Can the Amalgamation of Detroit Happen?

**Danny** · February-15-25, 01:21 PM

You do heard stories of how New York City and Toronto became amalgamated. What if Detroit can amalgamate all its suburbs? What municipalities from police, fire department and city politics impact or state and the world?

Can the next Mayor of Detroit make plans to amalgamate the surrounding suburbs?

Any thoughts?

**Hans320i** · February-15-25, 07:10 PM

If I understand you correctly, Indianapolis/Marion County might be more informative. I doubt the city could almagamate with other counties, but within Wayne County it might be possible. Is there a move afoot? This is the first I had heard talk of this.

Originally Posted by Danny

You do heard stories of how New York City and Toronto became amalgamated. What if Detroit can amalgamate all its suburbs? What municipalities from police, fire department and city politics impact or state and the world?

Can the next Mayor of Detroit make plans to amalgamate the surrounding suburbs?

Any thoughts?

**Henry Whalley** · February-16-25, 06:36 AM

Danny, I don't think that amalgamation would be possible. Were I the king of Detroit, I'd join Windsor, Canada, land of the free and home of the brave.

**mwilbert** · February-16-25, 09:47 AM

Legally difficult, politically impossible. But there should be some smaller levels of amalgamation--there's no good reason for all the separate small municipalities on either side of Woodward north of Eight Mile, and it's very wasteful. And no issue with county boundaries. But even that is wildly unlikely.

**13606Cedargrove** · February-16-25, 10:46 AM

A 1927[?) state law prohibiting it would need to be repealed. That law stopped the expansion of Detroit in it tracks. There are other threads on this forum which cover this issue in detail.

**Danny** · February-16-25, 11:39 AM

We can petition against the Michigan State Boundry Commission to change annexation laws only to make city amalgamation happen.

**Danny** · February-16-25, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by 13606Cedargrove

A 1927[?) state law prohibiting it would need to be repealed. That law stopped the expansion of Detroit in it tracks. There are other threads on this forum which cover this issue in detail.

Actually the 1928 Charter Township Act. sets up the State Boundry Commission to prevent any township to be annexed to a city, village or another township as long its municipal gov't has fire, water, police depts working. If any charter townships lose one of those services, the SBC Board can make the TWP. lose the charter, making any city, town or village to freely vote to annex any part of the city.

It happened to Royal Oak Township in which they have to lose part of 10 Mile Rd. and Greenfield Rd. and parts of Industrial complex between Meyers and Wyoming St. to Oak Park.

I would like the SBC Act of 1948 in Michigan to Change. I might put that request in writing to the next new governor of Michigan.

**Danny** · February-16-25, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by mwilbert

Legally difficult, politically impossible. But there should be some smaller levels of amalgamation--there's no good reason for all the separate small municipalities on either side of Woodward north of Eight Mile, and it's very wasteful. And no issue with county boundaries. But even that is wildly unlikely.

It can work be petition the People of Michigan to change the SBC Act of 1948.

**Danny** · February-16-25, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Henry Whalley

Danny, I don't think that amalgamation would be possible. Were I the king of Detroit, I'd join Windsor, Canada, land of the free and home of the brave.

It could happen with the next governor of Michigan. Only it has to do launch a petition to change the SBC Act of 1948.

**Danny** · February-16-25, 12:05 PM

I would like to see Detroit amalgamate first its surrounding suburbs south of 8 Mile Rd.

The cities included Harper Woods, Grosse Pointe Shores, Grosse Pointe Woods, Grosse Pointe Farms, Grosse Pointe, Grosse Pointe Park, River Rouge, Ecorse, Lincoln Park, Melvindale, Allen Park, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Wyandotte, Southgate, Taylor, Romulus, Inkster, Westland, Garden City, Livonia, Redford Township, Canton TWP, Plymouth TWP, City of Plymouth, City of Northville, Northville TWP. Highland Park and Hamtramck.

And I think it could happen. Only we have to do is make a petition to change the SBC Act of 1948. To make a voting decision for city municipal annexation of a city.

**401don** · February-16-25, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Danny

I would like to see Detroit amalgamate first its surrounding suburbs south of 8 Mile Rd.
And I think it could happen. Only we have to do is make a petition to change the SBC Act of 1948. To make a voting decision for city municipal annexation of a city.

The city has come a long way under Duggan but even I know there's zero political will on the part of politicians or suburban citizens for this to happen. I agree though that it's crazy how many small municipalities there are in the burbs. In Toronto, even after amalgamation we have suburban cities of Mississauga and Brampton, each with populations over 750,000, and even they share police, garbage and other services.

**Danny** · February-16-25, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by 401don

The city has come a long way under Duggan but even I know there's zero political will on the part of politicians or suburban citizens for this to happen. I agree though that it's crazy how many small municipalities there are in the burbs. In Toronto, even after amalgamation we have suburban cities of Mississauga and Brampton, each with populations over 750,000, and even they share police, garbage and other services.

Do be so sure. In the future, laws will change.

**birwood** · February-16-25, 06:29 PM

Hey Folks...Actually this idea has been kicked around for decades in the Public Safety Sector and it is beginning to happen. It's called Regionalization of Emergency Services and it begins with the combining of Communications Dispatching centers. Currently Dearborn dispatches for several municipalities. Right now pretty much all Fire Departments have what's called Auto-Aid, where in some cases but not all, the closest neighboring municipality automatically responds to an incident, with the originating jurisdiction. This is also combined with what's know as the MABAS Mutual Aid Box Alarm System, where at a large scale incident all the Incident Command has to do is ask dispatch for a 2nd Alarm and the closest neighboring departments are dispatched. The Auto Aid was brought into play due to budget cuts and staffing issues. It going to be a real hard nut to crack because different places have different pay scales, benefits and union contracts. But, Eventually it will happen

**EASTSIDER BALDUCK** · February-16-25, 06:42 PM

Naw

**Canadian Visitor** · February-16-25, 10:47 PM

For the moment, let me skip over the political issues and practicalities in favour of discussing the merits.

****

I don't think everything near Detroit should be amalgamated. That's too large and too unwieldy.

I think you need to sort out why consolidations [[should) happen.

One is critical mass. Generally cities/towns benefit in terms of ability to deliver better services at lower cost per capita by growing up to about 500,000 people.........after that, it tends to level out..........and it dis-efficiency starts to occur for most services at about 1.5M people

Keep those figures in the back of your head, but not that those numbers do vary by service type.

***

Now...politics is important in one non-partisan respect, which is how do achieve a reduction in excessive over-representation [[too many City Councillors, too many Mayors, too many police chiefs etc) without making those same people inaccessible to the average voter, because they are accountable to too many people?

****

In the context of Detroit proper, the easy and obvious is the amalgamation/annexation of Highland Park, and Hamtrack. I mean they are literally exclaves within the City.

After that, I think it gets more complicated.

There should absolutely be fewer suburban governments, but is the area better served by those consolidating among themselves or with Detroit?

The three Grosse Pointes are an interesting example. There are at least two too many.

But is the answer consolidating them to Detroit, or with each other?

I'm not taking a position here, by the way, I'd leave that to those of you far more knowledgeable about the area than I.

I simply think you want to achieve some degree of efficiency and resource sharing.....while not trying to make a gigantic, inaccessible, behemoth.

You also need to have certain services in a regional form.

Transit is an obvious one. That does not mean you have to have only one transit authority for the whole area. Though that is an option.

In Toronto, transit is generally regionalized, with some exceptions, but not at the level of the whole area.

Yet, we have a regional system over top of the local/regional systems called GO Transit [[Government of Ontario) which runs cross regional rail and some buses as well.

****

Suffice to say, I think some consolidation is in order, but how much in what form is more a matter for debate.

**Danny** · February-17-25, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Canadian Visitor

For the moment, let me skip over the political issues and practicalities in favour of discussing the merits.

****

I don't think everything near Detroit should be amalgamated. That's too large and too unwieldy.

I think you need to sort out why consolidations [[should) happen.

One is critical mass. Generally cities/towns benefit in terms of ability to deliver better services at lower cost per capita by growing up to about 500,000 people.........after that, it tends to level out..........and it dis-efficiency starts to occur for most services at about 1.5M people

Keep those figures in the back of your head, but not that those numbers do vary by service type.

***

Now...politics is important in one non-partisan respect, which is how do achieve a reduction in excessive over-representation [[too many City Councillors, too many Mayors, too many police chiefs etc) without making those same people inaccessible to the average voter, because they are accountable to too many people?

****

In the context of Detroit proper, the easy and obvious is the amalgamation/annexation of Highland Park, and Hamtrack. I mean they are literally exclaves within the City.

After that, I think it gets more complicated.

There should absolutely be fewer suburban governments, but is the area better served by those consolidating among themselves or with Detroit?

The three Grosse Pointes are an interesting example. There are at least two too many.

But is the answer consolidating them to Detroit, or with each other?

I'm not taking a position here, by the way, I'd leave that to those of you far more knowledgeable about the area than I.

I simply think you want to achieve some degree of efficiency and resource sharing.....while not trying to make a gigantic, inaccessible, behemoth.

You also need to have certain services in a regional form.

Transit is an obvious one. That does not mean you have to have only one transit authority for the whole area. Though that is an option.

In Toronto, transit is generally regionalized, with some exceptions, but not at the level of the whole area.

Yet, we have a regional system over top of the local/regional systems called GO Transit [[Government of Ontario) which runs cross regional rail and some buses as well.

****

Suffice to say, I think some consolidation is in order, but how much in what form is more a matter for debate.

There is nothing wrong when Toronto was amalgamated. It's a city little bit bigger than Chicago with a population that is greater than Houston and its hoods better than Seattle.

What measures that Ontario and Canadian government did to get the citizens and its surrounding suburbs to amalgamate? When I went to Toronto in 1996. It looks like Seattle with a booming population 650,000 and not a good spot to build any home at the moment. Because the city is small and crowded. Its suburbs are doing fine as well with their fast-booming downtowns that is better than Buckhead, a sub-division of Atlanta's North Side. And other U.S. Cities are already doing the amalgamation of their city services like. Louisville, Kentucky ... Nashville, Tennessee and even Houston, Texas. One day if the People of Michigan can do a petition to change the SBC Act of 1948. Then Amalgamation of Detroit and any city Michigan will happen.

**Henry Whalley** · February-17-25, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by Danny

...Then Amalgamation of Detroit and any city Michigan will happen.

As soldiers learn in basic training, if it's not broke, break it. IOW I'd hate to see Hamtramck swallowed by Detroit

**Canadian Visitor** · February-17-25, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Danny

What measures that Ontario and Canadian government did to get the citizens and its surrounding suburbs to amalgamate?

Ontario simply legislated that it was so, they didn't ask anyone's opinion.

Under the Canadian Constitution municipalities are 'creatures of the provinces'.

In plain speak, provinces can legislate any city/region into existence, out of existence or reorganize it any way they see fit. Including uploading or downloading of services.

It wasn't a particularly popular choice and indeed garnered some opposition as well. But the opposition wasn't so much that it gave the government pause.

The inner suburbs, amalgamated into the old City of Toronto had mixed views.....they liked it the way it was, for the most part, but there was also some jealousy of the old City's tax base, given the commercial taxes on downtown towers.

As an example of different service quality because of that, the old City did not charge recreation user fees at all, but the suburbs universally did.

From the provincial government's point of view, the public-facing argument was fewer politicians and better coordination, while the private one was that the old City was very left-leaning and the new arrangement was thought to be more centrist. [[the provincial government of the day was Conservative)

**ABetterDetroit** · February-17-25, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Henry Whalley

As soldiers learn in basic training, if it's not broke, break it. IOW I'd hate to see Hamtramck swallowed by Detroit

That’s the proof right there Danny. Even tho it makes intelligent logical sense to eliminate redundant vertical management to save taxpayers large sums of money… There is close to Zero political will. Encircled communities like Highland Park and Hamtramck would be an obvious place to start.

**Danny** · February-17-25, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

That’s the proof right there Danny. Even tho it makes intelligent logical sense to eliminate redundant vertical management to save taxpayers large sums of money… There is close to Zero political will. Encircled communities like Highland Park and Hamtramck would be an obvious place to start.

Laws can change, you know.

**ABetterDetroit** · February-17-25, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Danny

Laws can change, you know.

True, they can.

**Henry Whalley** · February-17-25, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by ABetterDetroit

...That’s the proof right there Danny.

It's not proof. But Hamtramck has done very fine on its own. AFAIK it never declared bankruptcy, isn't divided into Green and Red Zones, and has no Riverfront Conservancy. So, hands off Hamtramck, please.

**K-slice** · February-17-25, 03:26 PM

Adding more land and more people won't nessacarily benefit anyone in this region, and would probably hurt the metro area as a whole. A cith that's on improving but still shaky footing obsorbing a successful and stable suburb like The Pointes, Dearborn, Allen Park Livonia, or anything in Oakland County would do little to benefit Detroit, but would hurt those suburbs image.

On the flip side, absorbing a troubled suburb like River Rouge or Highland Park would only add to Detroits problems.

In our situation currently, there's just no benefit.

**Danny** · February-17-25, 03:55 PM

The Michigan State Boundry Commission Act of 1948 to prevent anti-city to city amalgamation must end with a public petition and a general vote by November of 2026. We must put in the ballot. Because what of a city suffers? Bring an emergency financial manager to fix the problem. NO

In Flint when it's under EFM turn Flint into disaster area when folks are getting water from the polluted Flint River in which the pipes corroded. Or whatever any citizens want to join a city to change its taxation rules.

This proposal must happen. So, we can be like other metro-cities like Nashville, Indianapolis, Toronto, Ont. [[CA), Charlotte, SC, Nashville TN ect...

**Trumpeteer** · February-17-25, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Danny

There is nothing wrong when Toronto was amalgamated. It's a city little bit bigger than Chicago with a population that is greater than Houston and its hoods better than Seattle.

What measures that Ontario and Canadian government did to get the citizens and its surrounding suburbs to amalgamate? When I went to Toronto in 1996. It looks like Seattle with a booming population 650,000 and not a good spot to build any home at the moment. Because the city is small and crowded. Its suburbs are doing fine as well with their fast-booming downtowns that is better than Buckhead, a sub-division of Atlanta's North Side. And other U.S. Cities are already doing the amalgamation of their city services like. Louisville, Kentucky ... Nashville, Tennessee and even Houston, Texas. One day if the People of Michigan can do a petition to change the SBC Act of 1948. Then Amalgamation of Detroit and any city Michigan will happen.

Buckhead is NOT a "sub division" of Atlanta! It's in the city limits.