Duh?: Only way to stop Detroit blight is to ease up on suburban development

[nain rouge]

When a new subdivision is built, either A. the builder pays for the infrastrucure improvements and charges the new homeowners or B. the township pays for the improvements and puts a special assessment on the new homes being served by the improvements.

Right. The state and federal governments never help out. The exurbs don't benefit massively from the infrastructure older communities largely paid for, either directly or indirectly.

[Bham1982]

Right. The state and federal governments never help out. The exurbs don't benefit massively from the infrastructure older communities largely paid for, either directly or indirectly.

This is correct. If you see a new subdivision, the new occupants are paying for the improvements. No one in Detroit or Royal Oak or Warren is paying for a new sewer line in Milford Township.

[Detroitnerd]

Bham1982, L. Brooks is calling you. His sphincter could use some more of your loving kisses.

[iheartthed]

This is correct. If you see a new subdivision, the new occupants are paying for the improvements. No one in Detroit or Royal Oak or Warren is paying for a new sewer line in Milford Township.

But they are paying for the infrastructure that those people left behind to go build new infrastructure that's not needed, from a metropolitan area growth perspective. The developers have the townships essentially gamble that their Hooterville will be the next Troy by issuing debt for new infrastructure improvements to cover the yet-to-be materialized sprawl. If the developer follows through with the plans to build then the cost gets passed on to the eventual buyers. However, during the recession many townships found themselves between a rock and a hard place because they issued debt for infrastructure expansions and the sprawl did not materialize.

[Kevgoblue]

This is correct. If you see a new subdivision, the new occupants are paying for the improvements. No one in Detroit or Royal Oak or Warren is paying for a new sewer line in Milford Township.

Nope. No one in Detroit or Royal Oak is paying for the new sewer lines out at 32 Mile Road. This is true.

But in order to get water to 32 Mile Road they had to utilize the water lines in that first 31 miles. Oh yeah, and as 32 Mile keeps increasing, it requires the pressure back at 0 Mile [[which by the way is 100 year old infrastructure) to be increasingly higher to push it that far. That causes failures from 31 Mile back, at geometrically increasing rates. Failures that the people at 32 Mile Road don't feel any responsibility in supporting, financially.

[gnome]

The ONLY way? ONLY? If that were true every large city in America would be hollowed out like Detroit.

Sprawl didn't kill Detroit because it didn't kill Chicago, NYC, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, ...

Sprawl is a symptom of Detroit's illness, not its cause, and declaring from the heavens that there is ONLY one way to fix Detroit is sure to have the opposite effect. People with money, brains and resources know that nothing is "ONLY" the cause of anything.

People with brains and resources will chortle up their sleeves at such a notion. On its face it is ridiculous. Pointing to evil sprawl as the ONLY is akin to pointing to Coleman as the single reason behind middle-class flight.

if your small mind can only handle one reason behind Detroit's demise, I suggest you focus on Mr. Cadillac. He is the only person, or reason, behind Detroit's woes.

[Bham1982]

Nope. No one in Detroit or Royal Oak is paying for the new sewer lines out at 32 Mile Road. This is true.

But in order to get water to 32 Mile Road they had to utilize the water lines in that first 31 miles. Oh yeah, and as 32 Mile keeps increasing, it requires the pressure back at 0 Mile [[which by the way is 100 year old infrastructure) to be increasingly higher to push it that far. That causes failures from 31 Mile back, at geometrically increasing rates. Failures that the people at 32 Mile Road don't feel any responsibility in supporting, financially.

Obviously if you tap into a connected system, there are systemwide issues that need to be considered. But this has nothing to do with the claimed "Detroiters are paying for Macomb Township sewers". Everyone on the sewer system is paying for the sewer system, and any expansions are funded soley at the local level, ususally on very targeted assessments [[which is why one mile road will be lined with thousands of McMansions, and then the next mile road over will be a dirt road; the first mile road has sewer).

[iheartthed]

The ONLY way? ONLY? If that were true every large city in America would be hollowed out like Detroit.

Sprawl didn't kill Detroit because it didn't kill Chicago, NYC, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, ...

Sprawl is a symptom of Detroit's illness, not its cause, and declaring from the heavens that there is ONLY one way to fix Detroit is sure to have the opposite effect. People with money, brains and resources know that nothing is "ONLY" the cause of anything.

People with brains and resources will chortle up their sleeves at such a notion. On its face it is ridiculous. Pointing to evil sprawl as the ONLY is akin to pointing to Coleman as the single reason behind middle-class flight.

if your small mind can only handle one reason behind Detroit's demise, I suggest you focus on Mr. Cadillac. He is the only person, or reason, behind Detroit's woes.

NYC and her neighbors keep tight controls on the number of new housing units produced within their borders. It's long been pointed to as the reason why the cost of living is so high in the region.

[corktownyuppie]

Obviously if you tap into a connected system, there are systemwide issues that need to be considered.

And this is the very issue.

Let's say you, me, and 8 other people agree to build a road from our neighborhood to the center of trade. Now 5 of us decide to move 1 mile further away. Sure, we pay for the extra road from our town to your neighborhood [[our old neighborhood).

But we also benefit from your neighborhood and the first road, because we have to travel through your town to get the center of trade. So who's paying for the old road? Half the people are left with the costs of paying for the whole thing.

[[By the way, as an aside, with these types of things such as DWSD, I would have been fine with tri-county ownership of the system. If we're all sharing the costs, I say it's fair that we all share control).

But this is much bigger than just roads and pipes. By moving half our population out of your town and into the new one, we now need to double the amount of area we need to police. Sure, the total population is the same. But policing 100 people in 1 building is a lot easier than policing 100 people spread across 25 blocks.

And then you have all the legacy cost problems.

Now I don't hold Detroit blameless in all of this. Of course not. I'd say Detroit certainly holds 60% of the blame if not more. But that does not preclude the need for some kind of tri-county bargaining for land usage planning. I'd rather something that we can all live with rather than continuing to multiply our infrastructure costs using antiquated systems of accounting that were never designed to meet the needs and problems of the current day.

[Bham1982]

NYC and her neighbors keep tight controls on the number of new housing units produced within their borders. It's long been pointed to as the reason why the cost of living is so high in the region.

Huh? There are no restrictions on the number of units being produced in the NYC area.

Most of the NY Metro area is not even in NY State, so how could NYC have jurisdiction over new subdivisions in places like NJ, CT, and PA?

The high costs in NYC are due to high demand. It has nothing to do with regional restrictions on housing. There are tons of new developments being built on the fringes of the NYC metro area, even 80, 90, 100 miles out from Manhattan.

[gnome]

That is a ridiculous equation. There is no equivalency.

i challenge you to find any city in the universe that once had 2 million inhabitants, which has now been abandoned by 1.2 million, but doesn't have suburban developments. Chernobyl doesn't count because they have no suburbs.

Sprawl is a symptom. Start from there.

[ghettopalmetto]

That is a ridiculous equation. There is no equivalency.

i challenge you to find any city in the universe that once had 2 million inhabitants, which has now been abandoned by 1.2 million, but doesn't have suburban developments. Chernobyl doesn't count because they have no suburbs.

Sprawl is a symptom. Start from there.

A symptom of stupidity, wastefulness, and superficiality.

[Detroitnerd]

Dear DetroitYES!,

This is a message from Frank Rizzo.

I'm here to add some sense to this conversation.

I want the situation in Detroit fixed.

But I don't want to accept that any decisions I have made play into that formerly great city's predicament.

And I don't want to pay one penny to do any of the fixing up.

So good luck fixing that thing. Hahahahaha.

Sincerely,

Frank Rizzo

[gnome]

Your fantasy life is of little interest to grown-ups. Take your imaginary friends and enjoy a nice day at the beach.

[gnome]

Detroit is a collection of neighborhoods that look exactly like the neighborhoods in surrounding communities. If a three bedroom, one bath post-war brick ranch in Detroit can find its exact twin 40 feet away in Harper Woods what makes the one stupid, wasteful or superficial?

detroit is sprawl. Always has been. It ain't a city like Chicago, Boston or even SanFransisco. Much of detroit looks xactly like Redford, Warren, Harper Woods, East Pointe, Dearborn because it is.

if Detroit is dead because for sprawl why isn't Dearborn Heights? Redford? livonia? Trenton?

what weenies, you don't even know what you are. You deny your reality and demand that everyone else is at fault for your own failings.

and maybe worst of all you are convinced of your righteous indignation. Plz forgive the rest of the world as it scoffs at your arogance.

[Detroitnerd]

Detroit is a collection of neighborhoods that look exactly like the neighborhoods in surrounding communities. If a three bedroom, one bath post-war brick ranch in Detroit can find its exact twin 40 feet away in Harper Woods what makes the one stupid, wasteful or superficial?

detroit is sprawl. Always has been. It ain't a city like Chicago, Boston or even SanFransisco. Much of detroit looks xactly like Redford, Warren, Harper Woods, East Pointe, Dearborn because it is.

if Detroit is dead because for sprawl why isn't Dearborn Heights? Redford? livonia? Trenton?

what weenies, you don't even know what you are. You deny your reality and demand that everyone else is at fault for your own failings.

and maybe worst of all you are convinced of your righteous indignation. Plz forgive the rest of the world as it scoffs at your arogance.

This is selective history. Inner-city Detroit was tremendously dense. The density of some neighborhoods, such as old Hastings Street, rivaled that of any Eastern city. Inner-city Detroit remains quite dense, denser than the suburbs. Hamtramck, an urban area within Detroit, is the densest city in Michigan.

Yes, much of Detroit is lower-density housing stock built after the war, but you go too far, gnome.

[iheartthed]

Huh? There are no restrictions on the number of units being produced in the NYC area.

Most of the NY Metro area is not even in NY State, so how could NYC have jurisdiction over new subdivisions in places like NJ, CT, and PA?

The high costs in NYC are due to high demand. It has nothing to do with regional restrictions on housing. There are tons of new developments being built on the fringes of the NYC metro area, even 80, 90, 100 miles out from Manhattan.

The high demand is due to the very limited supply. If New York was adding more units than the population could absorb then the cost would be lower. If it adds less units than the population can absorb then costs are higher. Simple economics. Houston is growing way more percentage-wise than New York but it's far cheaper because there is so much supply relative to demand. You know this...

[Bham1982]

This is selective history. Inner-city Detroit was tremendously dense. The density of some neighborhoods, such as old Hastings Street, rivaled that of any Eastern city.

Detroit never had "tremendously dense" built density, ever. It was always been a rather low density, sprawling city.

And even Black Bottom did not "rival that of any Eastern city". It had dense population due to blacks being crammed in due to discrimination, but was never built anywhere closer to a Lower East Side-type neighborhood.

[Bham1982]

The high demand is due to the very limited supply.
...

NYC already builds far more housing than any other city in the U.S. How is that "very limited supply"?

It has almost nothing to do with limited supply, it's because Manhattan and environs are super-desirable. If you demolished historic parts of Manhattan and covered with 100-floor buildings the city wouldn't magically become cheap.

If New York was adding more units than the population could absorb then the cost would be lower. If it adds less units than the population can absorb then costs are higher. Simple economics. Houston is growing way more percentage-wise than New York but it's far cheaper because there is so much supply relative to demand. You know this...

This has nothing to do with high housing costs in NYC. Manhattan [[and prime areas in proximity to Manhattan) have elastic demand. Global cities like NYC, London and the like have demand curves such that adding housing just adds demand. You will not "solve" any affordability issues in NYC by building more housing.

If you want to make NYC cheaper you can make it less desirable, or you can have more income-restricted housing. You will not "solve" Manhattan's sky-high prices by allowing more towers.

[Danny]

Suburban development will stop anytime soon. As soon young professionals finish their business and have their first child, they will out of the city and out to greener pastures and into a bigger McMansion.

Log on to Google Maps and see what happen to Macomb Township.

[iheartthed]

NYC already builds far more housing than any other city in the U.S. How is that "very limited supply"?

That is not true. In 2013, the New York metropolitan area added just under 40,000 housing units. Houston added more than 51,000 housing units. New York is metro area of 20,000,000 people. Houston is a metro area of less than 6 million people.

http://www.census.gov/construction/bps/txt/tb3u2013.txt

[Detroitnerd]

Detroit never had "tremendously dense" built density, ever. It was always been a rather low density, sprawling city.

And even Black Bottom did not "rival that of any Eastern city". It had dense population due to blacks being crammed in due to discrimination, but was never built anywhere closer to a Lower East Side-type neighborhood.

Bham1982, your tactic of just saying that something is wrong in your haughtiest tone while offering absolutely no evidence is wearing rather thin these days. What's more, I can do it more quickly and with less horrified monocle-breaking.

"You are wrong. Again."

See?

[Bham1982]

That is not true. In 2013, the New York metropolitan area added just under 40,000 housing units. Houston added more than 51,000 housing units. New York is metro area of 20,000,000 people. Houston is a metro area of less than 6 million people.

http://www.census.gov/construction/bps/txt/tb3u2013.txt

I wrote NYC, not NYC metro area.

The NYC metro area builds tons of housing too, though. There is no problem with lack of housing construction in the NYC metro, and, in any case, it isn't strongly linked with relative home prices.

[Bham1982]

Bham1982, your tactic of just saying that something is wrong in your haughtiest tone while offering absolutely no evidence is wearing rather thin these days. What's more, I can do it more quickly and with less horrified monocle-breaking.

I always provide evidence. You just don't like the facts.

But go ahead, if you think Detroit used to look like the Lower East Side, but all the pesky McMansions scared away the millions of imaginary tenement residents, then be my guest.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Huh? Ann Arbor has had experienced quite a bit of infill development since the greenbelt.

It had absolutely positively nothing to do with the greenbelt, which, by the way, wasn't even a "greenbelt" but more like a "greenbeltbuckle" because, of course, there wasn't enough money to buy development rights in a huge belt around the city.

There is exactly zero evidence that new apartments in the City in any way replaced apartments in the townships surrounding Ann Arbor. And after the housing market recovered, single-family homes are still being built in and around the restricted belt buckle.