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

[BankruptcyGuy]

I agree with you, Ghetto. The difficulty is there isn't anything anyone can do about it without a change to the State constitution. All of the tools that other regions use to mitigate sprawl aren't available to Michigan because the constitution's home rule provision forbids any kind of meaningful regional governance.

Question: to your knowledge, are other state constitutions different in this way?
What tools do they provide their municipalities [[or what rights do they take away)?

The only two states where I have familiarity are Texas and Illinois.

Texas is a complete free-for-all. Houston doesn't even have a zoning code, for the most part. Can we glean anything from Houston, or Dallas, or Austin? I'm asking because I don't know.

Illinois has home-rule like Michigan does. The difference, of course, is that while Oakland County has an equal seat in Lansing to Wayne [[or bigger, depending on how you look at it), Cook County has all the clout in Springfield. I'm not necessarily aware of any anti-development laws or cooperative statutes in Illinois. Mike Madigan [[the all-powerful speaker of the state house) wouldn't even consider a provision that would work to Chicago's detriment. They rule the roost. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on where you're coming from.

[BankruptcyGuy]

All of the new high-rise development in the city has helped relieve pressure on the single-family residential areas in the city by shifting students out of houses and into apartments. This had led to some conversions of student housing back into single-family homes and allowing more people who want single-family homes in the city to get back into the city. Are new homes still going up in the Townships? Yes. But they are in more concentrated locations as the Greenbelt acquisitions of development rights has taken property out of consideration for development. The Greenbelt has been a boon for the Townships to direct growth to those areas of the Townships that can support it, as opposed to the normal pattern of sprawl where development occurs all over the Township. Your claim that the development wouldn't even have happened on these properties is contradicted by the numerous properties that had previously been planned for development in Ann Arbor, Superior, Pittsfield, Scio and Webster Townships which are now off-limits from development.

I am pretty well connected to the Ann Arbor student housing market, and no, having $1200/bed high rises hasn't taken students out of $600/bed rental homes. The student population increases year-over-year, and there have been and will be huge barriers to entry in that market. Student growth has outpaced supply, so the new developments have filled on the backs of that pent up demand.

The market for houses out in the townships is such a vastly different market, it's hard to adequately describe.

Not to belabor the point, but here's a map as of Jun 2012 of the "greenbelt." [[I hope I did that right.)

[Novine]

"I am pretty well connected to the Ann Arbor student housing market, and no, having $1200/bed high rises hasn't taken students out of $600/bed rental homes."

Why wouldn't it? Who's filling up all of those units and where were they staying before those buildings went up?

Several of those properties shown in green were proposed for development including the properties along Whitmore Lake Road that included at one time were proposed for a huge mobile home development that morphed into a proposal for single family homes. Now that quadrant of the Township has been locked into an agricultural zone that the Township can legally defend in court. That was a much riskier proposition in the past.

No one claimed that the Greenbelt was going to create a solid wall of protected properties around the city. Instead, it secured development rights on key parcels that helped sustain the agricultural zones in the surrounding Townships. It also helped directed development in the Townships to areas that already had infrastructure and encouraged more development in the city. On all counts, it's been a success. Critics like yourself attack it as being a failure but to date, not one critic has come up with a workable model that would have achieved the city's goals as well as the Greenbelt has done.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Why wouldn't it? Who's filling up all of those units and where were they staying before those buildings went up?

Several of those properties shown in green were proposed for development including the properties along Whitmore Lake Road that included at one time were proposed for a huge mobile home development that morphed into a proposal for single family homes. Now that quadrant of the Township has been locked into an agricultural zone that the Township can legally defend in court. That was a much riskier proposition in the past.

No one claimed that the Greenbelt was going to create a solid wall of protected properties around the city. Instead, it secured development rights on key parcels that helped sustain the agricultural zones in the surrounding Townships. It also helped directed development in the Townships to areas that already had infrastructure and encouraged more development in the city. On all counts, it's been a success. Critics like yourself attack it as being a failure but to date, not one critic has come up with a workable model that would have achieved the city's goals as well as the Greenbelt has done.

Hypothesizing a result will occur is not the same as it occurring. The market for conversion of Burns Park/Packard/Kingsley single-family homes to student rentals is as strong as ever.

If you think that the greenbelt, with the map shown above, would have passed, even in the People's Republic of Ann Arbor, or if you think that buying a few parcels in the townships [[where single-family home dwellers like their yards and low township taxes) has somehow led to people moving into the City of Ann Arbor, well, in the immortal words of Ron Burgundy, "Agree to disagree."

[professorscott]

Question: to your knowledge, are other state constitutions different in this way?
What tools do they provide their municipalities [[or what rights do they take away)?

As you might guess, this is a complicated soup of constitutions, laws, court cases and so on. In Michigan, the home rule provision of the State constitution has been interpreted to render the idea of any true regional governance completely impotent. In Oregon [[which also constitutionalizes home rule) the legal environment is, by the evidence available, quite different.

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund is a good place to start gaining an understanding of it: http://celdf.org/home-rule-in-the-states

Happy reading!
Prof. Scott

[BankruptcyGuy]

As you might guess, this is a complicated soup of constitutions, laws, court cases and so on. In Michigan, the home rule provision of the State constitution has been interpreted to render the idea of any true regional governance completely impotent. In Oregon [[which also constitutionalizes home rule) the legal environment is, by the evidence available, quite different.

The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund is a good place to start gaining an understanding of it: http://celdf.org/home-rule-in-the-states

Happy reading!
Prof. Scott

Thank you very much!

[Novine]

"If you think that the greenbelt, with the map shown above, would have passed, even in the People's Republic of Ann Arbor, or if you think that buying a few parcels in the townships [[where single-family home dwellers like their yards and low township taxes) has somehow led to people moving into the City of Ann Arbor, well, in the immortal words of Ron Burgundy, "Agree to disagree.""

Nice strawman attacks. Nowhere did I claim it was leading people to move into the city although estimates of the current population have shown a significant increase since the 2010 Census.

As for your argument that voters wouldn't have approved the Greenbelt millage if they had seen its current form, perhaps you can explain why almost 70% of Scio Township voters renewed the Township's Farmland and Open Space Preservation millage in 2012? Or Webster Township voters did the same in 2009 with their Farmland Preservation millage? Or when County voters approved extending and expanding the 0.25 mill to allow for farmland preservation with strong support from city voters in 2010? Voters have had plenty of opportunities to reject extending or expanding the greenbelt concept and every time it's been up for a vote in one of the participating communities, it has passed.

[Mikeg]

The distinguished "Clarence Hilberry professor of Urban Affairs at Wayne State University" simply claims that the "disassembly line" has been pulled along by an oversupply of newer housing located beyond the city limits. His op-ed ignores the fact that the "disassembly line" has also been pushed along by the significantly higher tax rates levied on property within the city limits.

[Kevgoblue]

Chicken or the egg?

[nain rouge]

Bham, I'll spell it out for you. At its peak [[1940s), Detroit had a historic urban core of several 100,000, surrounded by early suburbs. And while the core didn't constitute the majority of the city, it was its heart and was dense.

It's not hard to look at Cass Corridor today and imagine what inner city Detroit would've looked like. The near east side, as we know, was home to the African American community, and was both overcrowded and densely built. Greektown was a real neighborhood. Chinatown on Michigan Avenue on the west side, near Skid Row, was a real neighborhood. If The Bronx or Queens ain't urban [[here we go), then I guess Detroit wasn't. But as you can guess, I consider all of NYC urban. Most sane people would.

As we know, most of inner city Detroit has been decimated. Even the better parts of Midtown are usually missing at least half of the peak building stock, and there hasn't been much to replace the losses.

Healthy regions that had a historic of urban core still have a significant urban core. Philly, Chicago, LA [[tons of inner city neighborhoods with 15,000+ per square mile densities), NYC, DC, and Boston. The cities that don't really have dense core all boomed AFTER World War II.

Guess which category Detroit falls into? It is, for all intents and purposes, the last boomtown before World War II. Most of the population moved in during the '10s and '20s. Detroit in 1910? 500,000 people [[1,600,000 by the end of the twenties). Houston? 80,000. Dallas? 90,000. Miami? 5,000. Atlanta? 150,000.

As you can see, Atlanta is the only city that can even begin to compare, and lo and behold, it's the only one in the second list with a SUBWAY SYSTEM.

Your failure to make such simplistic distinctions is why you just don't get it.

[Hermod]

perhaps you can explain why almost 70% of Scio Township voters renewed the Township's Farmland and Open Space Preservation millage in 2012? Or Webster Township voters did the same in 2009 with their Farmland Preservation millage? Or when County voters approved extending and expanding the 0.25 mill to allow for farmland preservation with strong support from city voters in 2010? Voters have had plenty of opportunities to reject extending or expanding the greenbelt concept and every time it's been up for a vote in one of the participating communities, it has passed.

Pull up the ladder, Jack, I've got mine. Of course the people already there on their large lots do not want further development of cheaper houses on smaller lots. They enjoy looking at the great expanse of nothingness in their back yard.

[Bham1982]

If The Bronx or Queens ain't urban [[here we go), then I guess Detroit wasn't. But as you can guess, I consider all of NYC urban. Most sane people would.

Detroit was never remotely like "the Bronx or Queens". The Bronx has nearly 4 times Detroit's peak density. Western Queens has even denser neighborhoods.

Detroit was the prewar version of a current Sunbelt city. Dominated by single family homes, with yards, and with some of the highest homeownership and auto ownership rates in the world. Even inner city neighborhoods often had generous yards, even close to downtown, in neighborhoods like Brush Park, Woodbridge, and Boston Edison. Only the segregated slums had density, largely due to racism and the temporary wartime housing shortage.

In contrast, some place like the Bronx is multifamily, renter-dominated, transit-oriented. It's the anti-Detroit, at least in the American context.

[ghettopalmetto]

Detroit was never remotely like "the Bronx or Queens". The Bronx has nearly 4 times Detroit's peak density. Western Queens has even denser neighborhoods.

Detroit was the prewar version of a current Sunbelt city. Dominated by single family homes, with yards, and with some of the highest homeownership and auto ownership rates in the world. Even inner city neighborhoods often had generous yards, even close to downtown, in neighborhoods like Brush Park, Woodbridge, and Boston Edison. Only the segregated slums had density, largely due to racism and the temporary wartime housing shortage.

Because Lord knows, Detroit is the only city on earth with single-family homes.

I like how your [[intentionally?) ambiguous language allows you to constantly move the goalposts.

[nain rouge]

Detroit was never remotely like "the Bronx or Queens". The Bronx has nearly 4 times Detroit's peak density. Western Queens has even denser neighborhoods.

Queens didn't get over 10,000 people per square mile until the '40s. The Bronx didn't get over 20,000 people per square mile than Detroit. Detroit had about 12,500 people per square mile in 1910. It was at 13,000 people per square mile in 1950, about neck and neck with Queens at that time. South Bronx capturing all the spillover from Manhattan is what really put it into a different category from Detroit. Areas like the East Bronx, I'd argue, are closer to old Detroit than Manhattan in terms of built environment.

You're right in that Detroit began detaching itself from urban growth patterns by the mid-20s, embracing the suburban model. Detroit's outer neighborhoods have nothing in common with older urban cities. That said, Detroit had over 200,000 people even in 1890! They had to be living in an urban environment, right? None of your beloved Southern sprawls in the top 10 had over 200,000 people until 1920.

Face it, Metro Detroit should have an urban core, even if its not the center of all the region's economic activity. Any historic city of its stature and vintage in America has some sort of historic core, or its region is struggling or stagnant. It's pretty simple.

The way you equate density with slums is hilarious. You sound like a crazy old grandpa. Tell me another war story!

[nain rouge]

[[Bham, visibly confused, looks up from his monitor and gazes at the other patrons at Dunkin' Donuts. "Houston!" he screams. "HOUSTON! And you know I'm right.")

[Mikeg]

Chicken or the egg?

Yes, there is an element of that and that is why I used the terms "pull" and "push" to describe how the "disassembly line" was powered. However, all city leaders have a responsibility to "work the levers" and "tweak the dials" within their control to ensure their housing stock doesn't end up on the "disassembly line". To ignore that factor as the author did simply reduces his op-ed into another one of those "blame the other" screeds. I would expect better from a WSU prof.

[Bham1982]

Queens didn't get over 10,000 people per square mile until the '40s. The Bronx didn't get over 20,000 people per square mile than Detroit. Detroit had about 12,500 people per square mile in 1910.

You realize the Bronx and Queens were rural counties back then, right? Both counties were urbanized following expansion of the subway from the 1920s through the 1940's.

And why on earth would you compare two areas by looking back in 1910? That makes no sense whatsoever. You could argue that Novi was the same as Paris back then, as both areas had few cars and little sprawl, because obviously there were almost no cars or real sprawl back then.

The way you equate density with slums is hilarious. You sound like a crazy old grandpa. Tell me another war story!

The way you fail basic reading comprehension is even more hilarious. I never "equated density with slums". I wrote that, in Detroit, the only dense areas were slums, which is true. I never claimed that density is inherently slum-like, only that Detroit specifically had no desirable areas with density.

The second that African Americans had residential options, the dense neighborhoods in Detroit rapidly depopulated. The remaining density was nothing more than a legacy of segregation.

[nain rouge]

And why on earth would you compare two areas by looking back in 1910? That makes no sense whatsoever. You could argue that Novi was the same as Paris back then, as both areas had few cars and little sprawl, because obviously there were almost no cars or real sprawl back then.

Yes, why on earth would one consult the history books? What good could that possibly do?

My point was that any city built up to that degree by that early of date had to be predominately urban. It was a way to counteract your initial claims that Detroit was never urban. Stop trying to argue in labyrinthine circles, thinking you can confuse people.

As for the Bronx and Queens: By 1910, the Bronx had roughly 400,000 people, and Queens 300,000. And believe me, that wasn't a rural population. Like Detroit at that time, you had urban developments rapidly encroaching on what was formerly farmland and wilderness. The difference being, obviously, that the Bronx and Queens continued to grow in an urban pattern, while Detroit moved to a suburban model in the late 1920s.

And sure, I'll compare Novi to Paris. Ever been to the Fountain Walk?

I never claimed that density is inherently slum-like, only that Detroit specifically had no desirable areas with density.

So... wait. You don't equate density with slums. Except in Detroit, where you equate all density with slums. Do you realize how that reads like a bunch of nonsense?

[BankruptcyGuy]

Nice strawman attacks. Nowhere did I claim it was leading people to move into the city although estimates of the current population have shown a significant increase since the 2010 Census.

As for your argument that voters wouldn't have approved the Greenbelt millage if they had seen its current form, perhaps you can explain why almost 70% of Scio Township voters renewed the Township's Farmland and Open Space Preservation millage in 2012? Or Webster Township voters did the same in 2009 with their Farmland Preservation millage? Or when County voters approved extending and expanding the 0.25 mill to allow for farmland preservation with strong support from city voters in 2010? Voters have had plenty of opportunities to reject extending or expanding the greenbelt concept and every time it's been up for a vote in one of the participating communities, it has passed.

It isn't a "straw man", it was the proposed justification for the concept--if we buy up development rights from this suburban land, we will draw people into the inner core. It is demonstrably false.

I suggest that we open up the conversation to the broader group. Detroiters, what would you say about the following concept:

1. There is currently a $30,000,000 tax, solely paid by Detroiters, that supports public parks.
2. We're going to let that tax lapse, have a new $30,000,000, also paid solely by Detroiters, and set up a fund with it instead.
3. We are going to go into the suburbs of Detroit, and use that fund to buy up development rights for farmland. We'll be making sure that it stays farmland forever.
4. This may or may not lead to more development in the city.

The other option is to have the tax continue to be used for public parks. Which would you prefer?

[iheartthed]

Detroit was the prewar version of a current Sunbelt city. Dominated by single family homes, with yards, and with some of the highest homeownership and auto ownership rates in the world. Even inner city neighborhoods often had generous yards, even close to downtown, in neighborhoods like Brush Park, Woodbridge, and Boston Edison. Only the segregated slums had density, largely due to racism and the temporary wartime housing shortage.

In contrast, some place like the Bronx is multifamily, renter-dominated, transit-oriented. It's the anti-Detroit, at least in the American context.

That isn't true. Below is the list of population, land area and population density for the 20 largest cities as of the 1920 census:


1 New York city, NY *...... 5,620,048 299.0 18,796
2 Chicago city, IL......... 2,701,705 192.8 14,013
3 Philadelphia city, PA.... 1,823,779 128.0 14,248
4 Detroit city, MI......... 993,078 77.9 12,748
5 Cleveland city, OH....... 796,841 56.4 14,128
6 St. Louis city, MO....... 772,897 61.0 12,670
7 Boston city, MA.......... 748,060 43.5 17,197
8 Baltimore city, MD....... 733,826 79.0 9,289
9 Pittsburgh city, PA...... 588,343 39.9 14,745
10 Los Angeles city, CA..... 576,673 365.7 1,577
11 Buffalo city, NY......... 506,775 38.9 13,028
12 San Francisco city, CA... 506,676 42.0 12,064
13 Milwaukee city, WI....... 457,147 25.3 18,069
14 Washington city, DC...... 437,571 60.0 7,293
15 Newark city, NJ.......... 414,524 23.3 17,791
16 Cincinnati city, OH...... 401,247 71.1 5,643
17 New Orleans city, LA..... 387,219 178.0 2,175
18 Minneapolis city, MN..... 380,582 49.7 7,658
19 Kansas City city, MO..... 324,410 58.4 5,555
20 Seattle city, WA......... 315,312 58.6 5,381

http://www.census.gov/population/www.../twps0027.htmlIn 1920,

Detroit's population density was roughly 70% that of New York City [[which was the densest major city in the country at the time, beating Milwaukee by a hair). By comparison, Houston has a population density as of 2010 that is 13% the density of New York City. Pre-war Detroit was far more like NYC than a Sun Belt city is to NYC or pre-war Detroit.

Even if you compare Detroit's 1950 peak population density to NYC's current density, Detroit was roughly 50% of current NYC density. It was nothing like a Sun Belt city.

[ghettopalmetto]

The way you fail basic reading comprehension is even more hilarious. I never "equated density with slums". I wrote that, in Detroit, the only dense areas were slums, which is true. I never claimed that density is inherently slum-like, only that Detroit specifically had no desirable areas with density.

The second that African Americans had residential options, the dense neighborhoods in Detroit rapidly depopulated. The remaining density was nothing more than a legacy of segregation.

It's interesting that you'll engage in a protracted argument about "density" [[or lack thereof), yet you never bothered to define your threshold for what constitutes "density".

There is *always* density. The magnitude of it, however, is what I think you're trying to address.

[nain rouge]

That isn't true. Below is the list of population, land area and population density for the 20 largest cities as of the 1920 census:

For Bham, this was Detroit at its peak:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNnh9ws8Apg. Detroit, "city on the move" in the swinging '60s. He figures that's what Detroit was. But by then we'd already decimated huge swaths of the old city, and as history shows, the city was in fact at the brink of destruction.

[Bham1982]

[/COLOR]
Yes, why on earth would one consult the history books? What good could that possibly do?

Ok, then by your logic every city on earth is exactly the same, because with every city we can go back to a point somewhere in history where there is a similar built form. Rome was a tiny village at one point too, therefore Rome and Romeo are the same, I guess?

My point was that any city built up to that degree by that early of date had to be predominately urban.

Every city on earth was "predominately urban" in 1910. There was no sprawl or auto-oriented development back then. What's your point? Tokyo is the same as Clarkston today because neither had sprawl in 1910?

So... wait. You don't equate density with slums. Except in Detroit, where you equate all density with slums. Do you realize how that reads like a bunch of nonsense?

I never equated density with slums; I wrote that, in Detroit, all dense areas were undesirable slums. As soon as people could move, they did move. Not my fault if you don't get it.

[Bham1982]

Even if you compare Detroit's 1950 peak population density to NYC's current density, Detroit was roughly 50% of current NYC density. It was nothing like a Sun Belt city.

Why was Detroit nothing like a Sunbelt city? It was extremely auto-oriented, dominated by single family homes and homeownership. In what way would Detroit not be a 1940's version of a present Atlanta or Dallas? Fast growing, sprawl everywhere, incredible economic growth.

It had a fraction of NYC's density, even though Detroit was fully developed at the time, and much of NYC was still empty. Even the peak wartime density, when households were incredibly overcrowded [[owing to the ban on wartime housing construction), the populaton density trailed that of other cities, and the built density was never close.

[ghettopalmetto]

Why was Detroit nothing like a Sunbelt city? It was extremely auto-oriented, dominated by single family homes and homeownership. In what way would Detroit not be a 1940's version of a present Atlanta or Dallas? Fast growing, sprawl everywhere, incredible economic growth.

It had a fraction of NYC's density, even though Detroit was fully developed at the time, and much of NYC was still empty. Even the peak wartime density, when households were incredibly overcrowded [[owing to the ban on wartime housing construction), the populaton density trailed that of other cities, and the built density was never close.

This is the best use of ambiguous, absolutely meaningless language I've ever seen. I'm going to guess you're not an attorney, Bham?