What will happen to Oakland County?

**iheartthed** · September-14-10, 12:58 PM

Forbes put up a map showing the county to county migration patterns of Americans in 2008:

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/04/mig...?preload=11001

Oakland County, along with all other Detroit area counties have a net out of region migration. How does Oakland County sustain itself after Detroit hollows out? Since it apparently isn't a draw for out of region residents.

Oakland and Macomb Counties have still managed to post some population gains due to people migrating from Oakland County [[in all likelihood, predominantly from Detroit). But SEMCOG for some reason thinks that Oakland County can continue to grow while Detroit, Oakland County's source for population growth, continues to shrink.

Oakland County projections: http://www.semcog.org/Data/apps/comp....cfm?cpid=2999

Detroit projections: http://www.semcog.org/Data/Apps/comp...ple.cfm?cpid=5

**Johnlodge** · September-14-10, 01:06 PM

If the METRO DETROIT area doesn't work together to make itself as a whole attractive to people and businesses outside of the METRO DETROIT area, then the METRO DETROIT area will continue to decline. Worrying about people moving from one part of the METRO DETROIT area to another is backwards thinking that has contributed to our problems while solving none of them.

And yes, I put fixing Detroit at the top of the agenda as far as fixing the METRO DETROIT area.

**Detroit Stylin** · September-14-10, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Johnlodge

If the METRO DETROIT area doesn't work together to make itself as a whole attractive to people and businesses outside of the METRO DETROIT area, then the METRO DETROIT area will continue to decline. Worrying about people moving from one part of the METRO DETROIT area to another is backwards thinking that has contributed to our problems while solving none of them.

And yes, I put fixing Detroit at the top of the agenda as far as fixing the METRO DETROIT area.

They not trying to hear that....

**menckensghost** · September-14-10, 01:47 PM

Prediction: the tri-counties become a massive black hole that sucks the state, entire region, down with it.

Oh . . . that is already happening.

**MaxDetroit** · September-14-10, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by johnlodge

if the metro detroit area doesn't work together to make itself as a whole attractive to people and businesses outside of the metro detroit area, then the metro detroit area will continue to decline. Worrying about people moving from one part of the metro detroit area to another is backwards thinking that has contributed to our problems while solving none of them.

And yes, i put fixing detroit at the top of the agenda as far as fixing the metro detroit area.

amen, bro.

**Detroitnerd** · September-14-10, 01:56 PM

Oakland County doesn't seem to have much in the way of a plan, aside from hoping the growth machine gets switched on again. They have competent administrators, and going to a long-range budgeting cycle is a good call. But, after a certain point, even smart bookkeeping can't stop what is coming: High fuel costs, no sustainable transit options, foreclosures, etc. And the commercial foreclosure crisis isn't even here yet. Yes, it's ironic that, for years, Oakland County -- under L.B. Patterson -- behaved as if it had won some sort of ideological victory over Detroit as disinvestment wreaked havoc on the city and boosted the county's tax base. Now that we're beginning to realize that cities are where the 21st century will largely take place, that victory looks hollow.

Anyway, now we have an opportunity to change things. Let's try to find a way forward that reinvigorates the whole region, not one part at the expense of another.

**Hypestyles** · September-14-10, 02:18 PM

If brooks can be voted out in favor of a progressive, that will be a good start.. but good luck getting Oakland right-wingers to admit that their county's status isn't what it used to be..

**iheartthed** · September-14-10, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Oakland They have competent administrators, and going to a long-range budgeting cycle is a good call.

I do think that long term budgeting was a good idea and necessary step. And I don't want to come across as picking on Oakland County, but...

...the current county executive there has publicly praised sprawl as a sound economic strategy. Either he doesn't understand the difference between growth and sprawl, or he is intentionally misleading his constituents to believe that sprawl has no downside.

Plus all this talk about shrinking the geographic area of the city of Detroit is a moot point unless the region acknowledges that Metro Detroit doesn't have the population growth to develop previously undeveloped areas. If Oakland, Macomb or Western Wayne continue to subsidize greenfield developments, that will still suck people out of Detroit and inner-ring areas, no matter how many sections of the city you try to shut down and return to nature.

**Detroit Stylin** · September-14-10, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I do think that long term budgeting was a good idea and necessary step. And I don't want to come across as picking on Oakland County, but...

...the current county executive there has publicly praised sprawl as a sound economic strategy. Either he doesn't understand the difference between growth and sprawl, or he is intentionally misleading his constituents to believe that sprawl has no downside.

Plus all this talk about shrinking the geographic area of the city of Detroit is a moot point unless the region acknowledges that Metro Detroit doesn't have the population growth to develop previously undeveloped areas. If Oakland, Macomb or Western Wayne continue to subsidize greenfield developments, that will still suck people out of Detroit and inner-ring areas, no matter how many sections of the city you try to shut down and return to nature.

Bingo......

**jt1** · September-14-10, 03:34 PM

I hate to say it but I think from a long term sustainability stand point the econcomic mess we are dealing with may be the saving grace for SE Michigan.

The region has proven that whether it be racism or classism that the prevailing mentality is to always move farther away from 'them'. Now that the entire region is becoming 'them' there will be a push to work as a region for the survival of SE Michigan.

The rest of the region doesn't have the luxury of laughing at Detroit or other poor cities now that we are all facing a major crisis.

Only due to the economic nightmare we face are regional leaders starting to talk about regionalism.

**Johnlodge** · September-14-10, 03:36 PM

There should be a ban on developing undeveloped land. It's absurd, and has been for a long time now. I can't imagine any sane person looking at this region and thinking we need to tear up some farm or forest for another Pulte or Toll Brother subdivision [[with houses that will be falling apart in less than 10 years).

**jt1** · September-14-10, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Johnlodge

There should be a ban on developing undeveloped land. It's absurd, and has been for a long time now. I can't imagine any sane person looking at this region and thinking we need to tear up some farm or forest for another Pulte or Toll Brother subdivision [[with houses that will be falling apart in less than 10 years).

Some call it econcomic development. Most of us call it stupid.

**Detroitnerd** · September-14-10, 03:55 PM

A few modest proposals:

Revenue sharing plans that share any NEW GAINS IN REVENUE across the metro, with real regionalism driving investment choices.

Weakening home rule in the state constitution to allow cities to merge when they agree to. [[Right now it's politically impossible.)

A greenbelt in undeveloped areas, and a plan to turn much of the exurbs into state parks or farmland. Not to kick anybody out, but to acquire land as people quit deeds and assemble a system. This is how New York state formed the Adirondack State Park.

Mass transit to drive density in existing areas, with subsidies to build TOD, but with windfall gains taxes to curb speculation.

lincoln8740 · September-14-10, 04:17 PM

oh god-- another thread of anti-suburb people licking each others balls

how about if you actually proposed something that the suburbs/exburbs might actually agree to?

revenue sharing? really?

**Johnlodge** · September-14-10, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by lincoln8740

oh god-- another thread of anti-suburb people licking each others balls

how about if you actually proposed something that the suburbs/exburbs might actually agree to?

revenue sharing? really?

I live in the suburbs. I just don't think doing the same shit that has destroyed our region will somehow have a different result.

**Detroitnerd** · September-14-10, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by lincoln8740

oh god-- another thread of anti-suburb people licking each others balls
how about if you actually proposed something that the suburbs/exburbs might actually agree to?
revenue sharing? really?

Want to destroy the suburbs over the next 30-40 years? Keep pursuing the policies of L.B. Patterson as if he were the holy pontiff. Want to save the best suburban environments? They must act in concert with a region.

As for revenue-sharing, your money goes to places you don't live right now. And money comes from other places where you don't live to benefit you. If you want to secede from the country, I'd say that's a little extreme, but that's ultimately what you'd have to do to keep your revenues yours. And you'd be much poorer for it. That is how government works.

Want to learn more about government? Visit your local library! It has all sorts of books and magazines to help you learn more!

**jt1** · September-14-10, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by lincoln8740

oh god-- another thread of anti-suburb people licking each others balls
how about if you actually proposed something that the suburbs/exburbs might actually agree to?
revenue sharing? really?

Incorrect. The same regional/state policies have impacted many suburbs as well as the city of Detroit. We can either keep doing the same thing we've done [[keep building out) or we can control our building and re-invest in the city and the inner rings suburbs.

Until we get control of the size of the region we will not be able to improve. We are supporting a regional infrastructure that has massively expanded in the last 20-30 years with the relatively same number of people.

If you believe adding new communities, schools, roads, PDs, FDs, etc with the same population is smart policy then you have some severe shortcomings.

**Detroit Stylin** · September-14-10, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by jt1

Incorrect. The same regional/state policies have impacted many suburbs as well as the city of Detroit. We can either keep doing the same thing we've done [[keep building out) or we can control our building and re-invest in the city and the inner rings suburbs.

Until we get control of the size of the region we will not be able to improve. We are supporting a regional infrastructure that has massively expanded in the last 20-30 years with the relatively same number of people.

If you believe adding new communities, schools, roads, PDs, FDs, etc with the same population is smart policy then you have some severe shortcomings.

Either that or he is extremely stupid...

lincoln8740 · September-14-10, 06:27 PM

All I asked for was some propsals that had a chance in hell of being agreed to by the suburbs/exburbs.

I live in the suburbs-- the streetlights are on, the schools are pretty good and the cops come when they are called. I am just fine thanks and so are most suburban people.

You prove to the suburbs that those three things that I referenced above can be accomplished by establishing your "Mega-Government" then maybe, just maybe, you might garner some attention.

Until then...good luck

**Detroitnerd** · September-14-10, 06:37 PM

Lincoln would like proof, which is a fair request. In turn, though, I would also like proof. What urbanized area in the United States is doing well without a well-functioning city center? If your theories hold water, reel off a dozen examples please.

lincoln8740 · September-14-10, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

Lincoln would like proof, which is a fair request. In turn, though, I would also like proof. What urbanized area in the United States is doing well without a well-functioning city center? If your theories hold water, reel off a dozen examples please.

who said I don't want a well functioning city center?

I have no problem with Detroit doing well, hell it would be to my economic benefit if the city did well [[I own a business in our wonderful shitty city). Most city centers were/are great and the suburbs grew around them. As usual in Detroit, we do everything ass backward, the suburbs are great and now we want THEM to make the City great?

Oh and to answer your question I will take Oakland County, Macomb County and Washtenaw County for 300 alex!

Did great despite of the shithole to their south and east

Of course, we will see what happens in the future but if you are really betting against three counties that were going like gangbusters in the last twenty years to just start falling apart then once again....Good luck

**Detroitnerd** · September-14-10, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by lincoln8740

who said I don't want a well functioning city center?

Judging by your spicy commentary, it is your ripe satisfaction that the plight of our city center is at it is.

Originally Posted by lincoln8740

I have no problem with Detroit doing well, hell it would be to my economic benefit if the city did well [[I own a business in our wonderful shitty city). Most city centers were/are great and the suburbs grew around them. As usual in Detroit, we do everything ass backward, the suburbs are great and now we want THEM to make the City great?

I see. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of our regional history. I recommend that you ask some questions about that history. We're ready to fill in the blanks and probably agree with you on many things. As for your rhetorical style, that isn't going to make many friends. Which suggests you're happy to troll when you could be having a surprising conversation. Instead, your ad hominem attacks and horrible attitude suggest to me that you have your beliefs about how the world works all set -- thank you very much -- and you have just come here to derail actual conversation.

Do you want to go through life as a troll? Or as an intelligent debater? It's up to you, chief.

**goggomobil** · September-14-10, 07:36 PM

I think part of what I hear Lincoln saying is that Detroit has been headed toward being irrelevant to the future of the suburbs for a long time. The subject of revenue sharing coming up confirms to those who would be on the check-writing side of 'sharing' that Detroit is sliding further towards being a long term liability rather than an asset waiting to rise and shine.

As far as the suburbs losing people to out-of-region migration, this happened somewhat in the early 80s. It wasn't as pronounced due the swell of Baby Boomers starting to have kids. People eventually came back [[and then some) but not to Detroit.

**Detroitnerd** · September-14-10, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by goggomobil

I think part of what I hear Lincoln saying is that Detroit has been headed toward being irrelevant to the future of the suburbs for a long time. The subject of revenue sharing coming up confirms to those who would be on the check-writing side of 'sharing' that Detroit is sliding further towards being a long term liability rather than an asset waiting to rise and shine.

As far as the suburbs losing people to out-of-region migration, this happened somewhat in the early 80s. It wasn't as pronounced due the swell of Baby Boomers starting to have kids. People eventually came back [[and then some) but not to Detroit.

If a functioning center city is irrelevant to the prosperity of the suburbs, why have all metros that have seen net gains in the last 10 years had functioning city centers? You can't have a functioning region with a shithole as its center. If our political leaders here are determined to try it and see what happens, I predict failure. The alternative is to invest money in our city center. But, then again, maybe you don't like your children much and would rather they move to Chicago. Your call.

**goggomobil** · September-14-10, 08:24 PM

"You can't have a functioning region with a shithole as its center."

Where is this written in stone? It's been happening here for decades. If you expect non-residents to 'invest' in Detroit, will they have a say in what happens [[as any investor normally would) or will they be told to pay up and butt out?

"I predict failure." News flash... Detroit is a gargantuan failure. Can you think of a non-third world city that is worse than Detroit? Only a Pollyanna with her head in the sand for decades would deny it. In spite of this, the suburbs have flourished for the past 50 years and more.

Any parents who want the best for their kids would encourage them to leave an area that will take decades to recover from decades of decline. I hope mine will.

I worked with people from all over the world. Your blood might boil if you don't know what many of them think of us. The world doesn't need Detroit. Detroit no longer has the clout to demand anything from anyone. Detroit needs to seriously, if not radically, clean house to be worthy of investment. Don't try the guilt trip or painting those who think like us as racist or elitists. It doesn't work anymore.