Detroit needs a long-term economic growth plan

[begingri]

By John E. Mogk

Detroit Free Press Guest Writer

The necessary scramble to avoid insolvency by cutting the city's budget will not fix Detroit. The staggering economic, social and neighborhood problems dragging the city down will not be addressed and may increase.

Only economic growth that provides jobs, lifts the median income of residents and expands private investment will reverse the city's fall. There is an urgent need for a long-term economic growth plan for Detroit to build on any short-term fix. Otherwise, budget cutting ultimately solves nothing; it simply seals the city's fate.

Balancing the budget will be painful, but it is the city's easiest challenge. Elected leaders, an emergency manager or a bankruptcy court will cut Detroit's workforce, reduce compensation, sell municipal assets, privatize services and raise fees or taxes. Residents will see services reduced and costs increased.

Then what? Then the real challenges begin.

The city's second effort is fostering growth within Midtown and downtown, led by support and involvement of Detroit's corporate and civic leaders, small entrepreneurs and young professionals. New urban energy and vitality are flourishing within the 10-square-mile Woodward corridor and lifting Detroit's image. Yet outside of this core, there is little discernible effect on distressed conditions in the city's vast outlying neighborhood areas.

Full article at: http://www.freep.com/article/2011122...ic-growth-plan

[Hypestyles]

...so what is the long-term economic growth plan? I've sent extensive letters to city leaders.. Detroit Works is dead, basically.. so now what?

[corktownyuppie]

...so what is the long-term economic growth plan? I've sent extensive letters to city leaders.. Detroit Works is dead, basically.. so now what?

I think that the column, while essentially true, is problematic in that it implies that we need to have the long-term growth plan prior to the re-structuring of our operations.

I have doubts about how realistic it is to come up with any kind of forward thinking while in a situation where you're worried about week-to-week cashflow. It's analagous to being down 12-0 in the 8th inning and trying to figure out who your relief pitching is going to be once you've forced the game into extra innings.

Intuitively, I think the long, long, long-term economic growth plan of Detroit will consist of the following

- sad to say, but the eventual passing on of the currently retired generation, whose pension and health care costs were far, far more than were originally expected

- a "regionalization" of much of Detroit services, including transit, cultural institutions, etc. Yes, it means we will inevitably have to share power and control, but it also gives everyone in the Metro Detroit area "skin in the game" and a "reason to care"

- leveraging proximity to both the University of Michigan and Michigan State University, two [[or one, depending who you ask ) world-class research institutions whose innovations in science, technology, and engineering already spin off company after company after company of start-ups.

- a "dilution" of the both the city and suburban racial makeup and socio-economic demographic which will force a more equitable sharing of the costs of social services to our needy.

- as the current workforce ages into retirement, we will have fewer displaced blue-collar employees still stuck in a workforce that has evolved past their skillset, and many of them will be replaced by their children...more of whom will have completed some level of higher education.

- an economically painful period similar to the last 10 years will be extremely harsh on many Detroiters for the next 10 years, but property values will have sunken to such absurdly low levels that once the city finances are shored up, value investors will see our existing infrastructure, proximity to an international port, and surplus of waterfront property as being desirable and cheap...which will help attract people to the area.

Those are my uninformed musings....

[iheartthed]

I think that the column, while essentially true, is problematic in that it implies that we need to have the long-term growth plan prior to the re-structuring of our operations.

I have doubts about how realistic it is to come up with any kind of forward thinking while in a situation where you're worried about week-to-week cashflow. It's analagous to being down 12-0 in the 8th inning and trying to figure out who your relief pitching is going to be once you've forced the game into extra innings.

Well... I think his point [[left unsaid) is that inefficient operations isn't what is bankrupting the city. The city is being bankrupted because revenue sources that have been depleted. And if you cut services even further then it will have the unintended consequence of further eroding revenue sources.

[ordinary]

It's analagous to being down 12-0 in the 8th inning and trying to figure out who your relief pitching is going to be once you've forced the game into extra innings.

Good analogy. I am always wary of "plans", especially big time plans. There have to be real incentives for people to live in the area. Gainful, accesible employment comes to mind.

[R8RBOB]

I think that the column, while essentially true, is problematic in that it implies that we need to have the long-term growth plan prior to the re-structuring of our operations.

I have doubts about how realistic it is to come up with any kind of forward thinking while in a situation where you're worried about week-to-week cashflow. It's analagous to being down 12-0 in the 8th inning and trying to figure out who your relief pitching is going to be once you've forced the game into extra innings.

Intuitively, I think the long, long, long-term economic growth plan of Detroit will consist of the following

- sad to say, but the eventual passing on of the currently retired generation, whose pension and health care costs were far, far more than were originally expected

- a "regionalization" of much of Detroit services, including transit, cultural institutions, etc. Yes, it means we will inevitably have to share power and control, but it also gives everyone in the Metro Detroit area "skin in the game" and a "reason to care"

- leveraging proximity to both the University of Michigan and Michigan State University, two [[or one, depending who you ask ) world-class research institutions whose innovations in science, technology, and engineering already spin off company after company after company of start-ups.

- a "dilution" of the both the city and suburban racial makeup and socio-economic demographic which will force a more equitable sharing of the costs of social services to our needy.

- as the current workforce ages into retirement, we will have fewer displaced blue-collar employees still stuck in a workforce that has evolved past their skillset, and many of them will be replaced by their children...more of whom will have completed some level of higher education.

- an economically painful period similar to the last 10 years will be extremely harsh on many Detroiters for the next 10 years, but property values will have sunken to such absurdly low levels that once the city finances are shored up, value investors will see our existing infrastructure, proximity to an international port, and surplus of waterfront property as being desirable and cheap...which will help attract people to the area.

Those are my uninformed musings....

See this is what the leaders of this region should be saying. Nolan Finley spent his day crafting a partisan piece http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...ext|FRONTPAGE|
that was red meat for any Republican to drool at the scent of the raw meat. He offered nothing just like the leaders of this region has offered nothing. As a Detroiter we hear the same old thing; Detroit is broke, an EM is coming, cuts is coming, services is bad but no solutions. Not one.

[corktownyuppie]

Well... I think his point [[left unsaid) is that inefficient operations isn't what is bankrupting the city. The city is being bankrupted because revenue sources that have been depleted. And if you cut services even further then it will have the unintended consequence of further eroding revenue sources.

I think you're right, though I disagree on one fundamental point that is sometimes subtle. Definitely too subtle for mainstream media. I don't believe that inefficient operations are what caused the city to go bankrupt. At the end of the day, the sharp loss of revenues just killed our budget.

Howeva...

I don't think that means we should get a free pass on the inefficiency of our operations, which is well documented, and certainly did not help us stay nimble and prepared for difficult times.

Moreover, the inefficiency of our services also does little to inspire confidence of handling resources. I'm hardly on the Nolan Finley bandwagon over at the Detroit News, so please don't interpret it this way...when I see at some of the boneheaded decisions made by civic leadership -- whether it's the Cobo Hall fiasco with BRC and Conyers or the teabagging mayor of Troy -- that doesn't make it any more politically feasible for other civic leaders to garner enough political support to get anything that actually IS reasonable done.

But with that all said, yes, you are right. While the problems in city government certainly didn't make things any easier, they certainly were not the root cause for the demise. It does make me happy, though, that the demise will now give us an opportunity to scrap all the BS and reset everything to start all over.

[corktownyuppie]

See this is what the leaders of this region should be saying.

CY for Mayor? Ha. Kidding.

I don't think people are saying the above things because:

[[1) This is going to sound elitist, so be warned. The masses hear those things and it goes in one ear and out the other. It's why our newspapers are written at an 8th-grade reading level. Our television news are essentially at a 5th-grade level. Unfortunately, most 8th graders are ill-equipped to solve complex problems such as an aging population, a displaced workforce, and a governmental structure designed for a very different time.

This is why the number of people who watch local news is 1,000x the number of people who read the monthly issue of "The Economist".

[[2) The long-term economic growth plan is not a feasible platform to be elected Mayor or City Council. The very people who are voting right now are not necessarily going to be the same people who will benefit from the plan. No one ever wins elections because of their austerity plan for local citizens.

As a Detroiter we hear the same old thing; Detroit is broke, an EM is coming, cuts is coming, services is bad but no solutions. Not one.

I hear the frustration in your words, which is understandable. The sad thing is that there are solutions and have been solutions. All of which were at least worthy of serious consideration and debate.

There's an article I'm linking to below citing that when Joe Harris was working in the Detroit government, he found ways to shave millions out of the operating expense but was ignored

"

Call it "Revenge of the Accountant."

When Bing tried to roll out the Detroit Works plan, you can argue that the way he did was politically stupid. But even though the ideas were sound, his presentations were met with hostility every step of the way.

Foundation after foundation, consultant after consultant, had ideas for restructuring and long-term growth...but all on deaf ears.

So while many in Detroit are now pissed off about hearing the threat of an EM...many others [[including myself) are sitting here saying, "How the f**k is anyone surprised? This didn't just happen overnight. We've been talking about how to solve this for years. But every time we bring it up, all we hear about is how "outsiders are coming in and taking away our jewels".

I'm sad that we're in the position we're in. But we can't work on our long-term growth plan until we do the restructuring part first. You can't do step 2 until you do step 1. And people have been fighting step 1 for as long as I can remember. Well, we waited this long, and now step 1 is going to hurt like hell. Let's get it done already so we can do the step 2 that everyone's been wanting to get started on for a decade.

[R8RBOB]

CY for Mayor? Ha. Kidding.

I don't think people are saying the above things because:

[[1) This is going to sound elitist, so be warned. The masses hear those things and it goes in one ear and out the other. It's why our newspapers are written at an 8th-grade reading level. Our television news are essentially at a 5th-grade level. Unfortunately, most 8th graders are ill-equipped to solve complex problems such as an aging population, a displaced workforce, and a governmental structure designed for a very different time.

This is why the number of people who watch local news is 1,000x the number of people who read the monthly issue of "The Economist".

[[2) The long-term economic growth plan is not a feasible platform to be elected Mayor or City Council. The very people who are voting right now are not necessarily going to be the same people who will benefit from the plan. No one ever wins elections because of their austerity plan for local citizens.



I hear the frustration in your words, which is understandable. The sad thing is that there are solutions and have been solutions. All of which were at least worthy of serious consideration and debate.

There's an article I'm linking to below citing that when Joe Harris was working in the Detroit government, he found ways to shave millions out of the operating expense but was ignored

"

Call it "Revenge of the Accountant."

When Bing tried to roll out the Detroit Works plan, you can argue that the way he did was politically stupid. But even though the ideas were sound, his presentations were met with hostility every step of the way.

Foundation after foundation, consultant after consultant, had ideas for restructuring and long-term growth...but all on deaf ears.

So while many in Detroit are now pissed off about hearing the threat of an EM...many others [[including myself) are sitting here saying, "How the f**k is anyone surprised? This didn't just happen overnight. We've been talking about how to solve this for years. But every time we bring it up, all we hear about is how "outsiders are coming in and taking away our jewels".

I'm sad that we're in the position we're in. But we can't work on our long-term growth plan until we do the restructuring part first. You can't do step 2 until you do step 1. And people have been fighting step 1 for as long as I can remember. Well, we waited this long, and now step 1 is going to hurt like hell. Let's get it done already so we can do the step 2 that everyone's been wanting to get started on for a decade.

I will go a bit further. I want Detroit to DIE. Yes, die a brutal death because continuing to prop up the old Detroit has brought us to this point in time. A point where props no longer work. Detroit needs to be anew but continue to resuscitate a rotting corpse only prolong the truth that all Detroiters need to acknowledge.

[Hypestyles]

- leveraging proximity to both the University of Michigan and Michigan State University, two [[or one, depending who you ask ) world-class research institutions whose innovations in science, technology, and engineering already spin off company after company after company of start-ups.

.. how does city [[elected) leadership and other parties help encourage this? Should U. of M. and MSU both have charter schools in the city? [[K - 12?), with heavily-tech-based curriculums?

I think state colleges and universities should be ‘adopting’ Detroit city schools and managing them with specialized curriculums such as medical science, physics/engineering, information technology, accounting/finance, and more [[with the understanding that upon graduation they would already have some transferable college credits.)

http://tinyurl.com/3zsc6nc

[Novine]

"The long-term economic growth plan is not a feasible platform to be elected Mayor or City Council. The very people who are voting right now are not necessarily going to be the same people who will benefit from the plan. No one ever wins elections because of their austerity plan for local citizens."

That's because austerity isn't a plan for long-term growth. Who would buy into that? Europe is doing a great job of showing how austerity measures destroy economies and consign a country to a decade or generation of stagnation. You don't grow any economy by austerity. You grow by pairing long-term investment with restructuring plans to reduce inefficiencies and re-route resources to where they are needed most. That's the kind of plan that you can sell to residents and get them to buy into for the long-term. Whatever their level of education, people aren't stupid. They realize that austerity plans do nothing for them in the short or long-term.

[corktownyuppie]

"The long-term economic growth plan is not a feasible platform to be elected Mayor or City Council. The very people who are voting right now are not necessarily going to be the same people who will benefit from the plan. No one ever wins elections because of their austerity plan for local citizens."

That's because austerity isn't a plan for long-term growth. Who would buy into that? Europe is doing a great job of showing how austerity measures destroy economies and consign a country to a decade or generation of stagnation. You don't grow any economy by austerity. You grow by pairing long-term investment with restructuring plans to reduce inefficiencies and re-route resources to where they are needed most. That's the kind of plan that you can sell to residents and get them to buy into for the long-term. Whatever their level of education, people aren't stupid. They realize that austerity plans do nothing for them in the short or long-term.

Believe it or not, I believe and agree with every single point you make. Austerity without a long-term plan for economic growth will not solve any problems, will likely make many of them worse, and will achieve no buy-in from the citizens.

Here's the thing, though. Any long-term plan for economic growth requires stabilization and restructuring to happen first -- before anyone can reasonably put together a long-term plan...and definitely before you'll ever convince any sources of money come and help fund the loans necessary to make the long-term plan work.

There's no way to pair them simultaneously. Hell, we can't even get 40+ union leaders to all simultaneously agree to the austerity part. How are going to simultaneously find the capital to fund any long-term growth plan?

Earlier today there was an example of someone who turned down a free house that required an up-front investment of $3,500 in back taxes. Now I know nothing about the condition or rentability of this property. But note his/her reason for turning down the opportunity...not inexperience in property management, or unfamiliarity with the market. But the uncertainty of the future tax liability.

Until we restructure everything and bleed every bit of productivity from the fewest possible employees, then no one can make any long-term plans. Moreover, it's reasonable to expect that no one will help us with financial aid until they've seen that our civic leaders have the stewardship to do all we can with what we have first. And even then, it's reasonable that the people who would help us with funding provide oversight over how the funds are used...another issue which Detroiters have historically had a hard time accepting.

So yes. There is no long-term growth plan without both long-term investment paired with austerity. The problem is that the people who have the ability to make that investment want to see the austerity first. And frankly, given what I do know about Detroit politics, I don't blame them.

[corktownyuppie]

.. how does city [[elected) leadership and other parties help encourage this? Should U. of M. and MSU both have charter schools in the city? [[K - 12?), with heavily-tech-based curriculums?

I think state colleges and universities should be ‘adopting’ Detroit city schools and managing them with specialized curriculums such as medical science, physics/engineering, information technology, accounting/finance, and more [[with the understanding that upon graduation they would already have some transferable college credits.)

http://tinyurl.com/3zsc6nc

I'm already starting to see the beginnings of this. I think that it's not necessary that anything be formalized, but first we need to see emotional investment first and then financial investment will come. A few things have started in the last 5 years and are building bridges and gaining traction

-at U-M, a student group known as the "Detroit Partnership" [[formerly the Detroit Project) pairs up undergraduates with service projects based in the city.

-the University of Michigan Men's Glee Club [[which has historically been 99.99999% white) has entered into a formal relationship with Renaissance High, and have had students "trade places" several times over the year, allowing some very talented Renaissance students the opportunity to sing with an upper echelon choir in Ann Arbor's Hill Auditorium....and also allowing some undergraduate singers the opportunity to go into the city several times and mentor young singers and help with rehearsal. I'm sure it's been an eye-opening experience for both sides.

- At U-D Jesuit, the 30+ year tradition of a Walkathon has been scrapped in favor of service projects in the city. U-D, which draws from both the city and the suburbs has been very helpful at creating that emotional connection with their grads at a young age. Many of their alumni who were originally from the suburbs have returned to reside in the city in large part because of their connection through their high school experience. I expect this trend to become even more so over the next 10 years.

- At U-M's Ross School of Business, MBA students from all around the world are now doing roundtable case studies about issues facing the city and the region. Organized trips have helped act as a liason between many who would never have set foot in the city see how complex a 140 square mile city can be...where Lodge and 7 Mile, Del Ray, Boston Edison, and Midtown are 4 uniquely different places that make up what we call Detroit.

...and these are just the things I know about. I'm sure there's much more in existence and much more on the way.

I think it's coming. It helps that the city seems to be welcoming of these "outsiders" rather than hostile toward them. I'm not sure if it's always been that way. I think the long-term effect is that you're introducing a *third way* of looking at the city's issues. Rather than the myopic us vs. them nonsense that we get trapped into, these types of programs force people to stand from "outside the situation" and look at it from the view of a 3rd party.

[Novine]

"So yes. There is no long-term growth plan without both long-term investment paired with austerity. The problem is that the people who have the ability to make that investment want to see the austerity first. And frankly, given what I do know about Detroit politics, I don't blame them."

Who are these people? The only outside investment I've seen come forward was from the Feds and they wanted to see that we were investing more money into transit, not less. Otherwise, I don't know who you think is waiting at the door steps to invest in Detroit if only we would bleed out the patient.

Based on your past comments, I fundamentally disagree with the view you have that Detroit needs to shrink in size and government spending. More efficient? Yes. Better value for services? Yes. But I don't believe that Detroit overspends for a city it's size. In fact, no one has been able to put up numbers that show that. For every efficiency that can be squeezed out of the system, I believe that those dollars need to be put right back into the city through better services, capital improvements and paying down debt. Unlike Stephen Henderson, I don't think Detroit can get by with less or that taking the austerity approach will pay off in the long run. As an investor, I don't invest in companies that take such an approach because it's a clear indicator that they have no long-term game plan for growth. The same is true of Detroit. Who wants to invest in a city that has no plan to invest in itself?

I also don't believe that a long-term growth plan has to wait for the reorganization, etc. that needs to take place. They need to be taking place at the same time. For all the knocks on the Detroit Works plan, at least it understood that basic concept. You have to be planning for the long-term and investing into those areas where you want to see growth. Otherwise, your simply prolonging the inevitable crash.

[corktownyuppie]

I also don't believe that a long-term growth plan has to wait for the reorganization, etc. that needs to take place. They need to be taking place at the same time.

Well, ideally, yes. But how? This is the Gordian Knot. How? It took the threat of the emergency manager just to get people to admit that the reorganization was necessary. And frankly, when I listen to some of the comments, the perception is that people still believe that this is some way for old, white men in Lansing to take over.

How can we even try to put together the long-term growth plan into a conversation when a large chunk of the population won't admit there's a problem...or that if there is a problem, it was just created by racist people in order to take our power away?

If we could just eliminate that entire dynamic, I think we'd be spending a whole lot more time talking about a long-term plan.

[corktownyuppie]

But I don't believe that Detroit overspends for a city it's size. In fact, no one has been able to put up numbers that show that.

I don't think that Detroit overspends for a city its size. It overspends for a city its income. We have too many poor people. We're draining away our middle-class. And we barely, barely, barely have a community of the true capitalist wealth with an emotional interest to provide needed injections of capital.

I don't want to shrink our geographical footprint or our levels of service because we overspend compared to other cities. I want to shrink it because all those levels of service were based on a time where we were a wealthy city with wealthy people. It would be a travesty to ever consider that 20% of Detroiters when given a choice between Archer, Young, Kilpatrick or Bing would instead skip all the names and put a write-in vote for some mayor in the suburbs.

But that's exactly what they did by voting with their feet.

To answer your question about who will want to invest in the city? Investors are looking at the city with great interest right now. I'm seeing cap rates on investment property at 33% per year. Those numbers are too hard to ignore. But everyone is afraid because of the uncertainties in city government, not to mention a propensity for militaristic attitudes toward capitalism.

We don't agree on a lot, but I rarely vote Republican, and I think the Tea Party should shut up or smarten up. That said, our policies for fiscal responsibility have been atrocious for some time, and investors want to see that we're finally serious about getting serious.

I'm not convinced that we are....and that says a lot because at least I give Detroit the benefit of the doubt. Many more with much more money than I are far more skeptical.

[laphoque]

I say EM for the reorganization of Metro Detroit. Most Metro suburbs qualify. Make those who don't share. Combine all the urbanized areas together with a geographically contingent ward system. Halt new sprawl outside Metro Detroit. Begin rebuilding. The whole Metro is stagnant. We need to rebuild our infrastructure, our police and fire systems, our transit system, our roads, train tracks, bridges, and freeways. A metro that has not surpassed its 1970's peak should not be growing outside of those borders. We should make this a world class city again.

[corktownyuppie]

The issues of urban disinvestment and the prerequisite long-term economic growth plan to stop the bleeding are not unique to Detroit. And whether it's a new generation "coming-of-age" or simply a product of catastrophic financial environment, interest in long-term solutions is very high and I believe Metro Detroiters -- at least those who are interested in public policy and informed enough to warrant an actual "seat at the table" -- are yearning for this discussion to take place and put into execution.

The Brookings Insitute published a study a little over a year ago discussing issues with suburbanization, urban disinvestment, and the ways forward to combat these issues. Now I know my experience is biased because my "tribe" generally consists of highly educated professionals, usually with advanced degrees. But what's interesting is that crossing party lines, socio-economic levels, and whether your roots are in the suburbs or in the city, there's a sincere interest about finding the way forward.

Brookings published an article today..."

Facing the Urban Challenge: Reimagining Land Use in America's Distressed Older Cities—The Federal Policy Role"

and it cites back to the study published a year ago I mentioned above. "Ohio's Cities at a Turning Point: Finding the Way Forward"

Some notes from the Ohio article:

The state must adopt a different way of thinking and a different vision of its cities’ future—and so must the myriad local, civic, philanthropic, and business leaders who will also play a role in reshaping Ohio’s cities. The following seven basic premises should inform any vision for a smaller, stronger future and subsequent strategies for change in these places:

• These cities contain significant assets for future rebuilding
• These cities will not regain their peak population
• These cities have a surplus of housing
• These cities have far more vacant land than can be absorbed by redevelopment
• Impoverishment threatens the viability of these cities more than population loss as such
• Local resources are severely limited
• The fate of cities and their metropolitan areas are inextricably inter-connected

Now speaking only for myself and the people with whom I generally talk about these issues...we're anxious to get moving on these issues but get frustrated with people who can't even agree on the above premises.

Regardless of who is to blame, Detroit will not come back to its peak population. And so we need to re-adjust both the size of our government and the size of our infrastructure to be in line with the existing population as well as its financial means.

"

These cities contain significant assets for future rebuilding"...This is true. But in order to leverage these assets, we need outside money, and in turn, that means outside oversight. So if every time we talk about handing Belle Isle over to a regional authority or charging admission and "privatizing it" people start marching in the streets, how will we ever get anything done?

Yes, long-term investment into the city will eventually be the roots for its revival. But realistically speaking, that can't happen until:

- The current government needs to be "right-sized" not just for today, but with the flexibility to quickly adjust to changing market conditions tomorrow. That doesn't mean that unions have to die. But it does mean that unions need to be willing to change their fundamental mindset. Unions can do a great job of sheltering their membership from the ups and downs of the economic cycles. But now it needs to make that a secondary priority to finding ways to quickly allow for flexible growth and quick contraction to adapt to changing market forces.

- Detroiters need to be willing to turnover some of their power over major assets to regional authorities. The Cobo Hall [[almost)-fiasco is a the perfect example of this. Here you had a jewel of the city. But the jewel needed a lot of money for re-constructive surgery...and the jewel was spending way more than it was taking in. This is a perfect candidate for capital injection. Someone comes in with money, helps pay for the re-constructive surgery, the jewel becomes valuable again and then it starts taking more in than it spends.

Well, guess what. The people coming in to pay for the reconstructive surgery are gonna have a disproportionate say over who the surgeon is, what the rehab looks like, what the patient gets to eat afterward, and how it's going to change going forward. That's not "injustice". That's reality.

=======

As a Detroiter, I believe that these are the two places where we shoot ourselves in the foot. And once we can silence the factions that are unwilling to accept the above premises, then we can finally take advantage of so many things that will attract investors to Detroit like moths to a flame:

- cheap, cheap, cheap land
- cheap, cheap, cheap labor
- already existing infrastructure
- proximity to water, higher education, and an international port

The fundamentals for investors are already attracting attention. There are commercial buildings in the Dexter/Davison area that -- even in today's depressed environment -- payout over 30% cash-on-cash returns PER YEAR. At those valuations, investors would normally be chomping at the bit to jump on.

But they can't and won't until we admit defeat and accept the reality of our situation. We are not the city we once were. We have to start acting like adults and accept that if we want outside help than we need to be willing to have outside oversight. And we need to be willing to change.

We do those things, and then we can start changing our policies so that they attract investors in droves.

[rex]

among other things.