Detroit with no suburbs!

[Goose]

Yes, this is a purely rhetorical point. Goose says all organizations that are large are inefficient. This is a blanket statement that is difficult to defend. After all, this is really just a jab at specific "large" organizations, such as Uncle Sugar and Detroit Public Schools. Little did he think he was lumping them in with such organizations as Wal-Mart and the Pentagon...

the pentagon is efficient? they don't over pay for any screws or toilet seats or other military waste?

[Goose]

I think it would also be more democratic, since there would be fewer politicians to elect. As it is now there are sooo many elected officials in so many small areas that except for Detroit and a few other cities no one actually knows who it is they're electing, since there are so many people to elect. The press almost never covers political goings-ons in the smaller cities unless it's a big scandal [[they don't even cover normal sized scandals).

so you would want a FEW politician making decisions for MORE people? talk about watering down your voice and representation... so whats good for Grosse Pointe is good for Novi is good for Melvindale? why not just take it to the logical conclusion and become Venezuela.....

sorry, but probably other than in Detroit, local people know MORE about what is going on with their local goverment, if they are at all involved.... get out to a meeting once in a while, its not all going to be handed to you in a newspaper.... you might actually have to get involved personally

[Detroitnerd]

no, i did not say ALL organizations that were large are inefficient, the point was made about government, you would be hard pressed to find evidence that by making the government larger, you would have more efficienies... there are story after stories about the red tape and beuacracy in government that slows progress and hinders development

Sure you did. In response to the sarcastic statement: "As any organization gets larger and more complex, it gets much more efficient and responsible," you sarcastically "agree."

By making government larger, you increase economies of scale. Instead of 100-odd police departments procuring thousands of vehicles by the dozens, you buy more vehicles and get a better price. And the list is much more than police departments, though that is a large expense on any city's budget.

What you're trying to say is that it is more efficient to have 100-odd iterations of zoning boards, fire departments, police departments, city clerks, finance and budgeting departments, treasuries, inspection departments, parks and recreation departments, animal control, development offices, than it is to have one large government doing it all? Have you been to New York lately? I believe it's run pretty efficiently. Maybe you have some advice for that city's officials? I'm sure they'd love to hear it.

Our system here is so efficient that all these local governments are staring at deficits and the county budgets get tighter and tighter. You can't drive anywhere near some cities without getting pulled over for going a few over because they need the revenue so badly. But, hey, that's our EFFICIENT local system at work.

[Detroitnerd]

the pentagon is efficient? they don't over pay for any screws or toilet seats or other military waste?

I didn't say the Pentagon was efficient. Just singling them out because critics of big government seldom criticize the Pentagon, the source of more waste, hidden profiteering and resource guzzling than anywhere in the Washington, D.C. area.

[Detroitnerd]

There is no reason why a supercity shouldn't have wards representing different areas. They should be intelligently drawn so that specific areas get representation that isn't watered down by gerrymandering. I'd be excited to see anybody's proposals.

[Detroitnerd]

I had missed this article in Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_852312.html

As cities grapple with continuing declines in revenue, some are considering merging with other strapped localities or sharing services in a bid to cut costs.

...

In short, struggling governments are employing a strategy familiar to corporate chiefs and Wall Street investment banks: the merger or acquisition. Just as the recession has spurred companies to pair up, the persistent economic stagnation has made some cities see municipal M&A as a tempting, if incredibly complicated, method of cutting costs while still providing services to taxpayers. Jobs can be lost when such combinations take place, and thickets of obligations have to be reorganized. But municipal experts and local politicians say M&A is some cities' best hope for fiscal survival. "This is, I think, going to happen nationwide. Not just in Detroit suburbs or New York suburbs or Chicago suburbs, but in effect everywhere," said veteran municipal strategist Thompson Dyke, founder of the Chicago-based urban planning firm Thompson Dyke & Associates.
"They're approaching the concept of consolidating their governments reluctantly," he continued. "They don't want to do it, I don't think. But they see this as something the electorate is going to increasingly ask for."
The worst economic downturn since the Great Depression has left many governments struggling to perform the most basic of functions. Tax receipts have withered as property values have fallen and residents have cut back on spending. Pension fund assets plunged as the stock market tumbled, with many municipal pension plans now requiring outsized contributions from taxpayers. And with states desperate to fill their own budget holes, many localities have gone without crucial portions of state aid.
Awash in red ink, governments have laid off crossing guards and dismissed teachers. Others have delayed repairs to pothole-ridden streets or crumbling buildings. Still others have slashed bus service, preventing residents from accessing tens of thousands of potential jobs. And some of the nation's statistically most dangerous cities have axed sizable percentages of their police forces.

But there may be another way.
Over the course of centuries, the U.S. has developed tens of thousands of local governments, designed to be responsive to citizens' needs. There's now one local government or public school system for every 3,500 Americans, according to Census data.
But in today's economic slump, not all of these small governments can survive on their own. With politicians reluctant to raise taxes to a level commensurate with other developed countries, localities are casting about for help. Frank Shafroth, director of the State and Local Government Leadership Center at George Mason University, speculated that in the next 20 years, one in four local governments will dissolve or merge into other governments.
"It's going to have to happen, and it's going to be very, very hard," said Shafroth, who was formerly director of government relations for Arlington County, Virginia. "There's going to have to be change. The issue is who can be really creative and innovative in thinking how to make it work."

...

[JBMcB]

I didn't say the Pentagon was efficient. Just singling them out because critics of big government seldom criticize the Pentagon, the source of more waste, hidden profiteering and resource guzzling than anywhere in the Washington, D.C. area.

I criticize the Pentagon. I'll criticize Wal-Mart when they collapse under their own weight in a decade or two, just like their predecessors [[Woolworths, Sears, etc...) And I'll continue to criticize any proposal that will assume creating a huge, centralized government, even regionalized, will not create a huge, intractable bureaucracy bent on, like all bureaucracies, it's own perpetuation above all else.

The political process destroys efficiency. Once the power of a political office allows you to spread governmental largesse to your constituents, the demands of efficiency and accountability fly out the window. A new stadium paid for by city bonds? Sure! Reverse mortgaging out your properties to cover short-term structural deficits and avoid raising taxes or cutting services? Sounds great! 90% pension coverage for city employees? Why the hell not! It's not like you're going to have to figure out how to pay for it. That's for someone else to figure out, long after your term is up.

[Detroitnerd]

I criticize the Pentagon. I'll criticize Wal-Mart when they collapse under their own weight in a decade or two, just like their predecessors [[Woolworths, Sears, etc...) And I'll continue to criticize any proposal that will assume creating a huge, centralized government, even regionalized, will not create a huge, intractable bureaucracy bent on, like all bureaucracies, it's own perpetuation above all else.

Sounds like SEMCOG. A large organization without any great accomplishments that exists year after year to ... exist.

The political process destroys efficiency. Once the power of a political office allows you to spread governmental largesse to your constituents, the demands of efficiency and accountability fly out the window. A new stadium paid for by city bonds? Sure! Reverse mortgaging out your properties to cover short-term structural deficits and avoid raising taxes or cutting services? Sounds great! 90% pension coverage for city employees? Why the hell not! It's not like you're going to have to figure out how to pay for it. That's for someone else to figure out, long after your term is up.

Poor decisions are made at all levels, by all sorts of governments, all sorts of businesses, all sorts of organizations. The most important thing any supercity would have to do is deliver the services it must. New York City works pretty well. I once dialed 911 and hung up on them ... within four minutes there was an ambulance and scout car outside and they were in the door within five minutes, giving somebody a portable EKG. How is it that New York City, a huge city, the largest in the United States, works so well if you are correct?

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

As any organization gets larger and more complex, it gets much more efficient and responsible. A huge super-city government would, I imagine, be a model of effectiveness and responsiveness to it's citizenry. Just keep heaping on the bureaucracy and the government will just keep getting better and better.

Agree and disagree. There are certainly efficiencies of scale that can be achieved by merging government units. First and foremost, you can eliminate redundant services, Also, you can engage in more broad planning, coordinating things like infrastructure improvements over current city lines. But there also inefficiencies of scale. You can be sure that salary/benefit structures for public employees will not mellow into middle range; five years in all those employees will be paid at the scale of the previously highest paid workers. Also, government tends to be less responsive at the larger level. There is also the issue that different neighborhoods have different priorities, regardless of politcal boundaries. An area with lots of seniors might prefer lower taxes to more parks. Another area might choose to spend money on public lighting and sidewalks, while another might put money into social services. But if they are conjoined to a larger government, they lose an element of control at the local level. Plus don't forget that any suburb annexed is likely to add votes against taxes and spending. A full on 3-county unigovernment would spend less money in Detroit than Detroit would alone. When you merge with another community, you absord their priorities as well as their resources.

I am not opposed to consolidation of governments. It's downright silly that Hamtramck & Highland Park are not actually part of Detroit at this point. Some merging with inner-ring suburbs might also make some sense. Better, I think, than merging of local units would be issue specific authorities, with limited scope of purpose, strictly limited ability to tax, and requiring regular renewal by constituent governments and voters. Mass transit would naturally be the most obvious such authority.

Okay, realizing now that JBMcB, you were probably being sarcastic. Still, I believe what I just wrote.

[Scottathew]

Sounds like SEMCOG. A large organization without any great accomplishments that exists year after year to ... exist.

Oakland Schools ISD

[Detroitej72]

I am not opposed to consolidation of governments. It's downright silly that Hamtramck & Highland Park are not actually part of Detroit at this point.

Speak for yourself. Have you been to either city recently? As a resident of Hamtramck, there is no way we want to be lumped in with Highland Park because they have far more blight and money problems.

[karenka]

Speak for yourself. Have you been to either city recently? As a resident of Hamtramck, there is no way we want to be lumped in with Highland Park because they have far more blight and money problems.

Thank you, Detroitej72. MikeyinBrooklyn, what POSSIBLE advantage would Hamtramck experience if it were part of Detroit? I can see how Detroit would benefit--25,000 more in population, a viable and vibrant neighborhood, the most densely populated city in Michigan, immigrant entrepreneurs... But how long would that last when Hamtramck lost its 2-3 minute police and fire response time, when its residents lost their ability to direct its resources towards its own priorities, etc.

[urbanhat]

Sounds like SEMCOG. A large organization without any great accomplishments that exists year after year to ... exist.

To be fair, the reason SEMCOG has so few accomplishments is not because they are big. It's because they don't have any real power. They are not a government, just a loose association of govts.

I've worked with a lot of similar organizations in other cities and the difference between those that work and those that don't is not size [[or the individual staff), but the power they have over financing.

[louis]

i love this idea! me and my buddies had a very similar idea and we found that we would need to treat our police force more like an army. [[implieing better, stricter training on a larger scale)

[ferntruth]

Speak for yourself. Have you been to either city recently? As a resident of Hamtramck, there is no way we want to be lumped in with Highland Park because they have far more blight and money problems.

Interesting double standard. This is the same argument used by the suburbs not wanting to be "lumped in" with Detroit. Of course, when they do it, it's racist or anti-Detroit.
If Detroit could somehow magically annex the suburbs, that would just open the floodgates to the entire region looking like the city - and who wants that [[aside from some Detroiters that is)?

I guess it really does come down to whose ox is being gored.

[Danny]

Detroit:

Population 4,100,000

square miles over 300,000 in three counties

over 60 miles from north to south and 14 to 40 miles from east to west

amalagated city goverment with county government by council districts

hundreds of different public school districts

two transits D-DOT and SMART

RACE:

67% white, 25% black, 3% hispanic 2% Asian 1%other

[Detroitnerd]

Interesting double standard. This is the same argument used by the suburbs not wanting to be "lumped in" with Detroit. Of course, when they do it, it's racist or anti-Detroit.
If Detroit could somehow magically annex the suburbs, that would just open the floodgates to the entire region looking like the city - and who wants that [[aside from some Detroiters that is)?

I guess it really does come down to whose ox is being gored.

I live on the border of Hamtramck and Detroit, and I can understand why Hamtramck residents would resist the mere incorporation of Hamtramck and Highland Park into Detroit. The reincorporation of Detroit as a larger city would have to go farther than Eight Mile Road and Wyoming. And it would have to preserve the sort of local control Hamtramckans have over their services.

1) Greater Detroit would have to be large enough to sweep the entrenched kleptocracy out of office and allow new regional leaders to emerge. What's the point of having a larger city if it's just going to be run into the ground by dolt lifers?

2) Greater Detroit would have to have a real ward system. After all, why does Hamtramck look so good compared to Detroit? It's because you can call your local government about a problem and it is dealt with. If Hamtramck were to be part of Detroit, I imagine Hamtamck would still want people who were accountable to the area so their feet could be held to the fire. Hamtramck was an early suburb of Detroit, and I imagine any current suburb that would become part of Detroit would be entitled to ward-style representation at City Hall. Yes, Detroit would be richer for having Hamtramck folded in, but not without representation, and not without local officials going to bat for it.

The whole thing is, annexation or a Greater Detroit must not be a way to feed fairly well-organized, fairly healthy cities into the maw of corruption that is Detroit. The idea is to give everyone a stake in the central city AND the suburbs, allow honest regional leaders to rise to power through a strong ward system, and to prize political control away from the worst elements.

[ferntruth]

I live on the border of Hamtramck and Detroit, and I can understand why Hamtramck residents would resist the mere incorporation of Hamtramck and Highland Park into Detroit. The reincorporation of Detroit as a larger city would have to go farther than Eight Mile Road and Wyoming. And it would have to preserve the sort of local control Hamtramckans have over their services.

1) Greater Detroit would have to be large enough to sweep the entrenched kleptocracy out of office and allow new regional leaders to emerge. What's the point of having a larger city if it's just going to be run into the ground by dolt lifers?

2) Greater Detroit would have to have a real ward system. After all, why does Hamtramck look so good compared to Detroit? It's because you can call your local government about a problem and it is dealt with. If Hamtramck were to be part of Detroit, I imagine Hamtamck would still want people who were accountable to the area so their feet could be held to the fire. Hamtramck was an early suburb of Detroit, and I imagine any current suburb that would become part of Detroit would be entitled to ward-style representation at City Hall. Yes, Detroit would be richer for having Hamtramck folded in, but not without representation, and not without local officials going to bat for it.

The whole thing is, annexation or a Greater Detroit must not be a way to feed fairly well-organized, fairly healthy cities into the maw of corruption that is Detroit. The idea is to give everyone a stake in the central city AND the suburbs, allow honest regional leaders to rise to power through a strong ward system, and to prize political control away from the worst elements.

Let's start with Hamtown and HIghland Park then. That would make a good pilot program to test these grand ideas.
Still sounds like a way for Detroit to tap into the coiffers of other cities to me, and provide the same lousy service they do now.

Detroit would be better served looking for realistic ways to solve its problems, not these pie in the sky ideas which have no chance of success.

[Scottathew]

no, i did not say ALL organizations that were large are inefficient, the point was made about government, you would be hard pressed to find evidence that by making the government larger, you would have more efficienies... there are story after stories about the red tape and beuacracy in government that slows progress and hinders development

This is true.

[Detroitnerd]

Let's start with Hamtown and HIghland Park then. That would make a good pilot program to test these grand ideas.

Oh, yes. I'm sure you'd like nothing better than to throw two struggling cities to the lion, then clap your hands clean and say, "See? That didn't work." If you feel that way, why not start with Ferndale?

First of all, Ferntruth, there's no reason to worry too much about this. It's prohibited by the state constitution. Home rule is unassailable without a con-con. A con-con won't produce the needed reforms without decades of education. All we're doing here is talking and starting the ball rolling on that educational component. If that disturbs you so much, that we're starting a conversation that could lead to something a generation down the road, well, that's so paranoid you may be beyond help.

Still sounds like a way for Detroit to tap into the coiffers of other cities to me, and provide the same lousy service they do now.

Sure, if there's no buy-in. What if, say, the most densely developed parts of Oakland, Wayne and Macomb counties were to merge with the city. It would no longer be a largely poor city preyed on by kleptocratic rulers. Detroit would suddenly have five times as many civically engaged residents overnight. How would Detroit be able to provide lousy service?

And, frankly, the service isn't that bad. Ferndale lost power more nights than Detroit did. A tree fell in front of my house and blocked my driveway. It was gone within a week. I know there's a tree down in Ferndale that's been down so long that kids are playing on it now like it's a playscape. And don't forget the defecits facing Ferndale. Those are very real too.

Somebody once said that America reminded them of a weird family that said, "We can't afford to keep the kids in day-care. And we can't afford to keep the parents in the retirement home. What will we do?" The obvious answer is to have the parents move in to take care of the kids. How long before this family's pride and wounded vanity allow them to accept the obvious solution? How deep in debt will they go to remain in an untenable situation?

Detroit would be better served looking for realistic ways to solve its problems, not these pie in the sky ideas which have no chance of success.

I think the point is that the whole region is failing. We cannot afford a disinvested, depopulated inner city; 140-odd governments for a flat population; overzealous exurban developments that are as barren as some inner-city neighborhoods; and we can no longer afford to point fingers and blame others. The only solution I can see is for all of us to unite and solve our problems -- together.

I read your comments and what strikes me is the level of FEAR. I am sure fear will not solve our regional problems. What will solve them is the courage to face hard situations and make some fresh calls. Or else you may as well move out to 64 Mile Road, man.

[Detroitej72]

Oh, yes. I'm sure you'd like nothing better than to throw two struggling cities to the lion, then clap your hands clean and say, "See? That didn't work." If you feel that way, why not start with Ferndale?.

This is why many Detroit boosters get frustrated with those in the suburbs, their tendency to giggle with glee over any failier of Detroit.

And, frankly, the service isn't that bad. Ferndale lost power more nights than Detroit did. A tree fell in front of my house and blocked my driveway. It was gone within a week. I know there's a tree down in Ferndale that's been down so long that kids are playing on it now like it's a playscape. And don't forget the defecits facing Ferndale. Those are very real too..

It's funny how some folks can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to their beloved city.

I think the point is that the whole region is failing. We cannot afford a disinvested, depopulated inner city; 140-odd governments for a flat population; overzealous exurban developments that are as barren as some inner-city neighborhoods; and we can no longer afford to point fingers and blame others. The only solution I can see is for all of us to unite and solve our problems -- together..

Well said. Until we as a region start to work together, the whole area will continue to spiral downward.

I read your comments and what strikes me is the level of FEAR. I am sure fear will not solve our regional problems. What will solve them is the courage to face hard situations and make some fresh calls. Or else you may as well move out to 64 Mile Road, man.

You can only run so far, then you'll hit Flint!