Leaving Michigan Behind: Eight-year population exodus staggers state

[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?

[ghettopalmetto]

I think the vast majority of professional occupations are necessary in every metropolitan area. What city doesn't need lawyers, doctors, civil engineers, bankers, restauranteurs, IT professionals, and accountants? It's these people who are choosing to live elsewhere, because they can find work no matter where they go. The weather doesn't have anything to do with it. Detroit's weather really isn't that bad, especially when you compare it to Chicago, Minneapolis, Cleveland, or Boston, and it certainly doesn't have the sweltering humidity of the South.

If educated professionals are choosing to leave Michigan, there must be a reason for it. What differentiates Detroit from the other regions to which these people are moving? It's not for a lack of cultural amenities, for sure. It's certainly not due simply to taxation, when you look at the rates in effect in other large cities. What then?

This generation [[which includes me) is the first generation that has largely grown up in the suburbs, where a task as simple as buying loaf of bread necessitates a ride in a car. There isn't much in the way of direct interaction with one's environment. This generation values interaction, as indicated by the importance of internet-based and cell phone communication. I propose that cities with a sense of place provide the desired interaction with both environment and with other people.

Unfortunately, this isn't something tangible and easily measured by statistics. You can't quantify and run statistical analyses on the quality of building stock, neighborhood walkability, or sense of place. For this reason, a lot of the theory that *should* be under consideration by a city wondering where all its young people go, just isn't on the radar. Think about it. How often do we see on these very threads that, "Well, young people are going to Chicago because it's Chicago." WHY?

[Lorax]

As far as young people moving to Chicago, I can certainly tell you why.

I graduated high school in 83', and left Detroit for Chicago, as did a great number of members of my graduating class. After college, which most stayed in-state, Chicago was the place to be. The reasons are pretty much the same today as then.

Livability.

Access to mass transit.

A vibrant street life.

Jobs.

Really, we all know the reasons, they haven't changed. Also, what hasn't changed is the Detroit area's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Detroit had the chances to make the changes toward being a liveable city, with glimmers of hope from business and civic leaders of the last 25 years.

However, diversification of the area's industries didn't take place, universities did nothing really to keep graduates in the state.

Detroit and suburban politicians kept polarization of the races at the forefront of their decision making. We've been dealing with this sensitive topic since Coleman Young's "jewels of Detroit" speeches, and now with the Cobo Hall debacle. Not to mention the pandering of the Oakland County executives and fascist repugnicans in the state house like Engel and Cox.

Private enterprise was allowed to run roughshod over the city in exchange for a few jobs and vague promises of gentrification- i.e. casinos, Ilitch, sports, Matty Moron.

The snatching of defeat continues with the State Fair's impending demise, the demolition of the MCD and LB.

The slow rot of the urban core doesn't do the suburbs any good either. They would be more desirable places to live and do business if they were willing to end the stare-down with the city. Someone had to blink.

Only when Detroit gave up it's interest in the DIA did the magnificent turnaround take place. The same should be done with the parks department, Cobo Hall, the DPL, the Detroit police department.

Where I currently live in Miami Dade County, we have a regional police which services the entire county and it seems to work well, and there is probably no more racially polarized city in America than Miami.

Only when the region realizes their fates are inexorably tied will there be the beginning of real change.