What Can Detroit do to Reinvent Itself and Begin to Change its Negative Reputation?

[Detroitnerd]

Agree, 'nerd, but it's easy to help a man who's starving, at least for the moment: buy him dinner. It's difficult to help, even for the moment, a city which has become structurally unsustainable and which has a reputation for aggressively rejecting outside help unless it's cash without strings.

One of the key reasons for Detroit's structural problems is that it cannot grow. Another one of the key problems is it's in a region that rewards sprawl whenever possible. As for the corrupt leadership of the city of Detroit, all we'd have to do is double the size of Detroit and they wouldn't be in charge anymore. We'd be one of the top ten cities in population again and everybody would have a stake in his neighbor. I don't understand why the two Germanies got their unification job done in 10 years and we are still pointing fingers even while we know the bacon is burning.

[bailey]

One of the key reasons for Detroit's structural problems is that it cannot grow. Another one of the key problems is it's in a region that rewards sprawl whenever possible. As for the corrupt leadership of the city of Detroit, all we'd have to do is double the size of Detroit and they wouldn't be in charge anymore. We'd be one of the top ten cities in population again and everybody would have a stake in his neighbor. I don't understand why the two Germanies got their unification job done in 10 years and we are still pointing fingers even while we know the bacon is burning.

German reunification? really, you're going there? Well, actually you're going in the reverse, in this scenario it's the East swallowing the West... but lets look at reunification. It resulted in almost 2 TRILLION transferred from the West to the East. Unemployment in the East is still double the West and likely will never catch up until the olds die off. those who have a job earn less that those in the West. People are still abandoning the East in huge numbers, and 20yrs on, the East is still basically a ward of the West. Not the rosy outcome you're implying resulted.

so your solution to save a city that is 145sqr miles and half [[more?) empty and functionally insolvent is to double its physical size? Ignoring for the moment the massive exodus from the region the mere proposal of such would engender, how would that limit sprawl? why would any business move to a more central location? If you've seized Livonia...why move Quicken? How would that centralize retail? If you seized Troy, why move somerset? how would it better utilize infrastructure if you haven't moved anyone from their currently sprawled out locales?

All you are doing is advocating the seizure of assets and redistributing wealth, which if, implemented, would simply drive people out, cost a shit load of money, and solve nothing.

[EASTSIDE CAT 67-83]

I am impressed, a very astute and informed post.

[Thruster315]

They both have fantastic art schools. However having well educated children who are from Detroit would be a huge benefit. You want the youth to stay in Detroit and have children there and increase the population with even better citizens who have more opportunities than they themselves had. That is why fixing the schools should be at the top of the priorities list in my opinion.

It's not like Detroit doesn't have a world class art school in CCS [[http://www.collegeforcreativestudies.edu/). I just recently took a tour of that place and the quality of the art there really is top notch. The middle & high school there seem pretty interesting as well. CCS very well could be a part of the revitalization of the city.

[Detroitnerd]

German reunification? really, you're going there? Well, actually you're going in the reverse, in this scenario it's the East swallowing the West... but lets look at reunification. It resulted in almost 2 TRILLION transferred from the West to the East. Unemployment in the East is still double the West and likely will never catch up until the olds die off. people are still abandoning the East in huge numbers, and 20yrs on, the East is still basically a ward of the West. not the rosey outcome you're implying resulted.

Oh, reunification is an ongoing process that's true. Of course, they are willing to embark upon the project, spend the actual money to do it. It's going to take a while. But have they suffered as a country? Aren't they still the world's fourth-largest economy? But, by your standard, perhaps the United States should never have tried that pesky "reconstruction" thing so many years ago.

so your solution to save a city that is 145sqr miles and half [[more?) empty and functionally insolvent is to double it's physical size?

Yes. It's an idea. The city is disinvested, and the area around it has a great deal of wealth. By uniting the various governments, you effect cost-savings by combining police, fire, schools and various other functions. You have one government that can broker deals with Washington. You are taken more seriously by funding organizations. You have the clout of being among the top ten most populous cities in the country. It's basically what New York did in 1898, or Boston earlier than that. Or look at the cities out West. They've been annexing area around them as it develops, capturing tax revenues and avoiding structural budget problems that way. Or perhaps you have a problem with the mayors of Albuquerque and Anchorage?

Ignoring for the moment the massive exodus from the region the mere proposal of such would engender,

Oh, how nice! Begging the question with a fearful scenario. This is just how we got here: People of means threatening to move on to the next subsidized enclave the moment big, bad urbanity threatens to envelop them. Unfortunately, the real scenario is that all of our young people are leaving the region because there are so many other regions that function well together, as opposed to here were we have these terrifying scenarios and are always struggling to move or keep away from "them." Sigh ...

how would that limit sprawl?

I'm not saying this is a way to limit sprawl, but it doesn't reward it as our current enshrining of "home rule" does, and it allows the city to capture sprawl. See, if you are able to capture the revenues of outlying areas by making them part of the city, the rewards associated with sprawl diminish. Also, chances are better we'd be able to keep some of our bright young people here, and many of them prefer density ... or else why have they been moving to Chicago? And, as one large region, chances are much improved we'd be able to get mass transit funds, which help build density.

why would any business move to a more central location? If you've seized Livonia...why move Quicken? How would that centralize retail? If you seized Troy, why move somerset? how would it better utilize infrastructure if you haven't moved anyone from their currently sprawled out locales?

Ah, the fearful language of seizure. Well, ignoring that, when you have a city that has within it a core city, desirable suburban environments and perhaps even a greenbelt to hem in sprawl, the funny thing is that people wind up seeking the environments that are best for them. Businesses like Quicken seem to be trying to attract bright young people, and bright young people seem to increasingly enjoy dense urban environments with lots of shops and restaurants. Why would anyone try to move Somerset? It's a mall in the midst of a desirable suburban environment? In this scenario I'm talking about, I'll bet most of the places that will undergo radical change will be the most severely disinvested neighborhoods. We must come up with a plan for neighborhoods such as those on the east side where 1 out of 7 people is on probation of some kind. Those people need jobs and educations. And we have the wealth locally to get that job done.

All you are doing advocating is the seizure of assets and redistributing wealth, which if, implemented, would simply drive people out, cost a shit load of money, and solve nothing.

Tell that to David Rusk. He's called "the hottest urban expert in the nation today,” by those commies over at the Baltimore Sun. His book "Cities without Suburbs" is the book that has discussed how cities that can grow and capture revenue are able to thrive, and how cities that are not able to grow die by degrees. He is a former New Mexico legislator and the former mayor of Albuquerque, which, for some reason, has not driven out its population by annexing territory. Or talk to Mayor Verne Rupright of Wasilla, Alaska, who approves of plans to double the size of his city. Talk to experts at the Brookings Institution and you'll find they take these ideas very seriously.

Or, of course, you can continue to doubt, to scoff, and to generally try to take a sound argument and try to paint it as some paranoid conspiracy theorist's mad dream of Communist takeover.

I know which you'll likely choose.

[DC48080]

so your solution to save a city that is 145sqr miles and half [[more?) empty and functionally insolvent is to double its physical size?

And then if Detroit were to annex the horrible "unsustainable" suburbs, wouldn't Detroit then be the so called "sprawl" that a few people rant about ad nauseum on here?

And why would Detroit want the suburbs with their big roads, all those evil automobiles, those big stores that have big parking lots in front of them, and those awful so called "McMansions" with their big manicured lawns?

I'm sure the suburbs are just itching to be asked to become part of the City of Detroit.

You're absolutely right Bailey, it is just re-distribution of wealth to try to solve a problem. You cannot elevate the poor by impoverishing the rich.

[Detroitnerd]

And then if Detroit were to annex the horrible "unsustainable" suburbs, wouldn't Detroit then be the so called "sprawl" that a few people rant about ad nauseum on here?

I think you are attempting to put words in my mouth that I haven't said. A city can contain urban environments, suburban environments and can even ensure a greenbelt around it to keep development more sensible and cohesive. Portland seems to be doing a pretty good job, and it's a growing city that attracts plenty of former Detroiters.

And why would Detroit want the suburbs with their big roads, all those evil automobiles, those big stores that have big parking lots in front of them, and those awful so called "McMansions" with their big manicured lawns?

Haha. Listen, friend, this isn't about Detroit wanting all that stuff. This is about the possibility of metro Detroit working together as a region. It takes vision. Truthfully, it takes decades. Sure, the suburbs have their share of problems, with homes foreclosures, falling tax revenues, mono-modal transportation systems, expensive-to-heat-and-cool homes, young people fleeing for points distant, tanking homeowners' associations, etc. -- and the commercial foreclosure crisis hasn't even hit yet. [[It ain't all soap bubbles and glitter out there.) But if we were to work together as a region, under one government, do you think the cronies in Detroit City Hall could outlast another election? Don't you think it would be in our best interests to have all of our environments as desirable as possible?

I'm sure the suburbs are just itching to be asked to become part of the City of Detroit.

Framed that way, I doubt many suburban residents would warm up to the idea, but if you are talking about Detroit's new political boundaries going up to 16 Mile Road, and out to Livonia, and down to Lincoln Park, perhaps it could work in a decade or two.

You're absolutely right Bailey, it is just re-distribution of wealth to try to solve a problem. You cannot elevate the poor by impoverishing the rich.

That's funny. The tax rate for the rich in the 1950s was a confiscatory 90 percent. Somehow, they still managed to be fabulously wealthy. The only difference is we had working cities, good schools and competent public services. I guess you must think FDR was the worst president ever, huh?

[DC48080]

Sucking in the suburbs and their money will make things worse for the former suburbanites.

Think about this: Suppose my neighbor is unemployed and out of money and cannot feed his family, and I am just barely getting by and making cuts in my own life just to get by. Now I take on the responsibility of paying to keep my neighbor afloat, how am I supposed to do it when I'm just barely afloat myself?

Now you combine Detroit with the burbs out to 16 mile and west to Livonia, to use your example. The central govt will now have a greater amount of roads to maintain, schools, police, fire dept. and many other city services to fund. But the increase in revenue will not be enough to do the job.

When it comes time to buy the groceries and one roommate pitches in $100 and the other puts in $5, it is hard to buy enough food for everyone in the house.

[bdub77]

Fix the school system. Fix the school system. Fix the school system. Fix the school system.

I couldn't agree with you more, as the Detroit school system is in an abysmal state. I had a friend of mine who did some student teaching in the DPS, and he was telling me that were kids in the third grade that couldn't read and write.

It's hard to say what the solution is here. Obviously you could dump all the money in the world into the DPS and that wouldn't necessarily fix it. I don't think it's fair to place the majority of the blame on the teachers; though good teachers that these kids can connect with are essential, I think a bigger problem is that the culture that the majority of these kids are brought up in; growing up in either single parent households, or households where both parents are there but work 12 hours a day and thus don't have much support or encouragement for their eduction from their parents. That combined with a general feeling of hopelessness and a sense that doing well in school doesn't matter all that much.

Though as someone else mentioned, there's no way to fix the school system unless it's part of an overall effort to address the many other problems plaguing the city, in which the problems facing the schools have become inexorably intertwined.

And for the record, when I created this post and mentioned changing Detroit's negative reputation, I'm not talking about what kind of PR work can we do to sprinkle tinsel around and try to downplay the problems Detroit has, what I meant was how can we begin address these problems that have been giving Detroit its reputation, which is somewhat exaggerated though at least part of it deserved.

[jt1]

Sucking in the suburbs and their money will make things worse for the former suburbanites.

Think about this: Suppose my neighbor is unemployed and out of money and cannot feed his family, and I am just barely getting by and making cuts in my own life just to get by. Now I take on the responsibility of paying to keep my neighbor afloat, how am I supposed to do it when I'm just barely afloat myself?.

Typically in that scenario, and the way SE Michigan is moving you will certainly be out of money and opportunity in the future. The problem is that SE Michigan is set on 'getting by' because it is better than their suffering neighbor.

As a region we need to rethink why barely getting by [[If we are getting by) is seen as a good thing. Should we all assume that drowning in 10 years is a good thing since the person next to you is drowning today? Until SE Michigan can realize that the entire region is going downhill it will only get worse. The problem is that the CoD has seen the horrible decline. The burbs continue to compare themselves to Detroit and consider things OK as opposed to comparing themselves to burbs in other regions.

Now you combine Detroit with the burbs out to 16 mile and west to Livonia, to use your example. The central govt will now have a greater amount of roads to maintain, schools, police, fire dept. and many other city services to fund. But the increase in revenue will not be enough to do the job.

All of those services are required. It's just that they are completed by multiple organizations with a ton of redundancy and limited visibility in Washington or Lansing. Consolidating cities and services does not create additional roads to maintain, FDs or PDs.

When it comes time to buy the groceries and one roommate pitches in $100 and the other puts in $5, it is hard to buy enough food for everyone in the house.

I guess it's better to wait until onw roomate has only $5 and one has $0. At least the one with $5 will still have more.

[DetroitPlanner]

Detroitnerd, I agree with you to a point when you talk of a city size and morphology. However, Detroit can grow. It after all shrunk from a high of about 2.1-2.2 million to less than half that. Much of the infrastructure is still there to provide for a City much larger than the current one.

What is missing however are the jobs. The job losses were not just because of urban sprawl, but rather of changes in technology. Plants like the Highland Park plant employed a 100,000 people, a modern auto factory like Detroit/Hamtramck has the same productivity, but only employs a few thousand. Technology has also made it possible to ship parts in from all over in a cost effective manner, therefore, you have a lot less smaller shops making parts for local manufacturing plants.

What is needed to turn Detroit around? A lot! We need to something other than manufacturing to be our primary way of bringing money into the region. We need better schools, more civility, and something to be done about the drug problem [[that has riddled the city with petty crime and turned many of its residents into walking zombies). Now what to do is open for discussion for all of these issues, is it wise to be chasing every auto or solar job? What will make ths schools better? How can we turn folks who have learned not to be civil, civil once again? Will legalizing drugs or opening more clinics work?

[lincoln8740]

Typically in that scenario, and the way SE Michigan is moving you will certainly be out of money and opportunity in the future. The problem is that SE Michigan is set on 'getting by' because it is better than their suffering neighbor.

As a region we need to rethink why barely getting by [[If we are getting by) is seen as a good thing. Should we all assume that drowning in 10 years is a good thing since the person next to you is drowning today? Until SE Michigan can realize that the entire region is going downhill it will only get worse. The problem is that the CoD has seen the horrible decline. The burbs continue to compare themselves to Detroit and consider things OK as opposed to comparing themselves to burbs in other regions.




All of those services are required. It's just that they are completed by multiple organizations with a ton of redundancy and limited visibility in Washington or Lansing. Consolidating cities and services does not create additional roads to maintain, FDs or PDs.


I guess it's better to wait until onw roomate has only $5 and one has $0. At least the one with $5 will still have more.

you get the city of Detroit to have zero control over anything in this new and improved government then you may get suburbanites to listen. until that time--no thanks!

[jt1]

you get the city of Detroit to have zero control over anything in this new and improved government then you may get suburbanites to listen. until that time--no thanks!

Exactly. You would be happier to stick your head in the sand and ignore all that is collapsing around you than look at some radical solutions.

Typical, ignorant 'As long as we have it better than Detroit everything is fine' attitude. Seems like you would be proud being the most intelligent person in the special ed class. Pretty much the same attitude.

[bailey]

Oh, reunification is an ongoing process that's true. Of course, they are willing to embark upon the project, spend the actual money to do it. It's going to take a while. But have they suffered as a country? Aren't they still the world's fourth-largest economy? But, by your standard, perhaps the United States should never have tried that pesky "reconstruction" thing so many years ago.

Well, you'd have to talk to some West Germans. I'd bet you'd get a variety of answers.

Yes. It's an idea. The city is disinvested, and the area around it has a great deal of wealth. By uniting the various governments, you effect cost-savings by combining police, fire, schools and various other functions.

Whether they want to or not, you're going to tell them what's good for them?

You have one government that can broker deals with Washington. You are taken more seriously by funding organizations. You have the clout of being among the top ten most populous cities in the country

Isn't Detroit #11? Wasn't it in the top ten at the last Census? Did I miss the part where Detroit was not the single largest delegation to the State House? Did I miss the news that Detroit was not represented in the US Congress by some of the longest serving and most influential members of the house in the history of the US? You act as if Detroit has no voice or representation anywhere.

It's basically what New York did in 1898, or Boston earlier than that. Or look at the cities out West. They've been annexing area around them as it develops, capturing tax revenues and avoiding structural budget problems that way. Or perhaps you have a problem with the mayors of Albuquerque and Anchorage?

You confabluating organic growth with a land grab. Detroit is not expanding and growing . Neither of those cities annexed themselves out of a population decline the effectively and competently managed growth.
.

Oh, how nice! Begging the question with a fearful scenario. This is just how we got here: People of means threatening to move on to the next subsidized enclave the moment big, bad urbanity threatens to envelop them. Unfortunately, the real scenario is that all of our young people are leaving the region because there are so many other regions that function well together, as opposed to here were we have these terrifying scenarios and are always struggling to move or keep away from "them." Sigh

Well ignoring the reality of what will happen doesn't make the problem go away. If people wanted to live in Detroit they would. Annex a city, call it a neighborhood in Detroit, and watch it empty.

I'm not saying this is a way to limit sprawl, but it doesn't reward it as our current enshrining of "home rule" does, and it allows the city to capture sprawl. See, if you are able to capture the revenues of outlying areas by making them part of the city, the rewards associated with sprawl diminish. Also, chances are better we'd be able to keep some of our bright young people here, and many of them prefer density ... or else why have they been moving to Chicago? And, as one large region, chances are much improved we'd be able to get mass transit funds, which help build density.

Again, nothing you are proposing manages sprawl or increases density. Changing Sterling Heights from an independent city to just a neighborhood of New Mega Detroit still leaves you with Sterling Heights. It's not going to attract anyone that wouldn't have already lived in sprawled out sterling heights.

Ah, the fearful language of seizure

What is it that you are proposing then?

Well, ignoring that, when you have a city that has within it a core city, desirable suburban environments and perhaps even a greenbelt to hem in sprawl, the funny thing is that people wind up seeking the environments that are best for them.

And none of that can be found in Detroit's current 145 square miles?

Businesses like Quicken seem to be trying to attract bright young people, and bright young people seem to increasingly enjoy dense urban environments with lots of shops and restaurants.

Then Detroit needs to concentrate on making itself more dense and urban not more sprawly and suburban. Or is Detroit going to annex Royal oak so it can have a vibrant, walkable downtown?

Why would anyone try to move Somerset? It's a mall in the midst of a desirable suburban environment? In this scenario I'm talking about, I'll bet most of the places that will undergo radical change will be the most severely disinvested neighborhoods

Why? Because real cities have a "fashion district" a Miracle Mile a Madison avenue. They have a retail district. they have malls. they have multiplex. The point of your annexation seems to be to grab those, instead of creating them in the CBD

We must come up with a plan for neighborhoods such as those on the east side where 1 out of 7 people is on probation of some kind. Those people need jobs and educations. And we have the wealth locally to get that job done.

and your plan is annex Grosse Pointe and make them pay for it? how does that work?

Tell that to David Rusk. He's called "the hottest urban expert in the nation today,” by those commies over at the Baltimore Sun. His book "Cities without Suburbs" [I notice the title is not "City of Suburbs] is the book that has discussed how cities that can grow and capture revenue are able to thrive, and how cities that are not able to grow die by degrees. He is a former New Mexico legislator and the former mayor of Albuquerque, which, for some reason, has not driven out its population by annexing territory. Or talk to Mayor Verne Rupright of Wasilla, Alaska, who approves of plans to double the size of his city. Talk to experts at the Brookings Institution and you'll find they take these ideas very seriously

Again, in none of those cases were they dealing with a city that was half empty to being with . They did not annex their way to prosperity they annexed along with growth in a sane manner INSTEAD and in an effort to curtail the sprawl that has happened here. You're closing the door after the horses have run out.

Or, of course, you can continue to doubt, to scoff, and to generally try to take a sound argument and try to paint it as some paranoid conspiracy theorist's mad dream of Communist takeover.

I thought redistribution of wealth and resources from one group to one with less so that all may have the same is the pretty much the definition of communism?

I know which you'll likely choose.

well, some of us live in the real world and others play sim city.

[fanniemae]

What could help is some savvy do gooder businessman that wants to leave a beautiful legacy. Create some kind of area in the city that focuses on a rebirth of the city. A free park , where citizens can volunteer, coach youngsters, help seniors, provide some kind of emotional human rapport with the citizens. This would be a miracle. Does Illitch just want to be known for pizza and sports? Lets face it he is not getting any younger. I am sure he does do some charity work. Maybe such a place exists on a small scale somewhere. It is going to take hard working people, not the lame and crooked, broken government in place that can offer hope. I was hoping even if Feiger is elected or not, something happens there. Don't know if he would be a good mayor, he is a wacky fellow. But we do need some good excitement and hope. The city is dying. Maybe Feiger would do something even if not elected. As for Penske, Karmanos, the others,don't think they are up for the role. Land grants and homesteading areas with special rules are a possibility. If you show you are hard working, give you a piece of land you have to maintain for 5 years and not sell, have to improve or it will be taken back.

[56packman]

Sart by realizing that huge projects built by the usual suspects [["prominent citizens") are not the total answer. Reform the operation of all of the regulatory aspects of city government so that small businesses wanting to make a go of the thousands of storefront "slots" between all of the big new projects have help from the city and not just a bunch of random acts of regulation.
The citizens can help by not stealing everything in the interest of underculture cash flow.

[kraig]

Oddly enough, the City is actually ignoring its own success stories. Southwest Detroit and the Arab/Chaldean area. Welcoming those who would otherwise be unwelcome everywhere else would do wonders for Detroit. Also, focusing on people is a low maintenance approach that can produce incredible results. Cultivating the artists and the scientists in Detroit is long overdue. Provide more outlets for creativity.

[Hermod]

I think you are attempting to put words in my mouth that I haven't said. A city can contain urban environments, suburban environments and can even ensure a greenbelt around it to keep development more sensible and cohesive. Portland seems to be doing a pretty good job, and it's a growing city that attracts plenty of former Detroiters.

Compare Detroit to Gary or Newark, not Portland. Different population dynamics between rustbelt cities and ecotopia cities.

Framed that way, I doubt many suburban residents would warm up to the idea, but if you are talking about Detroit's new political boundaries going up to 16 Mile Road, and out to Livonia, and down to Lincoln Park, perhaps it could work in a decade or two.

No, the boundaries have to go out far enough and encompass sufficient population that the Kleptocratic party in Detroit is permanently neutered in a political sense.

That's funny. The tax rate for the rich in the 1950s was a confiscatory 90 percent. Somehow, they still managed to be fabulously wealthy. The only difference is we had working cities, good schools and competent public services. I guess you must think FDR was the worst president ever, huh?

The sainted martyr, John F. Kennedy, lowered the 91% rate to 70% early in his term. He blamed the 91% rate for the rolling recessions during the 1950s which particularly affected Detroit.

[iheartthed]

The school system, parenting habits, etc. has zero to nothing to do with fixing Detroit. As much as I would like to see every school kid in Detroit get a first class education, I'm afraid that is irrelevant to whether the city ever again becomes a success. A good city will make good schools, not the other way around.

Frankly, the only way to fix Detroit is the same way that every other massively disinvested urban center in America has revived: make the place an attractive place for people to work and live. And I'm not just talking about the people who currently live next door; those folks aren't gonna sell their house to come fix yours. Make it an attractive destination for people to migrate from other parts of the country and world. This means fixing city services, transit, crime and the perception of crime.

[sirrealone]

One word: Pride.

The image of Detroit is that it is torn apart and so many of the stories here illustrate that point. Anytime a building is closed, what happens? It gets torn to shreds. Someone moves out of a house, and within hours, people are unloading the pipes, the sinks, whatever they can rip out. The thread on Carl's Chop House is another example. It gets locked up, but within months all of the appliances are wheeled out. Old Cass Tech.

We talk about preserving the history but the stories like this that are just 'matter of fact' nowadays, shows that there are way too many without any pride. Residents who had pride in their city would not allow this to happen over and over again to where it isn't a matter of whether a building is going to get torn apart, it's just a matter of when.

I know that there are many out there with pride and many who fight against this or to make something good after it's been torn apart. But, in order for Detroit to truly re-invent itself, for Detroit to be looked upon with something other than scorn, pride must be the norm and not the exception.

[GOAT]

There are no magic potions or glitzy PR bullshit that will do it. Hard work from the RESIDENTS who won't put up with the bullshit from criminals is a start. Cleaning up the DPS and enforce kids to go to school might help.

Until then...Detroit will continue to be the kicked dog everyone loves to boot around. Detroit created this mess it will be up to them [[and the surrounding area) to clean it up.

[GOAT]

Iheartthed, there are not too many people who would be willing to move to Detroit and then throw their children into the DPS [[but for a few schools). Parents will not move to a city where their kids can't get a god education [[see the exodus of DPS kids to the 'burb schools as an example).

[jt1]

There are no magic potions or glitzy PR bullshit that will do it. Hard work from the RESIDENTS who won't put up with the bullshit from criminals is a start. Cleaning up the DPS and enforce kids to go to school might help.

I agree with the root of your statement but again people are being too simplistic.

We have [[a) a PD that is undermanned and [[b) a court system that allows too many criminals back on the streets. It is easy to accuse residents of putting up with the bullshit but when there is a very real risk of repurcussions due to understaffed PD and lax courts it puts residents in a very bad situation.

We need courts that will throw the book at the criminals [[to the point that sentences are harsher than other jurisdictions), keep the criminals in prison for a significnat part of their term, heavy parole and supervision after release. This will be a major boost to morale in DPD, reduce the number of shitheads they arrest 20 times just to see on the street again the next day and give the residents a little more comfort that the violent criminals won;t be at their doorstep the next day.

This also will greatly impact crime reduction as so many offender that are released, given easy sentences, etc are back to their crimes the following day.

Maybe we could get the federal gov't to fund the Standish prison and use that for Wayne County overflow of violent criminals and give more beds to make sentences borderline draconian [[to serve a point for future criminals)

[jt1]

Iheartthed, there are not too many people who would be willing to move to Detroit and then throw their children into the DPS [[but for a few schools). Parents will not move to a city where their kids can't get a god education [[see the exodus of DPS kids to the 'burb schools as an example).

Incorrect - See Chicago and NYC. Just in those cities many residents have the funds to pay for private schools.

[bailey]

I agree with the root of your statement but again people are being too simplistic.

We have [[a) a PD that is undermanned and [[b) a court system that allows too many criminals back on the streets. It is easy to accuse residents of putting up with the bullshit but when there is a very real risk of repurcussions due to understaffed PD and lax courts it puts residents in a very bad situation.

We need courts that will throw the book at the criminals [[to the point that sentences are harsher than other jurisdictions), keep the criminals in prison for a significnat part of their term, heavy parole and supervision after release. This will be a major boost to morale in DPD, reduce the number of shitheads they arrest 20 times just to see on the street again the next day and give the residents a little more comfort that the violent criminals won;t be at their doorstep the next day.

This also will greatly impact crime reduction as so many offender that are released, given easy sentences, etc are back to their crimes the following day.

Maybe we could get the federal gov't to fund the Standish prison and use that for Wayne County overflow of violent criminals and give more beds to make sentences borderline draconian [[to serve a point for future criminals)

Is locking up more people the solution or is the solution to the problem getting more people NOT to offend in the first place by dealing with the rampant unemployment? I read this staggering statistic the other day...

The grim statistics noted: Some 2.3 million people, more than the population of 15 of our states, are now incarcerated — one in 100 adults. That's quadruple our 1970 imprisonment rate. For hard-to-defend reasons, and at staggering fiscal cost, we incarcerate people at a rate five times Great Britain's, nine times Germany's, 12 times Japan's.

further

The number of drug offenders in federal and state lock-ups has increased 13-fold since 1980.

the US has more inmates per 100,000 people than Russia or China. It didn't break it down racially, but I doubt I'd lose money if I bet that 1-100 number is alot higher among detroit's predominantly black population.

Jail is expensive. Spending per prisoner ranges from $18,000 a year in Mississippi to about $50,000 in California, where the cost per pupil is but a seventh of that. “[W]e are well past the point of diminishing returns,” says a report by the Pew Center on the States. In Washington state, for example, each dollar invested in new prison places in 1980 averted more than nine dollars of criminal harm [[using a somewhat arbitrary scale to assign a value to not being beaten up). By 2001, as the emphasis shifted from violent criminals to drug-dealers and thieves, the cost-benefit ratio reversed. Each new dollar spent on prisons averted only 37 cents’ worth of harm.

the rest and a couple of others are at: http://www.economist.com/node/16636027

Prison sentences, no matter how draconian [[ crack vs. powder cocaine sentence disparity for one example) seems to make little difference on crime and apparently only serves to lock more people up at a ridiculous cost.