U-M Professor: War on Crime Fueled Detroit's Decline

[Wesley Mouch]

Blacks suffered the socioeconomic problems that a white socioeconomic system had dished out on them.

Much truth here, but irrelevant as to whether Black America has socioeconomic problems, that much is clear. The question is what Black and White America do about it. But they do suffer.

Bussing came after Cay came into power and "enforced" by federal courts. No amount of reverse discrimination would have changed the way this "landmark" mechanism proved to be a shot in the dark.

I'm not sure of the timeline. But when is unimportant. The effect matters. Detroit-only bussing was a major factor in pushing White Detroiters to seek Whiter pastures, so to speak [/quote]

Bussing hardly changed the melanin composition/redistribution of Detroit schools.

That's irrelevant to my argument. Bussing was the single biggest factor in 'White Flight', IMO -- and that's what we're discussing. [/quote]

Be careful not to put the manure before the horse though, Wesley. It seems as though your description is chronological when in fact, the ignominious bussing wasn't anterior to CAY's reign nor the riots. It happened in the seventies.

Effect on White Flight was clear. Not intended to be chronological. Order irrelevant.

[canuck]

Totally understand your point Wesley. Whites don't want to share proximate space with blacks in Metro Detroit. Fair enough.

[mwilbert]

People aren't going to agree about this, but this is my view.

On its face, the war on crime seems clearly to have been bad for Detroit. It didn't succeed in keeping crime at a reasonable level [[in fact, crime got substantially worse in both Detroit and the country for many years afterward), but it locked up and thereby economically and socially disabled a big chunk of the population, with various additional resulting problems, so in my view it was minimal upside and lots of downside. In that sense, I would say the professor is correct.

Of course, we don't know what would have happened if different policies had been pursued--perhaps crime would have reached levels well beyond what they actually did and that could have been even worse. On the other hand, you can easily imagine better criminal justice policies having been implemented which could have both resulted in better crime control and less social disruption, so in that sense I would say you could certainly fault the actual implementation of the war on crime.

How important this was in the constellation of factors behind Detroit's problems is probably pretty unknowable. A big chunk of Detroit's decline had already happened before the war on crime really started, so there is a limit to how much blame I would think it should get.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

How important this was in the constellation of factors behind Detroit's problems is probably pretty unknowable. A big chunk of Detroit's decline had already happened before the war on crime really started, so there is a limit to how much blame I would think it should get.

This I agree with. Detroit's decline actually started in the late 50's and early 60's. The riot in 67, pushed it further along. Whites started leaving in droves.

[night-timer]

Let me get this straight, all the white people "flew" out of the City in solidarity over the over policing in black neighborhoods? The black fathers also took off because of the over policing in black neighborhoods. Everyone took off because of the over policing in black neighborhoods. Coleman Young gets elected, puts an end to over policing in black neighborhoods, and the murder rate spikes to 714. Makes me wonder how the good professor is able to breathe with her head stuck up a tight cavity.

Yeah, it's confused and confusing.

Is she saying the population shrank because too many black males did stuff that landed them behind bars - stuff that got blamed not on the perpetrators but on 'the system', whatever that is?

Is she saying that a heavy police presence did nothing to lower or prevent crime, only helped put plenty of people behind bars, thus the shrinking population that also got blamed on 'the system'?

What percentage of DPD officers are African American? There must be many, so the idea of racially-motivated unfair policing is not so simple.

[Hermod]

The decline in the 1950s was fueled by technology and prosperity more than it was fueled by race. The wartime economy followed by the post-war auto boom of 1946-1952 put a lot of money and spending power in the hands of Detroit industrialists and residents.

The factories in Detroit were becoming both worn-out and functionally obsolescent. Advances in production technology to include increasing uses of materials handling equipment pointed toward the efficiency created by a one floor factory to eliminate time lost with freight elevators. Detroit had pretty much maxed on industrial land availability.

It became cheaper and cheaper to buy land outside of Detroit and build a factory from scratch than it was to try and acquire land in Detroit, tear down, and build. Plus, the workers no longer had to travel by streetcar as most of them could afford their own auto. The factory where my father worked moved from Milwaukee and Russell out to Sherwood between 8 and 9 mile in 1952.

At the same time, the Detroit housing stock became "obsolete" compared to where developing "wants" in housing were trending. Even the newer brick bungalows in Detroit rarely boasted of more than a single bathroom. Out in the farmland beyond the borders, they were erecting ranch houses with 1-1/2 or even 2 bathrooms. Having their own cars, the workers could afford to live "off the transport grid" and still get to their jobs particularly where their job had moved out there as well. I think that these factors more than race spurred the initial movement out of the city.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

The decline in the 1950s was fueled by technology and prosperity more than it was fueled by race. The wartime economy followed by the post-war auto boom of 1946-1952 put a lot of money and spending power in the hands of Detroit industrialists and residents.

The factories in Detroit were becoming both worn-out and functionally obsolescent. Advances in production technology to include increasing uses of materials handling equipment pointed toward the efficiency created by a one floor factory to eliminate time lost with freight elevators. Detroit had pretty much maxed on industrial land availability.

It became cheaper and cheaper to buy land outside of Detroit and build a factory from scratch than it was to try and acquire land in Detroit, tear down, and build. Plus, the workers no longer had to travel by streetcar as most of them could afford their own auto. The factory where my father worked moved from Milwaukee and Russell out to Sherwood between 8 and 9 mile in 1952.

At the same time, the Detroit housing stock became "obsolete" compared to where developing "wants" in housing were trending. Even the newer brick bungalows in Detroit rarely boasted of more than a single bathroom. Out in the farmland beyond the borders, they were erecting ranch houses with 1-1/2 or even 2 bathrooms. Having their own cars, the workers could afford to live "off the transport grid" and still get to their jobs particularly where their job had moved out there as well. I think that these factors more than race spurred the initial movement out of the city.

You make some good points. In a nutshell, what you just mentioned, combined with other variables, all helped to create the impetus to move to suburbia.

[Wesley Mouch]

People aren't going to agree about this, but this is my view.

On its face, the war on crime seems clearly to have been bad for Detroit. It didn't succeed in keeping crime at a reasonable level [[in fact, crime got substantially worse in both Detroit and the country for many years afterward), but it locked up and thereby economically and socially disabled a big chunk of the population, with various additional resulting problems, so in my view it was minimal upside and lots of downside. In that sense, I would say the professor is correct.

Of course, we don't know what would have happened if different policies had been pursued--perhaps crime would have reached levels well beyond what they actually did and that could have been even worse. On the other hand, you can easily imagine better criminal justice policies having been implemented which could have both resulted in better crime control and less social disruption, so in that sense I would say you could certainly fault the actual implementation of the war on crime.

How important this was in the constellation of factors behind Detroit's problems is probably pretty unknowable. A big chunk of Detroit's decline had already happened before the war on crime really started, so there is a limit to how much blame I would think it should get.

I agree that the 'war on crime' [[or perhaps better, 'war on drugs') hurt Detroit a lot. However that 'war' started far after Detroit's decline. There was no 'war' on crime in the 60s, per se, but I have always assume that the force had a larger percentage of racism/racist actions than it does today. I'd be curious to hear Ray1936's take on this. The public story often isn't the private truth.

As to better criminal justice... of course it would have helped, but I rank this behind race and general 'rust-belt' economic decline in the USA. If it were only quality of criminal justice, I would have expected decline to have hit broadly across the US. But the cities with famous declines are all rust-belt and northern. Rust = general economics. Northern = significant urban migrant black population.

Read an interested article recently somewhere about how migrant communities often have crime problems. See Middle Eastern migration in Europe, or Irish & Black in urban America. They argued that these problems tend to resolve themselves over time [[see Irish).

[belleislerunner]

War on crime only affects people who are criminals.

Please check your excuses and try your luck again!

[vetalalumni]

War on crime only affects people who are criminals.

Please check your excuses and try your luck again!

The war on crime has significant collateral damage which many law abiding citizens can attest to from experience.

[GMan]

The war on crime has significant collateral damage which many law abiding citizens can attest to from experience.

I'm curious vetalalumni, can you expound on this?

Your saying that the intervention is causing harm to innocents that the original criminal act didn't?

[canuck]

I'm curious vetalalumni, can you expound on this?

Your saying that the intervention is causing harm to innocents that the original criminal act didn't?

Well, if 3 strikes means stealing 3 loaves of bread and getting a life sentence: there's your answer.

[iheartthed]

Are you suggesting this Detroit's single-biggest problem wasn't socioeconomic problems of black Americans?

Perhaps we have different definitions of socioeconomic problems?

Detroit's white population fell because whites left.

Perhaps you weren't around here in the 60s and 70s. Three racially-charged events changed Detroit.

1) Forced bussing of schoolchildren to achieve racial numerical parity in Detroit's schools.

2) A race-riot.

3) Election of black-nationalist Coleman A. Young as Mayor.

Don't underestimate #1. For most white families, they either moved as quickly as possible, or started saving up to get out as soon as they could afford a new house in the 'burbs. Of course some of it was Archie Bunker racism, but a lot of it was just simple concern for their kids. They didn't want their kids going to school in Detroit's inner city -- with its socioeconomic problems.

The riots scared people, but bussing was #1.

#2 was CAY, who I personally admire in many ways. With CAY's election, white residents knew they weren't much wanted. Reverse bigotry was municipally endorsed.

How exactly does a black-nationalist mayor get elected in a majority white city?

[GMan]

Well, if 3 strikes means stealing 3 loaves of bread and getting a life sentence: there's your answer.

Thanks Canuck, but I was looking for the detrimental involvement of the innocent when policing criminal behavior.

Stealing food could be understandable in a extreme circumstances but we do have numerous safety nets to help the hungry.

So if stealing is acceptable behavior, how about stealing say a cell phone.
After all everyone needs to be connected.
What twisted logic do we want to apply in the absurdian logic that certain deviant behaviors are acceptable in an advanced society.

[Ray1936]

I agree that the 'war on crime' [[or perhaps better, 'war on drugs') hurt Detroit a lot. However that 'war' started far after Detroit's decline. There was no 'war' on crime in the 60s, per se, but I have always assume that the force had a larger percentage of racism/racist actions than it does today. I'd be curious to hear Ray1936's take on this. The public story often isn't the private truth.

To say that no police officers harbored racism would obviously be a lie, but I never noted it to be rampant in my days [[1955-1984). As to any 'war on crime', well, what the hell were we out there for? The primary job of a police officer is the PREVENTION of crime, and that means to be pro-active as well as responsive. That said, I think the UM professor who offered the theory that the war on crime fueled the Detroit migration is nuts.

Here's a nutty thought for you. In my neighborhood here in suburban Las Vegas, I fetched my morning paper from the driveway and noted a small pile of something in the middle of the street three houses away. I wandered over and found a smushed rabbit that had been nailed by a car. Quite a mess. Went home, got a plastic bag and a large putty knife, and scooped the poor little guy up and into my dumpster. It was because I cared about my neighborhood. I suspect most of my neighbors would have done the same thing. Anyway, back in Detroit, the remains would have stayed there until nature took its course. Just sayin'.

[Packman41]

At the same time, the Detroit housing stock became "obsolete" compared to where developing "wants" in housing were trending. Even the newer brick bungalows in Detroit rarely boasted of more than a single bathroom. Out in the farmland beyond the borders, they were erecting ranch houses with 1-1/2 or even 2 bathrooms. Having their own cars, the workers could afford to live "off the transport grid" and still get to their jobs particularly where their job had moved out there as well. I think that these factors more than race spurred the initial movement out of the city.

^^^THIS^^^
Obsolete? Hell yes!
I grew up in the neighborhood around Carstens Elementary on the eastside in the late 1950s. The houses were built in the late teens and early 1920s and were packed cheek-to-jowl on 30 foot wide lots. All wood frame construction and no brick, But I thought we had it good because my grandfather had purchased a vacant lot years before and used it as a garden. On the other side a neighbor had done the same thing - so we had garden on each side of the house. One car garage.

Meanwhile, my aunt moved her family out to East Detroit near Nine Mile Road into a new, brick, ranch house on a 75' wide lot with a 2-car, detached garage. Modern heating - no coal-fired, gravity furnace, nice floor plan and a full basement. They were living large.

I remember my mother asking my father why her younger sister could afford such a nice house and why we were still living her childhood home with her father.

[Wesley Mouch]

How exactly does a black-nationalist mayor get elected in a majority white city?

I don't recall the racial stats of 1974, but if I remember correctly, the election was very close -- with CAY coming out on top. Nichols [[his opponent, again if I recall correctly) was a law & order candidate [[former/current sheriff, IIRC). I trust Nichols was affiliated with the Republicans. I would guess that the white Democrats and the vast majority of the black residents voted for CAY. Kinda like they are voting for Hillary today -- her gender matters more than her substance [[which is quite squishy).

[Ray1936]

John Nichols was the DPD Superintendent, then became Commissioner [[under the old pre-1978 structure). He lost by 14,000 votes; it really wasn't that close, Wesley. Biggest thing that hurt Nichols was he refused the "request" by Mayor Roman Gribbs to step down from his Police Commissioner job while he ran for Mayor. Nichols refused; Gribbs canned him. That little episode may have cost him the election. Also, his wife then mouthed off against Gribbs and his wife which turned more people off. Gribbs was a popular mayor with both black and white Detroiters. I had many a case in front of Gribbs when he was a traffic court referee and had great respect for him. Was saddened to learn of his death this year.

[vetalalumni]

War on crime only affects people who are criminals.

Please check your excuses and try your luck again!

The war on crime has significant collateral damage which many law abiding citizens can attest to from experience.

I'm curious vetalalumni, can you expound on this?

Your saying that the intervention is causing harm to innocents that the original criminal act didn't?

Well, if 3 strikes means stealing 3 loaves of bread and getting a life sentence: there's your answer.

Thanks Canuck, but I was looking for the detrimental involvement of the innocent when policing criminal behavior.

Stealing food could be understandable in a extreme circumstances but we do have numerous safety nets to help the hungry.

So if stealing is acceptable behavior, how about stealing say a cell phone.
After all everyone needs to be connected.
What twisted logic do we want to apply in the absurdian logic that certain deviant behaviors are acceptable in an advanced society.

Case in point. Enroute to work being stopped by DPD and crudely subjected to a search. While officer # 1 rifled through my lunch container, officer # 2 circled behind me menacingly. Officer # 1 found my flavored coffee creamer and appeared disappointed when he realized it was not the dope he had initially accused me of having.

No apology. Instead, I received a scolding from officer # 1 about my traveling the area. I was late to work, unnerved and did not feel any safer.

[GMan]

Case in point. Enroute to work being stopped by DPD and crudely subjected to a search. While officer # 1 rifled through my lunch container, officer # 2 circled behind me menacingly. Officer # 1 found my flavored coffee creamer and appeared disappointed when he realized it was not the dope he had initially accused me of having.

No apology. Instead, I received a scolding from officer # 1 about my traveling the area. I was late to work, unnerved and did not feel any safer.

Yeah I've been profiled and stopped too. Police have to act towards you with distrust and be on their gaurd for their protection. And yes, don't expect an apology when they don't find anything.

Now is it better if they don't make an effort to stop crimes such as drug trafficing? That is what I seem to be hearing.

[Wesley Mouch]

Case in point. Enroute to work being stopped by DPD and crudely subjected to a search. While officer # 1 rifled through my lunch container, officer # 2 circled behind me menacingly. Officer # 1 found my flavored coffee creamer and appeared disappointed when he realized it was not the dope he had initially accused me of having.

No apology. Instead, I received a scolding from officer # 1 about my traveling the area. I was late to work, unnerved and did not feel any safer.

White Boy Wesley had a similar experience. Menacing cops. Looking for a problem where none existed. Disappointed that this wasn't their moment. Rude scolding.

I got over it. And while the interaction wasn't the best and sure required some better police tactics, I got over it. I didn't decide to blame the cops for everything wrong in the world, and reminded myself just how bad the world would be if we didn't have cops protecting us.

The problem with the anti-'war on crime' brigade is that they over-estimate the harm of 'over-policing' and underestimate the harm of 'under-policing'. Read the reasonable Ray1936's note on racism in the bad-old-days. Existed? Sure. Rampant? No. We have let the radicals drive this debate. And the baby in the bathwater being tossed out is good policing in bad neighborhoods whose only hope for the future is public safety. They're gonna get deprived of good policing by do-gooders with attitude.

[Honky Tonk]

Now is it better if they don't make an effort to stop crimes such as drug trafficing? That is what I seem to be hearing.

No, it's not better, but they don't have to act like assholes because they're doing their job either.

[Wesley Mouch]

John Nichols was the DPD Superintendent, then became Commissioner [[under the old pre-1978 structure). He lost by 14,000 votes; it really wasn't that close, Wesley. Biggest thing that hurt Nichols was he refused the "request" by Mayor Roman Gribbs to step down from his Police Commissioner job while he ran for Mayor. Nichols refused; Gribbs canned him. That little episode may have cost him the election. Also, his wife then mouthed off against Gribbs and his wife which turned more people off. Gribbs was a popular mayor with both black and white Detroiters. I had many a case in front of Gribbs when he was a traffic court referee and had great respect for him. Was saddened to learn of his death this year.

Thanks for the refresher. That all sounds right. I was young at the time, no pun intended.

I detested Young at the time, actually. His reverse-bigotry to me was and is the wrong answer to racism. [[Love is the answer, not hate, btw.) But I came to respect CAY's approach -- although I never agreed with it.

Back to the topic... Young talked tough, but in the end his force didn't hold public safety. Zealous [[perhaps too zealous) cops like Nevers/Budzyn were hung out to dry -- and while that may have felt good for the self-righteous, it had an effect on the rest of the cops. It was version 1 of the Ferguson Effect. Tell cops they aren't wanted because a few went too far -- and what you get is mayhem by a whole lot of criminals. I'd rather have a few innocent folks stopped and frisked, then let criminals run the show. It seems that its being proven today that Ferguson etc. is resulting in more criminal activity. Deny that stats, if you wish. Explain them away. It'll make you feel better. And who cares what those who have to live in bad 'hoods think or need. As long as you feel better.

[GMan]

No, it's not better, but they don't have to act like assholes because they're doing their job either.

Yeah it would be better if they were not overly aggressive a@@h@les but I understand their distancing stance because in 2 seconds the situation could turn ugly and that could mean the end of their life.

[canuck]

White Boy Wesley had a similar experience. Menacing cops. Looking for a problem where none existed. Disappointed that this wasn't their moment. Rude scolding.

I got over it. And while the interaction wasn't the best and sure required some better police tactics, I got over it. I didn't decide to blame the cops for everything wrong in the world, and reminded myself just how bad the world would be if we didn't have cops protecting us.

The problem with the anti-'war on crime' brigade is that they over-estimate the harm of 'over-policing' and underestimate the harm of 'under-policing'. Read the reasonable Ray1936's note on racism in the bad-old-days. Existed? Sure. Rampant? No. We have let the radicals drive this debate. And the baby in the bathwater being tossed out is good policing in bad neighborhoods whose only hope for the future is public safety. They're gonna get deprived of good policing by do-gooders with attitude.

Yes, and perhaps growing the prison population to twice the present number would make you feel safer. Then, the bad neighborhoods may shrink or disappear according to your logic. I suppose it has to do with continual reinforcement of bad vs good, good vs bad, high contrast definition of society. So the Police force in Ferguson should either grow or be more aggressive in its interactions with suspected wrongdoers. This concept of policing is consistent with cities and neighborhoods that implode time and again. Standoffs and riots don't happen in the good parts of town. Hoodie wearing teens of the black persuasion have a better chance of bringing home a memento from a walk in a proper hood. They either bring back stolen goods or a customary frisking for
looking the part. In which case the good hoods don't need more cops, they need to home in on the undesirables. The undesirables need to know they are only wanted in the bad neighborhoods, or in prison.