Detroit Doesn't Make First Cut in "Promise Zone" Designees

On the 50th Anniversary of LBJ's "War on Poverty" declaration [America's truly longest war?] the first five of twenty planned 'Promise Zones', a move intended to marshal millions of dollars in federal resources for pockets of poverty, were announced.

Detroit wasn't one of them.

The plan to ultimately team with 20 of the hardest-hit areas in the U.S. was introduced by Obama during his 2013 State of the Union address. Federal money would be used to help improve education, housing and public safety.

The first five are Los Angeles, San Antonio, Philadelphia, southeastern Kentucky and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. The designation lasts for 10 years.

I don't know about the last two but one would think Detroit be more in need than the first three. Hopefully our turn will come soon.

Just because some parts of Los Angeles may be wealthy doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people there living in poverty who could use help themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Just because some parts of Los Angeles may be wealthy doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people there living in poverty who could use help themselves.

---

Agree completely and I think they attract a lot of poor people because they at least have generally warm weather. That's where I would go if that were my fate.

But the City of LA isn't bankrupt, dysfunctional and the proportion of its population living in poverty is no match for the City of Detroit's.

I guess the feds don't equate bankruptcy with poverty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

Agree completely and I think they attract a lot of poor people because they at least have generally warm weather. That's where I would go if that were my fate.

But the City of LA isn't bankrupt, dysfunctional and the proportion of its population living in poverty is no match for the City of Detroit's.

---

There are most likely more people living in poverty in L.A. than Detroit. There are far more people living in poverty in New York than Detroit, so does that mean New York should've won too?

LA could be a Hispanic "set aside" for their 2012 support.

"Alternatively, a region may want to leverage Housing and Urban Development grants to attract private real estate investors to high-poverty neighborhoods. The president’s plan also includes tax credits for hiring workers and tax write-offs for capital investments within the “promise zones.”"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-to...ic-initiative/

No offense to Detroit's renaissance, but perhaps Obama feels that attracting new investors would be easier in LA. It seems like any property in LA is valuable, so there may be more return on investment there. Detroit apparently is on the rise, but it's probably not at the level of demand that land in LA would be. I also wonder if Obama sees LA as a less risky investment because the land is more valuable and there probably would be a big tax base and big draw for investors in LA. You don't have that much potential for return in most cities. Perhaps Obama feels like Detroit is too big of a challenge. As someone else said, Detroit also doesn't have as many voters as LA does. I think there may also be a feeling by some [[not me, but some) that Detroit's politicians got themselves into this mess through corruption and poor decisions. The auto bailouts were also controversial.

A project like this would be great for many cities. I think perhaps Obama feels that the cities he picked are less of a challenge than Detroit, or that there is greater reward.

One thing you noticed is that these cities are spread out. One surprising area is Southeastern Kentucky. There aren't many voters there, but poverty has long been a problem in the Appalachians, so maybe Obama feels that if he targets that area he will gain support from Appalachian people, which there are quite a few of if you add them all up. Kentucky tends to be Republican also. In regards to the Choctaw, he's probably looking for Native American votes.

It's politics. I guess Detroit wasn't worth it. Maybe it will be if the program later picks more cities.

Just my perspective on it.


*Disclaimer: I have no inside information as to how these areas were picked, but politically I can see why they were picked. I'm just trying to figure out Obama's reasoning.

I heard this on the news this morning and wondered the same thing. Does anybody know how these places were selected? Is it possible that you had to apply/submit a proposal? Perhaps the Bing Administration just didn't work for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

There are most likely more people living in poverty in L.A. than [LIVE IN] Detroit.

---

fixed that...I mean, isn't LA Metro something like 10 million people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

fixed that...I mean, isn't LA Metro something like 10 million people?

---

That IS a lot of votes..... That's probably why THEY got the bacon.

Quote:

---

Though Paul's inclusion may seem out of place, the conservative senator recently introduced separate legislation to create "economic freedom zones" in troubled cities like Detroit where taxes and red tape would be cut in order to encourage growth.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...promise-zones/

Maybe Detroit will be an "economic freedom zone" at some point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bailey

fixed that...I mean, isn't LA Metro something like 10 million people?

---

Well, both are true. More people live in L.A. Metro and more poor people live in the city of Los Angeles.

My point is that just because they don't segregate their socioeconomic classes by municipal boundaries doesn't make the poor people who live there any less [[or more) deserving of help.

As I see it, there are multiple reasons Detroit was no selected:

1. There is no political gain. The city will vote Democratic and both Ds and Rs do not believe this will have any impact on suburban voting. The Kentucky thing was political to get Rs onboard, specifically the complete and utter shitstain, Mitch McConnell.

2. Our leaders in Washington either don't care about the city or are political cowards [[Levin, Stabenow).

3. Sadly, the majority of residents in the US don't give a damn about what happens to Detroit or the residents of the city. It is the case 10 miles outside the city and is certainly the case further out.

4. It appears they tried to address various types of impacted areas but what is appalling to me is that there is nothing in the Midwest included. Detroit or not, the Midwest has been hit harder than most of the country but the Midwest holds no political clout and the coasts, south and west would rather just laugh off the midwest.

As far as I see it, the ultimate blame lies with Levin and Stabenow and this shows how pitiful they are in obtaining any results for this State. Add Dingell, Peters, Miller, Levin, Rogers, etc to this list to.

We should change our State motto to: Michigan, we send pussies to Washington.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

That IS a lot of votes..... That's probably why THEY got the bacon.

---

You don't seem very familiar with how federal elections in the United States are structured. If you're trying to expend federal pork in a way that maximizes its influence on the outcomes of federal elections to the benefit of the Democrats, Los Angeles is about the worst possible place to start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antongast

You don't seem very familiar with how federal elections in the United States are structured. If you're trying to expend federal pork in a way that maximizes its influence on the outcomes of federal elections to the benefit of the Democrats, Los Angeles is about the worst possible place to start.

---

I don't know, I heard the Republicans may be vying for California home-state advantage by running dead Richard Nixon in 2016, currently their most moderate and appealing candidate.

The problem with most anti-poverty programs is that they sustain poverty-centric lifestyles rather than alter them. You can't be made unpoor with other people's money. Now, temporarily giving someone food or providing their kids with daycare while they attend school can be beneficial. Allowing kids stuck at terrible schools the ability to go to school somewhere else can be beneficial. Avoiding political moves like enacting "living wage laws" that keep low-skill jobs away from low-skill workers can be beneficial. But Washington, DC can't end poverty in Detroit. Those who escape poverty here do so by changing their lives. Communities can help a little with that, but mostly it relies on the individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

The problem with most anti-poverty programs is that they sustain poverty-centric lifestyles rather than alter them. You can't be made unpoor with other people's money.

---

I bet if you give a poor person your paycheck each time you got paid they'd be unpoor pretty soon.

Whew, we dodged that bullet. What great news. Detroit gets to develop real solutions to poverty that aren't micromanaged by pinheads in Washington.

Does anyone really think that money is the problem? We've tried money for 50 years now. Time to try something else.

Detroit just didn't make the first cut. That doesn't mean it is out of the running for one of the other 15 designations. I would put 97% odds on CoD being designated. I was just curious as to why other less stressed cities were first named.