An Insensitive Question

[MichMatters]

I agree with you quite a bit MichMatters. First and foremost it's the economy and Detroit's so called leaders have failed to diversify it for generations. But at this point with so little accountability in city government at any level or department what major industry would locate in Detroit? And does lack ethnic diversity naturally lead to lack of accountability? Regardless most major industries today prefer to locate in cities would a diverse populace.

When I hear many goverent officals in detroit speak, or even many of those in the suburbs, it as if they are still back fighting the battles of the 60s, 70s and 80s while ignoring the problems of today. And yet these are the peeople that still get elected. I would suggest that it might be just a generational problem but Kilpatrick proved that was even the case.

See, now you're getting somewhere. Many of those are the right questions to ask. I agree, though I think the local elections of 2009 changed a lot in concern to trust in government, Detroit has be racked with the question of why anyone, business or potential resident, would subject themselves to having to wipe away all of the crap just to get a crack at an honest start in the city. This is especially true after we see the former administration where corruption wasn't an exception, but the rule.

I also don't think you'll find any disagreement from me that ethnic, racial, religious, etc...homogeneity is what you want in any city. You also make a good point about how it can foster an environment -- particularly when you have historical divisions as strong as those in Metro Detroit -- where the so-called leadership don't feel accountable to anyone but themselves. That said, I'd like to add that more importantly than ethnic homogeneity fostering this environment, is the reality of a city that is and has been on a downward trajectory for decades.

A point I forgot to make about corruption in the city is that it really found its home in city politics as a direct result of that shrinking pie I was talking about. When you know that your skills in your city's atrophied private sector won't produce as much for your career as a career in bilking the city -- the only real center of activity, power, and wealth left in your city -- it is not hard to see why there isn't much accountability and why it so often attracts the wrong type of people.

I think people need to understand that the constitution of people in Detroit is no different than anywhere else; everyone everywhere is chasing the same thing. The difference lies in where activity, power and wealth have migrated to, and the ridiculously decrease in the number of tools and ways to access power and wealth in the region because success has become such a hot commidity because of its rarity.

It's really why I have so little hope for the metro in terms of becoming healthy, again. I don't quite see Armegeddon in Detroit's future simply because it has long since happened, in my opinion. But, I think as long as folks in such numbers in the region hold the crazily unpreceptive view and revisionist history that Detroit failed because of the race of any one people, that the region can't even begin to address even a plan to clearing a path to a healthy future. It's why I think your original question was so far off the mark, and not offensive in what it asked, but because it assumed a helluva lot of downright archaic and revisionist propositions. Detroit can't save itself not because its heavily African American, but because it was bled and bled itself for decades of its wealth by not wanting to adapt to a post-war economic reality. The incredible -- unprecendented, even -- loss of economic activity precipitated all other ills like a falling domino chain.

People seem to conveniently forget, or never knew, for instance, that by the time the mass economic migration of blacks to Detroit had peaked creating a black majority [[which didn't happen until at least the mid-to-late 70's, long after the decline had started), the jobs that they came searching for had already began to dry up in a huge way. As an example, Detroit had lost upwards of 130,000 jobs in the 1950's when the black population of the city was little more than 15%. That's only to show that when blacks "took over" they didn't get to take over much. To lay most criticisim for an already inevitably sinking Titantic on its newly appointed captain seems just a tad bit silly, no? Sure, its appropriate to criticize his failed evacuation plan, but blame him for taking down the sinking ship?

[Detroitus]

A point I forgot to make about corruption in the city is that it really found its home in city politics as a direct result of that shrinking pie I was talking about. When you know that your skills in your city's atrophied private sector won't produce as much for your career as a career in bilking the city -- the only real center of activity, power, and wealth left in your city -- it is not hard to see why there isn't much accountability and why it so often attracts the wrong type of people.

I still don't believe a poor city has to be a corrupt, poorly run nor even a dangerous city. And I hope that the new leadership, Bing, Bobbs, Evans, etc. agree with me. A city that provides reliable, though limited services, is much better off than a city that offers many services but has ingrain corruption or unaccountability. I think Detroit citizens have for too long NOT held their officials accountable but have allowed them to blame someone else for the troubles of the city. This has to be the focus of any true reform if the city is ever going to turn around it's fortunes.