Detroit with no suburbs!

[Danny]

Imagine Detroit with no suburbs, only townships. What if this merge of the suburbs and Detroit happen? What kind of political system do the citizens have? Will this new bigger Super-Detroit will have its own police, fire and water department. What would our Dowtown skyline would be like and what to about race relations. I would like to Detroit covering up its city limits on tri-county area. with a population of almost 4 million. Any thoughts?

[Detroitnerd]

Imagine Detroit with no suburbs, only townships. What if this merge of the suburbs and Detroit happen? What kind of political system do the citizens have? Will this new bigger Super-Detroit will have its own police, fire and water department. What would our Dowtown skyline would be like and what to about race relations. I would like to Detroit covering up its city limits on tri-county area. with a population of almost 4 million. Any thoughts?

Well, legally speaking, if the area surrounding Detroit were township land, the portion in Wayne County could be annexed. I'm not sure how much more difficult it would be to annex township land in Oakland County, but I imagine it could be done...

[JBMcB]

As any organization gets larger and more complex, it gets much more efficient and responsible. A huge super-city government would, I imagine, be a model of effectiveness and responsiveness to it's citizenry. Just keep heaping on the bureaucracy and the government will just keep getting better and better.

[Goose]

As any organization gets larger and more complex, it gets much more efficient and responsible. A huge super-city government would, I imagine, be a model of effectiveness and responsiveness to it's citizenry. Just keep heaping on the bureaucracy and the government will just keep getting better and better.

Agree. The efficiencies of scale would be huge. One can point to the federal government as a perfect example of how things get done. The only thing better would be to somehow find a way to incorporate Windsor into the mega-opolis........

[iheartthed]

As any organization gets larger and more complex, it gets much more efficient and responsible. A huge super-city government would, I imagine, be a model of effectiveness and responsiveness to it's citizenry. Just keep heaping on the bureaucracy and the government will just keep getting better and better.

The downside to huge organizations is that they become overly bureaucratic, and slow to respond to change... Sorta like what Detroit has been in recent history.

[Scottathew]

The downside to huge organizations is that they become overly bureaucratic, and slow to respond to change... Sorta like what Detroit has been in recent history.

Detroit's problem are due in part to size, but also many other complex issues.

[iheartthed]

Detroit's problem are due in part to size, but also many other complex issues.

Well, Detroit's being overly bureaucratic probably wouldn't have had a major affect when it didn't have to fight for residents... But when that variable changed against the city's favor, the entrenchment at the government level was extremely slow to respond to the changes... That much let a bad situation turn into a crisis.

[JBMcB]

The downside to huge organizations is that they become overly bureaucratic, and slow to respond to change... Sorta like what Detroit has been in recent history.

That was my sarcastic point. Name any organization that gets more efficient with greater size. Consolidation would work if you greatly diminished the role and scope of city government, however, when you expect it to provide every service under the sun, it's going to be a nightmare dealing with a bureaucracy of that magnitude.

Check out how London operates. It's been growing steadily for centuries, absorbing neighboring suburbs and towns along the way. Now you have the greater city of London with a mayor and assembly, 30-odd boroughs with their own councils and the ancient city of London proper basically with it's own government. Some share services, some don't. Some share educational systems, some don't. Some services are coordinated city-wide, some aren't. There is the Greater London Authority, which oversees the whole city, the London Council Association, which coordinates the local boroughs, the Local Government Association, which coordinates with other cities outside of London, and the National Association of Local Councils that lobbies the national government on behalf of the local councils, also located in London.

All these organizations and councils came to being after a multiple *consolidations* of councils and groups. After 60 years of effort, this is as small as they can get it. Aside from a shared police department and transit, I'm not seeing a whole lot of waste elimination going on. You think having one city council is tough to deal with? Imagine having 30!

[iheartthed]

That was my sarcastic point. Name any organization that gets more efficient with greater size. Consolidation would work if you greatly diminished the role and scope of city government, however, when you expect it to provide every service under the sun, it's going to be a nightmare dealing with a bureaucracy of that magnitude.

Check out how London operates. It's been growing steadily for centuries, absorbing neighboring suburbs and towns along the way. Now you have the greater city of London with a mayor and assembly, 30-odd boroughs with their own councils and the ancient city of London proper basically with it's own government. Some share services, some don't. Some share educational systems, some don't. Some services are coordinated city-wide, some aren't. There is the Greater London Authority, which oversees the whole city, the London Council Association, which coordinates the local boroughs, the Local Government Association, which coordinates with other cities outside of London, and the National Association of Local Councils that lobbies the national government on behalf of the local councils, also located in London.

All these organizations and councils came to being after a multiple *consolidations* of councils and groups. After 60 years of effort, this is as small as they can get it. Aside from a shared police department and transit, I'm not seeing a whole lot of waste elimination going on. You think having one city council is tough to deal with? Imagine having 30!

Yeah, I agree with you.

The flip side, though, is that Greater London basically serves the function that a county would play in Michigan [[and it's a single county instead of three autonomous counties competing for control of shared interests). And since England has no states, Greater London is just one level under the federal level.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

As any organization gets larger and more complex, it gets much more efficient and responsible. A huge super-city government would, I imagine, be a model of effectiveness and responsiveness to it's citizenry. Just keep heaping on the bureaucracy and the government will just keep getting better and better.

Agree and disagree. There are certainly efficiencies of scale that can be achieved by merging government units. First and foremost, you can eliminate redundant services, Also, you can engage in more broad planning, coordinating things like infrastructure improvements over current city lines. But there also inefficiencies of scale. You can be sure that salary/benefit structures for public employees will not mellow into middle range; five years in all those employees will be paid at the scale of the previously highest paid workers. Also, government tends to be less responsive at the larger level. There is also the issue that different neighborhoods have different priorities, regardless of politcal boundaries. An area with lots of seniors might prefer lower taxes to more parks. Another area might choose to spend money on public lighting and sidewalks, while another might put money into social services. But if they are conjoined to a larger government, they lose an element of control at the local level. Plus don't forget that any suburb annexed is likely to add votes against taxes and spending. A full on 3-county unigovernment would spend less money in Detroit than Detroit would alone. When you merge with another community, you absord their priorities as well as their resources.

I am not opposed to consolidation of governments. It's downright silly that Hamtramck & Highland Park are not actually part of Detroit at this point. Some merging with inner-ring suburbs might also make some sense. Better, I think, than merging of local units would be issue specific authorities, with limited scope of purpose, strictly limited ability to tax, and requiring regular renewal by constituent governments and voters. Mass transit would naturally be the most obvious such authority.

Okay, realizing now that JBMcB, you were probably being sarcastic. Still, I believe what I just wrote.

[Detroitej72]

I am not opposed to consolidation of governments. It's downright silly that Hamtramck & Highland Park are not actually part of Detroit at this point.

Speak for yourself. Have you been to either city recently? As a resident of Hamtramck, there is no way we want to be lumped in with Highland Park because they have far more blight and money problems.

[karenka]

Speak for yourself. Have you been to either city recently? As a resident of Hamtramck, there is no way we want to be lumped in with Highland Park because they have far more blight and money problems.

Thank you, Detroitej72. MikeyinBrooklyn, what POSSIBLE advantage would Hamtramck experience if it were part of Detroit? I can see how Detroit would benefit--25,000 more in population, a viable and vibrant neighborhood, the most densely populated city in Michigan, immigrant entrepreneurs... But how long would that last when Hamtramck lost its 2-3 minute police and fire response time, when its residents lost their ability to direct its resources towards its own priorities, etc.

[ferntruth]

Speak for yourself. Have you been to either city recently? As a resident of Hamtramck, there is no way we want to be lumped in with Highland Park because they have far more blight and money problems.

Interesting double standard. This is the same argument used by the suburbs not wanting to be "lumped in" with Detroit. Of course, when they do it, it's racist or anti-Detroit.
If Detroit could somehow magically annex the suburbs, that would just open the floodgates to the entire region looking like the city - and who wants that [[aside from some Detroiters that is)?

I guess it really does come down to whose ox is being gored.

[Scottathew]

I would consider this only if the county level governments were dis-banded in the Super-Detroit area. Such a large city does not not a county-level government structure to provide redundant services.

I would be for exploring a metro-police force like Las Vegas has.

[Detroitnerd]

Other than the legal hurdles, which are considerable, there would be considerable savings from uniting 100-odd iterations of zoning boards, fire departments, police departments, school boards, city clerks, finance and budgeting departments, treasuries, inspection departments, parks and recreation departments, animal control, development offices, etc. Rolling in the county governments would eliminate duplicated road commissions, transit authorities, sheriff's offices, etc. Add to this the fact that a united supercity would be the third largest city in the United States and you have a much stronger voice in Washington for funds for projects. Lots of possibilities to cut expenses, gain more funds and finally force us to fix our local problems instead of building more walls and saying they're somebody else's to fix.

[professorscott]

Other than the legal hurdles, which are considerable, there would be considerable savings from uniting 100-odd iterations of zoning boards, fire departments, police departments, school boards, city clerks, finance and budgeting departments, treasuries, inspection departments, parks and recreation departments, animal control, development offices, etc. Rolling in the county governments would eliminate duplicated road commissions, transit authorities, sheriff's offices, etc. Add to this the fact that a united supercity would be the third largest city in the United States and you have a much stronger voice in Washington for funds for projects. Lots of possibilities to cut expenses, gain more funds and finally force us to fix our local problems instead of building more walls and saying they're somebody else's to fix.

Well, sure there might be some benefits, but let's admit we are talking about something that is absolutely impossible, politically. Even to take a tiny little merger as an example, it is more likely for me to become Pope than for Detroit to merge with Grosse Pointe, much less all the other 120+ communities.

This discussion is interesting, but it is sort of like my wife and I discussing what we will do with our unicorns when we get them. We are way out there in the realm of unreality, here.

[Crew]

This discussion is interesting, but it is sort of like my wife and I discussing what we will do with our unicorns when we get them. We are way out there in the realm of unreality, here.

I think you should breed them and make MORE unicorns!

[Detroitnerd]

Well, sure there might be some benefits, but let's admit we are talking about something that is absolutely impossible, politically. Even to take a tiny little merger as an example, it is more likely for me to become Pope than for Detroit to merge with Grosse Pointe, much less all the other 120+ communities.

This discussion is interesting, but it is sort of like my wife and I discussing what we will do with our unicorns when we get them. We are way out there in the realm of unreality, here.

You have to blue-sky sometime. Or else how will anybody ever be convinced? Sure, the legal and social hurdles are almost insurmountable. But don't let's end the conversation no. It's nice to dream...

[urbanhat]

Good question...it'd be great if everyone in the city and suburbs could realize they're in it together.

It might help to break out the several issues here:

-efficiency. Some services are cheaper/more effective a larger scale: water provision, transit [[due to economies of scale from a larger network). Others might suffer from too much bureaucracy [[possibly schools, although I don't know enough about it to say for sure). My hunch is that physical services like water infrastructure are easier at a large scale, while people-centered services can be smothered by bureaucracy.

-"spillovers." If Troy builds a giant new shopping mall, the increase in traffic spills over into neighboring cities. Troy gets all the tax dollars, but its neighbors are stuck paying for wider roads. That's inefficient and unfair. A super Detroit government would avoid that.

-accountability and responsiveness. A lot of people rightly argue that local government is better because it is more responsive to its residents. I think that's true, but more important for some things than others.

-bargaining power. Like DN said, a super Detroit could pull a lot more weight with the feds, and with businesses considering locating here.

[Detroitnerd]

Organizations get more efficient with greater size because of economies of scale and ability to bargain better with vendors.

Are you saying that Wal-Mart is a bloated bureaucracy that needs to be much smaller in order to succeed?

[Vox]

Well, Detroit sure hasn't become a super efficient government entity. Neither has any of the county governments. I think that in order for this to work, Detroit and every other city government needs to be erased and replaced by a completely new entity.

[Goose]

Are you saying that Wal-Mart is a bloated bureaucracy that needs to be much smaller in order to succeed?

oh no you didn't....

you are actually going to try to compare a free market business with the government? REALLY??? if anything, your arguement points to privitization of services for more efficient and cost effective delivery.....

[Detroitnerd]

oh no you didn't....

you are actually going to try to compare a free market business with the government? REALLY??? if anything, your arguement points to privitization of services for more efficient and cost effective delivery.....

That's funny, Goose. I thought you made a blanket statement about organizations. If anybody should now do some careful qualifying, I believe that would be ... you. I have never equated the two. Your move.

[urbanhat]

Organizations get more efficient with greater size because of economies of scale and ability to bargain better with vendors.

Are you saying that Wal-Mart is a bloated bureaucracy that needs to be much smaller in order to succeed?

Sure, Walmart is very efficient, but I'm not sure I would want it running my schools. Even if a large public entity could be as efficient as Walmart, I'm not sure its' a good model. There's more to government than efficiency.

[Detroitnerd]

Sure, Walmart is very efficient, but I'm not sure I would want it running my schools. Even if a large public entity could be as efficient as Walmart, I'm not sure its' a good model. There's more to government than efficiency.

Yes, this is a purely rhetorical point. Goose says all organizations that are large are inefficient. This is a blanket statement that is difficult to defend. After all, this is really just a jab at specific "large" organizations, such as Uncle Sugar and Detroit Public Schools. Little did he think he was lumping them in with such organizations as Wal-Mart and the Pentagon...