Bing to "defrag" the city.

[JBMcB]

The real problem is that the whole metro needs to work together to make a livable city center and to gradually let the less sustainable areas [[mostly the exurbs) go back to being productive farmland.

That's great. How do you propose to do this, exactly? Detroit is broke. Many of the suburbs are broke as well. To get people to move to Detroit, you first need to fix it's rotted infrastructure. Where is this money going to come from?

Downsizing is the right move. People aren't going to start flooding back to Detroit in droves anytime soon. At least, until it can get it's act together and provide a decent level of service to it's citizens. And until it ramps up it's tax base, it's not going to have enough money to fix it's infrastructure problems.

[Detroitnerd]

That's great. How do you propose to do this, exactly? Detroit is broke. Many of the suburbs are broke as well. To get people to move to Detroit, you first need to fix it's rotted infrastructure. Where is this money going to come from?

In some previous threads, I've argued that we need a serious package of federal aid to reorganize the way we develop our cities, a complete re-examination of zoning laws and building codes, and a way to simplify regulations and reduce taxes for mom-and-pop business owners. Absent that, there is still a great deal of wealth in the area that could be used much more intelligently than by building new superhighways and subsidizing sprawl. We could treat our neighborhoods the way New Orleans treats its French Quarter. Instead, we are to keep showering demolition contractors with money? That's been our strategy for more than 50 years.

Anyway, this "where will the money come from" thing isn't very convincing. We're in, what, two wars? Where's the money coming from for those? We're handing over more than a trillion dollars to incompetent or criminal bankers who have helped crash the economy? Where's that money going to come from?

Fact is, money gets borrowed to build the world of the future. Unless you do that, you're never going to see a return. It's strange to me that businesspeople say, "You've got to spend money to make money," then demand that government do the exact opposite.

Downsizing is the right move. People aren't going to start flooding back to Detroit in droves anytime soon. At least, until it can get it's act together and provide a decent level of service to it's citizens. And until it ramps up it's tax base, it's not going to have enough money to fix it's infrastructure problems.

The demand that Detroit "get its act together" is nothing more than a PC way of saying, "I don't care, and I am not going to get involved in helping. They can do it themselves." And it's the antithesis of regionalism. If we want to save our metropolitan area, we need to work together as a region to have a working city, desirable suburbs and plenty of farmland. Unless we do that, we can descend into a kind of new Dark Ages; all that will remain intact will be everybody's smug sense of superiority.

[JBMcB]

In some previous threads, I've argued that we need a serious package of federal aid to reorganize the way we develop our cities

Realistically, that probably won't happen. We can't count on anyone else helping us out.

complete re-examination of zoning laws and building codes, and a way to simplify regulations and reduce taxes for mom-and-pop business owners.

I agree 100%. The entire city needs to be an incubator for businesses of all kinds. Relax every restriction you can and get business moving.

Absent that, there is still a great deal of wealth in the area that could be used much more intelligently than by building new superhighways and subsidizing sprawl.

I agree that we shouldn't be funding any new construction, but we need to, at least, maintain what we have, even if it's in the boonies.

Where's that money going to come from?

Us, and our children, and their children. Which is why we can't rely on the federal government to step in on this. Even ending all the wars, there are a dozen other priorities the fed will spend money on before they get to revitalizing dying cities [[welfare, health care, social security, etc...)

It's strange to me that businesspeople say, "You've got to spend money to make money," then demand that government do the exact opposite.

The difference is that the government doesn't make money. The government doesn't produce anything, or create wealth. It helps individuals create wealth, but rarely and, usually, in the most inefficient manner possible.

The demand that Detroit "get its act together" is nothing more than a PC way of saying, "I don't care, and I am not going to get involved in helping.

Um, no. Detroit really needs to get it's act together. With the current level of corruption and incompetence, it doesn't matter how much money you throw at the problem, it isn't going to get better.

If we want to save our metropolitan area, we need to work together as a region to have a working city, desirable suburbs and plenty of farmland.

That's fantastic. What exactly do you mean by working together? Because if you mean the suburbs dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the City of Detroit in it's current situation:

1 - It ain't gonna happen
2 - Even if it did, it wouldn't fix anything, except some Detroit official's distinct lack of German luxury vehicles.

[Detroitnerd]

Realistically, that probably won't happen. We can't count on anyone else helping us out. ...

Given your negativity and sarcasm, I'm going to write you off. Best of luck saving a region by knocking it down!