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

**lizaanne** · January-06-10, 05:06 PM

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 · January-06-10, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by lizaanne

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** · January-06-10, 05:38 PM

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.

**MJCMEX** · January-06-10, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · January-06-10, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

Haha. Long live de facto segregation!

**wolverine** · January-07-10, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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....

**Hermod** · January-07-10, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by wolverine

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.

**Searay215** · January-06-10, 05:50 PM

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!!

**Pam** · January-06-10, 06:20 PM

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** · January-06-10, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by Pam

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** · January-06-10, 11:35 PM

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.

**MJCMEX** · January-07-10, 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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

**lizaanne** · January-07-10, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by RickBeall

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** · January-07-10, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by lizaanne

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** · January-07-10, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

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.

**detlump** · January-06-10, 11:40 PM

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** · January-06-10, 11:55 PM

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.

MichMatters · January-07-10, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

**Fury13** · January-07-10, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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

**Hypestyles** · January-07-10, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Fury13

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

true, indeed..

as far as de-annexing... it's problematic.. do these neighborhoods get 'absorbed' by their suburban neighbors? my guess is most adjoining suburban towns are just point blank not interested... the new burden on city services, etc.

much better to leave detroit's boundaries as is, but get serious about aggressively removing blight, land-banking, incentives to move hangers-on from depopulated neighborhoods, etc. Detroit should have a lot more properly-managed greenspace than they do now.. urban foresting, new parks, etc.

**R8RBOB** · January-07-10, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Fury13

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

@ Fury13 and Hypestyles

You guys are looking at things too broad. It is not that Detroiters are chasing that pie-in-the-sky vision of the city eventually becoming repopulated, it is the entire region. I am not sure if you have noticed but Metro Detroit as well as the state is losing population. Businesses have packed up and fled to parts unknown, families have either lose their homes or left to find work out of state. If you are L. Brooks Patterson or Robert Ficano or the future Macomb Co. executive you want people to "repopulate" Detroit so that the "spillage" would repopulate your communities. Of course, without new industries coming to Michigan providing jobs it is a moot point but try not to minimized this to just a "Detroit" thing.

**English** · January-07-10, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

I am not sure if you have noticed but Metro Detroit as well as the state is losing population.

Yep. SE Michigan played... and it lost. Game, set, match.

**R8RBOB** · January-07-10, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by English

Yep. SE Michigan played... and it lost. Game, set, match.

You could say that SE Michigan lost because it was determined to isolate Detroit and by doing so it crippled the region.

DetroitDad · January-07-10, 01:35 AM

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.

**Fnemecek** · January-08-10, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

Indeed. On top of that, I can assure everyone that folks in this part of town are getting tired of paying 2 - 3 times as much in taxes as our suburban neighbors and getting more excuses than services.

I could easily see a few sections of Detroit becoming their own cities. The question is: what happens to the rest of Detroit when it loses the tax subsidy that these neighborhoods provide?