"Right sizing"

[professorscott]

Am I stoned, or has nobody yet started a thread to discuss Mayor Bing's concept? It's not new, of course, the late City Ombudsman Marie Farrell-Donaldson first brought it up during one of Mayor Young's later administrations, if I'm remembering chronology correctly.

I appreciate the idea, I just wish we could be more honest about what we call it when we shrink on purpose. George Carlin [[I'm working with a lot of dead people tonight, I know) nailed this tendency of leadership to sugar-coat things to a ludicrous degree when he talked about the morphing of the military symptom "shell-shock" into "post traumatic stress disorder" and beyond.

The one cautionary tale about saving your city by shrinking it comes to us today from [[yes, the late) Winston Churchill: wars are not won by evacuations.

I'd be curious to see what the thoughtful DYers think about the whole thing.

Prof. Scott

[lilpup]

Devil's in the details - got to hammer those out yet

[professorscott]

Sure, of course, but a thumbnail sketch is available:

1. Encourage people [[how?) to relocate from areas deemed nonviable to areas deemed viable;

2. Reduce spending for services in the nonviable areas, how drastically is one of the details you mention;

3. Hopefully save enough money to IMPROVE services in the areas where lots of people actually live.

Remember, 900K people is not small potatos [[or is it potatoes? Where is Dan Quayle when you need him?) and represents just under 10% of the entire population of Michigan. It's reasonable for all of us to make an effort to better serve that enormous population.

Good luck to the Mayor; there will be lots of pushback on this, much of it uninformed nonsense.

[bailey]

Sure, of course, but a thumbnail sketch is available:

1. Encourage people [[how?) to relocate from areas deemed nonviable to areas deemed viable;

2. Reduce spending for services in the nonviable areas, how drastically is one of the details you mention;

3. Hopefully save enough money to IMPROVE services in the areas where lots of people actually live.

Remember, 900K people is not small potatos [[or is it potatoes? Where is Dan Quayle when you need him?) and represents just under 10% of the entire population of Michigan. It's reasonable for all of us to make an effort to better serve that enormous population.

Good luck to the Mayor; there will be lots of pushback on this, much of it uninformed nonsense.

It's never going to work. No matter how much it's needed, no matter how much sense it makes in the long run. It. Will. Never. Happen. the plan is ridiculous rearranging of deck chairs on a doomed ship....hell the rearranging wont ever happen anyway because no one will agree on which chairs should move and will simply continue to argue until all are drowned.

The hundreds of thousands that need to move from desolate, de-populated areas of the city will never agree to be moved unless huge sums of money are thrown at them. But of course, there is no money to incentivize the move. Further, I would bet that many living in the populated and intact areas don't want those people moved near them anyway [[there is a reason they don't live next door to eachother now...why would that change?). And then of course, the various grape throwers will line up to protest and hurl epithets about a "trail of tears" and that this is just putting people on "reservations" . Further efforts are simply delaying the inevitable. pull the plug and go chpt 9.

[canuck]

What Detroit needs is 2 or 3 Nimitz-class carriers worth of investment in new infrastructure. It needs a plan which is what folks on this thread need to discuss, the only problem is we dont yet know what the plan is... Detroit is a national emergency that deserves all the care given to a liver transplant patient. It is jaundiced and broken and poor and all that, and it needs assistance from as high as it can get.

Once the main lines of a plan are introduced, I hope the details can be taken care of by the best urban planning minds. There have been many factors to aggravate the sense of disaffection toward Detroit. Abandonment, distrust of the black population in running affairs and taking over where others left in disgust. An unending series of bad decisions and misappropriations as in the Poletown plant neighborhood evacuation predisposes detroiters to disbelieve in any kind of progress. I think eminent domain will be used because Detroit needs to be redrawn. There will be painful moves but also positive ones if the mania for building tacky houses is replaced by smart
planning and ecologically minded construction. Maybe this civil-war distress, this Beirut-like split in the population bogs Detroit down in fear and stops it from engaging in reconstruction where places like Dresden and other european cities rose from the ashes because of their homogeneity?

I think that has a lot to do with it apart from a deep-seated inertia vis-à-vis civic and business authority.

I'm no planner but one thing I know is that street life is not what it can be in Detroit, that it si nowhere what it used to be. I am not against shooting for the good old days either. Throw in some urban farming as long as it isnt the Kellogg compound with miles of barbed wire fencing.
But more importantly, do the opposite of what all cities [[not just Detroit) have done in the past 60 years. Reframe commercial streets so people have access to short distance shopping, eliminate anything that distances shops from sidewalks. Creating an environment based on basic needs on a neighborhood level first will benefit both residents and businesses. The downtown has to eliminate as much as possible the need for driving and parking if it wants to recover lost ground. Why would the city not contemplate underground parking lots in order to reclaim property above ground. A concerted effort to attract small businesses on street level is paramount. That rule applies to all cities by the way. incentives and annual prizes to shops for good design and other attributes should also drive this effort, and so on and so forth...

[Detroitnerd]

My main problem with the so-called right-sizing plan is that it seems to be informed by the same old, top-down, 1960s-style attitude that has pervaded Detroit's government for too long.

• We will save the city by building up downtown; the neighborhoods are expendable.
• We need to cut deals with big players; mom-and-pop shops and homeowners are not that important.
• We must build a city of massive projects, big campuses, large industrial parks and glorious skyways and parking garages; bungalows and existing architecture are obsolete and embarrassing.
• Even though often showered with tax breaks, subsidies and nonprofit services, large organizations are central to revitalizing the city; individual citizens are costs, and their reckless decision to hang on in neighborhoods we don't want anymore threatens our ability to provide services.
• Since large organizations and huge projects are what matter, individual homeowners are obstructing economic growth in Detroit and must be cajoled into allowing us to flatten their homes.

Of course, all this flies in the face of the latest evidence. Let's look at the few neighborhoods that are making a comeback: Southwest Detroit and the mid-city area.

• Though many of the people in these neighborhoods may work downtown, they identify with a neighborhood: the place they shop, eat, drink, party, volunteer and pay taxes.
• While these areas have [[or have had) large employers in the old Detroit sense, these neighborhoods are typified by vigorous activity from mom-and-pop shops and conscientious homeowners, even though the city's attitude ranges from neglectful to hostile.
• These neighborhoods show an ability to capitalize on existing street grids, architecture and heritage, and even feel that large projects and 1960s style plans could hamper their neighborhoods' success.
• Individual citizens, even if they're the only ones holding down the block [[think Honest John's) are valued and rewarded; large players are sometimes seen as imposing heavy costs on the community, or even threatening it entirely [[e.g.: Fourth Street's ongoing war with MDOT over freeway expansion).
• With few incentives or subsidies, individual homeowners and entrepreneurs are creating economic growth and keeping up the neighborhood, in spite of, not because of, help from the city.
• Since these neighborhoods have most of the economic activity, entrepreneurial activity, young people moving in and other benefits, we'd do well to avoid hastily knocking down neighborhoods -- especially for large players who ask for much [[subsidies, free land, tax breaks) and give back only what they're required [[MGM's new garden, for instance).

I'd also add that the players behind this plan want to get the ball rolling now, because every new business in southwest Detroit and Midtown means another example why this is outdated, erroneous thinking.

OK, have at it.

[lilpup]

even know how many people would have to relocate?

[professorscott]

Well, first of all, let's rephrase that - if we are to take Mayor Bing's statements at face value, nobody would "have to relocate". So if we look instead for how many people would be encouraged to relocate, now we're at the problem of looking at details.

Let's say, for instance, that we decide a neighborhood is not viable if less than 1/5 of the parcels in the neighborhood are vacant lots or unoccupied homes. I'm just picking a number out of a hat. First of all, define "neighborhood" in terms of size; there's one detail. Next, somebody has to figure out which neighborhoods fit that criterion - and I assure you, nobody has the detailed information at hand.

So a big part of this job, early on, is to survey what we have. What is the population density of our neighborhoods? What shall we call "nonviable", and then, the great big detail, precisely what do we do about it?

We don't have the answers yet, but we should look into them. Of course, this will cost money, which comes from where? Another detail. But Mayor Bing, as a business exec by trade, ought to be good at driving this kind of process.

[English]

Barring a natural disaster, I can't see this happening for at least another 5-10 years. There isn't really much political will to work towards the change we need on the local, state, or national levels.

[Searay215]

Barring a natural disaster, I can't see this happening for at least another 5-10 years. There isn't really much political will to work towards the change we need on the local, state, or national levels.

Another round of fires like we had the other day and I would say your time line could be shortened by a few years.

[Huggybear]

Surprising that those were not Exhibit A.

Another round of fires like we had the other day and I would say your time line could be shortened by a few years.

[Pam]

Am I stoned

I guess so.

http://detroityes.com/mb/showthread.php?t=6741

[fryar]

I think some fashion of this is a no-brainer, but of course you cannot have the government force people to move.

[Relayer76]

I think some fashion of this is a no-brainer, but of course you cannot have the government force people to move.

Ideally you do not want a government that forces people to move but when you have 2 houses on a block for block after block, providing services to these scattered homes has got to be enormously costly and subsidized by more populated areas. That is why other residents of the city [[represented by the government) have the right to have a say. At the very least, certain areas should be identified as "no repair" areas. When their municipal water and sewage pipes burst or hydro lines come down - no repairs - residents have to move. The city can take over their home in exchange for a comparable home in a neighbourhood designated as a "keeper" at a cost of $20, 30, 40,000. No mega payouts - just comparable real estate in a serviced area.

[Claude G.]

Although this concept looks good on paper, the reality is that not everyone in a neighborhood is going to agree to be part of the relocation and there will be hold outs.

So now instead of having a neighborhood with 5-6 homes your going to have some with 1 or 2 homes. Then the people who do end up holding out, are going to demand huge sums of money to force them to leave.

Forcing people to relocate is not the ansewer, what the city needs to do is start going through neighborhoods and cleaning them up.

Instead of hiring demolition contractors to tear down abandoned homes and paying them top dollar, the city should buy their own demolition equipment and hire their own workers to do these demolitions.

At the same time, the city needs to change their process for demolishing abandoned property. Look at all the houses that burned a few days ago around 7 and Van Dyke. I drove by the other day and the neighborhood looks like a war zone, and there is nothing left of some of those homes.

What needs to happen is that as soon as the fire department, DTE, and the insurance companies finish conducting their investigation, they need to go in there with the bull dozers and start clearing out the homes that are beyond repair.

I would lay odds on it, 6 months from now the burned out homes are still standing....

[gazhekwe]

Pick two neighborhoods, one to build up, one to tear down.

Build new or rehab old houses in the first neighborhood.

Open applications for people in the second neighborhood to trade, even up, their house for one of the new or rehabbed homes in the first neighborhood.

There are a lot of variables, though, eligibility requirements for the people to get a new or rehabbed house, dealing with property ownership issues in both neighborhoods, and integration of the new people into the new neighborhood [[not in a racial sense, we don't need gang fights).

[wolverine]

Rightsizing was not supposed to be about relocating residents. The plan is about other strategies. Relocation would be the last resort action if someone was in serious jeopardy of not receiving services due to poor condition of roads and water lines around them or because their house was in dangerous condition.

The problem is, gullible people focused only on that detail, and it was the most celebrated point of the plan by the media.

The only people that will have their homes and businesses taken away from them are the lousy owners that leave vacant or burned buildings open to decay. I don't see how anyone could argue against taking those.

[Detroitnerd]

Rightsizing was not supposed to be about relocating residents. The plan is about other strategies. Relocation would be the last resort action if someone was in serious jeopardy of not receiving services due to poor condition of roads and water lines around them or because their house was in dangerous condition.

Ultimately, though, you cannot examine the statements of Detroit officials without looking at the context of the last century. Since the 1920s, Detroit has been bulldozing houses, businesses, apartment buildings, all in the name of progress. Most often, the structures razed have forced the poor to relocate. And those who've benefited from these demolitions have often been very well-connected elite types. You simply cannot tell Detroiters that nobody will be relocated, that this will be a plan that benefits all. You simply will not be believed, even when it's true. Which isn't to say that Detroiters are wrong about mistrusting the city's motives; too often they are right.

[cman710]

I can acknowledge that the past should make us all skeptical of urban redevelopment plans. And even if Mayor Bing is earnest [[which he seems to be), that does not mean that future mayors/City Council member will be similarly earnest. Any plan involving allocations of resources or declaring winners and losers is susceptible to corruption. That said, I think we need to work to make any redevelopment process as open and transparent as possible, because sitting by and doing nothing will not help, either.

[Detroitnerd]

I can acknowledge that the past should make us all skeptical of urban redevelopment plans. And even if Mayor Bing is earnest [[which he seems to be), that does not mean that future mayors/City Council member will be similarly earnest. Any plan involving allocations of resources or declaring winners and losers is susceptible to corruption. That said, I think we need to work to make any redevelopment process as open and transparent as possible, because sitting by and doing nothing will not help, either.

I'm all for openness and transparency. But if we had those things, I'll bet this would not be the direction we'd be heading in. Instead, wouldn't it be better if residents themselves framed the debate?

[wolverine]

Ultimately, though, you cannot examine the statements of Detroit officials without looking at the context of the last century. Since the 1920s, Detroit has been bulldozing houses, businesses, apartment buildings, all in the name of progress. Most often, the structures razed have forced the poor to relocate. And those who've benefited from these demolitions have often been very well-connected elite types. You simply cannot tell Detroiters that nobody will be relocated, that this will be a plan that benefits all. You simply will not be believed, even when it's true. Which isn't to say that Detroiters are wrong about mistrusting the city's motives; too often they are right.

The way I see it, people are jumping the gun.

First of all, such a plan is in its infancy. It would likely take years of planning, community meetings, and various input from CDC's to even develop the plan on paper.

It didn't surprise me so soon that Bing would make a statement that residents would not be located. Better say it now than later. But you are going to see residents relocate and they'll do it at their own will. If someone has been waiting for this moment to leave they will. For the holdouts, they aren't going to be there forever.

I don't know how the "cut off utilities" mess got into this discussion, but there is no way that would ever happen. It's not even legal.

[BagAJellyDonuts]

Don't know if "right sizing" is a proper term.

The land isn't going to just go away.

Instead of this, why not just push for a concept that does seem to have a value. Representation by districts instead of the current mess?

[canuck]

I think wolverine is right about the fuss made around relocation and bulldozing of neighborhoods.
It is the one issue that people will lose sleep over. But there was a promise made that I cant imagine will hold in the long run about not relocating homeowners.

I also am in agreement with Dnerd's convincing scenario of power brokers vs homeowners and the cyclical shaft people keep getting. Corruption is the lubricant enabling said shaft. Notwithstanding Mayor Bing's apparent earnestness about Detroit's future, the city administration needs to be enhanced in a lot of ways. There has to be help from the federal government in order to avoid trusteeship and maybe the idea that Detroit's status as a major experiment in urban renewal can give it some traction. I think mr Renn whose article is mentioned in The Power of Detroit Branding thread does touch on something when he says there has to be a ministerial approach to incite popular participation in debates. More democracy, not less will help overcome some of the meanness that characterizes dirty politics.

In Montreal, Frank Zampino, the city's chairman of the executive committee resigned last year when reporters found he had spent a week vacationing on a contractor's yacht after signing a 356 million dollar contract for water meter installations on industrial buildings. Later, it was found that union leaders in the construction industry also patronized Tony Accurso's yacht in Fort Lauderdale. The unions gave grants and entitlements to Accurso's construction businesses
in order to keep the ball rolling for their members but also because a vast money laundering operation for the Hell's Angels Montreal chapter needed big cash spreads. Quebec's prime minister refuses to open a commission investigating construction industry corruption because his party cannot sustain the blow. The Quebec provincial police has ordered an investigative operation called "Opération Marteau" or Operation Hammer to look into collusion between the construction industry, civic administrations and organized crime. Meanwhile the mayor cancelled the water meter contract that would have amounted to 600 million according to new info, and now taxpayers will pay a penalty to said contractor for reneging to the tune of 34 million dollars. There are plenty more examples of this kind of thing here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Accurso
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Zampino

[Parkguy]

There is a model that is widespread in Michigan for what _could_ be done in Detroit to "rightsize." Take blocks off of the water and sewer system, take them off of the city lighting grid, and turn the street grid in that part of the city into non-maintained roads. If you go to rural areas of Michigan, you see forest roads and even sections of named roads marked as roads that are not maintained by the XXX county road commission. Very often you'll see these signs after the last house with children who need bus pickup for school. Offer homeowners subsidized well-drilling and septic systems, and set a date for the water, sewer, and streetlights to be turned off. Electrical power for the house is already a contract between homeowner and power company-- same goes for telephone service. Garbage services could require taking trash bins "out to the end of the road," just like people do up north. There is already a utility easement for power lines, so they could still be used. This may not make financial sense in every depressed, mostly-abandoned neighborhood, but in some areas there might be a net savings even after paying for wells and septic systems. And, to make it more palatable and fair, adjust property and income taxes in those areas to reflect the reduced services. If the residents want to stay, then fine. If they want to move instead, give them an incentive that reflects the subsidies they would get to convert to private services. They'd still own their property, and they could sell if they want. Just don't let them abandon their houses. Plan ahead and make sure state legislation and local ordinances align with your plan to minimize lawsuits and delays. Maybe it would work. Average well and septic systems cost in the neighborhood of $20,000 --$25,000 complete, unless I'm way off. Yes, I know that under some conditions it can cost much more, and may require other solutions if the soil doesn't percolate. We force owners to hook into a new system when it comes into an area-- perhaps we can entice them to unhook when they shut down.

[Detroitnerd]

Will we propose right-sizing plans for the unfinished exurban developments too?