The elephant in the room: CRIME

[kathy2trips]

You state the obvious.....Red tape is the last thing Detroit needs.

1) Every municipality has a certain amount of "red tape". The idea is to keep it at a minimum. A system of checks and balances would need to be established, as well as meticulous computer records and severe penalties for municipal misconduct. If there are no consequences, it's a free-for-all at the citizens' expense. As we well know.

2) Require municipal employees live in the city. This used to be a requirement in Detroit, and the neighborhoods suffered when they got rid of it. I loved it when a cop moved into the hood. My grandmother sold her house in 1982 [[when the requirement was still in effect) to a cop and his wife, a nurse. The neighbors loved her for it.

3) We need a SOB [[or DOB) to establish and implement procedures and protocols to insure the safety of citizens. Maybe the mayor has too much power? Many places have a city manager that does the operations, while the mayor is more the executive. It's a big job to do both.

[Hermod]

1) Every municipality has a certain amount of "red tape". The idea is to keep it at a minimum. A system of checks and balances would need to be established, as well as meticulous computer records and severe penalties for municipal misconduct. If there are no consequences, it's a free-for-all at the citizens' expense. As we well know.

2) Require municipal employees live in the city. This used to be a requirement in Detroit, and the neighborhoods suffered when they got rid of it. I loved it when a cop moved into the hood. My grandmother sold her house in 1982 [[when the requirement was still in effect) to a cop and his wife, a nurse. The neighbors loved her for it.

3) We need a SOB [[or DOB) to establish and implement procedures and protocols to insure the safety of citizens. Maybe the mayor has too much power? Many places have a city manager that does the operations, while the mayor is more the executive. It's a big job to do both.

Change Detroit civil service rules and regulations. Five written complaints from five different citizens in a twelve month period and you are on the street. No severance, no pension, do not pass go and collect $200. No exceptions and no appeal.

[Wesley Mouch]

1) Every municipality has a certain amount of "red tape". The idea is to keep it at a minimum. A system of checks and balances would need to be established, as well as meticulous computer records and severe penalties for municipal misconduct. If there are no consequences, it's a free-for-all at the citizens' expense. As we well know.

2) Require municipal employees live in the city. This used to be a requirement in Detroit, and the neighborhoods suffered when they got rid of it. I loved it when a cop moved into the hood. My grandmother sold her house in 1982 [[when the requirement was still in effect) to a cop and his wife, a nurse. The neighbors loved her for it.

3) We need a SOB [[or DOB) to establish and implement procedures and protocols to insure the safety of citizens. Maybe the mayor has too much power? Many places have a city manager that does the operations, while the mayor is more the executive. It's a big job to do both.

The world is full of great ideas. Except for the residency rule, I'm with you. Residency rules do bear the fruit your family enjoyed. Unfortunately, it requires us to limit someone's freedom to choose where to live based on their needs. I think we should build our neighborhoods by other methods. The residency fight has been held elsewhere, but I think we all can imagine times when someone might need to live outside Detroit for valid reasons -- like suppose your partner needs to live in Livonia to keep their job in Livonia's Police Department.

[313WX]

Residency rules do bear the fruit your family enjoyed. Unfortunately, it requires us to limit someone's freedom to choose where to live based on their needs.

It doesn't limit their freedoms at all. That's like saying to require an employee works at a certain location limits their freedom.

If folks don't want to live in the city, they can choose not to work for the city. And they wouldn't get that nice big city pension and those nice big city benefits either...

[Wesley Mouch]

It doesn't limit their freedoms at all. That's like saying to require an employee works at a certain location limits their freedom.

If folks don't want to live in the city, they can choose no to work for the city. And they wouldn't get that nice big city pension and those nice big city benefits either...

I understand the Michigan Supreme Court has rules that it does limit their freedom.

Its great to want a City to be successful. And cops living in town certainly could help. But I think the city's revival is more harmed by passing rules that reduces the pool of potential employees.

Exclusionary rules exclude. Detroit needs the best right now -- from patrol officer to chief. I'd rather have an excellent officer who lives in Redford Township be able to contribute to the City she loves -- and not be told that she's not good enough just because she lives 50 feet past the city limits. Go for quality. Not for restrictions.

[Dan Wesson]

I understand the Michigan Supreme Court has rules that it does limit their freedom.

Its great to want a City to be successful. And cops living in town certainly could help. But I think the city's revival is more harmed by passing rules that reduces the pool of potential employees.

Exclusionary rules exclude. Detroit needs the best right now -- from patrol officer to chief. I'd rather have an excellent officer who lives in Redford Township be able to contribute to the City she loves -- and not be told that she's not good enough just because she lives 50 feet past the city limits. Go for quality. Not for restrictions.

"The vast majority of people who apply to become Detroit officers are rejected because of criminal records, unpaid tickets and other issues, Stair said. Last year, of the 2,462 who applied, only 131 were hired."




http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...cops/29896105/

[Wesley Mouch]

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...cops/29896105/

I wonder how the cops/resident ratio has been over history. While the size of Detroit hasn't changed, the population has certain been reduced by 2/3.

That article immediately made me think that its time to regionalize many services. A municipality that serves a subset of area residents is a fine thing -- if affordable. When money is short, and the need is great -- its time to regionalize in everyone's best interest.

[Honky Tonk]

"The vast majority of people who apply to become Detroit officers are rejected because of criminal records, unpaid tickets and other issues, Stair said. Last year, of the 2,462 who applied, only 131 were hired."




http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...cops/29896105/

That article sure took the warmth and fuzziness out of my outlook.

[Wesley Mouch]

"The vast majority of people who apply to become Detroit officers are rejected because of criminal records, unpaid tickets and other issues, Stair said. Last year, of the 2,462 who applied, only 131 were hired."/

I have a great idea. Let's make it even harder to find good candidates. Let's require residency! That'll stop crime in its tracks.

[Vic01]

I wonder how the cops/resident ratio has been over history. While the size of Detroit hasn't changed, the population has certain been reduced by 2/3.

That article immediately made me think that its time to regionalize many services. A municipality that serves a subset of area residents is a fine thing -- if affordable. When money is short, and the need is great -- its time to regionalize in everyone's best interest.

Maybe we can get the RoboCop statue up, then create a Regional "Omni Consumer Products" [[OCP) Corporation for Law Enforcement...

[rex]

Near current Detroit is probably twice as dangerous as NYC when it was at its homicide peak in 1990. I say probably because compared the 2 cities in terms of population and how many people were killed in 1988 NYC and 2012 Detroit. No other categories of violent crime. I dont remember my formula but it was something like. NYC had over 12X the population and had however many homicides. It was around 2,000. Detroit had around 400 homicides in 2012. Multiply that by 12 and the result was about 5,000. So well over twice as deadly. Bad at math, My equation may not even make sense but my point is this. NYC has dialed that number back from over 2K a year to around 300 while gaining population. It can be done. Detroit's homicide numbers from years past are hard to locate. I had trouble finding them atleast. 1991 there were probably about a million residents and 615 murders. 2012 there were over a quarter less residents and presumably more old people. An assumption but one i expect to be true. 75% of 615 is 461 so the city got a little less deadly but not compared to what was accomplished in NYC. How did they do this? Ive read about broken windows and more detailed enforcement but there must be more to it than that. Did they just lock tons of people up until the criminals were all in jail? I feel as though Detroits strategy is to chase as many poor people out of town as possible. Foreclose their homes, shut off their water then maybe start throwing people in jail. They already are trying to hold business and homeowners accountable for blight. Sort of hypocritical since the city owns and controls plenty of blight itself.

[MizMotown]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/9...AL01/120606001 not updated since March of 2014

http://www.crimemapping.com/map.aspx...7-17f60e517d9d
The map can't plot any more crimes lol

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/mi/detroit/crime/

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime...-Michigan.html

[313WX]

http://www.crimemapping.com/map.aspx...7-17f60e517d9d ml[/
The map can't plot any more crimes lol

And that's just within 1 week of June 2015...

[313WX]

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime...-Michigan.html

What's also interesting about this link is that it shows the notable uptick in crime the inner ring suburbs [[especially Eastpointe & Harper Woods) as Detroit's decline continues to expand beyond its borders.

[ABetterDetroit]

Helicopters? A 1980's solution to a 2015 problem? Well-trained officers with an emphasis on "well-trained" and more police cars are what is needed to help solve this problem. Multi-million dollar aircraft with large 6 figure leases, fuel and maintenance costs, etc. will not replace well-trained personnel on the ground with adequate equipment like a police car. A $1000 drone and $100 surveillance cameras is the future. Spend the money on the people in the trenches instead of the expensive methods of the past. Detroit is poised to skip a generation in crime fighting tech.

[Honky Tonk]

Helicopters? A 1980's solution to a 2015 problem? Well-trained officers with an emphasis on "well-trained" and more police cars are what is needed to help solve this problem. Multi-million dollar aircraft with large 6 figure leases, fuel and maintenance costs, etc. will not replace well-trained personnel on the ground with adequate equipment like a police car. A $1000 drone and $100 surveillance cameras is the future. Spend the money on the people in the trenches instead of the expensive methods of the past. Detroit is poised to skip a generation in crime fighting tech.

Bingo.......

[DetroitBoy]

Helicopters? A 1980's solution to a 2015 problem? Well-trained officers with an emphasis on "well-trained" and more police cars are what is needed to help solve this problem. Multi-million dollar aircraft with large 6 figure leases, fuel and maintenance costs, etc. will not replace well-trained personnel on the ground with adequate equipment like a police car. A $1000 drone and $100 surveillance cameras is the future. Spend the money on the people in the trenches instead of the expensive methods of the past. Detroit is poised to skip a generation in crime fighting tech.

It's poised to have military troops rolling in to stop these 20-something year old 'urban terrorists' and restore order.

[mwilbert]

Near current Detroit is probably twice as dangerous as NYC when it was at its homicide peak in 1990. I say probably because compared the 2 cities in terms of population and how many people were killed in 1988 NYC and 2012 Detroit. No other categories of violent crime. I dont remember my formula but it was something like. NYC had over 12X the population and had however many homicides. It was around 2,000. Detroit had around 400 homicides in 2012. Multiply that by 12 and the result was about 5,000. So well over twice as deadly. Bad at math, My equation may not even make sense but my point is this. NYC has dialed that number back from over 2K a year to around 300 while gaining population. It can be done. Detroit's homicide numbers from years past are hard to locate. I had trouble finding them atleast. 1991 there were probably about a million residents and 615 murders. 2012 there were over a quarter less residents and presumably more old people. An assumption but one i expect to be true. 75% of 615 is 461 so the city got a little less deadly but not compared to what was accomplished in NYC. How did they do this? Ive read about broken windows and more detailed enforcement but there must be more to it than that. Did they just lock tons of people up until the criminals were all in jail? I feel as though Detroits strategy is to chase as many poor people out of town as possible. Foreclose their homes, shut off their water then maybe start throwing people in jail. They already are trying to hold business and homeowners accountable for blight. Sort of hypocritical since the city owns and controls plenty of blight itself.

There are no doubt many reasons, but they did chase as many poor people out of town as possible, certainly out of Manhattan, and the underlying employment conditions in the region didn't deteriorate the way they did in Detroit. As a result the comparative demographics of Detroit and New York are much more different than they were 25-30 years ago. No doubt New York has also had more competent administration during most or all of the time period.

I'm not sure the city has an actual strategy to reduce crime, but reducing the percentage of poor people in town, whether by encouraging them to leave or by attracting other people, would definitely help the per-capita statistics.

[Bham1982]

There are no doubt many reasons, but they did chase as many poor people out of town as possible, certainly out of Manhattan, and the underlying employment conditions in the region didn't deteriorate the way they did in Detroit. As a result the comparative demographics of Detroit and New York are much more different than they were 25-30 years ago. No doubt New York has also had more competent administration during most or all of the time period.

Poverty rates in the NYC area have been stable; they haven't dropped from the "bad old days". And the vast majority of poor in NYC live in non-market housing [[ie rent regulated, public, Sec 8, etc.) so the changes in market conditions are irrelevant.

The massive gentrification in NYC has definitely had impacts on the working and middle class in market rate housing, but the poor are still there, even in Manhattan. The huge drops in NYC crime have nothing to do with removal of the poor.

Example- Williamsburg is probably one of the trendiest and most expensive urban neighborhoods on earth, yet Southside Williamsburg, full of Hasidic Jews in rent-regulated/subsidized housing, has a lower median income than Detroit, and is just a few steps to a land of $4,000 a month studio rentals and $1.2 million one bedroom condos.

[mwilbert]

Poverty rates in the NYC area have been stable; they haven't dropped from the "bad old days".

That is basically true, which doesn't mean that lots of poor people haven't been displaced out of the city--there is a ton of in-migration of poor people. And that is probably pretty important: 3 million people of foreign origin live in NYC now, and immigrants have much lower crime rates than native-born Americans. For instance, US-born men are incarcerated at 2.5 times the rate of immigrant men.

And the vast majority of poor in NYC live in non-market housing [[ie rent regulated, public, Sec 8, etc.) so the changes in market conditions are irrelevant.

Probably not true. About 7% of NYC residents live in housing projects or Section 8 housing. Market conditions don't matter to them much, although it may make it harder to find placed to take your Section 8 voucher. It is true that about half of the housing in NYC is rent-controlled or rent-stabilized, but only about 2% of the housing is rent-controlled units and is gradually diminishing as their tenants as of 1971 vacate, so they are a minor factor.

It is true that the rents in rent-stabilized building aren't really subject to market forces, but the people who own rent-stabilized buildings don't have to rent to poor people, so as areas get more expensive, even if poor people can afford the rent, they can't get the apartment because owners prefer renting to non-poor people. The only poor people for whom rental market conditions are irrelevant are the ones who already have apartments, and can keep them.

The massive gentrification in NYC has definitely had impacts on the working and middle class in market rate housing, but the poor are still there, even in Manhattan. The huge drops in NYC crime have nothing to do with removal of the poor.

With "removal", no. With displacement by immigrant poor, yes.

And of course, even if none of this were true, the point is that the comparative demographics of Detroit and NYC have massively deteriorated over the past 30 years. Nationally, per-capita crime is down a huge amount. Detroit's per-capita crime hasn't changed that much, because the city has been inept and because as the middle-class left, the population is, on average, became more crime-prone. NYC has done better than the nation as a whole, probably both because their city government is less inept, and because of more favorable demographics.

[Wesley Mouch]

That is basically true, which doesn't mean that lots of poor people haven't been displaced out of the city--there is a ton of in-migration of poor people. ...

So in other words, NYC under Bloomberg has successfully raised the living standards of a great number of poor people who were thus able to move elsewhere and pursue their dreams?

NYC has done better than the nation as a whole, probably both because their city government is less inept, and because of more favorable demographics.

Find any reason except the truth. More proactive policing works. It will be interesting to see how crime rates go over the next couple years with proactive policing now being replaced by 'ah, let 'em go -- let's not risk our jobs' policing the left has demanded.

[mwilbert]

So in other words, NYC under Bloomberg has successfully raised the living standards of a great number of poor people who were thus able to move elsewhere and pursue their dreams?

I don't know that. I suspect a lot of them went to be poor in cheaper places like Newark and Jersey City, but I don't actually know where they went. It isn't likely that most of them became non-poor, because of the low mobility between income groups in the US. However, NYC is relatively good on that score, so I'm sure there are lots of people who did in fact become better off. And we shouldn't neglect the fact that the vast majority of the immigrants became better off than they were in their home countries, even if they are still poor. NYC provides a lot of economic opportunity for a lot of people.

Find any reason except the truth. More proactive policing works. It will be interesting to see how crime rates go over the next couple years with proactive policing now being replaced by 'ah, let 'em go -- let's not risk our jobs' policing the left has demanded.

I'm strongly in favor of the truth, but unfortunately this is exactly what isn't known. Crime has gone down pretty much everywhere in the US, with a variety of policing styles. It has gone down somewhat more in NYC than nationally. Maybe that is because of the "proactive policing"--the proactive policing advocates would like us to think so. Maybe it is because of some other factors, like displacement of native-born poor folks by immigrants, or the relatively strong NYC economy. Maybe they all have a role. These are the kind of questions that are very difficult to answer because there are so many possible factors and the impossibility of running well-controlled experiments.

As NYC policing is likely to be less proactive over the next few years, we can see what happens to the relative crime rate there. We still won't know the truth, but we will at least have some more evidence.

[Cliffy]

http://www.wxyz.com/news/six-men-att...oits-west-side

Who wants to live in this city. Its like something out of a movie.

[Mind field]

An army of drones should be unleashed over the skies of Detroit. In conjunction with gunshot recognition tech that could triangulate the position of any and all gunshots and keep a lock on the location of the perpetrator until they are apprehended. It wouldn't solve all crime, but it would get some more of the lowlifes off the streets and locked up in cages where they belong.

[313WX]

http://www.wxyz.com/news/six-men-att...oits-west-side

Who wants to live in this city.

Yep, especially if the only solution to address these problems will be 1984-esque measures. A police state will be jut as bad as a Mad Max state.