Detroit’s Core Thrives As Criminals Prey On Neighborhoods

[rex]

Wow Rex...nice position! I hope you are not raising your kids to make the same career choice..since you think its Ok and all to augment your Govt provided check [[reads tax revenue from working stiffs) with slinging dope...Wow

same career choices? Im a full time network security graduate student and I work 50 hours a week. ::not selling drugs:: I work very hard.

[rex]

part of me thinks crime would skyrocket if we legalized drugs. Its Detroits cottage industry. People aren't going to curl up and die if their income stream dries up. Massive amounts of unskilled jobs arent about to relocate to Detroit.

[Occurrence]

Except liquor is regulated, passed through safety inspections, supports companies [[not an individual), prohibited to minors, and taxed. So no, it's very different in fact.

All those problems would be contained if the drugs were legal. The laws that make drugs illegal do more hard than the actual drugs.

[Hermod]

That pretty much describes most of the City in the 1940s. The Purple Gang was N of there along Oakland Ave N of Highland Park.

In the 1940s, most of the population was outside of the Grand Boulevard perimeter. There were strong, viable neighborhoods stretching out to eight mile.

[SWMAP]

"same career choices? Im a full time network security graduate student and I work 50 hours a week. ::not selling drugs:: I work very hard."
If you are young and unentangled - go where the jobs are! Get out of here for awhile at least. Life can be a lot better!

[cman710]

All those problems would be contained if the drugs were legal. The laws that make drugs illegal do more hard than the actual drugs.

The problems may or may not be contained, depending.

Presumably, if drugs were legalized, they would be taxed, just as alcohol and cigarettes are taxed. In theory, this tax should be higher on the drugs having the worst impact [[meth, heroin, etc.), and lower on drugs with less of an impact [[e.g., marijuana). The aim of the tax would be to collect revenue and to discourage people from using harmful drugs, while allowing them to remain legal to avoid the problems that arise from banning them.

If the drugs are taxed at an appropriate level, they will likely be more expensive than at least some street drugs. While I am not up on current street prices, I understand that the prices for certain drugs are extremely low [[improving their appeal in poor areas). These prices might still be lower than "legal" prices and, if so, there would still be a black market for drugs, complete with all the problems that currently exist.

Moreover, even if the legal prices were in line or cheaper than street prices, the street sellers might simply cut their prices to stay in business. There is an incredible markup in drug prices from harvest/creation to sale on the street. If drugs were legalized, illegal drug sellers would make much less money, but there would also be downward pressure on prices. The cartels in Mexico would have to take a smaller cut, as would U.S. distributors. My guess is that they coudl cut prices significantly before going out of business.

[EASTSIDE CAT 67-83]

same career choices? Im a full time network security graduate student and I work 50 hours a week. ::not selling drugs:: I work very hard.

Rex
I was being tongue and cheek referring to your position on drug slinging being no big deal, its apparent you worked very hard to get where you are in life so your kids following in your foot steps would be a wise choice. Good on ya brother I just disagree with your position on legalizing dope.

[WaCoTS]

the latest Detroitblog entry sorta says it all...

http://www.detroitblog.org/?p=2418

while well-to do young suburbanites enjoy lofts, music, food, art, martinis, and low crime [[all the best things about Detroit) in midtown, those on the fringes enjoy unbelievable crime and [[all the worst things about Detrroit), and it doesnt seem to be changing for the better as promised. police and FD cuts in the face of worsening conditions, while midtown is pampered.

The difference here is that Detroit is essentially a "reclamation" project. when rebuilding a car, you don't put fresh body panels on a rusted-out frame. you don't put new siding on a house with rotten timbers. You want a strong city, you have to start somewhere, and the core is the logical place to do it.

which is the "frame" of the city? the inner city, or the parts where the families actually live in? whether detroit can be "saved" by hip white kids who are "creative" and were born after 1980 remains to be seen. i too am inclined to believe that they are not the type who will be putting down real roots here. most will be in the city for a few years before their ambitions [[or changing tastes, as they "grow up") will take them out of state. Detroit cannot remain a "cool" place to live indefinitely.

[rb336]

which is the "frame" of the city? the inner city, or the parts where the families actually live in? whether detroit can be "saved" by hip white kids who are "creative" and were born after 1980 remains to be seen. i too am inclined to believe that they are not the type who will be putting down real roots here. most will be in the city for a few years before their ambitions [[or changing tastes, as they "grow up") will take them out of state. Detroit cannot remain a "cool" place to live indefinitely.

When you have a city the size of Detroit, 140ish square miles and limited resources, what would YOU do? If you build the core, you build places for Detroiters to work. Neighborhood consolidation has to happen. It is an unsustainable city the way it is currently configured. you rebuild the city the way it was built - from the riverfront to the north and you strengthen viable neighborhoods and return the others to nature

[mwilbert]

It is both intrinsically bad and unfair that so many parts of the city are unsafe and under served. But I can't see how a city in a fiscal crisis with a few neighborhoods that actually generate significant revenue and a lot that don't can do much other than try to make sure that the stronger areas can continue to thrive.

If it were possible to remove the less-viable neighborhoods from the city, that would be what would make sense. It isn't possible, so more-or-less ignoring them is the only reasonable course of action. And again, I know this isn't a good thing, but Detroit isn't in a position to redress society's injustices, and if it tried, not only would it fail, it would almost certainly put the stronger areas at risk--it isn't as if they are that strong anyway.

In my mind, one of the main reasons to pursue the whole neighborhood closure and resident relocation idea is to get people to move to places where they can get better services, but if that doesn't happen, it doesn't mean that the city is going to be able to provide them with adequate services where they are. It can't, and people should take into account that the probable alternative to rationalization is neglect.

[Locke09]

If the city has made a decision to use the majority of its resources to serve the good people of midtown and downtown, and deprive the less desirables of service, then the city should stop taxing those undesirable neighborhoods that it has decided to abandon.

I imagine this should concern any suburbs that border the city as well. It should concern anyone who has to get into their car or board a bus and head from their suburban home, travel through the abandoned and underserviced region and hope to make it safely to the midtown and downtown areas.

[313WX]

If the city has made a decision to use the majority of its resources to serve the good people of midtown and downtown, and deprive the less desirables of service, then the city should stop taxing those undesirable neighborhoods that it has decided to abandon.

I imagine this should concern any suburbs that border the city as well. It should concern anyone who has to get into their car or board a bus and head from their suburban home, travel through the abandoned and underserviced region and hope to make it safely to the midtown and downtown areas.

I'm in complete agreement with your post.

I understand those who say you must start at the core, but the ~650,000 people you just gave a big "f*** you!!!" to aren't just going to disappear or allow you to steam roll them. They're going to take their tax dollars to a community where they can get a decent return on them [[thus less revenue) and the criminals will simply "cross 8 Mile Road" as Coleman Young wanted 35 years ago, further burdening the suburban communities.

[Occurrence]

If the drugs are taxed at an appropriate level, they will likely be more expensive than at least some street drugs. While I am not up on current street prices, I understand that the prices for certain drugs are extremely low [[improving their appeal in poor areas). These prices might still be lower than "legal" prices and, if so, there would still be a black market for drugs, complete with all the problems that currently exist.

Moreover, even if the legal prices were in line or cheaper than street prices, the street sellers might simply cut their prices to stay in business. There is an incredible markup in drug prices from harvest/creation to sale on the street. If drugs were legalized, illegal drug sellers would make much less money, but there would also be downward pressure on prices. The cartels in Mexico would have to take a smaller cut, as would U.S. distributors. My guess is that they coudl cut prices significantly before going out of business.

Not sure if I agree with this. I can only source the prohibition on alcohol, which has been well established and documented as a complete failure.

While there is still a small black market for alcohol, not enough to cause violence from "turf wars" and surely not profitable enough to fund powerful criminal organizations. Those here in America who support the criminalization of drugs have one thing in common with the drug cartels in that they both want the drugs illegal.

Realistically we all know as long as there is a demand for drugs, there will be substantial profits to be made. As long as money is to be made, there will be drugs. All the money wasted on the "drug war" could probably be better spent on better education and treatments for addicts. Our current approach on drugs is an obvious failure, yet nobody seems to mind, and nobody seems interested in trying a different approach. I'm only left with a cynical view that it's all a racket to fuel the prison and court system economies and enrich those invested.

[royce]

What is Detroit government doing to help out Midtown and downtown? What incentives have been given to those investing in Midtown? I know with the Downtown Development Authority or the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation some incentives are given to those rehabbing downtown buildings, but what has the city done for Midtown? I ask this question because there are so many people in Detroit and a few on this forum who feel that the city focuses on downtown and now Midtown over the neighborhoods. If you read the article, it talks about crime going down in Midtown and mentions that Wayne State police, along with DPD, patrol areas of Midtown. Well, that's one reason why crime is probably down in Midtown. What other neighborhood has two police forces?

Also, is it the city's fault if people want to live and work in Midtown and downtown and not at Gratiot and McNichols/Six Mile? Is the city supposed to spend money promoting areas of the city that no one wants to live in? Even if the city tears down abandoned buildings or gets crime under control, will people jump at the chance to live at Gratiot and Six Mile? Probably not because there are many amenties missing in that area.

The fact is the ecomomic market drives where people live. Right now Midtown and downtown is where people want to live. The city, in my opionion, doesn't control this phenomenon. People in the neighborhoods need to understand that it is their actions that determine the health of their neighborhoods. If there are positives things going on there, then people will desire to live there. Also, after these young white hipsters leave the city to have families, they'll just be replaced by the next wave of young hipsters. What's wrong with that?

[Locke09]

Royce,

The City's rightsizing plan already acknowledges that it will concentrate services on specific neighborhoods. The city has those neighborhoods identified [[not all in Midtown or Downtown).

There are many city neighborhoods besides Gratiot and McNichols that are being neglected. Some are at the beginning of decline and are being allowed to decline further while the city concentrates on a few neighborhoods.

Perhaps that is the only thing that the city can be expected to do - concentrate on a few neighborhoods. But relinquish the tax dollars, however meager they may be, that are coming from the ignored neighborhoods. Even federal tax dollars, which the city receives based on population, not just population of the desirable neighborhoods, but total population. Don't take from the poor to shore up the comfort of the rich or the young hipsters.

It is a plan that I believe is destined to fail anyway. The city might think it can concentrate on those neighborhoods and then move on to some others, but the decline of the other neighborhoods is happening too swiftly. There are still working class and middle class people in those neighborhoods. They are not going to continue to wait patiently while their very lives are in danger.

[Bham1982]

What is Detroit government doing to help out Midtown and downtown?

Is this a serious question?

Practically every downtown/midtown development over the last 30 years has involved large amounts of city money.

Essentially nothing has been built or renovated without the assistance of city taxpayers.

[mwilbert]

Perhaps that is the only thing that the city can be expected to do - concentrate on a few neighborhoods. But relinquish the tax dollars, however meager they may be, that are coming from the ignored neighborhoods. Even federal tax dollars, which the city receives based on population, not just population of the desirable neighborhoods, but total population. Don't take from the poor to shore up the comfort of the rich or the young hipsters.

I agree with this in principle, but I doubt many of those neighborhoods are paying enough [[or bringing in enough outside money) to cover the limited services they are getting now.

[royce]

Is this a serious question?

Practically every downtown/midtown development over the last 30 years has involved large amounts of city money.

Essentially nothing has been built or renovated without the assistance of city taxpayers.

Which Midtown developments have received large amounts of city money, Birmingham 1982?

[mwilbert]

For example:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...-76696232.html

The development is financed through a combination of HUD Hope VI funds, tax credit equity, conventional debt financing and city of Detroit infrastructure funds. Public funding represents approximately 25% of the total funding.

[Bham1982]

Which Midtown developments have received large amounts of city money, Birmingham 1982?

Probably every new construction/renovation project in Midtown beyond something tiny like a two-unit renovation had some public funding or subsidy attached.

So the answer is all, or nearly all. It could be anything from a HUD block grant to a tax abatement to direct outlay from a city agency.

[Locke09]

I agree with this in principle, but I doubt many of those neighborhoods are paying enough [[or bringing in enough outside money) to cover the limited services they are getting now.

Well, block grant money is based on things like population and poverty rates. So, to the extent that any block grant money is used, it was received as a result of those less desirable neighborhoods and their low income populations.

Also, tax abatements are given to homeowners and businesses in the more desirable areas, so just how much are they pulling their own weight? I think it's more likely that the rest of the city is subsidizing them in the hopes that they will remain here, much as we subsidize businesses hoping they will remain in downtown Detroit or at least hire more people.

[mwilbert]

Well, block grant money is based on things like population and poverty rates. So, to the extent that any block grant money is used, it was received as a result of those less desirable neighborhoods and their low income populations.

Also, tax abatements are given to homeowners and businesses in the more desirable areas, so just how much are they pulling their own weight? I think it's more likely that the rest of the city is subsidizing them in the hopes that they will remain here, much as we subsidize businesses hoping they will remain in downtown Detroit or at least hire more people.

I do not have the numbers, so it is possible you are correct. I doubt it--the more affluent neighborhoods and the core areas pay much more income tax, and probably pay more property tax despite the abatements. But if it turned out I was wrong about that, at least over any significant period of time, then I would agree that a such a policy was questionable.

I would still favor trying to move people out of the semi-prairie neighborhoods into ones where a higher level of services could be provided. The goal is to provide people with a better environment--building up the core areas is just a means to that end. If it doesn't work, then we need to do something else. I understand that some people don't think concentrating on the core and the strong neighborhoods is the right way to accomplish that, but I that they are mistaken, because I think that more businesses and affluent residents are a critical part of stabilizing the city's finances, and without that stabilization the entire city is endangered.

[stasu1213]

It is all done by design

[begingri]

In Detroit, Urban Flight in Reverse

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...ght-in-reverse

[illwill]

In Detroit, Urban Flight in Reverse


http://www.businessweek.com/articles...ght-in-reverse

Interesting article. Nathaniel Wallace said he thinks Detroit is now on the other side. Sometimes I wonder how much research these people have done on the city before forming these laughable opinions? Detroit has sunk deeper and deeper and it's getting worse and worse. Anyone who knows Detroit simply appreciates the city for what it is. Detroit offers a lot but an in-tuned Detroiter knows the city has not turned the corner. Just embrace the city for what it is. A GREAT place to be. A city in financial ruins but a GREAT place to be.