Bing Bringing Back DetroitWorks. Maybe This Time People Will Listen?

I'm guessing here, but something tells me the intensity of the resistance Bing was getting at the community feedback meetings was in direct correlation the amount of ignorance people had about the city's financial situation.

http://www.freep.com/article/20111204/BUSINESS06/112040483/Bing-reboots-Detroit-Works

Quote:

---

John Mogk, a longtime law professor at Wayne State University specializing in government and urban development issues, said he foresees four major obstacles that continue to hinder Detroit Works. Those include political resistance among residents of distressed neighborhoods who don't like the idea of being downsized; the fiscal challenge of paying to implement any plan; the city's diminished administrative capacity to handle complex details of any major plan, and legal challenges that may be filed against whatever plan emerges next year.

---

Under the threat of bankruptcy/insolvency, something tells me that the political resistance will be given a whole lot less consideration. Both in government and also from the citizenry.

Costs to implement are an issue, however, I think if the city can propose a plan avoiding an EM/EFM that citizens can agree to, the state would be willing to invest money to do it...especially if the investment is less than the financial cost of dealing with an insolvent Detroit and if the plan is fiscally sound enough to merit a capital infusion.

It's not just residents that are against Detroit Works, but also most of the vacant land the city is trying to shut off is owned by private interest groups.

Thre are legal aspects that must be consider before we can just throw people out of their homes and force them to move where they don't want to.

As for Lansing, not only would they have to pay for JUST moving the people [[which is expensive in itself, because the only way eminent domain works is if the government entity offers the owner of the property a reasonable lump sum of money), Lansing will also have to pay for removing all of the infrastructure and re-routing it, which costs should run into billions. I doubt the far right legislators [[who also tend to be short-term thinking) will go for that. It'll be much easier for them to just bring in a EFM, allow the rest of teh city outside of downtown/midtown to populate when the hammer crashes down and then close off the borders.

It's still DOA.

EDIT: And Bing knows all of this [[which is why we hadn't heard anything more about it in over a year or two until now), he's just doing some political posturing because he fears he may be out of a job very soon.

Looks like Mayor Bing has decided to utilize the political firestorm surrounding the impending [[likely) EM to finally unveil the next stage in his Detroit Works Project.

With the city's finances finally on the table will Bing and this new steering committee have the ability to really promote and implement the kind of neighborhood and more generally land usage changes that would be required to stabilize city finances?

Will he even get the chance?

Finally, would an EM likely pick up this project and run with it, perhaps take it to its [[politically unpopular) ends?

I think that this might be another political play for Lansing that the administration is doing something. The idea of shaping services to match communities makes perfect sense if its doable, however the idea of shaping communities to match services is bold and risky [[if not illegal on due process or other concerns). With the direction and speed that Snyder likely needs to move if he wants to have any chance at getting an EM into Detroit before a petition may stall the whole mechanism, I don't think Bing has enough time to start anything with the Detroit Works Project. However, if the mayor can get the commission off and running, I think there is some chance that where the ideas make sense an EM may follow the advice of the commission. Food for thought.

Oh, and here are the members of the steering committee, George Jackson is chair.

1. George W. Jackson, Detroit Economic Growth Corporation, Steering Committee Chair
2. Bishop Charles Ellis, Greater Grace Temple, Chair Mayor’s Advisory Task Force
3. Lydia Gutierrez, Hacienda Mexican Products, Chair Mayor’s Advisory Task Force
4. Heaster Wheeler, Wayne County, Chair Mayor’s Advisory Task Force
5. Alice Thompson, Black Family Development, Chair Mayor’s Advisory Task Force
6. Phillip Cooley, Slows Bar BQ, Chair Mayor’s Advisory Task Force
7. Rod Rickman, Rickman Enterprises
8. Dr. George Swan, COO, Wayne County Community College
9. Tyrone Davenport, CEO, Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History
10. Laura Trudeau, Kresge Foundation
11. Don Chen, Ford Foundation
12. Marja Winters, City of Detroit Planning & Development Department
13. Marcell Todd, City of Detroit City Planning Commission

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313WX

It's not just residents that are against Detroit Works, but also most of the vacant land the city is trying to shut off is owned by private interest groups.

Thre are legal aspects that must be consider before we can just throw people out of their homes and force them to move where they don't want to.

As for Lansing, not only would they have to pay for JUST moving the people [[which is expensive in itself, because the only way eminent domain works is if the government entity offers the owner of the property a reasonable lump sum of money), Lansing will also have to pay for removing all of the infrastructure and re-routing it, which costs should run into billions. I doubt the far right legislators [[who also tend to be short-term thinking) will go for that. It'll be much easier for them to just bring in a EFM, allow the rest of teh city outside of downtown/midtown to populate when the hammer crashes down and then close off the borders.

It's still DOA.

---

Yes, its expensive, but the alternative of paying the ongoing costs of keeping the city afloat is also expensive. So yes, its DOA. And so is the city. So I think the plan matches the gravity of the situation. I quite like seeing someone making bold proposals for a chance. Recommending investment. Planning your future. Not just letting it happen. Its what good leaders do. Playing into the politically possible is for wimps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

So yes, its DOA. And so is the city.

---

Yeah, I've already reached that conclusion. I'm a realist and pragmatist BTW, but I also believe one can do the politically impossible while remaing realistic [[I.E. residency requirement, lottery proposal, etc.). This one is not the case.

Detroit as is [[a major american city) is dead. There's no way possible I can see this not being the case.

The future, more likely than not, will probably be a 5 sq. mi. city of roughly 100,000 people. Problem is there are cities that size all over the country, nothing particularly special about them to lure people and attention to them from the outside. I would also have to question too how long we can continue to support all of these cultural institutions and major league sports teams as well. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of us losing the Pistons at the very least. Good news is that it means we'll have quite a densely packed little town [[a big brother to Hamtramck perhaps?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313WX

Yeah, I've already reached that conclusion. I'm a realist and pragmatist BTW, but I also believe one can do the politically impossible while remaing realistic [[I.E. residency requirement, lottery proposal, etc.). This one is not the case.

Detroit as is [[a major american city) is dead. There's no way possible I can see this not being the case.

---

Well, yes. Detroit as a million-person city has been dead for years in my mind. Frankly, even though I'm a big Detroit cheerleader and believer, I've always thought the "shrinking process" was one which should've been started 10 years ago. It was always inevitable, and it would've been less painful to do over time.

Quote:

---

The future, more likely than not, will probably be a 5 sq. mi. city of roughly 100,000 people. Problem is there are cities that size all over the country, nothing particularly special about them to lure people and attention to them from the outside. I would also have to question too how long we can continue to support all of these cultural institutions and major league sports teams as well. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of us losing the Pistons at the very least. Good news is that it means we'll have quite a densely packed little town [[a big brother to Hamtramck perhaps?).

---

First, I think 5 sq. miles, 100,000 population, and growing, is a much better place to be than 700,000 and shrinking. We could get rid of the failing neighborhoods and condense into a managable city at this size. Ann Arbor is 100,000. I was imagining more like 250,000-300k, which would still be sizable. We could re-write the Detroit future as one of re-invention, entrepreneurship, and transformation.

Second, I don't think we will lose any of the cultural institutions or sports teams. We aren't losing 600,000 residents because they're moving to Cleveland or Chicago. We're losing them to inner ring suburbs like Redford, Warren, Harper Woods, Southfield, Grosse Pointe, and Livonia.

Major cultural institutions will likely be under regional control and regional financing so that the cost to pay for these jewels [[and the responsibility and privilege of managing them) could be spread equitably across the entire area.

The Pistons and Tigers aren't going anywhere. I'd imagine that revenue from Detroit residents makes up but a fraction of their income.

A big brother to Hamtramck, but one which is vibrant, healthy, growing, filled with historical architecture, filled with world class services and venues...I think that's a story that might even make it easier to attract business into the state -- even the city.

All of the physical right-sizing in the world won't get rid of the pension obligations that Detroit has to service from when it had a much larger population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iheartthed

All of the physical right-sizing in the world won't get rid of the pension obligations that Detroit has to service from when it had a much larger population.

---

Oh, we'll need to do that too. And it sucks because my father is one of them.
Maybe the city cuts all pensions by 15%, unless you live in the city. If you live in the city, it's only cut by 5% [[Maybe even specify specific sustainable neighborhoods at various socio-economic levels). That incents people to be staying/living in the city.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

Second, I don't think we will lose any of the cultural institutions or sports teams. We aren't losing 600,000 residents because they're moving to Cleveland or Chicago. We're losing them to inner ring suburbs like Redford, Warren, Harper Woods, Southfield, Grosse Pointe, and Livonia.

---

Relative to the rest of the country this region has been shrinking since the 1970s.

It won't show up on absolute numbers, but the fact of the matter is we don't have as much relevance to the country as a whole as we did when Detroit was at its peak [[the region).

However, 48% of our younger people are leaving the region. That means 48% fewer people to re-produce another generation, assuming we can't bring in new people from the outside [[and we're not so far). So the absolute decline for Metro Detroit will start to show as the baby boomers die off in the next couple of decades. The region's prime is behind it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

Oh, we'll need to do that too. And it sucks because my father is one of them.
Maybe the city cuts all pensions by 15%, unless you live in the city. If you live in the city, it's only cut by 5% [[Maybe even specify specific sustainable neighborhoods at various socio-economic levels). That incents people to be staying/living in the city.

---

Yeah, great idea. My mother, who passed this year, was living on a city pension of $850 a month. Cutting that by 15% would have been really special. Not to mention that she was ineligible for SS or Medicare because prior to the 80's, Detroit Police didn't pay into those programs. So any cop or dependent of one prior to the time they finally started paying into the Federal programs would basically be left to starve to death.

"Griffin said that Detroit Works is evolving as planners listen to residents about what they want for the city, both in the short- and long-term."

That's probably a smart idea on the part of the planners. If they keep talking to the citizenry they can delay the realization that this plan won't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcole

Yeah, great idea. My mother, who passed this year, was living on a city pension of $850 a month. Cutting that by 15% would have been really special. Not to mention that she was ineligible for SS or Medicare because prior to the 80's, Detroit Police didn't pay into those programs. So any cop or dependent of one prior to the time they finally started paying into the Federal programs would basically be left to starve to death.

---

Hey...i'm not saying there could be exemptions at certain income levels. And if your mom lived in Detroit, maybe she'd be exempt all together. I'm talking about the hundreds and thousands of city employees earning $2000+ per month to live out in Sterling Heights and never spend a dime in the city. Or living in Miami and never spending a dime in the state.

And let's remember, I'm not trying to put your mother out on the street. But I'd rather she get a $722 check than no pension check at all.

Quit peddling the scaremongering with the pensions. As I said before, pensions are protected by the state constitution. Pensions will continue to be paid before anything else. Anyone who believes otherwise should look at Pontiac. Even with an EFM, no police and fire services being contracted out, the EFM is raising taxes to pay the pensions.

The obligation to pay this falls on Detroit, but the laws that allowed the city to make these obligations without proper funding mechanisms was not.

Therefore, I think they are obligations of the state. They allowed Detroit [[and all other cities) to make unfunded promises for future pay. All state residents should pay. Besides, in a few years, a lot of other cities might just be in the same boat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

Hey...i'm not saying there could be exemptions at certain income levels. And if your mom lived in Detroit, maybe she'd be exempt all together. I'm talking about the hundreds and thousands of city employees earning $2000+ per month to live out in Sterling Heights and never spend a dime in the city. Or living in Miami and never spending a dime in the state.

And let's remember, I'm not trying to put your mother out on the street. But I'd rather she get a $722 check than no pension check at all.

---

If you noticed, I said she passed. Many of the retirees left Detroit many, many years ago, and moving a 90 yr old back to the city is not really a viable solution in most cases.
And why don't you try to live on $850 a month anywhere, Detroit or otherwise. You can barely cover rent and food, not to mention all the other things the elderly need, like, oh, doctors, medications and other incidentals like that.