An outsider's first question - Amalgamation

[Canadian Visitor]

Hi all,

My first post here.

I've visited to Detroit a few times over the years [[From the Toronto area).

I can say truthfully there is much I enjoy [[some great architecture in parts of downtown in particular)

But of course, as discussions on this forum acknowledge, your fair City is not without its challenges.

As an outsider, I'm sure some of my questions [[if not most) have already been answered and/or debated to death; but in my time lurking on the forum there are a few for which I've never found complete answers.

I'm not going to try to stick them all in one post.....

But if you'll indulge me.....

One of Detroit's apparent challenges seems to revolve around they myriad of fiefdoms that exist in your area.

So many different governments and police forces and so on.

If nothing else, for any area facing financial challenges, this might seem a bit wasteful.

But it also strikes me as imposing many other challenges from depriving lower-income or struggling areas of the resources they need to fix things; to making difficult inter-regional co-operation on transportation, economic development and policing.

So I was wondering why Detroit has so many different citys/towns/counties etc?

And whether there has been any move to change this?

I have some familiarity w/the U.S. and while you do have 'mega-cities' [[ie. New York); you do, as a nation seem to have a lot of 'scattered' cities.

Is there something about the U.S. that this is the case?

I just contrast it w/here in Ontario where its relatively rare, we tend to consolidate our cities into much bigger governments; and/or having the 'regional' services together by having an upper tier local government.

Thanks for all for their input!

[313WX]

This should be an interesting thread...

[Hermod]

A group of citizens living in an area that is not in a city can petition the legislature for a city charter. Once they are a chartered city, they are immune to annexation by another city. I don't know if the Michigan state constitution allows the state to forcibly consolidate cities in if it has to go to a vote and each of the cities affected must vote for the consolidation by a majority vote in that city. If Detroit wanted to takeover Hamtramack and Highland Park, there would be an election in each of the three cities and a majority of the voters in each of the three cities [[not a combined majority) must vote for the consolidation.

Remember that Detroit does not want the voters and their votes from the surrounding area, just their money.

[animatedmartian]

Yea, this isn't something unique to Detroit. Many municipalities in the US, large or small, often see themselves as independent entities. What you Canadians call "amalgamation" is more often called "annexation" here in the US. Annexation is usually the act of a larger city absorbing a smaller city [[or cities) or rural area. This is usually done to increase the tax base of the larger city. In most cases, the government of the larger city is hardly changed while the government of the smaller city or rural area is completely removed. This is probably why annexation is less popular in the US while amalgamation is more popular in Canada.

For Detroit, if it annexed any number of suburbs, the city government itself wouldn't change other than maybe adding new council members after a certain point. But otherwise, it's expected that most all government functions would remain the same. Meanwhile, the annexed suburb would lose it's status as an independent entity and pretty much no longer exist other than in neighborhood delineation. There's also some other things that happen in relation to finances, but pretty much it's like an amoeba eating a smaller one. And for that reason, people tend to think that Detroit annexing anything would pretty much mean spreading Detroit's problem to whatever is being annexed.

However, most cities in the US tend to form regional policies without the use of annexation. Indeed, many cities have regional mass transit authorities, regional utility operations, and even shared services across an area while the municipalities themselves are still independent of each other and can opt-out of regional services if they so choose.

America pretty much is built on the belief that everyone has their own opinion and people can choose what they want to do and this is especially evident in government entities. Not everyone agrees on the same way of doing thing [[for example, what you see as wasteful, others may see as efficient), and various state laws permit Michigan cities to do what they think is in their best interest as long as they can come to an agreement on it. If any contiguous suburb thinks it would be more efficient to allow Detroit to annex them, then they would do so. However, it's unlikely that any do at this current point in time.

[Király]

Hi all,
Is there something about the U.S. that this is the case?

I don't believe so.

A metro region with 20 fiefdoms, all with different city councils, police forces, and unelected quasi-public bodies trying to coordinate regional infrastructure and transportation, with a sub-national government trying to force its hand the the mess, is not a uniquely US-thing. It perfectly describes metro Vancouver, where I live.

[Danny]

Amalgamation of Detroit HAH! It's going to happen. Not in 300 years. In Michigan SBC laws prevent a city to annex a city. Even the 1948 and 1978 Charter Township Act. prevent any city to annex a township that is chartered. To amalgamate a city the SBC laws must be changed either by the people's vote or its legislation. Then comes the matter of community tax base. Will it be higher in some area or be reduced in some parts of the community. Then its matter of bigger government and enlarge public services. We do have a race problem in Metro-Detroit area that is why some suburbs remain white and rich and Detroit black and poor. Having Detroit combined to its suburbs remains a pipe dream.

For you Canadian Visitor ,I have seen the success that Toronto went from a tiny city with 680,000 to 3 million by 1999 when it combine with its suburbs. I even visited that city and see people walking and shopping around like its New York City. Toronto today is one by city bigger and better that Detroit and Chicago combined with no sign a poor ghetto hood. It's a bustling metropolis with no suburbs and it continue to grow and possibly annexing for outside townships.

[Canadian Visitor]

I don't believe so.

A metro region with 20 fiefdoms, all with different city councils, police forces, and unelected quasi-public bodies trying to coordinate regional infrastructure and transportation, with a sub-national government trying to force its hand the the mess, is not a uniquely US-thing. It perfectly describes metro Vancouver, where I live.

Thanks for the input, everyone!

As to the Vancouver comparison; it not quite the same as 'The States' as I understand it.

In British Columbia, as in Ontario, all education taxes are pooled at the provincial level and then distributed back to local areas based on per capita funding + needs adjustment.

So, in theory [[if not always in practice) all school districts have comparable quality and resources. I could be wrong, but I impression is that things are not quite like that in the U.S.

Also, Vancouver has regional transit; and although it doesn't yet have regional police [[though I suspect it soon will); it doesn't have a plethora of local forces, its mostly Vancouver Police and the RCMP.

[Canadian Visitor]

Amalgamation of Detroit HAH! It's going to happen. Not in 300 years. In Michigan SBC laws prevent a city to annex a city. Even the 1948 and 1978 Charter Township Act. prevent any city to annex a township that is chartered. To amalgamate a city the SBC laws must be changed either by the people's vote or its legislation. Then comes the matter of community tax base. Will it be higher in some area or be reduced in some parts of the community. Then its matter of bigger government and enlarge public services. We do have a race problem in Metro-Detroit area that is why some suburbs remain white and rich and Detroit black and poor. Having Detroit combined to its suburbs remains a pipe dream. .

I find this whole 'Charter' concept quite interesting.

Cities, for better or worse, in Canada, are considered 'Creatures of the Province' which means they can be abolished or created or amended at will. Well, actually many changes would have to involve the passing of a bill through the legislature, but that would not be hard for most governments.

Amalgamation/annexation is not a panacea, and I wouldn't want to make it out as that. Every place has its own way of organizing things.

I think the concern of having a huge patchwork of local governments for whom co-operation seems optional at best is that you can literally cross a street a see a tangible difference in quality of life and services [[I'm not meaning home size or such). The worry being that once a place suffers under such a system, there's no safety valve to soften a landing or boost a recovery.

For you Canadian Visitor ,I have seen the success that Toronto went from a tiny city with 680,000 to 3 million by 1999 when it combine with its suburbs. I even visited that city and see people walking and shopping around like its New York City. Toronto today is one by city bigger and better that Detroit and Chicago combined with no sign a poor ghetto hood. It's a bustling metropolis with no suburbs and it continue to grow and possibly annexing for outside townships.

Thank you, I appreciate the compliment for my area. Though, as stated above, amalgamation is not and was not without its hiccups. Toronto continues to have surrounding regions, though fewer, relative to population size than a Detroit. Basically one to the North, one to the East, and two or three to the west.

But, even before amalgamation as such, Toronto had 'Regional Police' and 'Regional Transit' going back to 1953.

And since the mid-90s all education funding was equalized province-wide.

[[with needs-based adjustments)

I just find the whole 'isolationist' thing, for lack of a better description curious.

Its all what you grow up with, I suppose.

[animatedmartian]

I think the concern of having a huge patchwork of local governments for whom co-operation seems optional at best is that you can literally cross a street a see a tangible difference in quality of life and services [[I'm not meaning home size or such). The worry being that once a place suffers under such a system, there's no safety valve to soften a landing or boost a recovery.

There is and it's called the federal government. Or more locally, the state government. And actually, Detroit gets a lot of boost from a combination of the two through different means [[subsidies, grants, etc.). However, how much the government is involved comes down to the US two-party system. A more democratic/liberal government will use more of its power to intervene while and more republican/conservative government will use less of its power to intervene. Although it isn't always that black and white depending on the politicians who are in power at the time.

By that measure, Canada seems more liberal overall than the US. Although it probably has a lot to do with Canada's lower overall population and more concentrated city centers due to climate. If there were large Toronto or Montreal-sized cities scattered all across Canada, it probably be a lot more politically like the US.

[Danny]

I find this whole 'Charter' concept quite interesting.

Cities, for better or worse, in Canada, are considered 'Creatures of the Province' which means they can be abolished or created or amended at will. Well, actually many changes would have to involve the passing of a bill through the legislature, but that would not be hard for most governments.

Amalgamation/annexation is not a panacea, and I wouldn't want to make it out as that. Every place has its own way of organizing things.

I think the concern of having a huge patchwork of local governments for whom co-operation seems optional at best is that you can literally cross a street a see a tangible difference in quality of life and services [[I'm not meaning home size or such). The worry being that once a place suffers under such a system, there's no safety valve to soften a landing or boost a recovery.






Thank you, I appreciate the compliment for my area. Though, as stated above, amalgamation is not and was not without its hiccups. Toronto continues to have surrounding regions, though fewer, relative to population size than a Detroit. Basically one to the North, one to the East, and two or three to the west.

But, even before amalgamation as such, Toronto had 'Regional Police' and 'Regional Transit' going back to 1953.

And since the mid-90s all education funding was equalized province-wide.

[[with needs-based adjustments)

I just find the whole 'isolationist' thing, for lack of a better description curious.

Its all what you grow up with, I suppose.

Let me tell you this. Long ago Detroit had annexed several townships from 1820s until 1930. It was mostly in the areas from southeast to northwest, east to west central and near downriver Wayne County Area. This is due to developing regional industries, housing and urban developments and access to water from rivers and lakes. Along came the Great Depression and loss of regional jobs. Other neighboring suburbs were incorporated into villages and quickly became their cities to prevent Detroit's annexation attempts. Detroit became and remain and 8-10 mile from Downriver areas to 8 Mile Rd. and 22 and half mile wide from Detroit River to Five Points St. It's 139 square mile city and it will remain that shape for years to come. Amalgamation is useless to Metro Detroit area due to Michigan Legislative laws. To make Detroit combined with is suburbs to change the SBC charter laws, government and tax base. It's going to very expensive and hard to maintain. Than comes the matter of race and community control. Detroit with its black and poor ghettos can't get along with its rich and white suburban neighbors. When white folks want to help Detroit's poor black ghettos, black folks turn away. When black folks wanted to move the its suburbs, they would receive a ticket from the police. I'm sorry Canadian Visitor. No Mayor, politician in Michigan is talking about merging Detroit with the suburbs. They are only talking about how to get black folks out of Detroit and they starting with Cobo Hall Convention Center, Moving their businesses to Downtown Detroit, gentrifying its urban ghettos and controlling water.

[dtowncitylover]

I've always taken to the way Australians have set up their local areas. Melbourne, for example, includes all of the metro area. However the metro area is divided into smaller local areas that share public services but each local area is further divided into the suburbs. The City of Melbourne is a local area consisting of the CBD and inner suburbs. It does seem people identify their suburb, rather than the larger local area which has a different name and includes 6-8, let's say, other suburbs. [[Think if Ferndale, PR, Royal Oak, Huntington Woods, Berkley, and Hazel Park all merged and called themselves "City of Woodward Heights" but people would still be from Royal Oak, Ferndale, etc. They would just share safety, waste, library, maybe even education resources).

Mississauga is HUGE. One of the largest suburbs in the world and close to population to Detroit. I just don't think that could work here in Detroit. I think the Australian model could work though.

[Wesley Mouch]

I find this whole 'Charter' concept quite interesting.

Cities, for better or worse, in Canada, are considered 'Creatures of the Province' which means they can be abolished or created or amended at will. Well, actually many changes would have to involve the passing of a bill through the legislature, but that would not be hard for most governments....snip...

I believe most US States have granted far more autonomy than Canadian Provinces to cities. It has been my understanding that most municipal amalgamations in Ontario at least were not done willingly. The local councils/mayors/police chiefs/and event citizen didn't like the idea -- but their opinions were of less importance since the decisions were made on a provincial level.

I do wonder about Jacksonville FL or Indianapolis IN. Both are examples of very large cities. Perhaps state law there is different?

The US is after all the United STATES -- and as such the States have much more power and many more differences than Canadian Provinces do. The relationship between States is more like the relationship of the rest of Canada to the 'Distinct Society' of Quebec where they run a separate pension plan, immigration rules, voting requirements, etc.

[iheartthed]

I find this whole 'Charter' concept quite interesting.

Cities, for better or worse, in Canada, are considered 'Creatures of the Province' which means they can be abolished or created or amended at will. Well, actually many changes would have to involve the passing of a bill through the legislature, but that would not be hard for most governments.

Amalgamation/annexation is not a panacea, and I wouldn't want to make it out as that. Every place has its own way of organizing things.

In the U.S. cities are also creations of the state and can also probably be amended or abolished at will. I don't think there is any federal precedent that prohibits that. However, many states, especially those with large cities, have written language into their state constitutions restricting the use of annexation/amalgamation that were meant to give rural residents powers to fight urbanization.

[SDCC]

I believe most US States have granted far more autonomy than Canadian Provinces to cities. It has been my understanding that most municipal amalgamations in Ontario at least were not done willingly. The local councils/mayors/police chiefs/and event citizen didn't like the idea -- but their opinions were of less importance since the decisions were made on a provincial level.

I do wonder about Jacksonville FL or Indianapolis IN. Both are examples of very large cities. Perhaps state law there is different?

The US is after all the United STATES -- and as such the States have much more power and many more differences than Canadian Provinces do. The relationship between States is more like the relationship of the rest of Canada to the 'Distinct Society' of Quebec where they run a separate pension plan, immigration rules, voting requirements, etc.

Indy has unigov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unigov

Which worked like a dream the two times I lived there. The last time I lived there in 2006 I noticed that the city/county had taken another step towards consolidation, the Marion County Sheriff's department and the Indianapolis Police department had been folded into one unit - the Metropolitan Police department.
Saves money, and makes sense, way to go Hoosiers...

[Canadian Visitor]

I've always taken to the way Australians have set up their local areas. Melbourne, for example, includes all of the metro area. However the metro area is divided into smaller local areas that share public services but each local area is further divided into the suburbs. The City of Melbourne is a local area consisting of the CBD and inner suburbs. It does seem people identify their suburb, rather than the larger local area which has a different name and includes 6-8, let's say, other suburbs. [[Think if Ferndale, PR, Royal Oak, Huntington Woods, Berkley, and Hazel Park all merged and called themselves "City of Woodward Heights" but people would still be from Royal Oak, Ferndale, etc. They would just share safety, waste, library, maybe even education resources).

Mississauga is HUGE. One of the largest suburbs in the world and close to population to Detroit. I just don't think that could work here in Detroit. I think the Australian model could work though.

I'm not familiar with the Australian experience.

But what you describe isn't too far off how the Toronto area works.

The City proper; Toronto; is roughly 2,800,000 people, and covers 240sq miles.

Its comprised of the former cities of

East York, Etobicoke, North York, Old Toronto, Scarborough, York. Those continue to exist as 'community councils' and service districts [[well 4 of them, with the 2 smallest, East York and York being lumped in with old Toronto and Etobicoke. They have some planning control [[side streets, street parking etc. etc. ) while the centralized services are managed by the city as a whole. [[all one bureaucracy though). Toronto in turn formally recognizes 140 different neighbourhoods, which most people use as their place descriptor. [[ie. I live in Leslieville, or Don Mills etc.) Those areas have no formal political power, but do hold a notion in the public consciousness. As for Mississauga. Its 112 sq. miles and 720,000 people or so. But even it is part of Peel Region with the Cities of Brampton and Caledon; they share police and several other services. Like Toronto though, it too was an amalgamation, of smaller towns. Lakeview, Cooksville, Lorne Park, Clarkson, Erindale, Sheridan, Dixie, Meadowvale Village, and Malton in 1968 and later Streetsville and Port Credit. Again those names still have sway, although they lack any formal political power.

Sorry, I'm side-tracking my own thread, which is about Detroit, not Toronto.

Just sort of trying to lay out the comparison for those who may not be familiar.

[Canadian Visitor]

I believe most US States have granted far more autonomy than Canadian Provinces to cities. It has been my understanding that most municipal amalgamations in Ontario at least were not done willingly. The local councils/mayors/police chiefs/and event citizen didn't like the idea -- but their opinions were of less importance since the decisions were made on a provincial level.

I do wonder about Jacksonville FL or Indianapolis IN. Both are examples of very large cities. Perhaps state law there is different?

The US is after all the United STATES -- and as such the States have much more power and many more differences than Canadian Provinces do. The relationship between States is more like the relationship of the rest of Canada to the 'Distinct Society' of Quebec where they run a separate pension plan, immigration rules, voting requirements, etc.

Just a couple of clarifications.

Canadian cities are definitely not legally independent of provinces, except as it suits the province in question.

And yes, most, though not amalgamations were provincially initiated [[in modern times).

However, Canadian provinces, in relative terms are likely more powerful than their 'State' equivalent.

Provinces in Canada have exclusive control over all things 'social' ie. Health, Education and Welfare. The only exception is Employment Insurance which has a specific constitutional exemption.

That's a common misnomer in the US that there is Canadian healthcare, when what we have is 10 provincial and 3 territorial health systems.

The Federal gov't in Canada is limited to basically, foreign affairs, defence, the criminal code, drug approvals, immigration and certain economic regulation [[currency, interest rate etc.) It does have some out-sized influence through its spending power though.

Quebec, while indeed very distinct, has essentially the same powers as every other province, the distinction [[mostly) being one of how those powers are used.

[EastsideAl]

In British Columbia, as in Ontario, all education taxes are pooled at the provincial level and then distributed back to local areas based on per capita funding + needs adjustment.

So, in theory [[if not always in practice) all school districts have comparable quality and resources. I could be wrong, but I impression is that things are not quite like that in the U.S.

Yes, not quite like that at all. Local control of schools is a huge thing here in the U.S., and that very much includes control of finances. I believe that Hawaii is the only U.S. state that follows a system like the Canadian one. While a substantial amount of money does flow from the state and federal government to local school districts, there are still disparities, often very large disparities, in the resources that school districts have available to them.

Areas with higher incomes and higher value taxable property almost always have more resources available for their schools. There is a sort of cycle in the U.S. where property values are highly dependent on the quality of the local school district, and the quality [[or at least the available resources) of the local school district is highly dependent on property values. Although school districts in most states are administrated separately from local municipal government, the fact is that the school districts generally come close to mirroring city and town lines, which is a very large factor in the preservation of so many separate communities in U.S. metropolitan areas.

[EastsideAl]

Canadian cities are definitely not legally independent of provinces, except as it suits the province in question.

And yes, most, though not amalgamations were provincially initiated [[in modern times).

We really have to look no further than right across the border to Essex County to see that. The county recently underwent a governmental consolidation that was highly unpopular in much of the county, but was dictated by the provincial government in Toronto with little or no debate.

Some towns that had been around for 150 years or more were effectively eliminated as independent entities, and had their governance transferred to another town that was often many miles away. Several school districts were eliminated, their schools closed, and their students bused to other towns. As much as many areas in the U.S. would benefit from governmental rationalization and streamlining and greater regional cooperation and pooling of resources, the sort of "top down" approach used in consolidation in Ontario, even in the face of large-scale public opposition, would simply be unthinkable in the U.S. [[and would probably violate most state constitutions as well).

[sumas]

Hi back Canadian visitor. My husband worked for the Canadian Federal government for years. I was always somewhat amused that he was a registered agent for a foreign government. Traveled extensively in Canada, great country.

Comparing Detroit to anything is like apples to tomatoes.

[sumas]

We live and own in Detroit. It is not for everyone. It certainly is never dull.

Amalgamation, never happen.

I just really wish with my full heart that people could see and share in the vibrancy that exists. Obviously, there are so many problems, but so many people address them. I am stunned almost daily at mini miracles.

[canuck]

Fun thread.

I dream of the day Detroit gets an amalgamation of sorts.

Thanks for the great info on Toronto CV!

By the way, Quebec, as Wesley Mouch stated, does have a number of distinct powers like immigration selection, and also engages in diplomacy on a level other provinces don't usually do. You will find Quebec present alongside Canada in francophone summits around the world, and oftentimes a Quebec PM will meet on par with a leader of a foreign country like France, Belgium or Morocco.

[sumas]

I love Quebec, we had such great times there. As Anglais we were treated so well. Honestly, Canada is great, just can't be compared to Detroit.

Detroit is just unique. Not praising it, just saying it is different. Can't describe how vital it is still is despite all our blight.

I wish you could have been at an Easter community meeting, it was focused on kids. I left just beaming. The kids and families there were fantastic. This is the Detroit never seen in the public eye.

[Danny]

Thanks for the input, everyone!

As to the Vancouver comparison; it not quite the same as 'The States' as I understand it.

In British Columbia, as in Ontario, all education taxes are pooled at the provincial level and then distributed back to local areas based on per capita funding + needs adjustment.

So, in theory [[if not always in practice) all school districts have comparable quality and resources. I could be wrong, but I impression is that things are not quite like that in the U.S.

Also, Vancouver has regional transit; and although it doesn't yet have regional police [[though I suspect it soon will); it doesn't have a plethora of local forces, its mostly Vancouver Police and the RCMP.

Now that's Canadian Socialism in action and it works.

[KJ5]

If Detroit hasn't even annexed Highland Park or Hamtramck it's not amalgamating anything.
Me, I don't understand why some of the suburbs just don't merge into single entities. Why doesn't Fraser merge with Roseville? Or Oak Park with Ferndale?

[Hermod]

Indy has unigov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unigov

Which worked like a dream the two times I lived there. The last time I lived there in 2006 I noticed that the city/county had taken another step towards consolidation, the Marion County Sheriff's department and the Indianapolis Police department had been folded into one unit - the Metropolitan Police department.
Saves money, and makes sense, way to go Hoosiers...

In populous Virginia counties, they have created a police department which works for the county executive. The elected sherriff still exists, but is limited to running the jail, providing court baliffs, and serving summons and eviction notices.