Would Detroit benefit from my crazy right-wing pipe dream?

[Shollin]

So did 75, 94, 96, Lodge, Southfield, Davison just appear in Detroit one day? Did the gateway project just appear?

[nain rouge]

Shollin, I've already covered that line of argument, too: While cities do have major infrastructure costs, the increased density of taxpaying people puts such expenditures more within balance.

When they original built many of those freeways in the '50s and '60s, Detroit had a density of roughly 12,000 people per square mile, and many inner ring suburbs had or were about to have densities of at least 7,000 per square mile. Therefore, you had a greater number of taxpayers funding the project then you do now at 26 Mile or Gibraltar Rd or whatever.

Tell me, what's more economical: a 5 lane road near 23 mile, or a 5 lane road in an area with a density of over 10,000 people per square mile? It's simple math.

And ALSO, are you going to sit here and act like the suburbs [[with less density) didn't inordinately benefit from such projects in the first place? I don't see how freeways did Detroit nearly as many favors.

[Hermod]

I dunno, putting in place a system of guaranteed credit [[GI Bill)

GI Bill was not a "massive subsidy". What the GI bill provided was that veterans of WWII could purchase a house with nothing down and the gummint would guarantee the difference between the note and the sale price if the house was foreclosed on. This was so that the vets [[making $37.50 a month in combat) could compete in home buying with the draft dodgers that had been getting obscene amounts of overtime in the war industries.

In the final anlysis there was very little gummint outlay [[and subsidy) since homes appreciated in the 50s and 60s and foreclosures were few and far between. The main expense to the gummint was the army of bureaucrats and time servers needed to administer the program.

[guito13]

Well, Shollin: Estimated at $100 billion annually, the mansion subsidy remains larger than the entire annual budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

So there goes your section 8 bit, and let's be honest here: the mortgage on a McMansion is going to be a lot bigger than mortgage on Robinwood. And while more people in the inner city are more receiving food stamps than those in the suburbs, their infrastructure is often crumbling, while the infrastructure in the suburbs continues to receive generous federal- and state-level financing. And when a suburbanite retires, they're probably going to withdrawal more from Social Security than your typical urbanite.

But no, it's only those dang welfare drains wasting all our money!

So, Tom owns a home worth 1,000,000 while Bill owns a home worth 10,000. Tom pays 20,000 in mortgage interest over the year while bill pays 200. Tom gets to write off all of his mortgage interest, as does Bill. What they recoup in taxes based on this writeoff is based on how much money they earn as well as how much interest they paid. Seems fair to me, if its eliminated it should be elminated completely, not teired based on income.

Tom Pays 40,000 in property taxes while Bill pays 400. Tom is able to recoup some of the taxes he paid based on a writeoff as is Bill. Lets say that Tom gets 25% [[10,000) of that 40,000 back from that writeoff, while Bill gets 50 [[12.5%) back. Now that city/county/state has 30,000 for infrastructure in Toms city/county/state while Bill's city/county/state has another 50 bucks to add to the infrastructure budget. Should Tom's taxes go to pay for infrastructure improvements or is that redistribution of wealth?

[nain rouge]

Seems fair to me, if its eliminated it should be elminated completely, not teired based on income.

[[...)

Should Tom's taxes go to pay for infrastructure improvements or is that redistribution of wealth?

Obviously the mortgage income tax deduction is helping the haves to maintain their economic advantage, while it doesn't do so much for the have-nots. Maybe then the haves don't deserve such a big break? I think a perverted sense of fairness is at work here.

Also, RE: wealth distribution. When your state is $75 billion in debt and your federal government is $16 trillion in debt, a lot of money is being spent that neither the rich or poor have. And so the question becomes: who is benefiting the most from this run-up of debt? As the evidence shows, it's usually the rich, while the impoverished are told to face the consequences of being broke.

[Hermod]

Obviously the mortgage income tax deduction is helping the haves to maintain their economic advantage, while it doesn't do so much for the have-nots. Maybe then the haves don't deserve such a big break? I think a perverted sense of fairness is at work here.

Also, RE: wealth distribution. When your state is $75 billion in debt and your federal government is $16 trillion in debt, a lot of money is being spent that neither the rich or poor have. And so the question becomes: who is benefiting the most from this run-up of debt? As the evidence shows, it's usually the rich, while the impoverished are told to face the consequences of being broke.

Except that the end result will be virulent inflation 9worse than the seventies) which will enrich the debtor class and inmpoverish the saving class.

[nain rouge]

Savers will get screwed, yes. But most people I know in the suburbs are leveraged to the hilt. We aren't a nation of savers and haven't been for a long time.

[guito13]

Obviously the mortgage income tax deduction is helping the haves to maintain their economic advantage, while it doesn't do so much for the have-nots. Maybe then the haves don't deserve such a big break? I think a perverted sense of fairness is at work here.

Also, RE: wealth distribution. When your state is $75 billion in debt and your federal government is $16 trillion in debt, a lot of money is being spent that neither the rich or poor have. And so the question becomes: who is benefiting the most from this run-up of debt? As the evidence shows, it's usually the rich, while the impoverished are told to face the consequences of being broke.

The break they get is directly proportional to what they pay. Anything less than equal percentage is discriminatory IMO. I dont find it fair to take more [[in terms of percentage) from someone just because they EARNED more than someone else.

You dodged my point, I was asking if Tom's money should be used to pay for Bill's improvements? The run of of debt it something ALL of us need to take seriously, rich poor and all inbetween.

[nain rouge]

I suppose in your isolated example, which may ignore certain realities - no. Tom's money shouldn't be used to pay for Bill's improvements unless his community agrees to by vote. I would however advise Tom how the innovation in cities [[in our best cities, people are more productive per capita than they are in an any other part of the country) spills over into the suburbs, as extremely successful companies eventually outgrow cities and move into outlying areas [[see: the Big 3). In the end, such economic activities would improve the value of his property and the quality of life within his entire region.

[Detroitnerd]

Here's a recent rant from Kunstler, which seems relevant:

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=47722

Conservatives have a legitimate gripe about America’s excessive “commitments and obligations” to “unfunded liabilities” but their focus on Medicare and social security misses the larger point: our disastrous commitment to the current national lifestyle, in particular suburban sprawl and everything it entails.
This point came across vividly in a video recently released by the usually level-headed David McAlvaney titled “The Fuse Is Lit Part 3 – an American Reckoning.” In it, the smooth and articulate McAlvaney is shown behind the wheel of his SUV tooling across the picturesque small town in Colorado where he lives inveighing against the public that elects politicians who deliver the voters cash benefits. This dynamic is surely deadly, and implies Democracy’s tragic self-limiting nature. But McAlvaney suggests if we could come to grips with the fiscal quandary of “entitlement” spending, American life would just rock on.
This is plainly not so, but it also reveals the tragic shortsightedness of even thoughtful conservatives – and there are some out there, indeed we need them, indeed one of the political tragedies of recent American history is the surrender of conservatism to religious hysterics, professional ignoramuses, military chauvinists, and flat-earthers. A true conservative would recognize the land development pattern of the millennial USA as a consequence of tragic collective choices, a living arrangement with no future, a trap every bit as lethal as Medicare and social security.
The catch is, we’re not going to unbuild suburbia and all its accessories. There’s no way to legislate it away. We’re stuck with it. The suburban entitlement will fail even more dramatically than the social entitlements that conservatives grouse about because there’s no way to “print” cheap oil or well-paid livelihoods the way you can monetize public debt to support social spending. You can “print” mortgages, of course, for people with little chance of paying them down, but that only leads to the financial hostage racket called too-big-to-fail banking, and we know where that’s gotten us.
Around the Internet, in the vale of financial podcasting, you can hear voices cheerleading the “return” of the house-building industry. Is it a good thing that real estate speculators are banging up yet more housing subdivisions in the hills around San Diego? I can tell you why they are doing it: because that is the only way they know how to build anything in California. They’re stuck in the habits and practices of the 20th century, building more car dependent stuff for a society that is already dying a slow death from living that way.
In the collapse of all these rackets, bad habits, and brain-dead behaviors that it sure to come, historians will have a hard time sorting out what exactly brought down the empire. The big element that will not be so visible is the poverty of imagination that set the tone for it – especially among public figures and spokespeople who should have seen and articulated these relationships, and extra-especially among self-proclaimed conservatives.

[Detroitnerd]

GI Bill was not a "massive subsidy". What the GI bill provided was that veterans of WWII could purchase a house with nothing down and the gummint would guarantee the difference between the note and the sale price if the house was foreclosed on. This was so that the vets [[making $37.50 a month in combat) could compete in home buying with the draft dodgers that had been getting obscene amounts of overtime in the war industries.

In the final anlysis there was very little gummint outlay [[and subsidy) since homes appreciated in the 50s and 60s and foreclosures were few and far between. The main expense to the gummint was the army of bureaucrats and time servers needed to administer the program.

The GI Bill was a subsidy. The massive subsidy for the suburbs comes from compounding the GI Bill with the interstate freeway gravy train, the Housing Acts of 1947 and 1953 and the way they were applied, etc.

It also didn't help matters that the GI Bill, by its very nature, wound up benefitting white Americans much much much more than black Americans.

[Detroitnerd]

I have no problem with people wanting to live out in the boonies. Just pay all the costs of living out there yourself. As things stand, right now you don't.

It's a shame, you know, because if we invested in our inner city, it really would raise all boats. More good jobs, more development, a higher profile. Instead we're left with 140-odd little governments bickering over who gets their share of a dwindling, aging, poorer population.

[Shollin]

Wait, isn't the big 3 moving to the suburbs the reason Detroit is the way it is? The suburbs are also subsidizing Cobo hall, People Mover, Rosa Parks Transit Center, M-1 Rail, the gateway project etc. Don't act like the suburbs hog all the subsidizing.

[canuck]

Here's a recent rant from Kunstler, which seems relevant:

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=47722

Conservatives have a legitimate gripe ...and extra-especially among self-proclaimed conservatives.

Yes, it's a nightmare we all share to varying degrees in Northamericanshire and Europe and Australia. But the scary thing is that all that democratically spirited wastefulness is being replicated times 20 in China and India nowadays.

We're fucked.

[Detroitnerd]

Wait, isn't the big 3 moving to the suburbs the reason Detroit is the way it is? The suburbs are also subsidizing Cobo hall, People Mover, Rosa Parks Transit Center, M-1 Rail, the gateway project etc. Don't act like the suburbs hog all the subsidizing.

Well, maybe this is progress. At least we're acknowledging that the suburbs ARE subsidized. That's something, I guess.

Now, these things downtown that you mention are a grab-bag of stuff. Cobo Hall isn't being subsidized: It has been REGIONALIZED. That means the management of the place answers to an authority that is regional in scope.

The People Mover gets $12 million in subsidies from Detroit at Lansing, that is true. But it's not something most Detroiters use every day. In fact, it's kind of comical that Detroit has a "transit system" mostly used by out-of-towners during conventions and on game days. Not sure how this improves the day-to-day quality of life for Detroiters.

M-1 Rail isn't built. It's funded by a consortium of private and public businesses and institutions in the region. Let's invoke Skipper's Rule and wait until it's built to thank Uncle Sam for the promised $25 million.

The RPTC received about $23 million in funding from the feds.

Now, these projects benefiting from federal funds are major, landmark achievements in a tight cluster downtown. When they received funding, they did so to the accompaniment of lots of press releases and much fanfare.

And even if you were to multiply these subsidies by a factor of 10, they would still be a fraction of the subsidies heaped upon the suburbs in ways that affect a greater share of the residents of the suburbs.

Add to that, man, the suburbs aren't even DOING all that well.

[nain rouge]

Wait, isn't the big 3 moving to the suburbs the reason Detroit is the way it is? The suburbs are also subsidizing Cobo hall, People Mover, Rosa Parks Transit Center, M-1 Rail, the gateway project etc. Don't act like the suburbs hog all the subsidizing.

Well, the Big 3 never could've located all of the accompanying factories and offices in Detroit. They were too large. Even if the Big 3 were all headquarted in Detroit and all of the original factory sites were still used for automotive production in some capacity, there would still be a need for additional space that would've benefited the suburbs.

What killed Detroit was the crippling and emotionally motivated [[as opposed to economically motivated) withdrawal from the city over the course of about a decade or two. Stripped of so much wealth so quickly, the city didn't have the means to provide the right environment for the next generation of innovators. They left for Chicago, New York, and the West Coast,as the city and the suburbs were inadequate for such purposes. Since then, the suburbs have desperately held onto the Big 3 for as long as possible, but it now appears those companies have outgrown the need for Metro Detroit in many ways.

[Shollin]

I have no problem with people wanting to live out in the boonies. Just pay all the costs of living out there yourself. As things stand, right now you don't.

It's a shame, you know, because if we invested in our inner city, it really would raise all boats. More good jobs, more development, a higher profile. Instead we're left with 140-odd little governments bickering over who gets their share of a dwindling, aging, poorer population.

Good then pay for Belle Isle, DIA, Stadiums, Cobo Hall, M-1 Rail, Gateway Project yourself

[nain rouge]

Your focus on big ticket items ignores the greater realities. I guess for helping to fund the DIA, you should get as many 5 lane roads as you want, anywhere you want! Fair is fair, right?

[canuck]

The GI Bill was a subsidy. The massive subsidy for the suburbs comes from compounding the GI Bill with the interstate freeway gravy train, the Housing Acts of 1947 and 1953 and the way they were applied, etc.

It also didn't help matters that the GI Bill, by its very nature, wound up benefitting white Americans much much much more than black Americans.

Is it any wonder?

How a guy like Coleman Young got to be so angry.

And corrupt.

In a world of honor and values and enterprise

that had kept blacks... from an inkling of

a semblance of equality.

In wartime, he had had to fight in order to get to fight the good fight.

The chivalry was his alone, or recognized by his peers, in this case black brethren. Brothers are still fighting, and the result is oftentimes self destructive since this is what was taught them.

The inner-cities have become the last refuge of the outcast while the burbs are breeding millions of lawnmowing Thoreaus.

Everybody is meant to be self reliant,

to the point where survival means digging a moat in your backyard to put other people's miseries at bay.

The city is agonizing.

[Shollin]

Your focus on big ticket items ignores the greater realities. I guess for helping to fund the DIA, you should get as many 5 lane roads as you want, anywhere you want! Fair is fair, right?

You act as if Detroit doesn't have multi lane roads. What about Woodward, Gratiot, Grand River, Jefferson, Michigan, Fort, 75, 94, 96, Lodge, Southfield, Davison? What about the complete restructuring of the international crossing to avoid truck traffic on Detroit streets? Didn't they just rebuild the Southfield? Aren't they planning on rebuilding 94? I thought this forum was against large roads in the city?

[nain rouge]

I don't even understand what your line of argument is here! The suburbs benefited majorly from the freeways, more than Detroit ever did. That's practically common knowledge! Building the freeways destroyed a disproportionate amount of taxpaying neighborhoods in Detroit and allowed people and jobs to move out the suburbs. In fact, the freeways are commonly cited as part of the reason for Detroit's downfall.

Few urban planners today would agree that the freeways were of some major benefit to Detroit. It was a project to help out the suburbs, mainly.

[nain rouge]

No one here is griping that Detroit isn't getting more large roads. They're complaining that the exurbs are getting large roads while Detroit's current infrastructure is deteriorating. And the exurbs will never contribute to the growth of this region like Detroit once did!

[Detroitnerd]

Good then pay for Belle Isle, DIA, Stadiums, Cobo Hall, M-1 Rail, Gateway Project yourself

Hey, I don't care about the stadiums. Take them down for all I care. I'm a sports agnostic, you know.

Also, I missed Gateway Project. Not sure how that benefits Detroiters in general. Seems like a regional benefit, right? More trade through the region?

The DIA is widely acknowledged as a regional asset, and so it makes sense for the region to fund it.

Cobo Hall is a regional convention center, so it makes sense for the region to administer it, as they now do.

But what benefit does the region get from a subdivision at 32 Mile Road and Van Dyke? How does that development raise any boats? What spinoff wealth is created by it? How much does it require in subsidies to keep it viable? That's what I'm talking about when I say if people want to live in the boonies, they should pay for it.

By your response, I take it you think it's equal both ways. That you can just take your marbles and go home? Nope. Without Uncle Sam, those developments would return to the beet fields they were in a century -- and, frankly, that's probably what's going to happen.

[Shollin]

I don't even understand what your line of argument is here! The suburbs benefited majorly from the freeways, more than Detroit ever did. That's practically common knowledge! Building the freeways destroyed a disproportionate amount of taxpaying neighborhoods in Detroit and allowed people and jobs to move out the suburbs. In fact, the freeways are commonly cited as part of the reason for Detroit's downfall.

Few urban planners today would agree that the freeways were of some major benefit to Detroit. It was a project to help out the suburbs, mainly.

*yawn* I heard this freeway excuse for Detroit's woes and yet every major city in the United States of America has freeways leading to and from the city. There is not a single major city in the US I cannot access by freeway.

The point being is you were going on about building 5 lane highways as if Detroit is being shorted in the highway department.

[Shollin]

Hey, I don't care about the stadiums. Take them down for all I care. I'm a sports agnostic, you know.

Also, I missed Gateway Project. Not sure how that benefits Detroiters in general. Seems like a regional benefit, right? More trade through the region?

The DIA is widely acknowledged as a regional asset, and so it makes sense for the region to fund it.

Cobo Hall is a regional convention center, so it makes sense for the region to administer it, as they now do.

But what benefit does the region get from a subdivision at 32 Mile Road and Van Dyke? How does that development raise any boats? What spinoff wealth is created by it? How much does it require in subsidies to keep it viable? That's what I'm talking about when I say if people want to live in the boonies, they should pay for it.

By your response, I take it you think it's equal both ways. That you can just take your marbles and go home? Nope. Without Uncle Sam, those developments would return to the beet fields they were in a century -- and, frankly, that's probably what's going to happen.

You don't know how the Gateway project benefits Detroit? Really? The whole project was designed to re-route truck traffic off residential Detroit streets.

Since Cobo is a regional asset, lets move it to Novi and see how quickly Detroit bitches and moans about that.

You act like people at 32 and Van Dyke pay no taxes. One person at 32 and Van Dyke probably pays more than an entire block at 7 Mile and Van Dyke.