From the Economist: How to shrink a city

[BankruptcyGuy]

http://www.economist.com/news/leader...-it-how-shrink

Looks like Detroit's plight is shared worldwide.

[BankruptcyGuy]

And it's interesting that their suggestion is not to fight it, but to manage it.

[emu steve]

This is something, as indicated, folks across America should worry about [[not just Detroit).

Easy to look at Detroit or maybe the 'older suburbs' which ring Detroit and suggest problems with stagnant or declining employment bases, poor schools, crime, etc. Folks complain about the weather.

Yet, when I see that population growth has stopped in some of the most desirable areas I know in the D.C. area I know that smaller families are taking its toll. It isn't simply 'rust belt' or cities decaying because of... [[fill in the blank with crime, bad schools, etc.).

Arlington County, Fairfax County, etc. have some of the best public school systems [[very low crime, too) in the U.S. yet those two counties have virtually stopped growing.

The rate of natural population growth [[births minus deaths) is a problem for this country. A lot of areas are faced with significant migration of retired boomers to the sun belt areas.

Shrinking cities are not a good thing. I doubt any mayor thinks losing say 10% population is a good thing even if in a suburban city.

Don't suburban school districts close schools? Churches in the 'burbs have to merge too.

[Detroitnerd]

It's dynamite to talk about "shrinking" our cities.

What we're really trying to discuss, I think, is "retrenchment." Our development patterns have far outstripped what they needed to be. What we should be doing is furnishing a smaller footprint with services, amenities, and infrastructure, and letting much of the overexuberant development revert to agriculture, open space, and recreational land.

Imagine a metro region in, say, 2111, that is centered along main spoke thoroughfares, reaching out like the fingers of a hand with farms, parks, and natural beauty in between; that's something we could realistically achieve in a century.

But it won't happen while developers -- and their cronies in the legislature and our various, 100-plus city halls -- are in the driver's seat when it comes to regional planning.

[emu steve]

BTW, if anyone doesn't appreciate what the effect of small families have had on population, look at Dearborn, what was [[is?) a rock solid suburb:

Significant population losses in the 60s, 70, and 80s and now at 1970s population levels...

If my math is correct, from 4/1/1960 to 4/1/1990, Dearborn lost about 20% [[89K/ 112K).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dearborn,_Michigan

[Bham1982]

BTW, if anyone doesn't appreciate what the effect of small families have had on population, look at Dearborn, what was [[is?) a rock solid suburb:

Significant population losses in the 60s, 70, and 80s and now at 1970s population levels...

If my math is correct, from 4/1/1960 to 4/1/1990, Dearborn lost about 20% [[89K/ 112K).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dearborn,_Michigan

Smaller household sizes aren't really relevant to a discussion of inner-city population loss. Cities have always had smaller household sizes throughout the world, and the issues specifically facing Detroit are related to fundamental lack of demand, not changes to household structure.

[BankruptcyGuy]

It's dynamite to talk about "shrinking" our cities.

What we're really trying to discuss, I think, is "retrenchment." Our development patterns have far outstripped what they needed to be. What we should be doing is furnishing a smaller footprint with services, amenities, and infrastructure, and letting much of the overexuberant development revert to agriculture, open space, and recreational land.

Imagine a metro region in, say, 2111, that is centered along main spoke thoroughfares, reaching out like the fingers of a hand with farms, parks, and natural beauty in between; that's something we could realistically achieve in a century.

But it won't happen while developers -- and their cronies in the legislature and our various, 100-plus city halls -- are in the driver's seat when it comes to regional planning.

That's an interesting perspective. I wonder, though, if there isn't more than a little bit of "build it and they will come" in that concept. Or put another way, don't you think that, especially post-2008, land development plans reflect underlying demand, rather than creating underlying demand?

[Detroitnerd]

That's an interesting perspective. I wonder, though, if there isn't more than a little bit of "build it and they will come" in that concept. Or put another way, don't you think that, especially post-2008, land development plans reflect underlying demand, rather than creating underlying demand?

A lot of it boils down to transportation policy, and the other hows and whys of the way public money is spent. We spent a ton of public money on expanding the footprint of a flat population. Now the challenge is to spend public money more wisely to furnish a decent, smallish city with what residents need.

I'll say it again: Transportation policy IS development policy. It's the only way to lead developers by the nose and make them do what they should do.

[iheartthed]

It's dynamite to talk about "shrinking" our cities.

What we're really trying to discuss, I think, is "retrenchment." Our development patterns have far outstripped what they needed to be. What we should be doing is furnishing a smaller footprint with services, amenities, and infrastructure, and letting much of the overexuberant development revert to agriculture, open space, and recreational land.

Imagine a metro region in, say, 2111, that is centered along main spoke thoroughfares, reaching out like the fingers of a hand with farms, parks, and natural beauty in between; that's something we could realistically achieve in a century.

But it won't happen while developers -- and their cronies in the legislature and our various, 100-plus city halls -- are in the driver's seat when it comes to regional planning.

IAWTC

Metro Detroit has been underperforming in population growth for quite a while, but much of the decay in Detroit and inner ring suburbs is due to bad [[or non-existent) land use and infrastructure policies. There isn't really much reason for Metro Detroit to cover the land area it does, since a significant amount of it was built after the region reached its population plateau in 1970.

[emu steve]

Smaller household sizes aren't really relevant to a discussion of inner-city population loss. Cities have always had smaller household sizes throughout the world, and the issues specifically facing Detroit are related to fundamental lack of demand, not changes to household structure.

I understand the point you are making, but any MCD, e.g., Detroit or an older suburb will experience [[or will have experienced) population loss even if number of housing units remain constant.

So Dearborn might have lost 20% [[since 1960). Detroit lost say over 50% [[since 1960).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit

[iheartthed]

I understand the point you are making, but any MCD, e.g., Detroit or an older suburb will experience [[or will have experienced) population loss even if number of housing units remain constant.

So Dearborn might have lost 20% [[since 1960). Detroit lost say over 50% [[since 1960).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit

Smaller household sizes aren't relevant to the Detroit discussion because Detroit's actual household count has declined dramatically [[hence all of the abandoned houses).

[BankruptcyGuy]

A lot of it boils down to transportation policy, and the other hows and whys of the way public money is spent. We spent a ton of public money on expanding the footprint of a flat population. Now the challenge is to spend public money more wisely to furnish a decent, smallish city with what residents need.

I'll say it again: Transportation policy IS development policy. It's the only way to lead developers by the nose and make them do what they should do.

I don't know of many developments, in this day and age, that are predicated on the construction of new roads BEFORE they are developed. I think the normal pattern is development, accumulation of residents, and then residents clamoring for new or wider roads.

Put a different way, if any particular city said "no newly paved or widened roads, but build what you want," I don't think that would slow down developers one bit.

I don't necessarily believe that this the best long-term urban planning policy, but I don't think that roads or lack thereof drive development. I am open to evidence that I am wrong, though.

[Detroitnerd]

I don't know of many developments, in this day and age, that are predicated on the construction of new roads BEFORE they are developed. I think the normal pattern is development, accumulation of residents, and then residents clamoring for new or wider roads.

Put a different way, if any particular city said "no newly paved or widened roads, but build what you want," I don't think that would slow down developers one bit.

I don't necessarily believe that this the best long-term urban planning policy, but I don't think that roads or lack thereof drive development. I am open to evidence that I am wrong, though.

All the little inducements that nourish sprawl add up to a titanic force. And most of them are transportation policy. They're just not often considered because they're not all made of concrete. From the way mortgage interest deductions disproportionately subsidize high-earning households with bigfoot homes to the way higher speed limits and lack of aggressive enforcement against speeding enable longer commutes. It takes a lot of carrots to enable sprawl. In a time of austerity, we should ensure that these precious funds go toward an intelligent retrenchment of the region, and that those who want to live in the sticks and be "rugged individualists" pay their own way to do so.

And if carrots don't do the job, somebody needs to get out a big stick. Having developers run the show is killing this region.

[Bham1982]

AFrom the way mortgage interest deductions disproportionately subsidize high-earning households with bigfoot homes to the way higher speed limits and lack of aggressive enforcement against speeding enable longer commutes.

High earning households generally don't live out in exurban sprawl. They live in older communities, generally, from coast to coast. There are a lot more wealthy in Bloomfield than in Ray Twp.

And the mortgage interest deduction phases out for high income earners. If it's encouraging anything, it's encouraging redevelopment of older neighborhoods with bigfoot homes. The exurban sprawl is probably most motivated by people driving further out for greater "bang for the buck", since the older areas with good schools are pricier apples to apples.

[Detroitnerd]

High earning households generally don't live out in exurban sprawl. They live in older communities, generally, from coast to coast. There are a lot more wealthy in Bloomfield than in Ray Twp.

And the mortgage interest deduction phases out for high income earners. If it's encouraging anything, it's encouraging redevelopment of older neighborhoods with bigfoot homes. The exurban sprawl is probably most motivated by people driving further out for greater "bang for the buck", since the older areas with good schools are pricier apples to apples.

I stopped caring about anything you say a long time ago.

[iheartthed]

I don't know of many developments, in this day and age, that are predicated on the construction of new roads BEFORE they are developed. I think the normal pattern is development, accumulation of residents, and then residents clamoring for new or wider roads.

They don't grow sewer lines and lighting infrastructure on farms. These things have to be installed before developments can be built and it is NEVER the developer who fronts the cost for that.

One of the ways that Michigan is able to sprawl to out of control is that incorporated townships can issue debt, which they use to fund the infrastructure build out for developers. The debt is serviced through the future tax receipts from the future residents.

[Hermod]

They don't grow sewer lines and lighting infrastructure on farms. These things have to be installed before developments can be built and it is NEVER the developer who fronts the cost for that.

One of the ways that Michigan is able to sprawl to out of control is that incorporated townships can issue debt, which they use to fund the infrastructure build out for developers. The debt is serviced through the future tax receipts from the future residents.

Long before the eeeeevullllll I-75 was built, developers were putting up subdivisions in Troy based on wells and septic systems. One of the inducements to get the populace to incorporate the township as a city was that the city would install water and sewer. In 1959 when I was working for Troy, most of my time was spent surveying in the water and sewer line routes. The subdivisions were already there. Every time I set up my transit, some housewife would come running out with her curlers clanking to find out if I was trying to route I-75 through her house.

[BankruptcyGuy]

They don't grow sewer lines and lighting infrastructure on farms. These things have to be installed before developments can be built and it is NEVER the developer who fronts the cost for that.

One of the ways that Michigan is able to sprawl to out of control is that incorporated townships can issue debt, which they use to fund the infrastructure build out for developers. The debt is serviced through the future tax receipts from the future residents.

It's been a long time since I've seen a municipality or local government take on public debt to run a sewer line for the benefit of a developer. Most deals I've seen have, at best, Special Assessment Districts, where the residents pay the cost of the improvements over time. Can you think of a recent example?

[iheartthed]

It's been a long time since I've seen a municipality or local government take on public debt to run a sewer line for the benefit of a developer. Most deals I've seen have, at best, Special Assessment Districts, where the residents pay the cost of the improvements over time. Can you think of a recent example?

It hasn't been that long...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...opment-crashes

[BankruptcyGuy]

It hasn't been that long...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...opment-crashes

Those are the ones I mentioned [[SADs). Those aren't "paid for" by the townships/municipalities. The bonds are backed by a special tax on the homes/condos that are built. If the residents don't pay [[because the houses are never built), etc., then the bondholders are out. The bondholders take the risk of the development. It's just a different way to finance infrastructure. The infrastructure is still paid for, ultimately, by the developer's customers.

[iheartthed]

Those are the ones I mentioned [[SADs). Those aren't "paid for" by the townships/municipalities. The bonds are backed by a special tax on the homes/condos that are built. If the residents don't pay [[because the houses are never built), etc., then the bondholders are out. The bondholders take the risk of the development. It's just a different way to finance infrastructure. The infrastructure is still paid for, ultimately, by the developer's customers.

I didn't say that it was paid for by the township. I explained it exactly the same way you did -- it is paid for through future tax receipts. The townships issue the debt to fund the infrastructure expansions that make the developments possible. It would become much more risky and cost prohibitive for developers to approach banks on their own to get financing to build out infrastructure [[especially in a state with a stagnant/declining population). But having the debt ultimately be backed by the state of Michigan is a different story.

[BankruptcyGuy]

I didn't say that it was paid for by the township. I explained it exactly the same way you did -- it is paid for through future tax receipts. The townships issue the debt to fund the infrastructure expansions that make the developments possible. It would become much more risky and cost prohibitive for developers to approach banks on their own to get financing to build out infrastructure [[especially in a state with a stagnant/declining population). But having the debt ultimately be backed by the state of Michigan is a different story.

SAD bonds need not be backed by the township/city as an entity. The are definitely not backed by the State of Michigan. I would say that in the vast majority of instances, they are not backed by anything other than the taxpaying ability of the landowners receiving the benefit.

SADs are rarely used, as well.

[ABetterDetroit]

High earning households generally don't live out in exurban sprawl. They live in older communities, generally, from coast to coast. There are a lot more wealthy in Bloomfield than in Ray Twp.

And the mortgage interest deduction phases out for high income earners. If it's encouraging anything, it's encouraging redevelopment of older neighborhoods with bigfoot homes. The exurban sprawl is probably most motivated by people driving further out for greater "bang for the buck", since the older areas with good schools are pricier apples to apples.

Hmm, old Bham is over here arguing my point on a different thread when he was just argueing against it on the other thread. Go figure.

When a brand spanking new 400k home in Ray Twp has a property tax of $4,768 and the same home in Detroit would have a property tax $13,688 the Detroits will lose 999 out of 1000 times. It's giving that perspective buyer a $8,920 a year incentive to move out there. The reality is that is $157,000 more mortgage in the payment [[at today's rates) vs. it going to property taxes.

Massive amounts of sprawl will continue unabated until something is done about this problem in Michigan. If it doesn't stop many older communities that the "wealthy" are not as intrested in as the "Bloomfields" will pay a huge price just like some already have.

If we changed everything on how business taxes are collected in Michigan out of necessity why not overhaul how the personal taxes are collected? It makes little sense to leave this archaic community destroying tax system in place in this century.

[Bham1982]

Hmm, old Bham is over here arguing my point on a different thread when he was just argueing against it on the other thread. Go figure.

On which thread was I arguing that the wealthy live in the sticks?

When a brand spanking new 400k home in Ray Twp has a property tax of $4,768 and the same home in Detroit would have a property tax $13,688 the Detroits will lose 999 out of 1000 times.

Detroit has nothing to do with the conversation. It's not even a consideration for homeowners. Excepting downtown/midtown, it doesn't exist as a place to live in the regional mindset.

Are you interpreting my contention that the wealthy aren't living out on former farmland to mean that they all live in Dexter/Davison or something? I'm talking older suburbs, obviously [[Birmingham, Bloomfield, Pointes, Huntington Woods, etc.). In other metros the trend is stronger, but it's true here too.

Massive amounts of sprawl will continue unabated until something is done about this problem in Michigan. If it doesn't stop many older communities that the "wealthy" are not as intrested in as the "Bloomfields" will pay a huge price just like some already have.

Well then that's their problem. Can't blame people for wanting their kids in decent schools and getting good services at a reasonable tax rate. People want new construction, not tiny bungalows in South Warren.

If we changed everything on how business taxes are collected in Michigan out of necessity why not overhaul how the personal taxes are collected? It makes little sense to leave this archaic community destroying tax system in place in this century.

What "archaic community destroying tax system" are you referring to? The one where Michigan redistributes tax dollars to prop up the Detroits and Highland Parks of the world?

[Canadian Visitor]

A clarification request; do municipalities in Michigan not impose the cost of development [[roads/schools/sewers etc.) on developers?

That's the norm in Ontario.

https://www1.toronto.ca/City%20Of%20...01,%202015.pdf

For a new single-family detached unit, the charges are just over $30,000 for a 1 bdrm condo about $13,000