why metro detroit will never achieve regional cooperation

clearly this isn't news, but how can he continue to run the show up there?

http://www.oakgov.com/exec/brooks/sprawl.html - scary

what lbc doesn't recognize is that detroit is very suburban in nature...always has been. someone should let him in on a little secret.


sprawl doesn't work...

• High car dependence.
• Inadequate facilities e.g.: cultural, emergency, health, etc.
• Higher per-person infrastructure costs.
• Inefficient street layouts.
• Low diversity of housing and business types.
• Higher per-capita use of energy, land, and water.
• Perceived low aesthetic value.

Absolutely love everything about that essay/post every time I read it.

I think this part describes a majority of posters on detroityes perfectly:

"Today, if a company pulls up stakes, abandons a suburban location and moves into the central city [[often doubling or tripling the commute time for its employees), the anti-American Dream doom-and- gloomers call it "economic revitalization," and they praise it.
But if a company, a residential builder, or a family moves out into the suburbs, it's condemned by the anti-American Dreamers. "It's sprawl," they hiss, "it's bad." They demand new laws be imposed turning local control over to state government planners charged with discouraging, containing, shutting down, stopping and reversing growth outside central cities."


oh and brooksie is still in charge there because the population that he represents elects him to keep on doing on what he has done---AAA bond rating, budgeting several years out etc

HOLY S**T!!!!! When in the hell did that NUT CASE publish this?!!! I live in the city, am I ANTI-AMERICAN?!!!! Am I not chasing the American Dream?!!! Is the only acceptable American Dream living in Oakland County's SPRAWL? Tell that to 8 million New Yorkers and 3 million Chicagoans!!! Am I trying to "purge myself of the perceived sin of abandonment"???!!!!! WTF!!!! This guy is seriously a psychopath!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrushStart

HOLY S**T!!!!! When in the hell did that NUT CASE publish this?!!! I live in the city, am I ANTI-AMERICAN?!!!! Am I not chasing the American Dream?!!! Is the only acceptable American Dream living in Oakland County's SPRAWL? Tell that to 8 million New Yorkers and 3 million Chicagoans!!! Am I trying to "purge myself of the perceived sin of abandonment"???!!!!! WTF!!!! This guy is seriously a psychopath!

---

I will grant you that--especially if your version of the American Dream is to live in a two bedroom apartment and drive a small car--then yes a yard, four bedrooms and a car that can drive in snow is pretty stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lincoln8740

I will grant you that--especially if your version of the American Dream is to live in a two bedroom apartment and drive a small car--then yes a yard, four bedrooms and a car that can drive in snow is pretty stupid.

---

I take it that you're being sarcastic or that you volunteered your post to be fodder. I don't need a 4-bedroom house nor do I want a 4-bedroom house. I live with my girlfriend in a beautiful apartment overlooking the Detroit River. I have a full gym and swimming pool at my immediate disposal. My commute to work is 5 minutes by foot. I never sit in traffic nor do I put much gas in my Ford SUV. I have 3 pro sports teams that play in my backyard [[if you include the Lions). I walk to bars, restaurants, music venues, and the best performances in the state. Did I say I have an amazing view? And when I get tired of that, I jump in my car and drive up to my family's lakehouse as a weekend getaway to truly be in nature, not some wannabe rural location that has all of the problems of the city with none of the true benefits of the country aka suburbia. HTH.

sprawl doesn't work...

High car dependence--I will grant you that though up till now it hasn't bothered most people.

Inadequate facilities e.g.: cultural, emergency, health, etc.--Gosh, Oakland County has numerous institutions of higher learning, Rochester and Birmingham have concert venues, there are plenty of hospitals and the average OC resident is healthier than the average Detroiter [[a lot less lead poisoning as well), and fire, EMS, and police response times are better in the sprawl than in the D.

Higher per-person infrastructure costs.--OC seems to have been able to afford these higher costs [[maybe they save some money by being more efficient and having less loss through theft and graft).

Inefficient street layouts.--The traffic there seems to keep moving.

Low diversity of housing and business types--I sure saw plenty of diversity of housing types when I lived in Rochester, though granted there are quite a few cookie cutter development in OC. Quite a diversity of business types. I even saw some supermarkets in OC. How many in the D?

Higher per-capita use of energy, land, and water--Granted, though not so out of scale with Detroit.

Perceived low aesthetic value. Only by those who don't live there.

http://detroityes.com/mb/images/buttons/quote.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrushStart

And when I get tired of that, I jump in my car and drive up to my family's lakehouse as a weekend getaway to truly be in nature, not some wannabe rural location that has all of the problems of the city with none of the true benefits of the country aka suburbia. HTH.

---

One of those "trust fund babies" Lincoln

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

One of those "trust fund babies" Lincoln

---

Not quite, my friend. In fact, I'm quite far from it. My dad worked hard his whole life to afford a place waaay up north and bought in before it got too expensive. The place is probably worth a lot now, but wasn't worth squat when they bought it. I work hard to pay for my place downtown. No silver spoon here, so you should watch what you say.

L. Brooks Patterson can love sprawl all he wants and if Oakland County has the money to generate sprawl then let them. I do believe that for sprawl to be a success you need residents to move into your county and that ain't happening in Metro Detroit. Oakland County like the other counties are losing residents not gaining them. Well, let me correct myself. OC is gaining residents formerly of Detroit but not enough to return OC to the good old days. Sprawl is now just a pipe dream and Brooks just wanted something to post about.

No matter how one feels about his message, Brooks is simply saying, "Let's keep doing what we've been doing."

Well, we've seen where that has gotten us. Michigan, including glorious Oakland County, is in the fucking toilet. Oakland County has been losing money and population as well. People are not flocking to his paradise.

So the question then remains, should we jump on with Brooks and keep doing what we've been doing and getting the same results, or focus on something like making sure we have intelligent, planned growth and vibrant major urban areas in Michigan?

His paranoia is possibly most disturbing. What is all this about anti-American Dream boogey men? Who are these fabricated enemies?? It becomes clear they are those who do not fit in his narrow view of what an American [[implicitly you are anti-American if you are against the American Dream) is and what the American Dream constitutes. His strange post-war fabrication of what EXACTLY that is [[which was denied to many, mostly based on race) flies in the face of the freedom we enjoy to pursue our happiness and "dreams" individually.

For those like Brooks and lincoln who for some reason think all city living is some kind of black ghetto or 19th century tenement slum, I invite them to look at real estate prices in New York, Chicago, London, Paris, or Washington DC. Then look at Oakland County and try not to laugh. This is a good capitalist illustration of supply and demand. Obviously tens of millions of people can do without a McMansion on a cul-de-sac. I would be interested in seeing some figures that "green grass on a safe, well maintained street, a quality neighborhood school that actually educated their children, a good job, nearby parks and recreational spaces, and a local government that actually delivers the services their taxes paid for" and urban environments are mutually exclusive.

I would also like a citation for: "Cities declined because they squandered their assets." What does that even mean?

I would like to see him make that pathetic argument to the mayor of any global alpha city. They would laugh his stupid, fat, drunk podunk ass out of the room. Only in SE Michigan does this kind of archaic bullshit still fly- but it is rapidly becoming extinct, and he's on the defensive. Keep the bottle and the car keys away from him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lincoln8740

Absolutely love everything about that essay/post every time I read it.

I think this part describes a majority of posters on detroityes perfectly:

"Today, if a company pulls up stakes, abandons a suburban location and moves into the central city [[often doubling or tripling the commute time for its employees), the anti-American Dream doom-and- gloomers call it "economic revitalization," and they praise it.
But if a company, a residential builder, or a family moves out into the suburbs, it's condemned by the anti-American Dreamers. "It's sprawl," they hiss, "it's bad." They demand new laws be imposed turning local control over to state government planners charged with discouraging, containing, shutting down, stopping and reversing growth outside central cities."


oh and brooksie is still in charge there because the population that he represents elects him to keep on doing on what he has done---AAA bond rating, budgeting several years out etc

---

You really believe this hogwash? Of course you do, that's why you copy and pasted it. I lived in the Bay Area for four years. I lived in the suburban cites for the four years I was there because I couldn't afford to live in the Big Three. [[San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose) It was cheaper to live in the suburbs. You have people born in SF and can't live there because the cost is too great. No one condemns living in the suburbs except here because in Metro Detroit it was sold that the suburbs were so great and Detroit was so bad. Sorry, but Brooks is doing a selling job here for his base. Not buying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

sprawl doesn't work...

High car dependence--I will grant you that though up till now it hasn't bothered most people.

Inadequate facilities e.g.: cultural, emergency, health, etc.--Gosh, Oakland County has numerous institutions of higher learning, Rochester and Birmingham have concert venues, there are plenty of hospitals and the average OC resident is healthier than the average Detroiter [[a lot less lead poisoning as well), and fire, EMS, and police response times are better in the sprawl than in the D.

Higher per-person infrastructure costs.--OC seems to have been able to afford these higher costs [[maybe they save some money by being more efficient and having less loss through theft and graft).

Inefficient street layouts.--The traffic there seems to keep moving.

Low diversity of housing and business types--I sure saw plenty of diversity of housing types when I lived in Rochester, though granted there are quite a few cookie cutter development in OC. Quite a diversity of business types. I even saw some supermarkets in OC. How many in the D?

Higher per-capita use of energy, land, and water--Granted, though not so out of scale with Detroit.

Perceived low aesthetic value. Only by those who don't live there.

http://detroityes.com/mb/images/buttons/quote.gif

---

Funny how you compare a county with many municipalities with a city that has only...one municipality. I know it's Detroit but it is an unfair advantage when you list a couple of the wealthier cities [[Rochester and Birmingham) as proof that Oakland County is a great place to live. Why not list Royal Oak Township and Wixom? Do residents of Pontiac get those benefits you posted on? It is the seat of Oakland Co. Do they get that love? One has to ask.

LBP isn't an idiot. His thinking simply reflects what worked [[or was thought to work) for his constituents in the past. I don't believe it is working so well now, and I don't believe it is going to work well going forward, but neither he nor a large number of his constituents recognize that yet, largely because to the vast bulk of them, not being in Detroit is one of the best things about wherever they are, and not being in Detroit mostly means being in suburbia, and mostly in sprawl. And of course things in most of Oakland County aren't so bad. Yet.

A key thing to understand is that the dysfunctionality of Detroit is vital the the maintenance of this narrow viewpoint. If Oakland County were outside a normal city, there would be a lot of people [[not all, probably not most, but many) who would be living in Oakland County because they couldn't afford to live in the city, and even people who liked the suburbs they would be in regular contact with people who prefer urban living. They would see the increasing number of people who prefer a more urban lifestyle, more entertainment options, less driving, less house maintenance, etc. But because the central city is Detroit, there is basically no one living in Oakland County because they can't afford to live in the city, and the specific issues involved with Detroit life allow them to dismiss anyone who actually lives in Detroit by choice as an eccentric.

Eventually population loss, the aging-out of the people who actually fled the city originally, and the bad long-term economics of Oakland County style development will cause a change in attitude, and probably more cooperation with the City of Detroit, but I doubt it will change while LBP is still around. Also, I wouldn't want to blame all uncooperativeness on LBP and Oakland County--it isn't as if Detroit and its representatives had a really positive outlook toward the suburbs either. Elected officials who were looking at something other than appealing to their constituents' prejudices would be a refreshing change.

OK, reading that screed made me hate the old racist school-door-blocking bastard even more. What a bunch of backwards-looking BS. Suburban sprawl may have been the "American dream" of some folks in the '50s, '60s, and '70s [[although it was definitely never mine, or that of my family, and we're sure as hell every bit as American as that old doddering fool), but it is quickly becoming the American nightmare - chewing up arable land, wasting tons of resources, reinforcing income, class, and race disparities, choking off central cities, creating large populated areas that are wholly car-centric, lengthening commute times, and wasting tons of resources.

However, what mwilbert said is actually perceptive [[unlike LBP's crap), and I certainly agree with much of it.

Yeah, Brooks is an a**hole, but to a majority of Oaklandites [[not me - I never voted for the guy) he's our a**hole so he's okay. He's made a career out of city bashing since he first came to prominence during the '72 busing controversy, and he's not about to stop now. I don't know what it would take to arrange a ceasefire across the 8 Mile and Telegraph lines [[and there's plenty of blame to be spread among Detroit politicians as well as suburban politicians), but I wish it would happen. I had hopes during the Archer years, but that was too short.

I'm a suburbanite born and raised [[South Jersey originally, SE MI for 32 years now), and unless the city can offer me something I want that I can't find here, I'm not gonna move there. My partner is in a wheelchair, so high-rise living or even 2-story living is out of the question, unless the high-rise has enough of a generator to keep the elevators running in the event of a power outage. He has numerous doctor's appointments because of his conditions, and public transport [[such as it is here) ain't gonna do it for that. There's the paratransit that's available door-to-door, but for that you have to guess how long the appointment is going to take. When you make the reservation for the service, you have to specify a pick-up time at your destination, and if you're not there waiting, they leave without you. Then good luck getting a second pickup that day. Just yesterday a visit to the ophthamologist that I would have guessed would take an hour lasted 3 1/2 hours [[and no, that wasn't waiting for the doctor, that was actual exam time).

Let's see, what's in the city? Eating out? Got that out here. Movies? Got that too. Sports? Can't afford the tickets [[well, could afford a couple of times a year, but it's not that important for me). Theater? Nothing but the same Broadway retreads year after year. I can get better for less a few miles down Lone Pine Road at St Dunstan's. Symphony? You got me there.

A friend I've known since elementary school lives in a West Philly rowhouse now, and under different circumstances that would be an okay option for me. He and his wife are a short subway ride from Center City and a reasonable walk to the Penn/Drexel University District, and that would be pretty cool. For someone in a wheelchair, though, it just wouldn't work. The house has four steps up directly from the sidewalk to the porch, with not enough room for a ramp [[not enough width to the lot unless you arrange an easement with your neighbors). One bathroom, upstairs, accessed by stairs that turn a corner [[talking expensive lift here).

One aspect of the Detroit area that is in some respects an advantage, but works against the city now, is the international border. For better or worse, downtown Detroit is at the edge of the Metro area rather than the center, and geography [[hills and lakes) has tugged people towards the north and west, rather than concentrically around downtown [[see http://www.flickr.com/photos/walking...n/photostream/ and note how quickly the population thins out to the south and west). Like it or not, Detroit is just one of many centers in the area, and the center of population probably is somewhere in Southfield by now.

If you want people to care about the city, they have to know people who live there. And for that, first, the schools have to improve. In the 2008-2009 school year, DPS had over $7,200 to spend on instructional programs [[http://www.michigan.gov/documents/md...9_319752_7.pdf), which ranks 42nd in the state, and better than any district in Wayne County other than Grosse Pointe [[including Northville, Livonia, and Plymouth-Canton). Second, make some progress at fixing the crime problem. So long as people have the feeling that if they live in the neighborhoods they're putting themselves and their families at risk they won't live there voluntarily.

Lady doth protest too much.

For years, suburban leaders sold the population on the idea that living in the suburbs, doing business in the suburbs was great. Why go to the bad, dirty city when you can have it great here in the land of sprawl? L. Brooks Patterson is fighting the life of his county so yes I understand his rant about suburban living. For years, Brooks sold everyone on Oakland County as being this oasis where taxes were cheap, jobs were plentiful and life was good. Well, that life cost and guess what? Brooks put that way of life on the credit card and the card is maxed out. He and his supporters can blow the horns on triple A credit all they want but it won't be enough to bring businesses and residents to this county

if detroit were a functional city that attracted people to it, would we notice the sprawl? Is there any city in the U.S. that ISN'T surrounded by sprawl?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lincoln8740

I think this part describes a majority of posters on detroityes perfectly:

But if a company, a residential builder, or a family moves out into the suburbs, it's condemned by the anti-American Dreamers. "It's sprawl," they hiss, "it's bad." They demand new laws be imposed turning local control over to state government planners charged with discouraging, containing, shutting down, stopping and reversing growth outside central cities."

---

I think that you misunderstand many people here. Myself [[and likely most) do not think suburbs are bad. Suburbs offer a lifestyle that many people seek and enjoy.

The issue is building more and more subdivisions, more suburbs, more schools districts, more libraries, more PDs, more FDs when the population of the region has been flat for 20-30 years.

There is a difference between suburbs and unsustainable growth. LBP [[and apparently you) support growing the region to an unsustainable land mass.

OC and LBP have been succesful simply because they bordered a dysfunctional city that sent them business by the thousand and resident by the tens of thousands. As LBP would say, the growth of OC is due ot 'poaching'.

Let's maintain a reasonable region to maintain. If you want to live at 40 mile road that is your right but it shouldn't be the reponsibility of the region to support the cost for new roads, infrastrcuture, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

if detroit were a functional city that attracted people to it, would we notice the sprawl? Is there any city in the U.S. that ISN'T surrounded by sprawl?

---

Depends what you consider sprawl. I wouldn't consider much of SE Michigan sprawl since they developed due to population growth. I would consider areas like Oakland Township and Macomb Township sprawl since those areas were developed when there was no need, no growth in population, no shortage of housing, etc in the area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

if detroit were a functional city that attracted people to it, would we notice the sprawl? Is there any city in the U.S. that ISN'T surrounded by sprawl?

---

There you go again, excusing your own paradigm, and pinning the blame for regional problems squarely on Detroit City.

Sure, there is sprawl in just about every American metropolis, but only because sprawl is the de jure pattern of development. In 95% of the nation, it is outright ILLEGAL to build anything BUT automobile-oriented development with segregated land usage. The sheer amount of resources required to sustain the necessary infrastructure also mandates that instead of brick and mortar, buildings are constructed of particleboard and EIFS. We're too damned broke after building freeways in order to build anything that looks respectable enough for human occupancy.

Mr. Patterson equates, in his mind, that "sprawl" = "economic growth". And, as we have written our laws, policies, and zoning ordinances, he isn't incorrect. The problem, of course, becomes, "What the hell does Oakland County do to 'grow' after it paves every last square inch of land with asphalt?"

If Detroit *were* a functional, attractive city, you'd still notice the sprawl. Take, for example, Washington, DC. The city is relatively healthy, enjoying population and income growth, regentrification of old neighborhoods, and a return of retailing. Currently, a $5 billion subway line is being constructed into low-density, automobile-oriented neither-regions of vinyl-sided subdivisions in Virginia. That $5 billion isn't free--half of it is federal money. And for what? They're going to add 23-miles of high-capacity transit line for rush-hour-only commuters to a network that is already deteriorating and nearing capacity in the urban core of the system. They can't afford to fix escalators used by tens of thousands of people a day, but they sure as hell can build massive parking garages at $25,000 per space so that Joe Suburbanite, Esq. can park his assault vehicle at the subway station for a below-market-rate fee.

I would argue, "yes", you would notice the sprawl, because as the sprawl gains population, money, and thus political clout, it tends to shift regional priorities--fixing perceived problems in Pleasantville while ignoring long-term problems in the urban core. Which is why you have I-696, and yet transit service in a city where 30% of households don't have a car is virtually nonexistent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

There you go again, excusing your own paradigm, and pinning the blame for regional problems squarely on Detroit City.

Sure, there is sprawl in just about every American metropolis, but only because sprawl is the de jure pattern of development. In 95% of the nation, it is outright ILLEGAL to build anything BUT automobile-oriented development with segregated land usage. The sheer amount of resources required to sustain the necessary infrastructure also mandates that instead of brick and mortar, buildings are constructed of particleboard and EIFS. We're too damned broke after building freeways in order to build anything that looks respectable enough for human occupancy.

Mr. Patterson equates, in his mind, that "sprawl" = "economic growth". And, as we have written our laws, policies, and zoning ordinances, he isn't incorrect. The problem, of course, becomes, "What the hell does Oakland County do to 'grow' after it paves every last square inch of land with asphalt?"

If Detroit *were* a functional, attractive city, you'd still notice the sprawl. Take, for example, Washington, DC. The city is relatively healthy, enjoying population and income growth, regentrification of old neighborhoods, and a return of retailing. Currently, a $5 billion subway line is being constructed into low-density, automobile-oriented neither-regions of vinyl-sided subdivisions in Virginia. That $5 billion isn't free--half of it is federal money. And for what? They're going to add 23-miles of high-capacity transit line for rush-hour-only commuters to a network that is already deteriorating and nearing capacity in the urban core of the system. They can't afford to fix escalators used by tens of thousands of people a day, but they sure as hell can build massive parking garages at $25,000 per space so that Joe Suburbanite can park his assault vehicle at the subway station for a below-market-rate fee.

I would argue, "yes", you would notice the sprawl, because as the sprawl gains population, money, and thus political clout, it tends to shift regional priorities--fixing perceived problems in Pleasantville while ignoring long-term problems in the urban core. Which is why you have I-696, and yet transit service in a city where 30% of households don't have a car is virtually nonexistent.

---

So... basically...we're agreed? /sarcasm

So, your answer is no one is ever allowed to live in a stand alone home unless said home is within walking distance of a designated "central business district"?

Is a suburb EVER allowed in your view of the world? must everyone live in a central city?

and before you slap the "defending the paradigm" crap on me... understand that I do not support LBP's view of sprawl. Acknowledging its presence and supporting it are two different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I would argue, "yes", you would notice the sprawl, because as the sprawl gains population, money, and thus political clout, it tends to shift regional priorities--fixing perceived problems in Pleasantville while ignoring long-term problems in the urban core. Which is why you have I-696, and yet transit service in a city where 30% of households don't have a car is virtually nonexistent.

---

Agreed 100% but you forget M-59, I-75, M-10, M-1, M-53 and M-24. All built to cater to those outside of Detroit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

So... basically...we're agreed? /sarcasm

So, your answer is no one is ever allowed to live in a stand alone home unless said home is within walking distance of a designated "central business district"?

Is a suburb EVER allowed in your view of the world? must everyone live in a central city?

and before you slap the "defending the paradigm" crap on me... understand that I do not support LBP's view of sprawl. Acknowledging its presence and supporting it are two different things.

---

Rather than take the extreme polar opposite position of L. Brooks Patterson, maybe you could do a little studying.

No one is trying to recreate Calcutta here. Cities were built in a certain manner for thousands of years of civilization. You can see the remnants of this in places like Boston, Philadelphia, and in Europe. I ask you, is it necessarily a *bad* thing for people to have *amenities* in their own neighborhood, within a short walk of their home? Must we drive drive drive 10 miles for every loaf of bread?

The problem is, sprawl encompasses the extremes of one idealized set of notions. It makes no accommodation whatsoever for anything other than cars and segregated land usage. It leaves no room for alternatives whatsoever.

If people want to live in the "country", I can appreciate that. If people want to live in the suburbs, that's fine too--but acknowledge that the folks in the city don't OWE you a freeway that allows you to commute 30 miles each way to work in 6 minutes flat. They don't OWE you new school buildings. They don't OWE you city water and sewer service.

Get the idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

Agreed 100% but you forget M-59, I-75, M-10, M-1, M-53 and M-24. All built to cater to those outside of Detroit.

---

And the Lodge, the Ford, the Fisher, the Chrysler, the Jeffries, and the Southfield to ease the Detroit traffic jams built to cater to Detroiters..

Quote:

---

No one is trying to recreate Calcutta here. Cities were built in a certain manner for thousands of years of civilization. You can see the remnants of this in places like Boston, Philadelphia, and in Europe. I ask you, is it necessarily a *bad* thing for people to have *amenities* in their own neighborhood, within a short walk of their home? Must we drive drive drive 10 miles for every loaf of bread?

---

I dont know where you think I live, but I can do all of those things plus a few more within walking or short bike ride.

Quote:

---

The problem is, sprawl encompasses the extremes of one idealized set of notions. It makes no accommodation whatsoever for anything other than cars and segregated land usage. It leaves no room for alternatives whatsoever.

---

I don't disagree with you there.

Quote:

---

If people want to live in the "country", I can appreciate that. If people want to live in the suburbs, that's fine too--but acknowledge that the folks in the city don't OWE you a freeway that allows you to commute 30 miles each way to work in 6 minutes flat. They don't OWE you new school buildings. They don't OWE you city water and sewer service.

---

But do those in the suburbs OWE the city a one line train that runs completely within the city limits along a road heavily serviced by transit already? do those in the 'burbs OWE the city new school buildings? Do those in the burbs OWE the city for not only the cost of the water and sewers they use, but for the failure of city residents to pay for their services?

I'm all for not subsidizing sprawl. but blaming troy or LBP for all of detroit's problems is a cop out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

But do those in the suburbs OWE the city a one line train that runs completely within the city limits along a road heavily serviced by transit already?

---

I'm not sure that anyone has determined that suburbanites will be contributing a single nickel to the Woodward Light Rail line. If you have differing information, please share. I would think the business owners in the suburbs, who employ city residents, would want their employees to be able to get to work, yes? In other words, it's in their economic interest, whereas it was most decidedly not in the interest of Detroiters to have their neighborhoods destroyed in order to subsidize brand-new suburban construction in the 1950s and beyond.

Quote:

---

do those in the 'burbs OWE the city new school buildings?

---

So suburbanites should be allowed to use as much state funding as they want to construct redundant infrastructure, yet people in the City do not deserve adequate facilities?

Quote:

---

Do those in the burbs OWE the city for not only the cost of the water and sewers they use, but for the failure of city residents to pay for their services?

---

Is this the case? Please show numbers.


Sorry, bailey. These are issues that don't recognize manmade political boundaries. It's not as if the Gates to Shangri-La are located at Eight Mile Road. The policies that L. Brooks Patterson espouses have done everything possible to make the region economically uncompetitive by dispersing wealth and investment of a fixed populaton over an increasing geographic area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don K

One aspect of the Detroit area that is in some respects an advantage, but works against the city now, is the international border. For better or worse, downtown Detroit is at the edge of the Metro area rather than the center, and geography [[hills and lakes) has tugged people towards the north and west, rather than concentrically around downtown [[see http://www.flickr.com/photos/walking...n/photostream/ and note how quickly the population thins out to the south and west). Like it or not, Detroit is just one of many centers in the area, and the center of population probably is somewhere in Southfield by now.

---

Detroit is still the center of Metro Detroit and Southeast Michigan.
A) all major interstate freeways lead into Downtown [[not including three-digit connectors) and Downtown Detroit is easily accessible to/from any area of the Metro.
B) all major rail lines lead to MCS [[including a tunnel from Windsor)
C) Detroit still sits on the Detroit River and is a major port. The international crossing [[via the tunnel or bridge) in Detroit is the #1 crossing in the country.
D) Downtown is still the hub of what little transit we have. All the busiest lines lead into the central city.
E) Although more total office space exists in the burbs, Downtown CBD still has the highest concentration of office workers anywhere in the state. Sure, there is a few areas of concentration in Southfield or along Big Beaver in Troy. But besides that there really isn't any.
F) The Midtown Cultural Center still has the highest concentration of large public/cultural/educational/health institutions in the state.
G) Even with more than half the population gone, downtown and surrounding neighborhoods are still among the densest in the region.
H) Wayne County is about the same population as Oakland and Macomb combined. If Windsor [[300k) was combined with Wayne County, it would be more populous than Oakland-Macomb. Throw in Washtenaw [[300k), and you really have a big difference. So actually more people in the Metro still live south of 8 mile than north, contrary to what you and many others probably think. It just isn't as sprawling. Not as many McMansion subdivisions and big box stores. Older, and less affluent [[more working class). .
I) Detroit is still the face of the region, and outsiders will judge our region based on the health of the the city, regardless of Oakland's AAA bond rating. Currently outsiders view metro Detroit in a very negative light... I wonder why.

This doesn't mean Detroit isn't decentralized. The region needs to be much more centralized, around the central city. The fact that it is so spread out is one of the main problems facing our region. What I mean I mean is there is no other "center" that even comes close to comparing to greater Downtown Detroit in terms of concentration of "stuff" so we should work with what we have and make that an even bigger and more important center. It is the only chance we'll get to even come close to having what other cities have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

T
If Detroit *were* a functional, attractive city, you'd still notice the sprawl. Take, for example, Washington, DC. The city is relatively healthy, enjoying population and income growth, regentrification of old neighborhoods, and a return of retailing. Currently, a $5 billion subway line is being constructed into low-density, automobile-oriented neither-regions of vinyl-sided subdivisions in Virginia. That $5 billion isn't free--half of it is federal money. And for what? They're going to add 23-miles of high-capacity transit line for rush-hour-only commuters to a network that is already deteriorating and nearing capacity in the urban core of the system. They can't afford to fix escalators used by tens of thousands of people a day, but they sure as hell can build massive parking garages at $25,000 per space so that Joe Suburbanite, Esq. can park his assault vehicle at the subway station for a below-market-rate fee.

---

Washington DC is one of those cities where the less fortunate have to live further out. Washington DC and the inner suburbs have very high home [[and condo) prices. If you are a mid-level government clerk, you have to live way out in Dale City just to live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

So suburbanites should be allowed to use as much state funding as they want to construct redundant infrastructure, yet people in the City do not deserve adequate facilities?

---

I would submit that it is the city of Detroit that has redundant school infrastructure. The suburban schools are pretty much fully utilized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

I would submit that it is the city of Detroit that has redundant school infrastructure. The suburban schools are pretty much fully utilized.

---

How well-utilized would those suburban school buildings be if the State of Michigan never ponied up the money to build them?

Regardless of how ass-backward you want to perceive it, the people of the State of Michigan have spent an AWFUL lot of money over the decades to physically shift the location of, and disperse, the populace. And for what? WHAT does Detroit and Michigan have to show for all those billions??? A fucking mall where you can buy a Burberry scarf?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

I would submit that it is the city of Detroit that has redundant school infrastructure. The suburban schools are pretty much fully utilized.

---

Are these the same suburban schools that are inviting Detroit kids to fill their seats? I suppose the suburbs need that state money just as bad as Detroit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

Perceived low aesthetic value. Only by those who don't live there.

---

Really? cookie cutter houses and McMansions, bland architecture all around. I grew up in the burbs. Downtowns in the older burbs, northville, birmingham have their charms, but Troy and the vast majority of Macomb and Western Oakland counties [[from bloomfield township and the farmingtons on) have nothing pleasing about them whatsoever. They are wonder bread blah. Name ONE truly interesting thing about them apart from the older churches like kirk and shrine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

Washington DC is one of those cities where the less fortunate have to live further out. Washington DC and the inner suburbs have very high home [[and condo) prices. If you are a mid-level government clerk, you have to live way out in Dale City just to live.

---

Fancy that....suburbs that residents have no choice to reside in because the city is unattainable. Reminds me of the Bay Area and Patterson is claiming that moving to the suburbs is and I quote "condemned by the anti-American Dreamers. "It's sprawl," they hiss, "it's bad."unquote. Fancy that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

How well-utilized would those suburban school buildings be if the State of Michigan never ponied up the money to build them?

Regardless of how ass-backward you want to perceive it, the people of the State of Michigan have spent an AWFUL lot of money over the decades to physically shift the location of, and disperse, the populace. And for what? WHAT does Detroit and Michigan have to show for all those billions??? A fucking mall where you can buy a Burberry scarf?

---

Up until the last couple of years all of those billions have allowed us to segregate people by wealth. That's worked wonders for socio-economic and racial harmony in the region. :confused:

The saddest aspect about his intentions and opinion is to imagine how beautiful Oakland County probably was before all of the parking lots, traffic, Michigan U's, chain shops, track housing, highways, lawns, lights, etc. became common day occurances.

Everyone discusses the "death of Detroit" but few realize the "death of Oakland and other surrounding counties" that occured with all of the sprawl.

A no-win situation for all involved.

Funny thing, if you were to ask most people in Oakland County I doubt you would find many people who would consider their county dead much less consider it sprawl. That notion seems to be pretty much a DetroitYes idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DC48080

Funny thing, if you were to ask most people in Oakland County I doubt you would find many people who would consider their county dead much less consider it sprawl. That notion seems to be pretty much a DetroitYes idea.

---

True. But I guess it would be different if someone grew up there before all the sprawl. He or she may have a different opinion.

And not to single out Oakland County.... It's a national issue as well. All places deal with this type of issue. The younger people may not mourn the loss of natural land. They don't know anything different. I, for one, love the idea of leaving a city and entering "Mother Nature" quickly rather than spending endless miles in traffic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jjw

True. But I guess it would be different if someone grew up there before all the sprawl. He or she may have a different opinion.

And not to single out Oakland County.... It's a national issue as well. All places deal with this type of issue. The younger people may not mourn the loss of natural land. They don't know anything different. I, for one, love the idea of leaving a city and entering "Mother Nature" quickly rather than spending endless miles in traffic.

---

I worked for the city of Troy Engineering Department in 1959 before it became built up. The city had just incorporated and there were a few subdivisions springing up especially out along Adams road. Most of the city was a rather dreary expanse of truck farms and sod farms. You weren't going to find any tinkly little brooks running through beautiful groves of shade trees. Most of the farm houses had seen better days and the few houses that were not farm houses were cheap clapboard homes with oil barrels in back for the furnace. The corners of the section line roads might have a gas station or a small grocery [[or a combination of the two). The "metro area" was beautiful downtown Big Beaver [[Rochester Rd just north of Big Beaver/16Mile) with a small shopping center of three stores one of which was a Rexall Drugs. You had to go quite a few miles north to the Clinton River to see anything of "Mother Nature".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DC48080

Funny thing, if you were to ask most people in Oakland County I doubt you would find many people who would consider their county dead much less consider it sprawl. That notion seems to be pretty much a DetroitYes idea.

---

Or maybe a people who don't live in Oakland County perception, regarding whether it is sprawl or not. I wouldn't call the place dead, but to say it's not sprawl is quite a stretch. I will say that Oakland is getting a bad break since the worst offender for the latest round of sprawl-tastic development probably wasn't Oakland County, but instead Macomb and western Wayne. But it remains the poster child for sprawl because of that big mouthed County Exec.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

Most of the city was a rather dreary expanse of truck farms and sod farms. You weren't going to find any tinkly little brooks running through beautiful groves of shade trees. Most of the farm houses had seen better days and the few houses that were not farm houses were cheap clapboard homes with oil barrels in back for the furnace. The corners of the section line roads might have a gas station or a small grocery [[or a combination of the two). The "metro area" was beautiful downtown Big Beaver [[Rochester Rd just north of Big Beaver/16Mile) with a small shopping center of three stores one of which was a Rexall Drugs.

---

I'm trying to figure out what's so terrible about anything described in this post that required it all to be paved over and flooded with automobile traffic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jt1

I think that you misunderstand many people here. Myself [[and likely most) do not think suburbs are bad. Suburbs offer a lifestyle that many people seek and enjoy..

---

Have you not read any of this thread--the hipster doofus quotient around here hates the suburbs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jt1

The issue is building more and more subdivisions, more suburbs, more schools districts, more libraries, more PDs, more FDs when the population of the region has been flat for 20-30 years...

---

To quote the late great Greg Giraldo" yeah Detroit is great, you actually name your streets by how many miles away you are from the black people!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jt1

There is a difference between suburbs and unsustainable growth. LBP [[and apparently you) support growing the region to an unsustainable land mass....

---

sorry--streetlights are on, cops come when called, schools are good and I don't have to worry about my kid when she plays outside--unsustainable is working fine for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jt1

OC and LBP have been successful simply because they bordered a dysfunctional city that sent them business by the thousand and resident by the tens of thousands. As LBP would say, the growth of OC is due ot 'poaching'.....

---

really? LBP had nothing to do with it? Really? Even the most ardent "brooks is the white devil" crowd around here gives him a little credit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jt1

Let's maintain a reasonable region to maintain. If you want to live at 40 mile road that is your right but it shouldn't be the responsibility of the region to support the cost for new roads, infrastructure, etc.

---

And it shouldn't be the responsibility of suburbanites to prop up Detroit with their hard earned cash. I have no problem with a thriving Detroit, just don't make us pay for it.

Whenever we [[the evil suburbanites) hear "we need regional cooperation" all we hear is "open up you wallets and shut your mouth suburbs"

"Whenever we [[the evil suburbanites) hear "we need regional cooperation" all we hear is "open up you wallets and shut your mouth suburbs"

That says it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lincoln8740

And it shouldn't be the responsibility of suburbanites to prop up Detroit with their hard earned cash. I have no problem with a thriving Detroit, just don't make us pay for it.

---

So how many bags of cash do you actually send to the City of Detroit on an annual basis?

It shouldn't be the responsibility of the city to prop up the suburbs by extending roads, providing water service, foregoing tax revenues in lost businesses and residents, and bearing the burden of the poor, homeless, and mentally ill. I have no problem with a thriving Oakland County, just don't make Detroit pay for it.

Without the massively overbuilt road network and extension of water and sewer service, Oakland and Macomb Counties simply do not exist as they do today. Somebody paid for all that infrastructure, and it sure as shit wasn't the handful of farmers who lived in those counties at the time.

What happens to sprawl in a peak oil scenario?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

So how many bags of cash do you actually send to the City of Detroit on an annual basis?.

---

I always attach a check to my Non-Resident City of Detroit Income Tax form

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

It shouldn't be the responsibility of the city to prop up the suburbs by extending roads, providing water service, foregoing tax revenues in lost businesses and residents, and bearing the burden of the poor, homeless, and mentally ill. I have no problem with a thriving Oakland County, just don't make Detroit pay for it..

---

I just want to make sure I understand what you just said---
You are honestly saying that the City of Detroit and/or its citizens ponied up some cash so that suburbs could be built? The City that is about to go bankrupt gave money to the suburbs so that they could be built--really?

or do you mean--That becasue the City of Detroit is/was such a shithole that the suburbs came about because people were fleeing in droves and thus created a demand for housing in the suburbs?

If the latter perspective is what you are saying then I wholeheartedly agree--If Detroit wasn't a shithole then there would be no need for developments at 40 mile road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lincoln8740

I always attach a check to my Non-Resident City of Detroit Income Tax form



I just want to make sure I understand what you just said---
You are honestly saying that the City of Detroit and/or its citizens ponied up some cash so that suburbs could be built? The City that is about to go bankrupt gave money to the suburbs so that they could be built--really?

or do you mean--That becasue the City of Detroit is/was such a shithole that the suburbs came about because people were fleeing in droves and thus created a demand for housing in the suburbs?

If the latter perspective is what you are saying then I wholeheartedly agree--If Detroit wasn't a shithole then there would be no need for developments at 40 mile road.

---

Detroit still had healthy tax base [[60s - 80s) when the intial suburban infrastructure was built.

Weren't most of the suburbs built [[or at least planned) before the city was in its present-day
condition? [[Edited to add: 313WX, I didn't see your post before I wrote this... thanks!)

Detroit is the poster child for poor urban/suburban planning. It's not about irresponsible city vs. selfish suburbs. The region we have today had its seeds planted 40-50 years ago. 40-50 years from now, the region and the nation will be different. I sincerely hope the conversations are different as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbara_10

"Whenever we [[the evil suburbanites) hear "we need regional cooperation" all we hear is "open up you wallets and shut your mouth suburbs"

That says it all.

---

Why are you evil? Do you roam the streets of Detroit to victimized Detroiters in an act of suburban supremacy to remind them how much you have and what they don't have? Enlighten me on the term "evil suburbanites?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Without the massively overbuilt road network and extension of water and sewer service, Oakland and Macomb Counties simply do not exist as they do today. Somebody paid for all that infrastructure, and it sure as shit wasn't the handful of farmers who lived in those counties at the time.

---

1.Detroit wanted to sell the counties water. If Detroit had said "no" the counties could have just dipped into Lake St Clair. Then the water plant in Detroit would have been overbuilt and would be operating at less than efficient capacity as the population dropped. It isn't like Detroit is sitting on the only fresh water supply in the area.

The infrastructure [[roads and schools) were built as the population increases demanded. When a road reaches a certain traffic count, the state or county paves it, widens it, or whatever is required. Schools are built as school populations require. They didn't build all the infrastructure out there and then say "OK, folks, come and get it!"

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

The infrastructure [[roads and schools) were built as the population increases demanded. When a road reaches a certain traffic count, the state or county paves it, widens it, or whatever is required. Schools are built as school populations require. They didn't build all the infrastructure out there and then say "OK, folks, come and get it!"

.

---

And, as I'm sure you've noticed, the roads and schools within the City of Detroit were allowed to rot, simply because there is only so much money go around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

I worked for the city of Troy Engineering Department in 1959 before it became built up. The city had just incorporated and there were a few subdivisions springing up especially out along Adams road. Most of the city was a rather dreary expanse of truck farms and sod farms. You weren't going to find any tinkly little brooks running through beautiful groves of shade trees. Most of the farm houses had seen better days and the few houses that were not farm houses were cheap clapboard homes with oil barrels in back for the furnace. The corners of the section line roads might have a gas station or a small grocery [[or a combination of the two). The "metro area" was beautiful downtown Big Beaver [[Rochester Rd just north of Big Beaver/16Mile) with a small shopping center of three stores one of which was a Rexall Drugs. You had to go quite a few miles north to the Clinton River to see anything of "Mother Nature".

---

Yeah, I can see that. Troy was probably just as shit-ugly and bleak 50 years ago as it is now. Farmington Hills, West Bloomfield/Orchard Lake, and Commerce Township, on the other hand...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lincoln8740

Have you not read any of this thread--the hipster doofus quotient around here hates the suburbs



To quote the late great Greg Giraldo" yeah Detroit is great, you actually name your streets by how many miles away you are from the black people!"



sorry--streetlights are on, cops come when called, schools are good and I don't have to worry about my kid when she plays outside--unsustainable is working fine for me.




really? LBP had nothing to do with it? Really? Even the most ardent "brooks is the white devil" crowd around here gives him a little credit



And it shouldn't be the responsibility of suburbanites to prop up Detroit with their hard earned cash. I have no problem with a thriving Detroit, just don't make us pay for it.

Whenever we [[the evil suburbanites) hear "we need regional cooperation" all we hear is "open up you wallets and shut your mouth suburbs"

---

Interesting that none of your responses addressed any of the quotes that you responded to.

http://www.oakgov.com/exec/brooks/sprawl.html

Actually this is pretty good for Detroit. I couldn't imagine us having a chance at revitalization if Oakland County suddenly became the center of sustainable urban living.

Hah. And greed is good. For clarification, that's a response to LBP's piece, not anyone's comments on this threat.

Anyway, I agree that that piece does not bode well for regionalization and so on. My gut reaction was to wonder why he was being defensive enough about somebody criticizing OC for sprawl to pen this piece. I wondered if somebody he deals with frequently makes it a point to share their opinion on this with him. But then I realized that that is, of course, not just the guy's blog, but a campaign outlet, of sorts. I certainly hope he's not being defensive on purpose, to preach to some kind of choir on this. That would not be helpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

And, as I'm sure you've noticed, the roads and schools within the City of Detroit were allowed to rot, simply because there is only so much money go around.

---

Last time I looked DPS was spending $12-13,000 per pupil per year. That put their expenditures in the top 10 or 12 spending school systems in major cities.

The schools didn't rot because of lack of money. There was always money, but it was incredibly poorly spent.

Some numbers:

US population in 1970 = 202M
US population in 2010 = 311M

That's a 50% growth in population in 40 years. At that rate, we will have 455M by 2050. Much of the 'sprawl' then = population growth because all those extra people need more schools, shops, parks, roads, and everything else. About half of sprawl is due to population growth. the other half, as of 1990, is because of more per capita land consumption.

http://www.numbersusa.com/images/USA_graph7.gif

And the graph that Oladub shows is averaged over the 100 largest metropolitan areas. What does it look like for a region that hasn't grown in population in 40 years???

There are a number of quality posts on this thread that point out the flaws in the ideology promoted by LBP. LBP, and the people who share his mindset, are deeply committed to the post-war vision of an auto-centic, disposable lifestyle, which is extremely wasteful and unsustainable.

There is no point in debating this subject with LBP or any person who subscribes to the unsustainable ideology of sprawl. They will not accept any evidence or logic that proves the unsustainable nature of their mindset, and they will fight anything or anybody who says otherwise.

We are now entering a period where the debates about sustainability and sprawl will not not matter, because the reality of the situation will be self evident, and these un-sustainable ways of life will literally become un-sustainable.

The reality of $4 or $5 or $6 dollar a gallon for gas will happen in the very near future. This will force us to change how we live our lives. The reality of bankrupt local and state governments will force us deal with the unsustainable nature of sprawl. Our local and state governments have not been solvent for a few years now, and they have been getting by with one-time fixes, accounting tricks, and federal bail-outs. The period of gimmicks, tricks, and bailouts is almost over, and the period of reckoning will begin soon, like it or not.

It doesn't matter what LBP thinks about sprawl or sustainability, because it won't be a debate in the near future. The simple facts are that we have a declining population, a declining tax base, and declining revenue that simply will not allow us the ability to invest in, or support, additional infrastructure.

I am done with debating moot points with moronic ideologues like LBP. Metro Detroit and Michigan has steadily lost population, income, tax revenue, and jobs for years. These are the facts. This is our reality. Any person who advocates spending more money and resources for the expansion of our built environment, in the face of declining population and income, is a complete idiot. Even a child can grasp the concept that less people with less money can not afford to expand and build more stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

And, as I'm sure you've noticed, the roads and schools within the City of Detroit were allowed to rot, simply because there is only so much money go around.

---

Detroit got its per pupil allowance from the state just as the suburbs did. Most of the cash disappeared into the combination jobs program/kleptocracy that is the COD and DPS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by erikd

There are a number of quality posts on this thread that point out the flaws in the ideology promoted by LBP. LBP, and the people who share his mindset, are deeply committed to the post-war vision of an auto-centic, disposable lifestyle, which is extremely wasteful and unsustainable.

There is no point in debating this subject with LBP or any person who subscribes to the unsustainable ideology of sprawl. They will not accept any evidence or logic that proves the unsustainable nature of their mindset, and they will fight anything or anybody who says otherwise.

We are now entering a period where the debates about sustainability and sprawl will not not matter, because the reality of the situation will be self evident, and these un-sustainable ways of life will literally become un-sustainable.

The reality of $4 or $5 or $6 dollar a gallon for gas will happen in the very near future. This will force us to change how we live our lives. The reality of bankrupt local and state governments will force us deal with the unsustainable nature of sprawl. Our local and state governments have not been solvent for a few years now, and they have been getting by with one-time fixes, accounting tricks, and federal bail-outs. The period of gimmicks, tricks, and bailouts is almost over, and the period of reckoning will begin soon, like it or not.

It doesn't matter what LBP thinks about sprawl or sustainability, because it won't be a debate in the near future. The simple facts are that we have a declining population, a declining tax base, and declining revenue that simply will not allow us the ability to invest in, or support, additional infrastructure.

I am done with debating moot points with moronic ideologues like LBP. Metro Detroit and Michigan has steadily lost population, income, tax revenue, and jobs for years. These are the facts. This is our reality. Any person who advocates spending more money and resources for the expansion of our built environment, in the face of declining population and income, is a complete idiot. Even a child can grasp the concept that less people with less money can not afford to expand and build more stuff.

---

Right on the money. Even L. Brooks Patterson knows that bad times have arrived but he has to keep the masses happy with pie in the sky talk. The county's triple A bond rating doesn't mean nothing if Troy is planning to close their library or the county seat is disbanding its police force or communities like Madison Heights actively recruiting Detroiters to send their kids to their schools. [[Racism stopped that project) From Detroit to Pontiac and from Pontiac to Mt. Clemens everyone is feeling the pain. Lack of people moving here, lack of companies relocating here has crippled the economy. Brooks can boast of sprawl all he wants but if he don't get the people to move to his county then it will be a waste of money.

As a secondary point in response to LBP's histrionics, his vilification of cities, and the rationalization of his support of suburban sprawl is quite obvious in his rantings, but his promotion of "Oakland County" as a more desirable alternative to living in a city never addresses the issues faced by the Oakland County seat in Pontiac.

Most people don't think about the fact that LBP runs Oakland County from the county seat in Pontiac. All of the accusations and derision that he uses to justify his hatred of cities and love of sprawl is truly despicable when you realize the fact that Pontiac is the perfect example of everything that LBP despises. LBP loves to point out the poor leadership and failures of government in "cities", specifically Detroit. LBP is constantly saying that people left the Detroit and moved to Oakland County because of poor government leaders, taxes, etc.

His accusations against Detroit and his promotion of Oakland County ring hollow when you look at the conditions in Pontiac.

This is a segment of an official statement he just published on the Oakland County government website:

"Sprawl did not cause the decline of the cities. Cities declined because they squandered their assets. High crime rates, high taxes, failing schools, foul air and a lack of open green spaces forced people to move.

Sprawlers, like me, simply wanted a home with green grass on a safe, well maintained street, a quality neighborhood school that actually educated their children, a good job, nearby parks and recreational spaces, and a local government that actually delivers the services their taxes paid for. In other words, they wanted a place like today's Oakland County."
------------------------

LBP should look out the window of his office in Pontiac and see what is really going on. When I look at the county seat of Oakland County, I see a city in state receivership, a city with high crime, failing schools, and a lack of jobs. For some reason, LBP ignores the plight of the city that he rules from, and pretends like it doesn't even exist, while he derides the leaders in city of Detroit for not solving the same problems that he has not solved in his own city.

LBP is an ignorant blowhard who has benefitted from being in the right place at the right time as the wave of suburban sprawl swept through Oakland County. He did not cause this to happen, and he has been completely ineffective in addressing the consequences of de-urbanization and disinvestment in the city of Pontiac, or any place in Oakland County with a large black or hispanic population.

Everything that LBP says should be taken with a grain of salt. He is quick to take credit for all of the "growth" in Oakland County that happened when the businesses and residents moved up I-75 as part of the mass suburbanization of America, but he takes no responsibility for the continued decline of the city that he rules from. LBP is quick to criticize the leaders in Detroit for bad decisions and poor leadership, but his opinions and viewpoints don't have much validity as long as Pontiac continues to suffer and fail under his watch.