"How Detroit Went Broke"

The Freep dives deep into Detroit's financial problems. Too bad that they once again decided to distort the depth of the debt problem by lumping together the water and sewer debt with the GO and pension certificates. The headline that screams "8 Billion in debt!" never makes clear to the reader that 70% of the debt is accountable to the water and sewer department. Those are debts owed by the users of the system, including suburbanites.

Instead of seizing the opportunity to show how suburban growth contributes to Detroit's overall debt number and how suburbanites are on the hook for a good percentage of that, the Freep leaves the impression that this is a Detroit-only problem. What a huge mistake. I don't know if this is on Stephen Henderson and the editorial side, the news side or both but in that regard, they once again perpetuated a myth about the nature of the debt and they can't use the excuse of not knowing the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novine

Instead of seizing the opportunity to show how suburban growth contributes to Detroit's overall debt number and how suburbanites are on the hook for a good percentage of that, the Freep leaves the impression that this is a Detroit-only problem.

---

Out of the roughly 4.3 million people who live in SE Michi...I mean the Detroit area, 83% of them live are considered suburbanites and live in the suburbs [[compared to only 40% of them living in the suburbs when Detroit had a population of 1.8 Million). Besides that, I'd bet that most of the folks who work for and run the Detroit Free Press are suburbanites themselves.

So did you expect anything different? Naturally they're going to affirm their own biased viewpoints as well as cater to their predominate audience.

EDIT: Otherwise, It's a decent report. Something I wouldn't have expected from either of the dailies.

Here's then entire report... there's plenty of blame to go around for the last 50 years...

http://www.freep.com/article/2013091...ension-revenue

What I especially like about this article is that it thoroughly diminishes the claims by suburbanites/whites in Detroit that it was Coleman Young who caused Detroit's downfall. While some of his actions may not have helped Detroit, the fact is the city was actually functional and financially sound under his administration.

The article itself aside, the quality of the replies in the comments section have improved dramatically since they started requiring that people have a facebook account to post.

Several people made interesting points about the Freep's analysis.

Quote:

---

William Goodwin · Top Commenter One historical factor in this multifaceted story called Detroit that I believe doesnt get enough credit regarding our raging "Divide" between Suburbanites and Detroiters [[ Code words for Black and White)... Are the hundreds of thousands of Southerners that came up from all over the South in the 20's and 30's to feed the Factories. They brought along with them their "Traditions", namely their animosity toward blacks... In my opinion, that was a major contributor to a lot of the negative DNA that has tainted our region..

---

Quote:

---

Keith Gerard · FollowFollowing · Top Commenter Here is a more practical example of how Coleman Young caused valuable institutions to leave the city. Apparently Coleman Young was rejected for enrollment to Catholic Detroit DeLaSalle High School. Later in life he repeatedly rejected DeLaSalles request to expand their campus across from city airport. In 1983 this nationally ranked HS with a waiting list every year packed up and moved to the burbs. Thus Coleman derived Detroiters of a quality place to send their children AND even forced God's hand on getting the hell out of Detroit.

---

Quote:

---

James Casha · Top Commenter · University of Detroit Phil's [[Cavanagh) dad, and the rest of them, missed the boat. He should have pushed for statewide and/or county ALCOHOL TAXES instead of, or in addition to, instituting an 'income tax'. I don't know if a city can levy an alcohol tax, but if they can, he should have done that as well. Will Phil miss the boat as well?

A recent report from the CDC shows the cost of excessive alcohol consumption in Michigan to be $8.2 BILLION. I would venture to say that a lot of that cost is in Detroit and the social implications contribute to making Detroit - not a very safe, or nice, place to live. http://content.govdelivery.com/accou...lletins/870186

A 20 cent/drink increase in alcohol taxes would generate $500 million in additional state revenue. This is still only 1/5 the 'governments' share of the $8.2 Billion [[$3.2 BILLION). If we raised the tax to $2.00/drink, the state could help all of Michigan's cities.

The 'State' has been listening to the 'alcohol lobby' [[for over 50 years) just like Kwame listened to 'Wall Street'.

---

Quote:

---

Keith Gerard · FollowFollowing · Top Commenter Detroit City Hall kept hiring felons to advise. Detroit Wiki"
Charlie Beckham is the chief administrative officer and a longtime friend of Mayor Dave Bing. He has been an aide to every Detroit mayor since Coleman Young, except for Dennis Archer, and some have called him the "power behind the throne".

A convicted felon, he spent two years in prison in the 1980s after a federal corruption probe.

---

Quite frankly [[also considering all of the other reasons for Detroit's downfall that have been thoroughly discussed), the city never had a realistic chance. I feel sorry for the folks who will be left behind to clean up the over 60 years of fuckery and wish them the best of luck.

Young was proud that he was able to keep the City books balanced. It was something he mentioned often in every speech. Yes he had to do it through lay offs and tax increases, but the City was much better off under him than it was on anyone who followed him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Young was proud that he was able to keep the City books balanced. It was something he mentioned often in every speech. Yes he had to do it through lay offs and tax increases, but the City was much better off under him than it was on anyone who followed him.

---

Could it be said that by raising taxes at the time provided short term gains but long term devastation?

Looking at you-tube videos the decline may have started 50 years ago but it seems to have been turbo charged in the last 20 or less.

I would agree that lumping DSWD into the bucket looks good but one still has to wonder if that and the pension aspect,which is being faced and dealt with in every city in the country,were removed from the formula,what shape was the city in?

I am more along the lines of it was bad management in the last ten years that sealed the fate,maybe not singular but a massive push.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Novine

The Freep dives deep into Detroit's financial problems. Too bad that they once again decided to distort the depth of the debt problem by lumping together the water and sewer debt with the GO and pension certificates. The headline that screams "8 Billion in debt!" never makes clear to the reader that 70% of the debt is accountable to the water and sewer department. Those are debts owed by the users of the system, including suburbanites.

Instead of seizing the opportunity to show how suburban growth contributes to Detroit's overall debt number and how suburbanites are on the hook for a good percentage of that, the Freep leaves the impression that this is a Detroit-only problem. What a huge mistake. I don't know if this is on Stephen Henderson and the editorial side, the news side or both but in that regard, they once again perpetuated a myth about the nature of the debt and they can't use the excuse of not knowing the difference.

---

The whole suburban growth vs. Detroit is such political correct BS. Why can't we just tell it like it is? The white people left and the city went to hell in a handbasket. Now tell me why a city of approx. 1,000,000 black people can't function? Personal accountability is obviously issue number one. In no particular order: Drugs, violent crime, corrupt race pimps controlling the government, illiteracy, and the complete disintegration of family structure in the black community.

Take off your race glasses so that you can see the point. Of the $8 billion amount splashed on the front of the Freep, around $6 billion of that is owed by Detroit Water and Sewer. Who's on the hook for that amount? Not city taxpayers alone. It's the people who use the water and sewer system, which includes most of the suburbs. The Free Press did a real disservice when they leave the impression with suburban readers that the debt is Detroit's alone or through Detroit's actions alone. Suburban growth fueled the demand for expansion of the water and sewer systems and as the bill comes due for replacing that infrastructure, its the suburbs that are going to pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Young was proud that he was able to keep the City books balanced. It was something he mentioned often in every speech. Yes he had to do it through lay offs and tax increases, but the City was much better off under him than it was on anyone who followed him.

---

Or before him for that matter. I'm glad that was pointed out also about Young. He takes such a beating and is constantly vilified and blamed for Detroit's current problems, especially on here. He wasn't perfect, but he wasn't the worst mayor either. At least it shows he was the most fiscally responsible of the mayors we've had from the 50's to present. He might have been racially divisive, but he tried to keep the books balanced. That was a good article by the freep. It showed all the obstacles and mistakes each mayor had to deal with.

The article was excellent although it did miss the issues with the water department. It showed me that I was wrong in regards to some of the fiscal mismanagement I accused Coleman Young of. It's been stated before but there is not one person to blame. Some of the comments on the article and Stephen Henderson's Op-ed are almost or are sociopathic. It's scary that people can read that article and all the facts and data within and comment "It all started with Coleman Young", "It's Young's fault", "Liberals", etc. What kind of reading comprehension is that from adults? The article in no way said that. It gave a thorough explanation of how the city government managed finances over the past 60 years yet some insist on a VERY over-simplistic answer. It has to be what they want to believe. I can't think of any other answer.

I'm almost proud of the Freep for finally printing something more thorough and balanced than anything the papers have printed in a long time. They didn't just speak to a wide variety of people; they looked at documents and analyzed data.

I do wish they would have acknowledged [[perhaps they do not know) that the General Retirement System used a very conservative 3 year "smoothing" formula until 2009, when they changed it to 5 years. They didn't change it to 7 years until 2011. Both changes were at the request of the administration. These changes reduced the amount of the City's annual contribution. They did this to help the City out, not just to help the funds look better. But it was a move that now makes the trustees look bad. This same change helped justify the 13th check in years that the fund really didn't do well. The administrations of those years share the blame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke09

I'm almost proud of the Freep for finally printing something more thorough and balanced than anything the papers have printed in a long time. They didn't just speak to a wide variety of people; they looked at documents and analyzed data.

I do wish they would have acknowledged [[perhaps they do not know) that the General Retirement System used a very conservative 3 year "smoothing" formula until 2009, when they changed it to 5 years. They didn't change it to 7 years until 2011. Both changes were at the request of the administration. These changes reduced the amount of the City's annual contribution. They did this to help the City out, not just to help the funds look better. But it was a move that now makes the trustees look bad. This same change helped justify the 13th check in years that the fund really didn't do well. The administrations of those years share the blame.

---

Its not OK to help out the city if it harms those your are entrusted [[trustee) to protect.

Nice to see cooperation -- but less nice when it hides the underlying problems.

They made this 'loan' so they could continue to increase the city's pension liability without addressing any structural reforms.

Not so nice to see gaming of the system. I suppose if the economy had recovered more quickly and Obama were more generous it might have all worked out fine.

Instead, the pension board gambled on the city's future ability to pay and lost.

All that remains to be seen is whether the loss is paid for by pensioners or taxpayers. There are no other options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maverick1

The article was excellent although it did miss the issues with the water department. It showed me that I was wrong in regards to some of the fiscal mismanagement I accused Coleman Young of. It's been stated before but there is not one person to blame. Some of the comments on the article and Stephen Henderson's Op-ed are almost or are sociopathic. It's scary that people can read that article and all the facts and data within and comment "It all started with Coleman Young", "It's Young's fault", "Liberals", etc. What kind of reading comprehension is that from adults? The article in no way said that. It gave a thorough explanation of how the city government managed finances over the past 60 years yet some insist on a VERY over-simplistic answer. It has to be what they want to believe. I can't think of any other answer.

---

I liked CAY in many ways, and am glad to dispel the idea that he 'caused' the crisis. It was indeed far more complex than that.

Though I'll defend CAY in many ways, I do think that his leadership was divisive in many ways. More than anyone else, he created the atmosphere of mistrust between the city and suburbs. I know he was the product of his environment -- and the victim of racism of the worst kind by people like the church who should have done us better -- but nonetheless he didn't provide the leadership that might have healed the city. Instead he divided us.

Further, he was instrumental in the binding arbitration rules in Michigan from his time in the state legislature. That more than anything else helped kill Detroit by taking money from the city when it needed it the most to keep services at a higher level. The severe cuts in DPD under his reign hurt the city badly. His hate for the old DPD may have been justified by his life experiences -- but they weren't wise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid

Or before him for that matter. I'm glad that was pointed out also about Young. He takes such a beating and is constantly vilified and blamed for Detroit's current problems, especially on here. He wasn't perfect, but he wasn't the worst mayor either. At least it shows he was the most fiscally responsible of the mayors we've had from the 50's to present. He might have been racially divisive, but he tried to keep the books balanced. That was a good article by the freep. It showed all the obstacles and mistakes each mayor had to deal with.

---

Yeah, kinda ironic that he was apparently more fiscally responsible than Detroit's last elected Republican mayor...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

I liked CAY in many ways, and am glad to dispel the idea that he 'caused' the crisis. It was indeed far more complex than that.

Though I'll defend CAY in many ways, I do think that his leadership was divisive in many ways. More than anyone else, he created the atmosphere of mistrust between the city and suburbs. I know he was the product of his environment -- and the victim of racism of the worst kind by people like the church who should have done us better -- but nonetheless he didn't provide the leadership that might have healed the city. Instead he divided us.

---

Any more than say, Orville Hubbard? I'd say that Young was a black reflection of Hubbard, but that would not be true. Hubbard was MUCH MORE openly, outwardly and publically racist in his rhetoric yet I've never heard anyone either say or imply that he was responsible for the divide between the cities and suburbs.

I think that was just a reflection of the times, as well as the population. Remember the region was full of migrants, many from South, who were raised in the Jim Crow era. Most of which were not highly educated. For many of them Coleman Young was a convenient scapegoat to justify existing opinions. Granted he did little to try to mend any fences or extend any olive branches but I have a hard time blaming him for the animosity that existed between the races.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, kinda ironic that he was apparently more fiscally responsible than Detroit's last elected Republican mayor...

---

...and also proved that an austerity regime is not a magic bullet. I mean, glowing praise from Bob Berg aside [[isnt that a little like asking Ari Fleischer his opinions of the Bush administration?) that "fiscal responsibility" came with a giant tax increase and a slashing of services. Which just lead to further exodus and further decline in property values, and further decline in services. It also gave us Poletown type corporate giveaways. THEN when none of that worked, the beginning of massive borrowing.

Does CAY deserve ALL the blame? no. However, he was mayor FOR TWENTY FUCKING YEARS. I don't think it's in anyway unfair to lay quite a bit of it at his feet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

...and also proved that an austerity regime is not a magic bullet. I mean, glowing praise from Bob Berg aside [[isnt that a little like asking Ari Fleischer his opinions of the Bush administration?) that "fiscal responsibility" came with a giant tax increase and a slashing of services. Which just lead to further exodus and further decline in property values, and further decline in services. It also gave us Poletown type corporate giveaways. THEN when none of that worked, the beginning of massive borrowing.

Does CAY deserve ALL the blame? no. However, he was mayor FOR TWENTY FUCKING YEARS. I don't think it's in anyway unfair to lay quite a bit of it at his feet.

---

It's unfair to lay it at his feet because he did all the things you are supposed to do when your expenditures exceed your revenue: cut costs [[including services if necessary), increased revenue [[one percent hike in taxes that the voters approved), created a rainy day fund [[which still contained millions when he left office) instead of spending every penny he took in. He left the City with a surplus during a bad economy.

He didn't "slash" needed services. For instance, he cut garbage collection costs and improved those services by implementing the Courville containers. He improved DPD and DFD response times with new technology - leading edge at the time. Under CAY, if response time was more than a certain number of minutes, knees were shaking. He got regular reports.

Many don't know that the CAY administration was the first to suggest decreasing Detroit's footprint. People thought he was crazy. He also wanted to increase revenue by expanding the airport, but folks didn't want their buried relatives moved.

Did I mention he left the City with a surplus? So yes, unfair to lay this at his feet.

And speaking of corporate give-aways, how many people are opposing the give-away to Illitch for his new arena?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

...and also proved that an austerity regime is not a magic bullet. I mean, glowing praise from Bob Berg aside [[isnt that a little like asking Ari Fleischer his opinions of the Bush administration?) that "fiscal responsibility" came with a giant tax increase and a slashing of services. Which just lead to further exodus and further decline in property values, and further decline in services. It also gave us Poletown type corporate giveaways. THEN when none of that worked, the beginning of massive borrowing.

Does CAY deserve ALL the blame? no. However, he was mayor FOR TWENTY FUCKING YEARS. I don't think it's in anyway unfair to lay quite a bit of it at his feet.

---

Eh, he balanced the books. That was his job. Did he fail at some other things [[like public safety)? Sure. But lack of fiscal discipline seems to be a misplaced criticism. It's like criticizing Bush for having no minority cabinet appointees...

What struck me last night while I was reading this is that Detroit's revenues have been relatively stable, inflation adjusted, since the city was at peak population. That is something I certainly did not expect to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, kinda ironic that he was apparently more fiscally responsible than Detroit's last elected Republican mayor...

---

Miriani went to jail for tax evasion, not for gummint corruption. Cobo was the one who saved the city during the depression then brought it up to the fifties on a sound financial basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

What struck me last night while I was reading this is that Detroit's revenues have been relatively stable, inflation adjusted, since the city was at peak population. That is something I certainly did not expect to see.

---

Yes, but if you spend the city money on friends and family instead of workers and doers, you get the current non-functional gummint.

In 1950s Novi, mobs chased a black family out of town after they bought a house but it's all CAY's fault that there was a black/white divide between the city and the suburbs. Is that what we're supposed to believe?

I don't understand why they were showing the cities debt with inflation back in the 50's. they adjusted the debt in today's dollar, making it look larger than what it was back then. It was like they were trying to do it to make Coleman Young look better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerrytimes

I don't understand why they were showing the cities debt with inflation back in the 50's. they adjusted the debt in today's dollar, making it look larger than what it was back then. It was like they were trying to do it to make Coleman Young look better.

---

That's bogus. Just accept the fact that Young did far more than he was ever given credit for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerrytimes

I don't understand why they were showing the cities debt with inflation back in the 50's. they adjusted the debt in today's dollar, making it look larger than what it was back then. It was like they were trying to do it to make Coleman Young look better.

---

Your conspiracy theory falls flat on its face if they also adjusted Young's debt numbers for inflation [[which I don't see why they wouldn't).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

...and also proved that an austerity regime is not a magic bullet. I mean, glowing praise from Bob Berg aside [[isnt that a little like asking Ari Fleischer his opinions of the Bush administration?) that "fiscal responsibility" came with a giant tax increase and a slashing of services. Which just lead to further exodus and further decline in property values, and further decline in services. It also gave us Poletown type corporate giveaways. THEN when none of that worked, the beginning of massive borrowing.

Does CAY deserve ALL the blame? no. However, he was mayor FOR TWENTY FUCKING YEARS. I don't think it's in anyway unfair to lay quite a bit of it at his feet.

---

Exactly.

But don't forget that a lot of those tax increases were driven by the policies such a binding arbitration that he help put into place. In the end, he was killed by his own gun -- pardon bad metaphor.

I was surprised by the facts when I read the article and saw that he had the most balanced budget. But, the whole time I was reading about him and how he wasn't to blame, I couldn't help but think "Imagine if he had kept the books balanced, but worked a little harder at keeping people and businesses in the city."

CAY succeeded in that he was able to keep the books balanced during a time when people and businesses were marching out of the city at a rapid rate.

Where he failed is that he was the one holding open the door, so to speak.

His attitude was "Go ahead and leave. We'll make it without you." And under his regime, that held true. But, that wasn't sustainable. You can only go to the 'raise taxes' well and the 'cut services' well so many times. That the well didn't run dry 'under his watch' doesn't make it any less real that most of the water was drained from the well under his watch.

He kicked the can. He did a very good job at it. But, when it's all said and done, he did not leave the city with a foundation of success. So, there's blame there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Locke09

...snip...
And speaking of corporate give-aways, how many people are opposing the give-away to Illitch for his new arena?

---

I'm opposed to corporate give-aways like this overall. I'm in favor of this give-away since I think the sports teams playing downtown is very valuable and these give-aways are universal. Its necessary bad public policy.

btw, I'm no expert, but I believe the monies are all loans, not gifts. Is this not essentially the case w/ our hockey arena and ballpark?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerrytimes

I don't understand why they were showing the cities debt with inflation back in the 50's. they adjusted the debt in today's dollar, making it look larger than what it was back then. It was like they were trying to do it to make Coleman Young look better.

---

What were they supposed to do? $1.00 in the 1950s does not hold the same value as $1.00 in 2013. It has nothing to do with making Coleman Young look better. It was done to make an apples to apples comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirrealone

I was surprised by the facts when I read the article and saw that he had the most balanced budget. But, the whole time I was reading about him and how he wasn't to blame, I couldn't help but think "Imagine if he had kept the books balanced, but worked a little harder at keeping people and businesses in the city."

CAY succeeded in that he was able to keep the books balanced during a time when people and businesses were marching out of the city at a rapid rate.

Where he failed is that he was the one holding open the door, so to speak.

His attitude was "Go ahead and leave. We'll make it without you." And under his regime, that held true. But, that wasn't sustainable. You can only go to the 'raise taxes' well and the 'cut services' well so many times. That the well didn't run dry 'under his watch' doesn't make it any less real that most of the water was drained from the well under his watch.

He kicked the can. He did a very good job at it. But, when it's all said and done, he did not leave the city with a foundation of success. So, there's blame there.

---

Bingo!!!! That's the way I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirrealone

His attitude was "Go ahead and leave. We'll make it without you." And under his regime, that held true. But, that wasn't sustainable.

---

Why wasn't it sustainable? Why exactly couldn't a city of 1.5 million people "make do"? DC is a city of town similar in size [[600k), with a black majority. You know what's been happening lately? Crime is dropping, property values increasing, the most educated workforce in the nation.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...-and-education

There's your template Detroit: displace the culture problem and the city immediately improves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48009

Why wasn't it sustainable? Why exactly couldn't a city of 1.5 million people "make do"?

---

If the population showed signs of leveling off at 1.5 million, then it would have been sustainable. But, the population was on a steady decline, which leads back to my point that he should have put more effort into trying to level that off rather than hold the door open and essentially say 'Good riddance'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maverick1

What were they supposed to do? $1.00 in the 1950s does not hold the same value as $1.00 in 2013. It has nothing to do with making Coleman Young look better. It was done to make an apples to apples comparison.

---

I know, it just makes it appear that the deficit was 3B in the 50's and it wasn't. I've just never seen an article before that adjusted the debt for inflation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerrytimes

I've just never seen an article before that adjusted the debt for inflation.

---

You haven't been reading the right publications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirrealone

I was surprised by the facts when I read the article and saw that he had the most balanced budget. But, the whole time I was reading about him and how he wasn't to blame, I couldn't help but think "Imagine if he had kept the books balanced, but worked a little harder at keeping people and businesses in the city."

CAY succeeded in that he was able to keep the books balanced during a time when people and businesses were marching out of the city at a rapid rate.

Where he failed is that he was the one holding open the door, so to speak.

His attitude was "Go ahead and leave. We'll make it without you." And under his regime, that held true. But, that wasn't sustainable. You can only go to the 'raise taxes' well and the 'cut services' well so many times. That the well didn't run dry 'under his watch' doesn't make it any less real that most of the water was drained from the well under his watch.

He kicked the can. He did a very good job at it. But, when it's all said and done, he did not leave the city with a foundation of success. So, there's blame there.

---

When you realize the turbulent times Young grew up in, I understand why he was on the defensive and did and said certain things. Being black in the 40's and 50's, and 60's and dealing with constant racism was no picnic, and especially so for a young black man vying for a career in politics. He was divisive, but no more than other politicians ex.. L Brooks Patterson who always maintained a arms length relationship with Detroit and throws it under the bus, every chance he gets..

I don't understand blaming the late Mayor Young, who was a great man, for the population exodus which began 20 years before his first term and continues, unabated and accelerated, 20 years after his last. The biggest percentage decline in Detroit's population was in the 2000s, when the City lost 25% of its population in a single decade; and if I recall correctly, Mayor Young was dead the entire time and therefore can't be blamed for that.

It is also incorrect that he "held the door open" so people could leave. In fact he had excellent relationships with most of the region's important businesspeople. The only people he specifically told to leave the City were "thugs", famously telling them to "hit Eight Mile Road".

In the 1970s there was a combination of things that led to the loss of population in Detroit. Forced busing gave many white Detroiters a reason to leave. [[It might do to point out here that the Professor, so far as he knows, is entirely European American except for a little bit of Native Canadian.) The insidious real estate practice of blockbusting, coupled with the well known insurance practice of redlining, did much harm. The expressways, recently completed then, made it easy to live outside Detroit and work in the City, and the lack of really great urban transit took away the reason many people in other cities chose not to leave.

Taxes were higher in the City than in the surrounding communities, so many people chose to live outside Detroit simply to save money or to be able to afford a nicer house.

Coleman A. Young was not a saint, but he was an effective Mayor of Detroit. You might be able to give him a tiny part of the blame but in all my years in Detroit, of all the hundreds of people I met and personally spoke with who had once lived in Detroit but had left for the suburbs, not a single one ever indicated the reason they left was, or had anything to do with, Mayor Young. [[And as you know, people who left were usually pretty candid about why.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by professorscott

...It is also incorrect that he "held the door open" so people could leave. In fact he had excellent relationships with most of the region's important businesspeople. The only people he specifically told to leave the City were "thugs", famously telling them to "hit Eight Mile Road"....

---

Professor, it isn't correct. It isn't incorrect. Its not a matter of fact. Its a matter of opinion.

I liked CAY. I also think he did 'hold the door open'.

You're right that he had great relationships with many important businesspeople. He wouldn't give the time of day to others. Like Lyndon Johnson he was a great politician. And also a great son of a bitch. He knew who to keep happy. He spent less time taking care of small businesspeople. Especially those of the wrong color. He set the tone for much of what we've lived with in our city council.

I believe that if he'd healed Detroit's racial wounds instead of inflamed them, we'd be living in a different place.

May the great man rest in peace.

I agree CAY was an impressive person. The first time I could vote I voted for him. However he did seriously open the door for white flight. I honestly believe he was trying to equalize the playing field but???

A few examples, the Jefferson branch library, in a mostly white neighborhood got pretty much closed down. A study was done and paid for regarding library usage, Jefferson came out on the top and CAY said FY whities I'll close it to next to nothing in hours and services. Shut down pretty much all our rec services, Heilman and Balduck would be good examples in white neighborhoods etc. I can appreciate that he was trying to balance inequitable services between black and white community services but oh yeah he did contribute to white flight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 48009

Why wasn't it sustainable? Why exactly couldn't a city of 1.5 million people "make do"? DC is a city of town similar in size [[600k), with a black majority. You know what's been happening lately? Crime is dropping, property values increasing, the most educated workforce in the nation.

---

Every time DC gets in a whole, Uncle Sugar bails them out. I am not sure they could do it today because of charges of racism, but in the past when DC corruption got out of hand, Congress just eliminated home rule and put an appointed US gummint official in charge. After a couple of decades, they would get pushed to restore home rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

I believe that if he'd healed Detroit's racial wounds instead of inflamed them, we'd be living in a different place.

---

How could he alone have healed Detroit's racial wounds? And how did he alone inflame them? You could argue that his words were constantly, and intentionally, misinterpreted in order to undermine him and to attract city dwelling white families out of the city. His "hit 8 Mile Road" comments was a blatant example. It was selectively parsed and constantly referenced in the local media without clarification until very recently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sumas

I agree CAY was an impressive person. The first time I could vote I voted for him. However he did seriously open the door for white flight. I honestly believe he was trying to equalize the playing field but???

A few examples, the Jefferson branch library, in a mostly white neighborhood got pretty much closed down. A study was done and paid for regarding library usage, Jefferson came out on the top and CAY said FY whities I'll close it to next to nothing in hours and services. Shut down pretty much all our rec services, Heilman and Balduck would be good examples in white neighborhoods etc. I can appreciate that he was trying to balance inequitable services between black and white community services but oh yeah he did contribute to white flight.

---

They were going to leave anyway. Detroit was getting "too black". And his reference for criminals to "Hit the Eight Mile Road" was for all criminals, black or white. As usual, the media had helped perpetuate that as him telling whites to leave the city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

How could he alone have healed Detroit's racial wounds? And how did he alone inflame them? You could argue that his words were constantly, and intentionally, misinterpreted in order to undermine him and to attract city dwelling white families out of the city. His "hit 8 Mile Road" comments was a blatant example. It was selectively parsed and constantly referenced in the local media without clarification until very recently.

---

ihtd... I did not say that he alone could have healed Detroit's racial wounds. But he could have used his formidable influence better, IMO.

His goal was to help blacks in Detroit. I respect his motives. Yet I feel that his actions ultimately caused more harm than good.

A Coleman who truly changed the dialog between blacks and whites was possible. Instead he inflamed tensions.

His attitude and actions were understandable. He was a victim of racism. He saw racism everywhere. And he acted to correct the injustice. Combined with the new city charter that granted him great power, he turned a bureaucracy into a kingdom intent on racial justice. I believe his mistake was changing the focus of city hall from administration to social justice. SJ surely was needed. Letting the administration become his court where loyalty and race were more valuable than competence caused us much long-term harm. He killed the white political machine and replaced it with his own. And he killed city hall's competence in the process.

Many of our problems stem from this mistake.

The media surely has distorted him relentlessly. But I don't accept that he was friendly to whites but just misinterpreted. That's not what I experienced.

Interesting commentary.