Have We Been Doing It All Wrong in Detroit?

Who else read this in the Detroit Free Press over the weekend?
http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/c...ment/78442020/

To Rebuild Cities, Get Back To Basics – Schools, Public Safety and NOT the Trendy Stuff

According to Gary Sands of Wayne State and Laura Wells of Michigan State, we’ve been doing it all wrong. They’ve just “….completed new research that calls into question almost all of the economic development tactics that Rust Belt cities have thrown at decline over the years, including casinos and programs aimed at luring the so-called creative class. They found little or no relationship between those trendy investments and broader community-wide economic growth.”

“They looked hard at casino gaming, programs to attract creative-class workers, the stylish New Urbanism development projects and more. They combed the economic data for links that would tie any of the tactics to broader community economic growth.

Their verdict: Almost none of it worked. The projects may have been successful in themselves, but they contributed little or nothing to overall regional economic growth.”

Economists already know this. The typical U.S. "revitalization" strategies centered on sports stadia, exhibition centers, chain restaurants, casinos, and the like is a complete joke.

These things add zero value; they're just redirected consumption. You fix Detroit by offering safe streets, decent schools, and reliable services. Market rate development will then follow.

Otherwise, you're wasting resources on nonsense bread and circus for the masses.

And I am blown away that it took so long to reach this conclusion.

But, but...you remember economist Piketty from 2014:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/econo...omist-explains

[[Disclaimer: I actually haven't read Piketty's book yet so I am not sure if the
following is in there.)

Among the very wealthy, the "one percent", buying and owning art is an essential
component of their portfolio diversification and wealth management. There is an
art economy that spins off from the wealth economy, and this could take place in
Detroit - not sure how much as compared to other locations.

Casinos were the worst idea ever. The tax revenue they generate comes at the expense of other tax revenue they kill by discouraging investment in their vicinity, and by their competition for scarce disposable income. And they are terrible neighbors.

I don't believe in public funding for sports arenas either. The benefit to the city is not worth their many expenses. Sports arenas are almost always bad neighbors too.

But I was a fan of the incentives to shoot films in Detroit. Had the industry been given enough time to take root all kinds of peripheral businesses and employment opportunities would have grown along side it. Detroit needs to diversify its economy. And attracting more people working in creative industries would have been great for Detroit. Creative people are great neighbors.

Now the film industry has left. Unfortunately only the casinos and sports arenas remain.

Of course the basics -- like public safety, good schools and libraries, reliable services, efficient transit, and an otherwise healthy environment -- are fundamental to any city's success. The question is what steps to take to arrive at a place where they can be provided. Detroit needs tax revenue, and to spend it wisely.

The study makes a good basic point, 'take care of your house and stick to what you do best'.

I have often thought the fall of Detroit could have prevented by pouring all the money possible into code enforcement, schools and infrastructure. No abandoned buildings, a sense of safety, great schools, well-maintained parks... all those boring little details that drew so many away to where they are found.

I question the study's negativity about casinos, attracting creatives, 'new urbanism - walkability, bike lanes', Autoworld-type gimmick attractions. We have had all those here and in their totality they have greatly benefited the core city revival.

Casinos provide revenue and lots of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs. Casinos are going to be somewhere, why not here? They are low pollution industries and best of all they pay their way and don't require or ask for bribes from the taxpayers. They're not for me but their presence does make them an attraction advantage for the tourist and convention businesses.

Great article by the Freep's John Gallagher as always.

I'd have to note that casinos worked well here in my adopted home of Las Vegas. :cool:

Is there a link to the book or essay that Gary Sands and Laura Wells published on this important topic? Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by renf

Is there a link to the book or essay that Gary Sands and Laura Wells published on this important topic? Thank you.

---

No link in the article. But it did say, "Their research, tentatively scheduled to be published in 2017 in a book called "Roads to Prosperity,"

now what? What kind of public policy planning will take place to improve on the neighborhoods, and not just downtown?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

I question the study's negativity about casinos, attracting creatives, 'new urbanism - walkability, bike lanes', Autoworld-type gimmick attractions. We have had all those here and in their totality they have greatly benefited the core city revival.

---

It isn't so much that they have no effect on the economy. It's that, if your basic city services are lacking, you get a much, *much* bigger return on investing in those than on the 'trendy' stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ConantNHolbrook

And I am blown away that it took so long to reach this conclusion.

---

And I'm blown away that this entire concept is ignored by the entire country.
Now everybody has casino's and no one area benefits. There are all kinds of new sports stadiums[[built with tax payers deficits) and the NFL and the networks get the benefits.
True economic growth is about nose to the grindstone,stand against corruption and mis-management and re-investment into business.
But no one seems to get that anymore.
There are glimmers of hope in little pockets,but I truly fear for the future of this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaumVogel

And I'm blown away that this entire concept is ignored by the entire country.
Now everybody has casino's and no one area benefits. There are all kinds of new sports stadiums[[built with tax payers deficits) and the NFL and the networks get the benefits.
True economic growth is about nose to the grindstone,stand against corruption and mis-management and re-investment into business.
But no one seems to get that anymore.
There are glimmers of hope in little pockets,but I truly fear for the future of this country.

---

Being a disillusioned, TV sitcom watching, 1/2 hour fix, society, is today's norm. People keep looking for the quick-fix, the magic bullet. The powers that be, understand this, and it allows them, much like an info-mercial, to peddle their wares. Long term is a thing of the past, "we want it now", is today's battle cry. Fooled me once, shame on you, fooled me twice, shame on me.

What is so hard to comprehend that to have a thriving megalopolis you have to a place where people flock to earn money not spend it.

What's curious is that there is no mention of monorails in this research.

Obviously development gimmicks like stadiums, casinos, festival marketplaces won't bring back this city.

But simply "running a good city" is not enough. Schools are failing, and could of course improve, but without a programmatic approach to lifting people out of poverty, the education gap will never be closed. Same with crime -- as long as people are impoverished, there will still be a crime problem.

It's conceivable that these problems can be "solved" by dividing the city into districts that are for the wealthy, and those in which remain poor and forgotten. The "New Detroit" with safe streets, good schools and lots of commerce and activity. The old Detroit that we see in ruin porn well out of site of any visitors. I think this the goal.

However, without major investment in infrastructure [[i.e. public transit), I don't see this "New Detroit" growing very large.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBMcB

It isn't so much that they have no effect on the economy. It's that, if your basic city services are lacking, you get a much, *much* bigger return on investing in those than on the 'trendy' stuff.

---

This. Think about why the city is getting more good press and it's because the city is a more functional place. The streetlights are being fixed, better maintained parks, the influx of investment greater downtown. There is nothing wrong with having trendy stuff in of itself, but it can't be at the expense of basic functionality. I'm not a fan public money for stadiums, but I do think the new wings arena have will much more a spin off effect than Comerica or Ford Field as downtown is no longer the "skyscraper graveyard" because people actually now want to live work and play in the area. Now that it's actually clean ,safe and well lit.

The Clean Downtown initiative was on of the best things to happen down there and yet it did until didn't start 2006. But city in the 70's and 80's was more focused putting up murals or Trapper's Alley downtown. Now that it's clean, it makes sense like that people like Gilbert are putting up art,etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

now what? What kind of public policy planning will take place to improve on the neighborhoods, and not just downtown?

---

I don't know if this will happen. The only public policy I see is waiting for big business to find profit in improving neighborhoods.

I don't think public schools are essential to creating a booming city. The most booming cities in this country all have crappy public schools [[perhaps of varying degrees of crappy). A solid transportation system is far more important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think public schools are essential to creating a booming city. The most booming cities in this country all have crappy public schools [[perhaps of varying degrees of crappy). A solid transportation system is far more important.

---

The healthiest urban cities tend to have the best public schools. The public schools in NYC, SF, Boston are routinely ranked the best among the older U.S. cities. Detroit, incidentally, has the lowest test scores of any big city district in the nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

The healthiest urban cities tend to have the best public schools. The public schools in NYC, SF, Boston are routinely ranked the best among the older U.S. cities. Detroit, incidentally, has the lowest test scores of any big city district in the nation.

---

Excluding the south, where the federal government forbade school districts from fracturing along municipal boundaries, there is no urban district in this country that performs better than the surrounding suburban districts. That is by design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think public schools are essential to creating a booming city. The most booming cities in this country all have crappy public schools [[perhaps of varying degrees of crappy). A solid transportation system is far more important.

---

Good schools aren't necessary to start rebuilding a city. Only 20-25% of the U.S. population are households with school-age children. It's idiotic to ignore 75% of your potential market to focus strictly on the remaining one-quarter. And if you look at who is moving into central cities--it's largely empty nest Baby Boomers and childless professional couples--hardly the people who need good schools. But these people *do* pay taxes, which can be beneficial to improving schools.

Not to say that good schools aren't desirable. But waiting for "good schools" before doing anything else is a straw man argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Good schools aren't necessary to start rebuilding a city. Only 20-25% of the U.S. population are households with school-age children. It's idiotic to ignore 75% of your potential market to focus strictly on the remaining one-quarter. And if you look at who is moving into central cities--it's largely empty nest Baby Boomers and childless professional couples--hardly the people who need good schools. But these people *do* pay taxes, which can be beneficial to improving schools.

Not to say that good schools aren't desirable. But waiting for "good schools" before doing anything else is a straw man argument.

---

What so many people don't get ... is that good public schools are the product of a healthy community, not the cause of a healthy community.

Involved parents simply do not want to send their kid to a school with other kids whose parents are not "involved." Thus how good a school operates is mostly dependent on the family structure the kid comes from. In Detroit, a much higher proportion of the students come from broken families, or no families at all. That is the true root of the problem, and from that comes bad administration and bad school situations because frankly far too many of the parents simply don't care.

And of those parents who do care in the failing district, they try to get their kid out of that school system and move to a better one if they can. Fixing the school administration, or teachers, or buildings, or whatever does not make a sustainable improvement to the school. The only thing that will improve a school long term is to improve the family situations from which the student base comes from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Good schools aren't necessary to start rebuilding a city. Only 20-25% of the U.S. population are households with school-age children. It's idiotic to ignore 75% of your potential market to focus strictly on the remaining one-quarter.

---

It's 43%, not 25%. 43% of households have children.

Focusing on x% of the population with children has nothing to do with ignoring the remainder.

And everyone has an interest in good schools. The vast majority of people look for communities with good school whether or not they have school-age children, because they want to maintain their property values, and don't want to live in a community where people have contempt for knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bham1982

...And everyone has an interest in good schools. The vast majority of people look for communities with good school whether or not they have school-age children, because they want to maintain their property values, and don't want to live in a community where people have contempt for knowledge.

---

You're conflating only loosely related issues.

We live in New York, where it couldn't be easier to find smart people.
But we're so outta here before school.
Even child care here makes us queasy.
If you put your kids first where you live becomes a different scenario.
But that doesn't mean New York isn't a great city. It Is.
Detroit deserves it. And could be too.
I'm no Nostradamus, but if it will be, it will be before its schools.
Hoping for both, but not expecting them together.
It would be great progress one step at a time.