So - why can't Detroit just get smaller? Stupid question alert!

[lizaanne]

Ok - this is probably a really stupid question - but why can't Detroit just get smaller? Sell off around the edges to surrounding cities/counties and become a size that can be managed given the current tax base? Detroit is HUGE! And becoming more vacant every day.

Also - what about entirely eliminating empty neighborhoods and allow them to return to the earth? Remove the decaying housing, let it all go wild, and remove the options for arsonists, squatters, drug dealers, and rapists who use these bombed out houses for all sorts of nastiness.

I think that if these two things could be done - and people were more concentrated into a specified area, then the city services could be smaller, police would have less to patrol, fire dept. would have fewer bombed out houses to worry about....etc.

I'm sure there are a million reasons why none of this would work - but I'm thinking that it beats what's going on right now - which is same thing different day.

Don't beat me up too badly - it is an honest question.

[Retroit]

Sell off around the edges to surrounding cities/counties ...

Do you think they want those areas?

what about entirely eliminating empty neighborhoods and allow them to return to the earth?

This is already being taken care of.

[Hermod]

We have a nasty little thing called the Constitution that keeps us from rounding up people and concentrating them into a smaller area to accomplish your plan.

[Searay215]

3 homes and 1 hotel have burned in the since the first of the year.....at that rate it will only be a few years and it will all be gone.....no hurry mate!!

[MJCMEX]

We have a nasty little thing called the Constitution that keeps us from rounding up people and concentrating them into a smaller area to accomplish your plan.

You may want to explain that to the Native Americans and the Japanese.

The truth is that we have done it before, constitution or not.

[Detroitnerd]

We have a nasty little thing called the Constitution that keeps us from rounding up people and concentrating them into a smaller area to accomplish your plan.

Haha. Long live de facto segregation!

[Pam]

Sell off around the edges to surrounding cities/counties

I don't think any of the surrounding communities want to expand since they have their own economic troubles.

[Hermod]

I don't think any of the surrounding communities want to expand since they have their own economic troubles.

The only reason for a government entity to expand is if they can annex an area with a positive tax balance [[i.e. the area generates more in taxes than it costs in taxes to administer). Annexing a viable shopping mall or an industry is good. Annexing a residential area with lots of kids or full of crime is bad.

[RickBeall]

Oh, I don't know. Land is land. More is better. If given a chance the surrounding cities might be more than happy to help themselves.

And "and people were more concentrated into a specified area, then the city services could be smaller" does not really imply people are being forced to move anywhere. I think he/she just means that the city would be smaller and naturally more condensed.

But, land is land. No one is going to give it up, unless say, MJCMEX moves in, buys up a villiage worth and secedes from the union. I'm just joking. Joking. Joking.

[detlump]

Well, based on recent eminent domain cases, the govt can take property for the public good - like in CT for commercial development. But a lot of states passed laws after the SC upheld the law I think. I don't think Redford, for example would be interested in annexing part of Detroit. But I can see emergency measures being taken to consolidate the population. However, this "wild zone" would need to be patrolled, less it become some kind of Mad Max area. I would like to see the Army Core of Eng come in demolish these buildings, they can't really do any real damage, like they seem to do elsewhere. I think that another option could be areas of the city breaking away from Detroit, but I would need to look up how that could be done.

[detroitsgwenivere]

This topic has been threaded before, and I'll tell you guys the same thing I said on that thread: DETROITERS ARENT HAVING IT. The end.

[MJCMEX]

Oh, I don't know. Land is land. More is better. If given a chance the surrounding cities might be more than happy to help themselves.

And "and people were more concentrated into a specified area, then the city services could be smaller" does not really imply people are being forced to move anywhere. I think he/she just means that the city would be smaller and naturally more condensed.

But, land is land. No one is going to give it up, unless say, MJCMEX moves in, buys up a villiage worth and secedes from the union. I'm just joking. Joking. Joking.

Are we talking about that dollar a house stuff in the bad part of town?

Hmm let's see I could by, oh, 2000 of those without suffering too much, and perhaps get a grant from the state of Michigan to cover the huge tax burden.
Then maybe mow the houses down, but keep the basements as a series of connected dungeons. Start farms on part of the top soil, change the name of the street to "Calle Ajua" [[That means "Drunken Yell Street")

Maybe train private militia to kick some gang butt. Gnome can come onboard to teach them how to use various firearms...

Sure, why not

[MichMatters]

This topic has been threaded before, and I'll tell you guys the same thing I said on that thread: DETROITERS ARENT HAVING IT. The end.

You don't have to worry about not having "it", because no one else wants "it." What would Redford want with Old Redford or Brightmoor, or even Dearborn with Warrendale? That's not even to mention how rare it is for municipalities to cross city lines in this state, so anything in Oakland County wanting anything south of 8 Mile anywhere in Wayne County is about as ridiculous as thought as any.

[DetroitDad]

I was under the impression that the outer areas were still relatively decently populated. It is the centers that are heavily depopulated and in the worst shape.

Compare Joy Road and Evergreen Avenue with Brush Park or Gratiot and Mack.

[wolverine]

We have a nasty little thing called the Constitution that keeps us from rounding up people and concentrating them into a smaller area to accomplish your plan.

Incorrect.

Government proposes a public park [[that will return neighborhoods to forest) Compensates for equal or greater value and kicks out the residents with maybe a relocation help program. Legal.

And this has been done before, at least you'd have to know that....

[MichMatters]

I'm sure he was speaking generally, and he's very much correct that our system in most cases protects homeowners and residents. And, thank god we don't have a country where you can uproot entire populations and file them away, somewhere, without them having any legal recourse and proper hearings.

I'm all for the right-sizing of Detroit. In fact, I think it's absolutely necessary for the city's long-term survival. But, the idea that central planning, here -- or should be -- is the same as everywhere else is a ridiculous argument.

[lizaanne]

And "and people were more concentrated into a specified area, then the city services could be smaller" does not really imply people are being forced to move anywhere. I think he/she just means that the city would be smaller and naturally more condensed.

Exactly. I'm not talking concentration camps - sheesh. It just goes to follow that a more condensed and smaller city is easier to manage for a number of reasons.

[Detroitnerd]

Exactly. I'm not talking concentration camps - sheesh. It just goes to follow that a more condensed and smaller city is easier to manage for a number of reasons.

Or the opposite: A large area under one government would be easier to manage, using economies of scale and harnessing new revenue built in the periphery. It's all in the book "Cities without Suburbs" by David Rusk.

[Hermod]

Incorrect.

Government proposes a public park [[that will return neighborhoods to forest) Compensates for equal or greater value and kicks out the residents with maybe a relocation help program. Legal.

And this has been done before, at least you'd have to know that....

I do know that. You can give them financial incentives to move to one of the new "urban collectives" and abandon their home in the proposed new "carbon sink" of trees.

[Hermod]

Or the opposite: A large area under one government would be easier to manage, using economies of scale and harnessing new revenue built in the periphery. It's all in the book "Cities without Suburbs" by David Rusk.

Cities without suburbs is doable with a homogenous population.

In the case of Detroit, the city is a black hole [[astronomic, not racial allusion)for area taxes. No suburb would want any part of it. Detroiters would resist because of loss of political power if they became a minority again.

[Detroitnerd]

Hey, I don't blame anybody for being suspicious of the government. Look at what urban renewal did for African-Americans? Their neighborhoods were bulldozed, they were put in projects where they were easy game for criminals, and then what was built on the land they used to live on? Courthouses where they'd be arraigned, luxury housing they couldn't afford, freeways for cars they didn't have. All this gave rise to the crack about "Negro removal."

But let's throw this out there: What if, instead of bulldozing the city, we created a supercity that sprawled over Oakland, Wayne and Macomb counties? We could vote out the corrupt city government, harness tax revenues in the outskirts and, probably for the first time since Woodward, plan intelligently.

[R8RBOB]

Ok - this is probably a really stupid question - but why can't Detroit just get smaller? Sell off around the edges to surrounding cities/counties and become a size that can be managed given the current tax base? Detroit is HUGE! And becoming more vacant every day.

Also - what about entirely eliminating empty neighborhoods and allow them to return to the earth? Remove the decaying housing, let it all go wild, and remove the options for arsonists, squatters, drug dealers, and rapists who use these bombed out houses for all sorts of nastiness.

I think that if these two things could be done - and people were more concentrated into a specified area, then the city services could be smaller, police would have less to patrol, fire dept. would have fewer bombed out houses to worry about....etc.

I'm sure there are a million reasons why none of this would work - but I'm thinking that it beats what's going on right now - which is same thing different day.

Don't beat me up too badly - it is an honest question.

I have to agree with Retroit. If I'm Reford Township, why would I want Brightmoor? Brightmoor is a wasteland that would suck up revenue we are barely getting from writing traffic tickets. Or if I am Lincoln Park, Allen Park, Melvindale or Ecorse why would I want any parts of Southwest Detroit. Sure we would add to the tax rolls but look at the money that would have to be spent to supply police, fire, etc.

Detroit may be too big, but no suburb can afford to acquire land at this time especially now that the population is decreasing and tax revenue is drying up. No one is breaking their necks to move to Michigan.

[Fury13]

This topic has been threaded before, and I'll tell you guys the same thing I said on that thread: DETROITERS ARENT HAVING IT. The end.

A lot of Detroiters are still chasing that pie-in-the-sky vision of the city eventually becoming repopulated.

[Lowell]

I was going to start a thread on this issue some time back and created the graphic below to illustrate the point. So this is the time...

The City of Detroit is stuck caring for a vast majority of the region's poor, homeless, disabled, felons, ex-felons and other people with difficulties while the rest of the region largely gets a pass on a large population that is unable to pay taxes but requires great tax resources. With it come higher insurance burdens, blight and other disadvantages not shared by the rest. Then it has to endure smug 'why can't you run your city like we do?' comments.

So, to highlight this fact, I would suggest that Mayor Bing engage in a bit of guerrilla theater and announce that he is going de-annex large parts of the city and return them to the county or state or whoever and cherry pick the "good' parts for a new Detroit. The other communities in the metro in essence have done this, so why not the CofD?

His new gerrymandered city would look something like this and recovery would be around the corner. Did I miss any cherries or include in bad ones?
Attachment 4694

[Detroitnerd]

I guess we'll have to finally build a wall around Hamtramck, then.