Does Dan Gilbert mentioned this to his employees?
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE
Does Dan Gilbert mentioned this to his employees?
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE
I can't find a recent [[2011-2012) homicide rate of less than 60 per 100,000 persons for Port au Prince, and have actually found sources stating it's upwards of 70 per 100,000. The homicide rate is bad enough for Mr. Hunter not to continually have to exaggerate to make a point like he's been doing for quite a few years now in how he's covered crime in the city.
BTW, this didn't need it's own post. There are a full half-dozen of so posts on just this subforum dealing with the city's violent crime issue. Another thing, if you're not going to make a post without drive-by editorial pot-shots at Gilbert or Bing [[neither of who I personally care for very much) like some three year old, well, then you can keep being treated like a joke. Go troll elsewhere, child.
Time is too precious, and positive thoughts and actions too necessary for you to think you'll get away with negatively trolling a site named DetroitYes! without a challenge. There is an entire world outside of here where one can get their negative jollies trolling this region; your seemingly insatiable greed for negativity won't be allowed to ruin and tear down this place, too.
When someone here takes it upon himself to shush posters for being negative I think of the incident recounted in The Tipping Point in which a military airplane crashed because the co-pilot, noticing a problem, pointed it out, was ignored by his superior and did not urgently pursue the issue because he took the respectful route. The aircraft crashed.
The story of crime creeping into all the neighborhoods is a new story, the numbers are new, Mayor Bing's assurances are tissue-paper against the storm.
Sepico, in my mind, has a perfect and important point for discussion and Dexlin is attempting to inappropriately shush him for the sake of keeping the forum positive and tidy for any outsiders who might read it.
Is that the right thing to do?
Well, in my mind it is not the point being discussed but, rather, how. Yes, it is pertinent that homicides and crime are creeping into all the neighborhoods.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMAP
What is not pertinent is blaming anyone for failure to fixing it without contributing to how exactly that will happen.
For example, one statistic is that over 45% of homicides occurred between people who know each other. Now, of course, that is troubling in that you still have just as many who were strangers. But the point is that if you could eliminate or drastically reduce the 45%, you would have twice as many cops to deal with the other half.
And it raises another question...is it the police's responsibility to prevent homicides between acquaintances? And, if so, are they the only ones responsible? And are we willing to give up and privileges and rights in exchange for a reduction in homicides?
And what about the other half? It is bizarre that:
What are we willing to do about this? Here are things I've been considering:Quote:
Some neighborhoods, including Midtown, Palmer Woods, Rosedale Park and Indian Village, had no murders or were well below the city average.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2ItqNGURE
- Lobbying to have every household in Corktown pony up $200 per year to pay for a private security detail to patrol, just like in Palmer Woods
- Having a 2x per month assignment to patrol the neighborhoods in a neighborhood watch
- Even sealing off the perimeter into Corktown so that there are only 3 or 4 guarded entrances you must cross to enter the neighborhood....turning into a subdivision.
Are these measures drastic? Sure. Are they consistent with the threat level? I would argue that they are.
What do you want Bing to say, cancel the Auto show, dont bring your convention here, its not safe.
NO, It is NOT the right thing to do, IMO. I find the fact that innocent, productive, people, being sentenced to death by criminals with semi-automatic weapons VERY disturbing and an issue that should be addressed and not swept under the rug, simply because, yet another high-end coffee house, has opened in a "safe" neighborhood. I find it disturbing that people watch helplessly as their meager homes, possessions and sometimes families, burn to the ground because of the lack of firefighting resources. I find it disturbing that people who could have been saved, die needlessly lying in the street, waiting 30-40 minutes for an ambulance to show up. I find it disturbing that a prevailing attitude sems to be emerging that if it isn't happening in Midtown, well, it doesn't concern us. I'm glad SOMEONE, [[read Dan Gilbert), has taken the bull by the horns, and decided to buy up, and give life to old buildings, waiting for death to arrive. [[color choice, though, is for a different discussion). I'm glad yupsters have decided, much to their parents chagrin, to move into the City and start adding life, a new outlook, and perspective to these old run down neighborhoods. All of this is Detroit, like it or not. Last time I looked, the American flag was STILL flying over this country, and that means we STILL have the right to express ourselves, whether or not someone wants to hear what we have to say. Detroit has very serious issues on the sidelines. Sugar coating or hushing them up isn't a solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMAP
just out of question, where did you get your stats for Monrovia? i just Googled their population and the top results yielded wildly different answers spanning from 450,000 to 1.5 million. also, i think corktownyuppie brings up some damn good points and raises the question of what a city would look like with a semi privatized police department.
Most of those employees that live in the city live in downtown or midtown.Quote:
Originally Posted by serpico
Look on the map, those are safe areas.
Troll hard, though, homie.
serpico, sometimes the best reaction to a situation is no reaction at all, negative or positive.
If you don't live or no longer live in Detroit, then let those that remain deal with their issues in whatever way they see fit, if it their way doesn't seem like the best way to resolve them. After all, you have no stake in the outcome either way. For example, the special business interests will make sure the Tigers, Red Wings and Lions still play their sports games, no matter what happens with Detroit city.
If you do live in Detroit and you feel the situation is as hopeless as you describe [[which I tend to agree), just quietly plan your escape and hope you can get out sooner rather than later.
"I'm not going to make excuses for the numbers, but a lot of the homicides are in residential areas with people who know each other."
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz2IuUrdDla
He says he's not going to make excuses, then in the exact same sentence he makes an excuse.
I've got news for you, you ran to be mayor of this city, including those "residential areas", which make up the vast, vast majority of the city and its population.
This is the second time within the month he has made some non-committal excuse about the violence in this city. 200 cops spread over 9 precincts, and countless shifts amounts to nothing. It is smoke and mirrors. The mayor and police chief of this city are completely uncommitted to making this city even reasonably safe. Instead, they will try to simply convince us that it is, despite all evidence of the contrary.
Dave Bing, you sicken me. Since you are completely isolated from the city and the public at large you will never have to know the fear and pain of someone you care about being murdered or wounded in those "residential areas" - damn you for it.
They're "safe areas" because my area isn't safe. My tax dollars are being spent on keeping Gilbert's and Ilitch's areas safe. THAT'S the issue people are having, and why all the "negativity". People flaunt on this site "I live in a safe area", while the rest of us, daily, have to fend for ourselves. When someone points that out, they're called a troll. When the buffer zone starts to collapse, then maybe people here will realize it's their problem too. Have a latte in the green zone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
So it's your tax dollars and not the tax dollars of the people who moved there? :confused: I don't understand this anomosity towards downtown and midtown. You think the rest of Detroit would be better without this development?Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
I don't have a CLUE what it is you're trying to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
Nwo it's one thing to say it costs less to provide services to downtown/midtown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
It's an entirely different thing to say the tax dollars generated are not pittance compared to what those in the neighborhoods pay [[combined income and property taxes).
I don't think the rest of Detroit would necessarily be better off, but yeah, it's his tax dollars that subsidize the improvements in Downtown/Midtown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
The whole "revitalization" of these two areas basically consists of wealth transfers from Michigan taxpayers to landowners and residents in these two small neighborhoods. There's almost no organic revitalization, and every single decent-sized renovation or new construction project only occurs because of generous public subsidies.
The argument in favor of this situation is that eventually the subsidies will spark some sort of sustainable revitalization, but we haven't seen that yet.
Okay. But way out of scope, I know I didn't address that. Scope of the OP was "Does Dan Gilbert mentioned this to his employees?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
My response was that most of his city employees live in safe areas, the implication being that he doesn't need to mention it.
The "why" of those areas being safe is a whole 'nother issue. Not sure why you brought it up here, given that there are lots of threads on that.
I brought it up because anytime someone points out real issues with Detroit, they get chastized for negativity. You're the one chastizing the poster, you're the one that keeps repeating "safe areas". There's a whole 'NOTHER 7 page thread about the glories BWW in Detroit, so I guess we're even.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
Don't so quick to take the bait. It has always been that case that a large percentage of murder victims knew their attackers. A quick google shows numbers as high as 80% of victims knew their attackers. More recent numbers show that at least 56% of victims knew their murderer. So if you take the natural spin that the numbers intend it appears as if Detroit has an unusually high number of random homicides. The bottom line is that Bing and Co. are trying to get ahead of the story and spin the numbers before you figure out what they really mean and mention that evidence at an inconvenient time[[e.g. - before the election).Quote:
Originally Posted by corktownyuppie
What we also have is an administration that insists that they can do nothing because the homicides between individuals that have no connection are just too hard to solve. They will also tell you the homicides between acquaintances are too hard to solve because no one will "snitch". This is a very convenient narrative that will go largely unchallenged due to Metro Detroit's illiteracy, general lack of education, and racism. In turn this serves to perpetuate that status quo of astronomically high murder rates.
Not for nothing, but seems to me the "safe" areas of which he was speaking are found within NEZ areas or were created with massive tax credits/subsidies. So, no they are not paying their fair share...if you ask me...which you didn't... but just sayin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shollin
So the "safe" areas are not Detroit [[per Benny) and don't pay their fair share [[per you). Gotcha.Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
If they are such leeches [[I'm assuming if they aren't paying enough, they are leeching the system), would Detroit be better off without them then? I don't think so. Because even though my property tax rate is a bit reduced, I still pay a lot of property tax. On top of that, I pay an income tax to live and work in Detroit [[telling ya, these state and local taxes are tough on a Texas girl). Don't even get into the sales revenue from shopping/eating/drinking/enjoying the city. Just because property taxes are lowered [[even though the actual tax paid is still relatively high), doesn't mean residents of those zones are not paying their fair share into the system.
Personally if I were a resident of Detroit NOT living in a NEZ, I'd like to know why people [[likely) more wealthy than I, living in [[most likely) newer and nicer digs than I, receive the lion's share of the focus when it comes to resource allocation AND pay a lower tax burden than I do. I think that is a fair question.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
Is the city better off that they are there? I don't know, have there been any credible studies that show the massive subsidization of these areas created the growth they claimed it would?
And yes, I sort of agree with Benny... there are areas of Detroit have most preferred neighborhood status and receive far more in attention, service and support than many other areas of the city. From a purely selfish point of view, I appreciate that because the areas which I am most likely to be hanging out in are those same "safe" areas. So, thanks.
the fact remains, you pay less and get more, while others with less pay more and get less. Seems reversed to me...Quote:
Because even though my property tax rate is a bit reduced, I still pay a lot of property tax. On top of that, I pay an income tax to live and work in Detroit [[telling ya, these state and local taxes are tough on a Texas girl). Don't even get into the sales tax from shopping/eating/drinking/enjoying the city. Just because property taxes are lowered [[even though the actual tax paid is still relatively high), doesn't mean residents of those zones are not paying their fair share into the system.
Interesting point.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
I bet, when you consider city income tax and the state's sales tax local revenue sharing program, that the people in the NEZs not only pay for the city's foregone property tax but actually make money for the city, thereby not just paying their "fair share," but actually more than their fair share.
Not disagreeing that might be possible. Given that many of hte areas were established areas already though... is it that likely? for example,Quote:
Originally Posted by Eber Brock Ward
Is that 30% made up? IDK. Does anyone?Quote:
Indian Village, English Village, West Village and Berry Subdivision offer tax incentives for new residents who are currently moving to the Villages. An NEZ tax break allows new homeowners to enjoy up to a 30 percent discount on property taxes
On a house with a 100K assessed value, that's 2K lost. I'd imagine that's made up in direct tax contributions from income and spending from people who would otherwise not buy in the city, or, for those who would move to other neighborhoods, indirectly from savings to the city in serving smaller area. You don't need a study to tell you everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by bailey
And I'm curious as to what services I'm getting that others aren't. Last I heard, DPD did not show up on time when YOBS needed them the four times they were robbed. My neighbors all tell me not to even bother calling DPD. My streets aren't salted. I get the same number of trash pickups per month. I haven't tested DFD yet, but hopefully I won't have to find out.
I was under the impression that most of Gilbert's and Karmanos' employees still lived in the burbs?
That's what I've been hearing all along. Not many are choosing to actually relocate to the city.
Is this the case?