How Motor City Came Back From the Brink…And Left Most Detroiters Behind

[cman710]

I do not agree with some of the arguments in this article from Mother Jones, but it is thought-provoking and I wanted to share it. I think the article is overly critical of Gilbert, particularly since no one else would might have stepped up had he not done so. I also think that the view on blight removal is excessively negative. While I do not think people should be put out of their homes for the sake of "urban renewal," there are A LOT of unsalvageable structures that no one is living in, and which are falling apart and should be removed.

At the White House, Gilbert banged his fist on the table. "The one thing you guys have got to do," he thundered "is figure out how to help us do this blight work." To save Detroit, he told the assembled officials, they needed to help tear down Detroit. By tearing down tens of thousands of buildings —some still occupied, some abandoned—they would make room for new, vibrant neighborhoods.

Gilbert's fist-pounding proved persuasive. Several weeks after the White House meeting, the Obama administration pulled together a $300 million aide package for Detroit, made up of combined federal and private dollars. There was money to hire firefighters, repair buses and begin the construction of the M-1 Rail, a $140 million trolley line that will travel 3.3 miles through the city's gentrifying downtown. But almost half of the total was earmarked for blight removal, and Gilbert himself became co-chair of a task force charged with identifying the demolition targets. There are no minutes of the White House meeting, so it's impossible to know what discussion there was about the blight-removal approach. It also appears that not a single representative of the neighborhoods soon to be bulldozed—no minister, no community organizer, no teacher or city council member—attended the meeting. The closest person to a community representative was Dennis Archer, who had served as Detroit's mayor from 1994 to 2001.


This is the fundamental dynamic that has played out throughout Detroit's crisis and recovery: The city's future is being determined by politicians, business leaders, and philanthropists while native Detroiters—more than 80 percent of whom are black—often can only watch from afar. Peter Hammer, Director of the Damon J. Keith Center for Civil Rights at Wayne State University's Law School, describes the plans for Detroit as "the suburban view of what a city should look like. It's not a view of the city that's responsive to the needs of the citizens of Detroit."

[dtowncitylover]

Hasn't any city's future been determined by the politicians, business leaders, and philanthropists? That's why we call them "city fathers"; to take us into the future.

I think we all have a part to do to bring the city back, but big projects like blight, M-1 Rail, or new housing need to come from the top. If there is something that needs to change or is needed, then we can petition the government, march on it, make our voices heard. Recall or dethrone someone not doing their job. But Detroit needs BIG things done and for the most part it's done by the big wigs.

The average citizen, no matter what municipality, needs to take care of their property, look out for one another, and always be aware of what's happening in the neighborhood and city.

[Jimaz]

Related, from today's Free Press: If the U.S. is so prosperous, why don't we all feel it?

...

Some Republican presidential hopefuls, realizing they can't argue credibly that America's economy is weak — or that President Barack Obama is to blame — are talking more like Democrats, asking why the middle class is being left behind while elites are prospering....

But the prosperity gap still widened. The top 1% of U.S. earners saw incomes rise nearly 11% last year. Overall, the top 10% now take home 49.9% of all income earned by Americans, the WCEG said....

We need to complain less about those who can't pay their bills and more about those at the top who can but don't.

[canuck]

Related, from today's Free Press: If the U.S. is so prosperous, why don't we all feel it?We need to complain less about those who can't pay their bills and more about those at the top who can but don't.

Funny how the 1% can mean one of two things; the dirty few bikers or the über-rich. Either way, what is implied is some sort of criminality, black or blue or white collar crime. Whatever you want to call it.

[Gpwrangler]

Related, from today's Free Press: If the U.S. is so prosperous, why don't we all feel it?We need to complain less about those who can't pay their bills and more about those at the top who can but don't.

I've always been too busy to complain about either group.

[noise]

I've always been too busy to complain about either group.

Too busy posting here?

I'm kidding, I'm kidding...

[belleislerunner]

While I appreciate a city is made up of residents, Detroit often fails because politicians pander to "how do I prevent change" as opposed to how do I make things better.

The median household income of Detroit residents cannot support upkeeping their homes, paying tax bills, paying water bills, paying $25 for a recycle bin. But we seem fixated on "forgiving the tax bills" or "forgiving the water bills" - while that enabling behavior is what is killing entire swaths of the city. If you can't afford to live in it - you shouldn't be coerced to living in it either.

You have to make the city desirable to middle and upper income citizens who will then use their resources/goodwill to help the lower class. Refer to San Fran, New York etc. You can never have a functioning city that is predominately low income. It doesn't have the financial wherewithal to support itself.

[Wesley Mouch]

Strong on rhetoric. Lacking truth.

"while native Detroiters—...more than 80 percent of whom are black—often can only watch from afar"

I hear lots of engaged native Detroiters. They are voting. They make up the workforce. Many of the retirees who have been most vocal are 'native Detroiters'. Detroit preachers have been silenced and shut out? Prove this.

There's no truth in this statement. Just self-serving rhetoric.

[Hermod]

I guess we need to let Kwame out of the slammer to go down to DC and tell Obama what to give to Detroit.

[DetroitBoy]

Strong on rhetoric. Lacking truth.

"while native Detroiters—...more than 80 percent of whom are black—often can only watch from afar"

I hear lots of engaged native Detroiters. They are voting. They make up the workforce. Many of the retirees who have been most vocal are 'native Detroiters'. Detroit preachers have been silenced and shut out? Prove this.

There's no truth in this statement. Just self-serving rhetoric.

Wesley, I agree with you. Lots of native Detroiters work for the mayor and participate in many different ways.

Peter Hammer sounds like another Mildred Gaddis with this race baiting drum beat. It's very tiresome. They have been here for years. What leadership have they provided? Other than stirring up people, I don't see them coming forward with any tangible plan or informed opinion.

Instead they should be focusing on supporting the business leaders who have taken the risk to invest in Detroit and its comeback.

[Gpwrangler]

Too busy posting here?

I'm kidding, I'm kidding...

^^^^^good one!

[mwilbert]

Wesley, I agree with you. Lots of native Detroiters work for the mayor and participate in many different ways.

Peter Hammer sounds like another Mildred Gaddis with this race baiting drum beat. It's very tiresome. They have been here for years. What leadership have they provided? Other than stirring up people, I don't see them coming forward with any tangible plan or informed opinion.

Instead they should be focusing on supporting the business leaders who have taken the risk to invest in Detroit and its comeback.

I don't agree with the article, but I think you aren't getting the point that they are trying to make. The idea isn't that Detroiters aren't participating in city governance. The idea is that a lot of city governance is happening outside the normal channels of governance because the city doesn't have the resources either to fund projects itself or to be picky about what other people want to fund, and in that sense the future of the city is being shaped by others.

My view is that there is lots of city and plenty of room for everybody in the sandbox, but that doesn't mean that I always like the way it turns out. For instance, I'm happy the M-1 is being built, and I think it will be a significant asset to the city. Did they pretty much ignore the results of the planning process? It seems to me that they did, because it had to be built the way the Dan Gilbert and partners wanted it. Why, because he was paying for a big chunk of it. In a normal city, that isn't how it works, because public transit is financed with public money.

[hybridy]

Peter Hammer, Director of the Damon J. Keith Center for Civil Rights at Wayne State University's Law School, describes the plans for Detroit as "the suburban view of what a city should look like. It's not a view of the city that's responsive to the needs of the citizens of Detroit."

this is such a tired bullsh*t line. detroit has always been suburban in nature. its chock full of single family homes and detached garages bisected by unending WIDE streets & dominated by commercial strips lined with single-story single-use architecture. very little of the city is in fact "urban". what little new construction occurs in the neighborhoods typically increases density of what was previously there. though it may not necessarily aesthetically pleasing to some, it's all you get with HUD doll hairs

[313WX]

Peter Hammer, Director of the Damon J. Keith Center for Civil Rights at Wayne State University's Law School, describes the plans for Detroit as "the suburban view of what a city should look like. It's not a view of the city that's responsive to the needs of the citizens of Detroit."

this is such a tired bullsh*t line. detroit has always been suburban in nature. its chock full of single family homes and detached garages bisected by unending WIDE streets & dominated by commercial strips lined with single-story single-use architecture. very little of the city is in fact "urban". what little new construction occurs in the neighborhoods typically increases density of what was previously there. though it may not necessarily aesthetically pleasing to some, it's all you get with HUD doll hairs

Hmmm...I took that line to mean something different...

Basically, what's happening now is that people [[collectively speaking) who live in the suburbs/rural areas of Michigan but don't actually live nor work in the city of Detroit and won't be impacted by their proposed way of doing things seem to be the ones who are running the show, while actual Detroiters haven't had much say at all in how their government should be run nor the future of the city from a developmental perspective.

A perfect example: The Lighting Authority. That plan was drafted by an individual who associated with a school in Dearborn, who probably lives outside of Detroit proper and probably does most of their business outside of Detroit proper. Thus, they're not living on the blocks that must deal with poorer streetlighting under this plan than before [[despite no notable decrease in crime).

And if that's what Damon Keith meant by his statement, I'm in 100% agreement.

[mwilbert]

Hmmm...I took that line to mean something different...

Basically, what's happening now is that people [[collectively speaking) who live in the suburbs/rural areas of Michigan but don't actually live nor work in the city of Detroit and won't be impacted by their proposed way of doing things seem to be the ones who are running the show, while actual Detroiters haven't had much say at all in how their government should be run nor the future of the city from a developmental perspective.

A perfect example: The Lighting Authority. That plan was drafted by an individual who associated with a school in Dearborn, who probably lives outside of Detroit proper and probably does most of their business outside of Detroit proper. Thus, they're not living on the blocks that must deal with poorer streetlighting under this plan than before [[despite no notable decrease in crime).

And if that's what Damon Keith meant by his statement, I'm in 100% agreement.

Exactly. I read that statement as being about the non-urban origins of the planning, not the non-urban nature of the planning.

But I also disagree with Hybridy's point. It is certainly true that the vast bulk of Detroit [[certainly not all, but the bulk) was constructed in a largely auto-dependent [[though more so now than when it was built) semi-suburban land use pattern. But that doesn't make it an appropriate vision for new development in Detroit, first because there is already so much of it, and secondly because it isn't realistic for Detroit to be a better suburb than the current suburbs. It is, however, entirely possible for it to have better urban neighborhoods than anywhere else in the vicinity, and that is what people should be developing. And, for the most part, that is more-or-less what they are doing

[DetroitBoy]

Hmmm...I took that line to mean something different...

Basically, what's happening now is that people [[collectively speaking) who live in the suburbs/rural areas of Michigan but don't actually live nor work in the city of Detroit and won't be impacted by their proposed way of doing things seem to be the ones who are running the show, while actual Detroiters haven't had much say at all in how their government should be run nor the future of the city from a developmental perspective.

A perfect example: The Lighting Authority. That plan was drafted by an individual who associated with a school in Dearborn, who probably lives outside of Detroit proper and probably does most of their business outside of Detroit proper. Thus, they're not living on the blocks that must deal with poorer streetlighting under this plan than before [[despite no notable decrease in crime).

And if that's what Damon Keith meant by his statement, I'm in 100% agreement.

This kind of crap is really unbelievable. You people should be thrilled that enough companies from
the private sector came to the aid of the City of Detroit to help it through bankruptcy. Have you forgotten the Grand Bargain where private companies and organizations came together to help save the collections from the DIA from being sold off as part of the bankruptcy? If they had not stepped in and 'ran the show', the collection would have been sold off to pay off debts incurred from those who are complaining they 'aren't running the show' yet didnt pay water bills and taxes for years and expect a free ride from the city.

in addition, I am not sure what your BS is about the Lighting Authority. Dr Lorna Thomas is the Chair of the Authority and lives in Sherwood Forest so she is not an outsider to the city. Do you think she is not capable enough to deal with vendors? If you knew anything, you would know the standard is a national one not something a person from the suburbs created. And as for it not decreasing crime, I doubt it will ever come down in the city as long as you have the majority of the residents not willing to cooperate with the police and constantly 'see nothing and hear nothing' when shootings and car jackings occur. So don't bitch about crime. If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem and it seems there are a lot more people contributing to the problem in the city than trying to solve it.

You want to run the show? Elect another Kwame to do it. He ran it real well for you, didn't he? Stole money from all of you and robbed your children's future while he ran it right into the ground.
Perhaps that's the type of Detroit you prefer, but when your problems spillover to the suburbs, are a drag on the State and destabilize the entire region, you can be damn sure some people from the suburbs are going to try to step in and do what those in the city could not do for themselves.

[Gpwrangler]

A perfect example: The Lighting Authority. That plan was drafted by an individual who associated with a school in Dearborn, who probably lives outside of Detroit proper and probably does most of their business outside of Detroit proper. Thus, they're not living on the blocks that must deal with poorer streetlighting under this plan than before [[despite no notable decrease in crime).

And if that's what Damon Keith meant by his statement, I'm in 100% agreement.

Associated with a school in Dearborn? "Probably" lives outside the city? "Probably does business outside the city proper"? Interesting.

[Dumpling]

I think that when Duggan was elected mayor there was a sense that Detroit citizens
were looking to give him a chance to "do whatever works". The care of the street
lighting in my area, Warrendale, has now been pretty much outsourced from PLA to
DTE, and as a necessary consequence, some police functions are partially co-opted
and understudied by DTE as well. The "streetlights not working" map probably overlaps
nicely with drug activity indicators. DTE probably already pinpoints high energy use
houses as marijuana grow operations. It may be that the police department listens
better to DTE reports than to citizen reports.

[maverick1]

This kind of crap is really unbelievable. You people should be thrilled that enough companies from
the private sector came to the aid of the City of Detroit to help it through bankruptcy. Have you forgotten the Grand Bargain where private companies and organizations came together to help save the collections from the DIA from being sold off as part of the bankruptcy? If they had not stepped in and 'ran the show', the collection would have been sold off to pay off debts incurred from those who are complaining they 'aren't running the show' yet didnt pay water bills and taxes for years and expect a free ride from the city.

in addition, I am not sure what your BS is about the Lighting Authority. Dr Lorna Thomas is the Chair of the Authority and lives in Sherwood Forest so she is not an outsider to the city. Do you think she is not capable enough to deal with vendors? If you knew anything, you would know the standard is a national one not something a person from the suburbs created. And as for it not decreasing crime, I doubt it will ever come down in the city as long as you have the majority of the residents not willing to cooperate with the police and constantly 'see nothing and hear nothing' when shootings and car jackings occur. So don't bitch about crime. If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem and it seems there are a lot more people contributing to the problem in the city than trying to solve it.

You want to run the show? Elect another Kwame to do it. He ran it real well for you, didn't he? Stole money from all of you and robbed your children's future while he ran it right into the ground.
Perhaps that's the type of Detroit you prefer, but when your problems spillover to the suburbs, are a drag on the State and destabilize the entire region, you can be damn sure some people from the suburbs are going to try to step in and do what those in the city could not do for themselves.

Tell us more about what you think of the majority of the residents in Detroit.

[maverick1]

Exactly. I read that statement as being about the non-urban origins of the planning, not the non-urban nature of the planning.

But I also disagree with Hybridy's point. It is certainly true that the vast bulk of Detroit [[certainly not all, but the bulk) was constructed in a largely auto-dependent [[though more so now than when it was built) semi-suburban land use pattern. But that doesn't make it an appropriate vision for new development in Detroit, first because there is already so much of it, and secondly because it isn't realistic for Detroit to be a better suburb than the current suburbs. It is, however, entirely possible for it to have better urban neighborhoods than anywhere else in the vicinity, and that is what people should be developing. And, for the most part, that is more-or-less what they are doing

I agree and this is a concern I have. The majority of the development in this area for the past 40 years has been suburban based. I find that it's usually the view that's implemented in Detroit planning. We still view suburbia as progress and not the alternative to city living. I think the suburban housing on the riverfront and the islands placed on Livernois are examples of this.

[Hermod]

Detroit will improve when it allows developers to make money.

[313WX]

Tell us more about what you think of the majority of the residents in Detroit.

It's clear I have another candidate for my ignore list.

It's one thing to have a different opinion. But to express in such a militant way and with so much vitriol takes it too far.

[313WX]

Associated with a school in Dearborn? "Probably" lives outside the city? "Probably does business outside the city proper"? Interesting.

What's interesting?

[313WX]

BTW, per another poster on this forum, this is the highly-paid consultant who developed the city's current lighting plan [[as my post stated).

Perhaps I misunderstood the post, but it seemed pretty straight forward...

I can tell you all that the Plan was developed with a lighting engineer consultant from the University of Michigan:

From Council Minutes:
"Submitting reso. autho. Contract No. 86092 - 100% City Funding – To Provide
a Strategic Consultant – Sridhar Lakshmanan
–Contract Period: July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 – $125.00 per hour -
$1,000.00 per diem - Contract Amount Not to Exceed: $100,000.00 PUBLIC
LIGHTING [[REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDING COMMITTEE 07-25-11)

So, if you want to comment on the Plan itself you might email him. maybe he would appreciate comments from the end-users:
Sridhar Lakshmanan, Ph.D.
Associate Professor

	[[313) 593-5516
	224 Engineering Laboratory Building [[ELB) University of Michigan - Dearborn Dearborn, Michigan 48128

[mwilbert]

I agree and this is a concern I have. The majority of the development in this area for the past 40 years has been suburban based. I find that it's usually the view that's implemented in Detroit planning. We still view suburbia as progress and not the alternative to city living. I think the suburban housing on the riverfront and the islands placed on Livernois are examples of this.

Obviously I agree with you in general, but I disagree on the specific case of the Livernois median. Livernois was too wide for a urban street, and that width was completely unneeded at its current traffic level. The median is a way to make the scale more appealing to pedestrians, and make crossing the street safer. Now I would be the first to admit that there aren't currently a lot of pedestrians, and I don't know if there ever will be, but I think the median makes it more likely. I don't really see how it makes it more suburban. My biggest concern is that the islands are something else to maintain, and so far they haven't been doing the best job. I suppose they may be cheaper to maintain than roadway.