It could help Detroit shrink its borders.
Drawn in the pen outline.
Printable View
It could help Detroit shrink its borders.
Drawn in the pen outline.
Hamtramck gets the New Center? Fisher Building and all? The district police station on the corner there, too? The tax revenue, including income tax of all the people who work there, will be given up? I see they get the incinerator too. You're also giving them the entire Poletown plant, and all the tax revenue that goes with it, so I guess that settles their claim that Detroit hasn't been dividing the tax revenue equitably.
The borders aren't shrinking and Hamtramck has enough problems of their own.
Really great plan. In a past life were you drawing the borders of Middle Eastern and African colonies for European powers?
you know detroitpole I look forward to the day when I can equal your extreme higher being or better yet why are you not the mayor ?
"Thirty years ago, in 1980, Hamtramck was reeling from the news that Dodge Main would close, taking thousands of jobs and the city’s main economic engine [[and in fact, Hamtramck’s historical reason for being) with it. The Poletown project, in all its controversy, was offered to us then as a lifeboat. And now, in 2010, we are being thrown out of that lifeboat."
Seems as though Detroit was not bothered when the shoe was on the other foot.
"The borders aren't shrinking and Hamtramck has enough problems of their own."
According to their website they are in the black is Detroit? and your stance that the borders are not shrinking ? I guess all this talk of a smaller footprint for Detroit is just wind.
DetroitYes would be better if it filtered "you" and "your" out of all posts.
Shrinking cities are going to lead to more consoldation and streamlining of the services that cities are providing individually. This will lead to real savings for the pupblic. You may see some mergers or expansions, but that is doubtful as politicos don't like to give up thier power.
I don't recall any serious talk of Detroit actually giving up any land mass. The discussion has generally been about vacating areas that were greatly underpopulated and doing something else with the land.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
Either way, it doesn't make sense for Detroit to "shrink" by remaining a donut with Hamtramck and Highland Park becoming bigger donut holes in the middle. It actually makes more sense, as they talk about consolidation of services, for Hamtramck and Highland Park to be merged with Detroit. Anyone looking at a map objectively has to admit it looks silly and inefficient to have two cities sitting there surrounded by Detroit on all sides.
In the case of Hamtramck, that's like a bad cold merging with cancer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke09
As someone who loves Hamtramck [[I don't live there), I dread the thought of that merger.
If Hamtramck became part of Detroit would their taxes stay the same, go up or go down?
A city can not annex a city according the SBC laws of 1978. However due to the Financial Martial Law act of 2011 signed by Snyder, the NERD! Emergency Financial Managers can have the power to de-incorporate a city, de-charterized any TWP and make townships to be give to city, village or another township.Quote:
Originally Posted by rjk
...give Hamtramck and Highland Park a seat on the Detroit city council in the still-to-come districting of city council.. parts of "detroit" could be 'merged' with both cities for purposes of how the division is set up.. in the long-run, the ultra-parochialism that many have gotten used to may not be sustainable..
Richard, your map would make the "new" Detroit Train Station and Detroit's State of Michigan office building [[in the former GM HQ) be in Hamtramck instead of Detroit, plus the Fisher Building, the Argonaut Buildint [[now part of the College for Creative Studies), New Center One Building, and the former Albert Kahn Building. Also it would give Hamtramck part of Boston Edison Historic District and the entire Poletown plant.
Also, if I read your map right... the remaining part of Boston Edison [[and the Cathedral of the Archdiocese of Detroit) would become a Detroit peninnsula surrounded on 3 sides by Highland Park to the north, and Hamtramck to the east and south.
That would be wonderful for Hamtramck... but awful for Detroit...
The boundaries could be changed, I found it hard to find a map that had specific lines.
My whole thought was to find a way to relive the pressure on Detroit a bit it seems to be a situation of living in a 5000 sqft house with a budget of a 900 sqft house.
I read the article of the child that died in a church while waiting for an ambulance that was dispatched in not the most efficient way because the city had not paid the software license,that is sad, so how can Detroit dig out of such a deep hole.
Shared resources sounds good but I have also seen cases of when for instance one of the cities does not reimburse the other then you are back to not providing the best service to the taxpayer ,or police calls were delayed because of boundary issues or confusions etc.
I do not know maybe it is because I am in this mode of trying to absorb every little bit of information as I possibly can in a short amount of time but I am having a tough time seeing how and with as bad as things look when it comes to basic services and the lack of it just seems as something really drastic needs to happen fast or can the surrounding burbs relieve some of the pressure?
Detroit knows that it needs density which is easer to control with less resources ,the green-space sounds all and nice but it still presents a large footprint that needs to serviced or it will become a dangerous no mans land in between the city and suburbs.
So I do not know thats why I am throwing this out there, can changing boundaries relieve some of the burden on Detroit as we already know that the footprint is way more then she needs in the future and can the surrounding suburbs absorb some of that burden without endangering their financial standing.Maybe not without a give and take situation.
The whole shrinking cities idea seems terribly flawed. The only way for shrinking [[smaller footprint) to work for Detroit is for the City to shrink in the opposite direction from which it expanded. It would have to shrink back from its outer borders [[i.e. 8 Mile) back towards the river in order to maintain contiguous space. Then, you still have to maintain some level of infrastructure and services for the abandoned area [[roads, lights, policing so they don't become tent cities or crime havens, etc.). Otherwise,the suburbs on the outer borders would have to annex the land near them to avoid it becoming a true Mad Max type wasteland right at their borders.
But the outer borders are some of the most stable areas aren't they? Would the Detroit residents want to remain in those homes and become part of the suburbs? Then the City would lose some of its important tax base and still have problems.
I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that the solution for Detroit is to de-annex land and make the city's political boundaries smaller. What we need to do, IMO, is to figure out how many neighborhoods we can feasibly afford to stabilize with the resources available, choose which ones make the most sense, and then direct investment and community development dollars toward those neighborhoods.
There have been a number of cases in recent years where developers have built a few blocks of crappy subsidized houses in neighborhoods where nobody wants to live, the developers made back their money on the backs of the taxpayers, and then the houses sat empty, got scrapped, torched, etc. We're past the point where we can afford to subsidize projects like that. We need to make a sensible, realistic master plan that takes our population loss into account, and then allocate funds in ways that help further that plan. "Shrinking" the city is maybe something of a misnomer here.
Exactly! It's completely stupid. And on top of that, since Detroit doesn't exist in a bubble, shrinking Detroit will be all for naught if you don't reign in the overdeveloped areas outside of the city's jurisdiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke09
The last place Detroit needs to shrink is along Woodward. If Hamtramck wanted to expand to the east that would be great. And maybe in the great Polish tradition Detroit and Hamtramck could partition Highland Park.
Could have fooled the hell out of me. Is that why they are getting bitchy with Detroit about the tax revenues for the Poletown plant to plug their $3 million deficit, and pitifully begging the state to put them into bankruptcy to keep an EFM from returning to the beleagured city for a second time in less than a decade?Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
I love Hamtramck, but let's not pretend they aren't in the same boat as everyone else. In fact, they are one of the closest cities in Metro Detroit to falling into state receivership...again. I know it's cool to pick on Detroit, but people in glass houses, well, you know the rest.
Hamtramck and Highland Park should just get a seat on the council and the city charter should allow for more neighborhood control. Issues that affect only one neighborhood should be decided by that neighborhood alone.
They could also keep their school district seperate to avoid falling prey to Robert Bobb and his cronies.
More politically unfeasable, Dearborn and Grosse Pointes could get seats on the council as well, expanding the tax base and demographic diversity of the city.
As far as "shrinking", there needs to be a contiguous urban core surrounding Downtown. This may mean repopulating rather depopulated sections, contrary to the idea of abandoning them completely. Location in proximity to Downtown, as well as "spoke" avenues and other, more stable neighborhoods will make a difference, even if a certian area is totally hit up. A contiguous urban area is neccesary for any major city. A linear core [[as in the proposed "woodward plan") is counter to the traditional pattern of urban development on earth. The historical core of Detroit, like all cities is centered around its Downtown or the place in which it was first settled, and that is the only place a "great american city" can spring from.
Use trains to connect the dots between the core and smaller centers of activity such as Dearborn, Southfield and Royal Oak. But the core itself needs to be self-suficient enough where trains aren't even neccesary because there are walkable, bikeable neighborhoods in close proximity to employment. Historically, auburbs only exist because trains could quickly transport people into the historic core. Before then, you'd have to walk, bike or ride a horse, so cities couldn't sprawl out too far... you couldn't have neighborhoods of just houses.
On behalf of Hamtramck, we accept.
This would be pretty useless and Detroit would lose a lot of land for no reason at all. I don't know why you'd want to give New Center to Hamtramck, I can't imagine the Fisher Building being in Hamtramck. If anything HP and Hamtramck should both be a part of Detroit already, I've even considered that Redford should be a part of Detroit proper. It would indeed give Detroit over a million people again. I don't think a city can annex another city though which would be a problem here.
It would have put Detroit over a million people a while ago. It wouldn't do it now, even assuming it could be done.