Detroit: “There Is NO ‘Plan’!”

[Relayer76]

Long but interesting article about public meetings held by the Mayor of Detroit. There is stuff in here that will make right wing types go ballistic but the bulleted points in the middle of the article are food for thought.
Detroit: “There Is NO ‘Plan’!”

http://countercurrents.org/stephens240910.htm

Excerpts:
Between September 14 and 22, 2010, Detroit experienced five extraordinary, well-attended public meetings on the subject of land use and related public policy issues. ....

But in their fear of real Detroiters, the organizers failed to offer any concrete ideas about community economic development and land, democracy and planning, environment, economy or justice – or indeed, any substantive ideas about much of anything.

Detroit has unparalleled assets for pursuing a strategy of asset-based development in the 21st century economy: great water resources, an incredible amount of open and relatively affordable urban land, and an enviable history and culture. There is virtually no equivalent example today of underutilized potential. This is a strong, dynamic community of survivors who want to do more than merely survive: we want Detroiters to thrive in the new century.

The first of these five public meetings demonstrated how out of touch the city’s official leadership is, when they didn’t realize that a call for public input toward radical change would draw a thousand people or so to Greater Grace Temple. They completely failed to understand the desperation and hunger for new vision and leadership in our communities. Moreover, the final cluelessness of Detroit’s business leadership consists in not recognizing that this time the “business cycle” isn’t going to ride to their rescue. This time it will be ordinary people, working at the grassroots and effectively challenging officials through democratic conversations, confrontations, and movement building power who – like our great-grandparents in the CIO during the Great Depression - will make the necessary changes in the face of massive transformations entailed by the crises all around us. Unless and until these officials join us in meaningful democratic conversations about genuine social change and justice, their “Detroit Works” project is doomed to failure.

[Newdetroit]

The residents of Detroit and not just the city officials are out of touch with reality and do not fully recognize the social and economic calamity the city has met! We have moved into a post industrial age and Detroit does not have the population base to make an effective trasition into the 21st century. Only 25% of 8th graders are graduating high school, and of those who manage to graduate, very few are equipped to pursue graduate studies. 70% of babies born in the city are born to unwed mothers and the majority are teenage mothers. HOW will Detroit supply the human capital to empower any sort of emerging economic sector?????

WHAT DETROIT needs is a huge influx of urban educated professionals to push for any semblance of sustainability. MEANING the future of this city relies almost entirely on the goodwill of people in suburbs as well as outside the state and even outside the country. These Public Works discussions illustrated how isolated and suspicious Detroiters are of "outsiders"....comments such as: "we don't want rich suburbanites moving into these cleared-out lands and buying it up." I guess they prefer the status quo, or cleared out lands with few habitated homes on a street, and believe that high school dropouts of the future will rejuvenate the city! Detroit needs to clear out a great portion of the city, create a New Detroit. A city with technology districts that will attract outside investors. There is a way to attract investors from India, Brazil, China, and other countries by a Visa program where non-nationals can obtain American visas if they invest a minimum of $500,000 and create 50 jobs. In addition, clean and safe housing with a schooling system administered in this New Detroit area could possibly attract professionals. Short of that, FORGET IT! Lastly, Detroit is actually relatively small compared to other cities. It's only 140 square miles. Detroit needs to consolidate suburbs in Wayne County...Livonia down to Woodhaven increasing the population to 1.6 million and increasing the tax base. But Suburban comminities would shreak at this idea partially due to the racial divide and due to the crime and poor schooling system. This is what Detroit needs. 1)Clear land, 2)Technology Districts, 3)Attract new educated professionals, 4)Consolidate 200 square miles of Wayne county, and 5)Revamp the schooling system. Other than that, there is no hope!!!!!!

[DetroitPlanner]

I attended some of those meetings as a resident. You must be a schill for BAMN.

[Detroitnerd]

I may not agree with everything these two initial posts have said, but to write them off as BAMN shills seems lazy. And I wonder just how much "listening" really translates into "hearing."

In short, what is the difference between a charrette and a charade?

[gazhekwe]

I haven't seen anyone ask or tell, What is needed to make your home neighborhood a good place?

Let's get city services on top of the list: Police, fire, sanitation, maintenance, utilities.

Grocery store with good fresh produce and meats
Drug store
What we in the metro area call a Party store
Bank or Credit Union
Church
Shoe repair
Barber
Beauty shop
Restaurant, coffee shop or fast food, some kind of mix of these
Dollar store

Somewhere nearby I would love a bakery, dry cleaner, tailor, I guess nail salon would be good, since they seem to be so popular.

There are lots of entrepreneurial opportunities in that list.

Now, put up a map of Detroit and ask the people where they live and do they have a reasonable list of things to make their neighborhood convenient. Put pins in the areas where they DO have things, dots in the areas where they don't.

Now you have target areas for people to move to, and target areas where you can talk about development or downsizing, identified by the people who live there.

[GPCharles]

I can only talk about the Eastside, which is my side of town. The area bounded by Mack on the north, Jefferson on the south, Conner on the west and Alter on the east can't have more than 10% of the homes and businesses it once had.

Why are people still living there? I presume they own their homes free and clear and have lived in them a long time. Otherwise, why would you want to live in an abandoned neighborhood? There is very little left. Look at Google Earth or Mapquest for a clean picture.

It just doesn't seem to make sense to continue to provide city services to that area. Why not buy up the remaining homes and re-settle people within [[or without) the city?

I guess I just don't understand the opposition. I am willing to listen and learn.

[Detroitnerd]

If you ask people in neighborhoods what they want, they will say SERVICES. That's what's so tricky about this business. You have to frame the debate very carefully, show them why they must voluntarily move, but soft-pedal the fact that the land they formerly lived on will be a profitable piece of real estate for somebody else after you move them off. Then, of course, that's when the city will begin to provide services again.

My two cents.

[Bearinabox]

the land they formerly lived on will be a profitable piece of real estate for somebody else after you move them off.

Will it, though? I mean, the city cleared out that whole neighborhood off Mt. Elliott south of the Lynch Road plant a few years ago to market it as an industrial park or something, and most of it is just sitting there sprouting weeds. Is there any workable way to make a bunch of urban prairie profitable? No snark intended, I'm genuinely curious.

[bailey]

If you ask people in neighborhoods what they want, they will say SERVICES. That's what's so tricky about this business. You have to frame the debate very carefully, show them why they must voluntarily move, but soft-pedal the fact that the land they formerly lived on will be a profitable piece of real estate for somebody else after you move them off. Then, of course, that's when the city will begin to provide services again.

When will the area described by GP Charles EVER be a profitable piece of real estate? 30, 40 years from now? And that is only IF the city can actually do something about the vast expanses of unpopulated land that would make an empty lot in a wasteland of empty lots rise in value. Not only is it a generation away [[at the very least), it's miles from being a certainty. you and others act as if some decrepit house in a 80% empty neighborhood is going to appreciate 1000% the year after the current inhabitants are convinced to move. it's that sort of irrational and pathological belief that "they" are out to steal from "us" that will guarantee no plan will work and certify Detroit as a disaster for generations to come.

[Detroitnerd]

Will it, though? I mean, the city cleared out that whole neighborhood off Mt. Elliott south of the Lynch Road plant a few years ago to market it as an industrial park or something, and most of it is just sitting there sprouting weeds. Is there any workable way to make a bunch of urban prairie profitable? No snark intended, I'm genuinely curious.

There are a few examples of this.

The new Fed building is a large-footprint, fenced off development.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&sa...06748&t=h&z=17

The new MGM casino had a build-out that extended over sparsely occupied land downtown.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&sa...06748&t=h&z=17

So, yeah, it happens. The classic example is urban renewal. Take the example of Mount Clemens. The black side of town was annoying; they had some political power in their neighborhood. Urban renewal took care of that. It was a simple prescription: Bulldoze a poor neighborhood, build some shaky-ass "scattered site" buildings where they have no neighborhoods, no streets to hang out on, no trees to shield them from helicopters, no mixed-income to ameliorate social problems. Turn those into dens of crime. Then, on what used to be their homes, you build a brand-new courthouse where they'll be processed and sent off to prison. Once the population's political power has been destroyed, then you can bulldoze the projects. Mission accomplished.

Anyway, I get ahead of myself. These kinds of huge developments are the things the city sees in a positive light. It would be perfectly happy to get rid of the old street grid and have new construction of an entirely fenced-off city with nothing but campuses and connecting roads.

Unfortunately, the old street grid, if built along its original dimensions, is more in line with what we'll need in the coming century: Walkable, human scale neighborhoods where there are opportunities for mom-and-pop entrepreneurs.

I am very concerned that we're viewing people who've lived in a neighborhood for years, hanging on against all odds, as "costs," and viewing large businesses that make a lot of short-term profit and then split, as "benefits."

[Detroitnerd]

Anyway, what has the city's plan ALWAYS been? Knock it down! We can't secure/protect/service/etc. this building/neighborhood/precinct/etc., which is expensive/crime-ridden/dangerous/falling apart/etc. If we knock it all down, somebody will build something -- eventually.

Now maybe somebody will build something and maybe they won't. But this has been our strategy for going on 70 years now.

And it isn't working.

Why should it work any differently now?

[GPCharles]

I am very concerned that we're viewing people who've lived in a neighborhood for years, hanging on against all odds, as "costs," and viewing large businesses that make a lot of short-term profit and then split, as "benefits."

The people themselves aren't costs. What is a cost is the dollar value of providing services for 3 houses on a block that once contained 20. It isn't cost effective for a city that has extremely limited resources. Services include police, fire, schools, garbage pickup etc. You can say they aren't getting much in the way of service now, which is probably true, but that doesn't erase the fact that there is a huge cost to provide the services that are currently provided. Buy the house for twice, or even three times what the most optimistic appraisal is. Pay their moving costs to the closest neighborhood that is functioning. Then shut down the old neighborhood until some time in the future when it is needed. And I do mean shut it down!

There is no business that will make a short-term profit. Face it, the housing industry, particularly in the city, will be non-existent for some time to come.

[Detroitnerd]

The people themselves aren't costs. What is a cost is the dollar value of providing services for 3 houses on a block that once contained 20. It isn't cost effective for a city that has extremely limited resources. Services include police, fire, schools, garbage pickup etc. You can say they aren't getting much in the way of service now, which is probably true, but that doesn't erase the fact that there is a huge cost to provide the services that are currently provided.

Oh, sure. But in a city that routinely finds ways to subsidize, slash taxes for, or otherwise coordinate nonprofit services for LARGE PROFITABLE ENTERPRISES, it's hard to say that the neighborhood is just a cost center. First, you don't provide services, you're not going to have any but the hardiest residences. Second, since the city is directing all your resources to the well-connected companies and individuals, it is the city that is squandering its resources, not by valiantly providing services.

And finally, for freak's sake: There are no services out there! Don't offer people no services then tell them that it's going to cost too much to provide them!

[GPCharles]

Oh, sure. But in a city that routinely finds ways to subsidize, slash taxes for, or otherwise coordinate nonprofit services for LARGE PROFITABLE ENTERPRISES, it's hard to say that the neighborhood is just a cost center. First, you don't provide services, you're not going to have any but the hardiest residences. Second, since the city is directing all your resources to the well-connected companies and individuals, it is the city that is squandering its resources, not by valiantly providing services.

And finally, for freak's sake: There are no services out there! Don't offer people no services then tell them that it's going to cost too much to provide them!

Ok, things in the neighborhoods are a mess. Now what? Does it make any sense to provide services, such as they are, to neighborhoods that are 10% of what they once were? Why not have people move into viable neighborhoods and concentrate the available resources to make sure those neighborhoods funtion properly?

[mwilbert]

Face it, the housing industry, particularly in the city, will be non-existant for some time to come.

I wish this were true, but I am afraid it is not. For instance, I was dismayed to see that they had redeveloped Herman Gardens into Gardenview Estates. Why on earth would we want 833 [[not that many yet, I know) new units of housing in Detroit, in that non-strategic location? Because someone could get the money to build it. Same thing happens all over the city--these developments are subsidized and don't stop just because they are stupid. One of the best things a right-sizing plan could do would be to focus them into more sensible locations.

[bailey]

I wish this were true, but I am afraid it is not. For instance, I was dismayed to see that they had redeveloped Herman Gardens into Gardenview Estates. Why on earth would we want 833 [[not that many yet, I know) new units of housing in Detroit, in that non-strategic location? Because someone could get the money to build it. Same thing happens all over the city--these developments are subsidized and don't stop just because they are stupid. One of the best things a right-sizing plan could do would be to focus them into more sensible locations.

correct me if I'm wrong, but that is a federally funded project is it not?

[Detroitnerd]

Ok, things in the neighborhoods are a mess. Now what? Does it make any sense to provide services, such as they are, to neighborhoods that are 10% of what they once were? Why not have people move into viable neighborhoods and concentrate the available resources to make sure those neighborhoods funtion properly?

OK, I'll get on board with that...

...just as soon as we start knocking down houses in the exurbs where developments are unfinished and the homeowners' associations have tanked to the point where they're draining county services.

[GPCharles]

The world of Low Income Tax Credit Housing is so complex, it would take pages to try to explain it and you would only scratch the surface. Basically it is driven by the tax credit for the investor which is really only available to publicly traded C corporations.

See, I warned you...

[bailey]

OK, I'll get on board with that...

...just as soon as we start knocking down houses in the exurbs where developments are unfinished and the homeowners' associations have tanked to the point where they're draining county services.

Is the exurban community of which you speak functionally insolvent like detroit is?

[Detroitnerd]

Is the exurban community of which you speak functionally insolvent like detroit is?

Yeah. It was all supposed to be PRIVATOPIA. Instead of city or county governments providing services, it was to be all funded by association fees. But then when your development is never finished, and when the residents who remain have to choose between association fees or heating bills and mortgages, yes, your association tanks, and people have to beseech the city or county units of government for plowing, salting, etc. So the "private government" is essentially bankrupt. Not to mention the houses hog so much resources they'll likely be obsolete in 25 years.

But forget about all that. Let's concentrate on deciding what's best for Detroit in the same old top-down fashion. Knock it down and hope somethin' better comes along.

[mwilbert]

Is the exurban community of which you speak functionally insolvent like detroit is?

Who cares anyway? If the policy is wrong for Detroit, it is wrong irrespective of what is happening in some exurb. Same if it is correct.

[bailey]

Yeah. It was all supposed to be PRIVATOPIA. Instead of city or county governments providing services, it was to be all funded by association fees. But then when your development is never finished, and when the residents who remain have to choose between association fees or heating bills and mortgages, yes, your association tanks, and people have to beseech the city or county units of government for plowing, salting, etc. So the "private government" is essentially bankrupt. Not to mention the houses hog so much resources they'll likely be obsolete in 25 years.

But forget about all that. Let's concentrate on deciding what's best for Detroit in the same old top-down fashion. Knock it down and hope somethin' better comes along.

You're proposing the same thing for the exurbs as is being proposed for Detroit-- knock down unfinished and or blighted developments that will never be occupied. Why is what is good for the goose, not good for the gander?

[Detroitnerd]

You're proposing the same thing for the exurbs as is being proposed for Detroit-- knock down unfinished and or blighted developments that will never be occupied. Why is what is good for the goose, not good for the gander?

No, that was my point, that I'll get on board with demolishing neighborhoods in Detroit just as soon as somebody shows me that they're going to do the same thing in the exurbs. Because if it's good for Detroit, it should also be good for Clinton and Macomb townships.

Instead of talking about ways to not provide services to the city, we should be talking about real regional government so we can provide services better everywhere. We're going to need dense city neighborhoods in the coming century. We can still maintain inner-ring and second-ring suburban communities in some form, with some important changes to zoning and construction codes. As for the exurbs, we may not be able to save all of them. We might propose a plan for letting them revert to agricultural or recreational land, and we wouldn't have to kick anybody out to do that. There are still holdouts in the Adirondacks who live there, generations after the task of letting it revert was begun.

There are plenty of things we can do to save old city grids, use regional revenues to fund services, and perhaps have some real form of regional government.

Unfortunately, I get the sense that every other building in Oakland County would have to be empty or burning before anybody sees the wisdom in this.

[313WX]

I can only talk about the Eastside, which is my side of town. The area bounded by Mack on the north, Jefferson on the south, Conner on the west and Alter on the east can't have more than 10% of the homes and businesses it once had.

Why are people still living there? I presume they own their homes free and clear and have lived in them a long time. Otherwise, why would you want to live in an abandoned neighborhood? There is very little left. Look at Google Earth or Mapquest for a clean picture.

I suspect the few people living over there are either old [[they personally experienced the step by step decline of that area) or involved one way or another in the drug trade [[crack-cocaine really brought down that area).

[royce]

The biggest fallacy is the belief that some "suburbanite" will come in and scoop up all this available land to build condos for rich folks. If that's the case, why hasn't that happened in Brush Park, where rich folks could be only a stones throw away from the downtown nightlife? Surely, if the rich wanted to move back to Detroit and keep out Detroit's poor, then that would be the place to build, right?

As I've said before on another thread, the only suburbanite who might be interested in buying large parcels of Detroit land is the suburbanite who owns a landfill contract. Other than him, there simply aren't any takers.