Downsizing Detroit and New Orleans - another perspective

Here is another essay about the difficulties of downsizing an urban neighborhood. Perhaps, it is a good thing that Mayor Duggan did not endorse downsizing Detroit neighborhoods. John Carlisle essay in last Sunday's Freep about Marathon Oil and their efforts to downsize Oakwood Heights was very informative. Even with substantial offers of money, a few home owners turned down the Marathon offers for their homes. However, the long term demographic trends of middle class folks leaving Detroit for the suburbs seems very firmly established. It seems quite likely that the population in many Detroit neighborhoods will continue to decline.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/us...a.html?hp&_r=0

In theory, downsizing decreases taxes and increases services. I don't think residents believe this, and I can't blame them.

Does anyone really think that after downsizing, taxes would go down? Or would we just find other ways of spending money, like increasing the staff of the Human Rights department.

Clearly, downsizing is rational and should be the best thing for the citizens of Detroit. But unless this was tied to a guarantee to the residents, I think they are right to fight against this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

In theory, downsizing decreases taxes and increases services. I don't think residents believe this, and I can't blame them.

Does anyone really think that after downsizing, taxes would go down? Or would we just find other ways of spending money, like increasing the staff of the Human Rights department.

Clearly, downsizing is rational and should be the best thing for the citizens of Detroit. But unless this was tied to a guarantee to the residents, I think they are right to fight against this.

---

I think just like the "gasoline tax" that was supposed to be used for road improvement, ONLY, and the lottery proceeds that were supposed to be used for "our schools", there will always be mismanagement of funds, and the powers that be, will always be looking for more money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

I think just like the "gasoline tax" that was supposed to be used for road improvement, ONLY, and the lottery proceeds that were supposed to be used for "our schools", there will always be mismanagement of funds, and the powers that be, will always be looking for more money.

---

Thought but unexpressed in my post is that until we find a way to control government spending, we'll have suspicious of efforts to 'save' money. It seems that government simply reorganizes itself to use all the available cash. Just about exactly in the same way that markets adjust to the available money. [[Why are downtown rents? Cost of college? Health care costs? Subsidies change markets?)

So what's the solution? I don't know. Maybe allowing residents in downsized zones to get the savings if they relocate? But that's almost a subsidy. How about taxing residents based on density? If you move to a dense area, you pay less -- because you will cost your fellow citizens less? And if you move to a less dense area -- that's fine. But you have to share in the excess cost of brining you policing, fire, water, etc. Ah, dream on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

In theory, downsizing decreases taxes and increases services. I don't think residents believe this, and I can't blame them.

Does anyone really think that after downsizing, taxes would go down? Or would we just find other ways of spending money, like increasing the staff of the Human Rights department.

Clearly, downsizing is rational and should be the best thing for the citizens of Detroit. But unless this was tied to a guarantee to the residents, I think they are right to fight against this.

---

You seem to be viewing residents' critiques of these downsizing initiatives through some sort of funhouse mirror that makes everyone look and sound exactly like Grover Norquist. While I have no doubt that this is an entertaining activity in its own right, your analysis might be better served by, you know, listening to what residents critical of these initiatives are actually, you know, saying.

I think if there were more aggressive blighted-structure removal, there could be a better assessment of the state of the various neighborhoods, and what service/infrastructure needs are most pressing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

I think if there were more aggressive blighted-structure removal,...

---

From today's Free Press: Monumental effort to tear down blight would improve neighborhoods and Detroit's image

Quote:

---

Detroit emergency manager Kevyn Orr and city officials must show such a torrid pace of demolition is even possible. In the blueprint released Friday for rebuilding Detroit, Orr set aside $520 million to ramp up demolitions from 114 residential structures a week now to 400-450 every week by next year.

---

That's quite an increase!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antongast

You seem to be viewing residents' critiques of these downsizing initiatives through some sort of funhouse mirror that makes everyone look and sound exactly like Grover Norquist. While I have no doubt that this is an entertaining activity in its own right, your analysis might be better served by, you know, listening to what residents critical of these initiatives are actually, you know, saying.

---

Wesley sees all through Grover's eyes.

Demolitions are - of course - important, but I think ramping up police coverage is what really matters. People say Detroit needs to consolidate, but it still has more population density than Ferndale or Royal Oak. Granted, the density is not spread out as evenly as it is in those cities, but that wouldn't be such a problem if the city wasn't so poor.

Which brings us to the real problem. You can't have a functioning city when the majority of the people are in poverty. Bring police and jobs back in the city and everything would fix itself over time.