Now on You tube: Bankrupt - How Cronyism and Corruption Brought Down Detroit

[Dan Wesson]

[erikd]

This video, just like almost every other narrative about the reasons for Detroit's decline, gets it totally wrong.

Deindustrialization did not kill Detroit. Deindustrialization didn't even hurt Detroit. Suburban sprawl is what destroyed Detroit.

In 1950, at the height of Detroit's wealth and power, the city had 1,849,568 residents, and the metro Detroit area had 3,344,793 residents.

By 1970, when foreign auto manufacturers were starting to become a force to be reckoned with, and offshoring of manufacturing was really starting to take off, the population of Detroit had already declined to 1,511,482, but metro Detroit's population had exploded to 4,731,655.

In the really bleak 30 year period from 1970 to 2000, when the Big 3 lost huge amounts of market share to foreign manufacturers, and offshoring of manufacturing became the standard way of doing business, the population of Detroit declined to 951,270, but the metro Detroit population grew to 4,833,493.

In total, the 50 year period from Detroit's peak, through decades of urban disinvestment, deindustrialization, offshoring, and every other reason for decline, saw Detroit's city population drop by almost 900,000 from 1950-2000.

During the same period, the suburban population of metro Detroit increased by almost 2.4 MILLION.

In total, the population of metro Detroit increased 45% from the 1950 post-war boom years of Detroit, and the heyday of American manufacturing, to the reality of drastic domestic auto market share reduction and overall manufacturing offshoring in 2000.

If deindustrialization and offshoring killed Detroit, then how could metro Detroit grow by 45% during this period of decline?

The answer is clear. Deindustrialization, offshoring, and foreign competition hasn't hurt Detroit at all. Metro Detroit has grown tremendously during this period, but all the growth is in the suburban fringe, and not in the city.

If you want to understand the decline of Detroit, and how to deal with it, clinging to the theory of decline by deindustrialization will lead you astray. It has nothing to do with deindustrialization. It is all about suburban sprawl.

[Scottathew]

It is all about suburban sprawl.

Suburban sprawl is in part a reason for the decline of Detroit. However, I would argue it's also a RESULT of the decline of Detroit as well.

People want to be safe, have good schools, and good city services. The suburbs offer these in spades, Detroit does not.

To blame Detroit's decline exclusively on suburban sprawl seems disingenuous.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Suburban sprawl is in part a reason for the decline of Detroit. However, I would argue it's also a RESULT of the decline of Detroit as well.

People want to be safe, have good schools, and good city services. The suburbs offer these in spades, Detroit does not.

To blame Detroit's decline exclusively on suburban sprawl seems disingenuous.

Good point. It was a multitude of things, along with divisive politicians and people, constantly beating the drum.

[erikd]

Suburban sprawl is in part a reason for the decline of Detroit. However, I would argue it's also a RESULT of the decline of Detroit as well.

People want to be safe, have good schools, and good city services. The suburbs offer these in spades, Detroit does not.

To blame Detroit's decline exclusively on suburban sprawl seems disingenuous.

Detroit was safe, had good schools, and good city services, until suburban sprawl started draining the city of it's population and tax base. This rapidly declining population and tax base, created by suburban sprawl, resulted in the decline of city services and schools, and the corresponding increase in crime.

The standard narrative asserts that crime and city services became a problem in Detroit, and then suburban sprawl happened as a result of the decline of the city.

However, the facts do not bear this out. In reality, it was the massive suburban migration that led to the city's problems, not the other way around, as most suburbanites would like to believe.

According to the Detroit Free Press and the US Census Bureau, Detroit's population was 1,849,568 in 1950, and peaked at close to 2 million in 1953. By 1960, suburban sprawl was in full swing, and the city population had already dropped to 1,670,144. By 1970, the city population was down to 1,511,482. By 1980, it was down to 1,203,339.

When we look at Detroit's crime statistics, they show that Detroit was quite a safe city in it's peak years. Detroit had 113 homicides in 1950, with a population of 1.85 million people. At Detroit's peak in 1953, the city had 130 homicides with a population of about 2 million. In 1963 and 64, Detroit had 125 homicides each year. By 1965, about 400,000 people had left the city for the suburbs, and that is when the crime really took off in Detroit. In 1965, Detroit had 188 homicides. By 1970, it was up to 495, and the homicides hit 594 in 1980.

If the reason for Detroit's decline was due to increasing crime and declining services and schools, then why was there no increase in crime until 25% of the city's population had already left?

After the city's peak in 1953, Detroit lost 400,000 people in a decade, BEFORE there was any increase in crime. Once the crime in Detroit actually started to happen, it took 20 more years for the city to lose another 400,000 people, even though crime had shot up about 600% during that period.

If you want to make the argument that 400,000 people left Detroit between the mid 1960s and 1980, due to rising crime and declining services, you might have a point, but if you try to say that crime and poor services caused 400,000 people to leave the city before things started falling apart, then you would simply be wrong. After the first 400,000 people left, things started falling apart, and then hundreds of thousands more followed them out because everything was going to shit.

Suburban sprawl is the root cause. Urban decay and dysfunction are the symptoms.

[Dan Wesson]

There was also two cultural water shed events that motivated a groundswell of migration activities. The advent of Forced Bussing and the 1967 riots that brought with it a transfer of power and authority from the old to new guard.

[DetroitPlanner]

Come on now, as the contrarian I have to point out that cities like Chicago and Los Angeles have sprawled much more than Detroit could ever hope to. Both of those cities have been able to survive just fine.

Detroit is a city that was built because of industrialization. No one can deny this. Just look at how the City expanded as the auto industry shaped and matured. When you have a City built on industrial jobs, then you have the rug pulled out from under you, then you have a serious problem. Auto factories only employ a couple of thousand people each. At one time there were tens of thousands working on each shift. Competition did us in. Our inability to change our economy did us in.

Sprawl was the very reason much of Detroit proper was built. Most of the west side was built at the same time that other cities were building first tier suburbs.

Detroit's biggest population loss was between 2000-2010 Census. The suburbs barely grew during this period. People were pushed out by no longer feeling safe in their own homes and by an unresponsive Kilpatrick administration.

Cronyism and Corruption is spot on the chief reason, with de-industrialization being a much larger factor than sprawl. No job base and crime does not keep people coming. At least now we are seeing jobs come back.

[Honky Tonk]

Come on now, as the contrarian I have to point out that cities like Chicago and Los Angeles have sprawled much more than Detroit could ever hope to. Both of those cities have been able to survive just fine.

Detroit is a city that was built because of industrialization. No one can deny this. Just look at how the City expanded as the auto industry shaped and matured. When you have a City built on industrial jobs, then you have the rug pulled out from under you, then you have a serious problem. Auto factories only employ a couple of thousand people each. At one time there were tens of thousands working on each shift. Competition did us in. Our inability to change our economy did us in.

Sprawl was the very reason much of Detroit proper was built. Most of the west side was built at the same time that other cities were building first tier suburbs.

Detroit's biggest population loss was between 2000-2010 Census. The suburbs barely grew during this period. People were pushed out by no longer feeling safe in their own homes and by an unresponsive Kilpatrick administration. Cronyism and Corruption is spot on the chief reason, with de-industrialization being a much larger factor than sprawl.

Absolutely, "sprawl" was caused by demand, not vice-versa

[Dan Wesson]

The auto industry out grew Detroit. No way was it able to grow vertically.

[erikd]

Come on now, as the contrarian I have to point out that cities like Chicago and Los Angeles have sprawled much more than Detroit could ever hope to. Both of those cities have been able to survive just fine.

Detroit is a city that was built because of industrialization. No one can deny this. Just look at how the City expanded as the auto industry shaped and matured. When you have a City built on industrial jobs, then you have the rug pulled out from under you, then you have a serious problem. Auto factories only employ a couple of thousand people each. At one time there were tens of thousands working on each shift. Competition did us in. Our inability to change our economy did us in.

Sprawl was the very reason much of Detroit proper was built. Most of the west side was built at the same time that other cities were building first tier suburbs.

Detroit's biggest population loss was between 2000-2010 Census. The suburbs barely grew during this period. People were pushed out by no longer feeling safe in their own homes and by an unresponsive Kilpatrick administration.

There is a huge difference between sprawl and growth. When the city was building out the west side, and even when some of the inner-ring suburbs were being built, it was due to actual population growth, not just displacement. Building new stuff to accommodate more people and businesses is growth. Building new stuff for people who are just leaving their old houses and buildings vacant is sprawl.

As far as deindustrialization goes, it simply isn't the reason for Detroit's decline. If deindustrialization and the decline of manufacturing was the actual problem, then the entire region as a whole would have declined, but that isn't what happened.

From 1970 to 2000, during the huge industrial decline, metro Detroit actually grew slightly, from 4.7 million to 4.8 million. During the same time, the city of Detroit lost almost 600,000 people. This isn't deindustrialization, it's sprawl. To be sure, deindustrialization slowed metro Detroit's growth down to to crawl, but Detroit wasn't losing people and jobs to other states or countries, it was losing them to the suburbs. During that period from 1970-2000, there was virtually nothing built in the city proper while the Detroit suburbs boomed with the flood of residents and businesses moving out of the city.

As far as the population loss from 2000-2010 goes, or even most of the population loss over the last 40 years, the decline of the city has certainly played a major role. However, the decline/dysfunction of the city is not what started the problem. Things were working well until 400,000-500,000 people left the city for the suburbs, and then things started to fall apart.

After 25% of the people and business leave over the span of 10 years, things start to destabilize, and you get a snowball effect. If you want to know why 1 million+ people left the city, you can't just look at the last ones heading out the door and say that their reasons are the same as the first ones out, because they aren't.

[Honky Tonk]

There is a huge difference between sprawl and growth. When the city was building out the west side, and even when some of the inner-ring suburbs were being built, it was due to actual population growth, not just displacement. Building new stuff to accommodate more people and businesses is growth. Building new stuff for people who are just leaving their old houses and buildings vacant is sprawl.

As far as deindustrialization goes, it simply isn't the reason for Detroit's decline. If deindustrialization and the decline of manufacturing was the actual problem, then the entire region as a whole would have declined, but that isn't what happened.

From 1970 to 2000, during the huge industrial decline, metro Detroit actually grew slightly, from 4.7 million to 4.8 million. During the same time, the city of Detroit lost almost 600,000 people. This isn't deindustrialization, it's sprawl. To be sure, deindustrialization slowed metro Detroit's growth down to to crawl, but Detroit wasn't losing people and jobs to other states or countries, it was losing them to the suburbs. During that period from 1970-2000, there was virtually nothing built in the city proper while the Detroit suburbs boomed with the flood of residents and businesses moving out of the city.

As far as the population loss from 2000-2010 goes, or even most of the population loss over the last 40 years, the decline of the city has certainly played a major role. However, the decline/dysfunction of the city is not what started the problem. Things were working well until 400,000-500,000 people left the city for the suburbs, and then things started to fall apart.

After 25% of the people and business leave over the span of 10 years, things start to destabilize, and you get a snowball effect. If you want to know why 1 million+ people left the city, you can't just look at the last ones heading out the door and say that their reasons are the same as the first ones out, because they aren't.

I really don't understand your point or your obsession with the word "sprawl", erikd. "Sprawl" was caused by demand, plain and simple. It's not some kind of three-eyed monster that sucked people out of Detroit. People were not woke in the middle of the night @ gunpoint, put in the back of trucks and driven out. People left because they WANTED TO. The big question is WHY did they want to? Then you'll find your answer. I lived in Detroit in the 60's, and crime WAS starting to become rampant, even then. Once the exodus started, it was a downward spiral for the City. A lot of people stood their ground and fought, but eventually gave in, and went to look for a quieter, safer, life elsewhere. As crime followed, people moved further and further out, to put time and distance between themselves and what followed. Life is way to short to spend it's entirety on a battlefield where you're constantly loosing ground. Can you really blame them?

[DetroitPlanner]

There is a huge difference between sprawl and growth. When the city was building out the west side, and even when some of the inner-ring suburbs were being built, it was due to actual population growth, not just displacement. Building new stuff to accommodate more people and businesses is growth. Building new stuff for people who are just leaving their old houses and buildings vacant is sprawl.

As far as deindustrialization goes, it simply isn't the reason for Detroit's decline. If deindustrialization and the decline of manufacturing was the actual problem, then the entire region as a whole would have declined, but that isn't what happened.

From 1970 to 2000, during the huge industrial decline, metro Detroit actually grew slightly, from 4.7 million to 4.8 million. During the same time, the city of Detroit lost almost 600,000 people. This isn't deindustrialization, it's sprawl. To be sure, deindustrialization slowed metro Detroit's growth down to to crawl, but Detroit wasn't losing people and jobs to other states or countries, it was losing them to the suburbs. During that period from 1970-2000, there was virtually nothing built in the city proper while the Detroit suburbs boomed with the flood of residents and businesses moving out of the city.

As far as the population loss from 2000-2010 goes, or even most of the population loss over the last 40 years, the decline of the city has certainly played a major role. However, the decline/dysfunction of the city is not what started the problem. Things were working well until 400,000-500,000 people left the city for the suburbs, and then things started to fall apart.

After 25% of the people and business leave over the span of 10 years, things start to destabilize, and you get a snowball effect. If you want to know why 1 million+ people left the city, you can't just look at the last ones heading out the door and say that their reasons are the same as the first ones out, because they aren't.

I see you chose not to respond to the part that is germane to this thread. Corruption and cronyism is what put the nail in the coffin. You seem to be oblivious to this. The amount of people leaving Detroit proper was relatively flat during the 1990-2000 period. Yes it dipped but it was nothing like what happened prior to; or since. The more who leave the more others leave as they do not want to live next to empty stripped homes or be subject to both break ins or stick ups when they are out mowing their lawn. If you look at the cutbacks to police and fire under Kilpatrick you will see that there is a relationship between the exodus of long-time generational Detroit families and safety. But hey, at least Kwame and Bobby got to look cool driving on Harleys and in Escalades paid for with the police budget.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

I really don't understand your point or your obsession with the word "sprawl", erikd. "Sprawl" was caused by demand, plain and simple. It's not some kind of three-eyed monster that sucked people out of Detroit. People were not woke in the middle of the night @ gunpoint, put in the back of trucks and driven out. People left because they WANTED TO. The big question is WHY did they want to? Then you'll find your answer. I lived in Detroit in the 60's, and crime WAS starting to become rampant, even then. Once the exodus started, it was a downward spiral for the City. A lot of people stood their ground and fought, but eventually gave in, and went to look for a quieter, safer, life elsewhere. As crime followed, people moved further and further out, to put time and distance between themselves and what followed. Life is way to short to spend it's entirety on a battlefield where you're constantly loosing ground. Can you really blame them?

Bottom line, Whites left Detroit because it became increasing Black. The riots contributed, but they were moving out before 1967. Most White's don't want to live around Blacks whether they are outstanding law-abiding citizens or not. Take Southfield. 40 years ago it was around 85% White. Now Blacks are the majority and pushed the Whites to move further North. Sure, crime has a lot to do with it, but it's not the only reason.

[Honky Tonk]

Bottom line, Whites left Detroit because it became increasing Black. The riots contributed, but they were moving out before 1967. Most White's don't want to live around Blacks whether they are outstanding law-abiding citizens or not. Take Southfield. 40 years ago it was around 85% White. Now Blacks are the majority and pushed the Whites to move further North. Sure, crime has a lot to do with it, but it's not the only reason.

As many EVIL, racist White people that there are, there are just as many good-natured, jolly, racist Black people. Such is life. Now here's a scenario for you, affluent blacks left Detroit, and a majority settled in Southfield. Now poorer blacks are moving to Southfield, and it's causing a riff between the two classes. Now what? When I decided to put my money where my mouth is and purchase in Detroit, the Black guys @ work gave me the business. [[all good natured razzing fun) Then several came up to me on a one on one basis, and really had a heart to heart with me, urging me to reconsider. None of them lived in the City any longer. I'm dead sure racism played a significant part in Detroit's exodus, but it's not the whole story and goes way deeper then that. Here's an interesting article for you to read and think about. Not trying to be a smart-ass.



http://www.theamericanconservative.c.../black-flight/

[Cincinnati_Kid]

^^Basically you just said what I did. Crime and Racism was part of the reason, but not the only reason. And of course, racists come in all colors and creeds. Let me clarify. Just because a certain race doesn't want to live around another, is not suggesting they are racist.

[Wesley Mouch]

There was also two cultural water shed events that motivated a groundswell of migration activities. The advent of Forced Bussing and the 1967 riots that brought with it a transfer of power and authority from the old to new guard.

Hit it on the head, Mr. Wesson.

The sprawl blaming here acts like spawl was/is an evil imposed upon us. I certainly know that a great number of national policies made it easier, but each and every move to the suburbs was done by an individual family, and was a conscious decision. There was no herding of families into boxcars to move them from Grand River/Oakman to Livonia. They decided to move. [[And frankly, they mostly wanted to move.)