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

[Bham1982]

The presence of a university and the disposable income of tens of thousands of students is no guarantee of success.

Very true, but it helps. Kalamazoo and Lansing are still a lot healthier than their peer cities across the Midwest, and yeah, the relative global rep. probably makes a difference. U-M student/faculty/affiliates are likely more affluent, cosmopolitan and globally-oriented than in other MI college towns, and this [[positively) impacts the locale.

[maverick1]

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.

Good point. When people say Detroit's population will drop further the 2010 numbers I struggle to understand how. I look at the statistics of the current population and I don't see it. Where are they going? If people are as poor and downtrodden as statistics say how can they just get up an move to better areas. That's usually a privilege of being educated and middle class.

[Bham1982]

If people are as poor and downtrodden as statistics say how can they just get up an move to better areas. That's usually a privilege of being educated and middle class.

Places like South Warren, Hazel Park, Redford, Ecorse, etc. don't really cost more than undesirable parts of Detroit.

[DetroitPlanner]

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.

There were several pushes in the 2000's as well that increased the cost of living in it. These included an additional tax to build and maintain schools, the closure of neighborhood schools many of which were renovated with a 1994 millage increase; the increased lack of jobs for people with little skills in the City, the decrease in transit service, the corruption of KMK [[which was a total embarassment), having to deal with more lawless neighbors as homes were converted to section 8 then lost, stripped and left for dead and ever increasing water bills going up at 20-30 percent at a time. It was a spiral that made Detroit neighborhoods suddenly not so cheap to live in, with very poor quality of life.

You could look to places like Warren, Hazel Park, Taylor, Lincoln Park and think 'I can live there, pay way less in insurance, taxes, and loss from petty theft AND have better schools, police protection, parks, access to shopping, SMART, and have a better quality of life. SCORE!

Now I get hipsters would rather live in Detroit, but they are a small percentage of the general population, don't have kids, and can afford to live in neighborhoods with trendy names. Your average Joe can't.

[aj3647]

You could look to places like Warren, Hazel Park, Taylor, Lincoln Park and think 'I can live there, pay way less in insurance, taxes, and loss from petty theft AND have better schools, police protection, parks, access to shopping, SMART, and have a better quality of life. SCORE!

Many of those cities are on a steady decline though. In another 10-15 years, Lincoln Park won't look all that much different from many areas of Detroit. Add LP to the list of cities that will probably end up with an Emergency Manager.

[DetroitPlanner]

Many of those cities are on a steady decline though. In another 10-15 years, Lincoln Park won't look all that much different from many areas of Detroit. Add LP to the list of cities that will probably end up with an Emergency Manager.

If you lived in Brightmoor you would jump at the chance to move here and save a few bucks every month. Still way better even in decline.

[Pickford-Bentler]

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

Does it matter?

Your point holds because there were also people predicting the death of the car, circa 2008, because gasoline was going to go past $5 on the way to $10.

Also, in the 1970s, a car got about 50% of the mileage one gets today.

So you could also argue that constant dollar cost per mile has gone down over time.

[iheartthed]

You could look to places like Warren, Hazel Park, Taylor, Lincoln Park and think 'I can live there, pay way less in insurance, taxes, and loss from petty theft AND have better schools, police protection, parks, access to shopping, SMART, and have a better quality of life. SCORE!

Which raises the question: why are those places so cheap? If they are better places to live, have better amenities, and are outside of the control of the dysfunctional city that everyone apparently wants to get away from, then those places should be more expensive than the city. Right??

[313WX]

Good point. When people say Detroit's population will drop further the 2010 numbers I struggle to understand how. I look at the statistics of the current population and I don't see it. Where are they going? If people are as poor and downtrodden as statistics say how can they just get up an move to better areas. That's usually a privilege of being educated and middle class.

As far as who I know personally, they're moving out of state entirely to live with relatives. Also, since the subprime mortgage crisis happened, a lot of section 8 housing has become available in the inner ring suburbs, as those families [[trying to supposedly get as far away from the "Detroit creep" as possible) moved out to places such as Rochester, Chesterfield Township, Canton and Shelby Township.

Why would anyone who's not a hipster or who's years aren't short voluntarily remain in Detroit right now?

[maverick1]

As far as who I know personally, they're moving out of state entirely to live with relatives. Also, since the subprime mortgage crisis happened, a lot of section 8 housing has become available in the inner ring suburbs, as those families [[trying to supposedly get as far away from the "Detroit creep" as possible) moved out to places such as Rochester, Chesterfield Township, Canton and Shelby Township.

Why would anyone who's not a hipster or who's years aren't short voluntarily remain in Detroit right now?

I live in SW Detroit and I ask myself that. I'm not a hipster nor do I have short years. For some reason I feel things will improve but the feeling is slowly eroding. I see improvement but like my friends from other cities ask "Why does it take so long for things to change in Detroit?". Things seem to improve much faster in places that don't have 1/2 the resources we have. My job keeps me here but for how long? I don't know.

[maverick1]

Which raises the question: why those places are so cheap? If they are better places to live, have better amenities, and are outside of the control of the dysfunctional city that everyone apparently wants to get away from, then those places should be more expensive than the city. Right??

Right!!! I would like to know why they are cheap and why they haven't seen as much blight as similar neighborhoods in Detroit.

[FbO Vorcha]

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.

Lansing/East Lansing is an actual metropolitan area with the attendant problems. It has several [[or had, at this point I'm not sure) auto plants. State Government is currently controlled by a group who HATES government [[always the people you want in charge, people who hate what you've left them in charge of. Bit like leaving Joan Crawford in charge of wire hangers.) and is in the process of trying to destroy as much of it as possible.

So, what we have occuring in Lansing is an actual city, not some podunk town with a university attached and no other major source of funding. Lansing's economy is heavily dependent on government operations, and they've been slashing budgets with a chainsaw for thirty years now.

So, Rust-Belt city, State Government on the skids, large population of unskilled [[read that manual) laborers, vs large town with major research university and hospital with attendant income levels and investment draw and you can see why Ann Arbor is doing ok.

[313WX]

Lansing/East Lansing is an actual metropolitan area with the attendant problems. It has several [[or had, at this point I'm not sure) auto plants. State Government is currently controlled by a group who HATES government [[always the people you want in charge, people who hate what you've left them in charge of. Bit like leaving Joan Crawford in charge of wire hangers.) and is in the process of trying to destroy as much of it as possible.

So, what we have occuring in Lansing is an actual city, not some podunk town with a university attached and no other major source of funding. Lansing's economy is heavily dependent on government operations, and they've been slashing budgets with a chainsaw for thirty years now.

So, Rust-Belt city, State Government on the skids, large population of unskilled [[read that manual) laborers, vs large town with major research university and hospital with attendant income levels and investment draw and you can see why Ann Arbor is doing ok.

Well besides all of that, it's simply the fact that MSU isn't nearly as prestigious of a school as U of M [[which is a top 10 public university).

[FbO Vorcha]

Well besides all of that, it's simply the fact that MSU isn't nearly as prestigious of a school as U of M [[which is a top 10 public university).

You're right, 'Jew-U' does have a better rep, deserved or not.

[Hermod]

Well besides all of that, it's simply the fact that MSU isn't nearly as prestigious of a school as U of M [[which is a top 10 public university).

At least they don't call it "Moo U" any more. My father went to MSU 1931 to 1935 when it was MSC [[and just recently changed from MAC). My uncle and a cousin also were MSC grads.

[Wesley Mouch]

Which raises the question: why are those places so cheap? If they are better places to live, have better amenities, and are outside of the control of the dysfunctional city that everyone apparently wants to get away from, then those places should be more expensive than the city. Right??

Combination of subsidized sprawl and the high cost of dysfunctional government.

I work with some small suburban governments, and they are very lean these days. The citizens don't let them go crazy. The citizens are engaged and don't let their cities create endless bureaucracy. Bigger cities are harder to manage. When Ferndale runs out of money, they lay off people. Detroit borrows, shifts, hides. Its a self-serving, rent-seeking machine that only thinks about citizens in between munching money.

[nain rouge]

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.

I'm not going to turn this into a discussion about Columbus, but I'd hardly fault the city for annexing its suburbs. The majority of the nice areas in metros like Detroit and Cleveland are no better. And as we see with Indy, annexation really is the only way for the typical Midwest city to bring investment back to the core.

Short North and German Village in Columbus are urban treasures. It's not all schlock.

[DetroitPlanner]

Which raises the question: why are those places so cheap? If they are better places to live, have better amenities, and are outside of the control of the dysfunctional city that everyone apparently wants to get away from, then those places should be more expensive than the city. Right??

These were never high income areas to begin with. It is not that they are cheap, but they have certain benefits that families in particular will find beneficial and attractive. The real issue is in the costs of living in Detroit's neighborhoods are higher than one would expect.

When listing things that are more expensive in Detroit I forgot the cost of burglar alarm service and the land-line or internet needed to make it work. That can easily be $1,500 a year alone.

[DetroitPlanner]

Short North and German Village in Columbus are urban treasures. It's not all schlock.

German Village has a Max and Erma's! I ate there once and would hardly classify that as not being 'urban hipster'. The same folks you see hanging in Corktown eat there. Columbus does not suck. It is fairly typical for a large midwest metro. It has COSI, nice parks, a world class zoo, is a State Capitol and home to a massive University.

[iheartthed]

These were never high income areas to begin with. It is not that they are cheap, but they have certain benefits that families in particular will find beneficial and attractive. The real issue is in the costs of living in Detroit's neighborhoods are higher than one would expect.

When listing things that are more expensive in Detroit I forgot the cost of burglar alarm service and the land-line or internet needed to make it work. That can easily be $1,500 a year alone.

Are you familiar with the principle of "what the market will bear?" You seem to be advocating for a laissez-faire redevelopment strategy of Detroit through having the city center compete with sprawl by providing low crime rates and better schools. But I think your position is very inconsistent because you fail to realize that the market is acting very irrationally [[unless you accept that it's being diluted by sprawl).

In a rational market the neighborhoods in suburban Detroit that are absorbing Detroit transplants should theoretically be more expensive [[total cost of living) than where the Detroiters are moving from. So if a Detroiter is paying $200 for rent + $200 for taxes + $400 for insurance then a "step up" neighborhood in the burbs should theoretically be at least $801 total cost of living. Now, the breakdown of where your money goes may be different [[e.g. you may pay $400 for rent, $100 for taxes and $301 for insurance) but in a rational market you should pay more for a higher quality product. That Detroiters are obviously not paying more for what is perceived to be a higher quality product suggests that there are some other things going on in the market that is undermining the prices in the suburbs.

[Hermod]

Are you familiar with the principle of "what the market will bear?" You seem to be advocating for a laissez-faire redevelopment strategy of Detroit through having the city center compete with sprawl by providing low crime rates and better schools. But I think your position is very inconsistent because you fail to realize that the market is acting very irrationally [[unless you accept that it's being diluted by sprawl).

In a rational market the neighborhoods in suburban Detroit that are absorbing Detroit transplants should theoretically be more expensive [[total cost of living) than where the Detroiters are moving from. So if a Detroiter is paying $200 for rent + $200 for taxes + $400 for insurance then a "step up" neighborhood in the burbs should theoretically be at least $801 total cost of living. Now, the breakdown of where your money goes may be different [[e.g. you may pay $400 for rent, $100 for taxes and $301 for insurance) but in a rational market you should pay more for a higher quality product. That Detroiters are obviously not paying more for what is perceived to be a higher quality product suggests that there are some other things going on in the market that is undermining the prices in the suburbs.

In the northern Virginia burbs, it is cheapest to live out in the outer sprawl of Dale City or Manassas. Living closer in is much more expensive. Living in the spawlburbs is much cheaper and less desirable because of the truly horrendous commute.

[nain rouge]

That Detroiters are obviously not paying more for what is perceived to be a higher quality product suggests that there are some other things going on in the market that is undermining the prices in the suburbs.

They are paying more. It's just an unusual situation where they upgraded from "next to nothin'" to "dirt cheap". Look at this way: Imagine you could buy a truly awful, dangerous product for $1, a bad to mediocre product for $5, and a good product for $50. It's not a bold leap for even someone with limited funds to skip the $1 product.

[iheartthed]

They are paying more. It's just an unusual situation where they upgraded from "next to nothin'" to "dirt cheap". Look at this way: Imagine you could buy a truly awful, dangerous product for $1, a bad to mediocre product for $5, and a good product for $50. It's not a bold leap for even someone with limited funds to skip the $1 product.
[/COLOR]

But if there weren't an excess of housing in the market they would quickly bid up the prices and price themselves out.

[DetroitPlanner]

Are you familiar with the principle of "what the market will bear?" You seem to be advocating for a laissez-faire redevelopment strategy of Detroit through having the city center compete with sprawl by providing low crime rates and better schools. But I think your position is very inconsistent because you fail to realize that the market is acting very irrationally [[unless you accept that it's being diluted by sprawl).

In a rational market the neighborhoods in suburban Detroit that are absorbing Detroit transplants should theoretically be more expensive [[total cost of living) than where the Detroiters are moving from. So if a Detroiter is paying $200 for rent + $200 for taxes + $400 for insurance then a "step up" neighborhood in the burbs should theoretically be at least $801 total cost of living. Now, the breakdown of where your money goes may be different [[e.g. you may pay $400 for rent, $100 for taxes and $301 for insurance) but in a rational market you should pay more for a higher quality product. That Detroiters are obviously not paying more for what is perceived to be a higher quality product suggests that there are some other things going on in the market that is undermining the prices in the suburbs.

I don't think you're understanding what I am saying. Laissez-faire means 'do nothing'. I am advocating that the City can do better in providing what is needed to the neighborhoods [[something). That is hardly doing nothing. I also am encouraged that the new Mayor and since City Council has a district component now... that they get this.

I understand economic geography pretty well. I also understand people vote with their feet and that you lose more people because those that leave are families looking for safer neighborhoods, better schools, and quality of life. So we attract hipsters one by one, thats great. However, we are repelling families of what three, four, five person households? Sure they cost more to educate, and the 14 year olds may have issues with the law, but you are doing nothing to keep these folks in place. I grew up in the ghetto at Joy and Southfield. I have seen this happen again and again. There are ecological cycles at play here and crime that takes over the neighborhood the same way weeds take over flower gardens. Leave it alone [[laissez-faire) and you let it grow. That grows, people move a bit further out displacing others who move further out, then pretty soon ya got folks moving from Shelby to Washington. What we need here is some Weed-b-gone! The best for neighborhoods are schools, safety, and quality of life amenities such as parks.

AND That is exactly why people LEAVE! They are paying more for an inferior product [[life) in Detroit than they do in the suburbs. The only folks left in many neighborhoods seem to be people who are trying to get over on the system [[drug dealers, petty criminals, etc) and those old folks who have their house paid off, it is worth nothing, and they can't because their SSI income will not allow it.

Want to end sprawl? You won't. Want to slow it down? Stop pushing folks out of the neighborhoods. Even immigration won't fill in the empty spots of Detroit without it.

[nain rouge]

But if there weren't an excess of housing in the market they would quickly bid up the prices and price themselves out.

Well, sure. If Detroit was at all normal, that might be the case. But the ridiculous glut of real estate is what makes Metro Detroit the sprawl beast it is.