Ideas for a City of Greater Detroit

[davewindsor]

If Detroit did that:

- It would be approximately 1,300 sq. miles
- The population would be just under 4 million, making Greater Detroit the 2nd largest city in the U.S.
- The per capita wealth would be very high
- The police force would have to cover an area more than twice as large as Houston

We could probably save hundreds of millions of dollars per year from the economy of scale.

I agree with economies of scale. The City of Windsor [[just across the river) has 46 square miles. Just outside of Windsor is the the City of Chatham-Kent, which is 1,715 square miles. Guess who's property taxes are less.

[canuck]

1. Tax base

2. Ability to create a greenbelt around the region to reduce sprawl.

3. Eliminate the "Us vs Them" mentality in the region. Everyone will be on the same team.

Eggsactly El Jimbo,

I wonder if Snyder's first initiative shouldnt be about thhe greenbelt issue. It seems to me he should be able to curb development into agricultural zones for a start. Maybe that job would shout out the necessity for a regional agglomeration. What are his politics on the metro region, if any?

[NorthEndere]

This lincoln8740 is making a good case for why Detroit has no reason whatsoever to trust any kind of merger/agglomeration. He's making the best case against agglomeration.

[lincoln8740]

This lincoln8740 is making a good case for why Detroit has no reason whatsoever to trust any kind of merger/agglomeration. He's making the best case against agglomeration.

If you can't alleviate suburbanites fears that their cities will have the same crime, political corruption, lack of services and horrible schools [[sixty kids to a classroom!) that Detroit has then this "plan" has no chance. In short, this plan needs the suburbs to commit more than it needs Detroit to commit.

[Hermod]

Detroit is the one who has to sacrifice their aristocracy in any consolidation. They are the ones holding the tin cup. If they want to get the resources of suburbia, they have to sacrifice their kleptocracy befoe the counties will agree.

[Hermod]

Personally I don't see how Jim Fouts, L. Brooks Patterson, and Jack Brandenburg are any better than JoAnn Watson, and I really, really don't like JoAnn Watson, but I'm pretty sure most of your reasoning is because she's a big scary black lady.

That is why i suggested a low paid 200 member council with minimal staff for Mega-Detroit. In such a council, she would become just a loud mouthed backbencher [[if she didn't bail out due to lack of money, lack of perqs, and lack of power).

[Detroitnerd]

If you can't alleviate suburbanites fears that their cities will have the same crime, political corruption, lack of services and horrible schools [[sixty kids to a classroom!) that Detroit has then this "plan" has no chance. In short, this plan needs the suburbs to commit more than it needs Detroit to commit.

Suburban residents have plenty to fear these days, but that's without the issue of agglomeration. It's not just Detroit that's in trouble. We have so many of our formerly prosperous suburbs feeling the pain now -- and it's spreading. The more people solve their individual problems by picking up stakes and moving to the next "nice" community, the more our core problems stack up. Oakland County is on a triennial budgeting schedule now, due to economic problems in the "untouchable" county. Ferndale faces a deficit of $4 million this year. Royal Oak is facing a $6 million deficit this year, and had plans to lay off more than 20 police to deal with it. Just a few days ago, they announced that Birmingham Schools are facing a $30 million deficit [ADDED: This was incorrect; Birmingham Schools are facing a $5 million deficit, and Snyder's cuts will add another $2.5 million to that deficit] . Troy schools faced a small deficit this last year, and are trending into the red, and the city's voters refused to raise taxes to keep its library open. That's right: The city that was formerly the office-space capital of metro Detroit, is suffering deficits, and even had to offer Kelly Services millions in tax relief just so they'd stay in town. Even tony Bloomfield faces a $3 million budget deficit [ADDED: with revenue cuts in the Snyder budget would add $1.5 million in woes]. See how things actually are when you read the numbers?

Given changing tastes and rising fuel costs, it makes sense to use our resources to reinvest in the city. This isn't some pity party. The idea that if we merged into a supercity that crime would move into the suburbs is funny to me because -- crime is moving into the suburbs right now. There are people stripping the homes that sit vacant. Crime follows disinvestment. As the center dies and people move out, they leave used-up communities behind -- communities where you still need people to pay for the roads and the schools, but they're forced to choose between paying for heat or mortgages, let alone association fees. We need to man up as a region and reinvest in our central city. It will produce much more prosperity in the coming century if we work to restore services to our traditional core.

So, on one hand, we can continue to play this game where we blame Detroit and its residents for our woes, even as our 100-odd municipalities edge toward receivership and bankruptcy, and our young people leave for metros that actually invest in their center city.

Or, much more constructively, we can all pull together and come up with real, regional solutions to ensure we have vibrant urban environments, good suburban environments, and a greenbelt to deal with sprawl.

[lincoln8740]

Suburban residents have plenty to fear these days, but that's without the issue of agglomeration. It's not just Detroit that's in trouble. We have so many of our formerly prosperous suburbs feeling the pain now -- and it's spreading. The more people solve their individual problems by picking up stakes and moving to the next "nice" community, the more our core problems stack up. Oakland County is on a triennial budgeting schedule now, due to economic problems in the "untouchable" county. Ferndale faces a deficit of $4 million this year. Royal Oak is facing a $6 million deficit this year, and had plans to lay off more than 20 police to deal with it. Just a few days ago, they announced that Birmingham Schools are facing a $30 million deficit. Troy schools faced a small deficit this last year, and are trending into the red, and the city's voters refused to raise taxes to keep its library open. That's right: The city that was formerly the office-space capital of metro Detroit, is suffering deficits, and even had to offer Kelly Services millions in tax relief just so they'd stay in town. Even tony Bloomfield faces a $3 million budget deficit. See how things actually are when you read the numbers?

Given changing tastes and rising fuel costs, it makes sense to use our resources to reinvest in the city. This isn't some pity party. The idea that if we merged into a supercity that crime would move into the suburbs is funny to me because -- crime is moving into the suburbs right now. There are people stripping the homes that sit vacant. Crime follows disinvestment. As the center dies and people move out, they leave used-up communities behind -- communities where you still need people to pay for the roads and the schools, but they're forced to choose between paying for heat or mortgages, let alone association fees. We need to man up as a region and reinvest in our central city. It will produce much more prosperity in the coming century if we work to restore services to our traditional core.

So, on one hand, we can continue to play this game where we blame Detroit and its residents for our woes, even as our 100-odd municipalities edge toward receivership and bankruptcy, and our young people leave for metros that actually invest in their center city.

Or, much more constructively, we can all pull together and come up with real, regional solutions to ensure we have vibrant urban environments, good suburban environments, and a greenbelt to deal with sprawl.

so many things wrong with the above statement. I will point out just one--Birmingham Alabama is facing a 30 million deficit not Birmingham Michigan.

put down the pipe dude

[Detroitnerd]

so many things wrong with the above statement. I will point out just one--Birmingham Alabama is facing a 30 million deficit not Birmingham Michigan.

put down the pipe dude

That is a good catch. Thank you, lincoln for pointing out a factual error. Please point out the other errors of fact and we can have a discussion. Unless, of course, you're really just trolling here and trying to be disruptive. But I like to be charitable and hope that you're actually here to air your concerns, listen to new information and learn a thing or two. Are you mature enough for that? I'm beginning to lose hope with remarks like your last one. Just sayin.'

[Detroitnerd]

To think that Birmingham isn't facing challenges, though, would be erroneous. Property values have declined, retiree health care cost has risen, roads need repair and maintenance on city properties needs to be done. Even Birmingham is facing some tough decisions. They've cut nonessential overtime. They plan to cut more than 13 full-time positions, with more cuts in the future, and have reduced administrative pay by 2 percent. And this is in one of the oldest, most secure, most walkable suburbs of Detroit ...

[lincoln8740]

That is a good catch. Thank you, lincoln for pointing out a factual error. Please point out the other errors of fact and we can have a discussion. Unless, of course, you're really just trolling here and trying to be disruptive. But I like to be charitable and hope that you're actually here to air your concerns, listen to new information and learn a thing or two. Are you mature enough for that? I'm beginning to lose hope with remarks like your last one. Just sayin.'

I knew the T word would be used eventually. Someone points out that one of the best school districts in the state not only doesn't have a 30 million dollar deficit but in actuality has no deficit at all and they are a troll.

so predictable

Back on point--Almost every city across the nation is facing serious budgetary issues at the present time. So if I am a city with a 6 million dollar budget deficit, in your opinion, I should combine with another City that has a 155 million dollar budget deficit?

[Detroitnerd]

I knew the T word would be used eventually. Someone points out that one of the best school districts in the state not only doesn't have a 30 million dollar deficit but in actuality has no deficit at all and they are a troll.

Let's take a reading comprehension moment: I THANKED you for pointing out an error. I welcome any other factual errors you'd like to point out. It was the lack of response and the final rejoinder to me that suggest a lack of seriousness on your part. And then I asked you, very politely, I think, if you are simply trolling. You do understand that, don't you? Then again, that is what trolls do, right? Trolls deliberately misconstrue things so that people have to patiently explain themselves again and again while the troll sits back and laughs at the patient effort, with no sincere interest in engaging in debate in the first place. If the shoe fits ...

Back on point--Almost every city across the nation is facing serious budgetary issues at the present time. So if I am a city with a 6 million dollar budget deficit, in your opinion, I should combine with another City that has a 155 million dollar budget deficit?

If you have 100-odd communities, all funding their own fire, police, schools, roads, inspectors, estimators, planners and zoning boards -- and all competing with their neighboring 100-odd governments for a shrinking piece of the pie -- then hundreds of millions of dollars in savings can be realized by joining governments. It's also a way to sweep away the worst, most regressive politicians and suck some of the oil out of their machines and schemes.

Look over the various posts, if you really are interesting in learning why it could entice people. Notice how some of the posters who approve of the idea are suburban residents. Take Hermod's idea of strict civil service tests; that's one way to ensure the best people are on the stick. Look at examples of cities that have reincorporated or annexed or voted to become agglomerations and you will see that they are some of the more successful cities.

We cannot pay for the sprawling infrastructure we've built. The costs of materials have skyrocketed in the last 50 years. The cost of fuel will only go up from here. And then cuts in state revenue sharing will only hurt our patchwork of individual fiefdoms more. And the commercial foreclosures have only started to hit.

We can no longer afford to point fingers at each other. The model that "worked" for 60 years -- building new and leaving old behind -- isn't working anymore. So the proposal that we all become one government -- with shared resources and shared responsibilities -- means that at downtown and the city grow, it benefits us all. As the suburbs get retrofitted with transit and walkability, everybody benefits. We've seen real estate values skyrocket in places that were slums 30 years ago: Lower Manhattan, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, etc. Why WOULDN'T our area residents want to be part of a city that sees that kind of growth? Why WOULDN'T they be proud of a Detroit that works together for everybody's common good?

Anyway, as the first post pointed out, this is a "blue sky" exercise. To present some stuff to think about. Some people have not liked the idea, some people have liked it. But you are the only person who seems antagonized by it. Maybe you should read through the thread with some fresh eyes?

[SpartanTom]

I knew the T word would be used eventually. Someone points out that one of the best school districts in the state not only doesn't have a 30 million dollar deficit but in actuality has no deficit at all and they are a troll.

so predictable

Back on point--Almost every city across the nation is facing serious budgetary issues at the present time. So if I am a city with a 6 million dollar budget deficit, in your opinion, I should combine with another City that has a 155 million dollar budget deficit?

Whatever happened to "united we stand, divided we fall"?

[Detroitnerd]

Whatever happened to "united we stand, divided we fall"?

I like your spirit, Tom.

[bailey]

If you have 100-odd communities, all funding their own fire, police, schools, roads, inspectors, estimators, planners and zoning boards -- and all competing with their neighboring 100-odd governments for a shrinking piece of the pie -- then hundreds of millions of dollars in savings can be realized by joining governments. It's also a way to sweep away the worst, most regressive politicians and suck some of the oil out of their machines and schemes.

you still haven't addressed the issue he raised.. namely if similarly situated communities [[the GPs often enter the discussion here) decide to merge for all those reasons, why must Detroit be part of the equation for it to be a valid choice? What if it was Detroit and 4 mega suburbs? wouldn't that result in the same economies of scale for the suburban communities?

We cannot pay for the sprawling infrastructure we've built. The costs of materials have skyrocketed in the last 50 years. The cost of fuel will only go up from here. And then cuts in state revenue sharing will only hurt our patchwork of individual fiefdoms more. And the commercial foreclosures have only started to hit.

Great. Agreed. However, if we are now making Mt. Clemens simply a neighborhood in North eastern Detroit, how are any of those problems regarding sprawl and infrastructure mitigated?

We can no longer afford to point fingers at each other. The model that "worked" for 60 years -- building new and leaving old behind -- isn't working anymore. So the proposal that we all become one government -- with shared resources and shared responsibilities -- means that at downtown and the city grow, it benefits us all. As the suburbs get retrofitted with transit and walkability, everybody benefits.

The only transit proposal on anyone's most fantastical of drawing boards only takes LRT part of the way up Woodward. If Novi is now Detroit, how has Novi become more walkable?

Anyway, as the first post pointed out, this is a "blue sky" exercise. To present some stuff to think about. Some people have not liked the idea, some people have liked it. But you are the only person who seems antagonized by it. Maybe you should read through the thread with some fresh eyes?

If would be nice if any of this "blue sky" thinking began with something other than Detroit seizing its suburbs for their tax base.

[lincoln8740]

you still haven't addressed the issue he raised.. namely if similarly situated communities [[the GPs often enter the discussion here) decide to merge for all those reasons, why must Detroit be part of the equation for it to be a valid choice? What if it was Detroit and 4 mega suburbs? wouldn't that result in the same economies of scale for the suburban communities?

If would be nice if any of this "blue sky" thinking began with something other than Detroit seizing it's suburbs for their tax base.
.

Excellent point. I would be all for merging Oakland and macomb. If you leave Detroit out of the equation then people would be more open to the idea of merging communities.

As to the second quote---This is what this "blue sky" exercise is all about. They want suburban tax dollars for Detroit but I don't hear anything going the other way. Its always a one way street with these people.

[DetroitPetanque]

They should get that wheel from "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" and each Detroit resident must spin it. Options on the wheel include: Pay 80% of your Salary in Taxes & Insurance; Wait 2 Hours for 911 to Arrive; Send your Childen to School 20 miles away; and Banishment to Royal Oak...

Spin the Wheel - Make a Deal...

[Det_ard]

Excellent point. I would be all for merging Oakland and macomb. If you leave Detroit out of the equation then people would be more open to the idea of merging communities.

As to the second quote---This is what this "blue sky" exercise is all about. They want suburban tax dollars for Detroit but I don't hear anything going the other way. Its always a one way street with these people.

If there was a 100-community mega-city the existing City of Detroit can kiss all the provincial "look like us" types goodbye. Which would be a good thing, for the suburbs and for the city. Get some professional management of the city, DPS, water dept., etc. and there might not be as much need for suburban tax dollars.

Would Detroit citizens effectively give up control of things in exchange for some extra dollars? Not based on past history.

[EL Jimbo]

you still haven't addressed the issue he raised.. namely if similarly situated communities [[the GPs often enter the discussion here) decide to merge for all those reasons, why must Detroit be part of the equation for it to be a valid choice? What if it was Detroit and 4 mega suburbs? wouldn't that result in the same economies of scale for the suburban communities?

The problem with this is that the issues of regional cooperation would not be resolved. You would still have these municipal units of government battling each other on a variety of issues and for new businesses. One of the benefits of a mass consolidation of the entire region is because without the ld city vs suburb battle that we've continued to fight for the past 60 years, we can focus on going up against our true competition...the rest of the world. Detroit and its suburbs have been fighting over scraps for decades while the rest of the world is leading us behind. Until we stop fighting each other, we have no way of catching back up.

Great. Agreed. However, if we are now making Mt. Clemens simply a neighborhood in North eastern Detroit, how are any of those problems regarding sprawl and infrastructure mitigated?

The growth that has already happened has happened. There isn't much you can do about it. However, by reducing future sprawl, the "New Detroit" could work on consolidating the built up areas already with infrastructure. Having one city equals one planning department. That planning department could control growth along the fringes and focus development towards more of an in-fill style.

This doesn't mean just within the current boundaries of Detroit. There is PLENTY of areas for infill in places like Livonia, Warren, Pontiac, etc.

The only transit proposal on anyone's most fantastical of drawing boards only takes LRT part of the way up Woodward. If Novi is now Detroit, how has Novi become more walkable?

This is a complete misrepresentation of where mass transit advocates want transit to be. To imply that the M1 project is the "most fantastical" is simply not true. It is, in fact a first step. Mass transit supporters want an elaborate and comprehensive transportation system that utilizes short distance light rail, BRT, and traditional bus service, commuter rail service out to the farther areas of the region, and high speed Intracity rail [[Amtrak) and air travel to other regions.

That, however, takes time and money. M-1 is only one small beginning of that.

If would be nice if any of this "blue sky" thinking began with something other than Detroit seizing its suburbs for their tax base.

This is not simply about seizing tax base. This is about saving the taxpayers of the region hundreds of millions of dollars by cutting redundant government expenditures. The cost savings from the reduction of government in the region would more than makeup for the current deficits. In addition, it makes the area much more attractive to invest in.

[Detroitnerd]

you still haven't addressed the issue he raised.. namely if similarly situated communities [[the GPs often enter the discussion here) decide to merge for all those reasons, why must Detroit be part of the equation for it to be a valid choice? What if it was Detroit and 4 mega suburbs? wouldn't that result in the same economies of scale for the suburban communities?

I thought I addressed it pretty well. In the 21st century, we're frankly not going to see the same kinds of growth patterns we saw in the 20th. With fuel shortages, changing tastes, and the rise of costs in materials, we're going to find ourselves putting a new value on density and sense of place. Now, I have no problem with the Grosse Pointes merging or Dearborn and Dearborn Heights merging. It does make sense. You get economies of scale that way. That's a good thing. But probably not enough.

Why would suburbs want to merge with Detroit? Because there's no place else to grow but inward. If we can pull together the wealthy, struggling and decaying cities, that would cement the idea that we can no longer run from our problems. What dowry does Detroit bring to the marriage? It's one of the oldest cities in the Midwest [[1701), so it has history and a sense of place. It is where all the great technical achievements that put us on the map happened. It is designed for dense living, which people will place a premium on in the coming decades. It has the water system, too: Uniting suburbs and city would end squabbling over the water system and allow us to direct its use more intelligently. It is where all the roads meet that bind us together. It has considerable things to offer in this regard: It is at the center. And, in the future, we must build Detroit from the center out.

But by uniting suburbs and city, we will be able to sweep away some of the regressive leadership in Detroit. And, since suburbanites would be part of the city of Detroit, they would no longer begrudge building up what belongs to them. In that way, it's a good solution. Think of the wealthy resident of Staten Island in New York. Does he begrudge Manhattan its subways and skyscrapers? Not at all. He is proud to be a resident of a great city. It is the same city that provides him with good services. To surpass that psychological barrier would really mean something to this region.

Plus we could be back in the Top Ten U.S. cities, putting us in a better position for funding from Washington and Lansing, better able to set up regional authorities for transportation, eliminating the need for two [[or three) bus systems and being able to provide light rail service joining city and suburb. There's lots to chew on there.

Why merge with the city? Perhaps some of us have forgotten what cities are for. Other metroplexes are facing problems, but our main problem may be that we seem to think cities are unnecessary. They aren't, and they will be increasingly vital in the future. If only we can get together to build it back up and share the benefits of it. Take a look at places that are reinvesting in their central cities; they are seeing exponential benefits from it.

Plus, wherever you go, nobody cares about Bloomfield Hills. Nobody is in awe of Macomb Township. To them, you are a visitor from Detroit. And, if we work together, we can make that a point of pride. If we can't it will continue to be a punch line.

ON THE PROBLEMS FACING OUR SUBURBS: Great. Agreed. However, if we are now making Mt. Clemens simply a neighborhood in North eastern Detroit, how are any of those problems regarding sprawl and infrastructure mitigated?

Good question. The answer is, by pulling together into one governmental entity, we can no longer run from our problems. In fact, we can go through an intelligent process of retrenchment. We have grown by accretion and defensive incorporation for almost a century now. In all of this, there has been very little "vision." We have been unable to do the sorts of things that knit a region together, as they've been able to do in other great cities. If we have a plan to reinvest -- AT GREAT PROFIT -- in the city, to retrofit suburbs to save on energy and transportation costs, and to rein in the run-factor with a greenbelt or recreational land or productive farmland, now THAT is a vision.

How would Mount Clemens benefit? Mount Clemens is a good example, actually. It's walkable. It's bikable. It has lovely old homes and buildings [[if they weren't demolished by the city). It has a hard time providing for its own individual services [[all this for 4.2 square miles?). And, with a rail link to downtown -- heck, a regional rail network to link it up to the metro -- you'll see its density increase, parking lots redeveloped, returning land to tax rolls, and more investment, not less.

Whatever happened to the businessman's mantra: "Ya gotta spend money to make money." Does anybody realize how profitable it will be to repopulate the city center? We'd need green construction jobs, light rail jobs, refurbishers, architects, historians, gardeners, planners, clinics, parks. All of this will be immensely profitable. You just need the vision to see it through.

The only transit proposal on anyone's most fantastical of drawing boards only takes LRT part of the way up Woodward. If Novi is now Detroit, how has Novi become more walkable?

Well, technically, we've had a few other proposals on the board: Extending People Mover [[a bad idea, IMHO), commuter rail linking DTW, Dearborn and downtown. But the one that looks most likely to get rolling is M1 up Woodward to New Center, with a second leg to Eight Mile Road. Heck, if we can create or rejuvenate some old authority, we might be able to find a group to administer it into the suburbs. And this would be a good thing for the Woodward corridor, spurring development that spanned Eight Mile.

How do you make Novi more walkable? It's a tremendously expensive proposition, but we probably should be doing it now. Check out a book like "Superbia!" or take a look at this site, which was recently posted by our fellow poster Canuck.

http://newurbandesigner.com/2010/12/...or-the-future/

When gas is $7 or $8 or $9 a gallon, wouldn't it be nice to think that we got past our bickering and joined forces for a workable vision for the future? From Novi to Detroit to Mount Clemens?

If would be nice if any of this "blue sky" thinking began with something other than Detroit seizing its suburbs for their tax base.

Detroit grew by annexation, yes. But the suburbs have "seized" land for themselves in the past too, with no thought of contributing to a larger city. That's why "home rule" is enshrined in the state constitution; suburban city fathers saw that workers could now drive, sans rail, to their homes, and thought: "We don't need the city anymore. They want to pay for all these expensive improvements; we'll just lay down concrete and harness the prosperity without having to build much expensive infrastructure or address expensive social problems." It worked for a while, but take a look at Eastpointe recently. Chickens do come home eventually.

But this proposal isn't about seizing anything. It's about coming together as a region to compete globally, to use our collective wealth to save money and -- dare I say it -- make a whole lot MORE money by investing inward, not outward. I doubt Detroit's kleptocrats could hold power in such an environment. I don't understand why you're characterizing it almost like George Jackson and Charlie Beckham are going to come raid your wall safe. It's about bringing everybody together to solve problems that are larger than any individual community can solve. And being richer, larger, and more prosperous because of it.

The alternative is that we keep swirling down the toilet bowl...

[mwilbert]

I'm not convinced that merging everything is desirable--just as we have many towns in the region that are absurdly small, running a really big city starts to incur some significant overhead as well.

If you are going to have a city that size, you will probably need some administrative subdivisions, but much larger than most of the existing towns, so what I'd like to see is all the cities which were carved out of the former Royal Oak township reunited in Greater Royal Oak. That wouldn't be ridiculously large but should reduce overhead quite a bit as there are way too many towns now, and it would make a reasonable subunit in the inconceivable event that there was eventually some kind of larger entity.

[Detroitnerd]

Excellent point. I would be all for merging Oakland and macomb. If you leave Detroit out of the equation then people would be more open to the idea of merging communities.

As to the second quote---This is what this "blue sky" exercise is all about. They want suburban tax dollars for Detroit but I don't hear anything going the other way. Its always a one way street with these people.

Nice showboating. Why don't you look at my corrected post. You were right: Birmingham Schools don't face a $30 million deficit. They face a $5 million deficit. Snyder's cuts will add $2.5 million to that deficit. You said there was so much wrong there that you didn't know where to begin. Now would be a good time to stop talking about "these people" and find more of what's wrong with the facts...

[Detroitnerd]

If there was a 100-community mega-city the existing City of Detroit can kiss all the provincial "look like us" types goodbye. Which would be a good thing, for the suburbs and for the city. Get some professional management of the city, DPS, water dept., etc. and there might not be as much need for suburban tax dollars.

I agree with you there.

Would Detroit citizens effectively give up control of things in exchange for some extra dollars? Not based on past history.

Well, nobody has really tried to sell Detroit residents on a vision for the region. Few Detroit residents are even asked what they want. I think you might be surprised if you asked Detroiters what they wanted or presented them with a bold vision. It has hardly been tried before...

[bailey]

The problem with this is that the issues of regional cooperation would not be resolved. You would still have these municipal units of government battling each other on a variety of issues and for new businesses.

as mwilbert point out, that may be true, but now you've just internalized the fiefdoms. You'll now have the Mt. Clemens neighborhood fighting for funding that it thinks is wrongfully going to SoLo [[South Livonia). AND you've diluted representaion.

One of the benefits of a mass consolidation of the entire region is because without the ld city vs suburb battle that we've continued to fight for the past 60 years, we can focus on going up against our true competition...the rest of the world

Never going to happen so long as the US policy is to encourage domestic manufacturers to make thier products overseas.

The growth that has already happened has happened. There isn't much you can do about it. However, by reducing future sprawl, the "New Detroit" could work on consolidating the built up areas already with infrastructure. Having one city equals one planning department. That planning department could control growth along the fringes and focus development towards more of an in-fill style.

Sprawl can be stopped by all sorts of measures short of consoldation. Frankly I think that is happening already.

his doesn't mean just within the current boundaries of Detroit. There is PLENTY of areas for infill in places like Livonia, Warren, Pontiac, etc.

Exactly..but if you're...what?.... quadrupling? the blight and abandonment by absorbing these places and are absorbing sprawl burbs, you are relying on infill and growth of unprecedented proportions to fix it. Mega Detroit only works if you wholesale greenbelt large areas of the existing burbs. You need to take existing cities right out of circulation and wipe them from the map. An idea that Detroit citizens will not do to themselves in areas of massive divestment and blight...why would suburban dwellers be any more enthusiastic about similar measures?

This is a complete misrepresentation of where mass transit advocates want transit to be. To imply that the M1 project is the "most fantastical" is simply not true. It is, in fact a first step. Mass transit supporters want an elaborate and comprehensive transportation system that utilizes short distance light rail, BRT, and traditional bus service, commuter rail service out to the farther areas of the region, and high speed Intracity rail [[Amtrak) and air travel to other regions.

Ok... I should have said REALISTICALLY on anyone's drawing board. Busses dressed up to look like trains is a retarded idea and it needs to stop right now before it's actually implemented. The fact of the matter is there is no plan with any REAL support [[by that I mean $$$) that does anything but put one train part of the way up woodward. Frankly you don't need a Mega Detroit to make it happen.

This is not simply about seizing tax base. This is about saving the taxpayers of the region hundreds of millions of dollars by cutting redundant government expenditures. The cost savings from the reduction of government in the region would more than makeup for the current deficits. In addition, it makes the area much more attractive to invest in

Again to Mwilberts point... when all is said and done are you REALLY reducing govt or are you just shifting them all to one balance sheet? Are you really going to tell me that Roseville is going to have zero representation in Mega Detroit's council? Are you going to say that Hazel Park is not going to compete with Oak park for funding for it's neighborhood parks?

Why merge with the city? Perhaps some of us have forgotten what cities are for.

And perhaps some of us have forgotten that people are free to choose where to live....and many have chosen to live in the SUBURBS.

Good question. The answer is, by pulling together into one governmental entity, we can no longer run from our problems. In fact, we can go through an intelligent process of retrenchment. We have grown by accretion and defensive incorporation for almost a century now. In all of this, there has been very little "vision." We have been unable to do the sorts of things that knit a region together, as they've been able to do in other great cities. If we have a plan to reinvest -- AT GREAT PROFIT -- in the city, to retrofit suburbs to save on energy and transportation costs, and to rein in the run-factor with a greenbelt or recreational land or productive farmland, now THAT is a vision

Well again, you're talking about something that has been rejected when actually put into use. In order to accomplish this task of "retrenchment" and creating "greenbelts" we're going to have to go all trail of tears on various cities and towns to make this dream happen. Should it happen? maybe....probably. Can it happen... I'm thinking not.

But by uniting suburbs and city, we will be able to sweep away some of the regressive leadership in Detroit. And, since suburbanites would be part of the city of Detroit, they would no longer begrudge building up what belongs to them

but they are already part of something... they've already built it. What you are asking is they abandon further efforts locally and send all their money to CAYMC and hope that the street lights stay on Royal Oak.

Think of the wealthy resident of Staten Island in New York. Does he begrudge Manhattan its subways and skyscrapers? Not at all. He is proud to be a resident of a great city.

Maybe there is a bit of the chicken vs egg discussion there, but how about Detroit become a great city worth joining and the aspirational ideal first then maybe Novi's tax base wouldnt need to be seized, they'd join voluntarily?

Look my main issue is with the assumption that in order for Detroit to be a functioning city it must look outside it's borders to do so. I would think a municipal version of a GM style bankruptcy would do more good for Detroit than any annexation would.

[Mr. Houdini]

I like it.