Mayor Embraces Shrinking Detroit

[Hermod]

So as I was saying, this is why decommissioning empty neighborhoods won't work:

Maybe the solution is to "spin off" the outer neighborhoods into their own suburban cities and have Detroit be the downtown and an empty ring of vacant land. If Highland Park and Hamtown can survive as separate cities, why not the far northwest and the far east?

What would be the lineup of "patchwork" cities? It works in southern Oakland and Macomb, why not in northern Wayne?

[iheartthed]

Maybe the solution is to "spin off" the outer neighborhoods into their own suburban cities and have Detroit be the downtown and an empty ring of vacant land. If Highland Park and Hamtown can survive as separate cities, why not the far northwest and the far east?

What would be the lineup of "patchwork" cities? It works in southern Oakland and Macomb, why not in northern Wayne?

What exactly would be the point of spinning off the outer neighborhoods into their own cities? Also, both Highland Park and Hamtramck went into receivership... Which is what Detroit is trying to avoid.

[bailey]

What exactly would be the point of spinning off the outer neighborhoods into their own cities? Also, both Highland Park and Hamtramck went into receivership... Which is what Detroit is trying to avoid.

Which is probably a hindrance more than a help. Just pull the trigger on chpt 9 already.

[cman710]

I agree that spinning off the outer communities would not work. I do not see how it would ever benefit Detroit to give up the areas that are most densely populated and that provide the city with a significant amount of tax revenue.

I disagree that simply because the outer communities are most healthy, that downsizing will not work. While geography plays a significant role in the cost of delivery of services, shrinking the city's middle could probably still result in significant savings, if the city's departments were restructured to provide services effectively to the inner and outer areas.

On a very basic level, the city could save significant money by cutting off certain areas from city services. If the city no longer maintained roads on certain abandoned streets, and no longer provided garbage pickup services, and reduced fire and police coverage to focus on the more viable neighborhoods, that would save the city money and provide remaining residents with better services.

[313WX]

On a very basic level, the city could save significant money by cutting off certain areas from city services. If the city no longer maintained roads on certain abandoned streets, and no longer provided garbage pickup services, and reduced fire and police coverage to focus on the more viable neighborhoods, that would save the city money and provide remaining residents with better services.

Isn't the city already doing that? You can drive thourgh any of Detroit's abandoned neighborhood and dechiper the city's already doing what you're suggesting.

I think the biggest expense is the underlying infrastructure [[water & sewage) rather than the police fire & street maintenance. The better question is how can we possibly re-structure all of those pipes and sewage tunnels without disrupting the service to those in the vibrant areas?

[cman710]

313WX, practically, I think that there is some truth to what you are saying. However, the city still does spend resources in certain areas with incredibly low density, and those resources could help more people if they could be deployed elswhere. How do shift those resources in a way that allows the city to provide better services remains the big question.

Any part of answering that question would unquestionable have to consider the issue you raised. Restructuring infrastructure must be part of any kind of downsizing program, as the city must seek to cut costs in whatever ways it can.

[313WX]

313WX, practically, I think that there is some truth to what you are saying. However, the city still does spend resources in certain areas with incredibly low density, and those resources could help more people if they could be deployed elswhere. How do shift those resources in a way that allows the city to provide better services remains the big question.

Any part of answering that question would unquestionable have to consider the issue you raised. Restructuring infrastructure must be part of any kind of downsizing program, as the city must seek to cut costs in whatever ways it can.

This is just a random thought that came to mind, but aren't majority of the citizens living in these low density [[that is, heavily abandoned) neighborhoods generally senior citizens? And if that's the case, wouldn't these areas more like than not completely de-populate themselves before Dave Bing attempts to really address the issue?

I mean I'd rather they let the city and its size be if that were the alternative scenario. I would think removing and re-routing the older infrastructure [[mainly sewage & water) is just as expensive as leaving them in place.

[cman710]

313, I am not sure what the demographics are in these areas, but it could be that many of the people are senior citizens. Even if that is true, I doubt it would solve the problem anytime soon because many of these people could easily live another 20 years - not to mention the fact that these individuals often own their homes and will leave them to their kids of other heirs. In many cases, the kids may not want to live in Detroit anyway, but some will.

Removing infrastructure would almost certainly be more costly in the short-term, but as part of a downsizing program, the city would have to look for long-term cost savings. Also, in some cases the infrastructure may not need to be removed, but simply turned off [[e.g., certain underground water mains).

[Hypestyles]

...I'm thinking a michigan ballot proposal in the last 5 years severely restricts local government from using eminent domain..

however 'rightsizing' is implemented, it needs to happen, regardless..

has anyone seen the city council's so called "marshal plan"?

[Ravine]

Another thing:

I distinctly remember Bing saying that he didn't have any plans of being a multiple-term mayor.

I wonder if he has changed his mind, on that point, because-- given that the "down-sizing" idea is one that would take many years to carry out-- I don't feel as though a guy who doesn't even plan on serving for more than four years has any business proposing such a thing.

If he intends to be only a one-term mayor, he should "down-size" his activities to merely dealing with the situation as it is, and leave the lofty ideas & far-reaching game-plans to civil servants who are committed enough, to them, to stick around and see them through.

I suppose that this case is one where we can see that he is a businessman. A lot of businesses are fond of the "model" wherein a guy comes in from somewhere else, fucks everything up, and subsequently moves on.

[The Dude]

So, Ravine, still can't come up with an idea or solution to the problem at hand? I mean really. I offer a solution and all you can offer is a sophomoric ad hominem. At least bring something to the table besides criticisms and ad hominems. I'm sure that you're a bright person. Why don't you show us what you've got?

Basically, I think what Royce is saying, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

[Ravine]

Which is one of those handy philosophical-sounding axioms which some folks think are quite sage.

More like parsley. It looks good on the plate, but it doesn't amount to anything. The fact that the statement has no basis in logic is just the first of the several reasons why it's a steaming pile of horseshit.

[Mikeg]

Detroit going back to farmland
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
03/12/10 2:11 PM EST

In Joel Kotkin’s New Geography blog Richard Cristiano asks whether deconstruction is the fate of urban America. Case in point: Detroit, where Mayor Dave Bing’s Community Development Futures Task Force has presented its Neighborhood Revitalization Strategic Framework. As Cristiano writes:

Twelve years ago, British urban historian Sir Peter Hall wrote in “Cities in Civilization� that Detroit “has become an astonishing case of industrial dereliction; perhaps, before long, the first major industrial city in history to revert to farmland.� Hall may have been prescient. This week, Mayor David Bing released the “Neighborhood Revitalization Strategic Framework," a landmark document that suggests that vast sections of Detroit be razed and returned to farmland, open space and nature.......

When my parents bought a house in northwest Detroit for $11,500 in 1948, there was a nearby farm which stretched from Pembroke [[7 ½ Mile) to the northern city limit at 8 Mile. Now houses in Detroit are selling for an average of $13,000, and Detroit is moving back to farmland. When people ask me why I switched from liberalism to conservatism, my one-word answer is “Detroit.�


Read the entire Opinion piece here.

[canuck]

What's the difference between a liberal and a conservative agenda in this situation? Where does a conservative make a difference?

[313WX]

What's the difference between a liberal and a conservative agenda in this situation? Where does a conservative make a difference?

Since it was ultimately conservative policies that killed Detroit [[Free Trade & the Highway Act of 1956 by Dwight Eisenhower), I have no idea.

[Danny]

Let Detroit go back to farmland. It's better to have a urban farming with fewer houses than to fixing up lot of vacant houses. Poor folks who are living in the city can't clean up after themselves so the let them live like the Amish. Shut those blighted ghettohoods down. Save Detroit some money and wait until the rich folks with private security develops that land into pricy Miami-presuburban no-rent like gated communities.

Good ideal Bing.

[Hermod]

Since it was ultimately conservative policies that killed Detroit [[Free Trade & the Highway Act of 1956 by Dwight Eisenhower), I have no idea.

Free trade was always a "progressive" policy as a 'kumbaya" with the peoples of the world and to break the monopoly of the industrialists in the US. Progressives were against tariff barriers to free trade and against eeeevullll protectionism..

The highway act was a great "public works" project which liberals just love.

[canuck]

Voters in the tri-county area have been consciences enough to pick up on other things of regional importance in the past. I wouldn’t call it shouldering the burden, more like, investing in the regional benefits of having a successful downtown. Where I live now would no longer be consider part of the city of Detroit, but the core center of the new Metro Detroit. I would vote for and pay a property tax directly to the Metro authority. For anyone who lives outside of the core center, you would be entitled to vote, but taxes going to the metro gov would be dependent on how much your municipality has decided to buy services from the metro gov. I figure atleast a minimum requirement of taxes for regionalized things like the core center of the region, mass transit, metro airport, zoo, cobo. Everything thing else like police, fire, or schools can come later if even ever. But we need a successful downtown and mass transit, which without, we’re all doomed.

The lack of a metro authority seems to be the one overwhelming factor that screws Detroit's inner city. If the city could levy taxes from suburbs in spite of their independant municipal status then, they would have to cooperate. The town where I live in Montreal is an island suburb independant and recently demerged from the city of Montreal. There had been a forced merger by the provincial government to strengthen the central city but another govt came and after a referendum, some cities demerged to their old city status. But since 1976, the suburbs had to contribute to Montreal, so 55% of my tax bill goes to the city of Montreal, the rest to Pointe-Claire. The 55% goes to transit, metro, bus and suburban rail which stretches to off-island suburbs. It covers a unified police force EMS and fire dept. It seems nothing short of a decree by the state or the fed govt could bring that about in your great city. It seems obvious that a vital Detroit is beneficial to the suburbs but I think that I will bet on a major public works project for Detroit rightsizing by Obama [[busy guy). I just cant imagine your burbs will get to work on this.

[313WX]

Free trade was always a "progressive" policy as a 'kumbaya" with the peoples of the world and to break the monopoly of the industrialists in the US. Progressives were against tariff barriers to free trade and against eeeevullll protectionism..

The highway act was a great "public works" project which liberals just love.

Free Trade was always a conservative policy. They wanted goernment to get its hands out of trade regulation since the saw it as "Socialist" and interfering with the free market. In General, only centrist or conservative democrats are in favor of it.

The Highway Act was simply a way for the conservative to build that bigger and badder military they love [[remember, it was initially a "DEFENSE" act).

[cman710]

313X, free trade can not be characterized as a liberal or a conservative policy. It is true that union elements of the Democratic party have always been protectionist, but I do not think it is fair to say that pro-free trade Democrats are necessarily moderate or conservative as a general matter. NAFTA and other free trade legislation would have never passed without significant support among Democrats.

[Hermod]

Free Trade was always a conservative policy. They wanted goernment to get its hands out of trade regulation since the saw it as "Socialist" and interfering with the free market. In General, only centrist or conservative democrats are in favor of it.

The Highway Act was simply a way for the conservative to build that bigger and badder military they love [[remember, it was initially a "DEFENSE" act).

Check your history. The "money" parties [[Federalist/Whig/Republican) have usually favored high tariffs to protect domestic industries from foreign competition.

The Jeffersonian/Jacksonian/Democratic parties have usually favored low tariffs to hold down prices for the "common man" and to provide competition for the "plutocrats".

The Defense Highway Act was a means of selling the interstate system to congress. It was a highway act pure and simple. The only "defense" angle to the interstate system was the bridge heights had to accommodate a certain missile system.

If you look at road atlases of the US over the years from 1956 to now, you will notice that some of the most important troop installations were rather late in getting their interstate highway connections.