Regionalism vs Isolationism

It's amazing how there are many people within the city are against regional cooperation when it is needed the most. Currently they are well represented in the city government.

If you watch any of the talk shows on WHPR TV 33, and talk to some of the citizens of Detroit, you'll notice that many of the callers and the hosts, that their viewpoints are against regional cooperation in any form. They aren't the only ones. The suburbs have their share of isolationists.

Conspiracy theories that there is an enemy trying to take over Detroit from the citizens that are left, are all over, leading many Detroiters to the assumption that in the end it will be them that will end up on the short end of the stick if we cooperate at all. Fear of increases in Detroiter presence in the suburbs would increase crime and decrease home values are still there.

The Detroit Public Schools has already been marked by the Dept. of Education as the "worst school district in the nation". Despite the efforts of Robert Bobb which I commend him on his efforts to reform the district, it would truly take a death and rebirth in order for the district to get better.

It's amazing that while the city collapses around them, that many hold on to the notion that the city of Detroit can survive on their own.

With the population decreasing by the day, it is prudent that the citizens still here wake up and understand that only as a region, can we survive. There are some things that should be put into a regional authority, especially when Detroit doesn't have the money to manage everything anymore.

It would save the city a lot of money if the public transportation around here was united and managed by a regional authority. Something that should have been done years ago.

New leadership in Detroit, as well as the suburbs, is needed in order for everyone in the area to get along.

This year is truly a chance to boot out all of the current leaders that have truly shown their incompetence through mismanagement in all departments.

I truly hope that things will change for the better. However, it will truly be up to those that are left to decide whether to make compromises, or slowly fade into darkness.

Maybe we should let everyone who works in the city, or pays for city water have a vote for City Council. The former is in-particular taxation without representation.

I hope you rally for the taxation without representation for the other 14-15 communities in the state that tax workers.

I agree that there needs to be regionalism but regionalism only works if all players are interested. Detroit needs to step up but they will not be able to drive it alone.

The economic crisis is probably the only thing that will drive regionalism now that it is hitting all of SE Michigan.

Of course while we discuss regionalism I hope there is some serious discussion about regionalizing the services for the homeless, regionalizing insurance rates, regionalizing the costs to upgrade/mainatin infrastructure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroit500

Maybe we should let everyone who works in the city, or pays for city water have a vote for City Council. The former is in-particular taxation without representation.

---

I would be in agreement that the water board would be chosen through elected representatives from both the suburbs and the city, instead of appointed by the City Council. However, to provide lower property taxes and lower income taxes would be best.

The argument about city water is ridiculous. Communities may opt in or opt out of using city water [[Gennessee and a couple other counties are looking at creating their own system).

This is akin to saying anyone that pays for Electricity should get to choose the board of directors. While I think the department could be run better this argument has no merit whatsoever.

Hell, I would srgue that DWSD should be run for profit and add money to the city's general fund. Let's run it like a real utility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroit500

...pays for city water have a vote for City Council.

---

Purchasing a commodity is not taxation. If you're unhappy with how much your water bill is, contact your local supplier. DWSD doesn't determine what, for example, Warren residents pay for water; the city of Warren does, and their mark-up is humongous.

I agree with the original poster that this area badly needs more regional cooperation. But that cooperation also needs to be on an equitable basis. The most important driver in the attitudes you mention is history, and the historical experience of this area in regional, and more importantly inter-racial [[which, let's face it, is what we're really talking about here) tolerance and cooperation has been abysmal until very recently. You can observe that very quickly when you mention the issue to most older people in the Detroit area [[and even many younger ones) and the first thing they do is point fingers at the other side, and generally voice their distrust and fears based on their own particular perception of the area's local history.

So, while I agree that lack of regional cooperation is one of this area's greatest weaknesses, the ugly history of this region is why I say that any regional initiatives have to be scrupulously even-handed. There is a great amount of trust that needs to be earned, and an enormous amount of distrust and even outright prejudice that needs to be overcome. One thing that will be tremendously helpful in the future is when the race-fear-mongering "leaders" of past generations, like ol' Brooks Patterson, finally and inevitably pass from the scene.

"Maybe we should let everyone who works in the city, or pays for city water have a vote for City Council. The former is in-particular taxation without representation."

Wrong. Local income taxes are authorized by state law. You have a state representative in Lansing. If you have a problem with it, contact them and ask them to change the law.

As for the issue of regionalism, if you think the only obstacle towards regionalism lies in the city of Detroit, you are sadly mistaken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastSider

Purchasing a commodity is not taxation. If you're unhappy with how much your water bill is, contact your local supplier. DWSD doesn't determine what, for example, Warren residents pay for water; the city of Warren does, and their mark-up is humongous.

---

Exactly. The towns that take city water impose their own terms for payment, and pretty much all of them charge customers more, often a lot more, than the city charges those municipalities. Of course, if Warrenites or other area residents don't like our water system they have always been free to build their own. Until then, you should be glad that someone, for once in this area, had the vision to build a system that serves all of us. And quit this endless bellyaching about buying our water. I think though that in reality a lot of folks in the suburbs just can't stand the fact that that "someone" was the City of Detroit. Or more to the point, that they couldn't just take the management of the water system our city built with them when they chose to leave us [[and thereby leaving all those awful people they fled in charge of the system).

Welcome to the board Tig3rzhark. As a freak-speaker, I'm going to guess you're somewhat young, under 30 perhaps. Nothing wrong there. We've all been young.

But it does seem that your rant, which I enjoyed, is informed by what, for the lack of a better word, I'm going to call "mythology." That, hey, we all want to work together, but the opponents of regionalism are in the city -- and they need to understand that that's not acceptable.

Well, it's partly true, but look at how you're positioning yourself. Are you asking any questions? Are you looking for somebody to help you understand why this is the case? If you were really looking for an enlightening discussion, why would you charge in here, post that the enemies of regionalism are in Detroit, and then gloss over the suburban cohort of that?

Yes, we need more regionalism. But it isn't done by taunting people in the city about their [[historically, as others have pointed out, quite understandable) distrust. It's done through dialogue. Try asking questions. You might learn a thing or two from the people who post here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Welcome to the board Tig3rzhark. As a freak-speaker, I'm going to guess you're somewhat young, under 30 perhaps. Nothing wrong there. We've all been young.

But it does seem that your rant, which I enjoyed, is informed by what, for the lack of a better word, I'm going to call "mythology." That, hey, we all want to work together, but the opponents of regionalism are in the city -- and they need to understand that that's not acceptable.

Well, it's partly true, but look at how you're positioning yourself. Are you asking any questions? Are you looking for somebody to help you understand why this is the case? If you were really looking for an enlightening discussion, why would you charge in here, post that the enemies of regionalism are in Detroit, and then gloss over the suburban cohort of that?

Yes, we need more regionalism. But it isn't done by taunting people in the city about their [[historically, as others have pointed out, quite understandable) distrust. It's done through dialogue. Try asking questions. You might learn a thing or two from the people who post here.

---

I read nothing in Tiger's posting that could be construed as a rant. His comments were not of a taunting nature. His post was quite good, actually. Much better than those in the sustainability threads.

I mean "rant" in the most loving sense of the word. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Welcome to the board Tig3rzhark. As a freak-speaker, I'm going to guess you're somewhat young, under 30 perhaps. Nothing wrong there. We've all been young.

But it does seem that your rant, which I enjoyed, is informed by what, for the lack of a better word, I'm going to call "mythology." That, hey, we all want to work together, but the opponents of regionalism are in the city -- and they need to understand that that's not acceptable.

Well, it's partly true, but look at how you're positioning yourself. Are you asking any questions? Are you looking for somebody to help you understand why this is the case? If you were really looking for an enlightening discussion, why would you charge in here, post that the enemies of regionalism are in Detroit, and then gloss over the suburban cohort of that?

Yes, we need more regionalism. But it isn't done by taunting people in the city about their [[historically, as others have pointed out, quite understandable) distrust. It's done through dialogue. Try asking questions. You might learn a thing or two from the people who post here.

---

There's plenty of blame to go around as to why things are the way they are, from both sides of 8 mile.

As a lifetime Detroiter, I have always believed in the city motto "We Hope For Better Things; It Shall Rise From the Ashes".

This motto should be applied for the entire Metro Detroit area, especially in this current time.

When I ride my bike around metro Detroit, I see in both the city and suburbs empty buildings. When I catch the bus, I use SMART to catch the bus most of the time because DDOT doesn't have bike racks equipped on all of their buses. However, when I want to catch the SMART bus, I can't catch it within the city unless it is after 6pm or when I'm downtown.

Why is it that DDOT, although has stated that they would have bike racks on all of their buses this year, are taking their time, even after federal money was noted to be already allocated?

"The Detroit Department of Transportation is set to receive more than $500,000 in federal money to install bike racks on the fronts of all city buses." [[Detroit News, November 8, 2008)

Why is it that SMART buses will only stop in the city to drop off passengers but not pick up any that are at marked SMART stops within Detroit unless it is downtown or if it is at nighttime?

What's wrong with forming a regional transportation system for metro Detroit?

"What's wrong with forming a regional transportation system for metro Detroit?"

Nothing. But no one in Lansing has been able to get through the necessary legislation to make it happen. Engler vetoed the last effort to get regional transportation passed.

"What's wrong with forming a regional transportation system for metro Detroit?"

Great idea. But, again, you aren't dealing with the area's history on the issue.

Dennis Archer tried to do it when he was mayor, and a few DDOT and SMART lines were, in fact, integrated back in 1994 for a short while [[Jefferson and Michigan were run by SMART, and Fort and John R were run by DDOT). Archer was pushing for a full integration of both systems, but SMART management subsequently went off and sought their own exclusive tax funding source. With DDOT losing revenue from the lines they had given to SMART, suburban commuters complaining about making so many stops in the city, and combined with the resentment over SMART going back on the agreement in order to seek independent funding, the whole thing fell apart pretty quickly. Engler's later veto pretty much killed off any effort to regionalize public transportation in the area.

welcome, Tig3rShrk..

http://tinyurl.com/l4mrhe
http://tinyurl.com/mvydrb

http://photo.ewebengine.com/pictures...9084219_0h.jpg

This house on Chicago Blvd. in Detroit is for sale for 29,900.00. It's property taxes are nearly 8,200.00 per year. This is the problem with Detroit being able to attact new residents.

It's one thing to pay little for a great house, but in a city that does not have a functioning police department, schools, etc., no one is going to incur 8,2000 bucks per year for no services.

However, quite a few would take the plunge, knowing they are on their own with regard to city services, if the taxes matched the price. The taxes should be around 600 bucks per year. Using some abstract appraisal method to determine taxes isn't working. This needs to be changed immediately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorax

http://photo.ewebengine.com/pictures...9084219_0h.jpg

This house on Chicago Blvd. in Detroit is for sale for 29,900.00. It's property taxes are nearly 8,200.00 per year. This is the problem with Detroit being able to attact new residents.

It's one thing to pay little for a great house, but in a city that does not have a functioning police department, schools, etc., no one is going to incur 8,2000 bucks per year for no services.

However, quite a few would take the plunge, knowing they are on their own with regard to city services, if the taxes matched the price. The taxes should be around 600 bucks per year. Using some abstract appraisal method to determine taxes isn't working. This needs to be changed immediately.

---

Good post. Very interesting.

The property taxes on a house are based on its current appraisal, which in the case of a house for sale has absolutely nothing whatever to do with how much the seller is asking.

If the house in fact sells for a pittance, the City [[if it were run normally) would reappraise it based on that, and the tax bill would decrease quite a bit. In Detroit, based on what I read here and my memories of living there, I don't expect that would happen; rather, I expect the new owner would have a drag-out fight on his or her hands to try to convince the City to lower the appraisal.

But it's completely irrelevant to give the listing price of a house for sale and argue that should have anything to do with the tax bill. It does not, in Detroit or Birmingham or Plymouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

But it's completely irrelevant to give the listing price of a house for sale and argue that should have anything to do with the tax bill. It does not, in Detroit or Birmingham or Plymouth.

---

Regardless, no one is going to pay $8,200 / year in taxes on that house and THAT is the problem.

There are thousands of examples of this upside/down property tax dilemma in Detroit, and elsewhere. It is particularly disturbing in Detroit because of the complete lack of city services.

It's unclear that the city even has the ability to collect on those taxes. Some people I know have knowledge of neighbors who haven't paid these crazy taxes in years, and are still living in the homes.

This is also a side effect of what is happening here in Florida, where the Dade County Sherriff's office has stopped evictions based on foreclosures whether due to bad loans, maintenance & assessments on condos, or property taxes. Usually all of these are delinquent simultaneously.

Detroit needs to revamp this system, or we need to combine city/county efforts, as is done here in Miami/Dade County, where a regional authority is responsible for managing the area. This wouldn't probably happen, if it meant all Wayne County cities shared the same services. The Grosse Pointes in particular would fight this tooth and nail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roq

Regardless, no one is going to pay $8,200 / year in taxes on that house and THAT is the problem.

---

Yes, but it's not a Detroit problem per se, and the city has limited control over how those rates are determined. The problem is primarily a statewide one, and has to do with measures that Michigan voters, not Detroit voters, and the state legislature have passed over the years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorax

There are thousands of examples of this upside/down property tax dilemma in Detroit, and elsewhere. It is particularly disturbing in Detroit because of the complete lack of city services.

It's unclear that the city even has the ability to collect on those taxes. Some people I know have knowledge of neighbors who haven't paid these crazy taxes in years, and are still living in the homes.

This is also a side effect of what is happening here in Florida, where the Dade County Sherriff's office has stopped evictions based on foreclosures whether due to bad loans, maintenance & assessments on condos, or property taxes. Usually all of these are delinquent simultaneously.

Detroit needs to revamp this system, or we need to combine city/county efforts, as is done here in Miami/Dade County, where a regional authority is responsible for managing the area. This wouldn't probably happen, if it meant all Wayne County cities shared the same services. The Grosse Pointes in particular would fight this tooth and nail.

---

I have a friend who lives near Miami. She says one of the main reasons the Sheriffs office supported stopping evictions was to reduce the number of abandoned properties. There, as here, many of those abandoned homes or apartments become problems for law enforcement due to drug or other illegal activities or arson. So their thinking is keep the original residents in their homes, they will most likely continue to maintain them in some fashion, and the crime rates will not increase in those neighborhoods. If only more communities would at least look into a similar program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

Yes, but it's not a Detroit problem per se, and the city has limited control over how those rates are determined. The problem is primarily a statewide one, and has to do with measures that Michigan voters, not Detroit voters, and the state legislature have passed over the years.

---

Could you clarify how Detroit has limited control over millage rates?

I wasn't talking about millage, I was following on Professorscott's point about the relationship between sales price and tax rate. It's state law, as modified by the voters, that determines how that relationship works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

I wasn't talking about millage, I was following on Professorscott's point about the relationship between sales price and tax rate. It's state law, as modified by the voters, that determines how that relationship works.

---

Got it. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

Yes, but it's not a Detroit problem per se, and the city has limited control over how those rates are determined. The problem is primarily a statewide one, and has to do with measures that Michigan voters, not Detroit voters, and the state legislature have passed over the years.

---

Ok, thanks for the info. This needs to be addressed by Detroit STAT then because seriously, who is going to buy a house [[which is actually a nice house) like Lorax posted above with those tax rates when you can get a comparable one [[esp. in this market) in a suburb such as Madison Heights for example. The taxes in M.H. are approx. $3,000 avg. and services are provided consistently, not hit or miss like they are in many areas of the City.

"This needs to be addressed by Detroit STAT"

How do you propose that to be done? There's been plenty of discussion here about the hole that Detroit is in. With very low taxable values on property, the city and schools have ridiculously high millage rates to provide the revenue needed to service city residents. The level of service needed by Madison Heights residents isn't comparable to what's needed in Detroit. Those two factors account for most of the difference in the tax burden between Detroit and most any other community in the area.

the answer to this is alot simpler than what some of you think.

Detroit and it's residents need to wake up.

Detroit needs the suburbs more than ever, and denying it is futile. sorry, Detroit has few assets, and few benefits other than memories of what used to be.

A declining tax base and a completely corrupt government have minimized any impact that the city could have.

blaming Detroit's problems on anything other than the morally bankrupt government and the ingorant notion that everyone is out to get Detroit is stupid.

There you go. Everyone wakes up and everything is fixed. Thanks for the advice. It couldn't have been more helpful.

One thing for sure that Detroit needs:

REGIONALISM HERE, REGIONALISM NOW, REGIONALISM FOREVER!

The best thing that could happen to Detroit would be to accept advice from the suburbs, and the worst thing that could happen to the suburbs would be to accept advice from Detroit. It is not the people of Detroit that the suburbanites would fear most form regionalism; it is the inabilities of the Detroit Shitty Clownshow and MayNOTor. Most suburbs are quite well run and have tax rates appropriate to the desirability of living there. Detroit is dysfunctional. Detroit should be begging the suburbanites for help and should be most receptive to any advice offered. But false pride is unwilling to admit failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Retroit

Detroit should be begging the suburbanites for help and should be most receptive to any advice offered.

---

Ignorance at its absolute finest. And these same dimwits wonder why regionalism doesn't currently exist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastsideAl

I agree with the original poster that this area badly needs more regional cooperation. <snip>

---

Why ?

Just askin'.

I am a big supporter of regionalism. The Detroit metro area is competing in a global marketplace for jobs, talent, conventions, etc... People from outside of the area do not view our suburbs as being separate from Detroit, just as we don't view Oak Park, IL as being separate from Chicago. If we continue to fight with each other over the limited resources we have, we will continue to fall further and further behind in the global competition.

I agree with the need for a regional transportation authority. It is long overdue. However, it will not be easy. As others have stated, attempts have been made by more powerful politicians than we have now that met with failure. The citizens of the region need to demand a consolidation of regional transportation services. Only then will our leaders view it as a priority. If we keep getting distracted over relatively minor issues, squabbling and finger-pointing then it will not happen.

I also think it is a mistake to assume that most suburban communities in the Detroit area have tax rates that will lead to long-term successful communities. It is true that the cities with the highest levels of service have the higher tax rates [[Ferndale, Royal Oak, Birmingham, etc...) These cities have fantastic city services and their residents pay most of the real cost of providing those services. In fact, because these cities all have vibrant commercial districts, their residents are paying to provide police, fire, inspections, etc... for bars and restaurants that cater to a majority of non-residents. However, even though they provide a high level of services, all of these communities are suffering from population loss. Residents who grow up in these communities often can not afford to buy a home there when they reach adulthood. The trend is still to "drive till you qualify" and move as far out as necessary to where you can find affordable housing. These new communities have lower levels of service, but even lower tax rates. They are relying on the revenue generated by growth. Once all of the develop-able land has been built-out they become more like the older suburbs. The growth stops and the city needs to raise taxes to continue the same level of services. Then the out-migration begins to the next, new, fringe city and the cycle repeats itself.

Ferndale, Royal Oak and Birmingham are in many respects the exceptions to this rule. They underwent this kind of abandonment in the 70s and 80s. Now they are revived because they have distinguised themselves as unique [[older, higher quality housing stock. Vibrant commerical districts, high service levels). The cities like Oak Park, Southfield, Madison Heights, Hazel Park, etc... are all in big trouble because there can only be so many Royal Oaks in a particular region.

The forclosure crisis has certainly changed the game. Will this reverse the trend of moving to the fringe? As the economy recovers, fuel prices will rise again. Will that make living on the fringe less attractive? We will see. I think people will want to live in areas where they need to drive less. That bodes well for the three suburbs I mentioned earlier. It also bodes well for neighborhoods surounding downtown and mid-town. Places like Sterling Heights, Shelby Township, Bloomfield Hills, I think are going to have a tough time in the next 10-20 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tig3rzhark

Why is it that DDOT, although has stated that they would have bike racks on all of their buses this year...

---

Where is it stated that DDOT would have all their bus bike racks installed this year? It appears you've made that up. According to the Detroit News article you've referenced, "DDOT officials won't say how long it will take to fit its 472 buses."

And as I posted earlier, they are working through technical issues between two vendors and their 2- and 3-bike bus racks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd_Scott

Where is it stated that DDOT would have all their bus bike racks installed this year? It appears you've made that up. According to the Detroit News article you've referenced, "DDOT officials won't say how long it will take to fit its 472 buses."

And as I posted earlier, they are working through technical issues between two vendors and their 2- and 3-bike bus racks.

---

Who are the two vendors?

I'll admit that I assumed that all of the bike bus racks could be done by the end of this year, but because of the technical issues that you described, I'm not very optimistic.

Please continue any available updates when you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3rdDegreeBurns

I am a big supporter of regionalism. The Detroit metro area is competing in a global marketplace for jobs, talent, conventions, etc... People from outside of the area do not view our suburbs as being separate from Detroit, just as we don't view Oak Park, IL as being separate from Chicago. If we continue to fight with each other over the limited resources we have, we will continue to fall further and further behind in the global competition.

I agree with the need for a regional transportation authority.....

---

I honestly don't see the connection between "competing in a global marketplace" and a regional transportation authority. Not saying there isn't one, but what is it ?

foreign exec #1: OK. It's settled then, we'll locate our offices in metro Detroit.
foreign exec #2: Wait... they don't have a regional transportation authority. And the DDOT buses lack bike racks...
foreign exec #1: What was I thinking ?

I'm glad that I got away from there. I like the idea that I live outside of San Francisco and Oakland and can get on the subway and take it to the city and suburb or damn near to San Jose if I chose to do so.

Isolation is a perfection definition if city and suburb back there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dove-7

I'm glad that I got away from there.

---

The feeling is mutual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3rdDegreeBurns

It is true that the cities with the highest levels of service have the higher tax rates [[Ferndale, Royal Oak, Birmingham, etc...) These cities have fantastic city services and their residents pay most of the real cost of providing those services.

---

You are grouping Birmingham in with Ferndale? Totally different.

Birmingham has excellent city services, because it's rich.

Ferndale has mediocre city services. Iffy schools, higher than average crime, a bit of physical deterioration. Still a good city [[one I would live in), but has some warts, and city services are somewhat below average.

Both have high tax rates, but they are really quite different. Bham has high tax rates because its residents demand lavish services, such as "free" personal snow removal and leaf removal from residential properties. Ferndale has high tax rates because it has a relatively poor commerical base, it has a liberal populace willing to tax themselves, and because they are at some risk of urban decline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3rdDegreeBurns

In fact, because these cities all have vibrant commercial districts, their residents are paying to provide police, fire, inspections, etc... for bars and restaurants that cater to a majority of non-residents.

---

Not true and basically irrelevent to this discussion. And Bham does not have many bars at all. Hardly a nightlife center.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3rdDegreeBurns

However, even though they provide a high level of services, all of these communities are suffering from population loss. Residents who grow up in these communities often can not afford to buy a home there when they reach adulthood.

---

The average price of a home in Ferndale is under $100,000. If residents "cannot afford to buy a home", then they must all work for minimum wage. Heck, even then, two adults working full time could afford a home in Ferndale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3rdDegreeBurns

The trend is still to "drive till you qualify" and move as far out as necessary to where you can find affordable housing. These new communities have lower levels of service, but even lower tax rates. They are relying on the revenue generated by growth.

---

I don't know. Bham residents would never consider sprawlburbs. Old-school Ferndale residents may, but not the newcomers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3rdDegreeBurns

Ferndale, Royal Oak and Birmingham are in many respects the exceptions to this rule. They underwent this kind of abandonment in the 70s and 80s.

---

LOL; yes I remember that "abandonment" of Bham back in the 70's and 80's...:confused:

All three communities had about 10-15% more residents back then, because of larger average family size. None of these communities have ever had anything remotely comparable to urban "abandonment."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3rdDegreeBurns

Places like Sterling Heights, Shelby Township, Bloomfield Hills, I think are going to have a tough time in the next 10-20 years.

---

What does Sterling Heights have to do with Bloomfield Hills? Completely different. Ethnic Macomb County compared to one of the richest communities on earth?

Bham and Bloomfield are basically the same place; culturally, economically and socially. If you do not understand that, you do not understand the essence of these communities.

Downtown Bham serves as the city center for Bham-Bloomfield, and there's no substantial difference in the type of person who lives in either community. There are very minor differences between Bloomfield Hills, Bloomfield Township, and Bham, but not what DYes posters are likely to think [[Bham is walkable and has a downtown, so residents must be progressive, etc. etc.)

The real distinctions have to do with minor differences in ethnic background and financial status [[Bham is a little WASPier, Bloomfield has more Catholics, Jews and Asians, and Bloomfield tends to have a bit more wealth).

Sorry, my post was a bit rambling. My point was that in the global competition for talent, jobs, etc... people from outside the area don't see/care about the differences between Detroit/Ferndale/Birmingham/Troy, etc... That being the case, we need to function more as a cohesive regional area, not 127 distinct municipalities that are all competing with each other. Having three independent transit authorities in the region is a good example of how we have failed to form cooperative structures and how we waste our resources as a result.

Crawford,

Thank you for the thought-out response to my post.

Your response seems very focused on pointing out that Birmingham is different from Royal Oak and Ferndale. I certainly didn't intend to imply that the communities I listed are all the same. They are similar in being older suburbs who provide much higher levels of service as compared to many of the surrounding suburbs. They all have high tax rates. I personally disagree that Ferndale provides below-average services but that may just be a difference of opinion that we have. Also, I think it is a big mistake to assume a cause and effect relationship between the wealth of residents in Birmingham and the tax rate in the city. There are many other rich suburbs in the area which have lower taxes.

As for young people being able to afford to live in the communities where they grew up, I admit, things have changed dramatically in the last 1-2 years. However, with the drop in housing prices has also come a tightening of credit standards. You are correct that it may not be as much of a barrier as it has been in the past. However, as my point was that these communities may very well be even more desirable in the next 10-20 years, this may not be the case for long.

I