Mayor Embraces Shrinking Detroit

[sg9018]

Mayor Bing will use census as a call for change.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Tabs%3Darticle

Detroit's Smaller Reality

Mayor Plans to Use Census Tally Showing Decline as Benchmark in Overhaul



By ALEX P. KELLOGG

DETROIT—This city is shrinking, and Mayor Dave Bing can live with that.
The nation's once-a-decade census, which gets under way next month, usually prompts expensive tally-building efforts by cities eager to maximize federal funding tied to the count.
Detroit, which faces a population decline of as much as 150,000, has used that tactic in the past and once fought a successful court challenge to boost its count. But this time, Mr. Bing is pushing the city to embrace the bad news.
The mayor is looking to the diminished tally, down from 951,270 in 2000, as a benchmark in his bid to reshape Detroit's government, finances and perhaps even its geography to reflect its smaller population and tax base. That means, in part, cutting city services and laying off workers.
His approach to the census is a product of not only budget constraints but also a new, more modest view of the city's prospects. "We've got to pick those core communities, those core neighborhoods" to sustain and preserve, he said at a recent public appearance, adding: "That's something that's possible here in Detroit."
Unlike his predecessors, Mr. Bing, a Democrat first elected last year to finish the term of disgraced former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, hasn't touted big development plans or talked of a "renaissance." Instead, he is trying to prepare residents for a new reality: that Detroit—like the auto industry that propelled it for a century—will have to get smaller before it gets bigger again.
With no high-profile census push, the city risks an undercount that would mean forgoing millions of dollars in federal funding. Nationwide, each person counted translates into about $1,000 to $1,200 in federal funding to municipal governments.

But some community leaders see the hands-off approach as a sign the city's leadership under Mr. Bing, a 66-year-old businessman and former basketball star, is prepared to face up to the depopulation problem and rethink Detroit's future.
"This is going to be hard to wrestle to the ground," said Rip Rapson, president of the Kresge Foundation of Troy, Mich., a national philanthropy that has invested heavily in development projects aimed at salvaging the nicest remnants of the city. "He deserves enormous credit for leading the community into this."
Soon after being elected to a full term in November, Mr. Bing began cutting back on city services such as buses and laying off hundreds of municipal workers. The mayor is now making plans to shutter or consolidate city departments and tear down 10,000 vacant buildings. And Mr. Bing is supporting efforts to shrink the capacity of the city's school system by half.
Along with the mayor, a number of academics and philanthropic groups are sketching visions of a different Detroit. One such vision has urban farms and park spaces filling the acres of barren patches where people once lived and worked. In a city of roughly 140 square miles, vacant residential and commercial property accounts for an estimated 40 square miles, an area larger than the city of Miami.
"The potential of this open space is enormous," said Dan Pitera, an architect at the University of Detroit who has done land-use studies on the city.
Thirty years ago, Mayor Coleman Young fought the census count in federal court, setting a precedent by arguing successfully that it missed tens of thousands of residents and cost Detroit millions in federal dollars. In 2000, Mayor Dennis Archer worked with schools, health clinics, neighborhood associations, charities and the like to pump up the numbers. The city even paid for census registration to be done at special block parties it helped throw.
But that last count was ultimately a blow to Detroit's pride, pinning its population below one million for the first time since the 1920s. At its peak in the 1950s, the city had been home to nearly two million people. Some experts believe the population will eventually settle just below 700,000, about the current size of Charlotte, N.C.
Long-term declines triggered by suburban sprawl, home-loan bias and racial strife have accelerated in recent years as home foreclosures and auto-industry cutbacks tear through even more stable, wealthy neighborhoods. Meanwhile, declining home values in Detroit's better-off suburbs have made them more accessible to the city's poorer residents, fueling the flight.
The city is counting on nonprofit partners to take the lead on the census this year, rather than funding efforts itself. But with a population that is widely dispersed and largely poor and minority—two segments traditionally disinclined to fill out government paperwork—Detroit is already difficult to count. In the last census, just 62% of Detroiters responded, compared with an average of 71% statewide.
"That's why I keep telling the city, 'you are in trouble,' " said Kurt Metzger, director of Data Driven Detroit, an organization founded by large local philanthropies that want to help the city collect accurate demographic, housing, economic and other information. "Unfortunately, they don't have the resources."
Erica Hill, the mayor's census coordinator, says Detroit is in a bind. It knows an undercount would be costly, but it is too broke to promote the census the way it used to. "We need to make sure the city gets its due," she said. But "we have to be creative and build a lot of partnerships to make this happen."

[mikeg19]

Should be interesting to see what the census numbers will be. I completely agree with the plan to shrink the city, but God only knows how hard it's going to be to convince people to forfeit the home some of them have lived in for 10,20,50 years.

[stasu1213]

When a neighborhood such as Gratoit and Vandyke area going east and south becomes 100 years old the residents in that community could request the area an historical area? Streets such as Burns, Fischer, Iroquois, Seminole, and Maxwell bordered by Gratoit northward and Mack southward. My older cousins used to live in the area back in the 50's. I had noticed that the area still has many dwellings in it. I hope that the Mayor don't target that area for demolition.

[East Detroit]

Once they announce [[or the census does announce by implication) which streets/neighborhoods should be abandoned, those people are screwed. And in the other situation, I bet people try buying up property.... in fact, carpetbaggers [[some of whom we've seen on this forum) probably are already.

[English]

Is there precedent for shrinking a city this drastically anywhere else in the world? And if so, where?

I understand the thinking behind the idea, but I worry that it won't work. If they stop city services to certain areas without tearing down the houses and breaking up the streets, those areas will become places for squatters and criminal activity, which won't stop the need for police and fire services there.

[sumas]

Indian Village is already designated historic.

As to the count, many many people do not get counted for various reasons. My friend who is terminally ill has had several mooch relatives move in on him. Last count was three nephews, a niece, her boyfriend and their kid. Also one boarder who uses a suburban address. You can bet none of them will be counted.

Trying to move people out would be a logistical nightmare. The only reliable city service is trash removal. So I don't see how moving people out saves much money.

[Ravine]

Bing, with this idea, has demonstrated that he is a fuckin' idiot, but Detroiters "asked for it."

Maybe-- one day-- perhaps-- Detroiters will figure out that electing sports stars, television personalities, singers, jackasses who attach "Reverend" to their names, and people whose names we recognize even though we know nothing about them is a hideously ignorant way of exercising their right to vote, but that day doesn't appear to be anywhere near close enough to rescue this city from its worst enemy: its own citizenry.

[Traveller1]

This "shrinking Detroit" plan actually doesn't make any sense to me at all. Once you remove all those people from their homes [[I am assuming by eminent domain), what is the city going to do with all the land which is now COMPLETELY demolished? And more importantly, what is going to happen to the people that were forced from their homes? If they are going to use eminent domain, like the city did when they built the GM Detroit-Hamtramck plant, all of those people will get payed the appraised value of the house and they are all going to move right out of Detroit immediately, making Detroit's population shrink even faster. In turn, Detroit will lose thousands of tax dollars.

By going ahead with this "shrinking plan" Detroit could literally lose 20,000-30,000+ overnight. Why would those people stay in Detroit if they had the chance to leave?

[Zacha341]

Exactly... what do they plan to do? Wall or brick off these areas as forbidden zones like some kind of "thunderdome"? Yes, crime would be rife in these areas, but supposedly no spill over to the rescued areas!? Yeah, where else here has this been successful...? Well successful or not, it is the life of parts of New Orleans shut off and shut down after Katrina......... Hmmmm.

Is there precedent for shrinking a city this drastically anywhere else in the world? And if so, where?

I understand the thinking behind the idea, but I worry that it won't work. If they stop city services to certain areas without tearing down the houses and breaking up the streets, those areas will become places for squatters and criminal activity, which won't stop the need for police and fire services there.

[Zacha341]

Excellent points! Many of would leave Detroit all together if given a cash incentive..... lack of "move away" money is the reason some stay. Yeah, the payout would cause a implosion as remaining revenue would drop faster and the remaining middle class would be heading out of the city even faster..... who'd be left? This whole thing has not been fully thought out... I live in the New Center/ Midtown area which is ok, but maybe it could be a target.............

This "shrinking Detroit" plan actually doesn't make any sense to me at all. Once you remove all those people from their homes [[I am assuming by eminent domain), what is the city going to do with all the land which is now COMPLETELY demolished? And more importantly, what is going to happen to the people that were forced from their homes? If they are going to use eminent domain, like the city did when they built the GM Detroit-Hamtramck plant, all of those people will get payed the appraised value of the house and they are all going to move right out of Detroit immediately, making Detroit's population shrink even faster. In turn, Detroit will lose thousands of tax dollars.

By going ahead with this "shrinking plan" Detroit could literally lose 20,000-30,000+ overnight. Why would those people stay in Detroit if they had the chance to leave?

[Lowell]

Let's give Bing a chance. Sheesh, he hasn't even been in office for a year and has had to devote a lot of that time to the electoral process. Yeah he's a sports star, but that was so long ago that few people under 40 even know about it. He is a proven business leader who, very frankly, surprises me that he would want to take on such a headache and seemingly hopeless task when he could very comfortably retire to a warm climate and live in luxury the rest of his life.

What I have seen so far is a realist who is doing many painful actions that few politicians would have the gut to do. In the process his is starting to recover the severely damaged image of Detroit that could lead to the regional cooperation that we all need but the City of Detroit needs the most.

[missn]

Is there precedent for shrinking a city this drastically anywhere else in the world? And if so, where?

I understand the thinking behind the idea, but I worry that it won't work. If they stop city services to certain areas without tearing down the houses and breaking up the streets, those areas will become places for squatters and criminal activity, which won't stop the need for police and fire services there.

From what I understand, English, is that Youngstown, Ohio is trying to shut down services to certain blocks in an effort to shrink. But Youngstown at its peak was not equal to 10% of what Detroit was.

[Zacha341]

What's the full story of New Orleans post Katrina.... are parts of it shut down? Like some of the parishes most damaged?

From what I understand, English, is that Youngstown, Ohio is trying to shut down services to certain blocks in an effort to shrink. But Youngstown at its peak was not equal to 10% of what Detroit was.

[mikeg19]

I think we all need to take a step back and hold off on the judgment of Bing's plan before we even know what the plan is. We don't know what will happen to the swaths of land, where the people will be put, and how long and expensive it's going be. Until I see the actual plan from city hall, I will reserve my judgment until that time. But I do think it is a necessary thing to shrink the city.

[royce]

Bing, with this idea, has demonstrated that he is a fuckin' idiot, but Detroiters "asked for it."

Maybe-- one day-- perhaps-- Detroiters will figure out that electing sports stars, television personalities, singers, jackasses who attach "Reverend" to their names, and people whose names we recognize even though we know nothing about them is a hideously ignorant way of exercising their right to vote, but that day doesn't appear to be anywhere near close enough to rescue this city from its worst enemy: its own citizenry.

Well, Ravine, do you have a better idea? On second thought, do you have an idea? Ok, you disagree with this idea, but at least have the guts to offer something in its place. Just complaining that you don't like the idea is such a waste of time.

Personally, I think it is the only viable idea that will make Detroit more viable. How to go about moving people from the depopulated areas is the tricky part. The city really can't use eminent domain anymore so that't out. My suggestion would be to give people a time table to move. The city would give residents in the targeted areas a year to move, working with them to move into homes in more populated areas. For those who choose not to leave, the city would cut off all city services including street lighting. The city would take them off the property tax rolls and tell them that they can stay but that they would have to fend for themselves. Without fire, police, EMS, garbage and lighting services, many of those who choose to remain would eventually move. Once all are gone, the city could baraccade the streets and tear down the remaining homes.

Of course this plan will upset long term residents who don't want to leave their homes. However, people, because of natural disasters, have left their homes before. What Detroit is experiencing today is equivalent to a nature disaster. To recover from it, a redistribution of the population is a must. To do nothing will doom all residents to fewer city services and quality of life.

[Warrenite84]

I believe Flint was doing some of this right-sizing too.

I've been through some of the areas along Gratiot, Van Dyke, Mack and Warren Aves. and I have to say there is so little left to preserve in terms of viable or historic architecture there. Areas along Gratiot and V.D. can be cleaned out of derelict properties and made available for future development, but areas away from main thoroughfares could be used as either parkland or farming uses.

My hope is that items that can be reused should be salvaged to repair marginal homes in more viable areas. The city should also award city owned forclosed houses in viable areas to displaced citizens, on a first come, first serve basis.

To prevent carpetbaggers, backdate list of home ownership in condemmed areas for 3-1-2010.

[iheartthed]

It won't work and the article inadvertently spells out why it won't work. The areas of the city that were the most densely populated in 1950 are the areas of the city that are now least populated/largely abandoned. These happen to be the areas of the city that are closest to the core. How do you consolidate the services if most of your residents are clustered around the edges of the city and the command center isolated at the center? Will city hall be moved out of downtown too?

Sorry, but any plan from the city that doesn't directly address how to get residents back into those core neighborhoods is bullshit. Destined to fail.

[neighbor]

I still haven't seen any estimates of how much this is going to cost to do and what the resulting savings will be.

I am sure it will be done in typical Michigan/Detroit fashion and cost way too much and save very little.

[iheartthed]

I still haven't seen any estimates of how much this is going to cost to do and what the resulting savings will be.

Yeah, that's something else I would like to know.

[Tig3rzhark]

So what's going to be an alternative? There's little desire for anyone to come live here, especially now. If the city is going to look like Mobile, Alabama, then maybe I should make plans to move.

[stasu1213]

[quote=royce;124743]Well, Ravine, do you have a better idea? On second thought, do you have an idea? Ok, you disagree with this idea, but at least have the guts to offer something in its place. Just complaining that you don't like the idea is such a waste of time.

Personally, I think it is the only viable idea that will make Detroit more viable. How to go about moving people from the depopulated areas is the tricky part. The city really can't use eminent domain anymore so that't out. My suggestion would be to give people a time table to move. The city would give residents in the targeted areas a year to move, working with them to move into homes in more populated areas. For those who choose not to leave, the city would cut off all city services including street lighting. The city would take them off the property tax rolls and tell them that they can stay but that they would have to fend for themselves. Without fire, police, EMS, garbage and lighting services, many of those who choose to remain would eventually move. Once all are gone, the city could baraccade the streets and tear down the remaining homes.

Of course this plan will upset long term residents who don't want to leave their homes. However, people, because of natural disasters, have left their homes before. What Detroit is experiencing today is equivalent to a nature disaster. To recover from it, a redistribution of the population is a must. To do nothing will doom all residents to fewer city services and quality of life.[/quote I think that the people who are being forced out the home that they owned not rented should be given a home in another part of the city that is vacant. The home should be not much greater value than the home the owner was forced out of. I say NOT MUCH GREATER VALUE but could a little more of a value. The only thing that the homeowner would be responsible for is the taxes, insurance and so and so. If the homeowner was still paying on the home he/she was forced out of; the note of the home that is given to that homeowner should be the same amount as the note the homeowner was paying. I wouldnt be surprise that the empty land that will be there after the dwellings are removed will be used by corporations to build on. Detroit might even have a Birch Run type outlet in the middle of the city in an area that was once semipopulated with residents. I got the feeling that the Detroit City Airport will take up most of the land east of Gratioit and Conners. The airport would be as be as metro

[royce]

It won't work and the article inadvertently spells out why it won't work. The areas of the city that were the most densely populated in 1950 are the areas of the city that are now least populated/largely abandoned. These happen to be the areas of the city that are closest to the core. How do you consolidate the services if most of your residents are clustered around the edges of the city and the command center isolated at the center? Will city hall be moved out of downtown too?

Sorry, but any plan from the city that doesn't directly address how to get residents back into those core neighborhoods is bullshit. Destined to fail.

iheartthed, I don't think shrinking the city necessarily means that everything and everyone has to be centered in the core of the city. Rosedale Park is far from the center of the city. However, it would be a neighborhood that the city wants to shore-up, not dismantle simply because it's not in the core. If shrinking the city is done through strengthening denser neighborhoods, then there could be stretches of the city, along major thoroughfares where there are no residents. In essence, there would be pockets zero density neighborhoods next to dense neighborhoods.

The whole point of shoring-up denser neighborhoods is so that city servicies can focus their energies and resources on them. Not having to burn extra gas to pick up trash in less dense neighborhoods with few homes saves the city money. The same applies to the police, fire, and EMS services. Also, covering fewer miles means that more can get accomplished in a shorter time. In addition, the city can reduce costs by not having to light up city streets in the closed off areas. Streetlights needing repairs can be fixed sooner because there won't be as many in use.

Shrinking the city is a lot quicker than waiting for surburbanites to move back or immigrants to move to the city. And by the way, city hall wouldn't have to be moved.

[j32885]

I was watching ABC News Nightline one night, they a had story about Flint is shrinking and downsizing their city. If Flint's plan to downsize and shrink is successful, hopefully a similar thing can happen for Detroit.

[iheartthed]

iheartthed, I don't think shrinking the city necessarily means that everything and everyone has to be centered in the core of the city. Rosedale Park is far from the center of the city. However, it would be a neighborhood that the city wants to shore-up, not dismantle simply because it's not in the core. If shrinking the city is done through strengthening denser neighborhoods, then there could be stretches of the city, along major thoroughfares where there are no residents. In essence, there would be pockets zero density neighborhoods next to dense neighborhoods.

The whole point of shoring-up denser neighborhoods is so that city servicies can focus their energies and resources on them. Not having to burn extra gas to pick up trash in less dense neighborhoods with few homes saves the city money. The same applies to the police, fire, and EMS services. Also, covering fewer miles means that more can get accomplished in a shorter time. In addition, the city can reduce costs by not having to light up city streets in the closed off areas. Streetlights needing repairs can be fixed sooner because there won't be as many in use.

Shrinking the city is a lot quicker than waiting for surburbanites to move back or immigrants to move to the city. And by the way, city hall wouldn't have to be moved.

I know what the point of shrinking the city is supposed to be. My reservations are 1) is the effort that would go into shrinking the city worth the savings, and more importantly 2) is this really the way to go about fixing Detroit?

Point 2 is especially urgent because the neighborhoods that would be decommissioned are the ones around the core of the city. Can a city exist without a core?

Also, as you seem to think I'm suggesting, it's not a case of trying to attract suburbanites into the city. The map suggests that Detroit's problem really isn't so much that suburbanites don't want to live in the city. Detroit's problem is that there are specific areas in the city where NOBODY wants to live, be they Detroit resident, suburbanite, rich, poor, foreigner, whatever. The city cannot be fixed until you figure out why no person of any stripe wants to live in those areas.

Compare the density map of the city in 1950 to the one from 2007. How is it that the most dense neighborhoods 50 years ago have become virtually empty today? While the neighborhoods outside of those core areas have remained about as dense over that same amount of time. Why? And would investigating why these neighborhoods are no longer viable be more worth Detroit's while than decomissioning them? [[Though I suspect they already know why but they just aren't telling you.)

[Hermod]

Compare the density map of the city in 1950 to the one from 2007. How is it that the most dense neighborhoods 50 years ago have become virtually empty today? While the neighborhoods outside of those core areas have remained about as dense over that same amount of time. Why? And would investigating why these neighborhoods are no longer viable be more worth Detroit's while than decomissioning them? [[Though I suspect they already know why but they just aren't telling you.)

Maybe the far east can become its own city [[East Detroit now that Eastpointe has changed its name?). That might have the makings of a viable city and bulldoze the gray areas between the northeast and Detroit to make a demarcation line of green space.