What's your take on this?
Lots of old ideas, I will be interested in the final report
http://www.architectmagazine.com/urb...-motown_1.aspx
Printable View
What's your take on this?
Lots of old ideas, I will be interested in the final report
http://www.architectmagazine.com/urb...-motown_1.aspx
Seems like a lot of time and money has been spent on ideas and downsizing etc. but failing to fix the crux kinda makes the rest pointless.So much interest in remaking a city that the basics and working with and improving what is already there gets tossed out the window.Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
You already have these people in your back yard so as they are setting up shop elsewhere more jobs and residents or potential residents are leaving or lost.
"We're excited about GM coming to town," Jere Wood told Petchenik.
Wood confirmed that the automaker has purchased a 25,000 square foot building on the corner of Warsaw and Mansell roads from UPS and intends to bring new jobs with it.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local...th-fult/nTm8w/
I guess GM has Georgia on their mind.
My gut reaction is that the Detroit Works' Project will be very impressive, well thought out, and well received. I don't know if it will be well-executed, though the political planets are finally aligned to spur emergency thinking.
I believe it will have three main advantages over any other ideas that have come forth thus far:
[[1) It is based on community input over months and months of interviews
[[2) It is strategic and holistic. Evaluating infrastructure is one thing. Schools is another. Blight is another. But to evaluate all 3 at once is going to be really helpful.
[[3) Splitting the report into short-term solutions and long-term planning. Many good ideas have been shot down because short-term pains aren't being addressed. This will hopefully address both in a complementary way.
I have not seen the report and do not know anyone who is in the Detroit Works Organization or the Kresge Foundation. I have no vested interest in it, other than that I hope whatever they generate will spur dialogue.
At the very minimum, I'm looking forward to the day when someone states, "I don't like what Detroit Works is doing" and I can respond, "What specifically about their long-term plan don't you like?" Everything so far is just speculation.
What exactly are they proposing?Quote:
Originally Posted by rb336
More greenspace would be nice, but isn't a city-saver. Talking to neighborhoods respectfully is nice, but also not a city-saver.
To save the city you need to increase the tax-base. Period.
Well, first step to increase the tax-base is to stop the tax-base from decreasing. In order to do that you have to make sure that every $1 spent by the city is done as efficiently as possible to improve service and quality of life. That's not happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by nickbii
For example, how does $100 not equal $100?
Well, soon people in neighborhoods will be able to pay $100 per year for added private security dedicated just to that neighborhood. And you know what? Many people will be excited to pay it because they know that every dollar spent will come back to their neighborhoods.
Now what if the city just said, "Hey, we're going to increase your taxes by $100 and send it to the police department." Um...it's hard to say that the $100 per household will translate to as much security this way.
Quote:
What exactly are they proposing?
Why don't we wait and see. One thing that I know for sure...the city does not deploy its resources in an efficient or strategic way. It also has liabilities that are costing millions which could become assets which generate revenue.
When the report comes out, there will be plenty of opportunity to argue that it's a piece of crap.
interesting. I wonder will the public unveiling quickly degenerate into a shout-fest like the early Detroit Works gatherings. We'll see.
This is nonsense. Not the idea that the city needs more money, but the implication that the tax base is the whole story.Quote:
Originally Posted by nickbii
The city has had a significantly larger tax base in the past. That didn't save the city, and it is unlikely to save it in the future.
The city is administered badly, often corruptly, and historically its spending priorities have been questionable. The most important functions, police and schools, have seen intervention by outside agencies at various times because of mismanagement. Aside from the fact that this has resulted in a tremendous waste of money, it also discourages anyone from helping the city get more, and a huge amount of the money the city gets doesn't come from the city's own tax base now.
Frankly, to save the city the city government needs to be running efficiently and with the main objective of making Detroit as attractive as possible a place to live and work as is feasible within our fiscal constraints. Most likely the taxes will follow.
@MWlibert:
People think Detroit is inefficient and mismanaged because the cops don't come when you need them and other city services are slow. This is despite the fact that, from a citizen's stand-point, mismanagement looks identical to not having enough money. People assume that the Mayor etc. have enough to do their jobs because the only logical alternative is to flee.
For example nobody says NYC is mismanaged but it's budget is something like 5-6 times of Detroit's per capita. Granted that number includes the schools, and possibly other responsibilities, but $8,400 per capita buys a lot quicker police response time then $1,585. Chicago is notorious for being poorly managed and inefficient but it's spending more then $3k per capita. The average in the southeast Michigan region is in the $4k range:
http://www.munetrix.com/Michigan/Mun...ding/City/14/1
Yet Detroit is spending $1.12 Billion on 700,000 people. Their public safety chart is even more telling. Detroit's fourth in police spending per capita. The guys who spend more are by definition both less efficient and worse managed, then the D, but they aren't collapsing the way Detroit is.
BTW, your argument "we had a tax base before and it didn't work" is problematic because we haven't had a legit tax base since the 70s. At that point racial tensions caused/typified/etc. by the riots/STRESS/etc. made most whites move from the City, gutting the tax base.
Right now we've got a lot less racial tension, which means that if Jesus appeared from the heavens and granted Detroit a tax base it's likely it would not leave.
In some ways this is true. Archer actually managed to achieve it. The problem is that it's virtually impossible to sustain unless the Governor not only wants to subsidize Detroit, but also has the cash to do so. It's like running a failing business. You generally don't turn a profit until year three, but in Detroit it's legally impossible to get to year three because you can't run a deficit.Quote:
Originally Posted by corktownyuppie
BTW, the $security guys idea is good from the point-of-view of keeping people in the City, but terrible from the point-of-view of getting them to move TO the City.
You're saying a Detroiter has to pay ridiculous tax rates, like $800 for garbage, an extra $1,000 per car in mandatory Auto Insurance, and still needs to hire his own private security firm because the cops suck? Livonia here I come.
I'm disappointed that they are backing away from completely vacating / clearing out the most blighted areas and providing relocation assistance. The current plan [[?) to just starve blighted area residents of services until they give up and move seems much more cruel than just shutting down an area of the city and helping the residents move.
Especially in light of this fact from the article:
"Only 88,911 residents live in high-vacancy neighborhoods, compared to the nearly 619,000 in more stable areas. But high-vacancy areas make up 21 percent of the city’s footprint."
But how much of the policing and infrastructure spend is going to support these areas? Compared to the number of residents?