Detroit News poll: Crime drives Detroiters out; 40% expect to leave in 5 years

**Detroitnerd** · October-10-12, 01:10 PM

I don't personally blame anybody for leaving the city if it feels too hot for them. But when the majority of people would rather move away from their problems than face them, the despair zone just keeps growing.

We're going to see despair, frankly, all across metro Detroit, and the only exceptions will be places where people really dig their heels in and love the place enough to defend it.

We've lived for almost 100 years on the illusion that we can just leave the city, with all its problems, behind us. And Detroit was ideally sited for that escape plan, surrounded with millions of acres of flat land, even with an international border in the way.

But the "bad" part of the metro just kept growing. Eight Mile Road wasn't enough. Soon the dividing line was I-696. Then it became Hall Road. As people kept fleeing, removing their investments and resources from ever-larger areas, they didn't blame themselves for that, naturally. They blamed "them" -- the poor who follow in their wake.

Three generations on, and the grandchildren of the people who initially left the city discover they actually like cities. And since we are unable to provide a functioning city, they leave. Those who stay are essentially not even suburban people anymore, but rural, without any understanding of what a city is.

**MidTownMs** · October-10-12, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

I'm also on board with you guys.

Beyond Detroit's rich culture and history, there's really nothing else for me in the state of Michigan. I'm a big city person and I can't imagine not living in a big city. Detroit's future will NOT be that of a big city.

And even if I were to move elsewhere in the state, the same toxic mindset strangle-holding this region and state exists well outside Detroit's legal borders [[see the Michigan GOP ad).

That is exactly why I left the state.

**Islandman** · October-10-12, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by brizee

New York
Chicago
Philly
Maybe Boston
Maybe DC/Baltimmore/Virginia

They could learn to act like a real goddamn city and not the worlds most ghetto suburb.

Get some leadership[[statewide) that is honest and doesn't talk out of the side of their mouths. Stop playing this stupid ass racial/income/city-suburb games.

The only way I stay in this state is if it's Detroit.

I wouldn't stay in most of these suburbs if you paid me.

This town/state is just full of ugly provincial hypocritical hardhearted people.

Pretty much this, except the cities would be:

Miami, NYC, Chicago, maybe Charlotte again [[just because the airport is so easy to get to).

**iheartthed** · October-10-12, 02:02 PM

I left Michigan a while ago for NYC. Living in NYC just confirmed what I had suspected while I was living in Ann Arbor: I'm a big city type of guy. Ann Arbor is a great town but nothing can substitute the vibe of a big city other than a big city.

**gazhekwe** · October-10-12, 02:03 PM

Titusville, Florida, nice little town with great weather, celebrates nature, reasonable cost of living, real estate market is still buyer friendly, commuting distance to Melbourne and Orlando, private space market is beginning to open up jobs. Discussion of this on CNBC "Street Signs":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BooMc...ature=youtu.be

**313WX** · October-10-12, 02:06 PM

Chicago
Minneapolis
Philadelphia
NYC
MAYBE Atlanta

**Strong** · October-10-12, 02:07 PM

Wow, almost all the post were bad, but I still have hope, why I don't know. Maybe just maybe the brothers will get an intervention, God or something.
I can't think of anything else to say.

**maverick1** · October-10-12, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by 313WX

I'm also on board with you guys.

Beyond Detroit's rich culture and history, there's really nothing else for me in the state of Michigan. I'm a big city person and I can't imagine not living in a big city. Detroit's future will NOT be that of a big city.

And even if I were to move elsewhere in the state, the same toxic mindset strangle-holding this region and state exists well outside Detroit's legal borders [[see the Michigan GOP ad).

Exactly. I'm also a big city person. Nowhere else in Michigan appeals to me. The Detroit suburbs aren't great to me either. I could probably deal with inner-ring suburbs but only if I had to stay in the state.

**DetroitPlanner** · October-10-12, 02:34 PM

Hazel Park
Ecorse
Melvindale
Bloomfield Hills
Grosse Pointe Shores
Maybee

**poobert** · October-10-12, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by brizee

New York
Chicago
Philly
Maybe Boston
Maybe DC/Baltimmore/Virginia
...
The only way I stay in this state is if it's Detroit.

I wouldn't stay in most of these suburbs if you paid me.

This town/state is just full of ugly provincial hypocritical hardhearted people.

We could be the same person. I feel exactly the same way. In fact, your list is even almost identical to mine [[except for NYC, never been and seems overwealming). I'm sure we're not the only two, either.

As I've mentioned before, I'm plotting an escape within the next couple years. Did my tour of duty here. Left my corner of Detroit better than I found it. Before long it will be time to ride off into the sunset.

And your last line sums it up: THAT is pure Michigan. You only get one life to live and it is too short to be spent in a place like Michigan. Nice place to visit, but why live here?

What could Detroit/Michigan learn from those areas? Nothing, since Michigan is extremely proud of its inability to learn anything new. The mentality here is the same as 30 years ago. Actually, I take that back. People seem angrier, more on edge, and race relations seem worse than ever. Visiting other American cities is like going to another dimension.

**maverick1** · October-10-12, 03:06 PM

Los Angeles
Toronto
Chicago
Philadelphia
DC Metro Area
Bay Area

**michimoby** · October-10-12, 03:10 PM

If I end up anywhere but Detroit, it'll likely be overseas.

Full disclosure: I'm in Rome for the next few months, and I miss Detroit dearly. So, that's saying somethin'.

**detroitsgwenivere** · October-10-12, 03:52 PM

The only way I'm leaving is if some super awesome job fell in my lap and I had no other choice but to move. But it would only be a stepping stone to something greater for me to do here, and i'd eventually move back. This city is my whole life and I've given up WAY too much to just give up on it now.

I think choosing Detroit is to accept a certain type of lifestyle [[even if its madmax). Big city problems to the nth degree, blown out neighborhoods, the entire regions desperately poor and mentally incompetent are just part of it. That may be totally unacceptable to most, and I understand why people can't fathom living this way, but for me, I'd rather be part of the change than be part of the problem. The suburbs don't need me as much as Detroit does. Call it "spiritual investment."

The folks who are tired of being tired, that's ok. I can respect when someone honestly says, "I've paid my dues and I'm done." At least you showed up in the first place.

The task at hand is daunting indeed, but if everyone gives up the fight, than this place will never build and heal.

**brizee** · October-10-12, 05:50 PM

[QUOTE=corktownyuppie;344739]

And a bigger question...rather than looking to leave the city, why don't the people who are [[rightfully) angry look to move to safer neighborhoods within the city rather than just leaving it altogether?

[QUOTE]

On this point just consider you live in one of the more neglected neighborhoods. I dunno...McNichols and Van Dyke.

What are some of the recent happenings within our state?

The governor and legislature craft a document that says your vote just isn't good enough. You don't know how to govern yourselves so we'll do it.

You not only cut transportation to the bone. You kill the most promising project in decades, and then your hapdash replacement plans doesn't even make it through the senate or house.

Your mayor says rather than trying to godforbid lure new residents into your block, he plans to starve and eventually cut off resources, so he can turn your street into a storm retention pond.

Police are piss poor at their jobs and they keep getting less resources.

%80 of your neighbors think you're animals getting what you deserve anyway. Hell the leading political party just released a video voicing as much.

Why would they stay here?

So the people spitting in your face get to collece more of your retirement money?

So you can can continue to be condescended to?

This was always why "right" sizing was never ever going to work.

People are not just stock to be moved at a "leaders" convenience. Not everybody wants to live downtown. I do, but my 65 year old father has stated he hates "sardine cans" as he calls it. He's paid his house off and lived there for 30+ plus years even while the neighborhood around him was digested. His wishes just don't count?

And if the financial argument is brought up, again then why stay? There are fifty states that don't consider flat land and scum ponds more valuable than citizens.

I want to stay in Detroit.

I would love nothing more than for their to live a in bustling metropolis where I can't go three feet without bumping into another person and can't see the clouds for all the hirises.

But my dad has just a much a right to live where he wants to.

Unfortunately leadership is not interested or capable [[or competent?) to fulfill the needs of either one of us.

**corktownyuppie** · October-10-12, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by brizee

Unfortunately leadership is not interested or capable [[or competent?) to fulfill the needs of either one of us.

It's my opinion that they're interested. Though, we can agree to disagree. I agree that they're not capable though.

No one is.

The economic problems that the city faces have already pre-determined that the needs of many will not be met. They simply can't be. The resources don't exist.

So now it's a question of balancing efforts to maximize the number that can be satisfied in a way while maximizing financial stability. When you look at the problem through that lens, the feasibility of different options become much more clear.

**stasu1213** · October-10-12, 09:03 PM

I remember Bing had said that he was not going to shut down neighborhoods to force residents out of them. What he is doing is neglecting residents of their safety. The police passing out flyers at the game plays right into his plans on clearing out parts of Detroit. I am not saying that the police are in on it. Bing and those controlling him are pulling all of the strings.

**michimoby** · October-10-12, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by brizee

I want to stay in Detroit.

I would love nothing more than for their to live a in bustling metropolis where I can't go three feet without bumping into another person and can't see the clouds for all the hirises.

But my dad has just a much a right to live where he wants to.

Unfortunately leadership is not interested or capable [[or competent?) to fulfill the needs of either one of us.

Your father certainly does have the right to live anywhere he wants, just as Ukraine's citizens have the right to live near the fallout zone of Chernobyl. The government, in both cases, can only do so much to protect its citizens before realizing that resources are too scarce to sustain a living space full of growth and vitality.

That's the challenge we're facing here: the marginal cost to service a single citizen in an otherwise abandoned neighborhood is far, far higher than one in Midtown. But citizens seeing their services reduced in these neighborhoods are [[rightfully so) emotionally attached to the life that once was in their little corner of the city.

It's economics versus emotions. Snyder operates on the former, citizens operate on the latter, and both need to be taken into consideration.

**Wesley Mouch** · October-11-12, 01:43 AM

...snip...

I want to stay in Detroit.

I would love nothing more than for their to live a in bustling metropolis where I can't go three feet without bumping into another person and can't see the clouds for all the hirises.

But my dad has just a much a right to live where he wants to.

Unfortunately leadership is not interested or capable [[or competent?) to fulfill the needs of either one of us.[/QUOTE]
So long as you can afford it, best to you. Unfortunately, your democratic process has decided to fund corrupt leaders rather than be prepared for difficult financial times. The money to provide for your needs has already been spent -- or is committed to employees/retirees by contracts and agreements your leaders signed. And it stinks.

**Zacha341** · October-11-12, 04:00 AM

I like parts of Farmington Hills and Farmington as those cities have some older homes like you find Detroit...

Originally Posted by maverick1

Exactly. I'm also a big city person. Nowhere else in Michigan appeals to me. The Detroit suburbs aren't great to me either. I could probably deal with inner-ring suburbs but only if I had to stay in the state.

**Hermod** · October-11-12, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

I like parts of Farmington Hills and Farmington as those cities have some older homes like you find Detroit...

If you go out in Macomb and Oakland counties and check out the small towns that were railroad or interurban stops back early in the 20th century, you will find older homes near a surviving downtown.

Rochester is a good case in point. You will find some excellent older homes within a block or two of a wonderful little downtown that is very walkable. You are then just a short drive [[in terms of time) from various metro amenities.

**Detroitnerd** · October-11-12, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Hermod

If you go out in Macomb and Oakland counties and check out the small towns that were railroad or interurban stops back early in the 20th century, you will find older homes near a surviving downtown.

Rochester is a good case in point. You will find some excellent older homes within a block or two of a wonderful little downtown that is very walkable. You are then just a short drive [[in terms of time) from various metro amenities.

maverick1 had originally posted not about the age of the homes he'd like but that "I'm also a big city person. Nowhere else in Michigan appeals to me. The Detroit suburbs aren't great to me either."

If Rochester is a big city, you, Hermod, are a Marxist.

**Hermod** · October-11-12, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

maverick1 had originally posted not about the age of the homes he'd like but that "I'm also a big city person. Nowhere else in Michigan appeals to me. The Detroit suburbs aren't great to me either."

If Rochester is a big city, you, Hermod, are a Marxist.

If you would read before bloviating, you would see that I was responding to Zacha's comment about older houses in Farmington.

Rochester is not a big city, though it has grown over the years. What it does have is a main street with most of the store fronts filled with viable businesses where you can stroll, enjoy a cup of coffee, window shop, and chat with others on the street with little fear of crime or of looking at someone the wrong way. You are also a relatively short drive to a Barnes & Noble and several name brand supermarkets.

Culture? There is a state university [[Oakland) plus two small colleges in Rochester/Rochester Hills and the Meadowbrook Theater is there with an extensive bill of offerings each year.

**gameguy56** · October-11-12, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

I don't personally blame anybody for leaving the city if it feels too hot for them. But when the majority of people would rather move away from their problems than face them, the despair zone just keeps growing.

We're going to see despair, frankly, all across metro Detroit, and the only exceptions will be places where people really dig their heels in and love the place enough to defend it.

We've lived for almost 100 years on the illusion that we can just leave the city, with all its problems, behind us. And Detroit was ideally sited for that escape plan, surrounded with millions of acres of flat land, even with an international border in the way.

But the "bad" part of the metro just kept growing. Eight Mile Road wasn't enough. Soon the dividing line was I-696. Then it became Hall Road. As people kept fleeing, removing their investments and resources from ever-larger areas, they didn't blame themselves for that, naturally. They blamed "them" -- the poor who follow in their wake.

Three generations on, and the grandchildren of the people who initially left the city discover they actually like cities. And since we are unable to provide a functioning city, they leave. Those who stay are essentially not even suburban people anymore, but rural, without any understanding of what a city is.

Wow, good post nerd.

**Detroitnerd** · October-11-12, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Hermod

If you would read before bloviating, you would see that I was responding to Zacha's comment about older houses in Farmington.

Bloviating? I thought I was pointing out that mav considers himself a "big city" kind of person. I don't think that means that just because you have some old homes and a few yoga studios and coffee shops [[and the usual wicker and bead stores) that it's a "big city." Or maybe that's a big city down where you are, Pops.

Anyway, you know I'm just tweaking your nose, right? Apparently not because you happily burble on about how desirable Rochester is, even though the person said they wanted a big city.

Now, to people who want walkability and bikability, as well as density, even I have to admit that Rochester is totally desirable -- for about 10 square blocks. After that it is a fairly standard upscale suburban environment of curvilinear streets, large homes, cul de sacs and big box stores.

Originally Posted by Hermod

Culture? There is a state university [[Oakland) plus two small colleges in Rochester/Rochester Hills and the Meadowbrook Theater is there with an extensive bill of offerings each year.

Oh, yeah. Try biking there.

**Hermod** · October-11-12, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Now, to people who want walkability and bikability, as well as density, even I have to admit that Rochester is totally desirable -- for about 10 square blocks. After that it is a fairly standard upscale suburban environment of curvilinear streets, large homes, cul de sacs and big box stores.

Quite a bit more than ten square blocks.

From the Clinton River north to Tienken Road and from Stony Creek west to Livernois is almost all walkable and bikeable. That is somewhere between one and two square miles.

Most of the homes enclosed in those boundaries pre-date 1955.

North of Tienken Road and west of Livernois in Rochester Hills does have the more typical subdivision platting of suburbia with winding roads and cul-de-sacs.