Detroit's new revenue increase plan?

Rather than city parking services employees writing tickets and collecting the change out of meters, maybe they laid them all off figuring they'll raise/keep more money that way? I tried to park at three different meters downtown earlier this week [[two on Michigan across from the Book Cadillac and another on Cass near Fort) and all were stuffed full with change, with torn cardboard sheets with hand written "no parking, meter full" messages on them. They lost out on my nickels and dimes......I parked anyway along with everyone else in a parallel spot. Huzzah!

In generally unrelated news, maybe all this new revenue is paying for the electricity powering the newly reactivated streetlights keeping Roosevelt Park aglow at night now. From Michigan to MCS and at least 16th to 14th, refurbished lamp housings, fixtures, poles and overhead wiring are more than adequately lighting Roosevelt Park with a pleasant mercury-vapor glow. Great to see!

They should float a huge tax on all vehicles garaged in Midtown or Downtown. After all, most of them are there due to property tax breaks and they are eating the resources from the non-centralized neighborhoods. It would be a good way to also encourage the use of public transit which could also use the revenues from fares.

^^^^ Say what? Hah. My car is in my private garage or drive way. Weeee! I get to keep driving and avoid the 'joys' of DDOT --:o--!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocko

In generally unrelated news, maybe all this new revenue is paying for the electricity powering the newly reactivated streetlights keeping Roosevelt Park aglow at night now. From Michigan to MCS and at least 16th to 14th, refurbished lamp housings, fixtures, poles and overhead wiring are more than adequately lighting Roosevelt Park with a pleasant mercury-vapor glow. Great to see!

---

Maybe Slows is feeding the "hungry" or Matty is handing out Christmas "bonuses", because in my neighborhood, where some serious tax $ are generated, it's business as usual for the COD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocko

Rather than city parking services employees writing tickets and collecting the change out of meters, maybe they laid them all off figuring they'll raise/keep more money that way? I tried to park at three different meters downtown earlier this week [[two on Michigan across from the Book Cadillac and another on Cass near Fort) and all were stuffed full with change, with torn cardboard sheets with hand written "no parking, meter full" messages on them. They lost out on my nickels and dimes......I parked anyway along with everyone else in a parallel spot. Huzzah!

---

It's a mess in Midtown. I work with a fairly sizable operation with street parking and all the meters are down around here. It really leads to confusion and frustration on the part of anyone coming here. But let's just hold hands and talk about how shit smells like roses in Midtown. Sorry, if you're denying basic services, the allure of the Bronx Bar and Union Street are going to wear thin.

What's idiotic is that parking is a revenue-producing department. Not only are essential services non-functioning, they're not even bothering to run the ones that create revenue.

As a segway from another recent thread, my garbage was picked up a day late [[notwithstanding the New Year delay). Even that formerly reliable service - which we pay extra for - is faultering.

This mayor needs to go, yesterday. He promised a house-cleaning and he's simply let the house fall down. Fuck him and to all the hell-bound bastards who ever let things get this bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

After all, most of them are there due to property tax breaks and they are eating the resources from the non-centralized neighborhoods.

---

I'm curious what you mean by this. Yes, many of them are there due to property tax breaks. But how do you arrive at the conclusion that they are eating the resources from the neighborhoods? Isn't it possible that they just require fewer resources from the neighborhoods to begin with? 1,000 cars in a privately-lit, privately-guarded parking garage costs the city almost $0 to keep secure.

Keeping 1,000 cars secure at 7 mile and Kelly requires 10 patrol cars and an on-call SWAT team.

Sure, you can be angry that the midtown parking garage isn't paying property taxes, but they're also not asking a whole lot from the city, either. Kinda of a stretch to conclude that they're "taking" from the neighborhoods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

I'm curious what you mean by this. Yes, many of them are there due to property tax breaks. But how do you arrive at the conclusion that they are eating the resources from the neighborhoods? Isn't it possible that they just require fewer resources from the neighborhoods to begin with? 1,000 cars in a privately-lit, privately-guarded parking garage costs the city almost $0 to keep secure.

Keeping 1,000 cars secure at 7 mile and Kelly requires 10 patrol cars and an on-call SWAT team.

Sure, you can be angry that the midtown parking garage isn't paying property taxes, but they're also not asking a whole lot from the city, either. Kinda of a stretch to conclude that they're "taking" from the neighborhoods.

---

Fair enough.

However, isn't the purpose of putting all of city's eggs in one basket to increase revenue in this one desirable area to the point where we have enough to improve services all over the city?

Isn't it defeating the purpose if these places aren't paying property taxes [[just a commuter tax mostly, which actually equals to what most Detroit homeowners & residents pays when combinng their income and property taxes), and are only investing in downtown/midtown BECAUSE of the property taxe breaks [[thus if the breaks were to ever go away the amount of investment could level off or reverse)?

You could argue the difference is made up by the wealthier folks being attracted who are paying the income tax, but the vast majority of residents were attracting aren't making the $75,000+ incomes that we want to make up for the loss of property tax revenue, but they're poor college students or recent college graduates who, at the most, are making $50,000 per year
[[and if they're hired by Dan Gilbert's companies, more like $25,000 to $35,000, which doesn't amount to much in yearly taxes).

CY my remark was semi-sarcastic, but based in part truth. Nearly all new development is happening with people who are getting incentives. This translates to much lower revenues for the City as a whole. What uses more water and sewer, a single family home or a new loft? Yes, both pay a water bill, but the cost of providing water [[like transit) is higher than the cost of what is charged. People are paying less taxes on 2,000 sq ft luxury lofts than I pay on an 800 sq ft warrendale home. Is this equitable? What do you think happens when the City sets up winners and losers like this? Eventually the neighborhoods that many of us grew up in die at the expense of having other folks get essentially a free ride. Is this fair?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

CY my remark was semi-sarcastic, but based in part truth.... Eventually the neighborhoods that many of us grew up in die at the expense of having other folks get essentially a free ride. Is this fair?

---

I know we don't always agree, but I just want to start out by saying that the crime problems and homicide problems are atrocious, and that I feel both emotionally invested in finding a solution as well as willing to make a financial investment to support that solution. My request, of course, is that any financial investment to make that happen gets spent wisely...but, point blank, if someone asked, "CY, would you be willing to pay $1,000 more per year in taxes if it would cut burglary, robbery, and homicide by 80%?" The answer would be a resounding YES.

Quote:

---

Nearly all new development is happening with people who are getting incentives. This translates to much lower revenues for the City as a whole.

---

This only holds true if you believe that the development would be happening without the incentives. I disagree with that conclusion. I believe that if you took away the incentives...instead of generating more revenue...you'd simply lose the development.

Quote:

---

What uses more water and sewer, a single family home or a new loft? Yes, both pay a water bill, but the cost of providing water [[like transit) is higher than the cost of what is charged.

---

Presuming you are talking about a multi-unit loft, then I come to the opposite conclusion. Yes, an apartment building for 2,000 will consume more water than a single family home. But the cost of providing that service to the 2,000 would be less per person because you only need one sewer line and water line into the building. Servicing 2,000 people on 100 different city blocks will cost way more per person than 2,000 people in one building.

Quote:

---

People are paying less taxes on 2,000 sq ft luxury lofts than I pay on an 800 sq ft warrendale home. Is this equitable? What do you think happens when the City sets up winners and losers like this?

---

Is this fair to you? Of course not. Is this fair to the city? My conclusion is maybe and I'm not sure. Why? Well it all goes back to the presumption of what would happen without the incentives.

If you're starting from the vantage point that taking away the incentives would just drive up the revenue, then of course it's not fair to the city. But if you're starting from the vantage point that taking away the incentives would just mean 2 fewer residents living in the luxury lofts, then you have to ask yourself whether the income tax collected from the new residents outweighs the loss in property taxes from the incentives.

My roommate and I probably pay over $4,000 in income taxes per year. The new condo [[in the NEZ) will be about $2000 in taxes per year [[Total $6,000). I can tell you right now that the city is now collecting as much as it will in taxes from us. If the property taxes went up to $4,000 per year, it's a real possibility that you would lose us [[or at least me) as residents...which just means you collect $0.

Not to mention that you have 2 fewer people spending money in the city, bringing guests into the city, etc. etc. etc.

You raise a powerful question about the city picking winners and losers. This is the most fundamental question and it needs to be addressed.

The city historically hasn't been picking winners and losers. It's been trying to make them all winners and save every neighborhood. We can't do that any more. We only have so many resources and can't save everyone. If we try to save every neighborhood, they all will die.

The problem isn't that the city is picking winners and losers. The problem is that it isn't doing so in a transparent, strategic, and effective way that the residents can politically buy into. I'll back you on that.

And that's the unfairness, IMHO. If we could just all agree how we use the scarce resources we have to rehabilitate savable parts of the city, then at least residents would have the freedom of choice to move into those cities. Right now there is no plan. [[Or, it's a secret plan). And that's just not fair. People deserve to know whether they need to move in order to survive...and if they're gonna have to do it, they certainly deserve help doing so as well as the information necessary to make informed decisions about when where to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 313WX

Fair enough.

However, isn't the purpose of putting all of city's eggs in one basket to increase revenue in this one desirable area to the point where we have enough to improve services all over the city?

Isn't it defeating the purpose if these places aren't paying property taxes [[just a commuter tax mostly, which actually equals to what most Detroit homeowners & residents pays when combinng their income and property taxes), and are only investing in downtown/midtown BECAUSE of the property taxe breaks [[thus if the breaks were to ever go away the amount of investment could level off or reverse)?

You could argue the difference is made up by the wealthier folks being attracted who are paying the income tax, but the vast majority of residents were attracting aren't making the $75,000+ incomes that we want to make up for the loss of property tax revenue, but they're poor college students or recent college graduates who, at the most, are making $50,000 per year
[[and if they're hired by Dan Gilbert's companies, more like $25,000 to $35,000, which doesn't amount to much in yearly taxes).

---

You make good points.

I think the problem here is that the data is unavailable...or, at best, unclear. For me personally, I know I wouldn't live here without the tax breaks. But on a global sense is it net positive or net negative? I don't know.

Quote:

---

However, isn't the purpose of putting all of city's eggs in one basket to increase revenue in this one desirable area to the point where we have enough to improve services all over the city?

---

The only beef I have with this is that we'll never have enough revenue to improve services all over the city. The city's too big and our problems to expensive. Rather than offer 25% of the necessary services to 100% of the city...which will lead to everyone exiting the city....let's provide 100% of the necessary services to 25% of the city...and build a sustainable foundation.

Politically hard to say that publicly, but that's really the issue here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

You raise a powerful question about the city picking winners and losers. This is the most fundamental question and it needs to be addressed.

The city historically hasn't been picking winners and losers. It's been trying to make them all winners and save every neighborhood. We can't do that any more. We only have so many resources and can't save everyone. If we try to save every neighborhood, they all will die.

The problem isn't that the city is picking winners and losers. The problem is that it isn't doing so in a transparent, strategic, and effective way that the residents can politically buy into. I'll back you on that.

And that's the unfairness, IMHO. If we could just all agree how we use the scarce resources we have to rehabilitate savable parts of the city, then at least residents would have the freedom of choice to move into those cities. Right now there is no plan. [[Or, it's a secret plan). And that's just not fair. People deserve to know whether they need to move in order to survive...and if they're gonna have to do it, they certainly deserve help doing so as well as the information necessary to make informed decisions about when where to go.

---

I am pretty sure that if you ask the average Detroiter you would hear that the nieghborhoods are being ignored while all of the investment is happening in the center. For those of us who have seen the majority of the schools we went to close, the stores we went to shuttered, and have to deal with piles of garbage being dumped on darkend sidestreets by suburbanites who don't want to pay for haul away we see things in a very different light.

Quote:

---

I am pretty sure that if you ask the average Detroiter you would hear that the nieghborhoods are being ignored while all of the investment is happening in the center.

---

Hey, I grew up in EEV for 20 years. It's been heartbreaking to see what's happened there. So don't think I don't see the destruction.

Old Detroit is dead. The question is what do we want the new Detroit to look like? For what it's worth, Warrendale would be on my personal list of neighborhoods that are still savable.

The reality is that it doesn't matter what people "think", whether they are the average Detroiter or the new residents moving into swanky lofts. This has nothing to do with opinion. Our battle isn't against public opinion. It's against math.

Math is not allowing us to save everyone. So we have to figure out what math will allow us to do and deal with that reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

Hey, I grew up in EEV for 20 years. It's been heartbreaking to see what's happened there. So don't think I don't see the destruction.

Old Detroit is dead. The question is what do we want the new Detroit to look like? For what it's worth, Warrendale would be on my personal list of neighborhoods that are still savable.

The reality is that it doesn't matter what people "think", whether they are the average Detroiter or the new residents moving into swanky lofts. This has nothing to do with opinion. Our battle isn't against public opinion. It's against math.

Math is not allowing us to save everyone. So we have to figure out what math will allow us to do and deal with that reality.[/COLOR]

---

However keep in mind that while we're picking and choosing which areas are going to be "saved", those neighborhoods that may have been considered "savable" when the discussion began may NOT be savable when it's all said and done. It's not like the decline is going to stop while we draft some grand blue print.

WArrendale, Morningside and Osborn are neighborhoods that fall into this category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

I'm curious what you mean by this. Yes, many of them are there due to property tax breaks. But how do you arrive at the conclusion that they are eating the resources from the neighborhoods? Isn't it possible that they just require fewer resources from the neighborhoods to begin with? 1,000 cars in a privately-lit, privately-guarded parking garage costs the city almost $0 to keep secure.

Keeping 1,000 cars secure at 7 mile and Kelly requires 10 patrol cars and an on-call SWAT team.

---

The parking structure employs a couple guys who pay City Income tax. It's probably only a couple hundred bucks to a grand a year, but it's more then the zero the land would be generating otherwise.

Moreover you get a bunch of side benefits. The Parking Structure can't easily be used for crime, whereas a vacant lot could. White Midwesterners are allergic to the bus system, and don't trust street parking in the D, so the structure supports other businesses, etc.

I'm not saying it's particularly fair that some suburban business creep gets a tax break while Detroiters who actually love the City, and live there willingly; pay more in taxes then their mortgage, and still get services cut; but the reality is that Detroit needs more business creeps. They know it, and they're creeps so they refuse to come unless they get a little something something in return.

IMO, long-term, it's not a viable strategy to increase the tax base. Unfortunately it's also pretty much the only strategy that the City actually has the power to implement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

If we could just all agree how we use the scarce resources we have to rehabilitate savable parts of the city, then at least residents would have the freedom of choice to move into those cities.

---

I still think you should at least run for CC because the way you say that sounds like a politician ,not saying that in a bad way.

Do they really have a freedom of choice to move when they are denied basic services [[not saying everybody else is not) but is that not the way to encourage those to move but yet make them believe that it is of their own decision.

I know I sound redundant but when the change is made to representation by districts there will be a difference,the plan realizes this that is why it is kinda pointless at this point. The unclaimed or not applied for millions that have been sent back could have made a big difference.

Yes okay quit sucking from the gov teat but sometimes a strong city is a part of the rest of the countries well being,and there are lots of city's that were in rough shape before disaster relief that would have been worse off then Detroit,it is the funds available that directly impact peoples life's on a daily level .

Yes we differ there I strongly disagree with the whole shrinking city we give up aspect.But yes it way easier and more creative and a way to get thinking grants then it is to try something out of this world like maybe job creation and education.

To encourage people to move to a different area under the guise of being broke is manipulation and just plain wrong or maybe they can decide that if they have to move somewhere it might as well be out to the suburbs and that is more taxes out the door.

It's a really tough issue. Obviously something different needs to happen. But one problem with Bing's plan is it presumes people can and will move. Someone living along Houston-Whittier can't just move without money to buy a new place. Their houses wouldn't fetch $1,000. And once you improve neighborhoods, housing values go up, making it even more difficult for poor or old people to afford. Bing's plan sacrifices the most vulnerable residents for stronger neighborhoods. It's an issue of priority, and it's not an easy one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neavling

It's a really tough issue. Obviously something different needs to happen. But one problem with Bing's plan is it presumes people can and will move. Someone living along Houston-Whittier can't just move without money to buy a new place. Their houses wouldn't fetch $1,000. And once you improve neighborhoods, housing values go up, making it even more difficult for poor or old people to afford. Bing's plan sacrifices the most vulnerable residents for stronger neighborhoods. It's an issue of priority, and it's not an easy one.

---

Richard, I appreciate the consideration. CY for CC: "It's all his fault." :)

Steve [[Neavling), two things to consider with Bing's plan/vision:

[[1) It's not public [[in any way that I know of, at least). It'll be interesting to see how people respond to the DetroitWorks report, as it was presumably put together taking public opinion into consideration.

[[2) Part of the problem with re-concentrating city population is people's willingness to move. As for the financial ability, you are right in part about the constraints. Property values will go up as neighborhoods become more stable. The one advantage the city has in this regard is that it's the largest land-owner in the city. So it's not like we're trying to bid on property owned by some major corporation that's trying to squeeze every dollar out of it.

Take, for example, a burnt out block that might only have 3 occupied homes on it. They each owe $3,000 per year in property taxes, but no one in their right mind would ever buy the property form them for more than $5,000. I'm not saying that they're going to sell their disadvantaged property and the move on over into Indian Village.

But there are enough blocks like this that the City could approach all of those owners and say, "Look, here is a block of vacant land over by Trumbull north of I-75." We've worked out a deal with a developer where he/she is willing to build 20 townhouse condominiums. We will give them the land for free. ​We won't charge him or her property taxes.And before you freak out about corporate conspiracies, just sit tight and listen, because what will eventually happen is that you will be getting the land for free. Now take the $3,000 per year in property taxes you were paying and that will be what you pay the developer for the next 15 years in a Rent-to-Own policy.

After 15 years, you own the property. The developer has collected $540,000 in payments for a house that probably cost $75,000 to build, but now you own the property on a block that is full of residents and is likely worth more than burnt out property on Whittier.

Because of the street-design of the subdivision replaced normal city blocks with a cul-de-sac subdivision style layout [[which I hate, btw...but it is much easier to patrol because you have a perimeter with only 1-2 points of entry), as well as your proximity to other functional neighborhoods, crime is way down.

What about the $3,000 per year that the city would have to forego in property taxes for the next 15 years? Well, since there were only 3-people on that burnt out block, the city was able to fence it off and shut it down once people moved out. Shutting off services to the infrastructure, police, fire, and water saved lots of money. As well, since you're patrolling the perimeter of a cul-de-sac rather than the block system with all its hidden corners and alley-ways, it's much easier to secure property.

I'm not saying I have all the answers, because I don't. What I'm saying is that because it's such political suicide to have the conversation publicly, it's done in backrooms [[or on forums like this), and that's how conspiracy theories start about land-taking and plantations re-opening start up.

We can more efficiently use the land and resources we have. The biggest thing in the way is dealing with the political process of determining how to best do so.

They used to have it pretty together with regard to parking, the meters and collecting. Seemed that way at least. I always saw meter readers midtown & downtown. More than once I chose to ignore a 20 or 25 dollar ticket and ended up paying 100 plus on it a year later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neavling

It's a really tough issue. Obviously something different needs to happen. But one problem with Bing's plan is it presumes people can and will move. Someone living along Houston-Whittier can't just move without money to buy a new place. Their houses wouldn't fetch $1,000. And once you improve neighborhoods, housing values go up, making it even more difficult for poor or old people to afford. Bing's plan sacrifices the most vulnerable residents for stronger neighborhoods. It's an issue of priority, and it's not an easy one.

---

http://www.freep.com/article/2013010...text|FRONTPAGE

Quote:

---

The Detroit Future City plan offers hundreds of ideas for urban reinvention. Here are some of the most innovative:...

• Create a voluntary “house swap” program to help residents move from the most depopulated areas into stronger neighborhoods.

---

I'm a genius. CY for City Council ;)