Ideas for a City of Greater Detroit

[Detroitnerd]

As for greenbelting, given the trends and rising fuel costs, I think you're going to find some very gloomy predictions for the exurbs in the 21st century. And I don't think greenbelting need be done with any "trail of tears." I think you're going to find people with homes out there that they simply cannot sell at any price. And a collective entity could offer to buy them so that they can return to land. I brought up the plan that created Adirondack Park a few days ago. There are still homeowners out there, but it has to be their primary residence. And it's been 120 years since the plan first got off the ground. So to say that you have to evict people is, I think, a dramatic overstatement. It can be done intelligently.

As for diluting government, that's not a problem as long as you have a well-thought-out vision for the region. Retrofitting will help suburbs do what they do best, and appeal to younger cohorts that desire urbanized options in the suburbs.

My point about forgetting what cities are for is that cities are the centers where people work and play and live who enjoy density and diversity. There is no iron-clad law that city centers and suburbs must have separate governments. Why can't a city government include a city center, suburban environments and greenbelt? And work to design it so it's suitable for the future? I mean, gosh, you could say that much of Queens and Staten Island are suburban, even rural. Do they suffer for being part of the greatest city in the country? We shouldn't have a problem with people living in suburbs; hey, they're often a great place to raise children. But two out of three suburban homes right now have no children at all. Meanwhile, everything is set up for us to disinvest the city further every year, even as our young people, who tend to desire urban environments, leave for Chicago, New York, San Francisco. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense, you know. If we were to join together and focus on creating a vibrant, growing city center, retrofitting suburbia and reining in sprawl, we'd be in a much better position to have families in those suburban houses -- and singles and young folks in our city center. And somebody could make a lot of money with all the in-fill and retrofit jobs.

Cities have something. They give us a center. They have our public institutions. They have density and diversity. They are the places, primarily, where new ideas will be thought of in the 21st century. We need them, and we need them to provide something our suburban environments can't. Likewise, our suburban environments stand to be reinvigorated by a city, not wiped out because of it.

I don't really understand this either-or thinking. We don't have to turn our backs on anybody. I don't believe for a moment that for the city center to prosper, others must suffer.

This really isn't how corporations think when they do mergers and acquisitions. They acquire money-losers for a variety of reasons, and fold them into the company to increase profits and economies of scale. Does that comparison make more sense to you?

[lincoln8740]

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...

No prob.

1. I don't believe the suburbs are unsustainable.

If the suburbs are sustainable then all of your garbage platitudes go right out the window and Detroit will continue to crumble.

2. I love the suburbs

Once again-- street lights are on,police come when they are called and pretty good schools. Oh and my unsustainable suburb had my street plowed at 7am on Monday morning!!!

3. I work in the shithole that is detroit every frickin day

I would benefit greatly from a revived Detroit but I see the same crap over and over again. It's hopeless down there and the only way to solve the problem is not by seizing suburban tax dollars.

4. Almost all of my neighbors would never let one penny go to the City of Detroit without a huge fight.

Not a chance in hell would this ever happen. You actually said in one of your posts that "some of the suburban posters around here are warming up" to your pie in the sky idea. They are an extreme minority.

5. "reinvestment" and "greenbelts" are just another way of saying "raise taxes" and "seize land"

Loved the code speak. Just say what you mean. You want suburban tax dollars to go directly to go to one of the shitiest run cities in America.

6. I don't believe in what you define as sprawl. I believe that people should be able to live and open a business anywhere they want.

Sorry I like my big private yard. I like the fact that I don't have to lock my doors at night. Most importantly, I love the FREEDOM to live where I want to. You want to take that freedom away. You want the average shmuck to live in a 2000$ a month 1 bedroom apartment.

Sorry we are all good,

The Suburbs

[Detroitnerd]

No prob.

1. I don't believe the suburbs are unsustainable.

If the suburbs are sustainable then all of your garbage platitudes go right out the window and Detroit will continue to crumble.

2. I love the suburbs

Once again-- street lights are on,police come when they are called and pretty good schools. Oh and my unsustainable suburb had my street plowed at 7am on Monday morning!!!

3. I work in the shithole that is detroit every frickin day

I would benefit greatly from a revived Detroit but I see the same crap over and over again. It's hopeless down there and the only way to solve the problem is not by seizing suburban tax dollars.

4. Almost all of my neighbors would never let one penny go to the City of Detroit without a huge fight.

Not a chance in hell would this ever happen. You actually said in one of your posts that "some of the suburban posters around here are warming up" to your pie in the sky idea. They are an extreme minority.

5. "reinvestment" and "greenbelts" are just another way of saying "raise taxes" and "seize land"

Loved the code speak. Just say what you mean. You want suburban tax dollars to go directly to go to one of the shitiest run cities in America.

6. I don't believe in what you define as sprawl. I believe that people should be able to live and open a business anywhere they want.

Sorry I like my big private yard. I like the fact that I don't have to lock my doors at night. Most importantly, I love the FREEDOM to live where I want to. You want to take that freedom away. You want the average shmuck to live in a 2000$ a month 1 bedroom apartment.

Sorry we are all good,

The Suburbs

Yeah, um, thanks for combing over my facts and presenting me with anecdotes, opinions and tautological nonsense. Given all the hard work you've put into this debate, and the willingness you've demonstrated to re-examine your own prejudices, I do promise I shall give your opinions all the scrutiny and thought they deserve.

[lincoln8740]

Yeah, um, thanks for combing over my facts and presenting me with anecdotes, opinions and tautological nonsense. Given all the hard work you've put into this debate, and the willingness you've demonstrated to re-examine your own prejudices, I do promise I shall give your opinions all the scrutiny and thought they deserve.

You forgot to use the word Troll in your response.and if there ever was one guilty of "anecdotes, opinions and tautological nonsense" it sure as hell wouldn't be me.

[DetroitPole]

No prob.

1. I don't believe the suburbs are unsustainable.

If the suburbs are sustainable then all of your garbage platitudes go right out the window and Detroit will continue to crumble.

2. I love the suburbs

Once again-- street lights are on,police come when they are called and pretty good schools. Oh and my unsustainable suburb had my street plowed at 7am on Monday morning!!!

3. I work in the shithole that is detroit every frickin day

I would benefit greatly from a revived Detroit but I see the same crap over and over again. It's hopeless down there and the only way to solve the problem is not by seizing suburban tax dollars.

4. Almost all of my neighbors would never let one penny go to the City of Detroit without a huge fight.

Not a chance in hell would this ever happen. You actually said in one of your posts that "some of the suburban posters around here are warming up" to your pie in the sky idea. They are an extreme minority.

5. "reinvestment" and "greenbelts" are just another way of saying "raise taxes" and "seize land"

Loved the code speak. Just say what you mean. You want suburban tax dollars to go directly to go to one of the shitiest run cities in America.

6. I don't believe in what you define as sprawl. I believe that people should be able to live and open a business anywhere they want.

Sorry I like my big private yard. I like the fact that I don't have to lock my doors at night. Most importantly, I love the FREEDOM to live where I want to. You want to take that freedom away. You want the average shmuck to live in a 2000$ a month 1 bedroom apartment.

Sorry we are all good,

The Suburbs

What are you doing here? Honestly. If you hate Detroit and its a shithole, what is your purpose here? I wouldn't go to a country music forum and start slinging arrows at people.

Hate working in Detroit? Get a job in the suburbs then. I run into characters like you at work from time to time. Just hate working in Detroit; what a shitty place. Well, it, and its economy, is supporting your livelihood, so if you hate it so much, get a job in the suburbs.

You can love the suburbs and believe they're sustainable - I don't think there is any evidence that they're going anywhere anytime soon - but I don't know where you think the money to fill the holes in that budget are going to come from, and that is something you continually ignore in every one of your posts. If I lived anywhere in Metro Detroit, I'd be pretty nervous right now, and I am. Just what is going to bring Metro Detroit back? What is going to bring talented entrepreneurs here? What is going to stop our young college graduates from leaving? A functioning big city would help, not sticking your head in the sand in the suburbs. If I loved the suburbs, I'd want Detroit to succeed as well, if only for the sake of the suburbs. It isn't 1989 anymore. There are no longer prosperous suburbs supported by lucrative manufacturing jobs surrounding a poor city. The suburbs are struggling, and Detroit is on life support. I don't advocate a regional mega city, which is impossible, but we need to work together. I don't know where you're coming up with the "we are all good" because if you've been paying attention, things don't sound all that good.

You sound absolutely paranoid in your number six.

I have no idea where this weird delusion of a "big private yard" comes from. I live in the city...in a single family home...with a big private yard. This isn't Calcutta. And most of the McMansions in the subdivisions in the suburbs have virtually no yard because the footprint of the house is so big, and the developers cram as many of those pieces of shit as they can onto their plot.

No one wants to take your house away from you. Where are you coming up with this? Want proof? Try to sell the damn thing, Mr. Suburbs, and see how much people are going to throw down to live there. Not much anymore - if you can even sell it.

Anyone who doesn't lock their doors at night is just plain asking for it - I don't care where you are. After all, Obama might come and try to take your house and your guns away from you and force you to live in a collective urban farm. Does that make more sense to you?

I love FREEDOM in CAPITAL LETTERS TOO. Something we have in common.

[mwilbert]

I think people in Detroit's suburbs are over-optimistic because they compare the strong points of their suburb to Detroit, and of course in that comparison the suburb will generally look pretty good; they are safer and their schools are better and their tax rates are lower. They don't look at the age structure or education level of their communities or personal income trends or the declining commercial tax base, or the aging housing stock. They don't see that there is no longer going to be a large supply of migrants from the core city to fill in their empty buildings. They don't see that no one from outside the region is migrating to greater Detroit. They don't see the shift in living preferences among younger people which makes most suburbs attractive to fewer people than twenty years ago. Even when they see many cities making major cuts to balance their budgets, they don't recognize this as a secular rather than a cyclical problem in this region. Or maybe they do see these things, but don't accept the implications.

As DetroitPole implies, it is possible that their underwater homes may plant the seed of an idea that there are problems that they aren't taking into account in their analysis. The bigger the perceived problem, the more likely people are to consider radical solutions, although it would take an awful lot of problem perception for there to be any likelihood of large-scale regionalization.

[Detroitnerd]

Thoughtful, sincere posts, guys. Thanks. Chances are we're not going to see a Greater Detroit due to the sorts of prejudices and paranoia some people have about the city [[or the suburbs), but I'm encouraged to see people talking about the issues we all face as if we share ... something. Maybe not a government, maybe not a school board, but a collective sense of being ... Detroiters. For that, I thank you.

[canuck]

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).

What is the idea behind a low paid 200 member council?

Dont you want a smaller council body with well paid, competent members.

Does anyone not think that a SEMCOG would be more powerful, and thus more inclined to get results if it were backed by a metro government with a massive budget and multiplied resources?

What effect would metro Detroit as a unified metro have in terms of a competitor to other cities in attracting new business and industry, not to mention federal support in key areas?

How much more attractive do you think a unified metro would be to ex-detroiters debating in their hearts whether to come back home or not? Wouldnt that single event do more for the region and state than anything that happened since nineteen hundred and sixty something?

Or else your wish is that the region fails miserably...

[Hermod]

What is the idea behind a low paid 200 member council?

Dont you want a smaller council body with well paid, competent members.

It would discourage "career politicians"as they could only take a couuple of terms before they had to go back to making a living.

It would keep any one member from doing too much damage.

With the small districts, the pol would have to keep people in his district happy since they could recall him or get rid of him so easily.

.

[EL Jimbo]

It would discourage "career politicians"as they could only take a couuple of terms before they had to go back to making a living.

It would keep any one member from doing too much damage.

With the small districts, the pol would have to keep people in his district happy since they could recall him or get rid of him so easily.

.

It would be VERY expensive. Think. Each one of these 200 council members would require a staff. Even if it was kept to 4 people plus the council person, that's 1,000 people on the payroll. That's a TON of overhead. I'd say no more than 20 council members.

[bahbay]

[originally posted by canuck]

How much more attractive do you think a unified metro would be to ex-detroiters debating in their hearts whether to come back home or not? Wouldnt that single event do more for the region and state than anything that happened since nineteen hundred and sixty something?

[end quote]

Thanks canuck,

This last point of yours applies to me directly. As an ex-pat Detroiter, it would make a world of difference.

[canuck]

I think it would make a difference, both to residents, ex or present, and also to other levels of government and business entities. All interlocutors need a solid political presence in order to know just what the region will address in the future.

I suppose I have the same distrust of politicians you do Hermod, but I cant imagine getting competent folks being lured to city/county politics from the business world let's say if they cant be paid competitive wages.
If your point is that the job is dishonorable and not worthy of those Making a Living, that is another ball game...
The danger then is that you lower the standards and democracy as well as honesty are further jeopardized.

[Hermod]

It would be VERY expensive. Think. Each one of these 200 council members would require a staff. Even if it was kept to 4 people plus the council person, that's 1,000 people on the payroll. That's a TON of overhead. I'd say no more than 20 council members.

Note hat i said that total council staff will be twenty clerk-typists which the two hundred council member would share.

[Hermod]

I think it would make a difference, both to residents, ex or present, and also to other levels of government and business entities. All interlocutors need a solid political presence in order to know just what the region will address in the future.

I suppose I have the same distrust of politicians you do Hermod, but I cant imagine getting competent folks being lured to city/county politics from the business world let's say if they cant be paid competitive wages.
If your point is that the job is dishonorable and not worthy of those Making a Living, that is another ball game...
The danger then is that you lower the standards and democracy as well as honesty are further jeopardized.

The lower house of the New Hampshire state legislature [[which they call the General Court) has 400 members who are paid $100 per year plus a per diem expense while the legislature is in session.

It is almost as large as the US House [[435 members) while New Hampshire has a population of around 1.3 million so every member of the legislature represents a district of about 3,300 people.

I would call that pretty damn direct democracy.

I would have to think that the general level of honesty in the 400 member General Court of new Hampshire is significantly above that of the nine member Detroit City Clowncil. They are probably a lot more competent as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Ham..._General_Court

[EL Jimbo]

Note hat i said that total council staff will be twenty clerk-typists which the two hundred council member would share.

That seems unrealistic. A LOT of paperwork and research has to happen...or should happen when debating issues.

[Hermod]

That seems unrealistic. A LOT of paperwork and research has to happen...or should happen when debating issues.

New Hampshire seems to have no problem and i would submit that the state of New Hampshire is more efficiently run than the City of Detroit

[mwilbert]

I'm not saying anything against a 400 member council; might be fun. But the New Hampshire legislature does not have a staff of 20 clerk-typists.

[EL Jimbo]

I'm not saying anything against a 400 member council; might be fun. But the New Hampshire legislature does not have a staff of 20 clerk-typists.

My point exactly.

[mwilbert]

It didn't appear to be your point.

Note [t]hat i said that total council staff will be twenty clerk-typists which the two hundred council member would share.

The New Hampshire legislature has a much more extensive staff than that. Your point seemed to be that 20 clerk-typists would be adequate, for which New Hampshire is not evidence.

[Hermod]

I'm not saying anything against a 400 member council; might be fun. But the New Hampshire legislature does not have a staff of 20 clerk-typists.

Read this
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/staff/default.htm


They are lean and mean. The members share staff.

[Lowell]

I absolutely agree with the spirit of this excellent thread and thank Detroitnerd for it. This makes so much sense on so many levels, foremost with the financial. I really do not see another alternative to coming together other than continual decline.

I have long expressed my metropolitan, indeed my international metropolitan, union sympathies specifically expressed in the thread 4 Soundbites to Heal Detroit and its Distressed Inner Cities and in particular with 'Wall the sprawl' and 'Tear down those [municipal] walls' bites.

Rather than drawing an arbitrary circle from 8 and Wyoming I prefer to model the union from all contiguous urban communities radiating from Detroit-Windsor. [Detroit touches Redford Twp. touches Livonia touches Northville touches Novi touches Wixom etc]. By urban I mean all incorporated municipalities and any other areas whose populations are, say, 80% or more non agrarian.

My idea envisions a giant web of neighborhoods united the level of basic services. For this to be politically possible, the union would have to allow for a high degree of autonomy for the neighborhoods while focusing its efforts on economies gained from uniting public safety and critical infrastructure systems such as water, sewage, roads and utilities.

This would need the help of state law that to require all the communities that 'touch' to join the union at the combined services level and share in the governance and payment for them. We now have a budding precedent for this with the recent break through on the water and sewage system front.

The main obstacles are fear, which we see plenty of in this thread, and resistance of entrenched bureaucracies. All those 150+ duplicative fire chiefs, police chiefs, city halls and public works with their staffs and hanger-ons will resist their diminishment and or elimination.

[canuck]

Read this
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/staff/default.htm


They are lean and mean. The members share staff.

The mean part is what I worry about. They may also be the model for the elimination of income tax, but they have the 3rd highest rate of property tax in the US [[combined state and muni) to pay for the goodies everyone wants. Their mainly rural low-populated post-industrial localities dont need the same kind of infrastructure Michigan does. So while NH enjoins you to live free or die, the misty eyed patriot might be tempted by the peace and beauty of that remarkable state, but there is always a hidden cost... Same goes for Vermont, Ontario, Quebec, NY state or Michigan. I suppose we can look at Detroit and the massive region it represents as something more than a hobby for retirees that give a hoot about its future, NH style.

[mwilbert]

Read this
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/staff/default.htm


They are lean and mean. The members share staff.

New Hampshire government is notably frugal. But the legislative staff does not consist of 20 clerk-typists.

See for instance: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/lba/staff_all.html

And the legislature has two houses.

[mwilbert]

The mean part is what I worry about. They may also be the model for the elimination of income tax, but they have the 3rd highest rate of property tax in the US [[combined state and muni) to pay for the goodies everyone wants. Their mainly rural low-populated post-industrial localities dont need the same kind of infrastructure Michigan does. So while NH enjoins you to live free or die, the misty eyed patriot might be tempted by the peace and beauty of that remarkable state, but there is always a hidden cost... Same goes for Vermont, Ontario, Quebec, NY state or Michigan. I suppose we can look at Detroit and the massive region it represents as something more than a hobby for retirees that give a hoot about its future, NH style.

I wouldn't worry too much about that. The causality in New Hampshire is the opposite of what you imply--the people want a small government and won't accept a high level of taxation, so the state doesn't have much money, so the legislature can't spend a lot on staffing. It is not surprising that when a legislature has more resources at its disposal, it has a tendency to spend more of them on itself. Sometimes this may result in better legislation and oversight, sometimes not.

[canuck]

I wouldn't worry too much about that. The causality in New Hampshire is the opposite of what you imply--the people want a small government and won't accept a high level of taxation, so the state doesn't have much money, so the legislature can't spend a lot on staffing. It is not surprising that when a legislature has more resources at its disposal, it has a tendency to spend more of them on itself. Sometimes this may result in better legislation and oversight, sometimes not.

There definitely exists a culture of entitlement in democracies as well as in autocratic societies. The town hall meeting mentality of New England might be beneficial to other states and provinces. The town hall meeting has several points in its favor; the meeting of the minds as opposed to party line conflictual debates that concern the debaters rather than the people they represent. But if you look at the idea that a politician need not be remunerated, then that can be extended to many areas of human activity, regardless of independant personal wealth. OK, maybe we should have a representative class that acts as clerical overseers, responding to the needs of the people and enable legislation without a stipend. People choose not to give to a church or charity, and maybe that idea is what inclined NHers to avoid paying income and sales taxes. They still have to pay an above average property tax and in spite of their ranking in the lowest taxpayer rate in the US, the difference is not significant. 8 percent to an average of 9.5 percent nationally.