Restoration at Woodward and Baltimore in Detroit
DETROIT SQUARE WINNING DESIGN »

FUN THINGS TO DO IN DETROIT »



Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 93
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by motz View Post
    Also Bham, do you think Detroit would still be the way it is today if it had annexed Warren, Southfield, Oak Park, etc where much of the city's tax base moved? Because you're telling us to totally disregard something that has an extremely profound affect on a city's ability to stem the outflow of tax dollars to surrounding communities.
    Again, you're missing the point. Annexation is irrelevent to metropolitan population patterns. Metropolitan areas are based on Census-determined commuting patterns and have nothing to do with municipal boundaries.

    Though to answer your question, if we had your scenario, where Detroit had annexed inner suburbs, no, I don't think Metro Detroit would have greater population growth.

  2. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bham1982 View Post
    Again, you're missing the point. Annexation is irrelevent to metropolitan population patterns. Metropolitan areas are based on Census-determined commuting patterns and have nothing to do with municipal boundaries.

    Though to answer your question, if we had your scenario, where Detroit had annexed inner suburbs, no, I don't think Metro Detroit would have greater population growth.
    What I was trying to get at, and you seemed to have conveniently and wholly missed, is that if Detroit had been able to retain a sizable tax base via annexation, things would be different. Houston has been able to support its inner core by annexing areas where businesses are moving. With Detroit, those companies moved to Warren or Troy or Southfield or wherever and that was that. Taxes gone. I don't think what I am trying to explain would've been the silver bullet, but comparing two cities that are under completely and utterly different circumstances is as disingenuous as any argument you could make.

  3. #53

    Default

    Annexation is only the half of it. Imagine if we only had one Southfield or Troy business district, and all the buildings in one those cities had been located in downtown Detroit instead. Detroit would look like a modern big city, and we wouldn't hear that old false canard about how the decline of manufacturing hollowed out downtown.

  4. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bham1982 View Post
    Again, you're missing the point. Annexation is irrelevent to metropolitan population patterns. Metropolitan areas are based on Census-determined commuting patterns and have nothing to do with municipal boundaries.
    But when municipal boundaries are planned based on Census-determined commuting patterns, it brings those populations under the jurisdiction of the city. You must concede that this has some effect on the dynamic, if only to yoke the sprawl to the core.

    http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/An...nnexation.html

  5. #55

    Default

    I'm glad that historic Downtown Pontiac Church is turned back into a place of worship. Long ago its used be a den of thieves and a sin club called "Clutch Cargos."

  6. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Detroitnerd View Post
    But when municipal boundaries are planned based on Census-determined commuting patterns, it brings those populations under the jurisdiction of the city. You must concede that this has some effect on the dynamic, if only to yoke the sprawl to the core.

    http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/An...nnexation.html
    Houston, TX. annexation of its neighboring townships and villages went wild after 1900. This is due to access to water. When sub-divisions were built after the boomtown era from 1910s to 1930s Houston kept on annexing. There were no laws to stabilize charter areas. Texas Legislatures did propose charter township laws, but it was too sleepy. Finally in 1999 Texas State Government told Houston that if your want to annex more townships and suburbs for either water, sub-division rights. certian laws must be challenged. After 2000s and afterward Houston's Annexation slow down.

  7. #57

    Default

    Thanks goodness for the Charter Township Act of 1948 and the State Boundry Control act of 1978 in our Great State of Michigan - mean 'Mich-ississippi'. Now cities can't annex a township that is on charter. It can have its own municipal power and services as long as doesn't cut to save its own tax dollars.

  8. #58

    Default

    Imagine Pontiac with OU and the Oakland County Municipal complex located downtown as well as an I75 freeway interchange. It might be like a cross between Ypsi and Ann Arbor.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Detroitnerd View Post
    But when municipal boundaries are planned based on Census-determined commuting patterns, it brings those populations under the jurisdiction of the city. You must concede that this has some effect on the dynamic, if only to yoke the sprawl to the core.

    http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/An...nnexation.html
    The Houston area has the highest growth in the nation because they've "yoked the sprawl to the core"? LOL. Downtown Houston is half parking lots.

    They're building yet another loop freeway around Houston. This one is like 50 miles out from downtown. Michigan is amateur hour in terms of sprawl compared to Texas. Exxon Mobil is building a campus for 25,000 employees like 30-40 miles from downtown.

  10. #60

    Default

    What your constant cries of "Houston!" fail to prove is that sprawl has anything do with Houston's success. As long as you have a good economy and aren't in North Dakota, people are going to move to your city even if it's an urban sprawl hellscape. That doesn't mean the sprawl is doing an inch of good, and could in fact be decreasing the happiness of citizens while increasing infrastructural costs.

    As I wrote before, Houston can afford sprawl at the moment as a byproduct of its current economic strength. But if your region's economy is lackluster, sprawl will cripple the area financially. It's a simple concept. You're the guy that always criticizes people for not getting it or having no clue what they're talking about. Why, then, do you fail to grasp such basic relationships? It boggles the mind.

  11. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bham1982 View Post
    The Houston area has the highest growth in the nation because they've "yoked the sprawl to the core"? LOL. Downtown Houston is half parking lots.
    Yes, yoked, in the sense of their money goes to the city and the city provides the services. Would "linked" work better for you?

  12. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Detroitnerd View Post
    I don't think Pontiac is in a good position for a comeback. Mostly because it's located in a county and state that doesn't really understand or support older central cities.
    But those central cities also tend to dig their own grave. Mt Clemens for example, the Emerald Theatre was having some tax issues, and they were working things out with the bank and city. The city decides that they aren't going to continue negotiations because 'they don't like the crowd the theatre draws.' So then the place goes vacant for a while, re-opens and rarely has any big shows. Other busnisses close, and the city continues to raise taxes, which makes other big local draws leave (Luigis Downtown for example) and it goes on and on. The main big central cities (Detroit, Mt Clemens, Pontiac) all share one HUGE issue, and that is shotty governments.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nain rouge View Post
    What your constant cries of "Houston!" fail to prove is that sprawl has anything do with Houston's success.
    Exactly! You've got it now. Sprawl has little or nothing to do with Houston's relative success, just like sprawl has little or nothing to do with Detroit's regional failure. It's jobs, mostly.

    Again, there is no relationship between relative urbanity and economic/population growth. There's no evidence of any causal relationship in the U.S.

  14. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Detroitnerd View Post
    Marcus Garvey founded the Black Star Line, which promoted the return of the African diaspora to their ancestral lands.

    Therefore, if we had somebody who could convince all the blacks, at least all the ones in Pontiac, to move back to Africa, then the redevelopment of Pontiac could begin.

    What! that comment sounds racist! In a second person sentence.

  15. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rex View Post
    Imagine Pontiac with OU and the Oakland County Municipal complex located downtown as well as an I75 freeway interchange. It might be like a cross between Ypsi and Ann Arbor.
    Ypsi and Ann Arbor grew around the core universities there. As the universities grew, so did the town to support them. Oakland was bare ground in 1957 and just a commuter college in 1961. The Rochester area was booming (sprawl-wise) without reference to Oakland. OU was always oriented on Rochester and not on Pontiac.

  16. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bham1982 View Post
    Exactly! You've got it now. Sprawl has little or nothing to do with Houston's relative success, just like sprawl has little or nothing to do with Detroit's regional failure. It's jobs, mostly.

    Again, there is no relationship between relative urbanity and economic/population growth. There's no evidence of any causal relationship in the U.S.
    Well, I think you're one of the few who is saying that Houston is "successful". So let's leave that alone for a moment.

    If sprawl is not problematic to Metropolitan Detroit, would you say that the physical layout of the area is the most efficient for purposes of tax collection and delivery of services? If so, I'd like to know why the Detroit area is flagging when compared to large metropolitan areas across the country, or even within the Great Lakes region.

    Is it strictly a function of jobs? If that's the case, is it the types of jobs that are available? Or is it that would-be employees can't get to the jobs that are available? And if jobs are the reason, how is it that one city (Pontiac) can remain so down-and-out while it's neighbors (Auburn Hills, the Bloomfields) can be relatively prosperous at the same time.

    I'm curious to know what the answers are.

  17. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto View Post
    Well, I think you're one of the few who is saying that Houston is "successful". So let's leave that alone for a moment.
    Respondents to this year's survey for The List of the Largest Houston-Area Commercial Building Contractors reported billings for 2013 that were on average 38 percent higher than in 2012. The List publishes in the May 9 edition of the Houston Business Journal.The increasing demand will likely have a positive impact on most companies in the industry, provided that they can hire enough people.
    "Growth in Houston is quickly depleting the available workforce to support the industry," Steve Mechler, division president of Balfour Beatty Construction, noted when asked about the most important challenge the industry is currently facing. "Acquiring and training qualified professionals will be critical to meet the growth demands of our business."
    Texas is killing it.

    It dominated the recession, crushed the recovery, and in a new analysis of jobs recovered since the downturn, its largest city stands apart as the most powerful job engine in the country -- by far.


    The ten largest metros have recovered 98 percent of the jobs lost during the recession, on average. But Houston, the first major city to regain all the jobs lost in the downturn, has now added more than two jobs for every one it lost after the crash. That's incredible.
    I guess I don't understand what your definition of success is...cuz that sounds like they're doing something right. I mean if Detroit had even a few of the growth numbers that Houston has, people would be dancing in the streets around here. We can have a conversation about if it's sustainable or if they are setting themselves up for failure...but that can be said about any boom town, anywhere, ever.

    of course then there's this:
    According to one recent Rice University study, Census data now shows that Houston has now surpassed New York as the country’s most racially and ethnically diverse metropolis.
    ...
    Even as Houston has continued to advance outwards, the region has added more multiunit buildings over the past decade than more populous New York, Los Angeles or Chicago.
    So, how exactly is Houston not ​successful?

    If sprawl is not problematic to Metropolitan Detroit, would you say that the physical layout of the area is the most efficient for purposes of tax collection and delivery of services? If so, I'd like to know why the Detroit area is flagging when compared to large metropolitan areas across the country, or even within the Great Lakes region.
    Its incredibly inefficient, but that isn't what he was saying was it? Pontiac and Metro detroit are shitholes because it sprawled for no reason. Sprawl didn't make it shitty. Unnecessary sprawl did. It's flagging because we have been in a recession bordering on depression for 15 years as the region is almost entirely dependent on a shrinking industry and overbuilt due to cheap money, provincialism, not an insignificant amount of racism, huge amounts of denial, and insanely bad planning

    Is it strictly a function of jobs? If that's the case, is it the types of jobs that are available? Or is it that would-be employees can't get to the jobs that are available? And if jobs are the reason, how is it that one city (Pontiac) can remain so down-and-out while it's neighbors (Auburn Hills, the Bloomfields) can be relatively prosperous at the same time.
    It's a function of jobs. We have depression level unemployment here, especially in the low/no skill population. There is no job going unfilled for lack of worker. Solve that and the region wouldn't be a shit hole. But places like Houston...which is a brutally ugly sprawly place I wouldn't choose to live... show it's not about "sprawl" it's all about jobs.
    Last edited by bailey; May-08-14 at 08:22 AM.

  18. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bham1982 View Post
    Exactly! You've got it now. Sprawl has little or nothing to do with Houston's relative success, just like sprawl has little or nothing to do with Detroit's regional failure. It's jobs, mostly.

    Again, there is no relationship between relative urbanity and economic/population growth. There's no evidence of any causal relationship in the U.S.
    Strong urban centers are good for reinventing themselves into new economies. That has been Detroit's problem and it will be Houston's problem soon enough. We tend to agree on what we consider the strongest urban centers of the U.S. (NYC, SF, Boston, etc.) However, I think you're missing a big point about those cities: they were all doing something else 50 years ago.

  19. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bailey View Post
    I guess I don't understand what your definition of success is...cuz that sounds like they're doing something right. I mean if Detroit had even a few of the growth numbers that Houston has, people would be dancing in the streets around here. We can have a conversation about if it's sustainable or if they are setting themselves up for failure...but that can be said about any boom town, anywhere, ever.
    Exactly. Houston is a boomtown. The only thing they did right was locate the city in the middle of oil fields. Like all boomtowns, it'll go down the tubes soon enough. Houston will implode once the oil supplies are depleted, and at that time, will look far worse than Southeast Michigan does today, thanks to its financially-intensive spatial arrangement.

    Sure, you can get a job in Houston. But what do you do when you're not at work? You can only hang out at the Galleria so long, and can only eat so much barbeque and banh mi.

    As far as "diversity" goes...it really depends what you mean. If your definition of "diverse" means "nonwhite", then yes, Houston probably has more nonwhite people than just about any city in America. And I suspect the growth in multi-family residential is a function of Mexican immigration. Of course they're going to build more apartments than New York: New York already has a zillion apartments. Houston is a sprawling single-family-home city trying desperately to house recent (read: not-yet-ready-to-buy-a-home) immigrants.

    Sprawl didn't make it shitty. Unnecessary sprawl did. It's flagging because we have been in a recession bordering on depression for 15 years as the region is almost entirely dependent on a shrinking industry and overbuilt due to cheap money and terrible planning.
    Sprawl, by definition, is development that consumes land at a faster rate than the population growth rate. Some would say that's shitty in-and-of itself. I, for one, find a vinyl-sided Pulte faux-manor house to be the epitome of a failed consumerist culture. But that's just me. The recession just hurt things in Detroit even more.

  20. #70

    Default

    Please also note that Houston is located in a state that has a whole range of advantages that Michigan does not. I mean, if Michigan had no income tax, I'm pretty sure we'd have a more robust economy then we do now. You're comparing apples to felines at this point and making disingenuous arguments when you're comparing Houston and Detroit, or even Texas and Michigan.

  21. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by motz View Post
    Please also note that Houston is located in a state that has a whole range of advantages that Michigan does not. I mean, if Michigan had no income tax, I'm pretty sure we'd have a more robust economy then we do now. You're comparing apples to felines at this point and making disingenuous arguments when you're comparing Houston and Detroit, or even Texas and Michigan.
    ok, but per the Tax Foundation Index which:
    compares the states in five areas of taxation that impact business: corporate taxes, individual income taxes, sales taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, and taxes on property, including residential and commercial property.
    Texas is 11th in tax burden...Michigan is 14th. Not a lot of separation there.

    and when it comes to personal tax burden, Michigan's taxpayers pay $3506 per capita in state and local taxes. Texas's taxpayers pay $3088 per capita in state and local taxes. basically that 500 buck difference is the income tax. Is 500 bucks making that much of a difference?

    A more fun measure... Tax freedom day is April 13th in Texas and the 17th in Michigan.

    what Texas has underpinning its growth and economy is massive federal spending in the form of 15 military installations, a booming energy sector and 5 of the top 10 busiest ports in the country.
    Last edited by bailey; May-08-14 at 11:14 AM.

  22. #72

    Default

    I thought this was about Pontiac?

    i lived there with my Grandfather in a house he built in 1931. It cost him $5,500 to build that house. You can buy that house for $7,000 today. The yearly taxes are $3,700.

  23. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bailey View Post
    ok, but per the Tax Foundation Index which:

    Texas is 11th in tax burden...Michigan is 14th. Not a lot of separation there.

    and when it comes to personal tax burden, Michigan's taxpayers pay $3506 per capita in state and local taxes. Texas's taxpayers pay $3088 per capita in state and local taxes. basically that 500 buck difference is the income tax. Is 500 bucks making that much of a difference?

    A more fun measure... Tax freedom day is April 13th in Texas and the 17th in Michigan.

    what Texas has underpinning it's growth and economy is massive federal spending in the form of 15 military installations, a booming energy sector and the second busiest port in the country.
    Pretty sure $500 x 20 million residents (population is 26.06 million, lets chop 6 million for fairness sake) = $10bn in money that residents in Texas don't pay every year, that residents in Michigan DO pay every year. But hey, that doesn't make a difference because reasons.

    If my math is off, apologies. No coffee yet this morning.

  24. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by motz View Post
    Pretty sure $500 x 20 million residents (population is 26.06 million, lets chop 6 million for fairness sake) = $10bn in money that residents in Texas don't pay every year, that residents in Michigan DO pay every year. But hey, that doesn't make a difference because reasons.

    If my math is off, apologies. No coffee yet this morning.
    your math isn't off, but you're missing the logic. the personal burdens are not that different in a per capita sense. What Texas lacks in an income tax, it makes up in hitting you with higher sales taxes and high property taxes. that is even before talking about toll roads and other fees. and what that does is make Texas' tax system a regressive one where the highest effective tax rates are paid by the lower and middle classes.

    Also, from a business tax perspective, Texas is only 3 spots ahead of Michigan. It's not like Michigan is 45th...

    Tell ya what, instead of dropping Michigan's income tax or raising Texas's... let's start with moving their 15 bases and 200,000 active and reserve military to Michigan...along with their families and the multiplier effect of all the support jobs that go with them and see what that does to Michigan...and to Texas.
    Last edited by bailey; May-08-14 at 12:38 PM.

  25. #75

    Default

    So, how exactly is Houston not ​successful.
    There are a few cracks in the facade.

    Houston has crime problems. According to Neighborhood Scout, Houston has a crime index of 5, with 1 being the least safe. Saginaw has a crime index of 5. Brooklyn has a crime index of 38. Manhattan has a crime index of 22.

    Men's Fitness has ranked Houston the fattest city in America multiple times. 34% of the population is overweight! Houston eats out more than any city, and has more fast food restaurants than anywhere else in America. Probably, because like Detroit, there's not a lot to do outside of eating and drinking.

    As percent of home price, you're paying more in property taxes in Houston thqn even Wayne County, and way above what you'd see in New York City!

    But hey, I'm sure they love the sprawl!

    Now, in terms of jobs, Houston is great. And that will continue to fuel it's growth so long as that lasts. But to say that the sprawl in Houston is self-sustaining and that it won't harm the region in the future is unfounded and flies in the face of past examples.
    Last edited by nain rouge; May-08-14 at 01:34 PM.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Instagram
BEST ONLINE FORUM FOR
DETROIT-BASED DISCUSSION
DetroitYES Awarded BEST OF DETROIT 2015 - Detroit MetroTimes - Best Online Forum for Detroit-based Discussion 2015

ENJOY DETROITYES?


AND HAVE ADS REMOVED DETAILS »





Welcome to DetroitYES! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
DetroitYES! is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to DetroitYES! [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.