is more realistic."

Well, we'll never know what the improvement percentage will be if we never make the attempt at right-sizing.



Fnemecek said: "In my opinion, it seems far more prudent to take the resources currently allocated towards right-sizing Detroit and put them directly into improving city services. For example, instead of shrinking the amount of land that our street lights have to light, install a more energy efficient street light."

Well, Fnemecek, improving city services is admirable, but improving Detroit overall involves more than just improving city services. Right-sizing could improve the image of the city because outsiders will see it as a lively city, active with people in the new, more dense neighborhoods. The image of an improved quality of life for Detroit citizens can also go along way as a result of right-sizing. Again, right-sizing, in my opinion, is the most logical approach to improving the quality of life for Detroit citizens for the future. Anything else is futile.

[DetroitDad]

With that last post [[#73) in mind, isn't the job of the mayor to act as chief executive officer [[CEO) of the city? Why is the CEO coming back to the board of directors and stock holders [[voters), asking us non-experts what he [[expert, or coordinator of experts) should do? Does anyone else find that a little odd? Isn't identifying problems, their solutions, a team to carry out those solutions, and possible ramifications of all risk factors and decisions what we hired him to do? I know community feedback is important, but after the job is done. Will he be presenting us with all relevant information for us to make a decision?

Is this not how it is supposed to work.