An Insensitive Question

[Detroitus]

I just finished watching the documentary "64 about the '64 riots [[rebellion) in Rochester, NY that predated but extremely similar to those in Watts, Detroit and other cities in the 1960s. Though I don't want to talk about or debate the origins of the unrest, the movie does put out a very uncomfortable reality. Like in Detroit though African Americans in Rochester have obtain higher positions of power many factors of quality of life in the city has steadily go downhill, including employment, public safety and the school system.

So with all due respect to the insensitively that the question may pose, knowing full well the direct or institutional racism that existed in Detroit prior to '67 or Coleman Young's election in "73 why has a largely African American city declined in so many ways. Why is it that with African American in charge does the police force continue to fail to reach even 50% conviction levels for homicides, the public schools fail to graduate 50% of their students, city hall seem to have continuous corruption scandals and African American own businesses fail to fill the void left by those previously own and operated by people of other ethnicity?

[maxx]

You could ask why were the entire states of Mississippi and Alabama at the very bottom in education and median income for decades? And they were governed by white men. Poverty is the problem, as I see it. Poverty means poor nutrition, low expectations, depression which can lead to domestic violence, drugs and desperate behavior. People living in poverty don't have the means to research the candidates that run for office. They are too busy surviving.

[MJCMEX]

You know these kinds of questions really pain me.

Skin color has nothing to do with it. The fact that we still think that way, even if we don't mean any offense, shows that we are ignoring the bigger question:

How do you fix it?

On another thread a guy was making a pro socialist argument. I don't agree with that at all. I belive that real capitalism is the answer for a city like Detroit.

I bought a house there because it had nice bones, it was very inexpensive, I like old historical things, and I wanted to live in a city that had some culture and history to it. Not to mention I have an internet business so I can at least survive without a regular 9 to 5 job. Above all I am sick of playing the banking game. I want to buy any property I own with cash.

Some folks here on this thread have made me feel somewhat hesitant about moving out to Detroit and others have made me feel very welcome.

I would think that everybody who cares about Detroit would want people like me to move into it, try to fix up some houses and make a difference. Perhaps an influx of investors who want to live in a grand old city and have non traditional sources of income are part of the answer.

The last thing I am going to worry about regarding my neighbors is their skin color. If they love their houses and their neighborhood they can be green and purple for all I care.

No personal offesne intended Detroitus, but this is my opinion about it.

[Retroit]

The condition of a city is predicated on the collective condition of its citizens.

[Detroitus]

First off let me apologies for my poor spelling. I meant "insensitive" of course.

Second, I don't think most of Detroit's problems are a question of skin color, but when it comes to the state of the schools, polices department and city hall and other public institution I wonder if black Detroit was not better served before there was a black majority, that a city with such a overwheling majority of one ethnicity is not good for any group. I wonder about the accountability of the city leaders of the last generation, which in my opinion seem more interested in taking over than in managing and rebuilding, that they have continued to fight over scraps from a cold, half eaten pie instead of backing a new one.

I think the issues surrounding Cobo Hall or Bobb's fight with the entrenched powers in the schools sytem demonstrate this quite well. I think many felt that Kilpatrick administration was a chance for a new era but it turned out to be more of the same, maybe worst. And this issue doesn't just concern Detroit as from what I read many voters in Atlanta voted for the white, female candidate because the felt there were not well served by the black power structure there either.

[Scratch]

Looking as an outsider, I'd say it's hard to make even 50% of the former standards when 50% of a population moves away, and the industry it was built on is a slowly sinking ship. I don't know how I'd handle a situation no one had really seen before, with next to no budget, but from what I've seen of Detroit's politics, it does seem to have suffered the lion's share of corruption.

[MichMatters]

Detroitus,

I don't think more than the question being insensitive is the silly -- or maybe just not as thoughtful out as you should have been -- directon from which you approach it, that is, starting with race instead of starting with the fact that Detroit is, and has been for decades, uniquely [[among large cities) economically stressed, with a perfect economic storm that began way before the "former generation" -- as you euphamistically put it despite you "insensitive" question. -- "took over". It is convenient how you don't ask the other side of the question, if you believe it is race that is the issue, why black-governed cities like Atlanta and DC and Philly and etc...have black populations significantly better of than those of Detroit. To paraphrase, with no ill will meant, what has now become an old saying: It's the economy, stupid.

You're question wasn't so much insensitive as it is leading and starting from the wrong point. The city was already in a death spiral when it was "handed over" to the "old gerneration". Your question assumes, and wrongly so if you ask me, that the city would have been better off under, today, if the people that ruled it before had continued to rule it. The only way Detroit would have been better off is if ANYONE that had governed it had actually tried to diversify the economy and neither Coleman nor those before him attempted to do that in any kind of serious way.

This is one of the greatest and most long-standing myths I've ever encountered in this state, the assumption that the leadership [[failurship) of pre-60's and post-60's Detroit were so wildly different in their cultural and ideological make-up. When you really get down to it, save for a few changes, structurally, in how government was conducted, the only real change was the superficial color on the players. Despite his rhetoric, Coleman was just as deferential to the Big Three and big business as anyone before him; just ask the neighborhoods. The writing was on the wall for decades. What has happened to the schools and crime, etc...is a DIRECT result of a shrinking population fighting for what has been an exponentially faster shrinking local economic pie. And, while this is true in many other cities, nowhere was the economic relocation of the local economy so drastic, so quick, so reconcentrated outside the city boundaries.

To end, quite frankly, it is not at all an exaggeration to say that Detroit was met with an economic crisis no other city had seen before, or would be forced to shoulder alone, and maybe no city will ever see, again, and that while it was inevitable that they'd be hit by an economic Katrina, no one had prepared for it, pre or post 60's local government. The color of the leadership to be in power when the storm finally hit fullforce is so inconsequential to the outcome as to be laughable, and that's me being kind.

Detroit's failure as a city isn't some unique failure of black leadership, it's the failure of anyone in metro leadership to even imagine that there'd be a day when they wouldn't be on top of the world. There wasn't a Plan B in any shape or form, and boy did the economic chickens came home to roost
in a deadly way.

[Detroitus]

I agree with you quite a bit MichMatters. First and foremost it's the economy and Detroit's so called leaders have failed to diversify it for generations. But at this point with so little accountability in city government at any level or department what major industry would locate in Detroit? And does lack ethnic diversity naturally lead to lack of accountability? Regardless most major industries today prefer to locate in cities would a diverse populace.

When I hear many government officials in Detroit speak, or even many of those in the suburbs, it as if they are still back fighting the battles of the 60s, 70s and 80s while ignoring the problems of today. And yet these are the people that still get elected. I would suggest that it might be just a generational problem but Kilpatrick proved that wasn't even the case.

[iheartthed]

Really not sure what the question is asking, but I will say that the city of Detroit is no worse off than the African American demographic group as a whole. The unemployment stats, median income, and many other economic indicators for the city of Detroit are remarkably similar to that of African Americans nationwide. So since the city is 82% black, and the socioeconomic condition of black Americans [[nationwide) isn't very diverse, it's no surprise that the city is poor.

[MichMatters]

I agree with you quite a bit MichMatters. First and foremost it's the economy and Detroit's so called leaders have failed to diversify it for generations. But at this point with so little accountability in city government at any level or department what major industry would locate in Detroit? And does lack ethnic diversity naturally lead to lack of accountability? Regardless most major industries today prefer to locate in cities would a diverse populace.

When I hear many goverent officals in detroit speak, or even many of those in the suburbs, it as if they are still back fighting the battles of the 60s, 70s and 80s while ignoring the problems of today. And yet these are the peeople that still get elected. I would suggest that it might be just a generational problem but Kilpatrick proved that was even the case.

See, now you're getting somewhere. Many of those are the right questions to ask. I agree, though I think the local elections of 2009 changed a lot in concern to trust in government, Detroit has be racked with the question of why anyone, business or potential resident, would subject themselves to having to wipe away all of the crap just to get a crack at an honest start in the city. This is especially true after we see the former administration where corruption wasn't an exception, but the rule.

I also don't think you'll find any disagreement from me that ethnic, racial, religious, etc...homogeneity is what you want in any city. You also make a good point about how it can foster an environment -- particularly when you have historical divisions as strong as those in Metro Detroit -- where the so-called leadership don't feel accountable to anyone but themselves. That said, I'd like to add that more importantly than ethnic homogeneity fostering this environment, is the reality of a city that is and has been on a downward trajectory for decades.

A point I forgot to make about corruption in the city is that it really found its home in city politics as a direct result of that shrinking pie I was talking about. When you know that your skills in your city's atrophied private sector won't produce as much for your career as a career in bilking the city -- the only real center of activity, power, and wealth left in your city -- it is not hard to see why there isn't much accountability and why it so often attracts the wrong type of people.

I think people need to understand that the constitution of people in Detroit is no different than anywhere else; everyone everywhere is chasing the same thing. The difference lies in where activity, power and wealth have migrated to, and the ridiculously decrease in the number of tools and ways to access power and wealth in the region because success has become such a hot commidity because of its rarity.

It's really why I have so little hope for the metro in terms of becoming healthy, again. I don't quite see Armegeddon in Detroit's future simply because it has long since happened, in my opinion. But, I think as long as folks in such numbers in the region hold the crazily unpreceptive view and revisionist history that Detroit failed because of the race of any one people, that the region can't even begin to address even a plan to clearing a path to a healthy future. It's why I think your original question was so far off the mark, and not offensive in what it asked, but because it assumed a helluva lot of downright archaic and revisionist propositions. Detroit can't save itself not because its heavily African American, but because it was bled and bled itself for decades of its wealth by not wanting to adapt to a post-war economic reality. The incredible -- unprecendented, even -- loss of economic activity precipitated all other ills like a falling domino chain.

People seem to conveniently forget, or never knew, for instance, that by the time the mass economic migration of blacks to Detroit had peaked creating a black majority [[which didn't happen until at least the mid-to-late 70's, long after the decline had started), the jobs that they came searching for had already began to dry up in a huge way. As an example, Detroit had lost upwards of 130,000 jobs in the 1950's when the black population of the city was little more than 15%. That's only to show that when blacks "took over" they didn't get to take over much. To lay most criticisim for an already inevitably sinking Titantic on its newly appointed captain seems just a tad bit silly, no? Sure, its appropriate to criticize his failed evacuation plan, but blame him for taking down the sinking ship?

[Detroit Stylin]

when i hear many goverent officals in detroit speak, or even many of those in the suburbs, it as if they are still back fighting the battles of the 60s, 70s and 80s while ignoring the problems of today. And yet these are the peeople that still get elected. I would suggest that it might be just a generational problem but kilpatrick proved that was even the case.

bingo.........

[Detroitus]

A point I forgot to make about corruption in the city is that it really found its home in city politics as a direct result of that shrinking pie I was talking about. When you know that your skills in your city's atrophied private sector won't produce as much for your career as a career in bilking the city -- the only real center of activity, power, and wealth left in your city -- it is not hard to see why there isn't much accountability and why it so often attracts the wrong type of people.

I still don't believe a poor city has to be a corrupt, poorly run nor even a dangerous city. And I hope that the new leadership, Bing, Bobbs, Evans, etc. agree with me. A city that provides reliable, though limited services, is much better off than a city that offers many services but has ingrain corruption or unaccountability. I think Detroit citizens have for too long NOT held their officials accountable but have allowed them to blame someone else for the troubles of the city. This has to be the focus of any true reform if the city is ever going to turn around it's fortunes.

[gazhekwe]

We always seem to get stuck on what came first, the chicken or the egg? Whose fault it it? Global warming, declining cities, the roots of terrorism, whatever pressing issue we confront. We have to assign responsibility, and it sure can't be US, can it?

It would be more useful to address the problem than try to make it somebody else's responsibility to do it. In the case of declining cities, I would say the root cause here is sending manufacturing jobs out of the city, and out of the country. You could take it deeper and say it is the poor folks' fault for not being more versatile and being able to get another kind of job, but then you get stuck with all the reasons they didn't that are perceived to be their fault because WE don't have that problem. So we get stuck debating issues that would probably not have come up if the jobs had stayed here. Jobs started bleeding out of central Detroit with a vengeance in the late 60s - early 70s, and there were some pretty obvious reasons -- Freeways making commuting and shipping easier, cheaper land, lower taxes, and fear of racial confrontation among them. Opening of cheap labor sources in other countries accelerated the process through the 70s to 2000. Now here we are.

Businesses leaving removes a huge source of tax revenue, and the people following out to the outer ring to be closer to work, even more. It's like living in a condo. If the place is half empty, there isn't enough income from the association fee to do the needed upkeep, so everyone has to pay more. Detroit doesn't want to keep making people pay more, and if they do, more people move out, and fewer people move in, so you get more declining population and declining revenues.

[stasu1213]

I think the system was on it's way down when African Americans had took over key positions in city government. The factories were pulling out of Detroit taken their tax bases with them. That left the homeowner property tax left soley to pay for police ems and schools. In the 1970's white flight had escaladed in many detroit neighborhoods. Along with white flight were the flight quality grocery stores and retail districts. That left Detroit with a majority black population. The grocery stores had became substandard as well as the black owned retail business such as clothing. Ineffective leadership did not send out inspectors to these businesses to make sure the goods being sold were of high quality. The residents which were and still are black didnt hold mass rallies to protest against substandard education, crime hike, high insurance rates, and drugs houses for the reason of being lull to sleep by the black mayor and other leaders who had and are running the city. The last time residents of Detroit had held a mass rally protesting the living conditions in Detroit was in 1963 during the Cavanaugh [[who was white) administration and Martin Luther King had led that rally with local black leaders. When the leaders became black, the mass rallies had ceased, the living conditions in the city deteriorated, and the modern day black leaders such as Jackson and Sharpton were nowhere to be found

[gazhekwe]

Not to mention, while there has been a sporadic movement here to shop in the city, keep the money in the [[black) community, there has been little or no effect, since quality shopping with free parking is available within a few miles. We seem to be extraordinarily driven by trends and fashion, maybe due to the automotive new models every year method. We don't like shopping where there aren't a lot of customers. We want to be where 'everybody' shops.

For awhile, Southfield was trendy and upscale, then West Bloomfield, then Novi. I guess Novi is still cutting edge, maybe western Livonia. Laurel Park Place this weekend was just crammed, parking was very hard to find, just a few miles from the destroyed Wonderland and Livonia Malls.

[smudge pot]

OK, fair enough, I'll bite. This whole thread stinks of ban-bait, and the smart thing to do would be to just quietly swim away. But I'll stick my neck out [[just like that Silas dude). What is the fundamental governing unit of every society?

And what did the devilishly-labeled "Great Society" programs destroy? Each family should be considered as an independent, water-tight compartment on a ship. If enough of these compartments fail, then the whole thing goes down, like the Titanic.

[stasu1213]

The black owned retail shops in detroit only caters to the trendy, the funky, the hip hop kids. I had went to one estabishment and asked if Levis, Lees, Wranglers, or Dickies jeans are sold here. The salesperson had said "No. But I could HOOK YOU UP with a pair of COOGI jeans with the design on the pocket". I told him that there is nothing in this establishment that I would buy. Too cheap looking and tacky. That is the reason why these ghetto shops in detroit can't appeal to the masses. The merchandise are too ghetto and the enterpreneuers are too limited[[one dimensional) in the thinking

[MichMatters]

The black owned retail shops in detroit only caters to the trendy, the funky, the hip hop kids. I had went to one estabishment and asked if Levis, Lees, Wranglers, or Dickies jeans are sold here. The salesperson had said "No. But I could HOOK YOU UP with a pair of COOGI jeans with the design on the pocket". I told him that there is nothing in this establishment that I would buy. Too cheap looking and tacky. That is the reason why these ghetto shops in detroit can't appeal to the masses. The merchandise are too ghetto and the enterpreneuers are too limited[[one dimensional) in the thinking

Ladies and gentlement of the jury, exhibit #1. lol

Really, how many more of these? These type of 'quality' posts have become a dime-a-dozen, these days.

[gazhekwe]

Well, retailers do cater to their perceived market. Why stock things that won't sell well to their customers? It's another case of 'which came first?', slow sales in mainstream stock, or inadequate stocking in that area which then limits customer base? If you shop at Northland, you get a whole different range of goods than you find at Laurel Place. At least the salesperson tried to help. Coogi isn't a cheap brand.

[devman1983]

Slavery. The white men hundreds of years ago could have never envisioned our country having "free" black citizens here. It is their fault for not educating them. We had a big period of time here where we had basically free labor. We grew, prospered, and never thought of the consequences of so many uneducated slaves growing in population, serving the white man.

So now we are left with the aftermath. Punishment for what we did back in the slavery days. We'll have 200 years of punishment until the whole world becomes globalized and skin pigmentation becomes a hazy brown.

[Hermod]

The decline in the city tax base did begin earlier during the automotive boom times after WWII. Many of the city industrial buildings had becoome functionally obsolete. Hudson combined with Nash and Packard combined with Studebaker because their Detroit facilities were both obsolete and worn out from WWII war production [[and their sales weren't generating enough income to invest in new plants). Where my father worked on Milwaukee and Russell, the second floor wouldn't support the machinery and they were limited to the first floor. All the materials had to be manhandled or moved by overhead cranes. There was no room to keep a sufficient stock of raw materials on hand. In 1952, they built a new plant out in Warren on cheap land. They had plenty of room for stock and could use forklifts to move stock and finished materials around.

[stasu1213]

Ladies and gentlement of the jury, exhibit #1. lol

Really, how many more of these? These type of 'quality' posts have become a dime-a-dozen, these days.

I was just commenting on what Gazhekwe had said about shopping in Detroit. The media in detroit especially the black radio stations had pressed the shopping in detroit idea. I was just commenting why I don't shop in Detroit. Also, I know Coogic is not cheap but it is too trendy for me. As the population had changed in Detroit so did the taste of the demanders who were left in the city. I understand that. I would rather shop at Eastland, and Fairlane Mall.

[DetroitDad]

There are some excellent responses in this thread.

I would like to add that there has been a considerable distrust towards white police, suburbia, and authority figures, as abuse and racism was very real.

A sense of culture and pride in history seems to have been all but lost for those who were forced to come here.

Red lining, depopulation, a lack of entitlement [[starting from rock bottom while some whites already inherited wealth), and racism by suburban communities play a role. Suburbia also played a role by segregating activities [[not mixed use zoning) and income.

[Hermod]

Red lining, depopulation, a lack of entitlement [[starting from rock bottom while some whites already inherited wealth), and racism by suburban communities play a role. Suburbia also played a role by segregating activities [[not mixed use zoning) and income.

1. You should have been in Detroit right after WWII when we got the big influx of eastern European "displaced persons". Inherited wealth? These guys came with nothing but the shirts on their backs getting out just ahead of the Red Army. Their kids got put into the schools [[no bi-lingual ESL classes for them) and just had to learn. Teachers would just pair them off with some decent kid to be their "sponsor" and get them into a group of guys to pick up English by osmosis. The grownups learned English on the job.

2. All the time I went to Detroit Public Schools, I never saw a black face [[Wayne Elementary 44-51, Jackson Intermediate 51-53, and Denby High 53-54). It wasn't until I went to Rochester High School [[54-57) that I ever had black kids in school with me.

3. Suburbia grew subdivision by subdivision with little central planning. It wasn't any big conspiracy. When I lived in Rochester, a farmer would decided to cash in and they would build houses there. People wanted large lots and that is what they built. There were no apartment buildings, you either rented a junky old house or you rented an apartment over a store. It was only much later that they began to "backfill" suburbia with apartment complexes.

[Zacha341]

What black owned establishment? LOL! Usually someone "else" is selling us the urban wear... Hah! For certain there are no black owned beauty supply stores or grocery stores.

The black owned retail shops in detroit only caters to the trendy, the funky, the hip hop kids. I had went to one estabishment and asked if Levis, Lees, Wranglers, or Dickies jeans are sold here. The salesperson had said "No. But I could HOOK YOU UP with a pair of COOGI jeans with the design on the pocket". I told him that there is nothing in this establishment that I would buy. Too cheap looking and tacky. That is the reason why these ghetto shops in detroit can't appeal to the masses. The merchandise are too ghetto and the enterpreneuers are too limited[[one dimensional) in the thinking