Question RE: City Council by District

[Paris_of_the_Midwest]

I've read many posts on the forum about having city counsel members elected by district. I've also read a lot about a need to "downsize" Detroit. Specifically, the mayoral candidates mentioned looking into helping people in low density or bad neighborhoods move to more highly concentrated areas where city services can be delivered more effectively and Detroit can reduce the large geographic area it needs to provide services to.

If we have a council by district system will this frustrate attempts to engage in downsizing or "right-sizing" in the city? What council person in a district slated to be "downsized" or that is having residents moved to another district would support this plan? Is it possible council by district could thwart policies that focus resources on areas of the city that have the best chance of surviving and growing? Thanks for the responses.

[Lorax]

The answer is to gerrymander the city into districts, avoiding the vacated areas, and placing them into the managership of one city agency which oversees mothballed land which will be one day developed, then annexed to an adjoining district when that development arrives.

[kraig]

Unofficially, the City is trying to rightsize, it's doing that by neglecting some areas a lot more than others, hoping that the people in those areas will get fed up and move out. The problem is that they're not moving into a denser neighborhood in the City, they're moving out of the City altogether.

Rightsizing won't work in Detroit. There are too many depressed areas in this City. In order to rightsize, you would have to limit access and freedom of movement through the city. Additionally, businesses are not going to look to locate in a city where it's client base may be moved away and into a competitor's area. One of the reasons, just one, that people are moving out of the City is that they want to move to an area where the schools will not get closed shortly after they move there. Can you imagine the mass exodus that will happen once the City closes an area? Those residents would take whatever money they get and move out of the city. Rightsizing would take the City's population below 500,000 practically overnight.

[firstandten]

Unofficially, the City is trying to rightsize, it's doing that by neglecting some areas a lot more than others, hoping that the people in those areas will get fed up and move out. The problem is that they're not moving into a denser neighborhood in the City, they're moving out of the City altogether.

Rightsizing won't work in Detroit. There are too many depressed areas in this City. In order to rightsize, you would have to limit access and freedom of movement through the city. Additionally, businesses are not going to look to locate in a city where it's client base may be moved away and into a competitor's area. One of the reasons, just one, that people are moving out of the City is that they want to move to an area where the schools will not get closed shortly after they move there. Can you imagine the mass exodus that will happen once the City closes an area? Those residents would take whatever money they get and move out of the city. Rightsizing would take the City's population below 500,000 practically overnight.

Maybe a more direct approach would be in order. The city could alway use its powers of Eminent domain to clear out and package certain areas for economic development [[industrial or residential). Perhaps the city could sweeten the deal with property taxes breaks, etc to keep the displaced from moving outside of the city. At least people and businesses will know what areas they should invest their time and money. Somehow, I think some form of rightsizing will need to be done.

[kraig]

Maybe a more direct approach would be in order. The city could alway use its powers of Eminent domain to clear out and package certain areas for economic development [[industrial or residential). Perhaps the city could sweeten the deal with property taxes breaks, etc to keep the displaced from moving outside of the city. At least people and businesses will know what areas they should invest their time and money. Somehow, I think some form of rightsizing will need to be done.

It's an issue that's going to need studying. I know there are a number of cities that are looking at rightsizing. But, I don't know of any cities that have actually done it. If anyone knows of any cities that have I hope that they post the information.

In the meantime, the city should look at rightsizing city government and design a strategic plan to do so. A hiring freeze on the city's staffing departments would be a good start.

[Gsgeorge]

It's an issue that's going to need studying. I know there are a number of cities that are looking at rightsizing. But, I don't know of any cities that have actually done it. If anyone knows of any cities that have I hope that they post the information.

The city of Youngstown, Ohio is successfully rightsizing their city. To see the official site, visit:
http://www.youngstown2010.com/

[HazenPingree]

Maybe a more direct approach would be in order. The city could alway use its powers of Eminent domain to clear out and package certain areas for economic development [[industrial or residential).

In part, this is the mechanism that was used in Youngstown. However, I believe that in Detroit today, thanks to Hathcock v. Wayne, eminent domain may no longer be used for this purposes. I have been researching alternative mechanisms for accomplishing rightsizing, mostly market-based approaches, and will ostensibly have a thesis on the topic by the end of the summer, but we'll see.

[Hypestyles]

In part, this is the mechanism that was used in Youngstown. However, I believe that in Detroit today, thanks to Hathcock v. Wayne, eminent domain may no longer be used for this purposes. I have been researching alternative mechanisms for accomplishing rightsizing, mostly market-based approaches, and will ostensibly have a thesis on the topic by the end of the summer, but we'll see.

let us know, Andy...

[Gsgeorge]

I don't think a councilperson would necessarily be opposed to depopulating sparsely populated areas if it meant repopulating a denser or more vibrant part of their own district. People could be moved within their own district.

[Gsgeorge]

OR, if all the districts had to agree to some kind of rightsizing, then there would be no opposition because everyone is in the same boat.

The urban villages concept works for this. Let's take a look at Poletown East. Just for the sake of illustration let's call the area from I-94, south to the River, and between St. Aubin & McDougall a single district. People living north of Gratiot, where the prairies are, could be encouraged to move south of Gratiot & Van Dyke, where there are more houses, density, and conveniences. The citizens would be moving in their own district so the councilperson wouldn't be able to complain about losing people. They would be doing two good things -- greening their district & also redensifying and reinvigorating their more vibrant and upcoming neighborhoods.

[MotownSpartan]

OR, if all the districts had to agree to some kind of rightsizing, then there would be no opposition because everyone is in the same boat.

The urban villages concept works for this. Let's take a look at Poletown East. Just for the sake of illustration let's call the area from I-94, south to the River, and between St. Aubin & McDougall a single district. People living north of Gratiot, where the prairies are, could be encouraged to move south of Gratiot & Van Dyke, where there are more houses, density, and conveniences. The citizens would be moving in their own district so the councilperson wouldn't be able to complain about losing people. They would be doing two good things -- greening their district & also redensifying and reinvigorating their more vibrant and upcoming neighborhoods.

Yes but practically, some districts will likely be hit much harder by any downsizing/rightsizing effort and surely council persons in these districts will fight for funds and against plans that see their district receiving less city/state funds. It's very unlikely that "everyone will be in the same boat." Some will benefit more and some will be hurt more. This is especially true in Detroit where there are incredibly large swaths of land that in all practicality will not be developed in the near future. These large swaths tend to be concentrated in certain districts.

It seems that Detroit really should concentrate on the greater downtown/riverfront area [[plus a few other more densely populated places). With the limited resources the city has, it is foreseeable that a practical development plan would entail the city devoting a very significant amount of resources to jump-start a small number of viable neighborhoods [[that eventually will grow and spread) but this likely wouldn't be politically feasible in a council by district system.

[48202]

The ballot language for Detroiters for Council by Districts indicates that “The election commission shall, to the greatest extent possible, establish wards that are compact, contiguous, and of equal population.” This proposal would create 7 wards of approximately 125,000 residents each.

Nobody is proposing moving residents from one part of the city to another. Equating this with Council by Districts is a fear tactic. Don’t fall for fear tactics. Support Council by Districts.

[MotownSpartan]

The ballot language for Detroiters for Council by Districts indicates that “The election commission shall, to the greatest extent possible, establish wards that are compact, contiguous, and of equal population.� This proposal would create 7 wards of approximately 125,000 residents each.

Nobody is proposing moving residents from one part of the city to another. Equating this with Council by Districts is a fear tactic. Don’t fall for fear tactics. Support Council by Districts.

Actually, at some point we may need to focus our limited resources on a limited geographic area and those areas left out will not be happy [[read, their local council person will protect their funding to the detriment of the city at large). For me, it's not that I "fear" that council by districts entails moving residents...it's the opposite. At some point we may need to encourage certain migration patterns in our city to more stable neighborhoods and a council-by-district would actually prevent this.

[MotownSpartan]

The ballot language for Detroiters for Council by Districts indicates that “The election commission shall, to the greatest extent possible, establish wards that are compact, contiguous, and of equal population.� This proposal would create 7 wards of approximately 125,000 residents each.

Nobody is proposing moving residents from one part of the city to another. Equating this with Council by Districts is a fear tactic. Don’t fall for fear tactics. Support Council by Districts.

It's not about "supporting council by districts" or not supporting it. It's about using the forum to engage in a serious discussion of the council by district plan. You seem intent on seeing the measure passed, that's fine but it seems that in the heat of the campaign you are resorting to typical tactics of not acknowledging that your position has any drawbacks whatsoever. There are negatives to any system of representation. I'm not against council by districts, I just think we'll end up with a better plan in the end if we don't ignore anything that might be bad about council by districts.

[48202]

Council by Districts will not prevent anything. Council by Districts will produce better representation, and better representation will produce better planning decisions.

[humanmachinery]

I'd think the U.S. Supreme Court decision from 2005 would override that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London


And I'm totally in favor of seeing condemned and abandoned buildings bulldozed for economic redevelopment, but not well-maintained residences, with owners who pay their taxes. Kicking some little old lady out of a house she's owned for 50 years so you can put up a shopping mall is just wrong.

[detourdetroit]

or it could be that the more rabble rousey among us will go constitutional:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....43908e5d.html

Support Council by Districts www.councilbydistricts.org.

Sign the petition
Circulate the petition
Donate online

[Fury13]

There should be AT LEAST 15 districts, not seven.

More districts would:

-- Reduce the amount of power wielded per councilmember.

-- Possibly allow for the election of "minority" [[read: Latino) representatives.

[Hypestyles]

There should be AT LEAST 15 districts, not seven.

More districts would:

-- Reduce the amount of power wielded per councilmember.
-- Possibly allow for the election of "minority" [[read: Latino) representatives.

interesting-- perhaps arrange districts along police precincts..
would a larger council then perhaps be a non-paid position, or at best, part time? hmm...

[EastSider]

I'd think the U.S. Supreme Court decision from 2005 would override that.

The Kelo decision doesn’t block stricter controls at the state level, such as Michigan ’s in the Hathcock case. In fact, they cited the Michigan case, IIRC.

Given the history of abuse of eminent domain in the state, I wouldn’t support its use to “rightsize� the city.

At some level, we’re overthinking the “rightsizing� issue. The people are moving out already. There are plenty of urban prairie streets on the east side where the city currently provides nothing [[except street resurfacing?!?!) already. Simply post signs at the designated boundaries, “You are now entering a nature preserve� and let the built environment disintegrate on its own.

[detourdetroit]

donate to www.councilbydistricts.org. today! any amount is appreciated. we've got a small army of petition gatherers out there right now. sign the petition. circulate the petition. we need your support to make this a reality!