L Brooks Reduced to Whining

[mwilbert]

Except the exact opposite occurred. Oakland boomed under Paterson, while the other counties withered. The gap between Oakland and the rest of the metro has never been greater.

Of course you could probably find some measures for which your statement is true, but here's a graph of first one that occurred to me where I thought I could get the data, which is the last 20 years of Oakland County median household income [[deflated by the CPI) vs Wayne County median income similarly deflated. A couple things stand out.

1) Real incomes in both counties have dropped.
2) There's not a huge difference in the percentage drop, but it looks like Oakland dropped a bit more.
3) Oakland is still relatively very well off.

So I don't think it is at all obvious that "Oakland boomed while the other counties withered", although I would hardly say it is in some kind of massive decline either.

[Meddle]

Except the exact opposite occurred. Oakland boomed under Paterson, while the other counties withered. The gap between Oakland and the rest of the metro has never been greater.

I don't see that in any way. Patty has done nothing good in the eyes of most who can see clearly. It's been all about 'us vs. them' as far as he's been concerned. That is never conducive to growth or well being. It just breeds contempt and disrespect.

[313WX]

The previous poster's non-logic was as follows- Oakland County has not kept pace with Silicon Valley and Manhattan [[very true), therefore Oakland County has declined relative to the rest of the region [[obviously false).

And now you're moving the goal post, having gone from the ridiculous claim that Oakland County boomed under Patterson to now claiming it didn't decline as drastically as other counties in Metro Detroit [[never mind the fact that the comparison in the first place was relative to another affluent counties across the US).

And you and others wonder why some accuse you of being a troll...

[Cincinnati_Kid]

So you found one neighborhood and declared it typical of Pontiac?

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6517...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6305...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6269...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6383...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6782...7i13312!8i6656

^pretty nice, and unremarkable subdivision I've been in.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6811...7i13312!8i6656

Are these not "typical" of Pontiac, too? God, what a subjective term.

Also, none of us said Pontiac is some sort of utopian paradise. But I think it deserves to be in a much better condition. It's the county seat, and we act like it's a red-headed step child.

Full disclosure: I was born there and always had a soft spot for it. It deserves to be a seat of power. Instead, it's dragged through the mud because...? Some snob from Bham doesn't think it's deserving of anything?

I agree with this assessment. Pontiac has it's share of downtrodden neighborhoods, but also has nice, well kempt ones as well. Indian Village has some beautiful homes similar but maybe not as large, as Detroit's.

[Bham1982]

And now you're moving the goal post, having gone from the ridiculous claim that Oakland County boomed under Patterson to now claiming it didn't decline as drastically as other counties in Metro Detroit [[never mind the fact that the comparison in the first place was relative to another affluent counties across the US).

You realize you're still projecting, right? This is all fabricated nonsense.

No one claimed "Oakland County is outperforming the richest places on the planet". No place in the Rustbelt could compare to, say, Silicon Valley. It was the usual "alternative facts" crowd claiming Oakland was declining and Detroit was booming.

And you and others wonder why some accuse you of being a troll...

You mean the "6 mile is booming and Bloomfield dying" trolls accuse anyone who calls them out on their nonsense of trolling? Oh, the irony...

[O3H]

Pontiac had some great apartments, on a lake, next to a golf course [[walking distance). A real nice place to live, complete with pool.

- There are nice places to live in Pontiac [[at reasonable prices too)

[313WX]

You realize you're still projecting, right? This is all fabricated nonsense.

No one claimed "Oakland County is outperforming the richest places on the planet". No place in the Rustbelt could compare to, say, Silicon Valley. It was the usual "alternative facts" crowd claiming Oakland was declining and Detroit was booming.


You mean the "6 mile is booming and Bloomfield dying" trolls accuse anyone who calls them out on their nonsense of trolling? Oh, the irony...

I couldn't given less of a fuck about 6 mile or Bloomfield as an non-Michigan resident. All I care about is the facts. And the fact is, your claim that Oakland County boomed under Patterson was wrong.

The fact that you're being so obtuse about it instead of just saying "Yes, fair point, I was wrong to say Oakland County boomed under Patterson" suggests your only intent is to troll and get a rise out of others.

In any event, I'm done with this conversation. It's going nowhere.

[Towne Cluber]

Downtown/Midtown are booming AND so is Oakland County as a whole [[specifically Birmingham, Royal Oak, Ferndale, Clarkston, and Troy, among others). Saying/wishing the demise of Oakland County doesn’t make it true and isn’t going to make the City of Detroit prosper any faster.

[ABetterDetroit]

Downtown/Midtown are booming AND so is Oakland County as a whole [[specifically Birmingham, Royal Oak, Ferndale, Clarkston, and Troy, among others). Saying/wishing the demise of Oakland County doesn’t make it true and isn’t going to make the City of Detroit prosper any faster.

I have to agree with you.

Just deny reality and say the opposite is the thing these days. If you don’t like the politics of a particular geographical place then “it’s imploding and a disaster!”

I just arrived back from California recently and they are looking damn good out there. More new construction and rebuilding in a one hour drive there than you could find around here after all day looking.

Take what works elsewhere and apply it here. Spin in some local politics if makes us feel better about it. Quit trying to reinvent the wheel.

None of this doesn’t change the simple fact that LBP lacks class to say the least.

[313WX]

I just arrived back from California recently and they are looking damn good out there. More new construction and rebuilding in a one hour drive there than you could find around here after all day looking.

Well I guess so. Supply and demand.

Michigan:

2010	9,883,640		−0.6%
Est. 2017	9,962,311		0.8%

California:

2010	37,253,956		10.0%
Est. 2017	39,536,653		6.1%

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Well I guess so. Supply and demand.

Michigan:

2010	9,883,640		−0.6%
Est. 2017	9,962,311		0.8%

California:

2010	37,253,956		10.0%
Est. 2017	39,536,653		6.1%

Not to hijack this LBP thread, just replying to a comment, but I just don't see how people can afford to live in California, unless you have a very well paying job. The housing alone most can't afford. Studio apts renting for $1,500.00 a month. A small 2-3 bedroom home for 300 G's, and it's worse in the Bay Area. I get the weather, the ocean and other amenities, but is it really worth it? I guess it is, because people are still moving there, from the graph above.

[Meddle]

^^ And out here in the boonies, I got a decent house on four acres for the price of a cup of coffee out there.

[313WX]

Not to hijack this LBP thread, just replying to a comment, but I just don't see how people can afford to live in California, unless you have a very well paying job. The housing alone most can't afford. Studio apts renting for $1,500.00 a month. A small 2-3 bedroom home for 300 G's, and it's worse in the Bay Area. I get the weather, the ocean and other amenities, but is it really worth it? I guess it is, because people are still moving there, from the graph above.

The reality is California is one of the few states that are home to companies creating a ton of well-paying jobs [[tech industry).

Michigan, on the other hand, is home to a single industry that has been on a long, slow, but terminal decline in terms of scale, with no signs of that reversing.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/amp/a...-spiral-coming

http://www.autonews.com/article/2017...igned-bob-lutz

Plus, there's also the high birth rates from the flood of illegal immigrants out of Mexico over the past several decades

[Bham1982]

Not to hijack this LBP thread, just replying to a comment, but I just don't see how people can afford to live in California, unless you have a very well paying job. The housing alone most can't afford. Studio apts renting for $1,500.00 a month. A small 2-3 bedroom home for 300 G's, and it's worse in the Bay Area. I get the weather, the ocean and other amenities, but is it really worth it? I guess it is, because people are still moving there, from the graph above.

If you already own a home in CA, it's the same as here. The price gains are reflected in your own home valuation, so it doesn't matter if homes cost $1 or $10 million.

Of course, if you're coming somewhere like MI, CA seems impossibly expensive. But people do it. Salaries are higher, property taxes are lower, you don't even need AC or heat near the ocean, and people make it work.

Two low-level 20-something Facebook workers earn the same as a top-end surgeon in Michigan. They can make it work. And if you earn less, you can move inland, where there are 200k and 300k homes.

[Bham1982]

Plus, there's also the high birth rates from the flood of illegal immigrants out of Mexico over the past several decades

Fertility rates in MI and CA are exactly the same.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/sta...orial-data.htm

Illegal immigration has been net negative for years now, and CA hasn't been a primary source for Mexican illegal immigration for decades.

Asians are the fastest growing demographic in CA. No, they aren't "illegals".

[Wesley Mouch]

If you already own a home in CA, it's the same as here. The price gains are reflected in your own home valuation, so it doesn't matter if homes cost $1 or $10 million.

Of course, if you're coming somewhere like MI, CA seems impossibly expensive. But people do it. Salaries are higher, property taxes are lower, you don't even need AC or heat near the ocean, and people make it work.

Two low-level 20-something Facebook workers earn the same as a top-end surgeon in Michigan. They can make it work. And if you earn less, you can move inland, where there are 200k and 300k homes.

In round numbers, a $300,000 mortgage is $1,500/mo. So for $18,000 a year, you get a house. That's not at all unaffordable.

Sure, those prices seem high to us -- but real people are really paying those amounts for homes. So by definition they are affordable as they are being afforded.

[mwilbert]

Just to make one thing clear that may not have been clear from the other posts. In recent years, California tends to have had net domestic out migration--more people leave for other states than move there. There are probably various reasons, but one of them is surely the high cost of living in California, including income taxes and housing. In fact, in fiscal 2017 [[July 2016-June 2017) California's net domestic outflows were more than twice those of Michigan per capita.

California is still growing [[slowly) because there are still net international inflows, and still some increment of births over deaths. Michigan, on the other hand, does not get much international migration, and its relatively old and unhealthy population has a lower birth rate than California, and a much higher death rate, so the population is pretty stagnant.

[Bham1982]

Just to make one thing clear that may not have been clear from the other posts. In recent years, California tends to have had net domestic out migration--more people leave for other states than move there. There are probably various reasons, but one of them is surely the high cost of living in California, including income taxes and housing. In fact, in fiscal 2017 [[July 2016-June 2017) California's net domestic outflows were more than twice those of Michigan per capita.

California is still growing [[slowly) because there are still net international inflows, and still some increment of births over deaths. Michigan, on the other hand, does not get much international migration, and its relatively old and unhealthy population has a lower birth rate than California, and a much higher death rate, so the population is pretty stagnant.

This is all true but international in-migration goes hand-in-hand with domestic outmigration. This is how NYC has operated basically since founding. Major gateway cities tend to receive immigrants, who eventually spread out across the U.S.

[aj3647]

Except the exact opposite occurred. Oakland boomed under Paterson, while the other counties withered. The gap between Oakland and the rest of the metro has never been greater.

Oakland County would have done fine regardless of who the County Executive happened to be. It's not like L Brooks in particular is some once-in-a-lifetime political genius and Oakland County's relative wealth can be attributed primarily to his leadership. OC can elect an Executive who doesn't have the personal baggage of being an openly racist alcoholic and still probably get the same results. Just like the city of Warren doesn't HAVE to go with the guy who uses the N-word and thinks mentally-handicapped adults are animals who should be put in cages. And if you think ideology is important, then fine, plug and play any conservative Republican into those leadership roles and you'll get almost identical policies, you don't always have to go with the ones who also happen to coincidentally be disgusting, vile garbage people.

'Regional transport' means nothing to me. I drive myself where I need to go.

One of the reasons that Amazon didn't even look twice at Detroit for HQ2 was because of the total lack of mass transit in SE Michigan.

[mwilbert]

This is all true but international in-migration goes hand-in-hand with domestic outmigration. This is how NYC has operated basically since founding. Major gateway cities tend to receive immigrants, who eventually spread out across the U.S.

California is not a city. What typically happens even in New York is that people move out of the gateway city into the surrounding metro. That doesn't explain what is happening in California. Ellis Island is no longer a thing. People go where they want to go.

[bust]

I'll grant it's much less true than when Ellis Island was a thing, but Bham has a point here. I'll speak to one example I know something about: Hamtramck has quite a few immigrants whose first stop was in Queens, even if far more of them migrate from Queens to New Jersey. People go where they want to go, but for their first stop they often choose somewhere with a strong community who also recently arrived from where they used to call home.

[bust]

Oakland County would have done fine regardless of who the County Executive happened to be. It's not like L Brooks in particular is some once-in-a-lifetime political genius and Oakland County's relative wealth can be attributed primarily to his leadership. OC can elect an Executive who doesn't have the personal baggage of being an openly racist alcoholic and still probably get the same results.

Great post. The rest of it too.

The only thing I'll add is how selfish it is for those who depend on tax dollars to pay for the extra miles of roads, water mains, sewage systems, and other infrastructure that serves them and is used by barely anyone else to complain about tax dollars spent on infrastructure that would serve vastly more people, at a much lower per person cost. Even private utilities are subsidized for people in exurbs and rural areas by the higher fees everyone has to pay, even people who are much less expensive to serve. Add to that the much greater environmental cost of the three acres and a truck drive everywhere lifestyle. Live in the desert or on a former wetland? Multiply that.

Note that I'm not suggesting people shouldn't live that way if that's their choice. But I do suggest they should bear their fair share of the cost, and they currently don't come anywhere close. Meanwhile wanting to put an end to transit systems and voting to defund them is the direct opposite of that.

[O3H]

Bye Bye LBrooksP - no tears for you - no whining either -- just smiles

[Bham1982]

Great post. The rest of it too.

The only thing I'll add is how selfish it is for those who depend on tax dollars to pay for the extra miles of roads, water mains, sewage systems, and other infrastructure that serves them and is used by barely anyone else to complain about tax dollars spent on infrastructure that would serve vastly more people, at a much lower per person cost.

Except that isn't what happens.

Putting aside the fact that sprawl isn't an Oakland-specific issue, new roads, water mains and sewerage are paid for by developers and new homeowners.

When you buy a new home in, say, Oakland Township, or Lyon Township, you pay for the new infrastructure through a separate, temporary fee.

The "efficiency" argument isn't one to be made by anyone who cares about the city of Detroit. If we practiced ruthless regional economic efficiency based on cost-benefit, most of Detroit's neighborhoods would have to be abandoned.

[bust]

...new roads, water mains and sewerage are paid for by developers and new homeowners.

No, the developers and new homeowners don't even come close to covering the costs. See here.