Detroit Works Project Official Thread

[Carey]

I think Mayor Bing is managing this whole Detroit Works roll-out very poorly. He probably should have kept his mouth shut in the interview with the Free Press this week. Now citizens and observers alike have more questions and few answers. Bing suggested services would be reduced in neighborhoods targeted for mothballing. The paper quoted John Mogk, a knowledgeable lawyer on urban issues, as saying cities and utilities don't have the legal authority to terminate services in specific neighborhoods, though they can offer enhanced services in certain neighborhoods.

What does that mean? A 30-minute wait for EMS instead of a 40-minute wait? In any case, the city's track record is so poor at delivering services and managing resources that I don't see Detroit's government sudden acquiring the ability to perform these extremely complicated, politically volatile, long-term maneuvers that NO OTHER American city has accomplished.

I give Bing credit for being the first mayor to talk about the need to re-size. But he doesn't give me a lot of confidence that he's going to be able to execute a re-sizing plan.

[Fnemecek]

F,
Many understand the backlash of suggesting such a thing, especially when it comes to moving Grandma Millie out of her lifetime home. It is not only a landmine, it is a mine-field...any step could be your last.

It is brave enough that Mayor Bing dares even consider such.

Many admit that is the only way this city can survive, let alone thrive.

No jive!


Cheers

Many people "admit" such a thing. However, they are simply wrong.

Atlanta, Georgia has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

Cleveland, Ohio has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

Denver, Colorado has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

Indianapolis, Indiana has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

Louisville, Kentucky has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

Memphis, Tennessee has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

Portland, Oregon has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

The list just goes on and on from there.

At some point in time we have to ask ourselves: why is it that all of these other cities can prosper with less population density and less money coming in from taxes, but Detroit can't?

I argue that the reality of the situation has a lot less to do with how many people are living in which neighborhoods and a lot more to do with the basic competency of the people in leadership positions within our city.

[majohnson]

It may be woth looking at median income along with your population density analysis.

Many people "admit" such a thing. However, they are simply wrong.

Atlanta, Georgia has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

Cleveland, Ohio has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

Denver, Colorado has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

Indianapolis, Indiana has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

Louisville, Kentucky has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

Memphis, Tennessee has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

Portland, Oregon has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

The list just goes on and on from there.

At some point in time we have to ask ourselves: why is it that all of these other cities can prosper with less population density and less money coming in from taxes, but Detroit can't?

I argue that the reality of the situation has a lot less to do with how many people are living in which neighborhoods and a lot more to do with the basic competency of the people in leadership positions within our city.

[Fnemecek]

It may be worth looking at median income along with your population density analysis.

Detroit definitely has a lower median household income than any of those cities. In fact, if I recall correctly, Detroit has the distinction of being the poorest major city in the U.S.

However, lower income does not necessarily explain all of Detroit's problems nor is it something that will be improved by Mayor Bing's efforts to move people from neighborhood to neighborhood. Low median income, for example, does not cause street lights to go out nor does it delay the time required to repair them.

The one glaring exception to that statement is the assumption held by some that poor people don't really need nor deserve the most basic of city services.

[iheartthed]

Many people "admit" such a thing. However, they are simply wrong.

Atlanta, Georgia has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

Cleveland, Ohio has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

Denver, Colorado has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

Indianapolis, Indiana has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

Louisville, Kentucky has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

Memphis, Tennessee has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

Portland, Oregon has less density than Detroit does as well as a lower tax burden. In spite of this, they are able to deliver basic city services on a consistent basis whereas Detroit cannot.

The list just goes on and on from there.

At some point in time we have to ask ourselves: why is it that all of these other cities can prosper with less population density and less money coming in from taxes, but Detroit can't?

I argue that the reality of the situation has a lot less to do with how many people are living in which neighborhoods and a lot more to do with the basic competency of the people in leadership positions within our city.

Not that I disagree with your general premise, that this plan is not the solution to Detroit's problems, but there is a big difference between Detroit and nearly all of those cities that you listed, Cleveland excepted. All of those other cities are at or hovering near their historical population peak. Detroit is currently sliding past its half peak with the trend showing few signs of abating.

Detroit is burdened with the legacy costs of having been a city twice the size that it is now. Those costs are in the form of infrastructure maintenance, and also obligations of a municipal staff that once ran a city of 2 million people. Detroit may now only be a city of 800,000-900,000 but it still is responsible for the retirement obligations of employees from when it had a much larger population. There is also the heavy industry that packed up and left/went out of business/merged itself out of existence that left behind contaminated and obsolete properties [[like the Packard Plant).

Then what separates Detroit from Cleveland is size. Fifty years ago Detroit was one of the 25 largest cities on Earth. For a city to have grown so large and then declined from that so quickly is almost unparalleled in the history of civilization. As was discussed on another thread recently, all other cities that even come close were either located in a warring territory or victim of natural disaster.

[Hypestyles]

I hope for the best, hopefully the smaller community meetings will take place soon and have some productive discussion. disagreements are going to happen for sure.. but I'm not sure what's to be gained by hyper-cynicism toward the process..

I fear for the worst though, in some respects-- depending on how the relationship between Bing and Snyder develops, Bing can easily be labeled as a 'collaborator' with a GOP governor as yet the latest pawn used by 'outside agitators' to "destroy" the city.. Even when there's historical precedent for folks not to fully trust elected officials, I'm really weary of the ultra-conspiracy crowd; it creates the atmosphere that city residents will "always" be victims of an anonymous or semi-anonymous cabal [[mu-hu-ha-ha-ha-haaaa...) certain folks gripe about the water dept's rates, about the performance of public schools, but any attempts for institutional reform are met with the canard that it's a plot to simply remove control from city [[read: Black) hands.. folks complain about the [[ahem) ethnics who run certain gas stations, liquor stores & grocery, and the lack of quality produce.. but urban-ag is of course something to coerce folks into slavery "again"..
..Reading the news about the settlement by the Federal government with the Black Farmers Association, I couldn't help but think about the level of vitriol against urban farming efforts here [[not even the larger-scale Hantz proposals, but the smaller, individual/neighborhood based projects).. "y'all want us picking cotton again!" "If I want potatoes, i'll go to the store and get 10 lbs. for $5.00"..
are the folks who are a part of the settlement just dimwit rubes who couldn't get real jobs? The reaction seems to be based in the [[false) idea the urban-ag is going to be some kind of all-encompassing mega-industry that will replace everything else that has left Detroit in the past decades, and it's not.. it's simply one of many different industries that should be embraced..

[Detroitnerd]

I don't know about conspiracy theories, but look at the facts.

When Chrysler wanted to expand its footprint, how did that go down? Wasn't the mayor essentially colluding with Chrysler on erasing a cumbersome neighborhood that was in the way?

When General Motors wanted to build Poletown, how much say did the community have there? The neighborhood was destroyed, so I'd say very little. It wound up costing -- what? -- $100 million to acquire the land anyway? A bad deal for everybody except GM.

And it's not just these two stories; Detroit's leaders have a long history of essentially doing what they feel they must to appease big business, mom and pop shops be damned, residents be damned, individuals be damned. I think this time they are at least putting on a pretty entertaining dog and pony show, but it amounts to the same thing. Anyway, I believe they already have a plan. And I'll be dollars to donuts that where some small, struggling people are eking out a living in a troubled neighborhood, somebody else has a balsa-wood model of what they'd like to build there. Industrial parks. Trucking depots. Warehouses. This is not a new story; this has been going on for years and years. And people mistrust leaders who consistently behave like this.

And that's not conspiracy theory; it's conspiracy fact. Just sayin'.

[Shorthook]

The problems of Detroit are so complex and intertwined that there is no one real solution. It will take years to put Detroit on the rebuild path, rather than the destructive one. Personally, I don't know if moving everyone to the outskirts of the city will solve anything. In the process of doing so, my guess is that there will be so much litigation created by the property swaps... the city can and probably will be tied up in it for decades.

If I had my choice, I'd continue to build downtown. Moving the sports teams in new buldings, the fox theatre is cleaned up, COBO rebuild, GM staying in the Ren Cen, waterfront cleanup; this is where the money should be devoted. Building a core to work off of, just as was done 100 something years ago. We didn't get here by osmosis. There was thought put into that. Building Woodward Av. into THE shopping district of Southeast Michigan will and should draw from all suburbs.

All these plans to do this and that solve nothing, create mounds of paperwork, and eat money like the cookie monster. Build a city the way it was built in the first place, by anchoring the center of it.

[Fnemecek]

Not that I disagree with your general premise, that this plan is not the solution to Detroit's problems, but there is a big difference between Detroit and nearly all of those cities that you listed, Cleveland excepted. All of those other cities are at or hovering near their historical population peak. Detroit is currently sliding past its half peak with the trend showing few signs of abating.

Detroit is the only city to have slide that much. However, I don't believe that's as big of an issue as many argue. [[More on this below.)

As for our overall decline, at some point in time, I believe we need to start asking not only why it was that people left Detroit in the past, but why they continue to leave today. We need to start fixing those issues instead of enacting "reforms" that don't really change anything.

Detroit is burdened with the legacy costs of having been a city twice the size that it is now. Those costs are in the form of infrastructure maintenance, and also obligations of a municipal staff that once ran a city of 2 million people. Detroit may now only be a city of 800,000-900,000 but it still is responsible for the retirement obligations of employees from when it had a much larger population. There is also the heavy industry that packed up and left/went out of business/merged itself out of existence that left behind contaminated and obsolete properties [[like the Packard Plant).

You raise several points here. I'll try to respond to all of them.

Infrastructure maintainance: In theory, this is a valid legacy cost for us to bear. However, since we're not really taking care of our infrastructure, haven't done so in years, and nothing in the announce plans points towards a new commitment to infrastructure maintainance, I don't believe it make sense to count that as an actual cost since we're not paying it.

Retirement: My understanding is that the City of Detroit uses a defined contribution pension plan. This means that when those employees were working, we paid into the pension fund for their future retirement needs. As a result, benefits for former employees don't hinder our current expenditures.

There is still the retirement contributions for our current labor force that we need to set money aside for. However, that's a current labor cost and not a legacy cost.

Obsolete commercial properties: This is a legitimate issue, but it's not something that is addressed by the Detroit Works Project at all.

[maxx]

With a poverty rate over 36%, how does Bing plan to move people out of their homes and into other homes without offering financial assistance? Has this ever been done before in any other city? It sounds like the city could end up with a large suit if they start cutting off basic services.
http://blogs.metrotimes.com/index.ph...smaller-still/

[rbdetsport]

I think this plan looks excellent on the outside, but they really need to work on the details and work out the kinks. They should possibly do a homestead type thing for vacant land in the core areas that are still zoned for residential. And in regards to moving people, I think it is a positive move. I'm not sure how that is gonna work though. I really hope they have a plan for that. Or nothing will come of this project.

[Gannon]

I hear you, F.

Of all those cities, the only similar one is Cleveland, in terms of age and industry.

They have had their share of corruption, some of it I'm related to on my Polish side, a few steps removed.


You assume it is all about population density, and I believe there is more to the story.

Cleveland gifted us with at least one deep-pocketed savior of one institution that you know and love very much...the subject of one of your documentaries. Ferchill CAME from Cleveland, right?

Sure would like a follow-up interview with THAT guy, able now to tell what he had to go through to make that rehab possible in this town. He seems to be the only one that got Bobby Ferguson to actually FINISH anything beyond stealing and a motorcycle ride [[and maybe a pistol-whipping or two)!


Have ANY of these towns suffered the same racial and class unrest like this town? Were their downtowns as abandoned? Did the reaction to those allow the situation to become much worse, because their leader was able to shield scrutiny of his behavior with liberal use of the R term...causing many to flinch and flee [[while HE continued the plundering, although some would say started the plundering)? I do not know enough of Cavanaugh and Gribbs to claim which is more true.


To make things worse...HOW many of those towns have an income tax on non-residents? I'm really curious about that one.


I am not saying I know all of these things to be true...I am guessing as I continue to free-think this whole damn dilemma.


But I stand by the comments that with aging infrastructure and no clear way of gaining enough money to move forward...condensation of the citizenry that WANTS to be nearer police and fire stations and bus lines and newer sewer lines and street lights and schools...seems to be logical, at least.

There are MANY logical conclusions that turn out to be emotionally, spiritually, and physically detrimental...if those other facets are ignored.


At least we've largely eliminated the corruption that was costing the city decent development...while costing those who DID finally get through the gauntlet from 10 to 30% higher costs, and/or forced them to work with 'approved' bidders who performed at the very least substandard work...or in some cases blatantly stole and hindered or destroyed projects.

At least we've got some real dialogue on what it may take to turn things around. People are doing things to forge a future in this town.


I'd say...this is it. I cannot see the city surviving if this current momentum fails. It is truly do or die, as far as I can tell.


I'm hoping it's do. I know you are too.


Great discussion, I've learned more today than I knew yesterday.


Sincerely,
John

[Lowell]

Terrific discussion. Map for visual context.
Attachment 7999

[Hermod]

You raise several points here. I'll try to respond to all of them.

Infrastructure maintainance: In theory, this is a valid legacy cost for us to bear. However, since we're not really taking care of our infrastructure, haven't done so in years, and nothing in the announce plans points towards a new commitment to infrastructure maintainance, I don't believe it make sense to count that as an actual cost since we're not paying it.

Retirement: My understanding is that the City of Detroit uses a defined contribution pension plan. This means that when those employees were working, we paid into the pension fund for their future retirement needs. As a result, benefits for former employees don't hinder our current expenditures.

There is still the retirement contributions for our current labor force that we need to set money aside for. However, that's a current labor cost and not a legacy cost.

Obsolete commercial properties: This is a legitimate issue, but it's not something that is addressed by the Detroit Works Project at all.

Infrastructure maintenance: You are paying the cost of the bureaucracy to maintain the infrastructure. They just aren't doing any work as their jobs are sinecures.

Retirement: I don't think that anybody in the Detroit government can produce a bank statement showing where that money is. It is the same with most civil service retirement systems at the fed, state, and local levels. Contributions were made and they just went into the central budget and retirement is paid out of the current budget.

[Hermod]

Terrific discussion. Map for visual context.
Attachment 7999

Damn, I never knew that I lived in "Osborn" when I was a kid.

[Gannon]

If you were Os-born, did you get to meet the wizard?! I hear he hides behind curtains.

[Fnemecek]

I hear you, F.

Of all those cities, the only similar one is Cleveland, in terms of age and industry.

I disagree, in part. I believe that Indianapolis and Pittsburgh are also decent matches. Both cities are older, manufacturing towns like Detroit.

You assume it is all about population density, and I believe there is more to the story.

In my post above, I talked only talked about population density because the Detroit Works Project is all about condensing neighborhoods in order to increase the amount of density therein. However, I agree that there's a lot more at play in Detroit than just density, much of which is not dealt with by DWP at all.

Have ANY of these towns suffered the same racial and class unrest like this town? Were their downtowns as abandoned? Did the reaction to those allow the situation to become much worse, because their leader was able to shield scrutiny of his behavior with liberal use of the R term...causing many to flinch and flee [[while HE continued the plundering, although some would say started the plundering)? I do not know enough of Cavanaugh and Gribbs to claim which is more true.

Racial unrest is hardly unique to Detroit, unfortunately. There have been dozens of cities that have seen full-fledged race riots since WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...#United_States

The difference in Detroit is that those other cities have managed to look at the riots, realize the mistakes that were made, implement changes, and ultimately move on to be a stronger community. In Detroit? Not so much.

To make things worse...HOW many of those towns have an income tax on non-residents? I'm really curious about that one.

Pittsburgh is the only one that has a true non-resident income tax of 1% for people who work in their city. This, by the way, is very close to Detroit's non-resident income tax of 1.25%.

Cleveland and its inner ring of suburbs all impose a resident income tax, which is administered by their Combine Collections Authority. This means that the bulk of people who work in Cleveland pay a local income tax.

Indianapolis and Denver both have county based income taxes, which means that the bulk of folks working in either of those communities are paying it.

[Fnemecek]

If you were Os-born, did you get to meet the wizard?! I hear he hides behind curtains.

Please smack yourself really hard for that pun. I'll buy you a beer later.

[Fnemecek]

Infrastructure maintenance: You are paying the cost of the bureaucracy to maintain the infrastructure. They just aren't doing any work as their jobs are sinecures.

Not really. The only thing in the City of Detroit's budget for infrastructure maintenance is DPW's Street Maintenance Division, which is less than a half of percent of the City's general fund budget.

Also, the jobs aren't really sinecures since the do work that is consistent with that tiny budget. For example, earlier this year they resurfaced Paul Street in the Warrendale neighborhood.

Video from this is @ http://blip.tv/file/4149056

Retirement: I don't think that anybody in the Detroit government can produce a bank statement showing where that money is. It is the same with most civil service retirement systems at the fed, state, and local levels. Contributions were made and they just went into the central budget and retirement is paid out of the current budget.

This simply isn't true.

Contributions go into one of two separate funds [[one for police/fire and one for everyone else). Individuals covered by either fund receive regular reports to show how much money is their respective fund, which group of investment professionals are managing what portion of it, and how those investments are performing.

No money from the fund goes into the City's general fund nor does anything from the general fund go fund current pensions.

[rbdetsport]

Looking at the map of the former neighborhood stabilization plan, we must remember that there were three categories for the plan. If I recall correctly, the three categories were:

1.) Stable Areas

2.) Falling Out Areas

3.) In between the above

So if we are looking at what neighborhoods will be chosen for the nine areas of this project, we must pick out some of the areas of the plan that were considered stable and assume those will be of the nine new areas.

[Fnemecek]

The concept of dividing Detroit's neighborhoods into 3 categories was something that former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick did, back in 2006 if I recall correctly. The NSP areas that are mentioned above are something completely different - different neighborhoods, different criteria, etc.

[detroitcorky]

i think this data is more useful for thinking about what areas are likely to have services and other spending reduced.
http://www.detroitparcelsurvey.org/i...hp?nav=reports

[Gannon]

Please smack yourself really hard for that pun. I'll buy you a beer later.

Does knocking my head against the wall count? If so, then you owe me two.

[rbdetsport]

The NSP was the plan that Dave Bing was on board with back when Kwame was still mayor. They made the major announcement about the plans in December of 2008. Those neighborhoods were chosen by the 3 categories. I am almost positive.

[Fnemecek]

Does knocking my head against the wall count? If so, then you owe me two.

Hey! I'm only paying for the first one. Additional self-mutilation is at your own expense, buddy.