Groups plan Belle Isle rally to protest 'aggressive treatment of citizens'

[mwilbert]

People did not abandon Detroit because of crime. The rising crime did not start until hundreds of thousands had already left the city. Detroit's crime rates were fairly stable until the mid 1960s, when the crime rates suddenly exploded. Detroit had 102 homicides in 1944, 103 in 1949, 108 in 1954, 106 in 1959, and 125 in 1964. The crime really started to explode in 1965 when the homicide total jumped to 188, and then continued to skyrocket at incredible rates, up to 389 in 1968, 577 in 1972, and 714 in 1974.

According to the Free Press and US Census data, Detroit's population peaked at close to 2 million around 1953. By 1965, Detroit's population was already under 1.6 million. The city of Detroit's population dropped to 1.511 million in the 1970 census, and was down to 1.203 million in the 1990 census.


To put these numbers into perspective, Detroit lost around 400,000 residents in the 12 years just before the crime explosion that started in 1965, but this massive population loss actually slowed down after the crime explosion started. It took more than 25 years AFTER the 1965 crime explosion for Detroit to lose another 400,000 residents.

The population decline of Detroit happened for a number of reasons, but rising crime was not one of them.

As other people have said, this is ridiculous. It is true that crime was not the only reason people left Detroit, and that Detroit's population was dropping before crime became a major issue, but to take that as implying that crime wasn't ever a major issue is illogical, and in this case, contrary to fact.

[erikd]

As other people have said, this is ridiculous. It is true that crime was not the only reason people left Detroit, and that Detroit's population was dropping before crime became a major issue, but to take that as implying that crime wasn't ever a major issue is illogical, and in this case, contrary to fact.

I was specifically responding to the statement made by HonkeyTonk, when he claimed that "People "abandoned" Detroit because of the crime that already existed. It accelerated once the ball got rolling, but initially it started because people didn't want to put up with it."

I should have made my response more clear, because my entire point was that people did not initially abandon Detroit because of existing or rising crime. The abandonment started first, then the crime increased after the first wave of population loss.

Of course, there was a feedback effect that created a greater push for even more people to abandon the city after the crime started to increase, but abandonment was not started by, or initially caused by, increasing crime.

My point is that the abandonment started first, then the crime increase started about a decade later. It is absolutely true that further abandonment happened as a result of increasing crime, but the crime is not what started it.

[Hermod]

I was specifically responding to the statement made by HonkeyTonk, when he claimed that "People "abandoned" Detroit because of the crime that already existed. It accelerated once the ball got rolling, but initially it started because people didn't want to put up with it."

I should have made my response more clear, because my entire point was that people did not initially abandon Detroit because of existing or rising crime. The abandonment started first, then the crime increased after the first wave of population loss.

Of course, there was a feedback effect that created a greater push for even more people to abandon the city after the crime started to increase, but abandonment was not started by, or initially caused by, increasing crime.

My point is that the abandonment started first, then the crime increase started about a decade later. It is absolutely true that further abandonment happened as a result of increasing crime, but the crime is not what started it.

"Perceived threat" of crime then? People's perceptions should be seen as their "reality".

[Honky Tonk]

I was specifically responding to the statement made by HonkeyTonk, when he claimed that "People "abandoned" Detroit because of the crime that already existed. It accelerated once the ball got rolling, but initially it started because people didn't want to put up with it."

I should have made my response more clear, because my entire point was that people did not initially abandon Detroit because of existing or rising crime. The abandonment started first, then the crime increased after the first wave of population loss.

Of course, there was a feedback effect that created a greater push for even more people to abandon the city after the crime started to increase, but abandonment was not started by, or initially caused by, increasing crime.

My point is that the abandonment started first, then the crime increase started about a decade later. It is absolutely true that further abandonment happened as a result of increasing crime, but the crime is not what started it.

erikd, there were issues with Detroit before the mass exodus. As I tried to explain, in my original reply to you, the crime wasn't as intense as it is now, but it was enough to get people looking elsewhere. You are right, as people started leaving, it did escalate. [[the notorious "downward spiral") My neighbors didn't leave in the 60's and 70's "just because".

[Bham1982]

My point is that the abandonment started first, then the crime increase started about a decade later. It is absolutely true that further abandonment happened as a result of increasing crime, but the crime is not what started it.

This isn't true. There was little abandonment in Detroit pre-1970. The initial postwar population loss was mostly young familes heading to cheaper new housing in the suburbs. Back then Detroit was overcrowded and expensive, and you could get more for your money by crossing 8 Mile, especially with the GI Bill for new construction housing.

Widespread abandonment didn't take place until the 80's, after crime had peaked and almost half the city already left.

[Detroitnerd]

This isn't true. There was little abandonment in Detroit pre-1970. The initial postwar population loss was mostly young familes heading to cheaper new housing in the suburbs. Back then Detroit was overcrowded and expensive, and you could get more for your money by crossing 8 Mile, especially with the GI Bill for new construction housing.

Widespread abandonment didn't take place until the 80's, after crime had peaked and almost half the city already left.

Take a look at the back of a city directory around 1946-1950. You'll see one resident occupying more and more properties around the city: VACANT.

[Bham1982]

Take a look at the back of a city directory around 1946-1950. You'll see one resident occupying more and more properties around the city: VACANT.

Probably true, but doesn't matter. The point was that there were relatively few areas of high vacancy until the 80s. Back in the 60's there were no vacant areas whatsoever except for cleared out federal urban renewal land.

[Honky Tonk]

Probably true, but doesn't matter. The point was that there were relatively few areas of high vacancy until the 80s. Back in the 60's there were no vacant areas whatsoever except for cleared out federal urban renewal land.

That's not entirely true, because as kids, I remember going into vacant, abandoned homes, looking much the same condition as you see today. So some of it must have been going even back on then too.

[Bham1982]

That's not entirely true, because as kids, I remember going into vacant, abandoned homes, looking much the same condition as you see today. So some of it must have been going even back on then too.

Where in the 60's was there widespread abandonment in Detroit?

That doesn't even make any sense, as the city was still packed in and relatively expensive.

[erikd]

This isn't true. There was little abandonment in Detroit pre-1970. The initial postwar population loss was mostly young familes heading to cheaper new housing in the suburbs. Back then Detroit was overcrowded and expensive, and you could get more for your money by crossing 8 Mile, especially with the GI Bill for new construction housing.

Widespread abandonment didn't take place until the 80's, after crime had peaked and almost half the city already left.

Do you realize how illogical, nonsensical, and insane your statement is?

"Widespread abandonment didn't take place until almost half of the city had already left."

When almost half of the people leave a city over a period of 25 years, IT IS EXACTLY A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WIDESPREAD ABANDONMENT.

WTF?

[sumas]

Belle Isle is a huge treasure. MYKiDS love to go but they want to swim and it is way too early for that. We will take them and do a BBQ but they have to earn that. A few garbage bags [[I bought them garden gloves) Respect for people, nature and community is important. I honor so many in our community that invest in our youth.