City finding a way to make Detroit Works actually work

**begingri** · February-20-12, 03:29 PM

Rochelle Riley
Free Press columnist

Last month, the City of Detroit canceled contracts with 1,500 groups and residents for neighborhood improvements or programs -- six months after a federal team discovered that the city didn't have $53 million in Housing and Urban Development money to dole out, but was instead $53 million in the hole.

But from that audit grew a way to make Detroit Works -- Mayor Dave Bing's bold initiative to create denser, viable neighborhoods -- actually work.Over the next two years, the city plans to spend $87 million in federal funding, including community development block grants, to improve neighborhoods. But from now on, the city will spend where it can do the most good.

Rather than distribute small amounts of money to groups or residents all over town, Detroit will fund new or renovated housing only in its strongest and most physically stable neighborhoods -- or areas with such potential.

"No housing has been built in the city of Detroit since the 1980s without city subsidies," said Karla Henderson, the city's group executive in charge of planning and facilities, who is overseeing the effort. "So Detroit can drive housing."

Continued at: http://www.freep.com/article/2012021...-actually-work

**313WX** · February-20-12, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by begingri

Rochelle Riley
Free Press columnist

Last month, the City of Detroit canceled contracts with 1,500 groups and residents for neighborhood improvements or programs -- six months after a federal team discovered that the city didn't have $53 million in Housing and Urban Development money to dole out, but was instead $53 million in the hole.

But from that audit grew a way to make Detroit Works -- Mayor Dave Bing's bold initiative to create denser, viable neighborhoods -- actually work.Over the next two years, the city plans to spend $87 million in federal funding, including community development block grants, to improve neighborhoods. But from now on, the city will spend where it can do the most good.

Rather than distribute small amounts of money to groups or residents all over town, Detroit will fund new or renovated housing only in its strongest and most physically stable neighborhoods -- or areas with such potential.

"No housing has been built in the city of Detroit since the 1980s without city subsidies," said Karla Henderson, the city's group executive in charge of planning and facilities, who is overseeing the effort. "So Detroit can drive housing."

Continued at: http://www.freep.com/article/2012021...-actually-work

In other words, if you don't live in downtown/midtown or a few of the other select neighborhoods, you're SOL.

It's pretty much what I've been saying would be the outcome anyway.

**Detroitnerd** · February-20-12, 04:27 PM

To me, this is typical, backward Detroit thinking. The problem isn't coming up with regional funding sources for a vibrant inner city. It's all those inconvenient PEOPLE who CHOOSE to live in neighborhoods we'd rather give up on.

**rex** · February-20-12, 05:23 PM

Downtown/midtown should be the focal point for development. The stable westside areas and the far east side. Populate Indian Village and Boston Edison with police and fire fighters like they were discussing. Perhaps reinstate residency requirements for city workers and educators. Rebuild the tax base. I know its unpopular to suggest neglecting less "desirable" areas but uh....what contributions are welfare recipients making? The unfortunate reality is Detroit hosts a lot of people that could be considered anchors. Illiterates, unemployables, criminals. Why not focus on the future and hope that some of these less desirable elements go somewhere else?

**Detroitnerd** · February-20-12, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by rex

I know its unpopular to suggest neglecting less "desirable" areas but uh....what contributions are welfare recipients making?

Yeah, I mean, what right does a guy have who bought a home have to stay there? I mean, the NERVE of that guy to buy a home when all the other houses were occupied, to STAY there while the houses rot and burn down, to then INSIST on MOWING his OWN NEIGHBORHOOD, keeping his HOUSE LIGHTS on because the streetlights won't work, even keeping an eye out and checking on neighbors to make sure the few who remain are OK, what right does this guy have to live in a house and still hope to have any city services? Yeah, he and his neighbors are probably all on welfare, so why don't we make their lives miserable by cutting off their welfare or forcing them to take drug tests until they move? I mean the GALL of those people to actually live in Detroit and want city services. Tsk-tsk. I'm with you, rex. Let's harass them until they move on and our dreams come true ...

**hamtown mike** · February-20-12, 05:49 PM

I think this is saying that Detroit is not getting out of the handout business, just concentrating it's efforts on where the handouts land.

**downtownguy** · February-20-12, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by rex

. I know its unpopular to suggest neglecting less "desirable" areas but uh....what contributions are welfare recipients making? The unfortunate reality is Detroit hosts a lot of people that could be considered anchors. Illiterates, unemployables, criminals. Why not focus on the future and hope that some of these less desirable elements go somewhere else?

Wow, that's harsh! Why not include senior citizens, too? What contributions are they making? Other than perhaps giving you life once upon a time.

**stasu1213** · February-20-12, 08:57 PM

Now I see why Bing didn't want senior citizens in the neighborhoods in the city to have that money. He want subsidies to go to the Midtown/Dowtown areas and screw the rest.

**mwilbert** · February-20-12, 09:20 PM

I understand why people don't want disinvestment in their neighborhoods, but it makes no sense for the city to be subidizing new housing in places it has no reason to exist.

I'm sure lots of people will disagree, but I couldn't believe it when they decided to build hundreds of new units [[not all built yet, I don't think) in the old Herman Gardens. Why? This is a completely non-strategic area for the city, and it doesn't make sense to build new stuff there. If Detroit is going to be subsidizing housing, it should be subsidizing infill in more-or-less viable areas.

I don't see this as being the same as not providing services, although if you don't have the money to provide even the relatively minimal services provided in Detroit everywhere,, I'm pretty sure you shouldn't focus them on blocks with two or three inhabited houses.

**antongast** · February-20-12, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

I understand why people don't want disinvestment in their neighborhoods, but it makes no sense for the city to be subidizing new housing in places it has no reason to exist.

I'm sure lots of people will disagree, but I couldn't believe it when they decided to build hundreds of new units [[not all built yet, I don't think) in the old Herman Gardens. Why? This is a completely non-strategic area for the city, and it doesn't make sense to build new stuff there. If Detroit is going to be subsidizing housing, it should be subsidizing infill in more-or-less viable areas.

I don't see this as being the same as not providing services, although if you don't have the money to provide even the relatively minimal services provided in Detroit everywhere,, I'm pretty sure you shouldn't focus them on blocks with two or three inhabited houses.

This sounds pretty reasonable to me, but given Bing's track record, I'm 99% sure that the final implementation will somehow be a complete disaster.

**royce** · February-21-12, 01:56 AM

This will always be an issue that people feel strongly about on both sides, much like abortion or gun control. Never a simple answer and rarely one that everyone can agree on. The only thing that people can agree on is that something has to be done in Detroit to make it a more livable city. The debate is whether the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or does the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.

The reality is that hordes of outsiders won't be moving to Detroit to live, especially in blighted areas. Offer homes for a buck and you won't get many takers in those areas. So the questions to ask are, "What to do with the remaining residents in those blighted areas?" Continue to offer city services, eventhough it's not efficient? Provide incentives for people to move to more populated areas? In a perfect world the city would have millions of dollars and could build new houses in and around more dense neighborhoods and convince people to move to them. However, you know someone is going to want to stay in their house regardless of the incentives. So the next questions to ask are, "What to do with folks who don't want to leave their home despite it being one of three on a block that used to have 50?" What rights does the city have in this matter? What rights does the homeowner have? If neighborhoods in New Orleans can be condemned because of a natural disaster, can neighborhoods in Detroit be condemned due to human or economic disaster?

I'm raising these questions without answers because I realize that there will never be a concensus on what to do. My opinion is moot. However if anyone truly wants to tackle the problem of how to make the quality of life in Detroit more livable, then these are definitely the questions that they're going to have to answer.

**Detroitnerd** · February-21-12, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by royce

The reality is that hordes of outsiders won't be moving to Detroit to live, especially in blighted areas. Offer homes for a buck and you won't get many takers in those areas. So the questions to ask are, "What to do with the remaining residents in those blighted areas?" Continue to offer city services, eventhough it's not efficient? Provide incentives for people to move to more populated areas?

Efficiency is overrated. We are not machines to be oiled and run at maximum efficiency. When reasonable people buy a home and then end up being the last home on the block, why would we ever blame them? After all, isn't it an indictment of our dysfunctional regional politics and non-planning? Our lack of services in the first place? If somebody signs a deed to a home, that's a kind of contract, isn't it? They legally own it. I'm sure we all want OUR contracts to be honored. So why is it different with somebody who lives on the urban prairie?

And what do you do with intact blocks, like the Farnsworth neighborhood? When you start making big plans about roping off the near east side, what do you do with them? What about all those good bones in the form of old streets and rights of way, small lots and such? Want to flatten it all for an industrial park? Some mega-development? I think we all know the insecurities of the average resident, overplayed as they may be, are rooted in realities like Poletown and riverfront casinos. Why pay one penny to move a resident who's been there for years when the result will be a superblock, supercampus or industrial park? More juice for the powerful, if you ask me.

And finally, if you get into the business of providing "incentives" for people to move to "more populated" areas, this is different from offering professionals incentives to move to midtown. This would be more like full-scale social engineering. Because I know that nobody is going to propose moving people from "blighted" neighborhoods to midtown or downtown. So where do they go? What are these "more populated" neighborhoods you're going to move "them" to? That's a thin promise, my friend, especially in a city that has never been good at providing affordable housing or caring for its most vulnerable residents. We're supposed to buy into a plan to move residents, when the leaders would rather slaver over billion-dollar deals and don't give a hoot about mom-and-pop stuff? You know what's coming: Accusations that the Detroit Works project is an effort to subsidize white residents and dot the city with Bantustans.

Detroit Works trades in the problems of today and trying to come up with ways to deal with them with the small means we have.

Underlying all this is the fact that we are going to fix these problems by granting more power to the people who have overseen the ongoing disaster. And that the people who live here have a longer memory, and know damn well somebody's trying to hose them.

Which makes this politically impossible.

**michigansheik** · February-22-12, 06:46 AM

sharing services across the entire city proper has not worked for the last 30+ years since it has been coupled with a society that shows little value in life and receives a mosty substandard education. so for the bing administration to think about a way to get more bang for the buck i see targeting the money as something worth trying since speading it around made no difference. i think the idea is to strengthen what is working and when the schools get around that maybe the next generation will change its views on the value of life and we will see infill. obviously this plan sucks to anyone not living in a 'strong' area but you can't keep doing what has proven not to work and expect it to work without some change and the mayor does not control the schools but thats another debate. thankfully the information age is here so i'm hopeful that the days of mass betrayal by elected officials [[mayors, county executives and school boards alike) are numbered as the word will always get out.

**corktownyuppie** · February-22-12, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by royce

The debate is whether the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or does the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.

I think the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few in Detroit. The problem is that there aren't enough of the "few" to take care of the needs of the "many".

Each household in the city "puts in" to the city budget a certain amount of funds in the form of taxes. Each household "takes out" from the city budget a certain amount of money in the form of services....both services past and services present.

My father receives a city pension and will until he dies. That's money that today's citizens are funding right now and seeing nothing in return [[right now).

If there are two houses on an abandoned block, then they may be paying their taxes, but they are "taking out" an entire block's cost of servicing the block [[streets, sewers, police, fire).

If there is a neighborhood of 200 homes that attracts 10x as much crime as another neighborhood 10 miles away, they are "taking out" 10x as much from the budget.

I hate to look at this as a problem of dollars and cents. People are people and should have equal access to a baseline amount of services and safety. I think we all want that. But what's the biggest problem in Detroit? Dollars and cents.

Let's say 9 out of 10 homicides go unsolved. How do we solve this? Either reduce your homicides by 9. Or multiply your police force by 10. One could argue that both cost money. How do you get more money? You need to either grow the number of "the few". Or you reduce the number of "the many". Or you find creative way to convert some of the "many" into future "few". Of course, then the next problem is once you've converted them...you need to keep them from leaving

Detroit has for far too long trying to take care of everyone, which has resulted in taking care of no one. This sucks, but it's just like the concept of triage in a battlefield. You can't nurse everyone back to health. So pick those which have the highest likelihood of surviving and take care of them first. Otherwise you try to take care of everyone....and end up with everyone dead.

I'd rather see the city try to take care of saving the 20-30% that can survive at the expense of the 70%-80% than try to save everyone and end up killing the city.