Leaving Michigan Behind: Eight-year population exodus staggers state

[digitalvision]

Thing is, DP, by adding those penalties you will push more qualified people away from even spending their college dollars here. It's the wrong incentive. No one wants to be restricted to where they can go, so all we'll get is the bottom of the barrel who have no choice BUT to go to our universities because they can't qualify anywhere else, because they will be restricted.

I know that the people I know would of gone out of state for college under such a restriction. People do whatever is best for themselves. Remember, many times, these folks are paying for their own college through loans, private scholarships, etc., the state isn't.

[DetroitPlanner]

Thing is, DP, by adding those penalties you will push more qualified people away from even spending their college dollars here. It's the wrong incentive. No one wants to be restricted to where they can go, so all we'll get is the bottom of the barrel who have no choice BUT to go to our universities because they can't qualify anywhere else, because they will be restricted.

I know that the people I know would of gone out of state for college under such a restriction. People do whatever is best for themselves. Remember, many times, these folks are paying for their own college through loans, private scholarships, etc., the state isn't.

I'd have to disagree with you on a few points. The people who leave do not have a lasting impact on the economy and are not worth the investment. I'm not talking about other money, just money that comes from taxes that could be better utilized not subsidizing people who are not from Michigan and plan on leaving Michigan once they are done with school. There is clearly no easy answer to this problem.

The State spends quite a bit of its money on the universities but is not reaping most benefits from having them here. What would be the point to keep them around? Private colleges such as U of DM, LTU or CCS also bring in students, but the state does not subsize them in the same degree as it does public ones. Lots of people come to Michigan from elsewhere, get educated then leave. These folks only estabish residency in order to get a break on tuition, most of their economic base is still out of state. Its not like Ann Arbor or even Cass Corridor is reaping huge tax reciepts from having these institutions located in their area. In many cases the cost of infrastructure alone is not covered by what comes in from the leeches.

[Novine]

The Urbanophile had an extensive discussion on this topic. I agree with his point that it's counter-productive to focus exclusively on keeping graduates here in state. For some, their career fields don't offer opportunities in state and for others, it's good for them to see some of the world while they're young and impressionable. We have too many people in our state who don't travel and don't see other cities and cultures and that's not good for us. We should be focusing on how we can encourage those graduates to come back when they're ready to raise families or encourage graduates from other states to come to Michigan.

[professorscott]

It's the wrong approach here to try to use a stick. If people want to leave, they'll leave; this isn't East Berlin, and you can't make it so.

The problem we have is simple and solvable: we have built a region that is not attractive to people in their 20s and 30s. We have to rebuild the region, and remarket it, so it is attractive to young adults and young families.

What does this mean? Well, send our planners and political leaders to successful regions that are attracting young adults: Boston, Denver, Portland, others. Compare what those cities/regions offer to what metro Detroit offers.

Some things we do well; for instance, I would hold up the Metro Park system against any other community's parks. Those things we need to do a better job of selling.

Some things we absolutely suck at; for instance, public transportation. Those things we have to fix.

But if we keep running the region as we have for the past seventy years, we'll just fail. Detroit could easily fall below 600,000 or 400,000 or any number you care to name. The region could slide back into the low 3 millions. Many suburbs will be in large portion abandoned. This is not hyperbole; it's a prediction. My concern is, almost nobody in our local political caste seems to have any understanding of these issues. They are like the seagulls in Finding Nemo, brainlessly repeating the chant of "Mine! Mine!"

[ghettopalmetto]

Detroitplanner, I disagree with your assertions.

The State of Michigan doesn't realize economic benefits from its college graduates because it's not an attractive place for young college graduates. Without concerning ourselves with retaining out-of-state students, Michigan can't even retain its own in-state students, who tend to flee to Chicago. One might start by asking why this is.

To argue that Ann Arbor doesn't receive any economic benefits from U of M is preposterous. Ann Arbor and the U "grew up" together--the two are inextricably intertwined. Not only is the U the largest employer in Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County, but numerous businesses depend on the student/faculty/staff population. Without the University of Michigan, there IS no Ann Arbor as we know it.

A strategy that might behoove planners, developers, and government officials in Southeast Michigan is to stop the ridiculous policy of building housing stock that only middle-aged people find attractive. Someone who grows up in Troy, for example, simply doesn't have the option of returning to Troy when he graduates from college unless he lives with his parents. Housing for all income levels is necessary to retain some semblance of stability and sustainability in the population.

[ghettopalmetto]

Lots of people come to Michigan from elsewhere, get educated then leave. These folks only estabish residency in order to get a break on tuition, most of their economic base is still out of state.

This statement is inaccurate and misleading, plain and simple. The State of Michigan makes it incredibly difficult--damn near impossible, actually--for out-of-state students to establish residency. Michigan residency is not even a choice for these students until after they graduate.

And I'd like to know about this tuition break. Do you know of any out-of-state students who have successfully managed to obtain in-state status for the lower tuition rate?

[DetroitPlanner]

Thank goodness my plan worked! The thread was moving away from the issue of retainment and more towards the same old 'preservation' and 'transit' mantra when I made my first post. I state that I don't know all of the answers, never claimed to, but something needs to be done. I also need to be upfront in that I am very much supportive of investing in transportation and preservation as this is how I make my money, and I chose to live in an older home in the City Limits.

I am not without the understanding that Ann Arbor would be another cow town without the university. It is however more important to look at what and how the state invests its money entirely and what the return is on those dollars. Sending students out of state is a terrible policy, having students come here from elsewhere to be educated then turn around and leave is even worse! Wasteful spending will never get us the money needed to improve transit and without population we can't preserve buildings or transportation infrastructure.

[ghettopalmetto]

I am not without the understanding that Ann Arbor would be another cow town without the university. It is however more important to look at what and how the state invests its money entirely and what the return is on those dollars. Sending students out of state is a terrible policy, having students come here from elsewhere to be educated then turn around and leave is even worse! Wasteful spending will never get us the money needed to improve transit and without population we can't preserve buildings or transportation infrastructure.

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say. Are you arguing that Michigan should abolish state-supported universities?

[Jason]

I think he's suggesting that there be some kind of condition, for example, that in order for in-state students to get money they must live in Michigan for at least 5 years after graduation.


While the state isn't rolling in cash, I don't think the problem is money. I think the problem is how money is spent. A reasonable fraction of the current transportation budget could easily build some mass transit lines, and a larger fraction could immediately build some real systems. As far as building desirable places to live, there is [[or was, and will be again) plenty of development, just the wrong kind [[out in Canton, etc.). Urban planners already know how to plan for healthy growth, Michigan's planning as a whole just needs reforming.

I'm not saying that this is realistic, but I think Michigan can turn itself around with what it has, if it would use it right.

[DetroitPlanner]

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say. Are you arguing that Michigan should abolish state-supported universities?

Yes nationally recognized Public Universities are hurting Michigan !

Actually I am saying quite the opposite, I am saying that we need to stop people from leaving here somehow. Universities are drawing people here, but nearly all of them leave after they are educated. There are also a large number of people who grew up in Michigan who leave as well. Strangely, folks seem to either go to places like Chicago who has the same weather, or places with worse weather, like Minneapolis or Seattle. Therefore, we are not retaining people that we educate, and we are using state money to sponsor them to get out of town. There is some inasanity to this.

This was from the origin of the thread:

"The state loses a family every 12 minutes, and the families who are leaving -- young, well-educated high-income earners -- are the people the state desperately needs to rebuild. The state loses a family every 12 minutes, and the families who are leaving -- young, well-educated high-income earners -- are the people the state desperately needs to rebuild."

We need to examine how we can avoid this. If people come here or stay here for our universities, why are we so stupid when it comes to creating the jobs needed to keep them here? Without those jobs, we can't have the transit system that we dream of, nor will we have the offices, apartments, or industry to fill preserved buildings.

Therefore those who throw out stuff like 'people leave here because we don't have good transit' or 'people leave here because of the horrible preservation record' are putting the cart before the horse. We need a stong economy to have those sort of amenities.

Jason, while I agree with your assertion that we need to examine spending, its not a simple switching of modes. I do agree we need to add transit capacity, but we also need to ensure that roads are well maintained. Michigan is a donor state for federal transpportation funds, meaning we give a lot more than we get. This may have been fine 40 years ago, but Michigan is no longer the star of the Nation's economy. We have a little thing known as weather fluctionation which causes our streets to be riddled with potholes more than other places. We also need to keep our roads in good condition or we will lose our role as a leading international trade center for Canada. Its not like we are widening a lot of roads these days, the overwheming majority of the road funding goes toward preserving the current system, or making it safer or smarter. Integration of transit and roads could do a lot to improve the operation of both. For example, smart signals along Woodward could be used by transit so that it never stops for red lights. These smart signals could also be used by first responders. Roadways could include more transit and pedestrian friendly features when being reconstructed such as bump outs or bus bays.

[Fury13]

The solution is so simple. People will come back to Michigan in droves after the domestic auto industry booms again... you know, after they start selling zillions of 400-hp Camaros and Challengers, and 50-foot-long, eight-ton SUVs. You know, cars that America truly needs and that the Big Three want to build! Rah rah Detroit!

[lilpup]

But what are the underpinnings of our 'new' service economy that can be drawn to Michigan? We can do some tourism and gambling. We have good medical here already. We have some agriculture, but that doesn't bring many jobs. We had engineering, but that's largely leaving [[and mainly to overseas). Do we want to tap all of our natural resources for job creation? That's one of the things that's driving job growth in states like Wyoming and North Dakota.

The green energy ideas are based on the manufacturing and engineering we're losing but it would be nice if used to retain what we have [[tho' I wonder how many more jobs will disappear due to implementing 'green' everything).

Other than 'green' and health care for the baby boomers, what are the jobs of the future? Are we going to need to resort to 'make work' jobs [[which I think we should since many were unnecessarily cut in the name of profits)?

Can we get the cart vendors, knife sharpeners, and street sweepers back, please, and maybe some pump jockeys to serve up the ethanol?