A possible Amalgamation of Detroit and Suburbs?

**Danny** · November-19-21, 07:10 AM

After the Census 2020 data results reported that Detroit's population has declined to 613,000. What would happen if Detroit's population continues to decreased to under 500,000? Can Detroit City will amalgamate to the suburbs to increase to its population and get more regional funding? What regional taxation and city services do we get? What politicians do the people in a mega city of Detroit will provide?

Any thoughts?

**townonenorth** · November-19-21, 09:52 AM

No. Pretty easy answer, isn't it?

**13606Cedargrove** · November-19-21, 09:58 AM

I believe there is a state law passed in the mid-1920's that limits if and how municipalities can expand, specifically across county lines. This explains why Detroit did not jump North of Eight Mile Road in the 1920's. There have been detailed discussions about this on other threads.

Many large urban regions in the U.S. include too many municipalities within them leading to waste and fiscal problems, but little seems to be done about it.

**Danny** · November-19-21, 09:59 AM

It may happen in the near future if Detroit's city population continues to decline. Even if it hits under 400,000 with plenty of vacant land to fill.

Only we have to do is appeal to the Michigan State Legislature and the State Boundary Commission to change the city annexation laws first. Then the people in Detroit and its suburbs can vote for amalgamation.

How about this... If any Metro Detroit suburb votes for amalgamation, all of their regional debts will be forgiven.

**Danny** · November-19-21, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by 13606Cedargrove

I believe there is a state law passed in the mid-1920's that limits if and how municipalities can expand, specifically across county lines. This explains why Detroit did not jump North of Eight Mile Road in the 1920's. There have been detailed discussions about this on other threads.

Many large urban regions in the U.S. include too many municipalities within them leading to waste and fiscal problems, but little seems to be done about it.

That can be changed with a petition.

**Hermod** · November-19-21, 10:52 AM

Yup, combine Detroit into a tri-county [[Wayne-Oakland-Macomb) "Greater Detroit. Given current and projected populations, the corrupt Detroit politicans would be powerless "back benchers" in the combined council. Do you think the Detroit power structure wants that?

**401don** · November-19-21, 11:09 AM

If you had Ontario's laws you could. 20 yrs. ago with the stroke of a pen by the province the cities of Etobicoke, North York & Scarborough became part of Toronto and the city gained a couple of million people, not that it needed the pop. gain. Technically they desolved all of the cities and created one new one. There was already a lot of integration though and these were relatively strong cities to begin with so very little was gained economically.

**EastsideAl** · November-19-21, 11:58 AM

Ontario seems to do that kind of consolidation/reorganization thing a lot. Windsor was removed from Essex County a few years back, and the rest of the county was comprehensively reorganized into fewer and larger units. While Chatham and Kent County were merged into a single governmental entity, Chatham-Kent. And the entire Niagara peninsula was reorganized into a "regional municipality", as were many other places in the province.

On the other hand, with rare exceptions it has been decades since any major US city annexed or combined with any of its neighboring cities. In the northeast and the midwest the annexation boom pretty much stopped dead in its tracks before the great depression. The resulting vested interests, suburban and city, have mostly stymied any return to that era or really any meaningful attempts at true regional government beyond things like transit or water districts.

**Rocket** · November-19-21, 12:24 PM

Detroit has too MUCH land, not too little. So you wouldn't want to annex other areas. Then they too would be horribly mis-managed by Detroit City Council etc.

Better to sell off the edges of Detroit to the surrounding suburbs. Get rid of land area. Then you have less for police and fire to have to patrol, while keeping the good stuff like downtown and the water dept.

Perhaps sell off / give away everything West of the Southfield freeway to Redford and Dearborn Heights, and also that peninsula by River Rouge?

**townonenorth** · November-19-21, 01:41 PM

THIS makes more sense.

Originally Posted by Rocket

Detroit has too MUCH land, not too little. So you wouldn't want to annex other areas. Then they too would be horribly mis-managed by Detroit City Council etc.

Better to sell off the edges of Detroit to the surrounding suburbs. Get rid of land area. Then you have less for police and fire to have to patrol, while keeping the good stuff like downtown and the water dept.

Perhaps sell off / give away everything West of the Southfield freeway to Redford and Dearborn Heights, and also that peninsula by River Rouge?

**Henry Whalley** · November-19-21, 02:44 PM

Detroit could put its extra land under cultivation. For instance, growing one of the cold-hardy species of bamboo. Bamboo is most beautiful and grows rapidly. Growth could be harvested every six years for lumber. The diet of panda bears is bamboo, so edible parts could be sold or donated to zoos. Forests are carbon-sinks.

Of course, city council would demand bribes from forestry contractors.

**Honky Tonk** · November-19-21, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Henry Whalley

Of course, city council would demand bribes from forestry contractors.

Or from the pandas themselves.

**casscorridor** · November-19-21, 02:59 PM

Amalgamation would require an act of the Michigan Legislature. But this is highly unlikely because most suburban residents, especially the most affluent ones, would passionately defend their municipal fiefdoms. I can just hear the cries about erosion of public services, increases in crime, and god forbid their children mixing with the unwashed.

However, just for the sake of this exercise. Let's say Michigan does amalgamate the Detroit metropolitan area. What would be the beset way to do it? Here is my proposal:

First, abolish Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties and combine their respective areas into a new administrative unit called "Greater Detroit," which would be neither a city nor county. It would have a population of just under 3,950,000. If it were counted as a "city," it would the third largest in the country behind New York and Los Angeles.

Next, merge tiny fiefdoms into larger units to create 19-20 units of roughly the same population. Let's just call them Boroughs. Each borough would have a population of around 200,000. The existing City of Detroit would be split up into several boroughs, some of which might merge with existing suburban municipalities [[for example Warrendale might merge into a new "Borough of Dearborn).

Finally, "Greater Detroit" would have a council and a mayor [[known as the "Mayor of Detroit") and would be charged with regional planning, transportation, and delivery of region-wide public services including police and fire. The "boroughs" would be similar in function to existing municipalities, with a local council and mayor, and deliver local services such as trash pick up, libraries, recreation, social services and so on.

What do you all think?

**NSortzi** · November-19-21, 03:36 PM

The only suburb Detroit might absorb one day is Highland Park and even that’s unlikely. Detroit doesn’t want to deal with the additional problems HP brings.

**Rocket** · November-19-21, 04:56 PM

^ It's population is 1/6 of what it was in the 1930's, [now below 9,000], and of those, less than 45% are employed.

It's gotta be tough to run anything on that sort of income, especially when Art Blackwell has your checkbook. How many hundreds of thousands did he steal? Thanks Jenny.

**Danny** · November-19-21, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Rocket

Detroit has too MUCH land, not too little. So you wouldn't want to annex other areas. Then they too would be horribly mis-managed by Detroit City Council etc.

Better to sell off the edges of Detroit to the surrounding suburbs. Get rid of land area. Then you have less for police and fire to have to patrol, while keeping the good stuff like downtown and the water dept.

Perhaps sell off / give away everything West of the Southfield freeway to Redford and Dearborn Heights, and also that peninsula by River Rouge?

They may not work because for the its neighboring suburbs want to have pieces of Detroit will had to deal with the ghetto-like black and blighted areas. And blight control and property procedures would take place that would clause more low-income residents to lose their homes fast.

And speedy gentrification of housing and business development along with high rents will close the coffin on the inner city hoods.

In Minneapolis they do have very good blight control procedures when the Somalians come to town since the early 1990s. and really kept and mostly black North Minneapolis in stable condition.

**Danny** · November-19-21, 06:24 PM

If Detroit amalgamated with the suburbs. There will be sub-divisions created from the once city suburbs. And it's to the people in that community to elect their leader for Detroit City Council.

The New Detroit City Council will be up to 20 people. In other areas in Detroit, they will decide what city or their communities is best for the people.

The school districts would remain in their own areas or be combined. Detroit Public Schools Community District will remain their own entity.

**renf** · November-19-21, 08:32 PM

Just to set the record straight. Census 2020 counted 639,000 residents in the city of Detroit. The rate of population loss in the city has slowed substantially between 2010 and 2010. The city is poised to see its
population grow in the next decade.

**Richard** · November-19-21, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by renf

Just to set the record straight. Census 2020 counted 639,000 residents in the city of Detroit. The rate of population loss in the city has slowed substantially between 2010 and 2010. The city is poised to see its
population grow in the next decade.

Glass half full.

Kinda makes it nice when a city has room to grow,people do not get priced out so fast.

I would look at it as Detroit has an abundance of opportunity with an open pallet,where others will just always see despair.

**313WX** · November-20-21, 03:56 AM

Originally Posted by renf

The city is poised to see its
population grow in the next decade.

Folks were saying that about this past decade.

Fundamentally, if you look at Detroit's rust belt peers that are functionally healthier but still experiencing population decline combined with the macro factors that will continue to drive mass migration to the Sunbelt [[limited economic growth/diversity, rough winters, etc.), I wouldn't bet the house on that prediction.

**Sehv313** · November-20-21, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by Rocket

Detroit has too MUCH land, not too little. So you wouldn't want to annex other areas. Then they too would be horribly mis-managed by Detroit City Council etc.

Better to sell off the edges of Detroit to the surrounding suburbs. Get rid of land area. Then you have less for police and fire to have to patrol, while keeping the good stuff like downtown and the water dept.

Perhaps sell off / give away everything West of the Southfield freeway to Redford and Dearborn Heights, and also that peninsula by River Rouge?

West of Southfield freeway contains a lot of great NW Detroit neighborhoods [[Old Redford, Rosedale Park, Grandmont No. 1, Warrendale, 8/Evergreen, Minock Park) and Detroit is NOT going to do that at all. If We were still in a defecit I see us selling the east side borders to Harper Woods or the Pointes first.

In a perfect world I always wanted Detroit to acquire HP and Hamtramck but Highland Park means more blight than we already can handle and Hamtramck is thriving more than ever. I see us acquiring HP before losing any land in the city.

**Richard** · November-20-21, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by 313WX

Folks were saying that about this past decade.

Fundamentally, if you look at Detroit's rust belt peers that are functionally healthier but still experiencing population decline combined with the macro factors that will continue to drive mass migration to the Sunbelt [[limited economic growth/diversity, rough winters, etc.), I wouldn't bet the house on that prediction.

Detroit was built off of people moving from the south to the north in that case it was simply providing opportunity.

There has always been mass migration back and forth but when you look at things sense the 1980s it has been flat out fleeing in large numbers.policies remove opportunity,the migration is just cause and effect.

The recent mass migration that saw millions flee had little to do with lack of opportunity or cold weather,but that’s what starts it all in the first place,a failure to face the facts.

Just on a little offshoot,there are lots of properties owned by boomers of the north in the south,as of late as they start passing in larger numbers,90% of the time,those properties are sold and the funds are sent back up north to families that still reside up there.

That equals large chunks of cash where one property provides the economic impact of 3 people leaving.

In theory it should be a balance of population loss without the revenue drain,it’s not snow that upset that balence.

I meet a lot of x-pats from Michigan,a majority say they were from the Detroit region but the majority also would prefer to move back.

Personally if I keep tripping over the rake,I find it easier to move the rake then the ground under it,or even even easier to create a new path around the rake so I can avoid tripping over it in the first place.

I have seen the city itself give up 2 large chunks of land in the last 7 years,each case has actually been a long term detriment to the city.

Pretend you are a farmer,you have all of this land sitting there,it does no good to acquire more because that comes with additional costs that offset the gains.

Cities expand when they grow out of the defined lands but after they have maximized growth potential of the existing boundaries.

It does little good sitting there looking at it and trying to figure out how to pay for it,by acquiring more debt,in order to be able to continue to sit there and look at it sitting there vacant.

Tampa

You have the actual downtown
Next to it YBor city,built by the cigar factories,a city within the city.
West Tampa - was built by the ones that did not blend into Downtown or Ybor city.

That makes 3 completely different cities all under the umbrella of one city,it’s all considered the city of Tampa but each one is run independently within its own cocoon.

Looking at the land mass of Detroit as a city,it’s overwhelming and the old school way of looking at the downtown expanding out to the neighborhoods and building them up is a massive hill to climb.

Maybe that is a way,instead of it being one large city,break it up development wise,still under one roof as the city of Detroit but with taking sections and creating cities within a city,little bites instead of taking big ones.

**Danny** · November-20-21, 09:01 PM

First of all this great State of Michigan doesn't want a Metro-Detroit Area with a lost urban core and declining population down to 400,000 by 2035. So having Detroit combined with the suburbs maybe the final solution. In case Detroit's regional businesses failed to bring jobs and corps. into downtown, its industrial zones, and the neighborhoods.

It's going to happen not 5 years from now, but about 15 to 30 years ahead. The only way to prevent the amalgamation of Detroit and suburbs is Detroit is regional jobs to increase population density along with excellent schools, a better police force and its city services.

**Danny** · November-20-21, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by Sehv313

West of Southfield freeway contains a lot of great NW Detroit neighborhoods [[Old Redford, Rosedale Park, Grandmont No. 1, Warrendale, 8/Evergreen, Minock Park) and Detroit is NOT going to do that at all. If We were still in a defecit I see us selling the east side borders to Harper Woods or the Pointes first.

In a perfect world I always wanted Detroit to acquire HP and Hamtramck but Highland Park means more blight than we already can handle and Hamtramck is thriving more than ever. I see us acquiring HP before losing any land in the city.

That's not going to happen. Harper Woods is not going to piece of Detroit ghetto hood. But for Harper Woods to be amalgamated to Detroit it's up the people's vote. And so will Highland Park and the rest of the suburbs after we take care of changing the State Boundary Commission's city annexation laws. It does have its flaws when it comes when a city becomes a ghost town.

**313WX** · November-20-21, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by Danny

First of all this great State of Michigan doesn't want a Metro-Detroit Area with a lost urban core and declining population down to 400,000 by 2035. So having Detroit combined with the suburbs maybe the final solution. In case Detroit's regional businesses failed to bring jobs and corps. into downtown, its industrial zones, and the neighborhoods.

It's going to happen not 5 years from now, but about 15 to 30 years ahead. The only way to prevent the amalgamation of Detroit and suburbs is Detroit is regional jobs to increase population density along with excellent schools, a better police force and its city services.

I don't think the "great State of Michigan" cares about Detroit having a lost urban core and a declining population.

Most folks there are convinced the state can get along just fine without a strong/healthy Detroit.