Can a city improve with less residents, less tax base but more supporters?

[jt1]

There is no question that the CoD has many supporters from the suburbs and state-wide that do many great things. With that said, it appears that the supporters are increasing while residents and tax base continue to decline.

So the question I pose to the board is: Can a city ever improve with a declining population, declining tax base but a large number of supporters that live outside the community?

The intent is not to belittle any of the great work done by those that live outside the city as the efforts by anyone working to improve the city make a large impact.

[Novine]

By that criteria, you can ask the same question of every tourist town in Michigan.

[NorthofNormal]

Couldn't support in the suburbs/surrounding area help arrest a decline in population/tax base? If enough people not living in the city see it as a desirable location for entertainment, for example, sooner or later some of them are going to want to live closer to their entertainment options. That kind of thing can snowball.

Of course, there's a tipping point--people who support the city but don't live in it have a reason for that and the snowball effect can't happen until those reasons are confronted.

[jt1]

By that criteria, you can ask the same question of every tourist town in Michigan.

Possibly. Tourists towns are less populated and have less costs to deal with [[legacy costs, infrastructure, care for the impoverished and elderly, etc)

[jt1]

Couldn't support in the suburbs/surrounding area help arrest a decline in population/tax base? If enough people not living in the city see it as a desirable location for entertainment, for example, sooner or later some of them are going to want to live closer to their entertainment options. That kind of thing can snowball. .

Absolutely and I think that many in the suburbs do a lot to make Detroit better and more desireable. More people working, spending money, being visible only makes the city and neighborhoods better and contributes to the tax base.

Of course, there's a tipping point--people who support the city but don't live in it have a reason for that and the snowball effect can't happen until those reasons are confronted

Therein lies the problem. The city needs residents to improve [[more taxes, more eyes on the street, more occupied homes, etc) but many aren't willing to move to the city until more homes are occupied, more people are around, etc

[fryar]

Yes. This is why it matters to Oakland and Warren counties, and the rest of Wayne.
It's all about having a relevant city core that is a proper, dense city area. The many neighborhoods of single-story ranches probably are not viable, because if you want to live like that, why not just move to a suburb with better schools, etc. But a "T" up Woodward [[because of the existing density) and along the waterfront [[because waterfront is usually viable) makes a lot of sense to me.
Both for Detroit and for the region as a whole. The reason people who are from here graduate from college here and then move away is not *just* because of the economy, it's also because a city is super-compelling to a lot of young people of at least some means. Establishments that occupy and repurpose one hundred year old spaces exude creativity and dynamism; oftentimes, many of the residences in the suburbs come off as individualized takes on a blah prefab, and even independent businesses find it hard not to be in a strip mall. Walking places is intellectually stimulating and ties you into the neighborhood, by way of random conversations or quickly checking out a new storefront, in ways that life in an area full of superblocks does not automatically do, since you drive everywhere and don't have as much opportunity to stumble over something new and interesting [[walking past a new restaurant is meaningfully different from driving past a new restaurant in a strip mall). A lot of movies and shows that villify the city are about ghetto life [[or greedy Wall Street types, but that's beside the point), but a lot of movies and shows that villify the suburbs specifically address the question of anonymity and alienation, of being somehow disconnected from your fellow humans and living your life out in a series of exchange that are many times largely reduced to economic transactions. I've already made this point on this board somewhere, but the fact that you might stumble past a romantic dinner and dancing gem on your way home from the Y or actually spend 20 minutes interacting on mass transit or in a park with someone significantly different from you is very appealing to people with their whole lives before them, people who are shaping their futures. They've seen the suburbs, and it's all American Beauty to them.
So now that I have slammed suburbia, I grew up in suburbia and currently live in suburbia. It's great for a lot of things, like giving young children a lawn to play on or segregating out the commercial areas from the residential ones. Biking from superblock to superblock is probably a challenge, but within superblocks, biking can be divine and super-safe. As Hermod pointed out elsewhere, Troy is one of the top 5 safest cities in America. A lot of suburbia was planned in ways that maybe don't inspire lifelong creativity, but for what they are designed to do they were designed well or better.
But 25 year old "creative types" don't want to drive their station wagon to the Star Theatre in the Staples Center for a fun, exciting night out. The *regional* decline is driven [[nyuck, nyuck) not only by the auto industry's struggles in the past 30 years [[setting aside the lifeline provided by the SUV fad), but also by the fact that the 25 year olds' eyes can only glaze over when they visit friends studying in cool cities. If those people come back, it's only 10 or more years later, when the combination of their family being nearby, the familiarity of it all, the family-friendly nature of the place, and the lower cost of living may prompt them to look for a job in SE Michigan.
Any attempt to diversify the economy not at the auto industry's expense into innovative areas will benefit very significantly from having an attractive urban core.

Also, here's another thought, though quite random: Finding us some gays can help, or at least so I have heard. Specifically, they say gays were among the first to move into formerly depressed neighborhoods like Harlem and renovate externally beautiful but internally neglected brownstones they acquired on the cheap. Why? Because they don't care about the quality of schools and such. Later they sell, and the whole neighborhood goes to gentrification hell because of all the million-dollar homes.
I don't mean to inject some fabulous stereotyping into this discussion, but it could be a relevant development story, actually. It can't be a strategy, cos you can't go and discriminate, but still, if a bunch of young men confident in their ability to handle themselves and without the "structural" issues that make many former urbanites move to the burbs later in life decided to "take over" a corner of town, that corner would probably benefit.

[casscorridor]

1. Create a regional government for "Detroit" metro, eliminate the invisible political divisions between municipalities of the same city. We have to start thinking of ourselves [[Metro Detroit) as the same city. Why have a hundred different school districts and police and fire districts? Why have a hundred city councils and city governments all battling one another for resources? Why have stark divisions between these municipalities such as Bloomfield Hills compared with Pontiac or Grosse Pointe compared to Eastpointe? Some of the worst school districts lay blocks away from the best. Why have bus services that don't connect or match up and compete with one another? I highly doubt any of this will change so long as we are so divided along race, class and geographic lines. Having a structured way to decide things on a regional scale is important, otherwise we just let politicians duke it out informally on piece-meal projects and essentially accomplish nothing.

2. Create a comprehensive and bold rapid mass transit system. We need light-rail and maybe even heavy-rail or expanded people mover within the urban core, with connections into the inner ring burbs such as Royal Oak and Dearborn. We need rail connection from the Airport to the Downtown businesses districts [[or bus at the very least!). We need regional rail that connects to the suburbs, exurbs, satellite cities and other large cities in Michigan such as Lansing and Grand Rapids. We need a huge improvement in buses, including better signs, bus shelters, schedules, increased frequency and routes, especially when connecting to a rail. Finally, work toward getting a high-speed rail west to Chicago and east to Toronto, with a revived Michigan Central Station as the main gateway into SE Michigan by rail.

3. Transform land-use/Shrink the region. We need to think regionally when "shrinking" the city. All previous discussion of shrinking treat Detroit as a vacuum, separate from the rest of the metro and state and the rest of the country. Suburbs also need to adapt and become more urban. We need to alter our land use pattern, with the aim of eliminating sprawl, by focusing development around activity centers, connected by transit. Some of these centers are very clear, such as Greater Downtown Detroit [[which is also the center of the region) but also in suburbs such as Dearborn, and other areas. Some centers have yet to emerge, but the foundation for them already exist. For example, land-use could be altered in Southfield to create three urban districts/clusters [[Northland, Civic Center, Northwestern) with connecting to Downtown Detroit, rather than a sprawling mess where it is impossible to navigate without a car. Southfield has a lot of assets, such as numerous offices and Lawrence Tech University. These assets would be built upon, so that activities can be clustered into districts, rather than spread out. Some areas might get less dense, and revert back to farming or nature, but this is a process that should happen organically, boosted by incentives, so it should not be forced. Eventually the suburb/city distinction will blur until there is little difference, and we become one city.

[English]

All good ideas, casscorridor. From what I am reading, land use patterns in the 21st century will mean that some of our current urban infrastructure in places like Detroit will revert to greenspace.

I also find fryar's upside-down dense "T" of the city compelling. I'm in the Detroit housing market and looking to buy within the next six months to one year, and everything I'm interested in is within that "T". I figure there is long-term potential within those areas.

[Detroit500]

Hate to break it to people but there's no way that voters are going to go for a regional government... at least not right now. Regional Cooperation is where it needs to start for right now, the simple fact is too many [[oakland county) residents in the area have a fear of the city, perhaps rightly [[see wsj article from a few weeks ago) or perhaps not rightly [[look at the rich cultural treasures only the downtown area can offer) so.

I agree about mass-transit for long term, but it's important to remember that most mass-transit is heavily subsidized by taxes and government support. Right now the state is beyond broke, and creating another system which needs to be supported by tax revenue does not sound that reasonable. At this moment we need to be making difficult decisions about the role of state government for its citizens, and while I personally think mass-transit, culture, and education [[among others) are part of that mix, too many things aren't being funded well enough by the state right now. Taxes probably need to go up, funds probably need to be reallocated, but right now the initial start-up costs of mass transit are probably too big for the region or state to support. Please understand, I am not opposed to mass transit, I use it on a regular basis when I am in New Jersey [[about 6-8 months a year, and think we ultimately need it, I just don't think it can be done right now)

What can be done right now is reforming the city of Detroit tax base to make it more in line with the rest of the region [[particularly for business owners... we are not Manhattan, there isn't a bridge to cross to get in and out of the city unless you're going to Canada), create and expand dramatic programs to lure middle-class tax paying residents into the city [[take abandoned lots and give them the lot for free if they rehab or build a new house), and with that the promise of better schools -- heck maybe even consider partnering with vouchers for the time being; help Wayne State build up even more of an infrastructure...get it to be a US News & World Reports top 100 school...get more visiting professors/programs, more TT professors, more new student housing, make Wayne State "the hip place" for kids to go to College in the state with sexy dorms and student amenities etc., ensure that the cultural assets only available in the city [[theatres, DIA, symphony) don't go under.

As the city continues to get stronger more development will follow, with that in turn more people will follow, it's important to remember a whole generation [[if not two generations) have grown up in a post-riot Metro-Region... one that has taught them "never go into the city" their entire lives... stay where it's "safe". These folks will not have views that change overnight, it's going to take time.

[DetroitDad]

Can a city ever improve with a declining population, declining tax base but a large number of supporters that live outside the community?

The intent is not to belittle any of the great work done by those that live outside the city as the efforts by anyone working to improve the city make a large impact.

Supporters volunteering is nice, but can easily become an empty gesture. The real problems of Detroit can be solved most efficiently by living, working, etc., here, learning what works and what doesn't, and fixing things as they go.

Volunteering is an extra effort by people who already have a vested interest in the immediate community.

[East Detroit]

Let's see...

Who does more for the city?

A) City of Detroit resident who sits in their house, pays their personal property tax, and insults/belittles the work of a recently deceased person [[from group B) on a forum

B) Suburbanite who stages multiple events in the city and brings other suburbanites in with their cash, who then go to other events, tell others, etc

I'm gonna have to go with B.

[fryar]

OK, jt1, now be a good boy and apologize to the grumpy man from east Detroit for not deferring on your opinion that a certain late Detroit booster is a hypocrite for not having resided in Detroit in light of her recent passing in a completely different thread. Do we think it's right to speak ill of the dead? Exactly, no it's not. Can we imagine any reasons why she would do that? I knew it, of course we can...what, you say it could have been because she had kids and DPS is not know for being first-rate? Very good. See? It is possible to be a Detroit booster and not live in Detroit. Have we learned our lesson? OK, good. Then go apologize to the grumpy man who is clearly very upset about the Detroit booster's passing, because it's the only way to keep these people on subject.

[fryar]

The situation in the suburbs is pretty desperate as well. It can be done, it just needs chipping away at.

[kathy2trips]

Nobody's going to want to live anywhere they don't feel safe. City, suburb or rural. Gated communities and HOAs seem to be the way to go. They're even gating established neighborhoods in rough areas.

[sumas]

Sorry, don't know what HOAS stand for. Also not sure what "established" neighborhoods have become gated.

Seriously happy I missed the thread where a suburban city supporter [[ now deceased) was insulted. So many important civic programs are supported by our suburban friends. I probably did most of my volunteer work [[1000's of hours) over the years I lived in the burbs. Guilt I guess.

I can't fault people for wanting good schools and at least a perception of safety. Perhaps if the charter schools had been around when my kids were younger we may have stayed.

The minute our kids were out of school, we were back in Detroit.

I think one of the smartest marketing tools I have seen is areas identifying themselves such as the The Villages, Midtown, Corktown etc. The city does need to right size. For years the neighborhoods have been neglected, money should be allocated to these organized neighborhoods in proportion to contributions creating a semi autonomist collection of communities within the city. Regionalism in a microcosym.

[jt1]

Who does more for the city?

A) City of Detroit resident who sits in their house, pays their personal property tax, and insults/belittles the work of a recently deceased person [[from group B) on a forum

Please show where I insulted/belittled anybody's work. I pointed out that a city needs tax base and residents. You also make assumptions about what I do/don't do in the community. Quit an assumption on your part.

B) Suburbanite who stages multiple events in the city and brings other suburbanites in with their cash, who then go to other events, tell others, etc

As I have stated multiple times: Those that contribute but don't live in the city do a great deal. The city however desperately needs residents and a stornger tax base. Is that a statement that you disagree with?

I'm gonna have to go with B.

Again, you are making assumptions about what I do or don't do in the community. I didn't realize that if you post on this forum that it implies that it is all one does. So if you are pointing the finger and making assumptions I would expect that you are willing to list all of the great things you do in the city.

[professorscott]

Detroit will once again be a successful community if it figures out that people in the metro region can, for the most part, choose to live anywhere they want and can afford, and that therefore Detroit must compete in some way for their business.

The governments of Detroit over the past eighty years, if I may risk a generalization, have floundered on the continuing belief that people ought to live in Detroit because people ought to live in Detroit. This is unrealistic and dangerous.

Now, if the Detroit City leadership ever decides to try to be competitive, what exactly does that mean? Several things. First, get basic City services in order; and the way to do that, in an absence of huge amounts of money, is to first save money by getting rid of thousands of unnecessary make-work City jobs. Second, merge services or privatize services where it no longer makes sense [[if it ever did) for the City to be owning and running things itself; of course, public transit immediately leaps to mind, but there are others. Third, reform the organizational structure of DPS, since the current structure clearly doesn't work and is a national joke. Fourth, provide services or opportunities to residents that nonresidents cannot as easily obtain [[use your imaginations).

That's just a starter list. The sad thing is, nobody seems to be looking at any of this. You might have plenty of your own things to add. But if Detroit refuses to compete with the rest of the region, or continues to pretend there is no competition, than the cities which are trying to do a good job will continue to win, and Detroit will continue to lose.

[fryar]

Professor Scott, your posts are always a good and informative read.
Detroit has a regional competitive advantage with regard to having a viable urban corridor, being the center of it all, hosting many of the big-ticket cultural and sporting events - with regard to being a city, really. For the non-urban parts, I'm afraid I got nothing.

[Novine]

I've got to disagree with the Professor on part of this. Detroit is never going to win a competition of being a community that's the safest or cheapest or offers the best public services in the region. The suburbs have huge advantages over the city in these areas that the city will never overcome. But it doesn't need to either. People who are going to move to Detroit are not focused on moving to a city that's the safest or cheapest place to live. The people that are will likely never move to Detroit. Successful cities around the world are never the safest or cheapest places to live in their region. Why do you think Detroit can only succeed by beating the suburbs at their own game?

I agree on most of the other points about streamlining services, reducing costs, fixing the schools. But it's unrealistic to set goals that the city can never meet to attract people who will never move there. Instead, the focus should be on fixing those things that matter to people who live and work in big cities, like having a reliable transit system that serves the entire region. The other items you mention matter to the degree that they free up resources to allow the city to better itself in the areas that matter to people who live or would want to live in the city.

[English]

I've got to disagree with the Professor on part of this. Detroit is never going to win a competition of being a community that's the safest or cheapest or offers the best public services in the region. The suburbs have huge advantages over the city in these areas that the city will never overcome. But it doesn't need to either. People who are going to move to Detroit are not focused on moving to a city that's the safest or cheapest place to live. The people that are will likely never move to Detroit. Successful cities around the world are never the safest or cheapest places to live in their region. Why do you think Detroit can only succeed by beating the suburbs at their own game?

I agree on most of the other points about streamlining services, reducing costs, fixing the schools. But it's unrealistic to set goals that the city can never meet to attract people who will never move there. Instead, the focus should be on fixing those things that matter to people who live and work in big cities, like having a reliable transit system that serves the entire region. The other items you mention matter to the degree that they free up resources to allow the city to better itself in the areas that matter to people who live or would want to live in the city.

Exactly. Thank you for saying this. The differences between Detroit and the other "grand" American cities are:

1) No urban elite class tied to specific neighborhoods that others must pry out of their cold, dead hands.

2) Fewer post-WWII immigrant groups with enclaves within city limits.

Whenever I play "most dangerous city" or "most crappy school system" with my friends who hail from Chicago/LA/Philly/etc., I lose. Their most frequent observation about Detroit is "where are the people? Where are the cars? Where's the trains?" The only contest I usually win is "English's city is the most abandoned."

[DetroitDad]

Let's see...

Who does more for the city?

A) City of Detroit resident who sits in their house, pays their personal property tax, and insults/belittles the work of a recently deceased person [[from group B) on a forum

B) Suburbanite who stages multiple events in the city and brings other suburbanites in with their cash, who then go to other events, tell others, etc

I'm gonna have to go with B.

Wait, are we comparing residents, including people who live, work, or regularly play in the city, to supporters, meaning people who maybe visit the casinos, tunnel and stadiums only, and support Detroit by occasionally volunteering, donating money, or only verbally?

Contrary to popular belief by some, Person "A" in the quote above also is spending money for groceries, most medical expenses, beauty and retail expenses, fuel, and other things. While not everyone fits the stereotypes, Person "B" is someone I have yet to meet outside of this site [[significant, since I started in the suburbs), leading me to believe they are very rare, when looking at the Metro Detroit population as a whole.

Driving through areas of Detroit with the doors locked so you can volunteer at a crack house demolition, or to show your kids "the real world", or to go to a regional event is a bit of an empty gesture. We're thankful you volunteered, but it's the same way your kind of thankful that your wacky aunt gave you a pink and green knitted sweater for your 8th Birthday.... at the end of May.... after your Mom smiles at you and tells you it's really the thought that counts.

[sumas]

As a Detroit resident for 47 out of 57 years and a current resident, I still think it advisable to give tax paying non residents a type of partial vote. Before people scream racism, most people I know who work in the city but live in the burbs are black. Empirical experience at best I know. I just think a vote in affairs that affect one tends to foster better relations and more commitment to our core city.

There have been so many focus groups etc that have great ideas that unfortunately are read by no one and no action taken. These think tanks of students, professionals and residents need to be heard.

Yes this city could be run way more efficiently but cronyism holds this city back. My favorite example is I did a street scape [[landscape) design for a non profit for free. The funding was there via the city, but the plants had to be purchased through an approved vendor. The vendor supplied the plants @ a cost of $18,000. I could have purchased the same for $5,000. Nice profit for them huh! All of the labor was provided by volunteers not this approved landscape company. That explains a lot of why this city fails to operate a balanced budget. They were also contracted by the city to water these plantings which was a service they never delivered on but got paid anyway. Most plants died as a result, what a horrible waste of money, free labor and bitterness that ensued on the part of the volunteers.

Pay to play must end.

[Roq]

Gated communities and HOAs seem to be the way to go. They're even gating established neighborhoods in rough areas.

Ugh...fuck that.

[Patrick]

I've got to disagree with the Professor on part of this. Detroit is never going to win a competition of being a community that's the safest or cheapest or offers the best public services in the region. The suburbs have huge advantages over the city in these areas that the city will never overcome. But it doesn't need to either. People who are going to move to Detroit are not focused on moving to a city that's the safest or cheapest place to live. The people that are will likely never move to Detroit. Successful cities around the world are never the safest or cheapest places to live in their region. Why do you think Detroit can only succeed by beating the suburbs at their own game?

I agree on most of the other points about streamlining services, reducing costs, fixing the schools. But it's unrealistic to set goals that the city can never meet to attract people who will never move there. Instead, the focus should be on fixing those things that matter to people who live and work in big cities, like having a reliable transit system that serves the entire region. The other items you mention matter to the degree that they free up resources to allow the city to better itself in the areas that matter to people who live or would want to live in the city.

The problem is that Detroit will have to continue streamlining services and shrinking the DPS year after year. It's almost like a managed withdrawal or wind-down. There won't be an and to the cutting if people keep leaving the city and they will keep leaving.

[neighbor]

but the plants had to be purchased through an approved vendor.

Does the name of the company stat with Torre &.......?