Quote Originally Posted by mwilbert
Yes, reducing crime is very important, but it isn't something you can just do--crime is the result of multiple factors many of which the city can't control.The city needs to concentrate on making changes that it can make, some of which, like improving the management of the police department, may make the city safer.
The city is in a hopeless position. A lot of people like to put a lot of blame on the corrupt city government and services, but from what I've observed across the country, corruption is an end result of decline. Not the other way around. When a city is doing well, you don't see as much as corruption because people can "get what's theirs" without resorting to risky business. That's just human nature.

You can demand a big city suffering from decades of terminally declining revenue and population to get its act together all you want, but in my experience that's like asking a person dying from cancer to stop acting sick and tired.

Bottom line is, we need to treat urban decay as a national issue. Detroit won't get back on its feet without a few helping hands. We should put a moratorium on most foreign aid and intervention until we've fixed up our own problems. This "rugged individualism" approach to cities is asinine in a mature industrial country. This isn't the 19th century. Europe's cities fare better because countries like France understand that its major cities are essential to the country's health. Meanwhile, we're so big that we still think we can let major cities fall of the map.

Well, look around. How is that working out for us? How much money and lives has it cost us?