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

[DetroitPlanner]

What is Ann Arbor doing right? Simple. It has been the recipient of billions of dollars in aid and fees because of its university. But Detroit has to pull itself up by its bootstraps, yes?

This region is a joke, and you, DP, could be its court jester.

The U is not paying any taxes on what it owns. It costs the City a lot more than it provides.

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/.../01/pilot.html

Think about how much in police pay alone goes to support the greedy giant.

[Wesley Mouch]

What is Ann Arbor doing right? Simple. It has been the recipient of billions of dollars in aid and fees because of its university. But Detroit has to pull itself up by its bootstraps, yes?

This region is a joke, and you, DP, could be its court jester.

DN, you're completely right about A**2 -- any university town has nothing to do with reality.

But Detroit has had to pull itself up by its bootstraps? No. Detroit hasn't pulled anything up. And that's the problem. Detroit was in complete denial about its problems -- and was blaming others for every slight imaginable instead of building a successful community. CAY pursued federal money instead of local pride. Great strategy while Washington was generous.

The great thing about bankruptcy is that we're actually dealing with our problems. At least the adults are.

[iheartthed]

The U is not paying any taxes on what it owns. It costs the City a lot more than it provides.

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/.../01/pilot.html

Think about how much in police pay alone goes to support the greedy giant.

Are you serious? Do you seriously think Ann Arbor could maintain its tax base if the University suddenly picked up and moved tomorrow?

And the University has its own deputized police force.

[Detroitnerd]

The U is not paying any taxes on what it owns. It costs the City a lot more than it provides.

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/.../01/pilot.html

Think about how much in police pay alone goes to support the greedy giant.

Oh, yes. OK, I change my mind. Poor, poor Ann Arbor.

[Hermod]

Your land is bullshit. I'll give you cash if you let me pave it and build a Meijer, Applebees, and a CVS. And if you don't, I'll sue. Have a nice day.

Interesting that Hermod has such definitive [[and apparently universally applicable) conclusions without any substantiating evidence whatsoever. It must be that infallible Correctness of Opinion, huh?

1. Most of Oakland and Macomb were farmlands [[and some woods) prior to 1900 [[so was most of Wayne). Fact or opinion?

2. Most of the subdivisions and shopping centers out there are sitting on former farmland. Fact or opinion?

3. The farmers or their heirs sold the land to the residential and commercial developers, it was not stolen. Fact or opinion?

[mwilbert]

I think you are looking at aesthetics wwhen I say attractive. I mean much more than that: an area with good schools, a well run police/fire departments, and kept-up parks is attractive to those who want to buy a home.

No I am not. You don't seem to be responding to my point at all, which was not in any way specific to Detroit. People who want to live an urban lifestyle are different from those who like the exurbs. You can't, in general, stop people from moving to the exurbs by making the center city attractive [[in your sense) because that isn't where people moving to the exurbs want to live.

Your point seems to be that people want nice things wherever they live, which is presumably true but not relevant. One of the Detroit metro's problems is that it doesn't offer much for people who want an urban lifestyle. Those people don't want to live in sprawlville. I expect that one reason why Ann Arbor is doing well is that it attracts people in the general area who don't have other attractive [[in your sense) nearby urban options.

[mwilbert]

The U is not paying any taxes on what it owns. It costs the City a lot more than it provides.

http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/.../01/pilot.html

Think about how much in police pay alone goes to support the greedy giant.

You must realize this is an absurd argument. Ann Arbor would look like Saline or something if the university weren't there. This is not to say that means that there isn't any burden on the town, but to the extent Ann Arbor is thriving, it is because of UM, not in spite of it. I listened to this nonsense in Cambridge MA regarding Harvard and MIT for decades. I'm immune.

[FbO Vorcha]

If 220,000 people is "a fairly negligible amount", and in a smaller area, no less, then you have no concept of numbers.

It's the only U.S. city that is not auto-oriented and is reasonably dense by global standards.

I'm not going to argue with you on this, you're wrong.

[DetroitPlanner]

You must realize this is an absurd argument. Ann Arbor would look like Saline or something if the university weren't there. This is not to say that means that there isn't any burden on the town, but to the extent Ann Arbor is thriving, it is because of UM, not in spite of it. I listened to this nonsense in Cambridge MA regarding Harvard and MIT for decades. I'm immune.

Its your arrogance that makes you immune. You have made up your mind and you can't possibly be wrong now can you?

LOL all I said was the university takes more than it gives. A huge chunk of AA is under its non-table control. It is not like AA has an income tax and the sales tax goes to the state. Outside of the Univeristy, lots of people live in Ann Arbor that have no ties to the U, They live there why? Because it is attractive [[schools, safe, parks). Detroit's neighborhoods are not.

That is why you must fix that to fix the sprawl issue. You [[everyone) likes to blame the burbs all the time for Detroit's woes. Well Detroit owns the water, and you need water to sprawl. This comes first, years before congested roads. So the City has some culpability in the sprawl. They are part of what created it. This is a draw for people. The city also pushes people out by not providing safe neighborhoods, adequate public safety, clean parks, and does not work well with the schools. These push people out of the city. This IS the reason why 300k at the last census! It wasn't sprawl! Sprawl did not expand hardly at all in the 2000 decade. We were fighting wars and recessions, both curb growth.

So keep your head buried in the sand and wondering why the City continues to erode its tax base. This ain't rocket science. I am just glad that our new council is beholden to the neighborhoods, and we have a Mayor that gets this now.

[nain rouge]

Its your arrogance that makes you immune. You have made up your mind and you can't possibly be wrong now can you?

LOL all I said was the university takes more than it gives. A huge chunk of AA is under its non-table control. It is not like AA has an income tax and the sales tax goes to the state. Outside of the Univeristy, lots of people live in Ann Arbor that have no ties to the U, They live there why? Because it is attractive [[schools, safe, parks). Detroit's neighborhoods are not.

Hate to say it, but you're way off here. Any Michigan mayor would take U of M off AA's hands in a heartbeat. A marquee university is a huge boon to any town. It's not even up for debate, really.

listened to this nonsense in Cambridge MA regarding Harvard and MIT for decades.

That reminds of Columbus, OH. Everyone asks, "What is Columbus doing that Cincinnati and Cleveland aren't?" Well, it's pretty simple. Columbus is the state capital and has the state's most important university. Give those assets to Cleveland or Cincinnati and we'd be asking why Columbus sucks so much.

[iheartthed]

The city also pushes people out by not providing safe neighborhoods, adequate public safety, clean parks, and does not work well with the schools. These push people out of the city. This IS the reason why 300k at the last census! It wasn't sprawl! Sprawl did not expand hardly at all in the 2000 decade. We were fighting wars and recessions, both curb growth.

If it was indeed the state of the city and its ability to provide public safety, etc., then why didn't more people leave during the 1990s than the 2000s? The crime rate in Detroit was significantly higher in the 1990s than the 2000s. The economy was significantly better in the 1990s than the 2000s. So people theoretically would have had both the incentive and the means to leave more easily. Yet, the 1990s was the decade when Detroit's population declined the least of any decade since 1950.

[Detroitnerd]

But, but, but ... my vague understanding of the statistics dovetails neatly with my preconceived notions of how things work!

[SDCC]

You must realize this is an absurd argument. Ann Arbor would look like Saline or something if the university weren't there. This is not to say that means that there isn't any burden on the town, but to the extent Ann Arbor is thriving, it is because of UM, not in spite of it. I listened to this nonsense in Cambridge MA regarding Harvard and MIT for decades. I'm immune.

Agreed, and there isn't a single business in A2 that doesn't recognize this fact. The students are the bread, butter and the steak too. They are sorely missed when their on breaks. I would assert any big ten city [[I've seen all of them) would say the same thing.

[mwilbert]

Its your arrogance that makes you immune. You have made up your mind and you can't possibly be wrong now can you?

I'm wrong every so often. Not about this. How could I be wrong? I only asserted something that is obviously true, which is that Ann Arbor benefits from the presence of U-M.

LOL all I said was the university takes more than it gives. A huge chunk of AA is under its non-table control. It is not like AA has an income tax and the sales tax goes to the state.

Here you are confusing two concepts that I think I separated clearly, but I will restate. It is very likely that the direct costs of housing the University to Ann Arbor are higher than the tax revenue the city gets directly from the University, so in that sense it takes more than it gives. The indirect benefits to the city, just in terms of the property value of city properties not owned by the University, are vastly higher, and in that sense it gives more than it takes. The second sense is much more important if you are talking about why Ann Arbor is a relatively successful city. And that was, in fact, the context you made the statement in.

Outside of the Univeristy, lots of people live in Ann Arbor that have no ties to the U, They live there why? Because it is attractive [[schools, safe, parks). Detroit's neighborhoods are not.

Those people with no ties to the University, do some of them perhaps work for businesses that cater to people who work or study there? Or perhaps some of them work for the businesses that are located there because of the presence of the University? Or perhaps some of them are drawn by the amenities of a university town? Only a small fraction of the population of metro Washington works for the Federal government, and the Federal government doesn't pay taxes either, yet somehow the region seems advantaged by the Federal presence.

That is why you must fix that to fix the sprawl issue.

How does the existence of a functional urban location imply this? As far as I can tell this just makes no sense.

You [[everyone) likes to blame the burbs all the time for Detroit's woes.

You must be thinking of someone else. The region is seriously messed up, but that isn't the source of Detroit's problems. You were correct earlier when you pointed out the world has changed a lot since 1950, and Detroit was built for the world of 1950, and hasn't been able to adapt. Lots, maybe most, central cities declined significantly from 1950. That isn't the fault of the suburbs, or of the city either for that matter. However in the past couple of decades, a number of them have adapted to the new conditions and stabilized or started growing again. Detroit has not. I am convinced that the inevitable decline could have been managed much better, and the fact that it wasn't is not the fault of the suburbs. The inability of the city and suburbs to achieve any significant cooperation is not all because of the suburbs either.

Well Detroit owns the water, and you need water to sprawl.This comes first, years before congested roads. So the City has some culpability in the sprawl. They are part of what created it. This is a draw for people.

Maybe. It isn't as if there wasn't plenty of water around. If Detroit hadn't supplied the service, eventually someone would have built a separate system. Think Genesee County. It would have cost more, but not enough to keep people from doing it.

The city also pushes people out by not providing safe neighborhoods, adequate public safety, clean parks, and does not work well with the schools. These push people out of the city.

Of course they do, but as was pointed out elsewhere in this thread, hundreds of thousands of people left the city before those problems surfaced, while the parks were lovely, schools were excellent, and crime reasonable. Once you get into a downward spiral of population loss, revenue loss, and property value decline it is hard to get out again.

This IS the reason why 300k at the last census!

I agree. The population losses of the recent decades are primarily about the negatives of the city.

It wasn't sprawl! Sprawl did not expand hardly at all in the 2000 decade. We were fighting wars and recessions, both curb growth.

Again, we don't disagree here. My claim is exactly that people who want to live in sprawl and people who want to live in the city are now basically separate groups. Possibly sprawl in the 1950's and 60's caused some of Detroit's problems, but sprawl causes problems for the next ring in--we're a couple rings past caring in Detroit. The most you can say is that the money spent on building and maintaining the infrastructure of sprawl could perhaps be better spent maintaining less extensive infrastructure to a higher standard.

[ABetterDetroit]

Don't worry about so much, 4,5 and 8 $ gasoline will solve your fears for you.

[Hermod]

Don't worry about so much, 4,5 and 8 $ gasoline will solve your fears for you.

Reminds me of an airplane flight I took from DC to Detroit back in the mid-70s. My seat mate worked at the US DOT and he was expounding on how when gas hit $1 per gallon, the car was dead and how public transit [[he was going to a transit conference in Detroit) was the only way people were going to move.

[Zacha341]

I hear that. And, well the elite and smart people in the room who make decisions that impact gas prices are not effected. They will continue to drive and jet about high price or not. And yes, unapologetically I prefer private transpo in a car, over public transportation......

Reminds me of an airplane flight I took from DC to Detroit back in the mid-70s. My seat mate worked at the US DOT and he was expounding on how when gas hit $1 per gallon, the car was dead and how public transit [[he was going to a transit conference in Detroit) was the only way people were going to move.

[DetroitPlanner]

If it was indeed the state of the city and its ability to provide public safety, etc., then why didn't more people leave during the 1990s than the 2000s? The crime rate in Detroit was significantly higher in the 1990s than the 2000s. The economy was significantly better in the 1990s than the 2000s. So people theoretically would have had both the incentive and the means to leave more easily. Yet, the 1990s was the decade when Detroit's population declined the least of any decade since 1950.

That is a pretty simplistic way of looking at things. You need to compare Detroit to the region as a whole. You can't just pull out one piece of the pie. You also need to look at trends, for example 1990 was late in the crack cocaine epidemic. It was also a recession. Unemployment and narcotics don't mix well, regardless of whether you live in the suburbs or not. I agree the country was on a roll in the 1990s. However, Detroit's neighborhoods remained very stable in the 1990s. In the 2000's we had an expansion of section 8 vouchers as credit was cheap and old folks were dying off. Lets just face it section 8 did a lot to destroy many stable neighborhoods in the city. Once a few landlords were on a block, not giving a crap about keeping the property clean and the poverty culture moved in, newly emancipated City employees high tailed it out to places with better schools, dependable police, and maintained parks.

[iheartthed]

That is a pretty simplistic way of looking at things. You need to compare Detroit to the region as a whole. You can't just pull out one piece of the pie. You also need to look at trends, for example 1990 was late in the crack cocaine epidemic. It was also a recession. Unemployment and narcotics don't mix well, regardless of whether you live in the suburbs or not. I agree the country was on a roll in the 1990s. However, Detroit's neighborhoods remained very stable in the 1990s. In the 2000's we had an expansion of section 8 vouchers as credit was cheap and old folks were dying off. Lets just face it section 8 did a lot to destroy many stable neighborhoods in the city. Once a few landlords were on a block, not giving a crap about keeping the property clean and the poverty culture moved in, newly emancipated City employees high tailed it out to places with better schools, dependable police, and maintained parks.

At best there were like 50,000 city employees in the 1990s. Assuming every since one of them left after the 2000 census, that still doesn't explain the 200,000 others who left as well, who were also very capable of leaving during the 1990s.
Just so we're on the same page:
209,000 people left the city in the 1950s
156,000 people left in the 1960s
310,000 people left in the 1970s
175,000 people left in the 1980s
76,000 people left in the 1990s
237,000 people left in the 2000s

Something I find peculiar about this is how consistent the raw population decline has stayed despite a shrinking overall city population. So each decade [[except the 1990s) there is a larger percentage of the city leaving, even though in theory you should be running out of people with the financial means to leave. I don't know what that says to you, but to me it says that something is going on in the communities outside of Detroit to make moving artificially cheaper than it probably should be.

[Wesley Mouch]

Reminds me of an airplane flight I took from DC to Detroit back in the mid-70s. My seat mate worked at the US DOT and he was expounding on how when gas hit $1 per gallon, the car was dead and how public transit [[he was going to a transit conference in Detroit) was the only way people were going to move.

$1 in 1972 = $5.62 in 2014 per US Gov't inflation calculator. So we're no yet near $1/gallon [[1972) gas, unless you consider mid-70's to be 1977 instead... in which case $1 = $3.91.

[ghettopalmetto]

A marquee university is a huge boon to any town. It's not even up for debate, really.

That reminds of Columbus, OH. Everyone asks, "What is Columbus doing that Cincinnati and Cleveland aren't?" Well, it's pretty simple. Columbus is the state capital and has the state's most important university. Give those assets to Cleveland or Cincinnati and we'd be asking why Columbus sucks so much.

I still ask why Columbus sucks so much. I mean, if you like shopping malls and Max & Erma's and terrible suburban schlock housing within the city limits, I suppose it's pretty terrific. There's just no "there" there.

[Wesley Mouch]

At best there were like 50,000 city employees in the 1990s. Assuming every since one of them left after the 2000 census, that still doesn't explain the 200,000 others who left as well, who were also very capable of leaving during the 1990s.
Just so we're on the same page:
209,000 people left the city in the 1950s
156,000 people left in the 1960s
310,000 people left in the 1970s
175,000 people left in the 1980s
76,000 people left in the 1990s
237,000 people left in the 2000s

Something I find peculiar about this is how consistent the raw population decline has stayed despite a shrinking overall city population. So each decade [[except the 1990s) there is a larger percentage of the city leaving, even though in theory you should be running out of people with the financial means to leave. I don't know what that says to you, but to me it says that something is going on in the communities outside of Detroit to make moving artificially cheaper than it probably should be.

Simplistic depopulation causes by decade:

-50s-60s: Cities were all too dense -- Detroit depopulating to a reasonable level as we chased the American Dream.

'70s-80s: Whites left to escape ideologically-driven forced integration [[bussing), highlighted by riots and crime.

90s-aughts: Blacks joined the exodus because they could, and because the dysfunctional liberal dream-ville didn't provide them the schools, safely, and opportunity found in the suburbs -- and the civil rights movement opened enough minds to make the suburbs open to all. [[Racists all moved Dearborn to Howell, or Warren to Richmond.)

[Hermod]

$1 in 1972 = $5.62 in 2014 per US Gov't inflation calculator. So we're no yet near $1/gallon [[1972) gas, unless you consider mid-70's to be 1977 instead... in which case $1 = $3.91.

I forget the year, gas was about $0.58 then.

[Bham1982]

U-M is a GIGANTIC net positive for Ann Arbor. Obviously they're aren't paying direct taxes on their holdings, but don't cry for A2, they're possibly the luckiest town in Michigan to have a gigantic world-class university fed by billions spent and tens of thousands of students/faculty from around the world.

Also, re. Detroit population loss, people are conflating population loss with outmigration. A city can have huge flight yet maintain population [[because of huge immigration). Alternatively a city can have minimal flight yet lose population [[because of very low inmigration).

A good example is NYC in the 1960's. Suburban flight was at its historic peak, yet the population rose [[in part because of newcomers from Puerto Rico and the Immigration Act of 1965, which opened U.S. borders).

[Novine]

The presence of a university and the disposable income of tens of thousands of students is no guarantee of success. Ann Arbor is doing far better than either Lansing, which should also benefit from state government, or Kalamazoo. Before the partisans start in with how much better U-M is than either MSU or Western in terms of the quality of the school or the quality of the faculty, staff, students, etc., that's not the point. Ann Arbor is doing more with the benefits it gets from the presence of the university than its peer cities that are similarly situated.